Talk:Feminism/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Issues in defining feminism

Added the following draft regarding the word 'feminism', which many need clean up and references:

One factor uniting all feminists and feminisms is the term feminism itself. Whilst "feminism" resists attempts toward a single unifying definition, the broad conception of the term lies with the refutation of sexist oppression, and championing of equality in its various forms. Apart from the varied meanings given to feminism, the term itself has incontrovertible etymological and semantic referents apart from the meanings attributed to it by various groups. "Femin-", derived from the Latin femina, i.e. woman, is a strict gender referent akin to man and its derivative "mankind". Also, like mankind as a reference to both sexes, feminism is a gender-centric term which does not semantically represent males, i.e., it is not inclusive. In recent times women and men have distanced from the term feminism in favor of more inclusive terminology such as "equal rights activist/advocate", "equalitist" or similar neutral terms.

-—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.187.121.128 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

Anonymous user, etymologies are about the origins of words. The meaning of words also has to do with how people use words today. Different people may use a word differently, and some or all ways of using a word may diverge from its etymology. Thus, the meaning of a word is not some historical LCD. Certainly all forms of feminism I know of are informed by or especially concerned with the experiences of women, but I know of many forms of feminism that use the experiences of women to reveal something about men, and to develop political programs that are intended to benefit men. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Cailil. Yes, I can add the reference to the etymological meaning, and thanks for the suggestion.
Slrubenstein- Etymologies are indeed about word origins, and like the word "man" or "mankind" (which has become obsolete) "feminism" is also an etymologically gendered word. Like those many feminists who use the experience of women to reveal something about men, there were likewise many men who used the experiences of males to say something about women, hence their usage of 'mankind'. Words like feminism or mankind are not only what we choose them to mean, as if it were a simple matter of humans attributing any meaning they wish to a word. Thats an anthropomorphic, egocentric view of words- ie. making them in our own image. In reality, words pre-date our birth and have a life of their own apart from the speaker and have strict semantic referents (regardless of what we want them to mean), i.e. words have their own etymologies, histories, genealogies, vogues, myths, genres, and genders. What we attribute to a word can only ever constitute one element of that word's overall phenomenology. 124.187.121.128 22:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Etymological references added. Can be shortened by removing online quote and leaving URL only if necessary:

Hoad, T. F., (1987) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, p.169- '...femininism, and directly from L. [Latin femina = woman] feminism, both c 1850'. See also the Online Etymology Dictionary- 'c.1384, "of the female sex," from O.Fr. feminin, from L. femininus "feminine" (in the grammatical sense at first), from femina "woman, female," lit. "she who suckles," from base of felare "to suck, suckle" (see fecund). Sense of "woman-like, proper to or characteristic of women" is recorded from c.1440. Feminism is from 1851, but meant at first "state of being feminine;" sense of "advocacy of women's rights" is 1895. Feminist is 1894, from Fr. féministe (1872). [1] 124.187.121.128 23:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Words certainly do not mean what we editors mean. Words mean what actual speech communities mean by using them. This cannot always be infered from the origin or etymology of the word. Indeed, in some cases the etymology of a word may simply be irrelevant to its meaning. The only way to really know what "feminism" means is to do actual research on how different groups of people use the word. I think if we are working on a serious encyclopedia, we should not use a dictionary as a substitute for research. there are many fine books and articles published in peer-reviewed journals on feminism and its different forms. Let's do actual research - read those books and articles - and use them to provide increasingly accurate and precise accounts of different forms of feminism. This takes more effort than spinning an etymology or trying to make some deductive agument on the talk page, and it takes more effort than looking a word up in the dictionary (anyone who has access to Wikipedia has access to OED on-line or Answers.com so there is no point at all in our just copying them); it takes more effort to read real books and articles. But if we want to write an encyclopedia we should be willing to do that work. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Etymology is not only about "origins" of a word, but also includes development of a word to the present instance. In many cases the etymology of a word may be irrelevant to its meaning (as you point out), but this does not mean that the etymology or older meanings always conveniently vanish, as if words were totally under the control of an individual or community ego where we can wipe out common understandings with a wave of a wand. For instance, the etymological origin and historical use of the word man provided a gender-neutral word, but it's modern meaning became increasingly associated with males, even though both contradictory senses were co-present as meanings in popular usage. So too with feminist which has an incontrovertible etymological meaning in which femin- still means female/woman in popular usage to the present hour, a meaning which admittedly may be employed concurrently with any novel meanings offered by individual feminists. In other words its not only about "My" meaning against "Your" meaning...... words have a life and growth of thier own in a culture that is never fully in our control. Etymological studies of words are researched very seriously by academics, not just spun by artists, and the roots of the term femin, as employed to the present, are clear in these etymological studies. 124.187.121.128 14:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you User:124.187.121.128 for your contribution. I must tell you that Slrubenstein is trying to help you by pointing out that this page is not in fact the best place for the material you've added - Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a thesaurus. There is a Wiki for this called Wikictionary
This page is an encyclopedic entry for the socio-cultural movements called feminism other uses of the term would require their own pages, but once again bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Personally I don't see where this info would fit in an encyclopedic article on Feminism. Currently what you are doing to make it fit constitutes a synthesis which is original research in Wikipedia's terms and this is a violation of Wikipedia's policies.
As above this info might perhaps be helpful on Wikictionary if you choose to added it there--Cailil talk 20:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Cailil, I understand that this is not a dictionary. The paragraph is intended to show that some women and men, particularly men, are reluctant to align with feminism because of the gendered nature of the word feminist. I.e. its a definitional issue ('Issues Defining Feminism'). Including the etymology was purely to strengthen this fact. How the 'speech group' of the majority uses or understands the term I consider very relevant, and relevant also to most feminists too who wonder why young women and men are rejecting the title when they have some sympathy with the aims of feminists. The gendered nature of the term is one reason for this refusal of young people to identify. If this is hard to understand, just imagine the reluctance equality seeking men and women would have in taking on the title 'masculinist,' even if the definition of masculinist reportedly had nothing to do with the male gender.

I suggest you just delete it if you are uncomfortable with it. Or you may like to help edit it. Dakota124.187.121.128 23:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. I usually am in a rush and don't log in, but someone asked what my details were, which are: Soulgany101 07:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"The paragraph is intended to show that some women and men, particularly men, are reluctant to align with feminism because of the gendered nature of the word feminist." This is an argument. If it is your own argument (or the argument of any Wikipedia editor) it cannot go into the article as that would violate NOR. However, if this is an argument that has been made by a significant person outside of Wikipedia - a feminist, historian or sociologist of feminism, or critic of feminism - and can be supported by a verifiable source in which another person has made this argument, then we can include it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The following source has been on the page for two days- Rachael Willliams and Michele Andrissin Wittig write: '..it's likely that the gendered connotation of the term itself plays a role in their avoidance of the label' in "I'm not a feminist, but … ": factors contributing to the discrepancy between pro-feminist orientation and feminist social identity" in Sex Roles: a Journal of Research (1997).
Also mentioned by Elizabeth A. Suter and Paige W, Toller - 'Men... may reject the label [feminist] due to the gendered nature of the word "feminist"' in Gender Role and Feminism Revisited: A Follow Up Study, in Sex Roles: a journal of Research 55, 135-146 (2006) Soulgany101 14:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think providing these sources resolves the debate, although personally I would prefer sources that make stronger arguments e.g. based on poll data, or ethnographic research, rather than speculation. Still, these are valid sources and allow us to represent this view in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

{comment} it appears that the feminists of the Age of enlightenment may have been overlooked, this whole set of articles appears to have some empihrical evidence missingBobV01 01:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Islam

Deleted the unsourced comment "Feminists have been uncharacteristically silent on the topic of Islam." Two minutes searching by a non-expert like me turned up plenty of work on Islam by feminists (e.g. Margot Badran, Feminists, Islam, and Nation: Gender and the Making of Modern Egypt (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995)). It would be better to have some discussion it, rather than a denial of its existence.KD Tries Again 15:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)KD

Throw us a bone. How about a URL or two.Lestrade 17:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Here are some more bones:

  • Lila Abu Lughod's two books, Veiled Sentiments and
  • Writing Women's Worlds
  • and her edited volume Remaking Women: Feminism and Modernity in the Middle East
  • as well as her article "Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others" in American Anthropologist 2002, 104(3): 783-790. Also:
  • Evelyn A. Early's Baladi Women of Cairo: Playing with an Egg and a Stone
  • Julie Marcus's A World of Difference: Islam and Gender Hierarchy in Turkey
  • Fatima Mernissi's Beyond the Veil: Male-Female Dynamics in a Modern Muslim Society
  • Margot Badram's Feminists, Islam, and Nation: Gender and the Making of Modern Egypt
  • Sandra Hale's Gender Politics in Sudan: Islamism, Socialism and the State
  • Judith Tucker's Arab Women: Old Boundaries, New Frontiers and
  • Women in Muslim Societies: Diversity within Unity edited by Herbert Bodman and Nareyeh Tohidi and
  • Organizing Women: Formal and Informal Groups in the Middle East edited by Dawn Chatty and Anika Rabo, and
  • Saba Mahmood's article, "Feminist Theory, Embodiment, and the Docile Agent: Some Reflections on the Egyptian Islamic Revival" in Cultural Anthropology 2001, 16(2): 202-236. Also
  • "The Culture of Motherhood: An Avenue for Women's Civil Participation in South Lebanon" by Zeina Zaatari in Journal of Middle East Women's Studies 2(1) - I bet this journal has LOTS of stuff on feminism and islam, by the way.

Sorry none of these many bones are URLs but that is because the best scholarship comes out in journals and books, and those of us who wish to edit an excellent encyclopedia need to be willing to go to libraries and read actual books and peer-reviewed journal articles ... Wikipedia may be a resource for people who do not have access to good libraries, but for it to be just that, it has to be based on solid research by people who look beyond the internet. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

More than enough there to refute the original statement, which I only paused to check because it seemed so wildly implausible.
Is it possible to say that feminists , in general, on the whole, support or agree with Islamic attitudes toward women?Lestrade 20:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
No, for the same reason that you can't say that feminists , in general, on the whole, support or agree with Christian attitudes toward women. Which Islam? Which interpretation of the Koran? I know Moslems I would call feminist, and others very much not so; same as with my fellow Friends. --Orange Mike 20:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Feminists are publicly very vocal on political, social, economic, and sexual topics. But, to find their viewpoint on Islam, I must go to the peer–reviewed journals in the nearest academic library. Also, it is informative to learn that the Koran has so many interpretations of women's rights. I know that there are differences of opinion as to whether women should be imprisoned or executed for wearing short skirts in public.Lestrade 21:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

You are obviously trolling. I apologize to all editors who answer questions in good faith for having your time wasted by this creature. --Orange Mike 21:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
In the schoolyard, I learned the power of name–calling. It is a devastating weapon and it always works well with those who don't think. Discussions about important questions can be effectively halted by a talented name–caller.Lestrade 15:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

If you come in good faith because you want to improve the article, and do not want anyone to think otherwise of you, then my advice is: read one or two of the books I listed above and start working it into content you can add to the article (i.e. do what we editors are supposed to do: research, and write). Good luck, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also advise you, lestrade, to understand how the media works - they don't publicise what they don't want publicised. Just because you haven't read about it in your local paper, or seen it on the tv doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Please read some of the above books and journals and you will understand further.-Localzuk(talk) 13:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You Guys

According to the article, some feminists think that "…gendered and sexed identities, such as 'man' and 'woman', are mere social constructs." In written communications, many persons are now using "her" instead of "he" as a general pronoun. However, there seems to be no objection to the current trend in calling a general group of people "guys." This may be interpreted as being contradictory.Lestrade 22:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Are you suggesting a change to the article, such as adding "No feminist objects to calling a mixed group of people "guys"? If so, that would be inaccurate. See, for example, this website dedicated to opposing the use of "guys." See also this discussion of the issue on a women's studies list. -Fagles 20:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It's interesting, perhaps, but completely irrelevant to the substance of this article (and for the record, "you guys" or "youse guys" is a gender-free phrase in working-class Milwaukee, including among us feminists). --Orange Mike 20:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
In my dictionary, a guy is a fellow, that is, a man or boy. Therefore it is not a "gender–free" noun. In fact, it is an extremely gender–relative noun. Also, how can the use of a male name for females be irrelevant in an article about feminism?Lestrade 21:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

The meanings of words follow actual usage; dictionaries cannot legislate usage. If people use "guys" inclusively to refer to a group of men and women, then obviously it has another meaning not in your dictionary. Be that as it may, this is an issue of semantics and not important enough for the article. While it is true that many feminists have objected to using words originally gendered male (man, mankind) to refer to women, this really is a minor point in feminism and for most feminists it is important only because it is one more piece of evidence about a much more complex set of relations. The article should focus on that more complex set of relations, not one trivial little issue of semantics. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but it is a mystery why feminists do not object to the use of a male name for women. This is related to the topic of Islam. Feminists are not very vocal about the extreme, harsh treatment of women in that religion. The article might describe how feminists seem to contradict themselves by vehemently protesting some forms of male dominance but not other forms.Lestrade 11:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

First, feminists do object. Second, how on earth is this related to Islam? Third, feminists have been very critical of patriarchy in Islamic countries. So what on earth are you talking about? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Lestrade appears to a) dislike feminists and b) dislike Islam - all his comments on here have been trying to pick holes in feminism and have simply ignored any sourced responses.
Lestrade, this isn't the place for your personal views or to ask things like this, we are here to improve the site with sourced information, not discuss our personal thoughts about how vocal feminists are about different aspects of feminism.-Localzuk(talk) 13:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
My comments and questions are being misinterpreted. I "appear" to have antipathy toward Feminists and Muslims. User:Localzuk writes: "I think Lestrade appears to a) dislike feminists and b) dislike Islam." But this appearance exists solely in the mind of User:Localzuk, who is making a subjective inference. In response to User:Slrubenstein's question "how on earth is this related to Islam?" I reply that in both cases Feminists surprisingly fail to protest against the imposition of male dominance. In the case of the expression "you guys," they silently submit to being referred to with a male noun. In the case of Islam, I thought that Feminists silently submit to the Islamic oppression of women. According to User:Slrubenstein, I am wrong in my judgment regarding Feminism and Islam because he has shown that, instead of the silent submission that I thought occurred, "…feminists have been very critical of patriarchy in Islamic countries." As User:Localzuk says, "… we are here to improve the site with sourced information." Therefore, I will refrain from any further questions or suggestions regarding the article.71.251.134.107 14:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

I provided you with a long list of sources on women in Islam. Obviously feminist scholars are saying lots of things about it. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

this article is too long. KurtKotzur 02:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

referencing Poststructuralist feminism section

I've added some references to the section on Poststructural feminism. I messed up my last edit summary - it should have read "rephrased and removed parenthesis for readability". The section is jargon heavy and needs a little clean-up. Also the use of parenthesis was bad for its readability. All that aside it was totally unreferenced. The first line still needs a citation - the content is correct but the wording is a new one for me. I have a Peter Barry definition at hand which is less jargon heavy.

