Talk:Equity and gender feminism

Mainstream

Resolved

 – Just someone's self-conversation.

I think it's horribly problematic to refer to non-CHS style feminism as mainstream, as I also explained on the CHS talk page. Even if we could come up with a good definition of mainstream and figure out what varieties of feminism are really "mainstream," CHS specifically calls equity feminism "mainstream." If it seems important to you, I can find a citation for that. So even if labelling one of competing views as mainstream isn't inherently POV, in this case it comes down to taking sides in an ongoing debate that should be being represented somewhat objectively in this article. So I added the qualification "academic" before feminist theory, since she has a thing about academics being gender-oriented, so it would still be considered mainstream within academia, according to CHS, I think.

My use of "popular" before feminist movement may be wrong. I like the use of feminist movement over feminism, but I think adding the qualifier popular makes it sound more about beliefs of groups than a kind of objective feminism. But I'm not attached to the word if somebody thinks it's ill-chosen. NickelShoe 19:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is better. I went back to mainstream feminist theory and feminist movement, because I think CHS would agree she's out of the mainstream there, but added a sentence about how she considers herself in the mainstream for the general female population of the US. Hopefully better? NickelShoe 17:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

List of "equity feminists"

Unresolved

 – Accuracy dispute is not really settled, just swept under the rug.

Is this list accurate? Can someone show sources or links which show those women listed using "equity feminism" to describe their own kind of gender politics? I know Cathy Young, Camille Paglia, Wendy McElroy and Hoff-Sommers identify themselves as equity feminists, but Wendy Kaminer, for instance, who is listed as an "equity feminist", does not. In fact, Kaminer has made fun of dichotomy between "equity feminism"/"gender feminism" and expressed profoundly negative views and criticism about some of the above-mentioned names.[1] Because of that, I'm going to remove her name of the list and suggest that those who can provide the links demonstrating that those ladies identify themselves as equity feminists, please do it. 201.50.205.28 07:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The list comes from a discussion of equity feminism vs gender feminism by steven pinker. Most of them are accurate, even if this one isnt.--Urthogie 15:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't resolve the problem, though. Just because we can cite Pinker as a source for a list, doesn't mean the list is encyclopedically valuable, when someone like 201...28 above can easily prove that it is inaccurate. I would suggest encyclopedifizing what is said about Kaminer (source and all) above and actually put that in the article, with a note that not everyone agrees with Pinker's list. Either that or the list needs to be removed. Simply lopping Kaminer out of the list is a falsification of the cited source! — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion (2007)

Resolved

 – Merger took place; split proposed in 2011 in new thread.

Merger proposal

Resolved

 – Merger took place in 2007.

At the moment I can't find very much on Equity feminism. There are discussions of Hoff Sommers's term and some that use it to describe groups of feminists but is it enough to warant its own article. I feel this would be better in the Christina Hoff Sommers article. This is still really a neologism - I'm saying that knowing the term is used in academia and feminist writings but I'm weighing that against the amount of notability it has - for the moment it could go quite happily into the Hoff Sommers page. Does anyone have any views?
BTW I'm the one who merged gender feminism there for similar reasons (but that term has less academic writing about it than Equity feminism has)

This is a list of notes on it in books & articles:

1. a mention on page in the intro to Third Wave Agenda: Being Feminist, Doing Feminism - explaining that this is a definition coined by CHS
2. The book Gender vs. Equity Feminism (found in a google scholar search)
3. Jstor article about Feminism and the European Community [2]
4. An article mentioning that its a CHS term by Z magazine [3] (not really a WP:RS)
5. A review of Who Stole Feminism (critical of CHS) on Jstor [4]

--Cailil ^talk 19:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, NO merger... I googled "equity feminism" to understand a letter to the editor on Salon.com... I got a nice article on "Equity Feminism" here on Wikipedia. It answered my questions and offered ways to go on from here. I would not have liked to be steered to a CHS article... It is notable enough so that I needed to look it up. People are using the jargon and it deserves a life/entry of its own at this point I'd say... Thanks, Emyth 18:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Emyth. As I see it there are only two options for the article - either it gets expanded using reliable sources or it gets merged into Christina Hoff Sommers. As far as I can find in my trawl through a number of academic sources the term is inextricable from Christina Hoff Sommers. She coined it. She defined it. Its her neologism, and it is (at least in the references I've found) used with constant reference to her. So unless Equity feminism has a number of sources that show it is notable enough for its own article - it may need to be merged. Thanks again for your comments Emyth - if you can help improve this article in any way it'd be great--Cailil ^talk 19:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Scholar.Google yields enough fodder to suggest that "equity feminism" is being used as proper jargon, a "term of art" so to speak in feminist dialog. I repeat that I needed to know what it meant and turned to our Wikipedia for help... An article on Christina Hoff Sommers would NOT have been a satisfactory answer to my question. I suggest that it doesn't matter if it is a "neo-logism"...I still needed a proper definition/explication for it in order to pursue my intellectual course. Yes, CHS should be mentioned in the article, but we don't merge The Declaration of Independence with Thos. Jefferson just because he wrote it, do we? Yet we could equally say that they are "inextricable"... Other scholars are using the term... It has a life of its own now. Emyth 23:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Emyth, I see your point, but I am yet to see a reliable source that uses either "Gender feminism" or "Equity feminism" without referencing and explaining Sommers' use of the terms. If you are interested the merger proposal has changed. We are now considering merging gender feminism and equity feminism into one article (see below)--Cailil ^talk 23:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Split: Gender feminism should be placed on a different page

