Talk:Andrea Dworkin

This article is horrendous and needs a total overhaul
For the longest time I believed Dworkin was a crazy man-hating fully-anti-sex nuthead who even feminists hate, because that's what everyone told me. Then I read about her life and some of her writings and speeches. I wonder if any person who took part in creating this article spent more than five minutes at a time to sit down and read her texts with all cultural, historical, and personal (autobiographic) context considered. Dworkin was not anti-sex. Dworkin did not hate men intrinsically. Her writings are incredibly inspiring, and her style lucid. I'm saying this as a man. This article is ridiculous and I would say it does active intellectual harm to its readers and would personally delete it until a less intellectually dishonest version is ready. Contrast this to her Wikipedia article, which provides her quotes all in proper context and does not paint a blatantly wrong picture like this one does (although it probably won't help clear the mind of an already biased person). http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/LieDetect.html 91.39.178.2 (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking over your list of lies, it looks like we are clear on all those distinctions, and so the only problem here is tone. We don't for example, accuse of her promoting anti-pornography laws, and correctly attribute that to hijackers.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

However, given that the ACLU has defended the free speech rights of Communists, Nazis, and other bad people, RW readers can take Strossen with at least one grain of salt.
Why is this line here, exactly? Why would ideological consistency impact someone's credibility? Why are we implying it's 'bad' to defend the civil liberties of 'bad people'? That's.. kind of the point of groups like the ACLU. This is the most banal sort of jibe, on the level of ignorant populists who rally against defense attorneys for, you know, providing legal defenses and civil liberty protections for their clients. That's the point. It reads like an editor blinded painfully by an agenda.&mdash; Unsigned, by: ‎108.176.231.102 / talk / contribs
 * Thank you for pointing that out. It's been purged now, and all's well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

please give real citations for quotes
the dworkin quotes in this article are mostly either completely misinterpreted, or would be better understood with some context. i don't expect the editors to nail this context--andrea dworkin already explained this stuff herself. however, using "brainyquotes.com" (which doesn't appear to even tell you where it got the quote from) as a reference is pretty dishonest, particularly when her collected works are available for free online. why make it harder for curious readers to find out more about a quote you used? if you're that afraid of people disagreeing with you, this is an embarrassingly transparent way of showing it.
 * care to explain how they're misinterpreted or how the context is missing? 03:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "i don't expect the editors to nail this context--andrea dworkin already explained this stuff herself. however, using "brainyquotes.com" (which doesn't appear to even tell you where it got the quote from) as a reference is pretty dishonest, particularly when her collected works are available for free online. why make it harder for curious readers to find out more about a quote you used?" <-- my point is that referencing the actual source of the quote, especially when the source is available in its entirety online, is helpful because then readers can find out this context if they're interested. i think that's true no matter what the information is or who agrees with it. and if you'd like more information on the context of the quotes in this article, you can go to the andrea dworkin online library (i added citations to a couple of the quotes yesterday, which are in the references list, so you can also find some of the exact ones there) ---Mae (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I see what you did, but you can't write "Some argued" or "Some have said", etc. for your phrases because that's weasel wording. 20:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have given the "Misandry" section an overhaul / reordering (I tried several different ways), preserving the quotes & references Mae added, and taking care of the weasel words. I hope that the section flows a bit better now, though it's probably not perfect and needs more work. I agree that the context (Dworkin considering men/women as socialized categories, and opposing biological essentialism) is important in light of some of her more controversial-sounding quotes. It also makes a lot of sense in light of her transgender-inclusive stance.-- Yisfidri  ( talk ) 03:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed last paragraph
I took out the last paragraph. It was one of many non-malicious but poor quality changes by Squack, most of which had been removed already. (Their only editing or other activity has been this page.) Anyone who wants to make a case for reverting it, please make a case here. CogitoNotStirred (via telepathy) (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Article leads with a strawman, then contradicts itself
Article intro claims that she said literally "all sex is rape" (strawman) ... and then the body text goes on to say this is a misconception. It mirrors the same sensationalistic bullshit someone could get in a Daily Mail opinion writer's reading of her work, not good faith critique or rebuttal. What's "rational" about that? 2607:FEA8:7E0:F0:ED80:B107:48AB:CAE3 (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)