Talk:History of feminism/Archive 1

message: It might be worth adding a few sentences to the beginning about early, (maybe "proto-feminist") ideas. One obvious example is Plato's treatment of women in the "Republic." It's controversial to describe Plato as a feminist, but his ideas have contributed in various ways to feminist thought.
Regardles, it's definitely misleading to suggest that people only started thinking seriously about women's place in society in the Enlightenment. 
70.50.156.59 
I am dealing with this, and it could be extended to Mutterrecht and prehistory. Anyone want to do the Plato? Incidentally 'proto-feminism' has not been defined here, nor a subarticle created Mgoodyear 13:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now dealt with all of these issues, and will try and tackle the Age of Enlightenment in the near future. Mgoodyear 20:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rewrite now covers most of the more important issues of the early nineteenth century, and I have sketched out some of the events of the second half, as well as strengthening the philosophical framework. In addition many of the linked articles have been corrected or strengthened and additional ones created. Mgoodyear 04:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the nineteenth century material is now rewritenn, although it gives undue emphasis to Great Britain. Histories become increasingly difficult to write, the closer one comes to the present. --Mgoodyear 17:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We now have a reasonable historical framework up to the beginning of the second world war, given the limitations of imposing periodisation on human events. --Mgoodyear 19:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrite is into the 1960s. Note some things do not fall easily into time periods, hence new section dealing with selected issues. --Mgoodyear 03:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Some people feel that women now have superior rights and opportunities to men, pointing to ever increasing disparities in enrollment between women and men in universities.
The sentence shouldn't be in the article whether it has a relevant source or not - this is an article about the history of feminism, and not the results/consequences/thoughts related to feminism. Dysprosia 13:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Agreed. --Lexor|Talk 14:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Feminism Before the Enlightenment 

message: Rather then create a hundred subsections and put a single sentience in them, I suggest that a single section be created for 'men's role' as it may be.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 01:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However this is history. That presupposes a stronger kinship between men than between men, the era in which they worked and the women they interacted with, which is more in keeping with feminist theory. --Mgoodyear 21:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MGoodyear's sentence made sense if you read it properly. Putting all the contributions of men together suggests that all men throughout time have a similar role (strong connection between men), versus, discussing the contributions of men in relation to the era in which they worked and the women with whom they worked (stonger connection between men/era/women). See? To suggest that men have a constant role takes men out of a historical context. Whatever the feminist point of view that you seem to oppose, as MGoodyear pointed out, it's a history article... so I think it would be best to look at men historically (in relation to the time they worked), rather than ahistorically (taking out the context of time and lumping them all together). To do otherwise would be the equivalent of writing a history of the world (excluding women), then adding in a paragraph at the end which mentions their contributions. - TheMightyQuill 02:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. I must disagree however. This is the history of a historical movement, unless men where a very large part of this movement, then it should not be added. It's bad form to have one sentence paragraphs. Unless you are going to add some 'meat', also known as content, to a section, it does not warrent it's creation as a seperate section.--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 02:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  It may be bad form, but I believe there's only one 1-sentence paragraph. The rest are large enough to stand up for themselves. I'm not sure you can justify removing that section, which maintains continuity with the others, simply because it's bad style. I'm sure more could be added to the role of men in 17th century feminism. Maybe an "expand this section" tag? - TheMightyQuill 06:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sections 

message: Is there a reason why male feminists mentioned were left out of the list? -- TheMightyQuill 10:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason, the index is just not complete yet, and was being created on the fly--Mgoodyear 13:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Feminists mentioned 

message: This article is great, but getting a little long. Perhaps it should split off into History of feminism (19th century) and History of feminism (20th century)? TheMightyQuill 21:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is part of the longterm plan, it will be easier once the historical framework is complete. Someone created a stub to that effect I noticed. --Mgoodyear 14:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: *The Feminism bar should be restored to the top of the article.
*Sections one and two have to go; they are not related to the topic at hand, that is, the history of feminism
*If you really feel the need to write in these facts and such about women that are not related to the History of the Movement, then create a new article or add it to the Women's history article.
*Remove the 'Other sources' section to it's own article.
*Remove the 'list of feminists discussed' (it's ironic that feminism tries to get equal rights, and you divide feminists by gender!)
*Cut out the pointless material. this article is 135 kbs long.
*Let other people edit the article without getting in their face.
As (word meaning good thing) your edits are, you seem to get carried away.
--HoneymaneHeghlu meH QaQ jajvam 01:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of improvements needed

message: Any ideas for how this should be split up into leaf articles? If we do it chronologically (as it is divided now), the only sections big enough for their own articles are 19th century and 20th century. We could also use the long 19th century, ending at ww1. Or thematically, if someone can come up with a good sugestion. TheMightyQuill 17:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First I think we need a concept. Having reviewed pretty well all the pages in the feminism project, I believe it needs one page to tie it all together, and this one is the obvious one. Therefore in 'leafing', that should mainly be the detail, not the content. I have concentrated on content to date, rather than worrying too much about structure for now. Some of the themes are obvious ones for leaves, although technically this can be a lot of work. Incidentally where did this idea come from that there was a concensus on hiding the footnotes? Finally I would prefer people who actually know something about feminism to be doing major edits as opposed to stylistic changes. --Mgoodyear 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I started the ball rolling to show good faith by taking out Islamic feminism, and merging it with its leaf. The Nav bar now reflects this. --Mgoodyear 22:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split and Organization 

message: Someone mentioned moving the bibliography, which I think is a good idea. I'd like to create Bibliography of the History of Feminism. MGoodyear, could you choose maybe 5 major (survey?) texts that should be listed here, and the rest we can link to, for those interested in further reading? Right now it seems like a lot of the article is made up of footnotes and bibliography, which adds to size without making it more readable to the general public. Comments? TheMightyQuill 03:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography