Talk:Feminism/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 22

Reorganization

I've been WP:BOLD and made a major change here. For months there have been discussions with new and drive-by editors about the relationship of men and feminism. I would like to remind all involved that this is a "parent article" - there is an article on men and feminism, as there is an article on feminist theory, feminist economics etc, etc. Thus, what might seem a relevant point about feminism to you is not necessary of due importance/weight to be mentioned here. Please base the introduction of new sections, material, etc, on how major reliable sources explain/historicize/analyse/describe the subject of feminism at a more macro level. More specific and/or nuanaced points should go in the relevant "sub-article" (ie Marxist feminism, feminist geography, Feminism in Japan) where due and appropriately sourced.

Secondly Nick made an excellent point above, articles are considered neutral when we record all relevant reliable sources and points of view, according each its due weight. However, we do not "neuter" sources because we don't like them that is a serious issue as it misrepresents a source and constitutes a novel synthesis or interpretation of it - thus violating WP:NOR.

The changes I've made have removed material that should not be in this article (per WP:Summary) that was given undue prominence, or was repetitious. I clean-up the redirect tag also. I expanded the history section as well.--Cailil ^talk 20:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll need to read through it more carefully, but on first blush: very nice work. You took it from confused and conflictive to something that might be worth nominating for FA status. Obviously the supermoon has had a profound affect on you. --Ludwigs2 22:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Cailil! I can tell you've been working on this article for over three years. Great job! Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly a great improvement, well done.

Zimbazumba (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of these changes are really great, but I can't understand why all of the information on feminism and men was completely removed. Almost all of the sections here have their own entire sub-articles, "Approaches to men" is not really an exception. It was only a couple paragraphs, and the subject of men is undeniably much more represented in feminist literature than the specific "Riot Grrrl Movement," which has an entire sub-section here. Maybe we could discuss what was specifically not general enough in that section instead of just removing editors' contributions entirely. -Aronoel (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, i was looking at the 'Distinction between sex and gender' section, which is only one line long, and thinking about changing the header to something like 'Biological and sociological gender' and then expanding it to include some of the discussions about men. The problem with the original paragraphs was that they were a wrangle over the bald-faced prejudice that feminists hate men, and didn't actually get into discussing the analytical treatment of masculinity in feminist theory. That's not really the way the article should go. --Ludwigs2 01:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case maybe it should be reworded or expanded instead of deleted entirely. --Aronoel (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically Aronoel the previous sections had numerous issues and were being used (not by you but by others) for coatracking. But the over-riding factor was WP:STRUCTURE. There was a section containing 3 distinct 'reactions' of male groups to feminism without a) weighing whether those reactions should be recorded at all per WP:DUE or b) how much weight such a section should have in a parent article; as well as that there was a section on societal change, a narrative history of the movement, a piece on sex/gender distinction (each of which deal with men & feminism) and then another whole section on 'approaches to men'.
I'm not opposed to a summary section on Men and feminism being included as long as it's done properly - I just think the article as a whole had gone way off track thus the change. Doing it properly would entail following WP:SUMMARY, cleaning-up/rewriting the Men and feminism article - probably adding the text that was removed from here to it and then figuring out wherther Patriarchy should be mentioned in that article or here. I'm not saying the text I removed was bad - just misplaced.
I think Ludwigs' suggested section is a good one and a good place to start. But I would say that such material needs to be seen at a macro level - as such I'd recommendasking the material some questions: How is it placed by the research that's out there already? How much weight is it given by those studies? Should it be in Men and feminism or here? If both how much from that article should be summarized here?--Cailil ^talk 09:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was indulging in a "..bald-faced prejudice that feminists hate men". There has been an anti-male (as opposed to man-hating) streak at times. In the theory? no. In the practice? yes at times. straw-man

Zimbazumba (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten the whole section again from scratch, and I tried to address some of the issues people pointed out with the old section and I also tried to incorporate some of what used to be in the reactions section. --Aronoel (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Aroneal, My first impressions are that this is huge improvement over what was there before, and more in keeping with the type of entry appropriate for this page. This is probably a first iteration and will be honed if necessary. My first points are the references seem a bit old and words like 'encourage', 'some' and 'consensus' always worry me. The Friedan debate I suppose will continue. But basically very well done, though I will re-read a number of times.

Zimbazumba (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback ZZ. I don't know what the alternative is to "some" since this is supposed to be a general summary. "Consensus" seems justified to me considering its strong, repeated use in the source and the fact that almost all of the other sources reflect that attitude anyway. --Aronoel (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence you just added might be problematic. It is not as tight as the others as it has more of a commentary flavor to it and might need some balance. I'll give it some thought and will post here first. I think Wikipedia:style has something about how to avoid those words without losing the sense of what you want to say, this is not an over riding concern.

Zimbazumba (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Any constructive changes to the wording are welcome. --Aronoel (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Antifeminism

I'm having trouble understanding the changes that were recently made to the section "antifeminism." The removed paragraphs were pretty general and represented historical and worldwide anti-feminist views. The current section only includes the views of similar female US anti-feminists and criticism of their label. I would like to try to restore some of the removed material to address what I see as problems with this section. Edward Clarke's views would not be included. Maybe some of the detailed information about the US anti-feminists could be trimmed down if there is a length problem. --Aronoel (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and tried to rewrite this section, and I've tried to address other editors' concerns about wp:summary. I removed a few details that I thought were too specific for a macro-style section, and added some other material to try and give a larger picture of anti-feminism.--Aronoel (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That reads really well. It has my support. (something I don't say often :)

Zimbazumba (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. -Aronoel (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Betty Friedan and the term "anti-men"

Betty Friedan's obit in the Guardian reports blithely that she "argued that feminists were alienating support by being confrontational and anti-men and by opposing marriage and the family." The context is the point in time when Friedan was aiming for the center. Friedan was critical of radical feminists, not mainstream ones like herself.

Suzanne Levine and Mary Thom wrote that Friedan called Bella Abzug and Gloria Steinem "separatists" and "anti-men". Friedan would not have been applying the term to all feminists in this context; certainly not to herself.

Rebecca St. James and Lynda Hunter Bjorklund explain the historical entry of "anti-men" attitudes in 1970s campus faculties. If anti-men attitudes are discussed in the article (and they should be) then scholars are the best sources, not newspaper reporters.

Friedan herself writes that feminism is about "being yourself with men" in contrast to accusations that it is anti-family, etc.

Friedan also writes that she was surprised when Kate Millett stood up at an abortion-rights and child-care-rights march to say that it should be turned into a lesbian-rights march, that all women should be "political lesbians". Friedan got up to say that the movement should not be diverted and divided in this manner. Afterward, she questions herself in her notes, writing "Maybe sexual politics are even more anti-women than they are anti-men. Or are they anti-life?" So Friedan's own take on it appears to be that perhaps feminists are anti-women... Naturally, any reference to this private musing would have to come from a scholarly appraisal. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with the word "mainstream" is that it is difficult to define and a bit of a weasel word, It leads to arguments like:- Mainstream feminists do not believe X, but A believes X, then A is not a mainstream feminist. Friedan wrote in a time before sound bites so there is no pithy quote expressing her sentiments, all we can do is interpret her work. Or rely on others cleverer than us.

Zimbazumba (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

On the mainstream and excluding a feminist: Not usually a concern. In the example above, A would not be a mainstream feminist. If a woman says, "I'm a feminist simply because I want the government to give free chocolate to women" (assuming we agreed that that's a feminist position), the position is not mainstream, and therefore we'd be right to declare her not a mainstream feminist. What's in the mainstream varies by time and place, but some positions almost always are and some almost never. Inclusions and exclusions of feminists can be valid. According to Prof. Alice Echols (p. 15), "[w]hereas liberal feminism sought to include women in the mainstream, radical feminism embodied a rejection of the mainstream itself." At p. 139, she wrote of "liberal feminists['] ... assimilationist goal of bringing women into the mainstream". And NOW long argued for equality in the mainstream of American society. Disputes are mainly at the boundaries.

(Citation to Prof. Echols: Echols, Alice, Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America: 1967–1975 (Minneapolis, Minn.: Univ. of Minn. Press (American Culture ser.), pbk. 1989 (ISBN 0-8166-1787-2)) (author then visiting asst. prof. history, Univ. of Ariz. at Tucson).)

