Talk:Feminism/Archive 5

message: The article "Feminazi" is linked under the label "feminazism" in the subtypes section of the article.
I am not familiar with the feminist scene, but this seems to me that this is not a real faction of the feminist movement.
I propose someone deletes it - I won't do it myself, since I'm not sure about it.
Another possible solution is to add clarification, either in the article or in the discussion page. -- User talk:85.250.94.165
:Well, actually, if you read feminazism, there is a group of women using the label for themselves, so I think it's appropriate to keep it on this list. Mamawrites 10:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no "feminazi" movement, group, or ideology (to my knowledge, at least); the article just mentions that some women are reclaiming the epithet. It's not correct to list it under subtypes. Dysprosia 10:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you could certainly be bold and take it off the list of subtypes... but did you read the community info on the feminazis livejournal community? That's a lot of members who have labelled themselves a community, even if it's probably not enough members to be considered a bona fide movement. I don't feel strongly either way, which is why I was inclined to caution and preserving the status quo, but I wouldn't revert you if you feel that including it in the list is misleading. Mamawrites 17:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, but then we have to concern ourselves of verifiability and whether a livejournal community is enough corroboration/sources etc. to be called a bona fide movement (I would argue it's not really about the numbers). If there is more concrete evidence to support the existence of a movement, then I may consider reverting myself, though. Dysprosia 03:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not delete or remove the feminazism article. Whether or not this group actually exists, this term is certianly real in that it is in use as a criticism/parody of feminism.  The fact that there are feminists who are trying to reclaim the term is indicative of this and also should be mentioned in the article. Savidan 20:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtypes of Feminism 

message: Is a quotation from "The Godfather" really the best way to illustrate a point about feminism? Catamorphism 02:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly. I've removed it (be bold, in future!). Dysprosia 02:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I just didn't want to get into another edit war :-) Catamorphism 02:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Your anecdote isn't appropriate for an encyclopedic article, and that's presumably why someone reverted it. There is no factual basis for the statement "few women seem attracted to men who engage in these activities to the detriment of their careers." Please review the Wikipedia editing guidelines (and sign your comments). Catamorphism 20:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

