Feminism/Archive 21

{{aan}}

first sentence ambiguity - equal to who?

Currently: "Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women."

Grammatically, it should be clarified that the desired equality is among women and the rest of society, which is men. Feminism is not about giving women equality amongst eachother, or making women equal to the Martians, or making them more equal; it is about producing women = men and men = women.

Better: "Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights that are equal for women and men."

(I feel if I change this directly it will get reverted for some reason, so I'll just leave this suggestion here.) --Nanite20:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

"Rights that are equal for women and men" Not historically, so it's not applicable; also it's not necessarily true for all the movements. Currently it says "rights for women" which is correct for all time periods, hence why it's used. --92slim01:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

My point is strictly about the word "equal", that it's an incomplete equation. To paraphrase, "Feminism is about acheiving (women's rights == ________)". Unless you fill in the right hand side of the equation, the sentence doesn't have any meaning.

Edit — don't get me wrong, I don't mean to promote men's rights or whatever -isms are flying around on reddit these days, it's just that I was always taught that feminism was about achieving equality among the sexes to improve humanity as a whole. --Nanite08:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the idea of equality for women "implies" to men, because women and men are the same category of thing (human). Actually from a purely linguistic grammatical point of view adding "to men" is redundant (and is in fact less grammatical). Furthermore the definition as written matches how the sources define the subject. This is the primary and over-riding point. If the reliabel sources don't need to say it - we don't--Cailil "'Cailil"' "talk" 13:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A dictionary would be considered a reliable source for the definition of a word, I suppose? --Nanite21:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

As DICTS says, dictionaries present a few problems as sources (often there's a degree of nuance that they lose.) Beyond that, though, I don't think there's anything unclear about saying "equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women"; its meaning is obvious from the context. And your proposal just seems more clunky to me. --Aquillion02:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2015

This article has been vandalized with a pornographic image overlaid on the top of the page. It needs to be fixed.

04:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what you are talking about and there is nothing in the edit history to say that this ever happened. --Stabila711 05:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

*I assure you this occurred. Yesterday the article had an obscene image overlaid on its contents. The image linked to the Wikipedia page for the GNAA, indicating that this was likely to have been a direct hacking attack as opposed to a case of simple vandalism. It appears to have since been remedied. Andrei.smolnikov01:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

**No log or diff of this exists. If indeed this happened it "'had to be"' a hack--Cailil "'Cailil"' "talk" 16:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Questions

Is that really what feminism is? Doesn't it count for both genders? Isn't it gender equality? Or am i just wrong? Is it purely for females? If so what is the opposite called (as in an ideology that opposes sexism towards men)? I thought feminism was for men too but i might just be wrong. If someone answer i'll be greatfull Simen133718:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Image (a generic symbol for feminism)

What is the 'clenched fist in Venus sign' supposed to be? Has it actually been used anywhere outside of Wikipedia or was it just made up? It strikes me as rather odd, particularly the colour. What sort of organization for the empowerment of women in society would opt for such a stereotypically infantile 'girly' colour?! "'Nagualdesign nagual"' 00:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

''Gender-politics model'' redirects to ''Theories of victimology'' article

I came across the term "gender politics" in this article and wasn't familiar with it, so I checked if there was an article. What I found was a redirect of "gender-politics model" to the "Theories of victimization" article. In that article it defines the gender-politics model as "an attempt to schematise abuse of women as attempts by males in general to maintain their position of power over females." I can't check the citation, because it's offline. But that doesn't sound very NPOV to me. And the redirect strikes me as suspicious in general. I won't change it, however, until I confirm with someone who knows more about gender politics than I do that I should look in to it more and fix it or just leave it to the experts. Thanks for any help! Wllm -wʃʃʍ- 03:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Flower Power Feminist Movement

There are some potential problems with the few sentences in this article about Flower Power Feminism:

I don't know what the boldface words are about. I haven't come across usage like that in other articles, and it doesn't seem to be used anywhere else in this article.

I understand the intended meaning of "For the first time a woman's life, sex was about desire, not marriage. A marriage might get to wait a few years to make sure it was about love," but it's not strictly correct to say "For the first time (in) a woman's life. . ." (I think the intended meaning is for the first time in western society) and "A marriage might get to wait. . ." (the marriage itself isn't waiting, but a couple might be waiting to get married) The precision of language and tone of this section is very different from the rest of the article.

None of this is sourced in this article. There's a separate article about this movement with citations, but strong assertions- especially generalizations- should be directly sourced in the article in which they are made, right?

I don't feel comfortable changing the section myself, since I'm no expert on the topic. I thought it was worth pointing out, tho. Best! Wllm -wʃʃʍ- 04:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that piece was not appropriate for this article. Removed as such. Anyone who wants to restore it needs to source it--Cailil "'Cailil"' "talk" 15:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2016

I think feminism is a philosophy/political ideology, not a profession. Designating it as a profession makes it sound as though you need a qualification to believe in the simple notion of equality between the genders, or that those who do the work of disseminating feminism only do it for financial renumeration.

00:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm having trouble finding where the article designates feminism as a profession. Could you please point it out? Starke Hathaway -Starke Hathaway 01:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

20px|link= "'Not done:"' Unclear request. Article does not claim feminism is a profession... EvergreenFir "'EvergreenFir"' Please 123;123;re125;125; 17:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2016

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for men and women

10:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

20px|link= "'Not done:"' as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay11:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

TOO fact based?

I'm sorry but did I read the To-do template correctly? Did it honestly say that a section is too based on facts? Someone please tell me I read that wrong. If I didn't maybe there should be a discussion about that. -- 15:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

What I think it's saying is that that section reads like a laundry-list of disconnected facts rather than really discussing the general relation of socialism to feminism. I think perhaps it should say "too fact"oid" based"; it lists a bunch of factoids about individual figures without really putting them in an overarching context that says why the reader should care. --Aquillion23:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Description of Feminism

Considering this article itself quotes "...feminism often promotes misandry and the elevation of women's interests above men's, and criticize radical feminist positions as harmful to both men and women," the introductory paragraph should reflect that feminism is not only about making both women' and men's right equal. The first sentence states that all forms of feminism are about equal rights, when, in reality, only a portion of feminism and feminists want equal rights, while other portions want women to have more rights than men and want to see men to suffer in the ways women have suffered throughout history, and then some. —nbsp;Preceding 03:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Read LEAD and UNDUE. EvergreenFir "'EvergreenFir"' Please 123;123;re125;125; 03:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I retract my questioning of the intro after reading what you linked. —nbsp;Preceding 04:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Different types of Feminism

I would like to propose a new section, detailing the "'different types"' of feminism. Seems very worthwhile, given the fact that feminism obviously consists of many shades, and there are a number of quality articles on Wikipedia already. This seems to be common on Wikipedia in different articles. Thanks.Charlotte13500:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The Movements and ideologies section is trying to do that but it could be improved--Cailil "'Cailil"' "talk" 10:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Cailil. I agree this may be the section to improve.Charlotte13512:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

suffragettes

Emmeline Pankhurst

Was the leader of the suffragette movement. She was born in 1858 ,July 15th and in 1903 she alongside her daughters formed the WOMEN'S SOCIAL AND POLITICAL UNION (WSPU). And in 1918 due to the suffragettes efforts women over thirty were given the right to vote. feminists are the modern day suffragettes —nbsp;Preceding )

Unless they have actually something to say about suffrage, no they are not. Suffrage is the "right to vote" and involves issues about who is included and who gets excluded. Modern feminism's goals are often non-political in nature. Dimadick09:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Dimadick Where do you see this text? I can't find it. Kaldari14:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Which text? This is my reply to the anonymous description of feminists as modern suffragettes. And the description of suffrage as "right to vote" comes straight from the article on the subject. Dimadick14:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is there no Feminist sexim section??

from Gloria Steinem to Anita Sarkesian, feminists are notorious for their anti-male, or just generally sexist views and quotes. Why is the page totally void of this fact? is it censorship? VC1917:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Would need RS covering it first off. EvergreenFir "'EvergreenFir"' Please 123;123;re125;125; 18:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

