Wikipedia

Talk:Andrea Dworkin/Archive 8

< Talk:Andrea Dworkin
Latest comment: 1 year ago by PaulThePony in topic The labels of lesbian academic or feminist studies scholar
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Andrea Dworkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Legacy?

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I believe there is something vital missing in the section concerning her legacy. I have witnessed the rage of controversy in this talk session over the years and do not want wish to create any sparks but whether you are for or against her, it should be realized that Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon stand as a transition between second wave feminism and third wave feminism. As explained by Christina Hoff Summers during a presentation entitled CALM DOWN!! Restoring Common Sense to Feminism i.e. during the feminist sex wars the "McDworkonites" lost the battle against the camp of Betty Friedan who took the point of view that the focus for women should be on their economic status and not their obsession about pornography. The "McDworkonites" lost but retreated into academia. Later in 2011, Russlynn Ali, assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education, believing in the McDworkonite narrative, sent a letter to various American Universities and told them to make "appropriate changes" or they would witness their funding being slashed. This is why a number of USA universities support these "safe spaces" and 3rd wave feminism. It is Dworkin who fed the feminist notion of the patriarchy to 3rd wave feminists. I humbly submit this should be added to the legacy section, regardless of whether or not you think this legacy is good. The presentation by Hoff Summers can be used as a reference.TonyMath (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

If that reasonably summarizes the source, I don't object to your adding it. I'm not sure of it, so I'd want the quotation or paraphrase to hew closely to the source. I don't think that anti-porngraphy work was mainly a third-wave endeavor that was much smaller in the second wave, Friedan had nearly as much impact as men in general in preserving and enhancing the role of porn in society, there was any loose group known as "McDworkonites" although the two people famously worked together, or there was a "retreat" into academia since Dworkin never went into it except for some guest lectures or such, McKinnon was already in academia when she worked on a legislative remedy with Dworkin, and retreat into academia presumably from activism is biased toward activism as the more important when one could as easily argue the other way and thus speak of retreating into activism from academia and I don't know about that Federal connection. Third-wave faminists may well have taken their inspiration on the topic from Dworkin. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
ok, we can work with that. I can present this as being from the point of view "According to Christian Hoff Summers...". I will need to a get a reference to that letter by Russlynn Ali and the best reference possible to Christina Hoff Summers. That should do the trick for the addition. Thank you.TonyMath (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Summers' characterization of 3rd wave feminism is pretty skewed. 3rd wave feminism largely rejected Dworkin's blanket condemnation of pornography, but expanded on her criticism of gender roles and the objectification of women. See discussion in Third Wave Feminism: A Critical Exploration for example. Kaldari (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Summers has her own point of view. What you are stating is another opinion, which all well and fine. TonyMath (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

"Prostitute"

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's nice to know the men of Wikipedia are highly-invested in referring to Dworkin using a borderline slur term. There's nothing nonstandard about saying that a woman was "in prostitution" rather than "a prostitute", the only difference is that one implies a level of consent and agency that Dworkin didn't have. No wonder Wikipedia has a gender gap. I certainly won't bother to make an account or edit again. --69.172.185.78 (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Our editing guidelines say we should avoid euphemisms such as "passed away" instead of "died" or "made love" instead of "had sex". See WP:EUPHEMISM. I didn't revert (undo) your edit, but had nobody else done so, I would have for just that reason. To say that a woman was "in prostitution" is vague and meaningless: Was she a prostitute, a madame, a pimp? All of them are "in prostitution", as is the vice cop who busts them. Only one "was a prostitute", however; the other three profited from the prostitute's work. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Andrea Dworkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Andrea Dworkin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

subsubsection called Contains

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm confused about the subsubsection titled "Contains". What does that title mean? That her work is contained in someone else's work? Some entries don't seem to fit that meaning. That her work contains someone else's work? Does that mean that she was the editor but not entirely the author? I don't remember when this title appeared, but it seems to need retitling and maybe the subsubsection needs the moving of some list items to elsewhere in the section. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Without reviewing the edit history, it looks to me like the list may have once said that the last entry in the preceding section, The Reasons Why, a 1985 book (edited?) by Dworkin and MacKinnon, contains the next two entries, "Pornography, Civil Rights, and Speech" by MacKinnon and "Against the Male Flood" by Dworkin, both of which were journal articles. (I don't won a copy of The Reasons Why and I can't confirm that.) The rest of the list, starting with Intercourse, are books written or co-written by Dworkin. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
That turns out to be exactly the case. I'll fix it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Your edit looks good; and it looks simple. I hadn't thought of trying that, although I still might have hesitated if I had. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawal of question.--PaulThePony (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Placement of citation links

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the section Later life, in paragraphs 3 (Dworkin was "demonized not only...) and 5 (In June 2000, Dworkin published...) we can note the placement of citations within the sentence. It is especially evident in paragraph 5. Is this proper? Or ought they all be placed at the end of a sentence regardless of whether one or more pertain only to an earlier portion of a long sentence? --PaulThePony (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Questionable description of image

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The image next to the "Illness and Death" subsection bears this caption:

Although Dworkin suggested multiple possible causes for her osteoarthritis, the actual etiology should be a mystery to no one.

How are these words - "the actual etiology should be a mystery to no one" - appropriate in an encyclopedia article? In fact, why is this picture, which is already found at the top of the article, being repeated here next to "Illness and Death", if not to make this snide and inappropriate point about Dworkin's body? I recommend both the caption and picture be removed.

Good catch! Agreed and I see it was done already. In the future, you can directly correct it yourself! WP:BE BOLD ~ Shushugah (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The (repeated) image and the same words have reappeared. I think this a part of an edit by Anaplussy but I often get confused in comparing edits. But I agree with the (unsigned?) comment above that the re-use of the image and the wording of the cutline is snide and inappropriate, and unencyclopedic. I have deleted both but invite review. Kcor53 (talk) 15:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Atheist

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have noticed many Atheists are ignored and their atheism isn’t included at all Nlivataye (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

How should it be included? I have yet to see any article on Dworkin that discusses her being an atheist or an advocate of atheism, but plenty that discuss her secular Jewish identity. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The labels of lesbian academic or feminist studies scholar

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd like offer my rationale for my note describing the removal of the categories "feminist studies scholars" and "lesbian academics." Dworkin's relationship to the academy is not affirmative. She was critical of it as a site of anti-activism, valuing abstraction over material reality, supportive of pornographic speech and bourgeois feminism. See, for example, page 22 in Letters from a War Zone ("Pornography and Grief"): "The Right wants secret access; the Left wants public access. But whether we see the pornography or not, the values expressed in it are the values expressed in the acts of rape and wife-beating, in the legal system, in religion, in art and in literature, in systematic economic discrimination against women, in the moribund academies, and by the good and wise and kind and enlightened in all of these fields and areas." Also, page 321 ("Letters from a War Zone" essay): "Most of the women who say they are feminists but work to protect pornography are lawyers or academics: lawyers like the ones who walked away from Snuff; academics who think prostitution is romantic, an unrepressed female sexuality. But whoever they are, whatever they think they are doing, the outstanding fact about them is that they are ignoring the women who have been hurt in order to help the pimps who do the hurting. They are collaborators, not feminists."

A separate point is distinguishing those who are studied, who are the subjects of scholarship, as she is, and being the student or scholar in academia. We was a scholar: she was more well-read than most; hundreds and hundreds of volumes revealed in her books' bibliographies; she extensively researched the history of the topics she wrote about. How, then, do 'categories' identify scholars unaffiliated with the academy? I haven't explored that.--PaulThePony (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrea_Dworkin/Archive_8&oldid=1215711650"