Talk:Feminism/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Edit request from 108.82.68.238, 3 May 2011

This is in response to request for adding adding a category under the Feminism Science page for Feminsim and Technical Communication. The following is information regarding submission with sources.

Extended content

Feminism and technology To some, feminism and technology sound like an oxymoron. Even though women today have many more opportunities for advanced degrees, as well as, the ability to work in high level positions in many global companies and corporations, patriarchal attitudes about gender and gender roles still prevail in the technical field. Stereotypes of male and female qualities and abilities regarding science and technology have not changed much, but women and technical communications have gone hand in hand for the last five hundred years. In the advent of the printing press, guides and handbooks written by and/or for women quickly emerged and became staples in Renaissance England. Through the writing of these books the development of technical communications began. Since the time of Renaissance England the field of technical communication has progressively grown, just as the stereotypes and patriarchal dominance of society slowly eroded the initial contributions of women in the field. Even with negative cultural and societal attitudes toward women, the silencing of women as important contributors of science and technical writing did not keep women from speaking their minds. Not only are today’s feminist speaking out against this silencing, but women from 17th century England had the gumption to also speak their opinions and continue with their style of discourse in these fields. With the emergence of feminism in the 20th century, the roles of women at home and in the work place have changed from dutiful wife and secretary, to a necessitated working-super mom in job roles equal to or surpassing that of men, but not recognized or compensated accordingly; changes have occurred, but not as quickly and as inclusively as most women would like. The continued stereotypes society places on women are slowly being changed as waves of feminist discourse, ideology, and research unearthing the wealth of female invention and progress illustrate the valuable impact women have had, and will continue to have, on the advancement of technical communications. Infancy of technical communication and ‘feminism’ The earliest forms of technical communication began in Renaissance England in the 16th century. These crude technical manuals were how-to books of the age that can be divided into seven different categories: Books of food and medicinal purposes Books on home medical remedies and procedures Books for midwives Books on silkworm production Books on agrarian estate management Books on gardening Books on needlework These subjects were of interest to all classes of women in Renaissance England. Going against the grain of common modern thought, women in Renaissance England were literate and the development of the technical guidebooks became an increasing means by which women acquired knowledge in a society that shunned formal education for them and believed women did not have the capacity to understand complex ideas. On the contrary, the first of these guidebooks was the cookbook. Cookbooks Cookbooks were written specifically for women, by women. One of the earliest cookbooks, the``Book of Cookery’’ was written in a style that “indicated the prevalence of the oral tradition: additive style, aggregative syntax rather than analytical syntax, simple rather than detailed instructions.” This writing style suggests that these recipes were written for women to memorize rather than providing detailed and intricate instructions on preparation. The recipes were short and simply written: For to make chckyns in Musy To make chckyns in musy/take smale chckyns chopped and boyle theym in swete broth and wyne and putte therto percely and sage and powder of peper or grayness and colourIt with saffron / then take whyte of eggs and ale drawen through a cloth and put therto And styre it well tegeder and put therto an unce of gyger and whan it begynneth to boyle set it from the fire and serue it. The style with which these early recipes were written suggests that the idea of preserving oral tradition was important. For example, the style in which the ``Book of Cookery’’, one of the most prominent and successful cookbooks of its day and age, was written, “suggest[s] that women readers, even in 1508, would have been capable of reading material that used spoken language.” The imitation of oral speech these early cookbooks were written in slowly evolved in style and syntax in the early 1600’s from simply listing steps to the inclusion of more specific sets of instruction, emphasizing the fact that recipes were now meant to be read and not memorized. In another important work entitled ``A Daily Exercise for Ladies and Gentlewomen’’ illustrates this evolution in style and syntax: Strawberry cakes Take a quart of very fine flour, eight ounces of fine sugar beaten and cerfed, twelve ounces of sweet butter, a Nutmegge grated, two or three spoonefuls of damaske rosewater, worke all these together with your hands, as hards as you can for the space of halfe and houre, then roule it in little round Cakes, about the thicknesse of three shillings one vpon another, then take a siluer Cup or glasse some foure or three inches ouer, and cut the cakes in them, then strow some flower vpon white papers & lay them vpon them, and bake them in an Ouen as hotte as for manchet, set vp your lid till you may tell a hundredth, then you shall see the white, if any of them rise vp clap them downe with some cleane thing, and if your Ouen be not too hot set vp your lid again, and in a quarter of an houre they wil be baked enough, but in any case take heede your Ouen be not too hot, for they must not looke browne but white, andso draw them foorth & ay them one vpon another till they bee could, and you maykeep them halfe a year the new baked are best. Tebeaux’s study states that, “the syntax was more sophisticated…and exemplified some analysis rather than aggregation.” In comparing one of the earliest recipes from the ‘’Book of Cookery’’ to a recipe found in ‘’A Daily Exercise for Ladies and Gentlewomen’’ the transformation of style and syntax is apparent. With the increased use of the printing press to replicate books by the thousands along with the ease of accessibility of print material by society, changed the style in which future editions of cookbooks were written. In Renaissance England, it was also assumed that women had a working knowledge of language and words as these early recipes were written in the style from which women spoke in their everyday lives. As Tebeaux suggests, the literacy of women was also aided by these cookbooks because of “the growing availability of affordable texts and the ability to access these texts by reading opened new opportunities for self-education.” With the increased literacy women enjoyed, new areas and interests of women in Renaissance England became topics for different types of books. A more influential genre that developed a more technical aspect of writing was medicinal books. Medicinal books Medical books flourished as women’s literacy increased from the mid 1500’s to the early 1600’s in England. Writers of medicinal books assumed that their readers would have a basic knowledge of pharmaceutical terms along with access to the many herbs and oils used in the remedies listed. An example of this assumed knowledge can be seen in Owen Wood’s (1639) ‘’An Alphabetical Book of Physicall Secrets’’ (1 edition): Ache in Bones or Ioyntes, the Cure. Take black knows of Ash tree in the Soring time, grinde them small, and boyle them over a soft fire with fresh Butter in an earthen pot sufficiently, then take them from the fire, let them coole, and keepe them close stopped, then take as many of Broome flowers in May, grinde them as the other, then mixe them all together, and boyle them againe with a quarter a pinte of Malmfey, then keeps it to annoynt the griese therewith The writing style of early medicinal books exhibits the importance of keeping the oral tradition and reading to memorize, as seen in early cookbooks, rather than reading to acquire definitive knowledge of the subject matter. With the emergence of medicinal books to cure common ailments of people in Renaissance English society, also came the emergence, of what we would today call, self-help books. Self-help books of the time illustrate the change in style and syntax that influenced the development of writing to incorporate a more technical aspect. Since this genre of book appealed to both men and women, it was important for both highly educated and limitedly literate people, men and women respectively, to be able to comprehend its more complex sentence structure and terminology. One of the most influential self-help books to be published during this time is Sir Thomas Elyot’s (1595) ‘’The Castell of Health.’’ The level of diction and more complex sentence structure was a major part of Eylot’s style of writing: [he] used complex sentences-if, when, which clauses-and Latinate diction in contrast to the simpler style of the basic medicinal recipes…The following excerpt appeared in the 1595 edition: Of Hemeroydes or piles (CAP.9) Hereroides bee veynes in the fundamental of whome doe happy sundry passions, somtime swelling without bleeding, sometimes superfluous lood by the purssance of nature is by them expelled, and then bee they very conuenient, for by them a man shall escape many great sicknesses, which be ingendered of corrupted blood, or of melancholie. Semblablie, if they bee hastily stopped from the course which they haue beene used to, thereby doe increase the saide sicknesse, which by them were expelled, as dropsies, consumptions, madnesses, frenzies, and diuers disease of the head, and other sicknesses…And if they flow too much, there insueth feebleness, tearing of the boyd, alteration of colour, great paines in the lower partes of the bodie. Elyot’s use of complex sentence structure and cause and effect clauses illustrates the author’s knowledge that his audience is literate and capable of understanding the reasons behind certain afflictions. The reasons for the above mentioned affliction are described in more, “scientific” terms per se, rather than a mere listing of herbs and oils to serve as a remedy as illustrated in earlier medicinal books. Self-help books gave rise to self-diagnosis books that detailed ailments commonly suffered by women. Since writers knew their audiences were women, the style with which these books were written exemplified the knowledge the author had of his intended audience. The increased complexity of diction and prose illustrated women’s increased literacy during this time. As the genre of medicinal books moved away from ‘remedy-based listing’ to a more developed style of prose, they eventually led to books that included common sections such as: table on contents, division of extended works into parts, and labeled and color-coded drawings to further detail its content. As books became longer and more sophisticated in nature, a new genre of book emerged specifically for women, books for midwives. Books for midwives Books for midwives were written for women and the scientific and technical components of these books illustrated the ability of women to both write and understand the functions of and identify the organs of the female reproductive system in relation to childbearing. The most popular book for midwives, in the 1500’s was written by a man named Roesslin and entitled ‘’The Birth of Mankind Otherwise Named the Womans Booke.’’ As Tebeaux states, “This shift indicates…the importance of writing to his reader’s knowledge level…[explanation] of the drawing[s] reveals that midwives had a higher literacy level than women who would read the books of cookery and physic, that they had command of some Latin medical terminology, and that they were capable of reading and using semi-technical anatomical descriptions.” As the literacy of women in the medical sciences increased, a new type of childbearing book emerged whose audience was primarily midwives and surgeons. These new childbearing books gave detailed descriptions of how to employ surgical methods and tools to aid in the delivery of children. ‘’Childbirth’’ assumed a high reading comprehension level…[and]even includes instructions for using surgical instruments, such as tongs, to remove a dead fetus from the womb.” Thus, books for midwives and childbearing procedures are an integral part of the development of today’s technical writings. It also illustrates that male writers of the time believed that women working in the medical field would have an increased literacy; therefore, having the capability of understanding complex scientific, medical and technical variations in writing. With the advancement of complex medical issues, came the development of more complex terminology, syntax and prose structure. As books for midwives illustrate continued proficiency of women in understanding Latinate diction, and advancement in syntax, other genres such as books on silkworm production and agriculture and estate management continued to push women’s literacy forward. Books on silkworm production Silk worm production was a field that concerned both men and women and is important because it illustrated the progression in the infancy of technical writing in three distinct stages. The first stage conveys its information in a poetic form, the second stage conveys its information through the use of clause structure within its discourse, and the last stage conveys its information through the use of longer sentences and paragraphs allowing for greater detail in explanation of silkworm propagation. In examining excerpts from each stage of this genre’s development we can see the progression of simple language to a more sophisticated style that assumes the audience has moderately developed reading skills: The first three weeks the tend’rest leaues are best, the next, the creue them of greater size, the last, the hardest ones they can digest, as strength with age increasing doth arise: after which time all meate they do detest, lifting vp heads, and feete, and breast to skies, begging as t-were of God and man some shrowde, wherein to worke and hange their golden clowde. The first stage of silkworm books illustrates the poetic nature with which this discourse is written and further shows, like previous genres, the initial desire to retain the oral tradition of information transference reiterated through the use rhyme for memory retention. Stage 2: What ground is fit for the Mulberrie seedes, how the sameIs to be ordered, & in what sort the seedes are to be sewed therein. The ground which ought to be appointed for this purpose, besides the natural goodnesse of it, must be reasonably well dunged, and withal so scituated, as that the heate of the sunny may cherish it, and the nipping blastes of either Noerth winde or the East, may not annoy it: the choice therof thus made, that the seeds may the better prosper, & come vp after they bere sowne, you shal dig it two foote deepe, breaking the clods as small as may be, and afterward you shall deuide the same into seuerall Beds of not aboue fiue foote in breadth, so that you shal not neede to indanger the plants by tr eading vpon them, when either you water or weed them. In the middle stage of silkworm book writing, the use of clauses within main clauses are used, just as medicinal books of the same time began to explain the reasons behind certain effects of the topic at hand. The language and sentence construction within this genre also points to the increased literacy of society, especially women, who had the desire to pursue silkworm propagation as a profession. Stage 3: To gather the leaues for to be giuen to the Wormes For the order which one is to hold in gathering the mulberry leaues, for the victuals of these creatures, consisteth the second article of this work, for to make the trees of a perpetuall seruice. It is to be noted, that to plucke off the leaues bringes great damatge to al trees, oftentimes euen causing them to damage to al trees, oftentimes eien causing them to dye: but seeing that the Mulberry is detined to that, it naturally supporteth such tempest better than any other polant: yet neuerthelesse you must goe to it very retentiuely, for to dislesue the Mulberrie inconsideratlie is the way to scorch them for euer, to cause them miserably to die in languishment. Euery one confesseth that to gather the leues with both hands, leafe after leafe, without touching the shoote, is the most assured way for conseruation of the trees… The causal statements are reiterated throughout the passage emphasizing the extreme care it takes to maintain the health of the trees that aid in silkworm propagation. The need for increased reading and language skills is evident in the combined use of causal statements and complex sentence structure exhibited. As Tebeaux states “[they] provide a means by which we can trace the development of technical writing style as language shifted from oral transmission patterns to silent reading patterns.” With this shift in writing style, an important concept developed during this time, “by the second quarter of the 17th century, women interested in learning the silkworm business would likely have needed reading skills more advance than they would have received in petty schools to enable them to learn the basics of silkworm propagation.” Women were more literate than what society deemed necessary, but women were targeted audiences of these books as were men; thus, we can assume that writers did not view women as being any less literate that men. As books on silkworm production introduced the ideas of technical writing in a vague aspect, books on agriculture and estate management push these changes into a form we can more readily call technical discourse. During the mid to late 1500’s this genre of books originally distinguished its writing according to different audiences, i.e. farming populations, rather than by gender. Books on agrarian estate management Early books on agriculture and estate management started out much the same way as the books on silkworm production with the use of poetry in its discourse to retain oral tradition and created rhyme schemes for information retention. As Tebeaux explains, “technical writing emerged as a genre between 1557 and 1614.” She compares early books using poetic styles to relate information to a more discourse oriented approach utilized in Gervase Markham’s (1615) ‘’Countrey Contentments’’ (5 editions, 1614-1633). Markham’s compilation included two distinct books; one book catered to the “contentments” of English men, while book two catered to the “contentments” of English women. Both books had a detailed table of contents and included succinct instructions for activities outlined in each book. Originally, Markham’s deliberate shift in discourse from male to female audiences had nothing to do with different literacies, but more with the assumption that “women readers, who had recently moved to the country, needed substantial process descriptions and instructions on some topics.” Tebeaux explains Markham, himself, was a prolific writer who wrote a plethora of books in different genres including history, romances, and his best known how-to books and realized through these different genres that “different readers and different prose genres required different styles The one thing that differentiated Markham’s prose with other writers of this time was the inclusion of “subject-verb-object arrangement within active-voice clauses.” which emphasizes the more analytic style of what technical writing has become today. Books on gardening With the introduction of books on gardening in the early 1600’s, a noticeable shift in technical writing became evident as this genre of writing focused on the differentiation between the perceived roles of men and women in gardening. There was not an apparent differentiation in the writing styles employed in addressing the male versus female audience of the time. Gardening books covered a variety of tasks that included detailed descriptions, a variety of drawings and explanations of processes involved in large estate gardens. The technology of gardening became more evident in the late 17th century with the advancement in the field of botany. The subject of botany included methods and practices that elevated this field as a science and categorized the writing as more technical in nature. The writing of these books exemplified succinct organization with section titles, varied sentence structures and the use of Latin terminology for plant varieties. The sections written specifically for the male audience had longer passages, use of Latin terminology or phrases and topic headings were gender specific; thus, illustrating the roles men and women were to take on in regard to gardening. It is assumed that the varied roles written for men and women in gardening books were determined not by stereotypical roles, rather it was a question of physical strength that determined which tasks the writer felt either gender would be best capable of accomplishing. Literacy levels of men and women were not a factor in the structure and writing of books in this genre. Books on needlework The skill and talent of needlework remained, by and large, a ‘technology’ still taught through oral transmission. There were two books on needlework that were heavily referenced ‘’A Booke of Curious and Strange Inventions, Called the First Part of Needleworkes’’ published in 1596 and ‘’A Book of Engraved Lace Patterns’’ published in 1605. Both of these books did not include any formal text outlining instructional methods of needlework, but were filled with pages of drawings and patterns. Various approaches to technical communication discourse As seen in the English Renaissance, even though women did not receive the same type of formal education as their male counterparts, guidebooks and how-to books published during this time reflect the importance of self-education of women in allowing them to acquire comparable reading skills to that of men. The progression in the style and sophistication of technical writing from the 15th through 17th centuries exemplifies the notion that women’s literacy levels were comparatively growing along with the rhetorical discourse of this era. The styles in which these books were written for female audiences were not written in an “elementary style or content at the close of the Renaissance.” It was commonly thought by male writers of the time that women possessed a literacy level equal to that of men and writing in divergent styles according to different audiences was not a concept that was acknowledged by writers at this time. The idea that women were increasing their literacies through the reading of technical writing and writing for women as opposed to men, was not significantly different; this sentiment is also reiterated in 20th century studies actively looking for differences between how men and women write technical discourse. Emergence of ‘plain style’ Between the 15th and 17th centuries it can be suggested that writers, female and male, did not consider levels of literacy a differentiating factor in the styles, syntax, and sentence structure utilized in their prose. What is significant about the emergence of these genres for the foundation of technical communication to develop was that men and women, as an audience, were considered similar in their levels of literacy and were written for in identical manners among writers of this time period. The progression of these genres moving from a form of writing that kept in tune with retaining oral traditions and syntax that mimicked oral speech to facilitate in the memorization of recipes or processes slowly evolved into a more analytic and silent reading pattern to aid in intellectual absorption of material presented. Writing in the 17th century became more of a learning tool for Renaissance English society, especially for women, but there was also a subtle change occurring within the field of scientific and technical discourse. With botany having emerged as a new ‘science,’ the writing style and rhetoric, of authors changed to suit distinctly male audiences. In the latter half of the 17th century the emergence of the ‘plain’ writing style, extensively written about by Thomas Sprat, his book ‘’History of the Royal Society’’, published in 1667, emphasized Francis Bacon’s view on how the ‘feminizing’ of scientific discourse was detrimental to the rationale and masculine language required of scientific discourse. Although the inclusion of emotional prose and subjectivity was ‘dangerous’ to scientific reasoning, the Royal Society did not succinctly exclude women from scientific discourse, but yet women’s rhetoric was deemed emotional and superfluous in nature, thus it appeal to pathos and endangered the viability of scientific rhetoric. The inclusion of the development of scientific course is important and relevant to discussions of technical discourse today because the plain style of the 17th century set into motion the idea of science and technology to be a ‘masculine’ field for which women should have no interest, and/or no intellectual capacity to the understanding or writing of these emerging fields. Women were not accepted as members of the Royal Society, and although an outright statement of women’s exclusion in scientific discourse had not been directly stated, its implication created the development of stereotypes of male and female discourse. Female views on ‘plain style’ During this time of plain style enlightenment in late 17th century England, women were writing about philosophy, science and technical guidebooks. Women who spoke out about the plain style and the Royal Society included Margaret Cavendish, a philosophical and science writer and Jane Sharp who authored books on midwifery. Both women “advocate a plain style in their writing that is much more utilitarian, and much less concerned with what kinds of language might generate inappropriate responses in readers.” There is a marked distinction between the plain style of the Royal Society and the plain style advocated by Cavendish and Sharp. The complex language used in the plain style of the Royal Society is objective in nature; it takes a highly educated audience or reader to fully comprehend its contexts. On the other hand, Cavendish and Sharp use subjective plain style which incorporates less complicated and wordy descriptions of contexts to enable a more general audience and reader to understand their work. As Cavendish complains about Royal Society’s complex rhetorical strategies: When I began to read the Philosophical Works of other Authors, I was so troubled with their hard words and expressions at first, that had they not been explained to me, and had I not found out some of them by the context and connexion of the sense, I should have been far enough to seek; for their hard words did more obstruct , then instruct me. The truth is, if anyone intends to write Philosophy, either in English, or any other language, he ought to consider the propriety of the language, as much as, the Subject he writes of; or else to what purpose would it be to write? If you do write Philosophy in English, and use all the hardest words and expressions which none but Scholars are able to understand, you had better write it in Latin, but if you write for those that do not understand Latin, Your reason will tell you, that you must explain those hard words, and English them in the easiest manner you can; What are words but marks of things? And what are Philosophical Terms, but to express the conceptions of ones mind in that Science? And truly I do not think that there is any Language so poor, which cannot do that Margaret Cavendish declared that meaning of a text is created by the reading, understanding and interpretation of a text. To learn new terms and ideas is a part of active reading, but along with active reading an audience must be able to learn through context clues throughout a discourse to fully understand all of its implications and rationale. As Tillery explains of Cavendish’s rationale behind her criticism of objective plain style, “rational meaning, including scientific knowledge, is not something that can be threatened with annihilation by meaningless or purely fanciful words, and rational mental processes are not jeopardized by the imagination or passions.” Cavendish emphasized that passion and emotive descriptions do not hinder discourse and rational meaning through complicated language was not the only goal of discourse, but that both passion and rational meaning went hand in hand in the best of all rhetorical discourses. Jane Sharp argued that experienced midwives were more successful in coaching childbirth than medical school trained male physicians. She too substantiated a similar stance as Cavendish when she said that she wrote specifically for an audience of uneducated (from a formal education perspective) women and the style with which she employed in her writing must be such that every women who reads her books could easily understand the terminology and procedures in midwifery: It is not hard words that perform the work, as if none understood the Art that cannot undertstand Greek. Words are but the shell, that we oftime break our Teeth with them to come to the kernel, I mean our brains to know what is the meaning of them; but to have the same in our mother tongue would save us a great deal of labour. It is commendable for men to imploy their spare time in some things of deeper Speculation that is required of the female sex; but the Art of Midwifry chiefly concerns us…But to avoid long preambles in a matter so clear and evident, I shall proceed to set down such rules, and methods concerning this Art as I think needful, and that as plainly and briefly as possible I can, and with as much modesty in words as the matter will bear… Sharp also criticizes the complex and elaborate language used in the objective plain style advocated by the Royal Society and explains that every person deserves to understand discourse in way that is equal to all, educated or not. She also expressions her displeasure at the over- abundance of words used to discuss concepts within the plain style. Wordiness, in Sharp’s opinion, is equivalent to inefficiency for a general audience. Infancy of the feminism and gendered discourse Both Margaret Cavendish and Jane Sharp agree that it is important for any style of writing to be true to its discourse, to be true to its audience and to be true to its context. The struggle to understand the context of what an audience is reading is not truth in writing as it is more a statement of education, status and hierarchy. Both women also discourage the use of metaphor in place of a more practical and pragmatic style of writing style. Inadvertently, Margaret Cavendish and Jane Sharp’s displeasure in what and how the plain style of the Royal Society influenced in the discourse of the late 17th century, gives rise to the murmurings of modern day feminism in the fields of science and technology. The Royal Society does emphasize gender differences in the development of plain style and does, unwittingly, create a disparity between the educated and the uneducated. Granted, this dichotomy could have been interpreted to include both men and women, but the mere fact that women did not have the same opportunities for formal education that men had, created a negative impact on the opportunities for women and women’s acceptance within these fields. Furthermore, plain style initiates the development of gender stereotypes which are commonly found in today’s rhetorical discourse. Other women, such as Ellen Swallow Richards, followed in the shoes of Cavendish and Sharp and further illustrated that gender differences are inherent to scientific and technical discourse in determining how to write for male and female audiences in the 19th century. Richards used different rhetorical strategies in two of her articles; one aimed at a male audience the other a female audience, for the same content regarding nutritional studies of her New England Kitchen study. In Richard’s first article, written for an audience of men “[she] downplayed the gendered aspects of her research by suppressing the women-centered, domestic name of kitchen and casting it as a well-ordered laboratory.” In her second article, written for a female audience comprised mostly of “social reformers and philanthropists” she uses “gendered language and strategies to fulfill [the] audience’s expectations as they honored the experimental kitchen’s name and the noisy, collaborative presence and its research participants.” Richards exemplified the gender differences preempted by society and the culture with which women lived in choosing different strategies for her varied audiences. Again, with Richards’ rhetorical experiment, we see how stereotypes, expected gender roles, and gender differences influence the way in which writer’s communicate their ideas. In trying to gain continued financial support for the New England Kitchen, Richards was deliberate in the style with which she wrote for her different audiences. For her male audience, it was important for her to emphasize that the New England Kitchen was a laboratory used for scientific study and experimentation. For her female audience, Richards was cognizant of women’s needs to feel their experiences have merit. The act of learning through social constructs and shared experiences are an important aspect of female inclusion. Characteristics of feminism in technical communications In order to begin to understand how feminism has begun to reshape the roles and definitions of technical communication, it is important to note the characteristics of feminist theory. A survey of feminist theorists reveals six common characteristics: Celebration of difference Theory activating social change Acknowledgment of scholar’s backgrounds and values Inclusion of women’s experience Study of gaps and silences in traditional scholarship New sources of knowledge-perhaps a benefit of the five characteristics above What do these characteristics mean and how do they impact technical communication? Women may be of the same sexual gender, but their knowledge, experiences, values and attitudes differ significantly; thus, women can no longer be lumped into the homogenous group called “Women,” nor can they fit into a definition that has been imposed on them by others, namely men. Celebrating the difference of women can only lead to a better understanding of the qualities that are important for women to succeed, for women to be autonomous, and for women to be more readily accepted in a field that is primarily comprised of men. Resisting an encompassing definition of what women are thought to be, incapable of knowledge or expertise, the idea of embracing women’s diversity leads to social change. This social change is evident in the acknowledgment of women’s differences and the ability to break free from patriarchal traditions allowing for women’s background and knowledge to be validated. In technical communications the preferred form of research is objective in nature, requiring empiricism at its best. But, feminist theory pushes the boundaries and opens the door in bringing a more subjective approach to knowledge and research that can only benefit and enhance the field through acceptance of women’s experiences, values, beliefs and assumptions. As Mary Lay states, “revealing the characteristics of the researcher not only helps eliminate bias, but also places the researcher on a more equal level with the subject of the study.” Feminist theory sets the groundwork for a greater depth of research that has not yet been readily accepted by traditional modes of thought and practice in the technological field by giving a voice to female points of view. The inclusion of women’s experiences has technical and scientific merit and importance when determining audience and purpose in research methodology. Feminist research that provides female experiences expressing female beliefs and behaviors targets their female audience and subject matter in a way that initiates an explanation of social factors that primarily affect women. Their research addresses women’s issues and problems and parallels these situations with their own personal background, as “feminists see a definite relationship between experience and discourse.” Pushing for more subjective research and answers in technical communications is illustrated through feminist discourse that is inclusive, not exclusive of women’s needs. By relating their own personal backgrounds to their discourses, feminist critics allow their female audience to correlate feminist investigations and research against their own background, knowledge and experience. Because women’s experiences have been ignored in technical and scientific discourse, silences and gaps in discourse and research have emerged as a new and growing problem in scholarly writing. In addressing the idea of silences and gaps in traditional studies, feminist critics hope to illustrate how women’s experiences can fill these gaps. The question now is how can feminist theory fill these gaps and silences that they question? Feminist critics examine gaps and silences in two different ways, “the identity of the missing and the potential nature of the study had the missing been included.” The first step is to evaluate traditional scholarship to determine what and how women’s experiences could have been missed or deliberately excluded. Once the missing information has been determined, feminist critics look to see how inclusion of women’s ideas and experiences could have reshaped traditional studies and scholarship. These steps are important in determining what discoveries, contributions and advancements women could have made to the field of technology that were excluded initially. Not only do these gaps and silences affect female critics and scholars, but they also affect female audiences that look to traditional scholarship for unbiased answers and research that pertain directly to their needs and questions. Had women been included as valued and acknowledged researchers and audience participants, the field of technical communication could be a different and more evolved field of study. Characteristics of feminism lay the groundwork for issues that feminist theorists grapple with in technological discourse. There are three important questions that feminist theorists must answer in order to define the field of technical communication in a way that is inclusive of women, women’s perspectives and contributions: Should feminist theorists emphasize women’s similarities and differences in comparison to men? Does the majority of feminist thought, through qualitative and quantitative evidence, support the differences of men and women to be due to biology, culture or a combination of both? Should feminist theorists avoid emphasizing differences between men and women by not juxtaposing the “binary opposition” of femininity and masculinity in technical discourse? In addressing the first question it is important to address two different aspects of how women should cope with stereotypical views of their abilities as technical writers: should women take on more masculine traits in their writing or should women take a more androgynous approach to discourse? Lay uses Tebeaux’s suggestion that the more “people-intensive work experience” women have in the field of technical communications the less their discourse illustrates differences in gender. On the other hand, maybe it is more advantageous to redefine what makes writing neutral between the genders; taking the best aspects of both male and female writing and combining these to create a new type of discourse that benefits both genders; a new discourse that would extinguish stereotypes, and equally promote opportunities to elevate the stature of women in a field that has been traditionally dominated by men. As Quine points out through his idea “web of beliefs,” knowledge is “a coherent web of socially negotiated beliefs ‘under construction;’” therefore, a rhetoric of neutrality or androgyny is not out of the realm of possibility, but may be the key to redefining women’s roles in technical communications. The second question is searching to determine what the basis is for gender differences in technical discourse. Although biology is the most apparent difference between the genders, how much of women’s and men’s psyches actually affect the type and style of their rhetoric as opposed to the social and cultural constructs that influence the world writers write in. Alternately, feminism can look at this issue and determine the similarities between men and women’s rhetoric through the social construct that influences them. Because the social structure of our society dictates certain traits to each gender it is easy to assume the traits of the other to create a more symbiotic relationship through their discourse. The third question struggles to answer whether binary oppositions are needed to enter into the discussion of gender differences. Will this inclusion only reinforce negative stereotypes between the genders or will it be a means to enlighten the field of technical communications to activate a more cohesive outlook on potential contributions of women within the field? Difference creates change, but at what cost to women’s advancement in the field? Deconstructing the binary oppositions between genders can create two different outcomes: either it can reiterate the notion that men are viewed on a higher rung of the hierarchy scale and women as attaining only the lower rungs of this hierarchy or in celebrating gender differences the field can see a transformation in advancement and development with fresh eyes and a renewed perspective. Recent literature regarding women and feminism in technical communication In examining the literature published since 1989 in the technical communication field, there has been a marked shift in certain themes regarding the feminist perspective and technical communications researched and a shift in ideologies concerning women, gender differences, attitudes and behaviors. Thompson goes in depth into the published articles in major technical communications publications in her first qualitative content analysis covering an eight years span beginning in 1989 through mid-1997. Thompson categorizes these published articles into five different themes: eliminating sexist language, gender differences, equal opportunity employment, the recovery of women’s contributions to technical communications and finally, the critique of representations of women and representations that exclude women. Eliminating sexist language and provision of equal opportunity employment for women in technical writing are themes written most extensively by Mary Lay in 1989 , but these themes quickly died out and lost their value as significant factors contributing to women’s exclusion in the field of technical communication. Literature and quantitative research regarding gender differences served as the majority of published work during this eight year period because the emphasis of “valuing the special skills and talents women bring to the workplace” will help in redefining the field of technical communication. Thompson begins with Lay’s work in 1989 in which Lay suggests eliminating gender differences through “androgynous communication skills” or the use of gender-neutral language for a better balance between the genders. Lay reiterates that men have much to learn from women and this in turn will lead to a redefinition of technical communication. She further emphasizes that for change to take place, it is not so much dependent on an increase in employment opportunities for women as it is a radical change in traditional perceptions and stereotypes of female skills and talents. Other female writers such as Jo Allen suggest that by examining scholarly writing of women we can support the idea that language is the focus of gender differences. Elizabeth Tebeaux contends that gender differences begin to become blurred the longer a women works in the field of technology; women’s use of language and style of writing become more androgynous as her work experience increases. Deborah Bosley, through a survey of students, found that male and female students did not compose instructional material or draw visuals and diagrams any differently when presented with different audiences. The literature concerning gender differences is varied to some degree and presents alternative perspectives within the same context of technical writing. Recovering women’s contributions in technical communications is a theme that was given special attention during this time period by the publication of two special issues in two major technical communication journals. The first special issue was published by the IEEE in 1992 and the second was published by TCQ in 1997. These special issues cover topics ranging from 18th century botany, employee health and safety, reports from North Carolina canning clubs, textbooks and scientific advancements and technical books of the English Renaissance. The last theme Thompson discusses is that of critiquing representations of women that are either inclusive or exclusive in nature. Thompson starts with an article published in 1991 by David Carrel in which he subtly points out the stereotypes seen in professional textbooks written from the 1930’s through the 1950’s then moves to more radical idea entertained by Susan Ross that reformation of environmental policy should be initiated through a feminist perspective. Katherine Durak challenges the unconventional thought that household work should be valued just as highly as workplace work and challenges the dualisms found in the field of technical communication such as male versus female, public versus private, and home versus industry in order to come to a redefinition of technical communication. Thompson also mentions the work of Brassuer and Thompson in their examination of medical texts written during the English Renaissance that question the rhetorical choices made in analyzing visuals of the female body. Lastly, Thompson closes this section with a highlighting Beverly Sauer’s contention that stereotypical attitudes and language are the accepted norm in technical communication. Thompson’s follow-up ‘’Women and Feminism in Technical Communication-an Update’’, looks at articles published from mid-1997 through 2004 in which most of the same themes of the original content analysis had remained the same except for two: elimination of sexist language and equal opportunity employment. As stated previously, equal opportunity employment was a theme soon dropped after 1990 of published articles in major technical communication journals. Eliminating sexist language in technical communication changed focus in the years following Thompson’s original analysis to masculine bias in written texts “because its foregrounded theme concerns the deep entrenchment of the sexist division of labor in the texts it discusses.” Thompson points to Durak and Ranney’s work in which they suggest that stereotypes are so engrained in our social culture and fabric that language only cannot change this masculine bias that has become reaffirmed through the generations because of the adherence of patriarchal societal views about women. Durak and Ranny also pit technology against its being “value-neutral” in favor of a position that iterates that technology is “politicized as masculine.” Thompson also highlights contrary viewpoints regarding masculine bias in language and rhetoric with the work of James Hartley and Ingram and Parker who both found few differences between male and female’s use of language in technical discourse. Feminization of technical discourse As seen in the growth of technical writing during the latter part of the Renaissance, the feasibility of keeping with oral tradition was lost; this sentiment is akin to what we, in modern societies, have experienced with the creation and proliferation of the Internet, its usage and expanding global communications. In the context of social constructivism it is believed that female discourse incorporates more emotional, social and personal connectivity to their audiences; thus, it is considered powerless as compared to writing of their male counterparts. This type of style is coined as “soft” writing; whereas, men use a “hard” writing approached that includes an emphasis on objective and impersonal approaches to discourse. The idea that women write from their experiences, and that language and knowledge are socially constructed is a view that goes against traditional thought in the world of technological discourse. In Paul Dombrowski’s article ‘’Language and Empiricism’’ he explains “our field deals with technological and scientific knowledge which is sometimes very definite and objective, yet there has been increasing recognition…that this knowledge is socially constructed and rhetorically negotiated.” Dombrowski outlines one of America’s most influential philosophers of the 20th Century, W.V. Quine’s idea of “web of beliefs” to further illustrate this controversial rethinking of discourse in the sciences. Dombrowski explains the idea that knowledge in the sciences is interwoven with a web of beliefs. Therefore, a web of beliefs “situates the principles of traditional science within a socially sanctioned system of rhetorically reasoned and empirically verified beliefs. These beliefs are not arbitrary personal opinions but socially negotiated attitudes articulated in hypotheses that exemplify several philosophical criteria, the chief of which is refutability.” This idea is similar to how feminist interpretations of science and technology are relevant to their experience; thus, women’s experiences should not be undermined and devalued as a form of knowledge. Traditional thought views experience as second class knowledge; this is precisely the attitude that feminist theorists challenge. Feminism urges a double standard to be used to evaluate technological texts: first, a standard of historical truth to secure the accuracy of the texts, and secondly, a ‘performative’ truth that aids in the “ability of text to change reality or events.” An example of technical writing that illustrates this combination of Quine’s attitude toward knowledge and the feminist perspective of incorporating women’s experiences is Beverly Sauer’s article ‘’Sense and Sensibility in Technical Documentation: How Feminism Interpretation Strategies Can Save Lives in the Nation’s Mines.’’ A Post-accident investigation report, following the Mine 11 explosion in Kentucky on December 7, 1981, was written in a “fill in the blank” style; whereby, rhetorical style, structure, and syntax of the report focuses solely on a single cause. Reports show no direct blame on mine owners or operators and the objective language and scientific format enhanced the assumptions that there were not increased risks to miners due to a decrease in safety measures and precautions found prior to accidents. The language used in these reports outlined inspection and safety concerns, but made no correlation between the two in explaining cause or in placing blame. The format of the report place more emphasis on the dead foreman’s job experience rather than the responsibilities of the mine operators. Because it was deemed that “natural” causes (accumulation of coal dust) led to the explosion, human responsibility was non-existent. The use of passive verbs throughout the report disguises the reasons leading to the explosion, but at the same time, focuses on “worker error with management negligence.” There are also further variations in language with the use of “quasi-passive” adjectives depending on the way in which ideas wanted to be communicated, i.e. “deliberate violations” were written as a “technical description.” The narrative of the report itself focused on the damage and devastation of inanimate objectives rather than detailing the human suffering that occurred because of the accident. What Beverly Sauer brings to the forefront is certain rhetorical “silences” exhibited in this report prohibit the accurate analysis of the situation, and also questions why the voices of the miner’s wives were not heard. In hearings conducted a year after the accident, the wives of the dead miners clearly detail the dangers their husbands expressed and the fact that mine operators took their concerns lightly. Even though the women may not be experts in the field of mining, they are capable of judging whether certain aspects of their husband’s job are, in fact, extremely dangerous: …Tommy was a bolting machine operator…The company was always pushing the men for more production on coal. Tommy also told me that Harold Baldrige, the superintendent, wouldn’t provide him dust bags for his bolting machine. This meant that more coal dust was left to float in the air. This is the same coal dust that led to the explosion. …He told me that he had to find another job because the company just didn’t care about the men’s safety and it was too dangerous to work there. …They knew that if they told the truth, that they would probably be replace. …I sat there day after day…stunned to think that those men had died for no reason that made sense to me. Why do we have MHSA inspectors? …If the inspectors would shut these mines down for a week or so and let them lose some of that precious money, they just maybe would see how important it is for our men to come home to us. MHSA should hire more widows for inspectors, [she concludes]. They would get the job done and without pay. After the hearing, the widows of the dead miners challenged the findings of the MESA “to translate the lessons of the past into accident-prevention strategies for the future.” Although the language used by the women was awkward and lacked scientific knowledge they illustrated a focused way of improving mine health and safety, “the multiple fatals point out the flaw in pointing to individuals as causes, but strongly suggest the need to design the workplace and machinery with the past safety lessons in mind.” Not only do the women provide a means to future safety precautions, they also speak as survivors of loss and familial devastation and are proactive in their desire for change in the safety of coal mining, “mine safety…lies on common sense practical answers…it is a question of commitment [sic] to mine safety, a question of translating accidents into prevention.” What is illustrated through Sauer’s article is the fact that women’s voices were ‘stricken from the record’ further rooting incorrect assumptions of gender and power that affect all people who use technology. The women’s voices are not taken serious because they “have not learned the language of agreement addiction-the unarticulated code beneath the carefully categorized data in the inspection reports.” Because the women lack scientific expertise in the area of mining they are not seen as credible sources; thus, “women are excluded from the salient and silent power structures that control discourse in mining communities. It is evident from Sauer’s discourse that there is a distinct male and female discourse used to disseminate the same information in opposite fashions. This traditional thought of science, language, and power structures was seen in the Royal Society that Margaret Cavendish and Jane Sharp spoke out against. This idea is also reiterated through the nutritional studies done by Ellen Swallow Richards when she wrote distinctly different articles about the New England Kitchen for male and female audiences. Beverly Sauer’s examples help to provide further discussion on the inclusion of women, women’s voices and women’s experience into technical discourse. Others argue that there are not any inherent differences in male and female rhetoric and discourse, but a single survey of students, as opposed to, women who work within the field or who have years of direct or indirect experience, as previously discussed, seem to refute these findings. Tebeaux also states that the longer a women works within the scientific and technological fields the more their discourse reflects a more masculine quality, although what is not known is whether this change is a deliberate choice of female writers in the field, to be seen as equal to men in their respective fields, or the impact of their experience on their discourse. The call to androgynous writing in science and technology, as advocated by Allen, and to some degree, Lay seems to defeat the purpose of feminist theory in celebrating women’s differences through their discourse. Strategies for feminism in technical communication Technical communication and feminism are still at odds, but the situation for women has improved. The postmodern approach to feminism tries to use differing voices in technical communications: “voices of power” versus “voices of disenfranchised” to “challenge Western male rationale.” Today, feminist theorists are still struggling to alleviate the patriarchal constraints society has placed on women and change the view of women’s historical contributions and ideas to further the field of technical communication. Postmodernist theory encompasses two divergent ideals: one being the skeptical view, whereby, there is no truth and rhetoric is fragmented and meaningless; the other, an affirmative view that focuses on the possibilities of women to band together and revolt against the domination of patriarchal oppression. These two ideals together create seven characteristics of postmodern feminism: critique of dominant Western forms of rationality language and discourse that represent :reality and experience” questioning of universal truths idea that favors “fractured” subjects and its effect on knowledge than the effect knowledge has in its sources explore truth and knowledge in terms of power and domination concern for marginalized groups questioning knowledge originating from dualisms These characteristics illustrate how postmodern feminism is interested in how discourse influences gendered power relations which create subjectivity and lead to further change. There is a fine line that postmodern feminists must be wary not to cross as they add to the transformation and capacity to change current thoughts on gender differences, but not undermine the advances feminism has created for women. Hence, the goal is “to reverse the polarities of patriarchal thought and privilege and essentialize the female body as the locus of transformational possibilities.” So, the female body and its sexual differences do not explain gender inequalities. Since gender inequalities are not due to sexual differences, then gender differences must be a product of social construction. From early on, young girls are taught through their society and culture to act and behave in ways that are drastically different from boys. As these stereotypes become engrained in the female psyche, their divergent approaches to learning, writing, and analyses are also different. In order for these gender differences to change unculturated by society it is necessary for women to learn new behaviors more acceptable to science and technology by “participating in social experiences once reserved for men.” leaders This gender-central approach to cultural and society influence on women’s attitudes and behaviors suggests that these differences are valuable in the workplace and should be celebrated as a defining aspect in the development of a more cohesive approach to technical communication. The problem of celebrating gender differences is that it inhibits women’s advancement in the field; therefore, it may be more advantageous for women to take on more masculine traits within their rhetoric. As already mentioned, the more work experience a women has with the technology field the more likely her writing strategies change to fit a more male or androgynous style. As women with higher job statuses grow, they assume more agentic qualities rather than communal qualities in their writing and managerial styles. It has been shown that women who possess a combination of both male and female qualities are the most successful managers and company leaders Although women have seen many changes within the field of technical communications, some things still remain the same; but flexibility is the key to continued change, transformation and advancement for women in the field. A differing approach to this dilemma is to expand the definition of technical communication to include technologies commonly used by women to help break the masculine technology connection that this stereotype is socially constructed upon. Even though it has been shown that women’s contributions to technical communications and technology have been ignored and deemed less prestigious; thus less valuable, it is important that feminists focus on expanding reproductive technologies to showcase and expand the definition of technology. The female body is not just an entity for scientific research, but a being well qualified in helping to expand the roles of women through a new and revolutionary refining of technical communication. Using technology to influence discourse as opposed to technology being a means to produce discourse is another revolutionary idea of feminist theorists. As Donna Haraway explains, women are less defined as people by what people say about them and more defined as people by what technology says about who they are and what they are. Haraway discusses the profound impact genetics has on defining women rather than the religious and moral beliefs that were highly valued prior to technological advancements. Questions that arise from this idea are how developers create truths about the technological products they produce on behalf of women and how these products now create truths about gender. Technologies only contribute to the meanings that society assigns to gender and are not used to produce gender meaning in a hierarchical manner. With the rise of the Internet, this technological advancement has given people the ability of “switching” genders on a whim. Men and women can become one another for a brief time because the Internet skews our reality of who we are and what we want to be. Feminist transformation of technical communication Feminist theory and technology have come a long way since the early 17th century. Scientific and technical writing have evolved through the centuries due to the determination of women to have their voices heard and continue to write in their unique style and of their female experiences to connect to their audience in way that significantly differs from men. Patriarchal views point to this kind of social and emotional nature to be detrimental, or lack scientific or technical value, because of the perception that in order to be true, rhetorical discourse must be nothing more than strictly objective in nature. It is through the development of feminism and feminist theory in modern times that technical discourse is beginning to be examined differently and within different contexts for the benefit of the field. As women of the past and present argue, the need to redefining technical communications is important, not only for the field, but for their intended audiences. Breadth of description, writing style and the knowledge of experience, whether it is objective or subjective, only helps to improve the quality of discourse that is shared. Characteristics of feminism and the debates that are argued between feminist theorists not only will lead to a redefining of technical communications, but will help feminists to define how its characteristics, theories and rhetoric need to shape female discourse, as well as, to reshape and redefine, through socially constructed forms of knowledge, a more female inclusive foundation for the advancement of technical communications. ==References==

Thanks!

108.82.68.238 (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a research paper you wrote for a class? It's definitely too long but it would be a good new article if you remove all of the original research and the essay-style interpretations of the sources. --Aronoel (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry 108.82.68.239/Angels311 - this is not an appropriate addition as it would give undue weight to this topic - as Qwyrxian mentioned a few days ago. Like Aronoel said, this reads like an essay - which while a very good piece of research is not an appropriate style of writing for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia's style is very sparse, it just records facts (sourced from 3rd party peer reviewed references) without arguing for or against them. It also weighs information for inclusion. Thousands of issues around feminism could be mentioned here but for technical and organization reasons we don't include them (first because of weighting and secondly because of site organization).
I would suggest a) rewriting this information without the original research elements and b) creating a new article on Feminism and technical writing - a summary of that could be included in a new article on Feminism and science when it is created.
For the above reasons I am declining your requested edit.
Furthermore please do not make edit requests in this manner in future - significant clean-up had to be done so that this page can be readable for other users, and to preserve the table of contents for this page. Also please do not make multiple edit requests for the same issue--Cailil ^talk 14:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Considering that this is a brand-new editor, I think these edit request mistakes are understandable. --Aronoel (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Aronoel--in fact, until just 2 months ago, you were supposed to make multiple edit requests--that "answered" parameter is a relatively new addition.