As to Betty Friedan's views, I think either they evolved over the years or her expression of them did.

Nick Levinson (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

unfamiliar subjects

A suggestion, inferrable, potentially saving some of us a few hours each. There's a feminist subject with its own article I don't know enough about to edit substantively. I plan to post a talk section on possible content for that article, so others can decide. But if they don't do anything about it, I plan to leave it alone, that is, not edit the article on point. I don't know enough about it. I don't want to make it worse. I don't want to read several full books or more in order to qualify myself. So I won't apply BRD there. I can still, say, copyedit or do other edits, but only if I know what I'm doing. I've used the same approach for transportation: I posted to Talk and then walked away. The suggestion I'm making here is for each editor to apply or not apply to all articles as they see fit and per subjects of expertise. Most, I think, already do. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

US feminism

The feminism in the United States article: should we do something? I'm of split mind. It's potentially redundant but only because this Feminism article is too U.S.-centric now and has been for years. But if we move U.S.-only stuff to there, readers here will ask why it's not here. A single link won't suffice. Suggestions? Nick Levinson (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically I think you're right Nick. This article is too heavily USA centric and some of that should be corrected by moving info to Feminism in the United States - leaving a summary here. However to do that we would need a Feminism in Japan etc etc section.
It crossed my mind - years ago - that there should be a short summary of "Feminisms around the world" here (And a full article that covers this that's spun off like we did with the movemenst and ideologies section). So then we'd have a section that summaries the similarities, differences & events in notable feminist movements in specific geographic areas. However, to do that, we need there to be a couple of serious books that do it (and I'm sure there are some). I'll have a look myself now but if anyone finds anything please post it--Cailil ^talk 17:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It may take a little less work than you suggest, but it's still a lot, and I think there'll be public resistance unless cuts to this article are made a little later and in a short burst. Already, some nationally-specific articles exist; see the feminism sidebar and the index of feminism articles (and I wouldn't be surprised if there are more), although national article titles don't all have the same general title format (some are about feminism, some on women's rights, and so on). I'd suggest copying whatever content is in this article that's nationally specific into nationally specific articles (the same is true of regionally-specific where appropriate) and adding links in here to those articles, but not deleting content from here quite yet. Then, in this article, in each topic, we should add global statements preceding national statements, and see if editors see problems with the global statements; and only after that should we delete the national content from here. We should live with some U.S.-centrism in one way: by having more links from here to specific topics in U.S.-specific articles. That, I think, would lower the likelihood of complaints that we took out the 19th Amendment. It also means that it isn't necessary to find one source that has already organized the content and then limit ourselves to copying that author's organization, although if such a book is helpful that's fine. This amounts to breaking content out subject to notability, globalizing (e.g., in here we could say "there were efforts to gain voting rights for women in some nations" and then link for U.S., Switzerland, etc.), and deleting from here, and that sequence of steps presents very little of a synthesis or original-research problem.

A related complication is that much of what we know about feminism in the U.S. is actually true of North America, Western Europe, and some other regions, but not consistently, either, and that can lead to either major OR/synthesis difficulties or complaints that we fail to acknowledge this. And if we cite as sources for a general Westernization the critiques from, say, third-world feminists, we may find those critiques very unspecific: what exactly does the "West" include (not to mention limits on monolithism)? A solution could be an article on feminism in the West or in developed/-ing nations and provide plenty of inbound links, plus outbound links to encompassed nations, since there's likely enough notability to support such articles, but we might need a source with an overview of feminism along the lines of developing/-ed, West/East, or the like.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC) (Clarified on notability and deleted an erroneous period: 19:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)) (Corrected as to edit summary (& edited this sig block for an essentially null edit): 19:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

I'm in broad agreement Nick. But what I might suggest rather than an article about western feminism do a gloabal article. A new page that parents all those many articles about women's movement in.. or women in... or feminism in... This could be done using books like: Myra Marx Ferree, Aili Mari Tripp's Global feminism; Basu et al's The challenge of local feminisms: women's movements in global perspective; and Smith's Global feminisms since 1945; and maybe the introduction to Feminist theory reader: local and global perspectives perhaps--Cailil ^talk 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, except doesn't that cause two articles to overlap? Once this feminism article no longer has national- and regional-specific content, how would a global feminism article be different such that both articles would be separately notable and both would be separately useful to readers? I don't recall seeing the sources you've just mentioned but I imagine they have both global and subglobal content, and the latter can guide the drafting of subglobal articles; and then the feminism article can serve as a global overview. Or is separation between global and feminism introductory helpful and, if so, and if it's not premature to ask, how would the separation be defined? Nick Levinson (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically we'd create a big local feminist movements article (Wed need to use what ever term the sources use ie local/nation/regional) and then when it's done summarize that here in this one.
The books will have a 'grand narrative' that considers local/regional feminisms and their interrelation and that can be given as fully as is due on that page as well as a series of summaries of sub-articles. When that's done we can then summarize that whole page here (and that summary would have global and local mentions where due) along with an info box for navigation to a specific article (ie Feminism in Japan) perhaps--Cailil ^talk 20:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

sources on oppression of men vs men as perps

In case this material is needed in the future, this is some material on the issue of whether feminism is a response to the oppression of both genders by sexism or is a response to men as agents of sexism. This is material I likely would have added in some form until recent edits intervened. It could be used here or in the article on men and feminism. Most likely, this would be used not exactly as presented here, but paraphrased or otherwise more concisely.

Within reference elements, there are what look like quotation marks that may not belong. Generally, they're markup for italicization instead of quotation marks. Removal of nondisplaying nowiki elements would remove the effect of looking like quotation marks. The same is true of some other artifacts.

"[A]ttractive to many women was that liberal feminists indicted sex roles rather than men. From the beginning ["Betty"] Friedan had presented feminism as a sex-role revolution in which both men and women would benefit. Indeed, for Friedan feminism was but 'a stage in the whole human rights movement.'³¹⁸ And in 1970, Gloria Steinem, Ms. editor and the best-known exponent of this new liberal feminism, deployed radical rhetoric, but like Friedan implied that women's liberation was men's liberation as well. 'Men will have to give up ruling class privileges, but in turn they will no longer be the ones to support the family, get drafted, bear the strain of responsibility and freedom.'³¹⁹"<ref>Echols, Alice, ''Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America: 1967–1975'' (Minneapolis, Minn.: Univ. of Minn. Press (American Culture ser.), pbk. 1989 (ISBN 0-8166-1787-2)), pp. 199–200 & nn. 318–319 (page break between "'be the'" & "'ones'") (bracketed insertion per ''id.'', p. 405 (''Index'')) (author then visiting asst. prof. history, Univ. of Ariz. at Tucson).</ref> Note 318: "318. Friedan quoted in Zillah Eisenstein, The Radical Future of Liberal Feminism (New York: Longman, 1981), p. 182. In fact, not only did Friedan deny that men were the enemy, she suggested that women with their capacity for self-deprecation were their own worst enemies. See Betty Friedan, It Changed My Life (New York: Norton, 1983), p. 152." Note 319: "319. Nor would men 'have to spend a lifetime living with inferiors; with housekeepers, or dependent creatures who are still children.' Gloria Steinem, 'What It Would Be Like If Women Win', Time, August 31, 1970, p. 22." (In n. 319, "house-"/"keepers" across line break in original.)

"Would men but ... be content with rational fellowship [of "daughters", "sisters", "wives" and "mothers"] .... [w]e should then love them with true affection ... and the peace of mind of a worthy man would not be interrupted by the idle vanity of his wife".<ref>[[Mary Wollstonecraft|Wollstonecraft, Mary]], ''A Vindication of the Rights of Woman'', in ''A Vindication of the Rights of Men[/]A Vindication of the Rights of Woman[/]An Historical and Moral View of the French Revolution'' (per p. [iii] (title p.)) (or ''A Vindication of the Rights of Woman[/]A Vindication of the Rights of Men'' (per cover I)) (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press (Oxford World's Classics ser.), [does "4" without other digits mean 4th printing?] reissue 1999 (copyright 1993, 1994, & 1999) (ISBN 0-19-283652-8)), p. 231 and see generally ch. IX, ''Of the Pernicious Effects Which Arise From the Unnatural Distinctions Established in Society'' (reprints of ''A Vindication of the Rights of Woman'' (2d ed. 1792) & ''A Vindication of the Rights of Men'' (2d ed. 1790)).</ref>

Of the same book, "gentle reader" may be "male or female".<ref>Wollstonecraft, Mary, ''A Vindication of the Rights of Woman'', ''op. cit.'', p. 227.</ref>

The statement by Judith Butler that "'feminism ... seeks to liberate men'" was challenged in a section of this Talk page, now archived (post of 1-7-11 4:18a UTC), for its support. I recall verifying the paraphrase, but now I can't display the khup.com page properly, since the main vertical scroll bar is not showing up on my computer. The challenge was regarding pp. 4–12 but the pagination is different in the *.swf file. Perhaps it can be (re)verified another time.

