Misplaced Pages

Talk:Feminism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:39, 29 October 2007 editCaesarjbsquitti (talk | contribs)2,313 edits →More correct definition of feminism.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:52, 2 December 2024 edit undoReprarina (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users670 edits →Promoting misandry: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{Round in circles|search=yes}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{Not a forum|Feminism}}
{{WikiProject Gender Studies|class=B|nested=yes}}
{{Article history
{{WikiProject Discrimination|nested=yes}}
|action1=GAN
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=B|importance=High||nested=yes}}
|action1date=2007-02-10
}}
|action1link=Talk:Feminism/Archive 8#GA failed
{{ArticleHistory
|action1result=failed
| action1 = GAN
|action1oldid=107012264
| action1date = 2007-02-10
| action1link = Talk:Feminism/Archive 8#GA failed
| action1result = failed
| action1oldid = 107012264
|
| action2 = GAN
| action2date = 2007-08-19
| action2link = Talk:Feminism#GA fail
| action2result = failed
| action2oldid = 152042544
|
| currentstatus = FGAN
|
| maindate =
| dykdate =
| aciddate =
| ftname =
| ftmain =
| topic =
| small =
}}


|action2=GAN
{{archivebox|image=]|box-width=12em|] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ]<br /> ] • ] • ] • ] • ] • ]}}
|action2date=2007-08-19
|action2link=Talk:Feminism/Archive 10#GA fail
|action2result=failed
|action2oldid=152042544


|action3=PR
==GA fail==
|action3date=18:13, 18 June 2008
I am so impressed with the work that has been done on this article. I can only imagine how much research, writing and rewriting has been done. I think much of the article is quite good and that it is ''nearly'' GA, but there are still some changes and additions that I think would improve the article.
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Feminism/archive1
|action3result=reviewed
|action3oldid=219506198


|action4=GAN
*The lead needs to be a standalone summary of the article per ]. Each section of the article should, ideally, be mentioned.
|action4date=10:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
*Many of the subsections are quite small. I realize that this is probably because the editors are trying to address so many different topics on a single page. However, some of them still need a bit of expansion and there is some space to work with here.
|action4link=Talk:Feminism/GA1
:*The "history of feminism" introduction repeats much of what comes after it in the individual subsections on first-wave, second-wave, and third-wave feminism. I would either expand those subsections or delete the introduction. This is true of the introduction to the "Feminism of society" section as well.
|action4result=listed
:*Might you consider including more examples of feminists and feminist texts? I would like to see at least one example in each subsection - it gives the reader something concrete to go on. Many of the descriptions are vague (as the concepts themselves are), so a text would help ground the description. I think that it is also a good idea to introduce readers to the major texts of feminism (I don't remember reading about ''The Second Sex'', for example, but maybe I just missed it.)
|action4oldid=464407939
*Several of the concepts are only described in relation to other concepts rather than given content themselves. For example, "Postcolonial feminism", "Third-world feminism" and "Post-feminism" look only like movements reacting to other feminisms at this point instead than movements with their own positions.
*"Women's interests and issues" are mentioned quite frequently - always try to specify what these are in the context you use the phrase.
*Might you consider deleting the "Patriarchy" section? It seems a bit tangential to the page and rightly has its own article.
*It would be nice to have more images. The page looks a bit blank right now - what about feminist artworks, for example, or book covers?
*I would delete some of the links under the "See also" section since they replicate what is in the "Feminism" navigation box.
*I would prune the external links.
*What do you think about moving the list of further reading to a "Sources on Feminism" page? So much could be added to that list and a separate page would allow you to do that more easily.


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

}}
:Thanks for your comments Awadewit, their detail is very helpful. I hope that these issues can be addressed without too much hassle, thanks again.--] <sup>]</sup> 13:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=Top}}
::I've removed the further reading section - my edit summary says moved to ] but not all of it is notable enough for there. What doesn't get added will be userfied.--] <sup>]</sup> 19:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Top}}
::I think at this stage I've address your last 6 points - the easier ones ;) - the top for will take a little more time. Also I think even more pictures could be added through the page--] <sup>]</sup> 19:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=High|Social movements=yes}}
:::Okay I've now got it narrowed down to 5 issues: 1) expanding the section on ''The second wave''; 2) expanding ''feminism and society''; 3) elucidating the term "Women's rights" in regard to the ]; 4) providing some more examples of feminism and feminist texts; and finally 5) the lead--] <sup>]</sup> 20:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|social=yes}}

{{WikiProject Politics|importance=high}}
== Marxism and Feminism ==
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Men's Issues|importance=top}}
I thinkj Harraway does not belong in this section - I would characterize her more as a post-structuralist or even postmodernist. And i have questions about Gayle Rubin, who was influenced by Levi Strauss at least as much as by Marx. One can cite Marx and Engels, even be influenced by them, without being a Marxist or socialist. ] | ] 17:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=top}}
:You're right about Rubin - that's a mistake I duplicated from the ] or ] pages. I agree Harraway is a postmodernist - I think it was Robert Young who called her a "neo-marxist" and a postmodernist. She kind of sits in-between the two discplines. What we could do is mention that she was influenced by marxism/post-marxism in the ''socialist feminism'' section but put her in the ''postfeminism & postmodern feminism'' section--] <sup>]</sup> 19:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}}

{{ArtAndFeminism article|2015}}
== Waves ==
{{WikiProject Countering systemic bias|importance=high}}

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

{{Skip to bottom}}
:Your right Slrubenstein. The fact is I haven't had the energy to really get to grips with a summary of the history of feminism. That section needs to be expanded or augmented, and I think your idea about the forgotten or contested aspects of each wave is wholly appropriate. The reason the history section isn't right yet is because I've been trying to kill two birds with every stone I throw here (which might not be the best option for this article). A majority of feminism sub-articles (ie ] or ] or ]) are unverified and in often in need of rewriting. There is some excellent work in ] but there is also some terrible confusion there and I was trying to weed the reliably sourced from the original research in that article but I just ran out of steam with it--] <sup>]</sup> 01:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|pa}}

{{pp-move-indef}}
::I am no blaming you. The fact is not that you haven't had the energy, the fact is Misplaced Pages has more editors who are experts on Pokeman than on Feminism. The fact is, we need more knowledgable editors so the burden doesn't fall on one or even two. You've done lots of good work! ] | ] 10:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
{{Consensus|'''By ], ], or ]'''<br/><br/>'''Criticism about feminism is already covered with appropriate ] and ].''' If you seek coverage beyond what you see, consider whether you are proposing content that is more suitable for other articles or for a non- website. If a criticism you wish to add lacks an adequate source, please find one first. <br/>'''Edits for other pages may be offered there, not here.''' Examples include content for specialized articles and Misplaced Pages policies, which have their own pages and their own talk pages. This is only an introductory article on feminism. To find specialized subarticles within feminism, please click on links in the ] article, including in any sidebar. <br/>'''Feminism is inherently one-sided.''' Feminism is a critique of society. That means there is a disagreement between feminism and society. In that case, generally, if society is neutral, feminism is not. Misplaced Pages requires ], but that applies to Misplaced Pages articles, not to feminism itself, nor to any source. As long as the article is neutral in how it presents its general subject, Misplaced Pages's requirement for neutrality is fulfilled. <br/>'''This article does not cover what feminism does not cover.''' If there are few feminist disagreements in a given society, feminism may have nothing to say about many subjects in that society. Misplaced Pages reports on feminism in accordance with ] sources. <br/>'''Consistency with a particular political message is not this article's purpose.''' This article represents many sources with appropriate ]. While mainstream feminism is emphasized, other branches of feminism are also covered. <br/>'''The content of this article meets ].''' Content being added to this article must conform to the community's quality standards for ]. Material not meeting these criteria should be removed and rewritten appropriately to fit them.}}

{{Topic|Feminism|talk=y}}
:::You are right, S, that "it is simply wrong to emphasize 1st wave feminism with the struggle for the right to vote." I added the individual rights concerns of the early first wave, put Mary Wollstonecraft and Voltairine in there, and noted that the suffrage thing was only a major concern for some, and that in the late 19th century and later. I think that addresses your concern. ] 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
::Thanks Phil - your edits are without doubts improvements. But I was also making a larger point which I do not know enough to address ... but I suspect that historians have debaed not just what characterizes the three waves, but whether there really were three waves and whether this is the best way to structure the history of feminism (I would guess Joan Scott has addressed this but maybe not) ... I think somewhere in here should be an account not just of "the" history of feminism, but an account of debates among feminists and historians over how best to study and talk about the history of feminism. Personally, I suspect that the three waves has become a "myth" of feminism with currency because it has political (and perhaps existential) value, rather than because it is "good history." Maybe I am wrong, and even if i am right it is just my opinion. Have you or Calil or others read enough historiography to know? ] | ] 03:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
|target=/Archive index

|mask=/Archive <#>
== Gender-neutral language proposal at MOS talk ==
|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes
Dear colleagues—You may be interested in contributing to a lively discussion (which I hope will form consensus) ]. ] 15:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
==Comments==
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
] asked me to look over this article again.
|maxarchivesize = 200K

|counter = 22
The article is much improved from when I read it last. Here are my small suggestions for improvement:
|minthreadsleft = 5

|algo = old(30d)
*You already know about the lead problem, I gather. It lacks summariness.
|archive = Talk:Feminism/Archive %(counter)d

}}
*''Feminist scholars have divided feminism's history into three 'waves''' - Just feminist scholars?
== Merger discussion ==

{{Discussion top|result=To '''not''' merge, on the grounds of ]; there are at least two distinct topics (movements being distinct from ideology/philosophy); there was some support for making ] more list-like, to differentiate the function of the page; all agree that this is a large and important topic, the length making it difficult to reduce from 3 pages to 2; further refinement of the content is warranted. ] (]) 15:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)}}
*The first paragraph of "History of feminism" is wordy and a bit vague.
Hello, the articles ], ] and ] obviously deal with the same subject, i.e. feminism. ] (]) 18:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

:They do, but the text of each is ''massive'' and mostly not redundant. They were probably split into multiple articles (especially ]) for size. Merging them doesn't seem feasible. --] (]) 18:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
*''In Britain the Suffragettes campaigned for the women's vote, which was eventually granted − to some women in 1918 and to all in 1928 − as much because of the part played by British women during the First World War, as of the efforts of the Suffragettes.'' - This sentence is a bit awkward.
:I think the movements and ideologies article is essentially a list and it could be reworked to be more listy. I can't see a rationale for keeping ], and I would love for those who do see it to help me understand. ] (] / ]) 19:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Aquillion|Firefangledfeathers}} I'm in favor of making a list on the one hand, and a real encyclopedic article on the other. But opposed to the separation of content. Perhaps we should consider making a synthesis by removing unsourced content? ] (]) 14:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
*I believe you already know that the "Second-wave feminism" section is a bit vague. I would place "the personal is the political" slogan here.
:@Fourmidable I'm in favour of merging feminism and feminist movement. I had no idea that there are two separate articles and I personally don't know what the difference is. Isn't feminism itself a movement? I think that the ] should be kept separate as a list however. —<span style="font-family:Poppins">]</span> ] 20:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

:{{Aye}} Feminism ''is''/''are'' (a) movement(s) according to its definition, so ]=]. ] (]) 08:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
*In the "third-wave feminism" section, could you give examples of the perceived failures of the second wave?
:: I oppose. ※] ◣◥ 〒 @「]」 14:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

:::Please define what ] is and what ] is. ] (]) 01:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
*I was unsure why such prominence was given to the Anita Hill case.
::::One is an ideology/philosophy, another is a political, activist and militant way of mandating how to organise society. ※] ◣◥ 〒 @「]」 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

::::{{Reply to|Reprarina|p=,}} feminism is an ideology. That ideology is shared by various movements who go about it from different perspectives and policie. Hope that helps. Reading the article on ] should show you they're not the zame. — ] (]) 22:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
*The first paragraph of "Feminism's many forms" is repetitive.
:::::Seconding this distinction as someone with an academic background in women's studies and feminist theory, for whatever it's worth.

