Talk:Gender feminism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): W.Robert.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

POV

The passage

"The author now pauses to sing a little song I know a song that gets on everybody's nerves... Everybody's nerves... Everybody's nerves... I know a song that gets on everybody's nerves And this is how it goes...(repeat)

Now the author returns to her article on Gender Feminism. " has no place in a wikipedia article. User:204.17.80.4 14:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Victim feminism

Why does "Victim feminism" redirect here? It is a distinctly different concept. I bet someone deleted it and created a redirect because they found it offensive. Fuzzform 00:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur, victim feminism is not used in Sommers' 1994 book where she introduces gender feminism, and it was in use prior to this in 1993. The two might both be criticized by the same groups but they clearly have distinct meanings. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources

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

As this presently redirects to Sommers, and I have read claims in one book which credits her for inventing this term, I still wonder whether or not the term has gained enough notability on its own to be covered as a subject.

Previously this was lumped together with equity feminism in a equity and gender feminism article which was completely inappropriate, clearly advertising with inappropriate emphasis only on Sommers' use of the first term without recognizing others' prior use of it. I have to wonder how much consensus or research went into such a merger. It was likely based on the misconception that Sommers coined 'equity feminism' in 1994 with gender feminism. Wikipedia's been misleading readers about that for 11 years. Equity feminism is a distinct subject and was in discussion in 1989 at least 5 years before Sommers introduced gender feminism in her 1994 book, so it deserves to exist on its own.

Whether or not "gender feminism" deserves a page I'm not entirely sure yet, I'd have to take a look at the sources. Are we sure it isn't just a rebranding of social feminism or something? That too has been set across from equity feminism. Does anyone know any sources explaining gender/social as different or same feminist groupings? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A true diamond in the rough would be a use of "gender feminism" prior to 1994. I'll look but my hopes are dim. This is a real pain to search though since I'm not sure how to exclude "gender: feminism" and "gender, feminism" from results. Where I do notice just a space between the words I'll include some cites though for us to review. Here's one:

Mcelroy, Wendy (2003). "Gender Feminism and Ifeminism: Wherein They Differ". Etica E Politica 5 (2):1-12 (PhilPapers). individual feminism contrasts sharply with gender feminism .. because gender feminism has dominated the movement for decades, the disagreements expressed by individualist feminism have been labeled as "anti-feminist" and even "anti-woman." It is time to reclaim this neglected and rich tradition

What interests me in this is it is not put opposite equity feminism as Sommers does (at least not from the visible portent), nor is there a mention of Sommers in the abstract. I of course can't be sure she isn't mentioned in the entire body without getting access to the entire thing. What is visible in the title though is Ifeminism (unsure what that is) and the abstract opens with referring to individualist feminism later abbreviated individual feminism.

This is of particular interest since "individual" seems like a more polar opposite to "social" feminism.

Could this point 9 years later indicate that the concept of gender feminism might take on more of an independent meaning than merely referring to a concept isolated to Sommers' book? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

JACKPOT. A reminder that Who Stole Feminism? lists a publishing date of 3 June 1994, behold:

Brady, Patrick (University of Tennessee) (May 1994). "From Feminism to Chaos Theory: Nonlinearity in Lucette Desvignes". In Henry, Freeman G. (ed.). Discontinuity and Fragmentation (French Literature Series, Vol XXI). p. 103. Moreover, this Kristevan-Lacanian mode of feminist analysis, while aligned, perhaps surprisingly, with theory like Marxism, runs counter to several other recent perspectives, including those proposed by gender feminism, structuralism, and chaos theory.

How was it that if Sommers coined 'gender feminism' in a book published June 1994 that the term was used in a book published May 1994?

In case anyone is wondering about the month, I don't see it in the book but saw May mentioned in its Amazon profile.

Is it possible Amazon has the wrong month listed? Or could "Who Stole" have an earlier debut date than June? Or perhaps advanced copies of an unfinished version were given out and the introduction of 'gender feminism' became known and spread to Brady soon enough for him to include it in his chapter in Henry's book prior to the actual source of the term being officially released? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

DOUBLE-JACKPOT, found a hyphenated use in 1992:

Wiegman, Robyn (1 January 1992). "Toward a Political Economy of Race and Gender". The Bucknell Review 36.2. In marking multiplicity in this way-as within "women" and not across the very categories of gender-feminism can still be articu- lated within its foundational logic of gender, a logic that does not threaten the patriarchal opposition of masculine/feminine pre- cisely by maintaining ... {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

I am a bit less confident about this though because while I got this result from Google Scholar via the 'find sources' template, half the time I click it I get Apache errors and the only PDF preview is for the first page which does not have the full context of this excerpt. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

First off, I just want to say that I really appreciate all this work you're doing to sort this all out. Thanks you. :-)

But on this source in particular, I think the hyphen is just a poor rendering of an emdash, and that "— as within 'women' and not across the very categories of gender —" is a parenthetical phrase within the sentence "In marking multiplicity in this way [...] feminism can still be articulated within its foundational logic of gender...". So in that instance, the proximity of "gender" and "feminism" is not an instance of the phrase "gender feminism".

