Talk:Radical feminism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

NPOV

This article just bleeds with POV content. My first red-flag came when I noticed that there was no criticism section, let alone a link to any article being remotely critical of radical feminism (except Feminazi, which is clearly there to provide the appearance of discourse, while using a straw-man as an opponent). While I hope they don't reflect the views of all the editors of this article, the comments below me stating "we're all radical feminists" and that "only radical feminists should define radical feminism" could be seen as evidence of a naturally biased editorial community for this article. I also find the definition of "radical" to be rather a stretch, as most people might see radical as meaning "Departing markedly from the usual or customary", which some might argue it does. Therefore, I'm putting an NPOV banner on this article, until such time as it meets Wikipedia's editorial NPOV standards. With such an important article, and such an influential topic, one must be cautious to avoid pandering to one community, while ignoring another. My advice: don't be afraid of offending anyone simply because you brought up opposing viewpoints. So long as those viewpoints are tastefull and well-documented, you should have the high-ground should any dipute arise.

(I will ask to lock this article should anyone remove the NPOV notice without due reason)

Respectfully,

His Loquaciousness Ringmaster j 16:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC) 15th Duke of Argyll

You seem to be citing only two reasons to add the NPOV tag: first, the article lacks a criticism section, and second, there are biased comments on the talk page. The second is not a good reason because the article stands on its own, independently of what the talk page says. The first is also not a good reason; the article may be incomplete, but none of the existing content is biased -- or at least, if there is existing content that is biased, you haven't pointed it out. You're invited to add a "criticisms" section. The definition of "radical" in the article is correct, though perhaps it could use a citation. So, I'm removing the NPOV tag since you haven't actually pointed out anything in the article that violates NPOV. Catamorphism 17:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the NPOV rules page before simply saying the article is incomplete. This should explain to you my reasoning. This article's lack of a critism section makes it POV by default. Put in some links to opposing viewpoints, add in even one iota of critism, and I'll consider de-NPOVing this article. And did I cite the discussion below as a reason for my decision? No! I simply said I found it disturbing, and that it might show a natural bias. Before this whole thing turns into an edit war, I'd like to get a 3rd party in her who can help us out. I'll put on the less objectionable "POV-check" banner for now.

--Ringmaster j 18:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Problems with this article:

• "Patriarchal theory is not always as single-sided as the belief that all men always benefit from the oppression of all women. Patriarchal theory maintains that the primary element of patriarchy is a relationship of dominance, where one party (commonly males) is dominant and exploits the other party (generally women) for its own benefit." This phrase could do without the portions in parentesis. The first sentence states that the theory is not one sided against all men oppressing all women, but it is then editorialized in the second sentance by adding the remarks "mostly men" and "mostly women". That is not NPOV, it is biased

• In connection with the above, perhaps an article on Patriarchal Theory could be added to give the reader a better understanding of the theory. That is not an issue for this article directly, but it is worthy of note.

• From WP:NPOV - "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each." That policy alone calls for the creation of a criticisms section.

• I would also say that the article breaches these WP:NPOV biases:

-Gender bias, including sexism and heteronormativity.

-Class bias, including bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class divisions.

I would make additions in the way of a critisisms section myself, but my depth of knowledge in no where near wide enough in this field. I would ask one of the people who regularly edits this article to be true to the spirt of wikipedia, and just add a small section outlining the significant critisisms of radical feminism.Easter rising 15:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that the "patriarchal theory" part is the most problematic, and not just from an NPOV standpoint. The subject of "patriarchal theory" is introduced rather bluntly without defining what is meant by the term or exactly who holds that idea. Clarification of this section would go a long way toward making this a better article, as would greater discussion of historical/ideological context. Peter G Werner 03:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the section a little, to take out the bleedingly biased "mostly men" and "usually women" context. Patriarchal theory, by definition, is not defined to usually women. Also, I have changed the criticism to indicate keeping the oppressive system, but reversing the genders. It takes out the editorializing "usually men", and, I think, cuts down on the wordiness Matt620 21:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Matt620.

I think the NPOV notice can be taken down, then. The article reads from a very neutral perspective and the necessary changes to phrasing etc. have been made. Voodoo4936 05:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article is MUCH better now. It reads much more like an encyclopedia should. I've removed the NPOV tag. Thanks to those that worked to improve the article! Easter rising 17:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition

I think only radical feminists should define radical feminism.

Thanks for that comment, thankfully, we're all radical feminists. 209.102.125.157 02:16, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Likewise, should genocidal killers be the only ones allowed to define genocide? Or should Christians be the only ones who define religion? Obviously the article will be flawed from the start if only "radical" feminists edit it. Also, if you search for "militant feminism," it redirects here. Accordingly, I have added a note to that effect. Fuzzform 20:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the way this page is developing.

I feel it is important to use the world "intersectionality". Though it is not a word in the dictionary, it is one used in many feminist discourses that does not prioritize one type of oppression over an other. All oppression is important to consider. ALC 12:46, 28 Feb 2004

I removed bell hooks and added Catharine MacKinnon. hooks has typically been highly critical of radical feminism's focus on gender over, e.g. race and capitalism; she is a political radical and a feminist, but I don't think she's a radical feminist in the "subordination-of-women-by-men-is-the-organizing-principle-of-most-societies" kind of way. MacKinnon, on the other hand, is the radical feminist legal theorist par excellance, so she ought to be on the list.

I thought the radical feminist community didn't like her approach when she pretty much allied with conservatives against pornography? (among other things) Isn't she considered a "conservative feminist"?
I don't know here, I just read some on it... Maybe I'm mixing up "radical feminism" with anarcho-feminism or the "sex-radical" movement???
Would anyone oppose a link to Sex-positive feminism?

Link to Sex-positive feminism

Until a major copyedit 2 days ago, the sex-positive feminism page was very anti-radical feminist. It might be appropos to read that page now before adding the link. I support linking the pages because they are related. However, I can imagine that some of the content on the sex-positive page could be offensive to rad fems. An An 08:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A link between the radical feminism article and the sex-positive feminism article's only appropriate if better mention is made here of the prototypical radical feminist analysis of sexual relations as a physical enactment of patriarchal violence and domination. Consider for instance the tendency of sex-positive feminism to be accepting, if not supporting, of pornography and prostitution, while radical feminism, particularly as influenced by Dworkin and MacKinnon (and, I think as well, Brownmiller), treats both as rape (the reasoning, in simplified form, being that if a woman has to be paid to entice her into sex, she doesn't really want to do it; in addition to the fact that radical feminism has advanced the argument that due to the imbalance of power, be it physical-military, political, economic, or judicial-penal between men and women, leaves all women in a situation where they are unable to meaningfully consent to sex). My reading of radical feminism also leads me to think that it is in opposition to sex-positive feminism in that it holds much of the "self" expression endorsed and encouraged by sex-positive feminism to be what has been enculturated into women because men have eroticized it.

So, I don't think a link to sex-positive feminism is really appropriate, because I think there are clear and fundamental differences between radical feminism and pro-sex feminism both with regards to their theoretical frameworks and activisms (radical feminists aren't likely to criticize The Vagina Monologues, for instance)

The Literate Engineer 07:45, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Title of this article is needlessly ambiguous

I propose this article be merged back to the Feminism article, what do people think? If not, what are the differences between "radical" feminists and "regular" feminists (a succinct description should put into this article to make it clear to the reader why there is an [artificial?] distinction between this and the non "radical" version of feminism)? Even if the phrase is used in popular culture a term like "radical" in a title is way too dangerous POV wise, there should just be a sub section within the Feminism article on the "radical" branch. There is more than one definition to the word "radical". zen master T 06:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The movement is known as "Radical feminism"! Dysprosia 06:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So what is the difference between "radical" and "regular" feminism exactly? Would it be NPOV if the article on the Black Panthers was titled "Radical Civil Rights movement"? I don't think so. NPOV should be a higher standard than common vernacular. How about Anti-Patriarchial Feminism or Marxist Feminism? The problem with the word "radical" is that it doesn't convey any meaning other than being revolutionary which isn't really a distinction of the word "feminism". This title and the movement's title is an ambiguious use of an adjective. The title implies that any ardent supporter of "regular" feminism is a "radical" which may not be the case (since radical also means "extreme"). If the movement really has adopted this name (or is this the media's name for it?) then I digress. zen master T 08:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also the term radical as typically used in politics is also appropriate in this case. Radical feminists are usually more hardline, tending towards sexism and male-bashing even at times.

Actually, your personal opinion how appropriate a name is does not count very much - if something is generally known as X, then the article should be at X. To claim this is pandering to "common vernacular" is rather pointless, because we are here to enable people to learn something, and it would be rather hard to do that if they could not find the articles, because somebody thinks WP should be above the "common vernacular". The approach seems to be somewhat elitists, to put it very mildly. -- AlexR 09:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "Radical" refers to the extent of the feminism, not the position of its proponents on the narrow spectrum of American politics. "Radical Feminism" is the name of the movement (which actually existed in history), so that's why it isn't appropriate to change the name of the article to "Marxist Feminism". Marxist Feminism is something different - believe it or not, it's feminists who use marxian analysis. Most feminisms are "Anti-Partriarchal", so the term (even if it were relevent here) would be meaningless. "Radical Feminism" might mean slightly different things in Australia (where I call home) and America, but it still has a discrete and recognisable meaning within feminism. This article needs to be expanded to make all of these points - please offer the constructive fruits of your research to this project. An An 09:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You ask me the difference between Radical feminism and "regular feminism". Firstly, to suggest that there is even such a thing as "regular feminism" suggests you aren't aware of the dynamics of feminism, that there are various different strands of feminism which have differing ideas and goals. Secondly, if you aren't aware of the difference between this strand of feminism and others you should read the respective articles.

