Talk:Feminazi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Recent edits

I suspect User:Sangdeboeuf is POV editing, which explains why they reverted almost all of the edits I made to the article, many of those (especially the academic sources in "Modern usage" section without any reasoning). The article revision with my edits can be accessed here[1]. —Srid^🍁 15:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

So here's a list of problematic reverts that clearly indicates we have a WP:POVFIGHTER

- Revert[2] of the Spanish protest bus with the word "feminazi" in it. Clearly relevant to the article, to indicate the report of this term used in the real world among people.

- Favouring an older Oxford dictionary made in 2004[3] over the newer dictionaries to advance to a specific point of view that is not representative of what many sources represent.

- Removing quotes from the person who originally coined the term[4] despite it giving further specific context to its meaning.

- Revert of an academic source giving specific descriptors to the term[5], and another[6]

- Quickly removing the POV lead[7] without any discussion ahead.

- Replacing exact quotes indicating the pejorative nature of the term with personally synthesized material giving an neutral impression[8]

I'll just stop here, even though there seem to be more. Readers are also advised to compare the older revision[9] with the current.

—Srid^🍁 15:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Responded on user talk page. To sum up, You made numerous bold edits, I reverted some of them. Now is the part of the WP:BRD cycle where you should discuss any changes you think were problematic, not start casting aspersions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

As you didn't revert "some of them", rather most of them, I don't have time to go over each of the innumerous reverts you made to my edits which took me several hours to compile. Instead I'm offering my impression of what is happening, and inviting third opinion on this matter. There is no point to the two of us engaging in a back and forth if it won't be going anywhere. —Srid^🍁 15:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Others have also spent "several hours", and much more than that, working on this page. I gave reasons for each and every one of my edits. If you're not willing to discuss/defend your edits, don't expect anyone else to accept them. Decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus, which often involves lengthy discussion. I've already opened several threads to discuss specific material/sources. Feel free to make productive contributions to any of them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't see a back and forth among us going anywhere. Case in point, you keep dismissing (see Talk:Feminazi#Brake_(2007)) one of the academic sources calling the explanation in it imaginary. —Srid^🍁 16:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Sridc Sangdeboeuf is an experienced and respected editor. Do not accuse them of POV pushing, it is a blatant personal attack. Especially when looking at your contributions it is you who appears to be pushing an anti-progressive line - Perhaps you should take a break from articles about feminists and culture wars? Bacondrum (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Bacondrum You are WP:HOUNDING me around Wikipedia. Why would you comment here as an uninvolved editor? —Srid^🍁 22:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

And you just made another personal attack. I am not hounding you, we are interested in the same fields and subjects, I run into the same editors all the time...a brief look at my contribs will demonstrate my clear and constant interest in politics and culture wars. Do not make personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Brake (2007)

@Sridc: the source by Brake (2007) does not say the term "has been used in the mainstream American culture to refer to women 'who blame everything on gender' and 'blame sexism for their troubles'". The actual passage is:

The dominant story in mainstream culture is that women and minorities are hyper-vigilant in perceiving bias, to the point of mistakenly perceiving sexism and racism when it does not really exist. Mainstream culture is replete with derogatory references to 'feminazi' women who blame everything on gender, and with depictions of strident women who are too quick to blame sexism for their troubles.

The word and indicates that "blam[ing] everything on gender" and "blam[ing] sexism for their troubles" are separate, if related, concerns; the author is only using feminazi in relation to the former. Clearly the "references to 'feminazi' women" are an example of the "dominant story" that the author is describing, not actual women. Hence my paraphrased wording " women who are believed to be unduly sensitive to perceived sexism". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

This is an article about the term, and how it is used by those who actually use it. And not exclusively about the mental state of the person being labelled. Trying not to write about the former is a violation of WP:PROPORTION. —Srid^🍁 15:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The "women" referred to are made-up people, part of the dominant story, not real, they don't have a "mental state". Where do you get the impression that people "actually use" the term to refer to women who "blame sexism for their troubles"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a solipsistic reply. Anyone who speaks English can understand that the phrase The dominant story in mainstream culture is not strictly referring to fictious stories. In this context, it talks about what the term is referring to. The article should cover it. —Srid^🍁 15:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

What the term is referring to is not a person or persons that we can describe in Wikipedia's voice as though they exist. When Brake talks about "references to 'feminazi' women" she is illustrating the "dominant story" that portrays women as "hyper-vigilant" (i.e. hyper-sensitive) in general. Saying that it's just a word for "women who blame everything on gender" etc. implies that these are actual women who actually do blame everything on gender, whatever that would mean. That's not what the source is saying.

Anyone who speaks English etc. is just an appeal to popularity/appeal to common sense. Whether anyone is too vigilant about something is a matter of subjective perception, hence my comment about being not "real" women. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that this seems like a common theme through a couple of these sections/source uses. There's a reason that these sources frame discussion of what "feminazi" refers to in terms of narratives, hyperbole, and caricatures: feminazis aren't people that exist. It's a term to caricature and denigrate people using hyperbole and a built-in narrative/orientation that preexists the target of the term. The authors aren't talking about real women "who blame everything on gender" but a way that people who use the term think of women who make points about sexism/gender they don't like. The article is about the term and by extension the people who use the term, not people those who use the term purport it to describe. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Arguably you cannot of course detach the term, the people who use it from the (purported) context in which they do. As long as reliable secondary sources exist to describe the context, an encyclopedic overview should cover it, dethroning the present generic descriptor that it is a "derogatory term for feminists" (as far as I see the monopoly of this descriptor violates WP:BALANCE on this topic), inasmuch as these sources (including the newer Oxford dictionaries) patently indicate that the term is not used for *all* feminists. —Srid^🍁 20:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

We are not here to justify the terms use. You are arguing for false balance. Bacondrum (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE states Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented; and we are talking about neither a "minority view" (multiple secondary sources can hardly be considered minority view) nor an extraordinary claim. —Srid^🍁 22:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Rhododendrites "The article is about the term and by extension the people who use the term, not people those who use the term purport it to describe." Spot on. Bacondrum (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Look, it's up to you whether you want to work with other editors or just war over how much you think feminists are awful or whatever...but you clearly are not listening to other editors Bacondrum (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I actually agree that an encyclopedic overview should cover [the context] of the term's use. And Brake in fact gives us some context. In statements coming immediately before and after the above quote, she says (my bolding):

[T]he assumptions embedded in popular culture also conflict with the realities of how people perceive discrimination ... the widespread cultural assumption of hyper-vigilance is largely a myth ... social psychologists have long observed ... individual women’s widespread denial that they have personally experienced [discrimination].

In other words, Brake is saying that the popular tale of "feminazis" obsessed with their own oppression is not true. How this dethron[es] the present generic descriptor is not clear to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's pretty much the opposite of what the article currently claims. Bacondrum (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)