This is an archive of past discussions about History of feminism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A 1989 article on conservative feminism by Richard Posner, a judge and law lecturer, argues for four "stages" of feminist thought, in which in the first women seek relief from "legal disabilities", in the second they seek "affirmative benefits" to overcome what's left of discrimination (the second being current in 1989), and in the third they recognize some genderal differences for governmental policy but not for employment and "fourth-stage feminists, heavily represented in contemporary feminist jurisprudence, appear to claim" "that women and men should receive the same compensation even if there are profound and permanent mental and psychological differences between the sexes."<ref>All quotations: Posner, Richard A., ''Conservative Feminism'', in ''The University of Chicago Legal Forum'' (ISSN 0892-5593), vol. 1989 (issue ''Feminism in the Law: Theory, Practice and Criticism''), p. 209 and see p. 215 n. 46 (article: pp. 191–217) (revised from symposium remarks (Oct. 15, 1988)) (author judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, & sr. lecturer, Univ. of Chicago Law School).</ref> The author posits that the first two stages correspond to stages of the civil rights movement, but I don't think these stages correspond closely enough to the waves recognized in feminism to warrant mentioning the fourth stage in this article as a fourth wave. The most relevant passage now in the article is about developments since 2008, nearly 20 years after this author's article. I question whether the author believes his own description to be an authoritative restatement of the fourth stage or that the feminists he identifies as 4th-stage would offer similar descriptions. However, if another editor thinks it should be added, please feel free. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC) (Corrected a "nowiki" tag error resulting in a formatting error: 15:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)) (Corrected useless link by moving it and reformatting reference accordingly: 16:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC))
Any great reliance on Posner's four stages is going to be wp:undue emphasis. Posner is alone in this framework; everyone else talks about three waves of feminism leading to the 1970s, the notional fourth wave coming much more recently in the 2000s, not discussed in earlier works. Posner's criteria don't match the three or possibly four standard waves. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Reintroduce Muhammad
There's enough mention of Muhammad in the protofeminism article that to remove him from here is to ignore the protofemnist section, disputes and praise altogether. Faro0485 (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Philosophical roots
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 a mention of any of these men here (because they are men?). Engels is cited in Marxist feminism however, but there's no mention of Locke. I don't know the reason for this gaping lacuna in Wikipedia's coverage of the subject, but it seems to strongly require rectification. JKeck (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
RfC: Is deleted section on Women in Klan relevant to History of Feminism
CLOSED
Closed as a disruption by a ban evading account.
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 just had an edit removed by Binksternet who went through and deleted a bunch of my edits in various articles. I am trying to add some light on right wing feminism in these articles, and she deleted two of my efforts AND gave me a bogus warning. I am going to assume ignorance and not malice. The text of my proposed edit is below, please comment to build consensus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brechbill123 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
One of the strongest right wing social reform groups of the 1920's was the Ku Klux Klan, which boasted over 20 million male members during that decade including a number of governors and one U.S. president. A separate women's auxiliary also boasted millions of members. Activities of members of the Women's Ku Klux Klan including working to build the base of the Klan organizations by parades, cross lighting, lectures, speaking at events such as the Chautauqua movement rallies, and organizing boycotts. Both the regular and women's Klan were active in raising public awareness of rape, particularly black-on-white rape. On occasion they would take direct action by participating in seizing accused rapists and hanging them. They also had roles in ceremonies such as Klan weddings and funerals. The Women's Klan were active in promoting eugenics and birth control for what they regarded as inferior races. Their efforts in the schools included distributing Bibles and working for the dismissal of Roman Catholic teachers. Participation was limited to white Protestant women over 16 years of age. As a sex scandal rocked the Klan leadership late in the decade, popularity waned but numbers of women continue to participate in Klan organizations today. (Blee, Kathleen M. Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920s. University of California Press, 2008.)
Your notion of "right-wing feminism" did not exist during the height of the Klan, and is barely credible today. Your proposed text has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with racism. None of the Klan women were fighting for women's rights, just white rights.
