Talk:Feminism

Child sexual abuse in the lead section but not in the body

I removed a simple mention of child sexual abuse from the lead section. Paintedxbird contributed it in this edit, to append child sexual abuse to the following sentence:

Feminists have worked to protect women and girls from domestic violence, sexual harassment, sexual assault and child sexual abuse.

My reasoning is simple: putting this in the lead section violates WP:LEAD which tells us that the lead is a summary of the material in the article body. The lead should not contain things that are not developed in the article body. There is nothing about child sexual abuse in the article, nothing about feminists working to stop it.

If the article does not comply with WP:LEAD it will lose its hard-won GA status. GA status requires adherence to the guidelines regarding lead sections.

Certainly, the article can have such information in it! I am not against telling the reader about it! It just needs to be described in the article body (which is where all the cites would go), and then mentioned or summarized in the lead section. I think such a subtopic deserves a paragraph or even its own section. Binksternet (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You are looking at things too black and white, too coldly: When you delete stuff, how can you be sure that someone will come back at a later date come back to elaborate further (or may not even be qualified to do so but realised that it wasn't right that the article shouldn't mention it at all), in the neat boxes that you want it to go in? In all likelihood you will just drive people off by deleting their edits wholesale rather than attempting to talk to them, or maybe even collaborate on expanding a section in the preferred style. Rules aren't hard and fast, the most important thing is improving it in the long run :)

You said "the edit teases the reader with a topic that deserves a section" but per WP:REDLINK this is a good thing :) It says a lot of the stuff I'm saying! Wikipedia is in progress, making better articles is more important than ratings! If a rating is stopping you improving the article or laying the foundations for future improvement then ignore ratings :)

Don't see Wikipedia as a battleground but try to help people improve than just deleting and not telling them why :) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I will have to write the essay WP:IBITE to argue for those who wish to bring Wikipedia up to higher standards rather than down to level of newbie editors. <grin>

The guideline at REDLINK has nothing to do with what Paintedxbird added, nor with what I deleted. There was no red link involved.

Regarding GA, the article took three tries to attain the level, finally getting there two months ago, and now it is slipping again. Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, blast from the past. Kaldari (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Binksternet is correct & I've reverted accordingly. There is, as yet no consensus or policy reason to change the lede. Per WP:LEAD the first section of the article reflects the content of the body. Not the other way round.
  Furthermore this article is of a high standard. Edits need to come-up to that for inclusion or else they are likely to be removed. The reasons (which Binksternet actually explained before your post Selina) are very simple you don't add new material to the lead sections of good articles (especially parent articles). There is a sub-article on Feminist effects on society where this could be included and when that happens a duely summarized version of that article could then be rewritten in the section on Societal impact here.
  Red link and IAR are red herrings Selina. Either material conforms to guidelines for inclusion (wrt what, and where, it is added) or it doesn't & when material doesn't reach that standard it in fact damages articles--Cailil ^talk 16:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You really should try talk to people before reverting them except when it's actually wrong/unverifiable material though, I think style is not really worthy of deleting content, but I'm not going to argue - but if you're going to revert fairly new people it would be cool if you also talked to them on their user page and explained why than just in an edit summary because newer people don't use watchlists as much and as I said before it's the kind of thing that puts people off the revert culture that anything they add might be summarily deleted just because it doesn't fit the right way.

What we have now is a situation where we agree a topic is relevant but now it's not mentioned even once in the article now, which I think is worse since feminism has been a big pusher to protect children more and end rape culture :/ hopefully maybe some collaboration can be achieved though, I just had a look and Paintedxbird (talk · contribs) has edited since, but not here, might just not want to get involved in an argument since no one appeared to want to talk to her - that's the kind of stuff I mean if you want more people to stick around and overall improve everything far more than just a few dedicated people can, there needs to be a shift towards a friendlier culture, I am speaking from experience here the WP:BATTLEGROUND atmosphere is what put me off the place originally --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Selina the issue was raised and answered, twice now.
As regards the material, if the topic is relevant it gets a section written about it in a sub-article. Then, if that info is due, it gets noted in a summary of that article in a sub-section here. And if the info is significant enough then, and only then, it gets a short mention in the lede.
As reagrds reverting with guidelines in mind: your opinion on style etc is just that - your personal opinion. Whereas wikipedia *in fact* has a manual of style for a reason. The only reason to cite IAR in order to ignore policy/guidelines is if that edit improves an article. By definition breaching guidelines in a manner that reduces the quality of an article is *not* an improvement.
In terms of the reverts: 1) Throwing accusations of WP:Battle around where there are none (as you've done now twice in this thread) is not a good idea (ppl disgareeing with you based on policy and guidlines is not prima facie evidence of a battleground atmosphere - that's an integral part of the consensus seekng endevour, balancing new material with core polcy and style gudielines). 2) Binksternet made a postexplaining very clearly and cogently what the issue is about here on the article talk page. If Paintedxbird wants to engage with everyone else who is working on this page in forming a consensus they need to come here to discuss changes to the article--Cailil ^talk 13:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I did the editing. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Evolutionary biology section

The first paragraph of the Evolutionary biology section is very difficult to grok. It doesn't provide adequate context and the wording is overly academic, especially the sentence: "She notes how feminists and sociologists have become suspicious of evolutionary psychology, particularly in as much as sociobiology is subjected to complexity in order to strengthen sexual difference as immutable through pre-existing cultural value judgments about human nature and natural selection." Huh? Kaldari (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Came here to say this. I get that the sentence is trying to say something akin to 'feminists don't like it when evolutionary biology is cited as proof that males are more sexually driven and females need emotional connections in order to enjoy sex, and no amount of shunning by civilized societies will change these natural instincts', but only after rereading it several times. I would prefer not to edit it, as my grasp of brevity is less than impressive, and I am not 100 percent sure my interpretation is correct. Ongepotchket (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed that section, temporarily at least, for 3 reasons a) what Kaldari says above - the passage is unparsable without a very high level of knowledge of academic jargon (and even then its borderline in terms of making sense); b) the second paragraph is about Evolutionary biology not 'feminism & evolutionary biology'; c) when I reworte the first paragraph it came to a sum total of one line

Extended content
Sarah Kember notes that feminists and sociologists have become suspicious of evolutionary psychology, because of its tendency to naturalize sexual difference through pre-existing value judgments about human nature and natural selection.

Even then that one-liner is just one person's pov and is repetitive of social constructivist arguments mentioned higher up - so there's no reason to include that alone. The article is better without a section solely based on that. But I think we should try to rewrite a new paragraph on feminism & evolutionary biology here or in A.N Other sandbox.

@Ongepotchket what the line was trying to say was that some feminists oppose Evolutionary Biology's dismissal of the social construction of gender, and its reliance on preconceived notions of the differences between men and women. It's not about sex drives--Cailil ^talk 13:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The source for the second paragraph was called "Evolutionary Psychology and Feminism" and presents interesting views on the subject which can be incorporated in future views on the subject: [1] Here is also another interesting, shorter article: [2] I do think the article should say something on this due to the sometimes perceived conflict. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have the sourcing handy, but here's a statement as a starting point: A debate affecting feminism is how much of gender-based psychology is culturally directed and how much is biologically directed. While the answer seems obvious for some areas, it is strongly debated for some nonobvious areas. Evolutionary psychology is the leading scientific field arguing for biological cause in some debated areas;{{Citation needed}} in the past, the field was sociobiology.{{Citation needed}} The argument for evolutionary psychology is that part of our psychology is so nearly universal around the world and evidently so old as to prove its evolution from very early in human existence, which is very unlikely unless it was genetically caused.{{Citation needed}} However, in the absence of identification of specific causative genes, genetic causation may be only an unproven hypothesis, because a convention agreed to by a small number of humans near the beginning of human existence and that was sufficiently useful for generations for retention may be culturally passed down through generations even today and not be genetically caused.{{Citation needed}}

I think Steven Pinker in The Blank Slate (then of MIT and later of Harvard) argues for biological causation even though he has said elsewhere (I think in a radio interview) he believes in equal rights; I think he cites Human Universals by Brown as part of his case. But Brown allowed for early prehistoric convention. In my opinion, the sum of the argument is that the combination of near universalism and unbounded antiquity leans toward biological causation but does not prove it. I'm having difficulty eliminating convention as the cause for such customs as wearing clothing or building fires; as far as I know, no other species in the wild engages in either custom. The lack of findings of causative genes or their equivalent (e.g., causative hormones or hormonal action) is probably part of what supports the argument against evolutionary psychology; another part of the opposition is from a long history of biological claims of male superiority that were disproven over the years, such as the relevance of brain size, which lasted roughly until someone noticed that elephants had even bigger brains and that wouldn't do.

Sexuality per se is not the only area debated under nature-nurture.

Evolutionary psychology is probably more relevant, as more specific, than evolutionary bbiology.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sexuality

I wonder if we couldn't expand the sexuality section to include more than just the topics of assault, prostitution, and pornography. It seems limited. Feminism has a great deal to say about sexuality beyond these topics. I haven't done any extensive edits on WP yet, and I am still apprehensive about doing so, but I feel I have adequate sources and reading material that I could cull from to expand the section with some help from other editors. Feminism's positive impact on how women approach their own sexuality, and examples of prominent feminist authors or scholars notable works about sexuality (such as Our Bodies, Ourselves) would be two examples of where I mean to start. Would greatly appreciate feedback/suggestions from editors about this. Thanks. Ongepotchket (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree - the section is more about sex-work than sexuality. There is definitely space for a section on feminism's wider understanding of sexuality--Cailil ^talk 13:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it could include a small subsection on lesbian feminism as well. Kaldari (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The intro, and the "theory" section

I think the current intro is a bit lacking. It currently says:

"Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women."

Which only really covers part of feminism. I would like to somehow include the basic idea behind the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's summarization of feminism, which reads as follows:

"Feminism is both an intellectual commitment and a political movement that seeks justice for women and the end of sexism in all forms."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/

I think it's important to mention that it is both a political movement AND philosophy. The SEP seems like a more authoritative source on this topic, as opposed to the two dictionaries which are currently cited.

I'm not sure if we can crib the intro from SEP, but if we can, I think that would be ideal.

Also, I think it might make more sense to change the "theory" section to "philosophy", and make "theory" a subheading...as theory is secondary to philosophy, and philosophy is a pretty major part of feminism. Again, I'm not sure how much we can crib from SEP...but a lot of it couldn't be done much better. For example:

"In many of its forms, feminism seems to involve at least two groups of claims, one normative and the other descriptive. The normative claims concern how women ought (or ought not) to be viewed and treated and draw on a background conception of justice or broad moral position; the descriptive claims concern how women are, as a matter of fact, viewed and treated, alleging that they are not being treated in accordance with the standards of justice or morality invoked in the normative claims. Together the normative and descriptive claims provide reasons for working to change the way things are; hence, feminism is not just an intellectual but also a political movement."

I should mention that I've never contributed to Wikipedia before, so if I'm not following proper protocol, then I apologize. I look forward to hearing your thoughts, thanks. Sinnick (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Stalinist Feminism

I couldn't find any reference to Stalinist Feminism in the article. Is this an oversight or a deliberate omission? Stalinist Feminism is a large part of the feminist movement and should not be ignored. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you've been reading too much Camille Paglia. Kaldari (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a section on the male equivalent of feminism?

Or more to the point, shouldn't there be a section and an article on a movement without gender bias, like equal gender rights or equalism?

Allcarwiki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC).

No. A section is tooo much for such things. You can add it to Men and feminism. Maybe we can have a small section on 'Men and feminism', probebly in #Reactions section, and also point to these things.--Taranet (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the male equivalent of feminism? I don't think anything such thing exists. --Is there something like the National Organization of Men (NOM)? One would think so, since men have grievances too. For instance, 93% of the people in prison are male; males only constitute 40% of college students; women get the kids 96% of the time in divorce cases, etc. Plenty to complain about. One would think there would be a male equivalent of feminism, anybody know of anything? Thanks. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Since feminism is the radical notion that women are people too, I guess you are looking for misogyny or possibly patriarchy. There are various organizations that call themselves men's rights organizations, and not all of them are misogynistic or patriarchal. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting take on the subject. So are you saying that feminism is misandry (hatred of men)? 108.237.241.88 (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)