Talk:Post-structural feminism

This is just feminism with some examinations of post structuralism
I know feminists love to tag all kinds of adjectives onto feminism to carve out a piece of the feminism namespace with the application of a theory that is in vogue, but just because some of them read some philosophy of post-structuralism, does not make this a whole new field, there is in fact very little to establish its WP:NotabilityEthanpet113 (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for posting this comment,, and sorry if my edit seemed at all hostile, which was not my intent; it was the end of the day for me and I was rather exhausted. Anyway, in postmodern discourses specifically, but political discourses more generally, qualified positions like this are commonplace. One only needs to look at the anarchist schools of thought to see an example of this (post-anarchism, also known as poststructuralist anarchism, is among them). This can also be found in liberalism and socialism and many other ideology clusters. Much of this is the product of people exploring how different ideologies intersect and interact; it is not limited to feminism, though feminism is also prolific in this regard.On the matter of poststructural feminism, that term is used with regularity in contemporary feminist literature, but not only feminist literature. Simply checking for hits on Google Books (hyphenated, not) or Google Scholar (hyphenated, not) demonstrates its currency as a term for a specific type of feminist discourse and analysis. (Also, check  , as well.) The results of those searches moreover yield literature which either describes poststructural feminism as distinct from other feminist perspectives or otherwise treats them as such. For example, just from the top results of   in Google Books:I can continue, but you can see for yourself. I will note that poststructural feminism has a history dating back to at least 1979, with publications talking about it as a specific kind of feminism in 1987, 1990, 1993, 1994, and so on and so forth with greater frequency the closer to 2018. Is this sufficient to indicate this neologism is notable? If not, then when?Perhaps postructural feminism is ultimately just feminism with poststructuralist elements, but that is equivalent to saying that democratic socialism is just socialism with democratic elements or national liberalism is just liberalism with nationalist elements or clerical fascism is just fascism with clericalist elements. In the end, they are all distinct perspectives with both historic and contemporary meanings whose defining characteristics are precisely as the intersections of those perspectives. Within this context, I do not see how the problem here is that of a non-notable article subject; rather, I think it is one of insufficient article development and sourcing, hence my edit. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
I propose to merge French post-structuralist feminism into Post-structural feminism. Most of the theorists mentioned in French post-structuralist feminism are also mentioned here, neither article is particularly long, and I see overlap. Additionally, I find it difficult to find a significant difference between the philosophies outlined in these articles. Although I believe has established this article's validity and notability, it still could help to have more information on the page. I welcome any and all feedback (especially since this is my first merger/proposal). DynaGuy00 (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , possibly, but there are certain procedures to follow, in order to attract the attention of other editors, in order to form a consensus for a move. Have a look at WP:RM, and follow the procedures there. If you merge the two, I think you will need to pay careful attention to WP:DUEWEIGHT and correct balance.  That is, as long as the two articles remain separate, then having 200 words or 200,000 words about French feminists in one of them and 1,000 words (let's suppose) in the more general one, is fine. But if you merge them, then the content will need to be weighted in proportion to their appearance in reliable sources. A merge was recently attempted, which I reverted for two reasons: it was undiscussed, and it didn't observe this important principle of propotionality.
 * If there were consensus for a merge, I would argue that either this article has to be beefed up considerably with content on non-French feminists before the merge, or else the content being merged in would have to be drastically cut back, in order to provide a correct balance with the content already here. However, since I'm opposed to removing sourced, relevant, content simply to facilitate a move, I might oppose it for that reason. In a way, I suppose my early feeling about this is that this merge proposal is premature; this article should be beefed up first, and *then* the merge proposal should be attempted. But there's nothing stopping you from attempting a formal requested move, if you wish to and feel it is warranted. Mathglot (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy to discuss the merge further, but you seem to be looking at the wrong procedure. This was a merge, not a move, so WP:RM is not relevant; Merging is the protocol, which DynaGuy00 carried out impecably. Note that WP:MERGECLOSE states any user may close the discussion and move forward with the merger if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent to merge. As 6 months is more than one week, I don't think that the merge was unreasonable. I also can't follow your argument that we should wait for the article to be beefed up. Post-structural feminism has been in need of support for the last decade, and the material in French post-structuralist feminism heavily overlaps on several point (for example, the leading figures on the two pages heavily overlap), but also provides additional references material, and deeper discussion on the key figures and ideas of post-structuralist feminism. Editors have had a decade to beef up Post-structural feminism and my view is that the content on the French subtopic helpfully does so.
 * Regarding the issue of weight, the combined article is heavily French, but that is because the key international leads are French; therefore, the French focus is entirely appropriate; there is no undue weight. In case there is doubt, I therefore support the merge. Klbrain (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , hmm, you're right, I was looking at the wrong policy how-to. I still don't think a merge should happen without discussion, and let's face it, nobody will come here to discuss unless editors are appropriately notified, since there are zero page-watchers for this article; i.e., absolutely no one saw this discussion, except people who randomly wandered by.  I think my revert was based on the wrong analysis, as you pointed out, so in theory, I should revert myself.  Otoh, the original merge wasn't proper without discussion either, so we should be at status quo ante. So, I think my revert was right, but the stated reason was wrong: it should have simply been: undiscussed merge.
 * Not sure what to do now; but I think maybe we should just close this discussion and start a new one, notify appropriate projects and possibly other parties if we can come up with a neutral list (previous discussants at Feminism and Post-structuralism, for example) and see if we can get consensus that way. What do you think?
 * Btw, I was/am gathering material about Monique Wittig who I find shockingly absent there, and merely an also-ran here. I have a few refs already, and some of them mention some other French post-structuralists I'm not familiar with, perhaps minor and don't need more than a mention, but I think maybe that should be put off for now, until this more pressing matter is decided. Mathglot (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , thanks for your engagement on this. I would second the idea of gaining more substantial consensus, particularly since I am not involved in any of the WikiProjects associated with this article and also would not have the technical skills for a merge. But considering the fact that it was unopposed for a number of months I would suggest that a merger be carried out in the future unless there is substantial opposition from notified editors. In other words, the burden of proof rests on anti-mergers here (though I don't know off the top of my head if that is violating any policies). DynaGuy00 (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks; I don't think WP:BURDEN applies here; rather it's two policies: WP:EDITCONSENSUS argues for keeping it this away, unless WP:CONSENSUS develops for a change, which it well might, based on your or Klbrain's arguments, or new ones we haven't heard from yet. Mathglot (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding those additional references; worth adding. No need to close the discussion as it is currently active. Regarding page views, 4361 page views in the last 60 days is enough for anyone to object, and the template have been up for longer than that; also, pages have membership of 4 projects, and active Wikiprojects usually set up automated screening methods to monitor merges on project pages. For example, this merge has been listed on the front page of WP:WikiProject Feminism for 6 months. My guess is that members thought the merge was so obviously reasonable that there was no need to add further arguments in support.
 * Regarding contacting page creators: this is pointless when User:Peachychiki hasn't edited for 12 year, and User:Vanished user sojweiorj34i4f for 5 years; to notify them would be pissing in the wind, to use a rather course phallocentric expression (please forgive my Australian upbringing). So, it's up to currently active editors to decide and act.
 * Happy that WP:BURDEN doesn't apply and that we're rightly using using WP:BRD. On the matter of putting off adding important content and a merge decision is made, I'd not delay put push to improve articles where and when we can. So maintaining strong support for a merge. Klbrain (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)