Talk:Feminism/Archive 4

message: I would really like to see this article cut down in size--not in content, though.  I just want to make it less wieldy.  Rhorn 12:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Succinctification

message: I removed an item from the list of statistics.  The item was: "In some parts of the third world, women are considered as effectively property, and have no legal rights in practice. Millions of women are expected to undergo female circumcision. In some areas, rape is used as a sentence for a crime, even crimes not committed by the women themselves. (See, for example, the case of Mukhtaran Bibi.)".  These are not statistics, IMO, and if they have a place in the article, it's not here.  I think that if this passage is reintroduced to the article, it should be phrased much more concretely.  It would be nice to be able to take the POV warning out (as it stands, all stats are actually stats, and furthermore they are cited), but I haven't been following the feminism page so there may be problems that I'm not aware of.
I also slightly rephrased the (now) final statistic, changing "legislative bodies" to "major legislative bodies".  "Legislative bodies" includes a lot of stuff. Adking80 22:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Worldwide statistics" revisited

message: Hi, I wrote the stub-article Separatist feminism as I saw this was empty linked from this node. However I later on find the nodes Lesbian separatism and Lesbian feminism and got curious how these three relates to eachother. I haven't read much feminism books and stuff. If we could link these together somehow it is good, I feel however I don't have enough knowledge to do this. --TobiasBengtsson 13:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: :If you must know, most of the worldwide statistics (apart from the rape bit which I didn't add) came from the Hutchinson Encyclopedia 2000 Millenium Edition  on pages 1150, 1152-1153. I know because I added them ages ago. The encyclopedia doesn't cite its sources, so I dont know the original source, but I should imagine they were well researched.  
:Does that satisfy you?, whoever you are. I havn't followed this page very much so I wasn't aware that there was a problem. G-Man 21:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm now a registered user.  To answer your question, that's a start, but I'm by no means fully satisfied.  As Pearlg pointed out below, the validity of a lot of statistics cited by feminist has been called into question, and many feel that they stem from biased research.  Another issue I have is with the title of that section "Worldwide Statistics."  Even if there were general agreement that all of the statistics listed were true, I feel that it would still be a very biased selection.  A better title would be something like "Statistics commonly cited by feminists."  It could then be balanced with a section like "Statistics commonly cited by masculists and other critics of feminism."  This list would include such stats as the number of men in prison compared with women, the number of women in college in the US compared with men, the average life expectancy of men compared to women (which many feel is socially influenced), the number of women who get drafted to fight in wars compared with men, the number of men who have been killed in combat in Iraq compared with men, the number of men murdered in various countries in a given year compared with men, the number of male versus female suicides, etc.  That would be a lot more balenced and NPOV  --Blackcats 22:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever you do, a "X say-Y say" split is clumsy and should be phased out. A unified section analysing statistics is preferrable to having two sections discussing both sides. Dysprosia 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I assume that when you say X and Y you're using them as variables and not refering to the chromosomes ;-þ  But seriously though, the only reason that those statistics are relevent to this article is because they are commonly cited by feminists.  If they're not given under such a heading then it's simply Wikipedia arguing the case for feminism.  IMO, the only statistics in this article that would be appropriate under a neutral heading like "worldwide statitstics" would be stats about the prevalence of feminist movements throughout the world.  Afterall, this article is supposed to inform people about what feminism is, not why they should become a feminist.  So yeah - either those stats need to be put under an appropriate heading, or they need to be moved to a separate article like "relative status of men and women througout the world."  --Blackcats 19:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Worldwide Statistics" NPOV - discussion renewed March, 2005

message: I think the same person is trying to add the following (see  and ):
:It has been posited that while the nominal basis for feminist ideology is the need to ensure that rights, privilege, status and obligations be not determined along gender lines, the central motivating factor remains displacement of anger resulting from either the lack of being physically appealing to men or unresolved emotional issues with a woman and her father (see Electra Complex). While feminist epistemology is dynamically controversial, the need for the total assimilation of women into the power structure of modern society is both relevant and neccesary.
I reverted it both times--it's nonsense POV. I bring it up so that others can watch for it. Demi T/C 06:42, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
::I just removed it again.  this time from 65.10.57.170. Apart from being nonense, its offensive. An An 04:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Epistemology" POV edits by 65.10.62.16 / 68.215.50.114 