However, regarding the content, I am inclined to agree with Cailil. This looks like a great university paper; it is, however, what we, on Wikipedia, call original research. It's difficult to see what that means as a new editor, but the basic idea is that on Wikipedia we are never allowed to provide our own opinions or interpretations of anything. For example, everything in the first paragraph of the suggested addition is original research by WP's meaning, because it's your (the OP's) interpretation of a whole field of human knowledge and history. None of that could be included unless you could find a reliable source which stated that information already. What I recommend that you do, if you're interested in seeing if some of this could be added somewhere on WP, is to work on it in a sandbox (that's a temporary holding place connected to your user account). I would be happy to help you set that up and work on it; just leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

perhaps more criticisms to add

I wonder if we should add something like the following as a paragraph to the end of the Reactions section's Anti-Feminism subsection:

Feminism has been criticized, on the basis of allegations, as denying men's right to lead societies, men's duty to head families, men's ability to be the economic supporters of themselves and their families, men's obligation to be the role models for most functions, men's greater abilities except in feminine roles, women's happiness or satisfaction with the status quo or status quo ante, women's lack of interest in doing what men do, women's unique abilities in mothering, women's mental illness, women's foolishness, the general lessons of history and prehistory, and the manlier virtues of masculism.

A problem is if we have to spend time finding sources for this. Mansfield, Harvey C., Manliness (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2006 (ISBN 978-0-300-10664-0)) is secondary and likely can be a source for at least some of it, and it's probably not alone.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC) (Deleted two unclear-in-context items from proposed text: 02:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC))

Agree that the anti-feminism section could be expanded. I haven't read all of the Mansfield book, but from what I understand the main argument of it falls under this position already described in the section: "men and women are fundamentally different and thus their different traditional roles in society should be maintained." --Aronoel (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Aronoel. That really seems just to reiterate points already described in the sub-section. Also, there is a problem with adding content says "criticized, on the basis of allegations, as denying" because that's really weasel wording. However if this is what the source is saying, pretty much verbatim, then really the sources is about the critics of feminism and is better suited to Antifeminism (if WP:DUE)--Cailil ^talk 16:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Another way that I think might be good to expand this section is to find more non-Western sources about anti-feminism. --Aronoel (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay; I thought it would solve a problem but maybe not without creating another. I think I'll leave this alone now. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

the lede on who's a feminist

The lede's present defining sentence for feminist ("Feminists—that is, persons practicing feminism—may be persons of either sex.") is debatable on three points. One is that it implies that, to be a feminist, praxis is required. Probably some women in Iranian prisons are feminists even if they can't manifest it in any way their guards can see. Belief should be sufficient. Another is that many who practice feminism without the label are quite clear that they are not feminists. And the third is that, while a substantial number of women count men as feminists, the view that men can at most be profeminists needs accommodation. On the other hand, the lede need not explicitly introduce that debate.

Therefore, I propose to define feminist thus: "Feminists are believers in feminism who try to live by it."

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

'Yes' to all the first paragraph, 'not quite' to the proposed lead sentence. How about simply: Feminists are people who believe in feminism. Binksternet (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Support this change and Binksternet's suggestion. --Aronoel (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Nick's points and Binksternet's suggestion but please source the actual line - Binksternet's wording looks very like the OED and Webster definition of 'feminist' so it should be easy enough to source--Cailil ^talk 15:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess we can't avoid the gender issue; and even the closeted feminist is hard to represent with a sourced definition. So, how about this, quoted: Feminists are "person[s] whose beliefs and behavior[s] are based on feminism."<ref>''The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language'' (Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 3d ed. 1992 (ISBN 0-395-44895-6)).</ref> Nick Levinson (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

New box on top of Talk

I think it's really great and a very useful, Nick, but as a suggestion I would just remove the paragraph "Feminism is inherently one-sided," because it's a pretty subtle point and it might be confusing. Neutrality is mostly covered in the other paragraphs anyway. --Aronoel (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'd like to keep that one, because it addresses what has come up several times recently; but I'll think about rewriting it, particularly from midway in the third sentence onward. I also want to reorient the box to be horizontal, in case growth is needed and in case this layout is problematic for hardware or small windows, if I figure out the coding. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

How about this: Feminism is inherently one-sided. Feminism is a critique of society. That means there is a disagreement between feminism and society. In that case, generally, if society is neutral, feminism is not. Wikipedia requires neutrality, but that applies to Wikipedia articles, not to feminism itself, nor to any source. As long as the article is neutral in how it presents its general subject, Wikipedia's requirement for neutrality is fulfilled. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Did the wording. I plan to look at the layout direction soon. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Did the layout direction edit and also turned the first cell into a table caption, so visually impaired readers can understand it better. So it's all done, subject to any new edits and comments. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

merging feminist movement article into here

At the feminist movement talk page, I proposed merging that article into here, thereby converting that article into a redirect to this one, but no discussion ensued. The tag is still up but the talk topic is archived.

I don't know how the scopes of the two articles are supposed to differ. If they are, all that occurs to me is that this article should be limited to what the feminist movement delivered or didn't deliver and exclude everything about the movement itself, but that would mean removing from this article everything about waves, for example, and I'm pretty sure that wouldn't fly.

I think merging is still a good idea. What do you think?

The method I'd recommend is to take every statement and every referent in the feminist movement article and either find it in another article, delete it, or copy it to another article. Even if a statement is already elsewhere, if a source is not, the referent should be copied to somewhere. Then, only when everything in the feminist movement article is thus accounted for, turn it into a redirect. This, however, is a time-consuming procedure. Is this worthwhile?

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Merging is a great idea. There is too much overlap between these two pages. --Aronoel (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Men and masculinity not a worldview

The implication behind The social construct of masculinity is seen as problematic is that feminism is anti-masculinity. This is far from a world-view. Feminism is not misandry. Roger6r (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that sentence is related to misandry. Lots of mens' rights activists are critical of the social construct of masculinity as well. Also, there are sources backing it up with feminist criticism of the concept of "masculinity." Do you think there's a better way to word it to make it more clear? --Aronoel (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggest re-organizing the "History" Section

this "wave" distinction for feminist history seems limiting and not very comprehensive. Is this a widely-accepted viewpoint? I think Consciousness Raising is a huge movement that should be mentioned in this section, but the "Second Wave" fits temporarily but not descriptively.

I propose removing the "waves" and instead placing notable advancements in the feminist movement. Roger6r (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Major sources are pretty close to unanimous that feminism occurred in three waves, and there isn't even a whole lot of dispute about issues and timing of each wave, other than variation by nation or world region. Consciousness raising arose in the beginning of the second wave in the U.S. and probably warrants a mention in this article; this is an introductory article and some content, particularly details, belongs in subarticles within feminism. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The waves are a little bit of a problem for the history of feminism in other countries, because they don't really fit that easily into those categories. The waves are definitely widely-accepted and should be mentioned, but maybe there's a better way to organize this section. If not, it seems to be acceptable now. --Aronoel (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Aronoel and Nick. I don't know enough about the waves distinction to accurately fit Consciousness Raising into this History section but I encourage improvements to this section. Roger6r (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Article progress

Ok so after a few months absence I re-read and ran through the page. It's in pretty good shape but I've made a number of adjustments to take account of section & sub-article contents, restructurings for logic (i.e., splitting the section on men & feminism into two: Patriarchy and men and masculinity - and moving them into the society section) and clarity (making sexuality a section on its own). There are a few points where clarity, specificity and fact checking are required (i.e., fact check on phrasing in the Dooling quote about 'second and third wave feminism in China'; specify what general theories are in the lede; clarify about which construction of masculinity is seen as problematic by feminism), and there are now a few sections needing small expansion (health, & sexuality) and others that need reduction (literature, civil rights - which is listed under both culture and politics). After that before this page is listed for good article review the referencing system needs to be harmonized and an outsider should give it a read-through for jargon busting and general clarity of reading--Cailil ^talk 14:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

When you say "which construction of masculinity" do you mean it should specifically say the Western social construction of masculinity? --Aronoel (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly I mean that it should be spelled out in full (and atributted). If the source says "Patriarchal constructions of masculinity" or "dominant traditional construction of masculinity in the West" or "the hegemonic construction of masculinity" this should be stated. At this moment the phrase is quite vague and leaves the reader wondering about the whats & whys (what masculinity, where, in what context, etc)--Cailil ^talk 19:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

new infobox on consensus

I like the new infobox (being the same width as what's adjacent) except that I understood that infoboxes are incompatible for users who are visually impaired and who depend on screen readers and the like; I gather they don't handle infoboxes. Is there a better solution? Thanks for the work. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nick I'm not aware of that problem - the MOS about the screenreader JAWS didn't mention this - the reason I altered the box was because this is the standard format for showing talkpage/article consensus but if you can show me where the infobox problem for screen readers is discussed I'll have a look--Cailil ^talk 08:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem may be resolved; perhaps someone else can tell, if they have the assistive software that I don't have. Visual impairment is covered in the Help page on infoboxes, but, contrary to the edit summary, this page didn't get an Infobox template, but a Tmbox (then Consensus) template, and I assume the latter templates (and most templates) don't have that problem. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC) (Clarified: 16:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC))

External link

FRAGEN - A European database with femninist texts would be a suitable external link. Editing is closed, so i put it here:

http://www.fragen.nu/aletta/fragen/

For the first time, core feminist texts from the second wave of feminism in Europe have been made available to researchers in an easily accessible online database. The FRAGEN project brings together books, articles and pamphlets that were influential in the development of feminist ideas in 29 countries during the second half of the 20th century.

Cheers, --Bulver (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Would this risk facilitation of copyright violation? Many such materials would be fairly recent but perhaps other nations' copyright laws control and are different from U.S. laws. I think Wikipedia/Wikimedia has a discussion about such copyright issues, and I haven't looked lately. Other than that, it seems, on first glance at the home page and not inside the site, like a good idea. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Graphic symbol

I'd like to include a description of the combined raised fist and female symbols. USchick (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, if it's very concise (to fit in the template, best as one line). An alt text is also a good idea for accessibility, although it likely can say "Refer to caption." The logo is in Template:Feminism sidebar. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section?

Why is there no criticism section? There is plenty of criticism out there of feminist philosophy. --Caute AF (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

See Feminism#Reactions. —Pathoschild 22:06, 03 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Cnpg, 4 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add the following paragraph to the entry on feminism. Add the heading "Feminism and Musicology" following the section on "Women's Music". Text to read as follows:

Feminsim became a principal concern of musicologists in the 1980s. Prior to this, in the 1970s, musicologists were beginning to discover women composers and performers, and had begun to review concepts of canon, genius, genre and periodization from a feminist perspective. In other words, the question of how women musicians fit into the traditional music history realm was now being asked.

Through the 1980s and 1990s musicologists such as Susan McClary, Marcia Citron and Ruth Solie began to consider the cultural reasons for the marginalizing of women from the received body of work. Concepts such as music as gendered discourse; professionalism; reception of women's music; examination of the sites of music production; relative wealth and education of women; popular music studies in relation to women's identity; patriarchal ideas in music analysis; and notions of gender and difference are among the themes examined during this time.

Source: Beard, David; Gload, Kenneth. 2005. Musicology : The Key Concepts. London and New York: Routledge.

Cnpg (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Done; I didn't make a new section - I just added to "Women's music" because it didn't really seem to warrant a heading. And, others might object to the edit, but, meh; WP:BRD.  Chzz  ►  00:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Citation needed:

In the entry

"some feminists argue that men's liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kratch (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

bell hooks is the most obvious example, I think - virtually anything she has written. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Under Movements and ideologies/Political and economic

"Liberal feminism seeks individualistic equality of men and women through political and legal reform without altering the structure of society"

Under Societal impact/Civil rights

"The movement started in the 1910s in the U.S. under Margaret Sanger and elsewhere under Marie Stopes and grew in the late 20th century."

under men and mascclinity

"Feminist theory has explored the social construction of masculinity and its implications for the goal of gender equality."

Virtually all of the opening to the Sexuality section.

Under Science

"Many feminist scholars rely on qualitative scientific research methods that emphasize women's subjective and individual experiences, including treating research participants as authorities equal to the researcher." (it's also not uncommon for me to see "who" tags when someone uses "many" or "some" with regards to people.

The best example is Evelyn Fox Keller. Sandra Hrdy, Donna Harroway, Emily Martin might also belong in this section. These are all prety well-known, prominent scientists. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good article on feminist epistemologies that would really help people improve this part of our article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Under Anti-Feminism, the following sentence is repeated twice. IE Redundant, or an intentional drive to give more weight to that idea of "anti-feminism".

"Other anti-feminists oppose women's entry into the workforce, political office, and the voting process, as well as the lessening of male authority in families"

Under Patriarchy, it states "It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and is dependent on female subordination."...It has a reference, but does not an "implication" represent a Point of view, not a fact? Should this not be reflected in the phrase? Perhaps "*author* suggests this implies ..."

WP provides views not truths. What we need to do is make sure that the article text accurately reflects the views of the author cited. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

As to WP providing views, not truth's, Editor's actions and expectations on the men's rights article suggests otherwise. As to the rest, I think you are suggesting agreement? --Kratch (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the opening line of Patriarchy, it states "...and where fathers hold authority over women, children, and property." That line should also include "and responsibility for". If you wish to challenge this as Citation needed, I note the initial statement likewise has no citation. Kratch (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree Slrubenstein | Talk 13:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

sidebar and bottom templates

Reducing two templates to one makes sense at first, but it turns out the differences are substantial. While both template pages advise editors to apply edits to one to the other, evidently that hasn't always been done. There are shortcomings in both directions. Should they be conformed (in which case I'd suggest also conforming the order of links, to ease future conformance editing) or should the sidebar be restored but in a middle position on the article page to avoid the layout problem? If conforming, should it all be by adding, by subtracting, or on a link-by-link judgment? Nick Levinson (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say conformed (and I've made a quick stab at that[1]) - but I think this conversation would be better at Template talk:feminism or Template talk:Feminism sidebar--Cailil ^talk 22:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Done: I conformed both templates to each other so each has whatever the other one has. I mention it here because nothing seemed in need of discussion there and the edit summaries now tell editors there that two-way conformance was done. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Feminism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 13:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I have highlighted a few prose issues below; overall, though, it is clear and well-written in accordance with WP:SS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article is very well-referenced. However, I notice that some books are listed as references with no page numbers. That's okay for a GA, since most of your references do have page numbers, but would probably be frowned upon in a FA review.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   You almost there! See the below comments about Latin America and France, and also the literature section.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The tone is admirably neutral, sticking to the facts and not using Wikipedia's voice to make any objectionable claims. A possible concern might be that not enough space is given to opposing views (the Reactions section is quite short), but the note on the talk page says it's okay.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems okay; page is semi-protected because of vandalism, but that's to be expected.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   See below comment about File:8marta.jpg

7. Overall: I am placing this article on hold for seven days. This article is very close to being a GA, and reviewing it was a pleasure - I learned a lot. :) The main issues that need to be addressed are the prose, especially in the lead, and broadness of coverage. The comments below address a few other things, but they are intended to more as suggestions for further improvement than requirements for GA status. Happy editing!

