Feminism/Archive 6

{{talkarchive}}

NPOV?

Bear in mind first of all that I am male. I haven't read through the talk pages (there's way too much to go through), but is there a need for a

sectNPOV

sign in the middle of the article? I read through the beginning of the disputed section, and skimmed through the rest. Articles such as this one and articles about race, etc tend to find themselves with the

sectNPOV

tag, but there is injustice in the world make no mistake. At least the author in this article cited sources, which is more than some editors do. Dessydes06:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A few things...

While there is lengthy amount of criticism in the feminism section, there doesn’t appear to be any responses to it. For example in the masculist and men’s rights section (which I just happen to think it much better structured, not accusing Wiki of favoring one over the other or anything, by the way), there are lines containing masculist/men’s rights responses to criticism in the ideology outside of the appropriate criticism section. Due to the structure of the feminist article, I understand it would create a bit of a slapdash, hodge-podge appearance to put a feminist response after every criticism where one exists. Would it be possible to create a section for some responses to criticism? Also, could there be a section explaining the modern concerns of feminism, perhaps in bullet-points?

I proposed just such a section for Pro-feminism arguments (see discussions above) and suggested we follow the format in religion another highly controversial article that seems to have found NPOV methods to show all sides' POV's. So far no editors here have seen fit to create such a section. As I have little background with which to collect and show all the arguments either pro or con I will leave it to people more informed than I to create such a section. I am in 100% support of separating these arguments so that they can be clearly understood as distinct arguments rather than as enmeshed and indistinct shoutouts. Anacapa04:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor criticism-

"They note that there is very little recognition that women are moral, sexual, and social actors who sometimes do bad things they are responsible for as people, regardless of gender. They assert that "'false feminist claims to female-gender moral superiority and to single-gender victimhood"' lead to the mass infantilization of women because people treat them like babies who can't make a decision or aren't responsible for poor choices".

The bolded words imply, when contrasted with a group of feminists with a label before it, female-gender superiority is representative of the feminist perspective while equity feminists are merely dissenters within them, and in turn that “equity feminists” are a small fringe or that feminists who do not first and foremost label themselves “equity feminists” take on the view of female “moral superiority” and victimhood. Further the lack of distribution or even label (I don’t get this: we shouldn’t call so-called feminists who take the female superiority view “gender feminists” because nobody can find a place where they call themselves it … yet we should include the label equity feminist because a person Christina Hoff Summers who coined the term “gender feminist” and “equity feminist” decided she wanted that label and others followed?) for feminists who take on the female-superiority view again in contrast with what precedes it gives the reader an imbalanced perspective. Is there something we can do? NeoApsara16:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Neoapsara, you seem to have many issues here to address and I am a bit confused about some of the points you are making but I will try to respond anyway. For some reason those feminists who some other feminists call 'gender' or 'victim' feminists decline to self-label...I can imagine why but that is just my guess. On the other hand feminists who call themselves 'equity' or 'individualist' feminists unabashedly identify themselves as such. As these are opposing forms of feminism one has to wonder about who is being accountable for their particular chosen form of feminism here. Equity feminism has gone way beyond Hoff-Summers for about a decade now as far as I can see from a review of worldwide news articles.Gender-focused feminism is indeed representative of second-wave academic/institutionalized feminism (the openly sexist Violence Against "Women" act to wit) but is not representative of third wave feminism as far as I can see. I will be glad to consider your concerns about any implications here but I am not clear what it is specifically that you are concerned about here. Would you suggest how to rewrite this to meet your concerns with NPOV balance? Anacapa04:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Both of the problems you point out are due to the actions of a recent editor who seems hell-bent on imposing an "individualist feminist" POV on this article. Feel free to try to fix it up; I've gotten tired of dealing with that individual. Catamorphism18:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. I'm on an unreliable computer at the moment, so any major attempts to alter/clarify anything will likely come later. Also feel free to provide any guidence/suggestions when I do so, it is very welcome (in fact encouraged). Thank you again. NeoApsara21:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast please. Editor Catamorphism did almost no genuine "dealing" with that 'problematic' recent 'individual' editor which is me. Instead she is going to gang up on me here which is quite pathetic and might create a needless edit war. I ask that you continue this discussion with me here before you make any big changes. I will come back and discuss your points with sources soon because you have been respectful. Anacapa23:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you’re confused about, I was as clear as I could be. It just seems more like a cheap-shot. “Babies”? That is an emotive term, in fact one would consider that an "appeal to emotions" and "name-calling". Not to mention that the belief that there are innate differences between men and women in which women are superior is cultural feminism, yet it is lumped in with the whole victim description without any distinguishing. It reads more like an individual’s “beef” with they decide (as opposed to using actual links or citations) is “victim feminism” or “gender feminism” and making the equity feminist appear to be dissidents within feminism (which all believe that women are superior and “babies” apparently).

There is no attempt at cheap shots here. That quote was pulled in directly from an interview with Canadian journalist Kate Fillion which I will link shortly in the POV check section. Clear succinct specific language like this how some people express themselves clearly and directly to avoid confusion. Anacapa23:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't written as her "personal" quote. It in fact hadn't quotations around it. Further, instead of defining what the issue with the ideology is and identifying the appropriate label, it is just "one person's" feelings on it. It is "name-calling", it seems POV. It should go on a Kate Fillion page:NeoApsara04:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Second, the redundancy and drawing absolutes where there is still arguments that any exist. The catagorised sub-types of feminism; so … you can’t be a psychoanalytical liberal pro-sex equity post-colonial feminist? What if you share views of all of them? Not all feminists give themselves labels, do we let others do so (it didn’t work for gender feminists) for them, or just ones we agree with? What if you believe in an oppressive patriarchy, that automatically means you‘re a “victim feminist“? This is too much, I think, of imposing one’s own philosophy onto Wiki. There is already a list of sub-types of feminism; that seems to be enough, people can read through it if they choose.NeoApsara14:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I edited the first part to make it less emotive and create a balance. I deleted the whol catagorized list of feminism as it seems to POV. Further it seems contradictory to air in one place that people argue feminism has become "too *this*, *that*, or the *other*" and then proceed to write it up as an absolute. It "'is"' a debate afterall. NeoApsara16:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I also removed this - "This "'is especially true and a good"' reading to supplement one's understanding of this can be found on the the second issue, volume 1 of JENdA, Feminism and Africa. http://www.jendajournal.com/vol2.1/toc2.1.htm"

That is POV. I'm sure it's a good reading and I'm sure the person thinks it's true, but not everybody agrees. It is just an idea. I suppose somebody could add that link to the bottem or something?:NeoApsara16:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted this- "Compare pro-feminism, humanism, masculism." Don't see the point in instructing readers ala text books when there are already links if they find it necessary. NeoApsara16:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

what is the opposition?

According to the article, these are two opposing views.

One institutionally predominant type of feminism largely focuses on limiting or eradicating gender inequality to promote women's rights, interests, and issues in society. Another opposing type of modern feminism, with deep historical roots, focusses on earning, and establishing equity by and for women, vis-a-vis men, to promote those same rights, interests, and issues, regardless of gender considerations.

Maybe I am dense, but I do not see the opposition. In fact, these two views seem pretty similar. Can someone explain the difference? Can the two sentences be merged, or can they be rewritten to be clearer? Slrubenstein | 16:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Camille Paglia has been one of the major warriors against 'gender' or 'victim' feminism. I will pull in her explanation of her title for her bestselling "Vamps and Tramps" so she can speak for herself.: "I want a revamped feminism. Putting the vamp back means the lady must be a tramp. My generation of Sixties rebels wanted to smash the bourgeois codes that had become the authoritarian totems of the Fifties. The 'nice' girl with her soft, sanitized speech and decorous manners had to go. Thirty years later, we're still stuck with her -- in the official spokesmen and the anointed heiresses of the feminist establishment...Equal opportunity feminism, which I expouse, demands the removal of all barriers to woman's advance in the political and professional world -- but not at the price of special protections for women which are infantilizing and anti-democratic." Paglia and many others have shown these oppositions clearly over the past decade which I why I added this. As I see it and I am no expert here the basic difference is in "means rather than ends". Gender-focused feminists blame the so-called 'patriarchy' for male-"gender" oppression of the female as a gender and cry for special priviledges and protections while "equity" feminists insist that women be given equitable opportunities, and that they earn their way with men with adult responses etc in a real world with no special priviledges or protections. To me, these sentences show distinct opposing types of feminism and reflect dozens of news articles, worldwide, on the often ugly debate between feminists. To merge them IMHO would be to miss the point. I would be glad to rewrite anything that is unclear. What seems unclear here?Anacapa04:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There isn't one; or rather, the statement that there is one reflects the "individualist feminist" POV that some have been working very hard to impose on this article. Feel free to fix it. Catamorphism18:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The editor above has had problems with any other POV that opposes establishment feminism. This is POV itself which I am attempting to balance with other widely reported POV's. I insist that she stop the character assassinations and discuss issues with sources. Anacapa04:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Paglia is a feminist. But does every individual feminist constitute a distinct "form" or movement within feminism? What I object to is (1) your providing only one citation for one kind of feminism, and no citations for the "other" kind, "and" (2) you label the other kind "mainstream" feminism as if all "mainstream" feminists think the same way, and are homogenous. They are not. There are debates within every feminist organization. I can see the sense in saying "feminists argue over whether this equality can or cannot be achieved through special legislation" - then you are characterizing a debate. But in this debate both "sides" want men and women to be equal. Slrubenstein | 08:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

So what about feminists who believe who believe certain "special priviledges" aren't really "special priviledges", but just go against the male experience and are therefore treated as either "priviledges" or "inferior because of different"? And don't believe women have to live their lives on men's terms? There is no distribution. I think that is blatantly POV there. I agree with the above ""I can see the sense in saying "feminists argue over whether this equality can or cannot be achieved through special legislation" - then you are characterizing a debate. But in this debate both "sides" want men and women to be equal".", however I'd add quotation marks around special and then put "that is inclusive of experiences specific to women", or something in the way of that. NeoApsara14:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I edited it and added "'Slrubenstein""s suggestion plus my own (which I extended). I also deleted this-

"Some feminist scholars, in echoes of anarchist feminists like Emma Goldman, have posited that the hierarchies in businesses and government and all organizations need to be replaced with a decentralized ultra-democracy. Some argue that having any central leader in any organization is derived from the androcentric family structure (and therefore needs reform and replacement), and thus such gender-focussed scholars see the essence of feminism as beyond the surface issues of sex and gender." It really has no place there except as a spring-board for the quotes about how it's wrong. If anything it can be moved down to the "many points of view" section. NeoApsara20:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this assessment/deletion. It reflects my judgement precisely too. I suggest ALL other points of view that are peripheral to the introduction also be moved to their appropriate section(s) below to make this article flow. Anacapa23:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Other feminist scholars

Sorry Anacapa to pile up the issues on some of your edits but I have concerns with the below paragraph

"Other feminist scholars ridicule the whole notion that capitalist or other heirarchies are the cause of female oppression with statements like: "If civilization were left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts" or "It is hyprocritical for feminist and intellectuals to the enjoy the pleasures and conveniences of capitalism while sneering at it"."

Could you cite / source / verify who these feminist scholars are and the context of those statements? It would help remove the potential of those sentences being viewed as weasel words --Zleitzen15:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience here. These quotes came from Camille Paglia (see links Quotes). I was a bit provocative here because I see egregious pandering to 'establishment' feminist POV in this article...my intent is merely to attain NPOV balance here not to oppose all statements everywhere. Anacapa01:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it even necessary to "say"? If a feminist doesn't believe capitalism/heirarchies cause female oppression, then they won't identify themselves as such. Why cherry-pick these in particular? There are a list (two, actually) of sub-types of feminism. Let it be. NeoApsara14:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Confused. Were those comments addressed to me or the editor who coined that paragraph? --Zleitzen16:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The editor, sorry. Anyway, I just deleted it for now. It is saved if it is so necessary to include. But it seems like just more of trying to let people know what a "certain kind of feminist" thinks of feminism.:NeoApsara17:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There is of course a bigger issue here: just because one of us happens to love a quote by a "feminist" does not mean that the quote should be included. Every article reflects such decisions about what is really significant including what debates including critiques are important enough to include, versus what are crank theories or views held by people so uninformed and peripheral to the topic that they don't bear inclusion. Slrubenstein | 16:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

To all the editors above. These quotes are far from crank theories of views held by "people so uninformed and peripherial to the topic that they can't bear inclusion". These quotes are from feminist Camille Paglia who Nigella Lawson in London called "Our sometimes sister now our queen". Just because this POV may be hated, loathed and feared by second wave feminists does not mean it is peripheral or uninformed...on the contrary it cuts to the heart of the rigid, thougthless sloganeering that has turned so many people away from second-wave or 'victim' feminism. To pander to second wave feminism here and to imply that it IS the only viewpoint that encapsulates ALL feminism is both false and quite POV...Therefore I insist on all sides being presented here. Anacapa23:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"How"? Nobody seems to be "pandering" to what "you" characterize as "victim" feminism or second wave feminism or "established"/"establishment" or whatever label you want to give what you disagree with. I do, however, see people trying to avoid "unecessary, excessive attention" to the specific kinds - or from the perspective of "a" specific kind - instead of the multi-faceted movement as a whole. Feminism has an aim, there are different perspectives on how to get there (that is made clear from the beginning), there is a list of different perspectives, there are places in the article where different perspectives for the same issue are presented.: NeoApsara20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what I disagree with! It has been reported by newspapers worldwide! I see many attempts to pander to second wave POV by both commission and ommission in this article. Since I hate round and round rhetoric with no facts, I will bring in what journalists worldwide say for discussion before I add a POV template to this article. Anacapa02:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it appears that whenever you have a problem with an edit or an addage, or are asked of the significance of a quote from an individual, there is a reply about what Camille Paglia (whatever her name is) said and how people think she is awesome, or some emoting about gender/second wave/victim feminists and/or how there are all these articles about it. It is difficult to have good faith when one is just reading what somebody feels about something. Then, when you claim there is gender/victim/second wave/establishment/established feminist POV, you don't define what it is or how, you just say Camille Paglia disagrees with it and NPOV can only exist if these quotes about what Individualist/Libertarian feminists thinks about the rest of them (who ... are apparently victim/gender/second-wave/establishment feminists. Or something.) are included. It is certainly not the aim for the article to read like Feminism, and What Libertarian Feminists Think About It.

Further, I find it hard to consider a few articles with labels arbitrarily applied to feminists a few others disagree with as significant.NeoApsara15:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Anacapa, if you can prove that there is a notable, worldwide, recognised dichotomy between "gender feminism" and "equity feminism" then we may be able to mention that at some point in the article. Personally I have seen no evidence yet to suggest that this is the case. All I see is a handful of books / statements that link back to a small and marginal group of American writers. Therefore this aspect should not be given undue prominence. My view seems to be shared by consensus here at Wikipedia, judging from the responses in the archived talk pages. Please note that my aim is simply to improve the standing of the encyclopedia and have no interest pandering to particular POV's.--Zleitzen02:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Source of statistics

Is there a known primary source of the Numbers in "Women own only 1 percent of the world's wealth, and earn 10 percent of the world's income, despite making up 49.5 percent of the population."? I have looked a longer time for sources of this, but the only thing i have found are quotes from quotes from quotes from unknown source. That comes close to be just a urban legend and not to be fact. A raw estamatin about the 1 percent of the world's wealth show easy, this can not be true. The biger part of the world wealth is in developed Nations and no statistics of any of this countrys show something close to just 1 percent of wealth owned by women. -- Hetzi10:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, I don't really understand what the "Women own only 1 percent of the world's wealth" refers to. We need a context for the term "wealth". Could anyone expand? --Zleitzen11:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hoff Sommers

“"Extremes on the one hand include some radical feminists such as Mary Daly who argues that human society would be better off with damatically fewer men. There are also dissidents, such as Christina Hoff Sommers or Camille Paglia, who identify themselves as feminist but who accuse the movement of anti-male prejudice".”

Alright, but some feminists would consider Christina Hoff Sommers an apologist for male privilege at the expense of women. For example many feminists have criticized her solution to rape being that women just carrying guns which falls in support of her pro-gun stance. That is dandy, but the rapists will have guns too, she re-enforces the stereotype of the “stranger in an alley” and completely ignores the psychology of coercion. I edited it; there seems to be a bias with so much of what these “dissidents” think. NeoApsara14:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

To call Sommer's or Paglia 'dissidents' is absurd. These feminists are 'problematic' because they have systematically dismantled the theories for second-wave gender/saint-victimhood. This article is very POV in favor of the mass of totalitarian second wavers who fail to see the handwriting on the wall. Anacapa02:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I said "dissidents" because that is what they were characterized as in the article and elseware. It was my attempt to point out that if the article was going to single out any particular feminists in that section which doesn't necessitate it, then it'd be a bit fair to air different perspectives on them. The truth is, not everybody is going to believe they "dismantled" everything or even anything, not everybody will believe second-wavers (or whatever you'll throw out next) are "totalitarian". As you can see from above (at least with regards to Sommers), different perspectives exist. If you have any other objections to me maintaining that this is about what you disagree with, then I recommend you re-read your above post.NeoApsara15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Tavris

"(In her book "A Fearful Freedom", Wendy Kaminer provides an opposing viewpoint to this argument; she argues that pregnancy leave should not be a special case of employment benefits, but should be treated like any other disability benefits.)"

I deleted this because, in her books, Tavris does not really make an argument either way, rather she points out a tendancy to have to look to the male experience in order to find out how to label pregnancy. I also edited other parts to clarify what she actually argues.NeoApsara18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Feminism and Science

I added a few things and also expounded on existing ones. I was more concetrated on finding the sources, quotes, and people so feel free to fix any sloppines. NeoApsara17:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

please come back and clean up "your own" sloppiness so we can see what you want to keep verus cut and so that this PP makes some sense and flows well. Right now it is a big jumble of interesting but sometimes unrelated ideas. Anacapa02:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you planning on showing both (or all) sides here or is this going to be another section of shout outs with no balance. For example, there is much research to support gender differences now as well. Are you going to survey the field or just pack this with science that supports on partisan (eg feminist) position? My inclination is balance arguments here as science is science rather than the outraged rhetoric that seems to dominate the political arguments fro and against feminism. What is your intention here? Anacapa01:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"For example, there is much research to support gender differences now as well." Okay, and if they are relevent to a section called Feminism and Science, then find them and put them up there with "'the rest"' of the part that mentions science to support innate differences between males and females. Nobody is stopping you, you aren't being repressed. As for patting yourself on the back and then questioning my intentions, you're going to have to take it to the mods if you have an issue with me. I'm about finished having to answer to you and your terms. NeoApsara15:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Some Responses to Criticism/Modern feminism and feminist issues

I just added it, input welcome (prefered, needed). Will add more, as well as a section on concerns of modern feminism. NeoApsara19:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I just added the Modern Feminism section. Same as above applies, please. Will add more. NeoApsara19:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Forget it, I'm unwatching this page and not coming back. I just archived it not long ago and it's already nearly full again after two days. This debate reaches outside Wikipedia, and it appears very difficult to maintain a NPOV. I'm not into this whole esoteric stuff and I can't believe a woman would hate all or most men based on the actions of a few. this is the definition I have managed to gather from the first parts of this talk page. Add to that the two person wars going on and the minor edits and reversions going on it becomes clear to me that this is one topic well worth steering clear of. And from the paragraph that I've just written it becomes clear that I might not be capable of maintaining a NPOV. Goodbye all. Dessydes23:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the material you removed / reworded was necessary and improves the article considerably. However the new additions "Responses to Criticism/Modern feminism" may need sourcing and more consensus before they can stand. It may be worth removing them and testing those sections on this talk page. Would you allow for that? --Zleitzen16:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I should have spoke up more. In the "modern issues" section, I went off some things I was aware of but it was more just to kick-start it. But in fairness it wasn't fraudulent or anything as, for example the rape issue, was more what I have been reading in articles and feminist boards/blogs (such as in response to the recent Duke rape accusations in the United States; a Google search will show many reactions and reflect what many feminists have been concerned about). Others I actually got from sociology books and texts books ... again, a kind of broad view that anybody can add to or dispute.

As for the criticisms responses, I guess the hardest would be the DV shleter thing. But I have had some contact with owners and read some responses to them being sued recently, so it just stuck out in my mind. I figure if somebody knows something then they'd just add to it or dispute it as well (or delete it completely if people feel it doesn't hold or can't find anything). Of course putting it all in here works as well, too! Thanks. NeoApsara18:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so I don't look too "the dog ate my homework" for not bothering to show some sources, here is what I used from searches based on how I thought the relevent information could be indentified and finding an article I read recently-

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/03/29/duke-rape-case-round-up/ Amptoons.com, http://blackfeminism.org/index.php/2006/03/28/duke-u-lacrosse-team-rape-case/ blackfeminism.org, http://pinkofeministhellcat.typepad.com/pinko_feminist_hellcat/2006/03/race_entitlemen.html Pinkofeministhellcat.com, and http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:XpJK341xr9UJ:feministing.com/archives/002896.html+Girls+just+wanna+have+fun+...without+getting+raped%22hl=engl=usct=clnkcd=2 Feministing. I figured they were a diverse enough group that represents different kinds (pro-feminism, black feminism, etc.). Further, I used Carol Tavris's book "Mismeasure of Woman" (being that was a feminist book that I have read so I could say it is something a feminist has argued). NeoApsara19:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry x NeoApsara but I'm going to remove large parts of your additions. One problem is that in the "Responses to criticisms" section, each paragraph begins with a sentence such as "Feminists hold", "To feminists..." etc with no notable source to confirm this. Other problems are phrases like "Feminists note that the government‘s actions not falling in line...", need context. Which Government? Which actions? The area of the section focusing on DV shelters also needs context, are these shelters in Sudan? Cambodia? Chile? Is this section related to the vast feminist movement in India etc. I'm not disputing the truth of your additions, but I believe that they would need a lengthy rewrite before appearing in an encyclopedia. Do you understand my concerns here? --Zleitzen13:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, I certainly do. It was more a way to kick start it; I assumed if somebody knew something or had opinions, it would be discussed or added on. As for the DV shelters, while the chances are I'll never see the women I spoke to again and get names, it was in response to US shelters being sued (I believe at least one was in California); I suppose I - or, again, if somebody knows anything - could do an internet search for it. I understand the deletion. However, I encourage anybody who has sources (and a better writer) to bring material onto this talk page, and I will do so myself, much the way I did with the science section. I am still ready to heed your advice on gathering a concensus here on the talk page. Thanks! NeoApsara15:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've left "Feminism Today and Its Issues" in it's present form to allow you more time to contextualise and source the content, based on Wiki policies. --Zleitzen14:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"'For Some Responses to criticism"'

How do you think this, as a starter, would do? -

Of "The Myth of Male-Power" and masculist views of male oppression in general, sociologist Michael Flood of xyonline.net holds that since Warren Farrell "states that he withdraws from 'that part of feminism that blames and plays victim.'", that http://www.xyonline.net/Myth.shtml ""It is therefore striking that blaming and playing victim is precisely what Farrell does on behalf of men, in his account of men’s powerlessness"."as Flood characterizes Warren Farrell's women existing only as ""greedy bitches who falsely accuse men of rape to get money or revenge, parasitic wives living luxuriously on the earnings of their overworked husbands, selfish avoiders of military combat, and cruel sexual rejectors"." Michael Flood (like other sociologists and feminists such as Carol Tavris) emphasizes power and hierarchical competition between men and states that, ""Many of Farrell’s examples of men’s powerlessness are in fact examples of some men’s powerlessness at the hands of other men"." Flood contends trivialization and neglection of other social attitudes such as homophobia and racism with Farrell's assertions such as ""they black men, homosexual men, and Indian men in America having the toughest time amoung men do not provide an economic security blanket for women"."

Would something like that work? NeoApsara19:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine for me, I've put that into the article if that's OK by you. --Zleitzen09:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, its just fine. Would this do as well? -

Trish Wilson, writer and freelance investigative reporter, is another such critic of masculism, men's rights advocates, and father's rights advocates. In her review of Warren Farrell's "Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say", she criticises what she believes is expecting no initiative on the part of men but demanding action and work from only women. She notes of Farrell's book that he ""admits on page 9 that he has placed more emphasis on hearing personal criticism from (men) than on (women) giving it. Not only is the woman responsible for the moral and emotional health of the marriage, her opinions are rendered less important than that of her husband""http://www.xyonline.net/womencanthear.shtml. She further notes bending statistics and findings he cites in his book as, ""such a finding is in direct opposition to the man who had written that 'male power' is a myth"."

Of the masculist claim, included in Farrell's book, that women's health if given priority over men's and that it is the result of feminism, she notes the success of Viagra and the windespread, open support it has been given by men. She notes this is true despite how "Viagra has "been misused in a recreational fashion"", that ""Men had voluntarily given sexual performance priority over male health, including the one issue that concerns many men and men's health groups -- prostate cancer"". She continues, ""Stockholders, pharmaceuticals, advertising companies, and the health care community stand to make much more money from drugs like Viagra than they ever will from pouring money into prostate cancer research"". A pharmeacutical rep in fact recently stated the technology exists to create an oral contraceptive specific to the needs of men, however nobody is willing to put money out as http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1click_id=31art_id=qw1140803101715B243 "(men fear) they'll lose their virility". NeoApsara17:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll put it up for now, if its deemed unfit then it can be taken down.NeoApsara16:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Responses to Criticism" section seems to simply be a a criticism of masculism. Trau

Its a work in progress. The existing is a response to masculist criticism of feminism above, as the movement tends to put the ills faced by men on the shoulders of feminism. NeoApsara14:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

POV check on 'gender' or 'victim' feminist POV in this article

After reading the pages of discussion above I thought it might be best to bring in NPOV from ProQuests worldwide newspaper data base. For now, I will just note the numbers of articles. Later, I will pull in specific articles to discuss many of the specific POV issues that are being discussed above.

I found:

91 articles for 'gender feminists' (beginning in 2005 and going back to 8/89)

25 articles for 'gender feminism'

58 articles for 'victim feminism'

28 articles for 'victim feminists'

23 articles for 'equity feminist'

5 articles for 'individualist feminist'

My issue here is that feminism fails to reflect these opposing POV's and the immense controversies they have inspired...well. Anacapa01:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but am not entirely confident with your method. To go from a phrase used by a search engine to a particule kind of feminism is quite a jump. One would have to read the articles to see the context in which the phrase is used to see if it refers to an actual kind of feminism. For one thing, we need to distinguish between the possibility that among feminists there are some who are equity feminists and others who are victim feminists, versus the possibility that there is a group of people out there (who may not even be feminists) who "claim" that some feminists are victim feminists and others are equity feminists, versus the possibility that there are people out there who write about victim feminists, gender feminists, and equity feminists - and they are all referring to "exactly the same thing". Your data could support any of these three interpretations. The only way to know which one is right is to examine the context and other material. The data you present by itself is insufficient. Slrubenstein | 09:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right about the data above being insufficient by itself. I will bring these titles in to make the case. However, even a cursury glance at these sources shows many "'highly controversial POV's not reflected at ALL in this article"'. I wonder why and who has what to hide here? I will go pull these titles in for discussion before I call a POV check. The data base I searched here is a public library data base of newspapers worldwide so surely these NPOV sources are credible sources especially as they come from so many diverse places/people. My main issue with this article is that some editors seem to want to silence these 'problematic' or falsely classified as mere 'dissident' POV's just as some second-wave feminists shun debate with some third wave feminists who propose some of these POV's. That is not playing fair IMHO and is quite POV. Please assist us to attain complete, balanced NPOV content here. First wave, Second wave, and Third wave ideas that form the foundation for feminism belong in this article with no one squelching them just because of PC concerns. Anacapa01:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Implying that people have things to hide here, and that editors are deliberately silencing views does not show an asumption of Good Faith, Anacapa. It may be the case that editors find the issue too marginal and insignificant to deserve detailed representation on this page. Given that this page doesn't even mention such important topics as "feminist issues in Africa relating to HIV" http://www.awid.org/go.php?stid=834, it would seem likely that the lack of a "gender vs equity" framework would rank as a low priority concern to the majority. --Zleitzen03:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of HIV and women in Africa, I'm actually in the process of gathering material relevent to a more broad, international reflection of feminism and women's struggles elseware. For example, this http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C04%5C09%5Cstory_9-4-2006_pg11_1 article on Pakistan and Girija Devi in Indiahttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4723680.stm. I also have a few pieces that are specific to the black American experience of women and sexuality. However, I'm not quite sure how to structuralize it as I - nor anybody else - have not yet started a piece on sexuality in the modern movement. I do believe, however, Devi's should go in the rape section. But, again, I'm having a hard time trying to structure it. Just so you know there is an attempt being made to include a more diverse reflection. NeoApsara17:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

They're interesting articles, NeoApsara and they illustrate how relevant feminist issues are in different parts of the world. There are large, active, creative movements all over the globe that are effecting policies in a very real way (see http://www.icrw.org/). I beleive that this is what should be broadly reflected here to give a true representation of feminism, and the article shouldn't get too sidelined by the academic terminology of certain Western writers. --Zleitzen04:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To all editors concerned about complete, balanced, NPOV in feminism. Below is a minor sample of the controverial news reports representative of many of the articles I have listed above. Many other feminist researchers and academics are being reported as controversial too but I barely sees mention of these fundamental schisms/controversial POV's in this article at all.

Feminist politics trip educators ; Ex-professor at Clark rips gender police'; ALL Edition

Dianne Williamson. Telegram Gazette. Worcester, Mass.: Feb 22, 2005. pg. B.1

People: Sommers, Christina Hoff, Summers, Lawrence

Author(s): Dianne Williamson

Section: LOCAL NEWS

Publication title: Telegram Gazette. Worcester, Mass.: Feb 22, 2005. pg. B.1

Source type: Newspaper

ISSN/ISBN: 10504184

Text Word Count 900

Full Text (900 words)

Copyright New York Times Company Feb 22, 2005

While the president of Harvard University continues to engage in marathon mea culpas, Christina Hoff Sommers said she's not surprised that the poor guy has been pilloried for "'committing a cardinal sin in academia: suggesting that men and women might indeed be different."'

"'"If you even hint that there's a biological difference between the sexes - which most scientists agree there is - a small coterie of hard-line gender police will get very excited and start shrieking," Ms. Sommers maintained. "They insist that any suggestion of gender difference is based on discrimination, rather than common sense and empirical science.""'

Ms. Sommers knows a bit about academic pillorying. In the early 1990s, she was a philosophy professor at Clark University and an outspoken critic of what she called victim-oriented, gender feminism, which she claims has hijacked independent thought on American college campuses. "'Her attacks on the movement raised the hackles of feminists around the country, including here at the College of the Holy Cross, when in 1995 the founder of the women's studies program made headlines by refusing to even debate her."'

Today, Harvard professors plan to discuss the leadership of their president, Lawrence Summers, who last week released a transcript of his controversial remarks at a conference about the shortage of women in science and engineering. In those remarks, which so enraged one of the attendees that she said she felt sick and had to leave the room, Mr. Summers suggested that bias could not entirely explain the lack of diversity in the sciences and that other factors, such as genetics and family pressures, deserve consideration.

It should be noted that he repeatedly qualified statements in his wide-ranging talk as his "best guess," and he stressed that racial and sex discrimination should be "absolutely, vigorously" rejected. And this is how he concluded an academic lecture that has sparked a firestorm and calls for his resignation:

"Let me just conclude by saying that I've given you my best guesses after a fair amount of reading the literature and a lot of talking to people. They may be all wrong. I will have served my purpose if I have provoked thought on this question and provoked the marshaling of evidence to contradict what I have said. But I think we all need to be thinking very hard about how to do better on these issues and that they are too important to sentimentalize rather than to think about in as rigorous and careful ways as we can."

Ms. Sommers left Clark in 1997 and is now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. She's the author of two books, "The War Against Boys" and "Who Stole Feminism?," "'which attacks the excesses of feminist correctness and debunks several myths perpetuated by the women's movement"', notably that violence against women rises on Super Bowl Sunday.

Like Larry Summers, "'she's been a high-profile target of academic feminist furor"'. Unlike Mr. Summers, she's never felt compelled to apologize for speaking her mind, likely because she's never been the president of the nation's most prestigious university.

"I'm sorry he had to apologize," she said over the telephone yesterday from her home outside Washington, D.C. "'"But unless you're ever so careful about what you say, and it's politically correct, you have no future in an American university. There's no freedom of expression anymore. We're dealing now with a religion of hard-line feminism, which is dominant on campus. He's been accused of heresy. He's not a true believer in this religion, and that's why he gets in trouble. Maybe he didn't realize there were religious precepts he had to obey.""'

While she calls herself an old-school feminist who believes in equal rights for women, her critics accuse her of shoddy scholarship and of building a career by unfairly attacking feminist issues. In 2001, after being invited to deliver a speech at a federal conference, she was told to "shut the (expletive) up" by a male professor at Fordham University as she defended her claim that science should help evaluate the effectiveness of gender-based drug prevention programs for kids.

Ms. Sommers calls her feminist critics "easily offended and chronically aggrieved," and she wryly noted the response to Mr. Summers' speech by Nancy Hopkins, the MIT professor who said she was sickened.

"Instead of calling a doctor, she called The Boston Globe," Ms. Sommers said. "Normal women sitting in that room didn't feel the way she did. But this is a one-party system and dissidents are not invited to the table. There's no place for independent women."

She noted that "'scientific studies have uncovered brain-based, biological differences between the sexes, much of them dealing with spatial skills, which may give boys an advantage in math. Which is not to say that girls can't excel in that field or any other; it simply means that differences exist."'

Today, though, for daring to broach the topic, Mr. Summers will be "'"harangued and discredited" by a vocal segment of the Harvard community, Ms. Sommers predicted. And he'll likely apologize yet again, all because he raised valid, provocative questions in an environment that should encourage a lively give and take of ideas."'

"He won't be fired, but he'll be weakened," Ms. Sommers said. "It would be sad if he were to become bland. "'For me, it only shows that things are even worse today than when I was at Clark.""'

Anacapa

19:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Anacapa, but I see nothing here to suggest that an article from the Telegram Gazette Worcester (presumably in the US) concerning the issues an American professor has with a "segment of the Harvard community" represents a fundamental schism in feminism. Please see my remarks about feminism being a broad international experience from Afghanistan to Zambia. --Zleitzen20:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Zleitzen, who said anything about 'schisms' here. I sure didn't. I said and continue to say that enormous amounts of POV is being ommitted in this article. I saw your remarks and take no issue with them. My issue is that this article should be NPOV with respect the enormously loaded controversies that have broken out between those who take a 'victim' or 'gender' feminist focus versus those who take an equity or human rights feminist focus. The end is the same but as you no doubt well know the means are quite different. This POV is being silenced in the article. I guess I will have to go bring in a lot more diverse sources to show this here.Anacapa07:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My reference to schisms comes from your statement above "I barely sees mention of these fundamental "'schisms"'/controversial POV's in this article at all". I'll clarify something for you; a controversy "'has not"' broken out involving 'victim' or 'gender' feminism anywhere beyond the pages of a handful of American books and journals. It is profoundly misleading to suggest that it has in this article or any other.

If you want to discuss POV, bias and balance then I suggest you contemplate the weight of representation between the output of one or two American writers vs the activities of millions of feminists all over the world. As a European I take issue with a definition of the universal term "feminism" being framed in a particular manner that bears no relation to what Europeans would recognise as feminist theory, feminist discourse or feminist activity. This is an article on a universal topic in an international encyclopedia, the article should serve that ethos. --Zleitzen07:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. Further, merely including that wouldn't even represent all opinions within the "controversy" as there is a contingent of people who believe Hoff-Sommers is guilty of what she accuses others of. She isn't well-received in acedamia given her tendency to cherry-pick and go from "A" to "D" without "B" or "C", has been regarded as guilty of the "cum hoc, ergo propter hoc" and "affirming the consequent" fallacy-type analysis. Martyring herself over it is just excruciating. But that is just my opinion, I'm a student in the Philosophy of Logic and it drives me nuts. Anyway, I agree that its a small splash in a big ocean that is more complex than just "a bunch of people who try and censor poor Hoff-Sommers" (as is the case with Summers, who is a bit of a weasel). Perhaps it should be put on her own Wiki page.NeoApsara15:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Points for Editors of this article

Having been watching this page for a week I feel that certain points should be reflected upon before editors embark on changes.

This article is in essence a gateway piece. It should be a concise summary, broadly outlining the major themes of feminism, linking to more detailed pieces on individual factors.

Feminism is an international experience from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. Many of the issues may seem vital within US circles but are not notable, applicable or relevant in the broad international context. Detailed issues unique to the former should not be given disproportionate privilege. A Nigerian woman should find this article as accessible as a New Yorker.

No weasel words. No points should carry the lines “some feminists believe”http://www.encyclopediadamatica.com/index.php/Some_argue etc without serious "notable" sources that warrant inclusion in such a concise summary.

Marginal concerns such as the “gender feminist” vs “equity feminist” construction "'should not"' warrant any more than a brief mention within the article. --Zleitzen00:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zleitzen, I just wanted to let you know that I strongly agree with your points here. Especially important, in my view, are the first two, that this article should serve as a gateway, and that it needs to present more of a global perspective. I really like what you did in shortening up the intro, and I think that it is a good model for how we should work on changing the rest of the article: making concise statements that encompass the main points of what feminism is, with links pointing to other articles that give more detail about different aspects, such as history and the different forms of feminism. There are some sections in there that are just too long, most likely because we are so concerned with representing every possible viewpoint. There has got to be a way that we can mention a viewpoint in one concise sentence, and then create other articles that detail so-and-so's criticism of feminism and feminist responses to said criticism, rather than lumping them all together into a paragraph that is longer than most people would want to read. So, just wanted to express my support here; I am trying to finish up some term papers and projects, but soon I will have more time to really tackle this article. --Romarin17:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Effect on language section

The opening of this section states "...or the ironic use of the term "herstory" instead of "history"." Can somebody please explain to me what is ironic about the use of the term herstory? I certainly don't see it, and I would like to take out the word "ironic", unless someone has a good reason for why it should stay. Thanks! --Romarin20:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to go ahead with this one...--Romarin13:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's ironic because feminists want gender neutral language and then they use a word like "herstory". The word history has to do with the past of humans, not just men. It's like replacing the word "manager" with "womanager".

Sexual violence vs. rape

I noticed that in list of topics covered by feminism in the intro, the term "sexual violence" links to rape. Is there a reason why we don't just write "rape" in the sentence, rather than sugar-coating it with the vague term "sexual violence"? Like with my previous post, I am going to change this, unless there is much opposition. --Romarin20:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm talking about the second paragraph; I see that the word "rape" is used (though in a different context) in the third paragraph. --Romarin20:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No problems with me on this.--Zleitzen09:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; I'm going to go ahead and change it. --Romarin13:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

60s and 70s feminism

Ok, another issue here, with this sentence: "In the 1960s and 1970s, much of feminism and feminist theory represented, and was concerned with, problems faced by Western, white, middle-class women while claiming to represent all women." I agree that to a certain extent this was true. But this doesn't say "to a certain extent"; it's an over-generalized blanket statement and I don't think it belongs in the opening section. Instead, I'd rather see it under history, and with mention of some groups/individuals who were active in breaking out of this pattern of representation. As with my previous issues, I wanted to see what others thought about this; maybe it has been discussed already in previous talk pages that I haven't seen. Comments (and on the two previous topics) would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! --Romarin22:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on this --Zleitzen09:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Great. I'm going to start working on it when I get a chance (soon), unless someone else wants to go ahead. Any more ideas on what to do with it would be great. Thanks! --Romarin13:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

External Links

This section is way out of hand. I've pared down the opposition list somewhat. There were wikilinks in there, and links to opinion pieces of individuals (not part of a larger, more significant website), broken links, and sites that had nothing to do with feminism in particular, just issues that feminists are concerned about. MamaGeek Joy 12:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

207.225.4.112 removed link to Feminists for Life with no justification given. I've restored the link. I also removed links to Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-choice America, since they are not feminist organizations. (Even though they are focused on a "women's issue", they do not mention feminism specifically in their mission statements.) MamaGeek Joy 17:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Restoring that link is fine, but dropping the other two is not. If PP is out, then so is FFL, since both are primarily centered on matters of reproductive rights, not feminism in and of itself. Of course, reproductive rights are a key part of feminism, which is what justified the inclusion of both. NARAL is likewise centered on reproductive rights. Alienus23:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look and removed some links myself. I've tried to go by a rule of removing links that don't explicitly refer to feminism or women’s rights. I may be wrong here and there may also be further links which need to go. To save confusion I've explained my edits below --Zleitzen00:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"'Feminist organizations"'

"NARAL Pro-Choice America"- does not explicitly refer to feminism or women’s rights. I know that sounds odd, but I’m thinking in terms of an encyclopedia entry.

"Planned Parenthood Federation of America" – see above

"Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute" – only reference to feminism I could find seems to be critical of feminism

"Don't Be Scared By Feminist Theory" – defunct

"'Supportive of feminism"'

"Donna Haraway - Bibliography" – no idea what this is, don’t see feminism here

"'Feminist Political Action Committees"'

"Susan B. Anthony List" - not explicitly refering to feminism or women’s rights

"EMILY's List" – about a politician. not explicitly refering to feminism or women’s rights

"'Critical of feminism or of specific types of feminism"'

"Concerned Women for America" – not overtly concerned with feminism or women’s rights

"Focus on the Family" - see above

"Family Research Council" - see above

"'Feminism and religion"'

"Double Standards" – one page rant

first paragraph

Anacapa, I reverted your changes to the first paragraph not because I disagree with them (I do not) but because they were redundant and poorly written. The opening graph as it stands complies with NPOV - it is clear that these are positions not shared by all feminists, and are debated. To add that others take ther views is just to repeat what has already een said, but in more clumsy wording. Your efforts are better placed in your adding actual content to later sections of the article (i.e. the body) in which you lay out other views. The first paragraph should be concise and to the point and it is - and clearly signals that there are different views. Slrubenstein | 16:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Gender Equity

Why does Gender Equity redirect to feminism? Why not masculism? That's irony if ever I saw it. Bihal00:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed NPOV...

...by getting rid of the "just"'s and the "only"'s and every other biased bit of language.

BIAS

Male whitewashing and politically motivated. —The preceding ) 2|.

I'm not even sure what this comment means, but you have to explain which specific words or parts of the article you think express POV bias, rather than giving a laundry list of generic adjectives for things you don't like. Catamorphism19:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Dodgy fake (?) statistics in section 4.3 (Effect on heterosexual relationships)

'One problem that the feminist movement has come across is the statistics dealing with family life when one or more feminist lives in the household. Statistics have shown that 82% of households with mothers that are openly part of the feminist movement have had problem children, due to traumatizing events involving bizarre behavior by the mother. In 70% of households with feminists living there at all, males have complained that they don't feel equal to the women of the house, but oppressed. While women tend to claim that this is merely the result of their resentment to a relinquishing power they've had all their lives, men make the argument that the women, regardless of claims of what men may have had over women in the past, are not allowing them to live freely in the house or out of it.'

I'm new to Wikipedia, and was reading this article without planning to edit it, but this paragraph made me jump. 82% of the children of feminists are traumatised by their mothers' bizarre behaviour? Says who? If such a statistic has ever really been issued by a reputable source, then the source should be cited. 81.79.77.22423:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I've removed it. Once you're more familiar with Wikipedia, feel free to remove things like this yourself. They definitely contradict policies like CITE. Catamorphism02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Uncited material

There's still a lot of uncited/unattributed material on this page, particuarily in the "Feminism today and its issues" section. And a lot of the additions still lack context. Could those who have contributed to these sections please rework them with this in mind, or they may have to be removed. Thanks.--Zleitzen18:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't account for what was recently added (though I would argue it reflects current issues), but I am basically going off of the way the masculism article is put where people on the discussion page decide what is reflective of what feminists today would believe (as in, it is said from the perspective of the feminists, not saying whether it would be "true" or "false") as, again, the masculist - which I believe is very well-structured - article is. I also believe you suggested before that we gather a concensus here on the discussion page as to what to include and I am still willing to do that; in fact I was long (it has been a couple months though I have been busy with school and all) under the impression that was how it would be done.

Now I could, however, do some looking and cite sources for each of the issues in the bullet-points (though I'd have to change the wording as, again, like the masculist article I admire I thought it could go from the perspective of the feminists with paragraphs below illustrating it. I admit I've been absent and used my time for other things here, but it is time-consuming), but it would be just as time-consuming as discussing things here. In fact, having a discussion here could offer more material from more people.

Nonetheless, I will start looking for sources. I am still trying to gather things to reflect an international perspective. However I find myself confused by the sections about feminism's impact in other regions; if we need to reflect an international perspective, what differentiates that from what is to be included in the sections about how it impacts different cultures, regions, or religions (for example, Islam's reaction will vary from country to country depending on it's influence and sect)? Perhaps a more in-depth discussion about how the article should be structured is warrented in order to avoid further confusion, edits, and unecessary time.NeoApsara22:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem NeoApsara, I've been a little busy myself!--Zleitzen22:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the need for cites. As the article says many times, their are a large number of types of feminism. As such saying 'feminists believe..' and the like is very inaccurate. I think "all" views and theories should be attributed to notable (Notability) feminist theorists (or critics). This would also have the advantage of restricting editors from coming and just throwing in their two cents worth of bar room philosophy. Ashmoo22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Some vandalism by an unknown user deleting criticisms of feminism (by AContributor) written a known scholar.

There's a criticisms section already on the page, your comments could go there.--Zleitzen13:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

An interesting addition?

An interesting addition to this article might be something that my ultra-feminist teacher taught me recently (She's so cool.)

She basically stated that Women could largely be blamed for the detriment to our school systems, as the 1950s gave rise to the feminist movement. As Women broke out of the mold that men gave to them, they didn't need to be school teachers anymore, and many brilliant women who were previously educating our children, are now doing better things with their lives. (Better is relevant to the person, not to the society at large).

Just curious if anyone knows of a good way to word this, or can find some information about it. Sajun77720:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting concept, although I don't think that saying that women are to blame necessarily follows; this implies that their breaking out of gender-stereotyped roles was a bad move, and that women should take responsibility for all that has happened since with regard to school systems. Maybe you should ask your teacher where she found the information; if this is a prominent theory that has been published and can be verified, then it may be useful to work into the article somehow. Unfortunately, original research cannot be used, and so you're going to need a bit more to go on than just something cool your teacher said. Good luck, x "rom"RRR_User:Romarin/Esperanza_RRR ""'a""'Romarin "rin"15 px 04:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

south park reference

There is no evidence given as to why Mr. Garrison's opinion is the one of the creators, that's a matter of opinion of the person who wrote the paragraph. Anyway I'm deleting the paragraph. Zverkov016:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed whole section

I removed this whole section on the grounds it is of very limited notability and

that the article is already very cluttered, has no overall flow: The cited author and work are not very influential (Dr Schoenwolf). The Freud comment has no cite and Freud died before modern feminism even existed.

"'Ideas regarding the genesis of feminism"'

Gender narcissism has been outlined by Dr. Schoenwolf as the cause of negative thought relating to one's own gender or that of the opposite one due to an over-valuation of the idea of gender. He argues that feminism is actually a pathology, as the roots of this narcissism appear to be from an adverse developmental situation. Although Narcissus was a man, narcissism has generally been considered as a feminine vice http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/philosophy/0195140419/acprof-0195140419-chapter-5.html Professor Meyers. In "The Psychology of Women" Freud argues that “envy and jealousy play a greater part in the mental life of women. Freud advanced the theory that attitudes such as feminism have their roots in the castration complex, where girls are unable to resolve their envy for boys. Freud argues that this envy/dislike continues into adulthood.

Ashmoo

06:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

LOOKS LIKE ASHMOO IS VERY WORRIED ABOUT CRITICISM! Considering that women achieve the vote through the suffragette movement in Freud's lifetime I think that he is quite relevant. As for "limited notability" I think DWORKING was even more limited! Acontributor10:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)