The other 2 refs I added are th one I assume are necessary. The Barbara Johnson one is straight forward but I also sourced the last lines to Irigary's essay "When our lips speak together" - this is the kind of essay I understand the section to be referring to. if I'm wrong please add the proper refs.--Cailil talk 20:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I changed the description of the Churches of Christ movement (note that the old listing was a redirect) as it was misleading. I'm not real fond of them, but the description was rather misleading, as you will see if you read the article on them and the article on megachurches; I've now reverted the reversion of that edit. I also reverted the retitling of the section, as the new title was poorly worded and put undue emphasis on one particular denomination. The section needs work, but I don't see the title change as useful to the project. --Orange Mike 16:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Orange Mike, In fact the wikipedia link to megachurches says, "Within the United States, more than half of these large church institutions are non-denominational churches." The non-denominational movement grew out of the "Chruch of Christ" tradition. I did have a link to the history of the non-denominational movement that I must have accidentally erased. Here it is: [2] Regards, --Bremskraft 16:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not a link to the history of the non-denominational "movement" (if there really can be said to be such a thing in any meaningful sense); it's a link to the history of the Campbell Restoration movement, part of which became the Churches of Christ. (They insist they aren't a denomination, but that's irrelevant here.) The megachurches, by and large, have no link with or responsibility to any denomination or movement, including the CofC. The language I reverted is misleading and puts the emphasis in inappropriate places. I ask again that you restore my edits. --Orange Mike 16:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The history of the non-denominational movement and the history of the Campbell Restoration movement are the same thing. Campbell more or less "invented" non-denominationalism. Please see the wikipedia link for the history of the restoration movement. But, really, this discussion doesn't belong on the feminist page (and I'm not particularly interested in the non-denominational movement). However, the point should be made that the non-denominational movement is a fundamentalist one, and takes a uniquely American fundamentalist slant on feminism. This includes the "theology," or really "A-theology" of megachurches. Let's see if we can't come to an agreement on how this should be worded. --Bremskraft 16:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. "I ask you again that you restore my edits" is a funny way to put things.
Can we agree on this?

"The leadership of women in religious matters has been resisted by many denominations. The Roman Catholic church, and fundamentalist protestant traditions such as the Southern American Baptist chruch, and the American "non-denominational" movement (that includes the Church of Christ and megachurches) exclude women from entering the priesthood and other clerical positions, limiting women to the roles of nuns or laypeople."--Bremskraft 17:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Bremskraft, a lot of your edits to the article have been good. But I agree 100% with Orange Mike's assessment and action in this situation. The sub-sections you've added ('Religion, sexuality and reproductive choice'; 'Religions inspired by feminism'; Effect of feminism on theology and Kalam) are unsourced (www.rcrc.org is not a reliable source). I have to agree with him that they should be removed.
"Conservative denominations also tend to restrict female sexuality by prohibiting or limiting birth control use, and condemning abortion as a sin likely punished by damnation to hell by God." This line is a characterization since it is editorializing on the prohibition of birth control. It might be true or it might not be, but WP can't keep this statement in becuase it is unverifiable, unsourced and not neutral. Also these lines need to be sourced or removed: "feminism has led to self examination, with reclaimed positive Christian and Islamic views and ideals of Mary, Islamic views of Fatima Zahra, and especially the Catholic belief in the Coredemptrix"
I understand that you are working to improve the article but as Orange Mike said in one of his edit summaries that the language is "overly-specific". I don't really see where this information fits in an encyclopedic entry on feminism - it's really more of an essay. I don't think that's your fault BTW. All of the "effects of" sections implicitly encourage essay type entries. I'm of the opinion that all the "effects of" sections should be re-drafted or removed.
I think your edits to the criticism section are very appropriate and the your rewriting of those Shelia Cronin sections was needed but I'm of the opinion that the section on the effects of religion is overly-specific, unverified and given undue weight. Orange Mike is making the right call here. Another article about "Feminism and religion" or "Theology and gender" (I think God and gender covers this one though) maybe more appropriate for the detail of this information--Cailil talk 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Cailil, most of the contributions under this section were added before I came along. But, I do think that what it currently says now is accurate. I will work on adding citations. In the mean time, why is www.rcrc.org not a reliable source? rcrc.org is used as a cite to list it's member organizations. Please explain. --Bremskraft 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand that the section was already in existence but I'm referring to your edits as "overly specific" [3].
At my previous time of writing rcrc.org was the only reference to that paragraph [4] - I called it unreliable because it was sourcing the whole paragraph. There is still a problem with it at the moment because it isn't really being used as a citation to show the list of member groups - it's acting like a link.
I also notice that you've added a number of citations to the additions. Namely: http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp ; http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/baptist/sbcabres.html ; and http://www.bible-knowledge.com/Sin-of-Abortion.html . None of these are reliable sources. Please see WP:RS. Reliable sources are secondary, peer-reviewed, published articles, books, journals etc. The websites of organizations may be included in exceptional cases - usually where the article / section refers directly to them - in this case the websites have no place here. The two sub-sections, "Religion, sexuality and reproductive choice" and "Religions inspired by feminism:" should be removed. There are a no. of grounds for this removal. 1) They are unsourced and unverified (that means not sourced by reliable sources). 2) They are given undue weight (this is what I mean when I say the parts are overly specific). 3) They are in the wrong article (what I said above about being better placed in another article like Feminism and religion) 4)Then there is the issue of possible original research. It is up to the editor writing a piece to source it (using verifiable and reliable sources) - if they can't it has to go. 5) And then there's neutrality - this section is biased and is violating WP:NPOV (I've already mentioned the editorializing in my last comment). I know its not an intentional bias but it would be clear to any passer-by where the sympathies of the author lie, which is a violation of WP's policies on tone and neutral point of view. This why lines like "Conservative denominations also tend to restrict female sexuality by prohibiting or limiting birth control use, and condemning abortion as a sin likely punished by damnation to hell by God." are a problem.
I'm really sorry that my comments have been so long but I recognize that you are trying to improve the article and I want you to understand why I'm disagreeing with you--Cailil talk 13:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Cailil, thank you for your time and energy. I appreciate your efforts. First (to get this out of the way), I am only interested in the "Women's roles within Roman Catholocism and American religious traditions" and the "Religion, sexuality and reproductive choice" sections. If you want to remove the "Religions inspired by feminism" section, I have no objection. However, I think the "Effect of feminism on theology and Kalam" section would be interesting if it were fleshed out.
Second, I wasn't quite done with all the citations/references before I had to leave this project for a meeting. I have added new, secondary sources to the section. Also, simply because a source isn't secondary or peer reviewed doesn't mean that source is invalid or non-reliable. The links to the Southern Baptist Convention website, and the Website sponsored by a Catholic organization are primary sources and are therefore reliable in this context. In other words, if our paragraph makes the claim that Southern Baptists believe abortion to be a sin, then the link to the document on the Southern Baptist website (that shows the documentation where Southern Baptists have agreed that abortion is a sin) is a reliable source.
Third, if you believe you can do a better job organizing the citations/references or the paragraph, please do so. But it is clear to me that all the claims made in the paragraph are now thoroughly sourced, including the claim "Conservative denominations also tend to restrict female sexuality[38]" which is sourced by a sociology journal published at Stanford.
Again, thank you for your time and efforts. I look forward to your response. --Bremskraft 17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bremskraft, I think you're getting somewhere with those references - good job![5]
Personally I would be inclined to remove the "Religions inspired by feminism" sub-section. Also I do agree that "Effect of feminism on theology and Kalam" is interesting - I just think its getting a bit over specific for this article.
My feeling would be that the whole Feminism & Religion section should be re-written more neutrally and more concisely. If you'd be willing to think about that I would suggest making the section a description of Feminism, Religion and the struggle for women's reproductive autonomy or something along those lines. Feminism and religion is a big area and even Feminism & catholicism probably deserves its own article.
I keep talking about areas needing their own article because this page is a parent article. Feminist theory, Post-Feminism, Feminist History etc are all children (if you will) of this page and they should be being mentioned in brief summary sections on this page - like the sections of Eco-Feminism and Liberal feminism etc are doing. If you or anyone else would be interested in helping me do this, then this is a link to the policy on summary style.
Going back to Orange mike's concern. The reference to the mega-churches could be removed without damaging the sense or purpose of that sentence. I still think he is making the right call in that situation--Cailil talk 00:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Cailil, I actually think that the Megachurch reference is a necessary one. What OrangeMike objected to has been changed. OrangeMike believes that the non-denominational movement did not come from the Cambpell reform movement. This is not something that the feminist page should be concerned with. However, megachurches are playing a prominent role in the anti-reproductive rights movement in the United States.--Bremskraft 00:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Well for the moment I'm quite happy with the section. I'm going to provisionally remove the "Religions inspired by feminism" and "Effect of feminism on theology and Kalam" sub-sections - so if anyone has sources for them, they should readd re-insert teh info with sources. Also I'm going to reword some sentences to try and make them more NPOV. For the moment I'll leave the mega-churches in--Cailil talk 11:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I've had to strike my first comment about being happy because the more I try to reword the Religion, sexuality and reproductive choice: subsection the more problems I see. I've attempted to re-word it for NPOV but the issue is not just the phraseology its the paragraph's purpose. As I said previously there is a bias issue. The problem being that the sub-section reads like a bad-guys / good-guys contrast. It doesn't spell out what, where and how feminism has agitated or effected the situation in these denominations. At the moment its an essay critiquing christianity and reproductive choice from a feminist perspective. Secondly I'm going to return to the sourcing - http://www.johnstonsarchive.net and bible-knowledge.com are not WP:RS - using them to show how what the section says is true is original research and synthesis.
What I'm doing is this. I'm removing the sub-section Religion, sexuality and reproductive choice: on these grounds: if we are to write a section on Religion, sexuality and reproductive choice for this feminism article it needs a) to address how feminists have agitated for and/or achieved reproductive autonomy within (or aginst the wishes of) Religious organizations; b) This info needs to come from a prieviously existing reliable source; and c) it must not be a synthesis.
I'm still happy to talk about this and I know most of the info is accurate. Its just not suitable for Wikipedia in its present form. If you are unhappy with this you could as for third opinion--Cailil talk 12:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Cailil, I went away for a day and you got all deletion crazy on me. I think that the paragraph about religion and reproduction is a necessary one for the feminism page. The contention between religious groups and feminist groups regarding reproductive rights is very real in the United States. Fighting for reproductive rights has therefore become a tenant of mainstream, liberal feminism (and is therefore noteworthy). I understand this is certainly not the case in most of other Western countries. The work American feminists do for reproductive rights is something I find European academics (among others) find difficult to understand. I am trying to clarify the paragraph for this reason. --Bremskraft 21:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(out dent) Just as a small & tangential point - I actually do understand the kind of activity American feminists do for reproductive rights - the situation here in Ireland was similar to (if often 20 years behind) some parts of the USA. Our 7th president Mary Robinson was exactly that kind of feminist activist throughout the 70s & 80s.
My deletions were not intended to be in any way aggressive. But if it's to stay some of the issues I'm raising needs to addressed. The paragraph is not neutral & it's still using the sources I mentioned earlier as unreliable (johnstonsarchive.net and bible-knowledge.com); the end still looks like an ad for the RCRC; & on top of that, the piece still violates WP:SYNT. Each point in the paragraph on its own has some sources but there's no single source for the whole concept behind this paragraph. The entry becomes notable when all the points are linked together. Please understand that my opposition is not to a section about 'Reproductive rights and feminist agitation' but to this particular phrasing. If this was fleshed out as an independent article and then summarized into a paragraph - it might be easier.
Anyway I wont delete this again unless there is a consensus reached to do so. I recommend that you drop a line to project gender studies as well as ask for a third opinion. I'll contact someone who'll double check my actions and concerns too. Also I'd appreciate your views on the beginnings of my summary style version of the article (below) - you'll notice the subsection 'reproductive rights' from the religion section is missing from it at the moment but if consensus is to keep your addition I'll put it into the summary style version too. Once again I'm sorry that my posts are so long--Cailil talk 01:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cailil, thank you for your always thoughtful responses. Here is the problem with trying to source American conservative religious organizations in general: what appears to be a "non reliable" source is simply a primary source. The information in (johnstonsarchive.net and bible-knowledge.com) are not jokes though they may appear that way at first. In fact, these sites tend to be quite influential, having a substantial readership.
Second, I'm having trouble understanding how the last sentence looks like a advert for the RCRC. Can you further explain what you mean? Perhaps this can be fixed.
I am having trouble with this idea that there is not "one source" that links the whole paragraph together. I am not aware that there is a rule, spoken or unspoken, in Wikipedia-land that requires material on a page to be a regurgitation of one source rather than a synthesis of works from several sources.
(Lastly, I wouldn't say Ireland isn't necessarily 20yrs behind the U.S. -except on issues of reproductive choice. Having a female president, and a self-labeled feminist at that, is light-years ahead of the U.S.) --Bremskraft 02:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I understand the problems your having sourcing the more "conservative" views - blogs and forums are taken very seriously and are incredibly powerful - but currently Wikipedia doesn't allow for their use as sources because the information at/on these sites can be (and often is) unverifiable research, in other words they're not peer reviewed.
The rule on synthesis is a bit difficult at first. Basically there are 2 types of original research a) the new theory that is unverified and b) the new way of looking at things by linking facts together. B, is synthesis and is usually unintentional but its still a kind of original thought. A whole page doesn't need a single source. But a single paragraph as short as this one becomes a synthesis very easily. Basically it'd be okay if the 3 ideas in your section had their own discrete paragraphs. one for "philosophical diffs between feminists & conservatives", another for "the restriction of female sexuality by religious groups" and a last one for the "RCRC" - but there's not enough space here.
I'd be happy to help start a new article on this topic. As an interim measure we could agree to leave what you've added in until we can summarize what that article says. I can open a user space temp page where we could start work if you like--Cailil talk 12:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
A, I see... (very quickly because I don't have much time today) In fact, none of the sources I linked to are blogs or forums. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/baptist/sbcabres.html is a link directly to the archives of the Southern Baptist Convention, and http://www.bible-knowledge.com/Sin-of-Abortion.html is authored by the "non-denominational" Church of Christ. These are primary sources, not secondary, and are therefore not peer reviewed. Wikipedia does allow for primary sources. Therefore I think you are correct in letting the paragraph stay.
With that said, I agree that secondary sources are more desirable, and I am aware that there are secondary sources available on this topic. Unfortunately, I do have limited time and would greatly appreciate any help you or others could provide.
Thank you for your help. --Bremskraft 15:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well actually johnstonsarchive.net and bible-knowledge.com are not primary sources. If the article was about them then they'd be primary sources. I'm going to ask for an outside opinion on the paragraph, just to satisfy my own wikiconscience.
I'm also unclear if you want to go down the new article road, because if not we can focus just on the paragraph--Cailil talk 20:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
In fact, these are primary sources as primary sources are defined by historians. "In historical scholarship, a primary source is a document, or other source of information that was created at or near the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. In this sense primary does not mean superior. It refers to creation by the primary players, and is distinguished from a secondary source, which in historical scholarship is a work, such as a scholarly book or article, built up from primary sources.[1]" - taken from Wikipedia
Also, if you want to start a new page, I'm for it.

The temporary page is here. When it's in article-shape we can MOVE it into the main space--Cailil talk 22:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Raunch Culture

I've been coming across this for a while now, both as mentioned in print and as seen on the street. The 'Raunch' phenomenon is usually cast as an important feminist statement. Raunch feminism is seen as either betraying feminism, or alternatively as realizing an aspect of feminism. Here is one article: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article330823.ece

I don't know enough about it to comment but thought it may be worthy for discussion by those in the know, and considered as a topical addition to the main page. Soulgany101 12:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

(PS. I couldn't seem to format the heading so that it appeared separate from the above topic on religion. It is intended as a completely new discussion) Soulgany101 12:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point Soulgany101. I've heard a bit about raunch culture and I've seen it mentioned at Sex-positive_feminism. On the one hand I think it may deserve a stub article of it's own, but on the other I'm unsure of the subject's notability. The mention on Sex-positive_feminism is in the criticism section but I think that a section about it there would be highly appropriate. Since Sex-postive feminism should have its own summary here I expect it would be mentioned in that. Thanks for bringing that up--Cailil talk 16:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

proposal: rewrite of article as per WP:SUMMARY

Okay i've been talking about this for a while but now its time to do something. I'm proposing that this page be rewritten in line with summary style. Below is an outline for what I belive that page might look like. It is by no means in a final order so things will be added and others removed. There are a lot of problems with the issues in defining feminism, Relationship to other movements, Modern feminism & Effects of feminism in the West sections. What's currently in them needs to be shortened and made directly relevant to this page as the main/parent article for Feminism.

