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 16:23, 18 September 2013 editNick Levinson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,605 edits →Just so I'm clear here...: Replied.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:06, 31 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,157 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Feminism/Archive 22) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Round in circles|search=yes}}
{{pp-move-indef}}
{{Round In Circles|search=yes}} {{Not a forum|Feminism}}
{{Article history
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Gender studies|class=GA|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=GA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination|class=GA|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=GA|importance=High|Social movements=yes}}
{{philosophy|social=yes|class=GA|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=GA|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Religion|class=GA|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Men's Issues|class=GA|importance=high}}
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN |action1=GAN
|action1date=2007-02-10 |action1date=2007-02-10
Line 41: Line 30:
|topic=socsci |topic=socsci
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{not a forum|Feminism}}
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=Top}}
{{to do|1}}
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Top}}
{{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.}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=High|Social movements=yes}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|social=yes}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Men's Issues|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}}
{{ArtAndFeminism article|2015}}
{{WikiProject Countering systemic bias|importance=high}}
}}
{{To do|1}}
{{Skip to bottom}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|pa}}
{{pp-move-indef}}
{{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}} {{Topic|Feminism|talk=y}}
{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30|dounreplied=yes}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |target=/Archive index
Line 55: Line 59:
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 20 |counter = 22
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Feminism/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Feminism/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
== 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)}}
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)
: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)
:@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)
:: I oppose. ※] ◣◥ 〒 @「]」 14:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
:::Please define what ] is and what ] is. ] (]) 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. ※] ◣◥ 〒 @「]」 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)
:::::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. ] (]) 22:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
{{Discussion bottom}}


== No mention of criticism of pseudoscientific views == == Relevance of the "Big Three" ==

{{archivetop|result=thread going off-tpoic. Aelius's question is answered--] <sup>]</sup> 22:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)}}
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. ] (]) 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. ] is an evolutionary psychologist, and is certainly not known as a feminist of any school. --] &#x007C; ] 21:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
::Where else would such criticism go, if not in this article? ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] that come from people who do not believe in a 9/11 conspiracy? Should we ignore all non-astrologer's criticisms of ]? ] (]) 23:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
:::OrangeMike has already answered you Aelius28. If there are criticisms of Pinker they belong in his article--] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::That depends on the specific content you want to add. The ] 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 ]. There may also be other articles worth addressing, such as ]. 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. ] (]) 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/Social_constructionism#Criticisms. ] (]) 04:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::I think this violates the NPOV. The article about ] 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. Misplaced Pages 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. - ] (]) 21:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::Your idea of balance is not the same as Misplaced Pages's. On Misplaced Pages, 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. ] (]) 22:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
{{archivebottom}}

== This article needs more on violence against women ==

There needs to be detailed discussion of ], 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 ]) 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 ] 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 ] 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.]). The role of feminists in changing social norms and laws related to violence against women has to be discussed in detail.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.) ] (]) 06:42, 20 August 2013 (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)
: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. ] (]) 07:23, 20 August 2013 (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 ==
::This has been discussed to death Berym. Misplaced Pages 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--] <sup>]</sup> 12:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
{{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)
== Nineteenth and early twentieth centuries ==


: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)
The section (and the whole article) fails to discuss issues dealing with family law, namely abolishing ], and focuses too much on voting right, which, though very important, was by no means the only demand and concern of feminists. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::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)
:Hi Skydeepblue. As explained by myself on your talk page and by Nick in his edit summary the problem with your first edit 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. <p>You're 100% right that voting was not the sole issue you just need to add sources for material--] <sup>]</sup> 11:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
::Bro, just type "misandry" or "feminism misandry" on Google Scholar. It's that easy. ] <sup>(])</sup> 18:26, 7 June 2024 (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. <p>Please also avoid copy-pasting text from other wikipedia articles to here. Also please note how we are using the ]--] <sup>]</sup> 15:08, 25 August 2013 (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 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.] (]) 16:02, 25 August 2013 (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)
:::::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.] (]) 16:10, 25 August 2013 (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)
{{od}}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 ], but I see your point regarding a general Women's rights section, perhaps near the top of the article. Maybe a summary of the ] article (as per ]) 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)--] <sup>]</sup> 17:27, 25 August 2013 (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)
:The details of what the first wave feminists were fighting for should be in the main article about ], 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. ] (]) 18:07, 25 August 2013 (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)
::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--] <sup>]</sup> 21:07, 1 September 2013 (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}}


== Lucy Stone == == Promoting misandry ==


]'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)
The very strong 19th century US influence of ] 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. ] (]) 18:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


== Just so I'm clear here... == == Protected edit request ==


There is an image entitled "Photograph of American women replacing men fighting in Europe, 1945" in the article. I understand from the description that these are ] members. Should a link be provided? --] (]) 18:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
There won't be any criticism of Feminism allowed on its Misplaced Pages 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.


:{{added}}, how is that? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 19:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
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. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Criticism can be found in the ] and elsewhere in the article (and were there prior to your posts of today). Criticisms have to reflects sources, including for weight. ] (]) 16:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC) ::Like it much better now and the way you put it, thank you. --] (]) 20:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:06, 31 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.

    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)

    Protected edit request

    There is an image entitled "Photograph of American women replacing men fighting in Europe, 1945" in the article. I understand from the description that these are Women's Army Corps members. Should a link be provided? --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    plus Added, how is that? Remsense ‥ 论 19:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Like it much better now and the way you put it, thank you. --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Categories: