Talk:Feminism/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Let's discuss equality

Responding to this reversion by Cailil "edits to this need discussion"

I believe it is important to indicate that Oxford is the source of the definition that includes 'equal'. Dictionaries reflect certain biases, and only mentioning them in the reference material is not prominent enough. I think mentioning them directly in the text allows for context.

I also do not think that it is clear that feminism is about 'equality'. There are those associated with feminist efforts who promote equalist/egalitarian aims, but it is not an inherent part of feminism because there are feminists who do not.

This needs to be changed for accuracy. The feminist movement includes people who do not necessarily have equality as the aim. This is identified in feminism and equality. Wikipedia currently has a flawed definition up about what feminism is, which is more broadly:

a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending political, economic, and social rights for women

NOT:

a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women

Our definition excludes those who fight to define/establish/defend rights which are not equal, but these efforts are included under feminism too. Nothing about the word 'feminism' excludes non-equalist efforts.

We could define different kinds of feminism, such as egalitarian feminist efforts (efforts whose goals end at equality) and non-egalitarian feminist efforts (those whose goals do not stop at equality) but feminism as a broad label includes BOTH types.

Feminism is simply broadly a collection of movements and ideologies centered around pursuing rights of all kinds for women, not only equal rights. Ranze (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This has already been discussed multiple times - see the big box on the top of the page and the talk archives. A lede line is not a place to be overly convoluted. And Feminism is broadly defined by multiple different sources (not just the OED) as being about equality for women. Yes there are other rights specific to women but this is alluded to. |Excluding this from the definition would be POV by omission.
Furthermore the lede reflects the body of this article see WP:LEAD--Cailil ^talk 15:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't need to be POV by overt ommission. We can discuss the issue of equality being central to most feminist movements without making it an inherent requirement. Concepts like maternity leave fall under the feminist label for example. While men can also get maternity leave now too, the fact remains, men did not have this to begin with. It was not a special right, and women fought for it for themselves, even though this had nothing to do with 'equality'. If 'feminist movement' includes maternity leave, we can not inherently define feminist efforts as requiring equality as a basis for everything they do, because it simply isn't. Ranze (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Ranze what you're advocating is original research - Wikipedia records the verifiable reliably sourced mainstream scholarly material on subjects. And as I've said this has been discussed already--Cailil ^talk 01:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the U.S. campaign was for parental leave, not just maternity leave, with parental leave including both maternal and paternal. Whether I'm right or wrong, check sources. There probably was an earlier nonfeminist campaign for maternity leave, too. I don't recall a feminist campaign for maternity leave without paternity leave.

Even if various U.S. feminist campaigns were grounded in a pursuit of inequality (either superiority or inferiority), I think there's very little discussion of that in sources, especially by proponents. So, to report that in Wikipedia, you'll probably need to do a lot of research to find it. You may find criticism that feminism is just man-hating, but that tends to be general criticism regardless of the feminist issue, and I think that generalization has already been reported. One reason you'll have difficulty finding sources about specifics is that feminists generally argue that females have less power than males have generally and then select issues on which to focus campaigns, and do so by pursuing equality. I hope we've given you useful pointers. If you're interested in this subject, you have a lot of research ahead of you. And this sounds like content for a subarticle within feminism, not this article, as the issue you're raised has already been raised (including, somewhat, by me) and consensus is that a subarticle is the place for it, because of weight. By far, equality is the norm in sourced feminist discourse.

Nick Levinson (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Editors of this article might be interested in this discussion

Whether article Violence against men should be deleted. [[1]] 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Input needed at RfC on Rape culture

Input is needed at an RfC: Talk:Rape_culture#Request_for_comment_III. The question is whether material from an activist can be included in the Rape culture article. --Noleander (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Suppression of information about feminism as a supremacy movement?

Given the volume of information available on the subject, I'm kind of bothered by the fact that there is no coverage at all in this article about the more extreme versions of feminist rhetoric that advocate female supremacy. There isn't even an instance of the word supremacy in the whole article, even in the criticism sections. Just wondering if this is intentional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.42.184.104 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

This would probably be because it would be considered WP:FRINGE, and likely there aren't many if any reliable sources about the subject. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It's covered in matriarchy and, as a summary, in feminism and equality. It is very definitely a minority view. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Nick & Kyohyi are correct also this has been discussed in great detail already - please see the boxes on the top of the page (especially the one that allows one to search the archived discussions)--Cailil ^talk 17:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

art history, Tate, and Gopnik

I'm puzzled by the edit at <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminism&diff=next&oldid=550870584>, in which a citation is removed along with the subsequent statement. I was going to edit on the assumption that the preceding statement should have been deleted and the subsequent statement restored but given who did the edit that I'm questioning I think I'd rather ask first. Had the remaining citation been checked and the two citations found to have been mispositioned? As I read the Washington Post article's three pages, I'm not sure which statement it's meant to support. The dead link could perhaps be represented by <http://web.archive.org/web/20120112184954/http://www.tate.org.uk/collections/glossary/definition.jsp?entryId=103>, as accessed a few minutes ago. I'll wait a week for any response. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC) (Reformatted to link: 15:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC))

Sorry if my edit summary was unclear Nick - there was a bot intervention[2] after I fixed some dead links a few weeks ago. The Tate webpage has been removed so that citation can no longer be used. The Washington Post statement that Feminist art of the 1970s was "the most influential international movement of any during the postwar period,"[3] is the right one. It's really unfortunate to loose the Tate definition becuase it was excellent but the page is gone and we have drop it--Cailil ^talk 15:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Also I see I clipped an extra line - I've made an edit to restore that. Just also noting that there is a duplication of material in the Culture section under 'Art', from this section. We should probably drop that duplicate single sentence sub-section Feminism#Art--Cailil ^talk 15:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure which section should be folded into which; I could argue either way, but I agree they should be combined and the redundancy deleted. I leave it to you. Best wishes and thanks for the several edits. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

bell hooks and other feminists

The following sentence ending the article's lead, as recently rewritten, needs a source to support the phrase "other feminists" unless the hooks source supports the phrase (I don't have a source to add):

Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, [[bell hooks]] and other feminists have argued that [[men's liberation]] is a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by [[sexism]] and gender roles.<ref name="hooks"/>

Perhaps that was needed before the edit, too.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Perceived discrimination

I just reverted the addition of the word "perceived" before discrimination against women in a sentence describing what feminists were advocating against. First of all, the addition of the word "perceived" is not supported by the sources that the sentence was left cited to. Second of all saying that feminists were advocating against discrimination is perfectly neutral. It can be true whether or not there is discrimination as long as the people doing the advocating are advocating against it. A kid down the street from me has a t-shirt that says "No unicorns." The kid is advocating against unicorns, n'est ce pas? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for removing "perceived"; it is not supported by the references.

This is clearly spillover from my restoration of "perceived" at the men's rights movement article (where the word is very much supported by references), the restoration of which made an editor seek to put it here in a sort of attempt at cross-topic balance. The sought-after balance, though, is not one found in the sources but an artificial one applied by that one editor. Wikipedia is not here to right the perceived (sorry!) imbalance of society but to present the proper balance with reference to mainstream sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I figured out that it was spillover and yelled at the editor who added it on his talk page. He then tried to recruit me over to MRM to make my "No unicorns" argument. Sheesh, you have a strong stomach to edit at MRM. Anyway, I think his addition of "perceived" over here and his characterization of it as an experiment to show bias shows a clear violation of WP:POINT. He seems to have stopped for now, though.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the neighbor kid is petulant because he has not seen the promised unicorns. :-)

Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Marriage and other missing topics

Shouldn't this article discuss feminist's views on marriage, especially criticism of it (which has been part of feminist thought from early on)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2f0a:504f:ffff::bc19:9ea5 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 18 May 2013‎

Yes, you're right. I was surprised to find that it didn't, and that there's not even an article here about feminist views on marriage. This is a major gap. Can you write something up? There's a little information here: Criticism_of_marriage#Feminism, but it's sketchy and it starts only in the 1960s, which is ridiculous, since feminist thought on marriage goes back much farther.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

In my view this article is missing a lot, several issues have to be addressed:

• views on marriage
• rape in marriage - I'm surprised it isn't discussed here at all!
• improvements in rape legislation: rape shield laws; attempts to stop victim blaming
• more on violence against women in general; harmful traditional practices, eg. FGM, or specific forms of violence such as honor killings
• more on girls' and women' education (we have main articles such as female education; gender and education).

I understand that this is a general article, but, in my view these topics have to addressed here.2A02:2F0A:504F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:9EA5 (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Possibly a section called "Violence against women" would be appropriate to address many of the issues above.2A02:2F0A:504F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:9EA5 (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Both marriage and violence should be covered if they're not. There's enough sourcing on both for separate articles, which should then be summarized in this one.

Long ago, I thought of writing on feminist critique of marriage when adding it in brief to the marriage article led to its being taken out, but I didn't follow up in part because we should find criticism from this decade for the U.S. because of legal changes, especially in state statutes, that potentially could supersede some older criticisms. If newer criticisms are reported, older ones can be, too. If there are no newer criticisms, older ones can be reported as history, i.e., written in the past tense.

The criticism of marriage article's feminism section has a quotation attributed to Andrea Dworkin that is unsourced and which I did not find in the Andrea Dworkin article or in the Andrea Dworkin Wikiquote page; while it's plausible that she might have said some such, finding it, since she gave lots of speeches, may not be easy. I'd be hesitant to add it anywhere without a source.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC) (Corrected link: 15:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC))

Proposal to remove paragraph

The consensus today in feminist and masculinity theories is that both genders can and should cooperate to achieve the larger goals of feminism.[187]

I'm fairly certain most wikipedia standards would look down on using terms such as "the consensus today" - the consensus of what/ which theories? Considering the page number has been missing from the citation since October of 2012, it can probably be removed. I really don't know how to rewrite such a statement if anyone thinks it simply needs rewritten. Any disagreements? KRosen333 (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Feminism and sexuality- incomplete

Much more needs to be added to that section. A subsection on sexual violence; and more general views on sexuality outside the sex industry.2A02:2F0A:502F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1A1B (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree but unfortunately we need the article on Sexual violence to deal with feminist responses to it first. This page summarizes other content on the topic of Feminism on this site. And while it is absolutely possible to write a section here on feminist reponses to/campaigns against sexual violence what would be best is a two pronged appraoch: a) writing a section here, and b) updating the article Sexual violence. I'm personally a little uneasy about the use of the word 'Sexuality' for that subsection anyway. Also no subsection should contain the title of the article "Feminism and..." is considered bad writing. Perhaps both of these subsections (the existing one on the sex industry and the proposed one on sexual violence) should merged into 'Societal impact'--Cailil ^talk 09:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how the article should be organized, but several very important issues in regard to sexual violence must be addressed. What has to be explained is that feminists attacked the view that has existed in most societies, under which rape was not dealt in terms of the violation of the consent of the woman, but as a crime against her father/husband, hence the very concept of marital rape didn't exist until a few decades ago (and still doesn't exist in many parts of the world); and also rape against women who didn't 'belong' to any men (eg. prostitutes and other 'immoral' women). Or the mixing of rape with crimes such as fornication (rape was a crime against morals/religion, not an offense against the person).2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A0CF (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Source it and add it, please, to either a subarticle or this one (this one is a summary of subarticles). A quick look at the rape article suggests it could use a better treatment there, so perhaps it should be in one place and cross-linked (I'm not sure if the feminist view of rape can be its own article). There are sources, including from the 1960s–1970s in the U.S., almost certainly including by Andrea Dworkin and maybe Shulamith Firestone. An interesting counterpoint is in one of Catharine MacKinnon's books (I forgot which), to the effect that rape is a crime of sex, but she contextualized that within the feminist arguments that preceded, so her view should not be stated in isolation from other feminist work. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Another related aspect to sexuality would be the feminist support of a third gender, and the LBGT community. Sandy Stone and other well known feminists have written a number of scholarly articles regarding the link between feminism and gay rights, mirroring the feminist interest in african-American suffrage and later civil rights. To omit such plights and their connections seems to exclude a comprehensive view of current feminist movements. I would be interested in seeing what other users think of such a proposal before proceeding of course; however, I think it is definitely a topic worthy of discussion. Any thoughts? Cgayhea (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Cgayhea

I'm not surprised there may be some feminist support for the concept of a third gender but I doubt it's in the feminist mainstream, especially as it seems to deny the feminist perspective in support of lesbian rights that lesbians are females, not a third gender. That there is or may be a third gender is a view which seems to be held only by some cultures with small populations and a comparatively few other people and not most sources. Feminist sources on point can be covered but I think a subarticle would be more appropriate than this one, which is a summary of all of feminism, and the coverage has to be consistent with the Wikipedia:Fringe theories guideline, if applicable. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

American Bias Present?

Given that feminism is very much a global idea and there are scholars around the world that support and spread existing theories, would it make sense to take a more comprehensive approach to this article by elaborating sections on for example, the Chinese and Arab feminist movements, and including others as well? At this time, though the English and Austrailian points are briefly covered, there is a Western point of view prevalent within the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgayhea (talk • contribs) 14:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Globalizing is a good idea. Detail about other nations should go into subarticles about national feminisms (this article's sidebar links to some), but this article shoud summarize a worldwide view and maintain global balance throughout, even though that's difficult given the sources generally available. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

major feminist achievements

Oh boy, I'm about to start discussing feminism on the Internet. I hope this goes well. Please be gentle.

The lead says: "Feminist campaigns have changed societies, particularly in the West, by achieving women's suffrage, gender neutrality in English, equal pay for women, reproductive rights for women (including access to contraceptives and abortion), and the right to enter into contracts and own property." This is a good list, but I'd like us to include another far-reaching accomplishment: a woman's right to say No to her husband and not get beaten. Young readers today will take for granted a wife's right to her own body, but it's a major, recent achievement. It's at least as important as gender neutrality. Leads are supposed to demonstrate why the topic is interesting. I humbly submit that we should add this achievement. Leadwind (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Source it and widen it to a reduction of or attention to gender-based violence against women and it belongs here; that's because a search for "violen" (to include violence and violent) shows several results but none with the same reach. A narrower treatment would belong in a subarticle, if it's not already there. Sourcing probably won't prove an actual reduction since statistics on this issue are probably from the last few decades only, but sourcing to discussions of the issue might help, which is why it might be mostly about attention to the issue, but even that might be useful. A lead, as you may already know, should summarize the body, so it may be necessary to add it to both the body and the lead. Edit per and contribute your ideas on feminist coverage whenever you'd like. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No mention of criticism of pseudoscientific views

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article does not seem to adequately note that there's a lot of criticism even among feminists that feminism in academia promotes pseudoscientific views on human nature, especially innate psychological differences between the sexes. The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker (a feminist) would be an excellent source to cite for such material. Aelius28 (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Those are not criticisms of feminism; they are criticisms of particular feminists, or at most of particular schools or ideologies of feminism. They have no place in a general article on feminism as a whole. Steven Pinker is an evolutionary psychologist, and is certainly not known as a feminist of any school. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Where else would such criticism go, if not in this article? Antifeminism seems to be a page reserved mostly for traditionalists and conservatives who do not like feminism because feminism does not conform to their antiquated, usually religiously-based, beliefs about the "natural order of things". I am not aware of any other article except this one where a criticism of academic feminism's endemic pseudoscience and denial of human nature could go. As for Steven Pinker, he is defined even in Wikipedia as a feminist. The fact that he is not primarily regarded as a feminist seems irrelevant to me. Restricting criticism of Group X to only include members of Group X seems like a sure way to silence criticism. Should we exclude criticism of 9/11 conspiracy theories that come from people who do not believe in a 9/11 conspiracy? Should we ignore all non-astrologer's criticisms of astrology? Aelius28 (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

OrangeMike has already answered you Aelius28. If there are criticisms of Pinker they belong in his article--Cailil ^talk 12:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure which way you mean the criticism: of or by Pinker's (or others') work. If it is "of", the criticism goes into an article about Pinker or other person/s or into any subarticle within feminism about a feminist topic that centers on that which is being criticized. If it is "by", the criticism goes into any subarticle within feminism about a feminist topic that centers on that which is being criticized. This feminism article is a summary overview and either such criticism does not have the weight needed for this article but if it fits a subarticle then it can go there, if such criticism is not already there (perhaps about a different person with similar views). Pinker has identified himself as feminist and as believing in equal rights (my words and approximate, from a radio interview I heard) although that is not his major work (my judgment after having read a couple of his books); at any rate, criticism is not limited to that from feminists or to that from nonfeminists. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It's still not clear to me which subarticle you expect such criticism to go in, if not this article. Aelius28 (talk) 17:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That depends on the specific content you want to add. The feminism artice has several navigational aids, such as the two sidebars on the right near the top and more on the bottom, that link to other articles, such as feminist psychology. There may also be other articles worth addressing, such as evolutionary psychology. In either case, you may have to follow more links to more specific articles. But where to edit depends on the criticism and what it criticizes. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC) (Added sentence: 20:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC))

As OrangeMike has indicated, this is an article about feminism in general. If Pinker calls himself a feminist, presumably his criticisms aren't of feminism in general. I believe the concerns you're raising are covered here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism#Criticisms. Giordanob (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this violates the NPOV. The article about Men's_rights_movement has more than 6 (six) sections of criticism, refuting practically everything the movement states (on the main page about the whole movement). Applying another standard for feminism (that there may be no criticism on the very page, except one link and literally one or two mentions of criticism, but ONLY from feminist themselves) is a direct violation of NPOV. Wikipedia should be neutral, and not giving one movement a leeway over another in their presentations. There exists a lot of legitimate criticism of feminism in entirety, and not only different threads of it. - Vorpal Saber (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Your idea of balance is not the same as Wikipedia's. On Wikipedia, a balance is reached when mainstream views are represented as strongly as in the published literature, and minor views are represented with an appropriate amount of less strength. The scholarly criticisms of the MRM are many, so we tell that to the reader. The scholarly criticisms of feminism pale against the great mass of scholarly praise. We do not try to set up an artificial parity where there is none in the real world. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article needs more on violence against women

There needs to be detailed discussion of violence against women, on how it was, and continues to be in many countries, legitimized by culture, tradition, religion and law - on the role of feminists in changing these laws and social norms. A section to discus these issues is necessary. As pointed up above, some young readers may not be aware that just a few decades ago, men could legally beat, rape and even kill (for adultery) their wives. And when I'm talking about killing for adultery, I'm not referring only to fundamentalist Muslim societies- it was relatively recently that the US courts stopped considering such killings as justifiable homicide or excusable homicide. Just look at this [[4]] where in 1938 a Chicago jury acquitted the husband for the PREMEDITATED murder of his wife's lover (he was killed on a street corner). Killing of wife or her lover when caught in the act was aquitable in many states up until the 1980s/1990s. And crimes of passion were until recently/ and still are legal in many Latin American states. As of 2010 "passion provoked by adultery" can lead to acquittal of a man who murders his wife in Uruguay (one of the most liberal countries in Latin America.[[5]]). The role of feminists in changing social norms and laws related to violence against women has to be discussed in detail.2A02:2F0A:504F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DDEE (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Source the feminist part of that and write it. The 1938 story (I did not read past the jump) had nothing, at least on the first page, about feminist response. Likely, many good sources exist. A section in this article would be appropriate. Feminist support for the Violence Against Women Act (a U.S. statute) (approximate title) and writings by Andrea Dworkin and several other authors come to mind. This article is a summary; if subarticles don't have enough coverage, add it there; either way, summarize here. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Feminism versus Egalitarianism

Feminism, as the opening line states, is more about the rights of women (which it should be). I'm aware that there are people who are trying to push it to be more about equality, but IMO there's a better term for that already - egalitarianism - which doesn't inherently bias itself through its history or its name. The links that 'support' feminism as being about gender equality seem to be primarily opinion pieces, rather than hard evidence cited in support of this - should they really be included as part of the supposed statements of feminism if they're opinion, no matter how academically qualified or cited, rather than fact? This, of course, is the danger of an article about something so fluid as a social concept, but the opening line does a good job of defining feminism, and it does it in a way that precludes it as a movement for gender equality (which I continue to have trouble believing it to be - feminists do not march in support, as a whole, for male rights where they are required, such as with children and in family court, after all - and nor should they.) Berym (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article rather than for discussing the topic in general. If you have an actionable concern about the article then state it clearly. Binksternet (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death Berym. Wikipedia records what sources say not what you "believe it to be". If you are making edits to this page in relation to the men's rights movement (as you have inferred with the statement "feminists do not march in support, as a whole, for male rights") you need to understand that such edits are under probation. Making edits based on your own beliefs about a subject in an area under probation is not a good idea--Cailil ^talk 12:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Lucy Stone

The very strong 19th century US influence of Lucy Stone should be in this article. In her day, Stone was the equal of Anthony and Stanton, probably even more influential because she had more followers. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Nineteenth and early twentieth centuries

The section (and the whole article) fails to discuss issues dealing with family law, namely abolishing coverture, and focuses too much on voting right, which, though very important, was by no means the only demand and concern of feminists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skydeepblue (talk • contribs) 08:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Skydeepblue. As explained by myself on your talk page and by Nick in his edit summary the problem with your first edit[6] to that section is that you a) provided no sources for your changes b) altered information that was cited to particular sources into a state that does not reflect the referenced material and c) the edit resulted in confused grammar and syntax.

You're 100% right that voting was not the sole issue you just need to add sources for material--Cailil ^talk 11:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see my edit summary for why you were reverted. This article is about feminism generally. The issue of coverture is important but only in relation to Feminism. Sourcing/summarizing it generally is not useful here. Adding information directly about how the C19th feminism campaign for reform of coverture would however be useful.

Please also avoid copy-pasting text from other wikipedia articles to here. Also please note how we are using the {{cite}} template--Cailil ^talk 15:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that coverture (and numerous other subjects) are not addressed at all in this article. Someone not familiar with feminism and reading this article would simply not understand what feminism is about - ie, what was/is it campaigning for; what did it/does it seek to achieve; and what has it achieved? These are questions which are largely left unanswered by this article.Skydeepblue (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I do understand that "This article is about feminism generally", but the article is much too vague. Editors must approach articles with an understanding that many readers may have absolutely no clue about the subject, and reading WP may be their first time being exposed to the subject.Skydeepblue (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point but it's not a matter of being vague, it's a matter of information and context. There is a section for feminism's impact on society, but I see your point regarding a general Women's rights section, perhaps near the top of the article. Maybe a summary of the women's rights article (as per WP:SUMMARY) would solve that issue. It wouldn't be able to explicate everything but just like every other section would link to a full article on the issues (i.e coverture, property rights, the history of women and the law, suffrage, rape laws and contraception)--Cailil ^talk 17:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The details of what the first wave feminists were fighting for should be in the main article about First-wave feminism, while this general article should provide a brief summary. All of the 19th century concerns about coverture, etc, were judged by Anthony and many others to be of lesser importance than suffrage because these issues divided the early feminists. They were united only on the issue of suffrage which was seen as the key to unlock further political influence. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

In essence I agree Binksternet but Skydeepblue has made me aware of something. The article is structured thus: it discusses feminist theory, the history of the movements, the various ideological groupings, its impact on sexuality, society, politics and culture, and then reactions to it. There's no brief summary of its background, i.e women's rights except in the lede. And that's not what the lede is for, it's just for summarizing the article's content. We should expand or should move the discussion of what women's rights are to a new section above the one for feminist theory. Or indeed we should make feminist theory a sub section of it. There is something useful in Skydeepblue's comments, even if we don't address coverture--Cailil ^talk 21:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear here...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There won't be any criticism of Feminism allowed on its Wikipedia page, will there be? Doesn't really matter what I cite... what I post. You'll find a reason not to accept it. Then you'll ban me, or accuse me of whatever and then ban me.

There's only going to be one view presented on Feminism and you guys are going to make sure that's the only view we get, right? Because something tells me I'm not the first person to point out there's no criticism on Feminism allowed on the Feminism page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Cappadocia (talk • contribs) 15:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms can be found in the anti-feminism subsection and elsewhere in the article (and were there prior to your posts of today). Criticisms have to reflects sources, including for weight. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC) (Conformed syntax: 16:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

That's not criticism. A movement that criticizes another movement *is not criticism*. That's like posting a link to the Westboro Baptist Church on the GLAAD wikipedia page and calling it a day. Saying "There are people that oppose this movement" is not a criticism of the movement itself. Mr.Cappadocia (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request on 24 September 2013

In the sentence "The work of the feminist psychoanalyst and philosopher, Julia Kristeva, has influenced feminist theory in general and feminist literary criticism in particular" the commas surrounding "Julia Kristeva" seem syntactically incorrect. 90.163.195.112 (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Good catch! I fixed it. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Nouns in apposition are commonly separated with commas, but personally, I'm fine with either version. Kaldari (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Actually the first version is appropriate syntax, as Kaldari points out. Any outside editor called on in the future to do a copy-edit of this page may change this back.
  The alternative to this type of comma is to "recast" or reorder the nouns in a sentence (see MOS:COMMA). I've made this change[7] but the original version was IMHO better--Cailil ^talk 18:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section does not accurately reflect societal viewpoint

I'm sorry for bringing it up again, but the criticism section does not accurately depict antifeminist arguments. I think that the antifeminist page should be about antifeminism, but common arguments against feminism should be given also within the criticism section. 70% of americans and 60% of brits do not align themselves with feminism, nd while this should not detract from the major point of the article, it is still entirely relevent, not uncommon, and has been overlooked with an unduly small amount of weighting given to the arguments. It appears that there is an undue bias profeminism that does not reflect a societal consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacrts (talk • contribs) 19:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Public opinion polls consistently show that most Americans and Europeans support the goals of feminism; they just don't align themselves with the grotesque caricatures of "feminism" currently in circulation. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have any reliable sources that we can pull information from regarding criticism of feminism, please feel free to post them here. Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The idea that women should vote was one of the earliest feminist causes. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of Americans supports this right, so they're supporting feminism even if they don't like the term. MilesMoney (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Kaldari, that's entirely separate to modern day feminism. There are criticisms also to 'actual' feminism ("grotesque caricature" - pushing an agenda are we?) as well as radical feminism. Like, for example, the Tender Years kerfuffle, which has been unresolved, or the Duluth Model, or the promotion of letting women get off scot free for crimes. One must also note that thigs done in the name of feminism are still part of feminism because there's no supreme authority intrinsic to social movements to decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacrts (talk • contribs) 15:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have me confused with MilesMoney. My comment was further up. Kaldari (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a forum Jacrts. This page is for concrete proposals for improving this article based on reliable sources. Wikipedia pages are not soapboxes--Cailil ^talk 18:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"Patriarchal construction of masculinity"

This phrase needs a citation or clarification. I'd argue it's a meaningless phrase and should be replaced with simply "Masculinity"

If we're defining Patriarchy as the on the Patriarchy page: "However, in modern times, it more generally refers to social systems in which power is primarily held by adult men" it doesn't follow that there is a causal link between such a system and masculinity and femininity as these terms stem from biology. There are social aspects as stated on the Masculinity page but whether these can be ascribed to "social systems in which power is primarily held by adult men" isn't clear. There's nothing to suggest that masculinity would be different under another social system or if there is, it needs to be added as a citation.

As it stands, the phrase is meaningless and makes assertions which are not backed up. 94.0.173.21 (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I can't find that phrase on the page. Text search for "construction" gets several hits, but nothing close to this. Where in the article are you referring to? --Stfg (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the phrase was "patriarchal concept" which seems rhetorically worse, can a social system have a concept? An ideology can have a concept but I'm not sure "Patriarchal concept" is linguistically valid, in either way, my original point about clarification still stands. {94.0.173.21 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC))

 Done You're correct a system can't have a concept but it could have a conceptualization. However that's not great encyclopedic writting. So I've replaced it with "Patriarchal cultures are criticized for "limiting forms of masculinity" available to men and thus narrowing their life choices." which quotes directly from teh source & is clear--Cailil ^talk 18:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

In the lead: "...bell hooks and other feminists have argued that men's liberation is a necessary". This reads bad, due to her strange use of a pen name wholly in lower case. Please change it to "the [feminist] writer/author bell hooks ...." or some similar variation. I can't 'cos like most important articles these days, this one is not freely editable. 86.31.70.119 (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Good idea, thanks. --Stfg (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2013

The word Canton is misspelt as Caton in one place that I have noticed in this article. 79.64.160.213 (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks for pointing out this typo; I've corrected it.VoluntarySlave (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 19th of February 2014

Under the "Language" subheading, should The handbook of English linguistics be capitalized? 24.124.99.189 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes it should, Done. Thanks! LittleMountain5 03:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

References by Chodorow

The references to Nancy Chodorow's work (no. 4 in the current edition of the article) lack information about what page(s) that covers for the claims in the article. I would like to ask, if someone familiar to the work, would like to supply page numbers. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me as if Chodorow is serving as an example of the sentence rather than a source for it. The sentence says it has developed theories in a variety of disciplines in order to respond to issues such as the social construction of sex and gender and Chodorow is doing this via psychoanalysis. Chodorow does talk in her preface about feminism's early search for a "grand theory" to explain these issues, the failure of that search, and then her own varying approaches through anthropology, psychology, and so on. That's as close as I can see to a reason the source supports the sentence. I don't have access to the Gilligan article; perhaps that says something more explicit. That being said, the sentence, being in the lead, doesn't actually need a source to support it, as it's a short description of what's already in the theory section and is obviously true anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. The source is used in the article text as well. It is discussed at the Norwegian edition whether feminism is supportive to equal rights between sexes, or just pro womens rights, and I was just looking for sources either way. I ended up asking myself why the reference did not have page number, as this article do have a "good article"-status. Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Women First, Men Last

I removed this:

According to author Steven Adams feminist ideology in the modern media has caused men to be commonly portrayed as villians and predators while the women are portrayed as innocent victims.<ref name=Adams_2010>{{cite book |last=Adams |first=Steven |title=Women First, Men Last |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=iQK4Z_QdYxUC&pg=PT12&dq=Film+has+not+been+immune+from+the+feminist+onslaught+either&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YMAOU63SOYXboATq24HgBw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false |date=2010}}</ref> Men in media are also portrayed as selfish, irresponsible, and imature while women are portrayed as tough and independent heroes.<ref name=Adams_2010/> Adams also states that men are open to [[mysogyny]] in the media and portrayals of physical attacks on men by women are condoned. Adams believes modern society has yet to take mens rights seriously and male bashing in the media has hurt perceptions of men.<ref name=Adams_2010/> Additionally the marketing of products by advertising companies has highly favored women over men.<ref name=Adams_2010/> Advertising companies stereotypically market to men for sports, tools, and trucks. <ref name=Adams_2010/>

The author isn't notable and his book is self-published. Even mentioning the guy is giving his thought undue weight.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The book is self published. I agree. I am not sure that notablility or popularity is necessary for an author to be valid. I put this in the section because in my view this Wikipedia article stated that feminism is the goal that both men and women should strive for. I did not believe that to be a neutral statement. I know the statement was from a valid source, but Adams contends the feminism has been harmful to men such as in culture, media portrayals, and advertising. I am not surprised the edit was pulled due to self publishing, however, this does not automatically nullify Adams contentions. This was a good faith edit to add neutrality to the article. I appreciate allowing discussion in the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The question isn't whether the author is "valid," whatever that means, but whether his views are well-represented in reliable sources. From WP:UNDUE: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. If Adams's ideas deserve inclusion it'll be because they're published in reliable sources, which that book is not. I'm certainly not questioning your good faith.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 06:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

A valid source was meant to be a reliable source. One must ask why Adams was not published by a corporate media that Adams believes supports feminism. If the media is purposely not publishing Adams because Adams is contending that the media bashes men then maybe that is why Adams had to self publish the book. His mens rights views are not taken seriously by a media that supports feminism. That is not equivilent that his views are not reliable or valid. There is no gaurantee that a published source is reliable. Books are made to sell in book stores. The section is not neutral because the section concludes that feminism is the goal of both men and women. I believe the last sentence needs to be reworded to establish a neutral tone. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we need a better source for the arguments, as Wikipedia discourages use of self-published sources. Kaldari (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not an advocacy site Cmguy777 - conspiracy theories about whether "the media is purposely not publishing Adams" are irrelevant. You also need to be aware that edits regarding the men's rights movement are under a probation. Also you need to be clear that the article does NOT say " that feminism is the goal of both men and women" as you have said above it in fact says "The consensus today in feminist and masculinity theories is that both genders can and should cooperate to achieve the larger goals of feminism." Misrepresenting what is in the article does not help your argument--Cailil ^talk 14:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Why have I been on probation? Adams was advocating mens rights theories not myself. I did not believe the article was neutral. That was my own opinion. I have not made any further edits to the article. I am a reader of the article. This is a discussion page and I thought there was some freedom to discuss sources. I am asking to be removed from probation. I was only discussing Adams as a source not to advance any conspiracy theories. I do not know why Adams self published. I will offer an apology if that means anything. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're not personally on probation. What Cailil means is that the topic of men's rights is under probation, which is explained in the link in their comment above. It means in this case that more restrictive rules apply to edits about men's rights. These are topic-based restrictions, not directed at any one particular editor. But if you're going to edit in the area you should read the link, because everybody's nerves are frayed to the breaking point on the issue, which is why the community probation was put in place. You're being personally perfectly well-behaved and civil and are not violating any of these restrictions and no one's saying otherwise.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The self-published Steven Adams book should be dismissed, with nothing from it deemed useful here. Plenty of scholarly sources address similar issues. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand now that I have been put on an article probation notification list. Respectfully, I was stating my own opinion in a discussion page on what was stated in the article, not misrepresenting what was stated in the article. In hindsight, I need to be more careful with my statements for any future discussions. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you were put on the list because of this discussion, probably because of the unproductive argument you tried to make about how Adams' book should be considered a valid source because the publishing media is controlled by feminists. Such an unsupportable attitude does not bode well for any editor who hoped to contribute to this topic. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Binkerset. With all do respect I did not make the contention Adams was a valid source because the publishing media is controlled by feminists. I did not believe Adams was automatically unreliable because of self publication. I agree that a source that is published by respected publishers has greater historical weight then self publicated books. Adams contends, not me, that the media is controlled or dominated by feminist ideology. I have already stated I need to be more careful with my statements. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You have been added to a list of users notified (i.e told about) the probation NOTHING else. You are not under probation. Both the page & my notice to you[8] make that crystal clear, Cmguy777 - please read them.
You're actually making things worse for yourself by over reacting like this. Stay calm - if you're adding material that advocates for the men's rights movement you need to know that that topic is under probation so that you don't get yourself into hot water. YOU have not been sanctioned or warned or put on probation. You've just been told it exists.
Also just so you understand what Binsternet and I are reacting to is your line above: "One must ask why Adams was not published by a corporate media that Adams believes supports feminism. If the media is purposely not publishing Adams because Adams is contending that the media bashes men then maybe that is why Adams had to self publish the book." These are your words[9], nobody else's.
You've also recognized at this point that the material you were adding is not up to Wikipedia's standards and that you need to be more careful with your choice of words. So this thread has run its course, and you can relax - you're not in trouble--Cailil ^talk 17:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you guys may also be overreacting to Cmguy777's statements. I did not get the impression that Cmguy777 was arguing that the source should be accepted because "the publishing media is controlled by feminists". My impression was that Cmguy777 more or less acknowledged the shortcomings of the source but still felt that the wording of the article wasn't neutral. Unfortunately, he/she also threw in some unhelpful personal opinions that should not have bearing on the discussion. Kaldari (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Kaldari! Cmguy777 (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Potential new article

Hi all! I'm writing to present the idea of creating a new article about the gender inequalities in positions of power and how women are so vastly underrepresented in positions of power in many areas including government, industry, international organizations, science, academia, even sports and popular culture. I'm writing on this page because I think it is a highly related topic that there's already a Wikipedia page covering. I would be doing so as a part of a class assignment. Check out my user page for more information.

Cnicholson12 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request 19th of February 2014

"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women."

Good sentence, but word "equal" does no belong to feminist agenda. I propose to change the sentence as follows:

"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending political, economic, and social rights for women."

That sentence is currently cited to 2 dictionaries, both of which support the inclusion of "equal" in the definition. More importantly, the article body extensively discusses the fight for "equal rights", so this seems to be an accurate reflection of the article content. Kaldari (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Agree with Kaldari. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with OP -- it is nonsensical and contrary to WP:NPOV for Wikipedia to assert without qualification that feminism seeks "equal" rights when prominent feminists such as Mary Daly explicitly and without ambiguity call for the elimination (killing) of men, yet are undoubtedly "feminist" and applauded by the mainstream feminist movement -- dictionary definitions notwithstanding. "Advancement of women" is the only common denominator here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.127.207.157 (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't asserting anything. This is how dictionaries and other definitional sources define this topic--Cailil ^talk 12:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2014

Please change X to Y because the way it is stated currently uses a predetermined sterotype of those men that are pro-equality (including myself) but are not explicitly involved in the activities described (which are most often religious based). Therefore to be a more accurate statement I submit the following changes:

"Pro-feminist men also are involved in men's health, activism against pornography including anti-pornography legislation"

to:

"Pro-feminist men also are in some cases but not all involved in men's health, activism against pornography including anti-pornography legislation (usually religious based as per various statistics available)"

That will leave the original content while giving a more accurate picture of the real world instead of someone's utopian fantasy.

Kindanyume (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: Partially done. I added a qualifier to the sentence. Your proposed sentence was too muddled (IMHO) and you'd need citation for the statement in parentheses. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a very judicious solution.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Outright false

Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality...

This is not the case. Recent feminists push for the inclusion of men wasn't because of a radical change in rhetoric and agenda, rather because of the increasing backlash against feminism especially from men and the outright challenging of the notion Feminism is for equal rights, because of past feminist rhetoric and agendas. Gorgi88 (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Your accusation is unfounded. I'd be very interested to read a list of which feminist texts you have read, what aspects of the movement you have been close to, or what authority you are saying this from. Also, as above, any sources would be worth reading. You bring up radical feminism as an example but only a minority of feminists are radical feminists and I believe there is a criticism section on the radical feminism page. Making sweeping claims about a movement such as feminism that has so many sectors like yours just now shows a lack of research or knowledge about the movement --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"Almost unfounded"? That means you came across similar sentiments. haven't you? No. This notion belongs here. When was the last time feminists ever had in their agenda the rights of disenfranchised men? Never. And the backlash against feminism is real, I can give you boatloads of articles on that. What I'm trying to get at is it's necesarry to reword that line. It's a very naive approach to a new wave of feminism. Gorgi88 (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I worded it like that originally, but it tends to be people who understand almost nothing about the movement and just see fragments online, so I'm changing it to unfounded. For one, I know feminists that funded and opened up shelters for victims of domestic abuse in the UK that are open to men and women, as well as the huge push for rights for trans-men and trans-women recently by intersectional feminists, and the rape support groups set up by feminists that both men and women can utilise. That's just a short list though, I think you're honestly talking about straw feminism --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Your view is your view alone. but because feminism seeks gender equality does not belong there. There are many agendas why to promote feminism to men. One is to get rid of the feminism is anti male stereotype through a few token male faces in high feminist places. That's why your view can not be universal. change the wording. Gorgi88 (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm certain that my view is not my view alone. Please stop asserting things based on research that you clearly haven't done. It does belong there, because that is what feminism seeks to do, and I imagine almost every feminist text you read that in any way defines feminism will do so at that. What do you mean by agendas? Are you trying to claim that there is an anti-male feminist conspiracy? There have been male feminists for centuries, even Friedrich Engels had feminist views. I'm almost certain you are editing from a non-NPOV perspective and rewording a definition that is accepted by the Oxford Dictionary to support an anti-feminist viewpoint is absurd --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course there have been male feminists. There still are. you being a modern example. The problem is it's not a neutral page. Your but because feminism seeks gender equality line is disagreed by many and is a deeply personal POV and probably the best pro feminist PR on the internet with nothing tangible to back it up. Gorgi88 (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Oxfords definition The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. big difference from your POV definition but because feminism seeks gender equalityGorgi88 (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, you can propose an actual change to the article with reasons for its inclusion and, more importantly, sources to back it up, or you can go get autoconfirmed and edit the article yourself. Continuing to argue your theories without sources to back up their inclusion isn't going to convince anyone to make actual changes to the article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems you have some sort of issue with the movement and that's okay, but Wikipedia doesn't exist to right what you perceive as wrongs in society. It is an encyclopedia and it relies on sources. That is how feminism defines itself and it is how feminism is defined by dictionaries and other encyclopedias. What you are suggesting is that Wikipedia redefines the movement based on your personal beliefs about it, which is at best original research, and at worst incorrect, misleading and extremely biased --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, the sentence was actually screwed up since the clauses were in the wrong order; the only reason it was talking about gender equality there was to introduce bell hooks's theory about why men's liberation should be a part of feminism, so I reordered them, which has the effect of attributing it to her, which may solve Gorgi88's problem without introducing any nonsense into the lead.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Good work --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. Check again. it's full of errors. Gorgi88 (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

How is that? Do you think the lead is not applying bell hooks theoretical writing correctly?--Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

it must necessarily include men's liberation because really? must necessarily? should be it must include men's liberation, because. Awesome source selection guys. Gorgi88 (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Well it says it 'must necessarily' include the movement because that is the argument that bell hooks and her contemporaries were arguing. Do you disagree that bell hooks is arguing that or do you not think she is a relevant feminist writer? I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. Also, thank you for your sincere attempts to improve the Feminism article, as it has already resulted in bringing attention to one area in which it needed to be improved and that has now been fixed --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit reqest

Please change main article from lacking a neutrality of this article is disputed to having a {{POV|date=April 2014}}. I do not bleieve this article is written from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgi88 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 12 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Question: What specifically do you think the problem is? Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Per the usage notes on the {{POV}} template: "The editor who adds (or in this case, requests the addition of) the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." Please feel free to reopen this edit request once you've pointed out such specific issues here. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 02:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Addition of the Radical Feminism section

I'm proposing a change to a POV additions that have been nitpicked for the sole purpose of pro feminist PR AND to discourage the expected debate and dialogue of hypocrisy and hate withing the movement. If you're so neutral, why isn't there a dedicated section to the fact that there are racist, sexist, radical elements within the feminist movement within the page and intro? IF you aren't looking for a very positive first impression of feminism, of course. I don't see Radical feminism section on the whole page. Some would find that very important wouldn't you think? pf... and I'm the terribly biased one Gorgi88 (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't include links to every single feminism perspective, the article is encyclopedic and exists to give an overview of the movement. You can find the Radical feminist page here. I'm posting this with good faith that you don't vandalise it or at least post on the Talk page before editing because your tone here suggests severe bias against the movement --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

of course not. only the very important ones. and radical feminism is big and one if not the most important aspect of modern feminism. not including a dedicated section to it only shows blatant bias. Gorgi88 (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Radical feminism is neither the biggest nor the most important aspect of modern feminism. If anything it is seen as slightly antiquated by the majority of feminists. Please read into the movement, and I don't just mean Wikipedia articles or anti-feminist blogs, go to your library and read books on it before editing. If anybody here has bias it is the person who made an account specifically to edit feminist articles and push an anti-feminist POV --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"radical feminism is big and one if not the most important aspect of modern feminism." Evidence?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

the boatloads of but feminism is good, oh but feminism is for everyone, you can be feminine and a feminist articles. Hatred, mistrust towards feminism didn't come out off the blue. The man hating, unkempt, angry stereotype was perpetuated by radicals to the point it became the face of feminism for MOST men and a huge chunk of the female population. Gorgi88 (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:ORIGINAL, if you are interested in editing Wikipedia articles it is best that you do so in areas that you have researched and make edits that you can back up with WP:RELIABLE. Also calling feminists 'unkempt' on the talk page of the feminism page is WP:VULGAR --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Obvious POV issue here. I didn't call feminists unkempt. I said it's a stereotype perpetuated by radicals. Gorgi88 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, although you understand that could have used different language to describe this "stereotype" that the movement itself is supposedly responsible for as you weren't quoting from a direct source. You agree with the rest of my post concerning WP:ORIGINAL and WP:RELIABLE then? That your edits should be founded on good sources and others research than your personal beliefs concerning the articles? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I do. And the Radical Feminism section would have all of those. Withholding that information only perpetuates the notion that this is an unbalanced article. Gorgi88 (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

So you are arguing that much more of the article should focus on Radical Feminism specifically? It is discussed in the 'Political movements', 'Cultural movements', 'Patriarchy' , and 'Anti-feminism' sections, the latter acting quite clearly as a criticism and linking to an entire article that focuses on feminist criticisms. I am fairly sure this is the article you are looking for Antifeminism --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

How is Antifeminism the same as Radical Feminism?? And pointing out radical feminism, it's rhetoric and agenda isn't anti-feminist. Gorgi88 (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood you. You want to include a criticism of Radical Feminism specifically at the beginning of the Feminism article? Or information on what Radical Feminism at the beginning? Is the information in article and the links to Radical Feminism not in depth enough? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pushing for a section that focuses on Radical Feminism, it's rhetoric, agenda and individuals withing the movement. Gorgi88 (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Radical Feminism is already covered in various sections of the page and linked within. It also has its own article --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Big and important enough to have it's own article but not important enough to have a separate section on the main page? 'Oh but the page is neutral' right? It's just feminist PR, selectively minimizing or outright withholding controversial parts of the movement in order to promote a certain image of the movement Gorgi88 (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

There are articles for all of the Feminist movements and ideologies. There is no feminist PR editing the encyclopedia, just as there is no feminist leadership. It is a huge movement that encompasses multiple ideologies and viewpoints. As it stands, Radical Feminism is fairly weighted among other feminist ideologies and the anti-feminism section covers many of the controversial aspects of the movement --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article should include more on radical feminism, even if integrated into existing sections. Radical, liberal, Marxist, post-modern, and third-wave are the major branches of feminism. I can easily see the addition of a section summarizing these branches with "Main article" templates at the beginning of each. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Like in Feminist movements and ideologies? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry gentlemen but this has been addressed multiple times before. You can read the talk archives if you want more detail. The current structure of the article has been reviewed and passed Good Article standard. Any changes to the structure would require MAJOR consensus and would need to be inline with improving the standard of this page towards Featured Content.
  By way of information, the primary reason these sub-movements are not addressed in detail is WP:Length. There is far more to this topic than just the sub-movements. That's why the Feminist movements and ideologies page had to be created along with a number of other sub-pages.
  Trying to include more information in an article like this is predicated by policies such as due weight, balance and article structure which by the way are important facets of NPOV (which seems to misunderstood by Gorgi88 in a number of sections here and on Radical feminism).
  Furthermore if one wants to expand wikipedia's coverage of Radical Feminism it is first done at that subject's own article, then at Feminist movements and ideologies and if necessary the sentences related to it here can then be modified. But changes to this or any high standard article that damage its structure or overall standard would be highly controversial--Cailil ^talk 10:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cailil: Fine by me, but please don't assume gender identities. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies EvergreenFir no assumption on your part was being made. I was referring to Gorgi et al. It was meant in a "tongue in cheek way" since the vast majority of people to clamor that there are NPOV issues on Feminism pages are usually men, who have little scholarly support for thier views. It's a recurring issue that women are prevented from using this page by the kind of rhetoric that was indulged in by that user. However my tongue in cheek may not come across on the internet so I've striken the offending section--Cailil ^talk 15:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Unstated assumptions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:NOTFORUM

---

I realize that this is a contentious issue. However, I feel that the current text, unaltered, is more malignant.

"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women."

Who says this isn't already the case? Or that women don't have it better than men? Citations aren't good enough; equality is inherently subjective. I don't care if women get paid 0% as much as men (well, I'd care, but it isn't relevant here); equality doesn't have a single definition. This is like if the article on Free will started with "Free will, which does not exist,..." It's simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia that prides itself so much on objectivity.

On a couple of occasions, I've added the disclaimer "under the assumption that this is not the case". These edits have been reverted. I'm bringing the issue here so that a more thorough consensus can be formed or, at the very least, someone can explain why Wikipedia's okay with assuming that "women have it worse, period". Tezero (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear. Do you mean to say that a statement that some group of people supports the "rights and equality of women" implies a claim that women either don't have rights or don't have equality or both? Is that your objection to this language?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

There's one hell of a thorough consensus on this Tezero (see the archives). These are well sourced definitions of this term. It's this site's role to record what is said about it in the mainstream scholarly material in a neutral manner - we don't alter what sources say to suit our own visions of objectivity. Your arguments seem to be about the subject of feminism (i.e its claim that women are not treated equally) rather than the sources. This is not a forum and discussions like this don't go anywhere--Cailil ^talk 01:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Closing per WP:NOTFORUM. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well, this was supposed to be about our handling of the sources. Plenty of sources say "feminism is bad" but we don't get to say "feminism is bad" and cite them. Likewise, we don't get to assume that women are not equal to men no matter how many sources think it's appropriate to summarize this. Tezero (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Education

The article should address feminism activism in obtaining equal rights of access for female education. 2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:4533 (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

feminism and cinema

I've added a small subsection (cinema) in the feminism and culture heading as it's quite an important and developed area and can, I hope, add to the overall balance with the other arts already listed. I've tried to keep it quite short, similar in length to (existing) music and so on, and reference longer articles while introducing s potentially fresh summary for the purposes of the page. Any additions welcome, but trying not overlap elsewhere of course! If there are any special experts about on this area, do please feel free to correct any errors I may have made or expand it slightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs) 06:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Celibacy section - BRD

I reverted the recently added celibacy section by Maranjosie (and re-added by Zambelo per BRD. Though sourced, the positions and topics seem quite FRINGE and do not warrant inclusion on this page. There are already concerns about the page being much too long and details and full of COATRACK. Let's discuss this latest addition (seen here). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not enough criticism/impartiality?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Anti-Feminism section has a very tilted and caricature paragraph of criticism of feminism, that portrays it as merely wanting women to go back to the kitchen. Other critiques, such as Ayn Rand, point that Feminism is collerated with a larger state and thus legitimizes government oppression. Another critique maybe that by creating a gendered name, such as Feminism, that it automatically excludes the other gender and in doing so it monopolizes the definition of equality with women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Y2k1 (talk • contribs)

WP:OR and the criticism section is already mentioned in the header box at the top of this talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The amount of criticism of feminism on this page is inconsistent with reality and lowers its credibility an encyclopedic entry. CSDarrow (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is a fair amount of criticism on the page. We also have articles on Antifeminism and Postfeminism that mostly act as criticism. Furthermore, subsets of feminism like Radical feminism, Liberal feminism, Cultural feminism, Marxist feminism, Womanism, Postmodern feminism, Sex-positive feminism, Transnational feminism all have their own, more accurate criticisms. Considering the fact that the movement has different subsets which in themselves have different criticisms, don't you think it makes sense to organise the more in depth stuff by subset? We also have a category "Criticism of feminism" with a subcategory "Critics of feminism", all of which contains further criticism of the movement. What do you mean "inconsistent with reality" anyway? That sounds like confirmation bias to me, there is lots of support for the movement within gender studies and sociology and Wikipedia already panders a lot to its critics --94.175.85.144 (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This tired old straw man argument has been dealt with already CSDarrow, and enough times. Wikipedia is neither a forum nor a soapbox. And FYI back in the old days when people observed netiquette "thread necromancy" was considered rude. Thread closed----Cailil ^talk 20:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Liberal Feminism

Buenos-Ding-Dong-Dididly-Dias:

I thought you might like to reconsider the sentence " Liberal feminism seeks individualistic equality of men and women through political and legal reform without altering the structure of society." I think a more accurate description would be that liberal feminism focuses on the legal structure of society regarding sexism, but not necessarily patriarchy as a whole--which includes cultural roles, material influences of the means of production, and so on. Laws are a part of the structure of society, so this claim would be false. However, I don't quite have sources to provide. I can only say that it doesn't make sense conceptually. If there are people willing to invest their time and resources on the net, this might be worth pursuing.

Saludos,

70.72.45.131 (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Time to delete article?

Articles of interest are written by those interested in the movement. Are self-published sources acceptable? Dark Liberty (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dark Liberty: Answer to your question is WP:SPS and WP:RS. Though I am still confused why this would be related to deleting this article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Feminist stripper for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Feminist stripper is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist stripper until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lightbreather (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Run-on sentence?

Under "Feminism and Sexuality" " As a result, a significant proportion of feminists favoured this view, however, others considered sexuality irrelevant to the attainment of other goals " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.172.44.93 (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Why No Criticism Section?

see top notes and past discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is there no criticism section in this article? The article isn't NPOV and is biased in favor of feminism, without any real criticism. Almost all other articles that cover social theories, movements, and philosophical ideologies have a criticism section but this one does not. And please don't tell me "anti-feminism" is a criticism section. I believe women should be treated equally just the same as men; being "anti-feminism" simply means being against sexism. This culture is massively brainwashed to believe that feminists actually care about equality for people, when their primary concern seems to be elevating women's issues and female lives above issues that impact men and male lives. KatiiK (talk) 04:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Gynocentrism

WP:NOTFORUM and WP:OR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Gynocentrism lies behind much of what feminism is in 2014. This is why so many feminists identify as lesbian or bisexual. It is a taboo subject but many of these women are not actually sexually attracted to females, they believe in what is known as political lesbianism. These sexist, bigoted, misandrist women CHOOSE to identify as lesbian or bisexual, but in reality are heterosexual women who are obsessed (for whatever psychological reason) with women being victims of "patriarchy" and men - this is called gynocentrism. Scholars Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson state that ideologically, the overriding focus of gynocentrism is to prioritize females hierarchically, and as a result may be interpreted as misandry (the hatred and prejudice towards men). Feminist calls for equality or even equity are often, according to them, a subterfuge for gynocentrism. Young and Nathanson define gynocentrism as a worldview based on the implicit or explicit belief that the world revolves around women, a cultural theme so well entrenched that it has become 'de rigueur' behind the scenes in law courts and government bureaucracies, which has resulted in systemic discrimination against men.'' KatiiK (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Feminism v Gender Equality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The article implies that feminism is synonymous with gender equality. Research shows this is profoundly untrue - for example, http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/05/treat-women-equally-dont-call-it-feminism/ Bob Hammersley (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that research shows that ignorance of what feminism stands for is widespread. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it shows that people are finally catching on to what feminism is really about and they realize it's not about equality and human rights. KatiiK2 (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This source supports a different conclusion: "The results suggest that, although most people support its key tenets, 'feminism' has become a dirty word." ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe feminism prior to the 1970s and 1980s did for the most part care about gender equality. Now it's bascially a bunch of sexist women and self-hating men who claim that females somehow are still victims of society even though there has been massive progress the past 30-40 years. At the same time you will never hear these same people express concern about isues affecting men and boys. That is all the proof you need to figure out that this whole feminism thing in 2014 is a scam.

KatiiK (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you also suppose that never hearing gay rights advocates express concern about issues affecting heterosexuals is "all the proof you need" to figure out that this whole gay rights thing is a scam.~ In any case, if you wish to challenge something in this article, you will need something more substantial than your personal antifeminist beliefs. - Röbin Liönheart (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Bob Hammersley / KatiiK2 / KatiiK is trolling - please ignore them as per WP:DFTT & WP:DENY--Cailil ^talk 14:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

KatiiK's comments

Uninvolved editor commenting here because User:Katiik came to my attention at Talk:Second-wave feminism, which is on my watchlist.

It appears to me that Katiik has an honest criticism of this and several related articles (namely that they have insufficient coverage of the criticism of the topic of those articles). Merits of that criticism aside, it is on topic and was civilly expressed and I see no need to delete it wholesale as though it never happened; editors who disagree should refute it instead, and let it stand on record here on the talk page that someone was of that opinion and it was refuted.

Given that Katiik appears to have been blocked initially for "block evasion", which is currently under investigation, this smells to me of an attempt to silence an unpopular opinion rather than refute it. I ask that their comments be allowed to stand at least until that investigation is complete. -Pfhorrest (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

First comment was rehashed to death. Second was offensive as fuck and FORUM/OR. Hatted both. Orangemike can explain why they blocked the first account. I'm sure they had a reason. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There have been so many of these over the years that I forget what the original account was. I don't believe that I was the one to block that one, back in the day. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Pfhorrest reinserting trolling is worse than trolling itself. You should also remember to AGF rather than throw aspersions around willy-nilly as you've just done above. Removing obvious trolling is a simple matter of course (and describing some of these comments as "civil" is stretching the definition of that term to breaking point). The "there's no criticism section" argument is a non-argument addressed at the top of this page and has been addressed multiple times for years on this page. There is an onus on ppl to actually read the archives and in fact read the damned article - there is criticism within it which is appropriately interspersed throughout in line with NPOV--Cailil ^talk 08:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

AGF is precisely what I'm concerned about; this looked to me like people assuming bad faith on the part of an editor merely on the basis of the content of that editor's opinion. I'm not defending their opinion but it looked honestly expressed (unless you honestly think anyone critical of feminism is automatically a troll, and nobody honestly, however unjustifiably, holds a critical opinion of it). It was not attacking any editors or using vulgarities, and it was referring to at least purportedly scholarly sources. If the consensus is that those opinions are inadequately sourced or of undue weight or whatever, that's one thing, and feel free to ignore their comments or quickly dismiss them; but holding any opinion doesn't make someone prima facie a troll to be reverted (on the talk page; reverting articles pending discussion per BRD is fine) and blocked without comment. The contents of someone's opinion are allowed to be offensive to people of contrary opinions (otherwise e.g. fundamentalist Christians could shut down e.g. evolution articles, on the grounds of their 'offensive' content). It's the manner of expressing that opinion that may become a behavior issue requiring censure.

And that top note actually strikes me as a little problematic itself. It doesn't seem right to essentially state with an air of authority that argument about a given topic is completely settled and cannot be discussed further. That's not to say you have to engage at length every person with an insubstantial opinions on that topic, but bringing up any topic should not mark anyone for immediate reversion and blocking. Ignore their comments or dismiss them briefly but don't censor them. Expecting every new user to read the entire talk page archives before commenting is an unreasonable onus as well; but "this has already been discussed at length and rejected" makes a fine quick dismissal. The talk page should still stand as a record of users (however unjustifiably) objecting to the status quo, in any case; otherwise, you manufacture a false consensus by curating what opinions are allowed to stand on record, and make it look, to those who do actually read the archives, like nobody has ever objected since the enforced "consensus" was established.

WP:YMFTT --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Because a user that obviously & blatantly abuses more than one account multiple times is obviously not a troll (that's sarcasm btw)?! This is a text book case of WP:DUCK. I'd suggest you stop digging (now that we have User:KatiiK3). And no Pfhorrest, blatant trolling is not kept because it's blatant trolling. And in line with WP:TPO (talk page guidelines not an essay) it is "common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article), test edits, and harmful or prohibited material as described above [emphasis mine]".

If *you* want to enable trolling that's your problem. But when you start labeling ppl who wont as breaking policy then *you've* got a problem. You might have an admirable point (and I in fact understand why you might see things that way) but this is the wrong case to test it in because all that you're succeeding in proving is that KatiiK is wasting our time and your actions (however inadvertently) have helped them--Cailil ^talk 13:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2014

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for both men and women. 182.68.34.35 (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence be mentioned?

As the first legally binding international instrument in Europe in the field of violence against women/domestic violence, shouldn't the Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence be mentioned, perhaps in the section Societal Impact, subsection Civil Rights, next to the presentation of CEDAW?

See here [10], for a presentation of the convention:

The Istanbul Convention

"The Istanbul Convention is the first legally binding instrument in Europe to prevent and combat violence against women and domestic violence; in terms of scope it is the most far-reaching international treaty to tackle this serious violation of human rights. It aims at zero tolerance for violence against women and domestic violence and is a major step forward in making Europe and beyond a safer place".

The convention came into force in 2014; and countries who ratify it are bound by its provisions to criminalize several forms of violence against women/domestic violence; and also to implement various policies. See text of convention here: [11] 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:5679:AE3A (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It is, please see Feminism#Civil_rights. CEDAW used to be given more space but this has been reconsidered due to the policy on due weight, perhaps it could be fleshed out more. Is this discussed in third party sources?--Cailil ^talk 12:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014

Feminism is for the rights of BOTH and ALL sexes. NOT just women. It has "feminine" in the word as opposed to something else because most countries have always lived in a male dominant society. Feminists do not have the opinion that woman are better than men, or that we should live in a female dominant society. Feminists simply believe that all sexes should be equal and all given the same opportunity. The definition of a feminist is someone who believes in gender equality.

74.105.141.60 (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

paragraph from Feminism and equality article

The following was added to the Feminism and equality article, largely by Katelin09, and it does discuss equality, but I think it's too large in scope for that article, so I moved it to here for discussion, to see if any of it can be used in this article or elsewhere:

Many think that being a feminist is only a term for women to fall under. Truly the term feminist is a name anyone can follow as support for equality. With supporters of feminism it could help end oppression and cruel treatment against women and their fundamental rights. Over the years feminism has progressed to a new end with more equality, men supporters, and more women claiming to be a feminist. "There are still some tough issues keeping woman from capitalizing on the changes they are making". Some issues still keeping women from progression is the terms feminist are called, their image for how they are portrayed, and people not understanding the term feminism. It isn't easy living in a world where some don't let women or any gender live a normal life with the same rights as others. Equality is something each person should have. "Some people haven’t really come close enough to feminist movement to know what really happens, what it's really about". The truth is equality is not all about women's rights it also about helping others reach a content spot in their life to where they feel accepted.

The sources in the above are these, respectively: Rudman, Laurie. "Psychology of Women Quarterly 31.2". "The F Word: Is Feminism Incompatible With Beauty and Romance?": 125–36. Hooks, Bell (2000). Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. Cambridge, MA: South End.

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

References

As it stands, although accurate, there are two major issues with the piece.
1) It is far too polemical for an encyclopedia
2) The grammar and syntax also require attention.
All in all this section is too much like an essay at the moment--Cailil ^talk 00:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2014

pornography http://search.proquest.com.lib-proxy.fullerton.edu/socabs/docview/60033852/C3C2453B70A4712PQ/2?accountid=9840 Haideecruz (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Request unclear. Please format your request in a "please change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization of Bell Hooks?

Just wondering if we should capitalize the title of the author Bell Hooks, and her page? Not sure, haven't read too far into it.

"Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but author bell hooks and others have argued that, since feminism seeks gender equality, it must necessarily include men's liberation because men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles.[10]"

03:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Best Regards, m80s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.228.60 (talk)

Thanks for the question! No, bell hooks's name should not be capitalized because her pen name is spelled in lowercase. For more articles with this capitalization, see bell hooks and Ain't I a Woman? (book). It's not just a mass typo! :) BenLinus1214^talk 20:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Opening should be altered to match Men's Rights Movement restrictions

From the Men's Rights Movement article: "The men's rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who are commonly concerned about what they consider to be issues of male disadvantage and discrimination."

Per discussions here and here. It seems to me the Feminism and Men's Right Movements should be held to the same standards. If Wikipedia insists on having "what they CONSIDER to be" on that article, it should be present here as well.

Places it could be inserted:

"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve what they consider to be equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women.

This includes seeking to establish what they consider to be equal opportunities for women in education and employment.

A feminist generally self-defines as advocating for or supporting what they consider to be the rights and equality of women.

Feminist advocacy is mainly focused on what they consider to be women's rights, but author bell hooks, among others, argue for the necessity for it to include men's liberation, because men are also harmed by traditional gender roles."

Per the linked discussion :Articles are not supposed to endorse views, whether those of feminists, LGBT rights groups, anti-racism groups, pro-racism groups, etc., and there is no reason to make an exception here. If the Men's Rights Movement article is written in a way that does not endorse anything about the Men's Rights Movement, so should the Feminism article not endorse these viewpoints listed above. BrentNewland (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources don't treat them the same, so the article don't either. RS by and large to not question the veracity of the feminist claim of gender inequality. That's not true for MRM. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• The *only* criteria here for assessing how this article opens are a) verifiability: how the subject is treated by reliable sources b) Neutral point of view: the recording without intervention of how the mainstream scholarly material treats the subject, giving time, space and weight in accordance with the reliability of those sources and c) Recording what the article contains.

  The issues with other articles belong on their talk page. What this page deals with is what happens on Feminism not at Men's rights movement.
  It is absolutely not the job of wikipedia to neuter sources. It is not our job to alter what they say to fit subjective misconceptions of "objectivity". Doing so constitutes original research at best and at worst misrepresentation of sources - something that has been attempted here on a number of occasions. You should also be aware that the Men's rights movement topic area is under probation and behaviour on this site in relation to tha topic area is monitored by sysops - there is some good advice here on what is unacceptable behaviour and how to avoid it.
  As it stands this thread is wildly off-topic and will be closed if it continues to veer into the use of this site as a forum--Cailil ^talk 19:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of "By Whom", "Which", and "Citation Needed" tags

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminism&oldid=646534042&diff=prev

I believe all of these "By Whom" and "Citation needed" tags I added (a total of four) are completely justified. The lede makes claims that are not cited, despite copious amounts of citations in the lede.

"Feminist campaigns are generally considered to be main force behind major historical societal changes , particularly in the West, where they are near-universally credited "

First: "Generally considered" is, as I understand it, a phrase frowned upon by Wikipedia. It's quite literally a generalization, which has no place here. I believe this tag is valid, because that particular bit needs reworded. It should include some specific names of notable people or organizations who hold this view.

Changing the "are generally considered to be" to something like "have been attributed to be" with a few citations linking to articles that support that claim would be far better.

Second: "Main force behind major historical societal changes" is a MASSIVE claim - and completely nonspecific. WHAT, specifically, are the major historical changes made by the feminism movement? As far as I know, this line is claiming that Feminism is the main force behind EVERY major historical societal change. What is the level considered "major"? Who has decided what is and is not "major"" historical societal changes? Who is claiming they are the "main force"? Also, that line is missing a "the". THE main force, not "to be main force".

Changing "main force behind major historical societal changes" to something like "a driving force behind several historically significant societal changes" solves a lot of issues, but it still needs to specify which ones.

Third: "where they are NEAR-UNIVERSALLY credited" - Honestly, I can't see any justification for this wording. Just like "generally considered", there is absolutely nothing to back up or clarify this statement, and it's a generalization.

"Feminists have also advocated for workplace rights, including receiving the right to paid work, paid maternity leave, and eradicating all forms of discrimination against women."

Each one of these claims could easily have a citation. I'm sure there are plenty of sources. BrentNewland (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

While I agree the lead could use some improvement to address those whom issues you raise, I just want to note that the lead does not need sources. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should reflect the article itself and the references for statements in the lead should be easily found in the article body. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with EvergreenFir. The lead currently has too many citations, not too few. The lead is supposed to just be a summary of the body and not need it's own citations. 2601:9:4301:EFA0:4580:AA58:C842:C2A2 (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

All the citation needed tags BrentNewland added were completely erroneous[12]. The sentences were already sourced. BrentNewland is on the verge of breaking WP:EDITWAR and WP:POINT - given the thread above this is veering into actionable territory under WP:ARBGG and/or WP:MRMPS--Cailil ^talk 11:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This is amazing

WP:NOTFORUM; Godwin's Law
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women." The equal part links to feminism and equality on wikipedia. So the definition of equality in feminism is the definition of equality in feminism. How amazingly circular and wrong-headed. If this were a page about Nazism and the page linked to "Nazism and equality" in order to show Nazism was about equality among people of one country, would that make equality the definition of Nazism too?--Superdupersmartdude (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC) It links to Feminism and equality which discusses what equality might be taken to mean in the context of feminism. Sjgknight (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC) This is not a forum Superdupersmartdude. And reductio ad Hitlerum in your first post to this talk page is only going to led to people reminding you that this topic (and all other gender conflicts on this site) are covered by discretionary sanctions mandated by a recent ArbCom ruling. Further attempts at flamebait or "derailing" discussion will lead to threads being closed (as a minimum action)--Cailil talk 12:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Your threats really don't scare me, gender-fascists. The Arbcom never check out their pages or go to email, so you can't alert them even if my behaviour were in breach of wikipedia standards. Which it isn't because linking to one online encyclopedia page from another to show feminism allows the genders to be equally treated is just a breach of wikipedia guidelines on citing a reliable source, and is so blatantly an attempt to give feminism a positive ligh in light of the numerous attacks it has made on fathers and boys in people pushing the ideology. This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic and against wikipedia rules. Maybe I should report all of you to Arbcom as part of the feminazi wikistorm which happened here a while ago, along with your feminist wikiproject, since I have nothing to hide. Count yourselves lucky I don't feel like doing that right now.Superdupersmartdude (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Lede tweaks

In line with the guidelines for writing lede sections I've reordered, sourced and restructured the lede. I moved the theory paragraph to the bottom because it begins "Feminist theory which emerged from the movements" but which previously came before any mention of the movements. I also re-integrated the two single sentence paragraphs into other paragraphs as appropriate (with grammar/syntax tweaks as necessary).

Lede sections are not dictionaries (they're not about semantics - they're about factual information) so it's best to follow the WP:FACR and WP:GACR and sources definition information to books about the subject's history and definition. Furthermore no lede of a Good Article or Featured Article candidate should have more than 4 paragraphs and addition to the lede that adds more paragraphs or adds single sentence paragraphs is damaging the article's standard (see the big yelow box above at the top of page regarding this)--Cailil ^talk 14:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! That shows consistency with your previous arguments. I feel content with such a solution. I'm glad I roared a bit, because this is absolutely an improvement to the article. Timelezz (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That's ok - I think we were just talking at cross purposes--Cailil ^talk 12:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is there no criticism question? revisited

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The answer: because there is nothing to criticize about feminism, apparently.

There are plenty of arguments against feminism in 2014, though I'd assume they would be labeled hate speech and inadmissible as valid criticism, because that's how totalitarian thought regimes work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.207.237 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason is because, per WP:CRITICISM, criticism sections are discouraged for all articles; instead of dividing everything into two or more squabbling viewpoints, articles are supposed to provide a single neutral perspective which touches on the various noteworthy opinions and strains of thought about the subject in their appropriate place. For instance, criticisms of individual threads of feminism are noted in several of the 'movements and ideologies' subsections; criticisms over different takes on sexuality are in the Feminism and sexuality section; criticisms of Feminist epistemology as it relates to science are noted in the Feminism and science section, and of course broad anti-feminism is mentioned at the bottom among responses. --Aquillion (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

In addition, for an entire article on criticism of feminism, see the article Antifeminism. Per above, this article should not contain a criticism section per WP:CRITICISM. BenLinus1214^talk 21:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a Criticsm of Democracy page... Criticism of Socialism.. Criticism of Capitalism.. all *kinds* of Criticism pages and subsections. That *ANTIFEMINISM* is considered Criticism of Feminism is ridiculous in the extreme, especially since the Antifeminism page is almost exclusively populated with quotes by FEMINISTS. It's like saying Judaism is the Criticism of Naziism, and then populating the Jewish article with endless quotes from Nazis. It's nonsensical in the extreme. Criticism of Capitalism, for example, doesn't link to Communism.... Criticism for Liberalism doesn't link to Conservativism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.180.106 (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If you think Wikipedia needs a new article on a certain topic that isn't covered elsewhere in the encyclopaedia or need more in-depth coverage, create it. --TS 01:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't you think I've tried? They just delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.180.106 (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I have misunderstood what you're saying, maybe I'm misunderstanding the page logs, but I find no record of the page Criticism of feminism being deleted. --TS 14:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

This whole thing is toeing the line of WP:NOTFORUM. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Certainly at this point it appears to have veered off topic. --TS 02:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Criticism

Hello, I see above there was someone asking why there wasn't a criticism section. But there is a section called "Critique of feminism and anti-feminism". I am a bit confused and don't want to make any bad edits to this article. I think the section is named badly because it seems as if it will show criticism of both feminism and anti-feminism. That wouldn't make sense of course but it reads like that, maybe it's just me. Also in this section, I guess the person Lisa Lucile Owens doesn't have her own wiki article but when her name first appears in this section it is a link, and goes to the webpage http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2439294 shouldn't there just be a source number by her name that leads to that? Popish Plot (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Rearrange to "Anti-feminism and critiques of feminism"? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That is better, maybe this is no biggy anyway, just that I was confused for a couple seconds when seeing it. From the names it seems like they would be the same thing so it's redundant to have both names thing but there are reliable sources which call it anti-feminism. Then there are those who say they are a feminist while also critiquing it. I suppose the name is just confusing to me because the actual situation is complex and hence confusing. Popish Plot (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

New Age Feminism

(please insert after the post-feminism section)

New Age Feminism has emerged in the 21st century as both a continuation and response to Second and Third Wave Feminism. It challenges "traditional definitions of femininity and embraces a change in times, incorporating elements of ethnicity, girl power, individualist feminism, sex-positivity and postmodernism." In New Age Feminism, a woman (or man) embraces the qualities in him or herself that have culturally been defined as “feminine” without shame, while still fighting against the discrimination women (and “feminine” men) still face in the workplace and other facets of 21st century society. This movement comes in response to a culture that "simultaneously claims to embrace the equality of men and women and at the same time seriously devalues femininity".

Unlike Second and Third wave Feminists, a New Age Feminist does not demand to be treated the same way as a man. She demands that the differences between men and women are recognized, understood, and accommodated for even while those differences are treated with equity.

For this reason she does not deny her female biology (whether physical, hormonal, or psychological), and demands it be accommodated for while still not allowing it to justify oppression. She supports scientific studies into the biologically influenced differences between those with male and female bodies (and brains) and accepts that traits culturally defined as “feminine” like being moody, emotionally articulate, gentle, or quiet, are “rooted in biology, not intended to mesh with any kind of pro- or anti-feminist ideology.”

Unlike 2nd and 3rd wave Feminists, New Age Feminists do not shun motherhood. New Age Feminists are not afraid to have children or to get married should they choose to. A New Age Feminist knows there is great joy in both a career and a family, and feels entitled to both. This feminist is not looking for special treatment, or even purely equal treatment. She is looking for equitable treatment, respect in the workplace, and equal opportunity. She champions the rights of working women to become pregnant, take maternity leave, and nurse in public, while still getting paid as much as their male counterparts. Meanwhile she lends her support to slut walks, sex workers, belly and poll dancers, #FreeTheNipple campaigns, as well as anti-harassment and anti-victim blaming movements. She denounces sexual exploitation, but also believes in a woman (or man’s) right to explore and be empowered by his or her own "feminine" sexuality.

Unlike 2nd and 3rd wave Feminists, New Age Feminists do not hate men. In fact, many of them may have at some point in their lives identified as ‘men,’ or if not are in love with or closely related to men. Nor do they reject certain male practices like chivalry and sexual dominance as long as they are performed consensually.

Examples of New Age Feminists are Emma Watson, Lady Gaga,Tracey Andrews, Beyoncé, and Jean Shinoda Bolen.

Shaxprlover (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

References

• A better sourced version of this could go into the Cultural movements subsection of the Movements Section in the future but as this stands the above text isn't well enough sourced or duly weighted for this article. This piece could probably go into Feminist movements and ideologies with a little tweaking though, and then a summary of that could be placed here--Cailil ^talk 13:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Sounds good, I'll try to find more sources, though given that it's still a very new and developing term, I'm not sure many such sources exist. Can you be more specific about the tweaking needed in order for this to go in the "Movements Section"? Shaxprlover (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Mainly the sources, in that it they really need to be academic or at least to define the term and put it into a historical content. Linking the sources above as they are is too close to original synthesis for the section on this page which is all very historically grounded. I'm seeing this term pop up in Management articles and Economics papers but with no clear definition. It crops up once without a very clear explanation in a few books too, like Gender Divisions and Working Time in the New Economy, what we need is that clear definition that places the movement in context. Look for that--Cailil ^talk 12:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. Yes it is indeed interesting how many people (like Lady Gaga and Beyonce) use and identify with the term despite it's never having been academically defined.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaxprlover (talk • contribs) 10:43, 17 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Still nothing about analytic feminism, wow

Do people really not realize that even now, well into 2015, that there isn't in fact one single word in this entire article regarding analytic feminism? Hordes of editors who are so interested in feminism that not ONE SINGLE editor seems to know analytic feminism even exists? Or what about the fact that analytic feminism is widely considered to be the fastest growing branch of feminism? Or that within academia, analytic feminist has become the dominant position? How can it possibly be the case that there are so many editors so well informed regarding the subject, yet simultaneously know nothing about one of the most important and influential branches of thought within this school? An entire article on feminism and not a single mention of Martha Nussbaum, who was ranked by the prestigious GDI in 2013 as the 13th most influential thinker on this entire planet? Judith Butler was ranked 30th and features prominently, yet Nussbaum, who ranked 13th isn't mentioned even once? One editor noted this article was "dated to be polite" which is a vast understatement. This article is in desperate need of more professionals and far fewer people who are fans of certain ideas. An article on feminism and famous feminists that leaves out analytic feminism and Nussbaum is like an article on physics and famous physicists that leaves out Albert Einstein and the theory of relativity... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxxx12345 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Also: for all of these sweepingly promotional assertions you make, Maxxx (what is this so-"prestigious GDI", for example). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

http://www.gdi.ch/de/Think-Tank/Global-Thought-Leaders-2013 The fact that you scare quote prestigious GDI is quite disheartening. You do realize that Jimmy Whales won their top prize in 2011? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlieb_Duttweiler_Institute How sadly ironic. I've run into numerous problems with articles regarding my field of expertise by some editors, such as below, whom for example just posted that they think Nussbaum is notable because she critiqued Butler. That's like saying Aristotle is notable because he critiqued Plato. *sigh* Maxxx12345 (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Also Judith Butler is cited twice in one short paragraph on social constructionism. Nussbaum's critique of Butler is notable for that and her POV on international feminism might be ok but analytic feminism is not all that ground-breaking frankly. And we don't mention every single philosophical movement - it just isn't possible. Also there's no need for the flaming--Cailil ^talk 20:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"but analytic feminism is not all that ground-breaking frankly" And there's a fantastic example of the problem. That's analogous, perfectly analogous in fact purely by definition, to stating that analytic philosophy should not be included, only continental philosophy, in the article on philosophy because analytic philosophy is not all that ground-breaking. That, literally, would demonstrate the exact same fundamental lack of understanding regarding the subject matter, by definition. Unfortunately, 'flaming' does sometimes become necessary because editors are changing entries regarding introductory level material in a field. You just argued that one of the two branches of feminism, analytic, should not be included in the feminism article. I, basically, wrote the article on analytic feminism where you offered no input, and on this page you repeatedly keep making claims and statements that just demonstrate a lack of knowledge in the field. Not trying to be insulting, at all. This statement of yours here is just very clear evidence. Maxxx12345 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Max, Analytic feminist philosophy is not "one of the two branches of feminism" - it's just 1 system of feminist philosophy (as is continental philosophy - which you are POV pushing against BTW). And no I did not say it should not be included (I said it wasn't all that groundbreaking, that's my opinion not an argument against inclusion) - I said Nussbaum's response to Butler is notable, not that Nussbaum is notable because she responded to Butler. You're setting up strawman arguments for no reason here. We're all here to help improve articles. And to restate as clearly as I can for you Max, I have no problem with analytic feminist philosophy being included here or mentions of Nussbaum - if you have a concrete suggestion on how to improve this page please give it. But if you're just here to take potshots then that's your problem. Flaming is not acceptable, period. Either be civil or you'll make a problem for yourself. --Cailil ^talk 10:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Definition of Feminism, not necessarily including men's rights.

Feminism started as a movement to strive for equal rights for women compared to men's rights. It did not (yet) concern the areas where men had less rights than women. In the last decade, or so, the focus on (solely) women widened up to include also men's rights, and started to equate with what we know as "gender equality". Dictionaries largely say its definition is still something in the line of "a belief that women should be allowed the same rights/power/opportunities as men", not necessarily both ways. Meaning, it does not necessarily include a belief that men should be allowed equal rights to women (which is important in cases where men have less rights than women). But some dictionaries, Merriam-Webster e.g., define feminism as following which is not yet reflected in the article:

“ the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.[13] ”

There is a distinct difference with this definition in Merriam-Webster, in that "equality of the sexes" does not have a particular focus. It means that both men and women should be allowed the same rights compared to each other, which is distinct from a definition in which (soley) women should be allowed the same rights compared to men (compare it with 1-way or 2-way synchronization). The definition by Merriam Webster is indeed seen in public. Just one example, from the top of my head is Emma Watson's speech before the United Nations. Since it is not up to Wikipedia to choose which definition it should be, both definitions should be mentioned. I insert my (reverted) edit again. If someone needs me to further elaborate, I am happy to provide. (cc Tony Sidaway) Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

And I'm afraid I reverted. The text as added confuses rather than clarifies the lede. It needs work and IMHO probably shouldn't go in to the lede at all. Might be better for another section or the feminism and equality article--Cailil ^talk 21:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Why? It is one of the used definitions. Why are we being selective and judge that Cambridge's definition is the one to go with it, while the Merriam-Webster's definition is incorrect? Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Because your wording/interpretation is confusing and poorly written for the lede. As Tony said to you there is no substantive difference between "equal rights for women" and "equality of the sexes". Furthermore ledes don't need to be referenced - they need to summarize and reflect article content (the only reason teh lede is referenced here is to stop POV-pushing). More than that lede lines are not dictionary definitions per se and trying to write etymologies, dictionary definitions ect into encyclopedia articles actually is the opposite what wikipedia is for see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#The_dictionary_definition_trap. And finally the fact that the current wording can be sourced to multiple books about feminism (for example, and only naming 2 but there are more, Beasley's What is Feminism? and Hawkesworth's Globalization and Feminist Activism) means that the current wording isn't the problem. Also at this point you've been reverted thrice by 3 other people. Please achieve consensus first - WP:BRD has been exhausted--Cailil ^talk 11:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

When you write "no substantive difference", I think you assume that "equal rights for women" also means that when women have certain rights that men do not have, that the goal is to curb down women's rights to mirror the rights that men have. Well, that is what I perceive as the difference. I mean, improving men's rights, It would not call an act for "equal rights for women". If I am wrong to see this difference, I would love to hear why that is the case. For the moment, I am not entirely convinced those are the same things. And if it is the same thing, I would be good to have that reflected in the article, in some way. I don't think that Wikipedia should serve a societal role, but outside Wikipedia I have seen discussions about the extent of feminism, and whether it also includes men's rights. For example, the men's right movement called out the women's right movement for their lack of interest in men's rights. If women's rights movement is not necessarily about improving men's rights, then their critic is off. But if it is about equality of the sexes, their criticism is spot on. I've seen furious debates about this. Partly due to lack of a clear definition (or lack of clarity about possible definition). I don't mean that Wikipedia has to serve that role as a mediator, but when I read the Wikipedia article it seems that feminism is concerned with women's rights (mirroring men's rights where they are lacking behind) and is not necessarily about equality of the sexes. In short, I think there should be (in the lead) something about the extent to which feminism relates to gender equality. Timelezz (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's about what the majority of what mainstream sources say - not what any of us individually think, opine or wish. It really doesn't matter a) whether you are convinced or not (grammar is not a matter of opinion) or b) what debates are out there on the internet.
On the substance of your edit: Webster's two part definition places the first piece (what you have above) in the context of a second definition: "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests". Furthermore if you read the research out there in libraries etc (not just on the internet - which is the worse place to look for a definition of anything like this) you'll see that defining Feminism is difficult and does cause debates, but what all the disparate groups across history and the world share is a will for women to become equal to men in every respect (law, pay, rights, esteem): the phrases "equality of the sexes" and "equal rights for women" as used synonymously by sources to mean this. Now, this page is not about men's rights and debates about father's rights (paternity rights and law) are actually off topic. I'm afraid all we can talk about is how to improve the article within wikipedia's standards (WP:FACR) not how to change the world, or as you put "serve a societal role"--Cailil ^talk 13:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with all the 'disclaimers'. To that extent we are on the same page. Your argument is that Webster's first definition has to be read as part of the second definition. How do you know? I understand that when Webster has definition 1. and definition 2. that these are independent definitions. How do you know that definitions should be read as part of one other? Timelezz (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Timelezz, I'm sorry but "Equality of the sexes" and "equal rights for women" are synonymous in feminism. As I said above we can use any number of other sources to cite that lede line. and the matter of men's rights is off topic. The article shouldn't be using dictionary definitions anyway, as I pointed out above. There really is nothing further to discuss--Cailil ^talk 21:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm listening, but feel somewhat uncomfortable with the should be's. Do I understand correctly that you basically say that even if the definition in a reputable dictionary is inconsistent with an article on Wikipedia, we should not be bothered, 'ignore' that fact and instead just go with the literature? May I then suggest to replace Webster's definition with the definition by Oxford? That one seems more in line with the lead. I mean, then at least the perceived inconsistency is fixed. Timelezz (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No that's misrepresenting what I said. The lede, the first line and first paragraph of an article, is a summary of what's in the article. It should reflect eth article's content. You're argument is drifting away on tangents. I've said all there is to say above--Cailil ^talk 01:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You may have perceived it as going off tangents, but I was actually trying other paths to get to a compromise. Kind regards. Timelezz (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Cailil, what you state is not correct. Furthermore, if you were intimately familiar with the material, a claim you aim at another poster, you would know that by no means is "but what all the disparate groups across history and the world share is a will for women to become equal to men in every respect (law, pay, rights, esteem)" is correct. In fact this virtue ethics stance is only held by a minority of third wave feminists today, with the majority basing their position on the post-modernist stance that the very conceptual framework of equality applying to such a binary is an example of socially constructed philosophical framework that needs deconstruction. More over, you'd be hard pressed to find much support within third wave feminism at all for the belief that such a framework is not inherently sexist and patriarchal, hence the basis of approaching such issues form a subjectivists mindset that will materialize in differing rights for men and women: it's just a required derivation based on the inherent differences of experiences. A topical example would be the belief that harassment laws should be different for men and women (which was a driving force in a popular video you probably have seen) due to the very noteworthy differences in experiences by men and women in general. What you say is synonymous with feminism is in fact the opposite from some of the most prominent aspect of contemporary feminism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxxx12345 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Maxxx12345 you're way off. First you're points are about 3rd wave feminism not the whole of Feminism, and they don't take into account the world outside the USA. The arguments of some Western (mainly American) feminists don't change the historical worldwide definition. Furthermore you're making wild generalizations (without nuance or verification) about a divided movement (3rd wave feminism) which might be interesting in a blog or on reddit etc but not on a wikipedia talk page. Moreover your points don't reflect the foundational documents of the third wave like Walker's work which actually identifies the movement that you refer to as "third wave" as 'postfeminist feminism'. The very end of 'Becoming Third Wave' explicates this, clearly. Neither do they reflect scholarly opinion: the idea that feminism is NOT about equality of the sexes is not a mainstream scholarly position. Finally there is no need to make ad hominem remarks (i.e personalizing this), nor is this a forum--Cailil ^talk 09:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Cailil, not only was my statement not way off, it's actually easily referenced via the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In fact, it's an actual sub-entry on the subject itself. What you state is not reflected by scholarly opinion, is in reality detailed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the subject. Even on top of that, this can of course be the case even with non-third wave feminism, such as classical-liberal feminism. And I quote " Some categorically reject any legal protection against private discrimination (Taylor 1992, 62)". Also, and I again quote "Classical-liberal or libertarian feminism holds that private businesses, educational institutions, and associations are free to give or withhold preferential treatment to women." I'm not accurately reflecting scholarly opinion by actually quoting Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's actual entry on the subject? That's one heck of a conclusion. Oh, and by the way, Walker's work is postmodern. I have no idea where you to the opposite conclusion. It is in fact the primary reason why she become well known: helping devise the very post-structuralist approach in moving beyond the second wave's essentialist arguments. You, literally, got that backwards. This information needs to be accurately represented. And by the way, I understand what should be in a Wikipedia entry. I did, basically, write the analytical feminism entry for Wikipedia. Maxxx12345 (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You're not hearing me Maxxx12345 - we don't rewrite the whole article or the lede on the basis of one localized movement. You seem to be talking about the philosophy of liberal feminism and/or libertarian feminism - which is fine but these points might be better in their articles (maybe something could go in the movements section here if WP:DUE). The 3rd wave isn't just libertarianism it has multiple facets and I'd suggest you look at Walker's original documents (btw I never said she wasn't postmodern) and others to see that. I would suggest finding the original secondary sources not just using the SEP (which is tertiary). Where do think this kind of material could go here?--Cailil ^talk 21:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I most certainly am hearing you, and I will quote you and what you stated: "but what all the disparate groups across history and the world share is a will for women to become equal to men in every respect (law, pay, rights, esteem)" That, obviously, is false. Obviously, not all that different agree with this position, as I noted beyond question. Liberal feminism and libertarian feminism are examples of your quote being false, period. I did NOT say third wave feminism is only these two groups. I have no idea where you got that idea from. You made a statement that is false, and I provided definitive proof. I'm not saying we rewrite the entire article, but we sure hell don't base it, and/or large sections of it, on information that pretty much any undergraduate student knows is just patently false.

As for Walker, you state, and again I quote: "Moreover your points don't reflect the foundational documents of the third wave like Walker's work which actually identifies the movement that you refer to as "third wave" as 'postfeminist feminism'. The very end of 'Becoming Third Wave' explicates this, clearly." Wow. I'm sorry, but if you think that, you have no business writing and editing articles on the material. My points come FROM Walker, which is what is clear. Walker, in NO way whatsoever, equates third wave feminism, and what I call third wave feminism (which is third wave feminism) with postfeminist feminism. That's is absurdly wrong. Never, in any way whatsoever, did I describe third wave feminism as postfeminism. I'm sorry, but you are quite clearly having difficult grasping much of this material.

Again I quote you: "but what all the disparate groups across history and the world share is a will for women to become equal to men in every respect (law, pay, rights, esteem)". You, literally wrote that, I provided ample evidence that such a position is obviously wrong and you tell me, yet again, I don't know what I'm talking about.

This is surreal, absolutely surreal. Maxxx12345 (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Max your tone is way too personal and quite unnecessary - I actually do understand what your saying but no you are not hearing me. You're talking about (third wave) feminist philosophy, this article talks about everything from theory, activism, history and philosophy (yes there are overlaps but there are also differences). If you've got a problem with me then frankly Max that's your issue, and wont help[ you or this article. I have no problem with you so please drop the personal hostility, if we've been talking at cross purposes I apologize.
As for your points I have already asked for a concrete suggestion for improvement and I'm happy to work on it. My point is third wave feminism (which is about individualism but is based on a notion of entitlement to equality) does not change the historical definition of feminism as a whole. Yes there are POVs on discrimination, militancy, segregation etc but the social constructionist POV is but one and not a universal perspective. According to multiple reliable sources (R. Claire Snyder has a good article on defining the third wave) equal rights is still an issue for the third wave. However the third wave is but one form of feminism in a world with post-colonial, black feminism and other movements (the 3rd wave is notoriously Anglo-American), and with some second wavers (like Germaine Greer) who are still working. There are also people who talk about a 4th wave (very recently) so if you are arguing that 3rd wavers are the cutting edge or the most important pov then I'm afraid that argument wont stand. If you're saying this page's sections on third wave feminism needs work - absolutely have you a suggestion for improvement? If you're saying third wave feminism embraces ladette culture and prosex POVs - sure, but they do so from a position of self-actualization in the context of the existence equal rights for women (e.g Girl Power) not as advocates of inequality of the sexes per se. And yes I did write the above about equality - as Snyder says: "Third-wave feminism continues the efforts of second-wave feminism to create conditions of freedom, equality, justice, and self-actualization for all people by focusing on gender-related issues in particular, even as it offers a different set of tactics for achieving those goals."--Cailil ^talk 10:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry for not being academically knowledgeable regarding the history of feminism and waves and philosophy, and for that reason not following all of the above. But I feel like the debate is tied up in knots. To me even the phrase "equal rights for women" doesn't make much sense. If a thing is equal in one direction it's equal in both. That's what equality means. Certainly throughout history the balance of power has favoured men, hence feminism developing to deal with that as the more pressing issue. But you talk about "the areas where men had less rights than women". What does that mean? In areas a, b and c women had some kind of "rights rating" of 3, 5 and 12 respectively, compared to 8, 11 and 53 for men? And men had a 3 for area d compared to 8 for women but feminism wasn't about that area? I don't want to sound childish but it's more complicated than that. For example women getting more of the responsibility for childcare means they have less opportunity to pursue careers but sometimes do better when it comes to custody. And that isn't to say the two balance out - I'm not saying women haven't done worse out of it. It's nothing to do with the history, but the phrase "equal rights for women", despite its popularity (because it makes a point), isn't meaningful or helpful. If you have two apples, what does it even mean to talk only about the "equal" qualities of the first apple? And of course it isn't up to Wikipedia to promote feminism, but I also think by mis-using the word "equality" Wikipedia doesn't do itself or feminism itself any favours.Biguana (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is... dated, to be polite.

Perhaps were we dealing with first-wave feminism, this article would be wholly accurate. But the confining feminism to "a belief in equality for the genders" is a mistake when one compares it to what feminism actually accomplishes today. DawnDusk (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh look, it's an uneducated conservative trying to turn wikipedia into a platform for reactionary propaganda. Please, tell us more about your vast knowledge of feminism and how literally none of this massive, diverse movement has done anything ever for men. Also lol you don't know what the waves of feminism even represent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:6FC0:5:606E:7F5C:6BE:A961 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well at least some of what feminism accomplishes today is described in the article, but there is more that may be difficult to source reliably. An example would be the correlation between the human birth rate and the way women are treated in various nations. It appears that countries that have moved forward with the feminist progress also sport lower birth rates, which makes feminism a factor in control of the human overpopulation challenge. Maybe I can find a source or two that makes the correlation. Meanwhile, you should feel free to make improvements to this article. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 23:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

In the history section right after the lede I think this article does a good job of explaining how feminism has had different "waves" and what they are. What do you think the mistake is, all 3 waves do consider equality a major part of their feminism. And correlation between birth rate and feminism? I'm thinking we'd need a reliable source saying that although I can imagine why it is obviously the case. But can't be in the article if it's original research. I don't think it's such an obvious thing as the sky is blue for example. But birth control is part of feminism. Popish Plot (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, an editor seems to feel that this discussion about improvements to this article is more than just that. I would like to hear why at some point, but more importantly, if the lead does not correctly summarize the article, then maybe that is a good starting point? – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 09:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page - which BTW would have been the right place to ask me why I closed this originally. This is not a thread about improving the article. The lede issue was asked and answered above, and you're throwing up a strawman with your last comment. That matter is resolved. Personal theories about birth rates etc are not appropriate to wikipedia talk pages and fail the WP:NOTFORUM test.
Attempting to change the lede of this article to reflect a fringe POV would be a very bad idea - this page and topic area is under discretionary sanctions and furthermore this article is currently at Good Article standard. Improving articles of this quality is done by following the featured article criteria. These guidelines there detail how to improve a good article to a higher standard and I'm more than happy to work with anyone who wants to help. But repeated flamebait stating "feminism ≠ equality for men" in the wake of the ArbCom Gamergate ruling is a) unconstructive, b) plainly disruptive, and c) in danger of incurring sanction. If anyone wants to improve this page - great but do the research, don't assume everyone who has contributed to this page over the last 14 and a half years is an idiot. Move on from the lede--Cailil ^talk 09:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I would venture that your response above is the result of your high esteem for this article in its present form; however, it also seems to exhibit a very low esteem for the thoughts and ideas of other editors. As I've said on my talk page, this discussion, with the exception of your response above and this my response to you, is in my opinion most certainly about possible improvements to this article, so I would give you the same courtesy you gave me and say that you should be very careful about making such accusations as you have made above:

1. No matters are ever perfectly resolved, so the "strawman" is in thinking that they can be.
2. The so-called "personal theory" is actually something I've read – I just have to refind it.
3. I find your threats warnings about sanctions to be absolutely uncalled for – in my opinion the OP may have been simply expressing their feelings about how this article might be improved. Nobody here has said nor done anything that might disparage any group of editors on Wikipedia, with the sole exception of yourself. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 10:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"I would venture that your response above is the result of your high esteem for this article in its present form; however, it also seems to exhibit a very low esteem for the thoughts and ideas of other editors." @Paine Ellsworth: do not make conjectures about the thought processes of other editors. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, alerting users to discretionary sanctions is not only "called for", it's encouraged. People need to know about them if. Calli is correct that flamebait and rants would not be acceptable on this (or any) talk page, and this particular page is under extra scrutiny. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The contention that feminism is no longer about gender equality is a fringe opinion and not reflected in reliable sources. Also, don't take the sanction warnings personally. It's standard practice for DC articles. Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand, and I thank all editors who are involved in this discussion. Among the other concerns I mentioned, I suppose I should admit that it was the closing of what I deemed a perfectly appropriate discussion about improvements to this article, and mainly being accused of being involved with flamebaiting and soapboxing, both of which I have fought myself in the past. If I was wrong then so be it, and yet it still appears to me that at least some editors involved with this important and crucial article behave as if it's perfect and that only a few special contributors may know what is best for it. Editors here may be too quick to judge (perhaps misjudge?) the opinions of editors they don't know, and that's a good way to stagnate this article and keep it from ever reaching FA status. I guess all I'm saying is that people shouldn't be so quick to draw their pistols and fire at anything that moves. Here's wishing joy and happiness to all involved! – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 15:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of 'described as misandric' from the lede

Regarding this, I've got a few problems with it. One, who describes it as misandric? Two, where in the cited source supports this assertion? Three, it seem like minority position and we shouldn't give it undue weight in the lede. — Strongjam (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That looks like it was the usual drive-by GamerGater-style intrusion of a very fringe opinion into the lede. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Specifically, that was Gorgi, who keeps trying to insert his PoV into articles on this and related topics, but keeps coming back here. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Image in lede

I just undid this edit[14] by Mohanbhan. I understand their sentiments but actually this is one of the better images on Commons for the lede. But I agree we could work towards replacing this. If anyone has any suggestions on what to change it leave them here. I had a look through commons and TBH I'm stumped--Cailil ^talk 13:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Article Neglects Misandry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Thread has descended into ranting and Wikipedia is not a forum. Point was asked and answered--Cailil ^talk 11:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

---

I was reading the "men's rights" article after hearing about MRA's and I noticed that, that particular article has in the first section a line that claims that some consider the movement "misogynist." However the feminist opening description lacks any mention of the fact that many consider and have demonstrated that the movement contains a lot of misandry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.61.144 (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers aspects of a subject considering the prevalence of that aspect within the body of reliable sources about the subject. This just means that misogyny is a more prominent part of the body of reliable sources on men's right than misandry is a part of the body of reliable sources on feminism. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Feminism and the Men's Rights Movement are not equivalent. The characterization of feminism (which includes over a century of various social movements across the globe) as misandric is a fringe POV. The characterization of the Men's Right Movement as misogynistic is common. The WP:NPOV policy requires that we weigh these characterizations according to their prominence within the bodies of work devote to these topics. Kaldari (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course, it does. This is Wikipedia! Articles like these are patrolled and protected by activists concerned with it. You have a snowball's chance in hell to get any kind of noteworthy criticism into the article. So far feminists have been very good at propaganda. That's because feminists are usually well-trained and talented when it comes to social media and PR. Typically, that's even their profession. They're very good a networking. Feminists are good at taking advantage of pro-female discrimination (e.g. females are assumed to tell the truth, being weaker than males, being less powerful, having good intentions) which is deeply ingrained in most western societies. For whatever reasons a lot of males but certainly females as well are very naive when it comes to feminism and take it at face value. Almost everybody even completely ignores the obvious: Feminism is supposed to be about equality between genders - according to feminists - when the name clearly states the opposite. It's about empowering females and females only - actually only females who agree with that. So feminism is, indeed, misandry by it's very definition. Of course, feminists are not as stupid to literally encourage misandry. However, actions speak louder than words. Just look at any recent public incident involving feminists (e.g. Gamergate, Tim Hunt, Alan Elliott). They tear down male existances and with their families' for no other reason than powerplay. Except for physical violence - feminists are provably every bit as vicious as any other fascist movement. Heck, even if we give feminism the benefit of the doubt. Look at what communism was supposed to be and how it was actually implemented (a complete perversion of the original idea). That's exactly what's happening with feminism (assuming for a moment it's actually about gender equality). --93.130.15.86 (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

almost nothing about that rant had to do with the article poli 00:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See also

The See also list in this article is way, way too long. It should probably be about 10 articles. Right now it's almost 50. Kaldari (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree. What if we trimmed back to:

• Antifeminism
• Feminism and equality
• Feminism in culture
• Feminist Studies
• Gender equality
• Index of feminism articles
• Masculism
• Radical Feminism
• Sexism

I'm just spitballing here. Other thoughts? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Reasonable place to start. I'd probably replace "Radical Feminism" with a link to Feminist movements and ideologies. Hopefully that would avoid arguments about why one theory should be there over another. — Strongjam (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hearing no opposition, I've made the above change with Strongjam's helpful suggestion. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Who Stole Feminism? quote

Who Stole Feminism? by Christina Hoff Sommers pp. 320, is quoted as the source for the statement: "They [anti-feminist writers] argue that feminism often promotes misandry and the elevation of women's interests above men's, and criticize radical feminist positions as harmful to both men and women." But according to WorldCat (bottom-half of the page), 320 is the total number of pages in the book, and I can't find any similar quote by searching Google Preview. It appears to be the editor's own interpretation of source material. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The summary of Sommers looks accurate to me; the solution, then, is to find WP:SECONDARY sources which analyze Sommers in this manner. There are lots of sources from which to choose! I made a partial list at Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers/Archive_5. One such source might be the book Antifeminism in the Academy in which a chapter by Professors Elaine Ginsberg and Sara Lennox is found: "Antifeminism in Scholarship and Publishing".[15]

Another source might be the 2008 doctoral dissertation by Kristi Lowenthal, Conservative Thought and the Equal Rights Amendment in Kansas. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that the March 2011 version of this article discusses misandry in in the context of men and masculinity. This bit was supported by three references not present today, references which are likely to be useful in fixing the problem you point out. Here they are:

• Feminism and women's rights worldwide, Volume 1 (page 5) Author: Michele A. Paludi Editor: Michele A. Paludi Edition: illustrated Publisher: ABC-CLIO, 2010 ISBN 0313375968, 9780313375965.
• Barbara Ryan, Identity politics in the women's movement, NYU Press, 2001, ISBN 0814774792, 9780814774793.
• 2 Va. J. Soc. Pol'y & L. 8 (1994-1995), Feminist Lawmaking and Historical Consciousness: Bringing the Past into the Future; Schneider, Elizabeth M.

Other sources which have been historically used in this article to support the the analysis of Paglia and Sommers are:

• Stacey, Judith (Summer 2000). "Is Academic Feminism an Oxymoron?". Signs. 25 (4): 1189–1194. "Feminisms at a Millennium" issue.
• Minnich, Elizabeth Kamarck (Spring 1998). "Review: 'Feminist Attacks on Feminisms: Patriarchy's Prodigal Daughters'". Feminist Studies. 24 (1): 159–175.

It appears that Sommers' book has been used for quite some time in this article to support a summary of her position. Perhaps that's not such a bad thing, considering that Sommers is not being misinterpreted. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi VF, that's not a quote that's a summary (as Binksternet said). It doesn't need a specific page reference since its a synopsis of the whole book. However, if you wanted to change the section to something else there's a good synopsis of Masculism and its reaction to feminism in 'Masculinism and the Antifeminist Countermovement' by Blaise and Dupis-Deri (p. 23). I'll post it here in case you can't get a hold of it:

Extended content

Masculinism focuses primarily on masculinity and the place of white heterosexual men in North American and European societies. Yet, it is concerned as well with the supposed ramifications of feminism and the alleged domination of women in both the public and private spheres. Indeed, a basic assumption of the spokesmen for masculinism is that women, women’s values in general and feminists in particular, dominate men and contemporary society at large. Men, seen as currently grappling with an ‘identity crisis’, are depicted as the victims of feminist struggles, which have resulted in the supplanting of patriarchy by matriarchy. This discourse is produced and disseminated in popular magazines (Faludi, 1992) and numerous books written by academics and freelance journalists (see, among others, Farrell, 2001; Sommers, 2001; Nathanson & Young, 2002, 2006; Hise, 2004; Parker, 2008; Synnott, 2009).

The full reference is MELISSA BLAIS & FRANCIS DUPUIS-DE´RI, 'Masculinism and the Antifeminist Countermovement' in Social Movement Studies,11:1 (January 2012), (21–39), p. 23. I hope this is useful. If I had more time to evaluate I'd add it myself but my WP time is very short these days--Cailil ^talk 13:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Radical Feminists: Femen, Pussy Riot, Feminazi

Hi, Should the article not cover radical groups such as Femen and Pussy Riot. After reading the article and the points covered above, I am somewhat surprised that people confuse feminism with radical feminism which these groups claim to be part. Then again I don´t know if people in America (which I assume is most writers) treat radical feminists and feminists as the same group, I will say here in Europe, they are treated different from each other, with feminists promoting equal rights for regardless of gender and radical feminists, who may be radical but most deffinitely are not feminists, but rather misandrists and promote the demonisation of all men and boys and are often found committing violent protests. is it possible that it is members of these groups that may have resulted in the term "Feminazi" been created and if so then should this term not be mentioned or added in the "see also" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8084:2580:2480:e8bf:3c63:1f7c:482b (talk • contribs)

You are the only person I know who thinks radical feminists are not feminists. So I don't hold much hope for your point of view being brought into the article. Binksternet (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Lol at "here in Europe, they are treated different from each other"... hell no. You don't know what people in the whole of Europe think. I, for example, am European, and I've never met anyone who separates radical and "moderate" feminists. Both parts of the movement are reviled now. But I would never say it's what WE HERE IN EUROPE THINK, because it's just what I've heard the majority of the people I've met say. Doesn't mean others don't think differently. Don't use a whole continent to support your position.84.42.224.20 (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Just looking at 84.42.224.20 statements within his/her contributions page (see here) one can quickly see you are not as you state European but rather American. While I accept your assertion that you cannot make such a sweeping statement as all Europeans but then that is exactly what this article does when it states men, not some men, but rather just simply men, such as in the sentence in this article "In many cultures, men do not believe that a woman has the right to reject a man's sexual advances or to make an autonomous decision about participating in sex." Many women like myself are fully aware there are men who do not believe in this and that there are some women who actually believe that a man cannot reject a sexual advance, that he should think himself lucky and if he does reject the advance, then he is gay. If one just looks at the evidence provided in the rape wiki article, rape by gender wiki article, and male rape wiki article, then one could clearly see this and women like myself are not comfortable in seeing the demonisation of men because many of us have experienced this treatment and it does no good for our goals of equality.

In regards to Binksternet since you argue I am the only person you know who thinks radical feminists are not feminists, then i will direct your attention to some books by respected authors with the same view that you think does n´t exist (since you clearly show your lack of knowledge on the subject). The first book is by Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young and is titled Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men (see here). The second book is by David Benatar and is titled The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys (see here). I am not surprised that there are some American Men like you, whom cannot grasp the differences within a concept and require things to be unified and simplified before they understand. This is unfortunate as it is often these men who say to men who wish express feeling, to be a man, grow some balls and man up. Such macho behaviour not only results in men doing to some harm to themselves but also in some cases it puts women in danger. I would recommend you might also look at the comments by other contributors and the citations they cite below before you comment on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:25C0:380:D5DD:9643:F7C1:B331 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This thread has descended into a series of forum posts. Please be advised wikipedia is not a forum. This thread will be closed if that manner of communication continues--Cailil ^talk 16:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Feminism

There is now an increasing amount of criticism of feminism. I think the criticism section should be expanded. The following criticism has been raised by various scholars, authors and as of October 2015, a search on youtube.com for the word "feminism" will yield results explaining their criticism. I would categorize the criticism as follow types:

1. Factual Criticism

Many of the arguments presented by feminist movement is now under heavy attack for factual inaccuracies. They include, Wage Gap, Rape Culture and the general claim that women are discriminated in education, workplace or in society at large.

2. False Equality and Misandry

Feminism assumes that equality is achieved by "making women equal to men". This results in selective bias where the question is only viewed from the female perspective without regards to impact on men, children or society at large. There is now a common phrase saying "women have rights and men have responsibilities". Thus, feminism is only equality in name but misandry in fact.

3. Harassment, Censorship and Abuse of Power

Feminism has been accused of harassing the people who oppose their views, including women. Feminism also demands censorship of views in conflict with feminist platform. The said harassment and censorship is achieved by using powers of government. Feminist argue that such powers are necessary to create safe space for women and for feminist values to take root. Critics argue this infantilizes women and disrespects the fundamental freedoms of others.

4. Words versus deeds

Feminists insist that feminism be judged by the dictionary definition of feminism. Critics argued that feminism should be judged by the action of feminists, as such actions, laws or policies came are enacted substantially the same as feminist scholars had envisioned.

5. Biology

Critics argue that feminism run counter to biology and natural selection. At a minimum, no amount of government legislation can alter the fact that only female humans can become pregnant and fertility decline with age. Women who choose to embrace motherhood simply makes sense for biological reasons. Policies to discourage traditional feminine virtues for the sake of waging rebellion itself may not be beneficial to women in the long run.

I think there are many valid and significant criticism against feminism and these should be brought to attention. If anyone is looking for sources, it comes from the likes of Christina Hoff Summers, Karen Straughan, Janice Fiamengo. All of them have spoken on these issues on campus and have their youtube channel. 104.247.228.124 (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Feminism - New Article Proposal

I propose a standalone article on Criticism of Feminism.

There is currently an article called antifeminism, but the term antifeminism is usually used by feminists to described their opponents. Indeed, the article on antifeminism does not talk about the criticism of feminism. as of Oct 13, 2015, every quote from that article is actually from feminists themselves.

the article "antifeminism" does not criticize feminism. it is what feminism say in response to their critics. in otherwords, the antifeminism article is the "Criticism of Criticism of Feminism" 104.247.228.124 (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:POVFORK discourages the creation of "Criticism of..." articles, as they almost always end up as POV forks, which I think would be inevitable in this case. Kaldari (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The Criticism section of this article should be expanded to include criticism by non-feminists. There is no other article that I'm aware of that has a criticism section that mentions only supporters. 86.19.233.14 (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• This has been asked and answered multiple times already (see archives, see the big box at top of page). Also the criticism section only has a half of 1 paragraph with feminists critiquing feminists the rest of the section (2.5 paragraphs) is from other POVs--Cailil ^talk 16:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Feminism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Feminism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceB":

• From Gender: Cagatay, Nilufer. "Trade, Gender and Poverty." pp. 4–8. United Nations.
• From Socialism: "Socialism" at Encyclopedia Britannica
• From Sexual violence: McDougall (1998), para. 22
• From Law: Robertson, Crimes against humanity, 90.
• From Age of Enlightenment: Beard and Gloag, Musicology, 60.
• From Individualism: "Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations." Emma Goldman. "What it Really Stands for Anarchy" in Anarchism and Other Essays.
• From Women in music: Rosina Ncube. "Sounding Off: Rosina Ncube [:] Why So Few Women in Audio?" in Sound on Sound. September 2013

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)