Talk:Individualist feminism

message: User:200.69.166.68 keeps putting "In the rest of the world individualist feminists are anti-capitalists and part of anarcha-feminism" onto the bottom of this article. Not only is this unsourced, but it appears contrary to the assertions in the rest of this article. I've left 2 notes on their talk page, without success. AnAn 03:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  contributions of 200.69.166.68 

message: You do not have a copyright (pardon the expression) on the title "individualist feminism."  You do not seem to know the history of individualist feminism in the US or you would not try to usurp the title for yourself. The US has a long history of individualist feminism just as it has a long history of philosophical individualism. See Joan Kennedy Taylor's book Reclaiming the Mainstream: Individualist Feminism Rediscovered.   You apparently know little about the philosophy of individualism if you do not understand why it is compatible with free enterprise (what you call "capitalism"). You have no right to ask that North American individualist feminists like Wendy McElroy and myself not use this term just because you don't like our views. We would not do this to you. Speaking for myself, I do not think such intolerance serves feminism very well.
SPresley 08:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reponse to Previous Post by 200.69.166.68

message: is what this article should be called. Libertarians are pro-capitalism, not anarchists.
A response to the above anonymous comment:
You are wrong, whoever you are. I have been an anarchist for almost 40 years and I am also a libertarian. Just because you don't like our brand of anarchism doesn't mean you get to redefine the terms. Opposition to the coercive rule of a monopoly state is what defines anarchism, not the economic system. You may believe that free enterprise is coercive but we do not agree. Please note that NO libertarian or individualist anarchist advocates the kind of state corporate capitalism that we have today. THAT is NOT free enterprise.
Perhaps you should try reading the great anarchist feminist Voltairine de Cleyre, who said:
"There is nothing un-Anarchistic about [Individualism, Communism, Socialism, or Mutualism] until the element of compulsion enters and obliges unwilling people to remain in a community whose economic arrangements they do not agree to."
If you tried to force me to be in the economic system you like or prevented me from peacefully living in the system I prefer, than you would not be an anarchist. 
Voltairine also said:
"Anarchism means freedom to the soul as well as the body--in every aspiration, every growth...Each choose that method which expresses your selfhood best, and condemn no man because he expresses his Self otherwise."
I choose free enterprise and private property but I would never force that choice on anyone else. I would hope you would extend me the same courtesy.
Sharon Presley [not afraid to be nonanonymous]—Preceding unsigned comment added by SPresley (talk • contribs) 08:55, 29 July 2006
:Anarchism is also against class oppression, anarchism cannot be capitalist. Similarily Individualist Feminism is also against class oppression, therefore people like Wendy McElroy can't be individualist feminist. --Voidkom (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. Please no WP:Soapbox. One of many articles I'd like to clean up, once there was something done about the libertarian feminist vs. individualist conundrum, i.e., that there is some overlap and some differences. I think libertarian feminist should be the main article with individualist underneath, and probably others think the opposite. Though no one replied when I brought it up above. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feminism that opposes class oppression should not be linked with feminism that rejects the existence of class oppression. This is not a minor issue, you wouldn't do the same if the disagreement were race oppression. --Voidkom (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's content for articles, not for talk pages, and content for articles needs sourcing. If it's not in an article now and you have a source, please add it to an article. For example, there may be (and probably is) a source contrasting feminisms by their views on class oppression. In general, if you have a question or disagreement about how to edit an article, the article's talk page is a good place for that, but it appears that you're at a stage of finding sourcing and drafting for or editing an article, if it isn't covered now. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  libertarian feminist 

message: * First, I thought the cite in main article said needs more references, not that there are not any
* But it does needs a lot more research and references soon or about 80% of the article should be deleted soon as mere personal opinions.
* a lot of clumbsy writing
* not clear what the differences are between ALF and other individual feminists mentioned
* anarcha feminism article also pretty bad and not clear if it is relevant here at all, despite some abstruse reference that doesn't sound very definitive; more research needed
* abortion section pretty bad
So many crappy libertarian articles, so little time to clean them up!!
Carol Moore 05:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just remember to only add material with sources. Esp. regarding the women's freedom network. If you can't source that someone has called them libertarian - or not really libertarian - it shouldn't be in there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs a lot of work

message: Is it appropriate to include the anarchism template here?  I would personally argue that it's not, that libertarian feminism is not inherently anarchistic, nor inherently statist; that it, like libertarianism in general, bridges the gap between minarchism and anarchism.  In the same way the anarchism template wouldn't be included on the libertarianism page, neither too would I argue it should be included here.
Sincerely,Alex PeakAllixpeeke (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Carol Moore 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really sure whether the template is appropriate or not.  But I do know that Wendy McElroy calls herself an "individualist anarchist" so confusion about the difference between individualist anarchism, individualist feminism and Anarcha-feminism might be the reason for its addition here.  I think Carol's point about limited govt. as a category is a good idea--Cailil  talk 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Anarchism Template 