:::::I also came here to say that the article need not divide the movements into "waves" as this is not historically accurate and is highly contested in scholarship.
*''The largest departure from other branches of feminism, is the argument sex is itself constructed through language.'' - I'm pretty sure this is supposed to be "gender", not "sex".
:::::I would expect that "Feminism" would cover the variety of feminist ideologies (Marxist feminism, lesbian feminism, etc.), whereas "Feminist movements" would cover political movements centering on feminism. There is a big distinction. ] (]) 22:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

{{Discussion bottom}}
*At times, I wondered who the major critics (that is critics of the various forms of feminism) were who you were citing; the article often says "some people".

*I still think "Postcolonial feminism" looks more reactive; perhaps a greater explanation of the concepts listed at the end of the last paragraph would alleviate this problem?

*"Post-feminism" is not as clearly as explained as the other feminisms.

*A copy editor who is unfamiliar with the article might be helpful. There are a few dropped words and wordy sentences here and there.

*The hyphenation and capitalization of "first-wave feminism", "second-wave feminism", and "third-wave feminism" needs to be consistent throughout the article.

*You might take a look at ] for hints on arranging the images. I agree that a few more would liven up the page.

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

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

These are the outstanding issues from Awadewit's list:
#"Second-wave feminism" section is a bit vague. I would place "the personal is the political" slogan here.
#In the "third-wave feminism" section, give examples of the perceived failures of the second wave? & the prominence of the Anita Hill case?
#<s>I still think "Postcolonial feminism" looks more reactive; perhaps a greater explanation of the concepts listed at the end of the last paragraph would alleviate this problem?</s>
#"Post-feminism" is not as clearly as explained as the other feminisms.
#Copy editing of article
--] <sup>]</sup> 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm striking this list as I (or anyone else) fixes these issues--] <sup>]</sup> 22:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

From the library of congress: 1909 photo titled "Policewomen - the woman "Cop" (a dream). Suffragette posed to illus. woman police concept." Here's the . ] 05:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
:Obviously this could also be placed on some sort of related page, but I'm not familiar with the feminism-related articles and how they're organized... ] 05:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

== A good article? ==

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

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


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

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

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

== New lead paragraph ==

As pointed out by Awadewit the lead paragraph needs work to come into line with ]. Here is my first attempt at adding to the current lead to make it ] and ] standard. One or two sentences were dropped for being repetitive. The new section has been italicized
<blockquote>'''Feminism''' comprises a number of social, cultural and political ]s, ] and ] concerned with gender ] and ]. Feminism is also described as an ideology focusing on equality of the sexes.<ref></ref> Some have argued that gendered and sexed identities, such as "man" and "woman", are social constructs. <br/>
''The history of feminism in ] has been divided into three waves. The first wave in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the second in the 1960s and 1970s and the third from the 1990s to the present.<ref name="Suffragettes to Grrls"/> Feminist Theory developed from the feminist movement.<ref name=Chodorow1989/><ref name=gilligan1977/> It takes a number of forms in a variety of disciplines such as ], ] and ]. Feminism has changed aspects of Western society, modern feminist political activists commonly campaign for a woman's right to bodily integrity and ] on matters such as ], including the right to ], access to ] and quality prenatal care; for protection from ]; against ] and ]; for workplace rights, including ] and equal pay; and against other forms of discrimination.<ref name=shildrick>''Feminist Theory and the Body: A Reader'' ed. by Janet Price and Margrit Shildrick (Edinburgh University Press, 1999) ISBN 9780748610891</ref><ref name=Butler2/><ref name=Messer-Davidow/> Beyond the West, Feminist activists and theorists campaign for ] in third world countries.<ref name=Narayan/> Some third world feminists or ], such as ], are critical of western feminism for being ].<ref name=Mohanty/> Black feminists, such as ] and ], share this view.<ref name=walker/>''<br/>
Since the 1980s, ] have argued that the feminist movement should address global issues (such as rape, ], and ]) and culturally specific issues (such as ] in some parts of Africa and the Middle East and "]" practices that impede women's advancement in developed economies) in order to understand how gender inequality interacts with ], ], ], ], and ] in a "matrix of domination."<ref>Hill Collins, P. (2000): ''Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment'' (New York: Routledge)</ref><ref name=Harding2003> Harding, Sandra, ''The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies'' (Routledge, 2003), ISBN 9780415945011</ref></blockquote>

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

:I think this is pretty good. I hate the passive voice and wich I knew who introduced the idea of three waves of feminism - personally, I think it is bad historiography, but i acknowledge it is the main way Western scholars talk about the history of feminism; still, I would feel better if it could be pegged to an identifiable source. About the "beyond the West," I share your feelings and I see no way around it that is not awkward. For what it is worth, here is how I would put it:
::Throughout most of its history, most leaders of feminist social and political movements, and feminist theorists, have been middle-class white women, predominantly in the US, France, and US. At least since ] 1851 speech to US Feminists, however, women of color have proposed alternative feminisms. This trend accelerated in the 1960s with the Civil Rights movement in the United States and the collapse of European colonialism in Africa and Southeast Asia. Since that time, women in former European colonies and other countries forming the ] have proposed alternative "post-colonial" and "Third World" feminisms as well.
:Wordier, but as concise as I can make it and I think more precise and informative and (I hope!!!) accurate. ] | ] 13:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

:::I like your version Slrubenstein - I think we should use it. I'm not the biggest fan of "the waves" structuring of feminism either but that's the way most books look at it. An alternative which ] put forward on ] is that we list the history chronologically and then explain the historiographies (ie the waves and the Hoff Sommers idea Gender/Equity feminism) afterwards. Personally I think we could think about that way of writing the history for the history section and use this.--] <sup>]</sup> 13:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
:Thanks! And to clarify - i do not object to using the "waves" as long as we can identify who coined or popularized the terms, i.e. "According to X, ... " I would never use Sommers classification alone, but if it is presented as one of a few major ways of classifying feminism i.d. if it is presented alongside one or two other models, I have no objections. ] | ] 13:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
::I share your view about Sommers's classifications. The weight of her position is not equal to the "waves" concept. BTW I'll look into who coined the "waves" terminology now - it was Marsha Lear who coined the term "second wave"<ref> Humm, Maggie. 1995. The Dictionary of Feminist Theory. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, p. 251</ref> and out of that came the classification of the previous generation as 1st wavers. The third wave was Rebecca Walker's term in her ''Ms'' article. So really the waves theory is popular by osmosis--] <sup>]</sup> 14:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
:In the intro, change it to, "According to some, the history of feminism consists of three waves" and provide as a "ref" endnote the citations for Lear and Walker. In the body of the article, mention them by name and quote their original definitions for each wave - that's how I would handle it. (good job with research, by the way!) ] | ] 14:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

::That's perfect :) Thanks for working on this Slrubenstein--] <sup>]</sup> 20:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

== What about the fact that many feminists are sexist against men ==

is that in this article. most feminists i know degrade men and bitch about how ALL men are terrible. this needs to be included. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

== abortion is not a right ==

ok so the lead paragraph says

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

the way it is worded it says abortion is a right. can you guys please change it so it say "feminists fight for the legalization of abortion" <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/Natural_right

just change it. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

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

I would also add (in answer to the odd and random comment) that all speech, even unfortunate "hate speech", is a right gauranteeded in the US. ---- NJMEssmer1976, 14 OCT 2007 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

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

:::69.106.250.135 this is getting ]. Unless there is a major significant source that contradicts the existing references (which say that "Feminism campaigns for the right to abortion") your argument is going nowhere. Misplaced Pages requires reliable sources and consensus for edits. Also you have already been warned that wikipedia is not a soapbox - if this behaviour continues you may be blocked--] <sup>]</sup> 18:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

::::This is an encyclopedia. Why do people feel the need to air their opinions in this way? What is your point 69.106.250.135? Wouldn't starting a blog be more appropriate? ] 18:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I do think it would be more helpful if this argument were held on this page rather than on mine and Cailil's Talk pages. I think I have understood 69.106.250.135's problem. Could I please ask him or her to consider the difference between the following phrases:
*feminists have been fighting to obtain the right of abortion.
*feminists have been fighting to obtain the political right of access to abortion.
If you look at your Wiki reference quoted above, the mention is made therein, of the difference between ''natural right'' and ''political right''. Are you sure your judgement is not being clouded by "strongly held beliefs"? Don't forget, that if you are taking issue with the notion of ''political right'', this constitutes ]. If you look around Misplaced Pages, I hope you will notice that in spite of the potential for political controversy, the Feminism article is one of the most neutral, rational and encyclopedic around. (I didn't write any of it, so this is not self interest on my part.) ] 08:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

:I think this is just another case of a newbie who doesn't understand our NPOV and V polciies. Anonymous user 69, please read over ] and ] carefullly - if there is something you do not understand, you can ask for clarification ont he policy talk pae. Then feel free to come back here and I think what Cahil and Tom and others have said will make more sense to you. ] | ] 12:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

==anarcha-feminism==
An editor just changed the cited reference about anarcha-feminism to eliminate the struggle against capitalism in deference to self-identified anarcho-capitalists. Without getting into the tedious argument that anarcho-capitalists are or are not "anarchists", let me simply note that the cited reference is about the strand of anarchism that ''is'' anti-capitalist as well as anti-state, and that is the description of anarcha-feminist. If this or other editors can find citable references to an anarcha-feminist split that parallales the anarchist/anarcho-capitalist split, then by all means, include them and discussion of the split within anarcha-feminism. So far as I know, however, anarcha-feminism as a strand is anti-capitalist along with anti-capitalist anarchism. Another appropriate approach would be to note the anarchist/anarcho-capitalist split ''in the text'', but in my view that is a distraction from an article that is primarily about feminism. The link to the ] article explains fairly clearly the various arguments about capitalism. --] 16:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
:I agree completely! ] | ] 18:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
::Lquilter wrote, ''"So far as I know, however, anarcha-feminism as a strand is anti-capitalist along with anti-capitalist anarchism."'' Probably the most famous anarcha-feminist today, and most prolific writer, is ]. She is an anarcho-capitalist (though she prefers to self-label "individualist anarchist.") So I strongly object to characterizing anarcha-feminism as anti-capitalist only. ] 03:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
::: Do individualist feminists (in the McElroy sense) consider themselves anarcha-feminists? A quick google didn't turn up anything connecting anarcha-feminism and individualist feminists. That there are some feminists who are also anarchists who are not anti-capitalist doesn't entail that ''anarcha-feminism'' isn't anti-capitalist. ] 04:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the editor that did that. The way that line read was the "anarchist struggle against...capitalism" as if it were implying all types of anarchism. I would have no qualms if it were a bit more specific and replaced the more general "Anarchist" term with "Anarcha-feminist". As for what ] is bringing up, I admit I'm not an expert on the matter, so I won't enter that debate. I just wanted to make sure that the idea conveyed in the sentence didn't gloss over the entire "Are Anarcho-capitalists anarchists?" debate. ] <small>—Preceding ] was added at 15:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2023 ==
== More correct definition of feminism. ==


