Talk:Second-wave feminism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

NPOV and the "third wave"

From the Overview section:

Since many "Third Wave" feminists refuse to challenge the status quo, and endorse exploitative practices such as prostitution, it is debateable whether a third wave "feminism" even exists, and is not just an anti-feminist reactionary wave trying to muddy the waters.

This is way out of line from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines. Citing an authority who makes this claim would be all right, but outright stating it as a fact is not. --70.237.144.112 10:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

second that one. and apparently 'debatable' is spelled wrong.


Trivia section

This section should be sourced and integrated more fully into the article. -Classicfilms 21:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Second wave in popular culture

Ideals and debates associated with second-wave feminism were reflected in popular culture of the 1970s and 1980s (see references below). These figures would be revisited during the late 1990s and early 2000s period of Girl Power.

Blaxploitation films and characters

Other characters

General films, plays, and television

Move the page

I move to move this page to United States feminist movement, United States Feminist movement (1963 - 1981) or United States women's movement (1963 - 1981 due to the fact that it is all about America. You don't see South Africa's racism in the U.S. Civil Rights movement article; the U.S. movement should have its own page. One should also be created for the many other movements that arose globaly in the 1960s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moderate2008 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


Feminist Movement in the United States → Second-wave feminism — (see talk page) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Support. Moved from Second-wave feminism in February 2009. The article is one of a series, first wave, second wave, and third wave. The photo in the info-box, taken in 2005, appears to represent a fourth wave. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Needs more world info but yes. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support At the current time this article's title does not describe the content. Its clear that this article is about second-wave feminism and while it does have a US slant to it its nothing that more writing cant fix. Solid State Survivor (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2009 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thanks! Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Women in wikilinks

Hello. It's probably just my reading but where are the links in this article to women? For example, there's a wikilink for Eugene McCarthy but none for Mary Daly. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It wasn't a huge problem. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

popular culture, lesbians, and sentence error

This sentence in the article confuses me:

Feminists during the movement viewed popular culture as just another example of lesbians, gender equalities that tried to prove the idea that woman are classified into false images of how they should act and the roles they should play.

I don't understand how "popular culture" is an "example" of "lesbians" in the "view" of "[f]eminists". The best I can make of this is that popular culture is a lesbian. I think it's just a misdrafted sentence.

I take it that "gender equalities" are proving inequalities, but maybe there's a better way to say this.

Questioning the syntax of "woman are" is too easy. That doesn't require questioning but I suspect it'll disappear when the rest of the sentence is repaired.

If you know what was meant, could you please edit it?

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently fixed by another editor. Thank you very kindly. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Needs work

This article disappoints. It lumps Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinam, and Susan Brownmiller all in together without any mention of the differences between the ideals and goals of the leaders of the movement. There is no specific mention of NOW or ERA or any of the other significant accomplishments of second-wave feminism, or of its various internal struggles and disagreements. It definitely was not a wholly unified movement, marching in lockstep, and the article should show that.

Also, what is meant by "the genders (which until this time did not exist)"? I can't make any sense of this sentence no matter how I parse it, and am inclined to remove the parenthetical.

This in mind, I'm planning a minor rewrite. Please reply here if you have any suggestions on improvements. -Kasreyn 21:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In the beginning of the article it says the movement lasted until the early '90s, and later it says until the late '90s. Shouldn't the timeline be kept consistent? Carnival Honey (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

On the main "Feminism" page, it says second-wave feminism continues to the present. I'd tend to agree with that. Carnival Honey (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

File:STOP ERA.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:STOP ERA.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:STOP ERA.gif)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving timeline to separate article

I would like to propose that the lengthy timeline in this article be moved to its own article: Timeline of second-wave feminism. Kaldari (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Good idea. Best wishes. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

when a wave ends and consistency with sourcing

Just because a feminist wave began the last previous wave did not end. The overlap was substantial. Many who participated in the earlier wave continued doing much as they had before, sometimes strongly disagreeing with the newer wave's participants and perhaps doubting the later wave's legitimacy for years. You could find evidence for first-wavers still being around today, albeit more quietly (e.g., they may feel everything important in feminism as already been accomplished and disagree with the newer, um, "militants" for wasting their time while agreeing with, say, Margaret Sanger). In the U.S., third- and second-wave organizations, for example, are usually different organizations. Determining when a wave began and when it ended are two quite distinct problems of evidence, and sources likely disagree, although there will be prevailing views on when winding-down happened, coming within approximately a 20- or 30-year frame, I think. Starts are within shorter frames.

