Talk:The personal is political

Not a word of criticism here
From reading this article, you'd think it wasn't even a controversial notion at all. Sure, it's described as "radical" but no critics of it are quoted or even mentioned. And I don't have time to fight with Social Justice Whiner editors over the notability of any sources I might come up with. Anything I write will get reverted, so screw it. I'm just pointing out how this article sucks for any honest editors out there. --134.193.112.8 (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

For the critique an article assignment, I am picking the following questions: Is everything in the article relevant to the topic? & is the article neutral? For my first question, yes everything in written in the article is relevant to the topic. It breaks it down from history of the term, who does/doesn't claim ownership of the word and how multiple meanings exist depending on identity. The sentence regarding Gloria Stienem throws me off a little bit because of how it is worded. Are they connecting this term, the personal is political to another term? For the second question, I do believe that the article remains neutral. It provides facts to state what the term was about, where/how it was originated, and the multiple meanings it has.I don't think that the article obtains biases that would sway a reader. In addition, as I was looking through the references, It seems that most, if not all of the sources were from a book or a journal. Mgardase1 (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe your critique is being done without awareness to how you're partial to the topic and how its meaning is fact in your head (it would be counterproductive to attribute malice and I can honestly see how an article worded similarly regarding a topic I believe true might seem neutral to me, I don't want to fault you), particularly when it comes to neutrality. Lets look at this sentence (please forgive my lack of familiarity with wiki markup.)

"It underscored the connections between personal experience and larger social and political structures"

This sets the tone for the article. To "underscore" means to emphasize. The quote says that the phrase highlighted something that is simply true (without the need for support or skepticism) as true as water being wet or the sky being blue. Now, of course there's some kind of connection in some sense between between personal experience and larger social and political structures in the sense that both have people participating in them. But clearly the motto suggests more than an incidental connection and has far reaching implications. It is used as license to intrude upon and critique literally everything about human experience through a political lens. Its amorphous meaning leads to it being used to suggest that your hobbies, your friendships, your informal gatherings, and so forth not only can but MUST be subject to the scrutiny of ideologues, especially feminists. That nothing in your life is separate from this larger argument.

Likewise, the article features Kerry Burch's assertion that the phrase itself is nothing but a coinage representing the preexisting collective will of millions of women. Technically the statement is factually accurate in the sense that I'm sure Kerry Burch did say that but this is a manipulative composition of facts when there are no facts in the article about any criticisms put forth. Then there's this paragraph.

"The phrase figured in women-of-color feminism, such as "A Black Feminist Statement" by the Combahee River Collective, Audre Lorde's essay "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House", and the anthology This Bridge Called Home. More broadly, as Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw observes, "This process of recognizing as social and systemic what was formerly perceived as isolated and individual has also characterized the identity politics of African Americans, other people of color, and gays and lesbians, among others."[7]"

The structure of the above statement is "This fact is true as confirmed by Ms. X and Mr. Y." Shouldn't it be written more like "Ms. X and Mr. Y make statement Z about this topic"?

I'm sure there are valid objections to all of this. I'm probably wrong about at least some of it but I put it in talk because I need to lurk more before I edit. Groupthinker1984 (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

1920s white women
Seems an American bias. Not so for rest of the world. Also no source for this. There were femminists in America also advocating like Emma Goldman whom it would be hard to say was with a White bias, just because she was from a white European heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.23.158 (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether she was actively racist, her whiteness still influenced her. Everyone has bias just from their experiences. --SustainedOutrage (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some help
Hi,

Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Origin
Although there is much talk about authorship in the first part of the article, it is all about American writers. But it seems that the phrase was already used in 1967 as the caption of the front photograph of a brochure by Kommune 1 in Germany, see Kommune 1. This seems to be a continuous motto of their actions, with the rationale that: “If Germans can look at the truth about our bodies, they will be able to face other truths as well” (referring to the demand for more openness about the Nazi crimes of the previous generation; see also this interview with Langenhals and various other German sources). With respect to the present association of the phrase with feminism, the criticism on gender relations at Kommune 1 in this article is interesting.

I am not contending that Kommune 1 invented the slogan, it may have lingered on orally many years before, but it is strange to start the article with so much emphasis on a 1969/1970 essay as its source. Bever (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Expanding on the shift from second wave to third wave feminism
I would like to expand on the shift in meaning and application of "the personal is political" from second wave to third wave feminism. I'd also like to change how the quotation in that section is introduced, because right now it's a little odd to read. I plan to use "The Personal is _Still_ Political: Embodied Politics in Third Wave Feminism" and "Why the personal remained political: comparing second and third wave perspectives on everyday feminism" as sources. --SustainedOutrage (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Changing the structure of the article
I feel that given the flow of the article, I ended up disambiguating some of the multiple meanings of the phrase "the personal is political" in the "Impact" section of the article instead of the "Multiple meanings" section. Should we change the structure of the article? Or should I find a way to disambiguate the interpretations of the phrase in second wave versus third wave feminism in the "Multiple meanings" section? --SustainedOutrage (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Politics in Global Perspective
— Assignment last updated by A.lejla (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)