Talk:List of Jewish feminists

Needs Lacks indication of religious observance (Judaism) vs. secular/assimilated/non-observant

This list lacks any indication of whether the woman is "Jewish" in the sense of religious adherence to the halachic practice of Orthodox or Haredi Judaism, or one of Judaism's other branches, or secular/assimilated but considered "Jewish" through birth, upbringing, or self-identification. The concept of "Jewish feminism" relates to the religion Judaism: the place of women within it, restrictions and challenges to these, etc. Otherwise, a secular Jewish-identified woman's feminism is likely to involve other spheres than the religious. I suggest the list be expanded, e.g. in chart format with a column to indicate with which stream of Judaism, if any, she affiliates. One limitation is the difficulty or impossibility of verifying this information if lacking a reliable source. So my suggestion is to revise the list with section headings by religious affiliation (with supporting referenced citation and including "unknown"), and a national flag to identify the subject's country of residence. Subsequent edits can move subjects from "unknown" to the proper heading if verifiable information becomes available. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You are saying that this list fails to distinguish between observant Jews and nonobservant Jews. Why is this distinction important? And what of those who are semi-observant? Are we going to have a sliding scale on observance? How finely should we subdivide Jewish people by level of observance? If warranted, commentary on this can be found at individual biographical articles, but I fail to see the possibility for indications of that nature in this list. I'm sorry for being so negative about your suggestion, and possibly I am not understanding your suggestion or possibly I am failing to see its potential. Bus stop (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

What is this list's value, with its conflation of all women who are "Jewish" by any and all criteria? I'll reply to your several points:

• "Why is this distinction important?" Women within halachic Judaism engage with a highly patriarchial system maintaining restrictions on their (and dictating men's) participation in prayer, ritual observance, etc. Secular (or Reform) women are more likely to be involved in other mainstream or intersectional feminist issues while avoiding the religious sphere. Moreover, there's a difference between Israel where there's no "separation of Church and State" and some halachic rules are imposed on the entire Jewish population (e.g. divorce, conversion, religious political parties barring their women candidates from national-level office), and the more flexible streams elsewhere.
• "...a sliding scale..." / "the possibility for indications of that nature in this list" I noted two possible formats in my remarks: chart form vs. section headings, plus the use of "unknown" for whom the denomination isn't verified. This might also spark improving the individual articles to clarify this point.

Perhaps the problem lies in the ambiguous title "Jewish feminists," and a subset could be indicated for "Feminists within Judaism". As an interim treatment, I suggest adding a sentence at the top of the page to explain that this list includes both observant (Judaic) and non-practicing Jews. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

There are two settings—the secular setting and the religious setting, and there are two types of "Jewish feminists"—one type operates in the secular setting and the other in the religious setting. A tenuous thread connects the two. The activities are called "feminist" in both settings. But the concerns of the secular setting are different from the concerns of the religious setting. I think the present title is acceptable. You suggested adding a sentence at the top of the page. I think it should read "This article includes both observant and nonobservant Jews." Bus stop (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

(Note: comment heading redacted for POV per this discussion) I retract my earlier remarks supporting an individual designation of level-of-observance in favor of the general sentence. I would, though, suggest a wording less dichotomous and will edit accordingly. Also note the recent edits adding nationality of subjects outside the USA, to give visual information at a glance. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You wrote "The individual's identification on the spectrum of religious observance is found on each page." But is it? Does each article indicate level of observance or nonobservance? And shouldn't nonobservance be mentioned? Assuming for the moment that each biographical article indicated this sort of information, shouldn't that sentence read "The individual's identification on the spectrum of religious observance or nonobservance is found on each page"? Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Got it. More reasonable to state thusly: See the individual's page regarding their identification on the spectrum of religious observance or nonobservance. Am doing that edit now, provisionally. Like? -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Nationality indicated for those outside the USA

To mark International Women's Day, 8 March 2017, I added a national flag icon for members of the list active outside the USA. This provides visual information to an otherwise undistinguished alphabetical list including both well-known and lesser-known feminists. The omission of the US flag is to improve clarity. Questions may be directed to me at my User talk page. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)