Talk:Feminism/Archive 9

message: Seems like no or only minor real critique is presented on the page despite the controversial nature of the subject. There is also no mention of the radical feminism (Nordic for instance) nor discussion of the claims that feminism is not for the equality of the genders but rather for the supremacy of one over the other.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.232.196.150 (talk • contribs).
:You forgot to sign your comment. That said, it seems to me that between the "contemporary criticisms" section and all the links to anti-feminist organizations and sites, we've done about all we can do. A lot of the allegations I'm seeing of all the "radical feminists" in the bushes tend to be unsourced and/or vague (what on earth do you mean by "Nordic" in the above comment, for example?) or isolated quotes from marginal, redlinked figures of the dim past. --Orange Mike 13:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Orange Mike there is quite a sizeable critical section here and the bandying around of the term "radical feminist" by anon. IP Users is starting to become annoying.--Cailil 22:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No real critique 

message: In line with the recent GA fail (above) I've been looking through this article and thinking about ist sections.  I think it would be healthy if we questioned each of the main sections notability, clarity and verifiablity to improve this article towards GA (and hopefully one day FA) status.  I would propose a review from teh bottom up (for the moment excluding the webisites and books) starting with Quotations_about_feminism.  In my view this whole section is of dubious merit.  Are these just quotes by feminists or are they quotes that define feminism.  If they are the latter many more could be included and certainly the Naomi Wolf quote could be questioned.  It also reflects an american bias.  I referrenced these quotes a few weeks ago but I'm beginning wondering whether a link to a Wikiquote article on quotes about feminism or quotes by feminists would be more appropriate?--Cailil 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A review of the sections 

message: I've removed some very badly written (possible Original research) remarks in the feminism in many forms section.  All information needs to NPOV and sourced from reliable sources.--Cailil 23:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  altertaions to feminism in many forms 

message: Regarding Mary Daly, isn't this correct? I thought that it would be important to mention parthenogenesis here, as it is found on the Mary Daly article itself. However, my edit was reverted for being 'harmful', so please consider rewording it if possible.
"Extremes on the one hand include some radical feminists, such as Mary Daly, who argue that human society would be better off with dramatically fewer men (despite the fact that parthenogenesis in humans would be a very controversial thing to research, and that sexual reproduction is essential in the absence of such technology)."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.233.227.55 Trojjer 17:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello  84.233.227.55, I'm sorry for mis-identifing your edit as vandalism, I see that it is clearly a good faith attempt at improving the article.  The problem with your sentence is its attribution and the weight it gives to Mary Daly's views.  First, I understand what a radical claim Daly is making but it is not the purpose of the article or the encyclopedia to editorialize claims, and unless you can source this statement it has to be removed.  Second, the paragraph in question is a very brief summary of the positions of radical feminists the detail of Daly's position is unnecccesary as the paragraph is a very brief summary of her views.  Such an edit would have a place in the parthenogenesis or Mary Daly pages if it can be sourced.  Apologies again, I've striken the warning on your talk page--Cailil  talk 17:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem and sorry again for the misunderstanding--Cailil  talk 17:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mary Daly]] and [[Parthenogenesis]] 

message: I've noticed a lot a vandalism to this page in the last 24 hours. Even though I recently added someone else's vandalism by accident (for which I profoundly apologize) while trying to revert some (I don't really know how that happened) and an anonymous user caught it (thank you), I still think this page should be protected. Some of the vandalism on this page is bad stuff. I'm posting here because I feel that maybe there should be a consensus before we start censoring. --Cdogsimmons 23:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been protected a number of times since January.  There is a phenomenal amount of time wasted by IP users making childish and/or flaming comments on the page.  I'd second your call for protection.  I would however suggest that semi-protection is a better option than full protection because that will allow editors work on the page but prevent anon IP trolling--Cailil  talk 18:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is a good candidate for being protected 

message: Thanks for your contribution User:130.111.89.13 you may have missed the rather long and involved converstaion above about the wording "Most liberal, radical, and cultural feminists are concerned with what they perceive to be the social, political, and economic issues which favor men at women's expense"  specifically the words "they perceive".  Agreement was reached on this talk page to rewrite the whole line.  I am replacing it with the agreed content.
There are a few other lines that I'm removing - the headline needs to be short & concise.  If you can source this information you should add it to the body of the article.--Cailil  talk 16:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  130.111.89.13's edit 

message: I think there should be a section on feminisms effect on popular culture, there was a breif article about it but it was forwarded to here because off a lack of material, but here though there is only one sentence speaking of it (and in that case only on misandry)! see Pop feminism before redirect--BerserkerBen 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree BerserkerBen but with some caveats.  First of all I ed that Pop feminism page becasue it was WP:NOR; any pop culture & feminism section written to replace it needs to be reliably sourced and verifiable.  Second the section needs to abide by avoid trivia.  For all interested parties please read the essay about "in popular culture" sections.  If the section remains within these policies it should be a good addition to the page and the encyclopedia--Cailil  talk 18:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely your full of good faith Cailil, I'm not, nor am I dishonest: I neither have the time or expertise to do anything about this other then prod, and if I had not done that then nothing would have been done about this at all.--BerserkerBen 00:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry BerserkerBen I didn't mean my comments to sound like an attack on you at all.  I have 100% faith in your honesty (I had no intention of impuning it).  I do believe this is a good faith request and I am happy to help you with it.  I do genuinely feel this would be a good addition to the article, as I said before.  Also the above are just the policies for such sections and I placed them here so that all intesrested parties could get to grips with them.  I also felt it neccessary to disclose that I proded the old page.  I'm not sure where you feel I have accused you of dishonesty in my above comments but I do apologise for any offence caused, none was in any way intended--Cailil  talk 00:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, see that my inner chibi talking. I’m well aware of the policies and I have been on wiki a long time and have lost almost all faith in wiki (lost it long before you so it not your fault) so don’t mind me. I hope you can get someone (other then me) to work on this.--BerserkerBen 01:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect on Popular Culture 

message: I deleted a bullet in the "Worldwide statistics" section.  I am not completely opposed to leaving it in this article, but as it is, it is out of context and misleading.  If we desire a neutral point of view article, the context and reason for this difference needs to be added.  
Here is the bullet.
*In the US in 2003, for every $1 males earn, women earned 75.5 cents on average. The median income of men working full-time was $40,668, while the median income for women working full time was $30,724.http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2004-08-26-women_x.htm USAtoday.com 
The reason these differences exist is now documented to be entirely, or nearly entirely based upon choices that men and women make, and not because of inequalities.  According to June O'Neill, an economist at Baruch College and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, "For men and women who never marry and never have children, there is no earnings gap," she said in an interview. see [].  June is a noted researcher on the subject and has several other articles over many years.  More recently, she has documented in her NBER Working Paper No. 11240, the conclusion:  "Instead the gender gap largely stems from choices made by women and men concerning the amount of time and energy devoted to a career, as reflected in years of work experience, utilization of part-time work, and other workplace and job characteristics." see http://www.nber.org/papers/w11240.
Nor is June O'Niell the sole source, in a recent report by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation, at least three-quarters the pay gap is due to choices made, and not due to discrimination and the remaining one-quarter may be attributed to discrimination.  Now, I am not completely opposed to leaving the 75.5 statistic in the Feminism article, but we need to update it to 77 not 75.5, per the AAUW study, and we need to balance this statistic properly with the appropriate research.  Taken alone, we are left wanting according to Benjamin Disraeli  "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."  --Altoids Man 03:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that the statistic was out of context, I'm not sure if it was misleading (I haven't had time to review it or your refs thoroughly).  The section does need discussion and i think you should go ahead and make the change, adding the new ref, and we can continue the discussion, hopefully with more views and input--Cailil  talk 10:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Income differences among men and women in the US 

message: I hate to open an argument that has already seen much debate. The debate has tried to define what feminism is concerned about and present it in a way that is NPOV - and this was done very well, but I feel that all this very useful and constructive dialogue that has occured around this sentence is actually wasted when it comes after the first sentence:
Feminism can be described as an organized movement of social theories, moral philosophies, economic and political thought, all focused on the liberation of women from a perceived subordination to men.
I have two issues with this sentence. Firstly (as was the case with the previously discussed sentence) the word perceived implies that this subordination is not actually real. Secondly, is basically says all of feminism is focused on "the liberation of women from a subordination to men". I don't think that "subordiantion" is the appropriate term.
One possible solution (although this creates quite a long sentence) is:
Feminism can be described as an organized movement of social theories, moral philosophies, economic and political thought, that are concerned with practices and social, political, economic inequalities that discriminate against women.
This is literally combining them with no alteration. Personally, I feel that if we were to do this, then sentence would read better as:
Feminism can be described as an organized movement of social theories, moral philosophies, economic and political thought, that are concerned with social, political, economic inequalities and practices that discriminate against women.
I think this second suggestion, based on comments above, adresses the inequalities/discrimiation point made earlier, but also stops "practices" from sitting there all by itself removed from "sociol, political and economic". Cheers JenLouise 04:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi JenLouise I agree with you.  I've been looking for a concise summary sentence for Feminism from literature but I haven't been happy with the ones I've found so far. On the issue of the word "percieved" in the first line, I think I missed reverting that from the edit by 130.111.89.13.  As regards your suggestion I think it's fine - the headline paragraph needs to be more concise.  I would in the long run like to see the equal weight of "equality of the sexes" reintroduced if possible.  Also just to throw this into the mix the original line before 130.11.89.13 was "Feminism is a collection of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies largely motivated by or concerned with the social, political and economic equality of the sexes".  For the moment I'm inserting your last suggestion JenLouise, we can discuss further here--Cailil  talk 22:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded the first line and wikified those header paragraphs.  The new first line reads:  Feminism is the name of a number of social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies that are concerned cultural, political and economic practices and inequalities that discriminate against women.  I've been bold and put it up.  If anyone has any problems revert (if you do please try not to loose all of the wikifying)--Cailil  talk 20:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. some of the language in the second paragraph is too expert - it needs some tweaking--Cailil  talk 20:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavily discussed first sentence in intro 

message: I've removed the section that was tagged by User:Mellowinman.  They are correct the info is not NPOV - it looks like a synthesis.  The 1st reference is a blog and not a relibale source.  The info attributted to the BBC source is not borne out within that article.  As such I've removed the material.  A copy of it is below:Effect on domestic life
The emergence of two-worker households as the norm correlates with the rapid late-20th century rise of house prices, where both adults find they must continue to work in order to fund the greatest mortgage debt in history.http://thebritgirl.com/2007/03/03/blind-feminism-blamed-for-hurting-britains-children  In this analysis, women's entrance into the work force has had the unintended consequence of increasing the strain of family life; increased family income has led to more units of currency chasing a more slowly growing housing stock, and thus through supply-and-demand logic house prices have increased to the point that two incomes are required, meaning that neither parent is available for child care.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3178554.stm
If effect sections are to be included they must be taken from reliably sourced, notable and attributable references--Cailil  talk 14:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed ''Effect on domestic Life'' section 

message: What does trafficking in women have to do with feminism?  Because feminists are against it?  Does that make those who oppose feminism for it?  That implication is absurd.  The implication that feminists are somehow stronger on this issue than others is POV to say the least.  Or is it supposed to imply tha feminism are somehow to blame for this problem?  I disagree, and I am no friend of feminism.  But I am in 100% agreement with the feminist position on this issue, unless there is a new faction of feminism which argues that trafficking in women is somehow "empowering."  I'm removing this.Shield2 08:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trafficking in Women

message: Is "whistleblower" an official title of this woman? Is it accurate to address other feminists this way? Is it polite and npov to characterize someone this way?Lost Angel 00:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your being sarcastic again, eh? =)  That characterization was added by User:Anacapa  along with he rest of the text on Hoff-Sommers's views.  Not only should "whistleblower" be removed but the line should be rewritten in so that it accurately represents the book.  It might also be more NPOV to note the concerns of the USA's national media watch group FAIR about it.  What do you think?--Cailil  talk 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I obviously am, which I appreciate you noticing. It should not matter, which user added the pov definition, such definition should be removed and/or improved, as you correctly point out. I personally won't touch the article itself, since I believe that'll end up with rv/edit wars and there are too many things, which I think require attention in the article, surpassing my free time. To cut a long story should - I'm pointing out things, which I think are unambiguously incorrect, so that people with more time and interest could improve them.Lost Angel 17:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Feminist whistleblower, Christina Hoff-Sommers also shows how feminist misandry leads" 

message: This is just a note to point out to everybody who doesn't know that the name bell hooks is spelt in all lower case.  That name is the pseudonom by which Gloria Jean Watkins is known.  She spells "bell hooks" without capitals and we should be recording the name as such.  Follow the wikilink to her wikipedia article or check this link to double check.--Cailil  talk 13:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bell hooks is not spelt - Bell Hooks 

message: "Feminism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Sex equality)"
Thats just wrong. A sex equality page should be made. Sex equality isnt just feminism. Some males are oppressed too!
                  - Alex
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.160.161.138 (talk • contribs) 
:Solved:  Sex equality now redirects to Equalism which mentions both feminism and masculism. Silly rabbit 14:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex equality shouldnt redirect here 

message: I deleted the quotations section and added a link to wikiquote.  I have copied the deleted quotes here in case someone wants to consider moving them to wikiquote. -Fagles 13:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: quotations section