Category talk:Feminist writers

Additions

Cherry Muhanji should be on the link of Feminist Writers linked to Angela Davis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.200.237.67 (talk • contribs)

Shahrnush Parsipur of Iran should be added,too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.200.237.67 (talk • contribs)

Mary Astell should be linked from her too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.200.237.67 (talk • contribs)

Question

Are there any male feminist writers out there? If so they do not seem to be represented on this list. Thanks. --Cdogsimmons 22:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem: all women are not feminists, and all (pro-)feminists are not women. There are certainly pro-feminist texts written by men which should go on the list of feminist works. John Stuart Mill's; arguably Daniel Defoe's writing on female education. Others. In order for a writer to count as a feminist writer -- leaving aside the contentious question of whether men should be called feminists or pro-feminists -- I, at least, would argue that they would have to identify women's issues, in one way or another, as central to their work. So women writers that didn't engage with women's issues in their own time but in whom critics have now discovered feminist tendencies, for example, wouldn't fit the bill. If the list were restricted to writers who acknowledged or demonstrated a central interest in some woman-centred form of gender analysis, that would probably be best. My two cents; if this issue has been recently discussed, I missed it. — scribblingwoman 23:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. That seems like a pretty good definition, although maybe "central to their work" should be clarified in order to distinguish between writers who write mostly about feminism and writers who happen to be feminists who may have some feminist themes in their work. The page talks about "writers who publish books, articles, etc., on themes relating to feminism and gender politics." What does relating mean? We should probably have a solid definition. --Cdogsimmons 03:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I redrafted it to read: "This category is for writers for whom women's issues or some woman-centred form of gender analysis are acknowledged or demonstrated to be central to a significant proportion of their work." More accurate, perhaps, but a little clunky. I hope someone will think of a way to smooth it out a little while still retaining the main ideas: "woman-centred" rather than "feminist," as the latter is a relatively recent concept but writers have for ages been interested in women's issues; the idea that the feminist elements are conscious and purposeful; the idea that gender analysis is a significant preoccupation. — scribblingwoman 13:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How about: "This category is for writers, the majority of whose work is centered on, or in significant relation to, the major themes of the social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies known as Feminism." It's pretty close to how wikipedia defines Feminism. --Cdogsimmons 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would quibble with "the majority of whose work" as too prescriptive. Otherwise, sounds fine. The phrase "in significant relation to" gives some room, I think, for the inclusion of writers who pre-dated feminism per se. — scribblingwoman 01:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What about John Irving (although he would probably chafe at this or any other categorization)? Certainly he wrestles with feminist themes and presents the polemics of same in most, if not all, of his novels.Carlaclaws (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)