Talk:Feminism/Archive 10

message: I've added some references to the section on Poststructural feminism.  I messed up my last edit summary - it should have read "rephrased and removed parenthesis for readability".  The section is jargon heavy and needs a little clean-up.  Also the use of parenthesis was bad for its readability.  All that aside it was totally unreferenced.  The first line still needs a citation - the content is correct but the wording is a new one for me.  I have a Peter Barry definition at hand which is less jargon heavy.  
The other 2 refs I added are th one I assume are necessary.  The Barbara Johnson one is straight forward but I also sourced the last lines to Irigary's essay "When our lips speak together" - this is the kind of essay I understand the section to be referring to.  if I'm wrong please add the proper refs.--Cailil  talk 20:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  referencing Poststructuralist feminism section 

message: I've been coming across this for a while now, both as mentioned in print and as seen on the street. The 'Raunch' phenomenon is usually cast as an important feminist statement. Raunch feminism is seen as either betraying feminism, or alternatively as realizing an aspect of feminism. Here is one article: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article330823.ece
I don't know enough about it to comment but thought it may be worthy for discussion by those in the know, and considered as a topical addition to the main page. Soulgany101 12:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point Soulgany101.  I've heard a bit about raunch culture and I've seen it mentioned at Sex-positive_feminism.  On the one hand I think it may deserve a stub article of it's own, but on the other I'm unsure of the subject's notability.  The mention on Sex-positive_feminism is in the criticism section but I think that a section about it there would be highly appropriate.  Since Sex-postive feminism should have its own summary here I expect it would be mentioned in that.  Thanks for bringing that up--Cailil  talk 16:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raunch Culture 

message: Okay i've been talking about this for a while but now its time to do something.  I'm proposing that this page be rewritten in line with summary style.  Below is an outline for what I belive that page might look like.  It is by no means in a final order so things will be added and others removed.  There are a lot of problems with the issues in defining feminism, Relationship to other movements, Modern feminism & Effects of feminism in the West sections.  What's currently in them needs to be shortened and made directly relevant to this page as the main/parent article for Feminism. 
This would also be an opportunity to work the criticism section into the article so that no POV sections are created.
The outline shows links to most of the main articles about feminism.  I propose the current head line and head paragraph are kept and that the sources and information currently on the page be retained but in a more concise form.  
Proposed outline:
Headline
History of Feminism (Section 1)
*History_of_feminism (Section 1a)
*Feminist movement (Section 1b)
**Women's rights (Section 1b.1)
**Women's suffrage (Section 1b.2)
*Pro-feminism (Section 2)
*Anti-feminism (Section 3)
*effects of feminism (Section 4)
(religion piece could contain Jewish feminism summary)
Concepts
*Feminist_theory (Section 5) 
*Feminist history (Section 6)
*Feminist sexology (Section 7)
*Feminist economics (Section 8)
*Feminist philosophy (Section 9)
*Feminist anthropology (Section 10)
*Feminist geography (Section 11)
*Feminist film theory (Section 12)
*Waves of feminism (Section 13)
**First-wave feminism (Section 13a)
**Second-wave feminism (Section 13b)
**Third-wave feminism (Section 13c)
*Types of Feminism (section 14)
**defining Feminism (section 14a)
**Liberal feminism (section 14b)
**Radical Feminism
**French feminism (containing the current Post-structural feminism sub section)
**eco-feminism
**Marxist feminism
**Postcolonial Feminism
**Black feminism
**Sex-positive feminism
**Equality feminism]]
**Post-feminism
**Anarcha-feminism
**Christian feminism
**Third-world feminism
**Amazon Feminism
**Multiracial feminism (section 14q)
*Feminist art & Literature (section 15)
**Feminist Artists(section 15a)
**Women's writing (section 15b)
**Feminist_science_fiction (section 15c)
*feminism and science (section 16)
*List of feminists (section 17)
*References (section 18)
*Ext. Links (section 19)
This is only my suggestion and I'm going to write this in my user-space first - anyone who is interested in helping me should just drop on by to the page here.  I'm going to leave a note about this at the Project gender studies talk page too.  I'm open to debate and suggestion on this, and I wont implement the page (when finished) until/unless there's a consensus to do so--Cailil  talk 17:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay the page is in pretty good shape and I'd like to submit it for approval.  It still needs some sourcing but I'm happy with most of it   .You can see it here--Cailil  talk 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note, a section that has started to become quite broad even in its unfinished state is "Feminism and the arts"  its collecting summaries from Women's writing in English, Women's cinema, Feminist science fiction and Women's music but it also has space for a summary of feminist artists.  This may need its own article.  And saying that it may be time to look at the organization of :Category:feminism in order to rationalize what's a parent article, to see what's a summary and what's been orphaned over the years--Cailil  talk 23:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposal: rewrite of article as per [[WP:SUMMARY]] 

