Talk:History of feminism/Archive 1

(Archived as of Dec. 22/2006)

History of Feminism Before the Enlightenment
It might be worth adding a few sentences to the beginning about early, (maybe "proto-feminist") ideas. One obvious example is Plato's treatment of women in the "Republic." It's controversial to describe Plato as a feminist, but his ideas have contributed in various ways to feminist thought.

Regardles, it's definitely misleading to suggest that people only started thinking seriously about women's place in society in the Enlightenment. 70.50.156.59

I am dealing with this, and it could be extended to Mutterrecht and prehistory. Anyone want to do the Plato? Incidentally 'proto-feminism' has not been defined here, nor a subarticle created Mgoodyear 13:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have now dealt with all of these issues, and will try and tackle the Age of Enlightenment in the near future. Mgoodyear 20:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The rewrite now covers most of the more important issues of the early nineteenth century, and I have sketched out some of the events of the second half, as well as strengthening the philosophical framework. In addition many of the linked articles have been corrected or strengthened and additional ones created. Mgoodyear 04:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All of the nineteenth century material is now rewritenn, although it gives undue emphasis to Great Britain. Histories become increasingly difficult to write, the closer one comes to the present. --Mgoodyear 17:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We now have a reasonable historical framework up to the beginning of the second world war, given the limitations of imposing periodisation on human events. --Mgoodyear 19:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Rewrite is into the 1960s. Note some things do not fall easily into time periods, hence new section dealing with selected issues. --Mgoodyear 03:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved rather contentious sentence from article, at the very least it needs a source for the claim, and the some is a rather weasel term. --Lexor|Talk 13:49, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Some people feel that women now have superior rights and opportunities to men, pointing to ever increasing disparities in enrollment between women and men in universities.

The sentence shouldn't be in the article whether it has a relevant source or not - this is an article about the history of feminism, and not the results/consequences/thoughts related to feminism. Dysprosia 13:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. --Lexor|Talk 14:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Male backlash against women
referring to the above sentence that has been cut. I agree it may be helpful to reword, but I think its an important development in the history of feminism. Whether it is remotely accurate or not, many men today believe that women have not only caught up, but are moving ahead of women. This has a strong impact on women's attempts to move their agenda forward, due to outright hostility from certain people. If you want it attributed, fine, but I'm too lazy to look into it right now. However, I feel this is a relevant issue to mention under recent developments in feminism.

Peregrine981 06:34, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * Backlash to radical feminism is discussed under "recet developments". How do you feel this coverage is lacking? Gadykozma 11:25, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * References to girls/women dominating the academic sphere are increasingly common. It has lead to a different, perhaps less reactionary, anti-feminism. Some educators, for instance, feel that education has gone to far to accomodate girls, and is now hurting boys. Whether or not you agree, this is a distinct phenomenon, at least in Canada and the USA.

Peregrine981 17:52, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * By all means add this to the main feminism article if you wish, but it has little use on a page about the direct history of the movement. The article is about the history of feminism, not reactions toward it.
 * We can however, describe further the impacts and of third-wave feminism, which has the anti-reactionary flavor that you speak of (which I added in the todo above). Dysprosia 06:58, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The flaw in the above arguments is that 'backlash' is as old as feminism, and therefore is deserving of description - see Mitchell, Julie and Ann Oakley (eds.). Who's Afraid of Feminism?: Seeing Through the Backlash, New Press, 1997. ISBN 1565843851 Mgoodyear 20:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

