Talk:New feminism/Archive 1

Archive 1

TotallyDisputed template

The following sentence is included in this article: 'Being a woman means being a mother.' This is one instance of a thematic issue throughout the article. This article fails NPOV in the way that it is written. Opinions are presented as fact. Opinions must be identified as such and sourced to the individuals and groups that espouse them. That said, this article could be brought up to NPOV standards with some effort. Joie de Vivre 21:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Added many citations. Most of the article is overarching themes and overlaps so I was hesitant to over-cite. Also, repeating, "New Feminists believe" every sentence (like before 'Being a woman means being a mother.')seemed very repitive and unnecessary when comparing the article to how others were structured. Please identify the places that still need referenced or reworded and I'll be happy to adjust them.(Silabella 00:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

Non-critical statements in Criticism section

This was weeded from the Criticism section (These are not criticism). They should not simply be added as a "counter-criticism" section: an encyclopedia article is not a debate. These statements should be worked into the article but NOT as "responses" to critics. The article stands on its own, let the criticism stand on its own. Joie de Vivre 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Catholic New Feminists maintain that a focus on "power" illustrates the problem contemporary society has with "obedience" as well as their misunderstanding of authority in the Church. Morality is not a democracy, and only those metaphysically changed by the power of the Holy Spirit in ordination as leaders to the Church have the power to define doctrine on faith and morals. This necessarily precludes the Ordination of women. The incorporation of feminine perspectives into the discussion of the Magisterium has been an increasingly productive , "in-progress" enterprise over the past few decades. Moreover, arguments against many aspects of Old Feminism had been argued decades before John Paul II encouraged a development of the movement.

In response to critisms concerning abortion and contraception, New Feminists maintain that the "sexual freedom" espoused by Old Feminists leads to a dehumanizing pursuit of a distorted masculine dispensation that leads to the denigration of family values. New Feminists assert that their views regarding these sexual issues stem from their value of human life, male and female. Proponents also maintain that New Feminism is not biological determinism; other contemporary difference feminists (like Carol Gilligan) do not argue that acknowleding difference automatically leads to a deterministic stance. Both theories of difference, polarity and integral complementarity assert the individual’s personal gifts and choices are of paramount value as to determining their places in life, while recognizing that gender traits are important inclinations. Arguing that women are generally smaller than men, for example, is not disproven by the fact that that some men are smaller than individual women.

• Added citations and references to criticisms. If it needs more please indicate the places and I'll be happy to supply them.(Silabella 00:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC))

Dichotomization of viewpoints

The opening sentence wrongly creates the impression that New Feminism is the reaction to the other form of feminism. While it is true that the former is reactionary, it is not true that that other form of feminism absolutely adheres to the doctrine which proclaims "the superiority of women over men." This is a grossly misconstrued description of what feminist thought is and consists of, as there is a vast variety of views. Some may well indeed make the assertion that the female is a superior being to the male, but others do not. That is exactly the point. The opening sentence is factually inaccurate as it wrongly dichotomizes two views which are not actually two views. It could instead perhaps be stated that "New feminism is a form of Difference feminism which emphasizes a belief in an integral complementarity of men and women, rather than idea that the women and men are entirely equal beings." This is rough, but it avoids the charge I have made.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.138.242.181 (talk • contribs) 12:16, June 10, 2007 (UTC).

That's a very good point about overgeneralization although, read correctly, the first statement is not making a claim about all feminisms. Rather, the first sentence was meant to distinguish "New Feminism" from the other versions of "Difference Feminism" which do advocate either the superiority of women over men(Reverse Gender Polarity) or the superiority of men over women (Gender Polarity). Changing the sentence to read "entirely equal beings" itself is a not only a very biased statement, it is not the position of New Feminism nor cannot be fulfilled in any feminism. Even in "Equality" feminisms, adherents do not admit that they are "entirely equal" because there are always small physical caveats in regards to biology. A man, for example, is not "equally capable" of giving birth to a child (doesn't have a womb) as a woman, although all gender configurations for "Equality" feminisms are still equal of worth. I have adjusted it to specify more clearly the comparison to Difference Feminisms only. Thanks for pointing out how that can be misinterpreted! (Silabella 16:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

Re-name

It seems to me that the sources that refer to this as a new feminism are using new as an adjective and not "new feminism" as a proper noun. New just means recent and in ten years people may talk about a new feminism in the third world, or a new feminism among marxists, or whatever. Calling this "New fminism" suggests that this is the only new form of feminism which is patently false. I sugges the article be renamed "Catholic Feminism" or something more specific and appropriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Name

This article is describing what Pope John Paul II called "new feminism" it can't be renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.141.90 (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Theory

The entire theory section is POV. It's very pro-Catholic and antifeminist. It needs to be completely rewritten. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I agree! And, I might add, it says nothing of third gender, (those born with ambiguous genitallia) persons who may not consider themselves "aberrant" to further quote Pope John Paul II!) And it pressuposes that everything that falls outside of a neatly designed dichotomy of Male and Female is somehow failing to be what it is supposed to be. This is simplification of the human condition, and it reminds me a little of The movie: THE STEPPFORD WIFES!68.12.158.52 (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Question: even if some people are born with ambiguous genitalia, does that really make them a different gender? I mean gender, as a theory, imnvolves more than just physical differences. That is sex, male and female. Gender includes sex, but also includes psychological, emotional, and spiritual differences. There are many theories on gender & how extensive it is or isn't. The idea of a new feminism as promoted by John Paul II is based on the theory of sexual complimentarity and gender difference as put forth in his Theology of the Body, and so must be viewed as such. It is a theory that acknowledges our differences as men and women, but views these differences as complimentary and do not negate our equality as human beings. New feminism is by no means the same thing as feminism as a movement. This article is explaining this "new feminism" for what it is, including its ideas and beliefs. These ideas and beliefs are very Catholic. They are also very contrary to the ideas of other groups that claim the title of feminism. But that is what it is. It seems like most of the people who are complaining about this article really have a problem with new feminism, not the article, and so should take their complaints elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.244.103.81 (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Title of Article should be changed

This article has nothing to do with new feminism. The title of the article should be changed to "Conservitive Femminism" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.199.140 (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. This article should be renamed "Conservative Catholic essentialist gender politics,' as there is no engagement with any mainstream feminist perspective. Nor is it "Catholic feminism,' given that most Catholic feminists are critical of Vatican patriarchy Calibanu (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)User Calibanu Calibanu (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dubious whether 4th wave of feminism exists

The Proponents section ends with a mention of a fourth wave of feminism, but I don't see one existing. Some people seem to have added the term as a moniker for what they're doing but I don't see a separate feminist ideology, strategy, or group identity as I do for the other three, largely generational. If we start naming new waves every couple of years or so the concept of wave will quickly become meaningless. I think I should remove that sentence. I'm not questioning whether New Feminism exists and is so named, but whether the 4th wave exists. Thoughts? Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. The sentence is out. Instead, the fourth wave is mentioned, with references, in another article. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1