Talk:Difference feminism

message: I feel that the first sentence is confusing. I don't know what it means to "consider difference equally," and I doubt anyone coming to this article will either. However, I don't feel like I know how to re-write it in a way that will truly benefit it. Therefore I hope someone out there in the wikipedia community will do it. I think it may be necessary--or just useful--to define "difference" at the same time as we try to define "difference feminism." I think the context is important, so we would need to define "difference" both in terms of the feminist tradition and in terms of the 1980s/90s in total (e.g. via Italian feminism on "sexual difference" as well as feminist encounters with deconstruction / Saussure [e.g. différance and differential meaning-making in language]). Just a thought--it doesnt have to be that way, but the sentence does need to be changed somehow (imho).
--50.139.44.124 (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence

message: I am removing the "gender complementarity" sections.  The 'fractional gender complementarity" section because it is incorrect (the Cult of True Womanhood was not a feminist but actually an anti-feminist movement) and the "integral gender complementarity" section because it has nothing to do with difference feminism of the 1980s and 1990 in America, instead bafflingly citing Roman Catholic thinkers, Pope John Paul II, and an 18th century French philosopher. I am not opposed on principal to the inclusion of their views, but I can't see how they relate to the topic of the article, as they are neither feminists nor difference feminists, nor commenting on difference feminism.
Furthermore, I think it is strange the the labels (types of "complementarity" or "polarity") used by Sister Prudence Allen to categorize theories of gender during the reformation (1250-1500) are the major structuring principle of this wikipedia article on a 1980s/90s phenomenon in American feminism. I am not deleting the reference to Allen's concepts, nor the section title, in the section "reverse gender polarity" because it is clearer in that section why Allen's concepts might be useful and how they apply to the topic at hand (although I added in the terms of the debate in the feminist sphere, e.g. "sexism", "patriarchy," which seem more relevant and probably more familiar to the average wikipedia reader).
--Menthesanscafeine (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Gender complementarity" sections

message: I removed John Gray's book Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus from the "See also" section.  Gray's work does focus on gender differences, it is not considered part of the feminist movement. M. Frederick 08:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Mars & Venus' was not part of the feminist movement

message: Somebody defaced the page.  I'll go correct it. 65.92.201.203 15:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Defacement

message: We have an entire article written on philosophical concept without a single source provided. Sources are required.  I am placing the content here, it should only be moved back if citations are provided.  Joie de Vivre 17:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiable sources needed

message: The criticism section clearly has a source.--Urthogie 13:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that the criticism section is sourced, but it's not really appropriate to have a criticism section when we don't have any sourced content to describe the topic itself.  That was my original reason for moving the content here; because the article needs sources.  Do you know enough about the topic to source the article or rewrite it with sources?  If not, perhaps there is a feminism-related Wikiproject to ask.  Joie de Vivre 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not exactly fair to remove my contribution because the other peoples' sucked.  Wikipedia is a work in progress, so if my section follows policies and guidelines, I ask that you kindly restore it.--Urthogie 22:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I see unsourced material I use the "" tags to indicate that sources are needed.  Joie de Vivre's rather harsh reaction to the unsourced material in this article is the first instance I've come across of someone relocating an entire article to the discussion section.  My feeling is that most readers would rather read unsourced material than no material at all.  What is the reasoning behind handling the problem in this unique way?  Has wikipedia announced a new policy?M. Frederick 14:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Although there are many Catholics that have or still do adhere to it. Many prominent difference feminists have not been Catholic. Sentence was deleted.
:I have reverted this, provide a reference for this claim. Warrush
: Nevermind, the editor before you added it without a reference, i have restored your edit. Warrush
:: Someone put the Catholic reference back in. Some editors are treating "difference feminism" as "the idea that men and women are inherently different," which is as much a part of "difference sexism" as it is "difference feminism." I added a citation tag to the Catholic line, but I'll go ahead and delete it. Leadwind (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference Feminism is not a "Catholic" philosophy

message: If so, this article should list them. If not, then it is probably a pejorative term, used only by its opponents rather than those it purports to describe. (And we should say as much.) Terraxos (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone describe themselves as a 'difference feminist'? 

message: The presentation of Pinker's critique of "Difference Feminism" is followed by what seems to be an original critique of Pinker himself. Unless someone who isn't Wikipedia has made these points, it should be removed--I'm doing so now. --67.171.28.159 (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steven Pinker paragraphs amount to original research? 