I'm sorry, but to suggest that the term "Radical feminism" is NPOV is ridiculous. What you are suggesting is almost akin to calling the "Black Panther Party" the "African-American Panther Party". The movement is known as "Radical feminism", not just in "common vernacular" but this form of feminism is referred to as "Radical feminism" in scholarly work as well.

Observe: "This feminism was truly radical in both a political sense, and in the sense of seeking the root cause of the oppression of women". That is why it is called "Radical". Other forms of feminism may not hold the views of Radical feminism. It does not imply that other feminisms are less or more radical, and it does not mean it's extreme either.

If you digress that the movement is actually called this elsewhere, by all means, please show me the evidence to suggest it. Dysprosia 09:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed my calling this title "POV" was a mistake, sorry. It's merely an inaccurate/non-descriptive label. I repeat that the word radical is not a descriptive adjective and my point is that it doesn't add any sort of descriptive information (the title should at least hint what the distinction is). Why did the need arise to call some feminists "radical"? If you are going to call something the radical version of X then that article should explain at length what is the distinction between "radical" and the version of X without "radical" in the title (I was actually using "regular" differently than you interpreted it). Feminism (anti-patriarcial) or Feminism (revolutionary) would be more appropriate and accurate I believe. zen master T 14:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear zenmaster, you still seem to have some difficulty with the use of "radical" in "radical feminist". Radical as an adjective here stands for "radus" or "the root". Radical feminists seek the "root cause" of women's oppression. Historically a group of "second-wave" feminists in the 1970s became known as "radical feminists" (single compound noun, not an adjectival noun) because they declared the root cause of women's oppression to be a male conspiracy or male controlled social formation (patriarchy) from year dot. Later, another section of radical feminists argued that class society AND patriarchy was the root cause. Radical feminism is not the "radical" (US liberalism) version of feminism. Radical feminism is a root-cause seeking strand of feminism. If you want to argue with the actual historical usage of the word, then I think you'd better look up Stalinist historiography and start purging the textbooks and deleting Trotsky's head from photographs, because you're arguing for historical revisionism in the David Irving sense of outright fabrication and lies. Feminism (revolutionary) is NOT appropriate, as radical feminism is known, self-identified, media-identified, and academically-identified as "radical feminism". Revolutionary feminism takes us more down the separatist path, or the Kollontai / Solaris style Bolshevik/Anarchist feminism. Fifelfoo 22:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whether the name of the movement is inaccurate or not, you are still trying to rename a movement which already has a name. Other posters here have also given you other good reasons why this would be inappropriate regardless. Dysprosia 22:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No it has nothing to do with "revisionism", it's all a quest for as much clarity as possible language usage wise. The root of the problem is the fact that the word "radical" has more than one definition. The titles of encylopedia articles should be as clear as possible and should convey one succinct unambiguous concept and avoid words that have multiple definitions. Your explanation for how you/others define "radical" in the context of feminism is a good one, but overall the usage of radical in a title is extremely ambiguous. Do you think conservatives define "radical" in the context of feminism the way you do? Are unknowledgable third parties more likely to think of your or a conservative's defininition of "radical" in the context of feminism? The media often disparages feminism with being "too radical" (that's not your definition...). Was this by design perhaps? Why needlessly continue ambiguity when there are unambiguous options available? What is wrong with Feminism (anti-patriarchial)? I noticed there is already a Marxist feminism article, I think there is a separationist article already too. I am not advocating the elimination of "radical" from history (the usage of the term and the movement historically should be described at length), rather, I am advocating an increased level of language clarity. zen master T 22:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter about "clarity" or language reform. The usage is historical and current (1970-today). "Radical feminism" is a proper noun for an actual social movement, not an adjective applying to feminism. There is no ambiguity in a proper noun, for example Imre Nagy is Imre Nagy is Imre Nagy. There is no ambiguity to the proper noun Radical feminism. Feminism (anti-patriarchal) is a neologism, encyclopedia should not create neologisms for things which already have proper nouns assigned to them. There is no language clarity in Feminism (anti-patriarchal) because some marxian feminisms are anti-patriarchal, most seperatist feminisms are anti-patriarchal, and even some liberal feminisms are opposed to patriarchy. Radical feminism is distinct and seperate from these. Fifelfoo 23:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am actually arguing there is ambiguity in popular culture and in the media which is intentionally exploited by critics of feminism. A quick google search will show you "radical feminism" in many usages doesn't mean what you want it to. However, there is no ambiguity between you and I (we agree on the same definition of radical in the context of feminism meaning "root" as in "root of the problem"). What I am concerned about language clarity wise is people that are not familiar with your/the proper definition of radical in this context. Do you agree feminism is frequently disparaged as being "too radical"? Do you think they mean "focusing too hard on the root of the problem"? I don't think so. Again, I am not trying to eliminate any mention of "Radical feminism", the primary title of an article (and the movement too but that is outside the scope of my point) should be 100% unambiguous (if for no other reason than to avoid critics being able to play multiple definition word games). zen master T 23:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about your culture, but there's no ambiguity in mine (Australia). I suspect that you're suffering from a National NPOV about English language usage, or media opinion. Here feminism isn't attacked for being too "radical" because "radical" is not a term used in political discourse. The primary title should be unambiguous: it should be the proper noun by which people refer to the specific social movement, "Radical feminism", ie, Radical feminism. Your suggestions are absurd as calling Hells Angels Motor cycle gang (Satanic), or calling United States of America American nation (Republican, 1776). A redirect is ludicrous as the article is currently at the namespace of its proper noun. Fifelfoo 00:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We can discuss the issues of naming within the article -- I am not objecting to this at all, it's more than welcome. However. to actually move the article to a new name which isn't reflected in reality would be a mistake, for the reasons described above. Dysprosia 00:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am working towards consensus on redirecting "Radical feminism" to a better (unambiguous) title, and/or requiring more specificity amongst the various "radical" movements which is why I proposed more than one new article Marxist feminism (which already exists) plus Feminism (anti-patriarchial) and perhaps Feminism (separationist). I think Fifelfoo's succinct definition of the word radical in radical feminism should be put into the intro of this article asap to lessen ambiguity. What do you think? zen master T 00:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doing things to the article such as describing why the title is so and describing the similarities between other movements is a completely different issue, but redirecting or moving is out of the question. It is not the place of an encyclopedia to suggest and promote new names for already established concepts! Consider moving "Algebra" to "symbolic manipulation" -- this is wrong because people refer to algebra as "algebra", not "symbolic manipulation". People refer to this form of feminism as "radical feminism", and it is this title which the article should remain at.Dysprosia 00:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, "algebra" is the accurate and unambiguous title for that subject (there may be alternative titles but that is a different issue) so how does your point apply in this case? Ambiguous or inaccurate titles are reneamed all the time on Wikipedia. Do you agree we should define the word "radical" in the intro or inside the article at least because of prevalent misconceptions of the word "radical" in "radical feminism"? zen master T 00:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See the sentence "This feminism was truly radical in both a political sense, and in the sense of seeking the root cause of the oppression of women." currently in the article. Fifelfoo 00:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think your version from above is better because it's more clear and we should convey that the ambiguity exists precisely because of multiple definitions of the word radical. zen master T 00:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point is that you do not rename "algebra" because of whatever reason because that is the name of the field used by everyone. Thus, regardless of whether the term "radical feminism" is accurate or not, it is not our responsibility to rename the article! It is however our responsibility to describe the term and usage of the words "radical feminism" in the article, and I'm all for that. Dysprosia 01:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be on this talk page if I thought this is a "whatever" issue/reason. If we reach conensus (those that appreciate logic [the non circular version]) then it is our duty to fix/clarify an article. As I've stated previously "Radical feminism" should redirect to a better title that we can agree on later, after we agree ambiguities do exist with the word radical (and these ambiguitites are being exploited by critics). zen master T 01:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your redirect position is obviously not consensus and you should retire from debate. However, due to your obstinancy, we may require a vote on the matter, one which I expect you would lose from the debate above. Should it be necessary, expect to see a vote here shortly on the issue of redirection.Fifelfoo 01:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zenmaster, you say you are "...working towards consensus on redirecting "Radical feminism" to a better (unambiguous) title...". This is 'not' what you are doing. You have come to make sweeping arbitrations about a topic you know little (you have neither read the article, nor other sources on this topic). The other contributors to this page do not agree with your views, and they have stated their cases quite clearly - the consensus is to keep the article title as it is. Noone wants to be rude, but it appears to me that you are causing trouble for its own sake! Please treat us with respect, join the project to make this aticle better, or join another project which you know more about. An An 01:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Them not agreeing with my analysis of the title doesn't mean I am not working toward consensus. Consensus is not a popularity contest or succumbing to the majority. I am just shedding light on a proven source of ambiguity (it's not about "like" or "dislike"). If you/others feel that the ambiguity is not a big deal or is historically obligatory or only those already within the movement need understand the true definition of "radical" in this context then ok. I am primarily concerned about unknowledgeable third parties that come upon this article with preconceived notions. To allay any concerns you have let me state for the record that I will take no action regarding the content or title of this article without consensus. There is no need for a vote, I will continue to try to work towards consensus on eliminating needless ambiguity (if one person is interested in debate). I have some URLs where conservatives use the wrong definition of "radical" to the detriment of the movement. Can we at least add clarity to the definition in the article to make it as clear/unambiguous as possible (and we should note that critics of the movement often confuse the word intentionally)? zen master T 02:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Consensus and consensus decision-making are defined on Wikipedia - have a read. An An 03:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you shouldn't edit the article to clarify things. I'm saying you shouldn't move the page or change the title. Dysprosia 05:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am very familiar with consensus. I don't definitely want the title changed, I just want someone to respond to my points about the issue of ambiguity directly. zen master T 04:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I think you're going about it the wrong way. In fact, I think people have tried to respond to your various claims - you're just shifting your position. There's a vote open now to test the acceptance of your proposal within the community of current contributors. An An 04:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions. Did you read what I wrote above? I said no need for a vote, I will take no action until there is consensus (true 100% consensus) and I've been arguing all along for the issue of ambiguity to be acknowledged as a possible thing to consider (or for you to tell me it's not a big deal). I've proposed clarity improvements to the definition (and the need for them) that have been ignored. Side note: I take issue with many titles and lack of unambiguous clarity on wikipedia, the 9/11 "conspiracy theory" and "misinformation and rumor" articles are the most egregious examples of those (in my opinion). zen master T 04:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Straw poll: Keep or change title

