You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.99 AVERAGE
3.99 AVERAGE
Probably one of the most enlightening books I have ever read. A deep dive into the different mediums of pornography and their depictions of women and how pornography is discriminatory. Although written in the 80’s, the text transcends time and begs the question of “What would Dworkin think?” as today we are ravaged with the ever present pornography in everyday life. Definitely a must read for anyone interested in getting into radical feminism.
medium-paced
challenging
dark
informative
The introduction and Chapters 1-3 are some of Dworkin's best and most accessible writing, on a subject that's as urgent today as it was when she wrote this. I think that this was a lot more concrete than what books like Intercourse talk about (though no less or more important!) and so this book has an immediacy to it. Chapters 4-7 of this were way too theoretical for me though, really abstract and kind of hard to understand. Obviously they're conveying really important information but some of it was sort of dense.
As with the other 2 Dworkin books I read I felt like this didn't really challenge me intellectually, because I already agree with what she's saying, so reading this was kind of just alternating between YES! She put it into words! and being abjectly horrified about the crazy shit she deconstructs. So because her writing doesn't challenge someone who's already a radical feminist, I also think this book probably wouldn't do any good at convincing someone who's pro-pornography to change their mind (which is why I originally read it, to have talking points against sex posi third wavers.) Maybe it's a matter of knowing your audience? but it was hard to tell who this book is for.
I still give this book a high rating because of the importance of what she's doing here though. I feel like people know more about what the media said about Dworkin than what she actually wrote in her books... everyone knows her as the mean feminist who wants to ban porn. So when I read the introduction I was surprised at how mild the legislation she was pushing was?? Like, she wasn't trying to ban porn, she was trying to legally define it so that women who have been hurt by the porn industry have legal recourse... It's hard to imagine people opposing that, unless of course they've been fed misogynist propaganda, and well of course they have because everyone has.
Lastly this is so random but Dworkin's wit is soo underrated, her analysis always has an undercurrent of sarcasm especially when exposing the hypocrisy of men. like it's not ha ha funny but really subtle satire
As with the other 2 Dworkin books I read I felt like this didn't really challenge me intellectually, because I already agree with what she's saying, so reading this was kind of just alternating between YES! She put it into words! and being abjectly horrified about the crazy shit she deconstructs. So because her writing doesn't challenge someone who's already a radical feminist, I also think this book probably wouldn't do any good at convincing someone who's pro-pornography to change their mind (which is why I originally read it, to have talking points against sex posi third wavers.) Maybe it's a matter of knowing your audience? but it was hard to tell who this book is for.
I still give this book a high rating because of the importance of what she's doing here though. I feel like people know more about what the media said about Dworkin than what she actually wrote in her books... everyone knows her as the mean feminist who wants to ban porn. So when I read the introduction I was surprised at how mild the legislation she was pushing was?? Like, she wasn't trying to ban porn, she was trying to legally define it so that women who have been hurt by the porn industry have legal recourse... It's hard to imagine people opposing that, unless of course they've been fed misogynist propaganda, and well of course they have because everyone has.
Lastly this is so random but Dworkin's wit is soo underrated, her analysis always has an undercurrent of sarcasm especially when exposing the hypocrisy of men. like it's not ha ha funny but really subtle satire