Talk:Feminism

Just so I'm clear here...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There won't be any criticism of Feminism allowed on its Wikipedia page, will there be? Doesn't really matter what I cite... what I post. You'll find a reason not to accept it. Then you'll ban me, or accuse me of whatever and then ban me.

There's only going to be one view presented on Feminism and you guys are going to make sure that's the only view we get, right? Because something tells me I'm not the first person to point out there's no criticism on Feminism allowed on the Feminism page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Cappadocia (talk • contribs) 15:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms can be found in the anti-feminism subsection and elsewhere in the article (and were there prior to your posts of today). Criticisms have to reflects sources, including for weight. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC) (Conformed syntax: 16:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC))

That's not criticism. A movement that criticizes another movement *is not criticism*. That's like posting a link to the Westboro Baptist Church on the GLAAD wikipedia page and calling it a day. Saying "There are people that oppose this movement" is not a criticism of the movement itself. Mr.Cappadocia (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Criticism section does not accurately reflect societal viewpoint

I'm sorry for bringing it up again, but the criticism section does not accurately depict antifeminist arguments. I think that the antifeminist page should be about antifeminism, but common arguments against feminism should be given also within the criticism section. 70% of americans and 60% of brits do not align themselves with feminism, nd while this should not detract from the major point of the article, it is still entirely relevent, not uncommon, and has been overlooked with an unduly small amount of weighting given to the arguments. It appears that there is an undue bias profeminism that does not reflect a societal consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacrts (talk • contribs) 19:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Public opinion polls consistently show that most Americans and Europeans support the goals of feminism; they just don't align themselves with the grotesque caricatures of "feminism" currently in circulation. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have any reliable sources that we can pull information from regarding criticism of feminism, please feel free to post them here. Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The idea that women should vote was one of the earliest feminist causes. I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of Americans supports this right, so they're supporting feminism even if they don't like the term. MilesMoney (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Kaldari, that's entirely separate to modern day feminism. There are criticisms also to 'actual' feminism ("grotesque caricature" - pushing an agenda are we?) as well as radical feminism. Like, for example, the Tender Years kerfuffle, which has been unresolved, or the Duluth Model, or the promotion of letting women get off scot free for crimes. One must also note that thigs done in the name of feminism are still part of feminism because there's no supreme authority intrinsic to social movements to decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacrts (talk • contribs) 15:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have me confused with MilesMoney. My comment was further up. Kaldari (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a forum Jacrts. This page is for concrete proposals for improving this article based on reliable sources. Wikipedia pages are not soapboxes--Cailil ^talk 18:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 September 2013

In the sentence "The work of the feminist psychoanalyst and philosopher, Julia Kristeva, has influenced feminist theory in general and feminist literary criticism in particular" the commas surrounding "Julia Kristeva" seem syntactically incorrect. 90.163.195.112 (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Good catch! I fixed it. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Nouns in apposition are commonly separated with commas, but personally, I'm fine with either version. Kaldari (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Actually the first version is appropriate syntax, as Kaldari points out. Any outside editor called on in the future to do a copy-edit of this page may change this back.
  The alternative to this type of comma is to "recast" or reorder the nouns in a sentence (see MOS:COMMA). I've made this change[1] but the original version was IMHO better--Cailil ^talk 18:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"Patriarchal construction of masculinity"

This phrase needs a citation or clarification. I'd argue it's a meaningless phrase and should be replaced with simply "Masculinity"

If we're defining Patriarchy as the on the Patriarchy page: "However, in modern times, it more generally refers to social systems in which power is primarily held by adult men" it doesn't follow that there is a causal link between such a system and masculinity and femininity as these terms stem from biology. There are social aspects as stated on the Masculinity page but whether these can be ascribed to "social systems in which power is primarily held by adult men" isn't clear. There's nothing to suggest that masculinity would be different under another social system or if there is, it needs to be added as a citation.

As it stands, the phrase is meaningless and makes assertions which are not backed up. 94.0.173.21 (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I can't find that phrase on the page. Text search for "construction" gets several hits, but nothing close to this. Where in the article are you referring to? --Stfg (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the phrase was "patriarchal concept" which seems rhetorically worse, can a social system have a concept? An ideology can have a concept but I'm not sure "Patriarchal concept" is linguistically valid, in either way, my original point about clarification still stands. {94.0.173.21 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC))

 Done You're correct a system can't have a concept but it could have a conceptualization. However that's not great encyclopedic writting. So I've replaced it with "Patriarchal cultures are criticized for "limiting forms of masculinity" available to men and thus narrowing their life choices." which quotes directly from teh source & is clear--Cailil ^talk 18:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

In the lead: "...bell hooks and other feminists have argued that men's liberation is a necessary". This reads bad, due to her strange use of a pen name wholly in lower case. Please change it to "the [feminist] writer/author bell hooks ...." or some similar variation. I can't 'cos like most important articles these days, this one is not freely editable. 86.31.70.119 (talk) 12:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Good idea, thanks. --Stfg (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2013

The word Canton is misspelt as Caton in one place that I have noticed in this article. 79.64.160.213 (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks for pointing out this typo; I've corrected it.VoluntarySlave (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 22 January 2014

Under the "Language" subheading, should The handbook of English linguistics be capitalized? 24.124.99.189 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)