Talk:Feminism/Archive 9

No real critique

Seems like no or only minor real critique is presented on the page despite the controversial nature of the subject. There is also no mention of the radical feminism (Nordic for instance) nor discussion of the claims that feminism is not for the equality of the genders but rather for the supremacy of one over the other.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.232.196.150 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

You forgot to sign your comment. That said, it seems to me that between the "contemporary criticisms" section and all the links to anti-feminist organizations and sites, we've done about all we can do. A lot of the allegations I'm seeing of all the "radical feminists" in the bushes tend to be unsourced and/or vague (what on earth do you mean by "Nordic" in the above comment, for example?) or isolated quotes from marginal, redlinked figures of the dim past. --Orange Mike 13:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Orange Mike there is quite a sizeable critical section here and the bandying around of the term "radical feminist" by anon. IP Users is starting to become annoying.--Cailil 22:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not surprisingly is critisism of feminism labelled as vague or unsourced - hopefully just because you have not been following the discussion going on in the Nordic countries. Particularly in Sweden has the discussion of the true intentions of some feminists and feministic organisations been quite vivid. In 2005 SVT, the Swedish national television, broadcasted a documentary called Könskriget (war of the genders) which sparked lots of debate. On the documentary Ireen von Wachenfeldt, then the president of ROKS (Riks Organisation för Kvinnojourer och Tjejjourer i Sverige, a government-funded women's organisation) claimed there was a civil war going on and that was, according to her, a war between the sexes. The same woman is also behind the famous statement: alla män är djur! (all men are nothing but animals!). On the same documentary a government official warned the female journalist hosting that she would not be given any help by the women's organisations should she ever need some - because she had not remained loyal. Discussion around the issue can be found eg on Dagens Nyheter, one of Sweden's most influential newspapers, that keep a debate section. Take an example: http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=572&a=397868&previousRenderType=2 (only in Swedish, sorry).

When it comes to the neutrality of articles - here and otherwhere - it is interesting to notice the difference between how the claims of feminists are presented compared to that of their opponents. Example: "Feminism IS a belief in the equality of..." compared to "Many who support masculinism ARGUE..." Another example: "A large portion of feminists are especially concerned with the social, political and economic inequality between the sexes which favours men at women's expense" compared to "Men's rights advocates VIEW many contemporary feminist issues as 'extremist' due to THEIR PERCEPTION that feminist demands such as equal rights have been achieved."

I didnt sign I admit - didnt choose the politically correct way to behave. Nor does it seem politically correct to throw certain ideas into the discussion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.232.196.150 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

A review of the sections

In line with the recent GA fail (above) I've been looking through this article and thinking about ist sections. I think it would be healthy if we questioned each of the main sections notability, clarity and verifiablity to improve this article towards GA (and hopefully one day FA) status. I would propose a review from teh bottom up (for the moment excluding the webisites and books) starting with Quotations_about_feminism. In my view this whole section is of dubious merit. Are these just quotes by feminists or are they quotes that define feminism. If they are the latter many more could be included and certainly the Naomi Wolf quote could be questioned. It also reflects an american bias. I referrenced these quotes a few weeks ago but I'm beginning wondering whether a link to a Wikiquote article on quotes about feminism or quotes by feminists would be more appropriate?--Cailil 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

altertaions to feminism in many forms

I've removed some very badly written (possible Original research) remarks in the feminism in many forms section. All information needs to NPOV and sourced from reliable sources.--Cailil 23:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I made changes to the Feminism in Many Forms section. I decided to give brief descriptions of some of the major branches or ideologies of feminism. They are each only a few sentences long, and are my attempt to summarize the branches of feminism. I figured that the four (liberal, radical, socialist, eco-) that I focused on were important, since they are the most commonly discussed and identified with. I felt this was necessary so that readers could be adequately introduced to and informed of the distinctly different forms of feminism. The descriptions include a list of people who would be considered important figures within each movement, and any suggestions to alterations or additions to those lists are appreciated.
I also removed some information from the article, which talked about egalitarian and protectionist feminism. While these are terms that should be explored somewhere, they may not be needed in this initial discussion of the different forms of feminism. This section seems to tell more about ideological splits mostly within liberal feminism, and does little to display the depth of ideas and tactics that make up feminism as a whole. The page also only discussed radical feminism in relation to separatist movements, which is only displaying the most extreme part of radical feminist ideology while ignoring anything else that the movement may have to say. The last part that I removed talked about feminist-sympathetic men’s groups. I feel like this is something that should be addressed elsewhere, looking at these groups and the ways in which men are placed when they try to be a part of the feminist movement.
This page could definitely use some embellishment, concerning feminist theory and the works of some of these influential people, but I felt that there needed to be a basic description of the most common fields of feminism before the page could be improved upon. Thesoybean 00:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Perception vs. Reality

I correct the introductory paragraph by editing the second sentence, change in italics.

"Many feminists are especially concerned with what they percieve are social, political and economic inequalities between the sexes which favour men at women's expense; some have also argued that gendered and sexed identities, such as "man" and "woman", are socially constructed."

This sentence presented the POV of feminists, it now presents a NPOV. While not only feminists take the POV that inequalities exist, it is still a POV, Wiki now correctly neutralizes the POV by presenting the beliefs. Others take a different POV that, at least in this country, constitutional amendments (i.e. sufferage, etc.) make "social, political and economic inequalities" illegal. I defend feminist rights, and feminists supporters rights to illuminate what they percieve are inequalities, that does not mean inequalities actually or factually exist.--Altoids Man 16:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Altoids Man feminists aren't concerned with nonexistent inequilities. Exactly which "percieved" inequalities are you referring to? Feminists don't take the POV that equalities exist, they take the POV that social, political and economic inequlaities are based on gender difference (I can source this statement, if I need to).--Cailil 20:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I refer to the "percieved social, political and economic inequalites" that are outlawed, at least in the United States. Second, I refer to the idea that these "percieved inequalities" favour men at the expense of womens. Here in the United States opportunities are equal for both genders, and hermaphodites as well. Discrimination is illegal. If you want to source your statement, you need to source a each of the so-called socio, economic and political inequalities that favor men at womens expense. Such evidence does not exist, except in the minds of feminists, at least in the USA. The idea that there is somehow "concesus" (KEY POV ingriedient) of inequalities favoring men at the expense of women is ludicrous. I give you an opportunity to cite your evidence of fact. But before you do, lets start with the economic. If you assert that someone running a business would hire a more expensive *** over a less expensive ***** then you automatically lose this argument. (substitute your discrimination of choice). However before you do, allow me to retort on the "social" element. Divorce and marriage laws in the USA grossly favor women. Shall I cite this for you? Kindly allow me to also comment on the "political" inequalities. Ahh, there are more women than men of voting age, so with both men and women having a vote, how can there be political inequality? I can cite this for you if you like. Moreover, I will cite the New Hampshire Commssion on the Status of Men as a source for social inequality favoring women over men: http://www.nh.gov/csm/publications.html. If you kindly read this report, you will see that MEN are at a disadvantage to Women in a number of key social issues. None of the supposed "inequalities favoring women" add up. That feminists are considered radicals in the USA is further evidence of the 'perception of inequalities favoring men over women.' Sorry a RADICAL viewpoint is not a CONCENSUS viewpoint, therfore POV QED. --Altoids Man 03:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• No. This isn't a page for your point of view on what feminists should think. This isn't a page for you to decide that feminism is a "radical" viewpoint, or for your reasons on why you think feminism is not a valid viewpoint. This is a page that describes feminism. Write a paper on masculinism and put it on your website if you like, but this article should be encyclopedic. --Strangerer (Talk) 05:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Altoids Man please see what Wikipedia is not, especially - it is not a soapbox and take not also that it is not a forum for debate. Strangerer has dealt with your use of the term "radical", please pay attention to what they have said. BTW I'm not debating with you I've asked you to source your addition of "percieved" which is a weasel word. Just so you know the UN published a report in July 2006 called Report on Women's Human Rights in the United States under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights it details political, legal, economic and social inequity in the USA - this is a source for my earlier comment. Outside of the US there are a number of other reports, books, legal cases all of which can be easily sourced in a good library. I will also give you fair warning you've effectively reverted this page to your prefered version [1], this edit has been removed, please read three revert rule before reverting again--Cailil 13:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Returning to the issue, the issue is one of controversy over separating viewpoint from fact. As --Strangerer rightly points out, the article is to present the feminist viewpoint, or point of view (POV). Fine, as I say up top, I support the feminist right to have a viewpoint (POV). In this encyclopedic entry of the feminist POV, it is important to clearly identify that POV, and separate it from fact. We all agree on that. Now, I posed the issue regarding the sentence in the introductory paragraph:

"Many feminists are especially concerned with social, political and economic inequalities between the sexes which favour men at women's expense; ..."

That sentence is written as if it were fact, when it is not fact but a viewpoint. It is a part of the feminist viewpoint, not to be confused with fact. Moreover, it is an essentail point of controversy. I gave a few examples of facts supported by references that contradict the feminist viewpoint (POV) by way of illustration, and not to debate. The only question is "how do we make the article reflect the feminist viewpoint (POV) and separate that POV from fact." I propose a change, a rather modest change, which properly separates fact from feminist viewpoint. Feminism is a viewpoint, it is a minority viewpoint. The viewpoint that inequalities exist is a POV, the viewpoint that supposed inequalities favor men over women is not fact, but opinion, or POV. This is an opinion that anyone is free to take, and that opinion apparently belongs on this page. So frame it as opinion, not fact. As --Strangerer already said, this is the feminist veiwpoint. By the way, I didn't think that "percieve" was a weasel word, and it is not. I'm not quibbling with the word use of the word, any way you want to separate fact from POV is fine with me. How about this:

"Many feminists are especially concerned with social, political and economic inequalities between the sexes which they assert favour men at women's expense; ..."

--Altoids Man 03:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This change properly conforms to the NPOV policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV I can't do your fancy embedding, but just review the section entitled "A simple formulation". --Altoids Man 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Altoids Man this is my last word to you for the moment on these edits. You've been reverted twice by 2 other editors for inserting your own POV. Yes feminists are concerned with factual inequalities not imagined ones, these inequities are and have been repeatedly verified by international human rights agencies such as the UN and Amnesty international. BTW Strangerer did not say "the article is to present the feminist viewpoint". Their words are quite clear "This is a page that describes feminism". Percieved is not a listed percieved word but your usage of it is an "implicit endorsement of faulty logic." You have had the situation explained to you quite clearly I think. You are arguing that feminists claim/assert/percieve inequlity - this is your addition, its up to you to establish what reliable, notable, verifiable source proves this exceptional claim and to build consensus for this edit. As the situation stands I recommend you request comment on this disputed alteration before pushing it against consensus--Cailil 13:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well Callil, I appreciate your input here, but you are non-responsive to the issue. I'm not proposing to insert my POV, I am attempting to apply the Wikipedia NPOV policy, which states unambiguously that facts are to be separated from opinion. You are trying to shift the burden of proof upon me to show my edit is "notable, verifiable and source it; you know better. Quite the contrary, the sentence taken in or out of context violates the NPOV policy, it matters not whether the sentence comes from the Feminism page or any other page. The author must substantiate fact and otherwise qualify opinion. I merely point out that "favoring men over women" is an opinion, and a controversial one, not a fact. Moreover, quoting from the NPOV page:

But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

As it is written, that sentence doesn't follow the the Wiki policy. Show me how it conforms and I'll drop this. Failing that, I will take the next step, whether that is building concensus as you suggest, or something else.--Altoids Man 03:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

But there is no way to "build consensus" when you are the only one in denial here, Alt! --Orange Mike 16:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Altoids Man. Many self purported "feminists" or people would fit the definition of "feminists" tend to attack things that hardly fit the definition of "social, political and economic inequalities between the sexes". Changing it to "What they perceive as...." makes more sense. If we say that all things that feminists are against are necessarily "social, political and economic inequalities between the sexes" would be bias. See Radical feminism for examples of 'feminists' who oppose things that don't necessarily fit the definition of "social, political and economic inequalities between the sexes" like pornography. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to break my silence, but Wikidudeman I'm afraid I totally disagree with you. Your characterization of anti-porn Radical feminism as definitive of feminism is incorrect, the pornography issue divides feminism rather than defines it. The problem with Altoids Man's edit is simple: it purports that the gender bias against women doesn't exist. The point I'm making, and I think Orangemike and Strangerer will agree, is that this inequality is a proven fact. It is not POV bias: it does not make a value judgement; nor is it opinion, the fact of this gender inequality can be sourced many times. Altoids Man needs a source for this exceptional claim that gender inequality favours women. I'm a man I know what social problems men have, but i dispute the position held by Altoids Man's totally.

Moreover the line in question is nearly a paraphrase of the OED: "feminism is the advocacy of equal rights and sexual equality."I am not saying that the line is perfect or that a reword wouldn't help it however the insertion of "perceived/asserted/claimed ineqaulity" is the insertion of POV. I have requested comment at WikiProject Sociology and WikiProject Gender Studies, whatever the consensus I will abide by it and I will return to silence until others have commented--Cailil 02:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Social, political and economic inequlaities are based on gender difference (I can source this statement)." I'm sure you can Cailil, however, I don't think you really believe it. No inequalities based on race?

I am sympathetic to both suggestions being proposed in this thread. Altoids Man, you rightly observe that there are laws against systematic bias regarding sex/gender in the US. There are legal cases where people and institutions have been found guilty under those laws. Hence, the legal system also percieves such inequalities to exist, at least in specific places and times.

Now I've got everyone against me, let me suggest we think more specifically. Surely the facts (which will have been observed and can therefore be cited) are that there are real cases of racial and sexual bias in the US and all over the world. There probably always will be. That is what governments and activists work to oppose. Just as they do against murder and theft. Surely also, there are many places where such things do not exist.

What complicates this issue is that some feminists claim that all men, everywhere, at all times instinctively discriminate against women. Likewise, some non-feminists claim that there really is a fundamental masculine inclination to dominate, but it is helpful to society and to women.

Perhaps it might be helpful to follow the practice of modern Gender Studies and refer to feminismS in the plural. Feminism is very diverse. There are a wealth of nuanced views, extending to extremes in all directions. That seems healthy to me!

What does seem to be common to all feminisms is that they present their view of what is just and right for women in society. I think OED is wrong if it implies all feminisms are about all issues of equality. Feminists do not "own" the racial justice debate. Wiki is wrong if it says that all feminisms are about redressing male oppression of women. Some feminisms don't care who the boss is, so long as they can get on and be women.

Well, that's all I'll offer. I will be impressed if neutrality and reasonable discussion settle this debate. I fear that issues like these are so personal, it really is difficult to achieve consensus. In Australia, sometimes the political parties allow their members to vote "according to conscience" rather than according to a party line. In this thread, I happily surrender to people's feelings and conscience. Peace and respect to all. Alastair Haines 02:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Alastair Haine,Why did you copy the entire discussion and paste it into a new section?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Good question, I assume it was an error of some kind and just deleted the duplicate section. --Altoids Man 03:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the calming breath of fresh air that Alastair Haines brings to this discussion, thank you. Thank you also Wikidudeman ^(talk) for for pointing out that the article is still a ways from NPOV, which is our goal. Why am I here? I am here because I find this article presents certain opinions as facts, intentionally or unintentionally, through fallacy or poor writing. It matters, because it goes to the credibility of Wikipedia. When our children come here to do their homework, they need that NPOV; that is we work here. Why am I not here? I am not here to dispute or debate whether inequalities exist, I agree that they do, and hopefully we can move forward since we all apparently agree on that.

Here is the sentence for revision:

"Many feminists are especially concerned with social, political and economic inequalities between the sexes which favour men at women's expense; ..."

The question is, do all gender inequalities favor women over men, as the article currently impllies? I only need one counter example, so I will reference paternity fraud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternity_fraud. Here is a socio-economic inequality; perpetration of paternity fraud favors women over men. There is no such thing as maternity fraud. So, not all inequalities favor men. Some may favor men, others may favor women. Therefore, my current suggestion is to alter the article in the following manner:

"Many feminists are especially concerned with certain social, political and economic inequalities between the sexes which they assert favour men at women's expense; ..."

Factual? Yes. Feminists are not concerned with all inequalities just certain ones, and not all inequalities favor men. The they assert edit is still relevant, because that assertion is the chief point of controversy between feminists and their critics. Need I source that? There is my proposal, lets comment on that without ad-hominum attacks, in a professional manner.

Finally, I ask that we reference the introduction to Masculinism, and compare and contrast with that of feminism, to see how NPOV was implemented there. Thank you. --Altoids Man 03:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have striken my first entry, which I feel was ill-thought out.--Altoids Man 04:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fresh start on NPOV progress

My apologies for copying text to wrong section. There was an edit conflict and I'd saved the text to the clipboard.

Bravo AltoidsMan for setting a great example of willingness to change mind.

Received text:

• "Many feminists are especially concerned with social, political and economic inequalities between the sexes which favour men at women's expense; ..."

AltoidsMan's proposal:

• "Many feminists are especially concerned with certain social, political and economic inequalities between the sexes which they assert favour men at women's expense; ..."

My proposal:

• "Feminism is a broad range of ideas that seeks to maximize positive outcomes for women."

Why the change?

1. Social, political, economic, linguistic, relational, educational, medical, psychological, etc., etc. need not be specified in the definition. Social, political and economic are not the only categories that feminism deals with.
2. Inequalities are naively understood as injustice; but not everyone is equal, thank God we are all different. Inequality in the area of justice however, is a matter we should all care about for everyone. Hence justice rather than equality is really the issue of feminism. This approach is additionally useful because feminists disagree with one another about whether they want equality or not. Feminists of equality and feminists of difference have stopped fighting and typically now unite as feminists of diversity (can cite authors). However, rather than replace inequalities with injustice, let's be positive. Many modern feminists are very constructive in their thinking. See the next point.
3. Keep the man-bashing out of it. Sure some old-fashioned feminists were into that, but they're a small part of the movement now. Yes, injustice against women is often perpetrated by men, but it is not the perpetrators that are most relevant, it is the women. The topic is not "anti-man-ism" it is "pro-woman-ism". Modern feminists usually distance themselves from "victimhood". Some have argued women are "complicit" in their own "marginalization". This is a much more healthy approach. Women are reasoning, capable, responsible agents. Given that, what can be done to maximize their participation in and enjoyment of society.

Now that I've nicely reduced feminism to a warm-fuzzy safe thing that you'd like to hug in your teenage daughter, let me clarify that parts of maximizing outcomes for women will include fire-breathing, zero-tolerance of genuine horrific crimes against women. As a dad, how do you feel about female "circumcision" in some cultures? Female infanticide? Abortion of female foetuses? Some of these issues are well worth writing up in the article.

Arguably the most positive influence feminists have had is on influencing change in non-Western cultures, where women have truly been victims of ignorance and poverty. It is to the shame of the rest of "so-called" civilized society that it failed to champion such causes without prompting. However, it ought to be acknowledged that the admittedly patriarchal British Empire still opposed suttee or widow-burning in India.

Anyway, I've said way too much already. I'm looking forward to hearing other's ideas about getting this article back to Good Article status. Thanks again Altoids for leading the charge! Cheers. Alastair Haines 10:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to both Alastair Haines and Altoids Man for your recent posts. Alastair's point about "feminists of diversity" is spot on and is very important, especially for this article and I agree that "feminisms" is a better approach to this article. Also I belive that second (now striken) post by Altoids Man may have gotten us off on the wrong foot. I will make one brief point, when I said "Social, political and economic inequlaities are based on gender difference" I was only referring to the inequalities between men and women you are of course correct that there are many other types of ineqiality due to race, ethnicity etc. I was taking it for granted that ppl understood I was referring strictly to gender inequality. Now, I must apologise for two things: first if I sounded aggressive to Altoids Man it was unintentional; I believe in robust debate I certainly hold no antipathy towards any editor who disagrees with me. Second I inadvertantly misquoted OED, I left out the essential phrase "for women". The definition should read: "feminism is the advocacy of equal rights and sexual equality for women". I stand over my objection to the use of "assert/claim/perceive" however I think Altoids Man's use of "certain" in his latest suggestion is a step forward. I do think debate like this is healthy for the article and that the line in question could be rewritten. I'm sorry to say that I don't think the suggestion by Alastair that "Feminism is a broad range of ideas that seeks to maximize positive outcomes for women" moves things forward, although a good suggestion the article already has a headline much like this one so it would really just be repetative. I'm heartened to see that other editors recognizes the need to get this article back to GA status :) Might I suggest the line:

Many feminists are concerned with gender inequalities that discriminate against women

I believe this accurately represents a feminist position and I will try to source this wording tonight. It obviates the need for the word certain by being specific. The word gender could be subsituted by "social, political and economic" if neccessary--Cailil 19:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Great post Cailil. Very considerate of you to discuss your edit with us. I don't want to interfere too much. My knowledge is limited and I have other projects. However, I am committed to watching the page and chipping in. Looks like people vandalise this page a lot. I know what that feels like. I'm going to stay and encourage, even where I disagree. That said, here's my feedback on your proposal. Please, please, please ignore me, be bold and post as is, I only want to enrich your contribution by offering the perspective of an ignorant man. ;) So here goes:

I don't really want to say "define gender inequality", because in one way it's good jargon, it's kinda self-explanatory, but in another, it can probably be a "trigger" word. Some anti-feminists will react against it, some feminists may "warm up" to it. Can it be said without jargon? Hmmm, it's so nice and concise. What I can ask is, isn't "gender inequality" discrimination against men or women on the grounds of their biological sex? If it is, "discrimination against" is redundant. "Against women" is not redundant, because feminists are not concerned with gender inequalities/discrimination against men.

Now, when I actually say that, you and I know that there are feminists who take discrimination against men seriously, and consistently apply justice to that. Christina Hoff Summers may not be feminism's pin up girl (lol, what a non PC term), but she's not the only one who thinks more broadly than defending women against gender based injustice. Many feminists interact with the gay movement. Anyway, the point here is, I agree that the "core business" of feminism is discrimination against women. Other issues are important but peripheral and can be covered later.

This is probably more a matter of personal writing style, but "de-jargonizing" helps minimize suspicions of POV in a reader. I'd recommend dropping "gender inequalities" and say simply "discrimination against women." Definitely gender inequality should be defined and explained later. But not two jargon phrases in one sentence, please! But remember, I said ignore me.

OK, last thing to ignore. Here's some suggested text from me. It's not seriously proposed for the article, but you'll feel its tone.

“ Feminists study various measures of social stratification and test these for systematic bias. For example, statistics regarding annual income by gender and by state in the United States might be considered. When comparison shows a substantial difference between statistics for men and women, feminists seek to understand what leads to the difference. When education statistics are examined, it can be noted that more women than men enter higher education. However, if subject areas are considered in detail, proportions of men and women may vary considerably. Also, if numbers of senior academics are counted, men outnumber women. Feminists try to understand what social processes would explain the statistics. Where it becomes clear that processes have a systematic bias against women, feminist will further propose methods to overcome that bias. Hence feminists work at many different levels using different kinds of skills, from data-collection, theoretical interpretation and investigation to fund raising and lobbying. Sometimes processes can't be changed, or even if they can, they can't be reversed. Some feminists develop social programs to support women who have been disadvantaged. ”

Anyway, that's enough, you don't want someone like me writing this article because I'll make feminists look like Florence Nightingale. But, lol, she probably was! Go for it Cailil. Much better you say it than me. Alastair Haines 02:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with many of points Alastair. My use of "gender" in the suggestion was provisional (I should have just left it as soial, political, economic inequalities). I think your tonal suggestion is interesting, I would say that a lot of the writing in this article needs work (there is a similar problem in Feminist History) so I think section reviews and rewrites (you'll see an earlier comment by myself about that above) are in order. On your point about Hoff Summers, I have enountered a few (maybe 2 in 6 years) unhelpful feminist critics who don't like male involvement in feminist issues. However I've met hundreds (no exageration) of feminists who don't discriminate against men. So while it is important to recognize that minority, they need to be recognized as a minority and not as definitive of feminism. Returning to the text this is my ammended suggestion for the line User:Altoids Man questions:

Many feminists are concerned with social, political, economic practices and inequalities that discriminate against women

I've added in practices because that is at the core of many concerns. What do people think?--Cailil 11:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

All your points taken, Cailil. Gosh this takes patience from an editor, thanks again for yours Cailil, keep going! I'll keep it simple this time. Why not "Many feminists are concerned with social, political, economic practices that discriminate against women." Technically, it's discrimination that causes practices and practices that cause inequality, but no need to fuss. Do "inequalities discriminate against women"? Is one of the words redundant anyway? Have I messed you up by being too pedantic? LoL, go for it Cailil, you're not biased, your text will read well. On subjects like this people will challenge every detail, let 'em bring it on, it'll only help refine the details and the language. Keep working on content, and using your own skill at refining the language of other contributors. Cheers! Alastair Haines 11:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point Alastair but I'll argue for the inclusion of inequalities just on the grounds of clarity. Dropping inequlities seems to leave out a range of discrimination not covered by practices. I see what your saying about discrimination causing practice but the revese can also be argued. You are grammaticaly correct there is a redundancy in saying "inequality discriminates against women". The problem is the vagueness of "inequality" but my worry is that if you replace it with "structures" or "systems and discourses" you begin a list that becomes too long. How about: "Many feminists are concerned with practices and social, political, economic inequalities discriminating against women" I know this leaves "inequality" and "discriminate" side by side but I can otherwise only see a list of "discourses, representations, systems, structures" beginning and I would feel this type of list doesn't belong in the head paragraph.

Just by the way, an editor made a significant change to the line "In simple terms, feminism is a belief in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes" to "In simple terms, feminism is a belief in the social, political and economic liberation of women". Now I recognize the need for the inclusion of "female liberation" but there is an equal need for "equality of the sexes" and User:Wikihermit's edit actually duplicates the emphasis on female liberation (its mention in the first line already) by removing the point about equality of the sexes. Because of this I'm reverting the line. If anyone wants to query that just join the discussion here.--Cailil 12:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it! Not what I'd say, but I like it anyway. It feels like good clear concise English, with a bit of dynamic punch, without becoming POV. Also, without getting caught up in details of misunderstandings of inequality that lead me to avoid the word, it's a good word. Running the two words together feels less laboured than separating them. The one completes the other, rather than feeling like being hit with the left and then with the right -- the old one - two. Nice work. Thanks for keeping me involved. :D Cheers! :D Alastair Haines 12:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

just a last note, I've gone with "Many feminists are concerned with practices and social, political, economic inequalities that discriminate against women" because when I read over the other line a couple of times it didn't work with the rest of the sentence without a "that".--Cailil 12:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mary Daly and Parthenogenesis

Regarding Mary Daly, isn't this correct? I thought that it would be important to mention parthenogenesis here, as it is found on the Mary Daly article itself. However, my edit was reverted for being 'harmful', so please consider rewording it if possible.

"Extremes on the one hand include some radical feminists, such as Mary Daly, who argue that human society would be better off with dramatically fewer men (despite the fact that parthenogenesis in humans would be a very controversial thing to research, and that sexual reproduction is essential in the absence of such technology)."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.233.227.55 Trojjer 17:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello 84.233.227.55, I'm sorry for mis-identifing your edit as vandalism, I see that it is clearly a good faith attempt at improving the article. The problem with your sentence is its attribution and the weight it gives to Mary Daly's views. First, I understand what a radical claim Daly is making but it is not the purpose of the article or the encyclopedia to editorialize claims, and unless you can source this statement it has to be removed. Second, the paragraph in question is a very brief summary of the positions of radical feminists the detail of Daly's position is unnecccesary as the paragraph is a very brief summary of her views. Such an edit would have a place in the parthenogenesis or Mary Daly pages if it can be sourced. Apologies again, I've striken the warning on your talk page--Cailil ^talk 17:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess it was editorialisation... I suppose that I should actually start using the account that I signed up for a while ago. Just to let you know, that was me. Trojjer 17:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem and sorry again for the misunderstanding--Cailil ^talk 17:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of criticism doesn't belong in the Criticism section

I removed the following paragraph from the Criticism section:

Nancy Lewis-Horne responds to Nathanson and Young saying that their work is "seriously flawed" due to its lack of theoretical connection, "especially in its use and misuse of feminist theory." She challenges the comment that "work on gender means work about women, there is an excellent literature examining the social construction of masculinity." She finds that the methodology used by Nathanson and Young is selective.

