Talk:The Feminine Mystique

2006
The claim The Feminine Mystique is even remotely plagiarism of The Second Sex is made by somebody who never read either book, let alone both.''The two books aren't even remotely similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.202.228 (talk • contribs) 26 November 2005‎

I agree, the plagiarism claim is weird and comes at the end of a block of negative commentary. It's not neessary to repeat this claim and I will remove it. 7infinity 18:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Controversies"
I think the section referencing bell hooks is poorly presented. bell hooks is one voice of many in the controversy about whether Friedan's work addresses race and class accurately (or at all.) There were a handful of critiques of Friedan's ideas (e.g., race, class, more "personal" aspects of feminism,) and hooks is just one critic. What might work better here is to discuss second- and third- wave feminism, specifically address race issues, class issues, and varying social ideas about the role of women in life and work, and add the names of a number of critics and supporters of Friedan's ideas, not just hooks.
 * It could probably be more detailed, yes. My own complaint is about the (current) second paragraph - "Historian Daniel Horowitz has argued that the origin..." - is completely out of place. How is that a criticism of "The Feminist Mystique"? It might make the cut as a criticism of Betty Friedan's person, but it's definitely not a criticism of the book. I am removing it. If whoever added it would like to add it back again, please give your rationale here. --chainedwind —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.126.248.134 (talk) 06:03, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

i am removing the reference to joan meyerowitz's work. for one thing, i had thought freidan specifically focused on white women. that could be wrong, it's been a while since i've read tfm. secondly and more importantly, meyerowitz acknowledges that stories about overcoming racism are different from stories about women who simply aren't "lazy" housewives (to quote a story she cites) that gloss over obstacles to female success. i do not think it rebuts friedan's work much if at all. i would like to see her sources if anyone knows where they can be found: http://www.teachingamericanhistory.us/lesson_plans/group_2/documeents/A1_femininemystique.pdf Uncleosbert (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Call me obnoxious, and I'm perfectly aware that many wikipedia articles are terribly incomplete little stubs, but why is it that an article of what is purportedly a very influential feminist book -- arguably one of the most influential in the history of the feminist movements -- possesses only two sections of note: the introduction, and criticism? What bloody criticism is so important it remains the only section (not counting references and other trivia) in the main content slots? How about a little history of how it came to be; how about the summary; how about the receptions; how about contemporary reviews; how about some impact and legacy since?
 * And no, I can't do all that because of the simple reason that I haven't read the book, and you *don't* want an article of a book to be edited by someone who hasn't even read it. For example, I wouldn't be able to distinguish common, well-argued criticisms in reviews of the book from made-up anti-feminist spin trash without actually knowing what the book really says. 68.104.55.208 (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, many of the feminism-related websites on Wikipedia have criticism sections often larger than the rest of the entry, and there are often revert wars. Some of the men's rights folks come over here and put in their ill-informed propaganda. It would be a good project for a women's studies class to start making these entries more complete, but it hasn't happened, yet. QuizzicalBee (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. I read the book and tried to keep track of the major points, and added sections to this article. Hope it helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheerless Fantasies
I did a web search for this site (mentioned at the end of the article) because I had trouble understanding how credible it was. The only mentions of it are on Wikipedia or on anti-feminist sites. I think it's important to give some sense of who raises these "questions" about Friedan's work in the article, and as to whether these are anti-feminist activists, serious academics, or both. Would it be appropriate to just remove the paragraph, or mention that it's a web site that (unlike Friedan's book itself) has not been peer-reviewed or critiqued thoroughly? Catamorphism 03:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I rather agree. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, yes? Chainedwind 00:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit for Linkage?
Should/could this page be linked the the femininst movement in general? Also, there are definte capitalization errors towards the bottom of this article. -T

File:Mystique.jpg Nominated for Deletion
The link for citation number 3 is incorrect, link needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobirener (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Feminine Mystique. 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/20130523042001/http://adht.parsons.edu/events/2013/03/the-feminine-mystique-symposium/ to http://adht.parsons.edu/events/2013/03/the-feminine-mystique-symposium/

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) 11:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)