This whole distasteful paragraph appears to me to be an attempt to put extremely unflattering facts into the article, however, these facts are not on topic, not in the slightest. I looked over your other contributions and there are many problems with non-neutral anger related to feminism. You tried to put a Nazi woman's photograph in the Feminism article, but the woman was not a feminist. Binksternet (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The Nazi woman's photo was placed in the Fascism section of the Feminism article. We're not done discussing whether it belongs there. Whether the facts are unflattering is hardly relevant, and begs the question, "Unflattering to who?" Both the left and right wing sides of feminism are equally relevant, no matter how flattering you think they might be. The fact is that feminist women fell out on both sides, and if you were familiar with the source book you would know that. While your ad hominem attacks certainly are off topic, this post is certainly not. I could as easily say that your deletion represents a non-neutral attempt to whitewash the history of feminism to minimize aspects that are considered to be less than flattering today.Brechbill123 (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The main point is that your proposed paragraph is completely off topic. I said it was "unflattering" in light of what some white women were doing in the 1920s, but these women were not feminists. Your concept that feminists were both right- and left-wing is not supported by any sources. They were left wing. Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It is not my contention that feminists were both left and right wing. It is the contention of the authoress of the source. If you go to the Wikipedia article on Women in the Klan, which I did not write or contribute to, you will find three sources on right wing feminists. One of which I happen to have read. In addition to those sources, if you are familiar with the literature of the eugenics movement you will find other sources on right wing feminism. One notable example being Margaret Sanger. While Sanger associated with left-wing radicals prior to the First World War, after the war she moved into right wing eugenic circles. John D. Rockefeller (certainly no left-winger) was the primary supporter of her organization,. She also found common cause with other right wing eugenicists, speaking on one occasion on eugenics to a women's Klan meeting. Although she treated blacks with respect, she believe the white race to be superior to darker races. She also had connections with Nazi eugenicists and published their articles in her newsletter prior to the Second World War. In England today there are "Tory feminists." Look it up. In the United States, Concerned Women for America has been labeled "right wing feminist." There are scads of libertarian feminists, who are hardly left wing. Who is Tonie Nathan? Wendy McElroy? Christina Hoff Summers? Maybe you should educate yourself before you embarass yourself!Brechbill123 (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Right-wing feminism exists, but the passage should be rewritten and I don't have the source. Women's auxiliaries are not generally feminist and, based on the passage, this one doesn't appear to be. It is possible for women to develop a feminist version of what the Klan believes in but I don't know if any did (I once found a far-right-feminist or racist-feminist newsletter from Florida). Many or most feminists would quickly reject any such alliance but, regarding the Klan, perhaps enough existed for weight. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
"Social reform group", "active in raising public awareness of rape", and "[taking] direct action"? IMHO that's about as far from WP:NPOV as one could possibly get. I know nothing about right-wing feminism or feminists in the Klan, so I can't say whether such a large section about it would be WP:UNDUEper se. But it definitely can't be in the article as it's currently written. It is rife with words to watch, and virtually every sentence pushes credulity to the limit. I don't think a single citation at the end of the section is going to cut it. Braincricket (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, how does organizing cross burnings, cheering at lynchings, promoting eugenics, and getting Catholics fired make one a feminist ("an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women")? WP:OFFTOPIC. Braincricket (talk) 23:47, 24 July 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.