sections
Rather then create a hundred subsections and put a single sentience in them, I suggest that a single section be created for 'men's role' as it may be.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 01:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * However this is history. That presupposes a stronger kinship between men than between men, the era in which they worked and the women they interacted with, which is more in keeping with feminist theory. --Mgoodyear 21:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A what now? "..Stronger kinship between men that between men..." ? That Doesn't make any sense. And nether does single sentience sections.Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 02:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Keeping with feminist theory is a null point; Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a book on feminist theory or ideals. Facts should be persented about A) the history of Feminism, and B) the history and theory of Feminist theory, in an article called Feminist Theory if it's really required. Keeping with the Feminist Theory suggests that you've writen the article from the Point of view of feminism, rather then the history of the movement it's self, from a neutral point of view. If so I suggest you rewrite it to be from that POV. --Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 02:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * MGoodyear's sentence made sense if you read it properly. Putting all the contributions of men together suggests that all men throughout time have a similar role (strong connection between men), versus, discussing the contributions of men in relation to the era in which they worked and the women with whom they worked (stonger connection between men/era/women). See? To suggest that men have a constant role takes men out of a historical context. Whatever the feminist point of view that you seem to oppose, as MGoodyear pointed out, it's a history article... so I think it would be best to look at men historically (in relation to the time they worked), rather than ahistorically (taking out the context of time and lumping them all together). To do otherwise would be the equivalent of writing a history of the world (excluding women), then adding in a paragraph at the end which mentions their contributions. - TheMightyQuill 02:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. I must disagree however. This is the history of a historical movement, unless men where a very large part of this movement, then it should not be added. It's bad form to have one sentence paragraphs. Unless you are going to add some 'meat', also known as content, to a section, it does not warrent it's creation as a seperate section.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 02:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be bad form, but I believe there's only one 1-sentence paragraph. The rest are large enough to stand up for themselves. I'm not sure you can justify removing that section, which maintains continuity with the others, simply because it's bad style. I'm sure more could be added to the role of men in 17th century feminism. Maybe an "expand this section" tag? - TheMightyQuill 06:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Feminists mentioned
Is there a reason why male feminists mentioned were left out of the list? -- TheMightyQuill 10:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No reason, the index is just not complete yet, and was being created on the fly--Mgoodyear 13:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Length
This article is great, but getting a little long. Perhaps it should split off into History of feminism (19th century) and History of feminism (20th century)? TheMightyQuill 21:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is part of the longterm plan, it will be easier once the historical framework is complete. Someone created a stub to that effect I noticed. --Mgoodyear 14:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems in first sentence
The first sentence of the article is rather inadequate: women have been resenting personal injustices and wishing to change certain social customs or established insitutions for thousands of years, probably, but a self-conscious and systematic ideology of feminism didn't really begin to exist until around the late eighteenth century -- and the word "construct" in the sentence seems to be a somewhat randomly-chosen postmodern jargon term which obscures more than it clarifies in the particular context. AnonMoos 17:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You can replace construct with your words, "self-conscious and systematic ideology" if you think that would help. As for writing the history of feminism starting hundreds of years before the word itself was coined... well, I think it's somewhat problematic too, but MGoodyear has attempted to defend the inclusions: "The History of Feminism has largely been portrayed as the recent history of the Feminist Movement, and thus criticised for ignoring women's voices over thousands of years." I think it might be teleology akin to Communist Party Historians Group finding "primitive socialists" in early modern Europe, but as long as the criticism is noted in the article (perhaps more strongly than now), I don't see a problem with including it. I'd like to hear Mgoodyear's comments on this. - TheMightyQuill 19:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This sounds like it's gotten off topic; The history of feminism started with the feminist movement. Thus, History of feminism. It really has nothing to do with 'ignoring women's voices' It has to do with the factual information about the movement it's self. Such information is better servied in an article about the roots of Womens rights and such, not a movement born out of it. --Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 01:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But the the title is History of Feminism, not History of the Feminist Movement. If an argument can be made that the ideas of feminism predate the feminist movement, and even the term itself (which I think MGoodyear has successfully done), or that the beginnings of the Feminist Movement are unclear, I can't see why this information shouldn't be here. I don't totally understand naysayers who are incredibly critical of the obvious hard work that's being put in here. Under what title would you put the pre-18th century information? It's not simply a history of women. What is it, if not a history of feminism? - TheMightyQuill 06:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Roots of the Feminist movement? It's not hard to create names.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 20:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well we can argue about whether 'construct' is jargon or not. I will think about alternative wording - see below


 * As far as the scope goes, I am following mainstream feminist historical scholarship in being inclusive and retrospective, eg Cott. I think the rationale is well outlined in the reference material, here and in the main article, namely to recover lost voices of women. Current books on feminism e.g Walters, now give as much space to early history as to recent history for precisely the reasons given, namely the erasure of women by history. There is about 20 years of work trying to reverse the biases that AnonMoos seems to want to recreate. Systematic ideology is best understood in the context of its antecedents. It did not happen overnight, and one might argue just as much about whether the late eighteenth century is a good dividing point or not. Feminism has been variously dated from the 1960s, the 20s, the beginning of the 20th century, late nineteenth century, age of reason and all the way to an era prior to the appearance of hominids. I thought I had addressed a gradual awakening, but actually many women had figured this out from a very early time. Social and ideological movements don't start with the stroke of a pen. I will see what I can do! It's interesting that this page starts with a request to include more material from prior to the Age of Enlightenment.


 * While discussions of what exactly a construct is, wander into the realms of Constructivist epistemology which is somewhat beyond the scope of this page, but arguable under feminist theory, it is of interest that elsewhere, feminism is given as an example of a construct, so in the interests of internal consistency, I rather leave it in, but I will link it for further edification. Now of course if one wants to reject postmodernism that is another matter. Anyway I just wanted to assure you it was not chosen 'randomly'.
 * --Mgoodyear 20:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What if we made Seventeenth Century: Nonconformism, Protectorate and Restoration a subsection of Early Origins ? Would that make everyone happy? -TheMightyQuill 20:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I somehow doubt it, because we are still stuck with 'early to what' - early just meant that there was insufficient material to have earlier centuries each have their own section. Let me reread the whole thing, and see how we can reconcile these POVs.--Mgoodyear 20:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, if you just remove the information on women before the feminist movement, and created another, seperate article (which you link to) people would be more 'pleased'. Personally, I think the 'before the movement' information is not really the point of an article called 'the history of feminism'.


 * This would also kill the length issue.--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 01:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

These issues have now been addressed from a historiographical POV. There are also frequent references throughout the text as to where some people claim something "began". This discussion is reminiscent of the papers by Margaret Ferguson and Laura Mandell (Mod Lang Quart 2004). While I would prefer people to read the background material before commenting, I concede the text itself should be clear, especially on controversies, and especially potential controversies.--Mgoodyear 21:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My objection was not at all to covering pre-late-eighteenth-century history in this article -- there's plenty of stuff from earlier periods which is relevant. But there's a distinction between what is most often found in the earlier periods -- anger over injustices which have personally affected a woman or her loved ones, the Wife of Bath, laments on the general worthlessness of men, dissident religious movements in which women play prominent roles -- and the discussions of the "rights of women" and visions of systematic social reform based on the civic participation of women, which pretty much only started in the late eighteenth century. Saying that feminism has always existed glosses over this distinction. AnonMoos 09:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It might be more accurate to state that it is an evolutionary continuum, for instance an organised movement only appears in the late nineteenth century, feminism as a word at the beginning of the twentieth century, and as an academic discipline in the late twentieth century. Creating a watershed in the eighteenth century is probably equally misleading. I think as it is presented it reflects mainstream teaching, particularly if you define it ab initio. I believe this partly reflects improving education and availability of written materials, so that there is an increasing awareness, rather than isolated voices. A lot of this is based on written records, as opposed to what ordinary women were actually thinking, which may be more important. However if you have specific ideas as to how to highlight shifts in thinking at particular times in history, that would be useful. --Mgoodyear 13:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of misleading...

 * you know what else is 'misleading'? Your introduction; Introduce the History of Feminism, and nothing else; do not include quotes; this is not a book. Do not include information on what feminism is.