{{edit semi-protected|Feminism|answered=yes}}
<blockquote>Feminism is an ideology focusing on equality of the sexes. Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender inequalities and discrimination against women. Some feminists, like Judith Butler, have argued that gendered and sexed identities, such as "man" and "woman", are social constructs.</blockquote>
Feminism is a range of socio-political movements and ideologies that aim to define and establish the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes "ADD" with nuanced focus on the social and performative constructions of gender and sexuality; gender, gender expression, gender identity, sex, and sexuality are understood through social theories and political activism.<ref name="Women & Gender Studies">{{cite web |title=What Is Feminism? |url=https://wgs.eku.edu/what-feminism-0 |website=Women & Gender Studies |publisher=Eastern Kentucky University |access-date=October 18, 2023}}</ref> Y Feminism holds the position that societies prioritize "REMOVE" the male point of view and that women "ADD" patriarchal domination of all people treated unjustly in these societies.<ref name="Napikoski 2010">{{cite web |last=Napikoski |first=Linda |title=What Is a Patriarchal Society and How Does It Relate to Feminism? |website=ThoughtCo |date=2010-06-09 |url=https://www.thoughtco.com/patriarchal-society-feminism-definition-3528978 |access-date=2023-10-18}}</ref> ] (]) 09:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


{{tref}}
Excuse me for making an observation.
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> These changes could be controversial and seem out of line with the ] policy. <span class="nowrap">—]</span> (]) 15:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


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


The suffragist movement, especially in Britain in the early part of the 20th century, was an important early element that isn't given much depth in the article. There is a published work by a noted suffragist and activist of that period: ], who wrote about her time as an activist and whose words provide a much deeper and realistic account of suffragist esperiences. Please may her book be added to the list?
Secondly, Judith Butler's quote, ignores the simple observation that ] and ] constructs are focused on undeniable physical differences. Her work appears to be based on 'queer' or 'bisexual' theory, and not representative of mainstream feminism <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Lytton, Constance and Jane Warton (her pseudonym). Prisons & Prisoners: Some Personal Experiences. United Kingdom: originally published by George H. Doran Company, 1914.
As ] go, feminism was not concerned about injustice to both men and women, merely women.


It is available in recently published print form under ISBN-10:1539167534 (ISBN-13:978-1539167532), Publisher:CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (September 30, 2016)
There are a great many definitions, and the one that was in the listing, spoke of general inequality between the sexes; that was not the case of feminism which was concerned only about the inequality of women compared to men in general.


Also available as a free online book at https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QadX11M3PSuEBR9U6Pu85sZAxBcpSE7Z6yOVJZg7didStDGG_tkNuARdsBysAHAEsZvjgxQMdCzBZE1bFPyBcqN5bL_bE-O5wK7ogNA7FzDTtdlaM1zvnQKaC8Km5rPXSElBhibe6D042CbCKpy9hsYxgX8aqBtwm676_x5FT9y7x-M-lIK-i19_p254acT7Dv1Y_e1Baehb1ysWPh8lenrNXRT8i2CMuBvGwPtlcSIqCg6VSIBHShCV6-vnA61ZpE9NCbsN
Feminism was concerned only about women, at the exclusion of men. It spoke of "violence against women", not of people, nor of 'violence against women and men'; So it is important to correctly reflect this detail.
Thank you. ] (]) 22:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
: Your second link doesn't work, but , and it contains the full text of the book. You don't need to ask here about adding something to Further reading if it's on-topic and reliable; you can just add it yourself. ] (]) 01:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


== Relevance of the "Big Three" ==
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


The article make a point to note that feminism has the Big Three branches, consisting of liberal, radical, and Marxist feminism. But if one looks at the article, there's only a single source being cited from 1995 that seems to acknowledge the existence of this trio. No other source seems to use it. Doesn't the structure of this page privilege one person's view regarding how the feminist movement should be structured / thought of? Why the Big Three and not "Big Four"? What makes Mary Maynard's classification more important than other ones, to the point that that "Movements and ideologies" section is structured as "Liberal", "Radical", and "Materialist (Marxist)" and the "Other" variants of feminism? ] (]) 00:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:Feminism arose because men were so completely in control of society that in order to achieve equality, women would have to be given as many rights as we men had. That is not in contradiction of the definition in the lede. --] 16:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:The source is and it's an analysis of typographies of feminism. Maynard is actually critical of this classification, but she describes the origin of the "Big Three" and provides references demonstrating that the classification is commonly used (e.g. Yates 1975, McFadden 1984, Deckard 1975).{{pb}}What other classifications and sources do you feel should be mentioned in the article? No doubt we could find some more recent references, though we have to be careful as we are trying to organise content from a historical perspective and more recent sources might focus on typographies of modern movements or of academia only. — ] (''']''') 19:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you for your reply. If the "Big Three" is indeed that prominent in feminist discourse, I do think it would be better if the article added a few more sources (2-4 additional ones) in reference to this classification. ] (]) 19:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
:::I think it's quality rather than number that are important, but you are welcome to add more reliable citations if they're not redundant to Maynard (1995). — ] (''']''') 15:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


== Misandry and GA status ==
Feminism arose for many reasons, but it was not merely men in control, remember we have a Queen of England, the wealthiest women in the world, then there is Mrs. Clinton. The definition you included is too general.
{{atop|OP has withdrawn the proposal. ]] 07:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)}}
Alright, so I believe that this needs to be discussed. This article gives the impression that feminism is a wonderful idea devoid of any negative aspects. I'm not suggesting that feminism is bad per se, but we should discuss some of its drawbacks. I suggest adding a section regarding the harmful things that this group may do and the misandry claims made against feminism. I found nothing on toxic feminity or femaleness on Misplaced Pages, but I was able to find a lot on toxic masculinity. A simple paragraph of 100 words would suffice; that's all I'm asking for.


Also, this article is in no shape to be a GA. Improvements could and should be made. ] <sup>(])</sup> 17:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Feminism was not about all injustice merely those of women.


:The thing you haven't done here, when asking for such a section to be written, is mention any high-quality scholarly sources that could be used to support such a section. You haven't mentioned any sources ''at all''. So, other than your own personal opinion, what is it that makes you think this is (a) not GA standard, and (b) in need of a section like the one you describe? ]] 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Case in point. A credit union manager proclaimed that they, the credit union was in complete compliance with the regulations of employement equity, a program that outlines the minimum number of women to have employed. The manager, a woman, laughed, because she was in compliance, AND ALL THE EMPLOYEES WERE WOMEN.
::The current content on misandry and other criticisms of the movement are present in §Anti-feminism and criticism of feminism, which looks solid. That content is also summarized in the lead. Happy to see it improved, though a good first step would be to improve ] and then adjust the summary here. ] (] / ]) 18:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
::Bro, just type "misandry" or "feminism misandry" on Google Scholar. It's that easy. ] <sup>(])</sup> 18:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
::: A good suggestion. I added some content from the second source that popped up in that search. ] (] / ]) 18:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
:::The irony of you addressing another editor as 'bro' on this talk page is quite delicious. Waving at Google searches is not helpful: you're advocating for change, you need to find the sources and read them for yourself then propose a change. ]] 19:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Anyone searching on Google Scholar for sources covering misandry will find the exact sources that say misandry isn't very important relative to misogyny, and that misandry is a fairly recent concern of marginalized men who are less successful in competing in the world of men. Those sources will say that misandry is a backlash to the advances of feminism. People coming from a misandry viewpoint cannot define feminism in their preferred terms. ] (]) 19:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks to F³ for adding something, your work is appreciated. {{U|Binksternet}}, you may be right to say that most scholars view misandry as far less important than misogyny, but I still think that's biased. You state that those sources say that {{Tq|Misandry is a backlash to the advances of feminism}}, but I can't see that anywhere; which source are you using? I read two sources about this on May 2023 and they largely contradict your statement above. ] <sup>(])</sup> 04:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::If you go look at the lead of ], you will find a bunch of scholarly sources cited to support the assertion {{tq|modern activism around misandry represents an antifeminist backlash, promoted by marginalized men}}. I too appreciate FFF's contribution to the article - I wonder whether you actually read it? They used one of the sources that your proposed Google Scholar search yielded - a meta-analysis which found that feminists' views of men were no different to those of non-feminists or indeed men, and which describes the stereotype of feminists hating men as the "misandry myth". You might view all this as biased in some way, but you have not presented any sources which posit an opposing viewpoint - there isn't anything to discuss until you do that. ]] 09:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Hey {{u|Wolverine XI}}, are you happy for this discussion to be closed off, or do you have any further input to make? Just wanted to know if I should keep monitoring this. Thanks ]] 22:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'm good. Besides, I have bigger fish to fry. ] <sup>(])</sup> 06:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


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


]'s ] is a criticized primary source for the claim "Some have argued that feminism often promotes misandry". I am not sure that the claim should be used this way in the preface. In the article ] we decided that there is such a reliable source in this topic as ''Misandry myth'' article. There is quite consensual point of view in academy, that feminism is not a misandrist ideology and that feminists promote misandry at least not more often than those who are not feminists. Perhaps this is what should be added to the preface. ] (]) 06:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:52, 2 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Feminism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Feminism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Feminism at the Reference desk.
Good articleFeminism has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 10, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 19, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
June 18, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 7, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconGender studies Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconFeminism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology: Social Movements High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the social movements task force.
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Social and political philosophy
WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMen's Issues Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen's History Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconArt+Feminism
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved at an Art+Feminism edit-a-thon in 2015.Art+FeminismWikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminismTemplate:ArtAndFeminism articleArt+Feminism
WikiProject iconCountering systemic bias High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.Countering systemic biasWikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic biasTemplate:WikiProject Countering systemic biasCountering systemic bias
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

To-do list for Feminism: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2022-03-06

Improve article to featured standards
  1. The articles citations need attention. All references need to use the {{cite}} template.
  2. 10 citations need specific reference to page numbers.
  3. Section on "Mid-twentieth century" needs work: a) the first paragraph needs to bring together the de Beauvoir material and the second-wave material better; b) it should mention "difference feminism" somehow - it needs to convey that the assumptions underlying second-wave feminism were different than those underlying first-wave feminism.
  4. The "Socialism" subsection does not explain the general impact as well the other two sub-sections. It is too factoid-based.
  5. Explanation of "feminisms", as in "multiple feminisms" in the Movements section
  6. Summarize Women's rights and integrate.
  7. Consider the structure and hierarchy of contents with regard to featured standards
  8. Update Feminist literature further for Bina Shah’s ‘Before She Sleeps’

References

  1. https://www.thehindu.com/books/life-before-men-vineetha-mokkil-reviews-bina-shahs-before-she-sleeps/article33470261.ece https://www.newindianexpress.com/lifestyle/books/2021/mar/21/before-she-sleeps-book-review-reluctance-rebellion-revolt-2278675.html https://www.telegraphindia.com/culture/books/review-before-she-sleeps-by-bina-shah/cid/1805002 ; Afzal, Malik Haroon; Pakri, Muhamad Rashidi Mohd; and Abdullah, Nurul Farhana Low (2021). Is Women’s Empowerment a Thucydides’ Trap for Patriarchy in Pakistan? The Aurat (Woman) March-2020 and Bina Shah’s Before She Sleeps. Journal of International Women's Studies, 22(9), 111-127.
Priority 1 (top)
    The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

    Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

    ConsensusBy consensus, guideline, or policy

    Criticism about feminism is already covered with appropriate weight and sourcing. If you seek coverage beyond what you see, consider whether you are proposing content that is more suitable for other articles or for a non-Wikimedia website. If a criticism you wish to add lacks an adequate source, please find one first.
    Edits for other pages may be offered there, not here. Examples include content for specialized articles and Misplaced Pages policies, which have their own pages and their own talk pages. This is only an introductory article on feminism. To find specialized subarticles within feminism, please click on links in the feminism article, including in any sidebar.
    Feminism is inherently one-sided. Feminism is a critique of society. That means there is a disagreement between feminism and society. In that case, generally, if society is neutral, feminism is not. Misplaced Pages requires neutrality, but that applies to Misplaced Pages articles, not to feminism itself, nor to any source. As long as the article is neutral in how it presents its general subject, Misplaced Pages's requirement for neutrality is fulfilled.
    This article does not cover what feminism does not cover. If there are few feminist disagreements in a given society, feminism may have nothing to say about many subjects in that society. Misplaced Pages reports on feminism in accordance with reliable sources.
    Consistency with a particular political message is not this article's purpose. This article represents many sources with appropriate balance. While mainstream feminism is emphasized, other branches of feminism are also covered.
    The content of this article meets Misplaced Pages's Good Article Criteria. Content being added to this article must conform to the community's quality standards for "Good Articles". Material not meeting these criteria should be removed and rewritten appropriately to fit them.
    Points of interest related to Feminism on Misplaced Pages:
    History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

    Merger discussion

    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.
    To not merge, on the grounds of WP:TOOLONG; there are at least two distinct topics (movements being distinct from ideology/philosophy); there was some support for making Feminist movements and ideologies more list-like, to differentiate the function of the page; all agree that this is a large and important topic, the length making it difficult to reduce from 3 pages to 2; further refinement of the content is warranted. Klbrain (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

    Hello, the articles Feminism, Feminist movement and Feminist movements and ideologies obviously deal with the same subject, i.e. feminism. Fourmidable (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

    They do, but the text of each is massive and mostly not redundant. They were probably split into multiple articles (especially Feminist movements and ideologies) for size. Merging them doesn't seem feasible. --Aquillion (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    I think the movements and ideologies article is essentially a list and it could be reworked to be more listy. I can't see a rationale for keeping Feminist movement, and I would love for those who do see it to help me understand. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    @Aquillion and Firefangledfeathers: I'm in favor of making a list on the one hand, and a real encyclopedic article on the other. But opposed to the separation of content. Perhaps we should consider making a synthesis by removing unsourced content? Fourmidable (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    @Fourmidable I'm in favour of merging feminism and feminist movement. I had no idea that there are two separate articles and I personally don't know what the difference is. Isn't feminism itself a movement? I think that the Feminist movements and ideologies should be kept separate as a list however. —Panamitsu (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    Green tickY Feminism is/are (a) movement(s) according to its definition, so Feminist movement=Feminism. Reprarina (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
    I oppose. ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 14:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
    Please define what feminism is and what feminist movement is. Reprarina (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
    One is an ideology/philosophy, another is a political, activist and militant way of mandating how to organise society. ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Reprarina, feminism is an ideology. That ideology is shared by various movements who go about it from different perspectives and policie. Hope that helps. Reading the article on Feminist movements should show you they're not the zame. — Python Drink (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
    Seconding this distinction as someone with an academic background in women's studies and feminist theory, for whatever it's worth.
    I also came here to say that the article need not divide the movements into "waves" as this is not historically accurate and is highly contested in scholarship.
    I would expect that "Feminism" would cover the variety of feminist ideologies (Marxist feminism, lesbian feminism, etc.), whereas "Feminist movements" would cover political movements centering on feminism. There is a big distinction. Edenaviv5 (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2023 (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.

    Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2023

    This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

    Feminism is a range of socio-political movements and ideologies that aim to define and establish the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes "ADD" with nuanced focus on the social and performative constructions of gender and sexuality; gender, gender expression, gender identity, sex, and sexuality are understood through social theories and political activism. Y Feminism holds the position that societies prioritize "REMOVE" the male point of view and that women "ADD" patriarchal domination of all people treated unjustly in these societies. Ellgie (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

    References

    1. "What Is Feminism?". Women & Gender Studies. Eastern Kentucky University. Retrieved October 18, 2023.
    2. Napikoski, Linda (2010-06-09). "What Is a Patriarchal Society and How Does It Relate to Feminism?". ThoughtCo. Retrieved 2023-10-18.
     Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. These changes could be controversial and seem out of line with the neutral point of view policy. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

    Edit request - new entry to "Further Reading"

    The suffragist movement, especially in Britain in the early part of the 20th century, was an important early element that isn't given much depth in the article. There is a published work by a noted suffragist and activist of that period: Constance Lytton, who wrote about her time as an activist and whose words provide a much deeper and realistic account of suffragist esperiences. Please may her book be added to the list?

    Lytton, Constance and Jane Warton (her pseudonym). Prisons & Prisoners: Some Personal Experiences. United Kingdom: originally published by George H. Doran Company, 1914.