American anarchist feminists 1800 to 1900
I have removed a new section that didn't seem very global to me, nor did it seem relevant enough to mention it in a major history of all countries and times. In the article about Anarcha-feminism, the influence of non-American anarcha feminists is large, but in the section I deleted, Spanish and other women were not mentioned. I think that any section talking about this splinter group would need to be more global and it would need to describe more than 19th century history. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it should just be about Anarcha-feminists without cause to delete the whole section? For instance, Emma Goldman and the Mujeres Libres in the same section? Anarchism and communism had lots of influence on feminism. Speaking of which, where is Alexandra Kollontai? Commissarusa (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's pretty strange to not mention Emma Goldman (or Voltairine de Cleyre) who represented pretty much every wave of feminism within her writings. Wordsofglass (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
New section on FEMEN
The new section that has been added on FEMEN seems excessive to me per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. The content is overly detailed for an article on the history of feminism. To start with, I would suggest deleting the last 4 paragraphs of that section as they detail specific events rather than giving an overview of FEMEN. I also think the initial sentence of the section may need to be edited to sound less promotional. Kaldari (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I pulled the above section during my copy edit because it is out of synch with the rest of the "National histories of feminism" section. I don't think adding FEMEN would be a problem if it accompanies the rest of the history of Ukranian (or even "Soviet") feminism. czar··04:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Pulled two sections
Sociology of the family debate, Psychoanalysis
Sociology of the family debate
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the sociology of the family was one of the more prominent concerns of feminist theorists, who have been incorrectly typified as accepting the historical fact of primal matriarchy, whereas their interest was more in an empowering symbolism in interpreting the social issues they confronted. They used Bachofen and the rejection of an inevitable patriarchy to address family law reform and sexual morality. Feminists were sceptical about the objectivity of those who wrote about objective culture, as expressed in their perceived androcentricity. Jeanne Oddo-Deflou, leader of Groupe Français d'Etudes Féministes, went so far as to state that male rejection of Bachofen by male intellectuals was good enough reasons for females to embrace him. She rejected the emotion-rationalism dichotomy association with matriarchy and patriarchy, and with Stanton, asserted that rationality was as much an attribute of any mother-age civilisation as of patriarchy, and that it was mainly patriarchal behavior that was logically irrational.[1]
In English academic circles, the challenge to patriarchy started to permeate a variety of disciplines. Jane Ellen Harrison, a classicist, working from Friedrich Nietzsche's Bachofen inspired interpretation view of Greek culture[2]
argued that it was a shift in Pantheons that influenced the loss of matrilineal Greek culture with its more "primitive" pantheistic deities to a patriarchate both on Olympus and on Earth.[3]
Many other feminist theorists incorporated matriarchal approaches. These include the American Charlotte Perkins Gilman and British Frances Swiney. Gilman developed the idea of matriarchate as imaginative, pointing out how the trivial male role of fertilisation was responsible for "arresting the development of half the world"[4]
and depicts how rationality and emotionality can co-exist harmoniously in her utopian novel Herland.[5]
More controversial, was the way these views were used to uphold or challenge the standards of sexual morality,[7][8]
which were very asymmetrical. Generally British writers upheld the standards but expected them to apply to men equally, while in the Netherlands and Germany they were challenged.[citation needed]
While the majority of feminists supported enforcement of paternal responsibility, the minority used the more radical matriliny argument that support of mothers and children was a state responsibility, and that women should not be humiliated by pursuing fathers. In Holland this was the Vrije Vrouwen (Free Women), through their journal Evolutie, edited by Wilhelmine Drucker in the 1890s.[9]
In Germany Ruth Bré (Elisabeth Bouness) founded the Bund für Mutterschutz (League for the Protection of Mothers) in 1905, and took this further advocating a matriarchal society of single mothers, while the league attracted many prominent reformers, female and male, including Helene Stöcker, Lily Braun and Henriette Fürth, they did not support her radicalism, believing that the genders should not be separated in a more evolved social model.[10]
However all groups supported equality of rights. The inspiration for these views came largely from Ellen Key in Sweden who believed that matrilineality was closest to nature.[11][12]
The Bund für Mutterschutz advanced the "New Ethic" of women controlling their own sexual and reproductive needs,[9]
as a creative and life providing force. For instance Fürth believed that motherhood transcended marriage.[13]
Disproportionate to their numerical size, these sexual radicals set a new agenda for the discussion of morality in the west.[14]
