Lol

a) Women in the First World can benefit from imperialism at the same time that they can be subjected to oppression. The radical feminist movement in the metropoles had a lot of limitations that i think can largely be attributed to its relatively privileged position in the imperialist system. But this doesn't mean that these accounts are false. What you seem to be saying is that, if it was true that some women in the First World were subjected to horrific abuses, that they would be a revolutionary force. Then, since women in the First World haven't been a revolutionary force for a long time (if ever), your conclusion is that the accounts must be false. This sort of logic is not only misogynistic but it is a product of the bogus ideological notion that an experience of oppression automatically leads to a revolutionary consciousness, which the course of history i think clearly illustrates is wrong. In truth, a group can experience oppression in a real way at the same time that there are other factors which produce reaction within that group. Your un-nuanced clap-trap has nothing to do with a genuine Third Worldism so don't pretend like your bullshit follows from a legitimate critique of chauvinism.

b) First Worlders not caring about porn (which i think is largely true; there's a tremendous amount of apology for porn and any critique of it is castigated in whitestream "feminism") doesn't demonstrate that porn isn't completely fucked up and harmful

c) It's really not very difficult to believe the accounts in Dworkin's book if you have actually, like, seen porn. If you haven't, i can't blame you, i wouldn't recommend it to anyone. But like, this kind of thing is all over the place.