MacDworkinism and VAWA: The Fraud of the Millennia
Part 2: The Dworkin-MacKinnon Cultural Revolution
(Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3)

July 21, 2005

Growing up in a middle-class Jewish family in Camden, N.J., fresh on the heels of the Holocaust in Europe, she had fear of being hunted and persecuted by men in SS uniforms self-injected in her heart early in life. “ When I learned about Auschwitz my idea of the unbearable became more specific, more informed, sober and personal.”

In 2000 she published Scapegoat: The Jews, Israel and Women’s Liberation, a study with a far-fetched premise that “the abusive relationship” between men and women is analogous to hostility between Gentiles and Jews, thus revealing a speculative mind ready to profit from her reputation for scandalous intellectualizing of the complex social categories and problems she was neither able to comprehend nor had any ability to solve.

But it was her intellectualizing of sex, and gender roles which is more significant to the formation of her character, and which took on arguably grotesque forms early on in her life; while her contemporaries still innocently played with dolls:

“I liked the sex-and-dominance games, which could be overtly sadomasochistic, because I liked the risk and the intensity.”

Perhaps the strongest influence on shaping her warped views – outside her habitual prostitution and her own specific brand of lesbianism, with its strict prohibition on vaginal sex and strict sexual protocols – was her relationship with her parents. Surprisingly, at least in the gender-feminist paradigm of oppressive fathers and nurturing mothers, and given her iconoclastic men-loathing – she had a loving and supportive father, and a cold, restrictive, uncaring and selfish mother. She hated her sickly mother to the point of wishing her dead; she adored and worshipped her nurturing father – to a degree that suggests a deeply rooted Electra complex. Electra, in Greek mythology the daughter of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra, manipulates her brother to kill her mother, and in Freudian psychology is a symbol of ‘penis envy,’ a daughter’s infatuation with her father, which may border on or become unhealthy.

Mistrust and hatred of her mother, and adoration of her father, whose company, intellectual and emotional support Andrea craved, pretty much formed a personality of this feminist ideologue whose cunning marketing genius took the penis envy to its absolute breath-taking opportunistic heights of men-hating. She never outgrew, as many among her feminist cohorts, the little girl’s penis envy, and she’s in rage with that which she cannot have, and those who do:

“ Men renounce whatever they have in common with women so as to experience no commonality with women; and what is left... is one piece of flesh a few inches long, the penis. The penis is the man; the man is human; the penis signifies humanity.”

On the night of June 23, 1993, Lorena Bobbitt cut off her husband's sex organ with a kitchen knife, as he lay asleep in their Manassas, Virginia, home. She then drove off and flung her husband’s blooded “humanity” out her car window into a cornfield. Lorena Bobbit in her statement to the police said that she cut off her husband’s penis because he was “selfish” and “wouldn’t give her an orgasm.” Characteristically of the far-gone stages of American Femi-Nazism, which successfully converted the US into the “allegation nation” her lawyers used the legal defense of victimization, claiming John has repeatedly “raped” her; they tried to portray Mrs. Bobbit as a classic example of a battered wife who should not be held responsible for “a desperate act committed in extreme emotional distress.”

Thus, the feminist-controlled media victimized John Bobbit twice. The truth was, that once she married, the previously repressed Lorena who had been strictly controlled by her family, especially her mother who chaperoned all of her dates prior to the marriage, turned into a highly sexually aggressive, dominant woman in their relationship, who by the time of her feminists’ feat grew increasingly unhappy realizing that neither her legal immigration status, nor her sex escapades were keeping her happy at all times. She initiated a one-time experimentation with anal sex, which neither of them liked and ever repeated, and which her legal defense team later attempted to use as proof of “rape.” She had embezzled $7000 from her employer, had been caught a few times stealing goods in the department stores and, as women often do in a relationship, blamed John for failing to keep her happy at all times. In fact, she was a BPD sufferer.

None of it mattered, under the circumstances. The N.O.W. rank and file was up in arms. Her lawyers played the standard MacDworkinist “abused wife” – “self-defense” card (though jury acquitted John of all charges of “rape” and “domestic violence” against Lorena) and her lawyers succeeded in getting her off the hook with just 45 days of mandated “therapy” as the only consequence for her abhorrent act. One can only imagine the helpless rage this man must have felt, hurt, imasculated, destroyed, and maligned any which way feminists’ vivid imaginations desired, forever turned into a laughing stock for the entire world. Later, i n 1998, Lorena was arrested and charged with assault for beating up and punching the daylights out of her elderly mother, Elvia Gallo, as the old woman watched television. In 2002 it was John Bobbit who was arrested on a DV charge brought by his then girlfriend.

Dworkin was quick in action, singing the familiar high-pitched aria of the pain of an “abused, raped wife,” though she had no access to any first-hand information whatsoever, or any desire to research about the perpetrator or her husband. After all, it was the feminist’s cause celebre, their ultimate vindication with a bloody cut off “humanity” hoisted up as their fighting banner, as a phallic symbol of the Western Civilization defeated, blooded and shriveled, cut off with a flick of a little woman’s hand. He was “selfish” and “wouldn’t give” her “an orgasm, ” said the seething bitch of the species when she was arrested after she’d acted out her anger. But when it came to trial, it was the “allegation nation” at work. It was the feminist puke-fest, Sabbath of the witches, their victorious hysteria filling the airways and newspaper pages, with an avalanche of disgusting jokes hitting the newspapers and filling TV channels. The case was a true slice of Americana. Imagine the howling and screams these “moral leaders of humankind” would raise if a joke about cutting off a female body part were published or uttered on a TV screen.

A naturally borne control freak, Andrea failed to turn her father against her mother, and could never forgive him this ‘betrayal’ and ‘disloyalty’ to her, his beloved daughter Andrea, the apple of his eye. To punish him in a most painful way any father may experience, still a teenager, she threw a tantrum and ran away to become a prostitute, first in New York City, then – in Greece, and then – far and wide, internationally, all over Europe. Self-destructive, quickly becoming monstrously overweight and grotesquely unattractive, she felt vindicated controlling men through sex for fun and profit. She wrote in her Autobiography,

“For my first work period in December 1964 I took marginal political jobs in New York City and fucked for food and shelter and whatever cash I needed.”

In her travails of an aspiring political writer, she suffered defeat in her unsuccessful attempts at writing in Europe, and upon returning to New York she resisted at first the overtures made by strident gender feminists, but soon realized there was a lot of money, fame and fortune to be made on the road paved with scandalous, deliciously shocking genitalia-centered gender-feminist discourse. Having become a quintessential prostitute, she would never again allow ‘violations’ of the ‘sanctity’ of her vagina for anything but profit. Being neither particularly smart nor talented (or sane, for that matter) she doesn’t even notice that she explicitly identifies with her vagina to a far greater degree than men whose humanity she defines in terms of their alleged identification with their penises.

Dworkin’s writing style is perhaps best described by a popular Russian word “slovobludiye,” or “whoring with words,” that is creating sickening verbal imagery, then selling it on to consumer for “reality,” scientific reality, no less. Beginning around 13 th century, a Russian equivalent for the English word ‘whore’ was often used in the context describing an abhorrent act, any violation of a solemn or sacred duty, be it loyalty to one’s tsar, one’s comrades in arms, to one’s husband or wife, one’s country, or one’s Christian duty to be honest, tolerant and fair. The trademark of Andrea's writing is conjuring up verbal imagery, hysterically building on itself until it spins out of control, into the stratosphere of its own surreal world. To be generous, this might be the influence of the romantic poetry, reflecting on her fascination with Rimbaud, Baudelaire and Ginsberg.

What makes Dworkin, a college grad with mediocre grades and no academic credentials, an “expert” on relations between sexes? – In 1981, she publishes Pornography: Men Possessing Women. To research the latter, Dworkin had immersed herself in the study of Marquis de Sade, which caused her to suffer nausea, nightmares and intense pessimism about relations between men and women. That was all the study she ever did for this “seminal” book. Why Sadism, or Sado-Masochism, undeniably rare sexual behaviors, and until recent advances in the “feminist thought” considered by most people deviant and sick would be representative of the relations between sexes? This question should be asked of Ms. Dworkin, or -- now that she’s dead -- of one of her followers. Her book maintained that “Pornography exists because men despise women, and men despise women in part because pornography exists.” The Britain’s Punch magazine reviewer called Dworkin “Leon Trotsky of the sex war,” an astute observation I must add.

Looking at the root of Dworkin’s emotional development, her relationship with her loving father Harry, we should note that he might have spent a tad too much time at work and – when at home – paying a tad too much attention to developing his daughter’s intellectual capacity instead of watching her fragile psychic and dangerous vindictiveness in her emotional development. If there’s a lesson in it for today’s fathers, it’s that Harry missed the critical time when his daughter began turning into a raging monster whose impact on the world has no less significance than that made by the writers’ and “scientists’” among Hitler’s favorite ideologues and apologists of the “master race” and genocide of “inferior” races. Here’s how warmly Dworkin describes her father:

“Harry, my daddy, was not a rolling stone. He wasn't at home because he worked two jobs most of the time and three jobs some of the time… He was different from other men in how he acted and how he thought…

He was gentle and soft-spoken. He listened with careful attention to children and women. He wanted teachers to unionize and the races to integrate. He was devoted to my mother and determined that she would get the very best medical care, a goal entirely out of reach for a low- paid schoolteacher, except that he did it. He borrowed money to pay medical bills. He borrowed money to take my mother to heart specialists. He borrowed money for professional nurses and to get housecleaning help and some child care and sometimes to hire a cook. He kept us warm and fed and sheltered, even though not always at home or together.

He was outspoken and demonstrative in expressing affection, not self-conscious or withdrawn as most men were. He was nurturant and emotionally empathetic. He crossed a gender line and was stigmatized for it; called a sissy and a fairy by my buddies on the street who no doubt heard it from their parents. He loved my mother and he loved Mark and me; but especially me. I will never know why. He said I was the apple of his eye from the time I was born and I believe him. I did nothing to earn it and it was the one great gift of my life.

On Sundays he slept late but he and I would watch the Sunday news shows together and analyze foreign crises or political personalities or social conflicts. We would debate and argue, not the vicious arguments I had with my mother but heightened dialogue always touching on policy, ideas, rights, the powerful and the oppressed, discrimination and prejudice. I don't know how he had the patience; but patience was a defining characteristic. He enjoyed my intelligence and treated me with respect. I think that to be loved so unconditionally by a father and treated with respect by him was not common for a girl then. I think he kept my mother alive and I think he kept Mark and me from being raised in foster care or as orphans.

He was appalled by the conflict between me and my mother, and certainly by the time I was a teenager he held me responsible for it. He knew I was adult inside. He let me know that my mother's well-being would always come first with him. And I remember that he hated it when I would cry. He must have thought it cowardly and pitiful and self-indulgent. I made many eloquent but to him unpersuasive declarations about my right to cry…

I trusted and honored him. I guess that I trusted him to love me more even than to take care of us. In an honors history seminar in high school, the class was asked to name great men in history. I named my father and was roundly ridiculed by advocates for Thomas Jefferson and Napoleon. But I meant it-- that he had the qualities of true greatness, which I defined as strength, generosity, fairness, and a willingness to sacrifice self for principle. His principle was us: my mother, Mark, and me…”

With her passionate, cunning and highly effective mind of a political opportunist, Bolshevik-styled agitator and media spotlight grabber, with a vivid imagination of a professional victim in whose mind her sensitive vagina would hurt and bleed as a reaction to her delusions and self-conjured imagery of coital rape, she gave an entirely new meaning to the cliché, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”

She evolved her anger and sadness with her father’s resistance to her emotional blackmail into an angry, strident and striving industry, a political movement, turning generations of American and English-speaking women into shrill, agitated shrews angrily demanding restitutions and payoffs for the wrongs of being ‘raped’ and ‘violated’ every time their husbands or lovers can’t or wouldn’t give them whatever money, sex or control they demanded; whenever they make love, even when in most cases they enjoy, initiate and by all means promote encore performances.

The ultimate expression and culmination of her hatred to men was her brain-child, The Violence Against Women Act or VAWA, the fascist legislation for which she laid the cultural and legal foundations in co-authorship with Catharine A. MacKinnon, a Yale educated lawyer and law professor whose reputation for being a humorless control freak rivals even that of Dworkin. Said MacKinnon:

“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.”

And so, there must be a Congressional Act writing this in stone, and supporting it with the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, its police, sheriffs, courts and jails. Welcome to the fabulous fraud of VAWA! No, this is not a misrepresentation of a casual critic. MacKinnon makes many a lengthy argument that in a male-dominated society women do not know their “true” sexuality and unwittingly assume that, which is hoisted upon them by men. Hence, they cannot make an informed decision when they “consent” to sex, thus any sexual intercourse is rape, even if both parties think they “consented” to it.

MacKinnon made no bones about the one-sidedness of the new jurisprudence she professed and implemented: it is no more “objective” or “fair” than existing jurisprudence that “favored men”; by design it is “female jurisprudence” giving women specific and concrete advantages to equalize the injustices of the “men-dominated” world, the “feminist jurisprudence” the vengeful hand of which is only all too familiar to the millions of men who found themselves before judges in America’s family courts, treated as criminals for the “crime” of being men. Just as Hillary Rodham Clinton’s feminists’, queer and lesbian studies at Wesseley College followed by her affiliation with lesbian subculture at Yale, the Black Panthers, American Communist Party functionaries and radical leftists groups in and around Yale forever shaped her mind of a strident gender-feminist and a secretive neo-Marxist just waiting out her time to come out of the closet in force, MacKinnon’s queer studies in Smith college and affiliations with the same groups in Yale, just 2-3 years after Hillary, forever shaped her strident advocacy.

So perverted, corrupt, polarized, decadent and dummified is the American society today, that Dworkin-MacKinnon’s deranged philosophy is now solidified in the U.S. Congressional Act, VAWA, and their goal of destruction of the Western Civilization and re-writing of its history in terms of “violence against women” is underwritten by billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money.

It is the duty of all honest citizens, women and men, to reject the MacDworkinists’ fraud machine. VAWA must be repealed!

Copyright © Eric Ross, Ph.D., 2005.

Eric Ross, Ph.D.