Talk:Female chauvinism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Female chauvinism redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

AFD

Wasn't this article deleted before? Anyways, if it was extremely well balanced and grounded in reality this article could remain, but it seems to me like it's invariably going to be exagerrated to an anti-feminist POV.. Dan Carkner 03:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Female chauvinism" is definitely as valid a concept as "male chauvinism." The key is in finding legitimate critiques of certain feminist strands of thought which are invariably chauvinistic, and ideally presented in as neutral terms as possible. But there is nothing inherently preventing anyone from presenting anti-feminist POVs here on Wikipedia, so long as NPOV is observed. metaspheres 21:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but isn't there a rule on wikipedia about not exagerrating the counterpoint to something else? Like inflating the opinion of a tiny minority to make it more legitimate? Dan Carkner 03:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:SOAP. The present article is merely a stub, nowhere near an exaggeration of anything. There are indeed those whose thought can definitely be labeled as "female chauvinist." If you're suggesting that feminism does not have its extremes, I would have to say that line of reasoning is severely flawed, because every ideology is a battleground of ideas and as such suffers from extremist and fringe tendencies as a result. This has been observed in feminism since women's liberation became radicalized during the 1960s. We're not talking about modern feminists like Naomi Klein or Le Tigre here. Someone like Andrea Dworkin might not fit the definition of a chauvinist, but certainly not far off. This subject, however, is mostly of academic interest and as such would require someone with enough expertise, as well as a cool enough head to be able to take a neutral view, in order to provide a decent article here. I'm not really interested in the task, personally. ;) metaspheres 04:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Everyone talks of an encyclopedic entry, but look at it now, with blatantly POV views spelled out yet again. Such-and-such views are "False" etc. I'm not saying this article can't be balanced out. Someone please go ahead and do it. Dan Carkner 05:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added these two 'seeds' just to begin to provoke thought, stimulate discussion and to show two distinct forms among many of female chauvinism. You can pull 'false' if you like...I added it because the idea that somehow women are morally superior human beings is absurd (despite differences in forms of agression between the sexes). Balance begins with showing some sort of moral equality between the sexes as opposed to the usual victim-saint flim flam that 'oppression' feminists like to use to take (unearned) power from so-called male monsters. I suggest you glance at misandry to see that this is far more than an academic topic in today's world. I also suggest you call the ridiculous, absurd and cunning POV extremes in most feminism related articles as well. Seems we have several standards here one for the 'religion' of 'oppression' feminists and one for everyone else. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.147 06:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was exactly my point about why this article should be deleted, no one with an academic interest in it ever seems to contribute, but always people with a chip off their shoulder trying to advance political views. This is not a blog, it's (supposedly) an encyclopedia, so at the very least rephrase it to be concise and descriptive, not a series of value judgements and unsubstantiated claims. Dan Carkner 15:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful here. I have an academic interest and there is much written on this topic but I don't have time to waste on all the people who would love to censor such content. In time I am sure more editors will pull in good content....in the meantime there is nothing too outrageous on this article to delete unless you are a female-superiority, gender-ginning 'oppression' feminist who hates all legitimate critisms of female agression. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 00:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Check: Freedom of speech in wikipedia articles?

Feminist Phyllis Chessler in her (2006) The Death of Feminism (Chapter 1: The "Good" Feminist) makes the following statements about totalitarian thought control in elite feminist, academic, and media circles. I added these excerpts here after seeing the fears some other editors have that these poor little 'oppressed' (gender-ginning as opposed to equality) feminists cannot take care of themselves. Chessler bravely takes them on on their own turf and calls a spade a spade. Could we at least insist on fairness here...editing a gender-feminist article is much harder than editing a religious article...which makes one wonder about gender-feminists. To worry that this article will become a POV anti-feminist rant among many other unbalanced POV gynocentric (see misandry) gender-ginning feminist rants amuses me. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.147 06:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Does she (an unnamed lifelong Democratic feminist in New York mentioned in the preceding paragraph) believe that engaging in dialogue with the designated "enemy" somehow constitutes traitorous behavior? If so, and I suspect this is the case, I must ask: Is she only afraid of the Republicans--who have not abolished her First Amendment right to speak out as feminist and who have not rescinded the Fourth Amendment against improper search and seizure--or is she afraid of the media and the academic elite who view civil conversation with anyone who opposes them as a high crime?"

"It is crucial to note that our government has not criminalized free speech nor have dissidents been jailed for saying whatever they please. In my opinion, the chilling of free speech has been unilaterally imposed by those who claim to act on its' behalf."

"What sort of group or person refuses to recognize the existence of and refuses to even talk to, no less hire, someone with whom they disagree? What sort of group or person persistently slanders and demonizes those with whom they happen to disagree on key political issues? What sort of group or person demands uniform party-line thinking--and is powerful enough to coerce people into "hiding" their potentially dissident views, sometimes even from themselves"?

"Surely I must be talking about the power of the former Soviet state or Nazi Germany, Maoist China, or any one of the many Islamic dictatorships; or I must be describing Republican or conservative thinking. Alas, I am not."

"Today totalitarian thinking is also flourishing among media and academic elites. Oddly enough, such totalitarian thinking and its consequent thought control are flying high under the banners of "free speech" and "political correctness". Dare to question these elites' rights to expose or challenge them, and you'll quickly be attacked as representing a new and more dreadfull form of "McCarthyism" and "witch hunting".

"Ideological Feminist"

I've looked around wikipedia a bit, and I can't find a better term, but this term is inherently misleading. In the article, "ideological feminist" is used to describe feminists who are female chauvists. However, an "ideological" feminist is simply one who adheres to the ideology of feminism; that men and women should be treated equally are currently aren't. Can anyone find a more appropriate term to use? I think quite a bit of the POV in this article comes from the usage of terms. Also, the sources all appear to be polemics, which don't fit my definition of "reliable source." Enuja 02:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Misandry?

It seems that many of the POV problems of this article are being addressed in Misandry, and it seems to cover all of the ideas in this article and that might come under this term. What do you all think? As long as a link to "chauvinism" and a the synonym "female chauvinist" appeared on that page, I think that's make the most sense. Any work on this article would feel, to me, to be a duplication of all of the work on misandry.

Errm, I'm not exactly sure the proper procedure to go about suggesting a redirect; I seem to recall seeing tags on articles for it. Am I supposed to be putting this in a discussion system, like the articles for deletion thing? Enuja 03:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the tags for you. (This was procedural; I have no opinion regarding the proposed merge.) The talk page is the appropriate place to make your case. I do want to note, however, that for the sake of consistency, if a merge does occur, we should also merge/redirect male chauvinism to misogyny. Shimeru 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion system for merge proposals, but you may want to read template:merge and apply the appropriate tags. I personally think that both male and female chauvinism should be merged with chauvinism (neither of the 3 articles are really substantial enough to warrant having their own article, but obviously the parent level article should be the one to contain the bulk of the info). But I agree that the use of sources between this article and misandry overlap, and it wouldn't hurt to mention this term's use by those authors in the misandry article.-Andrew c 03:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]