Talk:Womanism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

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): SylvesterMcGee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

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): SylvesterMcGee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bec225.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 March 2020 and 4 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Asia.ngresham. Peer reviewers: Tsutton1, Kanderson13, Nallen03!.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient[edit]

I think this page is very poorly done, it seems more like a stub than an actual article and portrays a poor understanding of Womanism as opposed to Feminism.

The Wiki piece on Womanism really should be treated as a stub because it gives a rather poor understanding of womanism as it relates to feminism, particularly in the context of Walker's text. For Walker, womanism includes feminism. She says that womanism is to feminism as purple is to lavender. Purple is the larger category to which lavender belongs.

That's interesting that you're arguing that Walker deems womanism to be the umbrella term that feminism resides under. I was always under the impression that although Walker first coined the term, the other contributors to the ideology identified womanism as a subset of feminism that aimed to focuses on causes pertaining to African American women that feminism tends to neglect. could you please state your reasoning as to why you believe that it is feminism that falls under womanism ? Dmbonsu (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

African-American[edit]

The reason that many African-Americans inclined towards Feminism (even male "Feminists" such as myself) don't fully identify with it is because "mainstream" Feminism is mostly Eurocentric. Black women are the daughters of women who had to work everyday, who were forced to be the mothers through Paramour Rights and who were the objects of de-humanization. White women are the daughters of of the white women who profited from the labor of African-American mades and cleaners who did hard work for White families that were wealthy enough to hire cleaning services. Many White women fought to get out of the kitchen while many African-American women fought for equal pay with men and equal protection and equal rights.

The article does on Womanism does a poor job explaining why many African-Americans inclined towards Feminism reject fully identifying with it. I should be tagged as incomplete. --User:Full Shunyata 20:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there might be something slightly inaccurate with portraying 'white women' in general as the beneficiaries of black domestic labour? As if most white women were wealthy and many did not have to work?CharlesMartel (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)CharlesMartel[reply]

I agree that this page is significantly sub-par and does not accurately represent the spectrum of womanist thought, much less the distinctions between womanism and feminism. Its depiction of early feminist is also so simplistic as to be inaccurate. I don't have the expertise to fix this myself but I strongly urge that someone step in to correct this woefully inaccurate portrayal of an important current in black feminist thought. I seem to be anonymous only because Wikipedia can't seem to hang onto my login. This is the user known as rentstrike.

From my understanding of Womanist literature, it seems like the perspective of some African- American women is that feminism is only beneficial to white women because of the focus that feminism has on promoting work force equality, domestic equality, and educational equality in terms of gender. What it fails to do though is explore the underlying causes of poverty and why minority women for the most part are the ones most affected by poverty and discrimination in workforce, not only for being a woman but for also being a minority woman. However, I do agree that it is inaccurate for the article to portray all white women as the beneficiaries of black domestic labour. Dmbonsu (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Africana Womanism[edit]

This page needs to include information on Africana Womanism, as developed by Chikwenye Ongunyemi 198.54.202.102 (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Chikwenye Ongunyemi is credited with African Womanism while Cleenora Hudson- Weems is credited with Africana womanism. I plan on emailing her and asking her if she could clarify the difference between womanism and Africana womanism as well as any key issues that only Africana womanism touches upon Dmbonsu (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flags[edit]

Hi - I removed the flag which questioned the notability of this article, but left the one regarding the tone of the article. I don't have a text citation off-hand, but could provide multiple syllabi from different professors who teach Womanism in courses on identity, and at least in organizing circles and academia I wouldn't know of anyone, regardless of their opinion regarding the movement, who doubts the theoretical significance of Womanism. Will grab some texts and note them later. I agree with the others on this page that the tone and style need to be udpated, though, and that much material is missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThurdSpace (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion/Revision of Article[edit]

As part of a longterm class assignment, I plan on performing a major overhaul of the organizational structure and content of this article. I believe that this topic should be expanded and revised because it is a poor reflection of Womanist thought. It fails to touch upon the various methodologies of the ideology and sticks to the strict interpretation of Womanism in terms of Alice Walker’s theory. Womanism is comprised of far more than what Alice Walker described Womanism to mean when she wrote, “Womanist encompasses feminism as it is defined by Webster’s, but it also means instinctively pro-woman. It is not in the dictionary. Nonetheless, it has a strong root in black women’s culture (“ Coming Apart”).” The tenets of this ideology, in addition to the definition prescribed by Alice Walker, is the self-authored spirit of activism, spirituality, ethics, and a woman’s innate relationship with herself, nature and others. As noted by many of you on this page, this article fails to adequately describe all of the various aspects of Womanism. It gives Alice Walker credit as the sole proprietor of Womanism, when there have been a variety of other contributors to this thought. Contributors such as Chikwenye Okongo Ogunyemi, Katie Cannon, and Cleenora Hudson- Weems. My main problem with this subject matter is maintaining a neutral point of view, something that the article as is, currently lacks. This is an ideology is charged with years of racial discrimination and frustration and while I do want to depict the reasons why Black women fail as a whole to self- identify as feminists, I want the article to present well researched arguments from verifiable sources in a clear and succinct manner without any finger pointing at a particular subset of people. In addition my proposed changes will also change the organizational scheme of the article into the following:

  • 1. Theory
  • 1.1 Methodologies
  • 2. Origins of the movement
  • 2.1 Alice Walker
  • 2.2 Chikwenye Okongo Ogunyemi
  • 2.3 Cleenora Hudson- Weems
  • 3. Ideologies
  • 3.1 Black feminism
  • 3.2 Africana womanism
  • 4. Womanist culture
  • 4.1 Literature
  • 4.2 Activism
  • 4.3 Spirituality
  • 5. Womanist ethic
  • 6. Contemporary womanism
  • 7. Critiques of womanism
  • 8. Further reading
  • 9. See also
  • 10. References
  • 11. External links

I would love any advice regarding my organizational structure and maintaining a neutral point of view. I also have a proposal thoroughly detailing by planned expansion and revision of the article. Again I would appreciate any feedback- good or bad- of my proposed plan. Dmbonsu (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your plan to revise the article is exciting and I think you are completely right that the page needs an overhaul. (I'm taking the liberty of converting your outline to list form. Feel free to undo this change if it doesn't correspond to your intended presentation.) Just looking at the outline, I wonder whether there are some sections that might be consolidated. For example, will "contemporary" womanism be already described in the various sections that seem to say what womanism "is"? An alternative presentation would be to do a larger "History" section that covers origins and developments. (This type of setup is common on Wikipedia but not mandatory.)

I love the broader the idea of having a broader history section that covers origins and developments. Also thank -you for converting my outline. I could not figure out how to do so myself. Dmbonsu (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doing some research on Amina Mama / The African Gender Institute / Feminist Africa we encountered Mama's claim that "womanism" is only necessary as an oppositional term for USA women—that white feminism is not enough of an issue on the continent to merit a change in language. Might be worth including in the critiques section.

I will look into that particular area further. Thank- you for your feedback Dmbonsu (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as NPOV is concerned, you are right that it's an important principle. At the same time, we're describing a theory and an ethos that are not themselves "neutral" in any way ... the focus should (IMO!) be on describing what "womanism" means to the people who espouse & practice it. White privilege is indeed an essential aspect of the womanist critique of feminism, and you may want to check out the talk pages over there to review (some of the) the (ongoing, endless) discussion of how this might be handled "neutrally". The specificity of white feminism to white social structures is also an important part of the critique. (I.e., who & where is the "patriarchy" when so many black men are incarcerated and separated from their families?)
Welcome to Wikipedia, good luck, & let us know how we can help you. groupuscule (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you pointing me in the right section, and you've made great points about NPOV Dmbonsu (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

The only real problems I can see with the article at the moment are purely mechanical, e.g., extra spaces after dashes and quotation marks (i.e., African- American instead of African-American), many broken/red links, minor typos, repetition of the same source (the same source is listen multiple times instead of being listed once with a, b ,c, ect. for each use), ect. There are also some sections that are a little unclear and the ideas don't seem flow very well to me that could benefit from editing. The organization of some of the sections are a little confusing, and you may want to reconsider the breakdown on the ideologies, culture, and ethnic sections; it may make more sense for the ethnic section to be a subsection of the culture section.

In terms of comprehensiveness, this article is very comprehensive and gives a full overview on both the history and ideology of womanism. The only major thing I can spot that this article lacks is perhaps a more concise definition of womanism and its tenets near the beginning to aid readers who are unfamiliar with the movement. Something else that could possibly be addressed is womanism's stance on trans* individuals, if there is one, since I know that transphobia and transmisogyny are huge problems in radical (white) feminism. Other than that, I feel this article is very comprehensive and well done. Baileybrash (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review 2[edit]

Your article is remarkable; you have done some terrific work on it, and it is clear that you are very passionate about womanism. Consider neutrality as you work to refine your article. I know that this is a great challenge, being that womanism is a specific viewpoint with a perceived single mission, but consider other potential purposes for womanism, or what societal benefits could be the result of womanism. For instance, how does womanism relate/act as an advocate for women’s rights and gender equality? How does womanism relate/act as an advocate for equality amongst differing races? How has womanism empowered women, bringing them out of poverty and despair? Explore topics such as poverty, education, and health in consideration of the impacts of womanism on American and global culture. Moreover, please be sure to fix the mechanical components of your article in order to improve readability. Nice work! CarolineABrigham (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The ambiguity within the theory allows for its continuous expansion of its basic tenets."[edit]

