| Revision as of 17:58, 14 January 2015 editEvergreenFir (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators129,264 edits Undid revision 642484166 by Wiscoeditor (talk) WP:REFACTOR - This is a talk page, not an article← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:30, 8 April 2015 edit undo108.25.117.176 (talk) →Misandry SectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
| ::The edit warring should stop and all involved should discuss the issue here. References are always important, and full paragraphs of unreferenced text should be avoided in most cases. This material could be incorporated into this article given appropriate citations, though my initial impression is that the gamergate text is undue weight, should have a sentence at most in this article, and should be dealt with in more detail in the ] article.] (]) 22:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | ::The edit warring should stop and all involved should discuss the issue here. References are always important, and full paragraphs of unreferenced text should be avoided in most cases. This material could be incorporated into this article given appropriate citations, though my initial impression is that the gamergate text is undue weight, should have a sentence at most in this article, and should be dealt with in more detail in the ] article.] (]) 22:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | ||
| * The entire section should just be removed from the article, since it isn't about ''third-wave'' feminism specifically. If people want to discuss it, the general ] article is more appropriate (and has a 'men and masculinity section'); but this article is about third-wave feminism, and nothing in the section seems remotely specific to it. Beyond that, 'criticism' sections are generally considered unencyclopedic; a more neutral and broad discussion of how third-wave feminism relates to men (when compared to earlier waves) would fit here, but a section consisting of all the criticisms against it in one place does not. --] (]) 01:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | * The entire section should just be removed from the article, since it isn't about ''third-wave'' feminism specifically. If people want to discuss it, the general ] article is more appropriate (and has a 'men and masculinity section'); but this article is about third-wave feminism, and nothing in the section seems remotely specific to it. Beyond that, 'criticism' sections are generally considered unencyclopedic; a more neutral and broad discussion of how third-wave feminism relates to men (when compared to earlier waves) would fit here, but a section consisting of all the criticisms against it in one place does not. --] (]) 01:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| Seriously, Aquillion? There's a feminist critique section on everything from the movie Gone Girl to the book Watership Down. Feminist critiques can be found can be found in almost every imaginable subject on Misplaced Pages, but it's a problem for the Third Wave Feminism to have a critique section? In just the philosophy section alone, which obviously third wave feminism is a philosophical school of thought, almost every single entry has a criticism section. Everything from anarchism to libertarianism should include a section of criticism, but one of the most oft criticized contemporary schools of thought in all of academia, third wave feminism, can't have a criticism section? Wow. | |||
Revision as of 03:30, 8 April 2015
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Third-wave feminism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Y: The Last Man
Is "Y: The Last Man" an example of something informed by Third-wave feminism?
The reason why I think it is, is because: It doesn't say that women can't do all these things that men do today; Instead, it seems to argue that we are split on these lines because people self-type themselves int gender roles. It doesn't argue that men are making women not able to do things. (2nd wave.) And it doesn't argue that men are worthless. That said, it seems very inessentialist; It argues (very convincingly) that women would do all the things men do, if there were no men. I don't understand what "transnationalism" means, in the context of feminism.
I don't know; I don't understand the words in the article very deeply, but it sure seems that what it's describing, Y fits it perfectly, in a way I have a hard time articulating. I'm talking like this because I understand Y, I don't understand this description of third-wave feminism, and I'm trying to contextualize my experience here.
If uh... somebody could help me out here, ...
- Y: The Last Man - article on Salon
Could someone check if Molly Yard should really be listed here? Given her age (born 1912-07-06), and that she stopped being NOW's president in 1991, I suspect that she would be more appropriately placed in an earlier wave. I suspect this is a misplacement. Corrections? Justifications? If she IS justifiably 3rd wave, then I think that justification needs to go into an article. -- Dwheeler
Dietary Feminism
Haven't done alot of research, but the link between vegetarianism and femenism seemed a little random. The phrase 'some third wave femenist's might be better phrased as 'A third wave feminist'... unless this work is defining to 3rd wave femenism in general, I'm not sure if it should be mentioned here... third wave femenism is touching on alot of subjects.
Minor suggestion, phrasing first paragraph.
"The movement arose partially as a response to the perceived failures of and backlash against initiatives and movements created by second-wave feminism during the 1960s, '70s, and '80s, and the perception that women are of "many colors, ethnicities, nationalities, religions and cultural backgrounds".
as a response to the perceived failures ... and the perception that - confusing. Should be re-arranged so 'the perception that ...' is not associated with 'as a response to ...'
I also found the full quote to be - "The third wave feminism movement is based on the thought that females are of many colors, ethnicities, nationalities, religions and cultural backgrounds", but could not find an author.
Gynocentrism
Gynocentrism lies behind much of what feminism is really about in 2014. Why is there no mention of this in the current article?
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) 04:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatiiK2 (talk • contribs)
Misandry Section
The feminist movement is often accused of misandry by "men's rights" and other anti-feminist groups; however, many (even those not identifying as feminists) question the validity of misandry as a social construct alongside similarly controversial concepts such as "reverse racism" and "heterophobia"; critics claim that these terms are nothing more than traditionally privileged groups attempting to paint themselves as oppressed. These groups accuse feminists of neglect, or even being the cause, of men's issues; feminists counter that mens issues are, indeed, covered within the scope of feminism - feminists were an early and vocal opponent of the draft, an issue that men's rights groups often point to as an example of anti-male bias in society. Several men's rights movements and organizations, such as A Voice For Men, often criticize feminists for the creation of laws alienating men or targeting them. Among the claims made by these groups is the feminist neglect for male rape victims and even branding all men "potential rapists" regardless of background.
However, those opposed to "men's rights movements" counter that the bulk of "men's rights" groups tend to only advocate for male rape victims et. al. as a counter to feminists advocacy for rape victims and not as an end unto itself; men's rights groups donate far less, per capita, to rape victim advocacy groups than feminists groups. Additionally, many men's rights groups serve as little more than a front group for internet trolls to attack women ranging from sexist and misogynistic insults to threats of rape and violence. In 2014, feminist speaker Anita Sarkeesian cancelled an event at Utah State when anonymous men's rights advocates threatened a school shooting if she was allowed to speak. Similarly, Gamergate has been exposed via IRC logs to be little more than an attempt to threaten and harass feminists and their allies in the gaming industry; additionally, many prominent figures within the Gamergate movement have been accused of fraud and corruption e.g. a member attempting using crowdsource fundraising in an attempt to hire a lawyer, which turned out to be his wife - an irony, given the movement's purported goal being to end fraud and corruption in the video game journalism industry.
I see this area has been the subject of some edit warring. Given its unencyclopedic tone and unsourced nature is anyone surprised? 2.96.122.147 (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- The edit warring should stop and all involved should discuss the issue here. References are always important, and full paragraphs of unreferenced text should be avoided in most cases. This material could be incorporated into this article given appropriate citations, though my initial impression is that the gamergate text is undue weight, should have a sentence at most in this article, and should be dealt with in more detail in the Gamergate controversy article.Dialectric (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- The entire section should just be removed from the article, since it isn't about third-wave feminism specifically. If people want to discuss it, the general Feminism article is more appropriate (and has a 'men and masculinity section'); but this article is about third-wave feminism, and nothing in the section seems remotely specific to it. Beyond that, 'criticism' sections are generally considered unencyclopedic; a more neutral and broad discussion of how third-wave feminism relates to men (when compared to earlier waves) would fit here, but a section consisting of all the criticisms against it in one place does not. --Aquillion (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, Aquillion? There's a feminist critique section on everything from the movie Gone Girl to the book Watership Down. Feminist critiques can be found can be found in almost every imaginable subject on Misplaced Pages, but it's a problem for the Third Wave Feminism to have a critique section? In just the philosophy section alone, which obviously third wave feminism is a philosophical school of thought, almost every single entry has a criticism section. Everything from anarchism to libertarianism should include a section of criticism, but one of the most oft criticized contemporary schools of thought in all of academia, third wave feminism, can't have a criticism section? Wow.
Categories: