Talk:Andrea Dworkin/Archive 2

obits are in
The Guardian article points to us, the Dworkin page points to it. The obits are in. Let us now focus on the historically relevant material, including her ideas, if they can be expressed briefly. Amorrow 05:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I added the title and thus brought this topic (section) below the table of contents, from above it, and did so as part of adding other topics (sections) to this archive, thus the late dating of this comment. Nick Levinson (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A note on grammar
I have no problem with making it clear that public doubts were raised about Dworkin's allegations that she was drugged and raped in Paris. However, the effort to acknowledge these doubts should not come at the expense of basic grammatical sense. Dworkin did not claim that her crippling osteoarthritis was caused (or exacerbated) by wounds from an alleged rape; rather she alleged that it was caused (or exacerbated) by wounds from an actual rape. Of course Bennett et al. have stated doubts about whether there was an actual rape; but qualifying the states by Dworkin with their doubts leads to a comical distortion of what she said.

Radgeek 04:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

A note on grammar and NPOV
This article could do with some editing help. Some of the rewriting is pretty simple-- the sentence,"That she endured molestation, rape, battery, poverty, prostitution, and on-going contempt from critics is not in question" simply needs to be rewritten so it doesn't imply that critics caused the battery, poverty, etc. A bigger problem is the POV language throughout the article. The section that reads, "She was one of the most articulate and passionate spokespersons for justice for women. Among the areas of her insightful interrogation of men's inhumanity was a thorough re-examination of pornography, exposing it as an industry of damaging objectification and abuse, not merely a fantasy realm of men's minds" exudes POV. And one doesn't need to describe Dworkin's work as "important" to note that some "mischaracterizations of her ideas are commonly attributed to her as a way to discredit her important work." Just as blatant is the section that claims she was criticized "because she was such a powerful speaker, bringing much needed attention to matters of sexual violence against women." The article appropriately notes that she was incorrectly accused of man-hating, but its rebuttal reads like a hagiography: "She was, rather, a lover of justice for women. The man-hating charge was especially silly, given that she was very close to her father, brother, and, of course, her activist-writer partner of thirty years, her husband John Stoltenberg." The former sentence is cloying and the latter is a non sequitur. (Isn't it generally considered absolute proof that a person is a bigot when he tries to claim "Why, some of my best friends are X"?) And of course the summation of that section, "She was, above all else, a humanitarian, caring deeply and compassionately about women's humanity," sounds like a peroration from her eulogy rather than a statement in an NPOV article. I note that virtually all of these comments were made by a single user three days ago. A reversion might be too radical a step, but this article needs to be fixed by someone who can be neutral about Dworkin but who is familiar enough with her work to write intelligently about her (which is why I won't do it myself-- I am not a Dworkin scholar). -DCB4W


 * I agree with the above. I'm going to try to make a pass through this (when I get a second) and remove some POV and non-wiki stuff. If anyone has any questions or caveats, please feel free to make them. IronDuke 03:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Went through and culled some pretty overtly POV stuff, beefed up the critics section, added some sources. IronDuke 00:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just added the following in, it is very important period in the central work of Dworkin's life (anti-pornography) and in recent American history, and it has to be included. I have meticulously researched and sourced it, it is short, dry, factual, not POV, and I kindly don't want it taken out because someone who may find it politically inopportune wants it withdrawn:

In 1986, her anti-pornography testimony before the Meese Commission was praised and reprinted in its final report, and Dworkin and MacKinnon marked its release by holding a joint press conference.   Meese Commission officials successfully demanded that convenience store chains remove from shelves popular men's magazines such as Playboy (Dworkin wrote that the magazine "in both text and pictures promotes both rape and child sexual abuse")   and Penthouse.  The ban spread nationally and intimidated some into also withdrawing photography magazines and the like, until being quashed with a First Amendment admonishment against prior restraint by the D.C. Federal Court in Meese v. Playboy (639 F.Supp. 581). Thanks, Mare Nostrum


 * Mare Nostrum, very nice edit, if I may say so. Two things: 1) I'd love to just tweak what you put in for clarity (not content). 2) I'm thinking that there should be a separate section on Dworkin in the legal system. Basically, we'd just be moving stuff that's already there into its own section. Thoughts? IronDuke 16:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No disagreement, IronDuke, however you like it. I just want it in there as it is an important set of developments and people had to go to Federal Court to have the right to have magazines sold in 7-11s, and this is something that many people don't realize. Mare Nostrum