message: These two sections ('Relationship to other movements' and 'Effects of feminism in the West') are a bit of a problem for me.  First off because they are (and encourage additions to them to be) in essay-style (WP:SYN) and secondly because their relationship to Feminism poorly sourced.  I'm not saying there's nothing in this sections worth keeping, specically I think the information on Kristin Luker and religion should be kept but needs to be cut down.  However, I'm going to remove 'Relationship to other movements' because its unsourced and is really duplicating information which is sourced in other sections - its also heavily USA-centered and may not reflect a global perspective.  The section called 'Modern feminism' has the same problems.  Personally I think it should go as well since it's also becoming redundant.  If anybody wants to object to the removals that's okay, but if we're to keep these sections they need a major clean-up and a lot of sourcing--Cailil  talk 11:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the following paragraph from the 'Hetrosexual relations' because it is unsourced.There have also been changes in attitudes towards sexual morality and behavior with the onset of second wave feminism and "The Pill". Women are more in control of their bodies, Evangelical (Christian) feminists and social conservatives sometimes argue that closed marriages ideally promote egalitarianism in, especially when viewed in light of some other alternatives to monogamy (e.g., polygamy, swinging, open marriages, or infidelity). However, some feminists endorse cohabitation, open marriage, casual sex and other forms of  'responsible non-monogamy' as egalitarian lifestyles (see sex-positive feminism). It's also covered in the sex-positive summary and the 'Religion' subsection--Cailil  talk 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've also removed the Engel's quote as it is just not directly linked to the 'hetrosexual relationships' content - if anyone can rewrite to include it, please do.--Cailil  talk 22:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Relationship to other movements' and 'Effects of feminism in the West' 

message: I am so impressed with the work that has been done on this article. I can only imagine how much research, writing and rewriting has been done. I think much of the article is quite good and that it is nearly GA, but there are still some changes and additions that I think would improve the article.
*The lead needs to be a standalone summary of the article per WP:LEAD. Each section of the article should, ideally, be mentioned.
*Many of the subsections are quite small. I realize that this is probably because the editors are trying to address so many different topics on a single page. However, some of them still need a bit of expansion and there is some space to work with here. 
:*The "history of feminism" introduction repeats much of what comes after it in the individual subsections on first-wave, second-wave, and third-wave feminism. I would either expand those subsections or delete the introduction. This is true of the introduction to the "Feminism of society" section as well.
:*Might you consider including more examples of feminists and feminist texts? I would like to see at least one example in each subsection - it gives the reader something concrete to go on. Many of the descriptions are vague (as the concepts themselves are), so a text would help ground the description. I think that it is also a good idea to introduce readers to the major texts of feminism (I don't remember reading about The Second Sex, for example, but maybe I just missed it.)
*Several of the concepts are only described in relation to other concepts rather than given content themselves. For example, "Postcolonial feminism", "Third-world feminism" and "Post-feminism" look only like movements reacting to other feminisms at this point instead than movements with their own positions.
*"Women's interests and issues" are mentioned quite frequently - always try to specify what these are in the context you use the phrase. 
*Might you consider deleting the "Patriarchy" section? It seems a bit tangential to the page and rightly has its own article.
*It would be nice to have more images. The page looks a bit blank right now - what about feminist artworks, for example, or book covers?
*I would delete some of the links under the "See also" section since they replicate what is in the "Feminism" navigation box.
*I would prune the external links.
*What do you think about moving the list of further reading to a "Sources on Feminism" page? So much could be added to that list and a separate page would allow you to do that more easily. 
If you have any questions about this review, please drop a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 04:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments Awadewit, their detail is very helpful.  I hope that these issues can be addressed without too much hassle, thanks again.--Cailil  talk 13:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the further reading section - my edit summary says moved to List of feminist literature but not all of it is notable enough for there.  What doesn't get added will be userfied.--Cailil  talk 19:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think at this stage I've address your last 6 points - the easier ones ;) - the top for will take a little more time.  Also I think even more pictures could be added through the page--Cailil  talk 19:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I've now got it narrowed down to 5 issues: 1) expanding the section on The second wave; 2) expanding feminism and society; 3) elucidating the term "Women's rights" in regard to the Feminist movement; 4) providing some more examples of feminism and feminist texts; and finally 5) the lead--Cailil  talk 20:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA fail

message: I thinkj Harraway does not belong in this section - I would characterize her more as a post-structuralist or even postmodernist.  And i have questions about Gayle Rubin, who was influenced by Levi Strauss at least as much as by Marx.  One can cite Marx and Engels, even be influenced by them, without being a Marxist or socialist. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about Rubin - that's a mistake I duplicated from the Socialist feminism or Marxist feminism pages.  I agree Harraway is a postmodernist - I think it was Robert Young who called her a "neo-marxist" and a postmodernist.  She kind of sits in-between the two discplines.  What we could do is mention that she was influenced by marxism/post-marxism in the socialist feminism section but put her in the postfeminism & postmodern feminism section--Cailil  talk 19:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxism and Feminism 

message: I like covering a topic historically.  nevertheless, I do not think 1st, 2nd, 3rd wave is an objective history of feminism.  The article already suggests it is in part a construct of so-called second wave feminists.  I think this is one story some feminists tell about feminism.  I sadly do not know the social and intellectual historians who have addressed this but I am sure historians have questioned this periodization.  Maybe Joan Scott.  More specifically, here is my BIG problem: it is simply wrong to emphasize 1st wave feminism with the struggle for the right to vote.  Margaret Sange was as important ands notable a feminist as Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Susan B Anthony, and she is the matron (uh..um) saint of the pro-choice movement; she also wrote extensively about the problems of poverty.  So economic equality and reproductive rights are as much first wave as second wave issues.  Why are they more commonly identified with the second wave?  My own opinion: so second wave feminists could claim that the first wave succeded in accomplishing their goal, and the second wave would likewise succede in accomplishing their goal.  Arguably, they accomplished in the domain of reproductive rights wha Sanger couldn't - but US feminists still are far from achieving for women total sexual freedom and control over their own bodies.  And the battle for economic equality is far, far from over.  I do not know what the solution is: either a separate section on revisionist feminist history, or augment the section on each "wave" with concurent, sometimes forgotten, trends - graft onto the history a genealogy/genealogies. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right Slrubenstein.  The fact is I haven't had the energy to really get to grips with a summary of the history of feminism.  That section needs to be expanded or augmented, and I think your idea about the forgotten or contested aspects of each wave is wholly appropriate.  The reason the history section isn't right yet is because I've been trying to kill two birds with every stone I throw here (which might not be the best option for this article).  A majority of feminism sub-articles (ie Chicana feminism or Socialist feminism or second wave feminism) are unverified and in often in need of rewriting.  There is some excellent work in History of feminism but there is also some terrible confusion there and I was trying to weed the reliably sourced from the original research in that article but I just ran out of steam with it--Cailil  talk 01:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no blaming you.  The fact is not that you haven't had the energy, the fact is Wikipedia has more editors who are experts on Pokeman than on Feminism.  The fact is, we need more knowledgable editors so the burden doesn't fall on one or even two. You've done lots of good work! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, S, that "it is simply wrong to emphasize 1st wave feminism with the struggle for the right to vote." I added the individual rights concerns of the early first wave, put Mary Wollstonecraft and Voltairine in there, and noted that the suffrage thing was only a major concern for some, and that in the late 19th century and later. I think that addresses your concern. PhilLiberty 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks Phil - your edits are without doubts improvements.  But I was also making a larger point which I do not know enough to address ... but I suspect that historians have debaed not just what characterizes the three waves, but whether there really were three waves and whether this is the best way to structure the history of feminism (I would guess Joan Scott has addressed this but maybe not) ... I think somewhere in here should be an account not just of "the" history of feminism, but an account of debates among feminists and historians over how best to study and talk about the history of feminism.  Personally, I suspect that the three waves has become a "myth" of feminism with currency because it has political (and perhaps existential) value, rather than because it is "good history."  Maybe I am wrong, and even if i am right it is just my opinion.  Have you or Calil or others read enough historiography to know? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waves 

message: Dear colleagues—You may be interested in contributing to a lively discussion (which I hope will form consensus) here. Tony 15:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender-neutral language proposal at MOS talk 

message: From the library of congress: 1909 photo titled "Policewomen - the woman "Cop" (a dream). Suffragette posed to illus. woman police concept."  Here's the link. Calliopejen1 05:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously this could also be placed on some sort of related page, but I'm not familiar with the feminism-related articles and how they're organized... Calliopejen1 05:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  great free image - not sure if you have anywhere to put it though.... 

message: Of course, this is a "good" article, the article of masculinism instead has suffered a violent attack! Have I to think that this wikipedia are suffered a slanted process o feminilization? You must to have shame for you! --Giubizza 09:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this "violent attack" you are talking about? Neitherday 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good article? 

message: First off, I'd just like to say well done to however has been working on this article recently. I was editing about a year ago, and frankly, the article was so misguided I didn't have the energy to correct it. (For instance, it was over 60kb long, but had no mention of de Beauvoir). Anyway, now it is looking very good.
One criticism I have however: The 'other concepts' section spends a lot of time defining pro- and anti-feminism. I think we must remember 'WP is not a dictionary'. Articles should only defined words so that a reader knows what they mean 'within the context of the article'. Any English speaker knows what pro and anti mean as prefixes. I'm going to strip it down a bit. Ashmoo 21:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right Ashmoo, the antifeminism section was over the top - it was reflecting some of the problems at that article unfortunately.  Your clean-up was needed.  I did however de-wikify Sheila Cronin - who doesn't have a WP article yet (which was actually wikified by User:SadanYagci).  Will be happy to re-do that if/when she has an article though--Cailil  talk 21:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other concepts

message: is that in this article. most feminists i know degrade men and bitch about how ALL men are terrible. this needs to be included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.169.159 (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the fact that many feminists are sexist against men 

message: ok so the lead paragraph says
Feminist political activists have been concerned with issues such as a woman's right of contract and property, a woman's right to bodily integrity and autonomy (especially on matters such as reproductive rights, including the right to abortion
the way it is worded it says abortion is a right. can you guys please change it so it say "feminists fight for the legalization of abortion"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.230.196 (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you change it? Find a reliable source: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", states Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Or if not, mark the passage that offends you with the  template, so the author is then obliged to reference it or change it. If you don't like the given reference, see WP:Templates. Tom 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:69.106.230.196 don’t get confused.  This article is not asserting that abortion is or is not a right.  The line reads “ Feminist political activists have been concerned with issues such as a woman's right of contract and property, a woman's right to bodily integrity and autonomy (especially on matters such as reproductive rights, including the right to abortion, access to contraception and quality prenatal care); for protection from domestic violence; against sexual harassment and rape” This is easily sourced since it is saying that some feminists campaign for the right to abortion as well as other issues (see Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America, 1967-1975 by Alice Echols or At the Heart of Freedom: Feminism, Sex, and Equality By Drucilla Cornell p. x, or a number of other books).  Also I will remind you 69.106.230.196 that wikipedia is not a soapbox – this is not the place to attempt to start a debate on abortion.--Cailil  talk 14:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 69.106.250.135 this is getting tendentious.  Unless there is a major significant source that contradicts the existing references (which say that "Feminism campaigns for the right to abortion") your argument is going nowhere.  Wikipedia requires reliable sources and consensus for edits.  Also you have already been warned that wikipedia is not a soapbox - if this behaviour continues you may be blocked--Cailil  talk 18:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia. Why do people feel the need to air their opinions in this way? What is your point 69.106.250.135? Wouldn't starting a blog be more appropriate? Tom 18:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this is just another case of a newbie who doesn't understand our NPOV and V polciies.  Anonymous user 69, please read over WP:NPOV and WP:V carefullly - if there is something you do not understand, you can ask for clarification ont he policy talk pae.  Then feel free to come back here and I think what Cahil and Tom and others have said will make more sense to you.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Completely false.  Assuming that something is a right and advocating for it as a right are both POV.  The way that it is worded assumes that reproductive rights are, in fact, rights, and therefore the wording ought to be made more neutral.  For this reason I have nominated this article for .  However, 69.106.230.196, please sign your posts!  64.26.98.90 (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have removed the tag.  So far, several anon IPs have made noises about how they do not agree with the phrasing of a single sentence.  No one has proposed a viable alternative to the current phrasing, and so there is not a legitimate dispute.  I agree with the above assessment that this is tendentious, and now with the addition of a nag-tag seems to be dangerously close to a WP:POINT.  Silly rabbit (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Abortion is a legal right in the US. It is generally considered to be a reproductive right in international human and reproductive rights discourses, and held by many to be a human right as a necessity in maintaining sexual and reproductive health.  Stating that feminists advocate for the right of abortion just means, rather neutrally, that they work toward getting women legal access to safe abortions. As the whole paragraph is structured around rights, I would support changing it to "the right to safe and legal abortion". Phyesalis (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I do. Sorry, there. Did we just have a miscommunication? I'm certainly not trying to turn this into a general debate, nor do I support attempts to do so. I'm fine with the lead and am making no attempt to change it. I was voicing support for Silly Rabbit's decision. SR said no one had offered an alternative, I offered one and said I would support the change. I did not say that I thought we should change it. I apologize if my comments seemed inflammatory or off-topic. Phyesalis (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Not at all, just concerned that there was an error on my part. Thank you for the clarification. Phyesalis (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  abortion is not a right 

message: Feminism is an ideology focusing on equality of the sexes.[1] Feminism comprises a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender inequalities and discrimination against women. Some feminists, like Judith Butler, have argued that gendered and sexed identities, such as "man" and "woman", are social constructs.[2]
Excuse me for making an observation.  
If the above quote is true, then why did feminism just focus on 'women'.  The equality of women to men, would be more correct, feminism was not concerned about giving equitable treatment to both men and women, merely to give women more rights,(a good noble thing), but that is not what the opening paragraph says.
Secondly, Judith Butler's quote, ignores the simple observation that male and female constructs are focused on undeniable physical differences.  Her work appears to be based on 'queer' or 'bisexual' theory, and not representative of mainstream feminism  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesarjbsquitti (talk • contribs) 03:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feminism arose because men were so completely in control of society that in order to achieve equality, women would have to be given as many rights as we men had. That is not in contradiction of the definition in the lede. --Orange Mike 16:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like you haven't spent much time among feminists, Caesar. The female mainstream feminists I know cheerfully acknowledge the fact that sexism oppresses us, too; just in different ways than it does women. --Orange Mike 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not sure that if I were to break this down to its philosophical constructs that there would be an actual difference. A=B is pretty much the same as A=B. Your nuance captures something of the historical progression (that men were elevated over women) but I think that's plain throughout the article. I'm not sure what's gained from putting this in the lede. Do you think someone would come away from the article confused about the fact that feminism was a movement to give women "equal rights", meaning, give women rights equal to those already enjoyed by men? --lquilter 03:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, please humor me and at least spell English words correctly! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 05:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you concerned about "lede"? It's the first paragraph or few paragraphs of an article; maybe more familiar for journalism, but it's entirely correct here (despite the more common practice of spelling it "lead" like the verb). --lquilter 12:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid you are wrong.  Lede is not a modern English word.  It does not appear at all in the American heritage Dictionary, and it appears in the OED only as a variant of the word used in Beowulf to mean "people."  The correct spelling is "lead." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's journalists' jargon, picked up and used here in Wikipedia (see :lede (news). --Orange Mike 14:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can also go to google and type "define:lede"; it pulls up definitions from a number of dictionaries. --lquilter 15:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Caesar, Orangemike and Lquilter are correct.  I would also point out that the manual of style recommends avoiding trite expression: in order words concise sentences are better than convoluted ones.  Also your addition "Feminism is a doctrine advocating social, political, and economic rights for women equal to men" - is not grammatical in English.  There are a number of problems with your contention.  First, you said "feminism was not concerned about giving equitable treatment to both men and women, merely to give women more rights" - that is factually inaccurate - your own source contradicts it.  Feminism is about "equal rights" (see books like At the Heart of Freedom: Feminism, Sex, and Equality or No Turning Back: The History of Feminism and the Future of Women or any 'Introduction to Feminism').  Secondly, your points about Judith Butler are a soapbox - please read WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#FORUM.  Then there's the matter of your representation of your source.  When I look up my copy of Webster's college dictionary - I don't find what you've added.  I find 3 entries a) "Feminism: A doctrine that advocates equal rights for women"; b) "Feminism: The movement aimed at equal rights for women." c) "Feminism: Movement advocating equal rights, status, ability, and treatment of women, based on the belief that women are not in any way inferior to men."  There is a difference between saying "equal rights for women" and "advocating social, political, and economic rights for women equal to men."  I wouldn't neccessarily have a problem changing the words "equality of the sexes" to "equal rights for women."  And if we are to use Webster's then I would suggest we use the word "movement" rather than doctrine.  We do need to work on this lead, but we need to do so in a way that builds consensus for changing it first--Cailil  talk 11:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The ordinary understanding of "equal rights for women" would suggest equal rights by comparison for "women" with a category equivalent to women (i.e., "men"), rather than "among" women (which would really be something like "equal rights among women"). Sometimes it's better to just let the language serve its natural function rather than trying to lawyer-out any conceivable misunderstanding that might be based on poor literacy or other problems of reader comprehension. The more explanatory phrases that get added the more it suggests there is confusion and raises new sites for confusion. --lquilter 17:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More correct definition of feminism. 

message: I've just expanded the 'second wave' section.  It's far from perfect but it's a start.  There are 2 other issues left over from Awadewit's list of recommendations, they are: the section on Post-feminism and issues with the section on The third wave (the prominence of the Anita Hill case and their perceived failures of the second wave).  If anyone can help with these areas specifically it would move the article closer to GA status.  After that the lead paragraph might need attention--Cailil  talk 13:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone who is interested.  One of the last issue in the improvement drive for this article is teh expansion of the third wave section.  What could go in here is third wave feminists' views about the second wave and their issues with it.  I wont have time to work on this for a while so if anyone else can please have a think about what could be appropriate for this section--Cailil  talk 00:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  expanded second wave feminism section 

message: I'm trying to gauge whether there is interest in forming a WikiProject Feminism. My initial proposal states: "A WikiProject for creating, maintaining and improving articles related to feminism and biographies of important feminists." If you're interested, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Feminism and sign up. Even if there aren't enough people to sustain a WikiProject, we'll at least get to know other editors with interests in this area. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:GS - wikiproject gender studies already does this job, has a wider scope and an established membership--Cailil  talk 02:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm interested, but like Cailil says, some other wikiprojects cover feminism already. However, I think that there could be a feminism subproject as part of Wikiproject: Gender Studies. --Grrrlriot (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interest in a WikiProject Feminism? 

message: This is such a substantial article, but did I miss the treatment of Sex-positive feminism? If not, how come there's no section for it? Phyesalis 02:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be in the radical feminism sub-section, along with mention of the "pornography wars" and anti-pornography, or so-called, "sex-negative" feminism.  Sex-positive and anti-pornography feminism are both part of radical feminism as it's called in North America, they are sub-movements and recording them is part of the reason that that section is so long--Cailil  talk 00:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I totally missed that. If the length of "radical" is an issue, would anyone mind if I gave SPF its own section? SPF is significant enough to give it its own section. It ties into both radical and third wave. Phyesalis (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: We could give its own section but other sections (i.e., Marxist and Socialist feminism or Postcolonial feminism and Third world feminism) are umbrella sections so on the grounds of consistency I'd lean towards expanding the mention of pro-sex feminism in the Radical feminism section and add more on it into the third wave section as well.  Length of the Radical feminism isn't an issue (I didn't mean to give that impression above) it is a very broad church, so to speak, and its divisions and subdivisions need to be fully articulated both for NPOV and simple accuracy.  What do you think?--Cailil  talk 01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that sounds great. Phyesalis (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sex-positive feminism

message: Having reviewed the Post-feminism article and the section here, I think it would be appropriate to merge and redirect that article here until the section expands enough to justify having its own article--Cailil  talk 15:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody has a problem with this then I propose the merge go ahead after 12:00 UTC Thursday December 27th 2007--Cailil  talk 15:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It sounds fine to me, Cailil -- thanks for more excellent work on feminism-related articles. --Lquilter (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might have discussed this at Talk:Post-feminism... —Ashley Y 22:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge post-feminism 

