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.
Rad Geek has done a good job collecting links to posts about Dworkin – here and here.
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?
May she rest in peace. I think that it’s always an important reminder to all of us to cherish every day of our lives when someone dies at fifty-nine. It’s always tempting to think, “oh, I’ll probably live to about seventy-six or so. I’ll die eventually, but not tomorrow or anything.” We never know.
So it is true. I read the notice in the Guardian yesterday afternoon but couldn’t find any other news about it, so I wondered if maybe the news was wrong.
Thanks for citing the article.I agree it is a good one. I may not agree with everything Dworkin said or wrote but she provided an important perspective and she asked a lot of questions that needed to be asked.
(just now ‘delurking’ to respond to your post. I have been reading for awhile. Thanks for such a thoughtful blog.)
“I have a really strong belief that any movement needs both radicals and liberals.”
Well… that was about the breadth of it.
Thank god for people who push our buttons and our boundaries. I hope she rests in peace.
I treasure her writing and analysis, which challenged and inspired me.
I’ve not read much of her stuff, but definitely agree with her point that any movement needs both radicals and those who are more moderate–even though those moderates often make me want to tear my hair out.
Regarding Dworkin, I’m sad to see she’s passed away.
The radical feminist community can be found here:
http://www.andreadworkin.net/memorial/
posting favorite quotes, memories of, and tributes to, Andrea Dworkin.
Heart
http://www.gentlespirit.com/margins
A real shock when I saw the announcement last night on the Guardian website – and a bit of a wake up call that there is not always a tomorrow to do something (so I will stop lurking on your brilliant site and contribute when I can).
The Guardian article today – and the obituary by Julie Bindel – was excellent and gives us another chance to dispel some of the myths about Andrea Dworkin’s work.
Perhaps it’s too soon to ask this question, but what exactly did Dworkin accomplish, aside from (indirectly) getting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include pornography?
Seems to me as though much of her writing was just sound and fury. Like Ann Coulter and Mike Savage, she livened things up every once in a while, but in the end, all of the debates she stirred up signified nothing.
Yeah, I think it kind of is, especially for someone who seems to be more of an anti-feminist than a feminist.
Look at it this way: I don’t have a high opinion of the Pope, but I haven’t been going to Catholic sites to ask what he ever accomplished, because it’s obvious to me that would be a shit thing to do.
The dictionary defines “feminism” as “of or relating to or advocating equal rights for women.” I don’t see where I’ve implied that women are not worthy of equal rights.
As for the Pope, Christopher Hitchens makes an excellent case that the Pope’s legacy warrants more critical review, even if I don’t agree with all of his conclusions:link
Daffy, can you lay off? Look, most of the people here don’t agree with everthing Dworkin said–hell, I don’t think it’s even possible–but we liked her and are sad. This isn’t necessary.
Here’s part of a comment I found at Majikthise that addresses Daff’s question:
Of course, there’s plenty one can learn about the good side of her legacy just from reading newspaper obits, or Susie Bright’s commentary, if one is interested in an answer.
If this were a Pope thread I’d comment on Hitchens too.
What Amanda said.
What Ripley quoted. People are gonna say the same thing about all of the feminists who did nothing but bitch, bitch, bitch when they pass on, never mind that they’re the reason we have things like domestic abuse shelters and rape crisis lines.
Amp asked if you thought it would appropriate to go to a Catholic blog and start talking smack about the late pontiff.
There’s plenty of criticism of Dworkin and John Paul II in the world at large. This is different, particularly since your comment was rhetorical. It’s obvious that you don’t think that Dworkin’s books or lectures or open speech about being a rape survivor, a domestic violence survivor, or a sex worker–back when “marital rape” was a legal oxymoron in all fifty states–accomplished anything. You’ve already said that you think complaining never accomplishes anything, and that calling attention to abuses only alienates those complicit in the abuse. By your own lights, then, Dworkin lived a useless–no, a counterproductive–life.
Now go back to the IWF forums from whence you came.
Well, I felt sorry for her because she was obviously disturbed, but no, I never liked her, never respectd her work, nor thought she did any good.
Well, I felt sorry for her because she was obviously disturbed, but no, I never liked her, never respectd her work, nor thought she did any good.
Thanks for sharing and for giving me yet another reason to continue being a feminist.
Maybe its because I went to the college that long provided Mary Daly with a salary, but Dworkin never even struck me as exceptionally radical. For those who wish to quantify her life (and all who do seem to be doing so in an effort to marginalize her), the thing to remember is that Dworkin was more than an activist. I’d credit her first and foremost as a political philosopher. She might have agreed with me, but I suspect that is where he impact will be seen most.
And indeed, every movement does need people willing to stand up for the bottom line. Sure, compramises will need to be made along the way, but a lot of activism movements obsess over the compramise and in doing so lose the mission. Dworkin was never going to lose the mission. She was always going to be quick to rally to its defense, even when others on her side were willing to look the other way. Even if I was among those willing to look the other way, I’d have hardly blamed her. I’d have deeply admired her and celebrated her committment. Too often, it seems, the later day civil rights causes set out compramise as their mission. They fail to see that all they are doing is moving the bounds of the arguement to the side of the opposition. By lowering their goals from the start, they don’t make it easier to achieve what they are trying to do. They just move the bottom line that much closer to the opposition. Suddenly, advocating for entirely mainstream beliefs become radical as the need arises to move even further towards the opposition to forge a new compramise. There needs to be a solid base of beliefs and they do need to be reasonably radical. It allows the more “mainstream” beliefs more ground to work with and to make gains. No one ever things change will happen overnight, but if you don’t remain focused on what you are really fighting for, then what you are fighting for will be forgotten. Thank goodness for people like Andrea Dworkin. We would all benefit from more activists like her.
FWIW, I really liked Susie Bright’s obit/eulogy
!!!