I feel that this could belong at misandry under the description of Nathanson's and Young's work, but I will not be the one to paste it there.

83.24.134.239 23:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

83.24.134.239 you are the same user as 83.24.120.197, you have removed the same content from Gender studies incorrectly. see my note on that talk page. The guide to criticism (Wikipedia:Criticism) sections says: "If there are valid counter-arguments to the criticisms, then these must be fairly included." Criticism of criticism belongs in an article where it is notable, balanced and verifiable--Cailil ^talk 16:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Cailil Yes, I am still the same user (now with an account), and yes, you are still misrepresenting the relevant Wikipedia guideline by quoting it incompletely, as you did on that talk page. The complete quote is as follows (emphasis mine):

As with all Wikipedia articles, criticisms articles must follow Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. If there is valid counter-arguments to the criticisms, then these must be fairly included.

The statement clearly pertains to criticism articles, and nothing is being said about criticism sections of non-criticism articles. Besides that, "valid" is quite a bold thing to say about an argument. Who decides if a counter-argument to criticism is "valid"? I say that Lewis-Horne's counter-arguments to Nathanson and Young's criticism of feminism are invalid. What now? This is not a problem with either your POV or mine. This is a problem with the guideline in question which obviously chases its own tail logically, and should be simply disregarded until fixed. Rulatir 04:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: Wikipedia:Criticism, whence the discussed statement comes, has been long demoted from a guideline to an essay. As a result, no statements contained in it have any normative power whatsoever. Rulatir 06:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Cailil's addition[2] is warranted; it is permissible to bring in criticism of criticism. It would probably be a good idea, Cailil, to bring the quotes from the refs directly into the body of the article, for readability. ··coelacan 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is a good candidate for being protected

I've noticed a lot a vandalism to this page in the last 24 hours. Even though I recently added someone else's vandalism by accident (for which I profoundly apologize) while trying to revert some (I don't really know how that happened) and an anonymous user caught it (thank you), I still think this page should be protected. Some of the vandalism on this page is bad stuff. I'm posting here because I feel that maybe there should be a consensus before we start censoring. --Cdogsimmons 23:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Its been protected a number of times since January. There is a phenomenal amount of time wasted by IP users making childish and/or flaming comments on the page. I'd second your call for protection. I would however suggest that semi-protection is a better option than full protection because that will allow editors work on the page but prevent anon IP trolling--Cailil ^talk 18:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

130.111.89.13's edit

Thanks for your contribution User:130.111.89.13 you may have missed the rather long and involved converstaion above about the wording "Most liberal, radical, and cultural feminists are concerned with what they perceive to be the social, political, and economic issues which favor men at women's expense" specifically the words "they perceive". Agreement was reached on this talk page to rewrite the whole line. I am replacing it with the agreed content. There are a few other lines that I'm removing - the headline needs to be short & concise. If you can source this information you should add it to the body of the article.--Cailil ^talk 16:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A further note. There are some problems with the lines "Liberal feminists, such as Gloria Steinem, believe the women’s liberation movement revolves around the equality of sexes, and that biological sex should not be the only factor in shaping a person's social identity, socio-political or economic rights. Radical feminists would also argue that feminism is about ending domination or elitism in society." Liberal & radical are terms that seem to be used in America discourse about feminism - these categories do not have the same (or perhaps any) meaning in Europe. Also I need a source for the last sentence "Radical feminists would also argue that feminism is about ending domination or elitism in society" - that sounds like Anarchafeminism which is 1 form of radical feminism. I really feel that these terms need to be explained and therefore they don't belong in the headline--Cailil ^talk 16:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Effect on Popular Culture

I think there should be a section on feminisms effect on popular culture, there was a breif article about it but it was forwarded to here because off a lack of material, but here though there is only one sentence speaking of it (and in that case only on misandry)! see Pop feminism before redirect--BerserkerBen 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree BerserkerBen but with some caveats. First of all I {{prod}}ed that Pop feminism page becasue it was WP:NOR; any pop culture & feminism section written to replace it needs to be reliably sourced and verifiable. Second the section needs to abide by avoid trivia. For all interested parties please read the essay about "in popular culture" sections. If the section remains within these policies it should be a good addition to the page and the encyclopedia--Cailil ^talk 18:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely your full of good faith Cailil, I'm not, nor am I dishonest: I neither have the time or expertise to do anything about this other then prod, and if I had not done that then nothing would have been done about this at all.--BerserkerBen 00:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry BerserkerBen I didn't mean my comments to sound like an attack on you at all. I have 100% faith in your honesty (I had no intention of impuning it). I do believe this is a good faith request and I am happy to help you with it. I do genuinely feel this would be a good addition to the article, as I said before. Also the above are just the policies for such sections and I placed them here so that all intesrested parties could get to grips with them. I also felt it neccessary to disclose that I proded the old page. I'm not sure where you feel I have accused you of dishonesty in my above comments but I do apologise for any offence caused, none was in any way intended--Cailil ^talk 00:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, see that my inner chibi talking. I’m well aware of the policies and I have been on wiki a long time and have lost almost all faith in wiki (lost it long before you so it not your fault) so don’t mind me. I hope you can get someone (other then me) to work on this.--BerserkerBen 01:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

---

?Who said: "I will admit I have a pro-feminist agenda. Feminism is not just a movement for the liberation of women, but a broad social movement striving for the equality of individuals. Feminism emphasizes the importance of such values as co-operation, tolerance, nurturance, and the freedom for each person to achieve her or his potential."?

Fine-feathered sentiments with which nobody could disagree but it seems to beg the question as to what feminism is perceived as and it questions whether moderators should have personal agendas at all. - celtish 23:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)plonkeroo

Contemporary Criticisms Change

I have altered the Contemporary Crisicisms of Feminism to reflect modern day skepticalities of feminism. On the previous page, the criticisms were derived mainly from male perspectives with women being the secondary critics. In the world of feminism, feminists are their own best critics. I used women as mild as bell hooks to women as wildly controversial as Christina Hoff-Sommers. I find it's important, yet difficult, to keep this page neutral and educated. This is not the space to limit one's knowledge with prejudice or misinformation. I have attempted to create a document meant to allow those who want to explore both sides of the 'feminist story' the chance to do so respectfully.

I will admit I have a pro-feminist agenda. Feminism is not just a movement for the liberation of women, but a broad social movement striving for the equality of individuals. Feminism emphasizes the importance of such values as co-operation, tolerance, nurturance, and the freedom for each person to achieve her or his potential. Feminists are against the oppressive and outdated social structure which forces both men and women into positions which are false and antagonistic. Thus, everyone has an important role to play in the feminist movement. It is ironic that feminism has been characterized as anti-male, when in fact it seeks to liberate men from macho stereotypic roles such as the need to suppress feelings, act aggressively, and be deprived of contact with children.

Some of the most intense opposition to the women's movement comes from women themselves, many whom feel that feminism stands for things that they don't want, such as the weakening of the family unit. Feminists are not opponents of the family; feminism seeks to recognize the long-denied fact that women's traditional work is as important to society as the traditional work of men. It is our hope that people will take the time to recognize how the women's movement has changed their lives and to re-think their position on feminism.

