Talk:Feminist theory

Liberal Feminism

It looks like the stub on Liberal Feminism has been the target of some vandalism. Some help on cleaning it up? threedimes

I am not a feminist or a proponent of Feminist theory. In fact, I have significant reservations about the role that Feminist theory plays in contemporary academia.

Be that as it may...

The rigor and energy of Feminist theory is undeniable. Its contribution to contemporary scholarship is immense. I know a number of highly intelligent writers and thinkers who identify themselves with the school, and I believe they are disserved by this article. It is far too terse, far too cursory. I hope that some of these people and their fellow travellers will step in and make the article an accurate reflection of the scope and value of their endeavors.

BradGad (Talk) 06:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The section on "Radical Feminism" is not NPOV and needs to be redone. In particular, it reads more like an anti-feminist mockery of Lesbian Separatist Feminism than radical feminism. If I knew how to put a "Disputed" tag on this page I would. I've pointed a number of radical feminist women to this page in the hopes they'll either make the required edits themselves. I'm not a radical feminist, nor do I play one on television, so I'm going to defer to someone who identifies that way to provide something NPOV in this section. Tall Girl 21:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The "there's no male equivalent" isn't a valid critique; it is akin to saying "but hey, why aren't there civil rights movements for white people?". An academic I heard of responded to the question "why isn't there a Men's Studies?" with the droll response "That's the rest of the university, dear" - the point being that almost all the existing discourses have been produced by and for men. Thus there is no place for a male equivalent because there is nothing for a male equivalent to be arguing against. As I said, it isn't a valid critique. If wikipedia standards mean that it should be included anyway why not also include a discussion of lesbian man-hating feminists? There would be as much validity in one as in the other. 59.167.175.61 17:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

what is this?

feminist theory? wtf? I see no masculinist theory, hmmm, wonder why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.152.105.16 (talk • contribs) .

I read this entry with an open mind and have left no idea what the theory discussed entails. Is the first defining sentence the whole of the field? I would expect that there are some beliefs or views widely held in the theory? Can someone revise the entry not presuming that the reader is not just nodding in an affirmative stupor? "Themes explored...include Art History, ... patriarchy." Is Art History a theme? Come on people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.213.1 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

POV check: Misandry references

I added two references packed with (what blatantly biased, gynocentric gender-ginning, "oppression" feminists would call 'unfriendly') explanations of what these authors call "ideological" feminist theory. However, many of their points are echoed by prominent feminist whistleblowers, other feminist disidents and non-feminist researchers. These points of view need to be shown here along with all the "friendly" POV's. I hope to see other editors bring in good references that explain feminist theories so we know that what each theory means and so there are no undue weight wars here(drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 23:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference tag

This article has absolutely no inline citations to back up any of the assertions made. I don't have the background to do so myself, but I have tagged it accordingly so that other editors can improve it. Also, it should be noted that any references which have not been used either to create the article or to support any of the content (like the two "Misandry" references) have no business being there. If anyone has access to them, please demonstrate their relevance to the article by adding appropriate content. --Stephen Burnett 10:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert of essay-like section

I have reverted this edit of Kowilliams (talk · contribs). I have nothing in principle about a criticism section but that particular section was written as an essay and was so fundamentally written with an agenda in mind to be worth re-writing. Pascal.Tesson 15:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

merger

I've merged material from Feminist analysis and turned that page into a redirect for here. There are some problems with this page - namely sourcing and I'm going to try to sort that now. If anybody wishes to contest the merger go ahead and revert - I'm happy to reach consensus. The purpose of this merger is in line with summary style - making this page a parent for the pages on feminist theory - feminist analysis was duplicating that function unnecessarily--Cailil ^talk 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also referenced everything I could. The sections on Liberal and radical feminism have been removed because they are already listed at Feminism.--Cailil ^talk 16:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

wheres a criticism section

There is a distinct omission of a section containing criticism of feminism. There are some quite devestating criticisms of feminism and it would be good of someone to point them out.86.147.2.118 (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not criticism of feminism -- THEORETICAL feminism. As surely as there is a glass ceiling the feminists have an argument, but you don't need a massive theoretical structure around a single movement. I'm sure there is a devastating critique of feminist THEORY lying around somewhere which says in no uncertain terms what academics really think about this... field. Tcaudilllg (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

it's in an obscure page where all things and sections and talk page posts marxist editors don't like for value ideological reasons go to wait until they are adopted back. now seriously.

quite a lot of people criticized feminist theory as a kind of circular scholasticism where they take their ideological assumptions as true and make up a circular explanation for it(infact it's pretty much tucked in the current version). I posted it from my ip since it'not an unconstructive post but I don't want them going after my real account and wiping my edits to scare me off the wiki. 79.176.49.28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC).

note - the above sections like predicted were removed by user:Cailil a self identified feminist editor 79.176.49.28 (talk)

Patriarchal theory, capitalist theory, etc

One of the criticisms of feminist theory surrounds the academic teaching of what is essentially an ideology : the ideology of feminism. If, as critics have argued, patriarchal theory had the same amount of coverage in academia, modern liberal academia would be much different than it is today. ADM (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is "patriarchal theory"? --Gimme danger (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Much of it is explained in the book The Inevitability of Patriarchy by Steven Goldberg. ADM (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Good to know; I have never encountered the term. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you proposing any improvements to this article or are you editorializing? I'm unsure how you intend your comment. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Echoing Gimme danger's point ... wikipedia is not a forum--Cailil ^talk 01:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

ADM has a troubling pattern of posting, IMHO, pointy and drama-stirring posts often linking gays, pedophiles, Jewish people and Michael Jackson in various forms. Insist on reliable sourcing and the rest should take care of itself. -- Banjeboi 04:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)