A lot of feminist literature considers women to be incapable of sexism towards men, as they are an 'oppressed class' and therefore cannot be the oppressors themselves. So regardless of how much they drink from mugs with 'male tears' written on them, or else use the hashtag killallmen, they are incapable of sexism... right? Well anyway, here are a couple of sources you asked for EvergreenFir:

URL

URL  """""  19:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Quora is not a reliable source and the Comment Is Free section of The Guardian is an opinion section. Please see RS for information about identifying reliable sources. EvergreenFir "'EvergreenFir"' Please 123;123;re125;125; 19:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough on those, it seems that by and large the mainstream media are unwilling to go out on a limb on this, so finding reliable sources is going to be pretty hard. I mean there are plenty of sources like this: , but they are far from independent.  """""  20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that's the main reason why there's no sexism section. I think TRUTH is a good essay that relates to this. There's plenty of opinion pieces about it, but they tend to be fringe or by non-notable people. Some notable people like Christine Hoff Sommers have written on this, but people like her are also labeled antifeminist (often by feminists, so you get this circular thing going). EvergreenFir "'EvergreenFir"' Please 123;123;re125;125; 20:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If Christine Hoff Sommers has written on this, why is that not a RS for discussing feminst sexism?  """""  20:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think she has, or at least she claims feminism is anti-men. That would be RS material for a criticism section. Looks like she's mentioned in FeminismCriticism_of_feminism_and_anti-feminism already, but it could be added to a bit. EvergreenFir "'EvergreenFir"' Please 123;123;re125;125; 18:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

To Do - Feminism and Socialism

Hi,

re the "too fact based" item on the to do list: WP has a separate article on "Socialist Feminism"

( URL ). Perhaps one could incorporate a summary of that,

or at least from there - perhaps something from the lead - or at least link there directly?

T 12:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Neoliberalism section - too long for this page

The current neoliberalism section is just too long for this page (see SUMMARY). The content as written could possibly go into Liberal feminism though. This page here is a summary of the subpages in :category:feminism it's literally the last place new information should actually go. New information goes into the specific articles and summaries/condensed versions of that new info "filter-up" to this page. Furthermore the Neoliberalism section now dwarfs the civil rights and socialism etc sections in a way that is UNDUE. I'm cutting it back again for the above reasons please respond before re-adding as someone else will just have to remove it again "for the same policy reasons". This is clearly a good faith attempt to improve article but everyone needs to understand how SUMMARY LENGTH effect parent articles like Feminism and where and how new information etc should go within that context--Cailil "'Cailil"' "talk" 15:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Cailil, I actually added it here to try to condense the section on Neoliberalism and link to the section here as the main. At the time the two sections were almost identical copy/pastes in both articles. As odd as it may be, it seems a better fit here than there.

Not sure it can stand on its own as an article and I'm not sure there is a better place for it. It's a strange fit with Liberal feminism as Neoliberalism is more of an economic thing, and not a social thing. Timothyjosephwood TimothyJosephWood 15:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Since it's talking about Liberal Feminism for most of the text I removed that seems to be what that portion is referring to, and hence my suggestion but I agree about your economics/society point. Another way to do it would be to make an article for Feminism and political movements and expand on the 4 sections in the current section in that new article, but TBH I don't think that's all that necessary. I think the section was just going into too much detail for a parent article like this one--Cailil "'Cailil"' "talk"

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2016

** EXPLANATION FOR THE CHANGE: This article is written very well, but the section on the Visual Arts does not seem to touch upon the contemporary developments of feminist aesthetics and shall be updated. This is the reason why, at the end of the section on the Visual Arts, I would add this sentence:

A feminist approach to the visual arts has most recently developed through Cyberfeminism and the posthuman turn, giving voice to the ways "contemporary female artists are dealing with gender, social media and the notion of embodiment".cite journal| last=Ferrando | first=Francesca |title = A feminist genealogy of posthuman aesthetics in the visual arts|year = 2016 |url = URL accessdate=29 June 2016

The reference is a peer-reviewed article published by academic publisher Palgrave and distributed under a Creative Commons license.

This is the way the coded section appears, once updated:***

Visual arts

Corresponding with general developments within feminism, and often including such self-organizing tactics as the consciousness-raising group, the movement began in the 1960s and flourished throughout the 1970s. Jeremy Strick, director of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, described the feminist art movement as "the most influential international movement of any during the postwar period", and Peggy Phelan says that it "brought about the most far-reaching transformations in both artmaking and art writing over the past four decades".cite web |url=URL |title=What Is Feminist Art? |author=Blake Gopnik |date=22 April 2007 |work=The Washington Post |accessdate=3 December 2011 Feminist artist Judy Chicago, who created "The Dinner Party", a set of vulva-themed ceramic plates in the 1970s, said in 2009 to "ARTnews", "There is still an institutional lag and an insistence on a male Eurocentric narrative. We are trying to change the future: to get girls and boys to realize that women's art is not an exception—it's a normal part of art history."cite news|author=Hoban, Phoebe|url=URL Feminist Evolution|date=December 2009|work=ARTnews|accessdate=4 December 2011 A feminist approach to the visual arts has most recently developed through Cyberfeminism and the posthuman turn, giving voice to the ways "contemporary female artists are dealing with gender, social media and the notion of embodiment".cite journal| last=Ferrando | first=Francesca |title = A feminist genealogy of posthuman aesthetics in the visual arts|year = 2016 |url = URL accessdate=6 July 2016

Pressutopia

15:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

20px|link= "'Done"' Request seems reasonable and the text suggested has not immediately visible problems. Thank you Pressutopia adding content to the article. EvergreenFir "'EvergreenFir"' Please 123;123;re125;125; 05:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Iroquois

Thinking of adding something: URL Let me know what ya'll think. 01:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear what it is you want to add. Timothyjosephwood TimothyJosephWood 02:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't like adding things to an already established article. However, if you don't see the merit, it is another resolve I'm willing to undertake. Thanks. 23:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Feminism

This section seems very shallow and does not fairly represent the logical criticisms of the current feminist movement. It implies an anti-feminist must be bigoted in order to hold those views. I don't think I have the capability to articulate a better revision to this section without harming the neutrality of the article, but leaving it as is does hurt this article's neutrality. 0xFFF119:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey 0xFFF1. I moved this section to the bottom. That's usually where new threads on talk pages go (with some exceptions). This would probably work better if you could be specific with what it is that you wanted changed in the article. Timothyjosephwood TimothyJosephWood 19:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(re-ping 0xFFF1, since I messed it up. Timothyjosephwood TimothyJosephWood 19:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

