Talk:Feminism/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Succinctification

I would really like to see this article cut down in size--not in content, though. I just want to make it less wieldy. Rhorn 12:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by the end of this sentence because it breaks grammatical/linguistic rhythm, but I can't figure out how to fix it. (NB: It's in Origins, the first sentence of the last paragraph):

Many countries began to grant women the vote in the early years of the 20th century, especially in the final years of the First World War and the first years hence.

That part feels like it's looking for a range. I wanted to add few after first, but I don't think that'd be correct. I'm probably just over-analyzing it, and should probably just change it, and whoever knows better would leave it or correct it. Rhorn 13:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

"Worldwide statistics" revisited

I removed an item from the list of statistics. The item was: "In some parts of the third world, women are considered as effectively property, and have no legal rights in practice. Millions of women are expected to undergo female circumcision. In some areas, rape is used as a sentence for a crime, even crimes not committed by the women themselves. (See, for example, the case of Mukhtaran Bibi.)". These are not statistics, IMO, and if they have a place in the article, it's not here. I think that if this passage is reintroduced to the article, it should be phrased much more concretely. It would be nice to be able to take the POV warning out (as it stands, all stats are actually stats, and furthermore they are cited), but I haven't been following the feminism page so there may be problems that I'm not aware of.

I also slightly rephrased the (now) final statistic, changing "legislative bodies" to "major legislative bodies". "Legislative bodies" includes a lot of stuff. Adking80 22:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Terminology

Hi, I wrote the stub-article Separatist feminism as I saw this was empty linked from this node. However I later on find the nodes Lesbian separatism and Lesbian feminism and got curious how these three relates to eachother. I haven't read much feminism books and stuff. If we could link these together somehow it is good, I feel however I don't have enough knowledge to do this. --TobiasBengtsson 13:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and Lack of Citation Issues

I think that the article overall holds quite well to the neutral tone, so the warning at the top of the page is questionable... With the exception of the "Worldwide Statistics" section, which presents a rather one-sided view, the article gives a very good overview of feminism, plus refers to external sources that present different points of view. At the same time, no one seems to be interested to research and edit that particular questionable statistics section... Anyone up to challenge to resolve this issue? --ElfineM 03:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An interesting contradiction - the "worldwide statistics" section of this article says this about rape:

"Women and girls are still raped, assaulted and abused, and society does not prevent or punish the violators. This violence is as often seen in Western and non-Western societies; and is tolerated..."

While the rape article says this:

"It is considered, by most societies, to be among the most severe crimes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

Feb 3rd, 2005 - 22:47 GMT

The "worldwide statistics" section does not seem to even attempt to have a neutral point of view. And I don't see a single citation for any of the "statistics" there, which are presented as fact. feb 3rd, 2005

though this article contains a section on criticisms, the rest of the article seems to contain a definite bias. (not surprising, since it's probably mostly self described feminists who have been editing the article) this is particuarlly true in the "worldwide statistics" section... these are stated as facts, and could be cited by others with whatever percieved legetimacy wikipedia has. i know this site has a strong non-bias policy, so it seems to me that statistics should be included both from mainstream contemporary feminists and from critics, like christina hoff sommers. more over, the "worldwide statistics" are not only biased, there is also no apparent source cited, and thus no way for anyone to trace those assertions back to see if they come from any person or group that they would consider creddible. i feel that until substantial revision is done on this entry, it should contain a warning at the top (of possible bias). Even if all these stats are true and can be verified, they should still be balanced with others, such as the number of women vs. men in prisons in various countries throughout the world, the average life expectencies of women versus men worldwide, the number of women vs. men attending colleges in the u.s., etc. Jan 31st, 2005 & updated feb 3rd.

"Worldwide Statistics" NPOV - discussion renewed March, 2005

If you must know, most of the worldwide statistics (apart from the rape bit which I didn't add) came from the Hutchinson Encyclopedia 2000 Millenium Edition ISBN 1859862888 on pages 1150, 1152-1153. I know because I added them ages ago. The encyclopedia doesn't cite its sources, so I dont know the original source, but I should imagine they were well researched.
Does that satisfy you?, whoever you are. I havn't followed this page very much so I wasn't aware that there was a problem. G-Man 21:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm now a registered user. To answer your question, that's a start, but I'm by no means fully satisfied. As Pearlg pointed out below, the validity of a lot of statistics cited by feminist has been called into question, and many feel that they stem from biased research. Another issue I have is with the title of that section "Worldwide Statistics." Even if there were general agreement that all of the statistics listed were true, I feel that it would still be a very biased selection. A better title would be something like "Statistics commonly cited by feminists." It could then be balanced with a section like "Statistics commonly cited by masculists and other critics of feminism." This list would include such stats as the number of men in prison compared with women, the number of women in college in the US compared with men, the average life expectancy of men compared to women (which many feel is socially influenced), the number of women who get drafted to fight in wars compared with men, the number of men who have been killed in combat in Iraq compared with men, the number of men murdered in various countries in a given year compared with men, the number of male versus female suicides, etc. That would be a lot more balenced and NPOV --Blackcats 22:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Whatever you do, a "X say-Y say" split is clumsy and should be phased out. A unified section analysing statistics is preferrable to having two sections discussing both sides. Dysprosia 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I assume that when you say X and Y you're using them as variables and not refering to the chromosomes ;-þ But seriously though, the only reason that those statistics are relevent to this article is because they are commonly cited by feminists. If they're not given under such a heading then it's simply Wikipedia arguing the case for feminism. IMO, the only statistics in this article that would be appropriate under a neutral heading like "worldwide statitstics" would be stats about the prevalence of feminist movements throughout the world. Afterall, this article is supposed to inform people about what feminism is, not why they should become a feminist. So yeah - either those stats need to be put under an appropriate heading, or they need to be moved to a separate article like "relative status of men and women througout the world." --Blackcats 19:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't raise the original complaint, but this isn't quite settled yet in my opinion. For example, read the references to stastitics like the ones you extract in Betty Dodson's website. Also, Christina Hoff Sommers has written extensively on why we should be dubious of those stats. I don't have the time for an indepth relearning of what they think--and I hope someone will step-forward to do that--but at the very least, the section should be prefaced with commentary along the lines of Sommers and Dodsons have criticized the statstitical and epistemological basis of the studies and research that produced those stats. -- Pearlg 11:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Effect on Religion:

Can somebody do something with the following mangled, run-on, pov sentence? Lesbian Latke 10 Mar 05

However, criticism of these efforts as unable to salvage hopelessly corrupt church structures and philosophies, continues; with respect to Mary especially, it has been argued that she, with her status as mother and virgin, and as traditionally the main role model for women, sets women up to aspire to an impossible ideal, and also thus has negative consequences on human sense of identity and sexuality.

"Epistemology" POV edits by 65.10.62.16 / 68.215.50.114

I think the same person is trying to add the following (see [1] and [2]):

It has been posited that while the nominal basis for feminist ideology is the need to ensure that rights, privilege, status and obligations be not determined along gender lines, the central motivating factor remains displacement of anger resulting from either the lack of being physically appealing to men or unresolved emotional issues with a woman and her father (see Electra Complex). While feminist epistemology is dynamically controversial, the need for the total assimilation of women into the power structure of modern society is both relevant and neccesary.

I reverted it both times--it's nonsense POV. I bring it up so that others can watch for it. Demi T/C 06:42, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

I just removed it again. [3] this time from 65.10.57.170. Apart from being nonense, its offensive. An An 04:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

The recent edits overcomplicated and obscured the definition of the word "feminism".

"overcomplicated and obscured" -- at least that is your posit, but also the point under dispute. I assert that the opening to which you reverted is misleading. Regardless of the complexity of the debate surrounding what constitutes "true" feminism, there is a dictionary definition of the word in the english language which has a very basic and simplistic meaning. This meaning is at the core of most--if not all--factions of feminism and as such the article should lead with it. (Your version fails to do this). User:69.225.138.56
Then perhaps use the dictionary meaning only. What was the problem was the excessive need to overload the term within the first paragraph. Dysprosia

To say that the word "feminism" is a political movement, and also a school of literary analysis is inaccurate. Feminism firstly is not a word that describes a unified ideology but can take on many forms -- this is evident from the article. To say then that "feminism" is a political movement would be wrong, since if there are forms of feminism, then there are many ways of implementing that feminism in political activism.

The author explicitly wrote, "There is no unified Feminist political party." Perhaps this is not quite rightly phrased, but the edit you reverted most certainly did not assert or imply a unified ideology. Again, if we consult a dictionary we will see that he second definition of the word feminism is the political movement organized around "the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of men and women" User:69.225.138.56
The edits added did assert a unified ideology, since saying that the term feminism describes a political movement/school, when in fact there are different subtypes which do not involve political activism or literary and historical analysis. Dysprosia
I disagree. Feminism does denote an overarching political movement. It happens that many people call themselves feminists and disagree on various things. But as you agree with the idea of leading with the dictionary definition, we can dispense with too much debate about the past version and attempt a new version. User:69.225.138.56
The point is, which you seem to have missed, is that there is no one political movement. It is wholly probable (I am very sure that this is true) that there are several political movements oriented with advancing different strands of feminism and thus different points of view or aims. Thus, the term "feminism" to describe an "overarching" political movement would be inaccurate. The way the article currently stands by stating that feminism is "a" political movement should not stand, and I shall change it. Dysprosia
I only missed that point in your head. Let us try again. Feminism is both a political movement and a collection of several political movements. It is _a_ political movement in the sense of a broad objective, the acquisition of equal rights for women. It is also _several different_ political movements in the sense of there being some substantial disputes as to what constitutes feminism and how feminism should be pursued.
I note you seem to have missed the above point because I have had to repeat myself to little avail. Your proposal is however more accurate than the ones you have proposed previously, however the verbosity is not acceptable, nor your assertion that there is somehow One True Feminism and that it is this form of feminism has been disputed (which I am inferring, perhaps correctly or not, from your statement that "there being some substantial disputes as to what constitutes feminism and how feminism should be pursued"). Perhaps it would be sufficient to say that "feminist political activism is motivated principly by the acquisition of equal rights for women, with differing feminist ideology determining specifically other social and legal actions". Dysprosia

In any case, I am not even sure this usage is actually used at all.