This would also be an opportunity to work the criticism section into the article so that no POV sections are created.

The outline shows links to most of the main articles about feminism. I propose the current head line and head paragraph are kept and that the sources and information currently on the page be retained but in a more concise form.

This is only my suggestion and I'm going to write this in my user-space first - anyone who is interested in helping me should just drop on by to the page here. I'm going to leave a note about this at the Project gender studies talk page too. I'm open to debate and suggestion on this, and I wont implement the page (when finished) until/unless there's a consensus to do so--Cailil talk 17:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just finished some work on the temporary page. Most of the sections have a few words in them but they all need trimming down and some require sourcing--Cailil talk 21:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay the page is in pretty good shape and I'd like to submit it for approval. It still needs some sourcing but I'm happy with most of it .You can see it here--Cailil talk 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, a section that has started to become quite broad even in its unfinished state is "Feminism and the arts" its collecting summaries from Women's writing in English, Women's cinema, Feminist science fiction and Women's music but it also has space for a summary of feminist artists. This may need its own article. And saying that it may be time to look at the organization of Category:feminism in order to rationalize what's a parent article, to see what's a summary and what's been orphaned over the years--Cailil talk 23:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Counter Movements / Men's Rights

I don't have much time today, so I just wanted to quickly list my thoughts... There are a few things that we need to keep in mind while categorizing the "Men's Rights" pages:

  • Much of what is written on the "Masculinism" and "Men's Rights" pages is unsourced
  • Much of what is written on the "Masculinism" and "Men's Rights" pages is not neutral
  • There is no definition of the "men's movement" in terms of historical events or any semblance of coherant ideology that isn't a direct counter to feminism. What is the "men's rights movement"? It's hard to tell because there is no scholarly research (i.e. peer reviewed journals) on "Men's Rights" or "Masculinism"; therefore, we must ask if this is a "movement" or simply a group of people with enough time to put up webpages and wikipedia pages...;
  • In fact, they define themselves on several occasions on their Wikipedia pages as a direct counter of the "Women's Movement"
  • What's written on the Wikipedia pages about men's rights do not seem to correspond to reality (esp in the US, where the US websites claim that that men's rights are a direct counter to feminism) - who put these Wikipedia pages up and why? (esp. in light of them not being sourced); What counts as a "movement" anyway?--Bremskraft 23:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Not denying there are massive and highly contentious problems at those pages - that's not the issue here. But rather, can you verify that Men's Rights and Masculism are 100% counter movements? Because if you can't, wording like "Male movements" might be better. You see I can list pro-feminist men's rights activist/academics such as Michael Scott Kimmel and Michael Flood who are definitely not countering feminism. Your characterization is only opinion unless you can source it. I've asked another user to look at this. BTW there are strains of the men's movement that are anti-feminist (such as the black shirts in Australia), there are others that are pro-feminist (such as NOMAS in the USA[6]). Reverting like this is not the most civil thing that you could do. Other editors are acting in good faith, and consensus needs to be built when edits are disputed - even if you're short on time--Cailil talk 23:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
"not corresponding to reality".... "[only] a direct counter to feminism". ??
I've taken an ongoing interest in the activity and attitudes of mens groups in Australia, the U.S., and the U.K., and I can assure you that the vast majority are not just orbits around a feminist satellite (nice try!). Mens groups are nowadays well organized politically and are interested in issues of boys education, father-daughter & father-son relationships, marriage issues, men's health, post separation involvement in children's lives, single (father) parenting, (and many many other issues) and the right for these matters to be recognized in legal terms. Feminism is only a peripheral consideration to this work, and then only because it is viewed as fostering antagonistic, denigrating, or sexist attitudes toward male existence, and male rights. I'm just repeating what I've seen these groups typically talk about, this is not my opinion.
There are a few radical, but tiny minority groups who set themselves up against feminism, but I'd suggest that these individuals probably constitute less than 1% of the whole worldwide movement/s. Just thought I'd put some perspective to your portrayal, although as Cailil said this is not the issue here. Soulgany101 00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Cailil, Michael Flood and Michael Scott Kimmel definitely have important things to say. However, two academic scholars do not embody a "movement". Also, can a "consensus" be reached without discussion? You moved to quickly to change what I had done.
Soulgany and Cailil, this is what I suggest: there needs to be a distinction made on the "Masculinism," "Men's Rights" and "Father's Rights" pages between antifeminists (which is the bulk of the "Men's Rights" activity in the U.S.), and "original/not reactionary" organizations and male movements. Until those distinctions are clear, we cannot in good faith send users to pages under the guise of "related movements" because they aren't. As the pages are written at this time, "Masculinism," "Men's Rights" and "Father's Rights" are anti-feminist, or "counter-feminist." How about we call the category "Counter-feminist and/or Male Movements" because that is the only way to capture what these pages are saying currently. I encourage you to better distinguish the categories of the "Mens Rights" movement on their various pages. In fact, the three pages are presently indistinguishable. --Bremskraft 01:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The state of pages is not an opportunity for the advancement of POV. There are numerous problems with those pages - but that is not the issue. You've added the claim to this article that the Men's movement is a counter movement - you need a source and one that contradicts the existence of groups like NOMAS - the "National Organization for Men Against Sexism". It is not appropriate for you to decide what does or does not embody a movement - this is another NPOV issue. What your saying is also factually inaccurate. These are male movements but not necessarily counter-feminist. I know that there are vocal antifeminists in the states - I had an encounter with one such Men's Rights Activist on Wikipedia as you'll see at the Men's Rights talk page. However your characterization is a generalization and one that is not neutral. It would be better to use the term "Male movements" because it is factual & neutral. I'm disengaging until the editor I asked replies to this.--Cailil talk 01:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
PS to clarify by saying that masculinism and feminism are related I took it for granted that the fact they both campaign for gendered rights and against gender-based discrimination was plain - I'm sorry if that was unclear. However I accept that "related" could be as contentious as "counter," hence I suggest the use of "male" on its own--Cailil talk 01:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Cailil, calm down. What I said, in fact, is that your idea of "Men's Rights" and what is actually written on the Men's Rights page are two different things. You have to agree that what is on the Men's Rights page is almost entirely the representation of Counter-Feminism. This is at the beginning of the page:
"Masculism provides a counterpart to feminism and argues against legal constructs, reforms, or entitlements which deny men equal rights under the law on the basis of gender; there are conservative "traditionalist", "liberal", and libertarian strands."
"Most Men's Rights advocates do not align themselves with "pro-feminist" men or their organisations.(citation needed) These men are commonly referred to within the movement as "collaborationists" or "manginas".(citation needed)" Also, on the "Masculinism" page, the "movement" is stated as having it's beginning "...from Ernest Belfort Bax, a socialist theoretician in the height of socialism at the beginning of the 20th century..." Bax was an "ardent anti-feminist" according to his Wikipedia page.
Let me restate the problem and perhaps this will be clearer - the problem is that both anti-feminist (or counter-feminist) and pro-feminist ideas are presented on the "Masculinism," "Men's Rights," and "Father's Rights" pages. But, when defining the men's/father's/masculinist movements on the page, the movements are clearly delineated as counter-feminist. We, therefore, have a dilemna: even though "Masculinism" may be a a part of feminism, or a "movement" that is separate entirely, it is none-the-less described as being a counter-movement on Wikipedia. So, in other words, if we are to take only the information within the Wikipedia pages, then it seems to me that Masculinism, Father's Rights, Men's rights is/are coutner-movement/s.--Bremskraft 06:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Bremskraft, I went and had a look at the three Wikipedia sites you mention- Masculinism, Father's rights, Men's rights, and could find not a single occurance of your above phrase "counter movement" let alone the longer phrase 'counter feminist movement'. Because you say the movements are "clearly delineated" as "counter feminist" I can only assume you saw this phrase elsewhere, or that it is otherwise your POV. If some arguments or concerns of these groups run counter to feminist aims and arguments, this does not automatically mean that the group's entire locus is anti/counter feminist, i.e. the countering may be a secondary concern only. Primary concerns are usually those stated- boys education, equality before the law, father-daughter/son relationships, parenting, men's heath, and attendant legal issues (etc.). None of these examples of 'primary' loci require an anti or counter feminist stance, and if they seem counter this may be unintentional, or otherwise a secondary focus only. Soulgany101 07:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
PS. It is extreme to try and paint all initiatives of mens/fathers/masculinist groups as strictly backlashing or countering. That kind of thinking has got a doctrinal tone. The guys are sometimes capable of having their own creative thoughts which aren't reactions/counterings to feminism. Soulgany101 07:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Soulgany, I have resisted the urge to bang my head against my desk, and simply bolded the relevant information in my last post. Perhaps you could put some of the energy you use to misread my posts into improving the masculinism/men's rights/fathers rights pages.
Here are relevant starting points for you:
  • etc., etc., etc --Bremskraft 17:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

For those interested see this discussion of the same issue at Template_talk:Discrimination#Counter_Movements_.2F_Men.27s_Rights--Cailil talk 20:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Bremskraft I don't want to keep arguing with you but I am going to ask that you don't reinsert the term "counter" unless/until you can source & verify it. Your work at finding the above sources is excellent but is more pertinent for the masculism pages. I'm going to change the the subheading to "Masculist movements". Again please don't revert unless you can source the other wording. If you want to start bringing Masculism up to standard I'd be delighted to help source facts and remove OR. The feminism and religion temp page is also open.--Cailil talk 22:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Masculinist movements" seems a very reasonable compromise. Thank you. I will help with both pages as I have the time.--Bremskraft 23:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Bremskraft, I was unable to access most of the articles you provided above as I am not a subscriber. Nevertheless, initial concerns over terminology have been aired and I'm sure that any further information which can raise the standard of the masculism page will be welcomed. (no need to hurt your head!) Soulgany101 00:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Sougany, I am sorry you can't access these articles. Let's work together and get you access somehow. I think you would find them interesting, and would be able to use them on the masculinism page. --Bremskraft 23:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Bremskraft. Thanks for the offer to read the articles and work together. At this point I might decline for the simple reason that I'm a Wikipedia dunce, and find it frustrating to work on a topic only to find out that my hours are wasted due to a Wikipedia rule-infringement. The work I did on the other page was just zapped. So what I've done is put a brief history of our (yours, mine and Cailil's ) exchanges on this topic on the Men's Rights and the Masculism pages, where other more knowledgeable editors can take it up. Again I appreciate your gesture, and the spirit in which you made it, particularly as we are coming from different perspectives on this topic. I wish you all the best with the editing. Soulgany101 08:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Soulgany, you are far from a Wikipedia dunce. Your passion keeps us all honest. If you ever feel like working together to improve the Masculinism page, please let me know.--Bremskraft 16:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

unless there are any objections...

Unless anyone is objecting to the summary style version of this article I'd like to start adding that content on thursday. There is some minor sourcing to do and few rewords but bar that and the Feminism & the arts section its ready to go. I'm going to suggest a new article be written for feminism & the arts and when that's done a summary can then be added to this page. My proposal to rewrite is above and the summary version is here. I'm hoping this is the first step in sorting out the redundancy in Category:feminism and the next step to making this page a good article--Cailil talk 18:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay this is D-day, if anyone has objections to the changes this isplace to discuss them! I've only moved the info that is fully sourced into the article. I'm working on the history section and should have that ready tonight--Cailil talk 13:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. I've added most of the material - Pro-feminism and Third-wave Feminism are missing because they need some more sourcing. I've also removed two pieces - MArilyn French's explanation of Patriarchy (becase I think we need a full summary of Patriarchy here and I'll shorten what I removed and add that to a Summary of Patriarchy and add that tonight or tomorrow - if someone else wats to do that it'd be great) and the etymology (I still feel this belongs at Wiktionary & that it is really a piece of interesting research but not all that suitable for here). IMO the sections on Scientific research need development as do the effects section and relationship to other movements.--Cailil talk 14:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • {comment} I object! It appears to me that there is a desire to assert discrimination purposefully as a POV and that somewhere herein lies a bias. Michael Flood, Randy Flood, Warren Farrell, Horn et al there is a plethora of published work that demonstrate the various groups termed male movements, design and purpose, they most certainly are not monolithic nor is feminism, this is my opinion: as I can I will attempt to add cited data where appropriate. If I may venture an additional comment: the assumption of egalitarian society, from a political science perspective is already the introduction of bias, and a bias from a defined Point of ViewBobV01 01:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
BobV01 - there are a number of issues here. First, I can't make out what you object to. Second, this notice is a month old. Third, you are failing to assume good faith with these comments, and fourth you are continuing some sort of soapbox about feminism. 4 out of 5 of these are violations of wikipedia's core principles - please look at WP:5.
I am familiar with Michael Flood's work but I don't see where you're going with this. If you're objection is to me please raise your concerns with a sysop.
BobV01 - this article is recording the fact that in some forms of feminism there is a stated of creating an egalitarian society - this article is not assuming that there is one.--Cailil talk 20:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition of feminism and feminist

Hi all, I have noted that the List of feminists contains various people seemingly on the basis that that they believe(d) in the superiority of women to men. However, in the introduction to Feminism it states in absolute terms that Feminism is about "equality". Perhaps we should note that the word feminist is used to describe a variety of philosophies, not all of which have equality as a central tenet. Thehalfone 15:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just skimmed the list and no-one stood out as believing that women are superior to men. Who do you mean? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This is nonsense. There is nothing in that list to support such a conclusion. --Orange Mike 15:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thehalfone you're wrong on both counts. First the intro does say "feminism is the name of a number" of philosophies. It does not state in absolute terms that Feminism is about "equality" - what it says "Feminism is also described as an ideology focusing on equality of both sexes.". Second like Slrubenstein & Orangemike I don't see who exactly you're talking about. Regardless of whether you are correct or not the description of specific movements or activist's ideologies does not belong in the general head paragraph as per undue weight--Cailil talk 17:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I am sorry for talking nonsense, but I find it difficult to understand how all three of you missed the first entry on the list, and the third. Going back to the intro to Feminism, which quotes the definition given in Websters "1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests." I do not see where this second meaning is properly addressed in the introduction. In particular, this is clearly not synonymous with "Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender inequalities and discrimination against women." The point is that the word Feminism is used for political campaining that is not to do with equality. Thehalfone 06:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your proof that Eleanor of Aquitaine believed women are superior to men? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I made no such claim. Indeed, I put up the request for a citation for this claim as I didn't find anything to support it on her own page. Thehalfone 15:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you made the claim: It was you who said that the list includes people who believe women are superior to men; I asked you who you are talking about; you responded with "the first name on the list;" and I am now asking you why you think the first name on the lis, Eleanor of Aquitaine, believes - as YOU wrote - that women are superior to men. If you cannot answer this question then you were wasting our time when you claimed that the listincludes people who believe women are superior to men. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see you're both right here - Thehalfone did ask for a source for this and didn't add this claim to the list[7]. However, Thehalfone you are basing your argument on this unsourced claim. Personally (as I have said in my last comment) I don't know why Eleanor of Aquitaine is on the list as an 'Early pioneer' of feminism - I certainly can't verify her iclusion--Cailil talk 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
So what you're arguing Thehalfone is that because two renaissance/pre-renaissance figures, one a philopher-alchemist the other a Queen may have held female-chauvenist ideas that the article entitled feminism describing the modern theories and movements of feminism should reflect these positions over the reliable academic and notable journalistic coverage of said theories and movements. If this is your argument then I refer you again to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.
The history of that first line is recorded in some very long discussions above please refer to the consensus reached there. The use of the phrase "feminism comprises a number of" is to account for the proliferation of feminism sub-movements such as Ecofeminism, Marxist feminism, Post-feminism, Amazon feminism, Black feminism etc. These movemets are listed with an explanation paragraph in the rewrite (as proposed in my above sections) - a number (ie Radical feminism) are already in the present article. Also you can refer to books like Margaret Walters's Feminism: A Very Short Introduction or What is Feminism?: An Introduction to Feminist Theory by Chris Beasley or a plehora of other books variously entitled Feminism for lines similar to the first one here.
Nobody is denying that people like Mary Daly - who is one of the more notable Seperatist feminist (or female supremacist), and one you didn't mention - exist but their views are not reflective of Feminism in general and as per WP:UNDUE they are given due weight where appropriate. I think a section like the one on 'Liberal feminism' for Seperatist (or superemacist) feminism is an appropraite place for information on that sub-movement. Reinventing the definition of feminism to account for what is basicaly an opinion ("Feminism is used for political campaining that is not to do with equality") is totally inappropriate. Try WP:3O or request comment is you have a problem with the consensus here--Cailil talk 14:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
With respect, you have no need to put word into my mouth: I stated quite clearly what the issue was. On one page we have people listed as feminists seemingly on the basis of female chauvenistic views. If this is indeed a sufficient condition to be described a feminist, then this should be noted here. The alternative would be to either provide different rationale for their inclusion, or to remove them from the list. I am not trying to reinvent the definition of feminism, and my "opinion" on how the word feminism is sometimes used was actually a summary of how the word had indeed been used in the examples I gave you. Thehalfone 15:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
In fairness Thehalfone your question was "Perhaps we should note that the word feminist is used to describe a variety of philosophies, not all of which have equality as a central tenet". The logic for this reword was "The point is that the word Feminism is used for political campaigning that is not to do with equality" which was based on the 1st and 3rd names on the list of feminists. I apologize if I sounded rude in my above repy - if I did it was not my intent. But I will point out that I didn't put words in your mouth - I am trying to understand your reasons for arguing for this reword
Now, either this is a question about the definition of feminism (which is inferred by this sections' name) or the inclusion of names on the list of feminists.
If this is an issue of why Eleanor of Aquitaine and Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa are included on that list it should have been raised on Talk:List of feminists and for the record I would support the removal of the top 11 names from 'Early pioneers' down to Mary Wollstonecraft - (I don't see any verification for them being called early pioneers of feminism).
Otherwise this is an issue about the definition and I refer you to my last comment, specifically to the points about WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. To answer your question being a female chauvinist is not synonymous with being a feminist. Apologies again if I came across as agressive--Cailil talk 17:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps that would be the best solution. I am not an expert on feminism, I just want to sort out an inconsistancy. I will raise the issue at the list, and to be honest looking at the list again, there are various strange reasons given for peoples inclusion. All the best. Thehalfone 08:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

i am sorry i misunderstood Thehalfone's point. I think Calil is correct that some people who added names to the list were either overzealous or in some way misrepresenting the "feminist" in question. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have trouble understanding femminists

I have seen many femminist websites, and they just aren't specific enough. They seem to either complain about big piles of nondescript abuse targeted at women, or other things that only ever happen when I'm not looking.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.54.130 (talk • contribs)

'Relationship to other movements' and 'Effects of feminism in the West'

These two sections ('Relationship to other movements' and 'Effects of feminism in the West') are a bit of a problem for me. First off because they are (and encourage additions to them to be) in essay-style (WP:SYN) and secondly because their relationship to Feminism poorly sourced. I'm not saying there's nothing in this sections worth keeping, specically I think the information on Kristin Luker and religion should be kept but needs to be cut down. However, I'm going to remove 'Relationship to other movements' because its unsourced and is really duplicating information which is sourced in other sections - its also heavily USA-centered and may not reflect a global perspective. The section called 'Modern feminism' has the same problems. Personally I think it should go as well since it's also becoming redundant. If anybody wants to object to the removals that's okay, but if we're to keep these sections they need a major clean-up and a lot of sourcing--Cailil talk 11:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. its strikes me that 'Feminism and Religion' would be a better section if it dealt with Jewish feminism, Christian feminism and Islamic feminism rather than trying to be an essay on "conservative" Christianity versus feminist ideas. A global and pan-religious section on reproductive rights would be informed by such a section - will look at re-writing it and put it up here later--Cailil talk 12:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A final note for today. I've made the changes I talk about above on a provisional basis. If anyone has issues, large or small go ahead and make changes (even if that means reverting). I'm going to submit this page for peer-review and all going well as a good article candidate - this is not the end just the beginning of the process of improving this page to featured status and beyond--Cailil talk 16:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the following paragraph from the 'Hetrosexual relations' because it is unsourced.

There have also been changes in attitudes towards sexual morality and behavior with the onset of second wave feminism and "The Pill". Women are more in control of their bodies, Evangelical (Christian) feminists and social conservatives sometimes argue that closed marriages ideally promote egalitarianism in, especially when viewed in light of some other alternatives to monogamy (e.g., polygamy, swinging, open marriages, or infidelity). However, some feminists endorse cohabitation, open marriage, casual sex and other forms of 'responsible non-monogamy' as egalitarian lifestyles (see sex-positive feminism).

It's also covered in the sex-positive summary and the 'Religion' subsection--Cailil talk 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I've also removed the Engel's quote as it is just not directly linked to the 'hetrosexual relationships' content - if anyone can rewrite to include it, please do.--Cailil talk 22:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Cailil's changes

Calil, I didn't object when you proposed revising the article because I anted to see how it worked out. And I am not going to nit-pick over lost of ahcnages. But I take strong exception to one: your opening sentence, "Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender inequalities and discrimination against women." and whole first paragraph which follows from it. It is true that a major part of the feminist project, and a great number of feminists, are specifically concerned with inequality and discrimination and I do not object to giving these elements a major place in the first paragraph. But a significant aspect of contemporary feminism involves the questioning of the naturalness of gendered diferences (including objects of sexual desire), and research into historicla and cultural variation as to what gender means, how many genders there are, and what distinguishes specific genders. And this research is of course tied to a considerable body of research and activism that is concerned with and critiques the social construction of gender. This must be acknolwedged in the first paragraph. The current paragraph povides a limited and distorted view of feminism. I am not asking you to delete or change anyting you wrote, but I am asking you to add this other dimension. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

you're right Slrubenstein that 1st paragraph is problematic and I recognize that - in my moves to make it more concise it may have become more inaccurate. The kind of work your mentioing (ie critiques of essentialism and Judith Butler's theories) actually forms a part of my own academic background.
What would you think about adding another sentence to the head paragraph after "Feminism is also described as an ideology focusing on the equality of both sexes", saying something along the lines of "contemporary feminism critiques essentialist discourses of gender and identity" - that's a very poor sentence but we could build on it or on any suggestion you have:) For the moment I'm going to reinsert "Some have argued that gendered and sexed identities, such as "man" and "woman", are social constructs. Feminists often differ in opinion over the sources of inequality, how to attain equality, and the extent to which gender and gender-based identities should be questioned and critiqued." if you think this sentence is alright as is we can leave it at that--Cailil talk 13:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
PS I have some more proposed changes about the religion section here - Bremskraft's content fits perfectly into Christian feminism and I've put it there - these suggested changes take account of more than just Christinaity and feminism--Cailil talk 13:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence you propose is actually something I wrote, so I can't object - although I admit that perhaps it could be more elegantly phrased. My undergraduate advisor HATED it when people used the word "critique" as a verb, although I must admit i use it as one all the time ... because i think there is an important distinction between criticism and critique. I think the problem here is one you are aware of: these are very complex ideas and those of us who are steeped in french feminism, Butler, and hooks can discuss them at length but we rely on jargon to do it, so how do we handle it for an encyclopedia? My sentence was an atempt to introduce the key idea with as little jargon as possible and I think that should be our goal in the first paragraph. It may be easier if we do not feel too constrained by space, I mean, if we do not feel we have to limit it to one sentence. But whatever we do, here needs to be a section later on in the article that goes into greater depth about what "social construct" really means, what Foucault actually meant when he characterized sex as a discourse, Butler's ideas of gender as performance, work by more conventional (only by comparison to Foucault historians on the the historical mutability of sexuality and gender. For years I thought this article could do a better job at that, and for years I have avoided it (1) because I have other obligations (especially this year) and (2) while I could do a competent job I always hoped that there were ore feminists out there who could do a better job than I. Wikipedia has exploded in the past few years - you'd think its base of editors would have also. My fear is that the exponential growth of editors is made up largely of high-school students rather than people who have actually read Toril Moi or Jaqueline Rose or Joan Scott or Eve Sedgwick (let alone Simone de Beauvoire and Mary Daly). So, I wish you luck with it and I will check in periodically but honestly there have to be people better equipped than I to work on this part of the article ... Slrubenstein | Talk 14:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're raising important points Slrubenstein and I think your hitting the nail on the head on a number of fronts. I think the best spot to try and tease these issues out would be in the section on feminist theory - or in a sub-section of that called 'gender theory'. Gender performativity and the History of sexuality are grossly under-emphasized here - probably because they weren't read by/taught to some of the writers (a colleague tells me that Foucault isn't as popular in the US as he is in Ireland). At the moment my goal here is to get this article up to good article status; but if we're serious about improving this page to featured status then we must explicate feminists' views on the social construction of gender (and its reproduction of gendered identities) but by using as little jargon as possible - which is sort of like looking for a miracle :) I'll drop you a line when/if I word something appropriate--Cailil talk 16:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
What you're describing sounds more like a textbook on gender identity and the philosophy of gender than an encyclopedic entry describing feminism. I'd suggest that the front article for feminism is probably not the place for an exhaustive treatment of the various associated subjects. Perhaps you could create sub articles dealing with gender theory, social constructs of gender, history of sexuality et al and link to them at the bottom of the article. Avruch 17:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
No not really - 6 lines should do it here, and a more developed summary could go into the Feminist theory article which needs a little development since it only mentions Gender theory. It shouldn't be a problem getting a concise summary of post-structural feminism into the sections on 'post-structural feminism' and 'Feminist theory', some of that work is already done--Cailil talk 20:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Photo for radical feminism

Wendy McElroy seems an odd choice to represent radical feminism because of her advocacy of capitalism. I think it may be prudent to leave out photographs in that section because there are so many divergent ideas in RF (and because it overlaps another section).--IronAngelAlice 19:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree that Wendy McElroy is less than ideal, but I don't see your point about her "advocacy of capitalism" - radical feminism usually encompasses individualist feminism. The reason I chose that picture was because she crosses a number of definition of "radical feminist" (anarchist, individualist, sex-positive). That said, moving it to "sex positive feminism' might be more appropriate--Cailil talk 19:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your assertion that "radical feminism usually encompasses individualist feminism." First, I don't agree that there is a category "individualist feminism." I think term is used here to mean "libertarian feminism." Second, I believe that the majority of radical feminists are of the socialist or Marxist persuasion. --Justine4all 01:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, my reading of radical feminism is that it is largely critical of - even diametrically opposed to - Marxism. I don't think anyone would consider Michelle Barett, for example, a radical feminist. Is there anything Marxist in Mary Daly's work? The word "radical" has many distinct meanings and with respect I suspect you are mixing two of them up. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

@Justine4all:Radical feminism is an extremely heterogenerous term. It's a wide umbrella for people like Mary Daly and Kate Millett or for pro-pornography and anti-pornography feminists. Radical feminism is a confused and confusing term: it draws in too many and too diffuse movements. That said I see that there are 2 problems here, first: I was wrong to include individualist feminism because Wendy McElroy coined the term and she defines it in opposition to radical feminism (on wikipedia we should privilege how groups define themselves if there are multiple definitions of them). The second problem is that the section on radical feminism in this article is only showing the "left wing" views of Radical feminism and it needs expansion.
To the point about individualist/libertarian I would agree that libertarian may be a better term but "individualist" is the name given to the movement by McElroy, and it is the one that can be sourced, from McElroy, Cathy Young and Joan Kennedy Taylor; if you have notable sources defining it as "libertarian feminism" then that term could be included in the section as well.--Cailil talk 12:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

I am so impressed with the work that has been done on this article. I can only imagine how much research, writing and rewriting has been done. I think much of the article is quite good and that it is nearly GA, but there are still some changes and additions that I think would improve the article.

  • The lead needs to be a standalone summary of the article per WP:LEAD. Each section of the article should, ideally, be mentioned.
  • Many of the subsections are quite small. I realize that this is probably because the editors are trying to address so many different topics on a single page. However, some of them still need a bit of expansion and there is some space to work with here.
  • The "history of feminism" introduction repeats much of what comes after it in the individual subsections on first-wave, second-wave, and third-wave feminism. I would either expand those subsections or delete the introduction. This is true of the introduction to the "Feminism of society" section as well.
  • Might you consider including more examples of feminists and feminist texts? I would like to see at least one example in each subsection - it gives the reader something concrete to go on. Many of the descriptions are vague (as the concepts themselves are), so a text would help ground the description. I think that it is also a good idea to introduce readers to the major texts of feminism (I don't remember reading about The Second Sex, for example, but maybe I just missed it.)
  • Several of the concepts are only described in relation to other concepts rather than given content themselves. For example, "Postcolonial feminism", "Third-world feminism" and "Post-feminism" look only like movements reacting to other feminisms at this point instead than movements with their own positions.
  • "Women's interests and issues" are mentioned quite frequently - always try to specify what these are in the context you use the phrase.
  • Might you consider deleting the "Patriarchy" section? It seems a bit tangential to the page and rightly has its own article.
  • It would be nice to have more images. The page looks a bit blank right now - what about feminist artworks, for example, or book covers?
  • I would delete some of the links under the "See also" section since they replicate what is in the "Feminism" navigation box.
  • I would prune the external links.
  • What do you think about moving the list of further reading to a "Sources on Feminism" page? So much could be added to that list and a separate page would allow you to do that more easily.

