Not sure I quite get this:

The range of her literary contribution alone – 13 books spanning
fiction, literary criticism, journalism, speeches (no one could move a
room like she could), essays, history, political analysis – is
exceptional. But there was no Nobel Prize nomination. Her voice was
fresh, her ideas original and powerful, her perceptions and moral
principles fearless, her eloquence oracular, direct and riveting.

Andrea Dworkin should have had the Nobel? And this is offered as evidence?

"Men have asked over the centuries a question that, in their hands,
ironically becomes abstract: ‘What is reality?’ " she wrote in an essay
titled "A Battered Wife Survives." "They have written complicated
volumes on this question. The woman who was a battered wife and has
escaped knows the answer: reality is when something is happening to you
and you know it and can say it and when you say it other people
understand what you mean and believe you. That is reality, and the
battered wife, imprisoned alone in a nightmare that is happening to
her, has lost it and cannot find it anywhere."

American academia is in worse shape than I thought:

Catharine A. MacKinnon, a law professor at the University of Michigan,