Refer to my commentary above. This usage is given as meaning number two in the referenced dictionary.

Likewise for the "school of literary analysis" part as well. Mention of these aspects of feminism can be mentioned elsewhere in the article if they're not already clear already. Dysprosia 08:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the scripps registrar would be very intrigued to hear your assertion. If you like, I'll dig up a link to the course catalog for your benefit?
The "scripps registrar" would be wrong to assert that feminism is only a school of literary analysis.
No one ever asserted anything of the kind. The text you rejected read (after I undid your first revision) "Feminism also denotes a school of literary analysis." Where in that is the concept of "only"? For my own benefit, I'd like to understand your reasoning there.
You say "I think scripps registrar would be very intrigued to hear your assertion." From this I assume the point you are trying to make is that "scripps registrar" asserts contrary to my assertion, that feminism is not only a school of literary analysis. Thus I conclude that the point you are trying to make is that "scripps registrar" asserts that feminism is only a school of literary analysis. If you try to make a point, try to do so without others having to guess what you are trying to mean, as that only muddies the water. Dysprosia
Well perhaps you should avoid saying "likewise" in place of what you mean. I can only assume on the basis of what you wrote that likewise was in fact a reference to: "To say that the word "feminism" is a political movement, and also a school of literary analysis is inaccurate". Which is to say that _you_ asserted the feminism is not a school of literary analysis. Thus, I would rightly reply, "I think the scripps registrar would be very intrigued to hear your assertion." What is clear now is that you did not mean to say that feminism was not a school of literary analysis--and there began the confusion. Please try to take your own advice.
I meant precisely what I said. I meant "likewise for the 'school of literary analysis'" in the sense of that there is no one school of literary and historical analysis, as there is no one form of political activism. Thus the result of my above reply still follows. This line of discussion however is becoming a distraction. Dysprosia
On an indirectly related note, your version leads with: "primarily informed and motivated by the experience of women." That phrase is a bit of linquistic flab. Whatever that sentence means, it certainly could not be understood by a non-native speaker. Theories as abstract objects cannot be "informed", nor can they, in a strict grammatical sense, be motivated. This would be plausible: "The development [by people] of feminist theory has been motivated by the experiences of women"
To recap, I feel that the dictionary definition of feminism deserves to be the lead into the article. it captures the essential elements and roots which led to or define the major factions of feminism. Moreover, (though arguably) denoting as part of feminism any faction for which this is not true constitutes an Orwellian abuse of language--I refer you to the essay entitled ``Politics and the English Language. User:69.225.138.56
You miss the point. I'm not saying that the other paragraphs which were inserted should not be part of the article, I am saying that the term should not be overloaded in the first paragraph. If the rest of the article does not make the points regarding political activism and literary analysis, the rest of the article should make these points, not the first paragraph. Dysprosia 09:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Now, you seem to have consented that the dictionary definition should lead--if you do not agree, then please explain specifically why.
Working from that basis, dictionary.com says this: "1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. 2. The movement organized around this belief." the OED says: " 1. The qualities of females. 2. Advocacy of the rights of women (based on the theory of equality of the sexes) wordnet says: "1: a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women 2: the movement aimed at equal rights for women" I propose to lead with:
The term feminism denotes, in the dictionary sense, 1) the advocacy of the rights of women based on the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of men and women; and 2) the movement organized around this belief [1] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=feminism) [2] (http://www.oed.com). User:69.225.138.56
We need not lead with a paragraph sounding like verbatim copy of the dictionary. Observe that both your quotes do not mention an overarching political movement. I see little problem with the current lead sentence, and I shall currently try to fix the problems I do see with said sentence. Please sign your posts in future, or better still, get an account. Dysprosia 10:44, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Quite frankly, what are you talking about? "ovearching political movement <=> "the [political] movement oraganized around this belief" Notice that the dictionary invokes "the" while giving the explanation for what constitutes feminism as a political movement. I am also aware of the desperate factions of feminism. The preamble to the article can be made to reflect the duality.User:69.225.138.56
You are inserting the word "political"... based on what? The term "movement" does not automatically imply political motivations. Dysprosia
Evidentially, we do need to lead the article in the fashion I proposed--and so cite it; precisely to emend the mistakes you are making. The article as it stands--beginning with the beginning--is too mealy-mouth to inform.User:69.225.138.56
I am making no such mistakes; if I were, you have not mentioned what "mistakes" I am supposed to have made. Please sign your posts in future, or better still, get an account. Dysprosia 11:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The mistake you are making is assuming that Feminism is _only_ "a term to describe various social theories and political movements " It is also a term that denotes a specific theory in the dictionary sense and the movement in support of that theory. Refusing to include the dictionary definition constitutes bias. It's like saying all colors have an equal right to call themselves red. No sorry, they don't. They might have a strong right to call themselves red_without_red_but_with_blue_instead or red_with_green, but their claim on being called red is _less_ accepted. -- 69.225.138.56 21:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've never said or assumed that feminism is only such a thing, and neither does the article. The introductory sentence now introduces the correct fact that feminism is not a single ideology, but consists of ideologies whose "basis ... is that rights, privilege, status and obligations should not be determined by gender." Dysprosia 06:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry, but the introductory sentence I see does not say that. Moreover, I will repeat that unless the article ackowledges, at the beginning, that feminism, in the dictionary sense, means belief in and pursuit of equality between men and women, the article is wrong and misleading. It does not acknowledge that now. Further, it is imprecise to say feminism consists of sevearl ideologies. What is exact is that several ideologies lay claim to the term feminism. Please medidate on the meaning and subtly of those last two sentences before reacting. Thanks. -- 69.225.138.56
No. You are incorrect in saying that it is imprecise to say that feminism consists of several ideologies - what do you call the difference between socialist and Radical feminism, for example? You are incorrect in saying that "several ideologies lay claim to the term feminism" is a more accurate way of describing the multiple strands of feminism. Radical feminists, for example, do not say that they are the only ideology that represents "feminism", and neither do the other strands. What is correct is that all of these strands have a common basis, which is described in the article. This does however not mean that because of this, there is only one feminist ideology.
The article however does say that feminism means belief/pursuit of equality, in a more verbose manner, in the exact same sentence I woted before. Dysprosia 09:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think one thing is clear: we should avoid "dictionary definitions" because Wikipedia is not a dictionary (and dictionaries are widely available) and because dictionary definitions are developed according to criteria different from Wikipedia's -- even a common dictionary definition is likely to privilege one point of view, and thus violate our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, dictionary definitions are typically held to the historical standard--and as such they are fundamentally neutral w.r.t. present or future sentiments. The simple fact is that words have rather definite meanings. I have not asserted that the entry should consist solely or even primarily of the dictionary definition. Obviously, the term has come to connate much more than the diction definition; and many groups and ideologies use the term. However, the mere fact that it is even a dispute as to whether the dictionary definition belongs is per se evidence that it should be included.
Now, we can argue that feminism as it appears in the dictionary is a remnant of the patriarchal society; but that's an intolerable restriction. We have to agree to and accept a meaning for words in order to communicate. When I say, "I'm a feminist" and someone cringes that's a problem--because they are mostly likely cringing as a result of some more sweeping form of feminism than I support. I think the dictionary definition answers what feminist means in the fundamental sense. You take that and add various qualifiers, e.g., cultural feminism and can convey particular delineations.
For didactic reasons, I often explain to people that there is feminism (little f) in the dictionary sense; and Feminism (capital F) as elaborated by various ideologies and reform movements. The specifics of this explanation--the little f and the capital F--are not so widely accepted that I would suggest writing them into wikipedia, but it remains that feminism is a word with dual meaning. First, the accepted dictionary usage of the word, and second, the evolved meanings that have resulted from the dynamic and heterogenous nature of the movement. THe entry should convey these details of usage --69.225.138.56 21:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To User:69.225.138.56

Would you kindly sign your statements, even if you do it without a username? IPs can also sign with -- ~~~~ , and it sure makes debates easier to read. I tried to assign your statements and I hope that I got that right. I do propose that nobody does answer any unsigned statemens any more, unless they are willing to sign them for the writer. You know, debates are sometimes refered to ages after they took place. -- AlexR 12:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I hear you. I apologize. I'm new here. -- 69.225.138.56 21:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Intro