   Pass/Fail:

Wow, you guys are amazing! There is always something to improve, but the article is now manifestly of GA quality. I am passing it. Thank you so much for all your hard work! --Cerebellum (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• Structure: Consider placing the discussion of third-wave feminism before post-feminism, and also mentioning post-feminism in the History section where you have the overview of the three waves.
• Broadness of coverage: You did an excellent job of introducing a global perspective in the discussions of first- and second-wave feminism, but the "Late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries" section seems US-centric. What is going on in the rest of the world right now?
• Broadness of coverage: I appreciate the difficulties of balancing length with comprehensiveness, but you include some information on feminism in Latin America? Maybe you could the move the sentence about Latin America under the "Socialism" section up here to the history section.
• Images/broadness of coverage: Similarly, you have a picture some Parisian suffragettes, but France is not even mentioned in the article body. Can this be remedied?
• Theoretical schools: The second paragraph seems be entirely about literary theory. You need to place this paragraph in the context of feminist theory in general, showing us why a discussion of literary theory is appropriate here.
• Literature: Somehow the literature section seems incomplete. The first paragraph is good, but the second two seem overly specific, giving the names of a few important feminist texts instead of describing the general development of feminist literature as a whole. The entire period from 1818 until the 1960s is skipped over. Giving a whole paragraph of feminist science fiction is also unexpected - how important is science fiction in relation to the broader feminist movement? With such a broad topic, it is important to use article space efficiently, so ask yourself if that paragraph is really necessary.
• Distinction between sex and gender: You tell us what the distinction is, but not why it matters or how it relates to feminism. This paragraph should be either expanded or removed.
• References: "A Room of One's Own" is cited with no page numbers. References to lengthy works should tell the reader where to find the cited material. Actually, several other references have the same problem; see above.
• Science: This is my own personal POV, so feel free to ignore. However, the first two paragraphs of this section are so wildly at odds with the general stream of scientific thought as I understand it that I had to read it a few times in order to make sure that it was really saying what I thought it was saying, and the resulting cognitive dissonance was a little jarring. Could you include a sentence or two explaining how these ideas differ from the traditional scientific view, and what the response of the scientific community to these ideas has been?
• Lead: The lead, ideally, should summarize the entire article; since your topic here is so broad that may be difficult, but it would be nice if you could at least mention feminism's effects on society, since that is a major part of the article.
• Culture: Have you considered including information about the visual arts?
• Movements and ideologies: The variety here is a bit bewildering, even overwhelming. I don't if there's a way to fix this, but maybe it's something you can think about. :)

Specific comments

• You may want to add Template:Feminism sidebar to the lead.
• Lead: Feminist theory exists in a variety of disciplines, emerging from these feminist movements and including general theories and theories about the origins of inequality, and, in some cases, about the social construction of sex and gender. This sentence doesn't flow very well. It might read better if change it to something like: Feminist theory, emerging from these feminist movements, aims to understand the nature of gender inequality by examining women's social roles and lived experience, developing theories in a variety of disciplines in order to respond to issues such as the social construction of sex and gender.
• Lead: such as in contract - this doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean contract law?
• Lead: Feminist activists have campaigned for women's rights—such as in contract, property, and voting — while also promoting women's rights to bodily integrity and autonomy and reproductive rights. The repetition of women's rights is a little off-putting here.
• History: The second paragraph of "history" describes the three waves of feminism by saying that each wave "refers to" something. Does it change the meaning if you simply say "the first wave was..."? This would help make the prose more direct.
• History: Second paragraph of "Nineteenth and early twentieth centuries" section: this is a run-on sentence.
• Prose: criticized it using generalizations. Should this be criticized it for using generalizations?
• Structure: Section "Theoretical schools": is there a reason for not calling this section "Feminist theory" or just "Theory"? The current terminology suggests that you are going to discuss several competing schools of thought.
• Political: In the U.S., feminism, when politically active, formerly aligned largely with the political right, e.g., through the National Woman's Party, from the 1910s to the 1960s, and presently aligns largely with the left, e.g., through the National Organization for Women, of the 1960s to the present, although in neither case has the alignment been consistent. I count ten commas in this sentence. It might be best to remove this sentence entirely and replace it with something that more directly introduces the topic of feminism's relationship to political movements.
• Pro-feminism: The last sentence should either occur earlier in the paragraph or be removed; it seems like it is repeating information already mentioned.
• Civil rights: The final paragraph repeats information already given in the second paragraph.
• Images: Is File:8marta.jpg public domain in the US? I assume the creator is unknown, and I don't know how that effects the copyright status, if at all.
• Fascism: a state ideology that, in glorifying women, becomes anti-feminist. Perhaps this is meant to be counter-intuitive, but I don't understand it. Could you elaborate?
• Movements and ideologies: some socialist feminists disagree. and has branched into such as anti-pornography feminism, opposed by sex-positive feminism. I'm not sure what your intended meaning is here.
• Sexuality: Why is the first paragraph in the past tense?

Notes

• All the specific issues are now  Done --Cailil ^talk 23:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• All the amendments required under 'General comments' are now  Done, except for: a) the first 'Broadness of coverage' point which is  Partly done; and b) the point about theoretical schools, which is  Partly done--Cailil ^talk 23:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

some thoughts

Some thoughts:

• I think the run-on sentence isn't but looks like it is, and appearance is a good point. One or two of the criticized points of prose or grammar may be my fault, not technically wrong but improvable.
• The scientific objectivity issue is, I think, a feminist objection that what is considered objective is biased by gender, such as in what questions are investigated, what findings are considered objective, and who is considered prospectively a good student worth teaching. I think the feminist objection is more to what is labeled as objective than to objectivity itself. There's not much objection about objectivity in mathematics but plenty in sociobiology. However, I don't have a source handy.
• The science issue subsuming women's (non)sexuality reminds of a time when an archaeologist reported that a society was led by a king (male) whose skeleton was remarkably similar to a woman's and then sealed the cave against other people for some years. Apparently, he couldn't believe that being skeletalized as a woman was not inconsistent with being a monarch, say, a queen with full monarchical powers. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read about this and I see how the sentence could confuse readers without a background on point.
• The prose about using generalizations could be saying that the critic used generalizations. I don't have the source.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right about the run-on sentence Nick - but I made a small edit to break it up anyway. As regards everything else I've hit as many issues as I could and left 8 in the to do box. If we can get 2 done a day this week it should be sorted. The difficult ones are the Literature, Science and Ideologies sections--Cailil ^talk 23:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

French feminism and Mary Daly

Mary Daly criticized French feminism in one of her books, but I forgot which book. I recall something about French feminism having something to do with psychoanalysis. Nick Levinson (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe "European Witchburnings" in Gyn/Ecology? Also I pulled the mention of Beauvoir because I read "despite" her as accidentally offensive. I tried to move her out of that corner and hope someone else can fix it. -SusanLesch (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah French feminist theory is quite concerned with psychoanalysis and literature - very structuralist / post-structuralist (ie Écriture féminine). I wonder if there might be other sources of criticism that maybe more well known than Daly?--Cailil ^talk 15:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Mary Daly's commentary was brief and she was not a leader in French feminism (not an inside critic), but she is important in feminism and radical feminism. I've worked with Gyn/Ecology recently and am pretty sure it's not in that book and it's not in her Wickedary either (I have the latter, but the former I returned to the library). Apparently, it's in Quintessence, at pp. 141 & 142 and maybe there's stuff at pp. 235, 249, & 272 and one other page (Amazon listed more snippets than Google did but may not display the most important ones). I don't know enough to know if Écriture féminine is the same thing; I'll take your word for it, also on in which article criticism belongs. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC) (Corrected by deleting a no-longer-relevant sentence (an especially stupid error): 20:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC))

Well as regards where some criticism could go - some (where due) should be here but the majority should be in French structuralist feminism IMHO. Écriture féminine is only part of it, but integral to Cixous & Irigary especially. I should think that there are more involved criticisms of it elsewhere (perhaps due to its relationship with poststructuralism?)--Cailil ^talk 20:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ideologies

Hi. This section is arbitrarily named and combined into named sections that won't exist anywhere else. Is that "helpful for the reader" as the GA review requests, or does it introduce confusion among the already confused? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it runs the risk of OR if the "section is arbitrarily named and combined into named sections that won't exist anywhere else". I'm sure there are books on feminist theory that do categorize ideologies in one way or another - I believe it would be best to find sources that do that and use it--Cailil ^talk 20:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The introduction from Christine Flynn Saulnier's Feminist theories and social work: approaches and applications might help--Cailil ^talk 21:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively we could go back to a paragraph arrangement but prune it down (as below in the collapsed content) linking what has been linked in reliable sources (marxist inspired feminisms, liberal & conservative feminisms, Ecofeminism & cultural feminism, Postcolonial, Thirdworld & Black feminism, and Postmodern & post-structural feminisms). This should make list logical, clearer and keeps it source based--Cailil ^talk 21:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

Liberal feminism seeks individualistic equality of men and women through political and legal reform without altering the structure of society. Radical feminism considers the male-controlled capitalist hierarchy as the defining feature of women's oppression and the total uprooting and reconstruction of society as necessary. Conservative feminism is conservative relative to the society in which it resides. Libertarian feminism conceives of people as self-owners and therefore as entitled to freedom from coercive interference. Individualist feminism or ifeminism, opposing so-called gender feminism, draws on anarcho-capitalism. Marxist ideas and methodologies have influenced a number of forms of feminism. Marxist feminism argues that capitalism is the root cause of women's oppression, and that discrimination against women in domestic life and employment is an effect of capitalist ideologies. Socialist feminism distinguishes itself from Marxist feminism by arguing that women's liberation can only be achieved by working to end both the economic and cultural sources of women's oppression. Anarcha-feminists believe that class struggle and anarchy against the state require struggling against patriarchy, which comes from involuntary hierarchy. Ecofeminists see men's control of land as responsible for the oppression of women and destruction of the natural environment, but a criticism is that ecofeminism focuses too much on a mystical connection between women and nature. Cultural feminism attempts to revalidate undervalued "female nature" or "female essence"; its critics assert that it has led feminists to retreat from politics to lifestyle. During much of its history, feminist movements and theoretical developments were led predominantly by middle-class white women from Western Europe and North America. However women of other races have proposed alternative feminisms. This trend accelerated in the 1960s with the civil rights movement in the United States and the collapse of European colonialism in Africa, the Caribbean, parts of Latin America, and Southeast Asia. Postcolonial feminists argue that colonial oppression and Western feminism marginalized postcolonial women but did not turn them passive or voiceless. Third-world feminism is closely related to postcolonial feminism. These ideas also correspond with ideas in African feminism, motherism, Stiwanism, negofeminism, femalism, transnational feminism, and Africana womanism. Womanism emerged after early feminist movements were largely white and middle-class. Black feminism argues that sexism, class oppression, and racism are inextricably bound together. Starting in the postmodern era, postmodern feminism argues that sex and gender are socially constructed, that it is impossible to generalize women's experiences across cultures and histories, and that dualisms and traditional gender, feminism, and politics are too limiting. Post-structural feminism uses various intellectual currents and many of its adherents maintain that difference is one of the most powerful tools that women possess.

Thanks for your reply. Sorry to say Saulnier's book didn't help me any more than the three sections did. I'll bow out on trying to solve this for GA. Good luck. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I believe that headings are "a cost of doing business" on Wikipedia. If you can label anything in this encyclopedia in any language, then you can divide a world of ideologies into three piles. What we have now looks nice and substantial and can be read. Reviewers will probably have more problems with a stringy "list". -SusanLesch (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Leaving on wikibreak. I bet and do hope feminism is a GA when I get back. :) -SusanLesch (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Susan and thanks for the great addition to the visual arts subsection. I take your point about the categories however I think we can do better than arbitrary/novel categorizations - by that I mean we can find sourced categorizations. For instance Jackie Jones' Contemporary feminist theories is very helpful in this regard for Black, Postmodern and Postcolonial feminisms (as is Ahemed's Transformations: thinking through feminism); Donovan's Feminist theory: the intellectual traditions is useful for the marxist traditions of, & influences on, feminism; and actual Echols Daring to be bad is helpful with the political branches. I've made a change reflecting this. I've also reduced some of the content and changed the hat-note to reflect this (noting that the list is not comprehensive). I hope this is a good compromise and that when a short sentence is added to each subsection that it all becomes more readable and cleaerer. Thanks again for everything and have a good wikibreak--Cailil ^talk 16:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Review from user formerly known as Awadewit

I was asked to review this article a while ago. Here are my thoughts! I'm so impressed with how comprehensive this article is! It makes me proud to be a Wikipedian!

• I'm sure there is history behind these sentences, but to me they are not necessary in the first paragraph of the lead: "Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men's liberation is a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles."
  • Moved to the end of the lead. Kaldari (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• In the U.S., notable leaders of this movement included Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony, who each campaigned for the abolition of slavery prior to championing women's right to vote and were strongly influenced by Quaker thought. - How were they influenced by Quaker thought?
  • Expanded this into a separate sentence. Kaldari (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• During the late Qing period and reform movements such as the Hundred Days' Reform, Chinese feminists called for women's liberation from traditional roles and Neo-Confucian gender segregation. - Perhaps add some dates here?

• Arab feminism was closely connected with Arab nationalism. - How so?

• The first paragraph in the "Mid-twentieth century" doesn't bring together the de Beauvoir material and the second-wave material very well.

• I think that the section on "Mid-twentieth century" needs to mention "difference feminism" somehow - it needs to convey that the assumptions underlying second-wave feminism were different than those underlying first-wave feminism.

• Ecofeminists see men's control of land as responsible for the oppression of women and destruction of the natural environment, but a criticism is that ecofeminism focuses too much on a mystical connection between women and nature. - I was struck by the sudden insertion of opinion here.

• In general, I found the "Movements and ideologies" very elliptical. So, for example, what makes black and postcolonial feminisms different - the paragraph is very unclear on that point. I could understand much of what these paragraphs are alluding to because I have a lot of background, but someone with no knowledge would probably have a very hard time understanding this section. I'm wondering how this can be rectified - perhaps by listing fewer movements?

• Atheist feminists have also argued that the atheist movement itself is anti-feminist. I know of a lot of blog posts about this, but I don't know if there are peer-reviewed sources.

• I'm wondering if it is worth trying to introduce the concept of patriarchy earlier in the article. It is so central to understanding nearly every form of feminism.

• The definition of feminist art from the Tate seems very restrictive. It is necessary?

• The "Pornography" section is a bit unclear. Could you spell out in a few sentences what exactly the debate was/is? The "Prostitution" section does that very well.

• In the "Relationship to political movements" section, the "Socialism" subsection does not do nearly as good of a job explaining the general impact as the other two sections. It is too fact-based - this person, that organization, etc. to help the casual reader.

• I'm wondering why the "Science" section wasn't integrated into the "Movements and ideologies" section.

I hope this is helpful! Wadewitz (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review, Wadewitz! Looks like there's a lot more work left to do :) Kaldari (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me reiterate how wonderful I think the article is. It is extraordinarily difficult to cover a topic as broad and disputed as feminism. You all deserve many accolades. Awadewit (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

trans women

Trans women ought to be included under the section on third wave feminist criticism of the second wave, along with issues of race and class. Under the Sexuality section, "transwomen" should properly read "trans women," with a space in the middle. 35.11.246.23 (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Trans woman - so fix it? :-/ SarahStierch (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse in the lead section but not in the body

I removed a simple mention of child sexual abuse from the lead section. Paintedxbird contributed it in this edit, to append child sexual abuse to the following sentence:

Feminists have worked to protect women and girls from domestic violence, sexual harassment, sexual assault and child sexual abuse.

My reasoning is simple: putting this in the lead section violates WP:LEAD which tells us that the lead is a summary of the material in the article body. The lead should not contain things that are not developed in the article body. There is nothing about child sexual abuse in the article, nothing about feminists working to stop it.

If the article does not comply with WP:LEAD it will lose its hard-won GA status. GA status requires adherence to the guidelines regarding lead sections.

Certainly, the article can have such information in it! I am not against telling the reader about it! It just needs to be described in the article body (which is where all the cites would go), and then mentioned or summarized in the lead section. I think such a subtopic deserves a paragraph or even its own section. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You are looking at things too black and white, too coldly: When you delete stuff, how can you be sure that someone will come back at a later date come back to elaborate further (or may not even be qualified to do so but realised that it wasn't right that the article shouldn't mention it at all), in the neat boxes that you want it to go in? In all likelihood you will just drive people off by deleting their edits wholesale rather than attempting to talk to them, or maybe even collaborate on expanding a section in the preferred style. Rules aren't hard and fast, the most important thing is improving it in the long run :)

You said "the edit teases the reader with a topic that deserves a section" but per WP:REDLINK this is a good thing :) It says a lot of the stuff I'm saying! Wikipedia is in progress, making better articles is more important than ratings! If a rating is stopping you improving the article or laying the foundations for future improvement then ignore ratings :)

Don't see Wikipedia as a battleground but try to help people improve than just deleting and not telling them why :) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I will have to write the essay WP:IBITE to argue for those who wish to bring Wikipedia up to higher standards rather than down to level of newbie editors. <grin>

The guideline at REDLINK has nothing to do with what Paintedxbird added, nor with what I deleted. There was no red link involved.

Regarding GA, the article took three tries to attain the level, finally getting there two months ago, and now it is slipping again. Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, blast from the past. Kaldari (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Binksternet is correct & I've reverted accordingly. There is, as yet no consensus or policy reason to change the lede. Per WP:LEAD the first section of the article reflects the content of the body. Not the other way round.
  Furthermore this article is of a high standard. Edits need to come-up to that for inclusion or else they are likely to be removed. The reasons (which Binksternet actually explained before your post Selina) are very simple you don't add new material to the lead sections of good articles (especially parent articles). There is a sub-article on Feminist effects on society where this could be included and when that happens a duely summarized version of that article could then be rewritten in the section on Societal impact here.
  Red link and IAR are red herrings Selina. Either material conforms to guidelines for inclusion (wrt what, and where, it is added) or it doesn't & when material doesn't reach that standard it in fact damages articles--Cailil ^talk 16:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You really should try talk to people before reverting them except when it's actually wrong/unverifiable material though, I think style is not really worthy of deleting content, but I'm not going to argue - but if you're going to revert fairly new people it would be cool if you also talked to them on their user page and explained why than just in an edit summary because newer people don't use watchlists as much and as I said before it's the kind of thing that puts people off the revert culture that anything they add might be summarily deleted just because it doesn't fit the right way.

What we have now is a situation where we agree a topic is relevant but now it's not mentioned even once in the article now, which I think is worse since feminism has been a big pusher to protect children more and end rape culture :/ hopefully maybe some collaboration can be achieved though, I just had a look and Paintedxbird (talk · contribs) has edited since, but not here, might just not want to get involved in an argument since no one appeared to want to talk to her - that's the kind of stuff I mean if you want more people to stick around and overall improve everything far more than just a few dedicated people can, there needs to be a shift towards a friendlier culture, I am speaking from experience here the WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere is what put me off the place originally --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Selina the issue was raised and answered, twice now.
As regards the material, if the topic is relevant it gets a section written about it in a sub-article. Then, if that info is due, it gets noted in a summary of that article in a sub-section here. And if the info is significant enough then, and only then, it gets a short mention in the lede.
As reagrds reverting with guidelines in mind: your opinion on style etc is just that - your personal opinion. Whereas wikipedia *in fact* has a manual of style for a reason. The only reason to cite IAR in order to ignore policy/guidelines is if that edit improves an article. By definition breaching guidelines in a manner that reduces the quality of an article is *not* an improvement.
In terms of the reverts: 1) Throwing accusations of WP:Battle around where there are none (as you've done now twice in this thread) is not a good idea (ppl disgareeing with you based on policy and guidlines is not prima facie evidence of a battleground atmosphere - that's an integral part of the consensus seekng endevour, balancing new material with core polcy and style gudielines). 2) Binksternet made a postexplaining very clearly and cogently what the issue is about here on the article talk page. If Paintedxbird wants to engage with everyone else who is working on this page in forming a consensus they need to come here to discuss changes to the article--Cailil ^talk 13:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I did the editing. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Evolutionary biology section

The first paragraph of the Evolutionary biology section is very difficult to grok. It doesn't provide adequate context and the wording is overly academic, especially the sentence: "She notes how feminists and sociologists have become suspicious of evolutionary psychology, particularly in as much as sociobiology is subjected to complexity in order to strengthen sexual difference as immutable through pre-existing cultural value judgments about human nature and natural selection." Huh? Kaldari (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Came here to say this. I get that the sentence is trying to say something akin to 'feminists don't like it when evolutionary biology is cited as proof that males are more sexually driven and females need emotional connections in order to enjoy sex, and no amount of shunning by civilized societies will change these natural instincts', but only after rereading it several times. I would prefer not to edit it, as my grasp of brevity is less than impressive, and I am not 100 percent sure my interpretation is correct. Ongepotchket (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed that section, temporarily at least, for 3 reasons a) what Kaldari says above - the passage is unparsable without a very high level of knowledge of academic jargon (and even then its borderline in terms of making sense); b) the second paragraph is about Evolutionary biology not 'feminism & evolutionary biology'; c) when I reworte the first paragraph it came to a sum total of one line

Extended content
Sarah Kember notes that feminists and sociologists have become suspicious of evolutionary psychology, because of its tendency to naturalize sexual difference through pre-existing value judgments about human nature and natural selection.

Even then that one-liner is just one person's pov and is repetitive of social constructivist arguments mentioned higher up - so there's no reason to include that alone. The article is better without a section solely based on that. But I think we should try to rewrite a new paragraph on feminism & evolutionary biology here or in A.N Other sandbox.

@Ongepotchket what the line was trying to say was that some feminists oppose Evolutionary Biology's dismissal of the social construction of gender, and its reliance on preconceived notions of the differences between men and women. It's not about sex drives--Cailil ^talk 13:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The source for the second paragraph was called "Evolutionary Psychology and Feminism" and presents interesting views on the subject which can be incorporated in future views on the subject: [2] Here is also another interesting, shorter article: [3] I do think the article should say something on this due to the sometimes perceived conflict. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the sourcing handy, but here's a statement as a starting point: A debate affecting feminism is how much of gender-based psychology is culturally directed and how much is biologically directed. While the answer seems obvious for some areas, it is strongly debated for some nonobvious areas. Evolutionary psychology is the leading scientific field arguing for biological cause in some debated areas;{{Citation needed}} in the past, the field was sociobiology.{{Citation needed}} The argument for evolutionary psychology is that part of our psychology is so nearly universal around the world and evidently so old as to prove its evolution from very early in human existence, which is very unlikely unless it was genetically caused.{{Citation needed}} However, in the absence of identification of specific causative genes, genetic causation may be only an unproven hypothesis, because a convention agreed to by a small number of humans near the beginning of human existence and that was sufficiently useful for generations for retention may be culturally passed down through generations even today and not be genetically caused.{{Citation needed}}

I think Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate (then of MIT and later of Harvard) argues for biological causation even though he has said elsewhere (I think in a radio interview) he believes in equal rights; I think he cites Human Universals by Brown as part of his case. But Brown allowed for early prehistoric convention. In my opinion, the sum of the argument is that the combination of near universalism and unbounded antiquity leans toward biological causation but does not prove it. I'm having difficulty eliminating convention as the cause for such customs as wearing clothing or building fires; as far as I know, no other species in the wild engages in either custom. The lack of findings of causative genes or their equivalent (e.g., causative hormones or hormonal action) is probably part of what supports the argument against evolutionary psychology; another part of the opposition is from a long history of biological claims of male superiority that were disproven over the years, such as the relevance of brain size, which lasted roughly until someone noticed that elephants had even bigger brains and that wouldn't do.

Sexuality per se is not the only area debated under nature-nurture.

Evolutionary psychology is probably more relevant, as more specific, than evolutionary bbiology.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sexuality

I wonder if we couldn't expand the sexuality section to include more than just the topics of assault, prostitution, and pornography. It seems limited. Feminism has a great deal to say about sexuality beyond these topics. I haven't done any extensive edits on WP yet, and I am still apprehensive about doing so, but I feel I have adequate sources and reading material that I could cull from to expand the section with some help from other editors. Feminism's positive impact on how women approach their own sexuality, and examples of prominent feminist authors or scholars notable works about sexuality (such as Our Bodies, Ourselves) would be two examples of where I mean to start. Would greatly appreciate feedback/suggestions from editors about this. Thanks. Ongepotchket (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree - the section is more about sex-work than sexuality. There is definitely space for a section on feminism's wider understanding of sexuality--Cailil ^talk 13:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it could include a small subsection on lesbian feminism as well. Kaldari (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The intro, and the "theory" section

I think the current intro is a bit lacking. It currently says:

"Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women."

Which only really covers part of feminism. I would like to somehow include the basic idea behind the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's summarization of feminism, which reads as follows:

"Feminism is both an intellectual commitment and a political movement that seeks justice for women and the end of sexism in all forms."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/

I think it's important to mention that it is both a political movement AND philosophy. The SEP seems like a more authoritative source on this topic, as opposed to the two dictionaries which are currently cited.

I'm not sure if we can crib the intro from SEP, but if we can, I think that would be ideal.

Also, I think it might make more sense to change the "theory" section to "philosophy", and make "theory" a subheading...as theory is secondary to philosophy, and philosophy is a pretty major part of feminism. Again, I'm not sure how much we can crib from SEP...but a lot of it couldn't be done much better. For example:

"In many of its forms, feminism seems to involve at least two groups of claims, one normative and the other descriptive. The normative claims concern how women ought (or ought not) to be viewed and treated and draw on a background conception of justice or broad moral position; the descriptive claims concern how women are, as a matter of fact, viewed and treated, alleging that they are not being treated in accordance with the standards of justice or morality invoked in the normative claims. Together the normative and descriptive claims provide reasons for working to change the way things are; hence, feminism is not just an intellectual but also a political movement."

I should mention that I've never contributed to Wikipedia before, so if I'm not following proper protocol, then I apologize. I look forward to hearing your thoughts, thanks. Sinnick (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Stalinist Feminism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I couldn't find any reference to Stalinist Feminism in the article. Is this an oversight or a deliberate omission? Stalinist Feminism is a large part of the feminist movement and should not be ignored. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you've been reading too much Camille Paglia. Kaldari (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

All feminist groups hate, sterotype, blame and subdugate men because they are all radicals in discuise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.106.44 (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shouldn't there be a section on the male equivalent of feminism?

Or more to the point, shouldn't there be a section and an article on a movement without gender bias, like equal gender rights or equalism?

Allcarwiki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

No. A section is tooo much for such things. You can add it to Men and feminism. Maybe we can have a small section on 'Men and feminism', probebly in #Reactions section, and also point to these things.--Taranet (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the male equivalent of feminism? I don't think anything such thing exists. --Is there something like the National Organization of Men (NOM)? One would think so, since men have grievances too. For instance, 93% of the people in prison are male; males only constitute 40% of college students; women get the kids 96% of the time in divorce cases, etc. Plenty to complain about. One would think there would be a male equivalent of feminism, anybody know of anything? Thanks. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Since feminism is the radical notion that women are people too, I guess you are looking for misogyny or possibly patriarchy. There are various organizations that call themselves men's rights organizations, and not all of them are misogynistic or patriarchal. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Sexism#Antisexism movements. Kaldari (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The opposite of feminisim is Masculism, and yes there is a wiki page for it already 11:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.60.22 (talk)

I believe that the problem that Allcarwiki is referring to is the perspective (expressed in the Feminism page) that feminism is based on the struggle for women’s rights exclusively. In Feminism and the Contradictions of Oppression, Car Ramazanoglu explains feminism as comprising “various social theories which explain the relations between the sexes in society, and the difference between women’s and men’s experience” (8). By incorporating this definition in the last sentence of the article summary, we can more properly frame feminism as a struggle for equality for all sexual orientations rather than a struggle for women’s rights.

Another way that we could discuss the applications of feminism to men is through expanding on and refining the “Men and Masculinity” section. Through adding a paragraph regarding emphasis on men’s liberation by third wave feminists, the message of feminism as representing gender equality will be better expressed. The following New York Times Article represents this point well. In the article, the author suggests that the focus of feminism today is more subtle than in the first or second-wave of feminism. She ends the article by highlighting that men’s liberation is now a problem being recognized and addressed by feminists:

“Giving the next generation strong father figures would not only help explode the glass ceiling, it might also be the best hope for those failing boys in school who lack male role models. Men have a lot to gain from the rise of women, said Joanne Dreyfus, an audit associate at Deloitte in Paris, pointing out that at the moment three-quarters of those taking advantage of the company’s flex-time scheme are women. Put another way: The last frontier of women’s liberation may well be men’s liberation.”

I understand the confusion that other users may have about what role men should play in the feminist movement and think the fact that this confusion exists should be mentioned in the “Men and Masculinity” section. The article “Men in Feminism,” written by Linda Williams and included in Women: A Cultural Review, speaks to this issue:

“The attempt of some men to enter and use feminist discourses as a way of understanding their masculine predicament or assuaging their guilt has produced a complex of problems tied to the issue of feminism and its sexual boundaries…” (64-65)

One last suggestion would be to improve the Men's Liberation page and provide a link to that at the bottom of the “Men and Masculinity” section so that individuals can learn more about men’s liberation without making this section too long. --Mamelton (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"'[B]etween the sexes'" is not about sexual orientations. Feminist and lesbian rights movements overlap but are not the same.

There's comparatively little in society in which men have less power than women have, so feminism primarily addresses women having less power than men have and most sources agree on this. There has always been a thread that seeks protection of men's rights within a framework of equality but I don't think there's a trend shifting feminism away from a focus on women's rights. The Dreyfus statement, for example, as you describe it, is aspirational; she does not say that flextime is being used by men as much as or more than by women.

For the depth you seem to suggest, expanding another article and cross-linking are fine (if the existing cross-linking is inadequate). Some content may or may not fit being added to this article (there's already some), but this article is mainly a summary article giving a general overview from which links to other articles can be followed by readers.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

citing OED3 or online & template format

The attribution of the recently-substituted definition to OED3 or the Oxford English Dictionary (3d edition) is a bit puzzling. The successor to the OED (2d ed.) is the online edition with the publisher suggesting it will be onlne only, allowing continuous revision. They had been referring to some content as comprising the New edition, not the 3rd. I searched the OED's website via a subscribing institution (apparently we can't search it without a login) but found nothing called "Oxford English Dictionary, Third edition", "Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd edition", or "Oxford English Dictionary, 3d edition" (I forgot how I capitalized "edition" for site searches), so I saved copies of a couple of definitions and took them home, whereupon I found the nonprominent legend "Third edition". Wikipedia the other day said the Third hadn't come out yet. I think it's probably better to cite to the online edition rather than to the third even for the same dictionary page retrieved the same day. Citing to the online edition has another advantage: one can cite the publication date for the definition, thus being more precise.

The Cite templates also need reformatting. I'll try to get to that soon.

Nick Levinson (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that Nick. Just BTW it's possible that that OED 3rd edition ref should have been to a Little Oxford Dictionary, I have a 7th edition of that myself. But I agree citing the web source might be a better option here. I'm not so keen on sentences in lead paragraphs that say things like A feminist is a "person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism" - that's not very informative and while appropriate to a dictionary is not, in my view, appropriate here. The line A feminist is "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women." offers an explanatory definition rather than a linguistic definition, based on semantic derivation which tends towards the circular (ie a feminist is a person who believes in feminism). Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY dictionary definitions need to be used with care and must avoid being circular. I'm going to remove the derivation of feminist but if you feel strongly that this is informative I would suggest that a compromise would to insert a pointer to the wiktionary definition.
Also good work on the cite templates--Cailil ^talk 20:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I dislike the fact that so many Wikipedia articles now start with quoted dictionary definitions. We should be able to describe concepts without relying so heavily on verbatim quotes from dictionaries. Yes, it means having difficult discussions about what wording to use, but this is our job as Wikipedia editors. We shouldn't abdicate the responsibility to the OED (in my opinion). Kaldari (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree Kaldari the only issue is that the talk archives are full of frankly erroneous challenges to the definitions that weren't cited beyond what is necessary (per WP:LEDE)--Cailil ^talk 20:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Linking to a Wiktionary definition sounds like a good idea. It allows more development (Wiktionary can have several definitions besides its additional content), it makes the work being done there more accessible to Wikipedia visitors, and, in this case, the Wiktionary entries for feminist and feminism are, at first glance, reasonable.

If we don't do that, probably most users will expect to see a dictionary definition and believe that the best one is one quoted from a real dictionary. Wikipedia prefers paraphrasing but people tend to prefer whatever a physical dictionary says; even scholars will at times, in their own books, tell readers what "the dictionary" says by quoting one without telling us which one, and those are scholars who supply many notes citing almost every other kind of source with titles etc.

I can argue for or against presenting the vaguer definition in the lede, "for" because much of feminism says 'equality' but defines equality so variously as to be vague in practice anyway, and quite a few dictionaries are vague about the meanings of feminism (I think they should give a large number of definitions to reflect the main lines of thought, but mostly they don't, if any do). This set of definitions of feminist was not circular since the definition of feminism did provide an end point.

Hashing out original definitions, even though well-sourced, is going to take time away from other editing, because the hashing will open up fresh long discussions and send us to various libraries, questionable when dictionaries are so popular and more efficient as sourcing. I have a very large project in which I have to take on other editors and I keep addressing issues on other articles anyway.

I checked the OED definition against the online edition myself on the access date stated, so whether any of the other Oxford dictionaries (there was also a Shorter (3d)) coincidentally has the same definition doesn't much matter.

Both of the dictionaries that were cited in the lede are authoritative primary (not primary as Wikipedia uses that term but secondary as Wikipedia uses the latter term) descriptive nonderivative dictionaries and thus good sources.

Nick Levinson (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC) (Corrected syntax (1 word): 23:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC))

History Section

I came here looking for some information about the philosophical roots of modern feminism--e.g., in Marx and Engels, not to mention Hobbes and Locke--, but was unable to find it. There's not even so much as a mention of any of them here nor is there any real mention in the History of feminism article. (Engels is however mentioned explicitly in Marxist feminism, but given little credit.) This seems to be a gaping lacuna in Wikipedia's coverage of the subject, and I hope it is not ideologically motivated. JKeck (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because I'm steeped in the U.S. perspective, which is a major part of the English-speaking part of the world, I don't think they warrant much weight in the Feminism article. They may warrant more in the history of feminism article. One reason is that many revolutionary movements announce a desire for equality or some such for women when they're organizing but pursue a more traditional balance of power once they gain power and institute state feminism to keep women fromn pursuing feminism beyond what the state is willing to authorize. Sources generally don't give much weight to the writers you've cited, thus the weight issue. If they fit the history of feminism article, fine. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

They'r covered in the History of Feminism the section here is just a summary of that and links to that page clearly. It would impossible for this page to contain all the information of the various influences on feminism within the limits of page size for Good Articles so we use the summary style--Cailil ^talk 16:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ideology or movement?

We have an article on the feminist movement and then we have this article that would seem to more appropriately be about the ideology. To me the word feminism represents an ideology by definition, not a movement, and I believe that is the more common use of the term.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from but it's actually both TDA - if you go through the material (the sources) you'll see why. Furthermore this is a parent article under the summary style structure s it'll cover both in an umbrella fashion. There's a feminist ideology article that deals with both movements and ideologies too (feminism has a history with the difference between the two overlapping - this usually related to either author-activists or academic-activists ie Angela Davis). I'd have no problem with Feminist Movement being merged with something though. Currently its says its about Women's Lib too but Women's_liberation_movement is not a redirect and yet Women's lib is. I suspect there's significant duplication in it with History of feminism also. Many of the subpages need rationalization--Cailil ^talk 11:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly I recognize that the term has been used interchangeably with the movement, but it seems to me that by definition and as most commonly described in sources, it is an ideology.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Its not that its interchangable exactly TDA its more about praxis (again see bell hooks, Betty Friedan or Rebecca Walker). Many feminists are thinkers that put thought into action so the movement is the ideology. There is such a thing as feminist theory which may fit the straight forward ideological definition but again this article is the umbrella for the topic of feminism not just the theory or the movement or the ideologies or its impacts or its relationships with X or Y, etc etc - we've got sub articles for these. Furthermore there are great books on the history of feminism (many of them used here that detail this overlap)--Cailil ^talk 14:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it wouldn't too problematic to just change the first part of the lede to emphasize it as an ideology, while noting the term feminism is also used to describe the movement associated with that ideology. No reason why Wikipedia should disregard the dictionary definition of a subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

NP, there was a long standing definitional lede line saying "Movements and Ideologies" - I can't remember why it was changed. I've put it back in.[4] I read your first comment as a suggestion to refocus the article - but the lede line change is fine--Cailil ^talk 16:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the page numbers, I hope someone does

I don't think I ever worked with those sources that are now marked as needing page numbers in the article. Best wishes to anyone who might. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Domestic violence?

I think there should be more on this subject, as it has been and continues to be one of the most important - if not the most important area that feminists work on - efforts to bring adequate legislation in parts of the world where there isn't, and to improve the legislation and its implementation in Western countries. Maybe a subsection on this issue or perhaps it should be better integrated in the article.2A02:2F01:1059:F001:0:0:50C:DCE7 (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The etymology section while well researched is more appropriate at the feminism wiktionary page rather than here. Site policy on the difference between the sites is clear: please see Wikipedia:NOTDICDEF#Major_differences. It doesn't matter if other pages have etymologies - they shouldn't and WP:WAX also applies. This is not a reflection on the content - it's good, it just would be better at our sister project, wiktionary--Cailil ^talk 22:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with the removal of the etymology section. The link to WP:NOTDICDEF does not address etymology sections for a larger article, only articles as a whole. In other words, it seems to argue that articles as a whole should not simply be something that would be acceptable for a dictionary. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any mention of a word's etymology or usage. I agree that just because other articles have etymology sections that doesn't mean we should keep the one here. But the fact that there is no uniform standard on whether or not to have etymology sections does mean that there (1) needs to be consensus on Wikipedia as a whole as to whether or not have etymology sections in general, and (2) that's no reason to delete the etymology section here without discussion or input from the community. Just because other articles have something doesn't mean that we ought to delete it when it appears here.

Even if you disagree with the existence of a section specifically devoted to etymology, the information contained within can still pertain to other aspects of the article, specifically the history of feminism.

And to be very specific, I find it disheartening that my edit which simply explains the French philosopher credited with coining the term feminism, was removed entirely. That doesn't need to be in an etymology section and I would very much like that to be added in the History section. I would add it to the History of feminism article as well but there's no point if you're just going to remove that article's Introduction subsection as well.--JasonMacker (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, if I may add, the reason why I think the inclusion of the coining of feminism is important, is because the man in particular who coined the term, Charles Fourier, was a supporter of women's rights. Not having any mention of him in an article on feminism seems strange from an encyclopedic standpoint.--JasonMacker (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Jason the policy deals with the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary article. It is quite simple. Wiktionary deals with the definition, history etymology etc of the word feminism. This page, at wikipedia deals with the history of the subject, not the word. The information is good - it just belongs at wiktionary. Wikipedia articles are not for the discussion of the history, lineage etc of words. Furthermore why this kind of information would be included here when this page uses summary style is a misunderstanding of how parent articles are written - if you can put the info in History of Feminism and/or this page's history section in a way that is in line with policy that's fine. The only reason I removed it is becuase etymologies don't belong in Wikipedia articles--Cailil ^talk 13:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy it. The history of the word feminism is very much related to feminism itself, and notable. And just because content is suitable for a sister wiki doesn't mean that it shouldn't be presented here. And as I explained before, nobody is asking for this entire article to be wiped and replaced with a simple dictionary definition of feminism. And it's rather disingenuous for you to appeal to WP:SUMMARY when it's literally just a few sentences rather than a full blown thesis on the origin of the term feminism. The etymology section was the summary. You have failed to provide a specific or general Wikipedia policy that prohibits a small section of a parent article to spare a few words on the origin of the term.

If it's your personal Wikipedia philosophy to not have sections on etymology, that's fine. But don't present your personal ideas as Wikipedia's standard when it's anything but, especially when there are others who quite clearly disagree. Etymologies absolutely belong in Wikipedia articles. In fact, there are entire articles that are really just glorified etymologies. I don't see why the same situation doesn't present itself here. There can be a small section on etymology as a summary of the bigger article on the etymology and usage of feminism. Bottom line is, if your only reason for removing encyclopedic content is your personal beliefs and not actual Wikipedia policy, this is signaling a wider problem with this sort of content that needs to be addressed on a greater scale.--JasonMacker (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the etymology is interesting, encyclopedic, and fits into the history of the concept. A paragraph about the etymology should be in the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys this isn't about my opinion - this is policy: WP:NOTDICDEF it outlines specifically the dfference between encyclopedia and dictionary entries and the content of wikipedia and wiktionary pages. Etymologies are clearly listed for Wiktionary. Furthermore while interesting and well researched and otherwise good content it just belongs on another page - which we link to. If you think the policy needs changing - that's fine, just open a discussion on it but there is no need to resort to ad hominem. If there are other articles that are glorified etymologies then they need to be transwikied. Besides as I said, that other stuff exists is not a good argument.
You've misunderstood my reference to WP:SUMMARY Jason - we record here what's in the sub-articles (i.e Feminist theory, History of Feminism etc). If you can find a way to include the material you want to in this page's history section and.or the History of Feminism article - great. It just needs to fit policy. And for teh record I'm not against including the Fourier info just the way was presented--Cailil ^talk 14:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTDICDEF is about articles as a whole, not sections. I already explained this. Yes, etymologies can belong on Wiktionary. But that doesn't tell the whole story. Wiktionary also provides definitions of words... does that mean Wikipedia articles shouldn't define the subject of the article (ex. WP:LEAD)? Of course not, that's silly. Encyclopedias and dictionaries share a lot of content.

And I already explained why WP:SUMMARY is actually in favor of inclusion in this case: I'm not asking for a full treatise on the origin of the term feminism, its usage, how its definition changed over time, 19th century uses, 20th century uses, 21st century uses, its usage in the United States, Europe, Africa, Asia, etc. That would be the actual longer-winded article, something like the name Feminism (term). The reality is that feminism, a word coined about 150 years ago, with its modern definition applied about 100 years ago, is a neologism. And I believe that when it comes to neologisms, it is entirely encyclopedic to give a full treatise on the history of the term and the usage, various definitions, etc. If this was simply an article like Rock (geology), then no, I would argue that its etymology should not be in the Wikipedia article. Why? Because the article is about rocks, not the English word rock. Because of how mundane rocks are for humans, nearly all languages have their own name for it. You can verify this by going down the list of other languages in the Rock (Geology) article.

But in the case of feminism, this is different. It's a 19th neologism. The idea behind the word, as in an advocate for women's rights, did not even exist in the world. Unlike rocks, which all humans are familiar with, not all humans would commonly encounter feminism. And as a result, you can go down the list of the feminism article's other languages, and about 90% of them will all be simply "feminism" for Latin script languages or a few letters/sounds might be changed around to fit the particular phonology of the language. Or for languages not written in Latin script, it's simply the transliteration in that particular language. This is not merely a linguistic coincidence that all these languages happen to share the exact same word for the same concept. This is the sign of a neologism. Which is why looking to WP:NEO for guidance is important. As it says:

Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.

Notice the second sentence. It's basically giving the green light for entire articles dealing with etymologies and usages. And this is not some fantasy, this actually happens in Wikipedia because it's supported by this policy and others. Here are a few articles in light of this policy:

• Names of regions/areas

• • Name_of_India

• • Name of Iran, Iran_(word)

• • Name_of_Afghanistan

• • Names_of_Germany

...and this goes on for just about every country. These are all encyclopedic.

• Terms

• • Definitions_of_fascism, Fascist (insult)

• • Nigger, Negro

• • Dude

• linguistic roots

• • S-L-M, and all the articles included in Category:Triconsonantal_roots

and so on.

And this is why a small section with a few sentences that summarize the etymology and historical/modern/regional usage of feminism would not be a violation of WP:SUMMARY. In fact, it's entirely consistent with it.

This isn't some new idea from me. Here is a prime example:

The article Turkey was featured on the main page of Wikipedia on March 4, 2007. Here is what it looked like when it was protected by User:Tariqabjotu:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&oldid=112443430

Notice how it has a section on etymology, which is a summarized form of the article Name of Turkey? If it really was longstanding policy to not have etymology sections, then all the people who collaborated on the Turkey article and OK'd it for featured article status must have ALL been complete fools and incompetent for letting that etymology section slip by! Or, the more reasonable explanation can be taken, which is the idea that the etymologies of certain terms can merit inclusion in encyclopedias, in this case Wikipedia. And not only are they acceptable sections to have, they are entirely consistent with being a featured article.

And this is where my basic proposal comes in. A section on etymology which summarizes the etymology and usage of the term feminism in a few sentences, with a {{main|Feminism_(term)}} tag that will lead to a new article with a full encyclopedic treatise on the etymology and usage of the term feminism.

At this point I would go with third opinion but Binksternet weighed in on this so I'm going to list this as a request for comment in the next section. --JasonMacker (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on etymology section

The primary question is, should this article have an etymology section summarizing the coinage, etymology, and usage of the term feminism? A secondary question is, should a new article Feminism (term), or an article with a similar name that shares the purpose, be created as a main article for this section in order to provide greater detail on the coinage, etymology, and usage of the term feminism?--JasonMacker (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

here is the diff of the removal of the etymology section, for clarity on what content is being disputed.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes to first question, no to second (but it seems like a preemptive strike to remove the content before the RfC). The section is not lengthy, and I don't think it requires a standalone article. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Answering both this RfC and the talk section "Etymology" here:
  No to both.
  As I read WP:NOTDICDEF, etymologies belong in Wiktionary and are generally to be excluded from Wikipedia, even though an etymology would be only a small portion of a Wikipedia article. Definitions may appear in both, insofar as relevant. But etymologies should appear only in Wiktionary. I think one exception would apply although WP:NOTDICDEF doesn't say so: the same string (set of consecutive characters) may have multiple etymologies and perhaps not all led to the meaning intended for a given Wikipedia article, in which case the Wikipedia article should give the relevant etymology/ies only, not all of them.
  Neologisms generally do not get dictionary-style treatment in Wikipedia, according to WP:NOTDICDEF (the Neologisms section), and I don't think a word used for a century is a neologism, or huge numbers of words in science and modern art and on computers would be neologisms. The neologism article indicates disagreement with me, as it lists century-old words in short lists, but the concept of entering mainstream language, stated in that article's lead, might be better represented by the words being entered into mainstream dictionaries, and feminism and womyn have done that (womyn is much more recent in its origin).
  Languages borrow from each other, such as through commerce and diplomacy. Those are referred to by linguists as borrowings. They are not necessarily neologisms, as the borrowing may have been long ago. Neologisms are new. As WP:NEO makes clear, articles about neologisms generally belong in Wiktionary but not in Wikipedia; specifically WP:NEO says, "[a]s Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. You may wish to contribute an entry for the neologism to Wiktionary instead."
  Etymologies and earliest-use histories also lead to a misunderstanding, one that has arisen specifically regarding the word feminism. The misunderstanding is in the belief that, for example, feminism didn't exist until the word existed. Some cultures have names for only a dozen or fewer colors but at least a million colors exist nonetheless. Before a given word existed, other ways of expressing the intended concept may have existed, such as whole paragraphs, which may give us something to report in Wikipedia without being limited to using the particular word, even in an article the title of which is that word. Even if no other expressions existed, the underlying concept may have existed; perhaps some people lived as feminists while others lived as sexists or masculists without talking about it yet. One scholar wrote about child care in prehistoric times, even though no expression could have survived from then.--Nick Levinson (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC) (Corrected misspellings and an intended link (all my errors) (trying again and again after two edit conflicts) and formatting and spacing of break tags: 20:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)) (Corrected the intended ink I thought I had corrected last time but must have missed: 22:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC))

