Feminism

{{Skip to bottom}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Round in circles|search=yes}}
{{Not a forum|Feminism}} {{Article history
|action1=GAN
|action1date=2007-02-10
|action1link=Talk:Feminism/Archive 8#GA failed
|action1result=failed
|action1oldid=107012264

|action2=GAN
|action2date=2007-08-19
|action2link=Talk:Feminism/Archive 10#GA fail
|action2result=failed
|action2oldid=152042544

|action3=PR
|action3date=18:13, 18 June 2008
|action3link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Feminism/archive1
|action3result=reviewed
|action3oldid=219506198

|action4=GAN
|action4date=10:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
|action4link=Talk:Feminism/GA1
|action4result=listed
|action4oldid=464407939

|currentstatus=GA
|topic=socsci
{{To do|1}}
{{pp-move-indef}}
{{Consensus|'''By [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]], [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|guideline]], or [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policy]]'''&lt;&gt;&lt;&gt;'''Criticism about feminism is already covered with appropriate [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight|weight]] and [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|sourcing]].''' If you seek coverage beyond what you see, consider whether you are proposing content that is more suitable for other articles or for a non-[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Our_projects Wikimedia] website. If a criticism you wish to add lacks an adequate source, please find one first. &lt;&gt;'''Edits for other pages may be offered there, not here.''' Examples include content for specialized articles and Wikipedia policies, which have their own pages and their own talk pages. This is only an introductory article on feminism. To find specialized subarticles within feminism, please click on links in the [[feminism]] article, including in any sidebar. &lt;&gt;'''Feminism is inherently one-sided.''' Feminism is a critique of society. That means there is a disagreement between feminism and society. In that case, generally, if society is neutral, feminism is not. Wikipedia requires [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality]], but that applies to Wikipedia articles, not to feminism itself, nor to any source. As long as the article is neutral in how it presents its general subject, Wikipedia's requirement for neutrality is fulfilled. &lt;&gt;'''This article does not cover what feminism does not cover.''' If there are few feminist disagreements in a given society, feminism may have nothing to say about many subjects in that society. Wikipedia reports on feminism in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable]] sources. &lt;&gt;'''Consistency with a particular political message is not this article's purpose.''' This article represents many sources with appropriate [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight|balance]]. While mainstream feminism is emphasized, other anches of feminism are also covered. &lt;&gt;'''The content of this article meets [[Wikipedia:GACR|Wikipedia's Good Article Criteria]].''' Content being added to this article must conform to the community's quality standards for [[Wikipedia:GACR|&quot;Good Articles&quot;]]. Material not meeting these criteria should be removed and rewritten appropriately to fit them.}}
{{Topic|Feminism|talk=y}}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=30|dounreplied=yes}}

User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=/Archive index

|mask=/Archive

|leading_zeros=0

|indexhere=yes

User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader =

aan

|maxarchivesize = 200K

|counter = 21

|minthreadsleft = 5

|algo = old(30d)

|archive = Talk:Feminism/Archive %(counter)d

dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = assignments = Aweeder13 |term=Spring 2017

Proposed merge with [[Feminist movement]]

Feminist movement should just redirect to feminism, unless the body of feminist movement can be expanded in such a way as to not almost completely overlap with the content of the article feminism. Presently the article feminist movement seems to be a loose collection of unrelated contemporary... concepts, movements... nebulous feminism related things? Suffice it to say that if it hadn't been around since 2014 I would A10 it. Ethanpet11320:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"Here's a thought. Why not include Feminist Movement as a sub category, describing the most important ones, like what started feminism, which ones caused the most change, and which ones have changed what it means."

-anonymous

I think that the "feminist movement" is different than the philosophy of feminism. So I don't really support merging. I think that it could be a sub section of feminism. The movement part should focus on ACTIONS taken.--Maberry --Sue Maberry 18:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Maberry. The feminist movement goes far beyond the simple definition of "feminism". I believe feminism should stay as it's own page. As the term has had so much growth and focus over the past years, it is important to stay on top of what the term is believed to mean, in the now. The feminist movement, on the other hand, holds its own purpose. The movement stands in order to push change and development in the female role. A separate page for the "feminist movement" is vital, as individuals involved with the movement will have a deeper connection and understanding, in which they can contribute their thoughts there. I don't believe the original definition of a word should be persuaded by its movement. Mentions of it are okay, of course.