Resolved

 – Discussion mooted by merger in 2007.

this is a bio page for hoff sommers, gender feminism is a theory that stands on its own merits. Gender feminism encapsulates the concept of feminist movement for the benefit of one gender, and there is no other term for this. The word misandry does not describe a movement. Equity feminism and gender feminism are dual concepts, and the dual page for equity feminism should be present. IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.206.246 (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC) perhaps gender feminism and equity feminism could be on one page as they are dual terms that describe the before and after picture of the transition in feminism described by Tammy Bruce Hoff Sommers and others. 70.112.206.246 00:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is 70.112.206.246 that the terms are not movements like Marxist feminism or ecofeminism are. They are constructions defined and coined by Hoff Sommers. when used they are used with reference to Hoff Sommers. So far as I can see nobody is going around calling themselves a 'gender feminist' - CHS and people quoting her call other feminists gender feminists. I can't establish using reliable sources how either of these terms are notable enough for their own articles yet. The terms may become more notable over time but as it stands the notability of these terms is still bound-up with Hoff Sommers--Cailil ^talk 14:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would a page for a term have to be related to a movement? Surely that is not a Wiki rules, :-), as there seem to be a lot of exceptional entries already. To see many uses of the term 'gender feminism' without mention of Sommers go to altavista and type in advanced search for gender feminism, and exclude the word sommers. You will find the term is in common use on its own accord, in many discussions that are not reviews of Hoff Sommers work, nor for that matter even mention Hoff Sommers. (I suggest altavista instead of google in this case, as google matches phrases with embedded punctuation). Gee, and at least a copule of these results are from Wikipedia pages! Also check out http://sillyseattle.blogspot.com/2005/03/equity-vs-gender-feminism.html which is a colloqual debate of gender versus equity feminism (a link to a sommers related site is given in this article). http://open-encyclopedia.com/Feminism mentions gender feminism as a subtype of feminism with no mention of sommers. A similar excercise could be undertaken for equity feminism. Nope, the geni is out of the bottle, and it makes sense to have a page for these terms. Though I think gender feminism and equity feminism should be on the same page together. Dimitrisdad 21:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources Dimitrisdad. Blogs aren't reliable sources - see WP:RS. In all the reliable sources I can find both gender feminism and equity feminism are mentioned with reference to Sommers. BTW open-encyclopedia like Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

To answer your question "Why would a term have to be related to a movement": this isn't actually my point. The issue for me is that equity and gender freminism are "are constructions defined and coined by Hoff Sommers" Sommers is partly notable for coining these terms, these terms are notable because she coined them. The existence of these terms is bound-up with her - just like Isaac Newton and his laws of motion.

Let me be clear, I'm not opposed to there ever being separate equity and gender feminism articles. It's my position that when there is enough notable coverage in reliable sources and when this is added to WP then the Equity feminism and Gender feminism articles can be reopened. This is about bringing articles into line with 2 policies WP:BLP (ie why is Sommers notable) and summary style. This is the situation with Isaac Newton and his laws of motion. When the section has enough coverage it deserves gets its own article but when it lacks significant coverage (or until reliable sources examine the term independent of its originator) it remains a section (see the guide to writing better articles).--Cailil ^talk 21:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading over this last reply above and trying to pull out the parts I can 'grock' and can not. The can not's are probably easier. The Newton and laws of motion example is perhaps a worth while analogy. Newton like Hoff Sommers was a researcher. The four laws of motion is part of the fruit of Newton's research, like Hoff Sommer's theory of a Freire like supremacy transition in feminism. In both cases the researchers were not alone in their observations or even attempts at formalizations, but perhaps gave the most cogent descriptions. However, the conclusion that the laws of motion are only discussed in biographies on Newton is simply false. It is much more common for the laws of motion to be discussed in texts on physics, and for biographies to not go very deep into math and physics. Most biographies and overviews of work do not assume that the reader has mastered the works of the subject. If we were to follow this analogy, gender feminism and equity feminism would be discussed on one page, and that page would provide a reference note to back to the Hoff Sommer's page, and vice versa. On point about the “blog”, and wiki page notes were not intended to be a formal literature citings, but rather to show what is in common usage. As you can see there are many. Earlier post gave me the impression that usage of the terms outside the context of discussion Hoff Sommers was a salient point in making a decision about whether the terms should have their own page. The metric of common usage is not an unusual one given the nature of Wiki, and indeed in a country that does not have formal language review board, so I wasn't surprised that it be suggested. However, among the altavista results were formal citing. I also highly disagree with your point in the last reply that the terms “equity feminism” and “gender feminism” are only notable because Hoff Sommer's coined them. There is a vibrant cultural debate going on about feminism having gone too far. These terms are important because they encapsulate this debate. You might note, one competing term for “gender feminist” is for example “femi-nazi”. There may be another principal at work here. As another principal, there is a metric in academia for determining if a person's work was important, and that metric is if others are using the work. By making the argument that central thesis of “Who Stole Feminism” - one of feminism transitioning from “Equity Feminism” to “Gender Feminism” - can't stand on its own, but rather is only associated with Hoff Sommers, and has gone no further, you are essentially making the argument that the thesis is unimportant (intended or not). I.e. not being used by others. That is poppycock. Dimitrisdad 21:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dimitrisdad, whether or not you agree with me please refrain from incivility. There is really a very simple test for your points. reliable sources. My point is simple. I can't find any sources that use these terms without explaining them through Sommers. That doesn't mean there aren't any - if you can find any please post them. Again let me restate that I'm not opposed to there ever being separate articles for Gender feminism and equity feminism but at the moment there just isn't enough coverage of them to warrant it. If that coverage comes in the future then their own articles could be reopened--Cailil ^talk 21:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

some comments stricken, see my suggestion below--User:Cailil, 00:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

For clarity I should respond to two points.
1)"I also highly disagree with your point in the last reply that the terms “equity feminism” and “gender feminism” are only notable because Hoff Sommers' coined them" - this is not my contention. They are partly notable because she coined them, just as she is partly notable for coining them.
2) your response to my Newton analogy is accurate. I'm making a point about the structure of wikipedia articles and categories - which is perhaps a bit esoteric for a new user. Have a look at WP:SUMMARY for a good explanation of how articles and categories are structured on wikipedia.

Another note: in response to "By making the argument that central thesis of “Who Stole Feminism” - one of feminism transitioning from “Equity Feminism” to “Gender Feminism” - can't stand on its own, but rather is only associated with Hoff Sommers, and has gone no further, you are essentially making the argument that the thesis is unimportant" - I'm not actually saying this. What I'm saying is that I have not found reliable sources discussing these terms independent of Sommers. Its a wikipedia policy issue. There needs to be notability for a topic - I'm not claiming these terms are non-notable, rather that their notability is still growing.

If we are deadlocked on this Dimitrisdad, and I respect your position, we could go ahead with your suggestion and merge gender feminism and equity feminism into one article. If we did that what would you suggest we call such an article? There are other options such as merging them into an article on Who stole feminism? but I do think an article for the terms themselves would be preferable to this--Cailil ^talk 21:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What to call such an article... I have been trying to find some time to put more thought into this question, and perhaps if the article could be improved. Let me think out loud a bit. The thesis of transition in feminism is not unique to Hoff Sommers, rather she just wrote one of the more articulate and outspoken pieces on the subject. Tammy Bruce of course wrote “The New Thought Police”, making the argument that feminism has been usurped by those with political views that are independent of an equity feminist, first wave feminist, view. Then there is the first wave / second wave feminism terms due to, can't remember at the moment. Even Gary Trudeau in Doonesbury noted the feminist movement has come to fruition. As he points out in his strip, the younger generation just isn't that interested. That right wing entertainer who likes to incite emotional and personal critiques, who's name is unspeakable by civil writers, coined the repugnant term “femi-nazi”. Of course, SCUM is an old militant group that has always angrily come out against men and whose adherents seem to desire to deserve the unspeakable person's term for them. Then there is the watered down version in Naomi Wolfe Fire with Fire, with her call for a transition to Power Feminism modeled upon the Malcom X's Black Power movement. She makes the thesis that it is time to change. Personally I shutter at the philosophical twist in that one. Muslims are not exactly known for a keen sense of feminist ideals – but she wrote it all the same, and people bought it with four editions printed. .. It seems that the transition has more to do with knowing when enough is enough rather than any particular plank. Actually, though, this is all old political science theory stuff, with Paulo Freire having outlined the trends of a struggle becoming a supremacist movement a long time ago. The personalities that are good at organizing and inciting action often do not react appropriately as a movement becomes successful. The goal of an equal rights movement should be for the need for the movement, and the movement itself to disappear [Freire]. Perhaps what would be interesting is a page that talks about transition theories in feminism in general. It seems that all camps of feminists appear to say that something has happened. This might take some research and thought to come up with an article. Perhaps a name would be something like, “Transition Theories in Modern Feminism” that would mention Freire, describe first wave and second wave feminism as well as equity and gender feminism, and might throw in a list of changing challenges, changing goals, and changing frontiers, as feminist view them. Though there have been changes in the West, this isn't the case world wide. Perhaps these thoughts will crystallize into an outline, though I'm a little apprehensive about putting too much time into this if there is no chance it will end up as a wiki page. Other titles, “Phases in Feminism”, “The Evolution of Feminism”. Hmm, that last one has the nicest ring I think. Dimitrisdad 19:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(out dent) While interesting, that would be replicating History of feminism which is looking at the history and development of feminism, and multiple views on it. Putting notes about them into that article would be a good idea but I think something more specific needs to be done for Equity and gender feminism. A temporary solution would be to merge Gender feminism here. The page could be renamed at a later date. What do you think?
Just on a matter of site policy, while I do appreciate the explication of your thoughts Dimitrisdad, there are elements to your comments which are soapboxing. Comments like: "Muslims are not exactly known for a keen sense of feminist ideals – but she wrote it all the same, and people bought it with four editions printed" aren't acceptable on wikipedia - see WP:TALK--Cailil ^talk 22:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC) A further note: What about a merger to Individualist feminism?--Cailil ^talk 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cailil, I think you are right in that what we are describing here is the same that is described in the history of feminism page when it describes 'first wave' 'second wave' and 'third wave'. 'Third wave' was not very well defined, and that page doesn't attribute the terms to their author, it should. Indeed 'third wave' is not very well defined among feminists. Clearly Naomi Wolf with the proposal for Power Feminism, McElroy's individual feminism, and Hoff Sommers observation of gender feminism, Tammy Bruce's observation about Thought police, and popular complaints of an emerging misandry movement in feminism by men's movements and certain popular right wing commentators are explanations/interpretations of what 'third wave' feminism is. It seems they should properly be mentioned in the history of feminism in modern times, where clearly the movement is struggling to reinvent itself with many voices contributing to what this reinvention should be. If it doesn't go into the history of feminism, then we instill the interpretation that there is a "mainstream" feminism that is described in your plain old feminist history page, and a "feminist counter culture" which is not in the mainstream, and then you put all the terms and interpretations of this so called third wave by McElroy, Bruce, Sommers, et al. on that page. But what neutral metric would one use to determine what is mainstream and what is not? (Who wrote that book which claims that the most sexist group is in fact women? .. it seems like a really bad idea to open such a debate.) How about a feminist history page that goes through all the usual stuff, and then introduces the theories of historical analysis at the end. IMHO that is the proper place for both the 'waves' and 'equity/gender' 'unification/supremacy'(general political). Another concept would be to have a separate page for such a section, "Modern Interpretations" perhaps. Dimitrisdad 00:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I like what you're syaing about putting the historical frames at the end of History of feminism. But due weigh needs to be given to the more widely used/accepted terminology. Books about the history of feminism don't include what you're calling "equity/gender' 'unification/supremacy" yet. A section explicating and wikilinking to the views about them would be fine for that article though (see the way I structured the section on postmodern feminism for an example of what I mean). The way Wikipedia judges the mainstream is reliable sources - the mainstream is where the most academic sources have a consensus. There are at least 3 seperate issues with what we've been talking about. 1) is Equity feminism and gender feminism as terms, 2) is feminist history and 3) is the mainstream. I'd like to resolve the first issue first. If you agree I think we should move the section on gender feminism from Christina Hoff Sommers to here and write a short lead paragraph explaining both and where they came from.

The feminist history page is a massive problem, for different reasons - mainly its scope and lack of proper referencing. But that I think is an issue for the wider clean-up of category feminism that I'm trying to do. (the problem being that many articles have duplicated the same work and so they need to be laboriously brought into line with WP:SUMMARY)