Zen-master has initiated debate over the title of the Radical feminism article. E asserts that the title is either POV, needlessly ambiguous, or politically damaging to the feminist cause. Alternately, others have argued that to alter the title would create neologisms and be confusing. This Straw poll is to gague the opinion of contributors to this article - should the title stand as Radical feminism or be moved to another title such as Feminism (anti-patriarchal), Feminism (separationist), or similar.

Please vote to keep, change or comment, give reasons and sign with ~~~~. The straw poll will stay open until a consensus or majority emerges, or 1.45pm on 27 April 2005, EST (Australian time). An An

• keep - the title is the proper noun of a historical movement, and means more than its narrow definition in american politics. The name is widely known, and was previously undisputed.An An 04:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep - Radical feminism is the historically correct, self-identified, and externally identified name of the Radical feminist movement and ideology Fifelfoo 05:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Of course. Sigh. Dysprosia 05:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. End vote, move on to more productive things (I withdraw my request to change the title since everyone is focusing on that suggestion rather than on the validity of the argument [which is the only thing that could lead to a theoretical title change]). zen master T 05:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - although polls are hardly the way to go to decides facts, which is what this debate is about. -- 08:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, vote closed. There is consensus to keep the title of this article as "Radical Feminism".

The following comment was added well after the vote was closed. AnAn

• Keep - Changing the title would only make it more partisan than it already is. The proposed alternatives are even more ambiguous, and even worse, they promote the "feminist cause." Don't get the wrong idea, I recognize where feminists are coming from, and I realize that they have legit grievances, but coming across as a partisan certainly does not help anyone's cause. I think this article is far enough from a NPOV as it is. Fuzzform 20:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Radical Feminism as unique historical movement

I've been looking around wikipedia a fair amount recently. I thought about what subjects I might know more about than an average interenet person and could contribute something to. I read through the article and the talk page and the debate that was had. I think what is missing in the article is especially missing in the debate.

Radical feminism is not just -or in my opinion, primarily- a different type of feminism. It is primarilly a distinct historical movement that took place among specific people in specific places at a specific time. The background ideology, root causes, aims, and individual participants were distinct from that of liberal feminism.

In short, Radical Feminism (in this understanding, which does not preclude the idea of radical feminism as more radical than liberal feminism) started in the late sixties with a membership almost exclusively of disenchanted New Left women who gathered together in Consciousness Raising groups and shared stories of how they had been mistreated and marginalized in their actions for groups like SNCC and SDS. Their feminist awakening grew out of New Left politics and was tinged with a New Left tactics and disastisfaction with society as a whole. The CR groups were central to its inception and growth but the highly personal nature of these groups led to factions and splintering quite quickly. It could be said that this Radical Feminist Movement ended in the early seventies. It was nonetheless highly influential in that it broadened the feminist debate and forced the liberal feminists like Betty Friedan and NOW to think about patriarchy as a whole and to consider the different struggles faced by women outside of a white middle class perspective; including lesbians, women of various races and ethnicities, and the poor.

below is a link to a research paper on the subject I wrote for a history seminar a few years ago in college. http://pleasedisposeofthispapermindfully.com/2701.html

I've never done any wikipedia stuff before so I don't know if I should come up with a section to add to the previous article, write a new article incorporating the old, write my own to allow others to fit the two together, or just allow you all to read my thoughts and my essay and think about the distinct historical nature of radical feminism as something that took place outside of the traditional narrative of women's movements in America. (at least the participants themselves saw themselves outside this narrative of liberal feminism) I feel this distinction could resolve some of the questions in the above debate and some omissions in the article as a whole.

thank you. my username is wmblair and it is July 12 05

Dear User:wmblair. You might want to add that as a section on the US Radical Feminist movement, try looking at how New Left is organised between the UK and US New Lefts as two different (yet related) sections. At least in Australia and the United Kingdom, Radical Feminism involved many Old Left members (Trotskyists and Communists who were alienated from their parties) and significant numbers of working class women. These movements started in CR movements, but developed through frission and differing abortion and sex laws into a much more radical movement (at least in Australia), which squatted &tc. as described in the articles. This trend of Radical Feminism has a continuity of campus life through until the late 1990s when the government effectively destroyed left wing student movements. So please, add your edits in to the current article, and add new US specific sections where required! Fifelfoo 10:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Fifelfoo that this should have its own section. I am not sure about the roots-paragraph, it could also be split and integrated into the geographical sections.--Fenice 12:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody know if there is a link between the ideas of Radical Feminism and the Frankfurt school (i.e. Critical Theory)? - PJ

Yes, there is. Sometimes the link is one of influence and sometimes the link is one of criticism. (Ellen Willis, for example, takes on Marcuse head-on in "Women and the Myth of Consumerism.") Why do you ask? Radgeek 04:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Militant feminism

Someone is going to have to deal with the fact that "militant feminism" redirects to this page. Just because it is somewhat of a pejorative does not mean that it should simply be overlooked. Obviously it is not synonymous with radical feminism, but it is nonetheless related, and that should be reflected here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.214.102 (talk • contribs)

You are more than welcome to make a positive contribution to this article. If you see something that needs dealing with, you are welcome to deal with it. There are lots of guides, and you can always ask for help in fixing things if you're not sure how to go about it. Please do consider signing up for a user account, because this makes it much easier to communicate and have your actions attributed to you. AnAn 02:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section?

As this article reads right now, I find it to be biased towards radical feminism to the point of being unhelpful. As someone pointed out above, it is not clear about how radical feminism differs from other branches. And as far as I know, RF is very different from, for instance, equality feminism and sex-positive feminism, for instance. Wasn't sex-positive feminism founded essentially in reaction to radical feminism, e.g. Andrea Dworkin's oft-quoted though possibly-not-existent "All penetrative sex is rape"? I think this article needs a section about some of the criticism of the movement, including such things as existentialist attacks on it for being essentialist (i.e. all about identity politics, opinions of RF within other branches of feminism, and the common idea that radical feminists have hurt feminism by making feminists look loony. But I don't really feel qualified to write this section myself, though I'd be willing to help. moink 00:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Moink,

1. Just to be clear, the statement you've put in quote marks and attributed to Andrea Dworkin isn't just "possibly-not-existent." It is not a quotation from anywhere in her writing; it's an interpretation of her writing foisted on her by hostile critics, which she has explicitly denied holding when asked.

2. For what it's worth, many "sex-positive feminists" have explicitly consider themselves radical feminists (e.g. Ellen Willis, one of the founding members of the radical feminist movement in New York City). The contrast group against which "sex-positive" feminists defined themselves were not radical feminists as such, but rather the radical feminist anti-pornography movement.

Hope this helps. --Radgeek 15:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How could that help? All he's saying that that in fairness to NPOV, all significant points of view should be included in the article. This means that somewhere in the article a voice should be given to those who might offer some criticism of the movement. This would leave the reader of the article to make up his or her own mind about 'radical feminism'.Easter rising 13:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

A couple points on this. 1) When an article, such as this one, discusses a topic that has been the subject of criticism, that criticism should be discussed as part of a balanced article. So far we're on the same page. However, that does not mean that Wikipedia is a forum to write up your pet criticisms of a particular idea – that's "original research" and is expressly prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Criticisms that are discussed need to be notable criticisms that have been actually published in the non-Wikipedia world. Got some sources you can summarize? Incorporated them in! 2) Its really a good idea to have some understanding of the subject that you're writing about, whether or not you agree with it. What you may not understand is that "radical feminism" was historically a very diverse movement with many differing and often hostile tendencies within it, and not just something that can be reduced down to the figure of Andrea Dworkin. The assertion that sex-positive feminism arose as a reaction against radical feminism is historically inaccurate – sex-positive feminism was a reaction against one kind of radical feminism; many early sex-positive feminists such as Ellen Willis and Gayle Rubin also considered themselves to be radical feminists of various kinds (which is not ignore the fact that many sex-positive feminists were more aligned with liberal or libertarian feminism). In sum, a balanced article on a movement like this needs to coherently and dispassionately discuss conflicts within a movement, external criticism of a movement, and needs to be able to reference the sources of such criticism. Peter G Werner 05:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"radical" in Radical Feminism

Surely, as an adjective it cannot mean "the root"? It has to mean "of or pertaining to the root" or "going to the root". And the etymology should be: "(from Late Latin rādīcālis, having roots, from Latin rādīx, rādīc-, root)" or something Roastpotatoes 02:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on.... We all know what the word radical means in today's english. It is irrevelant what it meant in latin... --71.56.143.145 15:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats REALLY neither here nor there. Thank-you for your useless comment. Have fun editing! Easter rising 15:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Just, wow.

This article is so ridiculously biased you might as well have written, "All men are profoundly disgusting pigdogs with no sense of honor, tact, or respect for females, and we shall stand up united against them in a great Amazonian war and bombard the degenerates with estrogen pills until they melt onto the very ground they stand on! Sisters, rise up and smite this plague of men!"

There. That's your whole article, as it stands right now. It's so incredibly hypocritical that it's laughable. Certainly, you have the right to express your opinion (just not in a wikipedia article), but standing up and triumphantly shouting "we shall be equals to men!" and then slamming them verbally at every turn is just absurd.

You want equal treatment? I have no problem with that. Oh, but first, go hop into the selective services, so you can die for your country whenever your government wants you to. Be expected to provide completely for your family. Be expected never to cry, ever, and to feel no pain. Be expected to brawl with anyone that challenges you at the drop of a hat. Be expected to hide any emotions that might be considered taboo. Be expected to be the absolute best at everything (or else you're nothing, right?). Expect to not be forgiven for any discretion of honor. Above all, expect a hellish struggle with your entire gender for supremacy.

Sounds great being male, doesn't it?

You lot seem to think that males live on a poofy cloud and have everything brought to them on a silver platter. You're so very, very wrong. Every day is a struggle against the other males for supremacy; to be the alpha leader. I'm not saying males OR females should be treated poorly; I'm just saying, before you go shaving your head and burning your bra in a gesture of defiance towards your "cruel male oppressors", think about the total societal GARBAGE we deal with each and every day.

I agree, males and females should have equal rights, but with those rights comes responsibility to uphold them. I'm truly sorry that society evolved in a such a manner to favor males, but don't take it out on every guy you meet. Most of us are just regular Joes, trying to live our lives and make a name for ourselves. Most of us just want to be happy. To have a nice house, to be in love and have children, etc. I suspect that your wants aren't so very different.

So, please, rewrite this article from a more rational and neutral perspective. Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.225.34.37 (talk • contribs)

Rather than providing us with a brief on what you consider the many evils of radical feminism, could you provide us with some specific examples of statements or phrasing from the article that you think demonstrate a violation of WP:NPOV? Picking out specific things that need to be fixed is a lot more useful to everyone than giving us your personal perspective on feminism, radical or otherwise. Radgeek 15:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not a forum for disscussion on the issue, it is a forum for improving articles.Easter rising 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I aggree with Easter Rising and his predecessor, but I also sympathise with the complainer. If someone would point out problems that we could fix, perhaps his issues could be resolved.--71.56.143.145 15:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem that could be fixed has been pointed out numerous times: that criticisms of radical feminism be incorporated into the article. Feminism contains a brief one, even quickly mentioning misandry, but here we have the radical brand and ... zip.

I don't blame the website: this is sympomatic of society in general. However, I do not permit my students to reference wiki because of this problem, though I suggest it as useful for an overview and a way of discovering further reading.

Specifically in the existing text, how's this:

• 'The term Militant feminism is a pejorative term which is often associated, usually by detractors, with radical feminism.' Which detractors? I've actually heard both terms used positivly and pejorativly in both normal and academic forums.
• 'The term radical in radical feminism (from Latin rādīx, rādīc-, root) is used as an adjective meaning of or pertaining to the root or going to the root.' This usage of 'radical' is not the one generally associated with opinions and political positions. See dictionary example for specific type of usage: '(used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative" [syn: extremist, ultra]'

I'm sure you realise these problems - and more - exist in the article, but heck, the more I think about it the more appopriate it is for the problems to be there. Such problems are a part of your movement, so why shouldn't they exist in the movement's expression? People with any sort of genuine critical accoutrements can deal with it. --Jgda 01:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I find many of your points rather unclear. I want to address this point, however: "that criticisms of radical feminism be incorporated into the article. Feminism contains a brief one, even quickly mentioning "misandry", but here we have the radical brand and ... zip." The criticisms of feminism you mention largely belong in that article because they're criticisms of feminism in general. That doesn't mean those same criticisms need to be incorporated into every article on a subtopic of feminism. Now if there are specific criticisms of radical feminism, whether from anti-feminists or from other feminists, certainly those criticisms belong here. I believe that in the latter category, Betty Friedan had published some criticisms of radical feminism, but I'm foggy about details. As for anti-feminists, they tend to lump all feminists together, so I'm not sure there is a specific criticism of radical feminism from that quarter. I don't think, however, that there's overwhelmingly important critique of radical feminism (other than than as part of general critique on feminism) that the authors of this article are holding back on. Peter G Werner 04:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how much more clear it could be.

'As for anti-feminists, they tend to lump all feminists together, so I'm not sure there is a specific criticism of radical feminism from that quarter.'

In a similar way that we lump any group togther, including anti-feminists? The obfuscatory tactic of refering any specific query to the hydra-model of 'feminisms' is as common as it is facile. Feminism, as a language utterance if you like, has a signification that most people understand. There are certain features that make a type of feminism a type of feminism, after all, and the wiki entry for feminism lists some of them in its introduction. You radicalise the thing then you radicalise the critique perhaps? Those criticisms of feminism that accuse the movement of engaging in misandrist discourse become all the more extreme when faced by the extreme brand. Not to mention the many women who identify themselves as feminists but, when faced with the tenants of radical feminism, baulk (paricularly those, like my wife, who are mothers of sons). Any NPOV article on radical feminism would have to include these critical issues, at least. You have to assume that any reader of this article has not or will not read the 'mother' feminism piece.

Perhaps the main problem with this article, other than what's already been pointed out, is its apologist tendencies. It brushes over some of the genuinely hate-filled expressions of radical feminism, which if given would reqire no critique at all. I know at my university a radical feminist magazine called Artemis would have supplied plenty of examples, like a marvelous cartoon with a woman with a gun and a caption saying 'so many men, so few bullets'. Maybe it could be uploaded? My uni fees helped pay for its publication...

And why did you put (what David Stove used to call) shudder quotes around misandry when you quoted me? --Jgda 05:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

First the "shudder" quotes – I was simply changing something from a hyperlink to non-hyperlinked text and felt that quotes were the best way to render it. It wasn't meant to be a comment one way or the other.

The assertion that if there's a critique in an article on a larger subject that that criticism must therefore be reproduced and placed in every article that's a subset of that subject is patently ridiculous. By this logic, it would mean that the article on Criticisms of Marxism (or a condensed version thereof) would have to be be reproduced in every article on a subset of Marxism, from Trotskyism on down to International Bolshevik Tendency in order for those article to be considered NPOV. The fact that this would lead to repetitious, boilerplate articles seems to be pretty obvious.

As for much of your argument, I refer you to what I wrote above under "Criticisms section?", especially the part about notable criticisms vs personal pet criticisms. As for your issues with "Artemis" – are you terrible sure that this represents most radical feminism? Just because you're justifiably pissed at something hateful you saw in a fringe publication doesn't mean a Wikipedia article is an appropriate place to vent that frustration.

I have no interest here in seeing the subject of "radical feminism" protected against all criticism. (Far from it, actually.) What I do dislike is the trend in political articles on Wikipedia toward "POV warrioring" and "know-nothing critiques". In other words, people who have absolutely no depth knowledge about a particular idea or its history (and this isn't only the case with feminism – I could say the same thing about socialism, fascism, libertarianism, conservatism, etc.), but they know they don't like it and their idea of "balance" is that they write an attack article summing up their pet peeves about that subject. It should go without saying that Wikipedia is not a place for personal editorials no matter how much one feels that it "balances" a topic.

If there's a major critique of radical feminism from a published source that you feel is being left out, by all means incorporate it into the article, or at least point that critique out here on the talk page so that other editors can use it as a source. Peter G Werner 06:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. As far as your Marxism analogy goes, it would only work if their was a Marxism entry and a radical Marxism section. Radical feminism draws more critique than mainstream feminism simply due to its inherent extremism, so this should be represented on the page.

The publication in question was hardly a fringe publication, as implied in my previous post. It was funded by a major Australian university as a radical feminist publication, so could quite rightly be put up there with any SCUM manifesto. http://www.deakin.edu.au/dusa/stud_support/Artemis.pdf

Are you implying I am indulging in the behaviour you describe? I know enough about the topic as any arts-related professional academic in a western university who has had it rammed down their throat from their first year as an undergraduate.

The conclusion I came to in the last post would be enough: actually include some of the genuinely radical feminist material that is out there in the article, sans apologia, and the critique would take care of itself (I suppose). Otherwise, the bibliography in the misandry entry might be a place to start. --Jgda 10:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"Are you implying I am indulging in the behaviour you describe? I know enough about the topic as any arts-related professional academic in a western university who has had it rammed down their throat from their first year as an undergraduate."

Frankly, you are coming across as a "POV warrior" and "know-nothing critic" – it does not strike me that you have any depth knowledge of the topic, but you're noticeably angry about it. You also seem to be conducting a certain amount of original research, since you routinely inflate small publications you've to which had some personal exposure as notable publications.