Understandably, many saw these new ideas as alarming, and threatening.[citation needed]
The moderate majority is represented by groups such as the Bund Deutscher Frauenvereine (League of German Women's Organizations) led by Marianne Weber (who was married to Max Weber), and who warned against belief in "lost paradise".[15]
Weber repudiated Bachofen in her ‘’Wife and Mother in Legal History’’ along socialist interpretations, distinguishing between matrilineality and the status of women. Interestingly she argued for marriage to protect the status of children, without doubting the need for this in the first place.[16]
However she also rejected the inevitability of the status quo, portrayed further evolution to equality, reform of family law, and although describing monogamy as an ideal, went so far to suggest it was not for everyone, and that non-monogamous relationships were not immoral, views she shared with her husband.[citation needed]
In France, Madeleine Pelletier was equally sceptical about historical patriarchy, but more so some of her colleagues flowery symbolism which she suspected was actually confining. In a foreshadowing of Betty Friedan she pithily summed up the hiatus between male worship of the goddess and emancipation "Future societies may build temples to motherhood, but only to lock women into them."[17]
She also held, what for those times were radical views on the need for women to control their reproductive rights.[citation needed]
In striking contrast to Freudian theory is his contemporary feminist Catherine Gasquoine Hartley, whose The Truth about Woman[18] appeared in the same year as Totem and Taboo, based on the same material. To Hartley (also known as Mrs Walter Gallichan), Atkinson's readings were biased, and that it could easily have been the actions of women opposing patriarchy that brought about matriarchy, if only short lived. But to her patriarchy was equally unstable, and she saw the latter day women's movement as one restoring social justice. "It is the day of experiments... We are questioning where before we have accepted, and are seeking out new ways in which mankind will go... will go because it must".[19]
However, despite all of these disagreements, there were common elements, an acceptance of some form of nonpatrilineal kinship in the past, the evolution of family kinship structures, and a belief in the evanescent nature of the status quo. Common to both male and female socialist writers were challenges to traditional views of family, this includes Gilman, Braun, Fürth and Alice Melvin.[20]
Some of the most radical ideas in American writing are found in Elsie Clews Parsons’ The Family[21]
(used as a textbook), which included premarital sexual relationships, trial marriage and sexual liberation from better provision of contraception. These views attracted some negative media publicity, however discussions about kinship were now widely held.
Countess Franziska zu Reventlow was a bohemian who became a member of the mainly male Georgekreis (George circle), but parodied them, and predicted the sinister outcome of their male Dionysian view of liberated women.[22]
Thus, most of what seemed radical ideas of the late 20th century had already been described in the early years of the century.[citation needed]
Psychoanalytic theory emerged during the debate on kinship, and kinship and gender relations form the core of the theoretical writings, and has been portrayed as one of the elements containing feminism. It origins can be found in the Romantic, and in particular Bachofen's representation.[23] The matriarchy-patriarchy conflict is central to Sigmund Freud's work, and to the schism that followed between him and Carl Jung.
Freud's theories can be seen to be centred around the triangular Oedipus complex, the patricidal relation between child and father, and incestuous desire for the mother, as a model for the development of each individual's personality. The correspondence between Freud and Jung reveals their conflicting concepts of universal patriarchy on the former's part, and the yearning for liberation and return to matriarchy of the latter.[24][25]
Freud disliked feminist sexual radicalism, but echoed some of it "Mother-right should not be confused with gynaecocracy". The centrality of Oedipal desire is best expressed in Totem und Tabu (1913).[26]
He based his anthropological speculation on the work of J.J. Atkinson,[27]
who in turn was influenced by Darwin. Freud proceeded to layer Greek myth onto the Darwinian ethology of the herd and the polygamous dominant male, challenged by its male offspring, a position challenged by anthropologists, but which became influential in 20th-century culture. In Freudian analysis, Bachofen's world is now seen as the story of individual psychological evolution, a psychic recasting of ontogenymirroring phylogeny.[citation needed]
^Jeanne Oddo-Deflou, in Groupe Français d'Etudes Féministes (ed.), Les droits de la mère, 1903, introduction.
^Nietzsche, Friedrich. Die Geburt der Tragödie aus dem Geiste der Musik, Leipzig, 1872. (Golffing, Francis (trans.), The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy of Morals. New York, 1956).
^Harrison, Jane Ellen. Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, Cambridge, 1903.
^Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. The Man-Made World; or, Our Androcentric Culture, 1911.
^Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. Herland 1915. Lane, Ann J. (ed.), New York, 1979.
^e.g. The Suffragette, June 6, 1913, The Vote, July 4, 1913, The Malthusian, November 15, 1909, Westminster Review, May, October 1901; March 1905, April 1905.
^Jeffreys, Sheila. The Spinster and Her Enemies: Feminism and Sexuality 1880–1930, London, 1985.
^Bland, Lucy. Banishing the Beast: Sexuality and the Early Feminists New York 1995
^ abSevenhuijsen, Selma. "Mothers as Citizens: Feminism, Evolutionary Theory and the Reform of Dutch Family Law, 1870–1910", in Smart, Carol (ed.), Regulating Womanhood: Historical Essays on Marriage, Motherhood and Sexuality, London, 1992, 167–86.
^Allen, Ann Taylor. Feminism and Motherhood in Germany 1800–1914, New Brunswick, N.J. 1991, 173–88.
^Key, Ellen. The Renaissance of Motherhood. Fries, Anna E. B. (trans.) New York 1914
^Key, Ellen. Kvinnorörelsen Stockholm, 1909 (Borthwick, Mamah Bouton (trans.), The Woman Movement. New York, 1912).
^Fürth, Henriette. Mutterschaft und Ehe. Mutterschutz 1905 1:28
^Cott, Nancy. The Grounding of Modern Feminism. 1987, op. cit. at 40-41.
^Weber, Marianne. "Die historische Entwicklung des Eherechts", in Frauenfragen und Frauengedanken. Tübingen, 1919.
^Weber, Marianne. Ehefrau und Mutter in der Rechtsentwicklung: Eine Einführung. Tübingen, 1907.
^Pelletier, Madeleine. La femme en lutte pour ses droits. Paris, 1908.
^Hartley, Catherine Gasquoine. The Truth about Woman, New York, 1913.
^Hartley, Catherine Gasquoine. The Position of Woman in Primitive Society: A Study of the Matriarchy, London, 1914.
^Melvin, Alice. "Abolition of Domestic Drudgery by Cooperative Housekeeping". The Freewoman 1 (April 11, 1912): 410–12.
^Parsons, Elsie Clews. The Family: An Ethnographical and Historical Outline with Descriptive Notes, Planned as a Text-Book for the Use of College Lecturers and of Directors of Home Reading Clubs. New York, 1906.
^Reventlow, Franziska Gräfin zu. Herrn Dames Aufzeichnungen, oder Begebenheiten aus einem merkwürdigen Stadtteil. 1913, rpt. in Franziska Gräfin zu Reventlow, Gesammelte Werke in einem Band. Reventlow, Else (ed.), Munich, 1925 (Mr Dame's Notes).
^Sulloway, Frank J. Freud, Biologist of the Mind: Beyond the Psychoanalytic Legend. New York, 1979.
^McGuire, William (ed.), Manheim, Ralph and R. F. C. Hull (trans.) The Freud-Jung Letters: The Correspondence between Sigmund Freud and C. G. Jung. Princeton, N.J., 1974).
^Freud, Sigmund. Totem und Tabu: Einige Übereinstimmungen im Seelenleben der Wilden und Neurotiker. Leipzig, 1913. Reprinted in vol. 9 of Freud, Gesammelte Werke chronologisch geordnet, Freud, Anna (ed.), 17 vols. London 1947–55. Brill, A. A. (trans.), Totem and Taboo: Resemblances between the Psychic Lives of Savages and Neurotics. New York, 1918.