User 69 writes, "Moreover, I will repeat that unless the article ackowledges, at the beginning, that feminism, in the dictionary sense, means belief in and pursuit of equality between men and women, the article is wrong and misleading." On the contrary, to begin the article this way is wrong and misleading. This is but one form/objective of feminism; to privilege it is to distort feminism. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it is privledged by historical usage of the word. I have cited several dictionaries that support what I wrote. Thus, I must insist that my sentence be recongized as factual and accurate. Your actions sir constitute vandalism. -- 69.228.130.255 20:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No they do not. Dictionaries are no substitute for real research. If people want to know what a dictionary says they can look it up in a dictionary. This is an encyclopedia and we need to do more research than cutting and pasting a dictionary definition. And if you do not mind, please do not call me "sir." Slrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There has been no cutting and pasting of a dictionary definition. You are trying to weaken the word feminism by rejecting it's fundamental meaning. I have cited evidence for the most basic meaning of the word. You refuse to accept that evidence it seems, but your refusal does nothing to advance your position. I am waiting for you to offer a compromise, but your dislike of associating feminism with equality is clear. Your personal biases should not predominate. Of all possible basic implications of feminism, equality deserves prominence by preponderance as I have demonstrated by my references. -- 69.228.130.255 21:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Allow me to reference Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not: "Wikipedia articles are not: Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. Of course, an article can and should always begin with a good definition..." (emphasis added) -- 69.228.130.255 21:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein is exactly right when he says that "This is but one form/objective of feminism". The article is already quite clear on the basis of feminist ideologies. There is little need for change to the article introduction. I would also remind the anonymous user that accusations of vandalism are not ones to be bandied about lightly, and have the effect of serving primarily to weaken the reception of your arguments. Dysprosia 22:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The statement that "This is but one form/objective of feminism" is not, nor ever has been really, under dispute. Please stop pulling out this red-herring. Reread my extensive postings here and see that I do not dispute that point, and in fact argued on it's behalf. I will reiterate, though, that the word feminism _does_ have a generally accepted, literal, dictionary meaning as demonstrated by several references that I have previously provided. It is important in the interest of fairness and neutrality that the generally accepted literal meaning be given the prominence that it deserves. NPOV is not achieved by giving all opinions equal space, but by giving all opinions some space, ideally in proportion and promience to their predominance at-large. -- 69.228.130.255 22:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'd ask you to refrain from your patronizing attitude to this discussion - it is not helpful. I mention the statement about "being one form" for precisely the reason that you state that feminism has a dictionary meaning and that this dictionary meaning is somehow the unique definition and description of the goals of all feminist ideologies, which is not quite the case.
However, one leads an article with a correct and accurate introduction. Reread Slrubenstein's comment about dictionary definitions. A dictionary is a collection of word and meaning pairs, where the meanings are intended to be short and concise. We are encyclopedia; we are not beholden to any forms of restriction on the volume of information that we can add to an article.
Please get an account as your IP address is shifting. Dysprosia 23:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"feminism has a dictionary meaning " -- yes, I do say this.
"this dictionary meaning is somehow the unique definition and description of the goals of all feminist ideologies" -- I do not say this
"correct and accurate introduction" -- I agree with the opening timestamped 21:43, 20 Mar 2005[4]. Do you feel this opening is inaccurate or incorrect?
Thank you for your patronizing explanation of what a dictionary is and what an encyclopedia is. Neither of those statements is sufficient evidence that the dictionary understanding should not be the starting point of the article. Perhaps we can consider this issue with a didactic objective (for the reader). Assume the reader knows what the dictionary says and wants more information. The reader turns to the wikipedia. The wikipedia entry dovetails by first mentioning the simple conception of feminism as given by the dictionary and then proceeds to clarify and expand. This seems to me to be a very fair, just, and balanced approach. Do you agree at least in principle (details of wording aside)? -- 69.228.130.255 23:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Placing the dictionary meaning first implies that the meaning of feminism is the dictionary definition. Qualifying the dictionary definition to describe that feminism is not just the dictionary definition in order to provide an accurate description of feminism is clumsy.
Please get an account as your IP address is shifting. Dysprosia 01:43, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Links section NPOV

The sorting of the external links section seems to reflect a very strong pro-feminist POV. A case in point is the "Neutral" subsection. Readers would expect the articles linked to in that section to present a good balence between pro and anti-feminist views, but none of them seem at all neutral to me. For example, the first two sentences of the Why did feminism arise -- an essay article read: "It is not a question, that the frail sex is of no match to the virile sex when conflict arises. So, throughout centuries male dominate everything with respect to female." If that's neutral, then I'd sure hate to see biased! --Blackcats 22:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Readers would expect to be pointed to further information and supporting sources about feminism, some of which will be POV, some NPOV. Some will be discoursive (such as Dodson's critique of the Vagina Monologues) others will be factual in nature. These sources do not have to conform to wikipedia's high standards of neutrality. You can look at other articles on the wikipedia for and idea of what's acceptable. An An 12:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've looked through a good number of articles, and I've yet to find any article that has a subsection of their links titled "neutral" whose contents are not neutral at all. That's what the NPOV issue is (perhaps you misunderstood - it's not the links themselves that I was complaining about, but rather how they were labeled and sorted). But since it took about over a week for anyone to respond, I'm assuming nobody has too strong a feelings about this. So I'm gonna go ahead and merge the "neutral" and "feminist rescources" subsections into one section titled "supportive of feminism," which will contrast with the "critics" section, which I'll rename "critical of feminism." Hopefully this will work for everyone, and if not then we can discuss it here some more... --Blackcats 06:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect headings and incorrect categorisation are not NPOV issues. Change it for the better! An An 22:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Intro NPOV

"Feminism is a social theory and political movement primarily informed and motivated by the experience of women." was a much better opening sentence than what we've got now. While perhaps somewhat akwardly worded, it could accurately be applied to all the various stripes of feminism. It was also, I feel, sufficiently NPOV - a definition that both most feminists (of all the various persuasions), and most critics of feminism, would consider to be accurate.

The current opening sentence now describes feminism as "a belief in the principle that rights, privileges, status and obligations should not be determined by gender." But I would argue that this belief would be more accurately described as "egalitarian" than "feminist," and a good number of people who strongly believe in equality of the sexist do not call themselves "feminist." Many call themselves "masculists" or "gender egalitarians."

Also, many critics argue that a good number of radical feminists don't believe in equality of the sexes at all, but rather in female superiority. I think most feminists would concede that someone like Valerie Solnas (who's almost always considered to be a feminist) does not believe in equality of the sexes. Solanas is often called a "feminist extremist," but this designation would not make any sense if feminism were defined as a belief in equality of the sexes - if that were the case then Solanas would want extreme equality of the sexes. (And if feminism truely were nothing more than a belief in the equality of the sexes, then feminists would universally condemn Solanas as "anti-feminist.") The designation only makes sence if feminism is defined as advancing a female (group identity) based agenda.

Which brings me to my next point. From an objective standpoint, the very essence of feminism - from the word (fem as in female) to the symbol of the movement (the female venus symbol) - is clearly female based. So to imply otherwise in the opening sentence is certainly not NPOV (or accurate for that matter).

So I strongly feel that the intro sentence needs to be reverted to the earlier one or something similar to it. --Blackcats 07:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually the sentence did not say that feminism was "a belief..." it said that it orginated from that belief, which is a matter of historical fact. You omitted that word originated, though, in your quote and in so doing established a straw man situation. Everything you wrote would be right _if_ the sentence had not included the phrase originated from.
Further, stating that the feminist movement is "primarily informed... by the experience of women" is very much opinioned and biased. Can you demonstrate sufficient evidence for the word primarily? And irrespective of that point, it is extremely tilted toward gender/cultural/radical feminist modes of thought as well as the heavily disputed idea (within feminism) that there is a universal experience of women. --Pearlg 19:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm aware that it was worded that feminism "originated from a belief." But what's most relevant is what feminism is today, or at least what it has been in recent decades, not what it may have been two hundred years ago. The latter belongs in "history of feminism," not in the intro paragraph. My original critique wasn't a "straw man," but rather a simplification. I could have spelled out how that "originiated" construction was very weasely and was cleaverly designed to give the impression to a casual reader that "feminism is X" without specifically stating that directly - so as to try and avoid accountability. I could have also gone on to point out that even back in the nineteenth century there was a sizeable portion of the feminist movement which was anti-male, as discussed in The Bostonians [5]. And further eloborated that the classical feminist movement reached its peak during the Victorian Era, and as such was very much influenced by the pervailing belief in the moral superiority of women - a legacy which I would argue continues to this day. But I felt it better then to simply cut to the chase. It should suffice to say though that there's no concensus that it's a "historical fact" that the feminist movement originated from a belief in gender equity.
In response to the first part your second paragraph, I'm sure if I took the time (which I'll be happy to do if someone disputes the following assertions in this sentence), I could easily show that the vast majority of leaders in the feminist movement are women, the vast majority of members in feminist organizations are women, the vast majority of those who attend feminist rallies and marches are women, the vast majority of feminist authors are women, the vast majority of "women's studies" professors are women, the vast majority of "women's studies" majors and minors (and even students who only take one class for that matter - especially if you exclude those men who are desperate for dates ;) ) are women, etc. etc. I think that should be enough to be considered "primarily."
In response to the second part your second paragraph, I'm neither a feminist nor much of a believer in group identity, so I'll let them speak in their own defence. I think something like "based on" would sound better than the more akwared and postmodernist sounding "informed and motivated by" - see the masculism article, but that wasn't a detail I felt like adressing in my original sect-NPOV complaint. I would also agree that "experiences of women" is better than experience - as I said I think group idendity politics is pretty bogus - but as stated above - not a detail that I wanted to address at the time. To be really precise and accurate, I'd have said it should be something like "Feminism is a body of group-identity based social theory and political movement primarily based on the experiences of women who politically identify with other women." But then that may have spoiled one of those rare moments when anti-feminists and radical, cultural, postmodernist feminists united in harmony. And I wasn't about to let that happen :-þ
--Blackcats 07:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think most feminists dispute the notion that there is one "woman's" experience, so I pluralized the phrase. As to informed by the experiences of women -- this seems to apply to de Beauvoir, Freidan, Anzaldua, Trinh, Gilligan, and hooks (six very different feminist theorists/activists). The first sentence has to be as inclusive as possible. The earlier version -- "the principle that rights, privileges, status and obligations should not be determined by gender" is not inclusive, and thus not accurate, as there are many feminists who do not believe this. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are trying to tie feminism to the language of cultural and radical feminism. Doing so is not NPOV as it infuses the definition with ideas particular to a few sub-sects of feminism--ideas which are one of the central points of tension between the sects. -- Pearlg 22:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about. The language I am using is inclusive. It does not come specifically from radical feminism (I don't know what cultural feminism is). Who does it exclude? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:58, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

* There is a substantive argument that Individualist feminism is an evolution of ideas from the Enlightenment
* Writers such Mary Wollstonecraft critiqued society based on a natural law argument for parity. Though she wrote about women's plight in society, she did not embrace the idea that her ideas and commentary arose from a unique feminine insight. Nor was it derived from women's feelings and perceptions of their experiences. It was an equality as first-principle argument.
* Liberal feminism is primarily derived from ideas of classical liberalism not women's experiences.
* Equity feminism explicitly rejects the idea that their ideas derive from the experiences of perspective of women (as opposed to men).
* Feminist professor Susan Haack wrote: "I am not convinced that there are any distinctly female ways of knowing. All any human being has to go on, in figuring out how things are, is her or her sensory and introspective and the explanatory theorizing he or she devise to accomodate it"
* Feminist Christina Summers wrote an entire book arguing against framing feminism in the manner of your sentence.
These forms of feminism are definitely not "primarily" or even slightly informed or motivated by the experience of women (as women). The best I can salvage from your proposed sentence is a comment that most academic feminists are women. If that's what you mean to express than by all means we can write that in, though in a more direct fashion. --Pearlg 04:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. To clarify, one’s ideas do not have to arise “from a unique feminine insight” (as in feminist epistemology) for one’s goals to be primarily motivated by the interests of women. To avoid ambiguity and confusion, I propose that we eliminate the word “informed by,” as it could readily have a postmodernist epistemological interpretation. We can easily replace it with “primarily based on and motivated by the experiences of women.”

Why not simply say outright that it is a "social theory and political movement motivated by a desire to advance women's position in society" That's an opening I can support. --Pearlg 08:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now to respond to Pearlg’s latest comments…

If something is done with the goal of benefiting women, then that is clearly motivated by women’s experiences, even if the argument for doing so appeals to classical liberalism or any other ideology.

Not so. motivated suggests reactionary. Given x happened, we will believe and do y. That need not be the case and is not the case overall.

Describing Susan Haack as a “feminist professor” is misleading. Ms. Haack is noteworthy not as a feminist, but as one of the world’s most respected epistemologists. She simply happens to be a woman who considers herself a feminist. She has also used that self-label to more effectively argue to feminists that they should not endorse postmodernism-based “feminist epistemology.” She is much like Alan Sokal, a self-identified leftist who is not noteworthy as a leftist but as a physicist and hoaxster. He uses his identity as a leftist to more effectively argue that other leftists should not endorse postmodernism (currently in vogue among leftists). At any rate, Ms. Haac has repeatedly said that her work is not “feminist epistemology,” but rather epistemological work by a philosopher who happens to be a feminist.

I agree completely. I unintentionally abridged too much, but I do not accept the argument that "feminsts" determine what feminism is. That's logically rather backward. Unless your intention is to make out feminism to be Feminism like the difference between democrat and Democrat--if so, I suggest you start capitalizing.
The point quite frankly was that if you assume Ms. Haack would not intentionally ignore internal contradictions, then her being a feminist and her arguing against feminist epistemology suggests that she believes feminism is a word separable from the language and discourse of feminist epistemology--which was my point.

Wendy McElroy considers I-feminism to be a specialty of individualism, which is motivated by a desire to help women. From her website: “Q: Why call yourself a 'feminist?' Why not just call yourself an individualist? A: Being a feminist is a form of specialization. In fighting for individual rights, some people focus upon injustice to women just as others focus upon injustice to gays or children.” [6]

A desire to help women, need not consider women's experiences (experience of women). I think the essence of this debate is that we're assigning different meanings to the phrase "experience of women"--I hear "women's unique perspective". The phrase is ambiguous and at least one of the meanings is wrong, therefore, I strongly desire a better phrase. I think you made this point earlier, and I refer you to my suggestion.

“Liberal feminism” appeals to the principles of liberalism, but its goals are motivated by a desire to advance the cause of women. For example, one of their main issues is alleviating what that perceive to be an unjust wage gap, in order to benefit women. But I’ve never seen “liberal feminists” make it their cause to alleviate the disproportionate incarceration of men, even though liberals are frequently point to the injustice of the disproportionate incarceration rates for racial minorities. Of course in those cases, a conservative-type argument could be made that the men and minorities deserve to be incarcerated more because they commit more crimes. But that’s beside the point. The point is that liberal feminists work on issues that affect women as women.

ditto, see above.

So I think that just leaves Christina Hoff Sommers and her “equity feminism.” This is somewhat of a unique case. I really liked a lot of the analysis in her book, but it frustrated me greatly that she did not challenge the basic assumption that “feminism means (or should mean) equality of the sexes” and that “everyone who believes in equality of the sexes is a feminist.” But besides her being very much considered to be a dissident feminist, it’s important to note that a central theme of Who Stole Feminism is that women will benefit the most when given equal rights along with equal responsibility. So she too, as a self-identified feminist, states her goal as benefiting women.

I reiterate then, let's make benefiting women be the direct statement perhaps even "motivated by a desire to benefit women".

In conclusion, I’m not too attached to any particular wording, but I do feel very strongly that the word “women” or “female/s” must be in the first sentence (and saying something like "men and women" doesn't count) in order for it to adequately and accurately introduce the topic. I also feel that any definition must pass the “extremist test,” such that the beliefs of those who are considered “feminist extremists” would logically follow by taking our definition to its extreme. Extremists generally represent a more pure form of an ideology, less tempered by other values (or sometimes even common sense), so they provide a good test for the basic definition. For example, all “anti-abortion” people are opposed to abortion (though some of the more moderates might make exceptions in cases of rape/incest). Anti-abortion extremists have gone so far as to blow-up clinics and kill doctors and nurses, but nobody doubts that they are opposed to abortion. The end for tonight – I’m off to bed. --Blackcats 07:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you make a good point -- Pearlg 08:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not see how "informed by" is post-modernist. I still maintain that "advancing the position of women" excludes many feminists. Moreover, I still maintain that "informed by the experiences of women" is inclusive. Think carefully about Mary Wollstonecraft: what makes her a feminist, rather than a female theorist of the Enlightenment/promoter of Enlightenment values? Surely it is not simply because she is a woman. I appreciate the importance of "equity feminism" but this is "informed by the experiences of women" -- specifically, their experience of being in a subordinate position. "Experiences of women" is a very general statement -- you seem to think it means something specific. I agree that that was implied in the earlier version (experience of women) but it is not in the pluralized version. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but they are all "motivated by a desire to benefit women". Do you care to offer an example where a "feminist" expresses a desire to harm women?
It isn't that I think "experiences of women" means something specific; it is that it can be interpreted to mean something specific. As I said, at least one interpretation of that phrase is not inclusive. I'd like to strive for better than "being correct only if read through the proper glass". --Pearlg 20:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not claiming that any branch of feminism wants to harm women -- but as you yourself pointed out, we must beware of essentializing. There are brnaches of feminism that call into question what "woman" is, or that seek to transform both men and women. Don't you agree that equity feminists are drawing on their experiences as (or perhaps more precisely, in the role of) women? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

women and consumer culture

I have removed the following from the article:

There are also a few who criticize feminism, ironically, in the spirit of Marxism or critical theory, as just an ideology of consumerism. They note that the female epistemology that "cultural (or difference) feminists" from radical feminists to gender feminists espouse (that women, unlike men, think non-hierarchically and contextually and prefer looking at the world as a decentralized relationship network rather than as a hierarchical organization) is just a reflection of the new consumerist world-order which has "flattened" the old classical capitalist world which is dominated by local, hierarchical, and centralized corporations. In Marxist terminology, the substructure of the mode of production (and consumption) determines the ideological superstructure such as feminism. They also note a certain feminist obsession with getting women to work and earn money, as if feminism were just a ploy to increase production and consumption of the capitalist system under the disguise of promoting equality.

I removed this because all the critiques of the connection between women and consumer culture that I know of come out of feminism, and are not aimed at feminism. Can someone verify this? Can someone provide a source for this? If so, of course we should return it to the article -- with the source. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bourgeois feminism

Hi, I found this term being used online. Wondered if this term was a clearly defined term, and if it could be added to the article. --69.214.227.51 06:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bourgeois Feminism is a term used to refer to feminist theory and practice which benefits the bourgeoisie - a priviledge class within society. Bourgeois Feminists might demand that women be represented on company boards, in government and in management positions without questioning the fundamentally oppressive nature of these roles or the usefulness of women occupying authority positions in structure. Bourgeois Feminism does little to advance the interests of working class women because it seeks only to have women included in the ranks of those who enforce the oppressive system of capitalist extraction rather than challenge the reasons why this system requires that certain people (women, workers, asians, migrants) be treated as the property of certain other people (ruling elite dudes). Thus for a class-feminist such as myself, the term "Bourgeois Feminist" might also be a term of derision which implies a shallowness of analysis and an easy corruptibility.
An An 23:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Effect on heterosexual relationships

I was bothered by the last sentence of the second paragraph. Somehow the word 'assume' seems to connote that the man is taking control, but this is clearly not what feminists were looking to do, but rather have families find equal control between both the father and mother. Rhorn 11:30, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Psychoanalytical feminism

you may want to join the discussion on deletion of Psychoanalytical feminism--Fenice 18:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Chavuinism / Patriarchy

Ok. Here is the definition of patriarchy:

pa·tri·ar·chy (ptr-ärk) n. pl. pa·tri·ar·chies In both senses also called patriarchate.

  1. A social system in which the father is the head of the family and men have authority over women and children.
  2. A family, community, or society based on this system or governed by men.

A patriarchy is NOT inherently oprresive, (like a male chauvinist society is.) Comparing a mere patriarchy to the likes of " stereotyping, objectification, sexual objectification, oppression" is simply not true and it violates NPOV.

-NightDragon

  • Both patriarchy and male chauvinism are issues in feminism. Both can be included in the sentence in question.--Fenice 06:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

You are giving a dictionary definition which is a very bad idea. This article is on feminism, and that means it should explain how feminists use the word "patriarchy." And sorry, this calls for more serious research than looking up a word. You need to read Mary Daly and Kate Millet and others — that is how you research an article on feminism, you read books and articles published by feminists. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein is right. That's the sentence in question:
Themes explored in feminism include stereotyping, objectification, sexual objectification, oppression, and patriarchy.
Patriarchy cannot be excluded from this sentence.
Even if we use your definition ...men have authority over women... feminists would typically ask: Why should men have authority over women? Also it is a well-known problem in philosophy, law, business, sociology etc. that authority does tend to be abused.--Fenice 14:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

How About "Abusive Patriarchy"? Or "Oppressive Patriarchy"? --NightDragon 07:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I moved the Patriarchy link to make it sound less inherently wrong, as i belive it is not right to have truely bad things like stereotyping, sexual objectification, and then *Wham* patriarchy at the end, as if it belongs there. I moved it to the beginning of the sentance, so it doesnt group with those truely bad things (due to people reading left to right) --NightDragon 07:09, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Well, it is there because it is the main issue. Have you ever read anything about feminism without mention of partiarchy. It's hard to argue that it isn't the key issue.--Fenice 09:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV - experience of women

The beginning of the current description of "feminism" is unacceptably distorted because it creates a - completely wrong - impression that anyone who feels like a woman is naturally led to feminism.

Thatcherism is also based on feelings an opinions of a woman, but strikingly differs from feminism.