Keep up the good work! --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Another interesting thing I found. Not sure when in 1994 but not particularly concerned since from what I can tell this may be talking about a different idea through its antonym:

Sandoval, Chéla (1994). "Re-entering cyberspace: sciences of resistance". Dispositio Vol. 19, No. 46, Subaltern studies in the Americas. pp. 75–93. Under this new form of what Haraway calls "anti-racist," indeed, this is even an anti-gender feminism, she asserts, "there is no place for women," only "geometries of difference and contradiction crucial to women's cyborg identities" (Haraway 1991, 171). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

Is anti-gender feminism a possible topic? Would it be correct to think that the opposite of whatever this is be called gender feminism? Or should it perhaps be thought of as pro-gender feminism to distinguish it from stuff which does not focus on opposing anti-gender with pro-gender thoughts? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

If I'm reading that excerpt and Sommers' general position correctly, I don't think "anti-gender feminism" here is meant to be juxtaposed with "gender feminism" as Sommers uses it. This sounds like it means a form of feminism opposed to the concept of gender, or the division of people into gender categories; whereas "gender feminism" as Sommers uses it does not seem to be merely a form of feminism that supports or employs the concept of gender, opposite this "anti-gender" feminism, but something more than that; her equity- or liberal-feminist position doesn't seem to object to the concept of gender, only to the pitting of the genders as social classes against each other, rather than equality and liberty for individuals regardless of their gender. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hm... digging further, there appears to be some evidence that Sommers was using the phrase "gender feminism" (which this author compares to radical feminism) prior to the June 1994 debut of "Who Stole". So while she may well have coined it, we should not cite the book as the source for her having done so:

Beckwith, Francis J. (September 1992). "Reply to Keenan: Thomson's Argument and Academic Feminism". International Philosophical Quarterly Volume 32, Issue 3. pp. 369–376. L. Geisler, Matters of Life and Death: Calm Answers to Tough Questions about Abortion and Euthanasia (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), chapter 3. ·Sommers, who calls herself a "liberal feminist" and distinguishes herself from "radical (or gender) feminism" (see her ... {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

While this doesn't precede the January 1992, upon looking at that again I'm wondering if that hyphen was meant to be a dash and that "categories of gender", "feminism can still" was more what was intended... plus I have no clue what this September 1992 article is referring to. Unfortunately the excerpt cuts off just when we are told what of Sommers to see (an earlier work? perhaps something shorter than a book?) and I'm not sure how to find out what that was.

It is interesting though that liberal feminist is what it says Sommers was using. Had she not yet adopted the label equity feminist in 1992? Perhaps in the 92-93 region is when she came across the 89-90 works using 'equity feminism' and adopted this in time for the 1994 book?

It may be interesting to note this cite for other articles too. But this does beg the question: should we actually have this term redirecting to the book when we know Sommers was using it before the book came out?

Should it perhaps be redirected to "radical feminism" due to how Beckwith quotes "radical (or gender) feminism" as if 'gender' and 'radical' have the same meaning in whatever it is of Sommers' Beckwith is instructing the reader to see?

I see a problem in doing this though. In her book Sommers later speaks of 'gender' and 'equity' as rivals, and I have another source which speaks of 'conservative equity feminism' and 'radical equity feminism'.

If something which is not gender feminism (called equity feminism) can be described as 'radical' then it does not seem right to simply treat 'gender' as another word for 'radical'. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Found something else from a month later with a more understandable cite:

Yates, Steven (October 1992). "Multiculturalism and Epistemology". Public Affairs Quarterly Vol. 6, No. 4. pp. 435–456. Feminists offer their distinctive twist to this approach by saying that all knowledge and cognition are "gendered"; hence the term gender feminism. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

While IPQ32-3 from September is clearly referencing Sommer, this one throws me for a loop though. Is this a different use of the phrase? It seems to be focusing more on a study on gender in vocabulary by feminism rather than some kind of internal conflict between feminists. Could Yates' statement in PAQ6-4 be the gateway to finding a different topic on which to base an article? I should get this on JSTOR and see if he elaborates more about it. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Intro rewrite

@Loginnigol: regarding the cite of Who Stole Feminism, could you clarify which quote in the book has the term opposite individualist feminism? You put 320 but that's the total page count and just an index so I'm having trouble finding an excerpt to verify. Managed to find it in McElroy's LFw okay. Ranze (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Gynocentrism

Why is gender feminism described as gynocentric, since it's central concept is the cultural construction of gender? I also can't seem to find it anywhere in the cited source.. CorvusMonedula (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed dispersal

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.

---

Proposal

I propose a merge of Gender feminism into the articles of the discussed authors and replacement of Gender feminism to a dab page.

Rationale

"Gender feminism" is a derogatory term with no agreed definition between authors. @Biogeographist: Pages on derogatory terms can be appropriate for terms that have reliable sources which discuss their use in public discourse sociologically, politically, or historically. I don't see such sources on this topic. Without clear definition or any good source providing comprehensive coverage of these diverse definitions, I don't see a basis for an article at Gender feminism.

I welcome comments from earlier contributors to the discussion at Talk:Social construction of gender#Merger proposal, since I have substantially edited this article since then: @Richard3120, The Vintage Feminist, Staszek Lem, and Pfhorrest:. Daask (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree with the sentence that Daask wrote immediately following my username above. But it's not clear to me that the next sentence is true: "I don't see such sources on this topic." A search for "sommers" + "gender feminism" OR "gender feminist" on Google Books and Google Scholar returns many relevant results, such as Martha Nussbaum's Sex and Social Justice. For example, here is Leslie Heywood in Bodymakers: A Cultural Anatomy of Women's Body Building: "As anyone at all familiar with feminist theory would recognize, the kind of rigid consensus Sommers insists gender feminism employs simply has no basis." Biogeographist (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Do any of the results not mention Sommers and / or Who Stole Feminism? - it seems more like an argument for a re-direct to her book and the creation of a criticism section on that article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Biogeographist: Nussbaum is a great source. She mentions "gender feminism" in quotation marks only in a summary of Sommers view. The use of quotation marks here indicates that Nussbaum does not recognize this category, and the fact that she uses the term only in her summary of Sommers and not even in her further discussion and rebuttal indicates to me that she doesn't find it meaningful. I believe Sex and Social Justice strongly supports the understanding that this is not a meaningful term.

