Feminism/Archive 5

{{talkarchive}}

Subtypes of Feminism

The article "Feminazi" is linked under the label "feminazism" in the subtypes section of the article.

I am not familiar with the feminist scene, but this seems to me that this is not a real faction of the feminist movement.

I propose someone deletes it - I won't do it myself, since I'm not sure about it.

Another possible solution is to add clarification, either in the article or in the discussion page. --

Well, actually, if you read feminazism, there is a group of women using the label for themselves, so I think it's appropriate to keep it on this list. Mamawrites10:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no "feminazi" movement, group, or ideology (to my knowledge, at least); the article just mentions that some women are reclaiming the epithet. It's not correct to list it under subtypes. Dysprosia10:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you could certainly "'be bold"' and take it off the list of subtypes... but did you read the http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=feminazis community info on the feminazis livejournal community? That's a lot of members who have labelled themselves a community, even if it's probably not enough members to be considered a "bona fide" movement. I don't feel strongly either way, which is why I was inclined to caution and preserving the status quo, but I wouldn't revert you if you feel that including it in the list is misleading. Mamawrites17:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but then we have to concern ourselves of verifiability and whether a livejournal community is enough corroboration/sources etc. to be called a "bona fide" movement (I would argue it's not really about the numbers). If there is more concrete evidence to support the existence of a movement, then I may consider reverting myself, though. Dysprosia03:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"'Do not delete or remove"' the feminazism article. Whether or not this group actually exists, this term is certianly real in that it is in use as a criticism/parody of feminism. The fact that there are feminists who are trying to "reclaim" the term is indicative of this and also should be mentioned in the article. Savidan20:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

&quot;Effect on heterosexual relationships&quot; section

Is a quotation from "The Godfather" really the best way to illustrate a point about feminism? Catamorphism02:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Hardly. I've removed it (be bold, in future!). Dysprosia02:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I just didn't want to get into another edit war :-) Catamorphism02:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I authored the paragraph with the Godfather quote. I understand your removing it, but I hope that alternative I proposed will be accepted. (I edited the article, but the change doesn't seem to have taken effect.) I believe it more fully explains the concept.

Your anecdote isn't appropriate for an encyclopedic article, and that's presumably why someone reverted it. There is no factual basis for the statement "few women seem attracted to men who engage in these activities to the detriment of their careers." Please review the Wikipedia editing guidelines (and sign your comments). Catamorphism20:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not my anecdote. It is a widespread opinion held by 90% of men. The opinion is represented by anecdotal evidence. For some propositions, there are no authorities to cite. I agree, for the most part, with your revision of my comments. However your deletion of my explanation of the viewpoint seems to have been done for reasons other than your interest in the page's integrity. There are assertions in this article with flimsy or no substantiation that somehow escape your scrutiny.

Nathaniel

In addition to your deletion of my comments, I don't like your santization of my statements. Your editing reflects an unwillingness to accept information and a bias against the ideas behind them. Wouldn't it be appropriate for the article on feminism to be influenced by people other than lesbians from Berkeley? Nathaniel

Since I am not a lesbian from Berkeley, I do not understand your point. As to your claim that 90% of men (do you mean worldwide, in the US, or UK? Is it from a stratified sample? Random sample? What is the significance?) hold this opinion, what is your source? Do not violate our policies, Wikipedia: No original research and Wikipedia: Cite sources. Slrubenstein 124; 91;91;User talk:Slrubenstein124;Talk 20:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Cat: Explain to me the following: why haven't you deleted the comments in the paragraph above mine for a lack of substantiation?

Women can now avail themselves more to new opportunities, but some have suffered with the demands of trying to live up to the so-called "superwomen" identity, and have struggled to 'have it all', i.e. manage to happily balance a career and family. In response to the family issue, many socialist feminists blame this on the lack of state-provided child-care facilities. Others have advocated instead that the onus of child-care not rest solely on the female, but rather that men partake in the responsibility of managing family matters.

Now compare that paragraph to my proposed paragraph. Tell me why the first paragraph's assertions are not in need of deletion, and why mine are.

Some men counter that this expectation is unrealistic, claiming a deemphasis on breadwinning would be injurious to their ability to attract mates; while many women have the choice to try to "have it all", they claim that societal expectations placed on men preclude them from devoting themselves further to domestic responsibilities. Proponents of this position cite the following anectodal observation: While men are derided for not devoting enough time to childrearing and domestic tasks, few women seem attracted to men who engage in these activities to the detriment of their careers.

The fact that I cite anecdotal evidence does not detract from its relevance or strength as an authority. As I mention above, some claims cannot be substantiated and it seems you are very selective about which claims you require an authority for.

An encyclopedia does not and should not contain anecdotal evidence for a source. All sources must be available and referenced. Dysprosia21:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Fair enough. Where is the substantiation for the paragraph that escaped your scrutiny and why haven't you deleted it? Because it contains facts more in line with your opinion? Why? Nathaniel

Nathaniel, we should put in more sources, that is true. Nevertheless, your "anecdote" is not an anecdote, it is not "anecdotal evidence" (look up the word anecdote in the dictionary). If you have a journal article or book you can cite as a source, by all means do so. Slrubenstein 124; 91;91;User talk:Slrubenstein124;Talk 21:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC) SLrubenstein: Thank you for tacitly acknowledging that the paragraph left untouched does not have substantiation. My point is that this claim for "substantiation" has been selectively applied to a block of text with which the original editor did not agree. Since you acknowledge the lack of substantiation in the untouched paragraph, I hope you will be goodly enough to delete or alter it (and every other wikipedia article!) Secondly, I quote an anecdotal observation. I know what an anecdote is and do not need to look it up in a dictionary. But, to humor you, "Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis: “There are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the oleander stems” www.dictionary.com. The "anecdotal observation" I cite to is that, in spite of women deriding men for not contributing to chores and childrearing, that they are ultimately concerned with a man's economic prospects. This is an assertion based on observation.., and so it is anecdotal.

Nathaniel: If you consider any of the specific sentences in the paragraph you cited to be anecdotes that can't be backed up with facts, please say which ones. I also don't understand your comment about "lesbians from Berkeley". Who are you talking about? Catamorphism21:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Cat: 1. I apologize for any confusion that may have been caused by my lesbian remak. I was referring to your info page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Catamorphism. I assumed you were a lesbian based on your interest in "queer issues", perhaps this was an erroneous assumption. 2. You want me to quote sentences in the paragraph left untouched that "that can't be backed up with facts" yet you require me to cite specific sources to back up my assertions. You are applying a higher burden to me, which reflects your disdain for my comments. Quoting from the untouched paragraph:

"Women can now avail themselves more to new opportunities, but some have suffered with the demands of trying to live up to the so-called "superwomen" identity, and have struggled to 'have it all', i.e. manage to happily balance a career and family." Women have "suffered the demands" to live up to the so-called supewoman? However true this might be, no authority for this proposition was cited. Here is my statement: "While men are derided for not devoting enough time to childrearing and domestic tasks, few women seem attracted to men who engage in these activities to the detriment of their careers." The fact that men are derided for neglect of domestic tasks so evident it even appears in the untouched paragraph you love so much! "Others have advocated instead that the onus of child-care not rest solely on the female, but rather that men partake in the responsibility of managing family matters." My second proposition, that women are unattracted to men who do not place a high value on economic success is so universally accepted to be obvious beyond the need for citation. You can even find it in Kanye West's music: "Now I ain't sayin she's a golddigger, but she ain't fuckin with no broke niggers." 3. Your editing my phraseology is also uncalled for. You seek to obfuscate my assertion by indirect language. "they claim that societal factors contribute negatively to the possibility of men devoting themselves further to domestic responsibilities." Contribute negatively? That is much less forward than my initial assertion, that men don't have the option to deemphasize work.

I know you are placing me to a higher burden because you don't like what I'm saying. But it is everybit as obvious as the stuff in the paragraph above mine, and I will find substantiation when I have time.

Since you don't even know what my gender is, it's perhaps uncalled-for to assume that I'm a lesbian. However, it makes more sense than taking a pop song to be an authoritative source. Since you don't seem to understand the concept of NPOV or the idea of "no original research", I'm through arguing this point with you. I note that most other editors won't take "but other parts of this article are wrong" as proof that your edits are right, either. When you become interested in contributing to an encyclopedia rather than advocating your own point of view, feel free to come back here. Catamorphism00:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Cat: It's easy to say you're "through with this discussion" and cite some pretext for ending it. The fact remains that you are unable to justify your deletion and modification of my comments. You have take on the responsibility to defend your actions. Why don't you address my assertions? (I addressed yours in citing a specific sentence.)