Hard to see how this is a good thing. It seems to suggest that the term is rather meaningless. 86.139.16.180 (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Origins Section[edit]

It may be more beneficial to refer to first, second, and third wave feminism when discussing the origins of Womanism. This would be helpful to understand much of the early criticisms of Womanism in the context of second wave feminism which had not even accepted a notion of intersectionality. The problem that could herein lie is that we are framing Womanism by discussing it in contrast with Feminism which may seem problematic. However, I believe this not to be a framing issue but more a practical issue so that the reader may understand the ineptitude of first and second wave feminism for Black women. It may also be helpful to discuss Sojourner Truth as an early representation of intersectionality within a womanist thought. Alexbolden15 (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Womanism- one of Karma theory of Philosophy-Reg[edit]

I am male running with 64 years. I am Philosophy Student. As per my experience Womanism is consisting 2 types. one is real which is visible ( External Womanism ) and another one universal through Athma or soul ( Internal Womanism ). Mother is real, sisters are real, after the marriage wife is real. This is human culture in real life. No need to explain the real woman.

where as love with woman is not real, it is imaginary, mimmasa, internal struggle, unknown brama. Very particularly when the boy enters in 16 years, he will start experience of attraction with girls, he always thinks how to make friendship by disturbing his valuable studies. If the other side girl starts talking, laughing or exposing with boy's wish, he is going on thinking, diverting of mind, became made behind the girl. At last he loses the classes and academic years. After one fine morning when he woke up from the trans, he lost each and every thing. This is best example for Internal womanism or the maya of woman or evil spirit of womanism

Womanism is the psychological character. Mostly males take side of woman in family relations irrespective of Logic and Ethical values of related woman activities. They can not condemned the wrong doings of woman, is also called womanism, other wise he will be excommunicated from the family relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkpima (talk • contribs) 18:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Student Editing[edit]

Hello Everyone! I am a student that will be hopefully editing this page as part of a class. I want to first share with you all what I think could make this already good page a little bit better. My intent is merely to add a little bit more to the theoretical sections so as to bring forth some more of the nuances of womanism. The first thing that I want to do is make clear in the introductory paragraph that there are at least 3 distinct versions of womanist theory that divide amongst each other based on conceptions dealing with ties to feminism, men, and Blackness. Much of the groundwork for what is now called the origins section could be laid here in the introduction so that the reader can have a better sense of the scope of Womanism before diving more substantively into the ideologies. From this introduction it seems most helpful to leave the theory section at the beginning, however reformat it to show how womanist theory differs from both Feminism and Black Feminism. As it currently stands the theory section is a broad overview of Womanist ideals that could be transported into the introductory paragraph. The theory section should highlight Womanist theory in both opposition and a forwarding of Third Wave Feminist and Black Feminist thought. However, there would also need to be a section on the independent creation of Womanist theory as there are ideologies of Womanism that do not see themselves as deriving or comparing to feminism in anyway. Lastly, I would like to combine the origins and ideologies sections as I believe there is too much overlap in them as they currently stand. Instead in the ideologies section I would describe the origins of each ideology before moving into their progeny. The outline would then look as follows: • 1 Theory • 1.1 Feminism • 1.2 Black Feminism • 1.3 Independent Womanist Theory • 2 Origins Ideologies o 2.1 Alice Walker’s Womanism o 2.2 Clenora Hudson-Weems’ Africana Womanism o 2.3Chikwenye Okonjo Ogunyemi’s Womanism • 3 Ideologies o 3.1 Black feminism o 3.2 Africana womanism • 4 Womanist identity o 4.1 Literature and activism o 4.2 Spirituality o 4.3 Ethics • 5 Critiques • 6 See also • 7 References • 8 Further reading • 9 External links Alexbolden15 (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

I reviewed this article as part of a class assignment, I hope that you might find these comments useful. My observations are the following: The article does a good job in summarizing the concept of Womanism in the lead section. As someone who was not at all familiar with the term, it was easy to get an initial understanding of the movement. One suggestion for this section is explaining how is it that feminism does not “allow women of color or marginalized groups to affirm their color and culture”. The Theory section of the article would benefit from adding citations to support the statement “In discussing womanist theory one must acknowledge the racism that was perceived by black women in the feminist movement.” Alejandralr (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Error in citations[edit]

I don't have much experience editing articles yet and I have to go out soon so I don't have time to learn this fix right now. I'm posting this here so either someone else can do it or I can come back to it later.

In the references of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womanism

Reference 20 says: Collins, Patricia (1996). "What's In a Time: Womanism, Black Feminism, and Beyond". The Black Scholar. 26: 9–17. doi:10.1080/00064246.1996.11430765.

This is incorrect. It should say "Name" instead of "Time". There is no article by the name in the citation.

Starwhale97 (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Starwhale97: I've fixed this. Thanks for noticing the mistake. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Womanism&oldid=1195375605"