Andrea Dworkin - Right-wing Women

frequently comes as he hits, as he fucks. The epithet degrades a

woman by degrading her sex, sexuality, and personal integrity; it

expresses a serious, not a frivolous, hatred—the hatred of women,

a serious hatred with serious consequences to those against whom

it is directed. Epithets as sex-based insults are like machine-gun

rounds, fired off, bringing down whatever gets hit—anything

female around. The hints of these sex-based insults, shadowed references to them, evocations of them, are used with persistence and skill in the public devaluing of women—in hating women and in

the politics of contempt for women, in common discourse and in

cultural discourse. Every time this use of a lexicon of hatred passes

unremarked, every time the hate is expressed and there is no visible rebellion, no discernible resistance, some part of the woman to whom it happens dies and some part of any woman who watches

dies too. Each time the use of such an epithet or its evocation

passes without retaliation, something in women dies. Each time

slut, dyke, prude, is used to keep women intimidated and each

time its use is not repudiated (the repudiation cannot rest on

whether or not the accusation is in any sense accurate, only in its

use), antifeminism has stepped on another female life and crushed

some part of it; woman hating has humiliated and hurt another

woman or a woman again. Each time an honorable word— like lesbian— is used as a weapon of insult, or some honorable act— like a woman having sex because she wants to with a lover or lovers of

her choice— is used as a weapon of insult, or some honorable

choice— like being celibate— is used as a weapon of insult, the

women who are and who do and who choose are irrevocably hurt

and diminished. The answer is not as simple as losing one’s fear of

the words themselves (whether they apply or not), because any

woman would be a fool not to be afraid of what is behind the

words. Behind the words is the man who uses them and the power

of his whole class over the woman against whom they are used.

Each time contempt is expressed for the dyke, the prude, the slut,

hatred is being expressed toward all women. Whether the insults

are accepted in society, tolerated, encouraged, the main stuff of

humor, or m erely passively acquiesced in, the devaluing of women

is perpetuated, the intimidation of women is furthered. Each time

the insults are paraded or whispered— used against a woman as

insult— the insults gain in potency from use, acceptance, and repetition; and any woman, however much she is or is not what the insult conveys, is more liable to manipulation, distortion, extortion, slander, and harassment; and antifeminism and woman hating are that much more entrenched. Woman hating is the passion; antifeminism is its ideological defense; in the sex-based insult passion and ideology are united in an act of denigration and intimidation.

The tolerance for sex-based insult and its effectiveness in discrediting women are measures of the virulence of antifeminism and woman hating: how pervasive they are, how persuasive they are,

how deeply rooted they are, what chance women stand against

them. In our society, sex-based insult is the coin of the realm.

Women live defensively, not just against rape but against the language of the rapist—the language of what a woman is called in intimacy and in public, loud and soft.

Antifeminism is also articulated through social models, of which

there are three of continuing major importance: the separate-but-

equal model; the woman-superior model; and the trusty, familiar

male-dominant model.

The use of the separate-but-equal model is particularly cynical in

the United States, where that model applied to race was the foundation for systematic racial segregation enforced by police power.

Equality was always a chimera or a lie; separation was real. The

model held that social institutions could be reasonably and fairly

constructed on the basis of biology, for instance, race or skin color.

What made separation necessary—the presumed inferiority of one

of the biologically defined groups—made equality impossible. The

idea of separation and the institutions of separation derived from a

social inequality of such astonishing magnitude and crass cruelty

that separation in idea or practice essentially denied that blacks had

a human nature in common with whites or any common human

standing. The separate-but-equal model itself originates in the conviction that men and women could not stand on common human ground. The model originates in the effort to justify the subordination of women to men (and in the justification to perpetuate that subordination) by positing male and female natures so biologically

different as to require social separation, socially antithetical paths,

social life bifurcated by sex so that there are two cultures, one

male, one female, coexisting in the same society. The separate-but-

equal model applied to sex predated the variation of the model applied to race. With respect to sex, the separate-but-equal model held that women and men were destined by biology for different

social spheres. The spheres were separate but equal, which made

the men and women separate but equal. The sphere of the woman

was the home; the sphere of the man was the world. These were

separate-but-equal domains. The woman was supposed to bear and

raise the children; the man was supposed to impregnate her and

support them. These were separate-but-equal duties. The woman

had female capacities— she was intuitive, emotional, tender,

charming (in women a capacity to arouse or entrap, not an attribute). T he man had male capacities— he was logical, reasoning, strong, powerful (as a capacity and relative to the woman). These

were separate-but-equal capacities. The woman was supposed to

do domestic labor, the precise nature of which was determined by

her husband’s social class. The man was supposed to labor in the

world for money, power, recognition, according to his social class.

This was separate-but-equal labor.

Sex segregation in practice is necessarily different from race segregation: women are everywhere, in almost every home, in most beds, as intim ate as it is possible to be with those who want to keep

them separate. Given the nearly universal intim acy women have

with men, it is astonishing to recognize how successful sex-segre-

gation bolstered by the separate-but-equal model has been and

continues to be. Women have invaded the male sphere of the marketplace, only to be segregated in female job ghettos. In jobs, duties, responsibilities, physical, moral, and intellectual capacities, division of labor within the home, the ethic and practice that still