The most recent edit changing a termination time frame relies on the same source before and after the change. That's concerning. Does someone have the source handy (I don't) and can it be checked to see which statement it supports or if the source is more fluid?

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Gynocentrism

Gynocentrism lies behind much of what feminism is really about in 2014. Why is there no mention of this in the current article?


Scholars Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson state that ideologically, the overriding focus of gynocentrism is to prioritize females hierarchically, and as a result may be interpreted as misandry (the hatred and prejudice towards men). Feminist calls for equality or even equity are often, according to them, a subterfuge for gynocentrism.

Young and Nathanson define gynocentrism as a worldview based on the implicit or explicit belief that the world revolves around women, a cultural theme so well entrenched that it has become 'de rigueur' behind the scenes in law courts and government bureaucracies, which has resulted in systemic discrimination against men.

KatiiK2 (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If you don't mind a slightly late reply: probably because this article isn't about feminism in 2014, it's about its history. Information about the current state of feminism could be included in the article on third-wave feminism (or whatever the current 'wave' is), providing reliable sources are provided. Robofish (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Second-wave feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified 2

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Second-wave feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified 4

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Second-wave 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Music Influence in Second-wave Feminism

Hello, I noticed that the only mention a song/vocal artist receives is Helen Reddy, with her powerful song "I Am Woman," under the "View on Popular Culture" section. Furthermore, this is a very short mention, despite the influence and history behind the song. Many radio stations wouldn't play her song, describing it as "silly." However, she continued to perform it on variety shows, and eventually, women began demanding to hear it on the radio. I think this is important to include because it shows how a powerful song by a female was repressed and not given airplay. Additionally, this article has no mention of Olivia Records (formed in 1973), which was the first female owned-and-operated record label. This is worthy of an acknowledgement, since the industry had predominantly been run by males. Thank you. [1] Feb. 2, 2017 Waverly Hart (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Waverly Hart

References

  1. ^ https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/seventies/essays/women-and-music-industry-1970s

External links modified 6

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Second-wave 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

No mention at all of Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon?

I've had the impression that these two were among the most important women of the second wave. Dworkin's books were hugely influential. MacKinnon pioneered feminist lawmaking. I'm pretty disappointed that their names don't appear anywhere in the whole article. Am I missing something? 2A02:908:C30:3540:221:CCFF:FE66:68F0 (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right, and you're not missing anything. To that list you could add Atkinson, Abzug, Dinnerstein, Smeal, and others; not to mention the entire second wave of French feminism, including Wittig, Rochefort, Delphy, Muchnik, Guillaumin, Mathieu and many others. Mathglot (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Split proposal: Timeline

Result:      Done     —15 January 2018

Proposing a modified form of the earlier proposal by Kaldari above: namely, that the lengthy timeline list in this article in section #Timeline be moved to its own article: Timeline of second-wave feminism (see examples at List of timelines), and that the body of the article be augmented to cover any timeline points not otherwise covered in the body. Mathglot (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea to me. Kaldari (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
To editors Kaldari and Mathglot: I strongly support the split, if First-wave feminism#Timeline is also split into Timeline of first-wave feminism, since that timeline contains ~220 items while this timeline contains ~140 items. Just a thought. Ꞷumbolo 10:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Wumbolo, thanks for the vote of support. I hope you'll go ahead an add a similar split proposal at Talk:First-wave feminism if you believe it deserves one. However, the two articles are not dependent on each other, and even if they do the wrong thing at the other article, that's no reason to similarly do the the wrong thing here. We should do right by this article, regardless of what other stuff exists. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I just added a proposal at first-wave feminism Woodsy lesfem (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

