Talk:Feminist theory

message: It looks like the stub on Liberal Feminism has been the target of some vandalism. Some help on cleaning it up?
threedimes
I am not a feminist or a proponent of Feminist theory. In fact, I have significant reservations about the role that Feminist theory plays in contemporary academia.
Be that as it may...  
The rigor and energy of Feminist theory is undeniable. Its contribution to contemporary scholarship is immense. I know a number of highly intelligent writers and thinkers who identify themselves with the school, and I believe they are disserved by this article. It is far too terse, far too cursory. I hope that some of these people and their fellow travellers will step in and make the article an accurate reflection of the scope and value of their endeavors.
BradGad (Talk) 06:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberal Feminism

message: feminist theory? wtf? I see no masculinist theory, hmmm, wonder why?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.152.105.16 (talk • contribs) .
I read this entry with an open mind and have left no idea what the theory discussed entails.  Is the first defining sentence the whole of the field?  I would expect that there are some beliefs or views widely held in the theory?   Can someone revise the entry not presuming that the reader is not just nodding in an affirmative stupor?  "Themes explored...include Art History, ... patriarchy."  Is Art History a theme?  Come on people!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.213.1 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is this? 

message: I added two references packed with (what blatantly biased, gynocentric gender-ginning, "oppression" feminists would call 'unfriendly') explanations of what these authors call "ideological" feminist theory.  However, many of their points are echoed by prominent feminist whistleblowers, other feminist disidents and non-feminist researchers.  These points of view need to be shown here along with all the "friendly" POV's.  I hope to see other editors bring in good references that explain feminist theories so we know that what each theory means and so there are no undue weight wars here(drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 23:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV check: Misandry references

message: This article has absolutely no inline citations to back up any of the assertions made. I don't have the background to do so myself, but I have tagged it accordingly so that other editors can improve it. Also, it should be noted that any references which have not been used either to create the article or to support any of the content (like the two "Misandry" references) have no business being there. If anyone has access to them, please demonstrate their relevance to the article by adding appropriate content.    --Stephen Burnett 10:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference tag

message: I have reverted this edit of . I have nothing in principle about a criticism section but that particular section was written as an essay and was so fundamentally written with an agenda in mind to be worth re-writing. Pascal.Tesson 15:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of essay-like section 

message: I've merged material from Feminist analysis and turned that page into a redirect for here.  There are some problems with this page - namely sourcing and I'm going to try to sort that now.  If anybody wishes to contest the merger go ahead and revert - I'm happy to reach consensus.  The purpose of this merger is in line with summary style - making this page a parent for the pages on feminist theory - feminist analysis was duplicating that function unnecessarily--Cailil  talk 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger 

message: There is a distinct omission of a section containing criticism of feminism. There are some quite devestating criticisms of feminism and it would be good of someone to point them out.86.147.2.118 (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not criticism of feminism -- THEORETICAL feminism. As surely as there is a glass ceiling the feminists have an argument, but you don't need a massive theoretical structure around a single movement. I'm sure there is a devastating critique of feminist THEORY lying around somewhere which says in no uncertain terms what academics really think about this... field. Tcaudilllg (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: wheres a criticism section

message: One of the criticisms of feminist theory surrounds the academic teaching of what is essentially an ideology : the ideology of feminism.  If, as critics have argued, patriarchal theory had the same amount of coverage in academia, modern liberal academia would be much different than it is today. ADM (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What on earth is "patriarchal theory"? --Gimme danger (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of it is explained in the book The Inevitability of Patriarchy by Steven Goldberg. ADM (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Good to know; I have never encountered the term. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Are you proposing any improvements to this article or are you editorializing? I'm unsure how you intend your comment. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Echoing Gimme danger's point ... wikipedia is not a forum--Cailil  talk 01:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

text: ADM has a troubling pattern of posting, IMHO, pointy and drama-stirring posts often linking gays, pedophiles, Jewish people and Michael Jackson in various forms. Insist on reliable sourcing and the rest should take care of itself.  -- Banjeboi 04:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Patriarchal theory, capitalist theory, etc

message: I'd appreciate it if some people who work on this page could check out this discussion and see if you can add some clarity? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual orientation 

message: From what i have read of this these are not theories the proper term would be hypotheses 98.250.4.115 (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to the comment above, Cindy L. Griffin writes, "Early theories about what scholars mean by theory also suggest that the traditional definition of theory as an objective body of facts, which must be tested again and again over time in order to be credible, is a sexist and patriarchal notion of theory. Feminist theorists began to challenge this definition and to suggest that theory, from a feminist perspective, required neither testable fact nor objectivity, but was instead a subjective compilation of explanations that were highly contextual, bound by the ideologies of the researcher, and deeply influenced by the social milieu from which they emerged."  --Laurarob (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  thats not a logically valid argument and seems very fringe for one it employs the genetic fallacy and seems like just an excuse for poor research 2601:405:4A80:4700:4E4:766:39D6:667A (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Theory"? 

message: Hi,
the sentence "As a solution it was suggested by some to avoid the gender-specific structuring of the society coeducation" seems to miss something, but what?
Also, shouldn't Karen Horney get a mention here?
T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychoanalysis section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Feminist theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120720194207/http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/cfs/jean_baker_miller.php to http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/cfs/jean_baker_miller.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206030330/http://politicalscience.tamu.edu/documents/faculty/Crenshaw-Demarginalizing.pdf to http://politicalscience.tamu.edu/documents/faculty/Crenshaw-Demarginalizing.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The contemporary sex and gender model paragraph is written in essay-style, not neutrally & descriptive. Probably should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.239.119.207 (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay style 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Feminist theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051103052857/http://www.panix.com/~squigle/vcs/mulvey-vpnc.html to http://www.panix.com/~squigle/vcs/mulvey-vpnc.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070827202958/http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/publications/eps/onlineissues/spring2004/research/mottier.htm to http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/publications/eps/onlineissues/spring2004/research/mottier.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Perhaps it would be fair to point out that, according to feminist theory, the developed West is a patriarchal system. This premise is the basis of modern feminism in the West, and very few feminist initiatives make any sense if the premise is not accepted. The story with feminism would be easier for everyone to understand if this departure from reality was brought to light. If it's the foundation of the theory, why is it not explicitly stated in the intro?
Nikolaneberemed (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that that is accurate. Feminist theory has many schools and not all have the idea of patriarchy at their center, and not all think o patriarchy as something particularly western. The intro is obviously not a full summary of the topic the way it is written, and the article is a mess, making it hard to even thikn about how to make an intro that summarizes the topic out of it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patriarchy in the West 

message: Hi, 
I came across this promising Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam (relating to women's rights) and myself supported the same editorially too. IMO since topic potential is vast many Reliable sources on Google scholar seem to be available hence the article needs more editorial hands for some more update and expansion along with appropriate references.
Pl. do join to update and expansion, your help will be most welcome.
Thanks and regards
Bookku (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam]] 

message: Hi,
Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics  would interest you.
Thanks and regards
Bookku (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting some help