2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $10064.65Goal: $10000

Talk:Andrea Dworkin

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon gender.svg

This Gender related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

please give real citations for quotes[edit]

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. — Unsigned, by: Mae / talk / contribs

care to explain how they're misinterpreted or how the context is missing? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 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. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 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[edit]

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[edit]


Issues with the article.[edit]

The article states that it's "unclear" if Dworkin ever had lesbian sexual relationships or if she was a political lesbian. She states on page 108 of Heartbreak that she did, as well as other times in this book. I would assume there's a lot of other incorrect information here.Nature's Mockery (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

It didn't used to be so unusual for gay men and lesbian women to legally marry each other, or at least, it occasionally happened especially before equal marriage rights were obtained for gay people in many places. I couldn't tell you the full list of reasons why, but it was more common decades ago and called a lavender marriage. My understanding was her latest husband was a gay man, so maybe she was just entering into lavender marriages for one reason or another. I think that back then there seems to have perhaps been less visibility for bisexuality as a distinct sexual orientation as well, and women who were bisexual may have called themselves "lesbian" without further elaboration, I'm not certain of this however. Of course I haven't read this book you mention, which may have plenty of answers in her case. Chillpilled (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Parents[edit]

I met Andrea's parents at a family wedding in the early 1980s - my ex-husband's father being a cousin of Andrea's father - and I asked them what they thought of Andrea and they said they were proud of her. Pinkerite (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad you were able to meet them. I wish I was able to meet her in person. Ironically, this inaccurate article is what prompted me to look into her ideology, and I recently finished Heartbreak (which contradicts a lot of what this article says) and identify with her greatly. Nature's Mockery (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

See also Camille Paglia[edit]

WHY? Because Paglia hated Dworkin and said this typical stupid, bitchy thing about Dworkin: " "Dworkin pretends to be a daring truth-teller," wrote feminist and cultural theorist Camille Paglia, "but never mentions her most obvious problem, food." (It was reported that Dworkin died April 18 at age 58 from health conditions related to long-term obesity.)"?

Camille Paglia is a right-wing, babbling, Rush Limbaugh-loving crackpot. Pinkerite (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, because true feminism is calling people one disagrees with fat and ugly and spewing far-right propaganda about her. Camille has no right to call herself a feminist. Nature's Mockery (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. It's insane to call a disgusting misogynist a "feminist." Pinkerite (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't even think she had a problem with food. Facial hair growth and obesity are symptoms of PCOS. Camille is literally attacking her for having a medical condition. Camille also wrote a manifesto defending pedophila, so its no surprise she hated Dworkin so much.Nature's Mockery (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes indeed she did - a full-throated paen to male pedophilia. Pinkerite (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)