You're idea that this "Artemis" publication is notable is laughable – a Google search for outside links to this publication or the women's group that publishes it reveals exactly 3 sites, one of which is the off-campus homepage of the said women's group. As for the perspective the magazine takes, there are many people who would refer to it as "cultural feminism" rather than radical feminism, a debate you'd be familiar with had you done some cursory reading on the topic. I also don't think cutting and pasting quotes out of this obscure over-the-top radical feminist publication is going to provide any sense of balance or perspective here. (I did, however, put a link to it under "External links".)

I'm not sure if this argument is actually going anywhere – do you actually have something to contribute, or are you just simply pissed off and ranting? Its starting to look like the latter. Peter G Werner 17:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I got a laugh from it as well: shadenfreude for sure. Thanks so much for being so frank. Your weaselly-worded insults are meaningless, of course. I'll let them know what brand of feminism 'many people' would refer to them as: perhaps they've lost touch with current labelling procedures. I was using them as an example because they self applied the term.

I'm not ill-mannered: unlike others I'm not going to hack straight into the article myself. I was using this talk section to discuss the issues. And some action has been taken. Calm down. --Jgda 02:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This "Radical Feminism" is a waste of time. Anyone who is a radical feminist needs to find something else to complain about. Men are here to stay. Not all males are evil insensitive rulers only wanting to suppress women. You are so wrong, its not even funny; actually it kinda is. This is more of an advanced form of Lesbian Feminism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.13.96 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 15 November 2006

Whatever - this is a talk page on a Wikipedia article. The point is to discuss the merits of the article and how to improve it, not a forum debate one's opinion on the merits of radical feminism or lack thereof. Peter G Werner 05:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Differing tendencies within radical feminism

This article gives very little idea that radical feminism isn't (or at least historically wasn't) one single monolithic philosophy. Certainly the (now disappeared) schools of materialist radical feminism (eg, Redstockings, Shulamith Firestone) was very different from the more matriarchal tendencies that eventually became the dominant tendency of radical feminism. And even within the latter, there's a difference between cultural feminism and lesbian separatism on one hand and the more activist approach of Dworkin and MacKinnon. Also, ecofeminism is clearly rooted in cultural feminism, so that deserves some discussion as well. In other words, a good historical/ideological survey is as called for here as it would be in an article about Marxism. Peter G Werner 06:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Please consider viewing [1]BobV01 16:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Criticisms" section added

Some people believe these type of women should belong in the kitchen

I've just added a "Criticisms" section that will probably make no one happy. I've briefly summarized critiques from men's rights, liberal feminist, leftist, and queer positions, as well as the position of Ellen Willis and Alice Echols that contemporary radical feminism is essentially cultural feminism.

What I've written is far from perfect; the criticisms are rather brief and terse, and I'm largely quoting from memory, so I don't have citations handy. (But then this entire article suffers from lack of citation, so I'm far from alone in that sin.) It at least serves as the rough beginning of a "criticisms" section that others can build upon. Peter G Werner 23:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a good start, Señor.--Rockero 00:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed --Jgda 02:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, at least the ball is rolling now... hopefully it won't be summarily deleted like previous critisisms. Easter rising 13:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, your criticisms section is well-done. Citations lack, but citations lack in the whole article. I sincerely hope it's not deleted. Matt620 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The kitchen comment is gratuitous and unhelpful. It is sad when views different than our own are denigrated and thoughts of others are dismissed with useless historical sterotypes. Just what "type of women" are we talking about? Is it not possible for a man to be a radical feminist? Homebuilding 75.37.226.164 (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed criticisms as it is not needed and wanted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.108.154 (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

58.105.101.3

The above user's addition did not rehash already stated material. It mentioned a divide between 'real feminism' and 'radical feminism' which certainly exists in the minds of many feminists and anti-feminists alike whether we agree with it or not, and it mentions the drive for a matriarchal society and makes a suggestion that this could be potentially dystopic and oppressive. I don't see where these were before stated. Stylistically, the points were made inelegently: was that the real reason it was deleted?--Jgda 00:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it looked like it was written by a 12-year-old did have a lot to do with the reversion, yes. Basically, it was so crappy it needed either a total rewrite or reversion. In thinking how I'd rewrite it, I really didn't see any new points there (its already been stated that radical feminism is viewed by many as misandrist), plus it seemed more a statement of the POV of the author, not a verifiable criticism from an outside source.

I'm really not trying to protect radical feminism from all criticisms, but please review the points I've made above – Wikipedia articles need to include summaries of notable criticisms found in verifiable, published sources; Wikipedia is not a place to air personal pet criticisms. Peter G Werner 08:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

more propaganda

why does wikipedia has 10 different articles of feminism?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.9 (talk • contribs) 03:51, July 31, 2006 (UTC)

Because there are at least 10 different kinds of feminism. While I may disagree with some of their stances, each kind is different, and each deserves representation. I hardly see the quantity of articles relating to feminism as propaganda, but I see the content of some of the articles as being rather POV. I invite you to make edits to existing articles, so long as they're NPOV. But first, I'd advise you to sign up for an account (your IP address has made many contributions, and should probably be registered) and sign your comments with "--~~~~" without the quotes --Ringmaster j 05:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (<- Like this!)

Perhaps an eleventh is needed--one on resentment feminism -- I've surely met a few, and of course, men of a corollary position. I doubt that the latter would wish to press the matter in a university course of study, though. 75.37.226.164 (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Loneranger4justice contributions

I've let stand (with minor edits) the following text under criticisms:

"Many Men's Rights and Father's Rights activists view radical feminist agendas and legislature such as the VAWA as invoking the profiling and sexual imagry used by the Woman's KKK and simply excluding 'black' from the old WKKK jargon while inserting 'oppression' as an added profile of all men. The term Feminazi is often used to describe Radical Feminist discrimination or vilification of men based upon their differing genetic code, much like the KKK denegration of blacks, or NAZI propaganda directed at jews or others excluded from the priviledged class."

I'd like to know, however, whether this is actually representative of the "Men's Rights" critique of radical feminism, or if this is just a pet criticism on the part of Loneranger4justice. If its the latter, it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Peter G Werner 19:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fascism

Feminism and especially "Radical feminism" is widely compared to fascism. So there is no reason not to add it to "See also" section. --TRFA 19:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a sufficient section on criticism for this article. Placing a "See Also: Fascism" is making a POV declaration that Radical feminism is Fascism. If you can cite a source stating that RF is comparable to Fascism, then add it appropriately to the criticism section as a sourced claim. --Puellanivis 23:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Could this article use a quotes section? Perhaps even as a subsection of the Criticisms section? It seems to me that much understanding of radical feminism and it's criticisms could be gained by simply including some of the radical statements made by it's leading proponents. --Staggerbot 23:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

Could this article use a quotes section? Perhaps even as a subsection of the Criticisms section? It seems to me that much understanding of radical feminism and it's criticisms could be gained by simply including some of the radical statements made by it's leading proponents. --Staggerbot 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The selection of quotes would have to be carefully crafted, as including select quotes that project an absurd quote of radical-feminism out of context would likely be a POV action attempting to display them as "nutjobs", (see? look what they're saying!) Rather, quotes would need to be carefully selected from neutral sources, or explicitly justified statements by radical-feminists that are accepted as representative of their point of view by themselves. Any other use of quotes, could be written off as a "one-off" example, where someone says something silly. You could bend the quote "God does not play dice with the universe," into a completely absurd torrent of justification that the speaker is an idiot, while at the same time, you would be painting Albert Einstein as a lunatic.

So, any quotes that we would select should be statements rigerously defended by radical feminists, as they've conceded these statements as representative. And not some one-off statement that they made one time, and hadn't really thought about before hand. In all cases the attempt should not be to "paint" radical feminist as anything at all, but rather to objectively report their assertions. I feel this can be done just as easily with prose as with direct quotes. --Puellanivis 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the concern of people being misquoted but I think the example of the Einstein quote (above) is an excellent one in this case. It is a well known quote attributed to him and if some one were to look up Einstein on Wikipedia they will find that quote there, as well they should. Why is there such a category as radical-feminism if not because radical feminists have made radical statements in their published writings and through statements to the press?...These radical statements and the ideas they encapsulate are the source of most of the criticisms and controversy of radical-feminism. They would be informative to the point of being essential when discussing criticisms of radical feminism. If a concern in radical-feminism is about the perceptions induced by radical-feminists making one-off statements that hadn't been thought of before hand (as described above), then that too is worth including on the page. --142.20.156.252 18:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

--Staggerbot 18:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My concern isn't for one-off statements of unique ideas. But rather one-off statements that they don't actually support, or believe in. They were just saying it because it sounded good at the time, or they were caught up in some tide or issue, and were prone to making statements that upon later clarity, they decided weren't a good statement in the first place. So, in this way, Einstein's quote would be a bad example. Rather would be something like "there will be no market for a computer in the home," where those who made that statement in the past based on their previous beliefs, obviously realize that these have not conformed with reality.

So my concern is simply with representing radical-feminism with accurate quotes, I guess you could say. Yes, radical feminists are radical because they say radical things, and these can and maybe should be included in this article. But putting something that they don't feel represents them, or is a quote used extensively out-of-context, then I don't find that appropriate. --Puellanivis 19:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, if they're prone to making one-off comments that they later deny or reject, then in that case, it would be notable, and including these one-off comments (as long as well attested) would be appropriate --Puellanivis 19:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I’m not sure your Einstein example is a bad one, but I agree with you that your computer quote example is a better one. As a famous quote by an accomplished computer engineer (Ken Olsen: "there is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home") it is revealing of both his personal style as a leader in the computer industry, and of the computer industry itself which was and is still going through rapid change. His prediction wasn’t born out, and indeed, some may judge him to look silly for having made it…but it is an important quote (for the above mentioned reasons) attributed to him. Again, it can be found in wikipedia and should not be removed if he later regretted saying it or because it wasn’t born out in reality. If he in fact did not say it, or it was edited to read "there is no reason for any individual to have a computer" then naturally it should be removed or corrected. In regards to quotes by radical-feminists, I agree with you that POV is an important concern. Perhaps a better category would be – CONTROVERSAL QUOTES-. I believe it would add a great deal of clarity to the Radical-Feminist article in terms of why Radical-Feminism is distinguished from other kinds of feminism, and why there is controversy and criticism concerning it.--Staggerbot 20:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the best quote would be "640k of memory is enough for anyone", which is attributed by Bill Gates, but has no credibility as being associated with him, he never thought it was true, and argues consistent that it is not true. So that, if any wikipedia page were to quote him as such, it should properly be contexted that it's widely attributed to him, but with no attestation. Yes, if a radical feminist were to have gotten up in front of a large group and say, "We need to kill all men." That is controversial and possibly notable.

Er... I guess the best way to say it, is that we shouldn't be searching hard and deep for obscure quotes just to show radical feminists in a bad light. They should be easily attributable, and relatively uncontroversial that they are sourced from a radical feminist, but they need not be uncontroversial in their content. Indeed, it's unlikely that any notable quotes they would be. --Puellanivis 20:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

2.2 Action

"In addition, radical feminists also took direct action. In 1968, they protested against the Miss America pageant by throwing high heels and other feminine accoutrements into a freedom garbage bin."

Is this section clear enough? As a reminder, the bra burnings never took place. It seems to imply it. --EarthSprite^∞ 06:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This section should be deleted because of its triviality. This is hardly any sort of "direct action". What's next? Including all documented instances of feminsts going outdoors without underwear? That'll show the capitalist, patriarchal racist system who's boss! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.195.47 (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sex-negative? Etc.

I take issue with the latter portion of this article.

Radical feminism also often viewed as sex-negative, or anti-sex because of some identifying as radical feminists' often strong opposition to forms of sexual expression they see as patriarchal, such as pornography and BDSM and in some cases sexual intercourse and fellatio as well.

Radical feminists have also been criticized for making alliances with the political right in opposition to pornography and prostitution, for example, during the Meese Commission hearings in the United States and in the contemporary "abolitionist" anti-prostitution movement.

The politics criticized here are precisely the politics that, for example, Ellen Willis ("Radical Feminism and Feminist Radicalism", 1984, collected in No More Nice Girls: Countercultural Essays, Wesleyan University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-8195-5250-X, p. 117–150) criticized as "cultural feminism", distinct from "radical feminism"; indeed, in Willis's words, not merely distinct but "antithetical" (p. 117).

Like Willis, I'm suspicious of attaching the term "radical feminism" to anything after about 1975. Not that something later can't be both feminist and radical, but that this particular political current was more or less played out by that time. Cultural feminism did indeed go off in the directions criticized here; Willis and others then (starting around 1980) developed a more syncretic politics that built on the insights of radical feminism but which recognized the importance of other categories of oppression and which was, in Willis's own term "pro-sex" (a term she first used in "Lust Horizons: Is the Women's Movement Pro-Sex?", which appeared in the Village Voice in 1981; I don't have a more precise citation at hand), or, in the now more current term, "sex-positive". This last eventually fed into third-wave feminism, which owes very little to the (in my view) rather puritanical politics of cultural feminists such as Andrea Dworkin, Catherine McKinnon, Women Against Pornography, etc.

The question, fundamentally, is whether the latter should be called "radical feminist". Admittedly, there is something of a line to be drawn from radical feminism via The Feminists and especially Ti-Grace Atkinson and political lesbianism; but I agree with Willis's conclusion (again "Radical Feminism and Feminist Radicalism" p. 117) that this ceased to be radical feminism when it became "a moral, countercultural movement aimed [I would qualify this with "primarily" - JM] at redeeming its participants" rather than transforming society. - Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not act unilaterally on this, but in my view this material should either be removed or contextualized. I'm going to feel free to edit it in the next day or two; if someone disagrees with how I approach it, please bring it back here. - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up, Jmabel. Keep up the good work. Shanoman 21:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Shanoman appears to have been the author of the relevant passage, and there was no citation on these criticisms, I will feel free to edit. - 69.17.114.183 18:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

See the "radical feminism is a contested term" section below for my thoughts on this. Iamcuriousblue 17:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Civil Rights activism

Does someone have a citation for Shulamith Firestone and Judith Brown being involved in African-American Civil Rights activism prior to their feminist involvement? For Firestone, it wouldn't surprise me at all, but I don't remember ever reading this. I know next to nothing about Judith Brown; if she merits mention in the context of this article, probably she deserves an article of her own, if someone knows enough about her to write it. - Jmabel | Talk 07:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Original research"

I've tried to add a few citations and correct a few things that seem to me to have been (minor) misunderstandings, and I expect to contribute a little more to the article. However, I'd appreciate if the person who disparaged this as "original research" would clarify what exactly they might question. While there are certainly some matters that are open to interpretation (including, notably, the relation between radical feminism and cultural feminism) and there is a lot that could be added to this article (including, as Peter G Werner noted above, the differing tendencies within radical feminism - in particular, I intend to expand on the differences between the Redstockings and The Feminists), I don't see anything here that strikes me as deeply wrong or that I would specifically expect major difficulty in citing for. Is there something in particular that someone doubts and for which they would specifically like to see citation? A more concrete request (such as mine above about Civil Rights activism) would move matters forward a lot more than something this vague. While it's great to cite for everything, it's most important to cite for what is genuinely doubted. - Jmabel | Talk 08:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "does not contain any referenced" cleanup notice, as this article has 10 in-text citation and clearly does contain references (thanks in large part to your help). If no one comes forward to point out any claims in the article that they believe to be original research, the original research notice should be removed too. Neitherday 14:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'll leave it to you to decide when to remove it. I'm continuing to add to the article; I'll probably do another few hours of work over the next few days.

I would like to see some citations on the material about the UK and Australia, because I know little about it and (unlike the US material) cannot vouch for its accuracy. Also, I'd love to see some decent material on radical feminism countries outside the Anglosphere. - Jmabel | Talk 19:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been three days and no one has come forward with a reason the tag should remain, so I have removed it. If someone comes forward later the template can always be readded (however, I doubt that will happen as there doesn't seem to be much, if any, original research in the article at this point.) Neitherday 14:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How about, just for a start, accounting for the somewhat apologist definition of 'radical'. Just a brief dictionary search that lists this 'going to the root' origin uses the word 'fundamental', which perhaps doesn't sit well? This 'root' based definition seems more pertinent to the mathematical idea of the word. The more social and political definitions seem to be more aligned towards: 'Thoroughgoing or extreme, esp. as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company. Favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.' Everyone who wants to make a positive change on any issue wants to get to the root of what's causing it, so everyone is radical in this way: it's just agreeing on the root that makes the difference. 'Radical' certainly means something very different to the vast majority of language users, particulary when associated with a social, political or religous movement. Jgda 05:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The term "radical feminism" was coined by radical feminists, therefore the etymology of the term should reflect their usage of the word "radical". Neitherday 17:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Two sections in particular are problematic and I've tagged those individual sections for lack of citation and possible OR – "Radical feminist theory and ideology" (particularly the part about "Patriarchal theory") and "Radical feminism and Marxism". I've also tagged the entire article for using excessive quoting. Iamcuriousblue 18:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Radical feminism is a contested term

First, I wanted to thank User:Jmabel for their excellent additions to this article. This article was in pretty bad shape before, and Jmabel has gone a long way toward making this article more scholarly.

However, I think its important to point out that there are at least two different claims on what precisely constitutes "radical feminism", and that WP:NPOV demands that Wikipedia not take one side or the other as to which is "really" radical feminism. The first is the view that Jmabel seems to lean toward in the "Sex negative?" discussion above, basically that of Alice Echols and Ellen Willis, that the various pre-1974 tendencies are properly called "radical feminism" and that the post-1975 ideology exemplified by Andrea Dworkin and the like is really "cultural feminism". The other view is the one taken in the "Radically Speaking" anthology edited by Diane Bell and Renate Klein that emphsizes the historic continuity with early and contemporary radical feminism and rejects the idea that most contemporary radical feminists are "cultural feminists". Its also important to note that most contemporary self-described "radical feminists" are very much of the Dworkinist variety, and reject Alice Echols thesis.

It should also be pointed out that there two basic sets of criticisms of radical feminism as well. One is the criticism by Alice Echols and the like that criticizes contemporary radical feminism from the POV of early radical feminism, especially the ideas of Redstockings. Most other criticism, from outside of radical feminism entirely, is basically aimed at post-1974 radical feminism, though most of these critics aren't aware of the distinctions between pre- and post-1974 radical feminism.

Basically, WP:NPOV demands that both views of what is radical feminism be presented fairly, without favoring one view of what constitutes radical feminism.

The one other criticism I have of User:Jmabel's additions is the writing style, which is way too dependent upon quotation. Statments should be summarized wherever possible. Iamcuriousblue 18:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with someone presenting the Dworkinist view. It isn't going to be me. To be honest, I've tried reading her and have found myself unwilling to read through bad prose to get at the details of the ideas of someone I so completely disagree with.

As for the quotations: most of the quotations in the article are either slogans (e.g. "the personal is political") for which there is no substitute, particular terms that it is important to be clear are verbatim from the source (e.g. "neo-Maoist"), or in the criticisms section, where a good paraphrase might do as a substitute, but in such a fraught area I hesitated to paraphrase more than was absolutely necessary. Are there particular quotations that you find inappropriate? "Quotefarm" usually goes on articles where there is a section that is just a string of quotations, more like Wikiquote than Wikipedia, and where there is no thread of our own expository writing; clearly, that is not the case here, so it would help if you could make that objection more concrete. - Jmabel | Talk 17:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is over-dependent on Willis

I don't have a political objection, but this is simply a problem. There are enough other sources. --Tothebarricades 09:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

TTB, it was an unreferenced mess when I got here, I was just trying to get it out of the status of being tagged as unreferenced & possible OR. I knew that about half of it could be clarified/cited from one essay by Willis, so I got hold of a copy and did that much on it. Now it's someone else's move. Probably someone at least slightly sympathetic to the Dworkin/MacKinnon school should have at it. And, yes, there are plenty of other sources. We probably also should have a more coherent take on the "liberal feminist" and "socialist feminist" critiques of radical feminism (and vice versa). - Jmabel | Talk 05:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding references to John Money, the now discredited charlatan who had a decades long run as a primary reference for "women's studies," the primary promoter of nurture over nature, won't help this problem. See As Nature Made Him by John Colapinto. Homebuilding 75.37.226.164 (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

dubious tag

I've added a dubious tag to the end of the second paragraph in Radical_feminism#Radical_feminist_theory_and_ideology. I'm referring specifically to the soapboxing: "men in industrialized western societies must be held personally accountable for the attitudes and actions of men in tribal-low agricultural societies" - this not only violating, wikipedia is not a soapbox; the policies on writting with a neutral point of view; it is unsourced and unverified. Either it gets verified and sourced and rewritten neutrally or it gets deleted--Cailil ^talk 12:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That was part of a large gobbit of POV dropped into the article; actually, the bit you quote strikes me as one of the least objectionable parts (it may or may not be true, but it at least claims to be a description of Radical Feminist ideas, rather than being an unsourced attack on them). Anyway, I've reverted that edit, as it's unsourced and, in most cases, unsourcable, POV. VoluntarySlave 17:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirection from "phallocracy"

It's something I mention here. You could check it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.88.124 (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at phallocracy's history the reasoning behind its merge is lack of notablity. Phallocracy is a neologism coined by some radical feminists, and quite honestly I have rarely seen it used. Unless somebody can show why the term is a) a notable neologism (in a way that it does not violate WP:NEOLOGISM) and b) that it is notable outside of the context of radical feminism, then there's no reason for it to even exist as a redirect--Cailil ^talk 00:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You should know, wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Zslevi (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Feminazi?

Is there evidence that feminazi has ever been widely used to specifically refer to radical feminism. The term is most often used by conservatives that make no distinction between different sub-types of feminism. If no source can be provided, I move that the term be removed from this article. -Neitherday (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Radical feminism and the weathermen

Apparently there was some sort of overlap between the two and the Weathermen had a "smash monogamy" campaign. Someone may wish to put a reference into the section on radical feminism and marxism. I'm a little over my head on all the currents and just came in here because my proposed edits on Bill Ayers' page included a link to radical feminism and I was curious if there was already something over here. TMLutas (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion

There should maybe be a line or two about the relationship between radical feminists and religion. While some are quite anti-institution and anti-patriarchy, others are known to be quite fond of more matriarchal sects like Wicca and Goddess-worship. ADM (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The mission of the discussion of Wicca, goddess worship, and the roots thereof from such writers as Johann Bachofen, Matilda Joslyn Gage and Marija Gimbutas is a big problem for the current article, which does not trace the roots of radical feminism to any point before the 1960s. Having read The First Sex as a teenager, I know radical feminism has roots dating around a hundred years before the 1960s, and these older roots certainly need discussion for a complete article. Also, criticism of radical feminism from conservative Christians would also be very much worth adding - I know from reading Robert Bork just how harsh this criticism can be. luokehao (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Europe and Canada

The article primarily mentions the US branch of the radical feminist movement, but there is also an important brand of radical feminism within European and Canadian society as well. These more reginal brands of the movement ought to be mentioned too. ADM (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Second sentence of lead

"That said, radical feminists also recognize that women's experiences differ according to other divisions in society such as race and sexual orientation."

There are a lot of things wrong with this second sentence which, I notice from the article's history, was only added a couple of weeks ago. First, though it is a perfectly good idiomatic expression, "that said" is simply not encyclopedic. You just don't find it, except perhaps in a quotation, in a good encyclopedia article. Second, the idea which comes after it is so obvious that it's vacuous. Why would anyone think that wanting an end to "male supremacy" would preclude someone from recognizing that women's lives are affected by other social factors such as race, social class, and sexual orientation. Third, is the statement even supported, except in a very indirect way, in the cited sources? Did anyone actually check this?

If editors still want to incorporate the ideas of the second sentence of the lead into the lead I would suggest something along these lines:

Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical reordering of society in which male supremacy, among other social injustices, is eliminated in all social and economic contexts. FBPlunger (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

You can object to the grammatical composition, but you cannot delete content that is verified with reliable sources. Editors have the choice of either improving the text, or moving it to another location -- but editors can't just delete material because they're nitpicking. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Editors edit. That means they make whatever changes to an article they deem are appropriate. Verifiable material is deleted on Wikipedia all the time if it is deemed inappropriate for other reasons. I've given what I consider good reasons for changing the lead paragraph as I did, or in some other way to avoid an unencyclopedic, colloquial usage. What are your good reasons for keeping it? FBPlunger (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The benefit of readers seeking information. This isn't a yard for playing "quién es más macho". Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Should the "Prostitution" section be retitled "Prostitution of women" or even "Prostitution of women when clients are men"?

Apokrif (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No. As seen in the section: "German radical feminist Alice Schwarzer is one proponent of the view that pornography offers a distorted sense of men and women's bodies....". Prostitution is self-explanatory. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 00:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

No. Every reader will understand the single word "prostitution" in this context, by far the most common meaning of the term. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Dating of radical feminism

Why does this article date the beginnings of radical feminism in the 1960's? Many of the first wave feminists were called, "radical" in their own time and actually were perhaps even more radical than your definition. Free love, the legalization of all sexual expression, including masturbation and homosexuality, that was consensual, private and between adults, the right of women to enjoy sex, access to birth control, the issues of wage inequality and denial of position based on sex, the rights of prostitutes, the intersection of race, class, and gender bias and many more issues were considered by people like Woodhull, Sojourner Truth, Claflin, the Pankhursts, Frederick Douglass, Margaret Sanger, even Susan B. Anthony and many others. Surely radical feminism is as old as Women's Rights? 67.183.215.4 (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources. Such sources are where we get the dates for radical feminism. Wikipedia is NOT based on the musings of individual editors. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. "radical" is an adjective. So why is it wrong to point to Wikipedia's page on the bomb throwing suffragettes and call them a radical example of the feminist movement. Do Wikipedia guidelines forbid the use of adjectives when appropriate? It seems like you are using this adjective as part of a title, but in the history of the Women's Movement it has been used as a adjective for over 150 years? Is it okay to used "radical" when it is a modern author who applies the term? For example, in The Secret History of Wonder Woman, Jill Lepore wrote on page 97 "For the movement Margaret Sanger wanted to lead, Ethel Byrne was too radical." Can we then say according to Lepore, Sanger viewed Byrne as too much of a radical feminist? 67.183.215.4 (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

If you did that, you would be jumping to a conclusion not explicitly stated in the source. Wikipedia is supposed to tell the reader a summary of what has been written in mainstream publications. It is not a method by which individual editors can bring new ideas to the table.

Basically, this article's topic is 1970s radical feminism, with some introduction leading in from the 1960s and of course a good deal of post-1970s reaction. But the main topic is a period of intense activism in the 1970s.

This article is NOT about any flavor of feminism that has been described as radical. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

So here I think is my problem, there is an implication that this is a new thing, but it seems to me that this is just a continuation of ideas that had been continuously debated for a century or more. I support the Wikipedia guidelines but they are flawed. Some misguided souls say that history is written by the winners. This is not true, but there is a strong tendency for history to be written by the rich, powerful, and/or the intellectual elite. It is the third distorting influence that I think comes to play in the history of women's rights and feminism. This first wave, second wave line of thought often seems to presume that there was no major discussion or work on feminism and women's rights between 1920 and the 1960's but this is a distortion because there was little written in support of these ideas in news and opinion pages aimed at the adult middle and upper classes, especially the highly educated classes. At least two major organizations, the League of Women Voters and Planned Parenthood, continued to be active and powerful throughout this period, but they became more mainstream and less written about. The spreading of feminism thought had, like much African American thought did go through periods of disappearing from college textbooks, intellectual journals, and even mainstream media, but like African American politics and history, it continued strongly in non intellectual media. Nancy Drew, the Wizard of Oz, Wonder Woman, Miss Marple, science fiction, and other popular "pulp medium" often included feminist ideas.

The lack of input from the folks without intellectually approve platforms is an often occurring distorting factor in encyclopedia and history books. For me this often brings back memories of the 1960's when my mother's liberal politically active liberal college professor and lawyer family would lecture my brother and me, who grow up in working class neighborhoods, on what the working class believed. A thing they understood not at all. The classic example of this kind of thing was my neighbors' resentment about the TV show, "All in the Family". They like the show, but were frustrated by the failure of the show to never acknowledged the fact that as racist as Archie was, unlike the majority of White Americans who were more than willing to feel smugly superior to him with his racism while living in neighborhoods and towns that because of long histories of covenant clauses and redlining had not one African American resident, Archie live in racially integrated Astoria, Queens, would have sent Gloria to an integrated school, and prayed in an integrated church. So who is the worse racist?