Heywood is less clear. She is clearly responding to Sommers and seems to reject most of Sommers historical and typological claims about feminism. However, at other points, she seems to use "gender feminism" as if she considers it a valid and meaningful term. No definition or description is offered. Daask (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Daask: I have to admit that I'm not interested enough in this topic to work on a counterargument to your argument here. The proposal by The Vintage Feminist to redirect to Who Stole Feminism? with a "Criticism" section (or an expansion of the existing "Reception" section) in that article sounds fine to me. What you call "the understanding that this is not a meaningful term" is, of course, also the understanding of those who criticize Sommers' use of the term. Biogeographist (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The section "Anti-gender feminism" appears to be a good candidate for merging into Chela Sandoval since, based a quick search, that term appears to be used only by her. I doubt that the subheadings under the heading "Characterizations" are necessary; for example, the subheading "Pinker" appears to give undue weight to Steven Pinker when he is just one of many scholars who have used or commented on the term "gender feminism". By the way, I find this article's lead to be entirely inadequate; it would be better to have a sentence defining gender feminism according to the term's inventor and apparent principal proponent (Sommers), another sentence or subordinate clause mentioning any prominent alternate definition(s), and another sentence mentioning that there are others (such as Heywood whom I quoted above) who take issue with Sommers' definition. Biogeographist (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The reason I proposed a merger of Victim feminism and Gender feminism into Social construction of gender was as an attempt to clean up some of the articles on feminism, which are a bit of a mess. The early edit histories of both Victim feminism and Gender feminism are informative. It may be that both terms (or at least gender feminism) should re-direct to Sommers' book Who Stole Feminism? I think if gender feminism were a newly created article today it would be swiftly re-directed there. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I fail to see from where the nom concluded that the term is derogatory. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

From Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?, page 16, (my bold) American feminism is currently dominated by a group of women who seek to persuade the public that American women are not the free creatures we think we are... The feminists who hold this divisive view of our social and political reality believe we are in a gender war, and they are eager to disseminate stories of atrocity that are designed to alert women to their plight. The "gender feminists" (as I shall call them) believe that all our institutions, from the state to the family to the grade schools, perpetuate male dominance. Believing that women are virtually under siege, gender feminists naturally seek recruits to their side of the gender war. They seek support. They seek vindication. They seek ammunition.

So? How is that derogatory? More to wikipedantically, which sources was it is derogatory? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

??? I just gave you the source, page 16 of Sommers book. Sommers thinks gender feminism is a divisive view to hold. Definition of divisive. The full title of her book is Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women - in her view gender feminists have betrayed other women. She is derogatory about gender feminists throughout her entire book. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

How is that a "divisive view" is derogatory? Of course the title is attention-grabber. But the main idea is something went astray in feminism. If somebody says someone makes an error and invents the term for this error, this does not make the term automatically derogatory. Just as when somebody says "these Poles" or "these Irish" (I hope you know what I mean) does not make the words "Poles" or "Irish" derogatory. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support disambig Changed opinion per discussions below and reading around. Oppose for now. The article, both in the current "butchered" state, as well as its previous versions, is in an extremely poor state. In an agreement with the nom, I see no secondary sources cited in the article which directly discuss the concept as such. Still, it appears that the three 'flavors' (in section Characterizations) are basically synonymous, therefore I see no solid reasons for "dispersal". Especially bearing in mind that 75% of the "feminisms" in the whole spectra are equally confusing definitions. It is as bad as the numerous sects and splinters ans factions of Marxism. For example I tried hard but failed to see significant differences between Liberal feminism and libertarian feminism, but I am not jumping with the suggestion to merge them into one. Simply, the article needs serious work, not just google books snippet collection. For example, "Oxford Dictionaries" gives a crystal-clear definition of the term: "Advocacy of the view that the differences between the male and female genders are social constructs upheld and exploited by men in order to exert dominance over women."[1]. (BTW, how that can be described as "derogatory" beats me.) Staszek Lem (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • P.S. I exercised a bit of due diligence and read the sources cited, and edited the article accordingly, which further demonstrates that the suggestion to "disperse" was based on the erroneous state of the article, rather than on the actual state of the concept. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize that Oxford Dictionaries had defined it. The only definitions I had seen were Sommers and then critiques of her definition. There's a case for Social construction of gender being re-named "Gender feminism", including The New York Magazine piece if we could get it.

I'm a bit confused by your comments in this discussion where you say "feminism" is a subject separate from "gender" and ilks thereof. Have you changed your mind in light of finding the Oxford Dictionary definition? Also, as I said above some of the articles on feminism are a bit of a mess, I would have no issue with merging liberal feminism and individualist feminism (which libertarian feminism re-directs to). Both articles date back to 2003 and again, if they were both created today I think they would be merged fairly quickly. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

subject separate -- clarification: there are political/social movements and there are political/social theories, and they are different subjects; the fact that some movements are based on some specific theories does not mean that they must be merged into one page. "Social construction of gender" is a reasonable theory (If taken as an absolute, it may lead to an absurd, of course.) "Gender feminism" is the ideology based on the idea that social construction of gender in the way as it is works now is the result of abusive male dominance. As rightly noted in sources, this is surprizingly parallel to Marxism with its class struggle. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what your background is (you may be a doctor of political philosophy), but for what it is worth my degree is in Social Science with Politics. The lead section of social construction of gender could be changed to read, Gender feminism is the view that society and culture create gender roles, and these roles are prescribed as ideal or appropriate behavior for a person of that specific sex. Advocates of this view believe that these social constructs are upheld and exploited by men in order to exert dominance over women. (I think you might mean separate subject rather than subject separate.} Whether the existing page on gender feminism is a movement / theory / ideology is a mute point, the existing page was rubbish, now it's abridged ("butchered" is harsh) rubbish. Social construction of gender, with a few tweaks, would be a better definition of gender feminism. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid this is not a mute point. "Social construction of gender" is a scientific/sociological theory. "Gender feminism" is a movement based on a certain interpretation of this theory. They cannot be one and the same subject; they are in completely different categories of articles. On the other hand, its seems that you are starting to agree there is enough material for a separate article. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned at Talk:Social construction of gender § Merger proposal, I completely agree with Staszek Lem's point that Social construction of gender and Gender feminism "are in completely different categories of articles"; merging the two is not a good idea for reasons mentioned on the aforementioned talk page. Biogeographist (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

a bit of a mess -- Are you English :-) ? (explanation of the joke: in my culture, a stereotype of an Englishman is that true English gentlemen speak in understatements: e.g., "not bad" means "very good", and in our case "a bit of a mess" would mean "total disarray"). -- This I attribute to lack of scholarly discipline in an average wikipedian. And the same problem is with modern feministics. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm British, born and raised in England (but I don't call myself English). In my case "not bad" means "not bad" and "a bit of a mess" means "a bit of a mess". --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