Wow. I thought Bright’s commentary on Dworkin has been positively brutal.
Fair enough. I was only going by the tone I had seen on the other feminist blogs. Seemed to me as though people were ready to discuss her in depth.
I’m sorry that she had such a hard life, but when one enters the public forum with ideas on how society works, and how it should work, then those views are open for debate. Being abused is awful, but it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t critique her opinions. As for her legacy, I think she had an emotional impact on many, but it’s debatable how much her writings accomplished.
Yes, it is debatable. But it’s tacky and inconsiderate of you to insist on debating it right now, on this thread. I’ve already posted once making that perfectly clear; I’m amazed that you continued posting here after my previous post. No one with the slightest bit of regard for this forum, or for me, would have.
Since hoping you’ll act with respect for people you don’t agree with obviously won’t work, let me put this in terms you might understand: Post on this thread at all anymore, even once, for any reason, and you’ll be banned from this website.
If you want to discuss this further without being banned, get in touch with me by email.
And if you want to discuss the definition of feminism, there are more appropriate threads for that.
As for her legacy, I think she had an emotional impact on many, but it’s debatable how much her writings accomplished.
Amp: Yes, it is.
No, it isn’t.
Amp, what did you think would happen when you started this thread? How could you not have known that some number of the *many* anti-feminists who have set up shop in here on Alas, a Blog, would do just what some of them have done here? With you providing the space for it. And your righteous indignation doesn’t help one damn bit.
What would have evidenced real respect would have been for most of the feminist blogosphere — most of you — to back severely off, shut the hell up, and let those of us who actually loved Andrea Dworkin and are moving forward with her work provide space for those who genuinely want to pay their last respects.
Once again, Amp, you’re settting yourself up to be the “reasonable” feminist, as against the extremist, even in her death, which is really just over the top, opportunistic as all hell. I’m calling you out on it. I think you should delete this thread, and leave those of us who love her, and will carry on her work, to mourn her.
Heart
What I say may not be useful, but I remember when I got her book Heartbreak(yea, I haven’t read much) and then realized the difference between the idea of porn and prostitution(which I’m for in a perfect world) and the reality of them. I always thought she was against the reality of those. Another thing I remember was how she recounted how she stood up against the really restrictive curfews that kept male lovers of the students’ own ages out of the dorms, and her dislike of how the teachers at her college abused their power over the students(I mean in a sexual manner).
Because I am so young, I wouldn’t have remembered those restrictive curfews, or staff sneaking in to do the deed, and paying for an illegal abortion later. So I think that it is important that we have had women like her, who stood up, who fought, and through their words we can remember how it used to be, so we know that things can change.
I hope she rests in peace.
an aside, has anyone seen a source on the cause of death?
I ask because I’m not inclined to think of 58 as “old and enevitably dying soon,” and I didn’t see anything in the guardian article on it.
so, does anyone know?
Heart says:
Once again, Amp, you’re settting yourself up to be the “reasonable”? feminist, as against the extremist, even in her death, which is really just over the top, opportunistic as all hell. I’m calling you out on it. I think you should delete this thread, and leave those of us who love her, and will carry on her work, to mourn her.
Heart, I respectfully disagree. If Dworkin’s writings had no merit, there would be nothing to debate. They would simply be ignored. And if Ampersand had not brought up the topic I would never have known who she was, nor would I have checked out links to her writings. You indicate that moving forward with her work is important. I agree. Blogs like “Alas” introduce people like myself to things they haven’t encountered before. It’s a nice place here. Do you really think it would be better if Dworkin was discussed only in places that totally agreed with everything she said? If so, how odd. Isn’t it better to get her ideas out there, to everyone? To folks who may never have heard of her? And even if there are folks who disagree and want to make her seem less or marginal, there are folks like me who are seeing her for the first time and seeing value in her words.
I don’t want this thread derailed by Daffidil – or by Heart.
Therefore, all future comments on this thread that strike me as either being anti-feminist or as a derailment will be quietly deleted.
This rule applies only to this thread, and not to the blog in general.
Please note that discussions of if this new rule is fair or not, are a derailment, and will be deleted. (You can always email me directly if you want to.)
What did Andrea achieve? Well, she made people think for a start.
I can only give you detail from the UK but I can see her work behind this page from the Home Office site – http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/dv01.htm – and we have certainly moved a long way from the relatively recent days when police regarded abuse as “just a domestic” and mostly did not even record it.
We had new legislation in 2004 – helped through Parliament by women ministers and senior legislators who had certainly read at least some of what Andrea wrote.
Work is ongoing in related areas – low conviction rate in rape cases, too many abused women ending up in prison rather than helped, differential sentencing practice where the convicted person is a woman, the abusive effect on children where a parent, usually the mother, is incarcerated rather than given an alternative sentence. We are not there yet but we are working on it.
And, besides, she supported John Stoltenberg in his important work with young men.
I was never privileged to hear Andrea Dworkin speak and I haven’t managed to read all she wrote but just a few days after someone died I believe the above is enough to be getting on with! The next century or so may allow us to make a more balanced assessment.
I read Intercourse for the first time within the last year, and was amazed to find how fundamental what she was saying was to my world view. 16 years earlier, when I was an undergrad at Oberlin College, I never actually read Intercourse, but had quietly steeped in her ideas (often hearing them in the context of people disagreeing with a dumbed down and simplified version of her ideas) to such an extent that reading them for the first time recently, they struck me as being things that I had based my thought around for nearly 2 decades. Her own version of her ideas was neither dumbed down nor simplistic, but even dumbed down and oversimplified, they were so important and revelatory that I was profoundly changed by being exposed to them.
Dworkin was a brilliant and powerful writer and thinker, she changed the world for the better, and she will be sorely missed, even by those of us who never knew her.
Somehow I get the idea that if I don’t agree with the orthodoxy that Dworkin was an effective, helpful voice for feminism, I’m not a ‘real’ feminist.
Did she make people think? Yep. so much so they started banning books that were written by friends of mine. And that made her happy.
So I’m supposed to applaud her ideas? I have trouble getting past book banning. I’m funny that way. Especialy beacuse they books she helped get banned were written by women for women. They were about kinky sex. They included frank discussions of power and dominance in a sexual context, and they didn’t take the party line that such things are always wrong. Dworkin wrote that party line.
Ever hear the old Goldman line “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be a part of your revolution”?? Well, if I can’t read, I sure as sh*t don’t want to be a part of your revolution, and if I can’t love how I want, I don’t either.
[End of post snipped for derailment]
You know, it would help if people bitching about her would actually get their facts straight. She made people think–and they banned books. Can’t let those feminists go thinking.
Oh, something else: Thinking=banning books=makes her happy. Mind reading and mind control all in two sentences?
You know, it’s funny, because so many of the people that hate Andrea always seem to think that she had such huge mind control over this huge constinuency yet they deny that any part of the porn=rape culture might come close to being a reality. Aside from which, the idea of being mind-dominated by her indicates they think we’re really weak-willed and stupid.
[Post deleted by Amp.
I don’t think you’re an anti-feminist, Josh. And many feminists disagree with Dworkin on many issues. Nonetheless, IMO it’s appropriate, for a short while after her death, to have space which is free of the same old debate about Dworkin that we’ve all read – or participated in – a thousand times before. –Amp]
A bit metaThis has been a bad year for deaths. Different notables, each beloved by different groups, many of them controversial in one way or another.
I’ve found it interesting to watch how people respond. When the pope died, I saw some bloggers ask for a moratorium on criticism, while others saw this as their last opportunity to make the case against him.
And then perspective changes when it’s your own favorite ox getting gored.
I’ve found in interpersonal conversations that it’s useful to prefix complaints with “I need advice” or “Right now, I just want a sympathetic ear; I’m not ready for constructive criticism yet.” It may be valuable to do the same when writing eulogies like this. Adding a prefix that “I really admired Andrea Dworkin and am not in a mental state where I want to deal with negative comments right now. Can you please save those for later or for elsewhere?” may go a long way towards keeping the discussion manageable and directed.
Just FWIW.
Okay, good idea.
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?”?
“You know, it’s funny, because so many of the people that hate Andrea always seem to think that she had such huge mind control over this huge constinuency yet they deny that any part of the porn=rape culture might come close to being a reality. Aside from which, the idea of being mind-dominated by her indicates they think we’re really weak-willed and stupid.”
Oh, I’d like to second that opinion! The anti-fems love to say that Dworkin, and feminist theory in general, is some sort of mind control. If one believes that, then couldn’t one just as easily believe that pornography is a sort of mind control? Or gender roles? Or religion? And doesn’t that line of thinking take away from personal responsibility?
If people let themselves be controlled by any of the above, they are weak-willed, just as ginmar said. Dworkin can’t control anyone without his/her consent.
Of course I don’t agree with Dworkin’s censorship solutions. But do I think she was brilliant? Yes, I do. Without her, the debate on pornography would not have been so provocative. And that provocation is the mark of a free society. She had the right to speak her mind just as much as Larry Flint did.
Sorry Amp, our posts crossed in cyberspace. I hope my previous post is taken as defending Dworkin, not criticizing her.
I liked Dworkin because she challenged me. I loved her wit, her intellect, and her prose. Her work was engrossing, even when I got to the parts I didn’t agree with. Especially when I got to the parts I didn’t agree with. I always looked forward to reading her.
Having said that, when I read I Want a Twenty-Four Hour Truce During Which There Is No Rape,” I wanted to stand up and cheer.
One thing I really appreciated about Andrea Dworkin was that she stood staunchly against censorship.
Heart
I haven’t read that much by Andrea Dworkin. What I’ve come across I’ve either agreed with or disagreed with, but have enjoyed reading. But if your wondering avout her influence – just look at how her words have been misquoted, and how she’s been an object of hatred for the anti-feminists. In my book, if this happens to you, you must be doing something right.
Heart, I’m confused! Not to be a troll, I genuinely am confused and would like you to explain it to me if you have time. (I would understand if you don’t want to re-hash something you’ve probably explained a thousand times.)
Andrea Dworkin basically took a lot of hits for everyone in the feminist community. Now that she’s gone anti-feminists will be looking for a new target. It’s amazing how she’s misquoted and demonized. I found that one of her most famous quotes was actually attributed to her by Cal Thomas, the rightwing colomnist.
People bring her name up because they want to shut you up and make you feel guilty. Now that she’s gone you have to wonder what they’ll try.
Dude was a wingnut before it was trendy. Which quote?
According to Snopes.com, the ‘all sex is rape’ line has been attributed to both her and Catharine Mackinnon.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinno.htm
Dworkin has also disavowed the quote as a false statement circulated by her opponents. She has denied saying that “all sex is rape” or “all men are rapists.” When asked to explain her views on the topic, Dworkin replied: “Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent. But I’m not saying that sex must be rape. What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That’s my point.”
MacKinnon was further tied to the quote she did not utter by a March 1999 article by conservative commentator Cal Thomas in which he incorrectly identified her as the author of Professing Feminism and quoted her as saying: “In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” Not only is the quote misattributed, but the putative source, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From the Strange World of Women’s Studies, is a book criticizing the work of MacKinnon and other feminists, written by Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge.
Even after she’s gone, she serves as a usual lightning rod. People who misquote her and cling to their misquotes have identified themselves for what they are. That way they don’t waste your t ime.
people do still misquote Shakespeare, after all, no doubt that “all sex is rape” thing will be attached to feminism as a whole instead of Dworkin.
hell, it’s been that way for a while among the young’uns who don’t know what their talking about.