As a philosopher what I find most striking is the near complete lack of criticisms based on the merits of the philosophical positions. By the time the reader gets to the third sentence of the first paragraph, they're reading a laundry list of carefully selected issues which seem to be quite purposefully designed to highlight the bigotry OxFFF1 noted. The fact that it does not even mention analytic feminism, much less the point that it has become the dominant avenue of feminism within academia, is particularly surprising, and disappointing. This would be akin to a criticism of a creationism entry that not only listing, say, 'failure to believe in science' but not mention evolution, at all. With all due respect, did you not notice that the last sentence of the entry is in fact a distortion of a critique of feminism, that was morphed into the opposite of what the author stated? That should set off a huge red flag within anyone reading a criticism section of a philosophical approach, regardless if it's feminism, post-modernism, or epiphenomenalism in epistemology. If a reader, after reading any entry, again regardless if it's feminism or utilitarianism, forms the impression that based on the article the position is all but beyond reproach and belief in a contrary position is absurd, more than likely the authors of the entry have failed, quite profoundly. The section should include widely discussed, and often near universally settled, problems with the position, such as objectification (which has been noted as nearly fatally flawed for more than a century now), inconsistencies in addressing entailed responsibilities of rights, a over reliance on identity politics, and oppression as shared experience, (a position so widely considered bankrupt that even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy took the highly unusual step of noting that some scholars believe the suspicion has gone so far as to make it impossible to make even generalizations, and that was over 20 years ago!) A short, but accurate and critical criticism section should exist, as it should for pretty much any philosophical position. As this one stands now, OxFFF1's critique of being shallow and implying bigotry is spot on. Maxxx1234500:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As stated before, this works better if there are specific changes you would like addressed, rather than a general commentary. Timothyjosephwood TimothyJosephWood 01:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that's what I had done. Include actual merit based criticism. Rewrite the list of positions argued against in the first paragraph. Include oft unaddressed (or denied) entailed responsibilities tied to rights, such as failure to mandate selective service registration when mandating open access to all roles in the military. Note the critiques of shared oppression, which is all but universally included philosophical encyclopedias and authoritative anthologies. (It's lack of inclusion here is a big red flag to those in the field.) A short paragraph beginning with a criticism of narrative and subjective based approaches would be an excellent idea, particularly in demonstrating both its oft noted entailed problems with logical stringency, and as a segue. These criticism are so ubiquitous within the relevant fields that they were instrumental in the massive growth of analytic feminism. With that approach one of the most predominant criticism can be included as well as including analytic feminism, which in no reasonable criticism section could be left out. Hope that helps give a little direction. I'm one of those old people who aren't good at all this internet code stuff. :p Maxxx1234521:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with 0xFFF1. This article strikes me as one-sided, but more specifically, outdated. There isn't anything about the modern culture war against what many perceive as radical feminism/SJW feminism/feminazism, even though it is a growing view of feminism, regardless of your personal views. Specifically, I suggest adding in the kind of issues covered in the 21st_century section of this article: URL

talkquote|BBC and Time, among others, have covered the 2014 social media trend "Women Against Feminism." These antifeminists contend that feminism demonizes men (misandry) and that women are not oppressed in 21st century Western countries.43435363738 The Guardian and Jezebel have also reported on an increasing number of women and female celebrities rejecting feminism and instead subscribing to humanism.3940 As a response to a pro-feminism speech by Australian Labor Senator Penny Wong,41 several women who identify as being humanist and antifeminist argued in an article for the Guardian that feminism is a discriminatory ideology and continues to portray women as victims.39

For instance, the perception of modern-day feminists being concerned with trivial or unimportant matters such as 'Manspreading' or 'Mansplaining', being overly offended/sensitive, or looking for oppression where there isn't any, ect., the list of complaints this view has goes on. Whether you're pro-feminist, anti-feminist, just interested in feminism, believe the perception, or don't believe it, this growing perception is undeniably an important thing to cover in the main article on the subject. Here's some online news articles that cover the kinds of things I'm talking about: URL URL URL http hubpages com/politics/Why-So-Many-People-Are-Against-Feminism (spam filter blocking the site, just listing it as an example of the beliefs/perceptions I'm talking about) --User90832523:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You're going to need some better sources than two blogs, one opinion piece, and one questionable piece. I think folks conflate critiques of feminism with modern day antifeminism. Backlash is not the same as criticism/critique. EvergreenFir "'EvergreenFir"' 00:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I should be a bit clearer, by specific I mean:

talkquote|

In the second paragraph of the section titled "Completely true things about France", please change "France is in Asia", to "France is in Europe".

Even better, you could propose a draft of changes you would like done. Then it can be discussed and evaluated by others. Timothyjosephwood TimothyJosephWood 21:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I can write something up, but I can't do all this coding stuff: I know content, not technology. Plus, I was really hoping a budding young mind would get interested in the project and contribute. Either way, let me know but keep in mind I can barely indent and sign my name on this thing. ;) Maxxx1234500:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There are almost 1,000 editors who "watch" this article currently, though they are all almost certainly not active. Nonetheless, there is no shortage of minds, although many, like myself, may be working on other projects here. I would suggest this tutorial for editing Wikipedia, or the Teahouse, where new users can ask questions. Alternatively, you can always ask at and I'll try to help in any way I can.

Overall, it's better to have understanding and expertise, and lack knowledge of the markup (coding), than visa versa. The markup is comparatively easy to learn, while the understanding may take many years. Timothyjosephwood TimothyJosephWood 00:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

[[Hipparchia of Maroneia]]

quote|One of the earliest women that lived with feminist principles was Hipparchia of Maroneia, wife of Crates of Thebes (member of the Cynic school, she left traditional woman role and live based on her natural impulses, looking for happiness and freedom.Harvnb|Long|1996|p=42

I removed this (and an earlier version) since

The reference is woefully inadequate to identify the actual work being referenced (V, RS)

The sayso of a single author is not sufficient to recruit a classical Greek philosopher into a 20th century movement. (NPOV, UNDUE)

I am eagerly awaiting the comments of the P2prules contributor in question. Kleuske13:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Approximately the same text has been removed from Protofeminism, History of feminism and Public sex. That text includes the line ""The Latin-language prose writer Apuleius wrote lurid accounts of them having sex, publicly, in broad daylight.Apuleius, "Florida" 2. 49."". Said text mentions Hipparchia once but does "'not"' include "'any"' descriptions of sex, public, lurid or otherwise. I have removed a simular statement from the article on Hipparchia of Maroneia, for exactly the same reason. It is worthwhile to note that the Florida contains only 26 chapters (including five fragments) in one book. attalus.org Kleuske20:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Another book where you can read about her:

Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers by Diogenes Laërtius;

I wrote about her as part of the history of feminism, not only about her sexuality, if you do not agree with a text you can edit that text, but it is not necessary to delete the whole text.

URL

Horn. Od. x. 335. Pope's Version, 387.

t Horn. II. vi. 211. Pope's Version, 254.

Some texts use the name Hipparchus and talk about her as a male, using him instead of her and he instead of she.--P2prules12:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

So?

The fact that she assumed mens clothes does not imply feminism. That is a conclusion drawn (by you) and conflicts with SYNT. FOr the same reason, I can recruit her (post mortem) as a crossdresser or transgender.

Moreover, there's not a single mention of sex, public, lurid or otherwise in any of the sources, hence there's a good reason to remove such statements.

When I ask for a source for a particular statement, I do not want "here's more books you can read", I want a source that supports a statement: this book, that page, author X,Y and Z tells us "she's a feminist" or ":she's having sex inpublic in a lurid narrative".

"Quod non", as the Romans said.

Kind regards, Kleuske12:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not assumed that she was feminist for the clothes that she used, or her sexuality views. I just wrote some texts that were written in some sources, and those sources are just citations. Relax. --P2prules12:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

And I asked you for a source, which you failed to provide. In the meantime I removed obviously false statements from several articles, which were quite specific in their claims on which author allegedly wrote it. I actually checked. He did not write it. Kleuske12:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Toxic masculinity

Could use more information regarding toxic masculinity and how that affects women - this is a big part of it, given that so much of the problems between men and women stem from a lack of communication, because they are taught not to communicate their emotions. Cbrewer41521:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Source revision?

Many of the sources that I see cited, whether by famous authors or not, seem to be "feeling pieces" subject to OPINION. If someone could find more sources with empirical data, (studies, surveys, etc.) it would be greatly appreciated. The Average Gamer15:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2017

Nl3116

02:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that a lot of the exact definitions are off, and there are some grammar deficiencies within the text. Also, I think there is not enough content on the differences between 1st 3rd-world types of feminism, leaving the viewers ignorant of the crucial differences. Not to mention, it seems like the owner of this article is uneducated in general about the topic, which should be revised,

URL

URL

URL

URL

20px|link=|alt= "'Not done:"' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Kosack08:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

People of color

the feminism movement is about the advancement of women as a whole and there is too much information focused on the white aspect of the movement and the sections about the people of color are too short as are made to seem that they haven't made equal contributions to the movement.Zholly17:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Zholly

If you feel that way, find sources mentioning contributions and improve the article. Be bold. Kleuske17:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Critique Of Men's Rights and Women's Rights

feb 20, 2017, Well I have noticed when men's rights are have the critique section men's rights is considered misogyny where as the critique section of women rights contains people preventing women's rights instead of stating feminism is misandry, this is not a fair assessment, critique of men's rights too is to prevent men's rights and should not accusing men's rights for misogyny, —nbsp;Preceding ) 19:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources (and there are RS's) feel free to add one. Kleuske22:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

bell hooks instead of Bell Hooks

bell hooks is a person and should have capital first letters right? —nbsp;Preceding 22:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

ok its seems that it is intentional so...nevermind ( de gustibus non disputandum est)--201.226.15.184 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, it's intentional. EvergreenFir "'EvergreenFir"' 22:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

She likes to stylistically uncapitalize her name... for some reason. Actually, I just looked at her article and I can't find discussion of this. surely she has said why she does this?  """""  23:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2017

External Weblinks

URL

Stories, interviews and reflections of the beginning of the feminist movement in Berlin 1968-1974 (in English).

