Revision as of 01:21, 29 November 2006 edit66.82.9.74 (talk)No edit summary← 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: | ||
{{Talk header}} | |||
{{WikiProject Gender Studies}} | |||
{{Round in circles|search=yes}} | |||
{{Not a forum|Feminism}} | |||
{{Article history | |||
|action1=GAN | |||
|action1date=2007-02-10 | |||
|action1link=Talk:Feminism/Archive 8#GA failed | |||
|action1result=failed | |||
|action1oldid=107012264 | |||
|action2=GAN | |||
For older discussions see: | |||
|action2date=2007-08-19 | |||
* ] | |||
|action2link=Talk:Feminism/Archive 10#GA fail | |||
|action2result=failed | |||
* ] Debates from 2004 and earlier, 19.03.2004 | |||
|action2oldid=152042544 | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
----- | |||
|action3=PR | |||
|action3date=18:13, 18 June 2008 | |||
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Feminism/archive1 | |||
|action3result=reviewed | |||
|action3oldid=219506198 | |||
|action4=GAN | |||
== Response section == | |||
|action4date=10:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
I feel that much of this article is dated and gives a very Western, White, liberal stance of contemporary feminisms. There is little (to no) discussion of multiculturalism, intersectionality, gaze, (re)-colonializing women, saving vision etc... In turn I believe that the article should be entitled "Working Feminisms," the plurality creates a space for many different types of feminist activity, one that may not have a common goal in all times and spaces but acknowledging a fight nonetheless. This also allows the the term "feminism" to be fluid one; again creating spaces for change within feminist discourse and understanding. The term "Working Feminisms" could also be understood in several ways:1) a feminist voice that's working within daily life/narratives. 2) an example of feminists constantly working to renegotiate itself from language and idealogy that flattens and erases people/places as spheres of “more or less” freedom. and 3) by acknowledging the plurality of feminisms, we can see that there is no such thing as universal notions of "womanness," "bodiliness" etc... Although there are terrible things happening around the world we must always be aware that there are feminist agents all around the world at all times who often times do not have the same "feminist goal". Keeping this in mind when thinking about women in "other places" helps keep the seduction of a "saving vision" from creeping into our gaze. | |||
|action4link=Talk:Feminism/GA1 | |||
|action4result=listed | |||
|action4oldid=464407939 | |||
|currentstatus=GA | |||
|topic=socsci | |||
}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Top}} | |||
{{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}} | |||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
|target=/Archive index | |||
|mask=/Archive <#> | |||
|leading_zeros=0 | |||
|indexhere=yes | |||
}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
|maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
|counter = 22 | |||
|minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
|algo = old(30d) | |||
|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}} | |||
== Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2023 == | |||
{{edit semi-protected|Feminism|answered=yes}} | |||
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}} | |||
:] '''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" == | |||
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? | |||
Lytton, Constance and Jane Warton (her pseudonym). Prisons & Prisoners: Some Personal Experiences. United Kingdom: originally published by George H. Doran Company, 1914. | |||
I think, at least in part, it should stay. The criticism section references *certain masculist concerns* regarding feminism and mentions Warren Farrell some issues he takes with it. In the response section, I put quotes from actual published journalists and a sociologist who address at least three of Farrell's complaints/beliefs listed above about it from a feminist perspective. ] 22:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
It is available in recently published print form under ISBN-10:1539167534 (ISBN-13:978-1539167532), Publisher:CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (September 30, 2016) | |||
: I would love to see the mentions of Farrell in the rest of the article cut down, too. He's just not as notable as the article makes him seem. Personally, I would prefer to do that rather than having a lengthy response to his work (which may give it more credence than it deserves), because the article needs to be shorter. The crticisms and quotes would be great for the ] article -- perhaps they're already there, I haven't looked at it. ] 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
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 | |||
: I have to agree he isn't as notable as is implied (perhaps it should go in his own section?) and that was my first thought. But it was there and he was not unknown to me (I added some of his not-so-cool quotes in the ] section) so I was aware of his critics, hence the section. He is mentioned in the masculism/MRA parts, so if we cut back some Warren Farrell talk int he article then the feminism, masculism, and Men's rights articles can just compliment each other. ] 01:32, 30 May 2006 (UT) | |||
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" == | |||
The use of the term half-truth is biasing and inappropriate. Preferred terms would be controversial opinion or view. The referenced idea is a legal theory unresolved in most juristiction. No factual assertions such as a view being a "half-truth" can be made about it. | |||
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) | |||
== Commercials == | |||
: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 == | |||
Just one random point to throw in about feminism: Did anybody ever notice that males (especially fathers) are generally portrayed in an unfavorable light? By unfavorable, I mean stupid or clumsy. Women, however, are NEVER shown to be either of the two in commercials, and are in fact portrayed to be far more intelligent. On the flip side, one could argue that women are portrayed as sex objects in some commercials. At least some food for thought. | |||
{{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 today and its issues== | |||
I think this section is very problematic. Most of the article emphasises how there are many different strands of feminism, and then this section is just about outlining the concerns of one of them. It mentions no organisations and cites no sources. Personally I think it wouldn't harm the article is the whole section was just removed, but I don't want to do that without discussing it here first. | |||
Maybe it could be replaced with a description of the major current Women's organisations and their programs? ] 23:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
: I concur completely. By the way, thanks for all your work removing questionable content from this article. ] 23:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks Catamorphism. I removed the whole section. I think anything I took out should be re-included under the sections devoted to each branch of feminism. ] 04:05, 5 June 2006 (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? ]] 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Political Emancipation== | |||
::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 == | |||
The wiki page ] could use some attention. Currently it is only a stub. Particularly the explanation of the term 'political emancipation' entailing 'equal status of individual citizens in relation to the state, equality before the law, regardless of religion, property, or other “private” characteristics of individual persons' is construed to be an 'opinion' and 'not delivering a neutral point of view.' Does anyone have more expert information on the word 'emancipation' also being used in the political context of establishing (or any step moving towards) equality in light of the law? When fewer than 1 in 7 US Senators and House of Representatives are women, ], and the United States comes in only as the 61st nation in the world in this respect, would you say that political emancipation has been achieved? | |||
]'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) | |||
] 18:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)zz | |||
] Yes, I would. Just because somebody isn't voted into office doesn't mean they can't be. If only 1 out of 7 Senators/Representatives are women, isn't it possible that women either weren't running or simply lost to a male candidate? The people decide who they want to elect. Just because there aren't equal numbers of men and women doesn't mean that women don't have the opportunity. | |||
In response: But if people have internalised the values of their society which has been predominantly patriarchal for generations, there is not going to be a fair opportunity for a woman to enter politics. Especially not in the way feminists mean when using the term political emancipation. It is too simplistic to say that emancipation is acheived merely because women can stand for office, in the same way that it would have been too simplistic to say that men and women had political equality as soon as the franchise was extended to include women. | |||
:The nameless responder has a point. I will add that if men continue to control the money which is to be donated in order to fund the many hundreds of millions of dollars ($2 billion this mid-term election, I believe) necessary to fund modern American election campaigns, it may be no accident that these men don't fund a lot of women candidates (and those they do fund are often right-wing, anti-feminist male-identified women like ]).--] 04:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Addition to the world stats== | |||
A user has added the below | |||
''*However, critics of feminism often cite the following as evidence that a female bias also exists in western societies such as ]: * For every woman who is murdered, three men are murdered. ''(US Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimisation in the United States)'' * Only 6% of occupational deaths in the United states occur to women. ''(US Department of Health and Human Services)'' * Men aged between 25 and 34 are four times more likely to commit suicide than a woman of the same age. Over the past 20 years, the suicide rate for 25-34 year old men has increased 26%, yet for 25-34 year old women, it has decreased 33%. ''(US Department of Health and Human Services)'' * Men die at a much higher rate from all 15 top causes of death. ''(United Nations Demographic Yearbook)'''' | |||
*Which critics of feminism cite the following evidence? | |||
*What is a "female bias"? | |||
*How are these statistics related to feminism / womens rights? --] 19:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
:It sounds like Original Research to me. Notice how it cites primary sources, but no source for the anonymous 'critics'. But more importantly, this is the 'Feminism' article, not the 'Status of Men', 'Status of Women' or 'Are Men or Women better off?' article. So only discussions about Feminism itself should be included. Which this para is not. ] 23:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Well, that's one opinion. I did, however, see some mention of suicides and suicide rates earlier on or in an archive of previous discussions. Furthermore, this is a talk page. If that user wants to add it, he/she can. | |||