Oh, tell me about it. The irony just gets so damned thick at times. I had a guy bitching about her censorship today on my blog. Just would not shut up about it. Totally derailed the conversation. When pressed on it, he got pissy. It’s funny how they’ll talk about ‘de facto censorship’ till they wear you down, but when it’s ‘de facto rape culture’ or ‘de facto sexism’ they just can’t apply the same standard.
Like I said, she’s a useful bullshit detector. Somebody misquotes her, sometimes I can tell exactly who they got it from.
I suspect men are projecting their repressed guilt about their sexual behavior. I read Dworkin’s Intercourse years ago, but I’d completely misremembered it. Rereading a chapter from it yesterday was enlightening.
[Inappropriate comment, including a faux-“witty” slam at Dworkin, deleted by Amp.]
That’s because the harsh things we say about her critics are justified, unlike the attacks on her. She got called a lot of stuff, and she got misquoted a lot. Yet when confronted with the truth, her critics whine and snivel.
“She had the right to speak her mind just as much as Larry Flint did.”
How generous of you.
She actually *had* a mind. Flynt, not so much.
Sheena, I realize I was pointing out a no-brainer to anyone with a shred of intelligence. The reason I brought it up is because the anti-Dworkins defended Flynt in the name of free-speech, but failed to defend Dworkin’s right to criticize him. As if Larry Flynt (or anyone) has the right to never be criticized.
Yeah, it’s kind of interesting that Flynt gets all the protection but—You know, have you ever seen the Establishment liberals go to bat for a single feminist to that extent? Flynt was villified but now he’s some kind of saint to people.
Maybe you can’t compare the two fights. For all his pretenses, Flynt was fighting for hte right to be sexist and First Amendment protection was a side effect. Dworkin was questioning why women’s rights are always secondary to other people’s freedoms—or threaten that very definition of freedom. Men like Flynt want the freedom TO; that is the freedom to do what they want. TO WOMEN. Dworkin wanted women to have the right to be free FROM the freedom some men feel to do what they want to women. That’s why some people are so threatened. Mens’ freedoms rest on the foundation of women’s lack of freedom to have freedom of their own.
Regarding Amp’s moderation post (#33):
I think it’s perfectly acceptable to discuss Dworkin’s writings and actions in this thread, including criticizing her excesses (which can also include debunking urban legends about her writing).
She was a public figure – it’s entirely appropriate to criticize her, just as it is appropriate to criticize the legacy of Pope John Paul II. If she was a private person, yes, I’d agree with the “respect for the dead” belief.
http://burning.typepad.com/
Heart
Well, seeing as how Amp has asked that you not do that, who cares? That is his request, and it’s not an unreasonable one.
Thanks for the kind word Cheryl. I just wanted to put the link to the obituary itself and not just for my site. I never agreed with Dworkin’s promotion of censorship, and I think her writing in Intercourse goes to far both in generalizing how violent sex is, and in it’s questionable claims about the essence of intercourse. But she was cruxified for publicly speaking private truths. For that she deserves our profound respect and gratitude.
http://burning.typepad.com/burningman/2005/04/andrea_dworkin_.html
The fact that our culture takes an “anything goes” approach to “public figures”, doesn’t make that approach ethical, moral, right, or something that, as feminists, we ought to endorse. That the U.S. does it, hardly makes it the right thing to do. “Public figures” are not created equal. Some are men under male supremacy, and some are women and subjugated. That has to be factored in. As do many other considerations.
And what ginmar said.
Heart
[Post deleted by Amp. I hereby declare this debate, in this thread, over.
If people have disagreements with how I’m moderating this thread, please take it to email – don’t post your disagreement on this thread. –Amp]
Word. When the mainstream press starts treating Tipper Gore and Camille Paglia (or Wendy Shallitt and Ann Coulter) with the same vituperative scorn, I’ll start taking the assertion that all these complaints are about censorship and/or extremism at face value. Until then, I don’t want to hear it.
Wait. Did that cross the line? It’s hard to tell from what has and hasn’t been deleted.
[Nah, in my opinion that was fine. –Amp]
one thing that took me a bit offguard from the obit were the mentioning of her friendship with brittish author Michael Moorcock. It’s sort of surprising to read that an author you enjoy and believed to be apolitical is into the same side of radicalism as you are (granted, I suppose he could be friends with Dworkin on a strictly personal level, but I don’t imagine it would be easy to hang out with someone as political as her and be apolitical.)
I suppose it’s an aside, but I still found it interesting.
Pingback: Geekery Today
Karpad, I was a bit surprised by Moorcock’s friendship with Dworkin at first glance, but after some reflection, it makes perfect sense. Moorcock is definitely political, and a leftist, which is fairly overt in some of his stories, although not the ones I like, curiously enough.
But I have long thought that a key element of Moorcock’s Elric of Melibone saga was that Elric’s relationship with his sword is all about the horrible relationship between men and the phallus — which gives them strength of a sort, but only by hurting others, and by hurting themselves.
I have no trouble imagining the person who wrote those novels being a friend and admirer of Andrea Dworkin.
I miss Andrea greatly and feel very strongly that we have lost a vital warrior for women.
heh… yes, I suppose that is a solid interpretation of the Elric saga. I suppose I stopped short of the political satire interpretation and stuck with the literary criticism, but I suppose it still makes sense, since the ones it would be a commentary on would be the likes of Burrough’s Conan.
I’ve known he was leftist for years, ever since he wrote his criticisms of Tolkien’s middle earth and acceptance of the Merrie England tradition.
I suppose the real surprise was not his politics so much as finding out they travel in the same circles.
Michael Moorecock and Andrea Dworkin were closest of friends for decades. But don’t let that get in the way of your misinformation campaign. Don’t let it cause you to reevaluate you own misconceptions about Andrea.