Chachiness 01:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What enthusiasm (though badly mismanaged if its limited to this place)! Hey what do you think of feminism’s display and effect on popular culture? Think you could write up something for me?--BerserkerBen 02:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought that went into the edits you made Chachiness, and I also appreciate the point of view that you injected with these edits. However, such wholesale change needs to be supported, and many of the points made were not supported, and some of those that were offered one-sided statistics. As an example, lets take the following edit:

Today we remain blind to many modern-day inequities. Despite affirmative action, women are still systematically excluded from powerful and influential positions.

This is unsourced POV or OR. There is no place for it here. The next sentence.

Outside of the economic sphere, which is a war of its own, our society is still plagued by the mistreatment of women such as domestic abuse, incest, and rape. The odds are frightening; one in six American women are victims of sexual assault [3] and one in four women in college will be the victims of rape or attempted rape. [4] These are but a few of the battles which have yet to be won.

I take issue with the characterization of "war of its own," again insertion of your POV. I also take issue with the "society is still plagued" comment, you are saying that domestic abuse, inter alia is a plague, again this is your POV. Moreover, sure rape and sex crimes in general are abominable, but in or out of this context, feminists are not alone in this "battle".

I just went through a long process, where I just wanted to insert TWO WORDS in this article, and the walls came alive. The end result was a positive group think on how to best improve the article. However, the wholesale changes you proposed, while with a positive intent, are too much POV and OR to insert in a fire-sale fashion. Lets think this over. By the way, I came to this page today to talk about a different issue, which see.--Altoids Man 02:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Chachiness you need to have a look at WP:ATT, WP:NOR and WP:MOS. Altoids Man was right to revert your edits because of te problems they outlined. I do think your idea about skeptical views of feminism is an area this article needs - please post something here for discussion--Cailil ^talk 10:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry if you felt the "walls came alive" Altoids Man - the result of the discussion was a step forward for the article--Cailil ^talk 10:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Income differences among men and women in the US

I deleted a bullet in the "Worldwide statistics" section. I am not completely opposed to leaving it in this article, but as it is, it is out of context and misleading. If we desire a neutral point of view article, the context and reason for this difference needs to be added.

Here is the bullet.

• In the US in 2003, for every $1 males earn, women earned 75.5 cents on average. The median income of men working full-time was $40,668, while the median income for women working full time was $30,724.

The reason these differences exist is now documented to be entirely, or nearly entirely based upon choices that men and women make, and not because of inequalities. According to June O'Neill, an economist at Baruch College and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, "For men and women who never marry and never have children, there is no earnings gap," she said in an interview. see [[5]]. June is a noted researcher on the subject and has several other articles over many years. More recently, she has documented in her NBER Working Paper No. 11240, the conclusion: "Instead the gender gap largely stems from choices made by women and men concerning the amount of time and energy devoted to a career, as reflected in years of work experience, utilization of part-time work, and other workplace and job characteristics." see http://www.nber.org/papers/w11240.

Nor is June O'Niell the sole source, in a recent report by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation, at least three-quarters the pay gap is due to choices made, and not due to discrimination and the remaining one-quarter may be attributed to discrimination. Now, I am not completely opposed to leaving the 75.5 statistic in the Feminism article, but we need to update it to 77 not 75.5, per the AAUW study, and we need to balance this statistic properly with the appropriate research. Taken alone, we are left wanting according to Benjamin Disraeli "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." --Altoids Man 03:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that the statistic was out of context, I'm not sure if it was misleading (I haven't had time to review it or your refs thoroughly). The section does need discussion and i think you should go ahead and make the change, adding the new ref, and we can continue the discussion, hopefully with more views and input--Cailil ^talk 10:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To the shamelessly biased victim-saint statistics stated here, you might also add that about 98 men die for every 2 women in our ongoing battles against the 'terrorists'. Of course this statistic could be misleading too because some particularly inane feminists will claim that they are being discriminated against by not being allowed to fight in front line combat (as say HELL CAT 'sisters' to their 'DEVIL DOG' 'brothers'). However, I when I see "I love boys in uniform" emblazoned across the bosoms of babes (what else can you call such shameless young women!?) in the streets today, I doubt very much that women (as a whole sex) are ready and willing to be blown to pieces day after day to be 'heroes' for us all. Indeed, I see very few 'gender' feminists anywhere clamoring to make women earn OUR collective rights by killing and dying for them as men always have. Of course, some shameless and/or delusional feminists might also claim that women are naturally peaceful and that an all-women-world would have no war but that idiotic claim flies in the face of all-female forms of vice and violence. This section is packed with gender-as-female point of view as are many other sections. I hope someone takes on the feminista and feminista-flunkie mob that rules here so that some sort of NPOV balance is possible in the article. Anacapa 05:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Heavily discussed first sentence in intro

I hate to open an argument that has already seen much debate. The debate has tried to define what feminism is concerned about and present it in a way that is NPOV - and this was done very well, but I feel that all this very useful and constructive dialogue that has occured around this sentence is actually wasted when it comes after the first sentence:

Feminism can be described as an organized movement of social theories, moral philosophies, economic and political thought, all focused on the liberation of women from a perceived subordination to men.

I have two issues with this sentence. Firstly (as was the case with the previously discussed sentence) the word perceived implies that this subordination is not actually real. Secondly, is basically says all of feminism is focused on "the liberation of women from a subordination to men". I don't think that "subordiantion" is the appropriate term.

One possible solution (although this creates quite a long sentence) is:

Feminism can be described as an organized movement of social theories, moral philosophies, economic and political thought, that are concerned with practices and social, political, economic inequalities that discriminate against women.

This is literally combining them with no alteration. Personally, I feel that if we were to do this, then sentence would read better as:

Feminism can be described as an organized movement of social theories, moral philosophies, economic and political thought, that are concerned with social, political, economic inequalities and practices that discriminate against women.

I think this second suggestion, based on comments above, adresses the inequalities/discrimiation point made earlier, but also stops "practices" from sitting there all by itself removed from "sociol, political and economic". Cheers JenLouise 04:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi JenLouise I agree with you. I've been looking for a concise summary sentence for Feminism from literature but I haven't been happy with the ones I've found so far. On the issue of the word "percieved" in the first line, I think I missed reverting that from the edit by 130.111.89.13. As regards your suggestion I think it's fine - the headline paragraph needs to be more concise. I would in the long run like to see the equal weight of "equality of the sexes" reintroduced if possible. Also just to throw this into the mix the original line before 130.11.89.13 was "Feminism is a collection of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies largely motivated by or concerned with the social, political and economic equality of the sexes". For the moment I'm inserting your last suggestion JenLouise, we can discuss further here--Cailil ^talk 22:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the first line and wikified those header paragraphs. The new first line reads:

Feminism is the name of a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies that are concerned cultural, political and economic practices and inequalities that discriminate against women.

