Talk:Feminism/Archive 12

Japan

Why does this article redirect from Feminism in Japan? There is nothing about Japan in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.36.18 (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The content of Feminism in Japan was unsourced, see what it looked like right before becoming a redirect on 28 December 2007. At that time, the redirect was pointing to a Japan section, see the japan section on the 28 December 2007 version of this page. You can see that it was moved to its own article on a 8 April 2008 move. I just re-targeted the redirect to the new location of the japan section, and I also corrected Japanese feminism, Feminism in norway and Feminism in Norway, and re-targetted Third-World_Feminism which had a similar problem. (I found them by clicking on "What links here" on the left of the page, and then cliking on "show only redirects).

Notice that the section "History of feminism" on this page has a notice that History of feminism is the main article. Notice also that longer and sourced articles like Feminism_in_France and Feminism_in_Poland have its own page instead of a redirect to a section of a bigger article. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

June 8th 2008

I've made a number of edits - mainly copy-edits - to reduce jargon and general wordiness. I've also started to harmonize the references using {{citation}}. I've gone through the page down to the Feminist sub-types. I've also added a short summary of Cultural feminism and as mentioned in aprevious convo incorporated it, along with separatism feminism into the section on Radical feminism (rather than giving them sub-sections of Radical feminism).

A thought occurred to me before I started summarizing the issues around Anti-pornography feminism a) the weight giving to the sex-positives is a bit undue and b) a section on Feminism and pornography might be a good idea. Such a section would contain info on Anti- and pro- sex-feminisms. The history of the so-called "feminist sex wars". By doing all of this in one section we kep the information about feminism and pornography centralized rather than scattered through-out the article--Cailil ^talk 20:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This centralization seems like a very good idea. It also would conveniently set us up to do summary style when the pornography topic inevitably gets too long and detailed to host on the main article. --Gimme danger (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created that section as well as merging and redirecting Feminist sex wars to it. I've also merged French feminism here as the section had everything the article had and more (plus the article was violating WP:LIST). When these sections expand we can move the info back there and develop those articles while keeping the summaries here.

I've also attempted to jargon-bust the piece on Ettinger in the French feminism section - please adjust it if it is still unclear or too specilaized--Cailil ^talk 23:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think what you've done with this article has been very good. I reverted the undoing of the "Feminist Sex Wars" article though – the article is a stub with room for a great deal of expansion. I think the only really good reason for merging a stub article is if it clearly has no room for expansion or so heavily overlaps with the subject of another article as to be superfluous. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I take your point Iamcuriousblue but there is another reason for merging and that's WP:SUMMARY - Gimme danger mentions this above. There's a structural concept behind merges like this and its based on how Category:Feminism is organized. Feminism is the "parent article" of the category and the other articles are built upon it like an inverted pyramid. When sections become large enough for their own articles they are split (or "spun off").

Unfortunately Category:Feminism was created backwards - various articles have were started without any connection to here other than the template {{Feminism sidebar}}. 18 months ago there were few (if any) links to sub-types or histories of feminism here. The major change that I and others have made here (over a year or so) is to make this a summary-style article and to try to improve its content as much as possible, but there's still more work to be done in this regard.

There remains a significant question about feminist sex wars - does it deserve its own article yet. This is not a notability question but rather a suggestion that it will be easier to keep matters of Feminism and pornography together here until the section is large enough for its own article and/or until the sub-section on the feminist sex wars is large enough for its own article as well. Its not a big deal but it helps keep development centralized, writing within the MOS and points properly sourced--Cailil ^talk 14:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of "top down" building of related articles when starting to write on a topic, however, I'm more reluctant to actually get rid of an existing article or expandable stub in order to do so. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are temporary Iamcuriousblue, we don't delete or get rid of a redirected/merged article. Like I said it's not a big deal, so if you can expand it please go ahead. But if in 2 or 3 months it is still a stub the question (why does it have its own article?) may be asked again--Cailil ^talk 19:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Feminism in the West

Why does feminism in the rich West get the reputation of being petty, political correctness and belief that women are better than man etc... but in most of the world, women don't even have a smidgeon of the equality they do in the WEst and yet when we call someone who fights for women's right to education or against genital mutilation , we don't call them feminists, yet when an affluence Westerner espouses views about how high heels are oppressive and rants about the Patriarchy, we call THEM feminist. It just seems so frivolous!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.29 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This point on affluent white feminists is already addressed in the article under discussions of Third Wave feminism, and the growing number of feminists of colour. Sapperstein (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Because the West is pretty much the only part of the world where women and men can, at least under the law, stand on equal footing. And the fact is that feminism has indeed led to certain people thinking women are better than men, or wrapping themselves in the "you're not being fair to me because I'm a woman" argument whenever it's convenient.

That said, women's equality is far from being a fact in many Western families. And it's in the interests of social conservatives to portray the feminist movement as extremist, affluent and frivolous as a whole. Helps them change the topic from more on-point questions, like why the average working woman still makes substantially less money than her male counterpart; why women in conservative marriages are still placed in a completely subservient position; why women who choose to go unattached are stigmatized either as sluts or as troublemakers, when men doing the same are considered perfectly normal; why pregnant women in the inner city are expected to treat their pregnancies as if they were, oh, I don't know, the daughter of the Governor of Alaska and just rolling in fricking $$$...

This doesn't justify the excesses of the feminist movement either - and yes, I'm fairly sure that even if women were completely equal to men, the people you describe would continue to exist and continue to bitch. But the fact today is that too many women are still not equal to men, even in the West, which is something it's good to keep in mind when discussing feminism and its place in society. 147.9.177.90 (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

June 25th

I've made a few changes today[1] to address some of the issues raised in the automated peer review in regard to the table of contents on the article page.

Also I'd like to mention that the Feminist movement article has been rewritten it is now functioning more like a child of this article - as it should as per WP:SUMMARY. However that means that we need to address what we have on this page regarding its content - namely summarizing and reducing what's in the 'Feminism and society' section while retaining links to other child articles (such as feminist theology)--Cailil ^talk 19:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Praise

Just wanted to say that this is a very good article. :-) Cheers to those who did it up. It's one of the few pages on wikipedia where I find that there's little, or infact nothing, that I see I want to change! Cheers --Supriya 21:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I second that. After working on some articles for different streams of feminism, this one is very refreshing. JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Feminist theory

Should the links in the first sentence go to feminist anthropology, feminist sociology, etc? JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point - I've done that as best I can. The only issue is Art history has no explicit section for feminism so I've linked it to Art_history#Psychoanalytic_art_history where Pollock is discussed--Cailil ^talk 14:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Radical Feminism

Are Radical feminism considers the capitalist hierarchy, which it describes as sexist, as the defining feature of women’s oppression. and Radical feminists see capitalism as one of the most important barriers to ending oppression. redundant? JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the second one - well spotted--Cailil ^talk 14:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Also I'm not clear about It is also a theory that commends the difference of women from men. If radical feminists commend that women are different from men, It is also a theory that commends that women and men are different. would be more clear. If radical feminists commend the differences between women and men, It is also a theory that commends the differences between women and men. would be more clear. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording from Routledge international encyclopedia of women: global women's issues and knowledge is that Radical feminism "emphasized the difference between women and men, although the difference is seen as psychological and culturally constructed rather than biologically innate." We could insert this replacing teh unclear wording--Cailil ^talk 14:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That would work. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The opening line of this section, "Radical feminism considers the male controlled capitalist hierarchy, which it describes as sexist, as the defining feature of women’s oppression" is causing me some confusion. According to Walby (1990) Radical Feminism is distinguished by its focus on "the system of domination, called patriarchy" and this system "does not derive from any other system of social inequality; for instance, it is not a by-product of capitalism". Likewise, neither the online dictionary of the social sciences, about.com or anywhere else i searched, other than wikipedia, use the word capitalism in the description of Radical feminism, furthermore it would appear the term capitalism appears to be specifically used in definitons of marxist feminism, for this reason i would suggest the opening line be reviewed. --Pappin76 (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

First-Wave Feminism and Black Feminism

Are these contradictory? In the United States leaders of this movement included Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who each campaigned for the abolition of slavery prior to championing women's right to vote. and It emerged after the early feminist movements that were led specifically by white women who advocated social changes such as woman’s suffrage. These movements were largely white middle-class movements and ignored oppression based on racism and classism. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a wording issue here but factually it is correct. As far as I can remember from sources the majority of American feminist at the time didn't hold Anthony and Cady Stanton's views. So inserting "largely" or "generally" into the second clause might be a good idea--Cailil ^talk 14:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. From what I had read, a large number of first-wave feminists were also abolitionists, and a large number of second-wave feminists were also African-American civil rights activists. But you seem to be more knowledgeable on the topic, so I'll defer to you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong about Anthony and Cady Stanton I'm working from memory - I wont be able to check till Tuesday (it would be probably be more correct to have said "not all" rather than "the majority" of American feminist at the time). But I think inserting "largely" into the sentence in Black feminism communicates the point the Black feminist made and covers our bases as regards logical contradictions--Cailil ^talk 14:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Feminism and Society

Are these redundant? The feminist movement has effected change in Western society, including women's suffrage; the right to initiate divorce proceedings and "no fault" divorce; and the right of women to make individual decisions regarding pregnancy (including access to contraceptives and abortion); and the right to own property. and Feminism has effected many changes in Western society, including women's suffrage, broad employment for women at more equitable wages, the right to initiate divorce proceedings and the introduction of "no fault" divorce, the right to obtain contraception and safe abortions, and access to university education. JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are indeed. I've replaced that second one with a summary of Women's rights--Cailil ^talk 15:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Feminism By Country

I think it would be a good idea to have feminism by countries. I noticed that a few countries already have their own feminism page. What do you think? --Grrrlriot (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think its a good idea but whether it should be here on our on History of feminism is debatable. Personally I think its more appropriate there but that's just my opinion. BTW a few of those pages need serious attention themselves (ie Feminism in India)--Cailil ^talk 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you think it's a good idea. I suppose if each country is going to have a section then History of feminism should be the page for that. However, If every country is going to have its own page like Feminism in India, then I think "Feminism in..." should be the right place. Here is a sample of what I'm talking about: User:Grrrlriot/Sandbox --Grrrlriot (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to merge the various pages into one on feminism with a history of feminism section, while establing redirects for the old pages. Nschoem 03:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nschoem (talk • contribs)

July 8 reference harmonization

Anyone watching this page will see that I've been harmonizing the referencing style here. The whole article is now using {{citation}} style references - see WP:CITE for more information.

There are some newspaper articles listed in the 'Civil rights' section that need proper citation formatting any help with this would be appreciated--Cailil ^talk 23:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fisherman or fisher?

There is a current discussion in various fishing articles about the use of the word "fisherman" to describe anyone who fishes. The gender-neutral term, used in Canada and elsewhere, is "fisher." So far, it appears that the editor discussion has been mostly from men. I am posting this here to encourage a wider discussion of this and to incorporate other viewpoints. The discussion can be viewed at [2]. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the use of gender-neutral language but fisher sounds strange in eevryday use.Sapperstein (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Terms like "fisherman" are used to describe a person that fishes. Just like there is a 'man' at the end of "human". It simply describes a person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.210.17 (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascism

It could be argued that Feminism is itself the most extreme example of fascism in the world today. Reguardless of this, the Fascism section is deeply incorrect. It suggests that National Socialism was a Fascist ideology. It wasnt. National Socialism, as the name suggests, is Nationalism (center/left wing) and Socialism (left wing). Fascism is right wing and entirely different from National Socialism, which supports the rights of impoverished and lower class natives. The Italian government at that time was inded Fascist, but Hitler only allied them for the benefit of the Axis war effort. This point isnt open for discussion, its a political fact. Please change this if you prioritize accuracy in this, frankly, hideous and anti-male web page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.144.242 (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As soon as you can provide reliably sourced argumentation regarding your ideas around feminism=extreme fascism,feel free to submit it to the process of developing a consensus around the viability of this idea. Please do also correct any factual inaccuracies you perceive yourself, as long as you can attribute your corrections to a reliable source. Finally, please observe wikipedia guidelines and assume good faith in your interactions here.81.205.195.3 (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverting IronAngelAlice

The reason I undid this edit by Alice is because there are a number of problems with it. First off the weight given to the quote from the Washington Post review of Sommers' book is undue (consider it in light of the other books mentioned on the page). Second a serious source needs to be provided for the conflation of anti-feminism and individualist feminism - McElroy distinguishes the two terms herself. Third, is there a sourced based reason for the removals from the pro-feminism section? Fourth, how are these additions and removals reconciled in relation to WP:SUMMARY?

Please look at the sources before deleting, Cailil. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've rasied 4 issues here Alice and you have only partially addressed 1 (the quote). The text you have added is inaccurate and unreliably sourced:

Writers such as Christina Hoff Sommers use the term "gender feminism" to distinguish between their conservative ideals, and the modern women's movement. Scholars have commented that the label "feminist" is often used cynically in this context, as a way to co-opt general feminism rather than actually be part of feminism. In this sense, Sommers is often credited for being anti-feminist.

The advocates and NPR do not qualify as "scholars" - on top of that the text is editorial-style not encyclopedic. And in the context of the rest of the article they are just not good enough as sources (WP:WEIGHT) A newspaper article is not a good enough source to conflate 2 distinct historical terms (WP:WEIGHT again). Just becuase one person (Sommers) is being criticized (in a newspaper) does not equate with a conflation of the totality of individualist feminism & its history with anti-feminism.

Once more I am asking for a source showing why antifeminism and individualist feminism are conflated here. I will also ask again, how does the edit you are making reconcile itself with WP:SUMMARY; and what source is used for your removals from the profeminism section?--Cailil ^talk 11:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Calil here – the edit in question was clearly POV and amounted to editorializing and original analysis, even if it was "sourced". Iamcuriousblue (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but you did not listen to the interview with a scholar of feminism on the link to NPR did you? She is at professor at Stanford. She qualifies as a scholar.

There are several problems with the "Individualist Feminism" section. First, Wendy McElroy shouldn't be listed in a summary section along side Susan B. Anthony, Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan and Alice Walker. Simply because McElroy has her own blog and has said some interesting and controversial things, doesn't mean she should be listed here. It just doesn't make sense. Unless we can make the case that Individualist Feminism is a movement - not just a section that contains ideas by Wendy McElroy - it seems to me the section is out of place and should be removed. Please note that the references for McElroy are to her blog.

The second problem is that Christina Hoff Sommers is not an "Individualist Feminist." The media and scholars refer to her as a "conservative" and an "anti-feminist." (Please read her wiki page for more refs.) Sommers co-opts the term feminist rather than believes she is part of a feminist movement.

In short, Wendy McElroy and Sommers are minor figures in the larger feminism movement. Furthermore, they have completely different agendas and should not be in the same section.

For these reasons, I think this section should be removed.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should be removed – it exists as a school of thought that refers to itself as feminism, and it is not the place of Wikipedia to decide what is and isn't feminism. If it should be merged with anything, it should be merged with "libertarian feminism", which some writers with beliefs similar to McElroy also use. You might be right about Christina Hoff Summers not belonging to the same school of thought as Wendy McElroy, one that may or may not term itself "feminist", but I want to see some sources on that, one way or the other. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Alice 4 specific points were made to you about a disputed edit please answer them with sources. Repeatedly reinserting an edit that has been disputed by multiple editors is edit-warring.
Iamcuriousblue is 100% correct in his point above. And to correct you I have provided a source to McElroy's book Freedom, Feminism, and the State: An Overview of Individualist Feminism which can actually replace many of the refs to her blog. While I absolutely agree that the section reflects too much on McElroy and Sommers it is in fact a summary of the Individualist feminism article if you wish to add more information about libertarian/individualist feminism (especially its history in the C19th) please go ahead and do so. When that is added then we can change the summary here (this is why I made a point of asking you about WP:SUMMARY twice). And no the section should not be removed, it needs to be written/contextualized with more info about the history of libertarian feminism (but that needs to happen in the article first)--Cailil ^talk 20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

PS, re your note about NPR - yes I did listen to it, but it aint good enough as a source (WP:WEIGHT) and neither is the advocates.org (this one under WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT)--Cailil ^talk 20:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is devolving into the absurd, Cailil. The references you have for "Individualist Feminism" are to Wendy McElroy's blog, and to her book. This simply does not qualify her to have her own section in a summary about the entirety of the feminist movement and scholarship. I agree with Iamcuriousblue - if McElroy is to be mentioned at all, she should at least be relegated to the libertarian section of the feminist moment. Hoff Sommers is completely out of place in any section other than an anti-feminist section. Please stop removing the referenced critiques of her, and her "conservative brand of feminism." --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am merging anarcho-feminism and individualist feminism since individualist feminism references rely entirely on Wendy McElroy references.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I'm becoming increasingly convinced you don't know what you're talking about and are falling back on your own superficial readings and original thoughts here rather than referenced sources. Individualist/libertarian feminism (In the McElroy sense) and anarcha-feminism are quite different, even if they do draw on some common sources (such as Emma Goldman and Volterine de Cleyre). Although its hard to pin down a monolithic anarcha-feminism (there are, after all, as many different anarchisms and feminisms), generally speaking, anarcha-feminism is a far left movement, often overlapping into socialist feminism or radical feminism, while individualist feminism is associated with the libertarian right. Obviously, that gets even more complicated, because there is also some overlap between anarchism and right libertarianism, even though the two tend to be strongly opposed for the most part. In any event, I have undone this merge which is unfounded and not at all based on good research. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to resist the urge to be as equally insulting as you are Iam. Please note that I am using the Stanford Encyclopedia of Phihlosophy instead of relying on Wendy McElroy's blog for references.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian feminism?

I see no basis for lumping Individualist feminism with Anarcho-feminism. Individualist feminism is more closely linkd to liberal feminism and both have been called libertarian feminism. If we are going to have a section on libertarian feminism it ought to be based on scholarly sources - and have some historical depth, for goodness sakes, mentioning Lydia Becker, HelenBlackburn, Barbara Bodichon, Jessie Boucheret, Emily Faithfull,Bessie Parkes and Emily Davies, Sophie Bryant, Milicent Garrett Fawcett, Jose-phine Butler, and the two sisters Emily Shirreff and Maria Grey. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to take anarcho feminism out of libertarian feminism (which I think, on it's surface is a mistake if we are using the classic version of "libertarianism" rather than the more modern usage), we need to take Wendy McElroy out of anarcho feminism.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is strong opposition to including anarcho-feminism under libertarian feminism, I won't put up a stink about moving anarcho out of the section. However, before we do that, please read section 1.3 here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-liberal/#CulLibFem

Furthermore, we should be absolutely be clear who Christina Hoff Sommers and Wendy McElroy are. We should be careful not to call Wendy McElroy a strict anarcho-feminist because she is arguably more libertarian than anarcho. And Sommers should be noted as a cultural conservative.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable secondary sources - say from a peer-reviewed history or women's studies journal - on "libertarian feminism" that supports your claims? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a general summary from a scholarly source would be a better source in this case: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-liberal/#CulLibFem But, yes, I do have other examples. I have to get the links for them, however.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Like this one: "Sex War: The Debate between Radical and Libertarian Feminists" by Ann Ferguson in Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society Volume 10, Issue 1, Page 106, Jan 1984? I am pretty sure Christina Hoff Sommers doesn't fit. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Quickly:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6-ipiV20WEkC&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=libertarianism+and+anarchism&ots=4gyrCOuSz5&sig=lzpsDnwHm8FDDdFyLxg9VxbB0Ak#PPP1,M1

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xVI6ZYDkDSYC&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&dq=anarchist+feminism+libertarian&ots=nvhM4PKQOP&sig=U_O-vtLd1SXBmvOZlw-mVTyw924#PPA11,M1

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jKObO4iu6XcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=anarchist+feminism+libertarian&ots=_tl_8BFhp-&sig=rUNNXcWghLq-dFkDlYq6xaNTcLU#PPA5,M1

http://hwj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/citation/22/1/199

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ik9Io2muuuEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA169&dq=libertarian+feminism+anarchism&ots=e3Id_QCWlZ&sig=hQsfMP8Bz7F6agOyPiNLO_fXVEA

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Rubenstein, radical feminism comes out of liberal (2nd wave) feminism as we understand it in the contemporary world. Libertarian feminism actually comes out of the anarchist movement if we are to look at the history of feminist ideas. The problem for us is that in no way Hoff Sommers should be placed under "anarcha feminism." --IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Alice, I have read articles that identify libertarian feminism with 18th and 19th century liberal feminsm. And I repeat, Suzana Hoff Sommers clearly doesn't fit in this category. As for the books you post, could you provide the page numbers for the pages that support your point? I.e. proper citations? Doesn't have to be immediately. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean Christina Hoff Sommers, and I completely agree about her not being included under 18th and 19th century liberal feminism (see above). Please take a look at my edits on the article page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what a slip! But she also doesn't fit under 20th century anarcho-feminism either. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Exactly.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think one major problem with this article is that the typology of feminisms is better than the account of how these different feminisms are historically related or in conflict. An even more serious problem in my view is that it lacks an account of how scholars of feminism - not activists per se but historians and sociologists - have argued over how to classify and historicize different feminists. You have provided a host of sources - can you use these to address these areas? I think scholars in the UK and in the US use "libertarian" in different ways. I think scholars in the 1920s and in the 1980s use "libertarian" in different ways. This article will suffer from profound systemic bias, and be misleading, unless these kinds of issues are explained to readers. In the meantime, the classification of feminisms seems reified Slrubenstein | Talk 15:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

SLR is right, especially about the gulf between North American & European terminology - this will need contextualizing. Also I would stress that we need to "follow through" with developments - that is when we alter the marxist feminism section here we need to make sure that it reflects the Marxist feminism article. Personally I would prefer if we did it the other way around - fix the sub-article, redraft its lede and then adjust the summary here, becuase frankly all the pages need work.

A second point. I think mentioning Anarcha-feminism in both the Radical and Libertarian feminism sections is a better option rather than conflating it into either one. We can also give it its own section and refer to it in the other two--Cailil ^talk 20:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

SLR, terminology is different in the U.S. and in Europe. You are absolutely correct. This is why we need to be careful in how we talk about American feminists with regards to people like Christina Hoff Sommers who is mostly famous for being a cable news talking-head anti-feminist rather than an important scholar in the field. So, I guess I'm not sure sure what aspects of the article seem reified. Can you be more specific?

Also, I have no problem moving anarcha-feminism into a different section - however, we need to seriously talk about what kinds of feminist movements deserve their own sections. What criteria do we have for ideologies included in this section? I can find many scholarly source on lots of different kinds of feminism. Do they all deserve a section on this particular general-overview page?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUE is the criteria for inclusion and its measure is sources. And to answer your excellent question: no the panoply of movements don't deserve an entry each but many can be mentioned - look at the section on postcolonial, third world and multicultural feminism section for example; or the section on post-structuralist and postmodern feminism. There is a way write sections (and sub-articles) to deal with ideas that are different but that share histories & ideas. As long as we can do this properly and attain consensus to make the changes to the sub-articles I'm happy--Cailil ^talk 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My problem is with the section, "movments and ideologies." Now, in some cases there may be unanimity among scholars and activists and critics in the English-speaking world as to what a particular label refers to. In those cases, no problem. But in other cases, I think we should avoid the construction "X feminism is A." I think there are some cases where we need to say "The meaning of X feminism has changed since the 19th century ..." or "X feminism means different things in the US and in the UK. In the US .." or "People are divided over the use of the term, X feminism. Many activists say ... Many critics say ... Scholars are divided between ..." you get the idea. Maybe reify is not the right word, maybe the issue is nominalism. But it is written as if there is this real thing out there, and X is its name. Most political movements and ideologies just don't work this way. Now, I am not enough of an expert in feminism to rewrite this section and I would not ask any one person to do this overnight. I am proposing it as an objective for many people collaborating on this article to work on in good faith in the near future. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, my comment above was not meant at all to be critical of the work of the many editors who have contributed to this article. I know that Cailil, for example, put in a tremendous amount of hard work to make the section on ideologies and movements inclusive and readable and I really appreciate the work he did. I just hope that the suggestion I made yesterday can provide a framework for IronAngelAlice, Cailil, and Iamcuriousblue to collaborate productively. By the way I agree in principle that it makes sense to improve the linked articles first, and then make sure that the sections in this article provide accurate summaries of the linked main article on a particular type of feminism. That said, sometimes it can be productive to work on the summary first, especially when there is contention - if people can make sure that the summary is NPOV, clear about the multiple views, and provides sources, the summary can then provide a good plan for revising the main linked article. I think the past week's discussions show that there are many more sources, including scholarly secondary sources, that have not yet been integrated into this article. There is in fact a fair amount of research on these different movements and ideologies and it would be good to begin incorporating that stuff. I think the way to start is with a framework that carefully distinguishes between different views (e.g. 19th versus twentieth century; US v. UK; activists vs. critics vs. researchers - these different groups of people do not just differ as to what is good or bad; they can also differ as to how they identify a belief or practice, how they define a term, how they interpret motives behind as well as the meaning of a position) Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You make an excellent point SLR and actually I think reification is a pretty good way to describe the down-side of the current shape of the section, which is a bit "determinist". The one thing that we should also keep in mind is that we have another article for the History of feminism (which needs serious rewriting) and we shouldn't duplicate its function (unless we want to merge the articles - which might be an option). So if we are going to over-view each class of feminism we should decide, before we embark on it, whether we chart their histories here or focus on the predominant aspects as they are discussed in sources, and keep the historical developments for another article--Cailil ^talk 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Science and feminism

This section needs to be changed into something much less anti-Science. It seems to suggest science is just some man's world trying to break down women. Scientists have responded to these critics so why not mention it?YVNP (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand - these critics are scientists. Scientists criticize one another all the time, that is the nature of scientific research. Are there any critiques of Keller or Hardy, for example, that you think should go in? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the point your making YVNP, as Slrubenstein states these are not "anti-science views", these are scientists who are being critical of other scientists for (what they claim is) a reliance on stereotype rather than proof. But the section could do with some fleshing out. Do you have a source for the responses you mention? Please share it if so--Cailil ^talk 13:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Feminism pre-history?