1. The paragraph left untouched has no more substantiation than mine.

2. The fact that you deleted my comments reveal that you're selectively applying your zeal for substantiation.

3. The claims in my paragraph are no less factually-based than in the untouched article.

4. You were in no position to edit the grammar or arrangement of thoughts in my post.

P.S. I cite to Kanye West to show that the proposition needs no substantiation.

Nathaniel

Nattiekins: Please review the guidelines for posting on Wikipedia. Any user can edit the grammar or arrangement of thoughts, or any other aspect, of any text in any article. If you find that any part of this article lacks substantiation, you can edit it to reflect that -- but you may find your edits will be reverted if you go against the spirit of Wikipedia, which I once again recommend you familiarize with. Also, Citing the song "Puff the Magic Dragon" doesn't prove that Puff, the magic dragon, lives by the sea and frolics in the autumn mist in a land called Hannalee. Catamorphism03:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Cat: I have amended the article. I have posted a link of a commentator substantiating my claim. By following the link, you can listen to a radio program. The substantiation is about midway in the broadcast. Before you edit it, please tell me why, specifically you changed anything.

Not sure how to cite that correctly. Anyone? -- 03:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I could do it in legal (blue book) style, but I think that might be overkill. Yours seems appropriate. Nathaniel

Catamorphism: If you are not a lesbian from Berkeley, how do you explain the following page? http://queer.berkeley.edu/profile/displayInfo.php3?userid=897.

The person's name is Kirsten Chevalier, the person's screen name is catamorphism, and the page is about queers at berkeley. I retract my apology for causing confusion. Nathaniel

I'm not sure what makes you think that someone who is queer is necessarily a lesbian. There are several types of queer people who are not lesbian: gay men, bisexual men and women, and genderqueer people, to name a few. I'm also not sure what anybody's sexual orientation has to do with this article. Catamorphism07:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Sexual orientation is relevant because the part of the article we edited was "Effect on Heterosexual relationships." You didn't seem to want information about the heterosexual man's response to the issue, and you edited this paragraph more severely than the other ones where this information was absent.

Do you presume to speak for all heterosexual men? (Besides, as far as you know, I am a heterosexual man -- or a bisexual man, a bisexual woman, or an intersexed asexual.) I don't want text that's written in a POV fashion in this article. Catamorphism08:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no POV, certainly no more than there is in any other part of this article. Of course, this is an article on social issues. Whether it is apparent in the author's writing or not, we are presenting points of view on feminism's "effects on heterosexual relationships." When I came across this article, I saw several arguments attributed to feminists arguing from the woman's perspective. I saw none considering the other half of a heterosexual relationship---men. So no, I don't speak for all heterosexual men, but neither will I be bullied into watching this article be so one-sided. Certainly, if you object to my amendments on the ground of POV, I think the following should be deleted: "Women can now avail themselves more to new opportunities, but some have suffered with the demands of trying to live up to the so-called "superwomen" identity, and have struggled to 'have it all', i.e. manage to happily balance a career and family." Of course, it would be silly to delete this because it describes a cultural phenomenon. (although whether the women should be described as "suffering" seems dubious. Nathaniel

Nathanial: Cat's identity is irrelevant. His or her comments are based solely on Wikipedia policies, not his or her own personal beliefs. I have already asked you to consult those policies; now I ask you again. As for "anecdotal evidence" it is now crystal clear that you do not know what this phrase means; your explanation as to why your comment is "anecdotal evidence" proves that you do not know what it means. In any event, you are still violating our policies. I do not care what you believe, and I do not care what your additions are claiming. I do care that you follow policy. Slrubenstein 124; 91;91;User talk:Slrubenstein124;Talk 14:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Y'all keep saying I violate the policies, and you state the rules. That is not enough, you need to show how the facts in the current situation violate the policies. Apply the rules to the facts. Additionally, if you have a problem with my use of the word "anecdotal," you should start by addressing my defense of it, above. The mere recitation of rules and gainsaying gives you an aura of authoritativeness, but it does little to convince. Catamoprhosis systematically removes edits containing information on the male perspective. (Look through this entire page for evidence of it.)

Her identity becomes relevant because it bears directly on the agenda she carries to this process; her recitation of rules and selective enforcement of the policies does little to cloak this. Nathaniel

Nathaniel, let me try to walk you through it one step at a time. I am quoting what I take to be a fairly complete expression of your position (if I am missing something, please let me know).

But, to humor you, "Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis: “There are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the oleander stems” www.dictionary.com. The "anecdotal observation" I cite to is that, in spite of women deriding men for not contributing to chores and childrearing, that they are ultimately concerned with a man's economic prospects. This is an assertion based on observation.., and so it is anecdotal.

Now, let us look at this closely.

“There are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the oleander stems” is "'not"' itself an "anecdotal claim." It is a statement "about" anecdotal claims. Your quote from www.dictionary.com does not provide any anecdotal evidence, it merely claims that anecdotal evidence exists to support this proposition.

in other words, an anecdotal claim is not a claim "based" on anecdotes; it provides the anecdotes that support the claim

similarly, the claim that "in spite of women deriding men for not contributing to chores and childrearing, that they are ultimately concerned with a man's economic prospects" is "'not"' an anecdotal statement or observation. It is a statement that "claims" to be supported by anecdotal evidence. But the statement itself does not provide the anecdotal evidence.

So there are actually two claims that you are making. First, you are claiming that "in spite of women deriding men for not contributing to chores and childrearing, that they are ultimately concerned with a man's economic prospects." Second, you are claiming that the previous claim is supported by anecdotal evidence.

You make a distinction between claims that are based on "casual observations or indications" versus "rigorous or scientific analysis." Fine. No one is objecting to your including a claim based on "casual observations or indications" rather than "rigorous or scientific analysis." This is "'not"' the issue.

The issue is whether your two claims (first, that in spite of women deriding men for not contributing to chores and childrearing, that they are ultimately concerned with a man's economic prospects; second, that the first claim is backed up by anecdotal evidence) "'is"' verifiable "and" is "'not"' original research. There is a very easy way that you can demonstrate that these two claims are verifiable and not original research: provide your sources If you have any question as to what would constitute a valid source, please follow the links to the policy pages, where it is all spelled out in detail.

"In the meantime": we still have no source for the claim that "in spite of women deriding men for not contributing to chores and childrearing, that they are ultimately concerned with a man's economic prospects" (i.e. "who" says this, and where) mdash; nor do we have a source for the claim that this proposition is supported by anecdotal evidence (i.e. "who" says they have anecdotal evidence to support this claim, and where do they provide the anecdotal evidence?)

I hope it is now very clear to you "how the facts in the current situation violate the policies." Here is how: you have asserted a proposition that makes two claims, and you have failed to provide a verifiable source for either claim; since you have failed to do so, it appears as if you are expressing your own opinion, which violates our NOR policy. Capiche? Slrubenstein 124; 91;91;User talk:Slrubenstein124;Talk 00:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I have provided a source to substantiate my claim, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of statements in the page. Why haven't you addressed my assertion that the paragraph above mine lacks substantiation and so is in need of deletion? Or that Cat's cry for verification has been selectively applied?

The observation that chicks are into guys with money can be characterized as anecdotal because we see it all the time, although few of us have read statistics or conducted field research on the matter. That is to say, this conclusion to which many people come is "Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis" (www.dictionary.com). So we can describe it as an anecdotal observation.... an observation based on anecdote, or "casual observation... and not rigorous or scientific analysis."

The observation that women deride men for their lack of participation in chores is substantiated by my link to the commentator (although, unless you have been asleep for the past several decades, this should sound familiar.) The observation that men are in no position to deemphasize work to devote themselves to chores is also supported by the comments on the show at the provided link. Your bullet-points and condescension are unhelpful.

Nathaniel

Am I correct that your "anecdotal evidence" is a quote from "The Godfather"? If so, then I stand by what I wrote: you do not understand what anecdotal evidence is, and you are violating our key policies. The quote from the movie is "not" an adequate source for the claim you make. The quote from the movie only proves that this is what Mario Puzo believes a particular fictional character would say. That is all it proves. It does not support any more general claim. You can accuse me of being condescending all you want, but every time you write you provide more evidence that you have either not read or not understood our key policies. Slrubenstein 124; 91;91;User talk:Slrubenstein124;Talk 20:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The Godfather quote is not at issue here, I did not object to its removal.