I've been bold and put it up. If anyone has any problems revert (if you do please try not to loose all of the wikifying)--Cailil ^talk 20:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. some of the language in the second paragraph is too expert - it needs some tweaking--Cailil ^talk 20:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Note by 130.11.89.13 moved from top of page

When I looked at the feminist main page I felt that it was fine; but could use some work. I believed onlookers would need a clearer and simplified explanation. There was no mention of race and class, and I felt that some sentences in the first paragraph were misleading. So I did some research, added input, and hopefully created something that will get better as time progresses.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.111.89.13 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

removed Effect on domestic Life section

I've removed the section that was tagged by User:Mellowinman. They are correct the info is not NPOV - it looks like a synthesis. The 1st reference is a blog and not a relibale source. The info attributted to the BBC source is not borne out within that article. As such I've removed the material. A copy of it is below:

Effect on domestic life

The emergence of two-worker households as the norm correlates with the rapid late-20th century rise of house prices, where both adults find they must continue to work in order to fund the greatest mortgage debt in history. In this analysis, women's entrance into the work force has had the unintended consequence of increasing the strain of family life; increased family income has led to more units of currency chasing a more slowly growing housing stock, and thus through supply-and-demand logic house prices have increased to the point that two incomes are required, meaning that neither parent is available for child care.

If effect sections are to be included they must be taken from reliably sourced, notable and attributable references--Cailil ^talk 14:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Trafficking in Women

What does trafficking in women have to do with feminism? Because feminists are against it? Does that make those who oppose feminism for it? That implication is absurd. The implication that feminists are somehow stronger on this issue than others is POV to say the least. Or is it supposed to imply tha feminism are somehow to blame for this problem? I disagree, and I am no friend of feminism. But I am in 100% agreement with the feminist position on this issue, unless there is a new faction of feminism which argues that trafficking in women is somehow "empowering." I'm removing this.Shield2 08:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Text under anti-suffrage photo

How's the statement under the photo describing what is on it? Are the men there - feminists protesting anti-suffrage campaign? What's the date? Where does it take place? How is feminism "securing rights of women to vote", when nobody is taking these rights away once granted?... Not going to edit here, but just hints for those interested in improving the article.Lost Angel 01:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a moot point Lost Angel. As far as I know that photo comes from Antisuffrage and it's appropriate for that article since the men in the picture are protesting against suffrage. I think you're spot on about the disconnect between the text and the photo too. I'm uploading a 1912 picture of suffragettes to replace the current one--Cailil ^talk 01:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a moot point unless there is some evidence to the contrary (that is someone tried to take the right of vote from women, but feminists resisted) - sorted out with a simple case reference. As to the picture, well, I was being sarcastic of course - I know what was on it and where it came from.

Considering your change - the picture is definitely much more suitable though the moot point is whether women suffrage is a part of feminism, or preceded it. Considering "Securing women's suffrage has been a defining issue for the feminist movement." is a moot point by itself and the picture still does not illustrate "feminists securing women's suffrage", I'd opt for removal of the sentence or replacement of it by something like "By securing the right to vote, suffragettes laid the founding rock in feminst struggle for equality".Lost Angel 17:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we've misunderstood each other Lost Angel. The moot point I was refering to was "How's the statement under the photo describing what is on it" - I agree with you that it wasn't really describing it. And I like your suggested reword. But I would say it slightly differently though.

By campaigning for the right to vote, suffragettes began the feminst struggle for equality in the West

--Cailil ^talk 22:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds much better to me.Lost Angel 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Kait8686

I'm not exactly sure how to edit an article, and how much freedom there is in editting, as when I tried to edit this ridiculous article about feminism, it automatically reverted back to this version which explicitly attacks homosexuals. Will someone please edit this article!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kait8686 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

"Feminist whistleblower, Christina Hoff-Sommers also shows how feminist misandry leads"

Is "whistleblower" an official title of this woman? Is it accurate to address other feminists this way? Is it polite and npov to characterize someone this way?Lost Angel 00:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your being sarcastic again, eh? =) That characterization was added by User:Anacapa [6] along with he rest of the text on Hoff-Sommers's views. Not only should "whistleblower" be removed but the line should be rewritten in so that it accurately represents the book. It might also be more NPOV to note the concerns of the USA's national media watch group FAIR about it[7]. What do you think?--Cailil ^talk 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I obviously am, which I appreciate you noticing. It should not matter, which user added the pov definition, such definition should be removed and/or improved, as you correctly point out. I personally won't touch the article itself, since I believe that'll end up with rv/edit wars and there are too many things, which I think require attention in the article, surpassing my free time. To cut a long story should - I'm pointing out things, which I think are unambiguously incorrect, so that people with more time and interest could improve them.Lost Angel 17:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

opening section

Although opening section mentions names, it doesn't provide reference to any documents. However, such "weasel" phrasing as "Many feminists today regard" (some references would surly improve it), "Modern feminist political activists commonly campaign for" - again putting references surly won't hurt. "Radical feminists would also argue that feminism is about ending domination" - is that really that which "radical" feminists are different from other feminists by?...Lost Angel 00:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Lost Angel. I think your first two points can be easily addressed by sourcing the statements within the article itself. Your last point is a concern I share with you. There seems to be a common usage of "radical feminism" on Wikipedia that must make sense in an American context - but it means very little to me as a european.

Having said all that, I actually think that there is no need for a discussion all those views in the lead paragraph - since there is a fuller description of them in the next couple of sections.--Cailil ^talk 16:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course, but such sourcing needs to be present and not implicit. I also think that for example, the section on radical feminism doesn't make it clear what elements of it/actions by its members made numerous people outraged.

Then such points should be removed altogether from the opening paragraph, replacing with the notice (which is there already), that feminist movement consists of various groups, with very different approaches and understanding of feminist goals, from academic research groups up to radical extremists. Commonly the following groups are distinguished: *names of the groups*... I know this could help a better phrasing, but...

Third point just came to my mind - numerous feminists claim that they're for "equality of sexes", rather than that of women only, which is a point I don't see in the opening part either, however often hear about in reality.Lost Angel 17:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

# 5.3 Effect on heterosexual relationships - section discussion

1 - should Engels be there? Is he a feminist? Should maybe a feminist referring to him saying that rather be quoted. 2 - rephrased the "men complain having troubles to get a woman" sort of argument with, what appears to be more neutral to me - feel free to improve. 3 - "Several studies provide statistical evidence that married men contribute a smaller share of housework, regardless of whether or not they earn more than their wives" - not a valid argument, since an earlier claim refers to HOW MANY HOURS MEN WORK as opposed to HOW MUCH MONEY THEY BRING HOME. A different research should be cited if it exists. As it is now I suggest it be removed or this specific point made in the article (will do this edit when have more time). 4 - more to come when I get around to it... Lost Angel 07:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lost Angel, I just want to reply to your points but I just need to say that there is a wording problem with the sentence you added "This raised criticism from the side of traditional-minded people, as detrimental to family life as they know it, as well crisis on the level of intimate interpersonal relationship between men and women." - "traditional-minded people" is weasel wording & "crisis on the level of intimate interpersonal relationship between men and women" needs to be more NPOV. It also needs a source.

Now your points.

1) Yes Engel's mention is appropriate - the line is bad, it needs to be contextualized but the information is important.

2) I don't understand which point you're referring to

3)I wouldn't get into saying what is and what isn't a valid argument - articles shouldn't be making any. having said that I think the first paragraph is a mess and borders on violating synthesis. I would be in favour of just removing that whole first paragraph and just rewriting the first line of Arlie Russell Hochschild paragraph. I'm going to take a look myself

Also before you mention it the effect on religion section is another mess. There is a small amount of good, encyclopedic info there, but it needs cleaning-up.--Cailil ^talk 16:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A postscript. I've removed the lines about "some studies show support the idea that although men are derided for not devoting enough time to childrearing and domestic tasks, few women seem attracted to men who engage in these activities to the detriment of their careers." - the referneces don't bear this out - the ref were about how sexual attractiveness varies in local situations not about the divison of labour. This was a case of WP:SYNT.

I've had to remove the references to Glenn Sack's website because that isn't a reliable source.

In the new 2nd paragraph I've removed the link to Bankrate (not WP:RS). I also removed the last line "However, in general, in couples where one or both partners do not work outside the home, gender-based division of labour is less of a point of contention for feminists." because its unsourced and quite frankly I'm dubious about its truth.

I've also tweaked the Luker paragraph--Cailil ^talk 16:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your changes.

1 - I agree he is appropriate here, but just like in the case with suffrage image situation - he should be correctly contextualized in relation to feminism.

2 - Before I edited, the sentence was "Some men claim that de-emphasizing a focus on breadwinning damages their ability to attract mates." Which in my opinion is a differently worded following sentence: "I don't know which men, but some definitely feel upset about their role of financial provider being paid less respect to and also they can't get any because of how unable they become to attract women without financial superiority". Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

3 - what' you've edited wasn't largely my text - I changed 2 sentences and added 2 sources, to what was already there. I agree with removing most of it, which I however did not do myself, since I'm of a particular opinion on the issue and do not want to "nuke" too much content. Therefore, I tried to rephrase it, rather than just removing for the bulk it is.

With Glenn Sack - sure, it was a secondary source on the same point.

With other sections, I'll be going through them one by one as motivation as time allow. Lost Angel 18:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Should specific historical reference to socialism/communism be made?

As quoted in the article - already Engels spoke (some) feminist anti-family agenda. Should there not be a historical reference made of the kind - 'Feminism historically developed out of socialism initially?' Or something of the kind.Lost Angel 14:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Feminism did not develop out of socialism initially. It has many sources, one of which was Engels book (but this is not the same thing as socialism, anyway). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Would surly help to identify these sources. You seem to know them. Afaik, it did develop out of soicalism/communism ideology. Lost Angel 18:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The questions you are asking are related to the History of feminism, which has its own article. But I must tell you, Lost Angel, that you're not right about this. First off, Mary Wollstonecraft is creditted as a mother of feminism; as are the suffragettes, but feminism didn't emerge from any of these alone or directly. Engel's ideas have been an influence on some feminists, but feminism did not develop out of marxism, or communism, or socialism. Feminist critical theory (which has its own article too) was influenced by marxist ideas but it didn't develop out of marxism either. I'm going to assume that the wording "feminist anti-family agenda" is due to the language difference - be careful of statements like this, it is not NPOV.--Cailil ^talk 19:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links I'll educate myself then. As to npov - npov in talk section is allowed, no? Plus considering http://www.fathers.bc.ca/feminist_quotes.htm ("Women's liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true willy-nilly, so let's get on with it." --Germaine Greer (b. 1939), Australian feminist writer. The Female Eunuch, "Revolution" (1970).)- I'm referring to factual information of anti-family feminist agenda cases. Of course that doesn't speak for all feminists, but for some it does. And we can not consider a movement only by its "good" examples. Lost Angel 13:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

First off - talk pages are bound by the same rules. Claiming that an "anti-family feminist agenda" exists requires reliable, verifiable & notable sources. Secondly, as you noted, Germaine Greer's views don't neccessarily represent feminism - she is really a second wave feminist and should be discussed within that context.

Now, its is not NPOV to describe the above position as "anti-family" because it is actually calling for alternative families; however Greer's work could be called anti-patriarchal and perhaps reductionist (but it would require a reference to say that :) ). Sourcing your quotes from sites like www.fathers.bc.ca rather than from the reference isn't a good idea, the source might be misrepresented or at least mediated by the people who run that site, we all need to be aware of that--Cailil ^talk 20:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints)." - quote from talk pages, therefore, in cases like this both pov points are applicable for discussion, that is pro and against family feminist agenda, which I've quoted a reference to, making it factual. I did not read into the site itself - just into the quote, so context is irrelevant. I have seen more feminist quotes, that are very much the same. Would have been many more but for feminist censorship. As to your point that her attitude "could be called..." - I suggest we do not venture into the land of "could be". What about this one ""In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman)."? http://wiki.mensactivism.org/index.php/Radical_Feminist_Quotes Of course you will find it hard to look for such quotes - feminists dictate both media and academic research apparatus. Compare definitions of "feminism" and "antifeminism" in academic dictionaries for illustration. I think this is something wikipedia should be able to fix.Lost Angel 10:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing (in the literal sense) how it works. Contextualisng is what it's all about, which for some reason amounts to using whatever rhetorical feature suits your purpose of the moment, and discard it when it's no longer useful. If you can't work out what I mean from the above, then there is really no point further explaining it. Jgda 08:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

bell hooks is not spelt - Bell Hooks

This is just a note to point out to everybody who doesn't know that the name bell hooks is spelt in all lower case. That name is the pseudonom by which Gloria Jean Watkins is known. She spells "bell hooks" without capitals and we should be recording the name as such. Follow the wikilink to her wikipedia article or check this link to double check.--Cailil ^talk 13:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sex equality shouldnt redirect here

"Feminism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Sex equality)"

Thats just wrong. A sex equality page should be made. Sex equality isnt just feminism. Some males are oppressed too!

                 - Alex

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.160.161.138 (talk • contribs)

Solved: Sex equality now redirects to Equalism which mentions both feminism and masculism. Silly rabbit 14:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

quotations section

I deleted the quotations section and added a link to wikiquote. I have copied the deleted quotes here in case someone wants to consider moving them to wikiquote. -Fagles 13:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Quotations about feminism

Nancy Cott: "Feminism asks for sexual equality that includes sexual difference. It aims for individual freedoms by mobilizing sex solidarity. It posits that women recognize their unity while it stands for diversity among women. It requires gender consciousness for its basis yet calls for the elimination of prescribed gender roles."

Estelle Freedman: "Feminism is a belief that women and men are inherently of equal worth. Because most societies privilege men as a group, social movements are necessary to achieve equality between women and men, with the understanding that gender always intersects with other social hierarchies."

Betty Friedan: “Man is not the enemy here, but the fellow victim. Men are not the enemy, but the fellow victims. The real enemy is women's denigration of themselves.”

Gloria Steinem: "In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist."

Naomi Wolf: "Here is our secret, that should be a feminist secret no longer: the male body is home to us, our rocket, our whirlpool."

Taylor Caldwell: "There is no solid satisfaction in any career for a woman like myself. There is no home, no true freedom, no hope, no joy, no expectation for tomorrow, no contentment. I would rather cook a meal for a man and bring him his slippers and feel myself in the protection of his arms than have all the citations and awards and honors I have received worldwide, including the Ribbon of Legion of Honor and my property and my bank accounts. They mean nothing to me. And I am only one among the millions of sad women like myself. "[8]"Ask Them Yourself"