List of improvements needed

 * The Feminism bar should be restored to the top of the article.
 * Sections one and two have to go; they are not related to the topic at hand, that is, the history of feminism
 * If you really feel the need to write in these facts and such about women that are not related to the History of the Movement, then create a new article or add it to the Women's history article.
 * Remove the 'Other sources' section to it's own article.
 * Remove the 'list of feminists discussed' (it's ironic that feminism tries to get equal rights, and you divide feminists by gender!)
 * Cut out the pointless material. this article is 135 kbs long.
 * Let other people edit the article without getting in their face.

As (word meaning good thing) your edits are, you seem to get carried away.

--Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 01:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * 1) I don't know what you are talking about anyone getting in anyone's face. The only person I see acting hostile here is you. Has MGoodyear been launching personal attacks somewhere else?
 * 2) Your list of "improvements needed" could alternately be called a list of suggestions. You do not own the article.
 * 3) Your accusations that the material being added is misleading or pointless are rude, and unfair.
 * 4) Barking orders at another editor is unpleasant, and unhelpful. I don't see any problem with including quotes.
 * 5) Your opinion that the History of Feminism means only the History of the Movement is, as of yet, not backed up with any sources, whereas MGoodyear has provided a number of references for her argument.
 * 6) Your criticism of "feminism" suggests your motivations are just as POV as mgoodyear's, so please... kindly end your accusations and calm your tone.

As for your other more reasonable suggestions: TheMightyQuill 08:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also think the List of Feminists Discussed should me moved to a new page or removed altogether.
 * Same goes for the Other Sources section
 * I agree this article is too long, and should be broken up. I have already discussed this with MGoodyear, and we agreed it might make sense to let her complete her overhaul of one article before breaking it up. I don't see the harm in that.
 * I also think the feminism bar should be put at the bottom. Navbars don't need to go at the top of the page. Ideally, we should have another History of Feminism navbar, once this article has been split up, to navigate between the sections.


 * 1) See below.
 * 2) And nether does Mgoodyear, but if I try to edit the article she while revert my edits (see below)
 * 3) It is misleading, and pointless; The article is on the history of the Feminist movement, not whomever modern day feminists want to label 16th century writers as.
 * 4) Again, read number 2 on this list;
 * 5) That that is why it must go: it is Mgoodyear's opinion that the label feminism can be applied to anyone that may or may not have 'added' to feminism; despite the fact that feminism is a term applied to a sociel movement, not an ethic group of people, which is how it's being used. This article is on the History of Feminism, not the History of Women; while Feminism is a major part of the history of Women, the reverse is not true. Wikipedia deals with facts, not the opinions of various authors, what IS fact is that the Feminist movement existed; what isn't fact is whether or not 16th century women where indeed part of a movement that hadn't existed yet. And until I read the letter from one 16th century women to another declaring that they are a feminist, it is pointless information.

You seem to have fallen into the trap of WP:OWN as well TMQ. "We agreed is might make sense to let her complete her overhaul of [...]" She does not own the article Brassiere, she does not own the article History of feminism.

As for the Navi bar, it should be placed at the top, like it is in the other topics, the article is part of series of articles, and putting it down the bottem is pointless; make your own bar if you so duly need it; and if you don't have the time to do it right now, move the {{feminism> bar back to the top. Stop trying to build the article as if you are going to expand it in the future; make the article readible in the here and now.

Now for more suggestions: Notice how the 'to-do list' at the top of this article is not being followed?