If you have any questions about this review, please drop a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 04:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Awadewit, their detail is very helpful. I hope that these issues can be addressed without too much hassle, thanks again.--Cailil talk 13:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the further reading section - my edit summary says moved to List of feminist literature but not all of it is notable enough for there. What doesn't get added will be userfied.--Cailil talk 19:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think at this stage I've address your last 6 points - the easier ones ;) - the top for will take a little more time. Also I think even more pictures could be added through the page--Cailil talk 19:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay I've now got it narrowed down to 5 issues: 1) expanding the section on The second wave; 2) expanding feminism and society; 3) elucidating the term "Women's rights" in regard to the Feminist movement; 4) providing some more examples of feminism and feminist texts; and finally 5) the lead--Cailil talk 20:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Marxism and Feminism

I thinkj Harraway does not belong in this section - I would characterize her more as a post-structuralist or even postmodernist. And i have questions about Gayle Rubin, who was influenced by Levi Strauss at least as much as by Marx. One can cite Marx and Engels, even be influenced by them, without being a Marxist or socialist. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right about Rubin - that's a mistake I duplicated from the Socialist feminism or Marxist feminism pages. I agree Harraway is a postmodernist - I think it was Robert Young who called her a "neo-marxist" and a postmodernist. She kind of sits in-between the two discplines. What we could do is mention that she was influenced by marxism/post-marxism in the socialist feminism section but put her in the postfeminism & postmodern feminism section--Cailil talk 19:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Waves

I like covering a topic historically. nevertheless, I do not think 1st, 2nd, 3rd wave is an objective history of feminism. The article already suggests it is in part a construct of so-called second wave feminists. I think this is one story some feminists tell about feminism. I sadly do not know the social and intellectual historians who have addressed this but I am sure historians have questioned this periodization. Maybe Joan Scott. More specifically, here is my BIG problem: it is simply wrong to emphasize 1st wave feminism with the struggle for the right to vote. Margaret Sange was as important ands notable a feminist as Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Susan B Anthony, and she is the matron (uh..um) saint of the pro-choice movement; she also wrote extensively about the problems of poverty. So economic equality and reproductive rights are as much first wave as second wave issues. Why are they more commonly identified with the second wave? My own opinion: so second wave feminists could claim that the first wave succeded in accomplishing their goal, and the second wave would likewise succede in accomplishing their goal. Arguably, they accomplished in the domain of reproductive rights wha Sanger couldn't - but US feminists still are far from achieving for women total sexual freedom and control over their own bodies. And the battle for economic equality is far, far from over. I do not know what the solution is: either a separate section on revisionist feminist history, or augment the section on each "wave" with concurent, sometimes forgotten, trends - graft onto the history a genealogy/genealogies. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your right Slrubenstein. The fact is I haven't had the energy to really get to grips with a summary of the history of feminism. That section needs to be expanded or augmented, and I think your idea about the forgotten or contested aspects of each wave is wholly appropriate. The reason the history section isn't right yet is because I've been trying to kill two birds with every stone I throw here (which might not be the best option for this article). A majority of feminism sub-articles (ie Chicana feminism or Socialist feminism or second wave feminism) are unverified and in often in need of rewriting. There is some excellent work in History of feminism but there is also some terrible confusion there and I was trying to weed the reliably sourced from the original research in that article but I just ran out of steam with it--Cailil talk 01:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I am no blaming you. The fact is not that you haven't had the energy, the fact is Wikipedia has more editors who are experts on Pokeman than on Feminism. The fact is, we need more knowledgable editors so the burden doesn't fall on one or even two. You've done lots of good work! Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
You are right, S, that "it is simply wrong to emphasize 1st wave feminism with the struggle for the right to vote." I added the individual rights concerns of the early first wave, put Mary Wollstonecraft and Voltairine in there, and noted that the suffrage thing was only a major concern for some, and that in the late 19th century and later. I think that addresses your concern. PhilLiberty 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Phil - your edits are without doubts improvements. But I was also making a larger point which I do not know enough to address ... but I suspect that historians have debaed not just what characterizes the three waves, but whether there really were three waves and whether this is the best way to structure the history of feminism (I would guess Joan Scott has addressed this but maybe not) ... I think somewhere in here should be an account not just of "the" history of feminism, but an account of debates among feminists and historians over how best to study and talk about the history of feminism. Personally, I suspect that the three waves has become a "myth" of feminism with currency because it has political (and perhaps existential) value, rather than because it is "good history." Maybe I am wrong, and even if i am right it is just my opinion. Have you or Calil or others read enough historiography to know? Slrubenstein | Talk 03:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language proposal at MOS talk

Dear colleagues—You may be interested in contributing to a lively discussion (which I hope will form consensus) here. Tony 15:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Cailil asked me to look over this article again.

The article is much improved from when I read it last. Here are my small suggestions for improvement:

  • You already know about the lead problem, I gather. It lacks summariness.
  • Feminist scholars have divided feminism's history into three 'waves' - Just feminist scholars?
  • The first paragraph of "History of feminism" is wordy and a bit vague.
  • In Britain the Suffragettes campaigned for the women's vote, which was eventually granted − to some women in 1918 and to all in 1928 − as much because of the part played by British women during the First World War, as of the efforts of the Suffragettes. - This sentence is a bit awkward.
  • I believe you already know that the "Second-wave feminism" section is a bit vague. I would place "the personal is the political" slogan here.
  • In the "third-wave feminism" section, could you give examples of the perceived failures of the second wave?
  • I was unsure why such prominence was given to the Anita Hill case.
  • The first paragraph of "Feminism's many forms" is repetitive.
  • The largest departure from other branches of feminism, is the argument sex is itself constructed through language. - I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be "gender", not "sex".
  • At times, I wondered who the major critics (that is critics of the various forms of feminism) were who you were citing; the article often says "some people".
  • I still think "Postcolonial feminism" looks more reactive; perhaps a greater explanation of the concepts listed at the end of the last paragraph would alleviate this problem?
  • "Post-feminism" is not as clearly as explained as the other feminisms.
  • A copy editor who is unfamiliar with the article might be helpful. There are a few dropped words and wordy sentences here and there.
  • The hyphenation and capitalization of "first-wave feminism", "second-wave feminism", and "third-wave feminism" needs to be consistent throughout the article.
  • You might take a look at WP:MOS#Images for hints on arranging the images. I agree that a few more would liven up the page.

All in all, a very good page on a very difficult topic. Awadewit | talk 07:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Awadewit, for what are very detailed and helpful comments. I've harmonized the hyphenation issue by using the hyphenated form (please note that some books use the un-hyphenated form in their own title). I think I've addressed the first 5 rewording issues in your list. Also I've reduced the weight odf the Anita Hill case - I may just remove it all together as it looks more and more irrelevant for this article. I tried to alter the Judith Butler sentence but this was reverted. I'll look at the issue of the number of "some people" in the coming days. The picture layout has been reorganized. I'ev also restructured the Postcolonial feminism section - the problem it has will be solved by adding a new head paragraph--Cailil talk 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

These are the outstanding issues from Awadewit's list:

  1. "Second-wave feminism" section is a bit vague. I would place "the personal is the political" slogan here.
  2. In the "third-wave feminism" section, give examples of the perceived failures of the second wave? & the prominence of the Anita Hill case?
  3. I still think "Postcolonial feminism" looks more reactive; perhaps a greater explanation of the concepts listed at the end of the last paragraph would alleviate this problem?
  4. "Post-feminism" is not as clearly as explained as the other feminisms.
  5. Copy editing of article

--Cailil talk 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm striking this list as I (or anyone else) fixes these issues--Cailil talk 22:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Awadewit. Cailil, too. A couple of points/questions:
  • The lead states "women of other races", what about "women of color"? My understanding is that this a dominant term inclusive of various racial combinations and identities.
  • We've got the phrase "The personal is political" but we don't have any content on what it means or what it's significance was at the time the phrase was coined. This was where the personal concerns of women, predominantly in the private sphere became a legitimate point of departure for social and political theorizing as well as artistic expression - Lorde's "Poetry is not a luxury" comes to mind.
  • Second wave is presented as liberal feminism (represented by Hanisch's "The Personal is Political") and Betty Friedan. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Isn't Betty Friedan to feminsim what Dr. Phil is to therapy? I've previously noted the need to mention Audre Lorde here, but I'm thinking maybe Adrienne Rich's "Of Woman Born" and her essay Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence (particularly the concepts of compulsive heterosexuality and the idea of the "lesbian continuum") would be much better markers of second wave analysis of gender and women's remaking of the personal as political.
  • Regarding the language of "perceived failures" of the second wave, would we consider 2nd wave as a response to the "perceived failures" of the 1st? To me this seems a bit of a collapse and somewhat antagonistic, particularly given the 3rd's reliance on 2nd wave concepts. I wonder if we can characterize all 3rd wave feminists that way. I mean, if we've got that kind of language in a source and there are no issues with it, this isn't a huge issue for me. Maybe a footnote from the source if we can get it?
Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

great free image - not sure if you have anywhere to put it though....

From the library of congress: 1909 photo titled "Policewomen - the woman "Cop" (a dream). Suffragette posed to illus. woman police concept." Here's the link. Calliopejen1 05:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this could also be placed on some sort of related page, but I'm not familiar with the feminism-related articles and how they're organized... Calliopejen1 05:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A good article?

Of course, this is a "good" article, the article of masculinism instead has suffered a violent attack! Have I to think that this wikipedia are suffered a slanted process o feminilization? You must to have shame for you! --Giubizza 09:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What is this "violent attack" you are talking about? Neitherday 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Other concepts

First off, I'd just like to say well done to however has been working on this article recently. I was editing about a year ago, and frankly, the article was so misguided I didn't have the energy to correct it. (For instance, it was over 60kb long, but had no mention of de Beauvoir). Anyway, now it is looking very good.

One criticism I have however: The 'other concepts' section spends a lot of time defining pro- and anti-feminism. I think we must remember 'WP is not a dictionary'. Articles should only defined words so that a reader knows what they mean 'within the context of the article'. Any English speaker knows what pro and anti mean as prefixes. I'm going to strip it down a bit. Ashmoo 21:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right Ashmoo, the antifeminism section was over the top - it was reflecting some of the problems at that article unfortunately. Your clean-up was needed. I did however de-wikify Sheila Cronin - who doesn't have a WP article yet (which was actually wikified by User:SadanYagci). Will be happy to re-do that if/when she has an article though--Cailil talk 21:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

New lead paragraph

As pointed out by Awadewit the lead paragraph needs work to come into line with WP:LEAD. Here is my first attempt at adding to the current lead to make it GA and FA standard. One or two sentences were dropped for being repetitive. The new section has been italicized

Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender inequalities and discrimination against women. Feminism is also described as an ideology focusing on equality of the sexes.[1] Some have argued that gendered and sexed identities, such as "man" and "woman", are social constructs.

The history of feminism in the West has been divided into three waves. The first wave in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the second in the 1960s and 1970s and the third from the 1990s to the present.[2] Feminist Theory developed from the feminist movement.[3][4] It takes a number of forms in a variety of disciplines such as feminist geography, feminist history and feminist literary criticism. Feminism has changed aspects of Western society, modern feminist political activists commonly campaign for a woman's right to bodily integrity and autonomy on matters such as reproductive rights, including the right to abortion, access to contraception and quality prenatal care; for protection from domestic violence; against sexual harassment and rape; for workplace rights, including maternity leave and equal pay; and against other forms of discrimination.[5][6][7] Beyond the West, Feminist activists and theorists campaign for women's rights in third world countries.[8] Some third world feminists or Postcolonial feminists, such as Chandra Talpade Mohanty, are critical of western feminism for being ethnocentric.[9] Black feminists, such as Angela Davis and Alice Walker, share this view.[10]

Since the 1980s, standpoint feminists have argued that the feminist movement should address global issues (such as rape, incest, and prostitution) and culturally specific issues (such as female genital mutilation in some parts of Africa and the Middle East and "glass ceiling" practices that impede women's advancement in developed economies) in order to understand how gender inequality interacts with racism, homophobia, lesbophobia, colonialism, and classism in a "matrix of domination."[11][12]

I'm personally unhappy with using a term like "beyond the west" - if anyone can suggest a better term please do--Cailil talk 12:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is pretty good. I hate the passive voice and wich I knew who introduced the idea of three waves of feminism - personally, I think it is bad historiography, but i acknowledge it is the main way Western scholars talk about the history of feminism; still, I would feel better if it could be pegged to an identifiable source. About the "beyond the West," I share your feelings and I see no way around it that is not awkward. For what it is worth, here is how I would put it:
Throughout most of its history, most leaders of feminist social and political movements, and feminist theorists, have been middle-class white women, predominantly in the US, France, and US. At least since Sojourner Truth's 1851 speech to US Feminists, however, women of color have proposed alternative feminisms. This trend accelerated in the 1960s with the Civil Rights movement in the United States and the collapse of European colonialism in Africa and Southeast Asia. Since that time, women in former European colonies and other countries forming the Non-Aligned Movement have proposed alternative "post-colonial" and "Third World" feminisms as well.
Wordier, but as concise as I can make it and I think more precise and informative and (I hope!!!) accurate. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I like your version Slrubenstein - I think we should use it. I'm not the biggest fan of "the waves" structuring of feminism either but that's the way most books look at it. An alternative which User:Dimitrisdad put forward on Talk:Equity feminism is that we list the history chronologically and then explain the historiographies (ie the waves and the Hoff Sommers idea Gender/Equity feminism) afterwards. Personally I think we could think about that way of writing the history for the history section and use this.--Cailil talk 13:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! And to clarify - i do not object to using the "waves" as long as we can identify who coined or popularized the terms, i.e. "According to X, ... " I would never use Sommers classification alone, but if it is presented as one of a few major ways of classifying feminism i.d. if it is presented alongside one or two other models, I have no objections. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I share your view about Sommers's classifications. The weight of her position is not equal to the "waves" concept. BTW I'll look into who coined the "waves" terminology now - it was Marsha Lear who coined the term "second wave"[13] and out of that came the classification of the previous generation as 1st wavers. The third wave was Rebecca Walker's term in her Ms article. So really the waves theory is popular by osmosis--Cailil talk 14:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
In the intro, change it to, "According to some, the history of feminism consists of three waves" and provide as a "ref" endnote the citations for Lear and Walker. In the body of the article, mention them by name and quote their original definitions for each wave - that's how I would handle it. (good job with research, by the way!) Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay it's gone in. Its not perfect (yet) but its a start. I changed your line "women in former European colonies and other countries forming the Non-Aligned Movement have proposed alternative "post-colonial" and "Third World" feminisms as well." to "Since that time, women in former European colonies and the developing world have proposed alternative "post-colonial" and "Third World" feminisms as well." - I'm not delighted about using "developing world but I'm cagey about linking (even unintentionally & indirectly) the Non-aligned movement and feminism - I see the point but if we have people requiring us to source "Feminism is also described as an ideology focusing on equality of the sexes" it would come under heavy fire.--Cailil talk 19:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Before I forget, I'd also like to come up with a very short sentence summarizing the "feminisms" concept--Cailil talk 19:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, offhand I would say "from Non-Aligned countries" is more in keeping with the spirit of NPOV because it is how those countries identified themselves, whereas "undeveloped" and "third world" takes the view ("standpoint!") of the West. However, the real Q. is how they define themselves. Mohanty uses 3rd world; so does Trinh. SO, let;s change it to Third World, okay? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
That's perfect :) Thanks for working on this Slrubenstein--Cailil talk 20:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the fact that many feminists are sexist against men

is that in this article. most feminists i know degrade men and bitch about how ALL men are terrible. this needs to be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.169.159 (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

we have to remain neutral. there will probably be an article on "the response of feminism" or the "criticism of feminism" or something like that one day you can help make it. there will be nothing about that in this article because the liberals will say it not neutral no matter how true it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.230.196 (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

abortion is not a right

ok so the lead paragraph says

Feminist political activists have been concerned with issues such as a woman's right of contract and property, a woman's right to bodily integrity and autonomy (especially on matters such as reproductive rights, including the right to abortion

the way it is worded it says abortion is a right. can you guys please change it so it say "feminists fight for the legalization of abortion" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.230.196 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you change it? Find a reliable source: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", states Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Or if not, mark the passage that offends you with the {{fact}} template, so the author is then obliged to reference it or change it. If you don't like the given reference, see WP:Templates. Tom 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

it depends what you call a right. just because the bill of rights say you have the right of hate speech doesnt mean it true. you can never really prove you have any rights. i dont think abortion is a natural right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_right

just change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.230.196 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:69.106.230.196 don’t get confused. This article is not asserting that abortion is or is not a right. The line reads “ Feminist political activists have been concerned with issues such as a woman's right of contract and property, a woman's right to bodily integrity and autonomy (especially on matters such as reproductive rights, including the right to abortion, access to contraception and quality prenatal care); for protection from domestic violence; against sexual harassment and rape” This is easily sourced since it is saying that some feminists campaign for the right to abortion as well as other issues (see Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America, 1967-1975 by Alice Echols or At the Heart of Freedom: Feminism, Sex, and Equality By Drucilla Cornell p. x, or a number of other books). Also I will remind you 69.106.230.196 that wikipedia is not a soapbox – this is not the place to attempt to start a debate on abortion.--Cailil talk 14:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Cailil! That is a much needed clarification on 'rights' as well as fact checking. So often inside and outside of matters acedemic, we do not check to see what was actually written before we comment.

