RADGEEK HAS POSTED A MESSAGE FOR YOU. YOU CAN READ, I KNOW YOU CAN. START READING THE BEGINNING OF THE BOOK, CONTINUE READING UNTIL THE LAST PAGE IS READ, AND THEN YOU HAVE READ THE ENTIRE BOOK. YOU HAVE THEN GIVEN YOURSELF THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS THE BOOK.

The so-called feminists who disliked her, talked about diets, food, & hairstyles.

I have no doubt she anticipated the way the pro-pornography girls would respond.

"Dworkin pretends to be a daring truth-teller," wrote the feminist Camille Paglia, "but never mentions her most obvious problem, food."

Paglia being the gold-standard. I doubt Paglia has *ever* met a prostitute.

I arrived at her work from the perspective of organized crime and trafficking.

I would advise anybody researching sexual misconduct to read Andrea Dworkin.

Dworkin knew more about sex crime than the FBI and Scotland Yard rolled into one.

Andrea Dworkin had a PERFECT understanding of prostitution, child pornography etc.

Most educational sexual abuse has a male culprit, most victims are female.

The comparative rate of incidence is in conformity with the prosecution statistics.

Abuse within the Catholic Church is generally less than other positions of trust.

Andrea Dworkin could have written the Abu Ghraib narrative from theory.

There were not enough 'good apples' to crew a motorcycle and therefore the 'normality'.

And I found her work to be, by and large, insulting. Blaming all ills on men implies that women are not tough enough or strong enough, without the leadership of a few nutcase radicals, to amount to anything on their own; that men are in fact more powerful and able than women and we must rely on feminists or else we will get sucked in to oppression. And that's a bunch of baloney. If I don't need my daddy to hold my hand through life, I sure as heck don't need her.

Again, I don't support these legalistic/literalistic understandings of porn, but it would be wrong to say that they have not had some strong support in a variety of legal and non-legal venues.

I wanted to say, too, that it's good to know that most people on here don't buy the quick dismissal of Dworkin or her work. And for the folks, particularly the dudes, who do i have to say: i'm a man's man, am not a "fat" "ugly" "hog," and I--not unlike Dworkin--have my share of problems with a lot of men. If you don't act wrong, if you don't rape women, if you don't think calling someone a bitch is in-itself an argument, if you have the courage to take a stand against the (mostly) fellas who DO keep sexism alive--then what's the problem? Ain't nobody talkin about u.

1. What do you think rape is? Have you worked in a rape crisis center? Have you studied rape statistics? Do you even know what you're talking about? Rape isn't about how attractive a woman is. Otherwise elderly women wouldn't get raped in nursing homes by orderlies (they do), little girls wouldn't get raped by pedophiles (they do), men wouldn't get raped by heterosexual men (they do), dyke lesbians wouldn't get raped (they do), etc. For someone who works with rape victims every day of my life, I can't stress enough how moronic your comments are, not to mention how painful they would be to hear for someone who has been raped.

2. Take a logic class. Insulting someone on the basis of his or her looks isn't an argument; it's an ad hominem attack. Have you read any of Dworkin's books, or are you giving us an emotional reaction borne out of ignorance and preconceptions fed to you by the media? Come to the table with some arguments about how you think Dworkin was wrong and we'll listen to you. Keep spewing filth and vile insults and you're just a plain idiot.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but your diagnosis of the "problem" seems to neglect an important fact. Her "decades on the public stage and ... numerous books and articles" would only disabuse her critics of their misunderstandings about her if her critics actually bothered to read them. But no small number of the people who attack her -- and especially those who like to traffic in the myths that she "hated men" as such or thought that "all heterosexual sex is rape" (which she did not believe and never said), as well as those who preferred to simply bypass any discussion of her ideas whatsoever to deride her as "ugly," "fat," "hysterical," or a "vile, contemptible bitch" -- never took the time to read a damned one of her numerous books and articles from beginning to end.

Have you?