Talk:Feminism/Archive 6

message: Bear in mind first of all that I am male. I haven't read through the talk pages (there's way too much to go through), but is there a need for a  sign in the middle of the article? I read through the beginning of the disputed section, and skimmed through the rest. Articles such as this one and articles about race, etc tend to find themselves with the  tag, but there is injustice in the world make no mistake. At least the author in this article cited sources, which is more than some editors do. Dessydes 06:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: While there is lengthy amount of criticism in the feminism section, there doesn’t appear to be any responses to it. For example in the masculist and men’s rights section (which I just happen to think it much better structured, not accusing Wiki of favoring one over the other or anything, by the way), there are lines containing masculist/men’s rights responses to criticism in the ideology outside of the appropriate criticism section. Due to the structure of the feminist article, I understand it would create a bit of a slapdash, hodge-podge appearance to put a feminist response after every criticism where one exists. Would it be possible to create a section for some responses to criticism? Also, could there be a section explaining the modern concerns of feminism, perhaps in bullet-points?
: I proposed just such a section for Pro-feminism arguments (see discussions above) and suggested we follow the format in religion another highly controversial article that seems to have found NPOV methods to show all sides' POV's.  So far no editors here have seen fit to create such a section.  As I have little background with which to collect and show all the arguments either pro or con I will leave it to people more informed than I to create such a section.  I am in 100% support of separating these arguments so that they can be clearly understood as distinct arguments rather than as enmeshed and indistinct shoutouts. Anacapa 04:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neoapsara, you seem to have many issues here to address and I am a bit confused about some of the points you are making but I will try to respond anyway.  For some reason those feminists who some other feminists call 'gender' or 'victim' feminists decline to self-label...I can imagine why but that is just my guess.   On the other hand feminists who call themselves 'equity' or 'individualist' feminists unabashedly identify themselves as such.  As these are opposing forms of feminism one has to wonder about who is being accountable for their particular chosen form of feminism here.  Equity feminism has gone way beyond Hoff-Summers for about a decade now as far as I can see from a review of worldwide news articles.Gender-focused feminism is indeed representative of second-wave academic/institutionalized feminism (the openly sexist Violence Against Women act to wit) but is not representative of third wave feminism as far as I can see.  I will be glad to consider your concerns about any implications here but I am not clear what it is specifically that you are concerned about here.  Would you suggest how to rewrite this to meet your concerns with NPOV balance? Anacapa 04:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Both of the problems you point out are due to the actions of a recent editor who seems hell-bent on imposing an "individualist feminist" POV on this article. Feel free to try to fix it up; I've gotten tired of dealing with that individual. Catamorphism 18:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so fast please.  Editor Catamorphism did almost no genuine dealing with that 'problematic' recent 'individual' editor which is me.  Instead she is going to gang up on me here which is quite pathetic and might create a needless edit war.  I ask that you continue this discussion with me here before you make any big changes.  I will come back and discuss your points with sources soon because you have been respectful. Anacapa 23:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It wasn't written as her personal quote. It in fact hadn't quotations around it. Further, instead of defining what the issue with the ideology is and identifying the appropriate label, it is just one person's feelings on it. It is name-calling, it seems POV. It should go on a Kate Fillion page:NeoApsara 04:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I edited the first part to make it less emotive and create a balance. I deleted the whol catagorized list of feminism as it seems to POV. Further it seems contradictory to air in one place that people argue feminism has become "too *this*, *that*, or the *other*" and then proceed to write it up as an absolute. It is a debate afterall. NeoApsara 16:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few things... 

message: According to the article, these are two opposing views.
:One institutionally predominant type of feminism largely focuses on limiting or eradicating gender inequality to promote women's rights, interests, and issues in society. Another opposing type of modern feminism, with deep historical roots, focusses on earning, and establishing equity by and for women, vis-a-vis men, to promote those same rights, interests, and issues, regardless of gender considerations. 
Maybe I am dense, but I do not see the opposition.  In fact, these two views seem pretty similar.  Can someone explain the difference?  Can the two sentences be merged, or can they be rewritten to be clearer? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Camille Paglia has been one of the major warriors against 'gender' or 'victim' feminism.  I will pull in her explanation of her title for her bestselling Vamps and Tramps so she can speak for herself.: "I want a revamped feminism.  Putting the vamp back means the lady must be a tramp.  My generation of Sixties rebels wanted to smash the bourgeois codes that had become the authoritarian totems of the Fifties.  The 'nice' girl with her soft, sanitized speech and decorous manners had to go.  Thirty years later, we're still stuck with her -- in the official spokesmen and the anointed heiresses of the feminist establishment...Equal opportunity feminism, which I expouse, demands the removal of all barriers to woman's advance in the political and professional world -- but not at the price of special protections for women which are infantilizing and anti-democratic."  Paglia and many others have shown these oppositions clearly over the past decade which I why I added this.  As I see it and I am no expert here the basic difference is in means rather than ends.  Gender-focused feminists blame the so-called 'patriarchy' for male-gender oppression of the female as a gender and cry for special priviledges and protections while equity feminists insist that women be given equitable opportunities, and that they earn their way with men with adult responses etc in a real world with no special priviledges or protections.  To me, these sentences show distinct opposing types of feminism and reflect dozens of news articles, worldwide, on the often ugly debate between feminists.  To merge them IMHO would be to miss the point. I would be glad to rewrite anything that is unclear.  What seems unclear here?Anacapa 04:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There isn't one; or rather, the statement that there is one reflects the "individualist feminist" POV that some have been working very hard to impose on this article. Feel free to fix it. Catamorphism 18:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor above has had problems with any other POV that opposes establishment feminism.  This is POV itself which I am attempting to balance with other widely reported POV's.  I insist that she stop the character assassinations and discuss issues with sources. Anacapa 04:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I edited it and added Slrubenstein's suggestion plus my own (which I extended). I also deleted this-
Some feminist scholars, in echoes of anarchist feminists like Emma Goldman, have posited that the hierarchies in businesses and government and all organizations need to be replaced with a decentralized ultra-democracy. Some argue that having any central leader in any organization is derived from the androcentric family structure (and therefore needs reform and replacement), and thus such gender-focussed scholars see the essence of feminism as beyond the surface issues of sex and gender. It really has no place there except as a spring-board for the quotes about how it's wrong. If anything it can be moved down to the "many points of view" section. NeoApsara 20:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this assessment/deletion.  It reflects my judgement precisely too.  I suggest ALL other points of view that are peripheral to the introduction  also be moved to their appropriate section(s) below to make this article flow.  Anacapa 23:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is the opposition? 

message: Is there a known primary source of the Numbers in "Women own only 1 percent of the world's wealth, and earn 10 percent of the world's income, despite making up 49.5 percent of the population."? I have looked a longer time for sources of this, but the only thing i have found are quotes from quotes from quotes from unknown source. That comes close to be just a urban legend and not to be fact. A raw estamatin about the 1 percent of the world's wealth show easy, this can not be true. The biger part of the world wealth is in developed Nations and no statistics of any of this countrys show something close to just 1 percent of wealth owned by women. -- Hetzi 10:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, I don't really understand what the "Women own only 1 percent of the world's wealth" refers to. We need a context for the term wealth. Could anyone expand? --Zleitzen 11:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of statistics 

message: “Extremes on the one hand include some radical feminists such as Mary Daly who argues that human society would be better off with damatically fewer men. There are also dissidents, such as Christina Hoff Sommers or Camille Paglia, who identify themselves as feminist but who accuse the movement of anti-male prejudice.”
Alright, but some feminists would consider Christina Hoff Sommers an apologist for male privilege at the expense of women. For example many feminists have criticized her solution to rape being that women just carrying guns which falls in support of her pro-gun stance. That is dandy, but the rapists will have guns too, she re-enforces the stereotype of the “stranger in an alley” and completely ignores the psychology of coercion. I edited it; there seems to be a bias with so much of what these “dissidents” think. NeoApsara 14:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To call Sommer's or Paglia 'dissidents' is absurd.  These feminists are 'problematic' because they have systematically dismantled the theories for second-wave gender/saint-victimhood.  This article is very POV in favor of the mass of totalitarian second wavers who fail to see the handwriting on the wall.  Anacapa 02:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I said "dissidents" because that is what they were characterized as in the article and elseware. It was my attempt to point out that if the article was going to single out any particular feminists in that section which doesn't necessitate it, then it'd be a bit fair to air different perspectives on them. The truth is, not everybody is going to believe they "dismantled" everything or even anything, not everybody will believe second-wavers (or whatever you'll throw out next) are "totalitarian". As you can see from above (at least with regards to Sommers), different perspectives exist. If you have any other objections to me maintaining that this is about what you disagree with, then I recommend you re-read your above post.NeoApsara 15:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoff Sommers 

