My favorite thing I’ve read about Dworkin today is this Guardian article by Katharine Viner. Here’s a sample:
Dworkin’s feminism often came into conflict with the more compromising theories of others, such as Naomi Wolf. “I do think liberal feminists bear responsibility for a lot of what’s gone wrong,” she told me in 1997. “To me, what’s so horrible is that they make alliances for the benefit of middle-class women. So it has to do with, say, having a woman in the supreme court. And that’s fine – I’d love a woman, eight women, in the supreme court – but poor women always lose out.” She did concede, however, that her radicalism was too much for some: “I’m not saying that everybody should be thinking about this in the same way. I have a really strong belief that any movement needs both radicals and liberals. You always need women who can walk into the room in the right way, talk in the right tone of voice, who have access to power. But you also need a bottom line.”
It was this bottom line that Dworkin provided. She was a bedrock, the place to start from: even when you disagreed with her, her arguments were infuriating, fascinating, hard to forget. Feminism needs those who won’t compromise, even in their appearance; perhaps I’m alone, but I find it pretty fabulous that, as a friend told me, Dworkin would “go to posh restaurants in Manhattan wearing those bloody dungarees”. She refused to compromise throughout her life, and was fearless in the face of great provocation.
Update: Heart posted a link in comments to the Andrea Dworkin Memorial site.
Update 2: Moderation Announcement from Amp, to everybody here:
I think, for a brief time after Andrea Dworkin’s death, I’d like a break from the usual debates about her. It’s appropriate to speak kindly of those who have recently died – especially when those people are feminists, and the place is a feminist blog.
Can the Dworkin-critics among us (me included) please save your criticisms of Andrea Dworkin for later or for elsewhere?