message: Since when do Sartre and de Beauvoir "[assert] that men, per se, are superior to women"?  I don't understand how these existential philosophers 'espouse' an essential relationship between men and women either way.  I would appreciate another citation for the section on Reverse Gender Polarity generally, or at the very least a stable link to the article cited.Kristephanie (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existentialists as "modern proponents" of traditional gender polarity? 

message: After a bit of reading (and thinking), would the article be benefited by being changed to 'Essentialist Feminism'? It is, to my knowledge, more widely known as a category, and would seem to fit with at least some of the claims in this article. There's no article specifically on the topic in wikipedia, though there is one on essentialism more broadly.
Huxley G (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology?

message: In the 1990s feminists addressed the binary logic of "difference" versus "equality" and moved on from it, notably with postmodern and/or deconstructionist approaches that either dismantled or did not depend on that dichotomy.
All feminists did this? It sounds like the author of this sentence wants to claim that "feminists" have rejected "binary" logic or are adherents to postmodernism or deconstructionism. This is only true if "feminists" are limited to a small group of academics. It's a much bigger movement than that, and most of its adherents get there by broad-spectrum ideas of justice and common sense, not by this post-Sokal word-babble. Also the phrase "moved on" is POV. 178.39.122.125 (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to discuss any topic or movement, field of study or phenomenon, a certain amount of schematization must come about. I understand your concern that surely not "all" feminists "moved on" from this dichotomy, and that not only academic feminists matter in feminism. But the debate under discussion, the difference vs equality debate, was had primarily in academic feminism, not in the larger feminist movement per se. Yes, these issues were discussed in the larger movement but philosophical & theoretical debates, at this place and time (1990s/90s North America) tended to be centered in the academy--that's just fact.  The specific wording "moved on" could be changed, I'm not wedded to it. However the point remains that, as deconstruction swept the humanities in the 80s, and as it filtered into the feminist parts of the academy, it was a force that re-directed many debates within feminist theorizing. This is not POV, it is cited. It did not "solve" the underlying issues in the difference vs equality debate, but it did complicate it and redirect the debate away from the binary logic of "difference vs equality." Saying so is not the same thing as suggesting that all feminists became deconstructionists or postmodernists. It is an observation about the structure of the debate itself to say that it was framed in a binary way; no one is asserting some overarching rejection of all binary logic everywhere and forever on the part of the feminists who engaged in this debate. If you need clarification on what it means to say that this debate shifted from a binary to a non-binary framework, I'm happy to elaborate. Calling it "post-Sokal word babble" is an easy way to say that there is nothing to understand, that the change under discussion means nothing. Again, I'm happy to elaborate on how it DID have meaning in this debate. In articles on academic work and academic fields, technical language will come up--this is so in an article on feminist theory as much as in an article on physics, chemistry, or cardio-thoracic surgery. Sokal affair or no, everyone in the humanities did not give up on talking about or engaging in the technical language associated with deconstruction / postmodernism / french theory, and this language still has meaning within academic feminism.
Menthesanscafeine (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watery 

message: I have made a strong edit of this section and re-named it. It is my opinion that the concept of "gender polarity" added nothing but excess verbiage and conceptual flotsam to this wikipedia article, and has little to do with the difference vs equality debate. Feminist positions can be seen through the lens of a "reverse gender polarity," but why? Readers do not need this concept to understand what essentialism is or to understand that perhaps some feminists value females (and / or traditionally female qualities) more than they do males or  traditional/patriarchal qualities. Furthermore, if, as the text says, "reverse gender polarity" has its roots "in the medieval era with chivalry, courtly love, and the exaltation of feminine virtue by authors like Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa and Lucrezia Marinelli," this is further evidence that "reverse gender polarity" has nothing to do with second wave feminism. The roots of second wave feminism do not involve the medieval era, courtly love, nor the exaltation of feminine virtues (there is a deep recognition in second wave thought that traditional femininity is a collection of qualities given to women in order to make them exploitable and servile; attempts to re-evaluate so-called feminine virtues or values were generally understood to proceed forward from that knowledge, not to dispute it). I have tried to maintain the spirit of the section by keeping the part about allegations of essentialism toward Daly and Gilligan, and providing more explanation about what essentialism is. I tried also to show that there is an ongoing debate about this (that Daly et al are, or are not, essentialist).Menthesanscafeine (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: gender polarity section-->Difference Feminism and Essentialism section