message: (In her book A Fearful Freedom, Wendy Kaminer provides an opposing viewpoint to this argument; she argues that pregnancy leave should not be a special case of employment benefits, but should be treated like any other disability benefits.)
I deleted this because, in her books, Tavris does not really make an argument either way, rather she points out a tendancy to have to look to the male experience in order to find out how to label pregnancy. I also edited other parts to clarify what she actually argues.NeoApsara 18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tavris 

message: I added a few things and also expounded on existing ones. I was more concetrated on finding the sources, quotes, and people so feel free to fix any sloppines. NeoApsara 17:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please come back and clean up your own sloppiness so we can see what you want to keep verus cut and so that this PP makes some sense and flows well.  Right now it is a big jumble of interesting but sometimes unrelated ideas. Anacapa 02:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you planning on showing both (or all) sides here or is this going to be another section of shout outs with no balance.  For example, there is much research to support gender differences now as well.  Are you going to survey the field or just pack this with science that supports on partisan (eg feminist) position?  My inclination is balance arguments here as science is science rather than the outraged rhetoric that seems to dominate the political arguments fro and against feminism.  What is your intention here?  Anacapa 01:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: For example, there is much research to support gender differences now as well. Okay, and if they are relevent to a section called Feminism and Science, then find them and put them up there with the rest of the part that mentions science to support innate differences between males and females. Nobody is stopping you, you aren't being repressed. As for patting yourself on the back and then questioning my intentions, you're going to have to take it to the mods if you have an issue with me. I'm about finished having to answer to you and your terms. NeoApsara 15:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feminism and Science 

message: Having been watching this page for a week I feel that certain points should be reflected upon before editors embark on changes.
*This article is in essence a gateway piece. It should be a concise summary, broadly outlining the major themes of feminism, linking to more detailed pieces on individual factors.  
*Feminism is an international experience from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. Many of the issues may seem vital within US circles but are not notable, applicable or relevant in the broad international context. Detailed issues unique to the former should not be given disproportionate privilege.  A Nigerian woman should find this article as accessible as a New Yorker.
*No weasel words. No points should carry the lines “some feminists believe” etc without serious notable sources that warrant inclusion in such a concise summary. 
*Marginal concerns such as  the “gender feminist” vs “equity feminist” construction should not warrant any more than a brief mention within the article.  --Zleitzen 00:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Zleitzen, I just wanted to let you know that I strongly agree with your points here. Especially important, in my view, are the first two, that this article should serve as a gateway, and that it needs to present more of a global perspective. I really like what you did in shortening up the intro, and I think that it is a good model for how we should work on changing the rest of the article: making concise statements that encompass the main points of what feminism is, with links pointing to other articles that give more detail about different aspects, such as history and the different forms of feminism. There are some sections in there that are just too long, most likely because we are so concerned with representing every possible viewpoint. There has got to be a way that we can mention a viewpoint in one concise sentence, and then create other articles that detail so-and-so's criticism of feminism and feminist responses to said criticism, rather than lumping them all together into a paragraph that is longer than most people would want to read. So, just wanted to express my support here; I am trying to finish up some term papers and projects, but soon I will have more time to really tackle this article. --Romarin 17:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points for Editors of this article 

message: I noticed that in list of topics covered by feminism in the intro, the term "sexual violence" links to rape. Is there a reason why we don't just write "rape" in the sentence, rather than sugar-coating it with the vague term "sexual violence"? Like with my previous post, I am going to change this, unless there is much opposition. --Romarin 20:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems with me on this.--Zleitzen 09:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input; I'm going to go ahead and change it. --Romarin 13:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual violence vs. rape 

message: Ok, another issue here, with this sentence: "In the 1960s and 1970s, much of feminism and feminist theory represented, and was concerned with, problems faced by Western, white, middle-class women while claiming to represent all women." I agree that to a certain extent this was true. But this doesn't say "to a certain extent"; it's an over-generalized blanket statement and I don't think it belongs in the opening section. Instead, I'd rather see it under history, and with mention of some groups/individuals who were active in breaking out of this pattern of representation. As with my previous issues, I wanted to see what others thought about this;  maybe it has been discussed already in previous talk pages that I haven't seen. Comments (and on the two previous topics) would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! --Romarin 22:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on this --Zleitzen 09:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. I'm going to start working on it when I get a chance (soon), unless someone else wants to go ahead. Any more ideas on what to do with it would be great. Thanks! --Romarin 13:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  60s and 70s feminism 