Nathaniel

What is the source of your evidence, then? I am not challenging you, I really don't know. It is hard to reconstruct the various changes to the article, and since you haven't registered I can't tell what you added. Slrubenstein 124; 91;91;User talk:Slrubenstein124;Talk 22:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

See above (it is an radio program, the discussion of my amendment to the article is found about halfway into the mp3.) Nathaniel

Can you tell me which radio program? And what do you mean "about halfway into the mp3?" I desrched form "mp3" on both the talk and articler page and found nothing; I also looked halfway down both the talk and article pages and did not see any source for your claim. Can't you just tell me what the claim is and what the source is? Slrubenstein 124; 91;91;User talk:Slrubenstein124;Talk 07:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Look at the current version of the page. Find the link for Glenn Sacks. The sentence directly before the link is the claim. Follow the link. There is a link to an mp3 there. Listen to the mp3. The radio program substantiates my claim that 1) men are derided for not spending more time on the kids and 2) men don't think they can because chicks are not interested in men who do not have careers. Nathaniel

I would have thought that it was common knowledge that women place a high value on income when rating men for attractiveness, but as it apparently isn't here's pleanty of sources to cite. ""'emphasis mine""' Churchofmau09:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

From http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/aseb/1997/00000026/00000003/00423348

*"Abstract:

*"Results of three independent studies supported predictions derived from evolutionary theory: Men's assessments of sexual attractiveness are determined more by objectively assessable physical attributes; ""'women's assessments are more influenced by perceived ability and willingness to invest""' (e.g., partners' social status, potential interest in them). Consequently, women's assessments of potential partners' sexual attractiveness and coital acceptability vary more than men's assessments. The proposition that polygamous women's assessments of men's sexual attractiveness vary less than those of monogamous women (because the former allegedly are more influenced by target persons' physical attributes) was also tested. In Study 1 male college students showed more agreement than females in their rankings of the sexual attractiveness of opposite-sex target persons. Target persons' flesh and bodily display enhanced this sex difference. In Study 2 men exhibited less variance than did women in their ratings of target persons' acceptability for dating and sexual relations. Women who viewed models described as having low status showed more variability than did women in the high-status condition. In Study 3 women showed more variability than men did in their ratings of 20 opposite-sex celebrities' sexual attractiveness. Studies 2 and 3 included the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI)—a measure of polygamous attitudes and behavior. Women's SOI scores did not affect the variability of their assessments in either Study 2 or 3. In Study 3 men with low SOI scores showed less variability than did men with high SOI scores. Alternative explanations of the findings are examined. Theoretical and empirical implications are discussed."

from http://www.drmillslmu.com/Sexdiffs/spr01/panel4.HTM

*""An experiment conducted by six psychologists to tell whether or not women placed the same weight of importance on attractiveness as men do, and if not how they differ. "College students saw pictures of the opposite sex and of various levels of physical attractiveness in different costumes. They then reported on how willingly they would be to enter different types of relationships with people like the one in the picture-from coffee and conversation though dating, sexual relations, and marriage. The high-status costume consisted of a white dress shirt with a designer paisley tie, a navy blazer thrown over the left shoulder, and a Rolex wristwatch. Female models a white silk blouse, a navy blazer thrown over the left shoulder, and a women's Rolex. To depict medium status, models wore an off-white shirt and khaki slacks. For low social status the models wore the uniform of a well-known fast food chain: a baseball cap and a polo shirt with the company logo showing. Male and female models were matched for physical attractiveness" (Townsend 63). Men generally agreed that they would date the attractive model, no matter what she was wearing. ""'However, women only wanted to date those men that they saw as equals or above their own status.""'

*The six psychologists therefore concluded that women require more proof of stability and investment in their rating on attractiveness, where as men only seemed to require attractiveness. Where men must see fertility and youth, women must see proof of status and accomplishment. But, women also need to see that the man that she has been considering as a mate is chased after and admired by other women. Positive information made the man more attractive where negative information excluded him from consideration. Since the women put more into reproducing, everything from gamete size to length of nurturing for her offspring, social information about her potential mate is important. And when considering the factors of male abuse and the high risk of flight, obtaining this information is crucial to choosing a mate. Men, on the other hand, while they seem to look for a partner they can keep, they basically judge the woman they are dating on physical characteristics.""

from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=synergysynergyAction=showAbstractdoi=10.1046/j.1439-0310.2002.00757.x

*"Sexual selection theory classically posits consistent and directional mate-preferences for male traits that provide benefits to females. However, flexible mate-choice tactics may persist within a species when males display multiple desirable features that confer different benefits to females under variable environmental conditions. Ecological factors such as population density, resource demand, and sex ratio can influence the value that female animals place on certain male characteristics across mating environments. In this study, I used human mate-preference data from `lonely hearts' advertisements in the newspapers of 23 cities in the USA to assess geographic differences in female preferences for male traits (e.g. physical attributes, resource-holding potential, emotional characteristics, personal interests) in relation to these ecological parameters. ""'I found that females placed more emphasis on the resource-accruing ability of prospective mates in densely populated cities and cities having greater resource demands""' (higher cost of living). In contrast, women from densely populated or resource-demanding cities placed less emphasis on the emotional aspects or personal interests of males. Preferences for physical features were not environmentally linked, but instead were a function of the degree to which females advertised their own physical attractiveness. Collectively, these results suggest that certain mate-choice criteria employed by women are sensitive to variation in local environmental conditions and that variable levels of resource or mate availability may favor different mating tactics across human populations."

and http://www.coppin.edu/JRMA/volume11/Article2_v11n1.PDF

and http://www.landofangels.de/py1/sadalla-etal-1987.pdf

etc... Churchofmau09:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Just some ideas... Firstly, Catamorphism, Slrubenstein, et al.: If it's so all-fired important to Nathaniel, why don't you folks cite a source or two on the "superwoman" article? Surely it can't be that difficult to find an academic source on this - I'd do it right now myself, but I'm about to go to sleep. It seems to me that his major concern (well, one of them) is seeing that substantiation is being applied indiscriminately. Given that a lot of Wikipedia articles don't have extensive in-text citation, this may seem like a somewhat excessive demand, but given the circumstances (i.e. the lengthy debate this has provoked) it might not be a bad idea.

Secondly, I think that there's the potential for this section to be supplemented by a section on the effects of feminism on non-heterosexual relationships. Broadly speaking, the section deals with the re-appraisal of traditional gender roles; I'm not much up to snuff on my queer theory, but I imagine that this affects at least some people in non-heterosexual relationships as well, since being non-hetero doesn't automatically equate to being non-gender normative.

Thirdly, the McGraw article currently being cited to support Nathaniel's paragraph seems from the abstract to deal with the manner in which wealth-based attraction varies in different environmental situtations. I gather from the abstract that the author's findings show that there is considerable variance in different contexts, so this seems to me to be at best ambiguous support for Nathaniel's paragraph... maybe someone with access to the full text of the article (and lots of free time) can read it and comment. Also, the abstract of the Townsend article states that "women's assessments are more influenced by perceived ability and willingness to invest (e.g., partners' social status, potential interest in them)." It seems to me that "perceived ability and willingness to invest," "social status," and especially "potential interest in them" encompass a good deal more than simply monetary wealth. Again, if someone has access to the full text and is willing to read and comment on this, please do.

I hope some of this is helpful. Both arguments are dealing in pretty massive generalizations, but that's the trouble with brief encyclopedia articles, I guess - you just have to get the information out. 65.94.183.24708:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Venceremos

I have changed the wording at the end of the previous sentence: "Some men counter that this expectation is unrealistic, claiming a de-emphasis on breadwinning would be injurious to their ability to attract mates; while many women have the choice to try to "have it all", they claim that societal expectations placed on men preclude them from devoting themselves further to domestic chores and childrearing. " It used to read "devoting themselves further to domestic responsibilities." This language is conclusory: a "responsibility" implies that it is something the person is responsible for. The implication with the use of this word is that men are responsible for childrearing and domestic chores, and reflects POV on the part of the author.

Nathaniel

Someone has edited "chores and childrearing" to "work." This is not the level of specificity desired: does "work" encompass childrearing activities? I am amending it back, although I invite discussion.

Nathaniel

Someone added the following sentence: "As a counter to these arguments, Arlie Russell Hochschild's books The Second Shift and The Time Bind present evidence that married men contribute much less time towards child care and housework than their wives do; men who are already married are unlikely to be concerned about attracting new partners."

I am willing to bet that the sources cited substantiate the part of the sentence before the colon. I am skeptical that the assertion made following the colon is dealt with in the source: it seems to have been a convenient place to interject the author's PERSONAL counterargument. Does this source really say that men are unlikely to be concerned about attracting other mates because they're married? I doubt it.

Nathaniel

Catamporphism: are you willing to provide pages to the information you suggest? A readily accessed citation is helpful. If not available, certainly the page number of the book would due. Also, you talk about studies "Hothschild cites," but what are the studies? It is irresponsible scholarship when discussing a work to note cite the original sources of the data.