Comment

: Isn't Feminism a broader topic than that of feminist movement? If we really need to merge/redirect, why not feminist movement merging/redirecting to feminism?--白目金百利 Billionaire Tycoon 19:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Feminism is the concept of equality. Feminist Movement are the practices that have taken place in the pursuit of feminism. Movements for equality were already happening before the term feminism. Now we use feminism to describe the movements as feminist. —nbsp;Preceding ) 20:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Feminist movement should be redirect to feminism. There should also be a merging of the 2. —nbsp;Preceding ) 22:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

See Civil and political rights (with its redirect Civil rights) and compare and contrast with Civil rights movement. There are good reasons why they are and should be separate articles. If you don't understand this, perhaps Wikipedia is not for you. General Ization23:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

"'Oposse merge"' A movement/several movements is not the same thing as the philosphy and thought process.x ★Trekker 14:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment

Are the two articles written distinctly, such that one is about a philosophy, the other about a political movement? I'm not seeing quite that they are, which might warrant either a merge or a transfer of some content. Though I don't envy such tasks. A145GI15I9501:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

As others have written: an ideology and a movement are not the same thing. One can even exist without the other on a given issue. If the present articles don't reflect that, the way forward is to differentiate them, unenviable though it might be. But if many people do it bit by bit… 15:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Root definition of feminism

tq2|"'Feminism"' is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the genders.Cite book |last=Hawkesworth | first=Mary E.|title=Globalization and Feminist Activism |year=2006|publisher=Rowman Littlefield |pages=25–27 |isbn=9780742537835Cite book |last=Beasley |first=Chris |title=What is Feminism? |year=1999|publisher=SAGE |location=New York |pages=3–11 |isbn=9780761963356https://en.unesco.org/news/feminist-advertising-agency-tackling-gender-stereotypes-france Feminist Advertising Agency is tackling Gender Stereotypes in France. UNESCO. 25 October 2018 This includes fighting gender stereotypes and seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to those for men.

In checking the sources used in this version of the lead, I am having trouble clearly tying what part of these references indicate the "common goal" part of this definition and the second line.

Hawkesworth pp.25-27 goes through a number of definitions from other authors, and doesn't clearly settle on a concise definition in this page range. I'll also note that the author does have an article at Mary Hawkesworth, but based on the state of it may not be the best, authoritative voice on this.

Beasley pp.3-11 Seems to primarily define feminism as a reaction to misogyny, but I don't see any passage that concisely connects to the definition we use. Chris Beasley is a lecturer at University of Adelaide, with no Wikipedia article, and the book is from 1999, so again may not be a good, current authority.

UNESCO source is about a strategy employed by an advertising agency; and UNESCO’s Director for Priority Gender Equality, Ms Saniye Gülser Corat is quoted saying" it is crucial to identify and challenge gender stereotypes in advertising to promote women’s empowerment and gender equality". Its not clear that this quote is a definition of feminism "itself"; or more broadly, it doesn't seem like this press release is focused on providing such a definition.

If these sources are to be kept, I think we need to add |quote= to the citation templates and make them connect more directly. Otherwise, it might be better to find more authoritative and concise sources for this main definition. We also need balancing, critical views to incorporate into the definition. -- Netoholic00:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

x Netoholic there's more than just the lead and the lead does not require sources unless the subject/definition is controversial. Is there something controversial about the current definition? If so what do you suggest to change it to? Pokerplayer51300:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Pokerplayer513 These sources "are" given for the lead sentence though. I have no preconceived definition, I just know these sources as I read them don't lead to the current wording. I'd appreciate it if you'd leave the inline tag in place, so we can draw attention to this discussion for the time being. -- Netoholic00:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

x Netoholic I removed the UNESCO citation. It seemed totally irrelevant. I'd remove the other sources because I think the definition follows from the body, but I haven't read both of them and I can't attest to their accuracy. You can remove them if you don't think they fit. As for the inline tag, if someone has a issue with the definition they can go to the talk page and then discuss here. It doesn't seem like a good idea to put that tag on something not controversial without a solution in mind. Pokerplayer51301:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Pokerplayer513 Well "controversial" may be somewhat of an exaggeration of the severity of it, but I "did" read the sources and put my findings above. An inline cleanup tag is appropriate for this, and necessary if something fails verification (V is a core policy). I'm restoring the tag to draw attention to this discussion. -- Netoholic01:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The lede is sourced on the body of the page. This is why ledes generally don't need citations. Do you think the text of the page supports the text of the lede? Parabolist01:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

