Talk:Mimi Abramovitz

Some thoughts on article content and structure.
I took a look at this article about an important contributor to feminist history and have some thoughts for improvement.

My comments relate to the version as of 19 March 2012

I will make some observations, but in some cases I will make changes based upon my observations, so some of the points may only be understandable in the context of that version.

Lede The closing phrase "specifically women" may be accurate, in which case it should remain, but it is often true that "especially women" is more accurate. At this point I don't know which is the better phrase, I'm writing this as a reminder to myself to review after reading more of the sources.
 * Update—changed

Sources The article depends heavily (understandably) on Feminists who changed America, with minor usage of the NCRW source.

Some other potential sources:
 * NESRI bio
 * SheSource bio

Life and education This section discusses her education, but has only a sentence fragment (she moved to New Haven, Connecticut, where she would become active in the anti-war, civil rights, and women's movements) relating to anything other than education. Either the section should stick to education, by moving the two other minor points elsewhere, or the section should include more about life. Given that the next section is "carrier" and the reference to "anti-war, civil rights, and women's movements" squarely belongs there, my first instinct is to move the non-education comments out.

Career "progressively more active in activism" is an awkward phrasing, no obvious alternative yet, but should be reviewed.

A reference to a blue-linked organization doesn't necessarily need explication, but a redlinked organization, such as [American Independent Movement] should have a brief comment, if possible.
 * Update—I simply removed the awkward wording. I added a description of the organization, not great, but best I could find. See more details in the "Changes made" section below; I've also contacted someone with JSTOR access to see if we can do better

Today The section title isn't apt when the opening sentence is about a 2004 award. Second, per MOS, probably not a good idea.
 * Update—I used this section to become an awards section, and moved her current position to the career section.

Further reading

I don't like the section name, I think of "further reading" as a list of resources about the subject, not by the subject. My first thought is "bibliography" but let's see what the standard is.
 * Update. I thought that MOS or some other policy would opine on this, in fact, I still think so, but did not find it. I checked a few FA, and see "Selected list of works" or "Selected works". Until I find something more definitive, I'm going with "Selected works".

Other areas to investigate


 * Has Triple Payoff been the subject of any RS?
 * Has http://barnard.edu/sfonline/sfxxx/documents/abramovitz1.pdf been the subject of any RS?
 * Find someone with access right to review some of her work at The nation, here's one for example
 * Similarly, she has also written for:
 * The New York Times
 * The Washington Post The Nation
 * The Women's Review of Books
 * MS Magazine
 * The Christian Science Monitor
 * The San Francisco Examiner
 * In These Times.
 * She wrote the foreword to Disposable domestics: immigrant women workers in the global economy, anything worth including?
 * The book Without justice for all: the new liberalism and our retreat from racial equality has some comments on work by Abramovitz. Anything worth including?
 * Should Social benefits as a right: a re-examination for the 1980's be in the bibliography?
 * There are a number of entries in Google scholar, should be reviewed for inclusion-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

especially women
I chose to change "specifically women" to "especially women". Two sources support the notion that her focus is not exclusively women: In Chang she states "...really know about the lives of the women(and men)...' In the second source, the subject includes children, not just women.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Women and Children At Risk and in Poverty
 * 1) Women and Children At Risk and in Poverty

referencing
I converted the referencing system to LDR. Only two at the time, although I plan to add some, and prefer to add them in LDR format. If this is an issue, let's talk. The "standard" and LDR can co-exist, although I don't think that is optimal.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

AIM description
I rewrote the opening sentence of the Career section, moving the reference to her relocation here, and adding some information about AIM. I'm not entirely happy with the description of AIM. I found it in material presumably written by AIM, but I only had a snippet view, so it is not entirely clear that the description is the best possible one. If, for example, they have a formal mission or goal section, that wording is likely to be superior. One possible source for a better description is an article by Kesselman, but I do not have access.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've written to the author, to see if I can get a copy.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible stuff to include
Material I found -- I haven't read the current article fully but maybe this might be helpful; if not, just disregard.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In her book Taxes ARE A Women's Issue: Reframing the Debate, Abramovitz and co-author Sandra Morgen argued that women are adversely affected by how taxes are collected, while acknowledging that women benefit from services paid for by taxes. In addition, the authors argued that lower average wages for women as well as women bearing a disproportionate amount of unpaid labor, meant that the tax system is not equitable for both sexes.


 * Abramovitz pointed out that the United States during the administration of Ronald Reagan reduced the size of the welfare state as a way to reduce corporate taxes.


 * Abramovitz criticized the Clinton administration during the early 1990s for cutting back welfare by treating women as scapegoats. She suggested that since most welfare "experts" were men, there was a predisposition by them to engineer the welfare system to the detriment of "poor women struggling to raise children." She wrote:

"Welfare mothers make good scapegoats at a time when politicians and experts need scapegoats. Welfare is a code word for women and for blacks. It singles out the most vulnerable people in our society."

- Frances F. Piven & Mimi Abramovitz, 1993

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mimi Abramovitz. 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/20120202210856/http://www.nesri.org/about/board-of-directors/mimi-abramovitz to http://www.nesri.org/about/board-of-directors/mimi-abramovitz

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) 18:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)