OK. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• I am still of the opinion I had in the AfD for Equity and gender feminism (closed as redirect to Who Stole Feminism?) and the AfD for "victim feminism" (closed as no consensus) that these are not clearly defined topics that are distinct from other topics which we already cover and instead are rhetorical or flatly pejorative spins on otherwise established academic subjects. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, Support merge and/or redirect into book/author articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

That was my initial suggestion here. I didn't realize there had previously been an Equity and gender feminism page. However, if there is an Oxford English Dictionary definition is: "Advocacy of the view that the differences between the male and female genders are social constructs upheld and exploited by men in order to exert dominance over women.", then there's a case for an article on that basis with a criticism section or "use as a pejorative term" or "use by C. H. Sommers" section. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The "criticism" is to a significant degree due to Sommers shooting herself in the leg by chosing the polemic style, embellished with rhetorical exaggerrations and other frivoloties with facts, offering quite a few tasty bites for critics. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: this and your comment above that: On the other hand, it seems that you are starting to agree there is enough material for a separate article. - Not really but seeing as this article exists it ought to be correct. There is no doubt that Sommers is criticizing gender feminism, and that has nothing to do with style or rhetoric. If there has to be an article on gender feminism the description - from Oxford Dictionary is one of advocacy. A gender feminist is an advocate of gender feminism which supports social constructs of gender. Then criticism of the term from Sommers, Pinker etc. At the moment it is slanted towards - "you'll never guess what this lot believe, dear, oh dear, oh dear" with advocacy as a footnote.

If that is what is being proposed then gender feminism is clearly a re-direct to a section within Who Stole Feminism? on Sommers use of the term gender feminism. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

gender feminism which supports social constructs of gender -- yes, but this statement is not complete definition of gender feminism. Not only gender feminists support social construction of gender (SCoG). (I support it as well, to a degree :-). Gender feminists take one step further: their position of struggle is that SCoG has been influenced and abused by male dominating pigs. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

on Sommers use of the term Not only Sommers uses this term, as we see; It appears that the definition of Sommers was embraces and elaborated by others. therefore your suggested redirect is too narrow a target. No more than the term "proletarian revolution" must be redirected to Communist Manifesto. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Sommers has taken a disperate group of feminists, labelled them "gender feminists" and defined them as taking SCoG one step further. It's not only Sommers - but which of the theorists who agree with her definition do not quote her? All roads lead back to her definition. Movements go somewhere, Sommers is discussing feminist philosophy as though it is a movement in and of itself - it is not. The philosophers that came through in the 1960s and 1970s decribed / explained / analyzed the various feminist movements of the day including (to her horror) left-wing feminst movements e.g. Socialist feminism, Marxist feminism etc. They formed the Society for Women in Philosophy (1972), created the journal Hypatia and made a case for its academic study. Sommers sees this as a threat, a liberal agenda e.g. her 1988 article Should the Academy Support Academic Feminism? - her conclusion, no it should not, because that would be a recruitment drive for the left. Her definition of gender feminism, picked up and carried as a banner by other like-minded theorists is a (false) claim that teaching feminist philosophy = a movement and that movement ought to be stopped. Gender feminism has only two possible end-games (1) a realization that Jagger et al are correct when they say the teaching of feminist philosophy is not a movement or, (2) Sommers, Pinker et al succeed in convincing the academic world that feminist philosophy is a Trojan horse for a thing they are calling a "gender feminist" movement and the academic world comply and ban it. It would make more sense to have an Anti-gender feminist article with a description of what Sommers et al think is going on and their movement to try and and stop feminist / gender studies. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Another way of looking at this is to say, "Okay, there is such a thing as gender feminism, a movement" What are the movement's aims? - not according to Sommers / McElroy / Pinker / Kuhle / other conspiracy theorists etc. What are the movement's aims according to those inside the movement? Wanting to teach subjects which historically have been taught from an androcentric perspective (remember we're talking about academics who came through in 1970s and 1980s) is not a political movement. The academic curriculum changes all the time. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support redirect to book topic I see no indication that these terms exist outside of a discussion of the author or the book. I can find no sources related to any movement of any kind, any participants/activists, etc. While it may well be a valid idea/theory, and have prompted discussion as well as a dictionary definition, it is only apparently within the context of that particular book and author and/or refutations of her work. It does not appear to have spawned any type of political group adhered to the ideas expressed who identify as gender feminists. SusunW (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to Difference feminism with a hatnote leading to Who Stole Feminism? per WP:ONEOTHER. The present article is a presentation of Hoff Sommers' own use of the term gender feminism and various responses/critiques of it. The section on Wendy McElroy is the outlier here, but McElroy, like Sommers and Steven Pinker, is not a trained sociologist or political scientist. Her book is a polemic, as are Hoff Sommers' and Pinker's. Not a single self-identified "gender feminist" is named in the article.

  If that were all, I'd agree with a redirect to Sommers or her book per WP:DICDEF. However, other independent sources do examine the topic on its own, such as Liberalism: American Political Thought Since the 1960s by Robert Booth Fowler, Encyclopedia of Women and American Politics by Lynne Ford, and Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society. The first two equate gender feminism with difference feminism, and all three discuss Carol Gilligan as an exponent of the theory. Pinging Daask, Biogeographist, The Vintage Feminist, Staszek Lem, Rhododendrites, and SusunW. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC) (edited 01:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC))

• Comment Responding to ping. I still support a re-direct to Sommers book. I'm not quite sure what points are being made here but I will try to respond anyway.