message: RE: this edit and the several reverts/restorations before it. Edit warring is bad juju! Mikkalai's point is sound: the problem with the text is that the part in parentheses is not supported by the reference attached to it (which simply discusses anarcho-feminism is; here's a direct link to the ref on Google books if anyone wants to read it). If you want to make a claim about the relative popularity of I-F vs. A-F in different places then that needs to be supported. The link given does not do that. -- Hux (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the assertions as to popularity seemed unsupported and I've tried a less sweeping wording. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mikkalai I'm ok with your edit here, which is not revert warring, but helpful clarification (never mind your combative edit summary, which is not that big of a deal to me). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: While I think mention of the ifeminists website would be a good idea here there needs to be third party reliable sources used to create a piece for it.  The material added by User:Prof Carol Williams‎ while informative is not sourced to any third party reliable sources and contains what we call "original research in its last line (the bit about the "futuristic" sound of the term).  Before re-adding this please rewrite it in accordance with Wikipeida's sourcing and attribution requirements.  Thanks--Cailil  talk 13:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A little choosy given the poor state of the article, but can't really argue with this on principle. Skomorokh 13:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point Skomorokh this is a very poorly sourced and written article - I'm going to recommend stubbifying it into something like this - some OR has also been removed and some rephrasing done also--Cailil  talk 14:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully that will motivate someone to expand article with sources. I have lots of good info in my files where groups talk about themselves, which is allowable within reason, and WP:RS info about some individuals, but no time to do it.  Also, if IFeminists actually has a history page that could be used for info about how it came to be.  And I probably would be motivated to find and add some WP:RS material pointing out that Ifeminists has become more about blaming feminists for male problems than protecting women against the state or violent and fraudulent males. Carol Moore 23:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ifeminists website 

message: I put in WP:POV because a lot of (unsourced) but somewhat accurate material about the history of individualist feminism was removed and this has become all about more recent McElroy/Sommers developments, ones not necessarily embraced by all libertarian or individualist feminists. I hate to take time to do this, but obviously I'll have to work to include the much longer history of individualist feminism before McElroy/Sommers started obsessing about how much modern feminism oppresses men.  Meanwhile please leave in the tag. Carol Moore 18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you 100% Carol, and for the record although I deleted the other unsourced material I am not the world's biggest fan of the McElroy position, and I agree that it does not adequately represent the spectrum of libertarian feminism.  The 'Principle' section from the earlier although unsourced version may have some good points if it can be rewritten with sources it would help the article a lot--Cailil  talk 21:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  It's just a matter of priorities in a busy wiki world! Meanwhile we can leave the tag unless some person comes by and get misguided by article. :-) Carol Moore 13:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New POV of this article

message: I've started putting together good sources to make this article more accurate, so that it doesn't just reflect the objectives and right wing conservative views of a couple feminists or make all libertarian and even all individualist feminists seem to support those ideas. One problem is that Wendy McElroy did some good research in her earlier days (though I'll have to read some of it to see if it was more biased than I realized when first read 25 years ago) but the last ten years she has tended to focus on attacking the statist feminist movement. Many libertarian and individualist feminists might disagree with the statist means but support the actual goals of statist feminists.  They can, for example, support affirmative action and even quotas in government and voluntary ones in the rest of society; they can support restructuring the political system the way women might prefer it - ie with emphasis on local government and  minimal or no militaries (which are just big patriarchal prove your manhood games. Don't get me started)... Carol Moore 12:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to clearly separate libertarian and individualist feminism from ifeminism

message: *I know a lot of libertarians, esp. men and McElroy, have been labeling Hoffman some sort of libertarian, but that doesn't mean she herself is one or that other more neutral, less advocacy sources consider her to be one. So one must be accurate from WP:RS per WP:BLP. (Which Advocates for Self-Govt is NOT for that purpose per wp:blp.)
*Also, what are the page numbers of those two book references where Hoffman allegedly "defines individualist feminism"? Does she use words individualist or libertarian? Please quote the sentences where she does. 
*It is fair to say that some libertarians and individualist/lib feminists support her views on  "equity feminism" and "gender feminism" but those views are not the same as individualist/lib feminism or agreed with in whole or in part by all such feminists. So let's be accurate in this version, even as a more accurate version is percolating in my word processor. Carol Moore 13:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: when I looked further at the actual sources they included a dead link which, even if found, may not be specifically on this topic and therefore would be WP:OR or WP:Synthesis just like the paragraph I removed for that reason. There are more relevant articles to flog Sommers if you want to do so. Carol Moore 13:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence Hoffman is or talks about libertarian/individualist feminism?

message: If you were to say that individualist feminist Wendy McElroy agrees with Sommers (who is not individualist or libertarian feminist that is so far proven) about gender feminism then you can make specific critiques (short so not WP:UNDUE) of all three. But this sentence you use as a reference: "Sommers's book is a work of neither dispassionate social science nor reflective scholarship; it is a conservative polemic. Sommers focuses... on the feminists and cultural liberals against whom she has a long-standing animus... This intemperate book is a hindrance to such conversation." doesn't support this statement you make "Scholars and critics have commented that the label "feminist" is often used cynically in this context, as a way to co-opt general feminism rather than actually be part of feminism.[4][5]" And you don't even tell us which of the six 8 minute audio tapes or the couple of transcripts (which one must pay for) support it.  So it's both WP:synthesis and not easily verifiable sourcing, when you could make it easier.  I'm just talking wiki policy here, not necessarily disagreeing with your overall thrust.  Carol Moore 13:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:Synthesis, Insufficient WP:RS on Hoff

message: Edited page to note that De Cleyrne eventually endorsed leftist economics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.49.34 (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  De Cleyrne 

message: Usually, a book index is not a source. That occurs regarding Sommers in the following sentence in the article: "Wendy McElroy and Christina Hoff Sommers define individualist feminism in opposition to what they call political or gender feminism.[9][10]" I discovered this when searching in amazon.com (the search-inside-book feature). However, it is possible that different versions of the book (hardcover, paperback, etc.) have different paginations, so perhaps p. 320 is appropriate. If someone has it, please check and edit as needed. If the citation is already correct, please add the book's version (hardcover, paperback, etc.) to the citation, to prevent a similar doubt in the future. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  not citing an index 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Individualist feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090828170220/http://www.alf.org:80/aboutalf/founding.shtml to http://alf.org/aboutalf/founding.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081226003724/http://www.alf.org:80/papers/gwe1.shtml to http://alf.org/papers/gwe1.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081225235956/http://www.alf.org:80/papers/abortion.shtml to http://alf.org/papers/abortion.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :Individualist feminism, sometimes also grouped with libertarian feminism
This opening sentence is pretty confusing. Are these the same things or different things? Shouldn't a clear synonym ALWAYS be grouped with its cognate term?
If it is not the same thing and we are going to discuss it in the same article as a group then the title should reflect that, as individualist and libertarian feminism or something like that.
That's a bit of a mouthful though. Why don't we just have a page explaining what libertarian feminism is on its own? If there are links between the two then that can be explained on each page.
Is every individualist a libertarian? Is every libertarian an individualist? If individualism and libertarianism are separate, why is this merged? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Separating articles for individualist feminism and libertarian feminism is a good idea provided that there is enough sourcing for each to establish the notability of each subject and sources support distinct content for each article. Then they can be cross-linked and the opening sentence edited. Or, if there's not enough for separation, and the sources suggest about equal weight for both, then a move as you conditionally propose is good, but if the sources generally treat them as the same and place one term as the more common, then the article should be titled for the more common term and the body and perhaps the lead should mention the other term. Whether these subjects should be separate is a different question than whether individualism and libertarianism should be separate, since the sources for the feminist subjects will be different than the sources for the not-specifically-feminist subjects. Go according to sources and see what comes up. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: sometimes also

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Individualist feminism. 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/20050902192743/http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/heywood.html to http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/heywood.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120730235724/http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/femme.html to http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/femme.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060804001950/http://alf.org/ to http://alf.org/
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) 12:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ifeminism is a libertarian concept, why tarry it with the word conservative? Rjedgar (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ifeminism is not conservative? 

message: The current short description	 Movements for gender equality that emphasizes freedom of choice and autonomy of each person is excessively long. The description has to be just a few words preferably. ToniTurunen (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to be bold and fix it! Wracking 💬 02:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description⸺keeping it short and informative 🪶 

message: Hi all, I deleted the "History in the United States" section of this article. It was not about individualist feminism, but feminism in general. When it did allude to individualist feminism or libertarianism, the citations were not sufficient. If this content is restored, I think it belongs over at Feminism in the United States. See the diff of my edit here. Wracking 💬 04:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major trimming 

message: *I have deleted the section about Camille Paglia; she is on the list of notable people. Some of the material may be salvageable for Camille Paglia, but it is unencyclopedic in tone and would therefore require a copy edit. See diff.
*I have deleted the section about Rene Denfeld and added her to the list of notable people. This material could be moved to Rene Denfeld and has fewer tone issues than the above section did. See diff.
*I have deleted the section about Wendy McElroy and added additional information about her in the list of notable people (which I will likely reformat soon). Some material could be moved to Wendy McElroy, though it needs a copy edit and to use secondary sources. See diff.
*I have deleted the section about Joan Kennedy Taylor; she is on the list of notable people. Most of the content appears to be already covered at Joan Kennedy Taylor, and this section was completely uncited. See diff.
Overall, if these people are truly especially notable in individualist feminism, they should naturally show up in the History section. Wracking 💬 05:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  More major trimming