The issue of the mainstream is really site policy but I would also just remark that for example Sommer's terms, gender and equity feminism, are not used in Europe - I don't think her analysis extended to Europe either - so it is very difficult to use a term that has meaning in a specific setting (North America) and then apply it as a mainstream of a global movement.--Cailil ^talk 13:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I had a thought over breakfast this morning (spare cycles dedicated to wiki ;-) I think a page of "feminism is today" or a variation on that would work well. This would document the views of various pundits and would be leaders on status and direction. On such a page there could be a first point on third wave feminism and what the 'mainstream' ;-) is talking about, a second point perhaps on ifeminism, a third point on CHS, a fourth point on perhaps on Tammy Bruce. I think it would not be complete if it did not also talk about the movement's concentration on the third world. Others could document their icons of significant following by adding to the list. This said, I am not opposed to your suggestion above, i.e. moving gender feminism to here and having a lead paragraph. Your comments about Europe are interesting and I was having some parallel thoughts about feminism in France, and other parts of Europe, which has always had a different character than in North America. This also reminds me of South America countries, and Indian, both of which have had female presidents. The former being very interesting in the context of machismo. I recall some of the statements by Thatcher on feminism .. but I digress and wouldn't want to be accused of soap boxing or the like;-) The point being it also looks like to me that there is much opportunity for authors outside the U.S. to contribute that history page, and to and to a 'feminism today' page. Dimitrisdad 15:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to dismiss your idea because I think its good and I think I know a space where it would fit in with WP policy. While an article on what you're saying would be original research by synthesis including something like this in History of feminism and in the section called contemporary_feminism in the Feminism article would be a good place for this--Cailil ^talk 00:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that sounds like an agreement. Perhaps you could clarify your comment about original synthesis? Suppose there was an article called 'Contemporary Feminists Theories', and under that article it had sections, “Third Wave Feminism” listed come sitings and gave a summary, “Power Feminism” listed some citings perhaps provided quotes from Wofe, “iFeminsm”, “Gender Feminism”, “Thought Policing” (former NOW president's Tammy Bruce's book). How is this original synthesis? “The Third Wold Challenge” “Anti feminism” (the current Hoff Sommers article references this already) .. there are probably a half dozen more. Certainly these are Contemporary Theories so we can't be drawing that conclusion. What is being synthesized here? There is a complaint that the history of feminism page is too long already. Also, it is not necessarily appropriate to call contemporary views history, as there has not yet been an academic filtering process applies to them relative to their importance in affecting thought. What would be original synthesis would be leaving out a significant contemporary theory on the grounds that it is not mainstream. About your meter stick for mainstream above, I would have to take some issue. A standard reference is, for example, mainstream, though it has only one citation. Not all citations are equal. There would have to be some weighting applied.Dimitrisdad 19:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) On the mainstream weighting - have a look at WP:UNDUE - this is the policy which covers what I'm talking about. To clarify my point about synthesis while I agree that these are contemporary feminist approaches it is considered original research to link ideas that have not already been linked in a notable reliable source. This would make an article for this idea problematic from a policy point of view, whereas if written carefully a section in Feminism or the History of feminism would be okay. I wouldn't have the same objection to putting this into History of feminism that you do. History can mean the story of as much as it can mean the past--Cailil ^talk 20:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Ok, then put it in the history of page, FYI here is a citing to the use of 'Gender Feminism' that is not linked to specifically to Sommers and is used in the title of McElroy's book: Sexual Correctness: The Gender-Feminist Attack on Women Dimitrisdad 22:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merged

Resolved

 – Just an FYI.

Just a note to say that Gender feminism has been merged to this page. I recommend that this article's title be changed to Equity and Gender Feminism since that's what's covering now.--Cailil ^talk 18:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Doing so now... -Pfhorrest (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Equity feminism as a subset of individualist feminism

It seems that equity feminism is a subset of individualist feminism. Perhaps this article should be merged with the one on individualist feminism.77.49.164.222 (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The other way around, I would think, and this "article" (stub, really) probably overstates the individualist nature of equity feminism and the mass nature of gender feminism (I don't see it citing sources for either of those points). Or there is more likely more than one axis by why to interpret feminist theory; there does not have to be a duality here. At any rate, the defining aspect of equity feminism is equity, not individualism. If e.f. is to be seen as a branch of some larger brand of feminism it has to be liberal feminism, of which individualist feminism is largely a subset (though again, I don't see it as necessary to create a two-forked genealogical/evolutionary tree here - i.f. is liberal, in the original sense mostly replaced with "libertarian", but i.f.'s defining characteristic is its non-group, pro-individual focus, not its anti-authoritarianism and use of the "patriarchal" legal system against itself for social justice, the hallmark of l.f. more broadly. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Develop and split; extant stubby article is a exceedingly biased

This "A vs. B" article, barely more than a stub, was obviously written by equity feminists (mostly User:NickelShoe from what I can tell). It presents equity feminism in summary, as if everyone already knows all about it and most people agree with its positions, then otherwise consists of a laundry list of attacks on gender feminism, with no counterpoint material against e.f. or in favor of g.f. from g.f. writers. Other problems with it are that it is a "vs." article for two (alleged) ideologies with no articles of their own, which is highly inappropriate, unless the labels put in opposition in this piece are 100% academic and are not used by anyone in the real world as self-identifiers, And if this is the case, this article is an AfD candidate, per WP:NFT, WP:N, WP:NEO - we do not need articles on every term academics have ever invented to illustrate their own positions. If these are real philosophies of feminism, and not just labels for argument's sake between a handful of professors publishing in poli-sci journals, they each should have its own well-balanced article. The current one is a travesty. I am actually (to use this article's terms) very firmly in the equity feminism camp and sick to death of pseudo-scientific gender feminist assumptions, but I have to call it as it is. As of this writing, this article isn't an encyclopedia article, it's just a marginally multi-party opinion piece. A further problem is that it does not represent a global view, but only U.S. concerns, parties, publications, institutions. If these terms are only broadly used (assuming they are broadly used at all - see AfD note above) in U.S.-centric discourse, a note to that effect should be sourced and added. If so, are there European, etc., equivalents? Is the debate just completely different outside the U.S.? Etc. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

As this book was published in the mid-1990s, and got a lot of press coverage, and "equity feminism" is also covered in the peer-reviewed and expert-written "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" [5] I cannot agree that this article is just using a made-up neologism. The term was indeed coined by Christine Hoff Somers in the mid-1990s, but has since gone into general use. The term "equity feminist" is now even used in "Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women"!!! Passes WP:NEO as well as WP:NFT, WP:N with flying colors I would say.

