Talk:Victim feminism

Appropriateness of redirect

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Are we certain that only Sommers has spoken of this topic? Is it appropriate to redirect the term only to discussion of her instead of a broader subject-based article? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

What even is this article?

This article is one sentence which carries no real substantive meaning. It's just confusing and provides no information, proper definition or contextualisation for the reader. MikeJamesShaw (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Subject of article (and neutrality)

Is this article about a term or about a type of feminism? If it's about a term, all the content about a type of feminism should be removed. If it's about a type of feminism, it needs to be rewritten (and retitled) to use neutral language rather than the pejorative term "victim feminism", especially when it is used without quotation marks. For example, "...this trend of 1990s agitation against victim feminism..." is not neutrally worded. The people that writers like Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers are referring to as "victim feminists" would adamantly object to that term. Kaldari (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not a "school of feminism". The article nowhere says so. It is a way of classification by some scholars of the whole spectrum of feminism. This classification is criticized. That the term if pejorative is your personal opinion. It appears you are conflating the concepts of "pejorative" and "negative trait". Negative trait is not necessarily pejorative. For example, "slow runner" is not inherently pejorative, it is pity but no insult to be unable to run fast. However in some cultures it may be an insult. Just the same, there were times where women were indeed 100% victims of male domination. And in some countries they still are. However in modern democratic societies women (at least formally) have full rights. And the focus of modern feminism, in opinion of some, should be shifted to the enablement of these rights. That's the idea of "victim vs. power" theory. The concept is criticized, and you are very welcome to expand the article with this criticism. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: Yes, it's a classification, but it's a classification that is only used by more conservative feminists (which includes individualist feminsts and liberal feminists). Victim feminism is just a pejorative term for radical feminism or gender feminism. Since you seem to only be looking at sources that actually use this term, it probably isn't apparent to you that it is not a neutral term of classification. It is in fact a very politically charged and one-sided term. Having this article is like having a separate stand-alone article for anti-choice movement. Yes it's a term of classification, but it's a very biased and politically charged term. You are correct that Wikipedia could potentially have an article about the term, but it would need to be about only the term, not the concept, as the concept is already covered under radical feminism and gender feminism. Kaldari (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It does not matter who uses this classification. It is known and covered in reliable sources, therefore it is encyclopedic subject. It does not matter who actually uses this classification. It is criticized by those who does not accept this classification. It does not matter where it is describes in wikipedia now. It is clearly a separate subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Statement not supported by cited source

This statement is not supported by the cited source: "Besides Wolf and Roiphe, other feminist authors to have used the term in their books to promote a brand of agency-affirming feminism include Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Natasha Walter, and Rene Denfeld." The source just says that all of these writers wrote critiques of 'victim feminism'. It doesn't say that any of them actually used the term in their writing, and as it is a pejorative term, it's entirely possible they did not actually use that term. I really wouldn't be surprised if they did (especially Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers), but the source doesn't support that statement. Kaldari (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Who prevents you from editing the article to match the source cited? This is a really thick book, with lots of information of the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, characterizing Sommers and Paglia as "feminist authors" is inaccurate at best. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

She self identifies as a feminist. Most of her academic work is on feminism. Who made you the judge?

It's to be expected that an anti-feminist author would have most of her academic work be about feminism. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Citing Schneider

Discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victim feminism where PeterTheFourth started discussion. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Article renaming

After poking around, I tend to conclude that the article title does not adequately reflect the content. The subject is both sides of the dichotomy, and the title must represent this. Since there is no exact term,I would suggest descriptive title, something like "Victimization vs. enablement" dichotomy in feminist theory. Any better ideas? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: The framing of "victimization vs. enablement/power" is inherently POV. This framing is used exclusively by conservative/liberal/libertarian/individualist feminists to criticize radical/political/gender feminists (basically by saying that women are now only marginalized if they choose to be and it is up to women to improve themselves, rather than the radical argument that gender roles are inherently oppressive to women and society must be radically changed in order for men and women to truly be equal). The actual dichotomy is conservative vs. radical. Adopting the framing of one side is POV. Kaldari (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the basic concept embodied by the "victimization vs. power" framing is postfeminism, which we already have an article about. Kaldari (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You are confusing POV of wikipedians, which is unacceptable, and POV in the real world, which is an encyclopedic subject, to be covered in wikipedia. "Postfeminism" is a loaded, vague, ambiguous and confusing term, and the article sucks, and does not cover the subject of "victivization vs.power". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to try to improve the postfeminism article then? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure that this controversy belongs to "postfeminism" subject and I am not well versed with the subject to convincingly establish this from sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)