I would also add (in answer to the odd and random comment) that all speech, even unfortunate "hate speech", is a right gauranteeded in the US. ---- NJMEssmer1976, 14 OCT 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by NJMessmer1976 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

ah-hem~ i was who brought it up but anyways i dont think you can scientifically prove that abortion is a right. the fact of the matter is the the statement is not neutral about abortion. it should be changed to make it more neutral. you can get rid of it, it is not even important overall in the article. a better statement is

"Feminist political activists have been concerned with issues such as a woman's right of contract and property, a woman's right to bodily integrity and autonomy (especially on matters such as reproductive rights, including the legalization and sustainment of abortion, access to contraception and quality prenatal care)...."69.106.250.135 01:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

69.106.250.135 this is getting tendentious. Unless there is a major significant source that contradicts the existing references (which say that "Feminism campaigns for the right to abortion") your argument is going nowhere. Wikipedia requires reliable sources and consensus for edits. Also you have already been warned that wikipedia is not a soapbox[8] - if this behaviour continues you may be blocked--Cailil talk 18:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. Why do people feel the need to air their opinions in this way? What is your point 69.106.250.135? Wouldn't starting a blog be more appropriate? Tom 18:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I do think it would be more helpful if this argument were held on this page rather than on mine and Cailil's Talk pages. I think I have understood 69.106.250.135's problem. Could I please ask him or her to consider the difference between the following phrases:

  • feminists have been fighting to obtain the right of abortion.
  • feminists have been fighting to obtain the political right of access to abortion.

If you look at your Wiki reference quoted above, the mention is made therein, of the difference between natural right and political right. Are you sure your judgement is not being clouded by "strongly held beliefs"? Don't forget, that if you are taking issue with the notion of political right, this constitutes WP:POV. If you look around Wikipedia, I hope you will notice that in spite of the potential for political controversy, the Feminism article is one of the most neutral, rational and encyclopedic around. (I didn't write any of it, so this is not self interest on my part.) Tom 08:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this is just another case of a newbie who doesn't understand our NPOV and V polciies. Anonymous user 69, please read over WP:NPOV and WP:V carefullly - if there is something you do not understand, you can ask for clarification ont he policy talk pae. Then feel free to come back here and I think what Cahil and Tom and others have said will make more sense to you. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Completely false. Assuming that something is a right and advocating for it as a right are both POV. The way that it is worded assumes that reproductive rights are, in fact, rights, and therefore the wording ought to be made more neutral. For this reason I have nominated this article for {{POV-check}}. However, 69.106.230.196, please sign your posts! 64.26.98.90 (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the tag. So far, several anon IPs have made noises about how they do not agree with the phrasing of a single sentence. No one has proposed a viable alternative to the current phrasing, and so there is not a legitimate dispute. I agree with the above assessment that this is tendentious, and now with the addition of a nag-tag seems to be dangerously close to a WP:POINT. Silly rabbit (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Abortion is a legal right in the US. It is generally considered to be a reproductive right in international human and reproductive rights discourses, and held by many to be a human right as a necessity in maintaining sexual and reproductive health. Stating that feminists advocate for the right of abortion just means, rather neutrally, that they work toward getting women legal access to safe abortions. As the whole paragraph is structured around rights, I would support changing it to "the right to safe and legal abortion". Phyesalis (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Actually Phyesalis the "is" or "is not" of abortion being a right. Is not at issue here. As you have said and as the sources state (and I'm paraphrasing) "feminists agitate for the right to abortion". This is what the lede says. The IPs 64.26.98.90; 69.106.250.135; 69.106.230.196 are attempting to use this page to debate the ideas of abortion being a right (natural right/legal right etc). This page is not a forum for that discussion. If you can find a source stating what you say put it there and moot the change here. Ledes need wide input and I'm sure you know who difficult lede writing is--Cailil talk 19:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Sorry, there. Did we just have a miscommunication? I'm certainly not trying to turn this into a general debate, nor do I support attempts to do so. I'm fine with the lead and am making no attempt to change it. I was voicing support for Silly Rabbit's decision. SR said no one had offered an alternative, I offered one and said I would support the change. I did not say that I thought we should change it. I apologize if my comments seemed inflammatory or off-topic. Phyesalis (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it was a miscommunicated on my part. Your comments are fine. After the article's upcoming peer review I have actually suggested a rewrite of the lede - it will need one. When that happens feel free to bring up any issues. Sorry if I sounded like I was inferring you were forumizing - wasn't my intent--Cailil talk 20:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, just concerned that there was an error on my part. Thank you for the clarification. Phyesalis (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

anarcha-feminism

An editor just changed the cited reference about anarcha-feminism to eliminate the struggle against capitalism in deference to self-identified anarcho-capitalists. Without getting into the tedious argument that anarcho-capitalists are or are not "anarchists", let me simply note that the cited reference is about the strand of anarchism that is anti-capitalist as well as anti-state, and that is the description of anarcha-feminist. If this or other editors can find citable references to an anarcha-feminist split that parallales the anarchist/anarcho-capitalist split, then by all means, include them and discussion of the split within anarcha-feminism. So far as I know, however, anarcha-feminism as a strand is anti-capitalist along with anti-capitalist anarchism. Another appropriate approach would be to note the anarchist/anarcho-capitalist split in the text, but in my view that is a distraction from an article that is primarily about feminism. The link to the anarchism article explains fairly clearly the various arguments about capitalism. --lquilter 16:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Lquilter wrote, "So far as I know, however, anarcha-feminism as a strand is anti-capitalist along with anti-capitalist anarchism." Probably the most famous anarcha-feminist today, and most prolific writer, is Wendy McElroy. She is an anarcho-capitalist (though she prefers to self-label "individualist anarchist.") So I strongly object to characterizing anarcha-feminism as anti-capitalist only. PhilLiberty 03:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Do individualist feminists (in the McElroy sense) consider themselves anarcha-feminists? A quick google didn't turn up anything connecting anarcha-feminism and individualist feminists. That there are some feminists who are also anarchists who are not anti-capitalist doesn't entail that anarcha-feminism isn't anti-capitalist. VoluntarySlave 04:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the editor that did that. The way that line read was the "anarchist struggle against...capitalism" as if it were implying all types of anarchism. I would have no qualms if it were a bit more specific and replaced the more general "Anarchist" term with "Anarcha-feminist". As for what VoluntarySlave is bringing up, I admit I'm not an expert on the matter, so I won't enter that debate. I just wanted to make sure that the idea conveyed in the sentence didn't gloss over the entire "Are Anarcho-capitalists anarchists?" debate. Fephisto —Preceding comment was added at 15:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Glossing it over" is precisely what we should be doing, since this is not an article about anarchism, or even anarchafeminism -- anarchafeminism is merely a small section of radical feminism which is a small section of the overall feminism article. Again, the links to anarchism and anarchafeminism offer an opportunity for a reader to understand the nuances and flavors and offshoots etc. However ....
For now, I left the Wendy McElroy bit in but tried to reword. I think we should see how it sits and if, over time, it starts to feel like too much detail about anarchism in the feminism article, or historically too recentist (WP:RECENT). In the meantime, a few points and explanations -
  • Since McElroy doesn't identify as an "anarchafeminist" I'm not sure how she can be "the most famous anarchafeminist". The phrase anarcha-feminist doesn't even appear in her wikipedia article. Nevertheless, I think it's reasonable to identify her as the foremost feminist-identified proponent of individualist anarchism and to include her in this article in that role. (I would resist defining her as "the most famous anarcha-feminist"; for one, how would we ever determine "most famous"? How could one reasonably compare "fame" between any two people, say, Starhawk and Wendy McElroy? Anyway, "fame" is a highly subjective term, depending a lot on particular groups of people.)
  • The previous wording talked about McElroy as the most prominent modern advocate. To my knowledge, this is a relatively new trend and definition -- to clearly articulate feminism and individualism, so I tried to reword to avoid the undocumented suggestion that there are lots of historical anarcho-capitalist-feminists. If that's incorrect, let's have a citation for the historical work. Similarly, the previous wording talked about it as if there were two coequal "branches". That's not accurate; those who have self-defined as "anarcha-feminists" have been largely from the (anti-capitalist) anarchist tradition. (Of course, anarchists of all stripes have advocated for sex equality, but we're talking about committed feminists.)
  • Rearranged the pieces together so it flows -- sentences about anti-capitalist @feminism together, and sentences about ifeminism together.
  • Rewrote the last sentence about ifeminism as a US-oriented philosophy. Original sentence made it sound as if US was historically "ifeminist" and Europe was historically socialist feminist, which is not accurate; "anarcha-feminism" both in the US and Europe historically has identified with (anti-capitalist) anarchism. So I rewrote to keep the information about ifeminism's growth out of US-based material, while removing the suggestion that there has been a historical juxtaposition b/w US & Europe strains of anarchafeminism. --lquilter 20:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

More correct definition of feminism.

Feminism is an ideology focusing on equality of the sexes.[1] Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender inequalities and discrimination against women. Some feminists, like Judith Butler, have argued that gendered and sexed identities, such as "man" and "woman", are social constructs.[2]

Excuse me for making an observation.

If the above quote is true, then why did feminism just focus on 'women'. The equality of women to men, would be more correct, feminism was not concerned about giving equitable treatment to both men and women, merely to give women more rights,(a good noble thing), but that is not what the opening paragraph says.

Secondly, Judith Butler's quote, ignores the simple observation that male and female constructs are focused on undeniable physical differences. Her work appears to be based on 'queer' or 'bisexual' theory, and not representative of mainstream feminism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarjbsquitti (talk • contribs) 03:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As half-truths go, feminism was not concerned about injustice to both men and women, merely women.

There are a great many definitions, and the one that was in the listing, spoke of general inequality between the sexes; that was not the case of feminism which was concerned only about the inequality of women compared to men in general.

Feminism was concerned only about women, at the exclusion of men. It spoke of "violence against women", not of people, nor of 'violence against women and men'; So it is important to correctly reflect this detail.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Feminism arose because men were so completely in control of society that in order to achieve equality, women would have to be given as many rights as we men had. That is not in contradiction of the definition in the lede. --Orange Mike 16:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Feminism arose for many reasons, but it was not merely men in control, remember we have a Queen of England, the wealthiest women in the world, then there is Mrs. Clinton. The definition you included is too general.

Feminism was not about all injustice merely those of women.

Case in point. A credit union manager proclaimed that they, the credit union was in complete compliance with the regulations of employement equity, a program that outlines the minimum number of women to have employed. The manager, a woman, laughed, because she was in compliance, AND ALL THE EMPLOYEES WERE WOMEN.

Feminism was seldom concerned about gender inequities against men, and there are and is some today. Discrimination along the basis of sex is only part of the problem. A classic example of an undetected half-truth.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made a suggestion, and have backed it up. Feminism was a political philosophy about the injustices of women, not against men.

Men were not responsible for the injustices of women, tell that to a black man.

Back to the point at hand, the definition from Oxfords details discrimination against women, not general sexual inequality. You are stretching the truth.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you haven't spent much time among feminists, Caesar. The female mainstream feminists I know cheerfully acknowledge the fact that sexism oppresses us, too; just in different ways than it does women. --Orange Mike 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(what is with this notaforum ? Is this a ploy to railroad in one's own interpretation without any discussion ?)

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a dictionary definition:

Feminism is a doctrine advocating social, political, and economic rights for women equal to men.[14]

You will note the focus on women. It appears that some have 'bought into' the philosophy as if there is only one color of truth.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Just chiming in: I think it's not appropriate to copy a dictionary definition in to the lede of a wikipedia article. First, there's no need to go courting the wikipedia copyright police. Second, a dictionary definition is inappropriate as the lede for a wikipedia article in terms of style, as well. Dictionary definitions are necessarily intended to be succinct without description or nuance or additional examples; it therefore must sum up in a sentence what, in an encyclopedia, might be laid out in a paragraph. The proposed language is an example: "Feminism is a doctrine advocating social, political, and economic rights for women equal to men" (dictionary) versus "Feminism is an ideology focusing on equality of the sexes" (wikipedia). More specific comparisons of the two:

  • The first sentence encapsulates the discussion of the historical gender biases that are discussed at greater length in the wikipedia article. It's not a terrible idea, if we need to revise the lede sentence, but I don't think it's necessary to do it, either.
  • Change from "ideology" to "doctrine" I think is incorrect. (Although neither are great.) Ideology refers generally to a belief system, which is more accurate in terms of "feminism"; "doctrine" suggests documents or an authorizing body, which is not accurate.
  • "equality of the sexes" versus "rights for women equal to men" - Aside from the awkward phrasing of the latter, the former is a more elegant and concise way of saying the same. It also avoids the inevitable arguing over "social, political, and economic" (should we also include cultural? socio-cultural? linguistic? reproductive? familial? religious? etc.)

--lquilter 21:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Feminism is an ideology focusing on equality of the sexes" suggests women and men have equal rights; that was not feminism. It was more that women have equal rights to men; there is a small difference. One is part of the other.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that if I were to break this down to its philosophical constructs that there would be an actual difference. A=B is pretty much the same as A=B. Your nuance captures something of the historical progression (that men were elevated over women) but I think that's plain throughout the article. I'm not sure what's gained from putting this in the lede. Do you think someone would come away from the article confused about the fact that feminism was a movement to give women "equal rights", meaning, give women rights equal to those already enjoyed by men? --lquilter 03:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Guys, please humor me and at least spell English words correctly! Slrubenstein | Talk 05:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you concerned about "lede"? It's the first paragraph or few paragraphs of an article; maybe more familiar for journalism, but it's entirely correct here (despite the more common practice of spelling it "lead" like the verb). --lquilter 12:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid you are wrong. Lede is not a modern English word. It does not appear at all in the American heritage Dictionary, and it appears in the OED only as a variant of the word used in Beowulf to mean "people." The correct spelling is "lead." Slrubenstein | Talk 13:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It's journalists' jargon, picked up and used here in Wikipedia (see lede (news). --Orange Mike 14:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You can also go to google and type "define:lede"; it pulls up definitions from a number of dictionaries. --lquilter 15:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Caesar, Orangemike and Lquilter are correct. I would also point out that the manual of style recommends avoiding trite expression: in order words concise sentences are better than convoluted ones. Also your addition "Feminism is a doctrine advocating social, political, and economic rights for women equal to men" - is not grammatical in English.
There are a number of problems with your contention. First, you said "feminism was not concerned about giving equitable treatment to both men and women, merely to give women more rights" - that is factually inaccurate - your own source contradicts it. Feminism is about "equal rights" (see books like At the Heart of Freedom: Feminism, Sex, and Equality or No Turning Back: The History of Feminism and the Future of Women or any 'Introduction to Feminism'). Secondly, your points about Judith Butler are a soapbox - please read WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#FORUM. Then there's the matter of your representation of your source. When I look up my copy of Webster's college dictionary - I don't find what you've added. I find 3 entries a) "Feminism: A doctrine that advocates equal rights for women"; b) "Feminism: The movement aimed at equal rights for women." c) "Feminism: Movement advocating equal rights, status, ability, and treatment of women, based on the belief that women are not in any way inferior to men."
There is a difference between saying "equal rights for women" and "advocating social, political, and economic rights for women equal to men." I wouldn't neccessarily have a problem changing the words "equality of the sexes" to "equal rights for women." And if we are to use Webster's then I would suggest we use the word "movement" rather than doctrine.
We do need to work on this lead, but we need to do so in a way that builds consensus for changing it first--Cailil talk 11:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't neccessarily have a problem changing the words "equality of the sexes" to "equal rights for women."