"[T]he tendency of some radical feminists [was] to blame maleness rather than power relations".<ref>Echols, Alice, ''Daring to Be Bad'', ''op. cit.'', p. 201.</ref> However, not all radical feminists agreed. "Radical feminists deeply resented politicos' 'caricature' of them as man-haters.¹²⁴"<ref>Echols, Alice, ''Daring to Be Bad'', ''op. cit.'', p. 78 (n. 124: "124. Interview with Cindy Cisler.") and see p. 119.</ref> Some opposition to men was limited.<ref>Echols, Alice, ''Daring to Be Bad'', ''op. cit.'', pp. 63, 71, 81, & 171–172.</ref> <ref>Echols, Alice, ''Daring to Be Bad'', ''op. cit.''; see also pp. 99, 120, 147, & 244.</ref>

Two views were combined by a third-wave feminist leader. "Men are not the enemy.... The feminist movement needs to do a better job in welcoming and incorporating men.... But, I also believe that men need to do a better job of addressing their role in, and their experience with, gender oppression. The feminist movement should stop celebrating men's presence, but at the same time it should welcome men's involvement. It is possible to incorporate men into feminism without falling over ourselves to thank them.... Let's be partners—equal partners—and let's model within the feminist movement what we would like to see outside the movement. [¶] Similarly, men need to stop expecting that women will work it all out for them.... Men are feminists .... [U]ntil men ... begin to fight a patriarchy that hurts not just women but also men, we—women and men alike—will not achieve true equality and the endless benefits that go along with it."<ref>Seely, Megan, ''Fight Like a Girl: How to Be a Fearless Feminist'' (N.Y.: N.Y. Univ. Press, pbk. [2d printing?] 2007 (ISBN 978-0-8147-4002-6)), pp. 81–83 (page break between pp. 81 & 82 in ellipsis between "thank them" & "Let's" (ellipsis representing two sentences & page break within first) & page break between pp. 82 & 83 in ellipsis between "[U]ntil men" & "begin") & 84–86 (author former president, [[California]] [[National Organization for Women]], & 3rd-wave feminist activist, per ''id.'', p. 279 (''About the Author'')) (per Wikipedia, largely a primary source on point).</ref>

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC) (Corrected omissions of a space between two quoted words and of a space within a citation: 21:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)) (Added paragraph explaining mistaken appearance of quotation marks and other artifacts within refs: 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)) (Corrected my startling omission of author Mary Wollstonecraft's name in two referents (I had simply forgotten): 02:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)) (Corrected en- & em-dashes having become hyphens when I saved text in a text file during the recent network loss & corrected "p." to plural: 15:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC))

I tried incorporating some of this. Let me know what you think. --Aronoel (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I like it. Thank you. I tweaked, including inserting an author's name I had somehow completely forgotten to include in the original citation (it's all fixed now). I prefer more detailed citations (thus they're above) but some editors object and so I trimmed them in the article. Thanks again. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Aside from the fact that most of the sources seem biased on the surface, this article has more sources than needed and about 150/161 of the articles sources are books, and therefore hard to check (which is usually not a problem unless many sources are unavailable to the average reader) and the problem is compounded by the fact that many of these books aren't exactly "Dan Brown littering your local library's floor" common books. I'd like to take the problems up to the noticeboards but would like to hear your opinions on the matter first.Props888 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources may be biased as long as the article is neutral. It is. It has recently been referred to the noticeboard for NPOV and the result so far has been the opposite of the complainant's apparent wish.

A source need not be commonly available. Sources are often available through interlibrary loan; in the U.S. at least, many public libraries offer that service, perhaps for free. Google Books and Amazon offer searching inside a book.

Sources have to be as numerous as the text, and the likelihood of challenging it for insufficient sourcing, may require; generally up to three for a point is not a problem, and in some cases that may be legitimately exceeded.

An article on any subject is ordinarily written primarily from the information in the subject's field, and so the feminism article is going to lean toward inclusion of feminist sources. Some criticism is to be expected and it is present. More extensive criticism arising from disagreement between fields of study may be more appropriately presented in the articles on the latter subjects, so that the feminism article may reasonably encompass and present its subject and still fit within Wikipedia's length limit.

If you still see a problem, please be specific.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Props888 - the sources here are all fine as per wikipedia's policy on verification. Wikipedia judges sources by how well cited they are in the mainstream academic community (see WP:RS) not whether everybody's library has a copy. Secondly it is not wikipedia's job to neuter sources just to record all the major mainstream reliable 3rd party POVs on a subject. Per WP:FRINGE views not of significant serious citation (which is deferent to wider spread knowledge ie flat earth theory is well known but we don't give it equal weight on the globe article and vice-versa) may not even be mentioned. Your issue is with policy and I'm afraid questions about policy should be asked at policy pages - see WP:V--Cailil ^talk 18:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Nick "An article on any subject is ordinarily written primarily from the information in the subject's field, and so the feminism article is going to lean toward inclusion of feminist sources. Some criticism is to be expected and it is present. More extensive criticism arising from disagreement between fields of study may be more appropriately presented in the articles on the latter subjects, so that the feminism article may reasonably encompass and present its subject and still fit within Wikipedia's length limit." As for your first sentence you are right but I never said anything to the contrary, all I said was the article has too many sources coming from the feminist movement a violation of WP:SELFPUB (5. the article is not based primarily on [sources as sources on themselves]). And who said I'm trying to "neuter" the sources by adding instantly recognizable and respected sources, which you seem to think is "just record[ing] all the major mainstream reliable 3rd party POV's on a subject", somehow I think that CNN is less likely to be challenged as a relible source than some person named Baca Zinn, Maxine; from my perspective it appears you are doing the exact opposite, putting in as much feminist literature as sources as possible. Articles should include many 3rd party "POV's", especially one like this, where the 3rd party sources should be plentiful. And to stray a bit away from the intended purpose of this section, another problem is WP:PEACOCK, it makes statements that essentially say feminism promotes equality (which then means anyone who doesn't agree with feminism down to a tee promotes inequality) and every single person benefits from it. This article also says, "the male-controlled capitalist hierarchy as the defining feature of women's oppression", which assumes 1. Capitalism is controlled/biased towards men 2. Capitalism oppresses women.Props888 (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

OK Props888 - that's enough soapboxing If you have a problem with wikipedia's standards for verification and/or reliable sources take it to policy pages.
Your argument is tantamount to saying that the article on geology has too many selfpublished sources because all the authors are geologists.
Also as a warning do not disparage the work of living people - no matter what your opinion on how reliable/well known their name is--Cailil ^talk 12:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@Props888: Regarding your criticism of the article relying too heavily on obscure books, there is no requirement that references be accessible on the internet. Please see WP:SOURCEACCESS. Of course if those sources can be augmented with internet sources, it does helps to boost the article's verifiability. Kaldari (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, how have I 'disparaged' anyone's work, if you're refering to this,"CNN is less likely to be challenged as a relible source than some person named Baca Zinn, Maxine", all I was saying was a relatively unknown author would less likely be challanged as an RS than a big news org. And how is having all the sources on feminism the same as having all geologists on the geology article, geology is a field of study femenism is a political and social movement, there is nobody zealously arguing or defending the validity or benefits of geology, you're arguments hold no water, having geologists write the geology article wouldn't give the article a POV, nobody is pro-geology or anti-geology, however if you leave articles like nazism, conservatism, liberalism, communism, feminism in the hands of nazis, conservatives, liberals and communists, femenists, respectively, you will very likely get a POV, instead of waging an all out war on the straw man could you please civilly address my concerns about the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Props888 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Props888 your points have been addressed and you have been warned to stop abusing the talk space. If you don't like wikipedia's standards for sourcing take it up on the appropriate policy page--Cailil ^talk 23:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If you feel I haven't been following the guidelines point out how instead of directing me to the policy page, which says nothing of what I've done and Kaladri only addressed one of my points.Props888 (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Your point has been address by 3 editors (2 of whom are sysops) - your complaint is with wikipedia's standards for sourcing (ie WP:V). Take it there if you want it addressed. Otherwise you are soapboxing by using this page like a forum - which it is not--Cailil ^talk 23:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about the policy I'm saying that this page does not follow policy. And what points other than the one addressed by Kaladri have been addressed?Props888 (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Cailil but will also add this in hope of assisting.

The rule restricting use of self-published sources applies to self-publication by people and institutions (including governments), not to movements and fields of study, although that rule may not be clear enough about that (I glanced at it), and, if it's not, it should be clarified.

Geologists will tend to be pro-geology, because if someone considers geology invalid they probably won't spend the time to study and practice in it. The same is true and more likely as to charges of invalidity for medicine and feminism. The problem with leaving an article on Nazi ideology to Nazis to write, to take one of your examples, may only be an unwillingness of the writers to be honest about Nazi ideology; otherwise, we don't care who writes the article. Nazi sources can be cited as long as they meet Wikipedia's criteria, and if I were researching modern Nazi ideology outside of Wikipedia I probably would turn to Nazi and third-party sources to find out. Feminism is a movement but it is also an academic field of study, with many books and journals presenting its findings.

CNN is a good source for some content. But, typically, a newscast, even a magazine-style news program (like 60 Minutes on CBS), does not go into the depth that a book does, and therefore we often turn to articles and books to write Wikipedia. A book's author or the book may not be well known but that is not relevant to reliability.

Thank you for your interest. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

From geology, "Geology (from the Greek γῆ, gê, "earth" and λόγος, logos, "study") is the science and study of the solid Earth and the processes by which it is shaped and changed." By this definition it is impossible to declare geology an invalid field of study without believing the Earth does not exist or it hasn't shaped and changed (though it is impossible to, within reason, refute any of those), thus one cannot rationally argue that geology is invalid (and I doubt you can take a pro- or anti- stance in a field of study where the subject matter's existence is not questioned). And while I don't question that it is possible to write an NPOV article with Nazi, feminist, etc. sources on its subject matter, however, it appears this article is written almost exclusively with feminist sources aside from a couple dictionaries used in the lead. And while it is possible to write a neutral article using sources exclusively from either side of the NPOV it is extremely unlikely and is usually, if not the cause of a POV article, a symptom of a POV article. The biggest concern that I have with this article is that it has virtually no criticism woven in the article or even controversies/criticisms section. And, while you do make a good point about books vs. news and magazines, the latter tend to have the benefit of being more reliable. In a book someone could say anything about anything even with no evidence to support their claims, their only barrier would be finding a publisher, whereas a person working for, say, the New York Times could not say anything they want since the blame for the misinformation goes mostly on the organization so the New York Times would have a much bigger incentive to make sure what they put on paper is true and has a large amount of evidence and sourcing than a publisher.Props888 (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to reconsider whether we have enough critique in the article. We did recently, so recent edits may have dropped some of them in error. There are some in the article now, however, especially critiques by some feminists of other feminists' positions.

On geology: If someone believes that a deity created Earth in a day and that earthquakes happen because we're prying into something that's only a deity's business, they may consider geology an invalid study. That's a rare or only hypothetical perspective, but many sciences (e.g., health) are much more frequently criticized as invalid although quite scientific; the criticisms are often religious but nonetheless people makes choices about what they consider valid for study and practice. People who study or practice in a field tend to agree with many of its major foundations, and that includes authors and in-field editors.

On books: Books vary in their editing control. Self-published books are treated like self-statements, and generally rejected for Wikipedia except as self-statements; vanity presses are in that category. Books by academics or other well-regarded authors or from well-reputed or academic presses have more editorial controls and are less rushed than are newspaper stories (although newspapers do a terrific job much of the time). Errors occur in all major media and we're happy to cut the mistakes, but books per se are not the problem.

You said earlier that there were too many sources. We've answered on whether there are too many from within the field, but if your concern was simply too many regardless, no, there aren't, because much content is subject to challenge unless supported, especially in a controverted field, and up to three citations per point is acceptable and sometimes so are more.

Please don't mark posts as minor. That's for much more minor edits, such as correcting your own prior post to make a change with little difference in meaning. Marking as minor means some people might miss it.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Since when does CNN report on the history and the theoretical schools of feminism?

I hope I will be forgiven for bringing up another article to illustrate my point. Compare this article to an article like masculism. There you have masculinist and other sources (and let's be honest, mostly no sources) that have been used to compile a list of arguments why masculinists think that men are oppressed or discriminated against. The sources have been used to present the POV "men are discriminated against in XYZ by XYZ" (by the way, an extreme fringe view anywhere outside the men's rights movement). This article, however, simply depicts the history of feminism, the different schools of thought, and its relation to other movements. There are no sections on human trafficking, domestic violence, the gender pay gap, rape, stereotype threat, the representation of women in the media or any other field of social, economic or political life where feminists think that women are discriminated against. When something like the feminist view on pornography is mentioned, it's only to say that there is sex-positive feminism and the anti-pornography movement. This is why it is no problem that we use "feminist sources." If CNN were to report on feminist views on pornography, they would say the exact same thing as those darn "feminist sources." The sources aren't used to argue why pornography (or any of the other things mentioned) is good or bad or what it means for the standing of women in this world.

Since you are so terribly concerned about the quality of articles, I am convinced that you'll immediately get to work on masculism or some other article that is in desperate need of some neutrality. This article here is in remarkable shape thanks to a handful of dedicated editors who've managed to stay polite and patient even when dealing with sudden and (almost) inexplicable mass arrivals of new editors (with remarkable knowledge of WP:PEACOCK and WP:SELFPUB!) who are willing to do whatever it takes to impose their fringe views (they call it NPOV) on Wikipedia. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with masculism is an entirely different problem than with this article and in many respects that article is better than this one (i.e. that article uses cites, says, suggests, while this one states ones opinion as fact or representative like " Socialist feminism connects oppression of women to exploitation, oppression, and labor", "connects the opression of women" assumes that women are actively oppressed in the developed world which is not an established fact and may even be fringe and the second part "exploitation, oppression, and labor" does the exact same thing). Furthermore masculism cites at least three times as much non masculist sources as feminism cites non feminist sources (especially when you ignore the dictionary definitions) which is pitiful for an article with nearly 5 times as many sources and significantly more content and for such an experienced user as you it seems that, from your statement, policies don't matter when considering the quality of articles. @Nick: Although books do have editorial control it is no where near the level that news articles are; books are generally written to appeal certain demographics and as such would be skewed towards what that demographic believes. Take Richard Dawkins for example, he's a highly reputable scientist, though it wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that in one of his books he might say, "believing in religion is silly", though this isn't anything close to an NPOV statement it wouldn't be a big shock since most of his books are written to appeal to atheists, however just because he is reputable and knowledgeable about the topic doesn't mean we could say on the religion article, "believing in it is silly" we may say "Richard Dawkins believes believing in religion is silly" (if NPOV is the only policy we look at). News is written to report on all sides and keep personal opinions to the minimum. P.S. now understand exactly how minor a "minor edit" should be, thanks.Props888 (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Antifeminist criticism is adequately covered, along with a link to a longer article, which listed a book I was going to include in this article as a fourth referent in support of a point but now see I don't need to.

News stories often have less control than do books: just one journalist and just one editor, plus policies and resources, but often all on much tighter deadlines than apply to books (an academic book author I know saw 9 months go by between final manuscript submission and publication). All types of media are written for some audiences but not all possible audiences, so all types are subject to skewing: e.g., NPR and BBC differ in their editing on that score and consider how the N.Y. Times redacted from source documents differently than WikiLeaks did or didn't; as a result, we have to select, write, and qualify as necessary for a good article. At any rate, debating Wikipedia's policy on which sources are acceptable is beyond the scope of this talk page. If you find a particular statement lacks a proper qualification, please post accordingly.

Nick Levinson (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC) (Corrected by italicizing a newspaper's name and editing "a" to "as": 18:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC))

This is your last and final warning Props888: stop using this page like a forum. You have been directed multiple times to take this to the relevant policy pages (ie WP:V). You had also expressed the wish to raise the issue at 'the noticeboards' yourself in your first comment - take your issue there if you want it addressed. Otherwise your refusal to listen to the answers to your points is tendentious - this page is not for the debate of policy--Cailil ^talk 18:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Point taken Nick, however, other problems with this article are that it doesn't go too much in to the history of feminism in the history section I suggest we move the Civil Rights sub-section (and all or parts of other sections that go too much into history) into it and expand it. Also the sentence "Feminists have struggled to protect women and girls from domestic violence, sexual harassment, and sexual assault" seems a bit odd I don't think feminist actively go out and patrol the streets so it may be confusing. And the Theology and Religious sections seem a bit redundant maybe we should merge the two?Props888 (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The history section takes a reasonable portion of the article, given a couple of constraints: the article is a general introduction and Wikipedia strongly suggests a length limit of 100 KiB. Thus, the more detailed history of feminism article is linked to at the beginning of this article's History section. Whether to move parts of the other sections to the History section is interesting; I don't know. Doing so would require rewriting those other sections. I'll leave that to other editors to ponder.

The sentence with "struggled", which is in the Societal Impact section, is not one I disagree with on the ground of either vagueness or POV (you didn't say the latter), because it encompasses the various methods used by the feminist movement, such as sponsoring demonstrations and lobbying for legislation (at least one of the supporting links describes an example of method, advocacy), and because it has been a difficult set of fights, so "struggle" is an appropriate verb.

The Theology subsection does seem a bit redundant of the Religious subsection, serving as a summary in a different location, and perhaps what the Theology subsection should be about is what has been accomplished and is pending, but I don't have sources handy for that, and even that would be problematic, because that's probably too specific for each faith community and too easily controverted (e.g., do more people today view a monotheistic deity as gender-neutral than used to?). Maybe that more faith communities, including some that are traditionally more patriarchal than others, have been employing women as faith leaders, especially as ministers, could be mentioned, if a faith-general source exists that tells us that (maybe there's a statistic). I'll leave these questions, too, to other editors to ponder.

Thanks for bringing these up. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC) (Clarified: 02:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC))

Help with one sentence

Some feminists are engaged with men's issues activism, such as correcting legal and social imbalances in regard to father's rights, bringing attention to male rape and spousal battery, and addressing negative social expectations for men.

I think that sentence is misleading, especially the part about "correcting legal and social imbalances in regard to father's rights." The sentence implies that such legal and social imbalances in regards to father's rights actually exist. Where? In the US, in Russia, or in Afghanistan? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that there are imbalances in regards to individual fathers but is there evidence (evidence as in research) of a systematic bias against fathers (in Western first world countries)? I'm not aware of such studies. However, there are studies which contradict it. Regina Graycar summarized some of those studies and wrote [1]:

It is common for men and the groups that advocate on their behalf to claim that they are discriminated against in the Family Court, particularly when it comes to parenting decisions. The fathers' groups persistently claim that the court is 'biased' against them. But their claims have no empirical support: the literature and the available studies show that, when cases go to the Family Court for a decision in a contested residence case, the court makes orders (in disputed cases) in favour of fathers at twice the rate of those made by consent.

Also, primary caretaker preference is sex-neutral. A father who has been the primary caretaker of his children is entitled to the primary caretaker preference and the judge will certainly not "discriminate against men." However, the traditional division of labor as well as certain stereotypes like the one that women are responsible for childcare make sure that women are by and large the primary caretakers of children.

Any suggestions as to what to do with the sentence? Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's delete the phrase you put in italics. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's from the article on Maternal Presumption in the sources, but I guess it's mostly historical activism and the maternal presumption is gone in the US, so I'm fine with removing the italicized part. --Aronoel (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms by some/other women

The section titled 'criticisms by some/other women' contains no actual criticisms by women, but is more concerned with the number of white middle class women involved in the feminist movement. Either the title needs to change, or actual criticisms need to be included. Ashmoo (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree Ashmoo. The whole page is in a period of reconstruction atm and this section needs work. Criticisms by others of feminism tends to be a touchy subject around here, /sigh. Quotes form Hoff Sommers, Paglia, Friedan, McElroy etc I am sure exist. Its a matter of finding balance and relevance.

Concerning 'some' or 'other' I can see where Nick is coming from, the extra meaning each word carries depends on context. For me 'other' seems better here. Zimbazumba (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be renamed. Maybe it should be included in the history section and not under "reactions." --Aronoel (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand - the original placing of this was in the Black feminism, post-colonial feminism and multi-ethnic feminism section. All of which were criticisms of White western feminism for being ethnocentric and limited to middle class issues. I do agree with the intent of Nick's edit as well 'other' isn't an ideal word. However 'some' is a weasel word and must be avoided. I'd also support your point Aronoel inclusion in teh history section would make most sense--Cailil ^talk 19:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A word is a weasel word only when a more precise alternative is available, when it fails to add useful information, when it conceals bias, when it is in lieu of identifying sourcing, or, in this case, when almost no one or almost everyone would be more accurate. A more precise alternative would be the title in place before recent edits, but maybe that was too long (I don't think it was but maybe it was); it was "Criticisms by women of colour, with lower incomes, or not Western". The word some does add useful information; taking it out would leave only "Criticisms by women". It is not concealing bias; the underlying views are stated or linked to. Sourcing is shown in the subsection. A lot of women fill each category (White, middle-/upper-class, etc. and of color, lower income, etc.).

Regarding the edit summary's statement that some implies 'few', the Oxford English Dictionary (online version), as accessed Mar. 23, 2011, some, adjective 1, with plural nouns means "[a] certain number of; a few at least." (definition 8a) and "[c]ertain (taken individually)" (def. 7a). The OED online version is behind a paywall, but some libraries get it. If you need further research related to the OED, I may rely on the SOED ([4th] ed.) instead, out of personal convenience.

It would be fair to say many. I think it would be impossible to quantify much more precisely.

Criticisms of feminism are legion in the world. In this article, we can only be brief, and are. Links help concision. Links to articles point to criticisms. It is in that sense that the subsection title refers to criticisms.

Moving into history is only apropos if the topic is no longer of much moment except historically. It's likelier that in third world nations and elsewhere it is still a major issue among feminists and would-be feminists (e.g., womanists, unless womanism is little in use today).

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC) (Mainly corrected weasel-word def., a missing parenthesis, & a missing comma & clarified re OED/SOED: 02:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC))

How about moving it to Movements and Ideologies, where black feminism, third world feminism, etc already are? Also, what do people think of moving all of the religious feminist movements (Jewish feminism, Islamic feminism, etc) and the Riot Grrrl Movement to Movements and Ideologies as well? Maybe we can also create sub-sections to make the movements more organized. --Aronoel (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Religious feminisms

About the religious feminisms - I would keep them seperate but would rather trim the section. In that case a new sub-article (unless Feminism and religion or other name, exists) is more useful. My reason for this is how other sources do it. Marxist feminism and Islamic feminism are not usually discussed as the same type of ideological movement in exitsing sources to do so here would constitute a form of OR. Similarly with Riot Grrl - it's more about trimming that section and listing other cultural actvities relating to feminism rather than conflating cultural activism, religious activism, and Political activism.--Cailil ^talk 00:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick notes only, before I lose network access: There is the feminist theology article, but I'm not sure the ideologies would be ideal there, since, at first glance only, the perspective might be different and require different treatment. I think religious feminisms can be in the feminism article's Movements and Ideologies section, perhaps as a single paragraph, without their adjacency being original research, and there's probably a citable source somewhere that sees a commonality among religiously inspired feminisms. I want to think more about Riot Grrrl. The religious, liberal, radical, conservative, nationalist, racial, and ethnic feminisms, among others, all belong in one section because each has feminist goals, a strategy, and an issues prioritization that makes them different from, say, cultural effects of feminism. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it resolve the problem to have sub-sections called something like "cultural activism, religious activism, and political activism?" While I understand that there are important differences between these types of movements, I think a lot of people will be confused that there are some feminist movements discussed outside of the "movements and ideologies" section. --Aronoel (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds interesting and maybe worth trying on that ground alone. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

While this is interesting I would say bear in mind what sub articles already exist and beware of OR by synthesis.
What we have (and what we should have) here is a parent article that reflects a series of sub articles that are broken up according how the research 'out there' is broken up. And each of these sub artciles contain the info that is seen as part of that category by the research 'out there'.
Long story short: lets see some sources and how they do it first, so that we keep this article in line with policy and of the highest quality possible--Cailil ^talk 17:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

PS a converse way of look at this (the religious movements) is to summarize Feminist theology only (and as broadly as possible) and use a see also or related tag for the christian islamic, jewish movements--Cailil ^talk 17:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I made an attempt to reorganize the section and added religious feminisms. I used A Mind of Her Own: The Evolutionary Psychology of Women by Anne Campbell, American feminist thought at century's end: a reader by Linda S. Kauffman, and The complete idiot's guide to philosophy by Jay Stevenson ("These new attitudes can be based on all kinds of ideas: philosophical, religious, economic, cultural, personal, and political. As a result, there are many kinds of feminism.") --Aronoel (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting but I have to ask where the divisions & groupings of Feminist ideologies for the 'Variations section' comes from?
Also I think the word 'variations' alone is not the most appropriate way to describe that section WRT sources. Ideology is a necessary and source based division for the article. I would suggest 'Ideological variations' or in fact I prefer how Nick had it, 'Movements and Ideologies'.
There is a general weighting issue here Aronoel. Especially with giving equal space to religious feminisms vis-a-vis ideological movements - it just does not reflect sources. There is a further weighting issue with the size of the men and feminism section again (it's the same size as the whole cultural change sub-section - which is utterly non-reflective of the Men and feminism article's appropriate weighing per WP:NPOV).
Before making bold wholesale changes to sections please refer to sources first. Then look at the article and see how much weigh is given to other topics of equivalent sourcing, then match the new section's length approximately to those of equal weighting.
You need to understand my point - the information you're adding is great, however it should be in the sub-article in its current level of detail - a summary is all that should be here--Cailil ^talk 18:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the impression that the Men and Feminism section in its weighting and position within the article seems to imply that Feminism is legitimate only on the condition that it also advocates on behalf of men. It seems to reinforce an androcentric POV. Also, I'm not sure I understand why this article should engage the most obvious and lame backlash rhetoric and respond to such ridiculous accusations like "misandry." Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "ideologies" is loaded, and variations is already used in the feminism template. Here is an example of its use in a reliable source: I just changed it because I thought the simpler term was an improvement. What is the source for referring to the different movements of feminism as "ideologies"?

I didn't add any content to the religious feminisms, but I'm sure it can be cut down somewhat if you see a problem.

I did in fact refer to sources first when I wrote the men and feminism sub-section. It is supposed to be a short summary but I didn't want to neglect any important points or give a misleading impression, which people seemed to see as a problem with the original shorter version. From my impression of the sources, the subject of men and masculinity is an important one that a lot of different feminists have written about. However, I have not read every single book on feminist that exists, so I can't say for certain what the actual proportion is in the total body of feminist literature. Maybe you can let me know which specific points in the section don't belong here.

I don't really see that the section is "androcentric," since feminists have often argued that feminism will benefit men. Also, there is definitely activism for men's issues based in feminism. Also, the sources themselves seem to engage with the accusation of "misandry," so I just put what I found in sources. But feel free to edit the section for NPOV. --Aronoel (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)You are not addressing the WP:NPOV (weight and structure) issues Aronoel. Changes must reflect the preponderance of sources, the articles they summarize and their context in the article. What you might think is a vital point about feminism and men - might be 100% perfect in Men and feminism but could also be undue here. The same goes for any issue (Feminist sci-fi, Black feminism, Feminism in USA etc etc). Also to address your points - I hope my last message didn't sound rude but I'm not being facetious when I pick you up on the removal of "ideologies" - yes it is loaded, but it is accurate. We refer to "feminist ideology" or "feminist politics" when we talk about 'feminist thought' and these feminisms are schools of thought. 'Feminist ideologies' is the term used by multiple sources & as I have said to others we don't neuter sources at WP - we just record them. This is a quick sample of books dealing with or using the term feminist ideologies and is not complete:

Extended content

Feminists Theorize the Political by Butler et al Gender Trouble by Butler Divergent feminist ideologies by Bollenbacher The new feminist movement by Carden Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives, Second Edition by Lister The Good-Natured Feminist: Ecofeminism and the Quest for Democracy by Sandilands Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Studies in Gender, Power and Ideology by Lazar American feminism: a contemporary history by Castro Theory in its feminist travels by King Anarchist feminist ideologies by Grant Making Feminist Politics: Transnational Alliances between Women and Labor by Franzway Feminist and queer legal theory by Fineman et al Feminist theory: from margin to center by bel hooks Discourse and the other by Hogue Beyond methodology: feminist scholarship as lived research Fonow et al Muslim feminism and feminist movement: Central Asia by Samiuddin Feminism: from pressure to politics by Miles et at What's right with the Trinity? by Bacon Beyond feminist aesthetics: feminist literature and social change by Felski Beginning theory by Barry Feminist theory and the body by Price

Other than this it must be said the sub-article is called 'Feminist movements and ideologies' too.
There is no reason to change the article because the Nav template is different. Rather change the template.--Cailil ^talk 20:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

To talk about the structure I remain convinced that the previous way of arranging the info about religion and the various ideologies is more in accordance with the sources 'out there'. I think one paragraph on men and feminism is fine - the size and scope of what's there presently is just too much. That info is good but should be in Men and feminism. So I would refer you back to my first 2 comments in this sub-section for my 2c--Cailil ^talk 21:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want me to say about weight. There are a number of sources for each point, I can provide more if you don't think this is the case. I believe they are all equally justified in their presence here so I don't know which parts you want me to remove.

Without the categories the movements and ideologies section is just a giant disorganized list of movements. I believe there is a practical necessity for the sub-sections and I provided a source that mentioned these categories. (The complete idiot's guide to philosophy)

Most of the sources you listed above don't use "ideologies" to refer to feminist movements. However, this point is not important to me so I will change the section title back.

I am just trying to sincerely do my best to improve this article in areas that I see as having problems. --Aronoel (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure if you realized that "men and masculinity" covers more than just Men and feminism. It also discusses Masculinity, Masculism, Male feminism, and briefly Pro-feminism and patriarchy. Many of these topics used to be separate sections here. -Aronoel (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

On men's weight, a caution regarding reliance on sources: Many of the academically advanced sources tend to focus on the subject and not on outsiders' critiques of the subject. Introductory sources might say more about objections to feminism as a whole, however, introductions tend not to be secondary, but tertiary. Wikipedia's mission is different, specifically requesting criticisms to ensure neutrality, so more content that is critical from outside the subject would belong in WP than sources would, on average, indicate. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@Aronoel - hold on a minute, yes all the books I listed refer to 'feminist ideologies' either in indices, titles or the body of the works.
Yes I would like to see more sources that organize feminist ideologies in this way. I do realize you are trying to improve this article and encyclopedia but you need to understand there are 3 basic standards (verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view) for this site's articles, their content and their organization. Basing a reorganization of a page on a lower quality or less well cited sources or group of sources gives that POV an undue weigh and breaches WP:NPOV. Arranging articles in an ad hoc manner or in a way that is based on gut-feeling or opinion (however good or valid these might be) is a breach of WP:OR. These two issues are as big a problem as basing an article's content on personal opinion or experience.
@Nick: that's actually half my point. However you're missing the weighting aspect. Every source and POV must be weighed against the preponderance of mainstream 3rd party sources - especially in a parent article that has a series of sub-articles. For example the solution here is to summarize masculinism, pro-feminism, patriarchy etc in Men and feminism and to summarize that article here (when it's finished). In so doing one can figure out how much weight these subjects have in context and then much weight that whole subject has in the context of this article.
I realize how complicated that is, but this article will go nowhere if it doesn't follow the structure of WP:SUMMARY in full and total in accordance with WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V--Cailil ^talk 23:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Relying on sources for weighting presents two problems specifically about weighting, which I was indeed addressing when I brought up one of these two issues: one that critiques from outside of feminism tend to get less weight in academic in-field surveys than Wikipedia wants and the other that new topics tend to get less or no coverage in those same surveys, because the latter lag until what to say about them is more determinable, yet the new often qualifies for Wikipedia. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Nick I wasn't following you, actually what you're presenting here is a common misunderstanding of WP:DUE. The only things we can use to assess weighting are sources. Editors can't 'make a call' on what gets included becuase as WP:NPOV explains: "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Again this a verifiability not 'truth' issue. If the preponderance of major reliable sources, as you say, "lag until what to say about them is more determinable" then so does wikipedia. Articles that do the reverse breach WP:NOR and WP:NPOV (and sometimes WP:NOTE) - we even have a tag for labeling articles that suffer from so-called 'recentism'--Cailil ^talk 18:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

We agree on relying on sourcing (and verifiability and notability are not at issue). However, Wikipedia:Recentism is not entirely against recency. While content about what's recent has to be sourced just as other content does, what's recent but not yet academically published may be included. If, say, some people start a fourth wave of feminism, the L.A. Times publishes a substantial and reliable article with views of fourth-wave members and reactions of second- and third-wave feminists, and no academic work mentions the fourth yet because it is new, we may include it even though we rely on citing two sources, one academic for other waves and one not academic but for the fourth wave, as long as we do not attribute to either source what is not in it. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but in an article like this one that parents a very broad subject which reflects a political, historical, theoretical and philosophical library of reliable sources 'out there' - such recent, or tangential information is not given equal weight, or explored in equal detail, in this article relative to, for example, the history of feminism. Currently the Men and, and religion sub-sections are given a disproportionate weighting and thus breaching WP:NPOV. This can be solved by spinning of good information into sub-articles and replacing the over-long sections here with appropriately weighted summaries--Cailil ^talk 01:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree except that I reserve judgment on whether anything has too much weight now, which I'll leave to other editors. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"Men and masculinity" is about the 4th or 5th largest sub-section here, but there are NPOV issues in removing certain viewpoints from the summary, and there were POV concerns people brought up previously with the section. It would be better in my opinion to focus on the actual level of detail covered in each sub-section instead of simply word count, especially since many of the sections are still in the process of being trimmed or expanded. It's difficult to judge how the weight will appear in a more final version.

One idea: Would "Men and masculinity" be better in the section on feminist theory than where it is currently? Here are a few sources on political/economic/cultural feminisms as requested.

Extended content

Feminist perspectives on economics, Edith Kuiper Feminism: from pressure to politics, Angela Rose Miles, Geraldine Finn Feminism and politics: a comparative perspective Joyce Gelb Feminist Ethics and Social and Political Philosophy: Theorizing the Non-Ideal Lisa Tessman Feminism: from pressure to politics Angela Rose Miles, Geraldine Finn Social Movements: The Key Concepts Graeme Chesters, Ian Welsh Youth culture: identity in a postmodern world Jonathon S. Epstein

It may be a good idea to do an RFC to get some more ideas about ways to organize and categorize sections in this article. --Aronoel (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Atheist feminism

Should secular or atheist feminism be in this article? I'm not really sure if there is an atheist feminist movement. There are some atheists who are also feminists, and there is some feminist criticism of religion, but I can't find any good sources on atheist feminism as a movement. What do people think? Would it be good to put atheist feminism in the movements section, or put some info on feminist criticism of religion in the theology section, or not have it in this article at all? --Aronoel (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes insofar as sourceable (the usual caveat, nothing special here) (I assume you're asking because you didn't find many useful sources in the atheist feminism article, which seems to be largely about other than atheism, since criticisms of religions usually come from religionists), but I don't recall such a movement. Atheists have little by way of being a member of anything (a likely exception being in officially atheist nations that also permit or sponsor feminism (as in state feminism)), so such atheist feminism as exists is probably mostly from some individuals who have written of it. Ethical humanism (detractors call it secular humanism) and the Unitarian Universalist Church (which sponsors Beacon Press) may have something not quite atheist. My guess is the best place to put content about it will be in the movements and ideologies subsection, since the theology subsection is more about what's held in common among feminists of various religiously-oriented movements and ideologies, and it seems unlikely that atheist feminists would be particularly concerned that there be, say, portraying of a deity as female, although many feminists, including those who have theological interests but focus their feminism along secular lines (such as economic mainstreaming), likely support ministries employing women as well as men at all levels, and relatively few such advocates will happen to be atheists. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC) (Corrected by adding a missing comma: 01:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC))

Thanks. I'll try to put something together on secular feminisms. Let me know if you know of any good sources. Atheist feminism has sources on feminist criticism of religion but nothing to suggest a real movement or ideology. --Aronoel (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As a caveat Aronoel again please consider the organization of the article and whether this info is better in a sub-article rather than here--Cailil ^talk 23:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Aronoel, I think this is a pretty excellent addition. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --Aronoel (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead

What do people think about the current changes to the lead? I think the original version was better because 1. the new one has the "refers to" issue (WP:REFERS), 2. I believe the addition "focuses primarily on modern, western societies" is wrong and contradicted in the body of this article, and 3. I don't really understand the need for the change in wording (Why the addition of "in society" for example?) Were there problems with the original lead? --Aronoel (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to change it or change it back (in whole or in part). I was mostly trying to make it *sound* better to my ear; there's no real analytic necessity for most of the changes. The only things I think are important are the place where I changed the wording about the liberation of both men and women (the previous version sounded a bit like a Midol ad), and tha last paragraph, where I complexified the relationship between feminism and ethnicity (which needs some expansion in this article, and probably some mention of the relationship with academic Marxism as well). otherwise, have at it! --Ludwigs2 02:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Support Aronoel's version but agree with Ludwigs that the relationship between feminism and ethnicity, anti-racism activism in particular, has to be described in greater detail. However, I don't understand why the focus is on the criticism of "white middle-class feminists" by non-white non-middle-class feminists instead of on the fact that feminism is closely associated with anti-racism activism and that most feminists support and frequently actively campaign for minority rights (see Gloria Steinem et al.). Does anyone have time to write something about the connection between feminism and other equal rights movements? Or do you think it doesn't belong in the article? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think anti-racism activism is significant enough for this article. It could be appropriate under "relationship to political movements." I can try and write something, let me know if you know of any good sources that should be used. Also, I'm trying to understand why Ludwigs felt the previous version sounded like a Midol ad, was this because the phrase "women's issues" sounded like a euphemism for menstruation? --Aronoel (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, I just saw your edit. I think you did a wonderful job. I have a few things to add as soon as I have a bit more time to devote to this article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Definitely add anything you think I may have missed. --Aronoel (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Entire Article Is Soapbox

This entire article is just a soapbox for femiNazis. The article has no credibility. As per WP:SOAPBOX the article should be deleted and re-written by persons who have a neutral point of view. 70.140.218.76 (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone is free to make an account and edit this article themselves. Also anyone is free to post on this talk page any constructive edit requests (i.e. requests based on sourced research without insults or nonspecific complaints). --Aronoel (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow - from femiNazis to NPOV in 20 words. Is that a record? IP, I'm curious what it is you see that earns the femiNazi label. can you be more specific? --Ludwigs2 23:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

C'mon, folks, I entered a well-researched paragraph the other day that critiqued feminism and it was deleted right away. There's a culture of bias in this article that presupposes that any contradiction of feminist dogma cannot be acknowledged. Read 'The War Against Boys' by Christina Hoff Sommers (she's a woman so you can't claim male bias), which came out some time ago and tried to warn people about the impending crisis for boys in education but which folks ignored. Now boys constitute 80% of all high school dropouts and constitute only 40% of college kids. Women now get more BA's, MA's and PhD's than men. Look, the divorce rate in California is 65% and 71% of the criminals in California come from single mother families. Without the dad around, the family unit falls apart. Women are generating the vast majority of the criminals in our society. Here's some data from Dr. James Dobson's book "Bringing Up Boys", pgs. 33-34: boys are six times more likely than girls to have learning disabilities, five times as likely to commit suicide (80% of suicides involve males under 25 years old), throughout grades K-12 boys receive lower grades than girls, 8th grade boys are held back 50% more than girls, etc. etc. I've taught school and am well aware of the anti-male bias in our school systems (as I just noted and referenced). 91% of grade school teachers are female and 75% of K-12 teachers are female. Boys are disenfranchised in education. This has a negative effect upon women since women cannot find suitable educated males to marry. Over 50% of American women don't have husbands. The birth rate for Caucasians in California is only 1.7, which isn't enough, so only 28% of California schoolchildren are Caucasian and 50% are Latino and nationwide by the year 2020 Caucasian kids will be a minority in schools nationwide. This will adversely affect our nation since Latinos are less likely to get university degrees than any other ethnic group (according to the Public Policy Institute of California). Feminism has watered down college degrees and made them comparatively worthless (only 20% of college grads get jobs upon graduation these days). I could go on and on. 70.140.218.76 (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

A statement of fact, even if true, is not a sourced statement of fact until the source is cited.

Criticisms are a small part of any article, because the core subject is the main focus of the article. When there's more material than would fit as criticisms because of the space limitation and the prospect of undue weight, that additional material probably belongs instead in articles on the substantive issues represented by what are criticisms of feminism, such as in an article on education or divorce. Cross-linking articles is already encouraged.

Feminism criticizes society. Thus, feminism is inherently a viewpoint or a collection of viewpoints. Feminism is not neutral. Wikipedia does not require that feminism be neutral. Wikipedia does require that articles be neutral. If Wikipedia accurately represents feminism, Wikipedia is doing its job. In that case, Wikipedia is being neutral.

It is possible to criticize an author for having pro-male bias even if she is a woman. Many women authors have had that bias, some quite unabashedly, and critics of those authors have at times said so, legitimately.

This talk page is for discussing improving the article. If you're right about what should be in the article, you need sourcing, so it looks like you have your work cut out for you.

Nick Levinson (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I also want to point out that Hoff Sommers is already in this article. --Aronoel (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• User:70.140.218.76 This article is semi-protected - that means unregistered users can't edit it. Nobody deleted your contribution. Stop assuming bad faith of others and as a first and last warning do not use wikipedia talk pages like a forum.--Cailil ^talk 00:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

To the last user posting from an IP address, if it was your post that was recently deleted, please note that in that case you have posted under two or three IP addresses, which to us looks at first like posting by two or three people, in which case we would have assumed that what we deleted was someone else's post. That can happen if you use different computers or proxies. You're free to edit and post under an IP address within Wikipedia's rules, but some things you can't do under an IP address, such as edit a semi-protected article, like this one. Register for an account for Wikipedia and you get some advantages, like being able to edit semi-protected articles after a while. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Angels311, 1 May 2011

I would like to add Feminism and Technical Communication under the Feminism Science category.

Angels311 (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Angels311, 1 May 2011

I would like to add content to the Feminism page under the Science heading for Feminism and Technical Communcation. I have a substantial amount of content with 16 reliable sources for the work to be added. The following are my sources already formatted for Wikipedia submission.

==References==

Angels311 (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to do one of two things. Either you need to list exactly what you want added here, or you'll have to become autoconfirmed--this happens automatically 4 days after you've started editing, and after you've made at least 10 edits to other (unprotected) pages. Do you have a draft somewhere of this info? Also, if it really is "a lot", we may have to consider whether or not the info you want to add is of due weight--this is a general overview of feminism, so it shouldn't be too long on specifics. Finally, in your references above, everywhere that you have an "l" (the letter "L") in between two parts, that's actually supposed to be "|" (a pipe; on most US keyboards, it's above the back slash, which is usually above the enter key on the right side). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

History section needs worldwide view

The history section here doesn't discuss historical feminist events outside of the US and Europe. Just off the top of my head, I think women's suffrage in non-Western countries in general, the Iranian women's movement, feminism in the Chinese Revolution, and feminism under Nasser are all notable enough to be in a general summary section about the wordwide history of feminism. However, I know that covering feminist movements in every single country would make the section extremely long. Does anyone have any ideas about making this section reflect the worldwide history of feminism better? --Aronoel (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no Aronoel. Yes these are important. But no we shouldn't just add them. The history section is a summary of another article. New info goes into THAT article. The summary here gets rewritten here after that article is adjusted properly.
Secondly we should only include what is due here and we must structure section as they are structured in mainstream reliable sources--Cailil ^talk 03:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I've covered most notable aspects of the history of feminism in the Middle East and China, and Ozhistory added Australasia. However, there is still a lot of the world to cover. One book I'm using, Global feminisms since 1945 by Bonnie G. Smith, has chapters on Vietnam, South Africa, Brazil, Kenya, Korea, Japan, Russia, and Germany. The history of feminism is pretty unique in all of these places. There is also the rest of the countries in Africa and America. I don't know how we can really justify having summaries of feminism in some countries but not others. Vietnam may not seem important from a Western perspective, but from a global one its history is just as valid as the US's.

However, there is obviously a huge length issue in including all of these countries. I don't really know what the best solution is to these issues. Does anyone have any ideas or can write about any of these other countries?--Aronoel (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well Aronoel you've hit the nail on the head: "how we can really justify having summaries of feminism in some countries but not others ... [but] ... there is obviously a huge length issue in including all of these countries.". Basically in the History of Feminism article we should include all of them giving more time and space to the ones more written about (per WP:DUE). Here, in Feminism, where we've summarized that article we can only mention the ones most written about. (Yes I know this is less than ideal but that's policy). So my recommendation is to add, sort and adjust all this info in History of Feminism first. (The longest sections there can then have new articles of their own ie Feminism in China.) Then summarize the whole History article, mentioning the most due info about the history and put that here. THat will improve 2 (possibly 3) articles and find a place for everything. I'll have a look at this myself in a few weeks--Cailil ^talk 11:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agree that all of these countries need to be added to History of Feminism, but some of these issues still remain. History of Feminism already has a major length issue. Also, the fact that it is mostly about the US and Europe with small paragraphs at the end for other countries is clearly the result of systemic bias, such as available English sources favoring English-speaking countries. If that article were totally neutral then all countries would be in equal proportions there. And then there would still be a problem in summarizing that info here because the choice would be to either ignore some countries arbitrarily or to have a history section that mentions all countries but is way too long. --Aronoel (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand Aronoel but we can only do so much on wikipedia. It is NOT the job of this site to neutralize or re-apporiation focus to 'correct' the coverage of a subject. You are showing a common misundestanding of WP:NPOV - we don't neutralize sources, we write articles neutrally (withot a POV of our own).
All we can do on WP is write articles of the highest quality within the parameters of this site's policies. If there is a bias in mainstream coverage of a subject we reflect it - becuase this site neutrally records the the mainstream points of view on a subject, giving weight to each one according to the ammount of reliably sourced coverage of it. Anything else is a breach of NPOV and probably NOR.
Writing is about selection. Our policies for selection of information are outlined in WP:NPOV under WP:DUE. In short we highlight the issues that are the most writen about - in the English Wikipedia that will probably be English language subjects, in this case English language feminisms. It just is not the job of wikipedia to 'correct' this. Blogging, activism, commercial/academic writing are the ways to do that and WP just isn't a venue for such activities I'm afraid.
The History of feminism article needs work - but there is no short cut that gets away from restructuring, rewriting, and re-summarizing it--Cailil ^talk 17:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, see this article about countering systemic bias on Wikipedia. So yes, it is our responsibility to correct that imbalance. Regardless, there are enough mainstream sources on feminism in other countries that length issues are still a problem. --Aronoel (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No Aronoel, it is not our job to write articles in a way that "corrects bias" in how a subject is covered by reliable sources - that's original research. The link you provided is to an essay (not a policy) on systemic bias on wikipedia which encourages coverage of subjects that haven't been covered here due to the demographic shape of this community. I'm afraid wikipedia pages simply reflect how subjects are covered in mainstream sources not how they "should" be covered--Cailil ^talk 20:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we correct sources, I'm suggesting that we correct Wikipedia. In all the books I've come across not specifically about Western feminism, different countries are covered in equal proportions. By any reasonable standard, it should be the same here and in History of feminism --Aronoel (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

An option is to add to nation-specific feminism or women's rights articles (probably creating some, at least as stubs, time permitting), since there's no concern for weight between articles, and then summarize briefly in the feminism and/or history of feminism articles. There's likely more material in sources on feminism in Scotland than for Andorra and San Marino combined, and equalizing nations would probably cause us to be too sketchy for some nations or scraping barrels for others, after considering the languages sources are in and editors' ability to read and translate those languages (I'm not keen on using automated translations). Right now, the U.S. is so heavily weighted that adding other nations in almost any proportion will probably help close the imbalance anyway. The bias essay didn't have much on point to suggest as a remedy and the page on Countering linked to from the essay favored adding articles over redoing existing ones, so this may be a workable solution. Citing a book that gives nearly equal weight to each nation it covers would also be relevant for setting a summary article's internal weighting. Thank you very kindly for doing the work. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)