Lucida Grande Lucida Grande 08:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Lucida Grande08:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Lucida Grande Ummm... That's a book review. I do not find it very suitable for the exlinks section. The book, yes, but not the review. Kleuske10:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

notdone

— IVORK "'IVORK"' 06:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2017

I need to add more towards Feminism, my grandmother wants me to add some things. Thanks. Idkmemez42013:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

notdone

— no specific edits were requested. — ""'""' 13:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest Data

I've been reviewing the latest data on single mother families and its very disturbing: 85% of incarcerated youths come from single mother families; 71% of high school dropouts (80% of people in prison are high school dropouts); 90% of runaways; 80% of rapists. I think a section called "The Failure of Feminism" is called for at this point. And the situation is going to get worse: currently only 20% of men aged 18 to 30 are married. Feminism is communism, it's Cultural Marxism using Critical Theory, and communism always fails. 11:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You kind of trailed off into a political rant towards the end there. Why are you equating single mother families with feminism anyway? "'nagualdesign nagual"' 14:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

If you connect the dots, you'll find correlations between feminism and sociological problems. For instance, the divorce rate shot through the roof in the 1970's and we started getting the kids of divorce in the schools in the 1980's and this is when the "disruptive classroom" became the norm. Previously, the well behaved classroom was the norm. And currently the USA is only ranked 17th in education worldwide (and 75% of all USA teachers K-12 are female, so the women are going to have to take the blame for this one). Not all single mother families produce criminals, of course, mothers who have a job and a university degree seem to raise kids okay. And feminism is certainly political--it's Cultural Marxism using Critical Theory, which is pure politics. Feminism caused the single mother family syndrome in this country. In fact, all sorts of things have gotten worse for women: Women drink more, smoke more, do drugs more, more traffic tickets, stress, heart attacks, strokes, etc. I'm particularly attuned to this because I have a sister who's a hard core femiNazi--her femiNazi buddies turned on her, which increased her stress enormously--she had a stroke, and now she's half paralyzed ,living in a wheelchair. I've seen first hand the damage feminism does and all the data I've read correlates this. We definitely need a section on the failures of feminism. 20:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. To quote the guidelines, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. In short "connecting the dots", as you have attempted to do here, is what we call "original research". You'll have to find a reliable, published source to back-up your claims if you want to add anything to the article. "'nagualdesign nagual"' 17:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

When you mention data, provide external links to other users for verification.

As for the phrase: "If you connect the dots, you'll find correlations between feminism and sociological problems.", may I remind you that correlation does not imply causation? The United States has always had sociological problems, and feminism is in part a response to such problems. High school dropouts in particular are far from a new phenomenon.

I searched for a bit about U.S. High School Graduation Rates, prior to the 1970s. The following list gives the number of students who actually managed to graduate in specific periods. The rest did not make it. The numbers are sobering: URL

Period 1899-1900. 6.4% of the students graduated.

Period 1909-1910. 8.8% of the students graduated.

Period 1919-1920. 16.8% of the students graduated.

Period 1929-1930. 29.0% of the students graduated.

Period 1939-1940. 50.8% of the students graduated.

Period 1941-1942. 51.2% of the students graduated.

Period 1943-1944. 42.3% of the students graduated.

Period 1945-1946. 47.9% of the students graduated.

Period 1947-1948. 54.0% of the students graduated.

Period 1949-1950. 59.0% of the students graduated.

Period 1951-1952. 58.6% of the students graduated.

Period 1953-1954. 60.0% of the students graduated.

Period 1955-1956. 62.3% of the students graduated.

Period 1957-1958. 64.8% of the students graduated.

Period 1959-1960. 65.1% of the students graduated.

Period 1961-1962. 69.5% of the students graduated.

Period 1963-1964. 76.7% of the students graduated.

The data is from a statistics report published in 1965, so I am not certain whether graduation rates continued to increase through the 1960s. Dimadick16:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

*Your data has to be viewed in context. For instance, in 1900 only 34 states had compulsory education (through elementary school). In 1918 Mississippi was the last state to require compulsory education through elementary school. By 1940 only 50% of kids had completed high school. Many kids opted not to go to high school since it wasn't required. In 1900 94% of kids didn't go to high school. 00:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitions Suggestion

Limiting feminism to a rights issue is as far as I can see philosophically and sociologically incorrect. See URL for a starter on many strands. While rights feminism is exceedingly important and also the most visible strand, there are many others, included broadly in a heading of the celebration of womanhood. The importance of this is that it is not limited to a relationship vis-a-vis men as the yardstick (There are many examples in the academic and non-academic press and many notable individuals). This is a controversial topic so I think will need some careful work to handle appropriately. Regards, Parzivalamfortas19:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC) —nbsp;Preceding )

You've raised some good points, few people I know are aware of Feminist Metaphysics, for instance. As far as "rights" go, 90% of the people in prison in the USA are male, women get the kids 96% of the time in a divorce, women have controlled the vote in the USA since 1980, men do 98% of the heavy construction slave labor in the USA and constitute 91% of workplace injuries, men work more overtime, etc. So women actually have more rights in the USA than men. So I think we should concentrate on the various aspects of feminism that deal with other issues, as you suggest, to reach some sort of identity politics for women. Currently it seems people are just whipping a dead horse--60% of US college students are now female and women get more BA's, MA's and PhD's than men. So the tide has turned and old time "rights" feminism has become obsolete. 10:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a forum. Discuss using reliable sources as refereces, and not vague statements that such sources exist. I'll also note that statistics don't define people. I am a man. I work in construction, I'm not a slave, I enjoy my job and I get paid well to work hard. — ""'""' 04:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Your rant makes no sense. All the stats I've quoted are well known. Are you saying that heavy construction labor is easy and fun and that women should do 50% of heavy construction labor? Well then, why aren't they? Since you work in construction perhaps you could explain why women, who want "equality" with men, refuse to work in heavy construction? I think this is an important topic. 01:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Further reading

Kindly the add the following...

cite book|author=Rosemarie Tong|title=Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction|url=URL Press|isbn=978-0-8133-4841-4

Added. Thank you. Gilded Snail03:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit Cyberpower678/FaQsInternetArchiveBot this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive URL to URL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot "'InternetArchiveBot"' 12:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Two Schools of Thought

Can we include the fact in the introduction that diverse schools exist within feminist and then define Individual Feminism vs Radical Feminism. Here is a good source written by Individual Feminist Wendy McElroy URL Thanks.

The sidebar in the article links to various types of feminism. You can find Individualist feminism and Radical feminism linked there. EvergreenFir "'EvergreenFir"' 19:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit Cyberpower678/FaQsInternetArchiveBot this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive URL to URL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot "'InternetArchiveBot"' 17:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Needs Improvement

This article needs improvement because it's 100% feminist leaning. Sources that are used are heavily biased and pro-feminist. More space and sources should be provided with criticism of the feminism, so we can get a balanced opinions. Feminism is not about equality, because Feminism is not Egalitarianism. —nbsp;Preceding 17:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

See GEVAL. Ian.thomson18:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

This is partially due to the fact that this article isn't in fact about feminism. Under the Third Wave section it states "In the early 1990s in the USA, third-wave feminism began as a response to perceived failures of the second wave..", but is only partially correct. That period was when the third wave feminism and analytic feminism formally split in formulating approaches to deal with the second wave issues, which at the time was called the postmodern (or post-structuralist)-analytic split; and in fact most scholarly sources, such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and many APA publications still use this phrasing.

This article isn't about feminism nearly as much as it's about the developments within the postmodern/post-structuralist branch after that split. The dominant editors, and most of the editors by far, have some groundings and interest relating to this branch only. The APA (American Philosophical Association) has held discussions not only on this issue, but this very article. This is perfectly analogous to a philosophy entry that notes the birth of continental philosophy, and then goes on to only discuss continental philosophy as if that was the totality of the field, with formally educated and professional opinions being labeled "fringe" and "not noteworthy" and "bias" just as has happened here with this issue. (On at least one occasion a highly respected feminist philosopher, with decades of publishing experience, was told she was 'clearly uninformed' on the subject and was threatened to not repeat her edits, to the somewhat comical reaction to several prominent APA members.) It's not meant as an insult, but the bias and lack of formal educational grounding is so stark regarding this article, that the article literally ignores the other major branch (the other being analytic, just as with the field of philosophy itself) without even realizing the scale of its existence.

There's a reason why this entry looks nothing like the one(s) found in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. That's not meant to be cruel, but it is very sad. Maxxx1234515:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2017

I wish to fix grammatical errors in the Feminism page. Please Consider :) NightIntheDark16:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

20px|link=|alt= "'Not done for now:"' If you are planning to change British spelling to American or vice versa, read this first MOS:ENGVAR. If not, and the mistakes are few, list them here all and what should be done, otherwise wait till you become autoconfirmed, page protection cannot be applied or lifted because of one person. "thinsp;mdash;"nbsp;Ammarpadnbsp; 16:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

It explains things from a mostly pro-feminist point of view. —nbsp;Preceding ) 03:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2017

Hello, under the picture of Simone Veil at URL there is this text : "Simone Veil (1939–), former French Minister of Health (1974–79). She made easier access to contraceptive pills and legalized abortion (1974–75) – which was her greatest and hardest achievement." She was born in 1927 and died in 2017 so the (1939-) is wrong ; and it could not mean either the date when the picture has been taken because she would have been only 12.

TLDR : Change (1939-) to (1927-2017) 00:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

nbsp;•nbsp;"Help!" 01:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Minority viewpoint

Why is it not headlined at the start of the article that feminism is a minority point of view and that only a small percentage of women accept the label? This could give the misleading impression that women as a whole consider feminism representative of their interests. —nbsp;Preceding 12:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that states that the majority of women "don't" want social equality? To be honest, it sounds like you're talking out of your rectum. Feminism covers a vast swathe of ideologies, not just whatever minority you have in mind. For example, if you were to ask every woman on Earth, "Do you think girls should receive the same quality of education as boys?" I expect most of them would think you were an idiot for even having to ask. nagualdesign nagual 13:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought this was an encyclopedia, not some flame war on YouTube, so why are you making comments like "talking out of your rectum" and "would think you're an idiot". Be professional. —nbsp;Preceding )

The majority of women do not accept the label "feminist". However the majority would indeed agree for actual equal rights as you say. So this highlights how women perceive the difference between equal rights and feminism, that they are not synonymous. This fact is highly relevant to an article on feminism.—nbsp;Preceding )

See (for instance) ""Poll: Women reject 'feminist' label, call them 'too-extreme,' anti-men"", Washington Examiner, ""Less Than Half of Millennial Women Identify as “Feminist”"".

I agree that "talking out of your rectum" or reducing "feminism" to a few talking points no-one disagrees with is hardly the way to go. Responding in kind isn't either. In order to make a point on Wikipedia, the best thing is to cite sources instead of making claims and then failing to back them up. Kleuske15:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Criticism accepted Kleuske. So where are we now? —nbsp;Preceding 15:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

87.113.172.123 We're discussing the matter, I provided two sources to support your claim (and you could probably find more). The next step is you being BOLD, preferably citing more sources. Kleuske11:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Feminism &amp; Misandry

I propose we include in introductory part the following claims: "Some have labeled sections of Feminist movemenet as misandrist (men-hating)." We can use credible source, like Christina Sommers who considers herself "equality feminist." Let's include it to make this article more balanced. —nbsp;Preceding 22:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

See GEVAL and DUE. Also, please step away from your rage-totem and try studying the subject from its own perspective. Ian.thomson22:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2018 (Adding an internet section)

I would like to contribute to the culture section of this page by creating a new section for "The Internet". I have useful information regarding feminism on reddit and multiple citations to support the information, which are listed below. The piece I would like to contribute is below.

Internet

Reddit is a social media platform typically dominated by caucasian males, (Duggan, Smith, 2013) but feminists have used this platform to create subreddits as a space for feminist discussion about politics, concerns and to support one another. These subreddits are useful in analysing the dynamic between feminist communities and communities that are explicitly hostile towards feminists, as well the dynamic and unequal representation between different feminist ideologies, such as third-wave feminism and post-feminism, specifically on networked publics.(Massanari, 2017)

/r/TwoXChromosomes, which was created on July 16, 2009, (/r/TwoXChromosomes metrics, 2018) is one of the most notable feminist subreddits, where the submissions focus around health, rights, sexual assault and equality. (Massanari, 2017) As of January, 2018, /r/TwoXChromosomes had 11.5 million subscribers and ranked the 49th most popular subreddit found of Reddit. (/r/TwoXChromosomes metrics, 2018) Related subreddits linked to /r/TwoXChromosomes include topics surrounding girliness and womanhood, beauty and fashion, careers, hobbies, health and fitness, reproductive health, pregnancy and parenthood, feminism, activism and politics, LGBT discussions, sexual assault and domestic violence, and support for men. There are also subreddits which surround issues and discussions pertaining to specific ethnicities and sexual orientations within the community.(Related Links and Discussions, 2017)

/r/TrollXChromosomes, which was originally created as a by-product of /r/TwoXChromosomes as an April Fool’s joke, (Massanari, 2017) was established on March 31, 2011 (/r/TrollXChromosomes metrics, 2018) and creates a more humorous environment for its feminist community where memes, reaction gifs, twitter snapshots and jokes are often shared to create a friendly feminist space. (Massanari, 2017) As of January, 2018, /r/TrollXChromosomes had three hundred thousand subscribers, making it Reddit’s 320th most popular subreddit. (/r/TrollXChromosomes metrics, 2018) As of January, 2018, /r/TrollXChromosomes had 25 subreddits linked within its network, which include spaces for /r/TrollXMoms, /r/TrollXGirlGamers, /r/TrollWeddings, and /r/TrollXPorn. (trollnetwork subreddits, 2018)

On reddit, feminists are frequently accused of being “trolls” when they point out misogynist comments. (Bergstrom, 2015) /r/TrollXChromosomes aims to “take back the troll” by transforming it into a positive feminist symbol.

The /r/TrollXChromosomes trolls are members of the subreddit, /r/TrollXChromosomes, who share and post feminist friendly content such as memes, gifs, in an anecdotal sense (Massanari 2017). Members of the group refer to themselves and their community as trolls, in an attempt to rebuild the tainted image of the widely-known Internet Troll (Massanari 2017). Trolling in the /r/TrollXChromosomes/ subreddit differs from the usual trolling experience, where the ultimate goal is to belittle or undermine individuals or groups of people. This feminist community offers a space to relate to fellow feminists and creates an overall supportive experience for members (Massanari 2017). The subreddit, /r/TrollXChromosomes, troll is an amusing, unglamorous community which has potential to spread positive messages across the large and widely used platform of reddit (Massanari 2017).

(Massanari, 2017) URL

(Duggan, Smith, 2013)

URL

(Bergstrom, 2015)

URL

(/r/TwoXChromosomes metrics, 2018)

URL

“/r/TwoXChromosomes metrics”. Reddit metrics. January 27th, 2018. Retrieved January 27th, 2016.

(/r/TrollXChromosomes metrics, 2018)

URL

“/r/TrollXChromosomes metrics”. Reddit metrics. January 27th, 2018. Retrieved January 27th, 2016.

(Related Links and Discussions, 2017)

URL

“Related Links and Discussions”. Reddit. Retrieved January 27th, 2016.

(trollnetwork subreddits, 2018)

URL

Tortalyni

00:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Tortalyni While this is an interesting topic, like anything, it is subject to Wikipedia verifiability standards, which include footnotes from reliable sources in secondary publications. The pewinternet source probably meets that standad, but none of the reddit ones do, and I can't access the uvic url as it's restricted. As a secondary matter, you would have to integrate your sources as inline footnotes, not just a random list at the end of a long section. If you are serious about including this material, search around in books and scholarly journals or reliable websites for material about this, then rewrite your section, and present it again below with your reliable, secondary references properly cited.

Finally, this article appears to be undergoing an attempt to bring it to "featured article" status; among other things, this means that editors will look very critically at any proposed changes to ensure that it does nothing to undermine that effort. This is perhaps not the best time to introduce your Reddit-related topic here. Best, Mathglot01:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S., I added a "hide/show" bar to expand your article text proposal, as a way to set it off, and also to keep this section from getting very long, especially if you make more proposals. In theory, no one has the right to alter your Talk page entry (per TPO), so if you don't find this a helpful addition, please feel free to revert it back to the way you left it. Mathglot01:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

20px|link=|alt= "'Not done:"' please establish a consensus for this alteration "'before"' using the tlx|edit semi-protected template. Per Mathglot. Feminist feminist 08:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2018

x original: Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes.12 This includes seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to those for men.

CHANGE TO:

y new: Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish and achieve political, economic, personal and social empowerment of women, as part of a proclaimed objective of overall equality of sexes.12 This includes seeking to establish educational and professional opportunities for women that are equal to those for men. 18:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

20px|link=|alt= "'Not done:"' please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nihlus "'Nihlus"' 21:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2018

X Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes.

CHANGE TO

y Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a stated common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes. 06:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

So you want to add the word

stated

into the sentence? EvergreenFir "'EvergreenFir"' 07:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like an improvement to me, but if there's actually a source that says something about why "stated" goals are something important that I'm maybe missing, then sure. Otherwise, the current version seems clear and unambiguous; where is the improvement? IP, what was your reasoning, here? Mathglot11:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

20px|link=|alt= "'Not done:"' I don't think it's an improvement. —nbsp;MRD2014nbsp; 19:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2018

Spagootyguy

21:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

synonym- sexism

20px|link=|alt= "'Not done:"' Not really. —nbsp;MRD2014nbsp; 21:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Trans people

The article, so far as I can see, does not mention transgender people even once. This seems like a massive oversight for a page that is 9000 words long and solely about (specific areas within) the topic of gender. I reckon a paragraph or two under "Movements and ideologies", summarising parts of 01:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I just reverted the edit you made in 'Men and Masculinity' - this isn't because I don't think the article should mention trans people, it's just because we need to represent what the sources say fairly rather than putting words into the authors' mouths. I agree with you that the article would benefit from a discussion on the various feminist perspectives on transgender people; would you be in a position to draft something?Girth Summit07:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at the reference given and I can't see any use of binary language. It's just a few pages about men's role in feminism. But more importantly, we're not quoting a passage here, but writing in the editorial style of Wikipedia, which (though I can't find a policy on this) should be to avoid trans-exclusionary language (such as how 11:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that it wasn't a direct quote, but with referenced statements we need to stick to the spirit of what the source says. A phrase like 'any gender' has clear (albeit laudable) connotations, and so if the source doesn't use it then I don't think we can either. I'd have no problem with your revised wording; another possibility, which would change the meaning even less, would be "The consensus today in feminist and masculinity theories is that "'men and women"' should cooperate to achieve the larger goals of feminism".

I'm personally not surprised that there are 'pro' and 'anti' feminist perspectives on the concept of transgender topics described on the relevant page. There are some well-grounded feminist criticisms of the whole concept, which are well worth discussion, although this page isn't the right forum.Girth Summit12:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Have been watching this with interest, and I'd like to chime in at this point. I think that Bilorv's opening comment set the tone, especially the part about summarizing Transfeminism and Feminist views on transgender topics on this issue, which I think is exactly the right approach (except that I'd add, ""briefly" summarize"). To that end, SS is the summary style guideline. In addition to the two articles you mentioned which might deserve summary treatment on this topic, you could add Radical feminism and Transmisogyny.

To your second point, I don't believe there's anything in Wikipedia about avoiding "trans-exclusionary language" because it's up to sources what they choose to write about and how they say it, we merely report what they say (with due weight, of course). You might be thinking about MOS:IDENTITY, but this concerns language used to refer to how an individual identifies, and not about using Wikipedia's voice to make judgments about what's fair or isn't, for example, if binary language in a source ignores trans people. One could, of course, introduce other sources which don't ignore them in counterbalance, if that was warranted. But really, I think most of the discussion including what to add should take place at one of the other articles, and probably after that's resolved, we should come back here and summarize it. In particular, your "50:50" comment would be appropriate and worth discussing, at the other venue, and I'd probably have something to say about that, but this isn't the best place for it. Mathglot22:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, but I've 01:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the section looks pretty good - it's not too long and it seems to summarise the key arguments. I don't think that the 'TERF' acronym needs to be included however - to dedicate an entire line to it, in a section of less than five lines describing the whole subject, seems undue. The main article on Feminist views on transgender topics doesn't give it nearly that much weight, although anyone wanting to know what it stood for could go there to find out; I'd suggest you cut that sentence out. Girth Summit06:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that's fair – I've removed it. — "' 09:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good!Girth Summit17:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Anti-feminism and criticism of feminism?

Why are these combined?

And why is there this intro to the section?

"Anti-feminism is opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms."

They are not two mutually inclusive things. One can be critical of an aspect of feminism without being "anti" the whole concept.

And in fact the Oxford dictionary used as source to try to do this is wrong.

The current Oxford dictionary definition of anti-feminism is "A person opposed to feminism. ‘an ardent anti-feminist who campaigned against equal rights’" Oxford Definition

Not "in some form" --TheMightyAllBlacks05:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Antifeminism/Criticism of Feminism

The article conflates Criticisms of Feminist theories with Anti-feminism. The stance is not justified —nbsp;Preceding ) 13:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed your

NPOV

tag because your reasoning is just an assertion, not really any evidence of a problem. (It also broke some formatting, and you were looking for

POV section

, as it's a section rather than an article.) By the definition given by the article, anti-feminism is simply opposition to some or all of feminism... and that's what criticism of feminism is also about. Do you have any reliable sources which clearly demonstrate there's a difference? Or can you expand upon your rationale a bit? — "' 13:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Which means that if a moderate feminist is opposed to some ideas of radical feminism, they are in fact an anti-feminist, right? — Fobemipa15:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that we might want to consider BLUE. Equating all criticism of parts of feminism to opposition to feminism itself is clearly illogical, especially considering that it would make all feminists anti-feminists because feminism itself has different schools of thought. For example, all sex-negative feminists would be antifeminists because they oppose sex-positive feminism, and all sex-positive feminists would be antifeminists because they oppose sex-negative feminism.

Also, just because the article currently defines antifeminism as opposition to some or all forms of feminism doesn't mean that's how it should be defined. While a few sociological sources say that antifeminism is opposition to some or all forms of feminism, mainstream dictionaries often just use opposition to feminism.URL 18:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The term and its contents

What I, as probably an average reader of Wikipedia, have not been able to understand from the article is why "defining, establishing, and achieving political, economic, personal, and social equality of sex"'es""' is called ""'femin"'ism". Maybe something should be done about it. – Fobemipa15:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Because in its origins it seeks to bring women into something resembling equality with us guys. Protecting the rights of "feminae" = "feminism". What's hard to understand? --Orangemike Orange Mike 124; 14:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Then perhaps it should be something like: "defining, establishing, and achieving political, economic, personal, and social equality of "'women"' to men". What's hard to understand is why a movement focused on "'equality"' of the sexes isn't described by a "'neutral"' name, for example sex-focused egalitarianism. – Fobemipa15:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Like a lot of things in language: because that's the history of the term. --Orangemike Orange Mike 124; 15:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks like sources giving definitions more exact than “equality of sexes” should be found and the alternative definitions should be added to the article for readers to consider, lest this part of the introduction sound like an attempt at manipulation. – Fobemipa15:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Because of the historical context. This is a talk page for discussing how to improve the article, not how to artificially modify the English language. The article describes the word and its meaning, as defined by reliable sources. Suggest your own sources if you think they're incorrect. — "' 17:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the article can be improved by introducing quotes from the sources and explaining how the conclusion presented in the introduction was drawn. I suggest that because I've studied the sources and haven't been able to find the explicit statements. Also, if "I" was trying “to artificially modify the English language”, could you explain what made you think so in order for me not to do that in future. —nbsp;Preceding ) 18:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

What's hard to understand is why a movement focused on equality of the sexes isn't described by a neutral name, for example sex-focused egalitarianism.

This isn't actually a widely used term though, and Wikipedia follows the terms that reliable sources use. "Feminism" is the term that is actually used. While feminism is an ideology, as the article explains in the opening sentences it is also a range of political and social movements, which all used the term "feminism" (except 00:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. – Fobemipa17:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I am in agreement that the definition of feminism on the Wiki is too narrow as it does not capture all the major facets of feminism as understood by those who identify with the label. For example there are those who take a more intersectional approach to feminism and understand feminism to not only be the fight for the equality of sexes but of the the genders. Also Feminism broadly differs from egalitarianism and derivative world views as there is a highlighted focus on women and/or females. A definition that captured such large factions would should be, "Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that *share a broad common* goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes *and/or genders with focus on the perceived and actual inequalities faced by woman and/or females.*" This seems more apt at captureing the overall tone and meaning of feminism as it is understood by those who use it and is thus more apt. —nbsp;Preceding 20:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources define feminism as support for gender equality. Wikipedia must follow what reliable sources say because Wikipedia is not a research agency or think tank that is able to generate its own facts. Thus, Wikipedia must define feminism as support for gender equality. If it is illogical to use "feminism" to describe gender equality, then that's the fault of how the word is used by reliable sources and society at large and not Wikipedia's problem. Changing the word used to describe support for gender equality should be done through real life political advocacy and not Wikipedia.Leugen900118:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide one of these "reliable sources"? There are plenty that clearly state that feminism is for womens rights. (Oxford English Dictionary, Cambridge Dictionary, Google, dictionary.com, vocabulary.com etc. etc. etc.)NOT mens rights, and not equality. This is also reflected today in society, the feminist movement and feminists across the world - if the very definition of the term isn't enough for you. Walterblue22219:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Celebrity and Media

(Under category Culture)

First coined by Jennifer Wicke, a professor from the Powerpuff girls series, the term “celebrity feminism” refers to a modern form of feminism that is created by female celebrities who are eager to publicly claim feminist identitiesKeller, Jessalynn, and Jessica Ringrose. “‘But then Feminism Goes Out the Window!’: Exploring Teenage Girls’ Critical Response to Celebrity Feminism.” Celebrity Studies (2015): n. pag. Web. 7 Apr 2015. . The past few years have been noted for the recurring trend of active feminism, in which numerous celebrities made feminism more visible through performances, open speeches, and social media. Forums, such as ) 00:52, September 27, 2016 (UTC)

There's no "celebrity" (noun) on the page at the moment. Your essay here is a bit odd, this is a talk page to discuss improvements of the article. The current problem in 2019 is a pending "Good Article Review", i.e., somebody suggested that the page is not more good enough.I'm quite confident that my favourite "riot girl" 17:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Intersectionality

Intersectionality is a newer term in feminist theory, coined by Kimberly Crenshaw in 1989 as "the view that women experience oppression in varying configurations and in varying degrees of intensity". Intersectionality is not an original concept of Crenshaw, however. URL —nbsp;Preceding ) 00:52, September 27, 2016 (UTC)

17:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Deceptive Omission of Defining Terms

My revision to this article was undone with the excuse of "experienced editor would know to discuss changes to the basic definition of a major article at the Talk page before attempting it in the article." from User:Mathglot. What qualifies this as a "major" article?

The information I clarified was: "'Feminism' is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights of women on the basis of the equality of sexes.

I believe his is the correct definition of the term, and removing the "of women on the basis of the" seems to be omitting key information regarding the definition of the term.

Oxford English Dictionary defines feminism as "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.", nearly the same terminology I used to clarify the lead section of the article. True equality is egalitarianism, not feminism, and it seems manipulative and deceitful to omit key parts of the definition - why is this permitted to happen?

I suggest the complete definition be restored, does anyone have any suggestion here? Would alternate wording be better? Is Oxford English Dictionary not a reliable source? (Cambridge Dictionary, Google, dictionary.com, vocabulary.com and many other sources also give the same definition.) Please advise, thanks. Walterblue22200:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The edit in question is this one.

We do not base articles on dictionary definitions, but rather we base them on reliable sources. I see nothing "manipulative and deceitful" here. EvergreenFir "'EvergreenFir"' 00:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

What sources were given that exclude the information included in my edit? Manipulative and deceitful is my opinion, you're correct. However, omitting my opinion still begs the question: why is this key term omitted, and why is it incorrect to add it? Thanks. Walterblue22201:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

ec

Walterblue222, first of all, welcome to Wikipedia. As a brand new editor, you'll find there are a lot of policies and guidelines to guide editors in contributing to the encyclopedia. It takes a while to get on board, and even after many years, I still continue to learn how to be a better editor. So, be a little patient, as you come on board with this new environment. Coming here to discuss differences about article content and seek consensus is the right thing to do.

A few things to understand about the Lead (see LEAD):

The lead summarizes the rest of the article. If you stopped reading before the body of the article, you should still have a decent grasp, in summary form, of what the whole article is about. (Studies show that many readers never read past the lead.) That's a different function than the lead of a newspaper article or essay.

The first sentence (FIRSTSENTENCE) and lead paragraphs (LEADPARAGRAPH) have special functions.

Because of the summary function of the Lead, changing the Lead in a mature article cam be a two-part operation: examine the body of the article (changing it first if needed), then change the lead to better summarize the body.

In answer to your question about "major", what I meant by that is several things:

There are hundreds of articles related to Feminism on Wikipedia. You can see a large subset of them linked from the Infobox top right, by clicking the show links. The Feminism article sits at the top of the hierarchy of all of those articles.

This is also a major article based on its importance in the body of all knowledge. If you look at the top of this talk page, you will see that it is listed as a "Level 3 Vital Article". This means that of all the 5,790,519 articles currently in English Wikipedia, this one ranks among the top thousand in importance. That puts it in a tiny sliver of articles at the very top of the pyramid in importance, making it very major, indeed.

Finally, it's also major in terms of viewership, gaining many thousands of pageviews per day, on average. That compares quite favorably with the viewership of other articles.