• Wendy McElroy is not a trained sociologist or political scientist. No, she's a notable feminist who has written on the subject.
• Not a single self-identified "gender feminist" is named in the article. An analogy may be useful here. Saying that no feminist has ever self-identified as a "gender feminist" is a bit like saying that the late John McCain never self-identified as a Cuckservative. The quote from Sommers' book is (my bold): The "gender feminists" (as I shall call them) believe... It's what Sommers has elected to call them.
• Following on from that, saying there are all these independent sources that say McCain was indeed a Cuckservative would not make him one. The same is true of writers saying gender / difference feminism is the same thing, therefore Gilligan who self-identifies as a difference feminist must be a gender feminist. A particular worry is none of these 3 descriptions mention Sommers role in the origin of the term, a serious omission from anyone defining the term.
• This edit compltely skews Nussbaum's meaning. You can't contrast three questions with three new, reframed questions if you delete the original three, e.g. What do American women have to complain of? becomes Do American women have complaints that have not been adequately addressed by the agenda of "equity feminism"? In other words, do they have good reasons to become "gender feminists"? To use the Cuckservative analogy again:

A - "You're a Cuckservative!"

B - "If by Cuckservative you mean I reject white supremacy and other intolerant behaviour then okay I'll support the term." - that doesn't mean they self-identify as one.

• 'B's definition of Cuckservative is not what 'A' means by accusing 'B' of being a Cuckservative. 'B' is taking the sting out of the accusation. Sommers also meant to be insulting when she accused Rubin, Bartky, Jaggar and other feminists of being gender feminists. Nussbaum states that it provides a way of reframing her original set of questions about the future of feminism in America. Nussbaum is taking the sting out of the accusation in the same way. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for responding. To clarify, the three sources I linked to are independent academic works in the area of sociology/political science, which I think is the field most appropriate for an article about a political movement such as feminism. I don't consider McElroy to be such a source. To use your John McCain analogy, a "notable feminist" writing about feminism would be like McCain writing about conservatism. His opinions may or may not be noteworthy, but he's not an authoritative source just by virtue of being notable and a conservative himself. That said, McElroy seems to be just using the term as a slur for radical feminism.

      I'm not sure it's necessary to emphasize a priori Hoff Sommers' role in the origin of the term unless a significant number of independent sources comment on it. My suggestion to redirect to Difference feminism was based on what I found in such third-party sources. Looking over the article and talk page, I'm not seeing such sources verifying that Hoff Sommers had a major role in the origin of the term at all Compared to Alison Jaggar's attributing the invention of the term to Hoff Sommers, I'm more inclined to go by the kind of acdemic reference works I linked to above. The "gender feminism" they talk about doesn't seem to have anything to do with Hoff Sommers' concept besides the name; they're separate topics.

      As you state, Hoff Sommers has elected to call certain people "gender feminists". Do we care? The fact that Hoff Sommers uses the term in a pejorative way (à la "cuckservative") shouldn't affect our reading of reliable sources that offer a different picture. Plenty of published sources describe "cuckservative" as derogatory. Do we have third-party sources that do the same with "gender feminism"? The whole article seems unduly weighted with sources directly engaged in an ideological dispute over the use of the term, rather than sources describing the dispute. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• the three sources I linked to are independent academic works in the area of sociology/political science I don't really know enough about the authors to make a judgement on their independence/neutrality. However, Robert Booth Fowler states "there is "difference" or "gender" feminism", the word "or" is key, as is this quote on the following page, p. 134: "However one reads difference feminism, though, most feminist thought remains rights-oriented and liberal. To be sure, some liberal feminists - for example, Naomi Wolf in Fire with Fire or Christine Sommers in Who Stole Feminism? - believe they represent a dissenting view in American feminist thought and practice. They portray an intellectual world, especially the academic arena of women's studies, that is deeply hostile to liberal values, and where liberal feminists are disliked outsiders."
• I'm not sure it's necessary to emphasize a priori Hoff Sommers' role in the origin of the term unless a significant number of independent sources comment on it. I disagree. If we are deciding where gender feminism should re-direct to then it follows we ought to take note of where the term came from. Have you found a use of the term prior to Sommers? You have struck through you're own comment which suggests that you haven't.
• The fact that Hoff Sommers uses the term in a pejorative way (à la "cuckservative") shouldn't affect our reading of reliable sources that offer a different picture. If the term is the creation of Sommers then it is critical to our reading of other sources.
• Plenty of published sources describe "cuckservative" as derogatory. Do we have third-party sources that do the same with "gender feminism"? Well there's Robert Booth Fowler's quote on p.134 mentioned above, Barry X. Kuhle: "evolutionary psychology and feminist psychology will conflict as long as the latter adheres to gender feminism and its unwillingness to acknowledge the evidence for evolved psychological sex differences." and Pinker has the following quote: "Gender feminism's disdain for analytical rigor and classical liberal principles has recently been excoriated by equity feminists, among them Jean Bethke Elshtain, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Wendy Kaminer, Noretta Koertge, Donna Laframboise, Mary Lefkowitz, Wendy McElroy, Camille Paglia, Daphne Patai, Virginia Postrel, Alice Rossi, Sally Satel, Christina Hoff Sommers, Nadine Strossen, Joan Kennedy Taylor, Cathy Young. Well before them, prominent women writers demurred from gender-feminist ideology, including Joan Didion, Doris Lessing, Iris Murdoch, Cynthia Ozick, and Susan Sontag." --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Barry X. Kuhle ... and Pinker -- the quotes you cited do not define the term as derogatory. Neither criticism of the term nor criticism implied in the term make it automatically derogatory. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S. A clarifying example of the difference I have in mind: "you are an idiot" is derogatory; "you are mistaken" is not (despite the fact that 90% will take an offense). The quotes given are of the second kind. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

If the term is the creation of Sommers then it is critical to our reading of other sources. -- Every term is someone's creation. I fail see why for understanding, say, phosphorescence, I have to care who the heck invented the word . This is the common disease of social sciences that they give too much to appeal to authority rather than to the traits of phenomena per se. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• • • • • • @The Vintage Feminist: The authors of the sources I linked don't necessarily have to be neutral. The works are a scholarly monograph by a professor of political science and two academic encyclopedias, all from mainstream academic publishers. Those are exactly the kind of sources we usually consider reliable. To address some of your other points:

            Robert Booth Fowler states "there is "difference" or "gender" feminism", the word "or" is key... Yes, it indicates that the terms are synonymous. Hence, according to Fowler, they both refer to "a perspective that has particularly flourished in the years since Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice (1982) so greatly stimulated its growth" (my bolding). He's clearly talking about a single theory or movement.

            ...this quote on the following page, p. 134... I don't see what this has to do with gender feminism. Fowler is describing the views of self-described "dissenting" liberal feminists, I guess because he's giving an overview of feminist theories, one that also includes "difference" or "gender" feminism (I don't have the book, so I can't check this).

            If we are deciding where gender feminism should re-direct to then it follows we ought to take note of where the term came from. Do we even know where the term came from? Oxford Dictionaries says it was in New York Magazine in the 1990s (apparently in the sense Hoff Sommers uses), but in what context? Jaggar says Hoff Sommers invented it to refer to "any feminist who had moved beyond the ideas of ... John Stuart Mill", but that might not be the whole story. Jaggar is writing specifically about attacks on academic feminism from Hoff Sommers and others in the media, and doesn't say whether this use of the term also spread to others.

            If the term is the creation of Sommers then it is critical to our reading of other sources. It seems like we may be unduly second-guessing published, reliable sources here. Compared with Jaggar's characterization above and Nussbaum's evaluation of "gender feminism" per Hoff Sommers as a belief that "fits almost all contemporary social thinkers in political thought and economics", the other sources I provided appear to be talking about a completely different topic. Lynne Ford, for example, states that gender feminism is concerned with "the superiority of women's moral development, women's ways of knowing and thinking, and women's mothering abilities ... difference in this case works in favor of women". That's pretty different from "gender feminism" as Hoff Sommers apparently sees it, i.e. a single-minded focus on social constructionism and women's oppression.

            Do we have third-party sources that do the same with "gender feminism"? Well there's Robert Booth Fowler's quote on p.134 mentioned above... I still don't see what this has to do with gender feminism. Fowler is talking about Wolf's and Hoff Sommers' belief that university women's studies departments are "hostile to liberal values", and contrasting those beliefs with the reality (as he sees it) that "most feminist thought remains rights-oriented and liberal". As far as i can see, Fowler doesn't mention "gender feminism" is connection with either Wolf or Hoff Sommers, or say that any term is derogatory.

            Barry X. Kuhle ... and Pinker has the following quote... Those are examples of authors using the term in an unfavorable way, not writing about the term as it's used by others. Nor would I consider either to be a reliable source if they were writing about it that way, for reasons already explained.

            To reiterate, we apparently have two different topics called "gender feminism": the one Hoff Sommers and other "equity feminists" believe is corrupting academic research, and the one described in academic sources as being synonymous with difference feminism, which posits that women are socialized to have different, and even superior, moral development compared to men. I'd say the quality of sourcing is stronger for the latter, even though there are more published sources describing the former. Those sources appear to be mainly argumentative tracts rather than scholarly overviews, so they're less reliable apart from attributed statements of opinion. Based on this, I'm inclined to treat the latter topic as the primary one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC) (edited 02:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC))

            Almost agreed, see my comment below. But I suspect there are at least three meanings. Keeping in mind there is no self-declared "gender feminists", the definition is a matter of opinion of the person who defines the term. If the definition has no source, it will be original research of a wikipedian to assume that two authors have the same in mind, unless their definitions are nearly verbatim same. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

            • • How is there two meanings? "Difference feminism" and "gender feminism" are the same concept with a different label - the one Hoff Sommers and other "equity feminists" believe is corrupting academic research and the one described in academic sources as being synonymous with difference feminism, which posits that women are socialized to have different, and even superior, moral development compared to men are exactly the same thing. People trying to build these into separate and defined ideologies in ways that even their originators don't are getting into serious OR territory - especially people who can't cite a source justifying the claim that they're discrete and different ideologies. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
                • Well, if they were the same thing, I'd expect sources such as Encyclopedia of Women and American Politics and Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society to specifically name Hoff Sommers as one of the main critics of "gender feminism", which they don't do. Hoff Sommers' own critique of Carol Gilligan's work in Who Stole Feminism doesn't single her out as a "gender feminist", even as the three sources I linked to above name Gilligan as a prominent exponent of the idea of women's unique moral development etc. If that were what Hoff Sommers meant by "gender feminism", I'd expect Hoff Sommers to focus her ire on Gilligan and not Bartky, Rubin, Jaggar, et al. All of which suggests to me that they're discrete topics. Which published, reliable sources state that they are the same topic?

