This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The lede's second paragraph merely restates difference feminism generally, much as the first paragraph does, when it should distinguish itself from other forms of difference feminism. As I read the article (I haven't read sources for this and I'm not expert in this movement), because the modern (not historical) form is largely supported by the Roman Catholic Church, the major distinction is that it reinforces the role of women as mothers, because it accepts the Church's position that women have no right to choose whether to be mothers or not, and it views the differences as primarily biologically, not primarily culturally, driven. I propose to add to the lede, probably editing the second paragraph to the following:
New feminism, as a form of difference feminism, supports the idea that men and women have different strengths, perspectives, and roles, while advocating for the equal worth and dignity of both sexes. Among its basic concepts are that the most important differences are those that are biological rather than cultural, and that women's obligation is to give birth to and raise children, and therefore that reproductive choice must be opposed.
The article reads as if it was written by a fervent supporter of New Feminism. The principles of the movement should be presented more succinctly and precisely in less grandiose and rhetorical language.
Yeah, if a woman is obedient to and dependent on a man, THAT IS NOT EQUALITY IN ANY WAY! There does NOT have to be "one leader", do these people think we're still living in an absolute monarchy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
While there are decisions and policies that are "made by committee", most decisions in the world today are made by a single leader, whether they are appointed, elected, or tyrannical. The point is valid, regardless of whether you or I agree with it.
In any case, I attempted to fix the paragraph in question (obedience and subservience, I believe). I am of the opinion that the title of the section should be changed to something less inflammatory, but I'm certainly not an expert on the topic. Perhaps "acceptance", "passivity", or "tolerance" will help to make this point in a way that doesn't get people's hackles up, like the commenter above? Captainclueless (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)captainclueless
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page not moved. Rider ranger47Talk 15:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
New feminism → Conservative feminism – Move requested as a more accurate description, and also as per this discussion and this discussion. The argument that it should be called "new feminism" because it was named that by Pope John Paul II, as stated here, I don't believe is strong enough. "Catholic feminism" is another possibility, or perhaps the creation of a redirect page from "Catholic feminism" to this page after it has been re-named "Conservative feminism". The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The proposed title does not seem to have wide usage in the article's sources and the linked discussions seem to be WP:IDON'TLIKEIT arguments, i.e. "new feminism" is not really feminism according to the respective user's opinions. — AjaxSmack 21:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose more or less per AjaxSmack. The proposed title is neither commonly used nor even particularly NPOV. Who says it is conservative? I can sort of see the sentiment that "new feminism" can be used to refer to a lot more than just this narrow definition by JP2, but then again we don't have any specific articles on any other kind of new feminism. So probably until we have something to disambiguate against, we should leave this as it is. Maybe with a hatnote directing readers to the general Feminism article if they want something more broad. — Amakuru (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
As stated here the term was coined by Pope John Paul II in 1995. After 20 years can it still be considered to be new? I did offer Catholic feminism, but to someone using Wikipedia, looking at the list of variants in the feminism sidebar, does "new feminism" mean anything? Perhaps complementarian feminism would mean more to people? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.