Sounds fair to me.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Equal rights for women", is an open statement that suggests some women don't have the same rights as other women; ie The Queen of England.

Or are we suggesting equal rights for women' compared to men ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The ordinary understanding of "equal rights for women" would suggest equal rights by comparison for "women" with a category equivalent to women (i.e., "men"), rather than "among" women (which would really be something like "equal rights among women"). Sometimes it's better to just let the language serve its natural function rather than trying to lawyer-out any conceivable misunderstanding that might be based on poor literacy or other problems of reader comprehension. The more explanatory phrases that get added the more it suggests there is confusion and raises new sites for confusion. --lquilter 17:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Social construction and Butler

I've been trying to correct the portuguese version of this article, but this version should also be corrected. For instance, I wouldn't mention Judith Butler as one of the feminists who have said that sex and gender are social constructions because this idea is very old and Judith Butler has many contribuitions to feminisms nowadays. I'd like to mention that the idea of a social construction of gender is as far as 1933, with the anthropologist Margaret Mead, and after her, with Simone de Beauvoir (around the 1940's), not to mention Foucault's idea of sexuality. Mariana Lima Hannahlima 14:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Butler's contribution to that field of theory is the idea that gender is a performative social construction - rather than a "static" construct. She also problematized the idea of 'gender' further than de Beauvoir or Irigaray by suggesting that their arguments were essentializing (ie assumed a natural (or perhaps archetypal) female/feminine state of being existed). While I agree that mentioning other thinkers here is appropriate I think leaving Butler out would end up being POV by omission--Cailil talk 15:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
From what I know, both of you are right. Can you make the appropriate changes? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a bit weird to have Butler up in the lede paragraph anyway; it's recentism at best. Definitely she should be in the article; she's an important feminist theorist. But the only one mentioned by name in the first paragraph and much of the second? That itself seems like undue weight on a relatively recent strand of academic feminism. --lquilter 15:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all for your attention and for answering my question.
I must say that I do not feel confortable in writting directly on the article because english is not my 'mother language', and that's why I only make suggestions here, on the discussion page.
I am also having that kind of trouble in the portuguese version because it is very hard to take Butler out of the main argument. She has helped in defining gender studies and feminism in my opinion, and she has made some very good contribuitions to feminist, queer theories and also to gender theory (if those can be thought as different theories) because she somehow has managed to sythesize some important arguments to the feminist perspective.
But I also agree that it is somewhat recentism, and maybe even some 'gender-centrism' (if I can express it like that), because of course she argues with other areas, I mean, anthropology, for instance, which has been pointing the 'material matter' for a while.
This refletion on the absence of a pre-discoursive - which would be the body, biological sex, or so, from the feminists point of view as I see it - over which there has been culture is as well elaborated by Lévi-Strauss, but he did not reflect it as gender - that was not his 'problem' (interest) - I mean, Lévi-Strauss has realized that 'nature' is a thought that is: There is a nature because we think so, this separation or its fusion with 'culture' are firstly thought, then it comes to matter, it makes sense. I am not sure which part comes first, neither are them [Butler, Lévi-Strauss], but they both make sense because they make sense, or because they can be thought, because they are gramatical, and if they are gramatical they are necessarily cultural/human/not-nature, so there is an unnatural aspect of nature which is its possibility of been thought.
I am not sure that I have been able to express my self clearly enough, but that is pretty much why I think that eventhough Butler has been fundamental for our reflections she is also not the first one who has said what she has said, at least from other areas of thought.
But having a 'mea culpa', I guess as a feminist, as a woman and mostly as a thinker she has made some great contribuitions by bringing the reflection to one of the biggest tabus ever, sex/gender.
Thank you once again for your time and understanding,
Mariana Lima Hannahlima 21:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have just read the modifications on the article and it seems correct, but adding the authors may not be enough to the argument. That reminds me of another discussion I have had a while ago about the 'other' feminisms, when I reffered to 'it's' history, because "It's history is always th ocidental version of it's history', and then someone said something like: "Why don't you stop complaining about it's absense and try adding in the histories you want?" and my answer then and now would be the same: Because I couldn't possibly, there are too many other to be 'justiced' and if we do say that De Beauvoir and Butler have said that we are pretty much creating the reality that they have said what has been said before. But actually, I guess you are right, that's how we create science and history, we atribute the great deeds to great people in our way of narrating it? But yet, I'd have a question: Isn't that one of the greatest feminist critic, which is: What about the great women behind that narratives? But then, I guess, that's that, "the subaltern cannot speak". Or, we can try and think about the impossibility of narrating it in its completude and assuming in the text that it is not ever enough, as to mention its requisites to avoid false-consciousness (or bad-faith, or innautenticity, or so). So for those reasons I think the best thing wuld be to mention after all that the argument is a thought today well represented by Butler's ideas. Mariana Lima Hannahlima 21:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So, at last, I'd take off the part of the sentence "such as Simone de Beauvoir and Judith Butler," and leave the rest, that should be enough, in my opinion, what do you think?
Mariana Lima Hannahlima 21:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Mariana. The reason Butler's name was mentioned in the first place was to eliminate "Some feminists say..." - in an attempted to bring the article further into line with WP:V. Removing attribution (the names and references) would be a step backward for the article. I think there is another option: delete the sentence from where it is and give it a short paragraph in-between the current second and third paragraphs, where the social construction of gender can be teased out a little more--Cailil talk 03:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be OK to have "some say" in the lede, as long as we name people in the references. Actually, I'm wondering if we couldn't find a secondary source, perhaps an introductory text on feminism, which discusses the history of social-constructionist arguments, and reference that; otherwise, we either have the current situtation, which I think singles out Butler and de Beauvoir more than is really warranted, or we would have to include a huge list of references to all the different feminist theorists who have discussed social construction.VoluntarySlave 19:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with VoluntarySlave. A lede paragraph necessarily must introduce and summarize some content, and the requirement to have each sentence footnoted is a bit insane. Each claim or fact must be referenced, but the lede paragraphs can properly summarize content that is discussed (and referenced) in the article. --lquilter 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, we should use the "some feminist say" then. Actually I just thought of a source that would avoid mentioning anyone specifically. 'Doing Gender' by West and Zimmerman, it's pre-Gender Trouble but deals with the subject quite well. For the moment I'll stick it in as a ref and maybe rewrite the sentence a little (staying as general as possible) if needs be. If anyone wants to look at the essay its on JSTOR[9]--Cailil talk 12:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it is what is possible to be, let's keep on doing it, but it is becoming a beautiful article, I hope the portuguese version gets this energy as well. I guess keeping the authors in references is enough, the first paragraf should be introdutory anyways.
Mariana Lima Hannahlima 16:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It was not concerned about gender equalities !!!

Again your first line is misleading, feminism, was not about gender inequalities, merely inequalites against women.

Case in point.

A credit union manager responded to a request to adhere to employment equity guidelines. She laughed and said that we, the credit union was in complete compliance, ie 20% of the employees had to be women.

Why she laughed ? All the employees were women.

Again the statement that feminism was concerned about gender inequalities is misleading, and a type of half-truth not yet identified; feminism was concerned about women, not people, although women are people !

Do you see the differences ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Caesar, "that feminism was concerned about gender inequalities is misleading, and a type of half-truth not yet identified" is soapboxing it is also an extraordinary claim. You have been active on wikipedia long enough to know what is and what is not an acceptable use of talk-space. At this stage you should not need to be reminded of WP:V (the requirement that opinions added to articles must be sourced) or that wikipedia is not a forum--Cailil talk 00:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Now I think the first sentence is completely imprecise, "Feminism is an ideology focusing on equality of the sexes", that is not at all what feminism is. What it has been whenever, or wherever, is not the point here, feminism is exactly not that, feminism is not, absolutely not focused on 'sex' inequalities, but with gender. And I guess that's that since Margaret Mead 1933 (or even before that, I'm thinking now of Condorcet, 1822 - I'll check the references in Deidre English and Barbara Ehrenreich (1978) - 'For her own good' ), though I would have to agree that Ortner made some contribuitions in that direction (sex/nature), but that is not the feminism, it is one way of feminist thinking that has been revised by the author. We must remember that we are defining feminism today, in 2007, and I don't think that it is possible to argue in favor of "sex inequalities" today. Otherwise, most of the discussions of this page would be unreal, wouldn't it?

The question to that sentence would be: So one is affirming that there are inequalities among the sexes? Among which sexes (the five ones definid by Anne Fausto-Sterling?)? Based on what? On 'nature' inequalities? So the feminism is against nature? Is that what is been said? I'm sorry, but until where I have been reading, the article was becoming a very beautiful and welll done article, based on research and good bibliography, but that sentence goes against all the argumentation, at least from my point of view. Mariana Lima Hannahlima 17:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Something else, the webster's definition of feminism should be revised because it is imprecise and very far from the feminism as it is, or is it not? And I don't think a dictionary should be a reference for the enciclopedia, specially when we have so many theorists writing about feminism for many decades already. Why don't we use the real sources, instead of some simplification as the webster's definition?
Mariana Lima. Hannahlima 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Consider if u might that this may be part, my opinion, part my original research, (my subclassifications on feminism were accepted some 15 years ago by Websters?) consider this part of my observations or suggestions, anyway this is the sandbox, and hopefully you can improve the article.

Feminism was a wide spectrum of philosophies, depnding on the feminist. It is obvious some were looking for equal rights, some were anti life, some were anti male, some were anti capitalism, but that could be said of any political agenda.

To not point this out and to focus on merely one 'politically correct' ideology is incomplete.

Again the reference to an interest in 'women's only' interest reflect a somewhat "selfish" or "lesbian" perspective of the matter. Is someone against war because it kills women, or that it kills men nd women ?

It was also apart of feminism to set up a barrier to its 'cult like' agenda, by restricting criticism of its movement, through a variety of ways, and that is noticeable by responses to my suggestions; no doubt some of feminism was the work of the devil in that it involved a great deal of manipulation of statistics, terminology, and logic that were part of the reliable sources that were quoted and used to promote this false philosophy.

Proving that the devil lies in the details, especially the missing ones, half-truths.

Getting back to the article on feminism, where are the criticisms of it ? There is good and bad in all things. Why allow criticism of President George Bush, or former Prime Minsiter Brian Mulroney, but not feminism ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

@Mariana: "equality of the sexes" and "equal rights for women" mean the same thing in English. But I take your point about the sex/gender distinction and as I said to Caesar above, I'd have no problem changing that line to read "feminism is a movement aimed at equal rights for women." This is tangential but a user who has not contributed to discussions here moved the lines in that lede paragraph around[10]. About 6 months ago A number of editors (including myself) had a long discussion about how to word that first line and we agreed on "Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender inequalities and discrimination against women" (see Talk:Feminism/Archive_9#Fresh_start_on_NPOV_progress). In my opinion that is a better first line than the "equality of the sexes" or "equal rights for women" sentence. I'm going to make a provisional change to address some of the points raised here over the past few days.
@Caesar, the criticism of feminism section was integrated into the text of the article. This avoided the creation of POV section and it brings the piece in line with guidelines for writing better articles. You will find criticism of feminism in sections like 'Post-structural feminism and postmodern feminism', 'Postcolonial feminism and third-world feminism, 'Eco-feminism' and in 'Anti-feminism.' Disruptive editors and one particular long-term vandal took advantage of the criticism section in order to push their POV and original research.
Although you have been warned Caesar, you continue to use wikipedia's talk-space for comments like: "no doubt some of feminism was the work of the devil in that it involved a great deal of manipulation of statistics, terminology, and logic that were part of the reliable sources that were quoted and used to promote this false philosophy" and "Again the reference to an interest in 'women's only' interest reflect a somewhat "selfish" or "lesbian" perspective of the matter. Is someone against war because it kills women, or that it kills men nd women ?" These are soapboxing and flamebaiting. I have already explained to you that this page is not a forum, as did Orangemike. I have already pointed you to WP:SOAP - if you continue to break the talk page guidelines you will face appropriate consequences - I will not repeat my warnings again--Cailil talk 19:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Caesar, please consider your comments in light of WP:NOT#FORUM]; I think you will see that you have been straying into discussion of the subject, rather than discussing how best to write an encyclopedia article about the subject. Personal opinions of and experiences with feminism or feminists are irrelevant and original research at best. ... Just to add to Cailil's comments, if you read this and associated articles you will see comments about criticism of feminism both from within "feminism" and without. For instance, see the "backlash" paragraph in Feminist movement. As Cailil says, segregating criticism into a separate section of an article is an clunky, unstylistic, and decontextualized treatment of a topic. If you have seen such sections in other articles I would strongly encourage you to integrate the criticism into the appropriate sections of that article. Some articles (like George W. Bush) become the subject of so many revert wars that it is hard to make progress on them to improve their writing and style, but that shouldn't affect most articles. Also, in some instances (again, George W. Bush springs to mind), there is significant organized opposition such that needs a separate article. You'll see Anti-feminism is an article in wikipedia covering that topic. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be appropriately organized treatment of feminism and its discontents in the feminism article, of course, but I hope that these examples give you some sense of a good approach to handling topics that have generated opposition in the world. --lquilter 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am just making some suggestions. I truly realize that many people, if not most people are blinded by the whole truth of this 'noble idea' gone wrong, so I will be content to merely suggest improvements, and leave someone else to make the changes if they see fit. I do not believe the world is ready yet to accept the truth about feminism; maybe in a few years.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Citing Cailil and Caeser: "Equality of the sexes" and "equal rights for women" do not mean the same thing in english because - in my understanding - it is always possible to think about women as gender and not sex. I consider that the sentence "equal rights for women" (in relation to men), is different from 'equality of sexes' because the first one can actually make sense according (not against) the idea of performativity ('one becomes a woman'- De Beauvoir) and also to the fact that there are many other women and men (and genders) than what the bifused matrix presumes as sexes (two sexes).
I guess the argument to approximate the two sentences would be based on the idea that one can be different being yet equal, argument to which I agree. I just do not think that the first line of the definition of feminism should be such an idea of the distinction of 'sexes' because it simply doens't apply nowadays, after many decades of gender discussion. I don't think the mention to 'sex' is nowadays a good definition to be in any enciclopedia, specially if we are working on it on the present.
Caeser might have a point about the past and some parts of feminism during its history over the world, but the definition as something about 'inequality of sexes' is not precise. And I maintain my point of view. Webster's definition should be revised because sex has been a matter for feminist thinking for a long while already to apear somewhat naturalized like that in a sentence defining feminism. I don't mean to be rude against Caeser, I just don't think that the sentence 'equality of sexes' is a representative one for an enciclopedia which is being written (I'm sorry for this verbal timing, I don't really know how it goes...) on the present, that's the mention I was trying to focus.
Caeser is correct, in my opinion, to point out that there are criticisms as well, and if that's a matter I don't see why not add them to the text, as long as it is done in a reasonable way.
I will allow myself one more disagreement. I don't think anybody here holds the (so called) "TRUTH" better than anyone else. I believe the great thing about this discussion is that it points out that there are facts with which we have to deal. And dealing with the facts is the important aspect of a public espace - as Hannah Arendt seemed to believe because it is the garantee of human plurality. So I will not accept that 'some people' are incapable of dealing with some (so called) truth, because I see that as an false argument.
The truth has been regulating the building of this article and it is been written always to conform to it, not against it as it has been insinuated. Now that I have said that, I'd like to say that if there are "untrue" facts on the article they must be pointed out for correction as a way to avoid that kind of unpleasent insinuation. I do not, personally, care for 'prayers' on the truth as if anyone holds/sees it better than anyone else.
Mariana Lima. Hannahlima 14:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

expanded second wave feminism section

I've just expanded the 'second wave' section. It's far from perfect but it's a start. There are 2 other issues left over from Awadewit's list of recommendations, they are: the section on Post-feminism and issues with the section on The third wave (the prominence of the Anita Hill case and their perceived failures of the second wave). If anyone can help with these areas specifically it would move the article closer to GA status. After that the lead paragraph might need attention--Cailil talk 13:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested. One of the last issue in the improvement drive for this article is teh expansion of the third wave section. What could go in here is third wave feminists' views about the second wave and their issues with it. I wont have time to work on this for a while so if anyone else can please have a think about what could be appropriate for this section--Cailil talk 00:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

'seminal' works - comment moved from Archive 11

'seminal' works...