                  Put another way, saying "difference feminism" and Hoff Sommers' "gender feminism" are the same concept with a different label is essentially like saying that Hoff Sommers' main beef is with difference feminism such as Gilligan's In a Different Voice theory and Mary Daly's claims of women's superior qualities. But we know that she uses the label for basically all second-wave feminists, who clearly don't all subscribe to difference feminism. So I don't see how they can be the same thing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The reason there isn't more research / commentary from the academic community over this disparaging term is because it would give the Sommers' term traction. The Encyclopedia of Women and American Politics is published by Infobase Publishing who I don't really know, and the chapter Feminist Theory in Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society is written by Rosemarie Tong, she also wrote Feminist Thought, Student Economy Edition: A More Comprehensive Introduction whose index says "Gender feminism see care-focused feminism". I'm not really sure of her politics to comment on her omission of Sommers work either. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a logical explanation, but is there a published source saying that's what happened, or is this just a different kind of conspiracy theorizing? Infobase is the parent company of Facts on File, a publisher of scholastic reference works including Encyclopedia of Women and American Politics. Maybe not Oxbridge-level in terms of quality, but I don't see a particular reason to doubt its reliability here. I see that Tong describes Gilligan's In a Different Voice as being at "the roots of care-focused feminism", which is another sign to me that these are all different words for the same general idea (apart from Hoff Sommers' unrelated use of the term). Tong's personal politics aren't the issue. Once again, sources don't have to be neutral. The important thing is that there is a structure of fact-checking and editorial oversight in place, which all the named sources certainly have. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

How is there two meanings? -- Please see my explanation above where I wrote there are at least three meanings. Wikipedians will have hard time to establish now exactly many meanings there are. When the dust settles and we start converting it into a disabmig page, we will have to have a serious discussion to nail down what each writer has in mind under this term. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: what are the three meanings you have in mind? I see multiple authors using the term in slightly different ways (Hoff Sommers, McElroy, Pinker, Yates), but those are all primary sources for the respective authors' use of the term. In terms of secondary-source coverage, I see only Hoff Sommers' use of "gender feminist" to mean anybody who subscribes to the sex and gender distinction (basically all modern feminists and most social scientists) and the alternative sense of difference feminism as receiving any attention. So I don't think a DAB page is needed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Responding to ping. I still support a re-direct to Sommers book and the analysis above by The Vintage Feminist confirms my previous conclusion. SusunW (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Responding to ping. I am willing to change my opinion, because after some extra reading I see at least two or three sources which define the term apparently differently: Sommers' and that of in two footnotes in the lede of Difference feminism: of Robert Booth Fowler and of Lynne E. Ford whoever they are; why there are no articles, both appear to pass WP:PROF. If someone can convincingly argue that the definitions are indeed different and trace the origins of the definitions used by the two latter ones. Staszek Lem (talk)
• Note: To attract more input to this discussion, I've notified members of several related WikiProjects: Women's History, Philosophy, Sociology, Feminism, and Gender Studies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Disperse/merge with Christina Hoff Sommers/her book. The article as it currently stands is nonsense that lacks sources because they don't exist. No one identifies as a "gender feminist": it's a dismissive label for feminists by an anti-feminist author (Hoff Sommers) with an article that tries to portray it as being an in-reality division of feminism and to have a broader usage beyond Hoff Sommers. Every source here (apart from those in the background section that are completely irrelevant to anything) is people engaging in various critical ways with Hoff Sommers' book - the logical place to put it would be to be in the article about the book. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • You are writing nonsense yourself: sources are cited. Yes this article is mainly about Sommers. But other people use this term in differetn ways, hence the suggestion to make a disambig page. NO it is not "dismissive label for feminists" - It is a classification for some feminists, whether they like it or not. That Sommers disagrees with what she calls "gender feminism" does not make it dismissive. Trotskyites disagree with Maoists badly. This does not make the term "Maoist" dismissive. It is only that if a Trotskyite calls someone "Maoist", it means M is T's adversary in well-known points, but both of them being Communists and I will call both of them naive idiots. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Quote from Sommers (my bold): The feminists who hold this divisive view of our social and political reality believe we are in a gender war... That's more than merely disagreeing. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes its is a disagreement and an accusation in splitting/derailing feminist movement. Are you insulted? Feel it disparaged? Well, that's you opinion. We in wikipedia write articles in which every statement, and especially every opinion must come from WP:RS. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2019 (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.

Kuhle?

There is a whole subsection about the views of "Kuhle" - no first name or other description given. Would this be Barry Kuhle? We don't have an individual article on this person. Given that, is he important enough that his views deserve a separate section, or even mentioning at all? --GRuban (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is Barry Kuhle, he was first added here and removed here. The new article from him was added here, which ends with this gem: "Feminist psychology needs to evolve. To paraphrase one of Darwin’s closing sentiments in On the Origin of Species (1859): In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Feminist psychology will be based on equity feminism, that of the necessary civil and social liberties of both sexes, and not the untenable perspective that psychological sex differences did not evolve." The article is only there because it names gender feminism and equity feminism as though they are well established branches of feminism, like Marxist feminism or Conservative feminism.

I went looking to see if there was anything else from Steven Yates (ref 10, last sentence in the "history" section). I found this WordPress article in which he mentions a paper by Sommers - “Feminism Against the Family” which I've not been able to trace. I also found another blog he wrote in 2006 in which he quotes Aaron Russo, Russo reports how he once defended his sympathy with the women's movement and with equal opportunity to an unnamed member of the Rockefeller clan. Russo describes the chilling response: "He looked at me and said, "You know, you're such an idiot in some ways. We created the women's movement, and we promote it. And it's not about equal opportunity. It's designed to get both parents out of the home and into the workforce, where they will pay taxes. And then we can decide how the children will be raised and educated."" Yates reporting Russo, reporting an unamed source.

This wasn't even an article until March 2016, I think the whole thing should be a re-direct. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• About this Barry X. Kuhle noisemaker: I've read a bit of his and it smelled pseudoscience to me, this evolutionary psychology of his: evolution simply does not work on the time scale of homo having any psychology. And it appears I be right. It is exactly these "naive evolutionists" who make Darwin turn in his grave and give ammunition to creationists. Next buzzword-based level of pseudoscience would be quantum psychology. (Why I am not surprised it is a blue link?) In other words, since his science is not of common acceptance, I would hesitate to use his opinion. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

  @Staszek Lem: This isn't the place to debate the merits of evolutionary psychology as a discipline. Daask (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yes this is the place to discuss the expertise of the sources. If a person is engaged in non-mainstream (to put it delicately) science, we have rights to question his wisdom and relevance of his opinion. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• I added some of the content from Kuhle not because he is notable, but because I was trying to catalog every person who ever discussed "gender feminism". There really isn't much to work with. Daask (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

That's an understandable, but questionable motivation for adding someone's opinions to wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Staszek Lem on this this one; in articles about terminology, notability is demonstrated by in-depth coverage of the term itself, its history and impact, etc., not just instances of its use. Similarly, not every published claim about established topics is noteworthy; for instance, in writing about the Western world, we wouldn't seek to include commentary from every modern so-called "public intellectual" waxing rhapsodic about the glories of Western "civilization". I'm thinking this is more justification for merging the article as discussed above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment: merge proposal

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus against C: the discussion has been stale for two weeks so I see little value in relisting it, and neither A nor B has clear consensus, however it is clear that C, which is the status quo, is not desired. I shall therefore convert the page into a redirect to Who Stole Feminism? and start a discussion at RfD. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Should this page either (A) redirect to Who Stole Feminism? as was done for Equity and gender feminism, (B) become a disambiguation page, or (C) be kept as an encylopedia article? These options and others were discussed here recently with a result of no consensus. Other suggestions are welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• A or B. There seem to be two distinct topics for Gender feminism: one is the term used by Christina Hoff Sommers in Who Stole Feminism?; the other is described by independent sources such as Enduring Liberalism: American Political Thought Since the 1960s by Robert Booth Fowler, Encyclopedia of Women and American Politics by Lynne Ford, and Feminist Thought by Rosemarie Tong, as synonymous with either difference feminism or care-focused feminism, which themselves seem to be closely related topics. A merge of relevant material into these articles with either hatnotes or a disambiguation page would clear up any ambiguity. I would not keep this as as an encyclopedia article unless more reliable sources are found that examine the history and impact of the term as used by Sommers, Pinker, McElroy, et al. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• A. Article pretty much seems to be about her views (and a few responses to it); the article doesn't really support the idea that the term or concept has caught on outside of her own writings, making it unsuitable for its own article. The scattered, unrelated outside usages of the term don't seem to point to a coherent enough separate usage to support its own article or to require a disambig. --Aquillion (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Definitely B due to what Sangdeboeuf just summarized. We cannot reasonably redir this to an article on a book when RS tell us this has at least three meanings; we have absolutely no idea which one any given reader is looking for/expecting/was reading elsewhere about, so redirecting them to the book article may mislead/confuse somewhere around 2/3 of them. For my own part, I had never heard of this book until semi-recently and was not familiar with Hoff Sommers's highly specific meaning. I was much more familiar with the common usage of the term, which mostly aligns with difference feminism. However, there's actually a fourth meaning, fairly commonly used among right-wingers, to mean "feminism with a thick overlay of rhetoric and agitation about gender issues, broadly", i.e. cis-women on the left who spend a lot of time talking about trans/nonbinary stuff, not just the traditional "women's lib" feminism and [cis-]gender matters of 1960s-1980s feminism.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• A. Sommers popularized the term in her 1994 book. Robert Booth Fowler's book was written in 1999 and page 134 (which is the next page to the one mentioned in Sangdeboeuf's link) reads: "To be sure, some liberal feminists - for example, Naomi Wolf in Fire with Fire or Christine Sommers in Who Stole Feminism? - believe they represent a dissenting view in American feminist thought and practice. They portray an intellectual world, especially the academic arena of women's studies, that is deeply hostile to liberal values, and where liberal feminists are disliked outsiders.". Ford's Encyclopedia entry was 2010 and Tong's Feminist Thought was 2015. The term ought to be described as having been popularized by Sommers and subsequently taken up by others and described by them as.... whatever. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Except we don't know that Hoff Sommers popularized the term, especially when it comes to academic usage. Fowler isn't saying that Hoff Sommers' "dissenting view" has anything to do with "difference" or "gender feminism". None of these sources even mention Hoff Sommers in connection to the topic. When Ford says, "The issues most closely associated with gender feminism include the superiority of women's moral development, women's ways of knowing and thinking, and women's mothering abilities", she's clearly not talking about the same thing Hoff Sommers criticizes as "a new, more radical 'Second Wave' doctrine: that women ... are in thrall to 'a system of male dominance' variously referred to as 'heteropatriarchy' or the sex/gender system". Where Hoff Sommers says gender feminism is "the prevailing ideology among contemporary feminist philosophers and leaders", Ford says gender feminism is just one of multiple "brands" of feminism that scholars disagree on how to label, and is "Unlike any of the [feminist] theories previously described", which include liberal feminism, radical feminism, Marxist feminism, global feminism, black feminism, and ecofeminism. I don't see how they can be the same topic, nor do any published sources appear to suggest a connection between Hoff Sommers and these later descriptions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Soft A. As someone not immersed in this area but willing to learn what's going on, I suggest that it might be best to redirect to the Who Stole Feminism? page and have a note at the top that mentions where other meanings of gender feminism can be found. The present page seems to confuse many complex issues. Jzsj (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• B - a redirect to a single book is promotional whereas a dab gives our readers the freedom to choose. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• B I came to close, but this isn't closable at the moment as anything other than NC. And it's clear that the consensus is clear to remove this, just not with what. Reading WP:DAB there are a lot of things to consider when looking if there is a primary topic. page views being one. They aren't all equal, but there isn't a huge difference. As such, I'd prefer B given that there is at least a reasonable set of options. That said, I'm fine with any option other than C. Hobit (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• B. If this term has multiple meanings which we cover in other articles, it's ambiguous and should be turned into a disambiguation page. How the term was coined or popularized does not matter. feminist (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2019 (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.

* Post-RfC comment: the result of the RfD discussion was disambiguate. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

History of gender feminism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect History of gender feminism. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Paradoctor (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)