Talk:Feminist movements in the United States

The 120% Solution

After a request here & a look a the data in the HDR PDF linked to, I have to say sombody can't do math. 617/515=1.198058, which is 20% more; 423/403=1.0496, which is 5% more. Rodney McKay ^{still smarter than you} 19:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a common mistake. Absolute difference and relative difference are often confused when talking about percentages. Kaldari (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am the one who made the request for editor assistance before. (see "Cambodian" IP). Oh right, I can't do math- I guess that's why I got a 710 on math in the SAT. Actually, I can do math. The point with the 120%/105% issue is that the way it is written now is not clear, and could easily be misunderstood by a reader to mean that women do 20% more work- within a total of 100% (i.e. 60% to men's 40%). Please note: I can read the UN HDR report and it is clear what it says, but the way it is written in the Wikipedia article is not. I will not accept it the way it is. And I cannot understand why editors are trying to keep it unclear- unless they are trying to promote some kind of agenda- to make it look like women do more work than they actually do. I have no problem with stating the facts as they really are- which do show women do more work than men- but I do have a problem when editors are deliberately keeping it unclear. I will not stop until this is corrected. with best regards... 64.25.27.130 (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

As I have stated before, this version which I wrote is clearer, and it will lead to no confusion for readers. See [1]. This version is clearer and there is no reason why it should be removed.64.25.27.130 (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

@Danger...I don't consider it to be resolved. I will post it again to the "request for editor assistance" page. Jumping the gun a bit, eh? @Kaldari- thanks for the links to absolute difference and relative difference.64.25.27.130 (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, I cannot get this link to show normally. [2] Can anyone help me with this? Thanks64.25.27.130 (talk) 01:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

@anon: I have to disagree. Your wording is more confusing in my opinion. The text is comparing values, not percentages. The relative difference between 2 non-percent values is normally expressed with the english phrases "percent more" or "percent less". The absolute difference between two percentages, however, is expressed as "percentage points more" or "percentage points less". Adding the explanation that male work equals 100% of itself is unnecessary and confusing. All values equal 100% of themselves. Kaldari (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

@Kaldari, technically you might be correct, that a person who was familiar with statistical expressions might read it that way. However, wikipedia is not a technical journal and most of the readers are "laymen" (or at least I guess so). You should also bear in mind that for many readers, English may not be their first language. So I would probably agree with your statement if it was for a technical journal. However, I am quite sure that many readers would misunderstand it as I explained above. Further, the way I have written it is not unclear at all. It is extremely clear. How about this- a compromise: "In rural areas of selected developing countries, women performed an average of 20% more work than men, or 120% of men's total work- an additional 102 minutes per day." This would shorten it and eliminate what you consider to be a redundancy in stating men's work = 100%, but it would make it fairly clear what we are talking about (i.e. we are not saying women work 20% more than men, when both men and women percentages = a total 100%). Do you agree with that? Thanks for fixing the link. 64.25.27.130 (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I'm sure you must have realized that the HDR 04 data directly contradicts the "women do 66% of work" claim, which is claiming that women do 32 "percentage points" more than men do. The UN HDR data clearly do not support this conclusion.64.25.27.130 (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

I disagree with the proposed merge with the "Feminism" article. Feminism and feminist movement are thought of as separate spheres. Feminism is theory; feminist movement is practice. See bell hooks, Feminist Theory: From Margin To Center, Boston: South End Press, 2000 (2nd Edition). I am removing the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fistoffoucault (talk • contribs) 05:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they mean different things, but the problem is that between the articles Feminism, Feminist theory, and History of feminism, there isn't enough unique content for this page. This page is just a neglected, outdated copy of Feminism. You should look at the discussion at Talk:Feminism. --Aronoel (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Feminism and Language - A world perspecitve

How does the section on language relate to other cultures and societies where English is not the primary language. I assume language would still be an issue, no? For example, in languages like German where every noun has a gender-denoted article to go with it (Die (female), Der (male), & Das (neutral))?? Perhaps this section should be expanded on to reflect a more worldwide view of the topic in a linguistic sense as opposed to the more traditional political or geographical sense. --Sabre ball ^{t c} 14:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Virginia Satir Quote

{{OTRS pending}}MerlinsMagic (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

ticket:2012112710011715 was received and approved. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That's an extremely long quotation for an encyclopedia article. Can we condense it? Kaldari (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, although when I tried to keep the essence of the message, I found that difficult to do without including the full quote. If you can suggest a shorter version that would convey the full message, please post it here. Thank you!MerlinsMagic (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I finally read the entire quote. Surprisingly it doesn't mention relationship education whatsoever. Either the quote should be removed entirely or the introduction for the quote should be rewritten. As it stands, the quote is out of context. Kaldari (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That's ironic. I had shortened, but in doing so, left out what likely would have provided the context you find missing. Please have a look at the full quote here PAIRS_Foundation and see if you can suggest a version that would be helpful for the article, while not promoting a specific approach, as Satir appears to do in the full version. Thank you very much for your help. MerlinsMagic (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is this huge quotation in 3 separate Wikipedia articles? This is borderline spamming. Unless you can provide a short quotation that clearly relates the feminist movement to relationship education, I see no point in including it in this article. I would also suggest that you shorten the quotations given in the other articles, as they will certainly be deleted otherwise. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, material must be condensed and summarized, not presented verbatim. Kaldari (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. While I've followed Wikipedia for some time, I'm a relatively new contributor. Your help is very much appreciated. Can you suggest the best way to use that quote. I was able to get the copyright owner to provide permission. Satir is one of the most recognized international authorities in the field. I'd be grateful for a suggested revision. Thank you again. MerlinsMagic (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your thoughts/suggestions about this revision: Relationship education#Impact_of_women.27s_liberationMerlinsMagic (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a big improvement. Readers can always refer to the original source if they want to read the full quotation, but I think the parts you have selected get across the most important points. Nice work! Kaldari (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Feminism in the United States

In copy editing History of feminism, it looks like much of this information is copied to/from other articles. The discussion in this article appears to concern fem in the US alone, which is why I recommend a merge into Feminism in the United States. Other countries have their own articles, and converge in the feminism and history of feminism articles. This article waffles as a bit of a fork in-between. Thoughts? Or BOLD action? czar · · 05:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. I made a similar proposal years ago, to merge into feminism, and I started a talk topic/section that was followed up separately, but the merger didn't happen. I could have done it myself, but was daunted by the amount of work in checking for duplication and keeping everything else somewhere. Maybe the new destination would make it easier to carry out. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - makes sense to me. However to be clear the content here should be merged to Feminism in the United States but the page should probably redirect to feminism--Cailil ^talk 14:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree on the redirect, too. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also agreed on the final redirect czar · · 18:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note - The AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminism in the United States was closed to merge Feminism in the United States into this article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I'm a bit confused about the direction of the merge. In your close, you say that most of the merge votes want to merge into this article, but I don't see any such statements in the comments. All but one of the merge votes (mine) seem to be ambiguous about the direction. Personally, I support the merge as performed by Maranjosie (into Feminism in the United States) and agreed to in the comments here. Kaldari (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)