As for the introduction: if you read the archived article, I'm not the only one who thinks the introduction has to be redone.--<span style="color:red; font-family:Old English Text MT, Papyrus;">Honeymane {{sub|<span style="font-family:KlingonTNG, New Times Roman;">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam }} 19:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments noted and recent changes reverted, because that is exactly what we are trying to do, provide navigation around the feminism topics in Wiki. The major surgery items are well known, but make more sense when the survey is complete - still in the early 1980s!--Mgoodyear 14:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm moving the bar back to the top, if you look at the rest of the topics on the navi bar, you'd see that they have the bar located at the top, not in the middle of some pointless information near the bottem.--<span style="color:red; font-family:Old English Text MT, Papyrus;">Honeymane {{sub|<span style="font-family:KlingonTNG, New Times Roman;">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam }} 19:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Navi bar is a major part of this article, and should be at the top, like it is in (almost) everyother Article on the bar. {{WikiProject Gender Studies}} is something for the talk page, not the article itself.


 * Finally, I'd like to quote Feminist history, in which it states "[...]it is not the same as the History of Feminism which OUTLINES the orgins and evolution of the Feminist movement." Clearly, this article is invaildating that statement.


 * While I understand that you want to link to other articles, do not use the Navi bar to _do_ so! --<span style="color:red; font-family:Old English Text MT, Papyrus;">Honeymane {{sub|<span style="font-family:KlingonTNG, New Times Roman;">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam }} 02:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the navbar is a major part of the article. Because this article is included in the template, the template should be included on the page but it doesn't determine the place. Just for for one example, the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 is a major part of Template:History of Hungary, but the template is positioned at the bottom of the page. I'm willing to agree to leave the Template:Feminism sidebar navbar at the top, until we manage to put together a Template:History of Feminism, but that will supersede the feminism bar when it's done.

As for the topic of this page: If you want to create a History of the Feminist Movement, you'd have a better chance of deciding that other eras of feminism should be excluded, but even then, you'd have to defend when exactly the movement began. The only person who has introduced any references on that point so far, is MGoodyear. Movements don't have clear birthdays, so I suspect you'll have trouble pinpointing a date with any accuracy. This article is clearly NOT on the History of women in general. It's about the history of women's conflict with for power. There is no other word for that conflict but feminism, even if it was unnamed at the time.

As for your quote from Feminist history, citing unreferenced wikipedia articles is hardly proof of any claim. And besides, that article is simply trying to distiguish the field of Feminist history from the actual History of feminism, in the same way that World History is separate from the History of the World - it's not attempting to place limitations on the history of feminism to certain dates.

Finally, your decision to go ahead and rewrite the introduction to suit your argument in the middle of our discussion is not helpful, or polite. - TheMightyQuill 17:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This stuff must be done, whether you like it or not. The introduction does not introduce the topic, there is no other topic on the feminist movement, clearly this topic was ment to be that; Perhaps Mgoodyear should start listening to other editors too.--<span style="color:red; font-family:Old English Text MT, Papyrus;">Honeymane {{sub|<span style="font-family:KlingonTNG, New Times Roman;">Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam }} 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Split and Organization
Any ideas for how this should be split up into leaf articles? If we do it chronologically (as it is divided now), the only sections big enough for their own articles are 19th century and 20th century. We could also use the long 19th century, ending at ww1. Or thematically, if someone can come up with a good sugestion. TheMightyQuill 17:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First I think we need a concept. Having reviewed pretty well all the pages in the feminism project, I believe it needs one page to tie it all together, and this one is the obvious one. Therefore in 'leafing', that should mainly be the detail, not the content. I have concentrated on content to date, rather than worrying too much about structure for now. Some of the themes are obvious ones for leaves, although technically this can be a lot of work. Incidentally where did this idea come from that there was a concensus on hiding the footnotes? Finally I would prefer people who actually know something about feminism to be doing major edits as opposed to stylistic changes. --Mgoodyear 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I started the ball rolling to show good faith by taking out Islamic feminism, and merging it with its leaf. The Nav bar now reflects this. --Mgoodyear 22:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I think Feminism should be the page that links everything together, not History of Feminism. Second, havin the ability to hide such an extensive list of footnotes seems like a great idea to me. Third, anyone can edit the article, as long as they are able back up their edits with references. I happen to think at least a mention of Islamic feminism is very important to have on this page, to keep a global pov. TheMightyQuill 03:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)