Talk:Feminist movements and ideologies

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mariacrojas-pineda. Peer reviewers: Sadbarg.sharifiy79, RouBa1998.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marielasanchez22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:12, 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): MYao. Peer reviewers: Mduno, Azhao96, Khanzar, Romildcp, Gilperkins.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

title?
If you'd like to move this article to a new title, that's fine, except please do it soon before people get used to it where it is. The present title may be too hard to remember. I am making some redirects, so if this moves then they, too, should be edited, so they don't become orphans. This article's content came from the feminism article, which is being trimmed of excess length, and which has, or is about to have, a new link to this article. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

additional movements or ideologies
There probably are more, as suggested by the article's sidebar. They weren't written up in the Feminism article from which this article's content was copied, but feel free to add descriptions of them. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

relational feminism
Should "Relational Feminism" be added to this article? Or is it another name for something already in the list (and so should be a redirect)? [-- Posted by user at 24.196.131.25 (talk) 22:12 (UTC? local?) 27 July 2015]
 * That depends on sourcing. Do either step as determined from sourcing. And, if it should be a redirect, you may need to add the term to the article, too, to justify the redirect. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Cite template style
Some Cite templates were spread over many lines. I collapsed them without removing their information to make the surrounding passages easier to read in the edit fields. I like white space but making one Cite template take about 8 lines seems too much.

A Cite template may have a URL followed by a pipe or a closing brace. While it's rare for a URL to include a pipe or a brace, I don't think they're illegal in URLs. This, I think, has the potential to confuse something, so I inserted a space after a URL whenever I noticed the problem. A space is illegal in a URL unless it's percent-encoded, so an unencoded space won't confuse.

Nick Levinson (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

antimodern feminism of 1920s U.S.
I was about to add about antimodern feminism but decided I wouldn't. Perhaps someone else would like to. While a book had quite a bit on it, apparently the author was the first to assign the meaning to the term and very few sources have picked up the term with the meaning since the 1999 book. I have not read the whole book, including chapters 3 and 4, which focus on it. Wikipedia has nothing on the term and Google had very little yesterday. Here's what I started:

Antimodern feminism was developed in the 1920s in the U.S. by Mary Austin and other White women who believed that the Pueblo Indians were living as a feminist utopia including women's equality, especially because of matrilineality and matrilocality leading to higher status for Pueblo women than White women had, although men were primary in governing pueblos, and these White women opposed earlier efforts by other White women to reform and "uplift" the Indians through assimilation into U.S. non-Indian society, part of a general movement to modernize the U.S. The movement challenged the U.S. policy for the assimilation of Indians and led to a change in that policy. A criticism of antimodern feminism is that it encouraged non-Indians to believe Indians are monolithic, a belief continuing into modern times.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC) (Reworded phrase & reformatted post: 21:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC))

Revising article
Although I appreciate this article and the general overview it provides, this article is a very minimal outline of feminist movements and ideologies throughout history. The article lacks in-depth analysis and contextualization of most of its sections, and thus resembles a list more than an article. There is one main section labeled “Movements and ideologies,” and under the section, there are 21 sub-sections covering a variety of feminist movements and ideologies such as “Liberal,” “Anarchist,” “Multiracial,” and so on.

Although it would be great to fully expand each and every topic mentioned, I am choosing to focus on feminist movements and ideologies that have existed or presently exist in the United States. The reasoning behind this choice is not solely based on a U.S.-centric standpoint; rather, many of the other topics, such as “Transfeminism” or “Socialist and Marxist,” are beyond my reach and understanding. Choosing a few sub-sections that are U.S.-centered would allow me to effectively develop the history of the feminist movements and ideologies.

The sub-sections I am interested in expanding are “Chicana,” “Asian American,” and “Native American.” Of course, the expansion of these sub-sections would go hand in hand in creating a new section regarding feminist movements and ideologies within the United States. The expanded articles would then be placed under the new section of feminist movements and ideologies in the United States along with the already existing sub-section “Black and womanist.”