• CommentThe feminism article currently describes the controversy with regards to retroactively calling people feminists before the term existed. That's why the current article has the following statements: "Most western feminist historians assert that all movements that work to obtain women's rights should be considered feminist movements, even when they did not (or do not) apply the term to themselves.[52][53][54][55][56][57] Other historians assert that the term should be limited to the modern feminist movement and its descendants. Those historians use the label "protofeminist" to describe earlier movements." This is exactly why an etymology and usage section is needed, so that this notable controversy among scholars regarding the usage of feminism/feminist can be documented. This discussion of the use of 'feminism', I believe, goes beyond the scope of Wiktionary and belongs here, much like how negro and negro differ. --JasonMacker (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Reply to comment: That kind of debate can be covered in Wikipedia; it is not a debate about the etymology itself but about the applicability of the word to various movements over time, whereas if someone says the word really originates from a Manx or Algonquin root then that would be an etymological debate reportable in Wiktionary. The sentence about protofeminism is about the definition of that word, not etymology, and thus can be reported here.
  We apply policies and guidelines directly rather than through the precedents of other articles. I assume that's because article quality varies (there's editing I did early in my contributions to Wikipedia that I would not do the same way now). And I think exceptions can be made to some policies and guidelines by WikiProjects, but that hasn't been done here.
  Nick Levinson (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• I removed this section that was added by Major Torp days ago. The section is well researched and well written it just belongs at wiktionary. So no to question 1.
  As explained above WP:NOTDICDEF would be grounds for deletion of a Feminism (term) article - so no to question 2.
  I've suggested to Jason that the piece of info about the coining of the term would be fine for inclusion in another way (not as an etymology section). If it is included as factual information about the subject - and if that can be sourced as such. However the material removed was deleted because it was lexical information about "the term feminism" sourced from Karen Motts "Les origines des mots 'feminisme' et 'feministe'" (translated "The Origin of the Words 'Feminism' and 'Feminist'"). If this information can be couched in terms of the history of the subject of feminism then a short mention can go into the History section here, and/or the History of Feminism article where appropriate. However as it stands the material removed[5] belongs at wiktionary as per site policy on the difference between this site and Wiktionary--Cailil ^talk 20:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This isn't addressing the arguments I have mentioned above. As I have already explained, (1) etymology sections are not in violation of Wikipedia policy, and (2) etymology sections have never been construed as a violation of Wikipedia policy (I've used/edited Wikipedia for nearly a decade and I have never heard of this). Do you have any examples beyond this where etymology sections on articles were deleted/kept with or without discussion? Because you can look at all the examples of etymological articles I have given in the previous section, none of them have any real problems with deletion or removal. None of the country name articles have had any history, and for the terms, only Dude has ever been put up for deletion, with the result being snowball keep. None of the triconsonatal root articles have been ever put up for deletion either. And as I have already shown, there have been Featured Articles with etymology sections. This idea that etymology sections don't belong in Wikipedia is, to my knowledge, wholly unprecedented and in fact contradicted by the evidence I have thus far presented. In addition, articles devoted entirely to etymology have been shown as belonging to Wikipedia. Etymology, a branch of linguistics, is a notable encyclopedic subject and deserves coverage in an encyclopedia (as it has). Open up any historical or modern encyclopedia and you will see sections on etymology for most subjects. This is true even here in Wikipedia, and has been ever since this encyclopedia's inception. One of Wikipedia's oldest articles, Islam, has an etymology section, and this has been there ever since it was introduced back in 10 April 2002. It's been there ever since, without any controversy or argument as to whether or not etymologies belong in the article, let alone Wikipedia. Using WP:DICDEF to argue that sections of articles should be deleted has no precedent to my knowledge. Please address this issue instead of constantly deferring to WP:DICDEF as though it's simple a matter of me not understanding that policy.--JasonMacker (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Jason I'm sorry you don't like it but this is policy not opinion. And BTW as you are proposing a Feminism (term) article you must be unclear about that policy. Also I've already told you other stuff existing is not a good argument - appeals to WP:WAX dont help. If you want the info on the coining of the term in this article find a way to do it in terms of the history of the subject of feminism rather than the history of the term/word. Lexical information belongs at Wiktionary. Period.
  Nick's made a positive suggestion regarding how what you want to say might be included - as long as you can source it appropriately it could go into the history section here. But it must be about the movements/politics/history of Feminism rather than the word. A usage section is not within the bounds of an encyclopedia however.
  Discussion BTW should go above not here (it makes the request untidy and historically we've found that that puts-off newcomers from commenting)--Cailil ^talk 02:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• You're not addressing my arguments, yet again. I agree that this is policy not opinion. And your opinion that articles shouldn't have sections on etymology is not in line with Wikipedia policy, which I have shown to be consistent with having etymology sections. Do you at least admit that there is no direct mention of policy with regards to whether or not to have sections on etymology? Read WP:OSE. When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain. And that's why I'm employing here. In fact there is a section on "Precedent in usage": Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "Other Stuff Exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology. Not providing a single example of precedent for removing etymology sections is not helping you.--JasonMacker (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OSE is interesting (I skimmed it) but, as an essay, not binding and runs against the prevailing view. In common law jurisdictions, precedents set in individual cases are binding. (In civil law jurisdictions, such as France, generally they are not, but we can put that aside for now.) The common law works because only trained or experienced judges are permitted to create precedents. Wikimedia projects, on the other hand, can be edited by pretty much anyone, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (already linked to as WP:WAX) reflects the more common view, without which policies and guidelines would have little meaning. In Wikipedia, a codification generally is more authoritative than a precedent. Policy is not determined by reading articles that are contrary to policy. There are exceptions, but they are minor, are temporary, or depend on the invocation of a differing policy. As you apparently disagree with a policy, you may want to bring it up on the policy's talk page (see if anyone else already has) and try to achieve a new consensus there. For example, where etymology is itself notable, perhaps the policy should have an exception. Etymologies are rarely notable, but perhaps it is for feminism, and you might want to research that notability if the policy gains an exception for it. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Look Jason I'm sorry you don't like the policy but if you want to change it go to that page and open discussion there. I haven't responded to your points re: other articles because as I've said it doesn't matter what other articles d - WP:WAX applies. It matters what the policy says and WP:DICDEF's 'major differences' section clearly illustrates the difference between the two sites: etymologies are at Wiktionary and not Wikipedia.
  If you want the material re: coinage in, then source it and write it from the historical perspective on the subject of feminism. Information to do with lexical issues go to our sister project. And for the record this article links to its companion Wiktionary page. The info is not being hidden or ignored it just belongs (in its present form) in a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary is.
  Nick has again made another positive suggestion re: notability. If you can source a notable debate about the etymology that'd be great. There are now 2 suggestions on how you can work this information in within policy - I suggest you consider these--Cailil ^talk 20:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes to both Per WP:DICDEF, "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness." I believe in this particular case, the word feminism itself is a notable encyclopedic subject and this phenomenon should be mentioned both in this article and in the new Feminism (term) article. Precedent is per all the examples of etymological articles I have given in the previous section, which have never faced any serious challenges to inclusion to Wikipedia on the basis of being etymologies.--JasonMacker (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Keep etymology section I think it is very important to discuss the etymology of the term, where it originates, and how the meaning has changed over time. Furthermore it is important to establish why we define feminism as we currently do. With terms like egalitarianism or equalism that have gender-neutral terms, the idea that a sexist term like feminism (which like masculism is an -ism named after a sex) has the aim of equality between sexes rather than promoting the interest of one or the other, is a perplexing subject that seems rooted in popular usage rather than word construction. Ranze (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• That doesn't distinguish why it shouldn't be in Wiktionary instead. Those are interesting points (although I disagree in part) but within the scope of Wiktionary.
  My disagreement, which is relevant to the weight to be given to views on the issue you raise, is that there are several kinds of discrimination, that which is based on gender being one, and many people are concentrating on that, and therefore the words feminism and masculism have become useful as being more specific than e.g., equalism. Being specific often helps communication.
  And words develop from popular usage. There is no authoritative committee that permits words to enter the English language. (There is something like that for French, but not for English.) The primary dictionaries describe; they don't prescribe. Children's dictionaries prescribe.
  You can find sources supporting your argument, but there are also sources to the contrary, which may deserve more weight as being more prevalent for their view. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes to first, no to second. My reading of NOTDICDEF makes me think that it applies to a whole article written about the dictionary aspects of a word, not to a single paragraph of a word's etymology rounding out an otherwise fully encyclopedic article about the concept. Sometimes the word and concept are intertwined, and the reader would be further enlightened about the concept by knowing the origin of the word. I feel that this is one of those cases.
  NOTDICDEF says 'no' to a dictionary-style article about a term, so Feminism (term) is out. Binksternet (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Every word is intertwined with its concept. That's an arguent for merging pretty much everything in Wiktionary into Wikipedia. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes to first, maybe to second. I can't see that WP:DICT outlaws having an etymology section. It says that a full dictionary definition would contain etymologies, but is silent on the subject of whether encyclopaedia articles can contain an etymology section. With a whole article about the word feminism we are on shakier ground; I wouldn't write it myself, but it might be kept at AfD.

  I had a dive into the talk page archives at WT:DICT, and there has been disagreement on this subject for years, with no strong consensus. The strongest consensus was at this RfC from May 2010, after which the text "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness" was added to the policy. We do have a lot of etymological content on Wikipedia - see Category:Etymologies and the Etymology Task Force for examples. We also have featured articles with etymology sections, for example Lion. On the other hand, there are also plenty of articles which get deleted for being dictionary definitions. The standard for inclusion seems to be the quality of sourcing available about the word itself, but the threshold is not at all clear, and probably needs more community-wide discussion at WT:DICT.

  I would say that the level of sourcing in the etymology section under discussion here is definitely enough to allow us to keep it. I'm not sure if this would apply to a stand-alone article about the word, as I have not looked at the sources. If anyone wants to try writing such an article, I suggest they make a good survey of the sources before deciding whether to go ahead with it. I also suggest that they write a good draft before putting it in mainspace and that they be prepared to defend it at AfD if necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• WP:DICT leans toward etymologies going into Wiktionary and not Wikipedia. It does so in four sections: in the Major Differences subsection, the Minor Differences subsection, the Not Size subsection, and the Misplaced Dictionary Entries subsection, only the last allowing some leeway about deletion of whole articles, still favoring deletion. I assume WP:DICT is the result of consensus. I think somethng distinct about the relevance of the etymology of femnism has to justify inclusion here as an exception, and not just that it's the subject of the article, and even then the inclusion would be that which is justified by the distinction, not the whole etymology, history, and so on that are normally intended for a dictionary. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• The reason it doesn't outlaw etymology sections is because sometimes etymology sections are appropriate for Wikipedia. This is the case when the etymology is notable in its own right (see comments below). There is nothing notable or encyclopedic about the etymology of 'feminism'. Kaldari (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• No to both. Etymology sections belong in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. The exception is words or phrases with etymology that is notable in its own right, for example, California. In the case of 'feminism' the etymology isn't notable. Creating Feminism (term) would be an even worse violation of WP:NOT#DICT. I don't understand why people are so averse to putting etymology information in Wiktionary, where it belongs. Kaldari (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can you explain why you don't think that the etymology of feminism is notable? --JasonMacker (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I think it is a borderline case, but the section, as it was, was excessively detailed, and overall I think the article is better off without it. Considering how much ground we need to cover in this article, it would be better not to scare away the reader right at the beginning with excessive amounts of trivia. That said, I would be open to the sentence about "les féministes" being added to the history section. Kaldari (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
      • On notability or some other measure of nontrivial importance for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, assuming someone amends the policy on Wikipedia not being a dictionary so that more dictionary-type content can be in Wikipedia (I discussed amending above), you should look for third-party sourcing other than dictionaries and linguistic sources, because the latter are already grounds for inclusion in Wiktionary and if the latter were to be sufficient for Wikipedia then all of Wiktionary could be moved into Wikipedia. But if, say, The Washington Post or Feminist Studies discussed etymology other than what's in a dictionary or linguistics journal, that might be appropriate for Wikipedia. An example would be an article about a new chemical element discovered by a physicist who then named it after an institution or person whom the scientist had worked with years earlier, as that fact (assuming it's nontrivial) probably would not be in the Oxford English Dictionary or even a minor dictionary. I think it's likely that, with a lot of searching, you'll find something includable in Wikipedia once the policy is amended (if it is), but also likely that it would be getting undue weight in this article and might be better suited to the history of feminism article. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC) (Corrected a nonspace and added on weight: 16:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)) (Corrected two misspellings: 16:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC))
• Yes to both (uninvolved editor summoned by autobot to reply to Rfc) Plenty of notable material around to yield a good result for both--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 22:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Yes to first proposal, no on the second, per WP:NOTDICDEF. Having read the discussion above, I agree that the etymology of feminism is an important and encyclopedic aspect of its history. —Zujine|talk 16:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: just so we avoid WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT can those commenting (its not a vote by the way) please explain how the material here is or is not encyclopedic rather than just asserting. Saying this is or isn't notable is not all that helpful - you need to show how.
  Also, many of you !voting seem to have missed that as a summary article each section here should/must be capable of having its own article - therefore if we can't have a Feminism (term) article we shouldn't have such a section. Again I'm not against including the information as long as it's placed and sourced appropriately in the history section rather than given its own--Cailil ^talk 02:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• 'Yes and No: This no etymology rule is absurd as applied especially to the evolution of social/cultural/political movements where the meaning of words are changed, often purposively. Sure, in every day words like "Sky" and "Blue" and "dog" it is unnecessary. But in words reflecting complicated developments with an interesting history it is necessary. I don't see enough in the deleted material (which should NOT have been deleted until RfC complete) to make it worthy of an article; there would have to be at least three times as much substantive and differing material. I've made a similar comment on the existing section Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Propose_adding_guidance_on_etymology_sectionsCarolMooreDC 19:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• As a point of order Carol the material was deleted 6 days before the RFC was opened[6] not the other way around. While I see where you're coming from I don't see how the material (which is solely lexical info) actually does what you're talking about. Furthermore if we had such info (on how the movement impacted on the etymology) I wouldn't oppose its inclusion because that information would be integral to the subject's history and including that kind of info would improve the article.
  What I'm opposing is specifically a dictionary style etymology that is more suited to wiktionary and under the current policies belongs there. If policy is/was to change - fine, but until then Nick & I have suggested how an etymology could be included using the current policies--Cailil ^talk 21:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't think there needs to be a whole section. But I think whatever the facts are, they are interesting factoids readers might want to know. Obviously if the facts are highly questionable, POV etc that's another issue. CarolMooreDC 21:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes and No opinion: There are two senses of the word "etymology" in play here. One, the sort which is commonly found in dictionaries, has to do with the lexical origin of the word in other words. The other, which is entirely appropriate for a dictionary, has to do with the historical origin of the word along with its shifts in meaning, if any. In this particular case the etymology section seems not only appropriate but essential since the word is a neologism and information about how, when, and where it was adopted is crucial for the understanding of the concept. Whether or not there is enough coverage to support a separate article on the word is not something I have an opinion on now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The deleted etymology section

Out of concern for the information being lost if we don't get it added back to the article, I think it is valuable to add it here:

The neologism "Feminism" is term created in the 19th century. French philosopher Charles Fourier is credited with having originated the word feminism in 1837.

The terms "feminism" or "feminist" first appeared in France and The Netherlands in 1872 (as les féministes), Great Britain in the 1890s, and the United States in 1910. The Oxford English Dictionary lists 1894 for the first appearance of "feminist" and 1895 for "feminism".

I think this may aid discussion about it too. What do people think of it? I don't think that this information is adequately represented on wiktioanry. I don't see any mention of Charles Fourier on wiktionary, for example. Wiktionary only includes the preceding words, not who coined or popularized them. That is information which belongs here. Ranze (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider adding it to Wiktionary, if it's not there. Absence from Wiktionary is not a ground for adding it into Wikipedia.

If you didn't read the sources that are in French or Dutch yourself, you should cite the translations you read. If you copied the information based on those sources from elsewhere, you should attribute where you copied from, probably in the notes, or if the copying was from Wikipedia or another Wikimedia project, perhaps in the Edit Summary.

Nick Levinson (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC closed

Per the closing sysop's statement I've re-added the material to the article (despite disagreeing with its inclusion). I added it to the lede where other information on dictionary definitions exists. The positive to this is that we now have the whole definitional issue in one place--Cailil ^talk 22:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)