Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victim feminism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Reading through the discussion, I have found the "keep" arguments to be generally stronger, though not really enough to call it clear consensus. Any argument for deletion that solely focuses on how this article is about a pejorative term is automatically invalid, because WP:NOTCENSORED and there is no policy that forbids the inclusion of such topics. I would also want to note that the article has been expanded from a one-sentence stub to a prose size of 3703 characters, and multiple sources have been presented, since the nomination of this article for AfD. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 14:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Victim feminism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Basically an antifeminist (or possibly postfeminist) pejorative for radical feminism (and related ideas like the social construction of gender). The point, other than to mock, seems to be to contrast it with first-wave feminism, liberal feminism, individualist feminism, or otherwise "valid" feminism. The point is, this is not a kind of feminism but a pejorative for forms of feminism we already have articles about. Fails WP:NEO/WP:GNG. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 17:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 17:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 17:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support move to wiktionary. There are sources using it. But it doesn't appear to meet note. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Staszek Lem Some clarification:
 * Disagree with OP that the term is antifeminists, at least, in the sense that the Tea Party is anti Republican...which it isn't really.
 * The article is most certainly about a term. That isn't immediately disqualifying, but per WP:NAD, it does raise the notability bar a bit. The term furthermore, seems to be used exclusively in juxtaposition. In a cartoonish way, compare "We're not AmeriCANTS. We're AmeriCANS." Also compare Third-Wavers criticizing First-Wavers, where they are actually criticizing a thing and actual people, and not inventing something solely so they can immediately distance themselves from it. By comparison, and to rebut your example, feminism is not simply a term, it is a social movement with adherents who hold a general set of beliefs and goals, and who have worked socially and politically to accomplish or support those. Again, compare treatment in WP:NAD. Dog is a term, but dog is not about the term, it's about the animal.
 * The sources are all 20+ years old. Again, not immediately disqualifying, but it may suggest how much traction this term had.
 * Newer sources can be found, but they're all references back to Wolf, as are all the older sources AFAICanTell. I don't see much evidence that this term claimed any ground in its own right, apart from the star power imparted to it by Wolf, or that anybody really took the term and ran with it.
 * Even with the recent additions, this is still basically a Wiktionary entry. Compare One in the Hand. What the term means, where it came from, and a good day to you all.
 * I don't see this ever growing into a full fledged article that is more than could be immediately converted into Wiktionary, unless it turns into a list of works that reference it's usage by Wolf, and that's a whole other WP:NOTE discussion. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * re: "The sources are all 20+ years old" - No. "Newer sources can be found, but they're all references back to Wolf, " - which means the subject is sufficiently notable to remember this 20+ year old buzz. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Meaning the sources all trace back to one thing said by one person once. Timothy Joseph Wood  01:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not true. For example, this chapter from a 2014 book on victim feminism focuses on its use by three thinkers (Christina Hoff Sommers, Naomi Wolf, Katie Roiphe) and names several other proponents of the term at the start of the chapter (Camille Paglia, Natasha Walter, and Rene Denfeld in a non-exhaustive list). This is clearly not just "one thing said by one person once" but is rather a term at the centre of an enduring academic debate in gender studies. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 *  speedy keep. @JosephWood: Yes it is a term. "feminism" is a term too. The nom's description that is is antifeminist (and most of the rest) is incorrect. The term must be adequately described in wikipedia since is clearly notable concept, not just accidental word usage: the article says that there was "a panel on "Victim Feminism" at the Law and Society Association 1994 Annual Meeting." Google books search quickly reveals significant discussion of the term (and I expanded the article accordigly). In fact the nom's mis-description of the concept is the best explanation why the article is necessary. And the opinion that it fails WP:GNG indicates insufficiently due diligence.  Staszek Lem (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * First, it's not going to be speedy kept as there are valid deletion rationales (even if a consensus emerges to keep, they are very typical reasons for deletion) and the only person to weigh in other than yourself supported the nomination. Second, that it's a term obviously isn't the deletion rationale and therefore a rather pointless straw man. But third, and more to the point, that there have been people who have used the term to talk about notable concepts we already cover doesn't change the fact that we already cover those subjects and this is just a pejorative for those subjects. Several authors have highlighted/criticized forms of feminism (or just feminism broadly) as viewing/treating women as powerless victims. This is a common criticism that is not itself a type of feminism. We cover versions of it in articles on antifeminism, postfeminism, and elsewhere. It's a criticism that sometimes comes from within feminism, sometimes from postfeminists, and sometimes from antifeminists. It's an attitude that finds sympathy among conservative/libertarian groups as compatible with the "personal responsibility" ideology (don't whine or ask for handouts, just pull yourself up by your bootstraps). For certain segments of the e.g. men's rights or gamergate crowds it's a "valid" form of feminism in contrast to the radical feminism of "social justice warriors". All of this aside, again, it's just not a form of feminism; it's a pejorative for perceived trends in feminism. When we have so many articles about feminism and critiques thereof, what service does having an article about a pejorative about those subjects provide? Even if we want to elevate it from pejorative to a specific critique, why would it not be part of the broader -isms it fits into (like postfeminism)? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed answer. I am not and expert in the subject, and your response provided valuable clarification of your position. Please let me disagree with your major points. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * re: "Second, that it's a term obviously isn't the deletion rationale and therefore a rather pointless straw man" - Yes it was deletion rationale by JosephWood (At least that's how I read his suggestion to move to wiktionary, and it is a common mis-argument for stubs: "it's just a term/dicdef"). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * re: "doesn't change the fact that we already cover those subjects" - please point me to an article which covers the cited information in the article in question, so that the information may be moved there. There are no wikipedia articles which deal with the term "victim feminism". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * re: "just a pejorative for those subjects" - please cite sources which say it is "just a pejorative". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * re: " it's just not a form of feminism" - The article does not say that it is a "form of feminism". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * re: "a pejorative for perceived trends in feminism." - Yes this is an article about a trend in feminism. Please suggest a neutral term and the correct vote would be "RENAME". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * re: "This is a common criticism We cover versions of it in articles on antifeminism, postfeminism, and elsewhere" - You say it. In this case, while the article is small, the valid option would be  "MERGE/REDIRECT". However since you say it is spread over several articles, in order to prevent content forking a separate article makes sense. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Concluding: While I agree it is not "speedy", I believe your arguments do not convincingly speak for deletion. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I plan to respond to this, but I'm going to hold off for a little while until others have a chance to weigh in. I don't want to create a prohibitive wall of text just a couple hours after nomination. :) &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to all your other work in wikipedia, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that your preexisting opinion played a dirty trick on you preventing you from doing solid research. As I mentioned, I have zero expertise in feminism. Now look at the article now. Are you still claiming that it fails WP:GNG? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All you've done is expand on what we already know about it. According to our article as even you have written it, it is a term more or less championed by a single author (Wolf -- to such an extent that it seems like this could just be moved to an article about Fire With Fire) that "lumps together diverse and radically different feminist schools" (i.e. things we already cover). The various dimensions of the critique you've described are covered elsewhere to the extent they need to be. I know you've contest that above, and I haven't responded with a great level of detail yet, but if you've looked for yourself I suspect my pointing to them will not convince you. FWIW I don't think I'd oppose using some of this material to start an article about Wolf's book, which may well be notable. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * re: "various dimensions of the critique you've described are covered elsewhere" - critique of what? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * re: "All you've done is expand on what we already know about it." - I am utterly baffled: You know about it, I know about it, the term is abuzz, Fire with Fire (Naomi Wolf book) is a perfect redirect/rename target (or at least a section in "Naomi Wolf"), yet you want to delete it. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. There are no people or groups that identify as victim feminists. Anyone who is referred to as a "victim feminist" actually identifies with some other label of feminism that we already have an article for (radical feminism, gender feminism, etc.). I don't think this term by itself is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article, as only one source (Raven 1994) actually discusses it as a term (rather than simply being an example of someone using the term), and it only has 3 sentences about it. That doesn't meet WP:GNG. Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually added one more ref, a 2014 book which dwells on the term for several pages. That's why I concluded it is reasonably notable. It looks like I have to waste more of my time to salvage the article. I completely fail to see why the term is derogatory. It is no more derogatory than "individualist feminism", but may be it is because English is not my mother tongue. In any case the proper solution would be to merge/redirect to Naomi Wolf  as it is recognized to be part of her notable philosophy . Staszek Lem (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I could get behind a merge redirect. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I must insist that you are just wrong about this. "Victim feminism" is 100% pejorative. It is not in any way similar to "individualist feminism". There are feminists who identify as individualist feminists, but no feminists that identify as victim feminists. It is only used in the context of criticism. I really don't understand why you are insisting that it is not pejorative. You seem to be misleading everyone involved in this discussion. Kaldari (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please avoid personal attacks. You are entitled to your opinion and you failed to provide convincing arguments. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see sufficient notability to keep a purely pejorative synonym. Not a dictionary etc. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The article clearly shows it is not a pejorative and it is widely discussed. And what the heck with dictionary. Did you read the article at all? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Victim feminism" is always used as a pejorative, even if it's a subtle pejorative (like "anti-choice movement"). There are no feminists that identify as "victim feminists", just as there are no activists that identify as "anti-choice". Kaldari (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion. There are no feminists which identify themselves as "power feminists" either. It appears you are conflating the concepts of "pejorative" and "negative trait". Negative trait is not necessarily pejorative. For example, "slow runner" is not inherently pejorative, it is no insult to be unable to run fast. However in some circumstances it may be an insult. Just the same, there were times where women were indeed 100% victims of male domination. And in some countries they still are. However in modern democratic societies women (at least formally) have full rights. And the focus of modern feminism, in opinion of some, should be shifted to the enablement of these rights. That's the idea of "victim vs. power" theory. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. As an academic term at the heart of a long standing debate over what feminism should stand for, it definitely passes the WP:GNG. Would oppose merge, because the idea is not limited to Wolf, but is tied to many other thinkers in the field. Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Natasha Walter, Katie Roiphe, and Rene Denfeld are listed alongisde Wolf in a non-exhaustive list in this chapter from an entire academic book studying victim feminism. Just because a term is sometimes used as a pejorative in certain forums does not mean that there cannot be an an article on the subject. A Google Scholar search gives 900 results, many from the last decade, which could be a start point for someone better versed in feminism to contribute to the article. Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails GNG. It's definitely not an academic term. <b style="color:indigo;">PermStrump</b> (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It cannot fail GNG simply because whole books and chapters in books discuss/criticize the concept in depth. And "not an academic term" - what is this supposed to mean? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - Redirect may be more appropriate. Looks to have too much attribution currently. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep/merge. Even when nominated, the article showed sufficient mention in what we would generally accept as reliable sources to be a plausible search term - and as the article currently stands, there is some clear notability. However, what we are clearly looking at is a (probably deliberately) provocative critique by some third-wave feminists of what they saw as failings of second-wave feminism, and this would probably be better dealt with as part of a more general article on differences between the two waves. PWilkinson (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge are very different outcomes. Which do you think would be better? Also, which article(s) do you think it should be merged with? Kaldari (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The term may have been invented as a pejorative term for some branches of feminism, but even that fact might well be worth having an article about. Sources such as this, this, this, and this would suggest that the term is notable. One might make an argument that the content should be merged into some better target, but I'm not seeing an obvious target, since it is clearly used for multiple branches of feminism. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It was not invented as a pejorative. It was invented as a descriptive term to categorize "obsolete" vs "modern", as shift from the focus of woman being nothing but a victim (which indeed was, for a long time) to a strong woman. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Staszek Lem, Maybe it was invented as a pejorative term and maybe it wasn't; the point I am making is that its pejorativeness is irrelevant. It has substantial coverage, and therefore requires an article, unless a good merge target can be found. You and I are in agreement on this, I think. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing "use" with "coverage". For example, there are thousands of websites and books that use the term "anti-choice movement", but Wikipedia doesn't have an article for that term. In order for Wikipedia to have articles about terms rather than concepts, the term must have coverage as a term, not simply use. The actual concepts represented by "victim feminism" are already covered on Wikipedia under more neutrally titled articles such as gender feminism and radical feminism. Kaldari (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Kaldari, I am aware of the distinction. The sources I provide do not merely use it; they are also discussing the history of its use, and the implications of its use. A lot of this takes the form of coverage of Wolf's use of the term; but as long as that is sufficiently detailed (which I believe it is), then we need to give that the space it is due. This might take the form of an article, or a section of an article; I am !voting "keep" because I am still convinced that it appears to be a term applied to multiple facets of feminism. If, as User:Rhododendrites suggested, the article were transformed into an article about the book/scholarly work that started this entire debate, I would be okay with that, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Those who insist the term to be a pejorative, please keep in mind this is a judgement, not a fact of nature. Therefore if there are opinions of this term as pejorative, you must provide an attribution of this opinion from a reliable source. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Google scholar gives 909 hits to articles which use this term and first two page search results show that the concept is discussed in its essence, not just name calling. Therefore those who maintain that this is just a pejorative dicdef just didn't do their homework: the concept fully satisfies WP:GNG. Even if it is perceived as a pejorative, it is not a valid argument against the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I find myself concerned that your addition of 'sources' to the article falsely attributes material to them that does not exist in the source material. For example, here you write about Schneider criticising the 'victimhood vs. agency' narrative. What you fail to include from the source is that this was not in the context of the label "victim feminism". Indeed, when Schneider discusses "victim feminism" it is to criticise the label, and is unrelated to what you included in the article. I don't believe the sources you give would, on thorough reading (as with the Schneider one) reflect any notable coverage of "victim feminism" as anything but a pejorative label. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And I find myself concerned with falsely accusing me of doing something wrong. I cited exactly from the article I cited, bordering on plagiarism. And yes she criticized the concept (but not the "label", as you put it), and this exactly what I wrote in the article. And countering your accusation in WP:SYNTH, Schneider directly discusses Wolf and Roiphe, so her article is directly relevant. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And once again, all sources cited criticize the concept being wrong, and not the term being pejorative. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Which...is pretty much the definition of pejorative. The term is introduced precisely to express disapproval. This is a bit of a "it's not dirty; it's unwashed" argument. Timothy Joseph Wood  01:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I prefer to split really thick hairs for "disapproval" vs. "disparagement", between "criticism" and "badmouthing", between "strong presidential power" and "dictatorship", etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * pe·jo·ra·tive /pəˈjôrədiv/ adjective 1. expressing contempt or disapproval.
 * I'm not trying to argue semantics. That's...what the word means. I'm also not making a euphemistic argument (re: badmouthing and strong presidential power). It's...what the word means. Timothy Joseph Wood  20:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - "Victim feminism" is not a novel concept, but a catchy reductionist slogan used only by certain critics to simplify and/or dismiss otherwise complex issues that run through many strains of feminist thought (concepts that we already cover in articles linked above). It typically appears in quotes because academics/writers often go for easy quotes in current literature -- touchstones, flashpoints, or otherwise ways in to talk about the bigger subjects. That they're talking about the concept of victimization in feminism and refer to Wolf's "victim feminism" does not mean "victim feminism" is a unique concept -- it means it's one of many ways people have talked about this central concept, and in a tantalizing pejorative (or reductive) gloss. It's not a new idea, it's a package for existing ideas. That's why we have WP:NOPAGE and WP:NEO -- because at best it merits a paragraph in an existing article. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 15:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it is not a novel concept, and yes, it is a "catchy slogan", but the topic is real that's why I suggested to rename the article to a descriptive title, see Talk:Victim feminism. The fact that "we already cover" something is not a valid reason to write a separate page, if there is enough text: WIkipedia is not paper.  Staszek Lem (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia not being paper is not justification for having separate articles for subjects that we acknowledge are not novel concepts and which are already covered elsewhere. Why is this not a clear-cut closure as not-keep (merge/redirect/delete)? &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 17:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rhododendrites, I would agree with you that if a non-novel concept has been covered elsewhere, then this content should be merged (if necessary) and redirected there. However, no meaningful target for such a merge/redirect has been suggested; and the term has received sufficient coverage that we cannot simply delete this and leave it a redlink. So, do you have a good target in mind for a redirect? I am not seeing such. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Postfeminism seems the most likely target. It's one of the -isms to which this concept, as well as Wolf herself, is closely tied. There's also an argument for using this content to start Fire With Fire: The new Female Power and How to Use It. The term is, for all practical purposes, Wolf's, and I believe it was that book that she coined it. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 18:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You have to provide reliable sources which state taht this controversy belongs to postfeminism . Also, it turns out that this controversy is not started with Fire with Fire; the book only coined the term. Therefor in article talk page I made a suggestion about article renaming. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, you keep repeating it is covered somewhere else. Sorry, I don't find adequate coverage of the current article content anywhere in pages mentioned here. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Keep (sortof) This discussion has gone on long enough that the article has substantially changed, and sources have come out of the woodwork. There probably needs some additional prose and formatting to make it read more like an article rather than a collection of sources.

I wonder it it might not be appropriate to move the article to something like Victim vs. power feminism and make the article about the dichotomy. Power feminism already redirects. Based on the article as it stands, it does seem to be an inherent dichotomy, and it seems odd to redirect yin to yang and just have an article on yang. Timothy Joseph Wood 13:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.