I also pulled the "Sociology of the family debate" and "Psychoanalysis" sections without edits as too academic, full of technical language, little overall coherence, a mess. Feel free to add it back when ready (it has some interesting stuff), but please give it the attention it needs first. Also if the majority of this can be reused, consider spinning it out and adding a summary-style intro in this article instead. (I could have possibly picked through the sources to reconstruct it, but I'll invoke IAR—the article's a total disaster and it needs to be mostly rewritten from the bottom up with attention towards summary style and the overall history.) I may do this myself once I get the requisite reference material. czar··05:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
4th wave
If there is more sourcing or content about a fourth wave of feminism, please add it. I searched a long time ago and I think I did not find more than what was cited (I think by me back then). Meanwhile, I've now provided one good source, closely akin to one that was previously cited, and not restored the Expand Section template, because I don't think there's a basis for the expansion the tag seeks. Mostly, I think a fourth wave of feminism is only an aspiration that has not become a large movement with its own identity and persistent people, organizations, core ideology, core goals, media, and events and which is distinct from other waves but it may be a small movement here and there (although some may posit that I have no basis for deciding what is a wave, something has to guide due weight). I would even fold the content I've now added into the article into an existing paragraph instead of giving it its own subsection because I don't think it deserves the prominence of a separate subsection, but I don't know where and it should be mentioned in the body, because it is probably searched for in Wikipedia and if we don't add it it probably will be added by someone somewhere, as I think used to be the case before I rationalized what I found. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
12 Asian nations
A source that covers the history of feminism in a dozen Asian nations, nine of which don't have subsections in this article, looks interesting. It's Roces, Mina, & Louise P. Edwards, eds., Women's Movements in Asia: Feminisms and Transnational Activism (London or Oxon: Routledge, pbk. 2010 (ISBN978-0-415-48703-0)) (ed. Roces assoc. prof., School of History and Philosophy, University of New S. Wales, Sydney, Australia, & ed. Edwards prof. modern China, Univ. of Hong Kong, both per p. [i] & cover IV). If someone has the time, It's probably worth adding to this article:
Indonesia (chapter by Susan Blackburn)
Philippines (ch. by Mina Roces)
Pakistan (ch. by Andrea Fleschenberg)
Vietnam (ch. by Alessandra Chiricosta)
Thailand (ch. by Monica Lindberg Falk)
Hong Kong (ch. by Adelyn Lim)
Singapore (ch. by Lenore Lyons)
Korea (apparently except for North Korea 1948–present) (ch. by Seung-Kyung Kim & Kyunghee Kim)
I did not treat the zeroth wave as its own subsection because I'm not sure it deserves the same weight as a wave as the first through fourth waves should have, although feminist practices and probably theory certainly predate the first wave and do deserve substantial weight on their own. However, for a label for the period, if more sources agree on Wave Zero (capitalization uncertain) or some equivalent, then the article should be edited accordingly. My view had been that there had been thousands of waves before what we generally call the first, but I have no source for that view (I may have seen one or maybe not) and perhaps Baumgardner's view is the better one. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of the ontology of "waves" is an unnecessary tangent, IMO. This article already suffers from too much detailed and tangential information (like the 3 paragraphs on feminist science fiction). It also seems a bit out of place to discuss early feminism in the "20th and 21st centuries" section. I would suggest either trimming the new material or moving most of it to "Early feminism". Kaldari (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The ontology, once sourced, should be discussed in this article unless there's a better article for it, just as we often discuss histories. Waves are a popular and important part of feminism that turn up frequently in discussions of feminism and directly affect how feminists organize their efforts, e.g., with whom they associate in their feminist work. The naming of a wave by Lear was apparently in the N.Y. Times, which would likely make it harder to consider as trivial. I don't think an article on one of the specific waves would be a better destination for this content and I don't know which other article would be more suitable.
I don't have that comparison of sources. And I didn't Google deeply but initial items there (as of yesterday) seem weak as sources. Perhaps someone else has information to post.
I don't object to the deletion of the wave 0 content for now on a weight ground, although Baumgardner is notable and we can report her view as non-fringe even if she's alone in saying it. If sourcing turns up for multiple views on the point, it would be deserving of weight to present a debate from sourcing on how to treat feminism preceding the first wave, since otherwise there's a trap in assuming that the really important feminism only began with the waves, a trap Wikipedia is not responsible for causing absent sourcing but which affects readers' understanding of the subject.
MacKinnon, a lawyer, has stated, "To be about to be raped is to be gender female in the process of going about life as usual."[1] She explained sexual harassment by saying that it "doesn't mean that they all want to fuck us, they just want to hurt us, dominate us, and control us, and that is fucking us."[2]
^MacKinnon, Catherine. Only Words. London: Harper Collins, 1995. ISBN0-674-63933-2
^MacKinnon, Catherine. Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. 1987, ISBN0-674-29874-8
I added a {{who}} tag to "they all" in the second paragraph because it is unclear who "they all" is. The defense that we don't need to specify who because we're quoting directly doesn't make sense to me. Moreover, there surely must be a secondary source on MacKinnon's analysis that we can paraphrase instead of using her indirect language. czar♔16:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Once added, the Who tag belongs. What the phrase represents may seem obvious but probably the source makes clear who was meant and it should be added with brackets. Probably the source does so within the few pages immediately preceding the quoted content. I agree that the passage being a quotation does not obviate the need for that clarification; I think I usually provide it in similar kinds of quotations elsewhere. I probably would not have added the tag myself but once added it should stay until resolved.