Don’t you all get tired of gossiping on these “feminist” blogs about real feminists with real reputations and real names, work and lives using fake identities with no accountability? Does it ever strike you as unethical behavior? How would the world be different if you were all doing activism? I sure would love to find out.
Nikki Craft
http://www.andreadworkin.net
http://www.nostatusquo.com
P.S. I didn’t put feminist in quotes to imply this isn’t a feminist blog. It is. I’m talking all over the internet. Also I know many people who have written on this page have only the best of intentions and it is necessary to challenge what is written about Andrea; and that IS activism. But over all these gossip columns are a huge waste of your time, your energy and your lives. It’s cowardly not to write using your real names too, I believe. Andrea lived a hugely courageous life that mattered. Read her memorial messages that 300 women have written about the impact she had, the difference she made in their lives. It’s a hard course to take, but you can do that too. But it ain’t going to happen on these message boards. Please just think about it.
Nikki Craft
“Michael Moorecock and Andrea Dworkin were closest of friends for decades. But don’t let that get in the way of your misinformation campaign. Don’t let it cause you to reevaluate you own misconceptions about Andrea.”
Nicky – I’m a bit confused by your post.
Firstly because no-one on this thread claimed that Andrea Dworkin and Michael Moorecock were not frineds.
Secondly because you seem to use what is – IMO – a rather dismissive and sexist term ‘gossiping’ to describe feminists exchanging ideas and information.
Thirdly because you seem to be inplying that the posts made here by feminists are the sum total of our activism.
Fourthly because you imply that none of the posters here are aware of – let alone have made contributions to Andrea’s memorial.
And finally you seem to think that posters here should not take basic safety precautions regarding revealing their ‘real life’ identity – which for someone who admires Andrea’s work as much as I have no doubt you do – seems odd.
None of your assumptions about the posters here are in any way true about myself.
Another clarification. In my second paragraph when i said “you all” I was meaning to transfer it from the particular individual to the more general. I did not mean that it addressed everyone on this page. I am all over the internet documenting what is written about Andrea. I’ve been doing it for a decade. It’s frustrating and sometimes I’m harsh and unfair in my assessment. Sometimes I just reach the end of my patience. I fully understand that some of the people posting on this page are working hard to correct the wrong information about Andrea all over the internet. This is difficult work and I thank you for it and I was not including you in my original posting.
What I’m talking about is no named individuals with little or nothing of any accomplishment, not much to venture to risk, to lose or gain or even care about, really, attaching themselves to the names and reputations of women–not just Andrea either–who have worked hard in their lives to have their names mean something and posting heresy about people they don’t even know. Yes I do mean gossip.
If it doesn’t apply to you then ignore it. If it does, if you are a young activist who thinks the sun rises and sets on these blogs and that just because you know how to use a keyboard that you are now an activist, I’m saying it’s not necessarily so. I know there is a sense of connection on these message boards, but over all I believe they are sapping up women’s energies, and cumulatively lives are being wasted. As I said, just please think about it.
Nikki Craft
Don’t you all get tired of gossiping on these “feminist”? blogs about real feminists with real reputations and real names
Err, this comment really smacks of elitism. The Internet is a medium of communication, just like any other. The people posting here are (the majority at least) real feminists, with real reputations and real names. As much as you might feel that the Internet ‘saps’ women’s energies, I think you’re being blatantly obtuse about the fact that it also opens up new and vast horizons for many women that wouldn’t ordinarily be exposed to such ideas and view points in their day to day life. The Internet has made the world smaller, and hopefully in time, that will make the worlds issues more manageable. In the meantime, these opinions, while perhaps not as boisterious, are just as valuable and valid as yours.
Ack, hit enter too soon:
Finally, the Internet is a medium that helped women across the world come to know and understand heroic people like Andrea (as much as we can any public figure) far better than would have or was occurring before it.
You wrote:
>Don’t you all get tired of gossiping on these “feminist”? blogs about real >feminists with real reputations and real names
Why leave off the last part of my sentence?
I wrote:
>Don’t you all get tired of gossiping on these “feminist”? blogs about real
>feminists with real reputations and real names, work and lives using fake
> identities with no accountability? Does it ever strike you as unethical
>behavior?
Elitism? The emphasis is on the people who are posting using fake identities without any accountability. Having lengthy and detailed discussions about other women while using these other women’s real names in forums where they are not willing to use their own names. If the anonymity is to protect yourself why aren’t you willing to give other women the same protection and respect as you are granting to yourselves? It’s disrespectful, hypocritical and unethical.
“If the anonymity is to protect yourself why aren’t you willing to give other women the same protection and respect as you are granting to yourselves? It’s disrespectful, hypocritical and unethical. ”
So discussing Andrea Dworkin – or indeed any public figure – is disrespectful, hypocritical and unethical? I don’t agree. I have not chosen to be a public figure and I hardly think that Andrea Dworkin would have wanted women to put themselves at risk just so that they could discuss her ideas and contribution to feminism.
Have I misunderstood your point?
Why leave off the last part of my sentence?
No reason at all, I grabbed the part resonated, but I’m fairly sure that what I took didn’t really change the essence of the sentiment all that much. If you feel it did, my apologies, my intention wasn’t to misrepresent what you’re saying to engage you in a meaningless battle. My intent was to respond to what was said and let the author know (you) that they made me feel belittled as a feminist that enjoys spending time on the Internet discussing feminist issues (among other things!).
So what you’d like is for people to use a pseudonym for the movement spearheads, if they aren’t willing to post their own real life names?
I find your anger and frustration over this topic quite confusing and pointless, to be honest. Some women, such as Ms. Dworkin are lauded and admired, and yes, talked of as a matter of fascinated interest engendered not out of spite or malice, but out of awe.
If the objection is over the M. Moorecock conversation, it’s worthy of mentioning from my perspective that my husband (also a feminist) found it a really pleasing annecdote to hear, and it inspired a fun conversation between the two of us about Moorecock’s writing and whether or not it was in fact allegorical at all.
When you post to an blog that has international reach it seems to me you have made yourself a public figure, as much as anyone who writes an article becomes a public figure. It’s just that if you don’t use your name you just don’t take responsibility for what you write. I have found some of these conversations energizing and interesting. I’m certainly glad to see that the tone of the internet discussion about Andrea have changed and that there are now people who are disputing the lies. But some of it is too much gossiping about other people and some of it is irresponsible? Where do all these conversations about the awe about Andrea go? Why can’t you use your real names? Why can’t you have more courage about what you say? I feel posting under aliases, as wide scale as it’s being done in the feminist communities on the internet is not necessary; that it forfeits credibility unnecessarily; that it plays to the lowest common denominator when it comes to accountability. It seems the very essence of elitism to me, as a practice, to toss other people’s names around and to hide behind anonymity. I know what I’m saying goes against the grain of the common practices of the internet, and it probably seems foreign and downright bitchy to some of you. It may resonate with some. If so thank you for considering what I have said.
“What I’m talking about is no named individuals with little or nothing of any accomplishment, not much to venture to risk, to lose or gain or even care about, really, attaching themselves to the names and reputations of women”“not just Andrea either”“who have worked hard in their lives to have their names mean something and posting heresy about people they don’t even know. ”
Eh, I’m not sure how far this will reach internationally, but fuck off.
I prefer to think for myself rather than have “credentialed” feminist spoon feed the masses. And by putting “credentialed” in quotes, I don’t mean to upset any of you out there reading who do have credentials, of any sort. I meant to say “those feminists who *think* they have a burning mission to convert the horrid and wretched masses of unthinking, gossipy girls who don’t fact check.”
Whatever.
Suzanne Elizabeth Ellett (but doesn’t Q Grrl just sound better?)
… should I add my SSN and phone numbers? Would that make me legit? Give me feminist street cred? Improve my activism? Prove that I’m woman enough to meet the high standards of Real Feminist Work ™?
When i say no named individuals, with no history, and nothing to risk I mean literally that: women posting using aliases and posting about other women using their real names. When I mentioned the reputations of those women being gossiped about it is in relationship, not to credentials and being all important, but about the effects of slander and sloppy misrepresentation when a person has attempted to live her life with some integrity.
meant to post heresay not heresy.
Nikki: you honestly don’t see a difference between public figure and published author, and person commenting on a weblog?
It’s a bizarre view of the right to privacy, as well as of ‘legitimacy’ or authority or validity of opinions.
Now that we know Q Grrl’s real name, how does it change how we view what she writes? The only thing that’s different is that now someone can look up her name in a phone directory, find out where she lives, and send her marketing brochures for pension plans. If they’re being nice.
Believe it or not, people have legitimate reasons for wanting to keep their personal data private.
Plus, whether a person posts under their real name or an alias, you cannot know what they do when they’re not posting online and where they put their energy.
What you’ve said here, Nikki, is great food for thought. I hope every woman here who believes herself to be a feminist gives it serious consideration. Andrea Dworkin devoted her life to women. She took the risks, she took the hits, she paid the price, she gave it all she had for all of her life for all of us. It *is* cowardly for those who are not similarly willing to put themselves out there — as you certainly have and do, and we all benefit from your good work, so thank you — to hide behind anonymity, and particularly in the course of , *as* feminists, denouncing, criticizing or trashing women who *have* put themselves out there and who have not hidden behind anonymity.
The fact that someone is a public figure as Americans understand the term is no defense for the carte blanche trashing of any woman, ever. A woman who is a public figure is not similarly situated with a man, or men, public figure or no. No matter how much a “public figure” a woman may be, she is still a woman under male heterosupremacy and as such, she is a member of a subjugated and oppressed class. That should always be a consideration, any time, but it ought to be of particular concern, again, to anyone who identifies as a feminist.
I have to agree that a lot of what passes for discourse on the internet, in the blogosphere, about feminists, and particular feminists like Andrea Dworkin, is gossip, if it even rises to that level. And that, too, ought to be of concern to anyone who identifies as a feminist. Whatever might harm a feminist woman’s reputation or credibility ought never be posted to the internet, *particularly* by feminists unless they are absolutely certain (1) the information is true and can be verified; and (2) that it is in the best interests of the people of women that it be published on the internet. If it doesn’t at least pass those two tests, then it ought not be posted anywhere at all; when it is, women lose. That is so, so basic it seems to me, but, Nikki’s right: look around the internet. Apparently, it needs to be said.
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff
(Heart)
The Margins
http://www.gentlespirit.com/margins
“When i say no named individuals, with no history, and nothing to risk I mean literally that: women posting using aliases and posting about other women using their real names.”
I think you’ve created a false dilemma, here. You’re saying that we must either use all real names or use all aliases. But the practice here – and I consider it a legitimate one – is to allow the person who speaks to determine which name to use. Andrea Dworkin spoke under her own name, so that is the name we use. Most posters here prefer an alias, so we use the name they prefer. You want an arbitrary rule that applies to everyone; most of us prefer to let each individual determine what they are called.
If I used my real name everywhere I posted, anyone who cared to track me over the years would know more about me than my mother does. I would be exposing not just myself but my kids and my husband – even if I wanted to take that risk, my husband would protest loudly. I would also, in some cases, be exposing friends and their secrets.
I have known people on the Internet who “hid” behind an alias who were completely reliable and exactly as they presented themselves once I met them in real life. I have seen people who professed to share their real name who were actually creating a persona and using false credentials to make unsupported claims. Whether it is the name we’ve been assigned or the name we choose for ourselves, a name is only as good as the person behind it. And, barring celebrities (where their image may or may not obscure who they really are), few of us would be revealing anything more if we used our real names.
