Talk:Feminist movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

align="left" This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating.

Contents

[edit] "Feminism" is a modernity

I have some problems with the portion on "Prior to 1850". The term feminism is a modernity, and to call any person in history retroactively a feminist is questionable. I think that it invests in these long dead individuals too many qualities associated with modern feminists. More over, many of those qualities which make up modern feminist discourse were not even an a possible thought in the pre-1850s mind. I digress; the fact remains that a modernity should not be used to describe any historical thought. Any thoughts? I will wait to edit until I get some more opinions on the matter Cyclonus0102 04:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  • What about retitling it something like "The Roots of Feminsm" or "The Roots of the Women's Movement"? While I agree that calling Christine di Pizan a feminist when she wrote centuries before the term was coined is a bit of a stretch, it's not a stretch at all to assert that she was writing in favor of women's rights, or even that her work was a precursor to the modern feminist movement. Basically, i think this section belongs in the article, but I agree that it could be phrased better. —This unsigned comment is by 68.161.105.25 (talk • contribs) 9 March 2006.
    • Concur with the anon reply, especially because Women's rights is basically a disambiguation page. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dismissive of radicalism

The lead is written in such a way as to exclude radical feminists from the movement, embracing only reformism. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other problems

I'm not ready to plunge into this one, but here are a few other problems I see:

  • "Some feminists would argue that there is still much to be done on these fronts, while third wave feminists would disagree and claim that the battle has basically 'been won'." This strikes me as an inaccurate description of third wave feminists, or at least of some third wave feminists. Is there a citation to back up this claim?
  • There should be more of a contrast between, on the one hand, non-sexist and gender-inclusive language, and, on the other, rhetorical figures that deliberately gender language, as in "herstory".
  • "There is a so called third wave, but feminists disagree as to its necessity, its benefits, and its ideas. Often also called 'Post-Feminist,' it can possibly be considered to be the advancement of a female discourse in a world where the equality of women is something that can be assumed—rather than fought for. However, many women cite that this belief is oppressive in itself, as it assumes an equality which, to a certain degree, does not exist. Women still must face a host of issues including unequal pay, the lack of child care, the glass ceiling, sexual inequality in government programs such as social security, the burdensom assumption as to women's responsibility for the family even when working, and continuing gender stereotyping that hinder a younger generation of women from realising their abilities in math and the sciences." This reads like people arguing with each other. It does not read like an encyclopedia article.

Jmabel | Talk 06:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

I edited "In more or less all areas of the world, women are still paid less than men for equivalent work, hold much less political and economic power, and are often the subject of intense social pressure to conform to relatively traditional gender expectations." This is stated as fact, while the article's purpose should be to describe what the feminist movement believes, and not to validate these beliefs. I changed the text above to mention that those are the beliefs of feminists, to avoid POV. --Popsicle stick 10:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

BUT THESE ARE FACTS. Facts do not become POV because you find them inconvenient. However, they do require citation and don't seem to have any here. The "social pressure" part is arguably POV, because it is not readily measured, but the rest of it? Someone should track down citation and restore it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

So does someone want to sort through some of these? If not, I guess I'll eventually get there. - Jmabel | Talk 02:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Integration

There is a lot of overlap, and duplication between this and History of feminism, on which I am in the middle of a doing a major rewrite (currently up to 1900). There will need to be some major rationalisation, at least eventually. Similat considerations apply to a lot of the feminism topics. Mgoodyear 04:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odd statement

"Christine de Pizan, a late medieval writer, was possibly the earliest feminist in the western tradition. Indeed she is believed to be the first woman to make a living writing."

Wouldn't it make more sense for her to be the first known or recorded woman to make a living writing in Europe or France? Regardless of how sexist either of these areas may have been in the 15th century, there had to have been some women who were able to sustain themselves through writing. If not then, perhaps in a very different past. Kennard2 04:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam

In his July 2, 2007 article in Slate.com, Christopher Hitchens claimed that "The most noticeable thing about all theocracies is their sexual repression and their directly related determination to exert absolute control over women." ([3]) Have the adherents of Women's Liberation made public their opinion of the theocratic religion of Islam?Lestrade 00:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

It's worth remembering that on Wikipedia, we can all see each other's contributions. Your question, as you know, was asked and answered [[4]] a couple of days ago.KD Tries Again 15:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)KD
I assume that Women's Liberation and Feminism are two completely different concepts because they have two totally different names or designations.Lestrade 16:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Early Achievements

Feminists are often proponents of using non-sexist language, using "Ms." to refer to both married and unmarried women, for example, or the ironic use of the term "herstory" instead of "history".

This "herstory" example (incorrectly) gives the impression that the English word "history" is an amalgam of the English words his and story. "History" is derived from the Greek (h)istor ("knowing, learned"); the "his-" in "history" is completely unrelated to the "his/her" possessive pronouns in English.

My point: It seems odd to demonstrate a push for "non-sexist language" by changing a gender-neutral word ("history") into a word that pointedly references gender ("herstory").

This reference should be removed or replaced with a better example.

Fubla 17:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] link to third wave

In the first paragraph, with the link to third wave feminism, the sentence states that third wave feminists disagree that there is more to be done. The linked article on third wave feminism states what more there is to be done. The claim that third wave feminism claims that there is not more to be done is a falsehood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebewilderness (talk • contribs) 02:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)