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

text: An encyclopedia does not and should not contain anecdotal evidence for a source. All sources must be available and referenced. Dysprosia 21:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Nathaniel: If you consider any of the specific sentences in the paragraph you cited to be anecdotes that can't be backed up with facts, please say which ones. I also don't understand your comment about "lesbians from Berkeley". Who are you talking about? Catamorphism 21:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Since you don't even know what my gender is, it's perhaps uncalled-for to assume that I'm a lesbian. However, it makes more sense than taking a pop song to be an authoritative source. Since you don't seem to understand the concept of NPOV or the idea of "no original research", I'm through arguing this point with you. I note that most other editors won't take "but other parts of this article are wrong" as proof that your edits are right, either. When you become interested in contributing to an encyclopedia rather than advocating your own point of view, feel free to come back here. Catamorphism 00:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Nattiekins: Please review the guidelines for posting on Wikipedia. Any user can edit the grammar or arrangement of thoughts, or any other aspect, of any text in any article. If you find that any part of this article lacks substantiation, you can edit it to reflect that -- but you may find your edits will be reverted if you go against the spirit of Wikipedia, which I once again recommend you familiarize with. Also, Citing the song "Puff the Magic Dragon" doesn't prove that Puff, the magic dragon, lives by the sea and frolics in the autumn mist in a land called Hannalee. Catamorphism 03:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what makes you think that someone who is queer is necessarily a lesbian. There are several types of queer people who are not lesbian: gay men, bisexual men and women, and genderqueer people, to name a few. I'm also not sure what anybody's sexual orientation has to do with this article. Catamorphism 07:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Do you presume to speak for all heterosexual men? (Besides, as far as you know, I am a heterosexual man -- or a bisexual man, a bisexual woman, or an intersexed asexual.) I don't want text that's written in a POV fashion in this article. Catamorphism 08:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: But, to humor you, "Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis: “There are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the [oleander] stems” www.dictionary.com.  The "anecdotal observation" I cite to is that, in spite of women deriding men for not contributing to chores and childrearing, that they are ultimately concerned with a man's economic prospects.  This is an assertion based on observation.., and so it is anecdotal. 
Now, let us look at this closely.
* “There are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the [oleander] stems” is not itself an "anecdotal claim."  It is a statement about anecdotal claims.  Your quote from www.dictionary.com does not provide any anecdotal evidence, it merely claims that anecdotal evidence exists to support this proposition.
* in other words, an anecdotal claim is not a claim "based" on anecdotes; it provides the anecdotes that support the claim
* similarly, the claim that "in spite of women deriding men for not contributing to chores and childrearing, that they are ultimately concerned with a man's economic prospects" is not an anecdotal statement or observation.  It is a statement that claims to be supported by anecdotal evidence.  But the statement itself does not provide the anecdotal evidence.
* So there are actually two claims that you are making.  First, you are claiming that "in spite of women deriding men for not contributing to chores and childrearing, that they are ultimately concerned with a man's economic prospects."  Second, you are claiming that the previous claim is supported by anecdotal evidence.
* You make a distinction between claims that are based on "casual observations or indications" versus "rigorous or scientific analysis."  Fine.  No one is objecting to your including a claim based on "casual observations or indications" rather than "rigorous or scientific analysis."  This is not the issue.
* The issue is whether your two claims (first, that in spite of women deriding men for not contributing to chores and childrearing, that they are ultimately concerned with a man's economic prospects; second, that the first claim is backed up by anecdotal evidence) is verifiable and is not original research.  There is a very easy way that you can demonstrate that these two claims are verifiable and not original research: provide your sources  If you have any question as to what would constitute a valid source, please follow the links to the policy pages, where it is all spelled out in detail.
* In the meantime: we still have no source for the claim that "in spite of women deriding men for not contributing to chores and childrearing, that they are ultimately concerned with a man's economic prospects" (i.e. who says this, and where) — nor do we have a source for the claim that this proposition is supported by anecdotal evidence (i.e. who says they have anecdotal evidence to support this claim, and where do they provide the anecdotal evidence?)
I hope it is now very clear to you "how the facts in the current situation violate the policies."  Here is how: you have asserted a proposition that makes two claims, and you have failed to provide a verifiable source for either claim; since you have failed to do so, it appears as if you are expressing your own opinion, which violates our NOR policy.  Capiche? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: I'd be more likely to believe that your constant criticism of every sentence in this article that doesn't mesh with your POV is in good faith if you were citing sources that reflected scholarly research, rather than a Google search. Catamorphism 00:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition, I'd be interested in seeing citations to studies that show that there is a statistically significant incidence of divorces because women found their husbands' interest in doing domestic work to be unattractive. You don't say this explicitly, but it seems to be what you are implying with the qualifications you've inserted into the relevant paragraph. Catamorphism 00:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks; note that "Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor" are included in the category of "personal attacks". Also note this section: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." Catamorphism 07:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Effect on heterosexual relationships" section

message: Ive been pointed to Antifeminist, which was a pretty massively POV rant. I've briefly rewritten it to be neutral, trimmed it down to a couple of representative antifeminist links, but I know very little about the topic and would appreciate someone competent having a go at it. And that someone will almost certainly be reading this page, I guess. Thanks all. Shimgray | talk | 16:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a good job to me. Catamorphism 18:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antifeminism? 

message: Women's Aid needs some help too (ie checking edits by user 81.179.69.218 --Melaen 20:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Women's Aid]]

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

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

message: "..there have been some consequences that can be catalogued as negative from the traditional point of view on morals."
What is "the traditional point of view on morals" that you are referring to? This sentence assumes that humans have a shared traditional point of view on morals, which is sorta bogus.
Perhaps you are talking about Polygyny in Nigeria? Egalitarianism amongst certain foragers? Oh, I know, The social beliefs of the Iroquois!
Does anyone mind if I chop off "from the traditional point of view on morals", leaving a period after "negative"?
24.148.69.57 11:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can all agree that "the traditional" should go, unless you add another adjective (e.g. Christian, Western, Bourgois).  Go for it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "THE traditional..." 

