Talk:New feminism

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): Heyates14.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

propose rewriting lede's 2d paragraph
The lede's second paragraph merely restates difference feminism generally, much as the first paragraph does, when it should distinguish itself from other forms of difference feminism. As I read the article (I haven't read sources for this and I'm not expert in this movement), because the modern (not historical) form is largely supported by the Roman Catholic Church, the major distinction is that it reinforces the role of women as mothers, because it accepts the Church's position that women have no right to choose whether to be mothers or not, and it views the differences as primarily biologically, not primarily culturally, driven. I propose to add to the lede, probably editing the second paragraph to the following:

New feminism, as a form of difference feminism, supports the idea that men and women have different strengths, perspectives, and roles, while advocating for the equal worth and dignity of both sexes. Among its basic concepts are that the most important differences are those that are biological rather than cultural, and that women's obligation is to give birth to and raise children, and therefore that reproductive choice must be opposed.

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View?
The article reads as if it was written by a fervent supporter of New Feminism. The principles of the movement should be presented more succinctly and precisely in less grandiose and rhetorical language.

Yeah, if a woman is obedient to and dependent on a man, THAT IS NOT EQUALITY IN ANY WAY! There does NOT have to be "one leader", do these people think we're still living in an absolute monarchy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.10.96 (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

While there are decisions and policies that are "made by committee", most decisions in the world today are made by a single leader, whether they are appointed, elected, or tyrannical. The point is valid, regardless of whether you or I agree with it.

In any case, I attempted to fix the paragraph in question (obedience and subservience, I believe). I am of the opinion that the title of the section should be changed to something less inflammatory, but I'm certainly not an expert on the topic. Perhaps "acceptance", "passivity", or "tolerance" will help to make this point in a way that doesn't get people's hackles up, like the commenter above? Captainclueless (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)captainclueless

Requested move 17 January 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Rider ranger47  Talk 15:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

New feminism → Conservative feminism – Move requested as a more accurate description, and also as per this discussion and this discussion. The argument that it should be called "new feminism" because it was named that by Pope John Paul II, as stated here, I don't believe is strong enough. "Catholic feminism" is another possibility, or perhaps the creation of a redirect page from "Catholic feminism" to this page after it has been re-named "Conservative feminism". The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The proposed title does not seem to have wide usage in the article's sources and the linked discussions seem to be WP:IDON'TLIKEIT arguments, i.e. "new feminism" is not really feminism according to the respective user's opinions. —  AjaxSmack  21:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose more or less per AjaxSmack. The proposed title is neither commonly used nor even particularly NPOV. Who says it is conservative? I can sort of see the sentiment that "new feminism" can be used to refer to a lot more than just this narrow definition by JP2, but then again we don't have any specific articles on any other kind of new feminism. So probably until we have something to disambiguate against, we should leave this as it is. Maybe with a hatnote directing readers to the general Feminism article if they want something more broad. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As stated here the term was coined by Pope John Paul II in 1995. After 20 years can it still be considered to be new? I did offer Catholic feminism, but to someone using Wikipedia, looking at the list of variants in the feminism sidebar, does "new feminism" mean anything? Perhaps complementarian feminism would mean more to people? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on New feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070205140354/http://www.columbia.edu:80/cu/augustine/arch/frear/hildebrand.htm to http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/frear/hildebrand.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarification
I feel a distinction between this religious form of "new feminism" and the other form of new feminism aka third-wave feminism needs to be made. Heyates14 (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea and I added a template to that effect (and you should feel free to do similar or more extensive editing yourself). It is possible that it will be challenged, in which case a source will be needed, a source that says they're not the same thing or that what this article discusses is only a subset of a larger feminism, with the sourced content to be added to the body and the content probably added to the lead. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New feminism. 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/20070820081940/http://www.thenewfeminism.net/ to http://www.thenewfeminism.net/

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) 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New feminism. 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/20110605003057/http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/search.cgi?query=feminism&mh=25&type=keyword&bool=and to http://www.catholiceducation.org/links/search.cgi?query=feminism&mh=25&type=keyword&bool=and

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) 19:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)