Would it be valuable to discuss feminism's pre-history? It didn't come from nowhere and was influenced by movements much earlier than the early 1900s. Wrad (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

History of feminism does have a section on that - but I suppose we could do with some coverage of it here also--Cailil ^talk 21:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism and feminism

there is nothing about this topic. Are there no feminists in Buddhism? What is the definition of feminism in case there is one?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.222.95 (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Feminism ?????

Is this really the definition of feminism?

>Feminism is the belief that women are superior to men.

Can someone cite a source for this? Does anyone object to the above sentence being deleted from the beginning of the article?

Reference.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminism?jss=0) list this as the definition:

1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

2. (sometimes initial capital letter) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.

Hoping To Help (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. If you see a glaring inaccuracy like this in the article again, feel free to delete or change it immediately (whichever is more appropriate).

It looks like someone else has fixed the problem. I think the "definition" in the lead is still problematic though. Feminism is called both a belief and a discourse. The juxtaposition makes it seem as though a belief can be a discourse, but as you've pointed out feminism can refer to two different things. And is either of these two things a "discourse"? I think it would be better to follow Reference.com's suit and call it an "organized movement" or the like. --SgtSchumann (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a point. Feminism was a philosophy into women's rights. NOT NECESSARILY equal to men's rights. Case in point, a women's maternal rights or child rights. Men did not have any to speak of, except now, in the pursuit of psychotic equality they give them 'rights'.

In some cases 'women's rights' ignore men's rights. Ie the law that at least 50% of employees must be female. Totally ignores the other side of the coin, that 50% of the employees must be male.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Alleged Suppression of Antifeminism

Denidowi,

I've removed your edit with a comment that it was unsourced, but the problem goes far beyond that. Anyone familiar with the relevant literature would know that in respect to nearly every institution antifeminism persists, and in many cases goes unchallenged. Frankly, you're never going to find a reliable source to support your POV generalization; I doubt that even a respectable antifeminist makes that claim. (I've read Sommers, Farrell, and others, so I know they wouldn't make a comparable claim without qualification.) You might find specific, local instances in which antifeminism has been suppressed, but keep in mind that the purpose of this article is to give an overview of feminism; statements like that, if they were true, would probably be more appropriate for the main article on antifeminism. --SgtSchumann (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You might find this interesting to find 'sourced material', as the author of several subcategories of feminism, I did venture to find a publisher to print the detection of a cult like subgroup within feminism that was corrupting society...*Yes OR but you might find other sources) no one wanted to publish this material.

Seems there is quite a 'defense' to any critical address of radical feminism to say the least...

Bottom line you may have to question the availability of 'sourced material'...

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Constructive editing

For new users coming to wikipedia and this page please read the core principles for editing a Wikipedia article (see WP:5, WP:3RR WP:V & WP:NOR). Constructive editing as opposed to disruptive editing begins with seeking consensus for changes and the development of quality text using reliable sources. Editors who do not engage in constructive editing will be reverted, warned and (if such behaviour continues) blocked from editing.

I have reverted a number of changes to the article that are not constructive. If anyone wants to talk about this please do so here and in a civil manner--Cailil ^talk 02:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

From WP:CONSENSUS policy: "Editors typically reach a consensus as a natural and inherent product of wiki-editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it." In case Cailil's comment wasn't clear, there is no requirement to seek a consensus in discussion before editing. Wikipedia guideline calls on editors to be bold. If editors disagree, please discuss the change here rather than continuing to revert the material. Note also that civility is to be maintained at all times, and this specifically includes refraining from making accusations of POV pushing, and refraining from using a "judgmental tone in edit summaries" (WP:CIVIL). Blackworm (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like, in the past few days, the only substantive edits were vandalism or disruptive editing, which needed to be reverted. I have thus partially protected the page for a week. I hope no one actively working on this article finds this an undue obstruction, I don't see much activity right now but hopefully constructive editors can still edit, or discuss their edits here and have them made to the page. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SLR--Cailil ^talk 20:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Feminism Definition

Hooks, Bell: "Come Closer to Feminism and Feminist Politics: Where We Stand" in Feminist is for Everyone, pp.viii 2000 New York: Routledge.

Best definition I have seen for feminism quoted from the above article: "Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression."

She says she uses this definition because it "clearly states that the movement is not about being anti-male. It makes it clear that the problem is sexism"

I like it too, and it - and an explanation of her thought - should go in the body. But the intro needs to be generic and introduce the whole article and cannot privilege one definition taken out of context. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Lack of a criticism section

I find it amazing that the article "feminism" lacks a criticism section. I think I'll be sticking to Britianica for this subject.BFBbrown (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

suit yourself. It's article on Women's lib does not have a criticism section either .. this manichean approah is often ill suited to scholarship. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would assert that a Manichean approach would conform better to the neutral point of view than a single-sided presentation. The policy in fact calls on us to balance different views, and I also believe this article suffers from a lack of criticism of feminism or the specific feminist theories related. The solution IMO is not a criticism section, but summaries of reliably sourced criticisms interspersed throughout the text, in the relevant areas. Due to the length of this article, this may require moving some material on specific subtypes of feminism into their respective subarticles. Blackworm (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This article does take an NPOV, multiple viewed perspective. Feminists spend a great time criticizing one another and there are many forms of competing and clashing forms of feminism, I think this article does a fair job of describing these many contrasting point of view. A section on a generic criticism of feminism would be pretty short - few people seriously reject the claim that men and women should have equal rights under the law. The interesting criticisms are in relation not to feminism in the abstract but to very specific forms of feminism. Of course, all those debates should be covered. I am still unclear as to how you find the Brittanica article superior. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, SLR. You seem to argue that coverage of disputes between feminists precludes the need for the presentation of critical views that come from outside feminism. In contrast, I do not believe we should restrict presented views of feminism to those of feminists. Your apparent view that a criticism of feminism equates to a criticism of male and female equality under the law is interesting, but I do not believe it an accurate equation. I believe that since sources indicate feminism holds many more views besides that stated view, criticisms of those views do not necessarily call into question equality under the law. As feminism in the abstract is defined not only using terms like "equality," but also using terms like "the advancement of women's interests," I argue that some criticism of feminism in the abstract may also exist and be appropriate for this article. Also note that I did not start this thread nor refer to Brittanica, in case you were addressing me in your last sentence. Blackworm (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, I am sorry i confused you for the other editor - I just wasn't paying atention and apologize. To clarify: I did not mean to say criticisms from non-feminists should be discluded. My point was that such criticisms are usually significant when they are criticisms of a specific variety of feminism. My "equal under the law" was an attempt to sum up what may be the only thing all feminists agree on. The problem with critizing "feminism" is that the critic is either (1) criticizing something no feminist has ever said, i.e it is not a real criticism of feminism or (2) criticizing a particular variant of criticism. I did not mean to deprecate (2). But if criticisms of a particular version of feminism (e.g. the view that heterosexuality is not natural but compulsury under patriarchy) are presented as "criticisms of feminsim" all we do is confuse readers rather than educate them. This is my principal point. Maybe you are right abo9ut criticism of feminism in the abstract but I would have to see the specifics of what you mean, and evidence that it is notable. I ask you to consider our evolution article as a model. One of its weaknesses is that it does not provide sufficient attention to debates among life scientists where there is real disagreement about method or conclusions. But creationism is not presented as a "criticism" of evolution, it is presented as a different view, deserving its own article. I suspect many "criticisms" of feminism are in fact assertions of an alternate view of the world, one that certainly deserves its own Wikipedia article, but is notable not as a criticism of feminism but as a distinct view of society and social relations, or of the body, or whatever. I am not saying this is always the case, but I do think it is sometimes if not often the case. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So does this article only portray feminism as it is seen by academics, or does it delve into how it is viewed and discussed among the masses as well? I think both are important. Wrad (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I didn't mean for the "Evolution" analogy to be taken so literally. But let's start with policy: NPOV demands we provide an account of all significant views from notable sources. Who has a significant view of feminism? I am not convinced that anyone - Lou Dobbs or Jon Stewart for example - should count as significant views on feminism. Academics yes, because the academy is one of the central sites of feminism. But certainly not only the academy. Feminism is a social movement, and exists in the form of different organizations. in the US NOW, Emily's List, the Fund for the Feminist Majority, the League of Women Voters, and Planned Parenthood are all feminist organizations and several have competing agendas, and several have themselves been wrackjed by internal debates ... I am not saying that these conflicts are the only "criticisms" that belong, but that it is hard to contextualize and make sense of any criticims of feminism until these internal differences are laid out.