It is a widely accepted fact in Europe that feminism is a politically organized form of misandry, and only a special subset of women suffer from feminism. Pretending that feminism "owns" the whole female population is outrageous. --Lumidek 00:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"It is a widely accepted fact in Europe that feminism is a politically organized form of misandry." That's a bizarre statement. Do you have a source for this wide acceptance?
Regarding the tag, it can't simply be placed on the page: you also have to make concrete and actionable suggestions for change, in line with our policies. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:08, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
Consider third-wave feminism, whose ideologies are hardly characterizable as "misandry" at all. Please make sure what you are adding is factually correct before you add it to an article. Dysprosia 04:05, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is a widely accepted fact in Europe that feminism is a politically organized form of misandry
No, it is not. I've never heard that.
Well, it's obvious that it does not mean much. "Mainstream contemporary feminism is unquestionably founded in misandry." [7] [8] [9]
Also: men can be feminists as well: consider Lacan.--Fenice 05:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm removing the NPOV warning because the stated reasons for it are bizarre and fairly unfounded. They also don't represent a 'dispute' - no attempt to come to consensus has been made, and the majority of people responding to the assertion have questioned its authenticity / validity. An An 07:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree that my obviously true comments do not represent any dispute. The reason why the NPOV tag is necessary is that the formulations on the page are unquestionably misleading. --Lumidek 10:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your comments are not "obviously true". Any form of misandry that may or may not exist in some strands of feminism does not mean that other strands of feminism which may not have misandrist ideologies are thus misandrist ideologies. By your extension, because some Christians like Fred Phelps preach hate, we would mention in Christianity's first paragraph that Christianity is a religion motivated by hatred. Fred Phelps is not representative of Christianity by numbers, and thus strands of feminism which may express misandrist ideas are not representative of all feminist movements either. Dysprosia 11:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lumideck, it seems to me that you are provoking a dispute where none need exist. If you have something of value to add to the ongoing constructive discource about feminism, let's hear it. But please desist from provocation. We're here to construct an encyclopedia, not to kowtow to every individual's demands for inclustion. If you seriously wanted to be included, then approach this article in a sane and reasoned way - bring your issues to talk, bring evidence for your assertions, and be willing to engage in discussion. An An 03:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given that someone removed the phrase "the experiences of women", I think the substance of the complaint has been dealt with. It is wrong to say that there isn't dispute on this topic as the this talk page has a very long archive of a dispute in which I was involved. I was willing to wait around and see if other people had a third-way proposal that slrubenstein would accept and that I would also accept--but that only means that the problem was festering. I agree that Lumidek's assertion is unfounded in its scope, however, I warn that his core complaint involving the phrase "primarily motivated by the experiences of women" does not depend on his subsequent comment about misandry. Please see (Argument from fallacy) --Pearlg 06:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cool, but I don't think it was a dispute in this instance. An An 14:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I continue to believe that "based on the experience of women" is a crucial element of feminism. This statement in no way suggests that there is only one way to understand the experience of women, it is not an exclusive claim (i.e. it does not say that feminism is the only movement based on the experience of women).

Maybe it does not say so, but it definitely invites one to this interpretation. If I write that "science and rational thinking is based on the xperience and observations of men", one can also say that it is not based *just* on the observation of men - but nevertheless such a statement would be misleading, but still less misleading than your definition of feminism.

Moreover, it says "women," not woman. "Thatcherism" is most definitely not based on "the experience of women." It is based on the experiences of a person who happens to be a woman.

In the same way, feminism is based on experiences of persons who happen to be - or at least claim to be - women.

Whoever made that comment (was it Lumidek?) is naturalizing "woman," a very unfeminist thing to do.

It may be an unfeminist thing to do, but it is definitely the only meaningful thing to do, and if someone thinks than being a woman is anything different than a natural characteristic of a person, then one must be afraid about the ability of the person to think. Are you really questioning than being a woman is a question of nature? Or are you just joking? The reason why I ask is that I have indeed met people crazy enough that they have had doubts about the natural origin of gender.

Human beings occupy all sorts of roles and have multiple identities. One of Thatcher's identities is as a woman -- but her being a woman had nothing to do with the development of her politics or economic policies.

Well, this is why Thatcherism is a valuable and universal paradigm for the whole humankind, which includes women and men, not just for a small subset of the humankind that happens to have some very specific biological characteristics and very specific opinions about the social issues.

Every individual woman has unique experiences. Feminism is predicated on the existence of "women" as a group or category, and it is the experience of being part of this group or category that I mean to signify.

Does Margaret Thatcher belong to this category of "women"? If the answer is No, then feminism is another dangerous form of totalitarian ideology that tries to eliminate all women that disagree with it. If the answer is Yes, then you admit that your text is not true.

A "movement based on the experiences of women" means experiences that are fundamentally tied to one's identification as a woman, experiences of acts made because someone is a "woman" (a parallel: I am Black. If I am fired from my job because I really screwed up, that is not an act of racism.

If this is your justification, then it shows that that the "social theory" is inappropriate because being fired cannot lead to any theory.

If I am fired because I am Black, that is racism. The Black Power movement and Black Consciousness movement, as well as the NAACP, came into existence because of conditions that a person experienced because he was Black, not because he was a father, son, doctor, lawyer, carpenter, farmer, minister, porter, who happened to be Black).

Movements like that were apparently created because various groups of people found that they had the same or very similar interests and wanted to fight for these interests together against other groups. Is it then OK to define feminism as the political movement that tries to protect the interest of those women who feel unsuccessful and unsatisfied with their lives? Otherwise I see no other description with which you want to exclude the majority of women who clearly don't share the interests you described. Women that prefer to be loved, to be mothers of families, and to do things that they like and they're good at by training as well as the gifts of mother Nature.
How does "being loved" have anything to do with this? You think feminists are not loved and do not love? They do not have families? And why should "things that they like" be limited for women, whereas "things that men like" can cover the entire world of activity? With all due respect, I think there's a bridge somewhere missing its troll.

I do not understand why this claim is controversial — I honestly think this is the fundamental connection between such diverse people as bel hooks, Simone de Beauvoire, Mary Daily, Betty Friedan, and Gloria Azandula.

Well, people like the proponent of "gendercide" Mary Daly can have other connections, too, especially if the other women are comparable creatures like Mary Daly.

The only reasonable criticism I can imagine is that "women" is not a homogeneous group or universal category, and that different kinds of women (e.g. depending on class or ethnicity) have very different kinds of experiences. The solution to this would not be to delete "based on the experiences of women," but rather to say "various movements based on the experiences of women."

This is however a complete redefinition of the word "feminism". The billions of women who believe, for example, that the Christian God created them to accompany men and fulfil very particular and gender-specific functions certainly do not fit your generalized definition of feminism. On the contrary. They would agree with me that feminism is sick.
Might I point out that according to the Encyclopedia Britannica Almanac for 2004, there are slightly over 2 billion Christians in the world. (2,069,883,000 as of mid-2003) It's reasonable to assume that half of them are women. Even if 100% of those women believed that "feminism is sick" that's still a maximum of one billion ... not "billions". And that's assuming that all Christian women believe they are meant to be second class citizens, which is statistically not the case. If the rest of your "facts" are as valid as that one, I don't see that you have much to contribute to this discussion. Worldwalker 18:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It has been a while since Pearlq and I have discussed this (and of course I'd be happy to discuss it further with him or her), but my last memory is that Pearlq thought "movement to advance the position of women" is more inclusive, and my objection is that it is less inclusive because it leaves no room for those feminists who challenge the very validity of the socially constructed categories of "men" and "women."

Once again, I insist that if someone thinks that "men" and "women" are *socially* constructed categories, then he (or more likely she) has completely lost his (or her) mind. Believing weird misconceptions like that is not a consequence of the experience of being a woman; it is a consequence of being incredibly dumb which can happen *both* to women as well as men. --Lumidek 03:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that many feminists want to advance the position of women in society. But I just don't think that is true of all feminists. I do think, however, that all feminists — whether they want to advance the position of women in society, or want to advance a more radical critique of gender and reject both "men" and "woman" as conceptual categories, or at least as one that people believe are rooted in or determined by biology — have in common the fact that their ideology and project is an active response to their experiences as, or of being, "women." Slrubenstein | Talk 01:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no attachment to "advance the position of women" per se but I do strongly have a feeling against the implications of saying that feminism is primarily motivated by the experience(s) of women. 'experience' implies something very empirical (An event or a series of events participated in or lived through; The totality of such events in the past of an individual or group. [10]) . Now, I don't doubt that some feminists were and are motivated and formed their opinions based observation (of their own life and those around them); however, this cannot be entirely inclusive as there are forms of feminism which are derived from broader moral systems.
Moreover, men, as well as women, have lived through these experiences--albeit from different perspectives--though some feminists would argue that there is a unique female viewpoint, others do not and infact specifically deny it. There are people who dispute that women have a unique perspective. There are also people who dispute that certain feminsts have properly "observed" the world around them, and "anti-feminists" would likely argue that feminism has nothing to do with the experience of anyone irrespective of gender. All of this implies that "experiences of women" is not only misleading but it is not NPOV. --Pearlg 06:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I won't respond to Ludimek's comments, all of which misrepresent what I wrote, or are misinformed. I do think Pearlg's understanding of "experience" is too narrow. It is a word many feminists use, and it does not refer specifically to "observations," it highlights subjective expeiences (relationships to objective activities or structures that are mediated by the person's subject-position) (I think this is consistent with the dictionary definition you provide; I merely emphasize that the definition does not refer exclusively to observations). As to your point about moral frameworks, 'all of the feminist theorists I have read (which is broad but I admit far from complete) argue that their moral frameworks are themselves the product of their grappling with their experiences, or their attraction to a given moral frameweok is the result of their having grappled with their experiences. Indeed, most feminist theorists I have read see feminism (or their version of it) as a moral framework. I mentioned a pretty diverse group — bel hooks, Simone de Beauvoire, Mary Daily, Betty Friedan, and Gloria Azandula — which of these persons do you think would take issue with what I just said? Anyway, Pearlg, how would you feel about "the experience of gender-roles and relations" or "the experience of a given set of gender-roles and relations?" These formulations are simultaneously more precise, and more inclusive (men and women, I mean). Would one of thesem, or a variation thereof, make sense to you? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "gender roles and relations" is specific enough. One could probably argue that masculism is a movement motivated by "gender roles and relations" as well. Perhaps "motivated by perceived asymmetry in gender roles and relations" would be more specific. Dysprosia 00:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's moving in a pleasant direction. I think "perceptions of" is much better from a NPOV position. But, I still think--and I don't think you capture this yet...--that not all Feminists are "reactionary". Feminism could stand and exist as a moral philosophy even if there had never been a patriarchy. e.g., When Mill was writing it wasn't with respect to there being an inequity to address per se. Mill's position was much more prima facia. Feminism(s) are not only social and political reform movements but also systems of moral philosophy. It might be nit-picking though to quibble on this point because obviously there has been asymmetry--whether or not a person would call that inequity and whether or not they were actively or passively influenced if at all... let me sleep on your "perceived asymmetry proposal" :-) --Pearlg 02:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I agree that "experiences of gender roles and relations" is much better than just "experiences of women". "Feminism is primarily based on the experiences of women" appeared a little strange, like "zoology is based on human experience with animals". The statement per se does not say much, but in a controversial topic one could start reading all kinds of things into it.--Fenice 07:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am glad you think it is an improvement. I still do not see a problem with the fact that both feminism and masculinism are motivated by experiences of gender-roles and relations; it is natural in an article to begin with a broader definition and move to more specific definitions. In any event, the current definition (the first sentence) is simply inaccurate and misleading. Many feminists are not promoting the rights of women or gender inequality. It is wrong to have a definition that excludes many feminists. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How about this as a first sentence then:
Feminism is a body of social theory and a political movement providing a critique of social relations, which focuses on analyzing gender inequality and the promotion of women's rights, interests, and issues.
It's a broad definition, but not an empty one.--Fenice 15:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you just add "focusing on analyzing gender and sexual identity, as well as gender inequality..." I would be absolutely fine with that. And of course, although you are offering to strike out the line on the promotion of women's rights, you do know that I agree without reservation that this clause does belong in the text, either in the firstparagraph, if it starts with "One major concern of many feminists is ..." or in the second paragraph. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

