Her oeuvre is brilliant, compelling, challenging, draws a line in the sand and is 100% accurate. The late Dworkin, along with poet, novelist and journalist Robin Morgan, are writers who--far ahead of their time--described our current dystopia and how it came about. Absolutely necessary reading. Every word.
like all sh*t stirring british journalists you can tell the presenter and the show planned to pitch Burgess and Dworkin against one another (he was voted 'misogynist of the year' for writing 'a clockwork orange' and she was voted 'most man hating radical feminist in history') but they instead speak with respect and compliment each other - even praising each other's books and works - saying that they have read each other's work and they agree on many things then agree to disagree. they are both extremely well lived, worldly, intelligent and have valid points. lots of love to them both and I'd recommending reading BOTH their works!!!!
I sort of doubt that was the plan. The people involved in making television like this were sophisticated and knew their guests intimately.. I would have to conclude their viewers were sophisticated too and the makers would obviously have known that also as this was late night experimental TV on CH4, in its artistic and creative heyday Putting that appalling moustachioed bloke in, was certainly designed for both an opposing opinion and possibly friction for, ''good TV'' although I also assume they would have known 100% he would be slaughtered by the bigger intellects and personalities... but they would have known Burgess and Dworkin too, their thoughts about each other, and more. News and documentary television in particular has changed beyond recognition, and for the worse..Channel 4 in the UK was ground breaking, as were the BBC, if less radical. Shit stirring is more of a common thing in modern times - Unless you were the manager of Leeds United in the 70s... PS Of course you may well be absolutely right, I'm often wrong these days, but felt strongly they would have had a good idea the direction of discussion. Also it was hardly worth having the other people on! I think Dworkin in particular was extraordinary, and wonderful to listen to.
@@martinda7446 Dworkin was extraordinary but so was Burgess. I absolutely agree that television chat shows have got irreparably worse - in their penchant for 'sh*t stirring' among other things, that cannot be denied. But the lack of integrity in the British press was already showing through in the 80s/90s with the Diana saga among other things. I genuinely thought the creators of the show thought Dworkin and Burgess would argue more and get on less than they did. they did make the choice to put 'moustachioed bloke' in there as you say... so they weren't all that highbrow. they also use to employ Jimmy Saville back in the day. They use to be fooled by anyone with an upper class accent in Britain regardless of substance - that or confidence and designer clothes - now ppl are a little bit more cynical and they evaluate substance a little more so thats one positive about new TV. but its definitely not better - it was the spontaneity and providence of this meeting and how it worked so well in the end that made it great TV; but the credit is Dworkin and Burgess - not the creators.
@@kapple654 Very interesting, thank you Kapple..and this comment is a weird long ramble so don't feel obliged to read it. It might not even make sense, I'm very tired.. Some credit must go to the channel and creators, just because it was a new concept of a live uncensored late night format with fascinating guests and topics.. This format nurtured intense debate and was much too dangerous for American TV or the BBC. At this time the BBC shut down at 12.00am playing the National Anthem. I agree both guests were amazing.. I often wonder about modern journalists. There is the ethical code that journalists would live by, (and many died by it too). We certainly could see more who took that code to heart. investigative journalism and quality news was alive and well (ish)... Yet in the UK, and across the English speaking world we always had the same men running the majority of the media. And we still do. We had the awful tabloid newspapers, nasty comics, like the Sun with 'tits on page 3' and Tory propaganda, and we had the serious press with the broadsheets, the Times, Telegraph etc. Today's media is all about opinion and agenda and very few it seems know an ethical code exists. They used to take that very seriously, and rightly so.
@@martinda7446 this is a great convo - I love and am guilty of weird long rambles. yeah - a few men monopolising - Australia is worst at that - not the least giving us Murdoch (who can be seen having intimate 'cups of tea' and 'chats' with everyone from JFK and Thatcher onwards (you wonder how much of world events and politics this unelectable man influenced)) but they also had a famous duopoly between only him and Kerry Packer - so there was not much choice in the matter of media in oz. then again they gave us Assange later - so spurned the Christ and the Devil so to speak. the same principle applied here I guess - parts of this show were a great idea so there must have been some assistant directors, agents and editors with a bright idea - but I truly think the credit for turning pat questions such as 'Andrea dwokin - what is sex for' into an intelligent and worldly debate was to the brightest guests like Burgess and Dworkin. I couldn't agree more with journalism ethics being unknown now. I suppose we had freedom and pornographers back then - now we have sterility and propaganda. you could always tell a tory propaganda article back in the day because it would be written by an ill educated pleb with cheesy slogans and stereotypes (I remember those from London in 2004). now its harder to decipher - you almost have to be an expert in every topic to get a whiff of BS.
thats why - she predicted how the prevalence of pornography would destroy the family, sexuality and respect for women and children in the west. she was prophetic - 50 years before it literally happened.
Part of the problem is how her readings have been used in bad faith, as well as some of the unintended consequences of her anti-pornographer stance. On the first point, in the UK where I am from, she is often cited by trans-exclusionary feminists who use her arguments as a way of attributing violence to the penis and anyone who possesses one as opposed to ways in which patriarchy is reproduced systemically. Many excerpts from her book “Pornography” as well as statements she made at the time do propose a reading of the penis as a vehicle of patriarchal violence in a kind of vulgar Freudian way. This is often cited by trans-exclusionists to argue that trans women are a threat to cis women’s spaces and identity. This is unfortunate but understandable: Dworkin’s critique of penetrative heterosexual sex as the only “real” sex is extremely insightful, and actually offers a lot to men as well as women; patriarchy alienates men from the range of ways in which they could enjoy their bodies and express themselves sexually. But understanding her arguments as non-trans-exclusionary requires a lot of background understanding of the modes of discourse she is engaging with, especially psychoanalysis. Ironically she gets read as a vulgar Freudian for pointing out the vulgar Freudianism inherent in the reproduction of masculinity within a patriarchal ideology. The second point is that her anti-pornography stance was aimed at straight pornography. But the legislative interventions that came about because of her activism led to the suppression of gay pornography and even some books about feminism and female reproductive medicine because the bans were enforced quite indiscriminately. Her arguments also preclude things like pornography made by and for women, although around 65% of women have at some point consumed pornography. As a man, I think she makes arguments that a lot of men would really benefit from engaging with - and that a lot of women would benefit from men engaging with, but I am quite often disappointed by how both men and women distill her ideas and focus upon reductions like “penetrative sex is inherently violent” or “the penis is a weapon” without the context of either the discursive tradition or the whole range of her views. I hope that answers your question.
Precisely BECAUSE she had the balls to centre the truth with tenacity, courage and an unflinching sense of her own worth in the world. The world is not ready for women who tell the truth.
Some of the responses to her are cut out which makes her responses a bit confusing imo, even if you disagree with Burgess or porn stache it would be easier to follow without their words being removed. Tbf I must say the two men other than Burgess deserve little respect both in their facile observations and their faux exhausted expressions. Burgess at least makes an effort to understand her and seems to have read her.
Sit a brilliant sharp womam with 4 male "brilliant" oponents and see what happens and the reaction on their faces, no arguments just crying big babies lol. No one has been greater than Andrea Dworkin
I had the good fortune of meeting Andrea Dworkin at a feminist bookstore where I volunteered. The moment remains one of the highlights of my life. A remarkable, talented, beautiful woman, very much worth our attention today.
yes. they are equals. and he read all her work 'with enjoyment' he said then she said she read his and quoted his books in her bibliography. what is funny is that he was voted 'misogynist pig of the year' and she was voted 'most man hating radical feminist'. yet they have a true respect for each other on the show. I believe the show's producers didnt plan this and wanted them to fight more - but they both have extraordinary empathy and talent.
@@kapple654 I wish his parts weren't mostly cut out because I'd love to know everything he said. He seems to be the only one who has some understanding of her argument or is at least actively trying to understand. The other men don't come across here well at all.
I love how they never get tired of the "but we men create strong fictional women" tantrum, as if that solves everything. Good god, why dont we just call off all fights for equal rights, because we finally have a Wonderwoman, and a Black panther movie, and probably some other idiotic, cashgrab, whitewashing movie about working class overcoming difficulty and reaching success in the making.
@@KidMillions not at all he got on with Dowrkins great here and says at the beginning he 'enjoyed reading her books' and was 'flattered' that she had 3 of his books in her bibliography.
i find it funny how the journalist guy had perhaps the least interesting interjections. either about a definition, or saying she could only speak for herself, or that something is permissible because a lot of people do it.
does dworkin offer unique insights or does she just take rousseau to his most insane bourgeois extent with question-begging about "agency" "freedom" and "subjection"
Andrea was amazing, such an intellect I bet the men defending pornography which then especially was male perspective based sexual exploitation hated her, lol men.
Edited and inferior version of this presentation. Again. No room for opinions and from this example, not even diversity. Basketcase preoccupation with these issues is not very flexible. Attractiveness rendered irrelevant in such minds leads to annoying squawking of the sexually frustrated and emotionally disturbed.
Her oeuvre is brilliant, compelling, challenging, draws a line in the sand and is 100% accurate. The late Dworkin, along with poet, novelist and journalist Robin Morgan, are writers who--far ahead of their time--described our current dystopia and how it came about. Absolutely necessary reading. Every word.
like all sh*t stirring british journalists you can tell the presenter and the show planned to pitch Burgess and Dworkin against one another (he was voted 'misogynist of the year' for writing 'a clockwork orange' and she was voted 'most man hating radical feminist in history') but they instead speak with respect and compliment each other - even praising each other's books and works - saying that they have read each other's work and they agree on many things then agree to disagree. they are both extremely well lived, worldly, intelligent and have valid points. lots of love to them both and I'd recommending reading BOTH their works!!!!
I sort of doubt that was the plan. The people involved in making television like this were sophisticated and knew their guests intimately.. I would have to conclude their viewers were sophisticated too and the makers would obviously have known that also as this was late night experimental TV on CH4, in its artistic and creative heyday Putting that appalling moustachioed bloke in, was certainly designed for both an opposing opinion and possibly friction for, ''good TV'' although I also assume they would have known 100% he would be slaughtered by the bigger intellects and personalities... but they would have known Burgess and Dworkin too, their thoughts about each other, and more. News and documentary television in particular has changed beyond recognition, and for the worse..Channel 4 in the UK was ground breaking, as were the BBC, if less radical. Shit stirring is more of a common thing in modern times - Unless you were the manager of Leeds United in the 70s...
PS Of course you may well be absolutely right, I'm often wrong these days, but felt strongly they would have had a good idea the direction of discussion. Also it was hardly worth having the other people on!
I think Dworkin in particular was extraordinary, and wonderful to listen to.
PS I agree with all you wrote AFTER having a go at British journalists 😸😸😸
@@martinda7446 Dworkin was extraordinary but so was Burgess. I absolutely agree that television chat shows have got irreparably worse - in their penchant for 'sh*t stirring' among other things, that cannot be denied. But the lack of integrity in the British press was already showing through in the 80s/90s with the Diana saga among other things. I genuinely thought the creators of the show thought Dworkin and Burgess would argue more and get on less than they did. they did make the choice to put 'moustachioed bloke' in there as you say... so they weren't all that highbrow. they also use to employ Jimmy Saville back in the day. They use to be fooled by anyone with an upper class accent in Britain regardless of substance - that or confidence and designer clothes - now ppl are a little bit more cynical and they evaluate substance a little more so thats one positive about new TV. but its definitely not better - it was the spontaneity and providence of this meeting and how it worked so well in the end that made it great TV; but the credit is Dworkin and Burgess - not the creators.
@@kapple654 Very interesting, thank you Kapple..and this comment is a weird long ramble so don't feel obliged to read it. It might not even make sense, I'm very tired..
Some credit must go to the channel and creators, just because it was a new concept of a live uncensored late night format with fascinating guests and topics.. This format nurtured intense debate and was much too dangerous for American TV or the BBC. At this time the BBC shut down at 12.00am playing the National Anthem. I agree both guests were amazing..
I often wonder about modern journalists. There is the ethical code that journalists would live by, (and many died by it too). We certainly could see more who took that code to heart. investigative journalism and quality news was alive and well (ish)... Yet in the UK, and across the English speaking world we always had the same men running the majority of the media. And we still do. We had the awful tabloid newspapers, nasty comics, like the Sun with 'tits on page 3' and Tory propaganda, and we had the serious press with the broadsheets, the Times, Telegraph etc. Today's media is all about opinion and agenda and very few it seems know an ethical code exists. They used to take that very seriously, and rightly so.
@@martinda7446 this is a great convo - I love and am guilty of weird long rambles. yeah - a few men monopolising - Australia is worst at that - not the least giving us Murdoch (who can be seen having intimate 'cups of tea' and 'chats' with everyone from JFK and Thatcher onwards (you wonder how much of world events and politics this unelectable man influenced)) but they also had a famous duopoly between only him and Kerry Packer - so there was not much choice in the matter of media in oz. then again they gave us Assange later - so spurned the Christ and the Devil so to speak. the same principle applied here I guess - parts of this show were a great idea so there must have been some assistant directors, agents and editors with a bright idea - but I truly think the credit for turning pat questions such as 'Andrea dwokin - what is sex for' into an intelligent and worldly debate was to the brightest guests like Burgess and Dworkin. I couldn't agree more with journalism ethics being unknown now. I suppose we had freedom and pornographers back then - now we have sterility and propaganda. you could always tell a tory propaganda article back in the day because it would be written by an ill educated pleb with cheesy slogans and stereotypes (I remember those from London in 2004). now its harder to decipher - you almost have to be an expert in every topic to get a whiff of BS.
She has an incredible amount of patience and charity
She so impressed me, I loved her immediately.
Why was she so despised like she was correct about literally everything
her work threatens and exposes a worldview that enables misogyny. this was enough for people to hate her.
thats why - she predicted how the prevalence of pornography would destroy the family, sexuality and respect for women and children in the west. she was prophetic - 50 years before it literally happened.
She was
Part of the problem is how her readings have been used in bad faith, as well as some of the unintended consequences of her anti-pornographer stance.
On the first point, in the UK where I am from, she is often cited by trans-exclusionary feminists who use her arguments as a way of attributing violence to the penis and anyone who possesses one as opposed to ways in which patriarchy is reproduced systemically. Many excerpts from her book “Pornography” as well as statements she made at the time do propose a reading of the penis as a vehicle of patriarchal violence in a kind of vulgar Freudian way. This is often cited by trans-exclusionists to argue that trans women are a threat to cis women’s spaces and identity. This is unfortunate but understandable: Dworkin’s critique of penetrative heterosexual sex as the only “real” sex is extremely insightful, and actually offers a lot to men as well as women; patriarchy alienates men from the range of ways in which they could enjoy their bodies and express themselves sexually. But understanding her arguments as non-trans-exclusionary requires a lot of background understanding of the modes of discourse she is engaging with, especially psychoanalysis. Ironically she gets read as a vulgar Freudian for pointing out the vulgar Freudianism inherent in the reproduction of masculinity within a patriarchal ideology.
The second point is that her anti-pornography stance was aimed at straight pornography. But the legislative interventions that came about because of her activism led to the suppression of gay pornography and even some books about feminism and female reproductive medicine because the bans were enforced quite indiscriminately. Her arguments also preclude things like pornography made by and for women, although around 65% of women have at some point consumed pornography.
As a man, I think she makes arguments that a lot of men would really benefit from engaging with - and that a lot of women would benefit from men engaging with, but I am quite often disappointed by how both men and women distill her ideas and focus upon reductions like “penetrative sex is inherently violent” or “the penis is a weapon” without the context of either the discursive tradition or the whole range of her views.
I hope that answers your question.
Precisely BECAUSE she had the balls to centre the truth with tenacity, courage and an unflinching sense of her own worth in the world. The world is not ready for women who tell the truth.
She was Fabulous
A genius and a prophet
Some of the responses to her are cut out which makes her responses a bit confusing imo, even if you disagree with Burgess or porn stache it would be easier to follow without their words being removed. Tbf I must say the two men other than Burgess deserve little respect both in their facile observations and their faux exhausted expressions. Burgess at least makes an effort to understand her and seems to have read her.
I love that u have a VH1 Feminist collection.
A whole bunch of men arguing with a smart woman 35 years ago… still the same thing they do today
hideous and overweight woman talking about sex as if its any concern for her...still the same thing they do today 💀
Dworkin : "Sex shouldn't be so centred on men."
The men: "But why though?"
The weird man: "If a man abuses women, can't we still appreciate his work?"
Other guy: *holds fist in front of face*
Dworkin: Please do not do that again.
Other guy: caNt u tAkE a jOkE???
@@letsstartadialogueeh7692 She does not say "please". She says "get your hand out of my face, Jim."
The moids in this almost made this unwatchable. I can’t imagine actually being there, Andrea was a champ.
Sit a brilliant sharp womam with 4 male "brilliant" oponents and see what happens and the reaction on their faces, no arguments just crying big babies lol. No one has been greater than Andrea Dworkin
Thank you so much for this wonderful video! LOVE!!!!
21:00 and her critique of Kinsey but did she predate Judith Reissman
I had the good fortune of meeting Andrea Dworkin at a feminist bookstore where I volunteered. The moment remains one of the highlights of my life. A remarkable, talented, beautiful woman, very much worth our attention today.
man said women are made to have children 😂😂😂 stfuuuuuu
Thanks for video
She’s very persuasive
Brilliant Andrea! Spectacular! You are my hero!!!!
The interplay between Dworkin and Burgess here is fascinating
yes. they are equals. and he read all her work 'with enjoyment' he said then she said she read his and quoted his books in her bibliography. what is funny is that he was voted 'misogynist pig of the year' and she was voted 'most man hating radical feminist'. yet they have a true respect for each other on the show. I believe the show's producers didnt plan this and wanted them to fight more - but they both have extraordinary empathy and talent.
@@kapple654 I wish his parts weren't mostly cut out because I'd love to know everything he said. He seems to be the only one who has some understanding of her argument or is at least actively trying to understand. The other men don't come across here well at all.
@@whenthepawn99 so true
He's the only one who treated her with respect
@@bdml77 exactly! You can disagree with someone and still be respectful of their intelligence, the other men here don't get that at all.
I love how they never get tired of the "but we men create strong fictional women" tantrum, as if that solves everything. Good god, why dont we just call off all fights for equal rights, because we finally have a Wonderwoman, and a Black panther movie, and probably some other idiotic, cashgrab, whitewashing movie about working class overcoming difficulty and reaching success in the making.
You basically described why socialism and women's rights couldn't be revolutionary in the western world
Could you post this uncut in stead of just the bits with Dworkin?
why you get brain tumors from listening to the old men
@@ramn1232 Burgess is there, who was a genius. Probably not a big feminist however.
@@KidMillions you are a sexist
@@ramn1232 Burgess was at LEAST on Dworkin's level!!!!! and was as equally and unfairly villanised as she was in his lifetime.
@@KidMillions not at all he got on with Dowrkins great here and says at the beginning he 'enjoyed reading her books' and was 'flattered' that she had 3 of his books in her bibliography.
36:58 look how he’s holding his hands, this subconsciously looks like he wants to wring her neck!!!
That's the steeple hand gesture, Angela Merkel was famous for this. It's a sign of confidence, of being in control of the situation.
It looks more rounded than the normal triangle shape that I see the leaders doing
i find it funny how the journalist guy had perhaps the least interesting interjections. either about a definition, or saying she could only speak for herself, or that something is permissible because a lot of people do it.
Can I ask where you found this episode? Been searching for it for ages
18:25 “Take your hand away from my mouth.”
31:20 Sexy Red was just petted too!
37:00 James Baldwin
36:00 male pleasure
she's too smart to be with those men
what a circus.
You are a misogynist
Omg this is so frustrating to watch. these men are SO annoying!
Do you have any more full episodes from After Dark?
does dworkin offer unique insights or does she just take rousseau to his most insane bourgeois extent with question-begging about "agency" "freedom" and "subjection"
Can someone please list the names of these men in this discussion?
Andrea was amazing, such an intellect I bet the men defending pornography which then especially was male perspective based sexual exploitation hated her, lol men.
25:23 lol
Why are the male questions/responses edited out?
Fast forward to 2024. This is laughable.
Edited and inferior version of this presentation. Again. No room for opinions and from this example, not even diversity. Basketcase preoccupation with these issues is not very flexible. Attractiveness rendered irrelevant in such minds leads to annoying squawking of the sexually frustrated and emotionally disturbed.
Wordswordswords
@@bdml77 Was it ever about anything else?