Nathaniel

I'd be more likely to believe that your constant criticism of every sentence in this article that doesn't mesh with your POV is in good faith if you were citing sources that reflected scholarly research, rather than a Google search. Catamorphism00:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I'd be interested in seeing citations to studies that show that there is a statistically significant incidence of divorces because women found their husbands' interest in doing domestic work to be unattractive. You don't say this explicitly, but it seems to be what you are implying with the qualifications you've inserted into the relevant paragraph. Catamorphism00:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Glenn Sacks did not come from a google search, although I guess it is helpful that he could be. Certainly, all one need do is follow the link to verify the appropriateness of a citation. He is a noted commentator on issues affecting males, and has a radio program. I do not mean to imply that women want to divorce husbands who do domestic work. I don't understand how you got this.

It is your POV view that motivates this continued discussion. You want your "queer" perspective to dominate this article. You are so confused about gender politics that you will not even admit to your own gender (see above.) You would seem an unlikely candidate for a disinterested edit of an article concerning gender politics.

In any event:

(1) Please provide a page number for the citations you provide. It is perhaps unrealistic to expect that a person desiring to verify the authenticity of your assertions will read 600 pages in the hopes of coming across the thought you alluded to. (2) Additionally, please address the concern I raised above about which statistical studies Hothschild is referring to. Your latest addition looks to me like a narrative.

(3) Why have you deleted my latest comments?

For the sake of thoroughness, it would be helpful to address my concerns by number.

Sincerely,

Nathaniel

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks; note that "Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor" are included in the category of "personal attacks". Also note this section: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." Catamorphism07:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm. Ok. Are you going to address my concerns? You keep getting distracted. Your attempt to discredit me through mentioning that I am showing POV is no different than my comments about you. You're trying to paint me as the bigot, which is untrue. I am merely trying to prevent you from letting your fringe bias affect this article too much. I bring up your "status" because it bears directly on my counterargument: that YOU are the one with the agenda. This long discussion, after all, takes place in the "effect on heterosexual relationships" part of the article. That you are an angry dyke from Berkeley vindicating the wrongs you think your gender suffers is central to this discussion. My pointing it out does not affect the cogency of the claims I have made above.

I have given up on this argument, however. It is too time consuming and I somehow imagine you have more energy for this task. I would, however, request that someone who reads this thread edit the paragraph in question so that it does not contain vague citations that are impractical to verify, narrative summaries of works that lack proper citation, and the bias evident in it.

Nathaniel

Hi, Pls read the following para from Engel's Origin of Family, Private property and the State.

Origins of the Family-- Chapter 2 (III)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884-fam/ch02c.htm (4 of 9) 23/08/2000 17:53:52

"Bachofen is also perfectly right when he consistently maintains that the transition from what he calls "Hetaerism" or "Sumpfzeugung" to monogamy was brought about primarily through the women. The more the traditional sexual relations lost the native primitive character of forest life, owing to the development of economic conditions with consequent undermining of the old communism and growing density of population, the more oppressive and humiliating must the women have felt them to be, and the greater their longing for the right of chastity, of temporary or permanent marriage with one man only, as a way of release. This advance could not in any case have originated with the men, if only because it has never occurred to them, even to this day, to renounce the pleasures of actual group marriage. Only when the women had brought about the transition to pairing marriage were the men able to introduce strict monogamy -- though indeed only for women."

If you think it's meaningful to reflect this opinion in the article, you could do it.

rgds, S Prabhakar, Chennai, India.

Antifeminism?

Ive been pointed to Antifeminist, which was a pretty massively POV rant. I've briefly rewritten it to be neutral, trimmed it down to a couple of representative antifeminist links, but I know very little about the topic and would appreciate someone competent having a go at it. And that someone will almost certainly be reading this page, I guess. Thanks all. Shimgray | | 16:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a good job to me. Catamorphism18:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as a male who considers himself a feminist, you might want to start with Susan Faludi's book "Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Male" for context, and check the bibliography from there. I may go for it later, but I'm still relatively new to Wiki and I'm trying (perhaps not as successfully as I'd like) to keep myself out of controversy here ;) Longshot1406:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[[Women's Aid]]

Women's Aid needs some help too (ie checking edits by "user 81.179.69.218" --Melaen20:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Feminist Quotations

Why does the article have three subsections with the same title ("'Feminist Quotations"') ? --Melaen20:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the "feminist quotations" should be removed altogether. It strikes me as inconsistent with NPOV to list only negative/intolerant quotations from feminists. This presents a skewed version of feminism that, I would argue, misleads a naive reader as to what feminism "actually is".

If no one expresses strong objections, I plan to remove these sections and reduce the section to a discussion of the debate about the real intentions of feminists, acknowledging that some critics dispute feminists' claim to support equality and that they attempt to support such claims with compendia of selected quotations. --67.52.158.6220:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Do remove the extraneous subsection titles. "'Do not removed the quotations"'. At least not all of them. If you want, balance them with other quotations that you deem less exteremist, perhaps even categorizing the quotations by different schools of feminism. Your claims about what "feminism "actually is"" will invariably contain a POV, just like the quotations. I think one of the things that needs to be conveyed in this article is that feminism means different things to different people, with different goals, stategies, world views etc. 69.22.42.3520:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What purpose do these cherry-picked quotations serve other than to give the reader the impression that feminists in general are extremists? Sure, one could balance these with an equal number of quotations by feminists showing they favor equality, but that would give the impression that feminists are divided on the issue of equality. A fair examination of feminism should not give that impression either. It seems easiest simply to delete the quotations altogether. I entirely agree we need to convey that feminism means different things to different people, and we even need to represent those who believe feminism is a thinly veiled female supremacist philosophy. But it is not Wikipedia's business to provide evidence in the form of quotations for one view or the other (or even both). Response? --67.52.158.6221:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The obvious point to make here is that we have Wikiquote for quotations, so we may as well use it. Any list of quotations used as an addition to the article is a problem, since they're not able to be given context in the actual text, and very rarely make a useful summary of the article's main points. Here, we have what is essentially a vehicle for saying "lookee, feminist cranks", which doesn't really bring much to the article that couldn't be achieved by picking one, and mentioning that it's representative of many which are often quoted by detractors, many claim this is wilfulk skewing context, they're probably fairly extreme... and so on. The Marylin French quote would be a good one for that. As it is, we've got four or five thousand characters which really don't need to be in here.

Yes, we can categorise quotations by various forms of feminism, we can add balancing quotations... and at the end, we still have a mostly contextless list of quotations that really doesn't help the article much, and has increased to four or five times the size. We have a sister project for this sort of thing. I don't see why we shouldn't use it. Shimgray | | 00:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a further argument to be made, and that is that there is already an article on Radical feminism, where such radical quotations could find a better home. --66.167.162.5516:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In general, I think quotation in wikipedia articles should be limited, but here is an exmaple (a fictional one, mind) of how a quotation might legitimately be incorporated in an article:

In 1993, noted feminist scholar and activist Jane Smith wrote in an article for Feminist Quarterly that "all men, without exception, are evil and unredeemable". This generated a firestorm of controversy in the press. Initially, Smith claimed the remark was intentional hyperbole and not meant to be taken literally. She later admitted that she regretted the remark and asked Feminist Quarterly to issue a brief statement of retraction.

This sort of thing gives some context to a quotation because it deals with the author's claims about her intention and (in this case) eventual retraction. In the case where an author does not retract or explain a quotation, some discussion should be given to her critics' response to the statement. --67.52.158.6221:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've cut the quotations, picked one, and written a little bit on how quotes like this are often used out-of-context and somewhat hyperbolically. The quote, incidentally, is from "The Women's Room", 1977, if anyone wants to check it - Amazon has a search-inside-this-book I checked it against. However, my section is "really" badly written, and a redraft would be nice... Shimgray | | 21:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, that section should really be in "'Contemporary criticisms of feminism"' rather than out on its own, anyway...