Even when I disagree with Andrea Dworkin, the compassion and strength in her writing is a joy to me – and while I don’t agree with some of her harsher statements, I still believe her anger was born out of compassion. She was generally angry about the right things, IMHO. I think her honesty and her willingness to expose herself – expose her experiences, expose her heart -sometimes frightened people who agreed with her even more than it frightened her enemies. Feminism has suffered a great loss through her death.
I don’t see Nikki calling for an arbitrary rule, or for all aliases or all real life names. I hear her calling for integrity. I hear her calling for honesty. And for feminists giving a modicum of respect to feminists who have given their lives to and for women.
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff
Heart
http://www.gentlespirit.com/margins
uh, no. Calling the feminists here cowardly is not good feminism.
The fact that someone is a public figure as Americans understand the term is no defense for the carte blanche trashing of any woman, ever.
Did anyone say it was? I don’t see how respecting a public figure and the right to one’s own privacy are in contrast.
Conversely, there’s plenty of famous columnists writing with their real names who trash feminists and spread rumours without checking first.
“uh, no. Calling the feminists here cowardly is not good feminism.”
No kidding. Especially when the acusation is coming from someone who A) Was not born to feminism and took quite a long, circuitous road to reach it. Y’know, like the rest of us mortal women and B) Used a pseudonym for years on another well-known board.
I find “A” especially relevant. It’s folly to read a woman’s posts here and assume that they represent the sum total of that woman’s activism. It’s also folly to look from one’s own position along the road between “inactive” and “active” and use it to poo-pooh anyone who may not –for lots of reasons– have reached the same position.
Nikki, I believe that both Karpad and Brian who were gossiping about Andrea Dworkin are both male as is the owner of this website. I couldn’t tell you whether they are feminists or not and I don’t think the owner of this website describes it as “feminist” as anti-feminists are free to communicate their prejudices here.
Gossiping?
There were two Brians posting in this thread, with two posts expressing admiration for Andrea Dworkin, one from me and one from another Brian, and another post from me that I hadn’t realized that Andrea Dworkin had a friendship with another author I liked and I thought that fact was interesting.
Does unqualified praise count as gossip now?
The irony being that anyone can say they are anyone else on the internet and nobody really knows for sure who they are. It seems like the Nikki Craft above is more interested in bashing other feminists than in celebrating Dworkin’s achievements. … and she’s pretty invested in a hierarchical feminist movement. That much is obvious.
[Just to be clear, this post was not written by Nikki Craft; it was written by a different poster making ironic use of Nikki Craft’s name. ““Amp]
(Shrug) Transgendered women are free to communicate pro-trans/pro-inclusion sentiments on the Michfest boards, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the space is trans-friendly, pro-inclusion, or anti-WBW-policy. The presence of dissent does not mean that dissenting views are necessarily celebrated, particularly given that certain issues (e.g., whether it’s morally bankrupt to sell women out on choice, or merely incredibly stupid) are issues on which reasonable people may reasonably quibble.
This site is set up to discuss and debate feminist issues. There’s a certain Holocaust-deniers/MacBryde-Johnson-vs.-Peter-Singer question around whether it’s more effective to contend with anti-feminists or ignore them entirely, but engaging them is not anti-feminist per se. Neither is providing feminist-friendly space for those discussions. I kind of like having trolls around; it means that I get to watch them get roasted. Anti-feminist ideas are everywhere; this place is one of my only opportunities to see them get the shredding they deserve.
Yeah, but feminist women won’t get banned from the MichFest boards for being rude to Trans who are invading the space. Whereas feminist women have been banned here.
When people declare an explicit intent to destroy a community, it shouldn’t be a surprise that they’re banned from the community.
The issue is passing along negative or damaging information about feminist activists on the internet. If someone is going to do that, then I think they ought to be willing to say what they say either in their own names or with a willingness to let their real life names be known. If they’re not doing that, then I have no problem with the use of pseudonyms. And I think it’s fine to use a screen name if your identity is readily available in other ways, i.e., through your e-mail name or your website or your published writings or whatever. I use some version of the screen name “Heart” everywhere I go on the internet, and I have for many years now, but my identity is readily available via any or all of the above. I *am* critical of feminist activists at times, and so I think it’s important for me to provide my own real life identity. And, again, when I am critical, I work to be sure that what I say is verifiable or documented and that in the long run, it is best for women that the information be out there.
And people can do things that are cowardly without being cowards.
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff
Heart
http://www.gentlespirit.com/margins
[Just to be clear, this post was not written by Nikki Craft; it was written by a different poster making ironic use of Nikki Craft’s name. –Amp]
No Heart, that’s not the issue.
This is the supposed Nikki Craft issue:
“If it doesn’t apply to you then ignore it. If it does, if you are a young activist who thinks the sun rises and sets on these blogs and that just because you know how to use a keyboard that you are now an activist, I’m saying it’s not necessarily so. I know there is a sense of connection on these message boards, but over all I believe they are sapping up women’s energies, and cumulatively lives are being wasted. As I said, just please think about it. ”
Nothing to do with Dworkin. Nothing to do with feminism. Just an opportunity to act patronizing as hell to school the younger generation and get them to toe the proper line. Afterall, shouldn’t the young one’s be at home sewing giant pink phallus sheaths to cover ROTC cannon’s?
>>Yeah, but feminist women won’t get banned from the MichFest boards for being rude to Trans who are invading the space. Whereas feminist women have been banned here. >>
Which is an example we should totally emulate here. Personally, I think invective like “titless wonders” would make these discussions much more useful and interesting. Btw, what is “a Trans?” I see the term a lot, and I have no idea what or whom it refers to.