message: This section is way out of hand.  I've pared down the opposition list somewhat.  There were wikilinks in there, and links to opinion pieces of individuals (not part of a larger, more significant website), broken links, and sites that had nothing to do with feminism in particular, just issues that feminists are concerned about. MamaGeek Joy 12:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Restoring that link is fine, but dropping the other two is not.  If PP is out, then so is FFL, since both are primarily centered on matters of reproductive rights, not feminism in and of itself.  Of course, reproductive rights are a key part of feminism, which is what justified the inclusion of both.  NARAL is likewise centered on reproductive rights. Alienus 23:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Anacapa, I reverted your changes to the first paragraph not because I disagree with them (I do not) but because they were redundant and poorly written.  The opening graph as it stands complies with NPOV - it is clear that these are positions not shared by all feminists, and are debated.  To add that others take ther views is just to repeat what has already een said, but in more clumsy wording.  Your efforts are better placed in your adding actual content to later sections of the article (i.e. the body) in which you lay out other views.  The first paragraph should be concise and to the point and it is - and clearly signals that there are different views. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  first paragraph 

message: Why does Gender Equity redirect to feminism? Why not masculism? That's irony if ever I saw it. Bihal 00:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender Equity 

message: Male whitewashing and politically motivated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.126.136.204 (talk • contribs) .
: I'm not even sure what this comment means, but you have to explain which specific words or parts of the article you think express POV bias, rather than giving a laundry list of generic adjectives for things you don't like. Catamorphism 19:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIAS 

message: 'One problem that the feminist movement has come across is the statistics dealing with family life when one or more feminist lives in the household. Statistics have shown that 82% of households with mothers that are openly part of the feminist movement have had problem children, due to traumatizing events involving bizarre behavior by the mother. In 70% of households with feminists living there at all, males have complained that they don't feel equal to the women of the house, but oppressed. While women tend to claim that this is merely the result of their resentment to a relinquishing power they've had all their lives, men make the argument that the women, regardless of claims of what men may have had over women in the past, are not allowing them to live freely in the house or out of it.'
I'm new to Wikipedia, and was reading this article without planning to edit it, but this paragraph made me jump. 82% of the children of feminists are traumatised by their mothers' bizarre behaviour? Says who? If such a statistic has ever really been issued by a reputable source, then the source should be cited. 81.79.77.224 23:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out, I've removed it. Once you're more familiar with Wikipedia, feel free to remove things like this yourself. They definitely contradict policies like WP:CITE. Catamorphism 02:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dodgy fake (?) statistics in section 4.3 (Effect on heterosexual relationships) 

message: An interesting addition to this article might be something that my ultra-feminist teacher taught me recently (She's so cool.)
She basically stated that Women could largely be blamed for the detriment to our school systems, as the 1950s gave rise to the feminist movement. As Women broke out of the mold that men gave to them, they didn't need to be school teachers anymore, and many brilliant women who were previously educating our children, are now doing better things with their lives. (Better is relevant to the person, not to the society at large).
Just curious if anyone knows of a good way to word this, or can find some information about it. Sajun777 20:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting concept, although I don't think that saying that women are to blame necessarily follows; this implies that their breaking out of gender-stereotyped roles was a bad move, and that women should take responsibility for all that has happened since with regard to school systems. Maybe you should ask your teacher where she found the information; if this is a prominent theory that has been published and can be verified, then it may be useful to work into the article somehow. Unfortunately, original research cannot be used, and so you're going to need a bit more to go on than just something cool your teacher said. Good luck, romarin[talk to her ] 04:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An interesting addition? 

message: There is no evidence given as to why Mr. Garrison's opinion is the one of the creators, that's a matter of opinion of the person who wrote the paragraph. Anyway I'm deleting the paragraph. Zverkov0 16:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  south park reference 

message: I removed this whole section on the grounds it is of very limited notability and 
that the article is already very cluttered, has no overall flow: The cited author and work are not very influential (Dr Schoenwolf). The Freud comment has no cite and Freud died before modern feminism even existed.
:Ideas regarding the genesis of feminism
:Gender narcissism has been outlined by Dr. Schoenwolf as the cause of negative thought relating to one's own gender or that of the opposite one due to an over-valuation of the idea of gender. He argues that feminism is actually a pathology, as the roots of this narcissism appear to be from an adverse developmental situation. Although Narcissus was a man, narcissism has generally been considered as a feminine vice Professor Meyers. In The Psychology of Women Freud argues that “envy and jealousy play a greater part in the mental life of women. Freud advanced the theory that attitudes such as feminism have their roots in the castration complex, where girls are unable to resolve their envy for boys. Freud argues that this envy/dislike continues into adulthood.
Ashmoo 06:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed whole section