I think I read both books years ago and I think they were secondary, so they would not need secondary sourcing for what they say. Requiring secondary sources for secondary sources could be endless and result in cutting most of Wikipedia.
I doubt the passage is indirect; she didn't need to be discussing named individuals only, but could well have referred to a class of individuals, and that would likely be acceptable for our purposes.
Feel free to reinstate it. Primary/secondary sourcing is in degrees from the source. So MacKinnon's written thoughts are primary sources when concerning MacKinnon and secondary sources on the topic of rape. An analysis of MacKinnon would be secondary. By paraphrase, I meant writing that MacKinnon is known for her work in this area (via secondary sources) and then summarizing her contributions to the field (as put by secondary sources) instead of using vague quotes. The point is that if she is worth mentioning in such a high-level overview article, it shouldn't be hard to find secondary sources on her position so as not to rely on direct quotes. I didn't suggest cutting most of Wikipedia, but rephrasing a single paragraph in a single article to better comply with policy. No brainer. czar♔02:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
If it isn't hard to find secondary sources on her position then why don't you find them and add them, instead of a gratuitous template inserted into a direct quote? It seems sloppy and should be removed and replaced with a clarification, if one is needed. Ongepotchket (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Not my prerogative. I added an unsightly tag during copyedit to show that there's something wrong, which is why inline templates exist. Remove the tags and the confused sections that preceded my copyedit will remain. czar♔04:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The tag belongs until resolved. It is not gratuitous and the quotation being direct is irrelevant to the need to identify who was meant in the source (it is theoretically possible that no one was meant but that is highly unlikely and if, somehow, no one was meant then that can be stated).
Paraphrasing is generally fine in lieu of quotations, but sometimes quoting her work is as legitimate as paraphrasing it.
If both books are already secondary, as I think they are, it is not necessary under policy to find secondary sourcing that discusses their findings, but it can be good to add them if available. In most areas of scholarship, it is unusual to find much more than citations to a point made in a prior secondary source, especially by a different author, and it is not necessary to find such a discussion in order to cite the prior one. The two MacKinnon books would be secondary even though they state her opinions on issues, if they are not mainly about her personal experience being, say, sexually harassed but about what is known generally about the subject she covers, and she is a scholar in the relevant field. Most scholars include their opinions in most of the secondary sources they write and they're still secondary for that. We can quote her work and we can do so without finding other sourcing that describes her work, but if that non-MacKinnon sourcing is available I'd likely be supportive of its being added.
Some sections of the article are filled with praise, not neutrality. For example, a quote: "Given her humble origins and scant education, her personal achievements speak to her own determination." This is an evaluation of her character, one seemingly written by a big fan since it doesn't seem to have an outside source. 76.11.43.185 (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Historical perspective
This page has had a chequered history, not unusual in feminism. It started in 2004 as a 'dump' from Feminism. In November and December 2006 I started a radical rewrite, and used Margaret Walters. "Feminism: A very short introduction". Oxford 2005 (ISBN0-19-280510-X) as a framework. There wasn't anything particularly controversial about the book, but the page very quickly became a hotbed of argument due to a lack of agreement as to what feminism was, and hence the difficulty of defining its history. The narrow view was to confine it to late 20th century North American women's movements, the broad view saw it as a struggle for equality from the inception of history. The latter view was well supported by feminist historians who pointed to the erasure of women from history, but this was criticised as being 'academic'. From the start it was also criticised as being too long, which usually begs the question of making it a mother page and splitting off daughter pages on specific topics. In history articles that generally comes down to periods of time.
Interestingly it has frequently being criticised as lacking citations, but when I completed the rewrite it had over 200. It has had a {{Cite check}} on it for nearly two years which seems counterproductive. If somebody sees what they consider misrepresentation, they should log it here. A general tag is rarely helpful. I suggest it be dropped.
The {{Globalize}} tag is a bit trickier. It was placed there at the same time, also by Czar. Again there does not seem to have been any specific discussion. It could just be the general criticism levelled against 'feminism' of being a white middle class North American movement, and it would be legitimate to include that criticism of the subject. But it does not seem constructive to tag the whole page without pointing to specific deficiencies and relevant sources. maybe this should go to.