Some of the recent edits by 24.64.223.203 have changed the intro, some with a lot of unsourced POV, which I've tried to address, but some issues about "materialism" are a little more difficult to address without someone being versed in philosophy (which I am not). Dysprosia 08:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Female domestic violence as major field of study of feminism??

Can you quote a source for this claim, Dysprosia. Female domestic violence is hardly studied at all, and I'd be very surprised if feminists have now jumped at the subject and done a lot of studying.--Fenice 08:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the sentence in the article now says that domestic violence is an issue raised with feminist political activism, not feminist academic theory. Does that elucidate matters? Dysprosia 08:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, it makes it even more unlikely to be true. I have never heard of it anyway. Female domestic violence is played down by most of society. We are talking about mothers beating up their children and the like. Why would feminists campaign against that?--Fenice 09:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I thought domestic violence primarily meant violence within a spousal or de-facto relationship, for example, a husband beating up his wife. Dysprosia 09:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, the term includes violence towards children. And "mother beats child" is acutally the most frequent occurrence of domestic violence according to most statistics. In day-to-day usage the term is understood as men beating wives and children, which is not correct; that's why I think we should be accurate about male vs. female violence.--Fenice 09:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have no doubt the term includes, I was saying the primary inclusion is the male/female violence. If you have a better term to describe it, feel free to add it, or to clarify the usage. Dysprosia 09:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your solution: "violence within a domestic partnership" is fine.--Fenice 05:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Female domestic vice seems to be ignored in all feminist studies WHY?

Female vice is the other side of the ostensibly male domestic violence equation. Where is this explained here. In the Iranian documentary film TEN, a young married woman hassles a street prostitute about being a prostitute. The prostitute responded with "I just do retail what you do wholesale." There was no comeback from the married woman. When will we see these realities in the domestic abuse discussion here?

social construction

Pearlq, you can dispute whether it is a fact that gender or sexuality are social constructions. But you cannot dispute the fact that many feminists study these as social constructions. The opening endorses no view, but it is inclusive of different kinds of feminisms. Don't delete one kind of feminism just because you do not like it. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am satisfied with Pearlg's latest edit. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gynocentric

Does it really exist (see Section : Criticsms of Feminism? Gynocentric takes you no-where. Jeffrey Newman 14:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by 12.203.190.79 and Wazerface

I refer to these edits. Reasons for my reversion:

1. This article has been crafted by the forces of debate and consensus. Replacing whole sections with antifeminist (callin feminist groups 'sects' instead of 'people') in one stroke is not on. Come to talk if you have another opinion to develop.

Whole sections were not replaced. Reverts should be particular and not wholesale as to ruin any improving ammendments.

2. Content and style not up to standard of original article.

This statement is made without justification.

3. Use of pseudo-science to justify religious bigotry - eg. suggestion that women are 'fundamentally unique' from men.

Religion is undeniably a critical aspect for well-rounded investigation of a subject. The NPOV policy clearly states that both religous and scientific views should be discussed. An An might arguably exhibit an antireligous viewpoint in conforming this article. There is a clear antireligous bias in many places that do not form a complete general representation of feminism.

4. Religious quotations - why even bother? They replace perfectly useful encyclopedic content.

NPOV policy promotes these quotes. It is undeniably good accounting and is similair to citations of scientific viewpoint throughout the article.

5. Edits POV, anti-feminist

Antifeminisim might be seen relative only to extreme feminism as is exhibited by AnnaAniston. Please read the following topics at [11]. : Giving "equal validity", Anglo-American focus, Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

Cheers, An An 5 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)

Responses by Wazerface 5 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)

I agree with Anna, these edits were POV and also unsourced. Religion has ample space in the current version.--Fenice 5 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)

Worldwide Statistics (again)

I've added some more statistics that some feel reflect a possible anti-male bias in society. I feel that they are relevant here if the article is not to look like a NOW recruitment leaflet. Anyone object to removing the neutrality warning? User:thebluemeanie 19:43, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to describe, not debunk, feminism. This article does not "look like a NOW recruitment leaflet". It does look like an adequate description of a complex and diverse system of appraising the status of women in contemporary society and the ways in which this ideology has evolved, and why it is still relevent for many women, etc. This article does not need to place statistics showing that feminism may be wrong to balance statistics and argument which show that for some people it has relevance. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. We're here to describe the social phenomena that is feminism, not to pass judgement on whether it is correct or not. Especially not to work to 'prove' that it is incorrect. Your statistics are mostly from the USA, and hence do not for the whole of society expected to be explained in a section headed "Worldwide statistics". Also, the statistical fact that men somehow "die more" than women in the US does not constitute an "anti-male bias". It certainly doens't equate with women being unrepresented in civil life, working more than men (a fact!), and being unable to access wealth (that great source of control of your own destiny) - which is the main bent of the section you added to. Cheers, An An 04:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"female bias" statistics

I think that the paragraph with the "death statistics" has nothing to do with a "female bias" of the society. It's more like the way women interacts with the society, rather than the way the society interacts with them. So, it's more related to female psychology: women are less likely to take risks that would result in their death. It's less likely that they'll assault a robber that entered their home, less likely to choose a risky job or lifestyle, etc. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 08:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Addition to statistics section

The new addition to the statistic section reads very strange, to a European anyway. You might have added an account of someones vacation in the Alps it would have appeared just as out of place but would at least be amusing to read. What I am trying to say is, the newly added statistic has nothing to do with the current content. The section illustrates that women are facing a glass ceiling and own a disproportionately small percentage of the wealth in our society. To try and balance this out with some death-statistic... :-o.
Then there is an npov-tag on this section. This appears much like putting an npov-tag on the catholic section of the abortion article, because non-catholics think that the catholic position is not true. --Fenice 09:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's get rid of the death stats AND the NPOV tag. An An 23:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the NPOV tag has been long standing and the reasons for it should be clear.

  • Worldwide, women work more than men, when both paid employment and unpaid household tasks are accounted for, according to the United Nations Human Development Report 2004: Section 28, Gender, Work Burden, and Time Allocation. In rural areas of the developing countries surveyed, women perform an average of 20% more work than men, or an additional 98 minutes per day. In the OECD countries surveyed, on average women performed 5% more work than men, or 18 minutes per day.
This is disputed based on methodological questions. The tabulation criterion for "time spent working" is dubious and hardly has any consensus. Further, the entire phrasing that connects "work more" with "more time" is opinion.
  • Women own only 1 percent of the world's wealth, and earn 10 percent of the world's income, despite making up 51 percent of the population.
Ditto. Its extremely troubling that this number is given without an associated statistical confidence level--it obviously requires sampling and voluntary reporting (e.g., the US government does not tabulate "wealth" and certainly does not do so on the basis of gender. I can't even begin to imagine how this would be done--as anyone knows who has studied accounting such measurement is extremely subjective. Accounting only "works" because of favoring conservative estimates and biasing choices against inflating common metrics of performance). While I might be willing to accept stats without confidence levels ordinarily because I trust that it was done right, my intuition tells me to be extremely doubtful that these numbers are at a high confidence level. --Pearlg 04:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Pearlg: I don't see how that is relevant to the Feminism article? The section is about the statistics feminists quote. I do not think that the counter statistics (saying that men work more than women etc) which probably exit and you will probaby come up with need to be added, because this article is on feminism, not on masculinism.--Fenice 05:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that there should be an emphasis on describing and documenting feminism, not on disproving or criticising feminism. If the stats are quoted by feminists as a supporting proof of their ideology then that isn't an NPOV violation. It would be more POV to insist on decrying feminism at every turn than to simply describe it. An An 05:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC) I just realised that everyone's going to get upset about me saying "not on disproving or critising". Allow me to clarify - I mean critically evaluate, not uncritically condemn.An An 05:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I essentially agree. The point is to describe and document and, so much as it takes to explain feminism's standing in society, elaborate on the criticisms leveled against feminism, but that last point is not an end in itself. The more justification the article relates on behalf of feminism, though, the more we will be forced to balance it. It would be best to stick with description and avoid advocacy. This might mean spending relatively little time discussing the contemporary relevance of the topic and leaving the proselytizing to the links. --Pearlg 20:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It's relevant because the presentation of the information in the article at the moment is such that it appears the information itself is factual and undisputed rather than it merely being undisputed that those claims are made by feminists. When you rewrite to say... such and such feminist says (we should be concerned because|she was motivated because) she believes that (stat here) is abhorent. Further, when you add, "such and such is weary of feminism because they find the statistics used are questionable" I will happily support removing the non-NPOV warning, but the current text as written is POV and none of us have applied the necessary rigor to yet correct that. It was not my intention to defend the death statistics though, and I do not claim that as presented they should be present in the article--nor do they in themselves actually serve to correct the NPOV problems that *I* am mentioning. I suspect though that it would be beneficial to organize a section on why otherwise would be supportors of feminism are weary of it and in such a context the death stats might have relevance juxtaposed against some quotations about patriarchy, but that is an independent issue. --Pearlg 20:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you just repeat who your "such and such" is, because I could not find any mention of it in the discussion above.--Fenice 20:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I meant only a reference to "If the stats are quoted by feminists as a supporting proof of their ideology then that isn't an NPOV violation" The section might be "about the statistics feminists quote" but it doesn't adequately read that way. --Pearlg 20:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I am highly wary of any statistics - they are always going to be skewed. (I used to work the phones in market research so I know lots of the dirty tricks). What troubles me though is the expectation that "pro-feminist" stats (that describe what feminists believe and why) should be pristine, while any "anti-feminist" stats are just accepted because they're there for NPOV ballast. I am in favour of reworking the section as "stats that bolster the feminist claim" or "stats feminists quote" thus confining the section and removing the need for endless "balancing" games.An An 23:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It won't ever be so simple. Sadly, we live in a world where stats take on an element of absolute truth. Merely making something a quotation is the same trick used in the newspaper and journalism industry to veil editorial opinion behind objectiveness. Repeating the information without comment must be taken as the same as endorsing it--after all if you were certain is was a dead-fabrication you'd insist on removing it wouldn't you? --Pearlg 02:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