I don't have an answer for this problem of history being written by the elite, but perhaps somehow you could raise it to the rule writers at Wikipedia. 67.183.215.4 (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not the forum for complaining about Wikipedia's basic policies of WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability. Such longstanding policies would be impossible to change now, which is why some alternate online encyclopedias were started.

Your best option is to publish a piece connecting earlier feminists who were considered more radical with the 1970s radical feminists. You would probably start with Elizabeth Cady Stanton who advocated votes for women against the advice of her feminist peers. If your piece is published in a reliable source, then it can be summarized for the reader to set some background information. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I second what User:Binksternet has explained to you. Just one word of caution in regards to "If your piece is published in a reliable source, then it can be summarized for the reader to set some background information.": Wikipedia is strict about using primary sources and self-published works. If you were to write something in the vein of what you have argued for, it needs to be published by a reliable source for it to be used in this article, or any Wikipedia article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 03:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Her47.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Doll parts 1996.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Research of Melissa Farley cannot be stated as neutral fact

Given the extremely controversial and contested nature of Melissa Farley's prostitution research, statistics from this source cannot be stated as a neutral, uncontested fact. If these stats are going to be given, it needs to be noted that this comes from a radical feminist anti-prostitution researcher.

Also noting the extremely WP:UNCIVIL edit summary "Remove "dubious" tag from coping libfems. Start an actual thread on the talk page or get out." This speaks to not just incivility, but POV pushing. A reminder that Wikipedia adheres to WP:NPOV and does not favor radical feminist views over so-called "coping libfems", even in an article about radical feminism. This article should be a neutral presentation of radical feminist views, favoring neither proponents or critics of that ideology. Peter G Werner (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I recognize that the phrasing of my edit summary was inappropriate. I apologize for that. As for my actual concerns, I see that others have already articulated them below. Koopinator (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

On a personal level, I can certainly accept the apology. However, it does seem that your phrasing points to a very real problem with the "concerns" about my challenge to Melissa Farley as a reliable source on prostitution research. Notably, it seems to be editors who favor radical feminism and don't much like "libfems". I'll simply note that WP:NPOV precludes favoring radical feminist perspectives over "libfem" or pro-sex worker views, and likewise, Melissa Farley's claims over those of her critics. And it seems to me like several folks commenting here have lost sight of that. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Who is this research contested by? Are there reliable sources which dispute it? Searching around, this appears to be research which was published in a peer-reviewed journal (here's an update on it: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J189v02n03_03, which was published in the Journal of Trauma Practice), and quoted uncritically by government institutions like Australian Institute of Family Studies (see here) and included in the U.S. Department of Justice's National Criminal Justice Reference Service (see here). This doesn't, at first glance, raise any red flags to me which would lead me to believe we can't quote it. Endwise (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Have a look at her Wikipedia bio, which covers disputes with other scholars about her work, including the quality of her research. It is particularly notable that the judge in Canada (AG) v Bedford case criticized at length Farley's qualifications as an expert witness:

I find that some of the evidence tendered on this application did not meet the standards set by Canadian courts for the admission of expert evidence. The parties did not challenge the admissibility of evidence tendered but asked the court to afford little weight to the evidence of the other party.

I found the evidence of Dr. Melissa Farley to be problematic. Although Dr. Farley has conducted a great deal of research on prostitution, her advocacy appears to have permeated her opinions. For example, Dr. Farley's unqualified assertion in her affidavit that prostitution is inherently violent appears to contradict her own findings that prostitutes who work from indoor locations generally experience less violence. Furthermore, in her affidavit, she failed to qualify her opinion regarding the causal relationship between post- traumatic stress disorder and prostitution, namely, that it could be caused by events unrelated to prostitution.

Dr. Farley's choice of language is at times inflammatory and detracts from her conclusions. For example, comments such as "prostitution is to the community what incest is to the family" and "just as pedophiles justify sexual assault of children . . . . men who use prostitutes develop elaborate cognitive schemes to justify purchase and use of women" make her opinions less persuasive.

Dr. Farley stated during cross-examination that some of her opinions on prostitution were formed prior to her research, including "that prostitution is a terrible harm to women, that prostitution is abusive in its very nature, and that prostitution amounts to men paying a woman for the right to rape her".

Accordingly, for these reasons, I assign less weight to Dr. Farley's evidence.

I think it's quite clear that Melissa Farley is a fringe scholar along the lines of Bjørn Lomborg or Michael Behe who cannot be cited for a factual claim, full stop, but rather their biases and perspective must be stated up front. To not do this is like having a claim about evolutionary biology that cites Michael Behe in the article about creation science, and then failing to note that the cited study came from a creationist.

I'll also note that ou're offering a *very* poor criterion to treat a researcher's claims as nondisputed and uncontroversial. I can easily point to peer-reviewed publications by someone like Michael Behe. There's a plethora of journals out there, many of them poor-quality and with strong biases toward a particular ideology or theoretical approach. Note the low-impact "trauma studies" journals Melissa Farley generally publishes her "studies" in. As for US Department of Justice, are you seriously proposing that DOJ funding is a marker of quality or neutrality? It would not be hard to find DOJ-funded researchers who's research supports stop-and-frisk. Should positive claims about the benefits of that approach to policing be treated as uncontested because of a government funding source??? Peter G Werner (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

If you can prove with reliable sources — particularly scholastic — and needless to say, more than one singular point of view — that she is considered a "fringe scholar" ... do it ... here. The personal conclusions of editors are irrelevant. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Did you just simply ignore the entire argument I made above? I've clearly demonstrated that Farley's views are controversial enough that she was not accepted as an expert witness in a key legal case on prostitution law in Canada. If you look at the Wikipedia on Melissa Farley, you'll note that there are several other scholars who consider her views to be fringe. But it seems like there several other editors here who simply have an a priori conclusion that the view of Melissa Farley as fringe is just my opinion and will simply ignore evidence to the contrary that I offer. A combination of POV-pushing and then shifting the burden of proof onto the critics of said POV is a well-rehearsed rhetorical tactic, and it's not the first time I've seen it. It doesn't constitute a valid argument, though. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

One case from 2013. That's it. I am not going to read Farley's bio because this article is not about Farley. You bear the burden of providing reliable sources that support your contention against her.
"A combination of POV-pushing and then shifting the burden of proof onto the critics of said POV is a well-rehearsed rhetorical tactic, and it's not the first time I've seen it. It doesn't constitute a valid argument, though." Now you're attacking editors here by accusing them of pushing a POV ... when that is exactly what you're doing. She's considered an expert on prostitution ... whether you like it or not. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I will present a list of references, but I'm calling out the rhetorical tactics you're using as unacceptable. Your OPINION is Melissa Farley is a "prostitution expert". Your OPINION is that that her work should be presented as such. Your rhetorical tactic of shifting the burden of proof does not change that it's your OPINION. You are not the voice of consesus or the gatekeeper here. Your OPINION is not superior to anyone else's. And you're absolutely behaving in a way that meets the criteria of WP:UNCIVIL. And you've already dismissed one valid source for wholly invalid reasons. Peter G Werner (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

What I've written is brief and easy for anyone to read and comprehend. You need to read WP:FOC + WP:ASPERSIONS — and then take a good look in the mirror. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 07:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to try to focus on content and work in the spirit of reaching consensus, but I'm going to reiterate - I want you to also do what you've just suggested too, because so far, you've been WP:UNCIVIL from your first message. I would appreciated a great deal for that to stop. And please do recognize, we're both editors and should have equal status in this conversation. Not you as gatekeeper and me asking for permission, but all of the involved editors trying to reach consensus on this matter. And I'll note that engaging in good faith and trying to reach consensus should mean not simply exclusing sourced content with a mere handwave, as you did with the Canadian high court quote. I will offer other sources as well, and I expect serious engagement. Peter G Werner (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Addendum - I should also note that User:Endwise's rewording of the sentence in question is a good start. However, it should be noted that her findings are far from universally accepted by the prostitution research community. Perhaps this can be noted in the sentence itself, or maybe it can take the form of a footnote. Her conclusions certainly are accepted and disseminated by radical feminists and anti-prostitution activists, and hence Farley is worth mentioning in the context of radical feminist activism against prostitution. It's the severe bias in her research, basic methodological flaws, and questionable research ethics that are at issue in terms of stating her conclusions as accepted fact. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

"Her conclusions certainly are accepted and disseminated by radical feminists and anti-prostitution activists". And that is why Farley's conclusions appear in the RADICAL FEMINISM article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

And that's the context her work should be presented as, not a neutral presentation of fact. Articles on a particular ideology are as subject to WP:NPOV as much as any other article, not as advocacy for that point of view. That means that disputed factual claims coming from a particular group don't get to be treated as undisputed simply because it's in an article about that group, or even in a section about that group's point of view. Peter G Werner (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I've been very busy lately, so I apologise for the late reply. I'm okay with including Farley's research, attributing it to her and acknowledging her background as a radical feminist. I don't think we can introduce doubt about this specific research by including some general criticism of her though. If these numbers specifically have been criticised, we could maybe include that criticism or even remove mention of Farley's research altogether, but I don't think we can do anything with vague, general criticism. If she's a radical feminist activist, of course she has opposition in general; that's not necessarily an issue for this article.

Would you be okay with leaving the text of the article the way it is now? Endwise (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)