Under each sub-section, I hope to go through the history, important figures and movement, and the status of modern feminism in the groups. Of course, I plan on providing full citations.

MYao (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)MYao


 * That's a terrific idea and you're free to go ahead; you don't need permission you didn't already have. Here are some ideas to add to yours.


 * The subsections are mainly summaries of articles linked to at the beginnings of most of the subsections. Perhaps some of the content you're planning to add into this article should instead go into those articles, or into subarticles of those, and then perhaps you should update the summaries in this article according to what the subarticles say after your revisions there.


 * It may not be so easy to source movements are being only in the U.S., because some influence may have spread (as happened with feminist waves), resulting in movements having some foreign reflection. Unless a source says a given movement is a U.S.-only movement, it may be difficult to support assigning a movement to a United States section. However, it may be appropriate to say for a given movement that, for example, hypothetically, "organizations focused on this movement are mainly based in the U.S.", if a source says so. On the other hand, of course, someone saying "we're worldwide!" may only be hyperbolic and, if only trivially sourced, may not deserve weight. There's no harm in writing a U.S.-centric article if that's the best we can do at the moment, but, if you think an invitation to add international content would help, consider adding a Globalize/US template to the article; unfortunately, there does not seem to be a similar template for only a section.


 * Thank you.


 * Nick Levinson (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Like you said, there are already articles on Native American feminist movements and ideologies as well as Chicana feminist movements and ideologies, so I do plan on adding content to those pages and expanding the summaries on this page.

The reason why I would like to have a separate U.S. sections because like the names suggest, Native American, Chicana, and Asian American feminist movements and ideologies are mainly only relevant to women of these groups living in the U.S. Asian American women will have different experiences than, for example, Asian Australian women. I do not think at all that these feminist movements developed without foreign influence - very much the opposite actually. However, the "American" aspect does play a role in how feminism in these groups developed in the U.S., which in combination with their native or ancestral cultural influences, impact their roles in modern society.

In short, I agree with you that these movements are definitely not U.S.-only movements, but my reasoning behind having a separate U.S. section is to further develop the history behind the modern experiences of Native American, Chicana, and Asian American women in the U.S. today. It would only be to contextualize the regional, political, and cultural aspects of Chicana, Native American, and Asian American feminist movements and ideologies.

And finally, I know that there is not an article on Asian American feminism, so I will be doing the bulk of that work on this main page 'Feminist movements and ideologies.' However, because of the scope of my project, I will not be creating a new article on Asian American article, but I highly suggest any other community members to perhaps start one.

Thanks so much.