== Lead image? == | |||
] | |||
Wouldn't the Venus/female symbol be a more appropriate lead image, given its strong public association with the feminist movement in general? Or has this been discussed here before? ] 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
:As far as I know this hasn't been discussed. I'd be fine with that as the lead image, though I think an even better choice would be to attach that image to a new section discussing its use within feminist movements. -] 20:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
== good lord, is this the National Organization of Women? == | |||
can we get some "opposing views" in here? You know, the type that is taking up over half of all the anti-feminist articles on this whole site?<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small> | |||
:There is no "National Organization of Women." ] | ] 09:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
That statement was meant to be sarcastic, Slrubenstein. But to answer the opposing views question, there are other articles related (and maybe even linked somewhere) that criticize feminism. Try checking around. | |||
Actually, it seems like I made an error. There IS a National Organization of Women... it was started in 1966. Check the article on Second-Wave Feminism. | |||
Actually, it seems like I made an error. There IS a National Organization of Women... it was started in 1966. Check the article on Second-Wave Feminism. | |||
:You ae wrong. There is no National Organization of Women. ] | ] 20:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
::There isn't one called National Organization '''of''' Women, but there is an ] though... -] <sup>]</sup> 22:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
::: And a heckuva lot of the members thereof are men, and happy to be so. --] 16:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:This is correct. And the difference is not trivial - at stake in the wording is the very issue of ehther feminism is inclusive or exclusive. ] | ] 15:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== References == | |||
I have added a unreferenced tag to one of the sections. I don't have time to read through the entire article but that section contains statements such as ''The feminist movements have altered the nature of heterosexual relationships in Western and other societies affected by feminism. '', ''In these circumstances, men and women have had to adapt to relatively new situations, sometimes causing confusions about role and identity. '', In response to the family issue, many socialist feminists blame this on the lack of state-provided child-care facilities. '' and many others. Each of these statements need referencing and also removal of weasel words such as 'many' in the last statement above.-] <sup>]</sup> 13:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I think the whole 'Effects' section suffers from lack of sources. The effects of feminism are a topic of much debate in academia and the culture at large, but this section makes many assertions without sources. | |||
:The 'moral education' section is particularly bad. It reads like a debate between two wikieditors. Its biggest problem is that it never clearly defines what 'moral education' means. Are we talking 'sexual mores', and if so which kind? Christian sexual mores, Western sexual mores? Or are we talking about socialization, or something else? ] 02:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Removed as original research. All unsourced material should go, and there is still a lot of it on this page. --] 02:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
No matter. It will probably come right back anyways, sourced. | |||
== Eurocentralism == | |||
Under the criticism section I think there needs to be a mention of the rampant Eurocentralism within the Feminist movement and how often the Feminist movement will use its (Western) standards as a 'one-size-fits-all' model for women everywhere, while ignoring their specific culture, customs and traditions which may appear repulsive to most Western Feminists. When talking to and reading about non-Western (Africans and Asians mainly) one of the biggest criticisms I've heard is that Western Feminists (i.e. the bulk of Feminists) come across as another load of White Foreigners telling them that X, Y and Z is wrong (becuase they say it's wrong) and that you should do A, B and C (because that's what we think you should do) in a way similar to how the European Colonists would tell them that their practices were backwards and barbaric (because they say so) and they should do what they do (because that's what we think you should, for your own good of course) | |||
<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small> | |||
:This is covered under ]. The article is still very small, if you have expertise in the topic, it would be great if you could add your input. ] 02:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Women artists == | |||
There should be some sort of exchange between the contributors to this article and ]; maybe also category additions at foot of both articles so there can be proper linkaging. ] 11:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Anti-feminists? == | |||
I have added a cite needed tag to the section which describes ], as well as other female authors, as anti-feminist. Note that the article on Ehrenreich puts her in category: feminist scholars. It needs to be made clear that Misplaced Pages is not engaging in original research, so whatever source is being used for the claim of anti-feminism must be cited. Also, there is also an apparent paradox; how can Ehrenreich be both a "feminist" scholar, as well as anti-feminist? If I understand correctly, "Feminist scholar" means "a feminist who is also a scholar"; if it was intended to mean "a scholar who studies feminism", the proper term would seem to be a "Feminism scholar". ] 08:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
==] and ] in the "Criticisms" section== | |||
I have placed OR and "uncited" tags in the "Criticisms" section. This is necessitated by the stereotyped sociological assertions made in the following paragraph which was just recently added: ... ] 16:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:*Many who support ] argue that because of both traditional gender roles and sexism infused into society by feminists, males are and have been oppressed. ] advocates oppose feminist aspirations to replace the traditional family, as illustrated by statments made by a variety of feminist leaders such as ]'s view that marriage constitutes slavery for women, and the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution and that freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage. Dr. Mary Jo Bane, associate director of Wellesley College's Center for Research on Woman suggested that to raise children with equality, they should be taken from families and communally raised. Men and Family rights groups oppose feminists such as Robin Morgan, the openly ] editor of Ms. Magazine, who advocated 'man-hating' as an honorable and viable political act and concludes the inequities between men and women can not be resolved until marriage is destroyed. Family and ] groups are also critical of ] encouragment of ] agendas which undermine the traditional role of men in the family, such as Sheila Cronan's National NOW Times January 1988 interview statements declaring every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist. Many critics of feminism are alarmed by the prevalence of lesbians such as Patricia Ireland, the head of NOW, in feminist leadership roles. ] advocates view much of contemporary feminist issues extremist and unreasonable now that all the reasonable demands such as ] has been achieved. Issues such as the ] are viewed as discriminatory and funding ] or ] villification, profiling and demogoguery of men. ] advocates are critical of feminist efforts to block shared parenting after divorce and especially advocating or instructing women to fabricate false ] or abuse accusations to win greater ] and ]. ... 16:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Not to mention that the entire section was unsourced. Good call. ] 04:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Broken table == | |||
The table whose title is '''Female share of seats in elected national chambers in November 2004 (percent)''' looks wrong in both Internet Explorer 6 and Firefox 1.5. The table overlaps with some headings on the page. ] 10:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Yes, I saw it too. In addition could somebody recheck the information in the table. I read a wikipedia article a few days ago giving completly different information on female representation in elected assemblies. Unfortunatly I can't remember what the article was...but if anyone of you should stumble on it please fix it. | |||
== asking for comments regarding the exclusion of women in ] == == | |||
I would like to request comments and suggestions for the following situation in ] . This is a very long, complicated situation involving whether women should be included on this list of Opera composers. As a male musician who has done quite alot of research on women in music, I firmly believe that a representative sample should be on the list (I'm not suggesting 50/50 or even 30/70, just two or three representative women). When I first noticed this article, it was completely unsourced, and the "important composers" were chosen by a collegial system ("I like that." "I don't like that") without any mention of sources. I marked the article NPOV and Unsourced. The article quickly became sourced, but I continued to bring up the issue of gender bias and brought three sources to the discussion after consulting the International Alliance of Women in Music ], all of which were dismissed because they only contained works by women. However, when the list was finally completed (I was asked not to participate, as I was considered to be have a POV agenda towards women and living composers), six of the ten lists used only contained the names of men. The other four only contained one woman (Judith Weir). If lists of only women composers are unacceptable, why are lists of only men composers acceptable? And was are sources which could prove the importance of women in music dismissed as having a POV agenda. | |||
A colleague who is a teacher of Women's studies at an American University has suggested that this is a textbook case of "canon forming" or the creation of hierarchies using preconceived notions. The process involves making a hypothesis using the notions that one already has, such as "Important operas are only composed by dead, White, European males", using the sources already utilised for making the hypothesis for proving the statement and then dismissing contradictary sources or discrediting individuals who make statements which oppose the primary hypothesis. | |||