message: Would you kindly sign your statements, even if you do it without a username? IPs can also sign with  -- ~~~~ , and it sure makes debates easier to read. I tried to assign your statements and I hope that I got that right. I do propose that nobody does answer any unsigned statemens any more, unless they are willing to sign them for the writer. You know, debates are sometimes refered to ages after they took place. -- AlexR 12:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear you.  I apologize.  I'm new here. -- 69.225.138.56 21:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: To [[User:69.225.138.56]]

message: The sorting of the external links section seems to reflect a very strong pro-feminist POV.  A case in point is the "Neutral" subsection.  Readers would expect the articles linked to in that section to present a good balence between pro and anti-feminist views, but none of them seem at all neutral to me.  For example, the first two sentences of the Why did feminism arise -- an essay article read:  "It is not a question, that the frail sex is of no match to the virile sex when conflict arises. So, throughout centuries male dominate everything with respect to female."  If that's neutral, then I'd sure hate to see biased!  --Blackcats 22:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked through a good number of articles, and I've yet to find any article that has a subsection of their links titled "neutral" whose contents are not neutral at all.  That's what the NPOV issue is (perhaps you misunderstood - it's not the links themselves that I was complaining about, but rather how they were labeled and sorted).  But since it took about over a week for anyone to respond, I'm assuming nobody has too strong a feelings about this.  So I'm gonna go ahead and merge the "neutral" and "feminist rescources" subsections into one section titled "supportive of feminism," which will contrast with the "critics" section, which I'll rename "critical of feminism."  Hopefully this will work for everyone, and if not then we can discuss it here some more...  --Blackcats 06:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links section NPOV 

message: I have removed the following from the article:
:There are also a few who criticize feminism, ironically, in the spirit of Marxism or critical theory, as just an ideology of consumerism. They note that the female epistemology that "cultural (or difference) feminists" from radical feminists to gender feminists espouse (that women, unlike men, think non-hierarchically and contextually and prefer looking at the world as a decentralized relationship network rather than as a hierarchical organization) is just a reflection of the new consumerist world-order which has "flattened" the old classical capitalist world which is dominated by local, hierarchical, and centralized corporations. In Marxist terminology, the substructure of the mode of production (and consumption) determines the ideological superstructure such as feminism. They also note a certain feminist obsession with getting women to work and earn money, as if feminism were just a ploy to increase production and consumption of the capitalist system under the disguise of promoting equality. 
I removed this because all the critiques of the connection between women and consumer culture that I know of come out of feminism, and are not aimed at feminism.  Can someone verify this?  Can someone provide a source for this?  If so, of course we should return it to the article -- with the source. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  18:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  women and consumer culture 

message: you may want to join the discussion on deletion of Psychoanalytical feminism--Fenice 18:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Psychoanalytical feminism]]

message: Ok. Here is the definition of patriarchy: 
pa·tri·ar·chy   (ptr-ärk)
n. pl. pa·tri·ar·chies In both senses also called patriarchate.
   1. A social system in which the father is the head of the family and men have authority over women and children.
   2. A family, community, or society based on this system or governed by men.
A patriarchy is NOT inherently oprresive, (like a male chauvinist society is.) Comparing a mere patriarchy to the likes of "  stereotyping, objectification, sexual objectification, oppression" is simply not true and it violates NPOV.
-NightDragon
*Both patriarchy and male chauvinism are issues in feminism. Both can be included in the sentence in question.--Fenice 06:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chavuinism / Patriarchy 

message: Some of the recent edits by 24.64.223.203 have changed the intro, some with a lot of unsourced POV, which I've tried to address, but some issues about "materialism" are a little more difficult to address without someone being versed in philosophy (which I am not). Dysprosia 08:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Can you quote a source for this claim, Dysprosia. Female domestic violence is hardly studied at all, and I'd be very surprised if feminists have now jumped at the subject and done a lot of studying.--Fenice 08:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the sentence in the article now says that domestic violence is an issue raised with feminist political activism, not feminist academic theory. Does that elucidate matters? Dysprosia 08:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it makes it even more unlikely to be true. I have never heard of it anyway. Female domestic violence is played down by most of society. We are talking about mothers beating up their children and the like. Why would feminists campaign against that?--Fenice 09:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought domestic violence primarily meant violence within a spousal or de-facto relationship, for example, a husband beating up his wife. Dysprosia 09:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the term includes violence towards children. And "mother beats child" is acutally the most frequent occurrence of domestic violence according to most statistics. In day-to-day usage the term is understood as men beating wives and children, which is not correct; that's why I think we should be accurate about male vs. female violence.--Fenice 09:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text:  I have no doubt the term includes, I was saying the primary inclusion is the male/female violence. If you have a better term to describe it, feel free to add it, or to clarify the usage. Dysprosia 09:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your solution: "violence within a domestic partnership" is fine.--Fenice 05:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Female domestic violence as major field of study of feminism??

message: Pearlq, you can dispute whether it is a fact that gender or sexuality are social constructions.  But you cannot dispute the fact that many feminists study these as social constructions.  The opening endorses no view, but it is inclusive of different kinds of feminisms.  Don't delete one kind of feminism just because you do not like it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  15:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  social construction 

message: Does it really exist (see Section : Criticsms of Feminism? Gynocentric takes you no-where. Jeffrey Newman 14:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gynocentric 

message: I think that the paragraph with the "death statistics" has nothing to do with a "female bias" of the society. It's more like the way women interacts with the society, rather than the way the society interacts with them. So, it's more related to female psychology: women are less likely to take risks that would result in their death. It's less likely that they'll assault a robber that entered their home, less likely to choose a risky job or lifestyle, etc. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 08:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "female bias" statistics 

message: The problem of Wikipedia is that feminists write about feminism. But they ignore a (IMO) absurd article on Bondage (BDSM), with some (again IMHO) degrading pictures..... --pippo2001 21:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on bondage is not in the least absurd. It is informative and to the point. And there is nothing degrading about the pictures since they are with certaintly taken of consenting adults. Feminism does not oppose females making informed and volontary choices. Choosing to submit is valid as such a choice. In fact, many submissive women, some even calling themselves "sex-slaves", are outspoken feminists. They often have to be just that since they have to fight for their right to make that choice without being judged by narrow minded people who don't understand.  --J-Star 00:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BDSM 

message: I thought it was interesting that under "Critical of Feminism" there was a link to ifeminists.net. I wonder if Wendy McElroy and her supporters would object to this, since they seem to identify themselves as feminists. Of course, the way I see it, "Critical of Feminism" is where that site belongs, but, that might be a POV... I'm not going to touch anything, but was curious what people think... --Brian Z 05:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: iFeminists are often critical of radical feminism and other such feminims that does not include individualist mindsets. Radical feminism and iFeminism are on different sides on the feminist equivalent of the political scale. Hence, it is indeed fair to point out iFeminists as critics of feminism.--J-Star 00:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ifeminists.net Link

message: I, for one, am wondering where Wendy McElroy is coming from and
what her aims are. There is a reason for this questioning.
A few years back, she posted to the newsgroups and invited everyone to visit
her web-site. 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: m...@ifeminists.com (Wendy McElroy)
Date: 3 Mar 2002 06:42:26 -0800
Local: Sun, Mar 3 2002 7:42 am
Subject: Invitation to feminist site
I cordially invite both women and men to check out a free feminist
resource, ifeminists.com <http://www.ifeminists.com>. Ifeminism
(individualist feminism) defends every peaceful choice women can make
with their own bodies as long as they take personal responsibility for
those choices. It embraces men as valued partners in creating good
will between the sexes. It opposes both political correctness and any
appeal to government for solutions.
Check out the daily-changing newsfeed on the front page, visit our BBs
or chat room, subscribe to the free weekly e-zine of feminist news
http://www.ifeminists.com/interaction/lists/, explore the extensive
free database http://www.ifeminists.com/information/...
In short, drop on in.
Cordially,
Wendy McElroy
So I went and took a look. She also, in the web-site, made the claim
to have partnered with a men's site. I checked this out. There was indeed
a web page, but that was it, one page, no articles, not even links to
other men's sites. This page was a sham, and what was the point of it?
As near as I can see, the only point that made simple sense was that the
page was there for ad revenue, as it did have many ads.
While I have found many articles by Wendy to be informative and not sexist
as is the usual feminist fare, this event rather put me off.
And curiously, despite the fact that she had responded to none of the
posts in the newsgroups, she felt it necessary to diss the men there.
Newsgroups: soc.men
From: m...@ifeminists.com (Wendy McElroy)
Date: 6 Mar 2002 09:03:14 -0800
Local: Wed, Mar 6 2002 10:03 am
Subject: Goodbye...with regrets
From the tremendously belligerant response to my invitation to check
out ifeminists.com (a sister site for mensactivism, with whom we get
along wonderfully), I must admit...I give up. It doesn't matter that
we/ifeminists are meticulously friendly to men, it doesn't matter that
we advocate the repeal/rejection of every law that privileges women
instead of granting equality, it doesn't matter...whatever good will,
common decency stand we take toward men. This site (soc.men), if taken
in isolation, would make me believe that good will toward men was a
stupid, ignorant policy to pursue because "men" really do hate women.
But I have other organizations, such as mensactivism.org, and other
men, such as my friendship with Warren Farrell -- not to mention my
terrific husband, to draw on. So I will just give up on this group
without allowing it to make me believe that *all* men are irredeemable
hostile to women. Good bye.
Wendy McElroy 
Wendy:  To give up on men is just because one mildly belligerent idiot bullied you is too bad.  I use your ideas.  I believe you do hate men a little but after a rape by a man you are entitled to.  I also believe that you have the courage to aim at open minded ideas here.   For that I applaud you.  I want to see you mentioned on this feminist article.  I hate to see the Stalinist Gender feminazi's win with patent falsehoods. 128.111.95.55 23:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What has this got to do with anything? The article doesn't mention her. Regardless of the correctness or not of what you describe, Talk pages are not soapboxes, forums, or avenues for general discussion - they are intended to discuss matters about maintaining and improving article content. Dysprosia 07:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wendy McElroy 

message: Can the appropriate section be linked to Women as theological figures and a few appropriate comments be put there.
The title can be changed unless the page is split into two or three (as suggested on the talk page).
Jackiespeel 10:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for link and information

message: I made a minor change under Criticisms of Feminism.  I think it's important that we don't pass off male suicide as having nothing to do with gender-related experience.  People who use methods more likely to succeed may do so because they want to die more than those who are making more of a cry for help.  One can also look at why men are isolated after divorce, or why fewer men seek help for depression -- the reasons might reflect a societal bias toward providing or encouraging women to receive support moreso than men.  Not necessarily, mind you, but since it's possible, I've indicated in the article that the studies mentioned are open to interpretation.24.64.223.203 22:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Women attempt suicide about twice as often as men, but men die from attempts four times more often than women. (See, we are more succesful[/sarcasm]). If anything, it's the machismo mindset of some males that hurts other males, not the voices of protest from feminists that hurt males -- although I'll readily admit that there are some "feminist" women who are simply sexist and caustic. I guess I'm saying, the statistics are true but misleading, and we need to work on differentiating between feminists and sexist women who are called "feminist" by conservatives or wrongly call themselves "feminist." --24.126.30.46 00:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide Rates 

message: I am really unhappy to see that there is a page third-world feminism, for all the usual reasons. Will people give their views at the discussion page there please? Annawright 21:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Third World' feminsim? 