It has been called a whole lot of adjectives, including 'disaster' but that may just reflect different people's views of what the subject is about.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I added that tag when I gave the article a full copyedit nearly two years ago. If I recall correctly, certain sections were a hodgepodge of isolated events rather than a full story. Also the history of feminism as it was written was extremely Western and Anglocentric when there should be at least some effort to show women's movements from other places of the world (the history of feminism vs. the history of (Western) Feminism). Unless that's resolved, I think the "globalize" tag should stay. Also there was a large amount of print sources used in this text and a lot of it has been jumbled around even since—it would help to actually review what remains of these sentences to make sure it matches the source, but I'm ambivalent on whether that requires keeping a maintenance tag. czar⨹12:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"Further reading" should not have been changed to "Bibliography" as it includes works that may be helpful overviews but for whatever reason are not actually cited as sources in the article. Also the change to make the individual country headers into level 3/4 headers should be reverted—it creates way too many sections in the TOC. We should be actively trying to reduce the amount of sections in this article and splitting off whatever we can summary-style into child articles. As for the "disaster" comment, which is attributable to my comment two years ago, I still think this article needs a lot of love to have the clarity that would make it a useful read. czar⨹12:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Please fix this page
The whole article is in a terrible state. It is full of "citation needed", "clarification needed", "who", "why", to the point that it is very difficult to be read. If citations can't be found, than the text must be removed. Someone needs to go through the article line by line and fix it. A major rewrite may be needed.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DD22 (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on History of feminism which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
http://we-change.org/spip.php?article18
Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
Cyberbot II has detected links on History of feminism which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
http://we-change.org/spip.php?article18
Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on History of feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to one external link on History of feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on History of feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on History of feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I noticed there was a citation needed for the influence of Rosie the Riveter on women in the 1940s. I happened to visit the Rosie the riveter museum in Richmond recently, which has lots of info about the Kaiser Permanente shipyards there and the Rosie the Riveter icon/ ad campaign that was run to recruit more women to build ships in said shipyards. I'm not sure exactly how to connect this source with the item that needs citation, but I figured posting the link to the museum's web page here: https://www.nps.gov/rori/index.htm. Ignus3 (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Placement of "global feminism" subsection
(in reference to its current location at 4.9.2 in the TOC)
This jumped out at me, as the article has been progressing steadily forward in time then suddenly reverts to the early 19th century. Because this section covers a broad range of years, I think it might make more sense at the beginning or the end. Regardless, it does not seem to fit in as a subcategory of third wave feminism, as it references dates well outside the established range of years that third wave feminism is stated to encompass. Ignus3 (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
I think the article could well have a section on History of feminism/Archive 3#Global feminism, but I'm not sure the long intro paragraph currently present there which only discusses United Nations conferences belongs there in its present form.
The former initial sentence of that section (here) introduced UN conferences in 1946 and 1948, stating: "Following World War II, the United Nations (UN) extended feminism's global reach." Besides being unsourced (as is much of the introductory paragraph), this sentence is unwarranted, and appears to be prohibited original research. Beauvoir's "The Second Sex" wasn't published until 1949 (not until 1953 in English, in a very poor translation) so it's highly doubtful the UN was doing anything like "extending feminism" in 1946 or 1948. I've removed the sentence.
But that still leaves the rest of the introductory paragraph, which is all about UN conferences on women in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. By the mid-1970s, the second wave was mature in the U.S., Canada, and Britain, and there was a parallel wave in France; feminism was starting to make inroads internationally. UN conferences from that period played their part, and to make it more appropriately relevant, I've topped it with a new section header about "UN conferences on women". But UN conferences on women aren't the only thing history has to say about global feminism, and this section should be expanded to reflect the wider scope of this subtopic. The article section Transnational feminism#Globalization, while not complete, has some ideas about this. Mathglot (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
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. Peer reviewers: Kamccoy1.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 4 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MadelineLC. Peer reviewers: Unreliable Information.
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): Velocirachael.
Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Madison.palos (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Taylorjones423.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Kamccoy1.