I've moved it up, but it still doesn't blend in well. To be honest, we could just as easily lose it - it's not like misleading quotes are a problem unique to feminism. Shimgray | | 22:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I would disagree that we shouldn't mention the issue contextless quotes. Though perhaps not unique to feminism, such arguments are a big part of the critique of feminism (whether you wish to call that critique fair or not). Many people who seem to be permanently put off feminism cite, e.g., the Dworkin quote about all sex equalling rape (or whatever it is she actually said) as justification for their attitude. This hypersensitivity to the most extreme viewpoints in feminism does characterize much of the critique of feminism, in my opinion. I'll give a crack at "blending" when I have time. --67.52.158.6200:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Archive

I've archived some of the older material; this page was getting huge. Apologies if I accidentally caught any current conversations. Shimgray | | 15:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Needing trimmed

We have a massive section of "Famous Feminists", just a list of names. Is there any reason these can't be transferred to the List of notable feminists? The external links section is also far, far too large - do we really need forty links of sites which are either supportive of or opposed to feminism? Shimgray | | 14:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both points.--Fenice22:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest a set of criteria for what "notable" means if we make these changes. When I arrived here I noticed that most of the "controversial" feminists where missing. I would hate to see us eliminate those "problematic" feminists who have something significant to say here. Anacapa04:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

eurocentric

eurocentric --Shmitra ppm 20:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's Eurocentric (assuming you include America, of course). Most people who read and write the Wikipedia articles are in Europe or America (for now). English is a "Eurocentric" language. If you think that non-Western views are lacking, then by all means add them! Robotbeat03:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias is extremely important (in my opinion of course!) for approaching this issue... Mostlyharmless

Yeah. That's a good project. I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias says what I meant a lot more reasonably than how I said it: "As long as the demographic of English speaking Wikipedians is not exactly identical to the world demographic, the vision of the world presented on the English Wikipedia will always be askew." Robotbeat06:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

&quot;THE traditional...&quot;

"..there have been some consequences that can be catalogued as negative from the traditional point of view on morals."

What is "the traditional point of view on morals" that you are referring to? This sentence assumes that humans have a shared traditional point of view on morals, which is sorta bogus.

Perhaps you are talking about Polygyny in Nigeria? Egalitarianism amongst certain foragers? Oh, I know, The social beliefs of the Iroquois!

Does anyone mind if I chop off "from the traditional point of view on morals", leaving a period after "negative"?

24.148.69.57

11:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that "the traditional" should go, unless you add another adjective (e.g. Christian, Western, Bourgois). Go for it. Slrubenstein | 17:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Feminism's take on particular issues, contemporary criticism

I might have been vague in my description of this particular criticism because Catamorphism's addition is not related. The central perspective is that feminism as an ideology postulates the ability to engage in political affirmation in the full breadth of the debatable spectrum. The example given is nuclear power, which would prerequisite a idiosyncratic female viewpoint on whether the use of this particular energy source is desirable on the basis of its scientific and social ramifications. This notion is, naturally, refuted by many. It does not entail the number of women involved in opposition or advocation of the subject. I suggest the paragraph is corrected and clarified. - Shoplifter

I understood your point just fine, but since you apparently didn't understand that my edit was related to it, I've clarified a bit. Catamorphism02:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree with the addition, despite being clarified (and different than the previous edit). Prima, nuclear power is not necessarily an intrinsically humanitarian issue that would involve a facet of societal hazard but rather a scientific inquiry (what's the female viewpoint of science?). Furthermore, if the argument is raised that women holds a latent nurturing quality linked to motherhood or the possibility of such development there must be a preceding argument describing this thesis (along with some sort of evidence, preferably, as the notion of gender interconnected to particular behavioral qualities is highly disputed). The isolated declaration without reference does not cut it for an encyclopaedia. Shoplifter

First, I don't believe that gender implies behavioral qualities. I think the paragraph makes it pretty clear that "gender implies behavioral qualities" is a particular POV held by some feminists. Second, your original addition to the article, that describes criticisms of feminism as an ideology because it is not all-encompassing, is also unsourced. Who is making these criticisms? Maybe the entire paragraph needs to go. Catamorphism07:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The relation between womanhood and specific behavioristic consequences is certainly a POV, but who holds it? Is it a unified movement that deserves notation? In regard to feminism as an ideological endeavor in the political spectrum; there have been several examples of newly emerging political parties that holds feminism as their ideological foundation (not an isolated agenda, see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Initiative_%28Sweden%29). These groups argue that feminism can function as the underlying argument for political action within the entire width of politics, a claim which has been rejected in the national debate (such as in the case with FI).

Ok. Devil's Advocate, here. In zoology one studies the biological and behavioral differences between different species, within those species different stages of development (larvae, adult, etc.), and within those stages of development the different sexes (if not asexual). If those categories are seen in the context of zoology as scientifically valid (which they ARE.), then why is it deemed "subjective" to imply ANY (no matter how small) possibility of general biology-based behavioral tendency differences between the human sexes? It seems to me like one is denying scientific reasoning when one implies that there are NO biology-based behavioral tendency differences between men and women. (For instance, the behavioral tendency of women to breast-feed their infant children is much greater than the behavioral tendency of men to breast-feed their infant children. Do you disagree?) I am not denying egalitarianism or anything like that, but to deny any possibility that sex contributes to behavioral tendencies is to abandon sound reasoning. Robotbeat20:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly not propounding indifference toward biological distinction, anatomic benefits or anything of the like. My point during this discussion has been the fact that there is a widespread movement cropping up (as seen in the establishment of influential political parties) who propose that feminism, the female perspective, can be fully applicable in every politcal dispute. This view has in turn been criticized on the very grounds that while womanhood surely may imply a biological slant towards breast feeding it does not entail a specific view on nuclear science. I do not believe that the current view on the critcism page accurately reflects this debate, and my objection remains that if it should be noted that there is a movement that holds feminity as equal to specific political views then they better back it up with actually existing as well, and not just as a theoretical experiment in the mind of a Wikipedia editor. Shoplifter

"they better back it up with actually existing as well, and not just as a theoretical experiment" Agreed. Wikipedian NPOV isn't about including all POV without basis. If there are different (especially for unusual) POVs, then they should give a specific reference. This is kind of what x Catamorphism said a week ago. Robotbeat13:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that many of the criticisms in this section are stated without stating who has made these criticisms, or citing a source where they are made. I added a few

fact

tags, and probably there are more places where they could be added. Catamorphism22:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Partisan alert

I've been looking through the articles about feminism and related topics, and one thing that stands out is the constant partisan junk in every article. Please understand that trying to further one's own biased views only makes one look less credible. It also runs counter to all underlying principles of Wikipedia, and only ends up producing worthless articles. Try to be more neutral! For example, the second picture in this article shows an anti-suffrage stand, with the subtext "Feminists have struggled to overcome power-based barriers throughout the movement's history." This is not only ambiguous, but also extremely partisan. What power barriers? According to whom? Who are the people in the photo? What did they stand for, and why did they end up losing? Stick to the facts, not to opinions. Fuzzform 20:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think everybody knows that any article on Wikipedia about which some people have opinions will contain content that isn't completely NPOV. If you don't like something, be bold and improve it; complaining about it doesn't accomplish much. Catamorphism23:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph, last sentence

""'Feminism"' is a diverse collection of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies, largely motivated by or concerning the experiences of women, especially in terms of their social, political, and economic situation. As a social movement, feminism largely focuses on limiting or eradicating gender inequality and promoting women's rights, interests, and issues in society. It also embraces greater opportunity for men to transcend the narrow gender roles and norms of masculinity that have traditionally confined them."

That last sentence seems pretty POV to me. Opinions? -GTBacchus02:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reworked it a bit, but feel free to edit it yourself if you feel it's still POV. Catamorphism07:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Much, much better. That's the type of wording that should make up the entire article.mdash;"The preceding ) 2|.

POV? I'm not sure.

The paragraph in 'criticism of feminism' which discusses anti-feminist views and how they use hyperbolic statements written by feminists out of context was reverted by user Alienus after I added the final sentance here:

"Other quotations that some anti-feminists cite to indicate their belief that feminism is anti-male include Gloria Steinem's famous slogan "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle", or Andrea Dworkin's quote from her novel "Ice And Fire": "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.". Feminists might respond that Steinem's slogan is a statement of the need for women to be independent, not a statement against men, and that quotes from fictional works may not represent the point of view of their authors. Though the anti-feminist may in turn respond to these explanations with accusations that they are disingenuous rationalizations or perhaps tantamount to apologia."

Though the reader (or Alienus) may not agree with the last statement I do not think that it expresses any POV of the article proper. It is the POV of the feminist and the anti-feminist which is being detailed. What we are discussing here is how anti-feminists use the most exceptional, exaggerated and scandalous statements of feminists in attempt to discredit the entire movement by framing those statements as being exemplary of all of feminism. That's dumb, we know that. But the paragraph's explanation of what a feminist would respond to such accusations with (debatable rationalizations at best imho which are just as POV as the last sentance I added) needs a counterpoint of what an anti-feminist would think of the explanation. The anti-feminist would very likely argue that the Dworkin quote especially is "hate speech" and the claim that 'well, its just fiction' or 'that's not really what the author means' would certainly provoke a response of criticism in return. What do you think?--Deglr632808:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Where are you going to stop? Someone could add a sentence in response to your sentence with how feminists would supposedly respond to your hypothetical anti-feminist response, and etc., etc., etc., with no stopping point in sight. Wikipedia articles should document debates, not participate in them; presenting quotations that anti-feminists use against feminists, with the feminist response to that, is fine. The reader can make up their own mind, or go read the sources that are mentioned if they need more information. Infinite tennis matches of opinion aren't necessary (and ought to be abbreviated where they occur elsewhere in this article.) Catamorphism09:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously endless descriptions of hypothetical debates are not what is needed in any article but here I don't think we would have that. We have an argument, a counter-argument and a counter to that. Then that should be it. The back and forth can't go much further than this without devolving into a "no it isn't" "yes it is" empty nothing dispute which clearly doesn't need detailing. Do we actually have an example of a feminist addressing these sorts of anti-feminist claims (that would be of great help not only here but in the rest of this entire section) or are these just sort of 'I think feminists would respond with X' hypotheticals by the author of this section? I guess I just think this needs something better than 'well the feminist didn't really MEAN it' as an explanation here, as that seems rather weak. --Deglr632809:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, which anti-feminists actually said that "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" is an anti-male statement? In all honesty, I think that's a pretty stupid opinion and I'd be hard pressed to find an anti-feminist writer who was "that" clueless. Point being, this entire paragraph is unsourced and hypothetical and I'd be fine with it being jettisoned altogether. Catamorphism09:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Mm perhaps. Though the tactic is rather widespread among the ever nutty conservative christians http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:RxqoF2xMq6YJ:www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/bs20021106.shtml+%22A+woman+needs+a+man+like+a+fish+needs+a+bicycle%22+abortionhl=engl=usct=clnkcd=4. Try searching on "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp" and it is literally impossible to find any insightfully reasoned argument on the topic through all the bullshit out there. (I am glad to see that one can be had here though.) Oh well, I guess I wouldn't mind removing this paragraph though.--Deglr632810:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Feminism versus Arguments for feminism?

The section on Criticisms against Feminism seems to be devolving into tit for tat "arguments against feminism" and "arguments for feminism " in the same paragraphs/section. The arguments "for feminism" are clearly irrelevant to the section as titled. Given the loaded, political, and highly controversial nature of the statements here, I suggest we follow the model that the Religion article uses and have "separate" con versus pro sections so that it is possible to see all these POV's minus a mush of enmeshed (con vs pro) arguments. For now, I am going to simply delete arguments "for" feminism as irrelevant to this section but I would like to see all those arguments stated clearly in another section. Please comment or suggest how to handle such loaded topic so that we show all sides with balanced NPOV here. Anacapa03:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

POV problems with 'gender-feminism' as a label

Some of x Anacapa's edits are problematic because they use the term "gender feminism", which as far as I know is a term only used by self-styled "individualist feminists" to describe feminists they don't like. It has no meaning outside individualist feminist circles. Much like it would violate NPOV to have a sentence like "People who are part of the anti-life movement support legalized abortion" in the Pro-Choice article, it is POV for this article to use "gender feminism" outside quotation marks. Any other opinions? Catamorphism02:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To say that that 'individualist' feminism has no meaning outside individualist feminist circles is patently false. Many people who read about feminist thought be it 'gender' feminist 'individualist' feminist or (my favorite) the old feminists (See "Women without Superstition: No Gods No Masters" edited by Gaylor) are in NO such so-called circles. I, for one, need no so-called "circles" to decide what to read or what has meaning to me and I am sure there are many others on Wikipedia who belong to no particular 'circle' that decides "for them" what has meaning or not. I have no problem putting these terms inside quotes if that is less "problematic" to some people but I have a huge problem with self-styled 'gender' feminists claiming that their type of feminism "is" feminism or is the only type of feminism because that is false and self-serving POV. The diverse views of feminists who disagree with 'gender' feminist foundations and pose other foundations for feminism or who speak to the historical roots of feminism need to be shown here too. Anacapa04:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I made the analogy with the term "anti-life" because "anti-life" is a term that some people who oppose abortion think it is appropriate to apply to people who support abortion rights. Only people who hold the particular point of view of being opposed to abortion use this label. Similarly, only people who self-identify as being "individualist feminists" use the term "gender feminism" to describe a group of feminists. On Wikipedia we have to maintain a neutral point of view, hence we try to avoid using terms that imply we subscribe to a particular school of thought. In addition, your edits have made the article seem like "individualist feminism" is more important among feminisms than it actually is. As you say, there are a diversity of feminisms. Individualist feminism should be able to hold its own without somebody embellishing a general article on feminism to make individualist feminism seem more predominant among feminists than it is. Catamorphism04:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminismdiff=44002785oldid=44002215 This edit did not address the POV problems -- the problem here is that the distinction between "gender feminism" (i.e., feminisms ifeminists don't like) and "individualist feminism" is being made central when it should not people. Not all feminists or others would select this distinction as the most important dividing line to draw within feminism. In addition, it elevates the small and historically recent subgroup of "individualist feminists" to a higher level of importance than it should have. In short, these edits seem motivated by a desire to push the individualist feminist POV. Catamorphism05:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You have no right to read my motivations here. Please be respectable with me so I can be respectable with you. I do not read you motives sight unseen because all such "readings" would be false speculation. Please be decent to me too. Anacapa07:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is my intent. I want to eliminate biased and unbalanced POV in this opening. I do not want to push the ifeminists, in particular, other than to show that there is no single UNIVERSAL "gender-focused" form that "is"' feminism as was clearly implied before I began this edit. I also hope to see us condense all the repetetive discussions about forms of feminism into a single section for comparision. Please suggest a solution that we both can live with.Anacapa07:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for semantic background, the term "gender feminism" was coined by Christina Hoff Sommers in her book "Who Stole Feminism?" (ISBN|0684801566). She claims that "gender feminism" is opposed to "equity feminism," another term that she coined and apparently applies to herself and which she thinks also applies to the mainstream of the First Wave feminist movement. "Individualist feminists" who have picked up the term got it from her coinage, mostly via the work of Wendy McElroy, who would also like to put themselves on the "equity" side of the dividing line. Frankly there is very little, if any, serious usage of the terminology -- as far as I can tell -- in any venue except for CHS's book, and a variety of "ifeminist" Internet forums.

The term is supposedly designed for the purpose of analysis and criticism, but its only real function seems to be polemical: it's hard to find any common strain among the various thinkers, organizations, and campaigns that CHS groups together as "gender feminist." Sometimes it looks like an unhappy imitation of the distinction between "difference feminism" and "equality feminism" (which explains CHS's frequent broadsides against Carol Gilligan); at other times it looks like an unhappy imitation of the distinction between "radical feminism" and "liberal feminism" (which is not at all the same distinction as the "difference"-"equality" distinction, but which would be necessary for feminists such as Catharine MacKinnon or Andrea Dworkin to be included amongst the so-called "gender feminists"). I have my doubts as to whether it has any coherent meaning at all. But, setting those doubts to one side, the "gender feminist"-"equity feminist" distinction is, in any case, a highly idiosyncratic usage (limited to all of two published writers in print) and a system of labels that nobody who is being tagged as a "gender feminist" accepts as worthwhile or legitimate. It should deserves no more space in this article than Naomi Wolf's polemical division of the feminist world into "power feminists" and "victim feminists" (cf. "Fire with Fire") or Catharine MacKinnon's idiosyncratic claim that feminism "simpliciter" just is radical feminism and that "liberal feminism", "socialist feminism", etc. are not forms of feminist analysis at all, but rather liberalism, socialism, etc. applied to the Woman Question (cf. "Feminism Unmodified"). Radgeek05:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To those editors above I suggest a glance at the section "Feminism in its many forms" which contains a statement about Radical feminism and Gender Feminism which implies that these ideologies have had little influence outside the academic community which is a real (POV) hoot. Then I go to Gender feminism and see that the kind of feminism that criticizes gender roles and wishes to abolish them completely is "true for most of the body of modern feminist theory". We cannot have it both ways here folks. We already use gender feminism and this article opens with a discussion of gender equality, gender roles and claims to assisting men to transform traditional gender roles too. To shout about POV here given the 'gender' statements, the pervasive 'gender' content and gender feminism link already in the article seems POV to me. The word feminist-inspired term 'gender' has penetrated all of academia and many mainstream discussions too to the extent that many authors are afraid to use the word sex for gender. To see my use of 'gender feminism' as 'problematic' or unusual or polemical seems a bit disengenous given the history of the past 30 years. What is the real POV issue you have here? Should I just use gender-focused feminism versus say equity-focused feminism instead so no one gets hot and bothered by the tag 'gender feminism'. Anacapa07:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the point.

