Talk:Andrea Dworkin/Archive 1

summary judgment by Supreme Court
I took out this line:

'''Actually, the supreme court summarily affirmed the circuit court's decision, meaning that any law similar to the one in indy is unconstitutional. see edward de grazia's book girls lean back everywhere for more information.'''

because it was unencyclopedic in style and contradicts what's already there. But I want to know if the factual data is true or not so the article can be accurate. I know nothing about this. Could someone please take a look?

moink 02:25, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, instead of just whining here I fixed it. So nevermind.  moink 03:43, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The section regarding Dworkin's involvement with LEAF and seizures of material at the Canadian border is full of outright lies


 * I added a title to this topic (section) to bring it below the table of contents, where it should be, and added this comment as part of working on the archives, thus the late date of this (my) comment. Nick Levinson (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV problem due to high-intensity hostility toward Dworkin
With some trepidation I have tried to fix NPOV problems in two paragraphs under "Ideas and Controversy" as best I could, eventually combining them into one paragraph. But local first aid was all I could bring.

An enormous amount of the controversy around Dworkin stems from what she supposedly said, allegedly thought, or is reputed to have written. Her actual viewpoints are available (if one wishes to read her books, for example), but her critics very often have treated her as though they knew better what she stood for than she herself did. This presents a baffling problem for any serious attempt at NPOV. Her views were certainly challenging, but bore no necessary resemblance to the rather cartoonish views often ascribed to her by her opponents (examples: hating all men, hating sex, favoring censorship, being "in bed with" the Right, equating heterosexual sex with rape and marriage with prostitution, etc.).

I think that the article must acknowledge the hostile personal and political reactions which she experienced. They were a constant accompaniment to her activism and writing, some of them clearly persist now beyond her lifetime, and their prevalence accords with her political analysis. But given their extent and virulence, our usual "some say ... while others say" approach can become rather surreal. We could list a dozen scandalous views that were "alleged" to be hers without ever getting around to the things which she really did think, write, say and do. Presumably some readers will have some interest beyond her "reputation" among her opponents (surprise: they didn't like her!) and what she was "alleged" by them to have believed.

Mainly I would like to ask future editors of this article to use real, preferably primary sources as much as possible, to strive for NPOV, and not to rely on the consensus of wisdom gleaned from talk radio as a guide to what Dworkin was about.

DSatz 20:03, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can divide it into 2 sections? Like a "what Dworkin unquestionably believed" (with refs to her own books) section and a "opinions attributed to Dworkin but disputed whether she believed them or not" section.  I'd do this, but I don't know which are which, as I've read very little of her work and most of what I know is from others referring to her supposed beliefs.  moink 20:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Moink, many thanks--this is where my inexperience shows. I was thinking along similar lines, but I've never seen anything like that done before on Wikipedia. Do you know of any pages that could serve as examples?


 * Also, some material that I overwrote did contain some real elements of truth which I hope can find a place. The version of April 23, 2005 said this: "She was widely accused of inciting violence, which stemmed from her stated beliefs that retributive killings of both rapists and pedophiles were both socially acceptable and morally owed to the victims of such crimes." I strongly doubt that the "widely accused of inciting violence" part is well-founded, but there is some shade of truth to the second part of that sentence, and it seems important. DSatz 16:17, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, some of her views may be distorted by others for political reasons, but it is true that she favored censorship of sorts, even if she didn't call it by that name, since she favored laws letting women bring civil actions against pornographers for the content of their materials. And this arguably put her "in bed with" the religious right on that issue, even if that was far from her intention. *Dan* 21:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Dan, thank you, and yes--usually one can find something that looks like an area of agreement between any two points of view. But please note how easy it is to come up with extreme and meaningless examples of that. It can take a real effort at detachment to decide what is a fair analogy between X's viewpoint and someone else's, and such analogies are never a good substitute for describing a person's standpoint accurately on its own. My whole point is, since that is evidently more difficult than usual when the subject is Andrea Dworkin, let's try to think things through carefully.


 * To take your particular point, the Religious right--Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, Schlafly, etc.--generally supports the strengthening and enforcement of obscenity laws (criminal prosecution of authors, performers, publishers and booksellers, etc. who violate "community standards"), which Dworkin vehemently opposed. In practice, no religious right leaders or organizations ever supported the "anti-pornography civil rights ordinance" which she co-wrote and proposed, and though he is far more political than religious, I have always assumed that Rush Limbaugh invented the term "feminazi" primarily in reference to Dworkin (though I'd appreciate if any of his listeners would correct me if I'm wrong about that). Anyway she certainly never supported any of the right's agenda; their patriarchal model of social control was the opposite of everything that she ever stood for. See her 1983 book "Right-Wing Women," for example--it's somewhat like the recent book "What's the Matter with Kansas," in that it is about asking why and how so many women disidentified with feminism so strongly. DSatz 19:34, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I happen to think that censorship is wrong no matter what agenda it's being done in service of, whether right-wing "decency" or left-wing "equality", so I have to vehemently oppose some of Dworkin / McKinnon's actions. *Dan* 21:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I also tend to strongly disagree with her, as I find radical feminism often quite ridiculous and harmful to feminism. However, you and I disagreeing with her does not discharge us of our responsibility to represent her views fairly.  With Dworkin, I think the views about her work, whether accurate or not (and Wikipedia shouldn't really say) are an important part of any discussion of her.  But it should be made clear what are the things everybody agrees she believed and those things which are disputed.  moink 19:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Moink, I'm thinking about your remark "(and Wikipedia shouldn't really say)" which is definitely one of the ropes that I'm trying to learn here. When I look at other pages that deal with patently false or oversimplified history (e.g. "Gone With the Wind") I see that Wikipedia defers to "critics" or other expert opinion, and bends over backward to leave room for differing interpretations. And you've put your finger on the part of this process that I find so very strange--no sooner is this complicated and difficult woman in the ground, than the debate becomes a debate about itself ("it should be made clear what are the things everybody agrees she believed and those things which are disputed").


 * I believe that primarily she was whoever she was, even if many people see her differently. Many people's lives embody complexities which can amount to contradictions if you choose to look at them that way. For example Dworkin was Lesbian, but lived with, and apparently eventually married, a (gay) man named John Stoltenberg who had been her companion for decades. But my question is how to frame such information and how much column space it earns just by having been talked about. In politics such talk is a commodity item. You might scarcely believe how much her private life was talked about (e.g. in the late 1980s) as if it somehow compromised her opposition to pornography, prostitution and violence against women and her analysis of how these things worked in the real world. Not only is that irrelevant and petty, but it is also nonsensical: she was dumped on both for being Lesbian and simultaneously for not fulfilling some people's notions of how a Lesbian ought to live.


 * I heard her speak a number of times and have a "POV" which I don't wish to conceal, which is that she was damn serious and for real, and also that she was adequately clear about who she was and what she was about. We can't just assert things here Because We Say So, but in my opinion neither should this article convey the message that "whatever anyone thought she was is who she was." I hope that in time, the core of this article can be strengthened through references to primary material. Then our attempts to characterize what we think everyone else's reactions were to whatever they may have heard about Ms. Dworkin's alleged statements, actions, alliances and private life, etc. could be less overall of what we present as our definition of her. DSatz 16:17, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Death confirmation
What's the source on Dworkin's date of death? I haven't been able to find this on news sites. Lemuria 05:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I also am having trouble finding any evidence that she died. moink 10:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've now reverted the page to an earlier version, just until we get some evidence from a primary source that she is in fact deceased, according to the guidelines in No original research. moink 12:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We're back to the version where she's dead. I still don't see this fact on the news, is there now evidence? Lemuria 17:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Source: http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050404/007286.html -- Viajero 17:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Third hand sources - Doug Henwood heard on infoshop from someone forwarding a mail from no one knows who with a numbered e-mail address from comcast - and it's been a day and a half since the reported time of death and no media outlet at all has covered it, nor is there an announcement on Dworkin's website. I don't think she's dead.  --Diderot 18:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The quoted source reads like a variation on the popular internet troll, Slashdot_trolling_phenomena. adamsan 20:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A newer wikipedian forwarded me the following e-mail (unedited except for removed e-mail addresses) in regards to this issue:


 * Hi,
 * I'm not sure if she is dead or not, but here are two posts from a women's studies list I am on, and maybe you could ask the woman who posted? I've never used wikipedia before, so I'm just figuring out how it works.
 * first post:
 * Date: 2005/04/10 Sun AM 01:21:00 GMT
 * To: (a listserv at umd)
 * Subject: Terrible news
 * I am devestated to have to tell everyone that Andrea Dworkin died this morning. Her work changed so many women's lives and her courage to speak against patriarchy defined the radical feminist movement. What an awful loss.
 * Gail Dines
 * Gail Dines Ph.D.
 * Professor of Sociology and Women's Studies
 * Chair of American Studies Department
 * Wheelock College
 * 35 Pilgrim Road
 * Boston MA 02215
 * Tel: 617-879-2336
 * second post:
 * Date: 2005/04/10 Sun PM 02:37:02 GMT
 * To: (a listserv at umd)
 * Subject: Some more details about Andrea's death
 * Dear list members,
 * I have received many emails from list members expressing their profound sadness about Andrea&#8217;s death. They have also requested information so here is what I have. Andrea had not been in good health for a long time but there was no immediate crisis from what I can gather. I spoke to her last month about arranging for her to come to a conference and health was not preventing her from travelling. However, due to a number of disabilities, travelling did present challenges. It seems that she did not feel too well on Friday night but did not go to the hospital. On Saturday morning, John Stoltenberg found her but it was too late for medical attention. Many have asked me if there is anything they can do or a place to post thoughts about Andrea&#8217;s life. At the moment, her close friends are too stunned to think about a memorial service but there is talk of organizing one in the future. The people who knew her best recommend giving money in her name to the rape crisis center or battered women&#8217;s shelter of you choice. There are also plans to set up a web site for us to post messages about her. I will keep you informed. I knew Andrea personally for fifteen years but I really knew her my entire adult life as her work framed my politics. I spoke to many women yesterday and we have no words to express how we feel. There is a real desire to come together to mourn her collectively so my sense is that there will be an event in the near future. As soon as I know anything more, I will post it to the list.
 * Gail
 * Gail Dines Ph.D.
 * Professor of Sociology and Women's Studies
 * Chair of American Studies Department
 * Wheelock College
 * 35 Pilgrim Road
 * Boston MA 02215
 * Tel: 617-879-2336
 * Wheelock College
 * 35 Pilgrim Road
 * Boston MA 02215
 * Tel: 617-879-2336

I called the number and Ms. Dines does appear to exist and hold the abovementioned title. There's also a number for "reporters" to reach her, I decided I was one so I called but got no answer. I didn't leave a message because I'm chicken. That number is 617-327-1093. I think this is verifiable enough now to post her death. moink 22:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have it from sources within NYC NOW that Andrea, indeed, passed away yesterday morning. Unfathomable that Wikipedia is the first online source I could find for any discussion of her death. Rest in peace....


 * Any legitimate source on her death yet? 165.228.129.11 06:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We had legitimate sources yesterday, but the mainstream media has finally caught up. Shmuel 17:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And here. . DJ Clayworth 17:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Ironical of course that the first "official" confirmation comes from the European press. -- Viajero 17:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Guardian has verified it.

Rest in peace.

It is indeed strange -- still no notice in NYT, Reuters, or CNN. I was certain that it was a hoax when I saw it appear in Wikipedia this weekend, but the Guardian article is confirmation enough for me. --Maxn 21:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's finally hit the AP wire. Shmuel 23:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good riddance to bad rubbish.
 * You may have disliked her, and not been alone in that, but when people are dead, they're dead, and we can start to consider them in their historical context. Put down the chip on your shoulder. -- The Anome 09:17, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I removed her yesterday, seeing as there were still no legitimate sources, but now that there are, thank you to whomever added her name in the Recent Deaths section.

This page has been "Guardianed" - http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/internet/2005/04/12/wikipedia_first_with_the_news.html

Andrea Dworkin: dead or alive?
A newly registered contributor has edited Andrea Dworkin and April 9 to indicate that Dworkin died on that date of this year. Someone mentioned on the talk page that there don't seem to be any news articles etc to back this up. Does anyone have any information on this? Thanks. moink 10:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't seem to find anything, either. My suggestion would be to leave the death-date off until you have something to pin it to; better out of date for a couple of days than wildly inaccurate. Shimgray 11:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * User:Viajero added it back in, after a revert; I've left a note on his talk page asking for a source. Meelar (talk) 17:36, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that if she'd died it would be in the newspapers, I think this is misinformation. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:01, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not breaking news at The Guardian newspaper web-site and I cannot imagine anywhere more likely to feature this story were it true. --Theo (Talk) 22:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * She's definitely dead now. Dunc|&#9786; 19:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Getting confirmation
I've been trying to find out by tracking sources. It's on the blogs now, but in each case the blog references e-mails rather than either first-person accounts or traditional media. Either she's dead and her agent both hasn't sent out a press release and hasn't been called by anyone in the traditional media, so only a few e-mail accounts have gotten out, or she's not dead and word is not travelling faster than the rumour. I'm not sure at this point which is more plausible. I'd heard that she was ill, but Dworkin's not the kind of person to get all mediatised about it.

There's an interesting story here, but either its about how rumours can propagate on the web, or it's about some very strange media behaviour. I just can't tell which.

She's represented by the Elaine Markson Literary Agency at +1 212 243-8480. In four or five hours, somebody should call and get a confirmation if possible. It's what the mainstream press is supposed to do in this situation, we ought to do the same. --Diderot 07:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)