I don't think we're talking about fabrications. This is about whether we need to pad any supportive stats with disclaimers and balance them with stats about men. I don't think its appropriate to do that. An An 03:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Copy of removed men-death stats

However, critics of feminism often cite the following as evidence that a female bias also exists in western societies such as [[United States|America]]: * 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)''

Who coined the term?

Does anybody have any source on who coined the term "feminism"? Presumably not a feminist, unless the term has drifted in meaning.... -- Smjg 15:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the term has drifted in meaning. For example, the Amercian Heritage Dictionary, 1983 edition, defines "feminism" as "Advocacy of the political, social, and economic equality of women."

The last thing we need here is another pointless political argument, so I don't think it's really worthwhile to try to determine who exactly is to blame. Besides, there's plenty of blame to go around, so everyone from the extremists who appropriated the term for their own agendas to the opponents who demonized it so they could argue against it can all have a full share of the blame, with plenty left over for those of us who sat back and let them do it.

Personally, I think that political, social, and economic equality of women is a step towards the political, social, and economic equality of everyone. And that's a good thing. Worldwalker 17:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Feminism comes from Latin "femina" which means "woman". So the current definition of feminism is the same meaning that it has had forever, meaning, advocating the equality of women. Revolución 03:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

'Woman' + 'ism' = 'womanism'. Nothing about equality there. -Seth Mahoney 03:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Feminism means advocating equality of women. That's the definition. Revolución 05:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Many feminists do view feminism to mean this, but other feminists take a very different view. There is often a danger of relying on dictionary definitions when writing an encyclopedia article. Dictionairies — common ones — prioritize the popular usage of a term. The meaning that most people ascribe to the word "feminism" may not be the meaning most feminists ascribe, for example (this is true for many topics — "communism," "archeology" to name two. To rely on a simple etimology as Revolución does is not research, it is the evasion of research. Let us look at major self-described feminist organizations (e.g. in the US, NOW, or WHAM <http://www.echonyc.com/ ; obviously organizations in other countries as well). Let's also look at the kinds of articles published both in popular and scholarly feminist publications (e.g., in the English-speaking world, Ms. Magazine and Signs). Let's look at what books and articles are actually assigned at university-level courses on feminism or feminist theory. This would be real research which would provide the basis for an accurate and useful article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I see, we're not even agreed now on the meaning of the term. Dictionary definitions I've seen always talk of women being equal to men. Not to each other. On this basis, "feminism" is hardly an appropriate term, as there's nothing equalistic about naming a movement promoting equality of the sexes after one of these sexes. -- Smjg 13:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Feminism is a heterogeneous movement. Any definition of Feminism that does not include room for someone like Luce Irrigary, Judith Butler, or bell hooks (whether you like their ideas or not) is seriously flawed. SR

I actually know the answer to this one! The proto-feminist and utopian socialist Charles Fourier used the term féminisme in an obscure 1837 work. I believe if you check this in the unabridged Robert (the standard French reference dictionary), 1837 is given as year of first use. See Altman, Elizabeth, "The Philosophical Bases of Feminism: The Feminist Doctrines of the Saint-Simonians and Charles Fourier." Philosophical Forum 7.3-4 (Spring-Summer 1974): 277-93, esp. 291n1. My dissertation also cryptically cites "Goldstein 92n10," but I am embarrassed to report that Goldstein got dropped from the bibliography. I have added a sentence to the history to note Fourier's contribution. Billbrock 06:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. What did "féminisme" mean to Fourier? Above all, a historicized (proto-Marxist) critique of patriarchal society and its vestiges in pre-socialist capitalism. Per Fourier's worldview, all humans were held back: by prejudice, by slavery, by capitalist exploitation of labor...patriarchal society's oppression of women was the template for all other oppressions. Billbrock 07:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

BDSM

The problem of Wikipedia is that feminists write about feminism. But they ignore a (IMO) absurd article on Bondage (BDSM), with some (again IMHO) degrading pictures..... --pippo2001 21:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The article on bondage is not in the least absurd. It is informative and to the point. And there is nothing degrading about the pictures since they are with certaintly taken of consenting adults. Feminism does not oppose females making informed and volontary choices. Choosing to submit is valid as such a choice. In fact, many submissive women, some even calling themselves "sex-slaves", are outspoken feminists. They often have to be just that since they have to fight for their right to make that choice without being judged by narrow minded people who don't understand. --J-Star 00:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

ifeminists.net Link

I thought it was interesting that under "Critical of Feminism" there was a link to ifeminists.net. I wonder if Wendy McElroy and her supporters would object to this, since they seem to identify themselves as feminists. Of course, the way I see it, "Critical of Feminism" is where that site belongs, but, that might be a POV... I'm not going to touch anything, but was curious what people think... --Brian Z 05:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

iFeminists are often critical of radical feminism and other such feminims that does not include individualist mindsets. Radical feminism and iFeminism are on different sides on the feminist equivalent of the political scale. Hence, it is indeed fair to point out iFeminists as critics of feminism.--J-Star 00:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wendy McElroy

I, for one, am wondering where Wendy McElroy is coming from and what her aims are. There is a reason for this questioning.

A few years back, she posted to the newsgroups and invited everyone to visit her web-site.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: m...@ifeminists.com (Wendy McElroy)
Date: 3 Mar 2002 06:42:26 -0800
Local: Sun, Mar 3 2002 7:42 am
Subject: Invitation to feminist site

I cordially invite both women and men to check out a free feminist resource, ifeminists.com <http://www.ifeminists.com>. Ifeminism (individualist feminism) defends every peaceful choice women can make with their own bodies as long as they take personal responsibility for those choices. It embraces men as valued partners in creating good will between the sexes. It opposes both political correctness and any appeal to government for solutions.

Check out the daily-changing newsfeed on the front page, visit our BBs or chat room, subscribe to the free weekly e-zine of feminist news http://www.ifeminists.com/interaction/lists/, explore the extensive free database http://www.ifeminists.com/information/...

In short, drop on in.

Cordially,
Wendy McElroy

So I went and took a look. She also, in the web-site, made the claim to have partnered with a men's site. I checked this out. There was indeed a web page, but that was it, one page, no articles, not even links to other men's sites. This page was a sham, and what was the point of it? As near as I can see, the only point that made simple sense was that the page was there for ad revenue, as it did have many ads.

While I have found many articles by Wendy to be informative and not sexist as is the usual feminist fare, this event rather put me off.

And curiously, despite the fact that she had responded to none of the posts in the newsgroups, she felt it necessary to diss the men there.

Newsgroups: soc.men
From: m...@ifeminists.com (Wendy McElroy)
Date: 6 Mar 2002 09:03:14 -0800
Local: Wed, Mar 6 2002 10:03 am
Subject: Goodbye...with regrets

From the tremendously belligerant response to my invitation to check out ifeminists.com (a sister site for mensactivism, with whom we get along wonderfully), I must admit...I give up. It doesn't matter that we/ifeminists are meticulously friendly to men, it doesn't matter that we advocate the repeal/rejection of every law that privileges women instead of granting equality, it doesn't matter...whatever good will, common decency stand we take toward men. This site (soc.men), if taken in isolation, would make me believe that good will toward men was a stupid, ignorant policy to pursue because "men" really do hate women. But I have other organizations, such as mensactivism.org, and other men, such as my friendship with Warren Farrell -- not to mention my terrific husband, to draw on. So I will just give up on this group without allowing it to make me believe that *all* men are irredeemable hostile to women. Good bye.

Wendy McElroy

Wendy: To give up on men is just because one mildly belligerent idiot bullied you is too bad. I use your ideas. I believe you do hate men a little but after a rape by a man you are entitled to. I also believe that you have the courage to aim at open minded ideas here. For that I applaud you. I want to see you mentioned on this feminist article. I hate to see the Stalinist Gender feminazi's win with patent falsehoods. 128.111.95.55 23:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems in reality she's as openly hostile to men as the rest of feminism. This is a slight re-phrase of the usual feminist response, that any man with an issue or problem is just a whiner, a whiner who can't get laid, or a woman-hater who just wants women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

That is, I see a disconnect with her public persona and her real reaction to men and men's issues. Which makes me wonder where she is really coming from. Wherever it is, she appears to have the same issues with men 'whining' as the rest of feminism. It seems that she'll tell us what our issues are, but think men should just shut up. Or possibly she could care less about men and men's issue personally, but she's found a market niche where she can make a living and writes accordingly.

She also seems to confuse anti-feminism and woman hating, a common feminist reaction, but hardly something to distinguish her from those she gives the appearance of opposing.

I'd advise taking Wendy McElroy with a grain of salt.