x Netoholic, I added the dictionary definition for verification Pokerplayer51301:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Pokerplayer513 Wikipedia does not typically use dictionaries as sources. You also left in the other sources which STILL are a V issue... yet again removed the inline tag meant to bring attention to concerns. So far, your participation here has been unhelpful, and infuriating because we've not agreed that the problem is solved, so removal of the tag is distuptive per WTRMT. Why do you keep removing it while discussion is on-going? -- Netoholic01:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Parabolist I understand that they don't "typically" need citations... but if there are citations, as in this case, they should at least verify the content they are used as references for. These citations are only present accompanying the lead sentence. The article doesn't have an etymology or definitions sections to draw from. My read from the article is that the main concern of feminism is in relation to women's issues. If the movement were about broad gender equality (not in reference to women's or men's perspectives) as stated in the lead sentence, why are there no sections about gender inequalities like suicide rates, workplace death and injury, gender disparity in professions like teaching and nursing, parental sole custody disparities, and other issues that are raised by men? Is there feminist literature which advocates for gender equality on these issues? If so, then they aren't present in the article, which leads to the fairly common conclusion that feminism is primarily about gender equality in "some" areas of interest to women, but not gender equality in "all" areas. -- Netoholic01:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

All feminist literature is about gender equality, what are you on about? That's the whole point. This all feels incredibly POINTy, given everything else you've been involved in this month. Parabolist06:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That's incredibly dismissive. I answered your question and gave a list of specific gender inequalities that aren't mentioned in this article. Is trying to cast aspersions against me personally a way to avoid discussing this? If feminism is about achieving gender equality in all areas, then why are the areas I mentioned not covered here? If some areas of known gender inequality aren't covered here, the lead cannot say or imply feminism is in pursuit of full gender equality... and the lead should reflect that only some areas of inequality are of concern to feminism. -- Netoholic07:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

What do the sources say? This is pretty close to the definition offered by https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/03/16/feminism-glossary-lexicon-language/99120600/ Merriam Webster, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/feminism Cambridge, and https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism Britannica. Feminism is https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-philosophy/WhatFemi particularly concerned with addressing sexism and misogyny and the rights of women, and feminism as a movement typically concerns women's equality. So the current definition might be incomplete, but it is verifiable. The lead should follow the sources rather than adhering to any particular editor's personal views on what kinds of gender inequality are missing from contemporary feminism, but yes, there is a long-standing feminist literature that https://books.google.com/books?id=MgHEBAAAQBAJlpg=PP1pg=PR13v=onepageqf=false addresses men and masculinity, which might be worth covering here. Nblund "'Nblund"' 16:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

"'edit"': I think SV's edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminismdiff=897140397oldid=897138708 here addresses the potential concerns about incompleteness.Nblund "'Nblund"' 16:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Modern feminism does indeed discuss issues like male suicide and mental health and father's rights. These are seen as issues that stem from patriarchy (given a section in the article) and a fixed view of masculinity (given a paragraph in the article). They are topics that are more recent (as they reflect recent suicide and mental health epidemics), whereas the article has to cover lots of different time periods with due weight. But I would support expansion of these sections (I'm shocked that patriarchy is discussed in such little depth) and think there are other sections which have undue weight (theology, architecture and music). — "'Bilorv"' (he/him) 20:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but Beasley's "What is Feminism?" has https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=17731918716416299960as_sdt=5,38sciodt=0,38hl=en more than 500 citations on Google Scholar and is put out by a major academic publisher, so I think it's probably a good source in general. —Sangdeboeuf05:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Late as well, but just to dot an i and cross a t: regarding Parabolist's assertion that "All feminist literature is about gender equality", Netoholic's reply was accurate and to the point. Not only that, but Parabolist's original comment is incorrect: "'not"' all feminist literature is about gender equality. For example, radical feminism is not, and that's a fundamental distinction between it and liberal feminism. Neither is separatist feminism; and there are others. Mathglot07:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding boys and men to [[Template talk:Feminism sidebar]]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Template talk:Feminism sidebarAdding boys and men to the template. A permalink for it is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Feminism_sidebaroldid=897151235Adding_boys_and_men_to_the_template here. Flyer22 Reborn03:34, 15 May 2019 (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:

Womanpower logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot22:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Minor note re: WP:ENGVAR

Due to a minor https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminismoffset=20190627174716limit=2action=history kerfluffle I've looked through the history of this page, back to 2001. (!) While I "am" an Use Canadian English template from top of page as misleading and unhelpful, and especially given the universality of the topic. Shenme20:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Shenme's comments. Mathglot05:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Carceral feminism (version 2) listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]

17:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)