From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Good article Feminism has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Feminism:
Improve article to featured standards
  1. The articles citations need attention. All references need to use the {{cite}} template.
  2. 16 citations need specific reference to page numbers.
  3. Section on "Mid-twentieth century" needs work: a) the first paragraph needs to bring together the de Beauvoir material and the second-wave material better; b) it should mention "difference feminism" somehow - it needs to convey that the assumptions underlying second-wave feminism were different than those underlying first-wave feminism.
  4. The "Socialism" subsection does not explain the general impact as well the other two sub-sections. It is too fact-based.
  5. Explanation of "feminisms", as in "multiple feminisms" in the Movements section
  6. Summarize Women's rights and integrate.
  7. Consider the structure and hierarchy of contents with regard to featured standards
Priority 1 (top)

Addition of the Radical Feminism section[edit]

I'm proposing a change to a POV additions that have been nitpicked for the sole purpose of pro feminist PR AND to discourage the expected debate and dialogue of hypocrisy and hate withing the movement. If you're so neutral, why isn't there a dedicated section to the fact that there are racist, sexist, radical elements within the feminist movement within the page and intro? IF you aren't looking for a very positive first impression of feminism, of course. I don't see Radical feminism section on the whole page. Some would find that very important wouldn't you think? pf... and I'm the terribly biased one Gorgi88 (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't include links to every single feminism perspective, the article is encyclopedic and exists to give an overview of the movement. You can find the Radical feminist page here. I'm posting this with good faith that you don't vandalise it or at least post on the Talk page before editing because your tone here suggests severe bias against the movement --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
of course not. only the very important ones. and radical feminism is big and one if not the most important aspect of modern feminism. not including a dedicated section to it only shows blatant bias. Gorgi88 (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Radical feminism is neither the biggest nor the most important aspect of modern feminism. If anything it is seen as slightly antiquated by the majority of feminists. Please read into the movement, and I don't just mean Wikipedia articles or anti-feminist blogs, go to your library and read books on it before editing. If anybody here has bias it is the person who made an account specifically to edit feminist articles and push an anti-feminist POV --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
"radical feminism is big and one if not the most important aspect of modern feminism." Evidence?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
the boatloads of but feminism is good, oh but feminism is for everyone, you can be feminine and a feminist articles. Hatred, mistrust towards feminism didn't come out off the blue. The man hating, unkempt, angry stereotype was perpetuated by radicals to the point it became the face of feminism for MOST men and a huge chunk of the female population. Gorgi88 (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:ORIGINAL, if you are interested in editing Wikipedia articles it is best that you do so in areas that you have researched and make edits that you can back up with WP:RELIABLE. Also calling feminists 'unkempt' on the talk page of the feminism page is WP:VULGAR --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Obvious POV issue here. I didn't call feminists unkempt. I said it's a stereotype perpetuated by radicals. Gorgi88 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, although you understand that could have used different language to describe this "stereotype" that the movement itself is supposedly responsible for as you weren't quoting from a direct source. You agree with the rest of my post concerning WP:ORIGINAL and WP:RELIABLE then? That your edits should be founded on good sources and others research than your personal beliefs concerning the articles? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I do. And the Radical Feminism section would have all of those. Withholding that information only perpetuates the notion that this is an unbalanced article. Gorgi88 (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
So you are arguing that much more of the article should focus on Radical Feminism specifically? It is discussed in the 'Political movements', 'Cultural movements', 'Patriarchy' , and 'Anti-feminism' sections, the latter acting quite clearly as a criticism and linking to an entire article that focuses on feminist criticisms. I am fairly sure this is the article you are looking for Antifeminism --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
How is Antifeminism the same as Radical Feminism?? And pointing out radical feminism, it's rhetoric and agenda isn't anti-feminist. Gorgi88 (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I must have misunderstood you. You want to include a criticism of Radical Feminism specifically at the beginning of the Feminism article? Or information on what Radical Feminism at the beginning? Is the information in article and the links to Radical Feminism not in depth enough? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm pushing for a section that focuses on Radical Feminism, it's rhetoric, agenda and individuals withing the movement. Gorgi88 (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Radical Feminism is already covered in various sections of the page and linked within. It also has its own article --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Big and important enough to have it's own article but not important enough to have a separate section on the main page? 'Oh but the page is neutral' right? It's just feminist PR, selectively minimizing or outright withholding controversial parts of the movement in order to promote a certain image of the movement Gorgi88 (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
There are articles for all of the Feminist movements and ideologies. There is no feminist PR editing the encyclopedia, just as there is no feminist leadership. It is a huge movement that encompasses multiple ideologies and viewpoints. As it stands, Radical Feminism is fairly weighted among other feminist ideologies and the anti-feminism section covers many of the controversial aspects of the movement --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree that the article should include more on radical feminism, even if integrated into existing sections. Radical, liberal, Marxist, post-modern, and third-wave are the major branches of feminism. I can easily see the addition of a section summarizing these branches with "Main article" templates at the beginning of each. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Like in Feminist movements and ideologies? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry gentlemen but this has been addressed multiple times before. You can read the talk archives if you want more detail. The current structure of the article has been reviewed and passed Good Article standard. Any changes to the structure would require MAJOR consensus and would need to be inline with improving the standard of this page towards Featured Content.
    By way of information, the primary reason these sub-movements are not addressed in detail is WP:Length. There is far more to this topic than just the sub-movements. That's why the Feminist movements and ideologies page had to be created along with a number of other sub-pages.
    Trying to include more information in an article like this is predicated by policies such as due weight, balance and article structure which by the way are important facets of NPOV (which seems to misunderstood by Gorgi88 in a number of sections here and on Radical feminism).
    Furthermore if one wants to expand wikipedia's coverage of Radical Feminism it is first done at that subject's own article, then at Feminist movements and ideologies and if necessary the sentences related to it here can then be modified. But changes to this or any high standard article that damage its structure or overall standard would be highly controversial--Cailil talk 10:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Cailil: Fine by me, but please don't assume gender identities. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Apologies EvergreenFir no assumption on your part was being made. I was referring to Gorgi et al. It was meant in a "tongue in cheek way" since the vast majority of people to clamor that there are NPOV issues on Feminism pages are usually men, who have little scholarly support for thier views. It's a recurring issue that women are prevented from using this page by the kind of rhetoric that was indulged in by that user. However my tongue in cheek may not come across on the internet so I've striken the offending section--Cailil talk 15:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Unstated assumptions[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I realize that this is a contentious issue. However, I feel that the current text, unaltered, is more malignant.

"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women."

Who says this isn't already the case? Or that women don't have it better than men? Citations aren't good enough; equality is inherently subjective. I don't care if women get paid 0% as much as men (well, I'd care, but it isn't relevant here); equality doesn't have a single definition. This is like if the article on Free will started with "Free will, which does not exist,[1][2][3]..." It's simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia that prides itself so much on objectivity.

On a couple of occasions, I've added the disclaimer "under the assumption that this is not the case". These edits have been reverted. I'm bringing the issue here so that a more thorough consensus can be formed or, at the very least, someone can explain why Wikipedia's okay with assuming that "women have it worse, period". Tezero (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear. Do you mean to say that a statement that some group of people supports the "rights and equality of women" implies a claim that women either don't have rights or don't have equality or both? Is that your objection to this language?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
There's one hell of a thorough consensus on this Tezero (see the archives). These are well sourced definitions of this term. It's this site's role to record what is said about it in the mainstream scholarly material in a neutral manner - we don't alter what sources say to suit our own visions of objectivity. Your arguments seem to be about the subject of feminism (i.e its claim that women are not treated equally) rather than the sources. This is not a forum and discussions like this don't go anywhere--Cailil talk 01:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Closing per WP:NOTFORUM. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Well, this was supposed to be about our handling of the sources. Plenty of sources say "feminism is bad" but we don't get to say "feminism is bad" and cite them. Likewise, we don't get to assume that women are not equal to men no matter how many sources think it's appropriate to summarize this. Tezero (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Not enough criticism/impartiality?[edit]

The Anti-Feminism section has a very tilted and caricature paragraph of criticism of feminism, that portrays it as merely wanting women to go back to the kitchen. Other critiques, such as Ayn Rand, point that Feminism is collerated with a larger state and thus legitimizes government oppression. Another critique maybe that by creating a gendered name, such as Feminism, that it automatically excludes the other gender and in doing so it monopolizes the definition of equality with women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Y2k1 (talkcontribs)

WP:OR and the criticism section is already mentioned in the header box at the top of this talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


The article should address feminism activism in obtaining equal rights of access for female education. 2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:4533 (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

feminism and cinema[edit]

I've added a small subsection (cinema) in the feminism and culture heading as it's quite an important and developed area and can, I hope, add to the overall balance with the other arts already listed. I've tried to keep it quite short, similar in length to (existing) music and so on, and reference longer articles while introducing s potentially fresh summary for the purposes of the page. Any additions welcome, but trying not overlap elsewhere of course! If there are any special experts about on this area, do please feel free to correct any errors I may have made or expand it slightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talkcontribs) 06:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Celibacy section - BRD[edit]

I reverted the recently added celibacy section by Maranjosie (and re-added by Zambelo per BRD. Though sourced, the positions and topics seem quite FRINGE and do not warrant inclusion on this page. There are already concerns about the page being much too long and details and full of COATRACK. Let's discuss this latest addition (seen here). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ asoidfnsaoid
  2. ^ anoifaoisnfoias
  3. ^ nuisohemeoshfs