This is not to dispute the article may be somewhat biased.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I cannot agree -- you're disagreeing with a strawman. The comment you're responding to said "if this is the case" , and that conditional is critical, and primary, to understanding what the comment says. -- 98.108.195.85 (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added material to the article illustrating that the terminology has become common since Sommers published, and noting that Gloria Steinem disputed the distinction. Clearly the article does NOT violate WP:NEO in any way. Could use some expansion to get a more balanced view of the matter.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:NEO was a side, "if" argument, as 98.108.195.85 already pointed out. No other problem identified above has been rectified. This still needs to be split into separate articles on these distinct branches of feminism, each treated as it's own philosophy; not an article on equity feminism that treats gender feminism as just some contrarian position. It's troubling that over three years have passed and the article has barely improved in any way. In some ways, it even seems worse. The entire section on g.f. is tiny, and I'm almost certain that several years ago it included important information like what universities g.f. had started and spread from, who its most formative proponents were, etc. Reglardless, it's clearly something that could have a quite large and developed article, as could equity feminism. This is actually important. Gender feminism, and the application of its victimization-based thinking to other areas of sociology, is now actually totally dominant in leftist American collegiate thinking. It's almost unbelievable that it barely exists as a subtopic on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

unbalanced POV

This reads like a soapbox for CHS. If most feminists really are gender feminists, then why do they get so little say here? It's not as if there hasn't been criticism of CHS's views from those she criticizes. And it's quite amusing and, I think, revealing that gender feminists are charged with seeking preferential treatment of women in the area of pay equity. -- 98.108.195.85 (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This criticism I wholeheartedly agree with, though not with the previous criticism from the same IP address. The terms originate with CHS, and have now passed into general use, but there desperately needs to be some coverage of the history of the terminology after CS wrote her book.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is the majority of the "gender feminism" section devoted to discussing Nathanson and Young's "ideological feminism"? Although both are terms used to criticize certain strains of feminism, I don't see any evidence that they are equivalent terms. Nathanson and Young don't mention "gender feminism" at all in their book, and "ideological feminism" could just as easily be equated to radical feminism (as it is characterized as a 'religion', etc.). Regardless, it seems rather strange to have the majority of the section discussing a different term. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the section if there is some source connecting the two, but the amount of space given to it currently seems to give it undue weight. Kaldari (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has presented any evidence that these terms are considered synonymous, I went ahead and removed the "ideological feminism" discussion from the "gender feminism" section. Considering the large number of sources that actually discuss "gender feminism", it seems we could expand this section without digressing into discussion of other terms and concepts. At the very least, the section should be focused primarily on "gender feminism". Kaldari (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Lack of Information on Gender Feminism

I don't really care that the articles were merged, but there's roughly four sentences on gender feminism and the rest is equity feminism. I came to this page looking to understand what "gender feminism" is and found virtually no information. --24.61.191.94 (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That is because there is no such thing as "gender feminism", that is just a term that selfedscribed "equity feminists" have invented to described what everyone else simply calls "feminism".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Question

In the gender feminism section there is the following paragraph:

"In contrast to equity feminism, Sommers coined the term "Gender feminism" to describe what she contends is a gynocentric and misandric branch of feminism. Gender feminists typically criticize contemporary gender roles and aim to eliminate them altogether."

I'm not certain if this is me misreading it but doesn't the criticism of contemporary gender roles and the aim to eliminate of them altogether directly contradict with being gynocentric and misandric? The elimination of gender roles would bridge the gap between men and women and mean that gynocentric or misandric behaviour would be redundant. Is this a direct quote or the synthesis of two different sections of the book? How would wanting to eliminate gender roles be gynocentric and misandric? It doesn't make sense --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Gender feminism

Removed "and misandry" from the section as the term is not included on page 22 or even in its appropriate chapter --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Move to Equity feminism

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 16:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Equity and gender feminism → Equity feminism – Procedural nomination; discussion has run since June, but was not tagged as an RM and will never close until tagged as such and put into the RM discussion queue. See below for rationale from actual nominator. --Relisted. —innotata 02:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that there is no group of feminists that label themselves "gender feminists", and given that the term has been invented by Sommers to describe what everyone else just considers mainstream feminism, I think it makes more sense to have the article located at Equity feminism and then simply describe in the article that Sommers defines Equity feminism as an alternative to mainstream feminism that she calls Gender feminism.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• I second this, Equity feminism is a term which she uses herself. I would support the page move and restructuring of the article. There are no "Gender feminists" --2.221.89.130 (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• I oppose. There may be no self-identified "gender feminists", but the terms "equity feminism" and "gender feminism" are defined in juxtaposition to each other and that entire distinction, not just one side of it, is the topic of this article.

  Also, to assert that gender feminism is just "mainstream feminism" (or conversely, that all feminists are gender feminists by default unless otherwise specified) is biased against equity feminism and Sommers' position that most American women are equity feminists despite gender feminism's prevalence in academia and organized movements. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is biased. But it is the kind of bias inherent in a situation in which the viewpoint of a single scholar disagrees with a field of tens of thousands of scholars. Mainstream feminism as practiced by tens of thousands of scholars world wide either do not know of or care about or agree with Sommers research and no one but Sommers and her handful of followers. Alternatively the article could be merged into Sommers' article. But it is very much undue weight to assume Sommers' fringe viewpoint as fact by describing mainstream feminists as gender feminists in the title of the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

But the title of the article isn't describing mainstream feminists as gender feminists. It's just stating two terms, the distinction between which is the topic of the article. You are the one equating "mainstream feminism" with "gender feminism". The closest Sommers herself comes to that is in saying that what she called "gender feminism" is most prevalent in academia, but while in the same breath saying that what she calls "equity feminism" is most prevalent in the laity. Which should count as "the mainstream", academic thought or lay thought? She doesn't say, or at least the article doesn't say; it just makes a distinction and says (that she says) which is more prevalent where, without calling either one "mainstream".

If you're concerned about giving the impression that Sommers' position is widely accepted, the appropriate thing would be to add material to the article showing that the existence of any such distinction is disputed. As an article about concepts, the purpose of this article is to describe the concepts as they are put forth, and then to describe their acceptance or rejection, arguments for or against their usefulness or validity, etc. Refactoring the article to be only about one of an inherently paired set of concepts would be less informative. Adding material saying that the usefulness of the concepts is disputed would be more informative. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sommers theory is not disputed it has been ignored for the past 20 years and is not a part of any discussion about Feminism, except among a few evolutionary psychologists who use it to claim that they are feminists in spite of arguing that women are innately dependent on men. It is a gross misrepresentation of WP:FRINGE to say that it should be based on statements that there is controversy in the literature. To the contrary fringe views are identified by not being part of the mainstream discussion of the field, and there is no presence of Sommers views or of Equity feminism within contemporary feminism. That is why it is fringe.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless you are calling into question the notability of Sommers in the first place, how would something like this be verifiable? If nobody is bothering to write anything in response to her, even against her, then how can we possibly source any statement about what the reception of Sommers' work has been? And without that, we merely have your opinion to go off of; you haven't seen anyone following up on her, or not enough people, or not enough people who count, but that's all your subjective take on it. If she is notable enough for inclusion at all, but nobody has said anything opposing her, then we just say what she says, attributed to her, and leave that be. If the response to her has been silence, then our coverage of the response to her should also be silence; not editorializing that she is therefore unimportant or wrong. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose also. I don't really have much to add to Pfhorrest's excellent arguments and suggestions. If anything, Sommers' arguments point to equity feminism being the mainstream in society. I dare say there is a lack of "self-identified" war criminals (at least at the time of the crimes taking place). This is because "self-identifying" with labels almost universally accepted as negative is almost always going to be a rare thing, but that doesn't' mean those labels and the people they apply to don't exist. The arguments in favour of this move seem quite strange and it appears those in favour are either misunderstand the topic and our policies or have a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That is absurd, Sommers wrote in 1994 and since then only Evolutionary psychologist have ever mentioned equity feminism. IN academia and in the feminist movement it is nonexistent. You really have some problems understanding WP:FRINGE. The fact that a scholar claims that their fringe viewpoint is mainstream does not make it so. And labeling an entire academic field with some odd pejorative label also does not make that an actually existing category.