To editors Kaldari and Mathglot: I also strongly support the split Woodsy lesfem(talk) 03:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: Added notification of this discussion to Project FEMINISM.
Note: Added notification of this discussion to WT:Splitting.   Mathglot (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kaldari, Wumbolo, and Woodsy lesfem: It's been pretty quiet, so I took a crack at this. Please see Talk:Second-wave feminism/Timeline of second-wave feminism. Mathglot (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Kaldari, Wumbolo, and Woodsy lesfem: Based on this advice by Marchjuly, I'm going to go ahead and create the new article by moving the draft out of Talk space to Main space.
This will require some cleanup at Second-wave feminism/Archive 1. Mostly, this involves removing the existing timeline section, and leaving a link to the new article. Possibly also moving over any content deleted from the new article, although I don't think there's anything in this category. (Except possibly for the full-text copy of the Equality Day declaration I removed from the timeline draft in this edit, however I don't think that should be moved over since full text of sources belongs on Wikisource, not in an article.) Mathglot (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mathglot: I'll remove the timeline and add a link. Should there be anything in that subsection other than "Main article Timeline of second-wave feminism"? It's a little hard to summary-style a timeline lol. Woodsy lesfem (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Woodsy lesfem: Okay, thanks. I think that subsection should disappear, including the header, so no need for a {{Main}} link. Instead, we should link Timeline of second-wave feminism from the #External links section. Go ahead and do the delete + link any time you're ready. Also, the edit summary should link to this discussion, and it wouldn't hurt to mention WP:SIZERULE as well. Mathglot (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
It's looking good, Woodsy lesfem! One last thing, just fyi: per WP:SPLITTING I've added a {{Copied}} template at the top of this talk page, and also at the top of the new article's talk page. Just something to keep in mind, if and when First-wave feminism gets its own timeline article as well. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Distractions Within the Article

I noticed that amongst the article there was a lot of links to pages that don't exist. It would be nice to eliminate these links or to further explain what they are since there aren't necessarily links to give a further explanation. For example, one of the articles that don't exist was for Oregon vs. Rideout. It would be nice to give some more context regarding the importance of this topic and case within the article since an article doesn't exist. Personally, the unlinked articles were distracting to me and it was hard to understand the topics because there was no further explanation of them elsewhere. I think that this would be a great way to improve the article.

I think that the article overall does a great job of outlining the parts of 2nd wave feminism.

Kelly.renshaw (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Consider the advantages of red links as explained at the guideline. As it says in the nutshell:

Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject.

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles or essays?

The articles referenced in the text to me seem more like essays. This is not a criticism, but it may increase the general reader's understanding of the genesis of phrases like "fourth wave"--Lexein (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't work for me, I don't see the point in a "4th wave" tag for "since #metoo" (and forcing 2017 Women's March with Madonna into this wave), while issues including "equal pay" discussed here are counted as "2nd wave". Maybe it's a US-centric scholarly subtlety, after all there are references, but even then I'd go with do what you like + Sluts&Scholars. –84.46.53.106 (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified 3

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Second-wave feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Failed: the archived page was a kind of 404, and the 2016 link is anyway gone now (2019). –84.46.53.87 (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

liberal feminist focus

Reading through this page, I can't help but notice that it focuses almost exclusively on the liberal feminist version of the 2nd wave (Friedan, Steinam, co-education, etc.). Any thoughts and/or objections to rounding out this article, expanding to include a wider variety of issues and viewpoints contained within the 2nd wave? -clm17 19:01, 22 June 2006

Last edit 2007, those archive bots aren't smart, trying a fresher style of signature: 84.46.52.219 (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

de Beauvoir

(Sorry if that is not the right sign to signal my suggestion. I would suggest that the following be inserted at the beginning of the paragraph on second wave feminism)---- "Simon De Beauvoir was a very important feminist writer whose book The Second Sex had a great deal of influence when it was first published in France in the late 50's and then in the rest of the western world a couple of years later."---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacthorne (talk • contribs) 2010-04-26 (UTC)

Mentioned + referenced in the 2nd paragraph of #Overview in the United States today, maybe good enough. –84.46.53.87 (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Criticism section

Is “historiography” the word we want here? The sentence makes little sense this way. 2600:1017:B41A:53E8:C817:2DA5:9BE5:D82D (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The extended definition any body of historical work on a particular subject  makes sense for me (of course doing this work here would be in conflict with WP:OR.) OTOH many historians believe + numerous feminist scholars are weasels, maybe this article needs a {{tone}} head note for "too scholarly". All I could do would make it worse, but if it's your bold day pull a {{sofixit}}. –84.46.53.87 (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it seems like the right word. What is it about the sentence that doesn't make sense to you? Seems perfectly clear. Mathglot (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified 5

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Second-wave 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:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Failed: found no Faculty/Miami PDF, smith.edu is bull*, articles.cnn is dead, and the archived Betty Ford is not more needed. –84.46.53.87 (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Archived smith.edu page reinserted by Mathglot, thanks, I missed the relevant 197x info near the bottom of an article starting in 1875. –84.46.53.83 (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Mathglot (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

class=start

While the page could be improved wrt weasels among others, class=start vintage 2007 makes no sense for me, and I'll upgrade  that to class=C soon  if nobody here objects. –84.46.53.230 (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Done: –84.46.52.182 (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second-wave_feminism/Archive_1&oldid=1076537239"