Talk:Feminism

Japan

Why does this article redirect from Feminism in Japan? There is nothing about Japan in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.36.18 (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The content of Feminism in Japan was unsourced, see what it looked like right before becoming a redirect on 28 December 2007. At that time, the redirect was pointing to a Japan section, see the japan section on the 28 December 2007 version of this page. You can see that it was moved to its own article on a 8 April 2008 move. I just re-targeted the redirect to the new location of the japan section, and I also corrected Japanese feminism, Feminism in norway and Feminism in Norway, and re-targetted Third-World_Feminism which had a similar problem. (I found them by clicking on "What links here" on the left of the page, and then cliking on "show only redirects).

Notice that the section "History of feminism" on this page has a notice that History of feminism is the main article. Notice also that longer and sourced articles like Feminism_in_France and Feminism_in_Poland have its own page instead of a redirect to a section of a bigger article. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

June 8th 2008

I've made a number of edits - mainly copy-edits - to reduce jargon and general wordiness. I've also started to harmonize the references using {{citation}}. I've gone through the page down to the Feminist sub-types. I've also added a short summary of Cultural feminism and as mentioned in aprevious convo incorporated it, along with separatism feminism into the section on Radical feminism (rather than giving them sub-sections of Radical feminism).

A thought occurred to me before I started summarizing the issues around Anti-pornography feminism a) the weight giving to the sex-positives is a bit undue and b) a section on Feminism and pornography might be a good idea. Such a section would contain info on Anti- and pro- sex-feminisms. The history of the so-called "feminist sex wars". By doing all of this in one section we kep the information about feminism and pornography centralized rather than scattered through-out the article--Cailil ^talk 20:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This centralization seems like a very good idea. It also would conveniently set us up to do summary style when the pornography topic inevitably gets too long and detailed to host on the main article. --Gimme danger (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created that section as well as merging and redirecting Feminist sex wars to it. I've also merged French feminism here as the section had everything the article had and more (plus the article was violating WP:LIST). When these sections expand we can move the info back there and develop those articles while keeping the summaries here.

I've also attempted to jargon-bust the piece on Ettinger in the French feminism section - please adjust it if it is still unclear or too specilaized--Cailil ^talk 23:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think what you've done with this article has been very good. I reverted the undoing of the "Feminist Sex Wars" article though – the article is a stub with room for a great deal of expansion. I think the only really good reason for merging a stub article is if it clearly has no room for expansion or so heavily overlaps with the subject of another article as to be superfluous. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I take your point Iamcuriousblue but there is another reason for merging and that's WP:SUMMARY - Gimme danger mentions this above. There's a structural concept behind merges like this and its based on how Category:Feminism is organized. Feminism is the "parent article" of the category and the other articles are built upon it like an inverted pyramid. When sections become large enough for their own articles they are split (or "spun off").

Unfortunately Category:Feminism was created backwards - various articles have were started without any connection to here other than the template {{Feminism sidebar}}. 18 months ago there were few (if any) links to sub-types or histories of feminism here. The major change that I and others have made here (over a year or so) is to make this a summary-style article and to try to improve its content as much as possible, but there's still more work to be done in this regard.

There remains a significant question about feminist sex wars - does it deserve its own article yet. This is not a notability question but rather a suggestion that it will be easier to keep matters of Feminism and pornography together here until the section is large enough for its own article and/or until the sub-section on the feminist sex wars is large enough for its own article as well. Its not a big deal but it helps keep development centralized, writing within the MOS and points properly sourced--Cailil ^talk 14:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of "top down" building of related articles when starting to write on a topic, however, I'm more reluctant to actually get rid of an existing article or expandable stub in order to do so. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirects are temporary Iamcuriousblue, we don't delete or get rid of a redirected/merged article. Like I said it's not a big deal, so if you can expand it please go ahead. But if in 2 or 3 months it is still a stub the question (why does it have its own article?) may be asked again--Cailil ^talk 19:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Feminism in the West

Why does feminism in the rich West get the reputation of being petty, political correctness and belief that women are better than man etc... but in most of the world, women don't even have a smidgeon of the equality they do in the WEst and yet when we call someone who fights for women's right to education or against genital mutilation , we don't call them feminists, yet when an affluence Westerner espouses views about how high heels are oppressive and rants about the Patriarchy, we call THEM feminist. It just seems so frivolous!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.29 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This point on affluent white feminists is already addressed in the article under discussions of Third Wave feminism, and the growing number of feminists of colour. Sapperstein (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

June 25th

I've made a few changes today[1] to address some of the issues raised in the automated peer review in regard to the table of contents on the article page.

Also I'd like to mention that the Feminist movement article has been rewritten it is now functioning more like a child of this article - as it should as per WP:SUMMARY. However that means that we need to address what we have on this page regarding its content - namely summarizing and reducing what's in the 'Feminism and society' section while retaining links to other child articles (such as feminist theology)--Cailil ^talk 19:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Praise

Just wanted to say that this is a very good article. :-) Cheers to those who did it up. It's one of the few pages on wikipedia where I find that there's little, or infact nothing, that I see I want to change! Cheers --Supriya 21:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I second that. After working on some articles for different streams of feminism, this one is very refreshing. JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Feminist theory

Should the links in the first sentence go to feminist anthropology, feminist sociology, etc? JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point - I've done that as best I can. The only issue is Art history has no explicit section for feminism so I've linked it to Art_history#Psychoanalytic_art_history where Pollock is discussed--Cailil ^talk 14:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Radical Feminism

Are Radical feminism considers the capitalist hierarchy, which it describes as sexist, as the defining feature of women’s oppression. and Radical feminists see capitalism as one of the most important barriers to ending oppression. redundant? JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the second one - well spotted--Cailil ^talk 14:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Also I'm not clear about It is also a theory that commends the difference of women from men. If radical feminists commend that women are different from men, It is also a theory that commends that women and men are different. would be more clear. If radical feminists commend the differences between women and men, It is also a theory that commends the differences between women and men. would be more clear. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording from Routledge international encyclopedia of women: global women's issues and knowledge is that Radical feminism "emphasized the difference between women and men, although the difference is seen as psychological and culturally constructed rather than biologically innate." We could insert this replacing teh unclear wording--Cailil ^talk 14:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That would work. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

First-Wave Feminism and Black Feminism

Are these contradictory? In the United States leaders of this movement included Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who each campaigned for the abolition of slavery prior to championing women's right to vote. and It emerged after the early feminist movements that were led specifically by white women who advocated social changes such as woman’s suffrage. These movements were largely white middle-class movements and ignored oppression based on racism and classism. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a wording issue here but factually it is correct. As far as I can remember from sources the majority of American feminist at the time didn't hold Anthony and Cady Stanton's views. So inserting "largely" or "generally" into the second clause might be a good idea--Cailil ^talk 14:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. From what I had read, a large number of first-wave feminists were also abolitionists, and a large number of second-wave feminists were also African-American civil rights activists. But you seem to be more knowledgeable on the topic, so I'll defer to you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong about Anthony and Cady Stanton I'm working from memory - I wont be able to check till Tuesday (it would be probably be more correct to have said "not all" rather than "the majority" of American feminist at the time). But I think inserting "largely" into the sentence in Black feminism communicates the point the Black feminist made and covers our bases as regards logical contradictions--Cailil ^talk 14:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Feminism and Society

Are these redundant? The feminist movement has effected change in Western society, including women's suffrage; the right to initiate divorce proceedings and "no fault" divorce; and the right of women to make individual decisions regarding pregnancy (including access to contraceptives and abortion); and the right to own property. and Feminism has effected many changes in Western society, including women's suffrage, broad employment for women at more equitable wages, the right to initiate divorce proceedings and the introduction of "no fault" divorce, the right to obtain contraception and safe abortions, and access to university education. JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are indeed. I've replaced that second one with a summary of Women's rights--Cailil ^talk 15:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Feminism By Country

I think it would be a good idea to have feminism by countries. I noticed that a few countries already have their own feminism page. What do you think? --Grrrlriot (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think its a good idea but whether it should be here on our on History of feminism is debatable. Personally I think its more appropriate there but that's just my opinion. BTW a few of those pages need serious attention themselves (ie Feminism in India)--Cailil ^talk 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you think it's a good idea. I suppose if each country is going to have a section then History of feminism should be the page for that. However, If every country is going to have its own page like Feminism in India, then I think "Feminism in..." should be the right place. Here is a sample of what I'm talking about: User:Grrrlriot/Sandbox --Grrrlriot (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

July 8 reference harmonization

Anyone watching this page will see that I've been harmonizing the referencing style here. The whole article is now using {{citation}} style references - see WP:CITE for more information.

There are some newspaper articles listed in the 'Civil rights' section that need proper citation formatting any help with this would be appreciated--Cailil ^talk 23:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Fisherman or fisher?

There is a current discussion in various fishing articles about the use of the word "fisherman" to describe anyone who fishes. The gender-neutral term, used in Canada and elsewhere, is "fisher." So far, it appears that the editor discussion has been mostly from men. I am posting this here to encourage a wider discussion of this and to incorporate other viewpoints. The discussion can be viewed at [2]. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)