[퍼온글] 안드레아 드워킨, 그녀의 죽음

전출처 : 릴케 현상 > [퍼온글] 안드레아 드워킨, 그녀의 죽음

미국 급진 페미니스트 안드레아 드워킨 사망

[한겨레 2005-04-12 18:42]

[한겨레] “포르노에 대항한 여성 전사” “포르노그래피는 여성을 성적·경제적으로 착취하는 악랄한 도구다.” 포르노가 성폭행과 폭력의 원인이라고 주장하며 격렬한 논쟁을 불러 일으켰던 미국 급진 페미니스트 안드레아 드워킨이 골관절염 등 지병을 앓다 지난 9일 워싱턴 자택에서 58살을 일기로 눈을 감았다고 <가디언> 등이 12일 보도했다.

안드레아는 “포르노는 여성이 상처받고 모욕당하는 걸 원하는 것처럼 묘사하고, ‘노’를 ‘예스’로 믿게 만든다”고 주장하며 지난 83년 포르노를 성차별로 규정하는 법 초안을 만들었다. <포르노그래피: 여성을 소유한 남성>(1981) 등 13권의 책을 쓰기도 한 그는 여성에 대한 남성의 폭력 문제를 끄집어 내 정면으로 공격했다. 그의 책 <희생양: 유대인, 이스라엘, 그리고 여성 해방>은 2001년 아메리칸 북 어워드를 받기도 했다.

46년 뉴저지에서 태어난 그는 자유 분방한 삶을 살았다. 버몬트 주 베닝턴대에 다니던 18살 때는 베트남 전쟁 반대 운동을 벌이다 체포되기도 했다.

<가디언>은 “그는 70년대 중반부터 ‘성폭력에 맞선 여성 전쟁’의 상징이 됐다”고 평가했다. 동료 여성운동가 글로리아 스테이넘은 “매 시기 인류를 진화시키는 몇 안되는 작가들이 있는데, 안드레아가 그 중 한 명”이라며 그를 추도했다.

윤진 기자 mindle@hani.co.kr ⓒ 한겨레(http://www.hani.co.kr), 무단전재 및 재배포 금지

**일단 반 정도 번역------- 기사 읽다 욱하는 마음에...

'She never hated men'

남자를 증오하지 않았다.

Andrea Dworkin was attacked as much for her personal appearance as for her uncompromising views. But the death at the age of 58 of 'the most maligned feminist on the planet' has deprived feminism of its last truly challenging voice, says Katharine Viner
안드레아 드워킨은 그녀의 외모에 대해서도 비타협적 관점만큼이나 공격받기도 했다. 그러나 지구상에서 가장 악의에 찬 페미니스트가 58세의 나이로 세상을 떠남으로써 페미니즘은 진실로 도전적인 목소리을 잃어버렸다. - 캐서린 바이너
Tuesday April 12, 2005
The Guardian

Andrea Dworkin. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod

Like most, I feel a shudder of shock whenever I read the words of Andrea Dworkin. On crime: "I really believe a woman has the right to execute a man who has raped her." On romance: "In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine." On sexual intercourse: "Intercourse remains a means, or the means, of physiologically making a woman inferior: communicating to her, cell by cell, her own inferior status ... pushing and thrusting until she gives in." Her radicalism was always bracing, sometimes terrifying; and, in a world where even having Botox is claimed as some kind of pseudo-feminist act, she was the real thing. Her death at the age of 58 deprives us of a truly challenging voice.

다른 대분분의 사람들처럼, 나 역시 안드레아 드워킨의 글을 읽을 때마다 전율한다. 범죄에 대하여 그녀는 "여자는 자신을 강간한 남자를 처벌할 권리를 갖는다고 믿는다"고 말했고, 사랑에 대하여 " 유혹하는 중에, 강간범은 종종 포도주 한 병을 사주려 애쓰곤 한다"고 말했으며, 성관계에 대해 "관계는 하나의 수단, 생리적으로 여성을 열등하게 만드는 그러한 수단이다 . 여자에게 그녀의 열등한 지위를 마치 세포 하나 하나씩 알려주며...그녀가 굴복할 때까지 누르고 삽입한다 "라고도 했다.  그녀의 급진주의는 항상 우리를 긴장시키며, 때로는 떨게 만든다. 그리고 보톡스를 삽입하는 것 마저 일종의 의사-페미니즘적 행위로 주장되는 세계에서, 그녀만이 참된 존재였다.  그녀가 58세를 일기로 세상을 떠남으로써 우리는  진실로 도전적인 목소리를 상실했다.

But Andrea Dworkin was always more famous for being Andrea Dworkin than anything else. Never mind her seminal works of radical feminism, never mind her disturbing theorising that our culture is built on the ability of men to rape and abuse women. For many, Dworkin was famous for being fat. She was the stereotype of the Millie Tant feminist made flesh - overweight, hairy, un-made-up, wearing old denim dungarees and DMs or bad trainers - and thus a target for ridicule. The fact that she presented herself as she was - no hair dyes or conditioner, no time-consuming waxing or plucking or shaving or slimming or fashion - was rare and deeply threatening; in a culture where women's appearance has become ever more defining, Dworkin came to represent the opposite of what women want to be. "I'm not a feminist, but ... " almost came to mean, "I don't look like Andrea Dworkin but ... "

그러나 안드레아 드워킨은 다른 무엇보다 안드레아 드워킨 다운 것으로 더 유명했다. 그녀의 급진페미니즘 세미나도, 그녀의 우리문화가 여성을 강간하고 학대할 수 있는 남성의 능력 위에 자리잡고 있다는 불온한 이론도 신경 쓸 것 없다. 많은 사람들에게 드워킨은 뚱뚱한 것으로 유명했다. 그녀는 살찐 Millie Tant(영국만화VIS의 광적인 페미니스트 캐릭터) 식 페미니스트의 전형이었다. - 과체중에, 많은 머리칼은 부스스하고, 화장도 안한 채로, 낡은 데님 덩거리(노동복)나 DM 아니면 싸구려 운동복을 입었다. 그 때문에 놀림의 표적이기도 했다. 그녀가 자신을 그렇게 - 머리칼에 염색이나 컨디셔닝을 하지 안고, 왁싱, 플러킹, 쉐이빙, 슬리밍, 패션에 시간을 쓰지 않은것- 드러낸 일은 흔치 않은 것이며 매우 위협적인 일이었다. 여성의 외모가 훨씬 더 규정하는 사회에서, 드워킨은 여성들이 되기 원하는 바의 정반대를 상징했다. " 나는 페미니스트가 아니예요, 하지만..."이란 말은 대개 "나는 안드레아 드워킨처럼 보이고 싶지 않아요 하지만..."이란 뜻이였다.

In 2001, the critic Elaine Showalter said: "I wish Andrea Dworkin no harm, but I doubt that many women will get up at 4am to watch her funeral." A couple of years ago, in an article in this newspaper on hairiness, Mimi Spencer wrote: "The only visibly hairy woman at the forefront of feminism today appears to be Andrea Dworkin, and she looks as though she neither waxes nor washes, nor flushes nor flosses, and thus doesn't really count." She didn't count because of how she looked; she only cared about rape because no man could fancy her.

2001년에, 비평가인 일레인 쇼월터는 "안드레아 드워킨에게 피해를 주려는 건 아니지만, 많은 여성이 그녀의 장례식을 보기 위해 새벽 4시에 일어나지는 않을 것 같아요"라고 말했다. 몇 해전에, 머리켤 많은 대한 신문 기사에서, 미미 스펜서는 "오늘날 페미니즘의 최전선에서 발견할 수 있는 유일한 털투성이 여자는 안드레아 드워킨처럼 보인다. 그리고 그녀는 왁스도 세수도 않고, 변기물도 치실도 사용하지 않으며, 따라서 실제로 고려할 가치조차 없다"고 썼다. 그녀는 그녀가 어떻게 보이는 가 때문에 보잘 것 없게 된 것이었다. 그녀는 어떠한 남자도 그녀를 좋아할 수 없었기에 강간을 걱정할 뿐인 것이었다.

The attacks on Dworkin were not only personal; they also applied to her work. John Berger once called Dworkin "the most misrepresented writer in the western world". She has always been seen as the woman who said that all men are rapists, and that all sex is rape. In fact, she said neither of these things. Here's what she told me in 1997: "If you believe that what people call normal sex is an act of dominance, where a man desires a woman so much that he will use force against her to express his desire, if you believe that's romantic, that's the truth about sexual desire, then if someone denounces force in sex it sounds like they're denouncing sex. If conquest is your mode of understanding sexuality, and the man is supposed to be a predator, and then feminists come along and say, no, sorry, that's using force, that's rape - a lot of male writers have drawn the conclusion that I'm saying all sex is rape." In other words, it's not that all sex involves force, but that all sex which does involve force is rape.

드워킨에 대한 공격은 개인적인 것만이 아니었다. 그들은 그녀의 일에 대해서도 공격했다. 존 버거는 한때 드워킨을 "서구 사회에서 가장 잘못 알려진 작가"로 불렀다. 그녀는 항상 모든 남자가 강간범이며 모든 섹스는 강간이라고 말하는 여자로 보여졌다. 사실,  그녀는 이러한 말을 한적이 없다. 1997년에 그녀는 내게 이런 말을 했다. "사람들이 정상적인 섹스라고 부르는 것이 지배의 행위, 즉 남자가 여자를 욕망해서는 자신의 욕망을 표현하기 위해 여자에게 힘을 행사하는 그런 행위라고 믿는다면, 그리고 그게 낭만적이라고 믿는다면, 그건 성적 욕망에 대해 진실이에요. 그리고 누군가 섹스에서 힘을 비난한다면 그것은 섹스를 비난하고 있는 것처럼 들리겠죠. 만일 정복이 당신이 섹슈얼리티를 이해하는 방식이고, 남자는 약탈자가 되는 법이라면, 페미니스트들이 와서는 안되여, 이런, 힘을 행사하잖아요, 그건 강간이에요 라고 말하겠죠. 많은 남자들이 내가 모든 섹스가 강간이라고 말한다고 결론짓곤 해요." 달리 말하면, 모든 섹스가 힘을 포함하기 때문이 아니라, 힘을 포함하는 모든 섹스가 강간이기 때문인 것이다.

 She continued the theme in 1981 in Pornography, possibly her most influential book. She wrote: "Pornography is a celebration of rape and injury to women; it's a kind of union for rapists, a way of legitimising rape and formalising male supremacy in our society." She said that pornography is both a cause of male violence and an expression of male dominance, that women who enjoy porn are harming women, and that lesbian porn is self-hating. She had no time for the textual analysis of porn so beloved of academia; what she cared about was the women performing in the films, the harm they suffered, and what other women had to suffer as a result of men watching porn.

그녀는 1981년에 출간된 아마도 그녀의 가장 영향력있는 책인  Pornography에서 이 주제를 계속 다루었다. 그녀는 "포르노그래피는 여성에 대한 강간과 상해의 축연이다. 그것은 일종의 강간범들의 결사이며, 우리 사회에서 강간을 적법화하고 남성의 우월성을 확립하는 방식이다"라고 썼다. 그녀는 포르노그래피가 남성의 폭력의 이유이자 남성의 지배의 표현이며, 포르노를 즐기는 여성은 여성에게 해를 주고 있는 것이고, 레즈비언 포르노는 자기혐오라고 말했다. 학계에서 사랑받은 포르노의 텍스트 분석을 할 시간이 없었다. 그녀가 염려한 것은 영화 속의 여성들, 그들이 받는 해악, 포르노를 보는 남자로 인해 여성들이 겪어야 만 하는 것들이었다.

While much of this was brilliant, there are few who could agree with all of Dworkin's work. Her exhortation to vengeance was unpalatable to many; she said that "a semi-automatic gun is one answer" to the problem of violence against women, and that she supported the murder of paedophiles: "Women have the right to avenge crimes on their children. A woman in California shot a paedophile who abused her son; she walked into the court and killed him there and then. I loved that woman. It is our duty as women to find ways of supporting her and others like her. I have no problem with killing paedophiles." And her 2000 book, Scapegoat: The Jews, Israel and Women's Liberation, suggested that women should follow the same path as Jews did in the 20th century: they were abused and fought back, and so should women. Her analysis of the situation in the Middle East - an analysis which, according to Linda Grant, "many Zionists, non-Zionists, Palestinians, scholars of the Holocaust, pacifists, the left, women, men, are bound to find offensive" - concluded with a call to women to form their own nation state.

그러한 작업의 대부분이 탁월했지만, 드워킨의 모든 저작에 동의할 사람은 거의 없다. 그녀가 복수를 권장한 것은 많은 이들을 불쾌하게 만들었다. 그녀는 여성에 대한 폭력이라는 문제에는 "반자동 총이 하나의 대답이다"라고 말했다.그리고 페도필(아동성애자)의 살해를 지지했다. "여성은 그녀들의 아이에 대한 범죄에 복수할 권리를 가진다.  캘리포니아의 한 여성이 자신의 아들을 학대한 페도필을 총격했다. 그녀는 법정에 걸어들어가서는 그 자리에서 그를 죽였다. 나는 그 녀를 사랑한다. 그녀나 그녀와 같은 사람들을 지지할 방법을 찾는 것이 여성으로써 우리의 의무이다. 나는 페도필을 죽이는데 아무런 거리낌이 없다." 그녀의 2000년에 나온 책, Scapegoat: The Jews, Israel and Women's Liberation(희생양:유대인, 이스라엘, 여성해방)은 여성들이 20세기에 유대인들이 행한 것과 똑같은 길을 따라야 한다고 제안했다. 그들은 학대 받았고 억눌러졌으며, 여성도 그러해야만 한다. 중동의 상황에 대한 그녀의 분석은 - 린다 그랜트에 따르면, "많은 시오니스트, 비-시오니스트, 팔레스틴인, 홀로코스트 전문가들, 평화주의자, 좌파, 여성, 남성들은 공격적이라고 볼 수 밖에 없는" 그러한 분석인데- 자신의 국가를 형성하라는 여성에 대한 호소로 끝맺고 있다.

In an interview with Grant, Dworkin described a Jewish childhood dominated by family memories of the Holocaust. At a time when the subject was simply not mentioned, Dworkin says she was obsessed: "I've been very involved in trying to learn about the Holocaust and trying to understand it, which is probably pointless," she said. "I have read Holocaust material, you might say compulsively, over a lifetime ... I have been doing that since I was a kid." Her mother was often ill, but her childhood in New Jersey was happy, until the age of nine, when she was sexually abused in a cinema.

From then on, it was a life full of horrors. After an anti-Vietnam protest when she was 18, she was sent to prison and was assaulted by two male prison doctors: "They pretty much tore me up inside with a steel speculum and had themselves a fine old time verbally tormenting me as well." She bled for 15 days and her family doctor told her he had "never seen a uterus so bruised or a vagina so ripped". She married a Dutch anarchist who beat her savagely; she managed to escape from him, she said, "not because I knew that he would kill me but because I thought I would kill him". She said that she never stopped being afraid of him.

Then, in 1999, Dworkin was drugged and raped in a hotel room in Paris. It was an attack that was to devastate her. In 2000 she wrote an account of the rape for the New Statesman, which ended: "I have been tortured and drug-rape runs through it ... I am ready to die." Her account was questioned by some commentators, who wondered why she hadn't told the police, how she could be so sure she was raped since she was drugged at the time (she cited vaginal pain, bleeding, and infection; bruising on her breast; "huge, deep gashes" on her leg). But the undercurrent, tapping into the myths that Dworkin herself had so carefully undermined in her work, was this: how could she be raped? She's old, she's fat, she's ugly. As if anyone still thought that rape was about sex and not about power.

This response, though, did not surprise Dworkin. "If the Holocaust can be denied even today," she said, "how can a woman who has been raped be believed?" But the impact of the rape and surrounding controversy was severe, and Dworkin withdrew from public life for several years. Her health was bad: she had a stomach-stapling operation because her obesity had reached a dangerous level, and had severe knee problems which made it difficult to walk. She became invisible in the US except among those for whom her name was what she called "a curse word", and her 2002 memoir, Heartbreak: The Political Memoir of a Militant Feminist, still does not have a publisher in the UK. But she was coming to terms with her disability; she was being taken seriously again by newspapers, at least in this country. In September, she told the Guardian: "I thought I was finished, but I feel a new vitality. I want to continue to help women." She also said: "At first [after the rape] I wanted very much to die. Now I only want to die a few times a day, which is damned good."

This black wit is remarked upon by everyone who met Dworkin. During the Clinton/ Lewinsky affair, when Dworkin was vocally opposed to Clinton, she said: "What needs to be asked is, was the cigar lit?" When I asked her if her abusive ex-husband had remarried, she said: "Oh yes, and very quickly. After all, the house was getting dirty." I remember being in a restaurant with her in London when she joked that she really ought to go on a diet, and did I know of any good ones?

People were startled by her gentleness and vulnerability; were surprised that her friendships included the British author Michael Moorcock and John Berger as well as feminists Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan. And although she once said she was a lesbian, she lived with the writer John Stoltenberg for three decades, saying: "It's a very deep relationship, a major part of my life which I never thought possible." As Julie Bindel, feminist and Dworkin's friend of 10 years, says: "She was the most maligned feminist on the planet; she never hated men."

Dworkin's feminism often came into conflict with the more compromising theories of others, such as Naomi Wolf. "I do think liberal feminists bear responsibility for a lot of what's gone wrong," she told me in 1997. "To me, what's so horrible is that they make alliances for the benefit of middle-class women. So it has to do with, say, having a woman in the supreme court. And that's fine - I'd love a woman, eight women, in the supreme court - but poor women always lose out." She did concede, however, that her radicalism was too much for some: "I'm not saying that everybody should be thinking about this in the same way. I have a really strong belief that any movement needs both radicals and liberals. You always need women who can walk into the room in the right way, talk in the right tone of voice, who have access to power. But you also need a bottom line."

It was this bottom line that Dworkin provided. She was a bedrock, the place to start from: even when you disagreed with her, her arguments were infuriating, fascinating, hard to forget. Feminism needs those who won't compromise, even in their appearance; perhaps I'm alone, but I find it pretty fabulous that, as a friend told me, Dworkin would "go to posh restaurants in Manhattan wearing those bloody dungarees". She refused to compromise throughout her life, and was fearless in the face of great provocation. In a world where teenage girls believe that breast implants will make them happy and where rape convictions are down to a record low of 5.6% of reported rapes; in a public culture which has been relentlessly pornographised, in an academic environment which has allowed postmodernism to remove all politics from feminism, we will miss Andrea Dworkin. She once said: "What will women do? Is there a plan? If not, why not?" And indeed, who is left to replace her?