I find this an odd choice of a word for an article on feminism, since it can also mean 'relating to semen'. Anyone else? Just a thought.  :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by NJMessmer1976 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 October 2007

comment moved to Talk:Feminism from talk archive for old conversations--Cailil talk 15:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I do agree, I was thinking about that as well, but from a lusofone point of view. In portuguese we joke about that meaning and say something like "ovulal works"... but as a joke. I agree that we might rethink the expression, maybe something simpler could replace it.
Mariana Lima. Hannahlima 14:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
germinal. --lquilter 15:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"germinal" is a good suggestion but a little esoteric. The line in quetion is "Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Women is considered the seminal essay of feminism" - we could just say "it is considered to be one of the first feminist essays" - this might be more easily understood--Cailil talk 16:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, "germinal" sounds better even if it is a little esoteric... Mariana Lima. Hannahlima 22:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I put 'germinal' in instead of seminal as per this discussion. I've wikilinked the word to wiktionary:germinal as it is not commonly used and may need explanation for some users (I suppose the same could be said for 'seminal' in this reagrd as well)--Cailil talk 16:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Interest in a WikiProject Feminism?

I'm trying to gauge whether there is interest in forming a WikiProject Feminism. My initial proposal states: "A WikiProject for creating, maintaining and improving articles related to feminism and biographies of important feminists." If you're interested, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Feminism and sign up. Even if there aren't enough people to sustain a WikiProject, we'll at least get to know other editors with interests in this area. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:GS - wikiproject gender studies already does this job, has a wider scope and an established membership--Cailil talk 02:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested, but like Cailil says, some other wikiprojects cover feminism already. However, I think that there could be a feminism subproject as part of Wikiproject: Gender Studies. --Grrrlriot (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sex-positive feminism

This is such a substantial article, but did I miss the treatment of Sex-positive feminism? If not, how come there's no section for it? Phyesalis 02:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be in the radical feminism sub-section, along with mention of the "pornography wars" and anti-pornography, or so-called, "sex-negative" feminism. Sex-positive and anti-pornography feminism are both part of radical feminism as it's called in North America, they are sub-movements and recording them is part of the reason that that section is so long--Cailil talk 00:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I totally missed that. If the length of "radical" is an issue, would anyone mind if I gave SPF its own section? SPF is significant enough to give it its own section. It ties into both radical and third wave. Phyesalis (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
We could give its own section but other sections (i.e., Marxist and Socialist feminism or Postcolonial feminism and Third world feminism) are umbrella sections so on the grounds of consistency I'd lean towards expanding the mention of pro-sex feminism in the Radical feminism section and add more on it into the third wave section as well. Length of the Radical feminism isn't an issue (I didn't mean to give that impression above) it is a very broad church, so to speak, and its divisions and subdivisions need to be fully articulated both for NPOV and simple accuracy. What do you think?--Cailil talk 01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that sounds great. Phyesalis (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm sorry if this has been brought up before, but this article seems to focus more on pro-choice feminism than pro-life feminism. Junulo (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Pro-choice feminism is the majority view. Pro-life feminism is minority. Some feminists argue that feminism is itself pro-choice thus making pro-life feminism an oxymoron. (forgot to sign) Phyesalis (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can know the page only treats the abortion issue once - in the lede - which is hardly means it stresses pro-choice opinions. While pro-life feminism is not quite an oxymoron (see New feminism or Christian feminism) it is not mainstream. The feminism readers, and other sources that the lead paragraphs are drawn from state that "agitation for the right to abortion" is a feminist activity without applying the label of "pro-choice" to the feminists agitating for that right.
Having said that I think the sections on third wave feminism and (at least) Christian feminism could do with a mention of "pro-life feminism," if proper sourcing can be found and as long as it is not given undue weight--Cailil talk 17:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wording of intro to anti-feminism section

"Opposition to feminism comes in many forms, either criticizing feminist ideology and practice or arguing that it be restrained. Antifeminism is often equated with male chauvinism."

By whom? It seems a subjective point of view. Anti-feminism includes the same sentence with the clarification "by feminists". Maybe this should read that way too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.224.76 (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not a subjective point of view. The term antifeminism is defined as being synonymous with male chauvinism. See:
  • wordnet antifeminism is synonymous with male chauvinism
  • dictionary.com antifeminism is synonymous with male chauvinism
  • websters dictionary (as well as online) antifeminism is synonymous with male chauvinism
Or if you want a third party reliable source for more on it have a look at Antifeminism and Family Terrorism: A Critical Feminist Perspective by Rhonda Hammer (2001) ISBN: 9780742510500.
Placing the caveat "by feminists" (which infers that only feminists read the term this way) after "Antifeminism is often equated with male chauvinism" would be inaccurate and misleading, since the term is equated by dictionaries and other sources as being synonymous with male chauvinism--Cailil talk 22:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree that "by feminists" unnecessarily restricts understanding of the relationship between anitfeminism and male chauvinism. Phyesalis (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This is so POV, that it's unbeliveable. It would mean that you cannot criticize any aspect of feminism, without being a male chauvinist. Is Warren Farrel a male chauvinist? --Zslevi (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Zslevi, first of all, being critical of feminism and being an antifeminist are not the same thing. Nobody has claimed that all critics of feminism are antifeminists - in fact many of these critics are feminists themselves - please don't misrepresent the points being made above. Secondly, to change the wording in that section sources contradicting dictionary definitions of the term would be needed. As it stands the point made by User:91.105.224.76 is itself contradicted by the sources quoted above. However I'm making an edit to harmonize the summary with the lede of the Anti-feminism article, this removes the point that antifeminism is equated with male chauvinism--Cailil talk 17:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

merge post-feminism

Having reviewed the Post-feminism article and the section here, I think it would be appropriate to merge and redirect that article here until the section expands enough to justify having its own article--Cailil talk 15:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If nobody has a problem with this then I propose the merge go ahead after 12:00 UTC Thursday December 27th 2007--Cailil talk 15:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It sounds fine to me, Cailil -- thanks for more excellent work on feminism-related articles. --Lquilter (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You might have discussed this at Talk:Post-feminism... —Ashley Y 22:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The merge template only gives the option to use one talk page. If you feel strongly revert and discuss. Personally I think the section here is clearer and more comprehensive. Hence the reasons for the merge - but again if you feel strongly just revert here. These mergers are being performed in line with WP:BRD and in due to the fact that most of the pages merged here were full of OR or (in this case) little more than stubs--Cailil talk 22:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A few new sections and a rethink

Okay first of all I gave-up trying to explain Post-feminism and just gave examples of it - the section still needs work. I expanded the third wave section by rationalizing other sections and moving post-feminism and contemporary feminism into it. I moved a section on Feminism and political movements from History of feminism - it needs attention. The section on Socialism might need to be reduced and the section on fascism needs expansion. It also needs info on other political movements alliances with and attitudes towards feminism. And finally the Indian feminism section is a problem. It was placed beneath French feminism presumably because it looked like the place to add regional feminisms - it's not. French feminism is the name of a philosophy - an extremely historically significant one because it rivals Anglo-American views. Indian feminism is important but the summary has 2 massive problems a) it's in the wrong place and b) totally unverified. I'm commenting it out for a few hours - I wont be able to source it but I might be able to create another section on "Regional feminisms" as a new for it and other feminism (ie Feminism in France, Women's movement in Iran etc). If anybody has any objections, views or comments drop me a line here or my talk page--Cailil talk 16:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. to accommodate this I'm recommending that we remove Issues in defining feminism - the best info is already covered by illustrating the numerous movements and disagreements--Cailil talk 16:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've merged and redirected Feminism in Norway to Feminism#Norway. You can see the old article here. It was pretty much OR for the most part and what was salvageable was unsourced but verifiable - if anyone objects just revert the redirect at this diff--Cailil talk 18:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've commented Issues in defining feminism out for the moment. In my opinion if we are to keep this section it should a) be drastically reduced b) moved into the history section and c) readjusted for due weight in light of the length of everything else on this page. There are a few things that need to go on to the page and the space Issues in defining feminism is taking up is valuable. Any views--Cailil talk 19:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just finished doing a little fact checking and sourcing and the article has no more red links and no more unsourced statements. But it's not time to celebrate yet. The lede needs to be redone. The issues in defining feminism needs to be removed or reduced or significantly altered and we all need to talk about that. Also the more I look over it the "Science and Feminism" needs to be harmonized with the rest of the article - a sub article on Feminism and Science would be good in the long run. And finally a summary of Men and feminism would really round this page off nicely - so that's my christmas list. Before I forget we also need an image for the top of the article - I'd suggest [[Image:8marchrallydhaka (55).JPG]] but becuase the placards aren't in English it may not be the best first choice. Something along these lines is what I'd think is appropriate though. Any other ideas?--Cailil talk 00:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Haven't had time to reread the commented out section. I have found this site [11] which I am planning on using to revise "Science and feminism". For me, these overarching approaches are key to understanding soft and hard scientific approaches (this would also help contextualize the material already present). This could be a useful ref for a sub-article. For the Men section, I'm thinking the issue of whether or not men are feminist or Pro-feminist men, some John Stoltenberg and feminist views of how patriarchy and intersections of oppression affect men and a link to Queer theory. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The Stanton encyclopedia will help but we need more sources - its bibliography will be a major help in finding them. Regarding the Men and feminism article - that page is still developing and needs work - but a summary (as per WP:SUMMARY) of it and its points, so it would be important to work new ideas into that article first and then to write the summary here. But your points about Stoltenberg, queer theory, and pro-feminist men look good to me--Cailil talk 19:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a last note on "Issues in defining Feminism" - I've put the section in my userspace here - we can all work on it there before re-adding it--Cailil talk 16:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Good points, I'm thinking that your suggestion (on pfm's talk page) to merge Pro-feminist men with either Men and feminism or Pro-feminism is a good idea. Maybe merge it with Pro-feminism and then add a section in men and feminism? Then we can draw from the main article with a pro-feminist men subsection. What do you think? Phyesalis (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

divorce rates etc

User:Peoplesunionpro added this [12] to the section on Feminism's effect on hetrosexual relationships. I don't see how it's relevant to this article. It might belong somewhere like the Divorce article, but it's not making sense to put it here. To connect it to feminism would be a synthesis and original research. I'm suggesting it be removed--Cailil talk 16:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the piece. Please discuss if anyone has an issue with this removal--Cailil talk 15:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

more mergers

In order to improve the encyclopedia I'm suggesting that a number of articles consisting of unverified and unsourced claims be summarized sourced and merged and redirected here: Feminism in Japan, Feminist history in Latin America and also Postfeminism (discussed above). This has already been done for Third-world feminism and Feminism in Norway and will not be a permanent redirect. When these sections become too large for this page then they can be spun-off into their own pages again. Unless there are any objections I'm going to do this on Thursday December 27th 2007--Cailil talk 18:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I object to this edit. this article is not your personal domain. december 27 is not sufficient time for all editors to be advised of such an edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.205.124 (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The above editor has been blocked as a possible sock-puppet of User:A B Pepper, who has been engaged in tendentious editing in order to disrupt the project and harass certain editors--User:Cailil20:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense to me. We have an article on feminism and should spin off daughter articlesonly when there is enough well sourced substance. this is obvious. Good idea!Slrubenstein | Talk 11:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Once again unless there are any practical objections - based on policy, or for any other explicable common sense or logical reason, why these pages should not be temporarily merged and redirected here - the operation will go ahead on Thursday. I am well aware of this site's policy on WP:OWN and do not regard this or any other page as my "personal domain," and if any editor has a problem with my contributions here bring the issue to WP:AN--Cailil talk 20:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC) - It would be better to bring any issues to WP:ANI or WP:RFC--Cailil talk 13:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Articles should only be broken off when there is sufficient information to have a separate article; as it stands now have all these separate articles weakens what could be a better article covering all the topics in a single article. Too often new editors want to equate numerous article with being more important; this is a fallacy. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

These mergers have just been performed. I merged Feminist history in Latin America to Feminist ideology during the Sandinista Revolution - because it makes more sense to have it go there rather than here. I've been looking through the category and there are still a number of badly sourced and OR articles in it: Fat_feminism, Amazon_feminism, Chicana_feminism and Equality_feminism. None of these subjects deserve their own articles yet. I suggest we merge Fat feminism & Amazon feminism into a section here dealing with body theory. A summary of Transfeminism might be appropriate there. I think Chicana feminism could go into the postcolonial and third world section. Other than that I think we should find a way to discuss equality feminism and difference feminism here. What does anyone else think--Cailil talk 15:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the discussion of equality and difference feminism would be great. Phyesalis (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going through these pages (Amazon feminism, Chicana feminism, Fat feminism and Equality feminism) and I'm getting more and more depressed. There's nothing in Equality feminism - what ever can be found should be added as a subsection to liberal feminism and that page should just redirect here. Fat feminism and Amazon feminism are full of original research and Amazon feminism seems, and I do only say seems, to have plagiarism issues. Chicana feminism is notable but has no inline refs and I am unable to help it, until an expert can rewrite or ref that page it's info can't be added here. If anyone can help with these please do. I am uncertain of Amazon and Fat feminism's notability - at the moment they almost look like hoax articles due to the serious amount of OR on those pages. I'm going to give them 3 weeks to improve - if they can't be properly sourced and rationalized by then we'll have to send them to AfD. I've made a cross posting to WT:GS about this--Cailil talk 13:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Faludi-backlash.jpg

Image:Faludi-backlash.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mrs Dalloway1.jpg

Image:Mrs Dalloway1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ 'Feminism', Webster Dictionary Definition
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Suffragettes to Grrls was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Chodorow1989 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference gilligan1977 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Feminist Theory and the Body: A Reader ed. by Janet Price and Margrit Shildrick (Edinburgh University Press, 1999) ISBN 9780748610891
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference Butler2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Messer-Davidow was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Narayan was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mohanty was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference walker was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Hill Collins, P. (2000): Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (New York: Routledge)
  12. ^ Harding, Sandra, The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies (Routledge, 2003), ISBN 9780415945011
  13. ^ Humm, Maggie. 1995. The Dictionary of Feminist Theory. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, p. 251
  14. ^ 'Feminism', Webster College Dictionary Definition. Random House Inc. 1991, p.490
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminism/Archive_10&oldid=1140129154"