I am certainly not asking anyone to get directly involved here, as this is already become quite violent and an RfA is currently underway. I would however appreciate any ideas concerning how to confront this sort of gender bias, any useful sources and other ideas, as well as general comments. Thank you ] 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Maybe start your own Wiki page that is a List of Major Female Opera Composers? However, I don't understand why, if you are listing truly major opera composers who happen to be female, that you should be considered POV. Opera is not my thing, so my question is are the ones you are trying to list as "major" as the men listed? Is it possible that the women you are trying to add are only considered "major" by other women and there is no male consensus? Once again, I wouldn't know. Finally, I'm not sure why you bring it up here, but should bring it up on the talk pages of the page on which you are trying to contribute. --] 18:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
==The Garbage Without the Sources== | |||
This article does not cite its sources! It is the unsourced garbage. Jimbo said lets remove all this of the original research so if you wrote this please give your sources BEFORE Im removing the ''original research!''] 07:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I agree it needs sourcing, however I believe the problem is not lack of sources but, instead, lack of ''inline'' sources. We have a huge list of books at the bottom which are undoubtedly meant to be sources to some of the article. This article cannot gain even Good Article status without inline references, so someone with knowledge of the subject matter needs to go through and inline some references.-]<sup>]</sup> 13:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Introduction too is very theory heavy and showing of the POV. Especially the quoting around "man" and "woman". this is very fringe view, sexes dont really exist EXCEPT in our heads. Maybe view of who wrote the article? WE dont know.] 20:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I'm afraid the idea that sexes don't exist except in our heads is a ''very'' fringe view... Try saying that to the scientific community and see what they say.-]<sup>]</sup> 21:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Yeah thats what I meant. I agree with you but introduction with quoting "man" and "woman" presents it as one normal version of feminism.] 21:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Ah, ok. I misunderstood what you wrote.-]<sup>]</sup> 21:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Effect on Language== | |||
Does somebody want to come up with a better example for the German pluralization? | |||
As it stands, it looks like the solution in German is to simply use the female plural for groups of both genders, which isn't what the article says. | |||
29 October 2006 | |||
== Odd point == | |||
''Some feminists, such as Canadian journalist Kate Fillion, Carol Tavris and Camille Paglia, emphasize the importance of women's responsibility as moral, sexual, and social actors who sometimes do bad things for which they are accountable.'' | |||
I removed it because it is POV, implies those people believe that but other feminists don't.] 01:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::That is exactly the POV view these authors take. Eg that establishment 'gender' feminists are self-indulgent whiners who wildy exaggerate their victimhood, and presuppose moral superiority as a 'gender' rather than being accountable for their choices as people. How would you like this to be stated in NPOV.? (drop in editor) | |||
== the left and feminism == | |||
Hi. Doing some categorization work, I fell upon the article ]. I categorized it under Feminism which I suppose is quite safe but the title of the article strikes me as odd and, although it's overall well written, the content seems to stray towards original research. Anyways, I thought people involved in the feminism article might want to look it up. Cheers, ] 20:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== The faces of feminism. Moral+feminism and cult-feminism. == | |||
The faces of feminism. | |||
Back in 1987 I began research into the various 'faces' of feminism, that had been ignored. Like anything, (except nothing) there is good and bad, a wide spectrum of types. | |||
Back in the 1990's I had submitted to OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS various subcategories, including the terms 'moral+feminism' representing the most posiive of types and 'cult-feminism' the most evil of types. Confirmation from OXFORD UNIVERSITY that the suggestions would be used. | |||
While this is my own research that cannot be added to the posting, is it possible that someone else might find this information relevant and post it as 'secondary information' ? | |||
Take any ideology and if corrupted it can be bad; quite simple, even God's angels were corrupted, its all about free choice. | |||
It should be noted that my research into 'half-truths' back in 1987 focused on some types of feminism that manipulated words and logic, one of which is equality. | |||
People are not equal in the strict sense of the word, men and women are not equal on some levels of comparison. The issue, the real issue that 'feminism' focused on was in the 'inequitable' treatment of women. (it ignored men ) Treating people with fairness is not about treating them all equal. In fact the second law of justice, (source lawyer Sutherland) is all about treating people equally if they are equal, and treating them unequally if they are unequal. | |||
You will note one great flaw with the rationalization of statistics, a form of ] was the use of 'womens salaries' with a complete lack of logical involment between women who were married to men and shared their incomes. The evaluation of simple statistical comparisons is illogical; To use a term I have discovered on wikipedia, 'weasel words' (Bravo !)! | |||
--] 22:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Just a minor point: The "see also" list at the end seems a bit arbitrary, for instance including "anarcha-feminism" but not liberal or socialist feminism - I could be wrong here, but I'd think the latter two had a much higher profile, and would deserve at least equal status. ] 18:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Icons== | |||
With some trepidation I added brassiere as a link, having been hammered over there for a feminist POV. It might not be a central issue in feminism but it acquired iconic status, which I discuss in the subarticle on history. It is certainly discussed a lot in women's groups, and links into beauty, glamour, self image, self esteem, body image etc. ] 13:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
==NPOV== | |||
Incidentally it is very difficult to write an article on feminism without someone thinking it is lacking NPOV. A lesson I learned when I tackled the brassiere question, and tried to link it to its social and cultural roles. I am sure we can rephrase an sentences tagged as 'weasel' without losing the meaning, and eliminate that NPOV tag. ] 15:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Collaborative scholarship== | |||
In my humble opinion, we would all get on better together and learn from each other if we discuss the rationale for changes proposed or executed, here. Just a constructive suggestion. It also helps to have a master plan. Particiularly if the goal is to elevate the article through the Good and Featured categories ] 15:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Vandalism alerts== | |||
IMHO Eowbotm2's contributions constitute vandalism ] 17:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks to UberCryxic for painstakingly reverting - the user has been warned ] 22:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
:well, alot of it was, but a good portion was legit, in MY humble opinion. Whoever put that thing about "weasel words at the top was right on: I tried to make the wording more neutral in some places.] 01:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Psychotic-feminism == | |||
The term is to refer to the reality that most people of either sex are concerned about the opposite sex. They marry the opposite sex, benefit from their incomes and normally have children of either sex. | |||
Cult-feminism, the focus on the reality of 'women only' suggests that women live in issolation of men and is therefor psychotic-feminism. | |||
The complex reality and interrelationships of people is overly simplified through the use of deceptive generalized ] and ]. | |||
The ] movemennt has succeeded in unifying all women against a perceived common enemy, which is again oversimplified and based on ]. | |||
For example, the false comparisons of male verses female incomes, totally ignores the income of families, ie a woman married to a man. Is there still not some women who are married to men ? | |||
::'''Caesarjbsquitti''' - People of integrity sign their contributions, even if unhelpful ] 22:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Opps... | |||
--] 00:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
yeah, good job. |
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. |
|
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. |
Feminism 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Feminism: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2022-03-06
References
|
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. |
By 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)
- Y 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)
- Please define what feminism is and what feminist movement is. Reprarina (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- I oppose. ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 14:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
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
- "What Is Feminism?". Women & Gender Studies. Eastern Kentucky University. Retrieved October 18, 2023.
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- If you go look at the lead of Misandry, you will find a bunch of scholarly sources cited to support the assertion
- 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
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:- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class level-3 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-3 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- GA-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- GA-Class Gender studies articles
- Top-importance Gender studies articles
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- GA-Class Feminism articles
- Top-importance Feminism articles
- WikiProject Feminism articles
- GA-Class Discrimination articles
- High-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- GA-Class sociology articles
- High-importance sociology articles
- GA-Class social movements task force articles
- Social movements task force articles
- GA-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- GA-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- GA-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- GA-Class Religion articles
- High-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- GA-Class Men's Issues articles
- Top-importance Men's Issues articles
- WikiProject Men's Issues articles
- GA-Class Women's History articles
- Top-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles
- GA-Class Human rights articles
- High-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- Articles created or improved during ArtAndFeminism 2015
- GA-Class Countering systemic bias articles
- High-importance Countering systemic bias articles
- WikiProject Countering systemic bias articles
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists