Talk:Pop feminism

message: I have created this page because I think its a critical omission, and I dislike blind links. All sources can be easily located using google. Could someone please proofread my work and expand it a bit?--ChrisJMoor 19:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

message: I gave up after the first 5 or 6 episodes of Charmed, exactly because I got the impression that all male characters appearing in the show were weak or evil. Can somebody who has seen more of the show (ideally at least the first two seasons) say whether the show is bad enough to qualify for the list at the bottom of this article, or if the first episodes were just off key relative to the rest of the show? --Peter Knutsen 14:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Charmed also Pop Feminism?

message: This page needs to be completely overhauled.  There are no sources and it seems that this article was mostly just pulled from the author's head.  I tried to go through and fix the many verb-subject agreement errors and the general grammatical mistakes.  I also tried to fix the very subjective tone of many of the sentences.  This article makes some interesting points, but someone with some knowledge in the area of contemporary feminism really needs to do some research and rewrite this entire thing.
:There, done. --BerserkerBen 10:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs to be rewritten completely 

message: Hi I'm Cailil I came to this article through Project Gender Studies.  I was doing a talk page harmonization (cleaning-up graphics, nav boxes and rating unassessed pages) then I came here.  There is 1  reliable source on this page about Pop feminism. But worse than that it seems like a "cool idea".  While I agree that there should be a section on feminist representations in popular culture somewher on WP it does not warrant an article of its own.--Cailil 21:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 23 days later still no improvemnts and no WP:RS sources.  I've listed the page for deletion with .  The first comments on this talk page point to the article being created as a "cool idea" or just plain original research.  IMHO this is borne out by the content, or rather the lack therefore, in the article.  "Critical oversight" or not there needs to substantive, notable research available for such an article to exist--Cailil 16:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible AfD or Merger 

message: I almost feel as if I might have written part of this piece, just because I've talked about pop feminism a lot for years now.
It's important to note that the connotation of a societal element representing pop feminism is a more masculist critique than any other, but that it also denounces notions of women's liberation through the liberation of sexuality.
Pop feminism is a subjective kind of feminism that seems to be all the liberation with none of the responsibility, and it does seem to be mostly found in those that would obsess with pop culture, younger women.
Maybe to some it feels like pop feminism doesn't exist, but I don't think that's the case. Putting out dozens of shows with strong female protagonists that are taken seriously seems more to be making up for a lack of feminist ideals elsewhere. The main issue seems to be what is offered for male roles otherwise. Crime dramas have been refreshing in the number of women they show taking on primary and secondary roles as strong characters, but there is still a need to see them act out sexually in ways that other male characters are not so required; but men are still pegged more often as sexual deviants/offenders, spousal abusers, and predators of the opposite sex. Contrastingly, the shows with male leads (on sitcoms) follow the archetype of the male being a trickster and a fool while the woman is asserted as smarter, more thoughtful, and generally better, including in appearance. This conveys a poor message for members of both sexes who watch. This would be acceptable if another character who had a similar role in same or other show/s were given the same kind of paradigm. But instead, the trend continues further into advertising in which a man is unable to do something or figure out something and the woman has to take care of him like a child.
This negative view of men and overwhelming surge of strong female characters combined with years of seeing men taken down by a simple blow to the groin could be leading to a decline in the sense of purpose and societal importance in the everyday man. Similarly to how the portrayal of women in popular culture as being stupid, emotional, flighty, undependable and childish lead to generations of women feeling unempowered.
This piece simply claims that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction from previous decades and has produced a type of mainstream quasi-feminist ideology that works to hinder the relations between the sexes. In so doing, pop feminism would seem to do more damage than good in that it breeds misandrony. It further encourages stereotyping of men into one of three categories: good, bad, ugly/stupid. This piece is clearly controversial because it raises an air of doubt around what is viewed by many women as self-empowerment and ending oppression, but what can be seen by others as outrageous hostility and gender-profiling. And for those requiring a citation of pop feminism in a reliable source, one of the external links listed is a piece from the CBC that cites examples of "pop feminism".
204.210.199.29 16:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 204.210.199.29 I am actually familiar with this line of argument and this way of using theory.  However what your saying is original research - I happen to agree with you but unless you can site a reliably sourced reference for this the deletion query stands.  However valid pop feminism is does not mean it is notable enough for WikiPedia--Cailil 23:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When redirecting this page to another page (which I don't necessarily disagree with) it might be good to put something from this page on the other: as it is now nothing is spoken of pop feminism what so ever on wikipedia. Sure pop feminism my only be mention by a few journalist in actually media and on a few hundred web sites, but its at least worthy of a few sentences somewhere on wikipedia?--BerserkerBen 22:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree with you BerserkerBen.  My problem is with this article, not its subject.  One news piece is enough for Pop feminism to have a section in another article - its just not enough for a whole article on its own.  If there were more notable and reliable sources that would change matters, but as it stands there is just one.--Cailil 23:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well see I don't have a problem with that, if pop feminism actually had a section in another article that would be fine by me, but it doesn't, as it stand it has nothing.--BerserkerBen 23:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Great idea, would love to. --BerserkerBen 15:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had time that is... --BerserkerBen 02:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  valid but needs a little work