Talk:Feminist theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Liberal Feminism
It looks like the stub on Liberal Feminism has been the target of some vandalism. Some help on cleaning it up? threedimes
I am not a feminist or a proponent of Feminist theory. In fact, I have significant reservations about the role that Feminist theory plays in contemporary academia.
Be that as it may...
The rigor and energy of Feminist theory is undeniable. Its contribution to contemporary scholarship is immense. I know a number of highly intelligent writers and thinkers who identify themselves with the school, and I believe they are disserved by this article. It is far too terse, far too cursory. I hope that some of these people and their fellow travellers will step in and make the article an accurate reflection of the scope and value of their endeavors.
BradGad (Talk) 06:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The section on "Radical Feminism" is not NPOV and needs to be redone. In particular, it reads more like an anti-feminist mockery of Lesbian Separatist Feminism than radical feminism. If I knew how to put a "Disputed" tag on this page I would. I've pointed a number of radical feminist women to this page in the hopes they'll either make the required edits themselves. I'm not a radical feminist, nor do I play one on television, so I'm going to defer to someone who identifies that way to provide something NPOV in this section. Tall Girl 21:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The "there's no male equivalent" isn't a valid critique; it is akin to saying "but hey, why aren't there civil rights movements for white people?". An academic I heard of responded to the question "why isn't there a Men's Studies?" with the droll response "That's the rest of the university, dear" - the point being that almost all the existing discourses have been produced by and for men. Thus there is no place for a male equivalent because there is nothing for a male equivalent to be arguing against. As I said, it isn't a valid critique. If wikipedia standards mean that it should be included anyway why not also include a discussion of lesbian man-hating feminists? There would be as much validity in one as in the other. 59.167.175.61 17:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] what is this?
feminist theory? wtf? I see no masculinist theory, hmmm, wonder why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.152.105.16 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] POV check: Misandry references
I added two references packed with (what blatantly biased, gynocentric gender-ginning, "oppression" feminists would call 'unfriendly') explanations of what these authors call "ideological" feminist theory. However, many of their points are echoed by prominent feminist whistleblowers, other feminist disidents and non-feminist researchers. These points of view need to be shown here along with all the "friendly" POV's. I hope to see other editors bring in good references that explain feminist theories so we know that what each theory means and so there are no undue weight wars here(drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 23:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reference tag
This article has absolutely no inline citations to back up any of the assertions made. I don't have the background to do so myself, but I have tagged it accordingly so that other editors can improve it. Also, it should be noted that any references which have not been used either to create the article or to support any of the content (like the two "Misandry" references) have no business being there. If anyone has access to them, please demonstrate their relevance to the article by adding appropriate content. --Stephen Burnett 10:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Revert of essay-like section
I have reverted this edit of Kowilliams (talk • contribs). I have nothing in principle about a criticism section but that particular section was written as an essay and was so fundamentally written with an agenda in mind to be worth re-writing. Pascal.Tesson 15:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