    It is available in recently published print form under ISBN-10:1539167534 (ISBN-13:978-1539167532), Publisher:CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (September 30, 2016)

    Also available as a free online book at https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QadX11M3PSuEBR9U6Pu85sZAxBcpSE7Z6yOVJZg7didStDGG_tkNuARdsBysAHAEsZvjgxQMdCzBZE1bFPyBcqN5bL_bE-O5wK7ogNA7FzDTtdlaM1zvnQKaC8Km5rPXSElBhibe6D042CbCKpy9hsYxgX8aqBtwm676_x5FT9y7x-M-lIK-i19_p254acT7Dv1Y_e1Baehb1ysWPh8lenrNXRT8i2CMuBvGwPtlcSIqCg6VSIBHShCV6-vnA61ZpE9NCbsN Thank you. 2600:1700:EA01:1090:AD81:5718:61E8:7B02 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

    Your second link doesn't work, but this one does, and it contains the full text of the book. You don't need to ask here about adding something to Further reading if it's on-topic and reliable; you can just add it yourself. Mathglot (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

    Relevance of the "Big Three"

    The article make a point to note that feminism has the Big Three branches, consisting of liberal, radical, and Marxist feminism. But if one looks at the article, there's only a single source being cited from 1995 that seems to acknowledge the existence of this trio. No other source seems to use it. Doesn't the structure of this page privilege one person's view regarding how the feminist movement should be structured / thought of? Why the Big Three and not "Big Four"? What makes Mary Maynard's classification more important than other ones, to the point that that "Movements and ideologies" section is structured as "Liberal", "Radical", and "Materialist (Marxist)" and the "Other" variants of feminism? PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

    The source is Maynard, 1995 and it's an analysis of typographies of feminism. Maynard is actually critical of this classification, but she describes the origin of the "Big Three" and provides references demonstrating that the classification is commonly used (e.g. Yates 1975, McFadden 1984, Deckard 1975).What other classifications and sources do you feel should be mentioned in the article? No doubt we could find some more recent references, though we have to be careful as we are trying to organise content from a historical perspective and more recent sources might focus on typographies of modern movements or of academia only. — Bilorv (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your reply. If the "Big Three" is indeed that prominent in feminist discourse, I do think it would be better if the article added a few more sources (2-4 additional ones) in reference to this classification. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    I think it's quality rather than number that are important, but you are welcome to add more reliable citations if they're not redundant to Maynard (1995). — Bilorv (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

    Misandry and GA status

    OP has withdrawn the proposal. Girth Summit (blether) 07:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

    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.

    Alright, so I believe that this needs to be discussed. This article gives the impression that feminism is a wonderful idea devoid of any negative aspects. I'm not suggesting that feminism is bad per se, but we should discuss some of its drawbacks. I suggest adding a section regarding the harmful things that this group may do and the misandry claims made against feminism. I found nothing on toxic feminity or femaleness on Misplaced Pages, but I was able to find a lot on toxic masculinity. A simple paragraph of 100 words would suffice; that's all I'm asking for.

    Also, this article is in no shape to be a GA. Improvements could and should be made. Wolverine XI 17:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

    The thing you haven't done here, when asking for such a section to be written, is mention any high-quality scholarly sources that could be used to support such a section. You haven't mentioned any sources at all. So, other than your own personal opinion, what is it that makes you think this is (a) not GA standard, and (b) in need of a section like the one you describe? Girth Summit (blether) 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
    The current content on misandry and other criticisms of the movement are present in §Anti-feminism and criticism of feminism, which looks solid. That content is also summarized in the lead. Happy to see it improved, though a good first step would be to improve Anti-feminism and then adjust the summary here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
    Bro, just type "misandry" or "feminism misandry" on Google Scholar. It's that easy. Wolverine XI 18:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
    A good suggestion. I added some content from the second source that popped up in that search. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
    The irony of you addressing another editor as 'bro' on this talk page is quite delicious. Waving at Google searches is not helpful: you're advocating for change, you need to find the sources and read them for yourself then propose a change. Girth Summit (blether) 19:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
    Anyone searching on Google Scholar for sources covering misandry will find the exact sources that say misandry isn't very important relative to misogyny, and that misandry is a fairly recent concern of marginalized men who are less successful in competing in the world of men. Those sources will say that misandry is a backlash to the advances of feminism. People coming from a misandry viewpoint cannot define feminism in their preferred terms. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks to F³ for adding something, your work is appreciated. Binksternet, you may be right to say that most scholars view misandry as far less important than misogyny, but I still think that's biased. You state that those sources say that Misandry is a backlash to the advances of feminism, but I can't see that anywhere; which source are you using? I read two sources about this on May 2023 and they largely contradict your statement above. Wolverine XI 04:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    If you go look at the lead of Misandry, you will find a bunch of scholarly sources cited to support the assertion modern activism around misandry represents an antifeminist backlash, promoted by marginalized men. I too appreciate FFF's contribution to the article - I wonder whether you actually read it? They used one of the sources that your proposed Google Scholar search yielded - a meta-analysis which found that feminists' views of men were no different to those of non-feminists or indeed men, and which describes the stereotype of feminists hating men as the "misandry myth". You might view all this as biased in some way, but you have not presented any sources which posit an opposing viewpoint - there isn't anything to discuss until you do that. Girth Summit (blether) 09:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    Hey Wolverine XI, are you happy for this discussion to be closed off, or do you have any further input to make? Just wanted to know if I should keep monitoring this. Thanks Girth Summit (blether) 22:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    I'm good. Besides, I have bigger fish to fry. Wolverine XI 06:56, 13 June 2024 (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.

    Promoting misandry

    Christina Hoff Sommers's Who Stole Feminism? is a criticized primary source for the claim "Some have argued that feminism often promotes misandry". I am not sure that the claim should be used this way in the preface. In the article Misandry we decided that there is such a reliable source in this topic as Misandry myth article. There is quite consensual point of view in academy, that feminism is not a misandrist ideology and that feminists promote misandry at least not more often than those who are not feminists. Perhaps this is what should be added to the preface. Reprarina (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

    Categories: