Invisible men Book

After all of the hype I've heard about Dworkin, I found her book terribly mild to what I was expecting. I loved her style, though; blatant, angry, and poetic all at the same time.

I'm completely befuddled now about her supposed "man-hating" approach. This is what I usually heard from others who claimed to have properly read her, but I never saw the typographical proof. Perhaps I'm reading the wrong book?

As far as I can tell, Dworkin doesn't hate masculinity; she hates patriarchy. She doesn't hate men; she hates the men that perpetuate said patriarchy. All sex is rape under the constraints of patriarchy, which therefore means it can change for the better if patriarchy gets the proper boot. Why is this so difficult for others to understand? Perhaps we really are a culture that secretly loves to be offended. Or maybe we never want to admit to being a part of a problem, intentionally or otherwise. We're too proud.

It's one thing to rationally disagree with her (hey, we all think differently), but to call her out on erroneous claims tells me either: (1) the reader wasn't paying close enough attention, or (2) the reader went in with a massive chip on their shoulder. Garbage in, garbage out. That's my motto in any aspect of literature. You expect a book to suck, it's probably gonna suck until you change your attitude. (And if the book still sucks, at least then you'll know you were actually right.)

So I've finally read a book by Dworkin. I'm happy I did so and will likely read some of her other things.

And now, at least, whenever somebody begins to call her out for this book, I can begin to press: "Did you actually read it?" I guess she truly is one of the most misrepresented, misinterpreted, and misunderstood authors of modern time. That's a shame.