MYao (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)MYao


 * You're right, of course, about Chicana, Asian American, and Native American movements and perhaps some others (I didn't review them). I like your plan.
 * I was referring to influence by U.S. movements into foreign nations, but you're right to bring up influence in the inbound direction.
 * The lack of an article on Asian American feminism is unfortunate and I hope someone will have the time and at least a little knowledge to create one. It's permissible to write a stub of an article, mark it as such with the appropriate template, and add to its talk page templates for the appropriate WikiProjects, to garner attention that might lead to other editors adding content so it won't stay a stub.
 * One suggestion: Try to edit so that unusual layouts that don't conform to the manual of style (MoS) don't stay. The table of contents has one section title that's very, very long, but I'm not editing it now so you might get credit for fixing it yourself, if you wish, the technical issue being the positioning of the closing string of equals signs, which should go after the section title, not after the whole section's content.
 * I'm not sure about naming a ref element ":0", at least because I prefer a naming scheme that's easier to remember and also because I don't know if the colon works in that context.
 * Best wishes.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't repeat content inside the same article. A search for "[28]" (without quotation marks) shows where note 28 is placed in the article; it's proper to cite a source in multiple places but it appears that you have identical content next to the citations. That's redundant and something, or both, should be edited. If that also occurs elsewhere in the article with other texts, redundancies should be cut.
 * Please review the comment above on the very, very long section title. Someone else can fix it but it would be better if the original editor of that error fixed it.
 * I saw that naming a reference with a colon technically works. I still prefer memorable names, since that makes subsequent editing easier, but that's not a big deal.
 * Scrolling through the endnotes shows that several need repairs. If you're unclear on how to do them, feel free to ask on this talk page or elsewhere, such as in the WP Teahouse.
 * Thank you for doing the work.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please scroll through the footnotes and fix everything that's red. It's okay to make mistakes but please don't just leave them in place. I commented on them over a week ago, in the post just above this one. Someone else fixed the section title discussed above. It would be helpful if someone who makes an error also remedies it. Thank you very kindly. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
I like that you are adding information on Asia to this page; it is much needed. Your work is organized in a way that is both easy to navigate and aesthetically pleasing. Just make sure to check for typos! :) Gilperkins (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, MYao! I think your coverage of Asian, Native American, and modern Chicana feminism is very accessible, and I think it goes a long way in improving the comprehensiveness of this article. I think your division of the section into relevant subsections (“History,” “Important Figures,” etc.) was an excellent stylistic decision, and I imagine it’ll be a good foundation with which to expand in the future. I would like to see more in-text citations for your claims, to improve the article’s neutrality. Additionally, because other sections of the article are accompanied with photographs, you might think to add one for any of the sections you work on. I’d love to see where you take this article in the future! Khanzar (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The work is really good and well done. The only comment I had was that there may need to be some pages linked specifically maybe to historical figures who were important in the feminist movement for Asians and maybe some writers and politicians who helped break down gender disparities. Aside from that, well done good work and seems like there is a lot of room to improve this page and you have done well. Romildcp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Myao, I wanted to add my ideas about your revisions to this article as well. First off, you did a great job in covering a lot of topics very thoroughly, and you include a lot of interesting information. However, I do believe that your article could use a little proofreading to make sure all the sentences flow well and abide by grammar rules. In addition, I think you could tweak some of the formatting by moving some information around to better reflect the subsection it is in. Other than this, the majority of your article is great! Azhao96 (talk) 05:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Myao, i love the way you have divided up the sections. It allowed for a much more in depth look at these very different and unique movements. I think that some further analysis of the diffrent voices and opinions form within each movement would be helpful as it would show that they are not monoliths but rather a collective of voices engaging in a dialogue. In terms of formatting, readability and comprehensiveness I think that you have done a gret job and see not problems!Mduno (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Feminist movements and ideologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612215622/http://fff.org/freedom/fd0602f.asp to http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0602f.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070713021252/http://organizenow.net/cco/right/antifem.html to http://organizenow.net/cco/right/antifem.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca/aerc/2000/hillr1-final.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feminist movements and ideologies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928164847/http://www.actlab.utexas.edu/~sandy/empire-strikes-back to http://www.actlab.utexas.edu/~sandy/empire-strikes-back

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

New Age feminism and feminism side/nav bar: variants?
I removed the section on New Age feminism because none of the references discuss a "New Age" feminism. The first ref is talking about a third-wave feminism and the rest are basically discussing liberal feminism. The refs don't state/show how New Age feminism is it's own movement or ideology. This sections seems very WP:NOR/lacking in WP:NPOV. I also think this article should be an annotated list/summary-style article of the variants in that section of the feminism sidebar /nav bar.