message: I've been looking through the articles about feminism and related topics, and one thing that stands out is the constant partisan junk in every article. Please understand that trying to further one's own biased views only makes one look less credible. It also runs counter to all underlying principles of Wikipedia, and only ends up producing worthless articles. Try to be more neutral! For example, the second picture in this article shows an anti-suffrage stand, with the subtext "Feminists have struggled to overcome power-based barriers throughout the movement's history." This is not only ambiguous, but also extremely partisan. What power barriers? According to whom? Who are the people in the photo? What did they stand for, and why did they end up losing? Stick to the facts, not to opinions. Fuzzform 20:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everybody knows that any article on Wikipedia about which some people have opinions will contain content that isn't completely NPOV. If you don't like something, be bold and improve it; complaining about it doesn't accomplish much. Catamorphism 23:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partisan alert 

message: The paragraph in 'criticism of feminism' which discusses anti-feminist views and how they use hyperbolic statements written by feminists out of context was reverted by user Alienus after I added the final sentance here:
"Other quotations that some anti-feminists cite to indicate their belief that feminism is anti-male include Gloria Steinem's famous slogan "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle", or Andrea Dworkin's quote from her novel Ice And Fire: "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.". Feminists might respond that Steinem's slogan is a statement of the need for women to be independent, not a statement against men, and that quotes from fictional works may not represent the point of view of their authors. Though the anti-feminist may in turn respond to these explanations with accusations that they are disingenuous rationalizations or perhaps tantamount to apologia."
Though the reader (or Alienus) may not agree with the last statement I do not think that it expresses any POV of the article proper. It is the POV of the feminist and the anti-feminist which is being detailed. What we are discussing here is how anti-feminists use the most exceptional, exaggerated and scandalous statements of feminists in attempt to discredit the entire movement by framing those statements as being exemplary of all of feminism. That's dumb, we know that. But the paragraph's explanation of what a feminist would respond to such accusations with (debatable rationalizations at best imho which are just as POV as the last sentance I added) needs a counterpoint of what an anti-feminist would think of the explanation. The anti-feminist would very likely argue that the Dworkin quote especially is "hate speech" and the claim that 'well, its just fiction' or 'that's not really what the author <I>means</I>' would certainly provoke a response of criticism in return. What do you think?--Deglr6328 08:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you going to stop? Someone could add a sentence in response to your sentence with how feminists would supposedly respond to your hypothetical anti-feminist response, and etc., etc., etc., with no stopping point in sight. Wikipedia articles should document debates, not participate in them; presenting quotations that anti-feminists use against feminists, with the feminist response to that, is fine. The reader can make up their own mind, or go read the sources that are mentioned if they need more information. Infinite tennis matches of opinion aren't necessary (and ought to be abbreviated where they occur elsewhere in this article.) Catamorphism 09:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously endless descriptions of hypothetical debates are not what is needed in any article but here I don't think we would have that. We have an argument, a counter-argument and a counter to that. Then that should be it. The back and forth can't go much further than this without devolving into a "no it isn't" "yes it is" empty nothing dispute which clearly doesn't need detailing. Do we actually have an example of a feminist addressing these sorts of anti-feminist claims (that would be of great help not only here but in the rest of this entire section) or are these just sort of 'I think feminists would respond with X' hypotheticals by the author of this section? I guess I just think this needs something better than 'well the feminist didn't really MEAN it' as an explanation here, as that seems rather weak. --Deglr6328 09:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, which anti-feminists actually said that "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" is an anti-male statement? In all honesty, I think that's a pretty stupid opinion and I'd be hard pressed to find an anti-feminist writer who was that clueless. Point being, this entire paragraph is unsourced and hypothetical and I'd be fine with it being jettisoned altogether. Catamorphism 09:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mm perhaps. Though the tactic is rather widespread among the ever nutty conservative christians . Try searching on "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp" and it is literally impossible to find any insightfully reasoned argument on the topic through all the bullshit out there. (I am glad to see that one can be had here though.) Oh well, I guess I wouldn't mind removing this paragraph though.--Deglr6328 10:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV? I'm not sure.

message: The section on Criticisms against Feminism seems to be devolving into tit for tat arguments against feminism and arguments for feminism  in the same paragraphs/section.  The arguments for feminism are clearly irrelevant to the section as titled.  Given the loaded, political, and highly controversial nature of the statements here, I suggest we follow the model that the Religion article uses and have separate  con versus pro sections so that it is possible to see all these POV's minus a mush of enmeshed (con vs pro) arguments.  For now, I am going to simply delete arguments for feminism as irrelevant to this section but I would like to see all those arguments stated clearly in another section.  Please comment or suggest how to handle such loaded topic so that we show all sides with balanced NPOV here. Anacapa 03:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms of Feminism versus Arguments for feminism?

message: As per the discussion in the discussion above on this topic, I went through this section and deleted counter-criticisms to the criticisms so that clarity is possible and to eliminate enmeshment.  I made NO judgements about ANY of the POV's of any counter-criticisms I cut and I mean NO Offense here.  I hope to see them ALL included in a section that is relevant such as maybe Responses to criticisms of feminism or whatever.  I cut them because they are completely irrelevant to the section as titled, because in some cases they completely buried the few short criticism statements themselves and because it is important to fully develop the criticisms, by themselves, before counter-criticising them if we are to understand these criticisms at all.
 
I did add one statement of (child abuse/parental abuse) content to one criticism because I happened, by coincidence, to have done the research for another article but I am not a member of that group, nor do I back that criticism as mine...I just saw it was relevant to that criticism and it may well need to be cut too unless THEY use it to back THEIR claims.
Finally, I tried to cleanup some tortured paragraphs by separating separate topics into new paragraphs, making it clear who was criticising in each PP and asking for specifics where I was confused as I read the content.
Again I hope to see the full scope of all criticisms and counter-criticisms included in this article with distinct, complete and clear arguments.  This cleanup is in NO WAY meant to imply that any of these counter-arguments themselves were wrong or irrelevant...just that they do not belong in this section which is for the arguments against feminism themselves.   I welcome comments and suggestions about how to handle both criticisms and counter-criticisms in ways that the average wiki reader can read and comprehend easily, and that are complete, balanced, sourced and NPOV. 
Anacapa 07:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup of the Criticisms of feminism section

message: The recent edits made to the opening paragraph address a number of my POV/fact concerns quite well.  They also seem to address POV issues other editors had above.  IMHO this paragraph is NOW a lot more complete, balanced, representative and NPOV than it was when we began editing it last week, despite no mention of 'gender' or 'equity' feminism.  I thank those editors who worked on it with and against me to get to this solution.  
I have similar POV, fact, and representation issues with the PP's immediately following the opening as I see little match there with NPOV content from news articles I have collected from around the country about feminists/feminist ideology.   I will come back here and source a sample of maybe 10 of those articles so that all editors here can see what I see as missing  in this article.  I mean no offense but I insist on some sort of reason-able representation of the issues that seem to make the headlines here.  
I will take each PP in order so that other editors have time to respond.  If you take issue with my edits please be decent enough to be specific about your concerns, offer solutions, and refrain from making  POV assumptions about my POV, my intentions or my character on this page.  I welcome personal discussions about personal issues on my talk page. Anacapa 07:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The article's opening paragraph

message: Someone needs to keep an eye on this article, when I pulled it up it was full of crap like this:
All feminist scholars have long hair and small brains. feminists like chocolate and bad movies.  They are fat ugly pussylicking dikes with smelly yeast infections.
No explanation needed I hope, I would sugest locking the page. 128.197.56.149 18:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked it, and reverted back to a rather old version that was unaffected. It was actually inserted the minute before you started reading it. KimvdLinde 18:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: On Government data shows that child abuse by parents and others is much more common in single parent homes (see Child Abuse links) and that single parent mothers commit more child abuse than single parent fathers. That is a bit of a misrepresentation. There is a disproportionate amount of single mothers (especially young) caring for children than there are single fathers. Those statistics they keep are kept per incident per child, not a proportionate basis with single fathers. So to say "single mothers are more likely than single fathers to abuse a child" is not what the statistics actually say. I edited it because I wasn’t sure what else to do.
:That's fine. It's on me to be professional and source this solid source here. I will be back later if this content makes sense here at all.
Anacapa 02:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section 

message: An examination of this article reveals 12 direct references to the US or America and many more conclusions drawn from purely parochial American models to the detriment of the wider picture. There is no mention within the main article of the suffragettes or Germaine Greer yet we are treated to this paragraph;
:There is also a group of Paleoconservatives, including George Gilder and Pat Buchanan, who argue that feminism has produced a fundamentally unworkable, self-destructive, stagnant society. They note that societies in which feminism has developed the furthest have below-replacement rates of fertility and high rates of immigration. In the U.S., "liberal" religious groups most accepting of feminism have noted fewer conversions and less natural increase, for reasons such as lower birthrate and the likelihood of members taking another step towards secularism by leaving the church. 
Feminism is an international experience and wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. Parochial Snippets such as these devalue such articles.  --Zleitzen 07:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parochial Article