message: (Moved) Is Martha Stewart really a feminist?  I'd question her addition to the list of famous feminists.  Rhorn 22:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous feminists 

message: Genuine question, ladys. Not objecting to them doing it(as if!), just wondering. Not everybody has the gumption to do it, so if there are any out there with informed opinions on the matter, would like to hear. We could eventually do it up into something for the article. After all, WHY they pose nude, for millions of men, and for posterity, is a damm good question to ask, don't ya think? And yes Hugh, I have started to read the interviews now. Thanks for asking. Fergananim 21:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Poseing in Playboy Feminist, anti-Feminist, or something else?

message: Please read the Wikipedia Point of view guidelines before you continue editing this article. The statement that "feminists only care about gender inequality when it affects women" (paraphrased) is blatant POV, as are your other edits. Catamorphism 18:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that feminists oppose gender equality is not POV, as this is one of the central principles of the feminist movement as stated by many feminist authors. Your claim that "feminists only care about gender inequality when it affects women" could be rephrased in an NPOV way (i.e., "men's rights activists have accused feminists of only caring about gender inequality when it affects women"), but it would belong in the "Criticisms of feminism" section, not in the introductory paragraph of the article. Catamorphism 01:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by 66.41.212.231

message: I have a debate at school on this topic but I don't even know what feminism is.  I would really appreciate it if someone could help me!  All the information that I have found so far has been too complicated, do you know of any websites written for children to read on the subject?
:Well, I'll give it a shot:
:Feminism is basically a bunch of people, mostly women, who see that women are treated unfairly compared to men, and so have done something about it, such as protesting 100 years ago so that women could vote in America (before that, only men could vote for president and other stuff). Feminism today still does stuff and does other kinds of stuff, too, like sometimes pushing for men and women to be on the same footing (in other words, some feminists today are for total equality between men and women, so those feminists sometimes even help men get rights that women have). Some extreme feminists dislike men in general (and sometimes they believe that men are naturally not as good at stuff as women are), but most feminists are pretty normal. It's my opinion that a lot of people in America would be feminists except that they think that feminism is only about being extreme, and not at all about being fair to both men and women. 
:There are many types of feminists. For instance, some feminists think that moms should work at a full-time job just as much as the dad, and that the dad should take care of babies and kids just as much the mom. Some other feminists think that it's okay to have "regular" moms and dads, where the mom stays home and the dad goes to work, but most feminist today and in the past think that those "regular" roles should not be encouraged and they believe that you're putting down women by having "regular" mom and dad roles. A lot of feminists who also go to church think that women should also be allowed to be the main pastor (just as much as men) or the main priest.
:Many feminists think that people should only say "he" when they are refering to a man or a boy. These feminists instead say that if you don't know if someone is a boy or a girl, then you should say something like "he or she" instead (or maybe something similar). Saying "he or she" is one type of "gender inclusive language," which is also a type of so-called "politically correct" language ("politically correct" means that things are said so that noone is offended, including people of different races or religions or gender, and sometimes people don't like politically correct language because it's hard to use and might seem unnatural to some people who aren't used to it).
:Also, the word "feminism" comes from the word "female," but it doesn't mean that you can't be a feminist if you are a guy (although a very few extreme feminists don't want any men at all to be called "feminists"). Lots of men are feminists. Also, people of any kind of religion can be feminists, although sometimes people don't think you can be a Christian feminist (I think that this is definitely not true!). I think that a lot of people don't really understand feminism very well and that's why they don't think there can be a Christian feminist. If they understood feminism better, I think they too might call themselves a feminist!
:Finally, I want to say that there are lots of different kinds of feminism, so it's hard to explain it very well. The best way to understand feminism is to talk to people who call themselves feminists.
:There. How was that? I wasn't trying to be too unbiased, but just tried to give a practical explanation of feminism. I suppose I was trying to explain feminism to an average American kid. Robotbeat 08:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Next time, use the Wikipedia:Reference desk Dysprosia 02:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Debate Topic) Feminism is not still important in the 21st century