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the accusation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is looking more and more accurate here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure WP:IDONTLIKEIT is particularly useful in these sorts of discussions. Maunus brought up some researched and explained points and you posted a template. I could easily turn it around and post WP:ILIKEIT but then where would we be? The editor who linked to WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the first place has this very article linked on their talk page, of course they like the term itself. It is a pejorative label for as aspect of Feminism, one that isn't even used in a particularly consistent way in Sommers' work. So let's focus on the article itself and not Maunus' motives --2.221.89.130 (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point, a rewrite that makes it more obvious that these terms are wholly the creation of Sommers is more useful than a rename --2.221.89.130 (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Just be sure not to bias the article in the other direction either. We can say what Sommers says, and attribute it to her rather than stating it in the article's own voice, and include any notable responses to her, including objections, but we can't in our own words (in the article's voice) just dismiss or question the significance of her work. We can only report on other people doing so. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point, it needs a rewriting but one that explains that it's a term invented by Sommers not a movement attached or even particularly affiliated with the modern Feminist movement --2.221.89.130 (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Maunus is the expert on pretending a handful of scholars are "mainstream". He is a disgusting liar. This comment was brought to you by a sock of User:Mikemikev, your friendly neighborhood neonazi nutcase. 125.129.211.237 (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Yes exactly. Maunus uses Wikipedia to "fight the Nazis" (whatever the hell that means in his mind) rather than edit facts. 211.169.83.81 (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC) You are right Mike, sorry I retract that. You obviously arent a real Nazi, the real nazis over at Metapedia kicked you out because you didnt think Jews were stupid, just evil.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC) This is just a lie you made up. 211.169.83.81 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC) "en.metapedia.org/wiki/Metapedia_talk:Community_Portal/ArchiveIII#User_Mikemikev". If its any comfort I dont think you are a zionist.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: There is no "does one camp like this label?" test at WP:AT. Whether feminists of any philosophy like it or not, the terms are used frequently and consistently enough in reliable sources to be WP:notable. I do agree that the article needs to focus on Sommers's views and what reliable sources say about them, not on trying to apply her ideas to identifiable groups, or on asserting them as true. Sommers essentially has a theory of how feminist camps operate and conflict, and it's not WP's job to attach her labels to anyone. Nor is it WP's job to take a side against the theory on the basis that some editors (who are not reliable sources) consider it fringe (fringe what? it's not science, it's a political view) or antagonistic toward well-established academic mainstream points of view. Yet the lead presently goes too far in the other direction: "Equity feminism and gender feminism are two kinds of feminism, first defined by scholar Christina Hoff Sommers" implies that there definitely are two kinds of feminism, which reliable sources in the article (e.g. Steinem) already criticize. That there are two kinds is Sommmers's proposition. Keep in mind however that the very crux of the hypothesis is that the academic feminist point of view is out of step with the everyday-life actual mainstream in feminism. There is no overwhelming preponderance of sources cited here disproving this hypothesis, however unpopular it may be, and even if there were, it might still be notable (see Flat Earth Society). The whole point of this article is the conflict between equity and gender feminism that Sommers theorizes (both the two camps and their conflict are theoretical), so removing half of that equation from the name seems pointless. We don't seem to have a WP:COMMONNAME to use here, since the idea hasn't been advanced under a title, like "the gender feminism paradox" or "the equity feminist theory" or "the law of feminist equity" or whatever, much less one that's become conventional to use in reference to her work or the idea in general. I think "Equity and gender feminism" is the best we can do.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:43, 15 September 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

the sciences

A good 50% of this article is dedicated to refutation of equity feminism through looking at women's performance in the sciences; however this is not rigourous, since one book is cited a staggering 8 times as a source. Furthermore, this is not even relevant information - equity feminism's concern is with equality of opportunity, not outcome. The ideological goal here is not that there is a 50% representation of women in STEM fields, but that women are treated the same as men in the field and are presented equal opportunity at all times - thus showing that women are not equally represented is irrelevant, since equal representation is not a goal for equity feminism.

"To take the matter of equity feminism a step further, Londa Schiebinger- a professor at the Stanford University, demonstrates how equity feminism throughout history is clearly shown but has not improved to reach its main goal of equality." - This sentence particularly is in need of a rewrite, if not deletion. the wording "demonstrates" implies that this conjecture is irrefutable - that Londa's book has shown equity feminism to have not reached any goal of equality. In face, it mostly has. Women in the western world are, for the most part, treated the same as men in the eyes of the law, by universities, and to some extent employers. This claim is therefore frivolous and has no place in this article.

It seems odd that such a large attempted refutation exists on this page for equity feminism and not gender/difference feminism. Neither should be disputed on this page, but merely defined rigorously. If refutations are to stay, they should be intellectually and logically rigorous. Many critiques of both sides can be found and there are a great many that provide better insight into the disagreement between equity and gender feminists than the singular and functionally useless one provided upon this page.

I would prefer that the sections regarding Londa Schiebinger's book and women in the sciences be deleted, and replaced with a line detailing that Londa is a critic of equity feminism and has written a book about it. If we are to leave refutations on this page, they should be Ideological criticisms and not interpretations of statistics which are widely criticized themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.234.167 (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the above is a pretty good summary of what's wrong with this article (and, in turn, what brought me to this Talk page). I find all of that stats stuff to be a poorly-written, unencyclopedic spew of non sequitur. I think it's alright to have a criticism section on the page, but the criticism shouldn't be a wall of contested stats that comes out of nowhere in the text describing what the article is actually about. 98.213.54.240 (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll see if I can clean it up a bit. Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It's much better now. Good work, Kaldari! 98.213.54.240 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)