"Gender feminism" is not "a form of feminism that makes use of the concept of gender." All forms of feminism make use of the concept of gender; feminism involves a claim about how people's gender should or should not affect the way that they are treated. (N.B.: this is true independently of whether any specific feminist in question accepts the common distinction between sex and gender.) "Gender feminism" is a specific term invented by a specific, identifiable person -- Christina Hoff Sommers -- allegedly to identify and characterize a family of views with which she disagrees. So just pointing out that lots of feminists and people influenced by feminism use the word "gender" and also the word "feminism" tells you nothing at all about the legitimacy of the term "gender feminism" as anything more than an idiosyncratic usage by Christina Hoff Sommers.

There are several POV issues involved here. One of the central issues is that discussions that make heavy use of "gender feminism" elevates the idiosyncratic terminology of one writer to a position in the language that it hasn't clearly earned. Terms like "radical feminism," "liberal feminism," "socialist feminism," "cultural feminism," "equality feminism," "difference feminism," "First Wave feminism," "Second Wave feminism," etc. are all widely used and accepted by many writers, both in print and online, both within and outside the feminist movement. "Gender feminism" and "equity feminism" do not have the same currency, and should have no greater role in framing the article than idiosyncratic terms such as those that I mention above. It should be at most a side note or a "See also" in an article written independently of Christina Hoff Sommers' terminology.

Radgeek

08:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There are indeed MANY POV issues here. Before you make general claims about so-called "currency" I ask that you state (with NPOV sources) who you mean these terms have "currency" to. Are we talking the mass media, Google, the whole of academia, or just the Womens' Studies departments at some U.S. (or other) universities? Also if the gender claim stated above is THE (or AN essential) foundational basis of ALL feminist thought with no opposing "feminist" claims otherwise, then it needs to be stated as such front and center in this article as THE or A central concept that ALL feminists and All following Forms of Feminism share IHMO. We cannot have it both ways here and be NPOV with no distinctions. Please suggest solutions that take us somewhere rather than implying that I misunderstood not THE point but YOUR point. Clearly there are gender-"focused" feminists and other feminists who base their "feminist" claims on ideas of human dignity, freedom of choice, and individual freedom (rather than gender???) I will source this discussion with some such content so we can discuss NPOV representation here. I will also note that I try to be open-minded enough to let the facts/data make the case(s) here so let's use sources to discuss this.

As for 'gender-feminism', "itself", (as a term for a type of feminism) it is being used by many more (feminist and non feminist) authors than just it's originator. That is my primary issue with other 'problematic' forms of "opposing" feminism here as I see POV by ommission here. However, even if no such term is used it is certainly valid to make distinctions between those forms of feminism that "focus" on gender-victimhood versus those that focus on say human rights, freedom of choice, or individual freedom to attain the same "feminist" goals.

I will note that this article is loaded with references to gender-focused feminism, that 'gender' as a term has penetrated all of academia and much public discourse to the extent that people are afraid to use the word 'sex' for 'gender' in most academic and social settings. This is political POV that needs to be shown with NPOV balance here IMHO.

I ask that we make distinctions between types feminism and 'waves' of feminism as the classifications are not comparable, one being based on ideology and the other being based on time. It seems, to me, that there is a reluctance to "authentically" describe what feminism is in all of its forms in this article. To me, there seems to be POV bias toward one form (falsely implied to be THE ONLY form) of feminism at the expense of other possibly "opposing" forms of feminism. I intend to see them all shown here with balanced NPOV based on their ideas not a baseless popularity contests.

To those who believe "popularity", itself, is a good test of POV or content, I suggest a glance at the sad and hilarious "Greetings from Idiot America" in the Nov 05 Esquire (available online). That said, I am sensitive to "proportionality" and I have no problem with saying that, for example, 'gender-focused' feminism is the "predominant" form of feminism in some specific settings such as academia or whatever but side note's or See also's for significant opposing ideas is POV by omission to, I suspect, pander to those Camille Paglia says resemble Moonies inside 'contemporary' (another label!) feminism who prefer to parrot rote slogans rather than question their own assumptions. No personal offense intended here to any editor above either! It's just that I live in the US rather than the former USSR. Please suggest how to handle the 'problematic' feminisms here with complete NPOV balance and NO POV by ommission and I will be fine with "whatever" terms seem to fit well. Anacapa03:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Anacapa, let's start with something that may be both simple and illustrative.

Can you identify anyone who accepts and uses the term "gender feminism" as a description "of her or his own views"? If so, whom, and where?

8212;Radgeek04:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Radgeek, I will look because this is an interesting question that does speak to POV and I will respond here once you show me where you are going with this argument. I will also suggest that the "very last" person to ask for NPOV labels is the person with the POV, a cause to promote, and a reason to be seen a certain way. It's like believing that the right-wing Republicans are 'compassionate' conservatives because "they" say so. A quick google of "gender-feminist" shows 50,000 plus hits so it must be a term that is in wide use anyway. My main issue here is that for some reason some contemporary feminists don't want to own what they believe, "'overtly"' with "any" "'reason-ably"' representative label. That leaves me searching for the various "covert" code-words that always come out in a speech etc so I can identify them myself. I could care less what terms we use as long as they reason-ably represent the often opposing types of feminists well with complete NPOV balance. Clearly, 'gender'-based 'women as victims'-'men as victimizers' is (rightly or wrongly) the "predominant" preoccupation of many contemporary feminists which is one reason why I did use 'gender-feminist' term...following McElroy and others. But for now I am going to go try to respond to your question and see if I can find examples of any feminists who describe themselves with any reasonable distinctions...including possible "gender-feminists".Anacapa05:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Raggeek, I found 50,000 hits on the Web and 2,400 hits on google Groups for "gender-feminist". Clearly the term is in common use to describe feminists who focus on female gender victimizaton only such as (the openly sexist Violence Against Women act which makes no mention of violence BY women against Women and Men) and often in a negative light which I NOW suspect is why this label is so 'problematic' to some feminists. However this "problematic" and political issue is itself a POV that needs to be mentioned in any "genuine" article on feminism. I was, not surprisingly, unable to find in a quick glance any "self-described", 'gender-feminists' but I did find a few females searching for things like gender-research/feminism etc. Where do you want to go from here?Anacapa05:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, I did also found quite a few feminists in newspaper articles who were reported as self-describing (even to the point of shouting) themselves as 'equity' feminists. But I found no gender-"focused"-feminists self-describing themselves as anything other than 'feminists'. Few gender-focused-feminists even went as far as self-describing themselves at all. Anacapa04:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

To all editors concerned about 'gender-feminism' or 'gender-feminist', or other labels I suggest a glance at newspapers articles from around the country. Lorraine O'Connell wrote a "Liberating Feminism Women are Victims. They're Whiners. And Don't Even Mention S-E-X. That's the Image Coming Out of the Women's Movement, Say Fed-UP Feminists Fighting For Change" a well-balanced 2800 word article for the Orlando Sentinel on Jun 26, 1994. There are many more recent articles on 'gender-feminism but this one shows "many" key feminist critics weighing in with trenchant criticisms of what they call 'victim'-feminism. So when I see an article on feminism that fails to mention these critical POV's I become a bit suspicious of POV here. Anacapa01:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Feminism and science section: intent?

Is this section intended to be "another" separate section "critical" of feminism or an open-ended discussion of key scientific "investigations" associated with significant themes in feminism which "'may or may not be"' critical of feminism? Will the editor who created this section and moved content down to it from the Criticisms section (with no changes) please weigh in here so I can shape the tone of the statements about the content I add/added in this article to fit the section's intent/title? I also welcome comments/suggestions from other editors too on how to handle this section with completeness and NPOV balance.

I will note right up front that science is no poll-driven discipline so all significant ideas ('positive' and 'negative', or neutral) from science about feminism belong in the scope here IMHO. My preference is to have an "investigative" intent that follows the intent of "authentic" science rather than Pro/Con political shout outs here. However, I am concerned about repetition between this section and Criticisms of feminism as some people are both scientists and members of feminist or masculist political movements and might make similar claims in "both" sections.

I will hold off on adding additional content in this section while I wait for some sort of consensus here as long as other editors also hold off on new content until we have some sort of consensus on intent.Anacapa

Cleanup of the Criticisms of feminism section

As per the discussion in the discussion above on this topic, I went through this section and deleted "counter-criticisms" to the criticisms so that clarity is possible and to eliminate enmeshment. I made NO judgements about ANY of the POV's of any counter-criticisms I cut and I mean NO Offense here. I hope to see them ALL included in a section that is relevant such as maybe "Responses to criticisms of feminism" or whatever. I cut them because they are completely "irrelevant" to the section as "titled", because in some cases they completely buried the few short criticism statements themselves and because it is important to fully develop the criticisms, "by themselves", before counter-criticising them if we are to understand these criticisms at all.

I did add one statement of (child abuse/parental abuse) content to one criticism because I happened, by coincidence, to have done the research for another article but I am not a member of that group, nor do I back that criticism as mine...I just saw it was relevant to that criticism and it may well need to be cut too unless THEY use it to back THEIR claims.