message: Okay first of all I gave-up trying to explain Post-feminism and just gave examples of it - the section still needs work.  I expanded the third wave section by rationalizing other sections and moving post-feminism and contemporary feminism into it.  I moved a section on Feminism and political movements from History of feminism - it needs attention.  The section on Socialism might need to be reduced and the section on fascism needs expansion.  It also needs info on other political movements alliances with and attitudes towards feminism.  And finally the Indian feminism section is a problem.  It was placed beneath French feminism presumably because it looked like the place to add regional feminisms - it's not.  French feminism is the name of a philosophy - an extremely historically significant one because it rivals Anglo-American views.  Indian feminism is important but the summary has 2 massive problems a) it's in the wrong place and b) totally unverified.  I'm commenting it out for a few hours - I wont be able to source it but I might be able to create another section on "Regional feminisms" as a new for it and other feminism (ie Feminism in France, Women's movement in Iran etc).  If anybody has any objections, views or comments drop me a line here or my talk page--Cailil  talk 16:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged and redirected Feminism in Norway to Feminism#Norway.  You can see the old article here.  It was pretty much OR for the most part and what was salvageable was unsourced but verifiable - if anyone objects just revert the redirect at this diff--Cailil  talk 18:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I just finished doing a little fact checking and sourcing and the article has no more red links and no more unsourced statements.  But it's not time to celebrate yet.  The lede needs to be redone.  The issues in defining feminism needs to be removed or reduced or significantly altered and we all need to talk about that.  Also the more I look over it the "Science and Feminism" needs to be harmonized with the rest of the article - a sub article on Feminism and Science would be good in the long run.  And finally a summary of Men and feminism would really round this page off nicely - so that's my christmas list.  Before I forget we also need an image for the top of the article - I'd suggest Image:8marchrallydhaka (55).JPG but becuase the placards aren't in English it may not be the best first choice.  Something along these lines is what I'd think is appropriate though.  Any other ideas?--Cailil  talk 00:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Haven't had time to reread the commented out section. I have found this site  which I am planning on using to revise "Science and feminism". For me, these overarching approaches are key to understanding soft and hard scientific approaches (this would also help contextualize the material already present). This could be a useful ref for a sub-article. For the Men section, I'm thinking the issue of whether or not men are feminist or Pro-feminist men, some John Stoltenberg and feminist views of how patriarchy and intersections of oppression affect men and a link to Queer theory. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Stanton encyclopedia will help but we need more sources - its bibliography will be a major help in finding them.  Regarding the Men and feminism article - that page is still developing and needs work - but a summary (as per WP:SUMMARY) of it and its points, so it would be important to work new ideas into that article first and then to write the summary here.  But your points about Stoltenberg, queer theory, and pro-feminist men look good to me--Cailil  talk 19:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Good points, I'm thinking that your suggestion (on pfm's talk page) to merge Pro-feminist men with either Men and feminism or Pro-feminism is a good idea. Maybe merge it with Pro-feminism and then add a section in men and feminism? Then we can draw from the main article with a pro-feminist men subsection. What do you think? Phyesalis (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few new sections and a rethink 

message: User:Peoplesunionpro added this  to the section on Feminism's effect on hetrosexual relationships.  I don't see how it's relevant to this article.  It might belong somewhere like the Divorce article, but it's not making sense to put it here.  To connect it to feminism would be a synthesis and original research.  I'm suggesting it be removed--Cailil  talk 16:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the piece.  Please discuss if anyone has an issue with this removal--Cailil  talk 15:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  divorce rates etc 

message: In order to improve the encyclopedia I'm suggesting that a number of articles consisting of unverified and unsourced claims be summarized sourced and merged and redirected here: Feminism in Japan, Feminist history in Latin America and also Postfeminism (discussed above).  This has already been done for Third-world feminism and Feminism in Norway and will not be a permanent redirect.  When these sections become too large for this page then they can be spun-off into their own pages again.  Unless there are any objections I'm going to do this on Thursday December 27th 2007--Cailil  talk 18:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I object to this edit. this article is not your personal domain. december 27 is not sufficient time for all editors to be advised of such an edit  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.205.124 (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above editor has been blocked as a possible sock-puppet of User:A B Pepper, who has been engaged in tendentious editing in order to disrupt the project and harass certain editors--User:Cailil20:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It makes perfect sense to me.  We have an article on feminism and should spin off daughter articlesonly when there is enough well sourced substance. this is obvious.  Good idea!Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again unless there are any practical objections - based on policy, or for any other explicable common sense or logical reason, why these pages should not be temporarily merged and redirected here - the operation will go ahead on Thursday.  I am well aware of this site's policy on WP:OWN and do not regard this or any other page as my "personal domain," and if any editor has a problem with my contributions here bring the issue to WP:AN--Cailil  talk 20:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles should only be broken off when there is sufficient information to have a separate article; as it stands now have all these separate articles weakens what could be a better article covering all the topics in a single article. Too often new editors want to equate numerous article with being more important; this is a fallacy. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the discussion of equality and difference feminism would be great. Phyesalis (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  more mergers 

message: :Image:Faludi-backlash.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Faludi-backlash.jpg

message: :Image:Mrs Dalloway1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Mrs Dalloway1.jpg