I hope that answers your question about what I meant by "major". Because this is a major article, any changes are likely to get a lot of scrutiny; edits to the lead and first sentence even more so. I'll leave you some other, more general tips about editing Wikipedia at your user talk page. Hope this helps, Mathglot01:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The whole procedure of improving the encyclopedia depends heavily on collaborative editing. This means dealing with other editors, and seeking consensus when there are disagreements about article content. See Wikipedia:Editing policy. You got here ten days ago, and have nine edits to articles; I hope that's the start of a long, and productive effort at Wikipedia. Before you got here, the Feminism article had nine thousand edits in eighteen years by over three thousand editors. So, if you land here one day, and find the article not precisely to your liking, regardless of how strong your feelings about it might be, or how right you may be, you still need to talk over your proposed edits with others here and come to an agreement about if, and how, to change the article. Coming in here as a brand new editor and throwing around accusations about deception and manipulation is not the best strategy to gain you support from other editors to see things your way. Be civil, assume good faith, and seek consensus for your point of view. Then, you may end up getting the change you wish to see. Or not; it's a collaborative project, and sometimes the majority of people might not see things your way, in which case, you just go on calmly to the next thing on your list. Meanwhile, it would be good to hear from other editors about your question about the definition. Cordially, Mathglot02:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I have a few questions, if you don't mind: firstly, who ranks the importance of an article? I understand what you said about viewership, is this what determins the vitality of the article or is there a review process? I understand that changes are likely to get a lot of scrutiny, as they should, but I am disturbed that the article's lead/first sentence do not accurately or fully describe the term. I understand the collaborative nature, and am seeking consensus regarding this - what is the next step in doing this? What sources exclude the information that I added? How long must I wait after seeking consensus to submit an edit for a page? Is it based on time, or how many people respond affirming or denying the validity of the edit, or something else altogether?

Why would the lead paragraph omit information that nearly every source I can find includes, and how can this be seen as anything BUT deception?

Consider these analogies, if you will: A film is an illusion of images. A song is a single work with patterns using sound and silence. A table is a surface for working at. Notice anything strange about these statements? While technically they could be seen as accurate, there are vital pieces of information missing. This is how I see the exclusion of vital information from the first sentence regarding "feminism".

A film, also called a movie, motion picture, moving picture, or photoplay, is a series of still images that, when shown on a screen, create the illusion of moving images.

A song is a single (and often standalone) work of music that is typically intended to be sung by the human voice with distinct and fixed pitches and patterns using sound and silence and a variety of forms that often include the repetition of sections.

A table is an item of furniture with a flat top and one or more legs, used as a surface for working at, eating from or on which to place things.

Similarly: Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights of women on the basis of the equality of sexes.

I can't imagine why it would be beneficial to exclude "rights of women on the basis of the" from this definition, and while excluding this piece of information does not make the rest of the definition false per-se, I hope you can see why I consider it deceptive and incomplete.

Thank you for taking the time to explain things, I hope you can understand my position explanation and I look forward to your responses, as well as learning more about wiki as a whole. Walterblue22203:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding article importance, scroll to the top, and click show next to "This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects," then click any of the WikiProjects in the rows beneath it, for example, Gender Studies. Each project will have an explanation somewhere of a subgroup that does assessments of article quality and importance. On the Gender Studies project, you'll see an "Assessment" link in the lavender box to the right. Click it, to get to Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Assessment, which will explain how they do it. With the exception of a tiny core of employees of Wikimedia Foundation that looks over all wikimedia projects, everything at Wikipedia is done by volunteers, so the other projects in the list may do it completely differently. You just have to follow the links, and see how each project does it. HTH, Mathglot03:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Whew, a lot to read today! Thanks for the reply, but I still have a few questions you didn't answer.

What sources given exclude the information that I added?

How long must I wait after seeking consensus to submit an edit for a page?

Is it based on time, or how many people respond affirming or denying the validity of the edit, or something else altogether?

Why would the lead paragraph omit information that nearly every source I can find includes?

I don't understand why it would be beneficial to exclude "rights of women on the basis of the" from this definition.

My personal opinion is that the definition in the first sentence is misleading and deceitful; setting aside opinion though, it is, at the very least, factually incomplete.

What is the next step in seeking consensus regarding this? Walterblue22201:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

First, would normally be a thorough discussion here. The guideline Wikipedia:Consensus will give you details about that, as well as further steps to take. Mathglot04:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but can you please respond to the many questions I asked that you haven't acknowledged or answered? Thanks. Walterblue22215:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

od|::::::::: We've both had a lot to say already. Part of consensus is getting feedback from a variety of editors, especially those not directly involved in a content dispute, who might lend their opinion without having a stake either way. Let's see what others have to say. Mathglot02:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting to "see what others have to say".... meanwhile, people reading the lead sentence are presented with an incomplete definition. Does anyone have any logical reason to exclude the segment "rights of women on the basis of the" from the definition? Walterblue22215:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, still waiting, Mathglot Mathglot... do YOU have any logical reason to exclude the segment "rights of women on the basis of the" from the definition? No-one else has provided any, and the definition should be complete. If anyone has any valid, logical reason to exclude part of the definition from the lead sentence of the page, please present it... Walterblue22218:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Per ONUS, there is no policy-based reason for anyone to have to defend "excluding" anything. Rather, it works the other way round: the burden is on those who wish to add something. In addition, EDITCONSENSUS and BRD argue in favor of the same thing. As a secondary point, I'm not sure if I wish to add any further comment or opinion to a topic whose section title, "Deceptive Omission of Defining Terms" shows so little attempt to demonstrate a neutral point of view and evinces so little apparent need to assume good faith on the part of other editors here. I'll think some more about this, and whether, and how, to respond further. In the meantime, you could demonstrate your good faith by altering the section title to one that is neutral. Mathglot11:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

18:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Feminism

Feminism is a social movement that appeared on gender discrimination and primarily deals with breaking it. Aleksandr Grigoryev04:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

What about that? Pokerplayer51304:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing mentioned about it. It only talks about fighting for equal rights with men, which is not accurate. Feminism makes sure that humans are not only hu-men-s, but hu-women-s as well. Aleksandr Grigoryev05:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article is

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social gender equality and fight gender stereotypes

. Isn't that what you're saying? --Aquillion02:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Page preview for &quot;Third-wave feminism&quot;

When you hover over the link to the article on "Third-wave feminism," the following (incorrect, misogynistic, and anti-Semitic) text is displayed:

"Third-wave feminism is a mental illness characterized by victimization, collective hysteria and denial of biological differences between men and women. It is also a misandric ideology aligned with the dogmas of the extreme left and cultural marxism..."

19:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Unfortunately, I don't think there's anything we can do. These pop-up boxes are called Page Previews and they're generated automatically based on cached versions of the article they link to. Recent vandalism at Third-wave feminism is the cause of this text but as its edit history shows, it has been reverted so the Page Preview should be fixed automatically after a short while. — "'Bilorv"' (he/him) 20:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

looking for help

Hi,

Since help required for is a women's movement related page just wanted to see some empathy reader reading talk: Feminism page might help.

I am looking for pro-active copy edit support for a newly written Aurat March. Actually article was almost ready needed a some copy edit and re-paraphrasing support to avoid copyright issues. To be on safer side content is currently removed to bare minimum.

Pl. May be if at all, you can spare some time for re-paraphrasing copy edits. You might need to revisit article history to rescue the same. While Aurat March seems movement well represented in other media social media sources, representation of those women on Wikipedia seems missing so far as opening statements at articles like Feminism in Pakistan deriding the movement in subjective terminology like good feminism bad feminism. That's why I feel some proactive copyedits will be valuable support.

Thanks regards

Bookku

04:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

How to refer to &quot;transgender&quot; as noun

In this article's "Movements and ideologies" section, "Transgender people" subsection, appears this phrase: xt|…some feminists reject "transgenderism" due to views that…

I recently removed the quotation marks around the word "transgenderism", seeing them as scare quotes User:Mooeena reverted, stating:

The word "transgenderism" is only used by people attempting to discredit or otherwise attack the concept of being transgender. It is not proper terminology.

The word "transgenderism" is arguably a neutral noun form of the adjective "transgender", comparable to the word "homosexuality". Oxford and Merriam-WebsterURL dictionaries see it so. WPATH (the World Professional Association for Transgender Health) seems to agree, since they publish a journal entitled the "International Journal of Transgenderism". A cursory Google search finds reliable news sources using the word seemingly neutrally ("The Economist",URL "Science Direct", and "Pacific Standard"URL

Do we have a reliable source for the supposed offensiveness of this "-ism" noun form? Do we have a better word? "Transgenderism" gets 984,000 Google results. "Transgenderness" gets 8,310. "Transgenderality" gets 307. Thank you, A145GI15I9500:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)