The sad fact is that the bulk of this article was written by one, exceptionally dedicated, smart, well-informed, and collegial editor. i have a very high regard for him and I think he did a phenomenal job of laying out the multiple forms of feminism. but this article still scratches the surface. No one person can do it all, no matter how well-informed and hard working. I do not have the time to work on it and frankly do not have the expertise, we need more women, and yes, more feminists who know the history of these different organizations and divisions within them, key debates in academica, etc., just to lay out an accurate portrait of feminism. Again, I am not putting down the idea of "criticisms" but it is hard to judge what criticisms meet the same standards of relevance, appropriateness, and significance, until this article is better developed. Then, different criticisms (by non-feminists) can be incorporated in the appropriate context so the criticism (and any responses to it) will make sense.

In the meantime i stick to some of my basic points: not all great articles have criticism sections, it is not a requirement of a good article, and some things that pass as criticisms of feminism really are expressions of a different agenda and set of views that are best laid out in their own article. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article is quite good. So let's make it better. Wrad (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC - Wrad, thanks ... I think it is good too, but I think it can be much much better, I just think we need to do more work before pasting in criticisms...) Look, I know my response to BFBbrown was knee-jerk, but I thought his comment was knee-jerk. We can easily add a section on "criticisms"and report that Rush Limbaugh hates feminism. This will make RL fans happy, but will not educate our readers about serious conflicts and divisions. I think earlier drafts of this article, and other articles, have "criticism" sections that are knee-jerk attempts to comply with NPOV superficially, but fail in spirit becaus ethey do not properly contextualize the really significant issues. Look, Judaism and Christianity developed in an antagonistic relationship and are critical of one another. But we do not just have "criticism" sections - we have several articles on each, and at least three articles on the contentious relationship between the two. And no one questions the significance of Christian criticism of Judaism, but no one has ever suggested adding a section on nazi criticisms of judaism. My point: we need to have very thoughtful, nuanced, accurate accounts of feminsism AND of competing intellectual and social movements, and work on those articles first, and then i think we can summarize the significan criticms each as of the other, and place them in articles in context so that people will actually learn from the article. Everyone knows that most people are not feminists and many p0eopel reject feminism. Just saying so in the article gives the appearence of NPOV but does not make for a better encyclopedia article. We need to develop a more nuanced article on the historiy of feminism, its divergent forms, internal divisions and conflicts, so that we can properly locate criticisms of feminism in their proper context and thus educate people.

Look I know most of you guys think I am a vey long-winded editor. But Wikipedia really is reaching the point where we compete with Encyclopedia Brittanica and I want our articles to be great. I love NPOV and want to include clashing views, but it only helps of readers can understand the context in which these conflicts emerge and transform, and can understand why some are significant and other are not. And I think this article itself needs a lot more work before we can do that effectively. And in the meantime I think it is worth working on other articles on competing social and intellectual movements, and when we have reached a certain point we can summarize criticisms of one in the other's article, with links, and really educate our readers rather than just please different factions that are competing to have the last word in pushing this point of view. I am taking your comments in good faith and am trying - sorry to be long winded - to explain why I feel strongly about what I feel. I do not think we are opposed in our ultimate vision of a great article, but i do think we may have different standards and ideas about how to get there. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to argue that criticism of feminism needs to be part of some competing social or intellectual movement in order to be presented in Wikipedia. I don't agree. I believe it belongs in the feminism article, and I point to policy for the rationales: "NPOV weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence."(WP:NPOV.) In that context, note your statement above: "Everyone knows that most people are not feminists and many p0eopel reject feminism." If we accept that, then by definition the feminist viewpoint on the validity or benefit of feminism is a minority viewpoint -- and I would argue that it is given undue weight here. Your rationale for excluding criticism of feminism in general on the basis that it is "not a real criticism of feminism" is interesting, but it seems that opinion is original research -- and further it seems if we were to accept that, we would be required to accept it when applied to criticism of any movement or set of views (or religion, as you demonstrate).

For an example of a criticism of feminism, take this excerpt from a book by Daphne Patai: "There is within much feminist writing today (as there has been for the past few decades) a pretense that the charge of male-bashing is a slanderous mischaracterization motivated by political impulses that are conservative (and thus assumed to be reprehensible). But it is plain and irrefutable that much contemporary feminism is indeed marred by hostility toward men."[3] What would be inappropriate about including mention of that criticism here? There are many, many examples of both mainstream and academic writing generally critical of feminism. By focusing on internal debates within feminism, or if you prefer, between streams of feminism, this article seems to have an implicit stance that there is little or no notable criticism of feminism itself. That implied stance contradicts your statement that most people aren't feminists or that many people reject feminism -- the latter especially is not made clear at all by reading this article, and we can't assume the reader knows anything about it. I personally have been put in a position to argue just that to people who believe the contrary, i.e., that most people are feminists (some add "but they just don't know it") or that almost no one rejects feminism (some offer the explanation that "they don't really reject it because they don't really know what feminism is"). The latter explanation sounds much like your argument against including criticism here. These additions and your argument are counter-points at best, not reasons for Wikipedia to leave criticism of feminism out of the feminism article, in my view. If what you say is true, it should be clear from reading this article. I claim that it is not clear, at the moment.

Your analogy to evolution suffers from a lack of attention to some glaring differences, namely a lack of scientific rigour in gender studies, and a lack of a scientific consensus (or any apparent consensus, except within feminism) on the validity of feminism's central tenets, or on, say, the net benefit to society of the exploration of those tenets as expressed by feminism's adherents.

Finally, I do not see a valid basis for excluding criticism of feminism on the basis that the article does not explore internal divisions within feminism adequately. Respectfully, this seems like a non-sequitur to me, and an artificial hurdle. I suggest we instead let the reader decide if the abundant criticism of feminism is valid. Of course, such criticism should not predominate the article, and should be supported by good sources. I'm afraid our views on the application of WP:NPOV in relation to this article seem for the moment to be in stark contrast. Blackworm (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires that we include all significant views from notable sources. Nothing I wrote contradicts that. I have made it very clear that I am for including criticisms in this article. I never said anything about the nature of the criticisms, except that they need to be well-contextualized (which is consistent with NPOV) and relevant (which is consistent with NPOV). My analogy was not between gender studies as an academic endeavor and evolution as an academic endeavor - and neither you nor I are anyone to judge which is more scientifically rigorous, that violates NOR and NPOV - I was comparing the Evolution article to this article and saying that the way we apply NPOV to what most agree is a great article is a model for how to apply it to other articles. By the way, did you really mean to write in response to my opinion (and it is just my opinion) that most people are not feminists "If we accept that, then by definition the feminist viewpoint on the validity or benefit of feminism is a minority viewpoint -- and I would argue that it is given undue weight here?" I cannot believe you really mean this silly remark. By your logic, we should have no article on Nazis because most people are not Nazis, or we should have no article on communism, because most people are not communists. UNDUE has to do with views in relation to an encyclopedia topic. It does not have to do with whether we have an article to begin with. No matter how many people reject feminism, it is certainly notable enough to merit a good article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that remark, and far from being silly, it follows perfectly logically from the assumption -- in other words, if a minority of people are feminists, then by definition the feminist viewpoint is a minority viewpoint. How is that "silly?" Also, I don't see where I claim there should be "no article" on feminism. I'm claiming that the viewpoint of feminists regarding the validity, benefits, and contribution to society of feminism in general is given undue weight here -- through a total or almost total lack of criticism coming from the majority, i.e. non-feminists. To use your Nazi analogy (and why, oh why do people always choose that as an analogy), I'm not claiming we should have "no article on Nazis," I'm saying that the article on Nazis should not be written entirely from a Nazi point of view and without any criticism of Nazis coming from anyone who is not a Nazi. And I'm quite sure it isn't, currently. I'm speaking precisely about the views in the article, not the existence of an article; obviously feminism needs a Wikipedia article and yes I agree it should be a good article. We just seem to disagree on what a good article must contain.

Regarding the evolution analogy, I don't agree that you can take any article which does a good job of being NPOV, and apply its resultant treatment of its subject to any other article and necessarily obtain an NPOV article. For example, if no peer-reviewed scientific journal criticizes topic X, so the topic X article contains little or no criticism of the topic, the topic X article may still be good and be NPOV. But then one cannot use topic X's lack of criticism as a reason to exclude criticism about topic Y, when topic Y does have plenty of criticism in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

I'd appreciate if you'd comment on the sourced quote above, and let me know if you feel its criticism is appropriate for this article and if not, why not. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your point about the Nazi article is that statements about Nazis, their words and deeds, need to be presented neutrally, i.e. without claiming Naziism was "true" or "right" or "good." We have strived to write this article in the same spirit. I do not believe it ever claims that feminism is true or right, it provides an account of different forms of feminism and different feminist claims without commenting on whether they are true. If someone slipped in such a claim, we should delete it or modify it as appropriate. I think the article generally complies with our NPOV standards. This article is about the viewpoint of feminists. It does not claim that these views are correct.

As to the quote from Daphne Patai, I would need to do some more research about her and the context of the book to be able to assess its significance and to be able to identify the point of view. For example, the wikipedia article identifies her as a feminist, in which case she would fall right into my suggestion that the article needs to provide more accounts of debates among feminists. However, she is a professor of Portuguese. She may not really have any expertise on feminism at all. I need to know more about her other books and articles to see if she has any qualifications as a scholar on feminism. Her book is not published in an academic press. I would need need to see if it has been reviewed in academic journals, or see whether it is assigned in university courses. NPOV insists that we include significant views from notable sources. If a professor of women's studies wrote a book criticizing Milton Friedman's monetarist theories, I would not say that this is a significant view that needs to be represented in the article on Friedman or economics - if the author is a professor of economics, or an economic historian, or economic anthropologist etc, then perhaps it would merit inclusion. We need to know if she is just another person writing what she thinks, or if her work is considered a serious work of scholarship in the field. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: your first paragraph, the article indeed does not explicitly claim that the views ("viewpoint of feminists") are correct; but by excluding all criticism of feminism that is not a "viewpoint of feminists," it implies that little to no criticism exists; and therein lies the WP:NPOV violation, since NPOV states, "NPOV weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence." Perhaps this could simply be summarized by a section entitled "Opposition to feminism," which could begin, "Most people familiar with the term feminist do not identify as feminist, and many people oppose feminism," assuming that can be reliably sourced. It may make sense to rename the section on "anti-feminism," which seems a pejorative label applied by us, and not by sources.

Re: "the wikipedia article identifies her as a feminist" The Daphne Patai article identifies her as a feminist, yet the only mention of Patai in the feminism article appears under "anti-feminism," which I do not believe is a form of feminism. In any case, her being a feminist or not seems to have no bearing on whether her views on feminism should be presented here. Apparently someone has already decided her views are noteworthy since they are included in this article (although the heading "anti-feminism" rather than "criticism" applied to her work seems like original research and again seems to indicate an implied stance favouring feminism).

Re: "Her book is not published in an academic press." I'm not sure what your definition of "academic press" is, and I'm not sure what it would mean in terms of excluding her views even if the book was not published by an academic press. It is published by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, who are, according to their website, "an independent press devoted to publishing scholarly books in the best tradition of university presses; innovative, thought-provoking texts for college courses; and crossover trade books intended to convey scholarly trends to an educated readership."[4] They publish academic journals, and have an impressive list of co-publishers.[5] Patai's works have also been published in University of Massachusetts Press, Rutgers University Press, University of North Carolina Press, and Columbia University Press.

Re: "just another person writing what she thinks" -- well, one could say that about each individual feminist as well, and all who agree with them. One does not need the nod of feminist academia in order for one's views on feminism to be noteworthy, which I believe is the fundamental error in judgment you (and this article) make. Obviously an author who criticizes feminism and women's studies in academia isn't going to be well regarded in feminism and women's studies in academia, and so it seems your criteria for inclusion are inherently selecting against criticism, which is non-neutral, as I've tried to explain from the start. Blackworm (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My questions about Patai are not rhetorical; you seem to think that because I am raising questions I am making an argument against her. I am making no such argument. I stated: I need to know more. You have added some information, but I would still need to know more. This is not a criticism, we are supposed to ask questions, questions lead to more information and more information leads to better-informed decisions. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I appreciate your patience. Yes, it is clear to me that she is a serious feminist scholar - which leads me to my only remaining point. I think we need to distinguish between criticisms of feminism as such, which I would take to be made by "anti-feminists", versus debates among feminism. I think Patai has some serious criticisms of mainstream feminism, but she seems to make these criticisms as a feminist. Put another way, thee is a difference between physicists who criticize one another's versions of quantum mechanics versus people who reject quantum mechanics or modern physics wholesale. There is a difference between criticisms Bill Clinton and other "new Democrats" had of the Democrat party in the 1980s, and criticisms the Republicans had of Democrats. Patai may actually merit even more attention in this article than you originally proposed, but from what I have read her arguments are internal to feminism. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian heart of feminism.

We have to include a section to the input of noted Canadian feminist, activist, and politician Judy Rebick. An American born feminist who is concidered one of the leaders of feminism in modern times.

I have included the following, but in case it is removed because it is not in the right section, hopefull it can be added in an appropritate section.

• According to Judy Rebick a leading Canadian journalist and political activist for feminism, lesbians were and always have been at the heart of the women’s movement, while being invisible in the women’s movement.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Caesar you've been reverted twice[6][7] for according this material undue weight. VoluntarySlave pointed out that it is incorrect to "include an aside in an interview in the lede". For the same reason it is incorrect to accord it its own section. Please have a read of WP:WEIGHT for further information--Cailil ^talk 20:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

To accomodate your undue weight, I noted that 'lesbian feminism' was only included as a link, and not as a major hidden force within feminism (explaining its anti-male agaenda OR) anyway....I must disagree with your decision, and ask others to comment on this...

I never make mistakes, once I thought I did but I was wrong !

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a soapbox for your opinions on "hidden forces" Caesar. Please have a read over of WP:TALK. But do feel free to ask for outside comments--Cailil ^talk 23:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cailil, Caeser is here at Wikipidea primarily to use it as a soapbox. You have given him the benefit of the doubt. Any more than this and you are feeding the troll. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It becomes quite evident that 'hidden forces' within the feminist movement have achieved many things, and they should be given credit for it. I don't want to sound like McCarthy...but take a look at Judy Rebick and her statements, if they are correct, they should be given fair weight...

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Pornograpy heading

What follows the "Pornography" heading seems to bear only partial relation to pornography:

The "Feminist Sex Wars" is a term for the acrimonious debates within the feminist movement in the late 1970s through the 1980s around the issues of feminism, sexuality, sexual representation, pornography, sadomasochism, the role of transwomen in the lesbian community, and other sexual issues.

The list in that first sentence encompasses a lot more than pornography; it should either be moved, or the heading renamed. --128.84.2.157 (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism and feminism

Sylvia Wetzel by some is called a buddhist feminist.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.28.45 (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Generalized black and white logic.

By reading some of the posts, it appears that many individuals are unable to move beyond the 'black and white' generalized logic of radical feminism. There is no such thing as 'a' feminist, as there is 'a' truth...there are many truths.

Get over it...if you want to improve this article, and be critical about this word that represents many, many things...there are many 'defences' to critical thought of this movement, that can be shown by those who totally object to anything good or bad about this movement.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

On the 'black side' the article (to give balance) should disclose incidents where SOME women, SOME times in history, in SOME places were sold by their husbands.

Again the abuse of SOME women throughout history should not be generalized. (ie Queen of England) Time is a critica factor to this or any other discussion. The pendulum swings and should be so identified.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

USSR?

I looked and saw that this article mentioned the women's suffrage movement in the US and the UK, but not the USSR... which is not really fair, considering that the USSR granted women equal rights and equal pay as men way back in 1917 and 1918, and was a leader in women's rights. Of course, we can also talk about how the soviets went back on this, but as far as I know the USSR was one of the most equal countries in the post WWII era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.65.153.244 (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

not really if you had a diffrent opinion from the government and spoke out you'd get arrested. Diffrent religious groups were persecuted also. not very equal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.190.14 (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition?

The definition of "feminism" this article has taken is the PC view. Which is laughable considering that even the feminists themselves can't decide what feminism is(a notion appearing nodoubtly because somewhere in the recesses of their consciousness they realise what it really stands for, if one actually used ones Intellect: the linguistic opposite of Masculism: which is the belief in the superiority of men over women). Henceforth we shall define feminism as an umbrella-term for whatever flights of fancy the cartesian ego and it's accomplice -- victimhood -- out-emotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.98.227 (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Your intellectual self may be interested in this. Love, a feminist. 64.180.199.62 (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, because by pandering to that argument you actually validates the op's view that that is what feminism originally stood for! In fact, you display the same kind of intellectual dishonesty the op accuse the feminist of, and you sign yourself as a feminist! incredible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.98.227 (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please place new threads at the bottom of the page. Also please note that incivility is not permitted on wikipedia. Please read WP:5--Cailil ^talk 14:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Also please restrict your discussion to sourced information wikipedia is not a forum--Cailil ^talk 14:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Women and Feminism

There are many women that have opposed feminism in some form. The Eagle Forum and Phyllis Schafley are an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.141.215 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

well yeah, most women (based on personal observation) enjoy and/or prefer traditional gender roles. However, time slightly modified it, making it acceptable and expected for females to have jobs. --65.175.193.146 (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Power feminism

I'd be curious to see an article on it. Does it warrant one? Шизомби (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Post-Feminism and Faludi

I believe this article misquotes Faludi:

"In her book Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, Susan Faludi argues that a backlash against second wave feminism in the 1980s has successfully re-defined feminism through its terms. She argues that it constructed the women's liberation movement as the source of many of the problems alleged to be plaguing women in the late 1980s. She also argues that many of these problems are illusory, constructed by the media without reliable evidence. According to her, this type of backlash is a historical trend, recurring when it appears that women have made substantial gains in their efforts to obtain equal rights.[51]"

It is unclear that Faludi does not agree with the backlash or the post-feminist critics of feminism, and that the media-constructed, illusory problems facing women are a smokescreen for very real and persistent problems that remain to go unaddressed. This summary of Backlash is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.13.194 (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually think it is clear from the words "She argues that [the backlash] constructed the women's liberation movement as the source of many of the problems alleged to be plaguing women in the late 1980s. She also argues that many of these problems are illusory, constructed by the media without reliable evidence." that Faludi disagrees with the backlash. Could you be specific about how you see this piece being improved?--Cailil ^talk 22:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion: "She argues that this backlash has constructed the women's liberation movement as the cause of women's problems in the late 1980s. She says however that many of these problems are constructed by the media."--Cailil ^talk 19:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be more specific?

"women are equal" All women, or just some? Equal to what, just other women? How about "all women are equal to other genders". This confused me; on the other hand I'm not very interested in the subject right now and I understand there are broad definitions for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.59.169 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be mentioned?

• Feminism a reader's letter and an answer by Alice Miller

for example, "Moreover: they [feminists] are trapped so deeply in their gender-agenda, that they see incest as a crime against women instead of a crime against children. In their eyes, the feminist perspective is the only explanation for the silencing of incest and sexual abuse in society. They are totally blind to the wide injustice and evil toward CHILDREN, as the most helpless and unprotected population. They take it all as a matter of gender, of a crimes male commit against female and therefore being silenced."

Austerlitz -- 88.75.193.130 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What about introduction of a section critical? that's a suggestion of mine, do you agree?

-- 88.75.193.130 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this link might be important here, [8].

-- 88.75.193.130 (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Alice Miller wrote, for example, in her answer linked to above: "You are right, the tragedy begins with the mother that is protected by all societies and honored in most religions as the innocent sainte."

Can one say that all the people mentioned here have to be called feminists?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.88.32 (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree about a "criticism" session. It would make the article a lot more neutral, according to Wikipedia stantards. "Anti-feminism" just doesn't leave the right impression. --Lord Metatron (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no place for a "criticism" section in any article. Criticisms should be addressed at their proper places within the article's text. Miller is just another blogger and is irrelevant to any substantial criticisms that would go in the relevant places in the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Good points Orange Mike - as stated numerous times here and on other pages we integrate critical material into the text of articles we do not create "criticism" sections--Cailil ^talk 17:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And while I recognize Miller has published (which is not something extraordinary in academia) her notability visa vie other sources used is important. WP:DUE is central to to WP:NPOV--Cailil ^talk 17:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Miller in particular. In fact, I agree with you that's just another blog. But I mentioned the "criticism" session because the entire article seems biased towards feminism. And not only this article: Even the Antifeminism article has a "critique" session, while in the main Feminism article there's almost no mention to critics. --Lord Metatron (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not correct Metatron. There are duely weighted critical sources included throughout. Please give examples of what you refer to when you say that the article is biased - if there are actual NPOV issues I would like to know about them. Also please note that if a point of view is not reliable, verifiabile or fringe it will not be included in any article at all.
And two other points: a)it never matters what another article has in it - only WP:MOS defines how an article should be structured. b) Again, we don't do criticism sections ANYWHERE on wikipedia. The fact that some articles have them is a problem for those pages to resolve not vice versa--Cailil ^talk 19:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to make things clear: I didn't point the "Critique" session on the Antifeminism article to say that the Feminism article should have one. I did it to make a point about the "bias" thing. But yes, I'll admit it, rereading the articles, most of the "biased" thing were about other articles (Men and Feminism and Antifeminism, most of all) and POV sentences, rather than this article in itself. My apologies. --Lord Metatron (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitional issues

The stated goal of feminism is to gain equality with men. Yet there are a number of feminist movements that seek not equality, but supremacy or superiority. There are two definition threads on this talk page already. Do you think an appropriate compromise defintion would look something like this? "Feminism is an intellectual, philosophical and political movement aimed at granting greater power and legal protection to women." This neither confirms nor denies the split between equity feminism and gender feminism. Please discuss. Svend la Rose (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That works well. Binksternet (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I also support the new wording. Hoping To Help (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Um guys there's a sourcing issue here. Definitions are not about compromise wordings they're about reflecting how, in this case, feminism is defined in mainstream reliable sources - nothing else. There would need to be multiple mainstream (see WP:DUE) sources that say something other than 'feminism is a movement for women's rights and equality' for us to change the definition that radically. Actually in order for us to make such a change those hypothetical sources would need to so notable that they have already altered the standard definitions of feminism as they exist outside wikipedia.
Wikipedia reflects sources - it doesn't do original research.
Now to clarify, I think the majority of the wording you're suggesting Svend la Rose is excellent but I would actually suggest it read "Feminism is an intellectual, philosophical and political movement aimed at equal rights and legal protection for women". This can be sourced. I have and others have pointed out as per NPOV that it is totally undue to give the fringe aspects of any movement (in this case female separatism and/or supremacism) any weight in lede paragrpahs or definition sentences. Yes these notions are out there but they do not reflect the mainstream nor are they reflected in mainstream definitions of the broad grouping of feminism (please see WP:FRINGE)--Cailil ^talk 13:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've altered the lede to reflect this wording. As stated in the edit summary if there are points for discussion plese bring them up here--Cailil ^talk 12:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If these elements are fringe elements, opposed by "mainstream" feminism, then sources would reflect that, and they would be properly treated as fringe elements in the article -- but they are not: the section on "radical feminism" gives no indication that radical feminism is at odds with mainstream feminism. There is no mention of its "fringe-ness." Thus there seems no basis to oppose radical feminism's views in the lead any more than so-called "mainstream" feminism.

In any case, the lead is currently contradictory, as it defines feminism as one movement in the first sentence, gives that one movement credit for things like having laws against rape (!), but then describes feminism as multiple movements, without skipping a beat. This is confusing to say the least. Blackworm (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Um Blackworm the sources do reflect that - which source referred to are you unclear about? The point about the section on radical feminism not mentioning its variance from the mainstream is a point for the rewriting of the section - not the other way around. Also I don't see where the lede suggests that feminism is the movement responisble for laws against rape. But you're correct about the confusing flow - the trouble is the repetition of the word movement--Cailil ^talk 13:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

When I wrote the above, before your latest edit, feminism was defined as one movement; and furthermore it says that "Feminism has altered predominant perspectives in a wide range of areas within Western society, [...] for protection of women and girls from domestic violence, sexual harassment and rape [...]." That implies to me that before feminism, the perspective was that females needed no protection from these things. It seems rather extreme, and unsupported. As for radical feminism, your argument depends on whether sources can be found showing mainstream feminism in opposition to radical feminism, calling radical feminism a "fringe." I'm not sure such sources exist, possibly because my perception is that radical feminism is embraced by mainstream feminism. In any case, until those sources are found, and a convincing case made for the claim that radical feminism is considered "fringe" and opposed by mainstream feminism, the point that radical feminism's claims belong in the lead is valid, IMO. Blackworm (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If mainstream feminism = NOW and MS Magazine, it is certainly not radical feminism. Moreover, there are several distinct strands of radical feminism. Mary Daly's version is pretty different from bell hooks' version. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources? I didn't say they were the same thing; I want evidence that mainstream feminism opposes the "fringe" (Cailil) radical feminism enough so as to suppress all radical feminism from the lead. Blackworm (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's some quotes from Ms. magazine's web site, which you say is "certainly not radical feminism:"

• "Spoken word poetry is as innate to me as radical feminism," (a feature on a radical feminist)[9]
• "Other great tees: Radical Feminist" (from an ad on Ms.) [10]
• "Words once risked only by radical feminists have entered the policy mainstream."[11]
• "...radical Leftist feminist, founder of the global women’s movement..."[12] Apparently Ms. Magazine describes the founder of the global women's movement as a "radical feminist."
• "Famed radical feminist philosopher and theologian Mary Daly has refused to allow male students into an advanced feminist theory course..."[13] A nice article embracing radical feminism in Ms. Magazine.

The National Organization for Women (NOW) seems to avoid the term more, but here stuff from their web site:

• "Andrea Dworkin, internationally renowned radical feminist activist and author who helped break the silence around violence against women,..." "...one of feminism's most rigorous minds and fiercest crusaders." "Called 'the eloquent feminist' by syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, Dworkin's impassioned words always informed, provoked and inspired."[14] Very glowing obituary of a radical feminist.
• Letter from a NOW radical feminist.

All this serves to reinforce my position that radical feminism is an accepted part of mainstream feminism. Do you have sources that show otherwise? Blackworm (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

See below per WP:DUE, WP:NPOV & WP:LEAD--Cailil ^talk 00:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

→(ec)Blackworm, the 5 sources referred to in the first two sentences of the lede define what feminism is (I mentioned 4 already in my first post to this thread). Their definitions are broad and do not mention radical feminism or marxist feminism or post-colonial feminism or black feminism or french feminism (all of which are equally notable to radical feminism and some more so) etc etc. And for the record if you look at Cornell's book, Humm's books, Messer-Davidow's book etc - in fact any history of feminism (take your pick from those books from the first 18 references in the article) - you will find an explanation of the multiplicity of movements of feminism: what divides them and what unites them. And no the burden of proof is on you to prove that all the sources already provided in the article and all the dictionary definitions wrong and that your perception is correct. Also you didn't answer my question about which source you were unclear about can you answer it please?--Cailil ^talk 00:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
By the way "fringe" is the wikipedia term from WP:NPOV (see WP:FRINGE) it's an extension of of the policy on due weight dealing with how minority points of view - which is what 'female supremacism' is - should be treated in articles and in wikipedia in general (see also WP:GEVAL). Do the acid test Blackworm look at the dictionary, does it mention female supremacism in its definition of feminism? Or does it say something along the lines of Feminism is a movement for equal rights, and/or a movement to attain those rights, for women? And if you are still unclear about the way the lede is written please refer to WP:LEDE's section on 'relative emphasis'--Cailil ^talk 00:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
And to repeat myself: 'there would need to be multiple mainstream sources that say something other than 'feminism is a movement for women's rights and equality' for wikipedia to change its definition that radically [...] Actually in order for that change to be made those hypothetical sources would need to so notable that they have already altered the standard definitions of feminism as they exist outside wikipedia.' The above quotes from websites and magazines are not more reliable than all the books listed on the history of feminism and the dictionary definitions--Cailil ^talk 00:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is, I think, a bit of a problem with the difference between the sourced statement that "feminism is a movement for women's rights and equality", and the unsourced first sentence that says that feminism is "aimed at equal rights and legal protection for women"; the latter restricts feminism to those based on ideas of rights and/or law, which seems much too narrow to me, and isn't, as far as I can see, justified by the sources. For instance, the definition in Humm's Modern Feminisms is that "feminism can stand for a belief in sexual equality combined with a commitment to eradicate sexual domination and to transform society." Perhaps we could remove the first sentence, and rephrase the sourced second sentence as: "Feminism is a collection of various movements, theories, and philosophies, all concerned with issues of gender difference, that advocate equality for women and that campaign for women's rights and interests." ? VoluntarySlave (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly fine to me--Cailil ^talk 00:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster online leaves room for separatism or supremacy in its second definition of 'feminism':

• 1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
• 2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

It's not just about equality. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well while that's one online dictionary's definition Binksternet it still requires an amount of interpretation to infer female seperatism into "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests" - when it would be more neutral just to quote or paraphrase what is already there. Also there are about 5 or 6 dictionaries online and in print that go with what I posted above - 'Feminism: a movement for equal rights for women, and/or a movement to attain those rights'. Women's rights and female legal superiority are not synonymous. In fact the term women's rights is defined thusly: ' Socioeconomic, political, and legal rights for women equal to those of men. and/or A movement to attain those rights.' There's also the weight issue - which is the primary issue - is female supremacism that notable that it must be in the lede line (not paragraph) defining feminism? Otherwise I think VoluntarySlave's suggestion is a good one - but I think Svend la Rose's line is a very eloquent declarative lede line that sums up the definitions of feminism as per WP:LEDE (see this section of the guide). My only concern would be with the inclusion of undue material in the lede lines--Cailil ^talk 14:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking to add radical feminism to the first sentence, I just want to open the door for the possibility. Despite the clumsy "and/or" which should simply be "or", the suggested sentence "Feminism: a movement for equal rights for women, and/or a movement to attain those rights" does not have to wind up with "those rights", meaning "equal rights". It could instead say, like Webster, "or activity on behalf of women's rights." Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Binksternet, just to clarify I'm not suggesting we use the line "Feminism: a movement for equal rights for women, and/or a movement to attain those rights" as the lede (that's just an example of what the dictionaries say) indeed I 100% agree the "and/or" is very clumsy. What I suggest is we a) leave the lede line alone, or b) follow VoluntarySlave's suggestion. Again it would be undue to mention radical feminism in the lede just as much as it would be undue to mention eco-feminism, postmodern feminism, marxist feminism, black feminism, french feminism etc. Leaving the first line broad takes in everything and excludes nothing. I do like your suggestion about "or activity on behalf of women's rights" though--Cailil ^talk 00:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So far the lead mentions "first-wave feminism," etc., "Post-colonial" feminism, "Third World" feminism, Black feminism, standpoint feminism, and postmodern feminism. Why not radical feminism? People seem to talk more about "radical feminism," at least in the media, that these other feminisms, and I think that might be behind the request for more information on that. Why couldn't we simply point to it, and point out that it's considered fringe by the mainstream of feminism, if someone feels the lead is unbalanced? Can probably be done in one short sentence. Note that on the issue of multiple movements, I support VoluntarySlave's suggested edit. Blackworm (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I also think it's extremely important not to truncate the phrase "rights and interests" into "rights." That was actually an important factor in reaching a previous consensus on the lead sentence. Blackworm (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning radical feminism in the lead section along side Black feminism and post-colonial feminism, in paragraph 4, is ok - but not in the first line or first paragraph (the lede) - the inclusion of female supremacism in the lede line (the very first line) was the point that was being discussed. I agree, one sentence (possibly one from Echol's book) would be absolutely fine if included in the right position (beside Black feminism, post-colonial feminism etc in the latter paragraphs of the lead section) but this would have to be a line representative of how Radical feminism is defined in sources rather than over-emphasis on minority concepts like Separatist feminism (which is already given enough weight by being mentioned in the section on radical feminism)--Cailil ^talk 16:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)