Finally, I tried to cleanup some tortured paragraphs by separating separate topics into new paragraphs, making it clear who was criticising in each PP and asking for specifics where I was confused as I read the content.

Again I hope to see the full scope of all criticisms and counter-criticisms included in this article with distinct, complete and clear arguments. This cleanup is in NO WAY meant to imply that any of these counter-arguments themselves were wrong or irrelevant...just that they do not belong in this section which is for the arguments "against" feminism "themselves". I welcome comments and suggestions about how to handle both criticisms and counter-criticisms in ways that the "average wiki reader can read and comprehend easily", and that are complete, balanced, sourced and NPOV.

Anacapa

07:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The article's opening paragraph

The recent edits made to the opening paragraph address a number of my POV/fact concerns quite well. They also seem to address POV issues other editors had above. IMHO this paragraph is NOW a lot more complete, balanced, representative and NPOV than it was when we began editing it last week, "despite no mention" of 'gender' or 'equity' feminism. I thank those editors who worked on it with and against me to get to this solution.

I have similar POV, fact, and representation issues with the PP's "immediately following" the opening as I see little match there with NPOV content from news articles I have collected from around the country about feminists/feminist ideology. I will come back here and source a sample of maybe 10 of those articles so that all editors here can see what I see as missing in this article. I mean no offense but I insist on some sort of reason-able representation of the issues that seem to make the headlines here.

I will take each PP in order so that other editors have time to respond. If you take issue with my edits please be decent enough to be "specific" about your concerns, offer solutions, and refrain from making POV assumptions about my POV, my intentions or my character on this page. I welcome "personal" discussions about "personal" issues on my talk page. Anacapa07:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone needs to keep an eye on this article, when I pulled it up it was full of crap like this:

All feminist scholars have long hair and small brains. feminists like chocolate and bad movies. They are fat ugly pussylicking dikes with smelly yeast infections.

No explanation needed I hope, I would sugest locking the page. x 128.197.56.149 18:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC) (Crocodilicus logged on from sKool)

I just checked it, and reverted back to a rather old version that was unaffected. It was actually inserted the minute before you started reading it. KimvdLinde18:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms section

On "Government data shows that child abuse by parents and others is much more common in single parent homes (see Child Abuse links) and that single parent mothers commit more child abuse than single parent fathers." That is a bit of a misrepresentation. There is a disproportionate amount of single mothers (especially young) caring for children than there are single fathers. Those statistics they keep are kept per incident per child, not a proportionate basis with single fathers. So to say "single mothers are more likely than single fathers to abuse a child" is not what the statistics actually say. I edited it because I wasn’t sure what else to do.

That's fine. It's on me to be professional and source this solid source here. I will be back later if this content makes sense here at all.

Anacapa

02:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to help.

However, "among children in single-parent households, those living with only their fathers were approximately one and two-thirds times more likely to be physically abused than those living with only their mothers."

Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information; P.O.Box 1182 Washington, DC 20013-1182

That was all I am able to pull up at the moment, but can further dig if you’d like. Also, they tend to include “neglect” (which makes up the majority of abuse cases in single-mother homes) and also cite “failure to protect the child” (whatever the reason) as abuse when regarding single mothers. Again for the record, I am not disputing the statistics about children being abused in single-parent homes which are mostly made up of mothers, just the conclusion that there are more abusive single mothers than there are single fathers. That just isn’t true, but often touted by groups with political/otherwise agendas.

—Preceding )

Issues re. patriarchy

The newly added section provides points which claim to, as it was originally put, "contradict" patriarchy. Fine, but it needs to be made clear what is being challenged here. I don't think that the market influence comment has any influence as to a challenge to patriarchy, but regardless this needs to be explained. Dysprosia01:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm concerned with that section. My concerns are;

The content reads like Soap Box. It appears to be supporting an "argument" and does not feel like an encyclopaedic entry.

Way too parochial (see comments below).

Simply too long, dwarfing more essential details in the article.

Not relevant in a piece outlining feminism. If it should be included anywhere at all then maybe in a counter page somewhere else. --Zleitzen23:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the whole section as it was in blatant violation of NPOV. The author's intention seemed to be to provide data (without sources -- and no, "everyone knows this" or "I claim that you can sort through thousands of pages of census data and find this" is not good enough, see CITE) that undermines a feminist POV; the job of this article is to document the debate between feminists and antifeminists, not to participate in the debate. Perhaps a section like this belongs on Antifeminism, perhaps not even there, but it's certainly not appropriate for this article (which is too long as it is). Catamorphism06:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

REPLYS:

Dysprosia: I would be pleased to work on clarifying the meaning of the fact marketing, but not here and now since my insert has been arbitrarily remove and based on the comments below. In brief, it powerfully challenges the whole idea that males and masculinity have dominated during the latter half to two-thirds century.

Zleitzen: I find your comments arrogant, self-righteous, and personally offensive. I'm not sure what you think feminist is, if it is not inherently a gigantic soapbox issue. The entire entry is, figuratively speaking, a soapbox for an activist intellectual minority; a place to sell their sociopolitical ideologies, wild speculations, and misinformation about the sexes.

Most inappropriate of all is describing my entries as "parochial," when the data in fact reflects a high-level of systemic-level thinking. If you have specific criticisms and suggestions, rather than vague, inoperative generalizations, I would be pleased to work on the entry further. There may be merit in what you say, but I have no basis for determining that.

Your comments are like a wife saying she's divorcing her husband because he's an incompetent mate and then walking out the door. The entry was 500 words, only slightly larger size two others, half the length of the one Heterosexual Relations. Finally, the insert was made in the section reserved for "the-other-side-of-the-story." I'm also not sure how well qualified most English school teachers are to be evaluate the cultural, legal, and gender climate in America.

"'I'm not sure exactly who you think you are, but you certainly are not Socrates or God,"' and certainly should not be spending your time "editing" other people's work in this manner.

Catamorphism: Many of the same comments made to Zleitzen apply to your comments as well. You have taken upon yourself to evaluate my intentions, thus I will observe that you "seem" to have reacted to my submission emotionally rather than rationally and reasonably. It "seems" you simply do not like the information my entry contains, and are busy seeking justifications to kill it, rather than help make it work.

The entire "pro-feminist" two-thirds/three-fourths of the article is rife with unsubstantiated generalizations and speculation, as well as distortions of contemporary realities and history. Disguising those prejudices in academic mumbo-jumbo and intellectual game-playing doesn't change the actual nature of the entire entry.

The referenced census data is located on 2-3 pages, and is much more reliable and easier to find than a citation in a single book by an obscure socio-politically motivated and biased feminist author. The facts I site are indeed common knowledge among lawyers, political scientists, and business professionals. Exactly which of them do you find questionable? If you have other - hopefully "constructive" rather than just destructive - "specific" suggestions or stylistic recommendations, I would be pleased to pursue them. It could prove to be a learning opportunity.

BUT AT THIS POINT, HOWEVER, IT "SEEMS" CLEAR TO ME THAT THIS WOULD BE A COMPLETE WASTE TIME. The "true-beliefing troops" are beginning to rallying around the flag. I suggest you also look at my three entries under Masculinism as well. You won't "like" them either, and will probably want to arbitrarily remove them as well. Such is the power of feministm over our minds and lives today.DougBaker Doug 13:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring your violations of a number of Wikipedia policies here (civility, personal attacks, good faith, assumptions etc), I have to pick you up on this particular point

"I'm also not sure how well qualified most English school teachers are to be evaluate the cultural, legal, and gender climate in America."

That's my point, this isn't an article evaluating "the cultural, legal, and gender climate in America". It's an article on Feminism. (which I haven't edited despite your claim that I had). As you have described my comments on the article "personally offensive" please seek immediate help in learning how to reach consensus in Wikipedia, or refrain from further editing and discussion.--Zleitzen14:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Parochial Article

An examination of this article reveals 12 direct references to the US or America and many more conclusions drawn from purely parochial American models to the detriment of the wider picture. There is no mention within the main article of the suffragettes or Germaine Greer "yet" we are treated to this paragraph;

"There is also a group of Paleoconservatives, including George Gilder and Pat Buchanan, who argue that feminism has produced a fundamentally unworkable, self-destructive, stagnant society. They note that societies in which feminism has developed the furthest have below-replacement rates of fertility and high rates of immigration. In the U.S., "liberal" religious groups most accepting of feminism have noted fewer conversions and less natural increase, for reasons such as lower birthrate and the likelihood of members taking another step towards secularism by leaving the church."

Feminism is an international experience and wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. Parochial Snippets such as these devalue such articles. --Zleitzen07:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)