Also, there’s no invasion issue–Robert isn’t sinning against the laws of the discussion merely by his presence. Anti-feminist people are not unwelcome, period, here the way that transgendered women arguably are on the MWMF boards. The boundaries of the space are not set up in the same way.
It’s disingenuous, furthermore, to act as though rudeness _to antifeminists_ is the only way to get banned. Look at NYMOM. She was banned because she was blaming bitter feminist activist judges for every evil to befall women and mothers since, oh, ever. And Daisy was banned because she was saying misogynist things about women of size, as well as extremely rude and fatphobic things about the other people in the discussion.
Also, rudeness isn’t the only analogous phenomenon on the Michfest boards; there’s also a great deal of horrible-yet-“civil.” So it’s an odd paradigm to be defending on that particular front.
Littleviolet;
Funny, of anyone on the boards, you’ve consistently been the most negative, grudgebearing and in general non-productive poster I’ve seen on Alas, short of the trolls.
Why is it no surprise to me that you’ve now come to this thread to spread the gospel according to LV, which is hardly impersonal or unbiased.
And finally;
Integrity is a hard thing to gauge on the Internet, and I’m personally not comfortable with mine being called into question (granted I post as ‘kim’ which is my RL name), simply because I don’t post with all of my information right there for anyone to use.
I think it’s incorrect to assume that just because a pseudonym is being used, the real person behind it wouldn’t be willing to reveal themselves if the situation warranted. Proving my I-femchismo doesn’t warrant it though.
Finally, I’m not sure the footsoldiers are any less important than the generals in feminism, and I for one am glad for every drop in the bucket that helps the cause, be it under pseudonym or not.
Whoops.
You know, this probably isn’t the best place for me to talk smack about a different space, particularly one most posters are not familiar with, and particularly one that isn’t precisely public. Civil-yet-not-quite, you could say. I mean, I really, really don’t want to shut down your half of that sidebar or peremptorily end a two-sided discussion–so I’d love to hear your thoughts and engage your responses to what I’ve said. But I’ll otherwise go back to talking about this stuff in general terms, if that’s okay.
Sorry about the derail, everyone.
The fake “Nikki Craft” wrote:
I appreciate the point you’re making by using Nikki’s name.
Now that you’ve made the point, however, I’m going to ask you to stop using Nikki’s name on my website; only Nikki is allowed to do that, as far as I’m concerned.
eh, I’d rather call myself Alsis38 or something sweet like that anyhow.
:)
Little Violet, let’s get a few things straight: Karpad and Brian were not gossiping, they were commenting on how suprised, then unsurprised they were about Dworkin’s friendship with Michael Moorecock. That’s not gossip, nor was it a campaign of misinformation.
I don’t see Nikki calling for an arbitrary rule, or for all aliases or all real life names. I hear her calling for integrity. I hear her calling for honesty. And for feminists giving a modicum of respect to feminists who have given their lives to and for women.
Where have the feminists on this threat not given any respect to Andrea Dworkin? I’m not seeing any attempts at misinformation or trashing being tolerated in this thread–those posts were pulled. I am seeing the feminists who post here get unfairly maligned, and frankly I’m sick of it.
Many of the women who post on this thread dedicate their lives and energies to and for women, and they are among those some of you would trash by pooh-poohing their commitment with your demands that we “respect” Dworkin and other feminists who have done “real” work–the implication being that we haven’t.
Just one example–one of the posters here does extensive work with battered women. Dangerous line of work, especially considering some of stalker/abusers she has to deal with.
I’m thinking she doesn’t link to her real name or any identifying information for some damn good reasons. It’s not readily available, and it’s the height of ignorance to expect her to make it so. I will not question her commitment to feminism. She does show respect (and quite frankly, deserves it from you), and she is committed.
Enough already. Respect goes both ways. You, and LV, and Nikki could start showing it by refraining from trashing us, by stopping this elitist demand for respect like we’re the subjects and you’re the royalty, and by curtailing the urge to falsely accuse us of spreading misinformation about Dworkin. We have not disrespected her, and we have not lied about her.
Just because we don’t yell from the rooftops about our work offline doesn’t mean we’re sitting around doing nothing. You’re coming across as arrogant and patronizing–if you want to know why we “fun” feminist bloggers haven’t linked to you or had lots to do with you, this would be a very big clue for you.
Expecting us all to use our real names is elitist indeed.
People get fired from their jobs for expressing unpopular opinions online. I’m sorry, but some people NEED their jobs, or else they will lose their homes, and they and their kids will starve to death. Some women aren’t willing to sacrifice that for the sisterhood — and I don’t think the sisterhood (for the most part) would even want them to.
I mean, how much feminist activism can you do after you’ve already starved to death?
>>Just one example”“one of the posters here does extensive work with battered women. Dangerous line of work, especially considering some of stalker/abusers she has to deal with.
I’m thinking she doesn’t link to her real name or any identifying information for some damn good reasons. It’s not readily available, and it’s the height of ignorance to expect her to make it so. I will not question her commitment to feminism. She does show respect (and quite frankly, deserves it from you), and she is committed.>>
Right, the original topic. Yes, this is a senseless litmus test.
I absolutely agree that these are very good reasons, but I don’t think you even need to go that far. Everyone has good reason not to expose myself online. I have no reason to trust any of you, and very good reasons not to trust people like, well, Heart and LV. My name or email or url plus Whois.com could fill my inbox with hate mail. You all seem sane and law-abiding. You most probably are perfectly fine. But for all I know, you spend your spare time mutilating kittens or spamming for Cialis. There are perfectly reasonable safety arguments to be made in favor of anonymity–particularly for women. Some women decide that they’d rather go public for various reasons–they publish or have offline activities that they _do_ want to publicize. Some women think that the very real danger outweighs any benefit to telling total strangers who they are.