Talk:Andrea Dworkin

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

• There are uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs.
• There are some unreliable sources like DailyKos and IMDB used in the article.

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I've just done an edit that I hope to responds to your concerns. Whether or not these statements should be deleted outright because of their respective sources, I'll leave up to you and other people, only that I think we should leave it for a period of time to see if anyone can find a more credible source. StrongALPHA (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@StrongALPHA: I am sorry that I did not see this message sooner. I added some citation needed tags to the article. Would you or anyone else be willing to add sources to this information? Z1720 (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I actually don't think there's anything wrong with the imdb link considering what it's supposed to reference, couldn't find a source that wasn't DailyKos, do you want me to get rid off that sentence altogether? StrongALPHA (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Andrea Dworkin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Citation needed tags x5 and better source needed tags x2. Can it be saved? Yes, but it needs attention to remain a GA. I might try and put some work into it if I have time (which I have very little of). ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 23:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Article currently fails WP:LEAD, as huge portions of the article aren't summarized. I added a sixth citation needed tag as well. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Delist No edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing some critiques

There is a lot of serious critiques missing. There is a lot to critique, as a lot of what she said was very incorrect. She had gathered a lot of people who spoke against her, for many reasons.

This is one of the most notables, where they said: "Radical feminist author Andrea Dworkin was a caricature of misandrist extremism in the popular imagination and a polarizing figure within the women's movement, infamous for her antipornography stance and her role in the feminist sex wars of the 1980s."

https://mitpress.mit.edu/9781635900835/last-days-at-hot-slit/#:~:text=Radical%20feminist%20author%20Andrea%20Dworkin%20was%20a%20caricature%20of%20misandrist,sex%20wars%20of%20the%201980s.

As far as her "abuse" narrative, many people who read her books see she used victimhood to abuse others.

"In part, she was that. There is much to reclaim and praise in her legacy—and there are others besides Parmar who have been doing that. But boy, she is SO complicated and messy, as most humans are. She was not just an unfairly maligned hero (though she was often unfairly maligned). She was both hurt and hurtful, a perceptive, even presient but often self-absorbed crusader who often did not *see* the people around her. Even her physical presence projected both a clear rejection of sexist aesthetic standards, and a kind of belligerently expressed self-hatred. And the film just can not (will not?) do justice to any of that……"

Just one source: https://lisaduggan.substack.com/p/andrea-dworkin-redux

There are a large amount of data that suggests that she was both a victim and an abuser. ~2025-41915-93 (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)