Talk:Equity feminism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Luciaxcuriel (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rod26.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JasleneS. Peer reviewers: Amyrica19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Roshelle.Firdman05.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Move

Contents previously here are now at Talk:Equity and gender feminism. The source I used to make a stub here has no mention of 'gender feminism' so I saw no reason to include it in the title. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

Most of these sources I found already linked by @Tokyogirl79: as raw URLs, went of the trouble of citing the ones that stood out. Of particular interest are those which are not merely reactions to Sommers, and in particular those which precede her book, since people simply redirected this term to her book, which seems wrong since it was in use before her book.

@Dimadick: you pointed out there were solid sources for this, and I agree. I am definitely against including gender feminism as a focus here, because gender feminism is not the only thing equity feminism is contrast to, it was contrast to other things like social feminism prior to the 1994 introduction of GF by CHS.

@Nick Levinson: you were correct in pointing out that enough sources exist to establish the notability of this form of feminism, and certainly as more than a mere dictionary definition as some have dismissed discussion of it as.

Some have proposed that these are synonyms for other kinds of feminism, but I disagree about that, because it is spoken of on its own in contrast with other things, and there is no consensus of synonymousness for those who might use it that way.

Even though it might be possible to include some Sommers cites, the ridiculous "just redirect it to her book" responses make it important I think to first focus on establishing notability from other authors as much as possible, with little emphasis on Sommers. If it can survive on its own long enough like that, incorporating her writers is something which might conservatively be introduced in SMALL elements so that it doesn't take over the article and lead to people thinking it's just her saying this, which it isn't. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The sources are solid enough to establish notability, but the article is a mere stub. The article should be fleshed out with summaries of the views of notable equity feminists and what distinguishes them from other schools of thought. Two sources of the article claim that it is a widely-held ideology in the United States. This could use elaboration on what this means and how has this affected modern American culture as a whole. Dimadick (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Stanford's encyclopedia entry cites some other stuff which we could probably cite, I'd be particularly interested if any of their examples are Sommers-pre-empters like Naomi Black, Steven Buechler and Jost Halfmann as this would help to make an even stronger argument keeping the article on its own instead of just being blatent advertising from her book and reinforcing the misconception that the book invented the term in '84 in spite of two '89 and one '90 refs.

One thing that I'm hoping others could help sort out that I'm a bit confused upon is labels like "conservative" and "liberal" coexisting. Robert Almeder's 2003 book treats "radical" as the antonym of "conservative" in this case. Is opposition between conservatism/liberalism more of a modern phenomena, with classical liberalism being compatible with conservatism?

The sources do a pretty decent job of explaining what equity feminism is when read as a whole, although I tried to be limited in what I took from them so I don't know if the article as yet does so in relying upon them enough. I wanted to hold back in fear of being thought of 'interpreting' the sources too much in what conclusions I drew from them, establishing the most basic facts. If anyone else wants to expand what is quoted and what the sources are used to justify, that could help grow the article too. Just getting the sources established is enough of a starting point for me, I feel more comfortable leaving more thorough adaptation of their contents as a community effort. As it is I think I forgot to mention publishers for some of the cite books... 184.145.18.50 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: liberalism and conservatism, originally they were effectively antonyms because the original progressives or radicals (the proper antonyms for conservatives) were liberal, in the classical sense that means roughly the same as libertarian now means. As that liberalism became the status quo and socialists became the new progressives or radicals, liberals defending that new status quo became the new conservatives. Outside the United State "liberal" has continued to mean something comparable to what "libertarian" means in the US, and so has become comparatively conservative in opposition to socialist trends; inside the US, "liberal" has continued to mean the opposite of "conservative" even though what that implies is less and less libertarian and more socialist. So there's a lot of room for confusion there, but there's historical reasons why that can help make some sense of it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I like the strategy, as long as the sources support making this mostly not Sommers. Sommers should be reflected in accord with her book and sources on her but if the subject predated her and developed since her then the article should reflect that.

In the U.S., particularly in modern national electoral politics, where we have two parties and third parties rarely count for much, conservatism and liberalism, the latter also called progressivism, are opposites. Radicalism doesn't come up much in that context, other than that advocates on either side call the other side extremist (although not as often radical) and themselves moderate. Libertarians tend to be associated with the Republican party and therefore with conservatism. Other nations have other naming patterns.

However, that U.S. pattern is not what is found in U.S. feminism, where conservative feminism is rarely mentioned but radical feminism is much more often. Men opposed to feminism often refer to all feminism as radical feminism. Depending on viewpoint, the opposite of radical feminism is usually either liberal feminism or masculism (masculinism) or nonfeminism. Male opponents of feminism rarely call themselves masculist and maybe never do. Most don't take a self-label, the claim being that they're the norm and feminists are not. Female opponents of feminism may say simply that they're human or some such or refuse any label, saying it's unnecessary.

I hope this helps in editing the article.

Where interpreting feels too risky, too likely to lead to accusations that you're making it up, quote. Otherwise, paraphrase; Wikipedia usually prefers paraphrasing.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Stanford University or Stanford Encyclopedia?

The article says, "Stanford University refers to ... [listing some people] as equity feminists." (Boldfacing omitted.) Did the University itself make this statement? That would be highly unusual. I think I've seen something called the Stanford Encyclopedia of some area of academic interest, i.e., some longer name; is that what was meant? Nick Levinson (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says SU does maintain it, but I made a note with the more specific link. Ranze (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Elucidation

This article is almost laughably opaque in its realization and needs to be further developed. There are more links to people who are considered "equity feminists" than there are words actually laying out what the ideology actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.50.239 (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please go ahead. Wikipedia is open to almost anyone editing, including adding content. Stick with reliable sources and keep the article neutral and your edits are more likely to stay. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to define the concept in the lead paragraph. Ibadibam (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Expand?

Anyone want to take a stab at expanding this article? There really isn't much in the way of explanation on how this differs from various other flavors of feminism. Arkon (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Feel free. Thank you for thinking of it. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me take a stab at it. FindYourPly (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic Sections

The sections "United States" and "Europe" in no way serve to clarify the specifics of equity feminism. Aside from a description of the Equal Rights Amendment, they serve only to contrast what appear to be the writer's personal views (no citations) on the progress of feminism in the United States vs. Europe and therefore add nothing useful to the article, while also confusing the definition of equity feminism. These sections should be removed. There's no apparent reason to contrast equity feminism in the United States with equity feminism in Europe (which is not what the sections do anyway) since the key contrast this article should focus on is between equity feminism and other branches of feminism. The article did a relatively decent job of this before the October 26, 2020 revisions which introduced the irrelevant content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:82B0:3870:3964:1356:CAFC:E22A (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Giselleam317 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Madison.palos.

— Assignment last updated by Marimend (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Strawberryliz (article contribs). Peer reviewers: McKennaKita.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)