"New Age feminism has emerged in the 21st century as both a continuation and response to Second and Third Wave feminism. It challenges "traditional definitions of femininity and embraces a change in times, incorporating elements of ethnicity, girl power, individualist feminism, sex-positivity and postmodernism." In New Age feminism, a woman (or man) embraces the qualities in him or herself that have culturally been defined as "feminine" without shame, while still fighting against the discrimination women (and "feminine" men) still face in the workplace and other facets of 21st century society. This movement comes in response to a culture that "simultaneously claims to embrace the equality of men and women and at the same time seriously devalues femininity". Unlike Second and Third wave feminists, a New Age feminist does not demand women be treated the same way as a man, but rather that the differences between men and women be recognized, understood, and accommodated even while those differences are treated with equity. For this reason she does not deny her female biology (whether physical, hormonal, or psychological), and demands it be accommodated for while still not allowing it to justify oppression. She supports scientific studies into the biologically influenced differences between those with male and female bodies and accepts that traits culturally defined as "feminine"—being moody, emotionally articulate, gentle, or quiet—are "rooted in biology, not intended to mesh with any kind of pro- or anti-feminist ideology." New Age feminists are not afraid to have children or to get married should they choose to, nor do they feel shame for choosing not to. A New Age feminist knows there is great joy in both a career and a family, and feels entitled to both. This feminist is not looking for special treatment, or even purely equal treatment. She is looking for equitable treatment, respect in the workplace, and equal opportunity. She champions the rights of working women to become pregnant, take maternity leave, and nurse in public, while still getting paid as much as her male counterparts. Meanwhile, she lends her support to slut walks, sex workers, belly and pole dancers, #FreeTheNipple campaigns, as well as anti-harassment and anti-victim blaming movements. She denounces sexual exploitation, but also believes in a woman's (or anyone's) right to explore and be empowered by their own "feminine" sexuality. Most feminists do not hate men and many New Age feminists may have at some point in their lives identified as men, or are in love with or have close relationships with men. Nor do they reject certain male practices like chivalry and sexual dominance as long as they are performed consensually. Examples of New Age feminists are Lady Gaga, and Beyoncé. " Woodsy lesfem (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Review Suggestions
How many other organizations took part in the Native American Feminist Movement as well as other movements? This article does give a general idea about the Feminist movements and ideologies, I think more could be added to the discussion. More statistics could be given as well and other evidence that supports some claims. It's pretty vague at this point and more ideas could be developed.

Aebegay56 (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good ideas, and you're welcome to edit accordingly. This article is a summary, so most of the sections should stay short. But some of the sections link to other articles that offer fuller treatments, and, if they lack that information, you might add it there. You'll need sources. I doubt you'll find sources giving counts of organizations and content you add has to be deserving of weight, but if you find key organizations or important statistics that are unmentioned they could be added. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Requesting refs and revisiting various neutrality aspects
Hi,

I have seen your effort to introduce concept of Draft:Imperial Feminism on Wikipedia, though making Wikipedia inclusive of all available point of views is welcome still Wikipedia articles are expected to be neutral and with ref. Your on Postcolonial feminism was missing in ref and  has been reverted by User:Vif12vf

Your in this article  "and to the phenomenon of imperial feminism." sounds more like a point of view which needs support of reference.

Postcolonial feminism is closely related to transnational feminism "and to the phenomenon of imperial feminism."

While Draft:Imperial Feminism is a considerable point of view, but covering only one view in article is unlikely to be neutral enough.

As such considering only western colonialist as colonialist and forgetting on eastern colonialism (including that of Arab Persian and Turkish caliphate ones) is neither fair nor eastern colonialism was less gendered and patriarchal either. So only targeting western human rights supporters for supporting human rights does not sound to be neutral enough so their side too need to be fairly represented in the Wikipedia articles IMHO.

Bookku (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Bookku,

I am new to Wikipedia so I am not sure if this is the correct way to reply. Anyway, thank you for your comment! Your reply did help me see what was lacking in my page. I would like to clarify what I mean by "phenomenon". Imperial feminism itself is not a label of an actual feminist movement, rather it is a coined term, a critique if you will, developed in response to mainstream White feminism. That is also why my article focused more on Western colonialism since generally academics in women's studies have tended to focus on the Western states' usage of women's rights for empire. While you are correct on there being occurrence of Eastern colonialism, I am unfamiliar with whether those empires ever espoused that "saving" women rhetoric in their conquests. That is definitely something I will look into and add if relevant. I do know of a source that mentions imperial feminist rhetoric used for Japanese empire, so I will try to work that in the page as well. However, your main point stands-- I have rephrased my introduction to clarify that the phenomenon is not inherent to Western countries. However, sources on it occurring elsewhere remain lacking and I suppose that has to do with power dynamics generally between the West and East. As for mentioning imperial feminism on this page, will a link that re-directs to my page be enough as it surely explains how post colonialism and imperial feminism are related.
 * Above unsigned reply was from User:AlizayZehra


 * Thanks for your reply. After above discussion what I realized that topic of Women in conflict zone deserves a Wikipedia article though Wikipedia already has an article on Wartime sexual violence. After Imperial Feminism just see if you fill interested in topic of Draft:Sexual politics to expand further.


 * Coming back to topic of Imperial feminism, IMHO may be 'Sense of Human rights' is universal where as 'sense of Freedom is cultural'. Anthropology will probably will say 'Our women Vs. Their Women' and showcasing to flaws of opponents is political strategy of moral justification of conflict, then showcasing flaws relating to 'their women' is part of the sexual politics in group conflict would have been since beginning of Human history it self.


 * Even in modern politics of nation states closely link identity of nationhood with identity of Women; and this human attitude is more a Part of human sexual politics.  As you rightly said rhetoric of saving women won't be their in all the wars but all the wars affect Women in conflict zone equally enough; many of them are closely linked to sexual politics.


 * As you rightly said all wars don't use rhetoric of 'saving women' for two reasons Capitalist Vs. Communist wars will not use Rhetoric of 'Saving women rights' as much.
 * Quite a good number of earlier and eastern conflicts were linked with 'self-honor' linked to women so those do consist of rhetoric of sexual politics but necessarily did not talk of saving women every time.


 * Why I wrote above para is views of women and various feminist shades too are closely linked to sexual politics. Whether they co-operate (Imprerial) Feminism or reject positions are political. Now this criticism of (Imprerial) Feminism  coming from three four segments ie. Conservative, Non-Impreial feminism of local variety, or inter sectional feminism, or just cultural positions may  be identified and noted in article Imperial feminism where references are available.


 * Last but not least communist variety of 'Saving women' was milder one it was their, so if refs are available may be that can be taken note of in the article if possible.


 * Thanks for healthy discussion.
 * Bookku (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
— Assignment last updated by Nataliiemacias (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

American bias?
What's with the section dedicated to the Americas? It reeks of ethnocentricity; is there valid justification for these having subsections whilst the other types of feminism do not? A more balanced approach would be to summarise these in the main list, with the bulk of related information in a corresponding main article. This would allow for more expansive background information covering histories, important figures etc. --84.92.238.242 (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Here we go again
According to feminism, both genders are the same even when we all know they are not. Feminism was made by a fully grown female with a tenagers mind. 41.114.46.129 (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Traditional feminism
It 2402:3A80:1E65:569C:4D8:4A1B:31AE:C47B (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Intersectional feminism missing
Hello, I was wondering, with all the subtypes of feminism mentioned, why intersectional feminism was not mentioned? Kimberle Crenshaw is quoted as coining intersectionality but there is no mention of intersectional feminism itself. There's no mention of bell hooks either, another major intersectional feminist author. Kryselid (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender Welfare and Poverty
— Assignment last updated by Shakaigaku Obasan (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

what's with the section title "men as oppressed with women"
in the section on shared perspectives, there's a really weird subtitle "men as oppressed with women" + that paragraph is so unclear and not really relevant in the section on "shared perspectives" in my opinion Merelvq (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03
— Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
— Assignment last updated by Bbalicia (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)