What has this got to do with anything? The article doesn't mention her. Regardless of the correctness or not of what you describe, Talk pages are not soapboxes, forums, or avenues for general discussion - they are intended to discuss matters about maintaining and improving article content. Dysprosia 07:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for link and information

Can the appropriate section be linked to Women as theological figures and a few appropriate comments be put there.

The title can be changed unless the page is split into two or three (as suggested on the talk page).

Jackiespeel 10:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Gender feminism

This entire article should be renamed "gender feminism", and should explicitly state that it is not written from a neutral POV. I don't suppose there is any realistic hope of the article actually adopting an NPOV, though.

what would constitute NPOV? Which POVs are lacking? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I just added a point of view (an anti-hierarchical POV of feminism) to the introduction that is probably not entirely accepted by the majority of feminists, but which is considered by some to be the essence of feminism. (BTW, this is appropriate to the introduction part of the article since it is one brief description (out of a group of many other descriptions) of the essence of feminism.) This is one thing that might help lead this article to a more NPOV-type style. Exposition of the diversity of (some vastly differing) views of feminism is a way that a more NPOV approach can be had.
Neutrally stating various views without respect to which view the article's author actually holds is important for someone who wishes to (intellectually honestly) give a true view of feminism (or virtually any other encyclopedic topic, for that matter). This is a principle that anyone who wishes to make a change to this article should keep in mind.
Robotbeat 20:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
We should try to lay out about half a dozen of the main divergent understandings of the concept of feminism, since there is so much dispute as to what being a "feminist" really means. The anti-hierarchical idea of the definition of feminism is one example that I added. (It probably could be said more succinctly (and have better references than just Anarcha-Feminism and post-structuralism, but I will read up more on anti-hierarchism.) For instance, a more aggressive feminist may say that women who just want to be equal to men and leave it at that may consider those women as less than feminist, but the more equality concerned feministic women may say that the radical feminist doesn't fit the definition of feminism. Also, I believe that the commonly understood (or misunderstood) definition of feminism as being the more radical feminism should be explained (so that the common person understands that this narrower definition of feminism is viewed as incorrect by many feminist scholars).
Feminism is quite a broad and divergent topic and should be explained briefly and succinctly (even if that means rougly) in virtually all of its definitions (including how it's commonly viewed by outsiders) in the intro.
Robotbeat 16:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


Suicide Rates

I made a minor change under Criticisms of Feminism. I think it's important that we don't pass off male suicide as having nothing to do with gender-related experience. People who use methods more likely to succeed may do so because they want to die more than those who are making more of a cry for help. One can also look at why men are isolated after divorce, or why fewer men seek help for depression -- the reasons might reflect a societal bias toward providing or encouraging women to receive support moreso than men. Not necessarily, mind you, but since it's possible, I've indicated in the article that the studies mentioned are open to interpretation.24.64.223.203 22:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Women attempt suicide about twice as often as men, but men die from attempts four times more often than women. (See, we are more succesful[/sarcasm]). If anything, it's the machismo mindset of some males that hurts other males, not the voices of protest from feminists that hurt males -- although I'll readily admit that there are some "feminist" women who are simply sexist and caustic. I guess I'm saying, the statistics are true but misleading, and we need to work on differentiating between feminists and sexist women who are called "feminist" by conservatives or wrongly call themselves "feminist." --24.126.30.46 00:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: My latest edit. I've reworked the entire Criticisms section. The paragraphs were disjointed, the grammar poor (much like the rest of Wikipedia). I eliminated the entire section on suicide - this is a valid concern for the article on masculism, which I have linked, but I agree that it doesn't result from feminism directly, and in any event, was over-emphasized in comparison to the rest of the section. I also eliminated the section on father's rights, since the discrimination against men, rather than being a result of feminism, was much greater prior to modern feminism. Again, it is included under masculism. I also took out several sentences which were really just counter-arguments to the criticisms, and belong either elsewhere in the article or on the talk page. It's an encyclopedia, so the criticisms should be listed without going into debate. There was also a paragraph on young women's views of feminism, which I moved to earlier in the article.

It's much easier to read now. Funny how everyone wants to keep adding their stuff to the article, thus resulting in few people wanting to read the entire thing.

Re: the above comment on suicide rates. Yes, women attempt more often and men succeed more - but consider that people who don't succeed live to make more attempts. A man might succeed the first time, and thus has made one attempt. A woman who keeps failing can make several attempts - so I'd say the only misleading thing about the statistics is the greater rate of attempts by women.

I don't think a 'machismo mindset' explains much. Mental illness probably has more to do with suicide than anything else.

As far as the voices of protest - I do think they can hurt men if they are presented in a hostile fashion (not picking on feminists here - this is true for all political movements, including the men's), or without concern for their own prejudice (again, this is true of everyone). It's the one-sidedness and need for emotional power of all people that does the most harm.24.64.223.203 11:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: photo. Someone added a photo ('against suffrage') in the 'Criticisms of Feminism' section. I moved it to the 'Civil Rights' section. It seemed to make more sense in the historical context. The criticisms section is contemporary criticism, some of which is from within the movement itself, and the photo (when included in this section) seems to imply that criticisms are unreasonable in general ('see, you critics were once against the vote, what are you against now?'). I admit this is an interpretation on my part, but if it comes across this way to me it might to others too - I think the photo works better under civil rights.24.64.223.203 02:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

'Third World' feminsim?

I am really unhappy to see that there is a page third-world feminism, for all the usual reasons. Will people give their views at the discussion page there please? Annawright 21:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Famous feminists

(Moved) Is Martha Stewart really a feminist? I'd question her addition to the list of famous feminists. Rhorn 22:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The heading Famous feminists could somehow be merged with List of feminists. This may help making this article a little unweildly. Alan Liefting 08:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Is Poseing in Playboy Feminist, anti-Feminist, or something else?

Genuine question, ladys. Not objecting to them doing it(as if!), just wondering. Not everybody has the gumption to do it, so if there are any out there with informed opinions on the matter, would like to hear. We could eventually do it up into something for the article. After all, WHY they pose nude, for millions of men, and for posterity, is a damm good question to ask, don't ya think? And yes Hugh, I have started to read the interviews now. Thanks for asking. Fergananim 21:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits by 66.41.212.231

Please read the Wikipedia Point of view guidelines before you continue editing this article. The statement that "feminists only care about gender inequality when it affects women" (paraphrased) is blatant POV, as are your other edits. Catamorphism 18:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The statement that feminists oppose gender equality is not POV, as this is one of the central principles of the feminist movement as stated by many feminist authors. Your claim that "feminists only care about gender inequality when it affects women" could be rephrased in an NPOV way (i.e., "men's rights activists have accused feminists of only caring about gender inequality when it affects women"), but it would belong in the "Criticisms of feminism" section, not in the introductory paragraph of the article. Catamorphism 01:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Stating as a fact that feminists oppose gender inequality, in spite of numerous examples of them supporting it is promoting a lie. Just because some feminists have claimed that they oppose gender inequality does not make it so. Similarly, stating as a fact in the introduction to a category entitled "oil companies" that oil companies are extremely comcerned about protecting the environment just because some members of the boards of oil companies have said they are in spite of the actions taken by many oil companies would also be promoting a lie. Without any examples of any mainstream feminist organizations ever opposing any gender inequality which they felt favored women you can't honestly describe them as being opposed to gender inequality without qualifying that it doesn't include gender inequalities which disadvantage men. - User 66.41.212.231


(Debate Topic) Feminism is not still important in the 21st century

I have a debate at school on this topic but I don't even know what feminism is. I would really appreciate it if someone could help me! All the information that I have found so far has been too complicated, do you know of any websites written for children to read on the subject?

Well, I'll give it a shot:
Feminism is basically a bunch of people, mostly women, who see that women are treated unfairly compared to men, and so have done something about it, such as protesting 100 years ago so that women could vote in America (before that, only men could vote for president and other stuff). Feminism today still does stuff and does other kinds of stuff, too, like sometimes pushing for men and women to be on the same footing (in other words, some feminists today are for total equality between men and women, so those feminists sometimes even help men get rights that women have). Some extreme feminists dislike men in general (and sometimes they believe that men are naturally not as good at stuff as women are), but most feminists are pretty normal. It's my opinion that a lot of people in America would be feminists except that they think that feminism is only about being extreme, and not at all about being fair to both men and women.
There are many types of feminists. For instance, some feminists think that moms should work at a full-time job just as much as the dad, and that the dad should take care of babies and kids just as much the mom. Some other feminists think that it's okay to have "regular" moms and dads, where the mom stays home and the dad goes to work, but most feminist today and in the past think that those "regular" roles should not be encouraged and they believe that you're putting down women by having "regular" mom and dad roles. A lot of feminists who also go to church think that women should also be allowed to be the main pastor (just as much as men) or the main priest.
Many feminists think that people should only say "he" when they are refering to a man or a boy. These feminists instead say that if you don't know if someone is a boy or a girl, then you should say something like "he or she" instead (or maybe something similar). Saying "he or she" is one type of "gender inclusive language," which is also a type of so-called "politically correct" language ("politically correct" means that things are said so that noone is offended, including people of different races or religions or gender, and sometimes people don't like politically correct language because it's hard to use and might seem unnatural to some people who aren't used to it).
Also, the word "feminism" comes from the word "female," but it doesn't mean that you can't be a feminist if you are a guy (although a very few extreme feminists don't want any men at all to be called "feminists"). Lots of men are feminists. Also, people of any kind of religion can be feminists, although sometimes people don't think you can be a Christian feminist (I think that this is definitely not true!). I think that a lot of people don't really understand feminism very well and that's why they don't think there can be a Christian feminist. If they understood feminism better, I think they too might call themselves a feminist!
Finally, I want to say that there are lots of different kinds of feminism, so it's hard to explain it very well. The best way to understand feminism is to talk to people who call themselves feminists.
There. How was that? I wasn't trying to be too unbiased, but just tried to give a practical explanation of feminism. I suppose I was trying to explain feminism to an average American kid. Robotbeat 08:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much, that was really helpful.

Next time, use the Wikipedia:Reference desk Dysprosia 02:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Gay Rights

Has anyone ever come to the conclusion that gay rights has been derailed by feminism? Feminism has sort of taken control of the movement and many gay men are actually supportive of feminist causes as opposed to gay rights.