This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
I have noticed many Atheists are ignored and their atheism isn’t included at all Nlivataye (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
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)