Jump to content

Talk:Second-wave feminism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KatiiK2 (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 21 October 2014 (removed controversial text that could be considered trolling). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Needs work

This article disappoints. It lumps Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinam, and Susan Brownmiller all in together without any mention of the differences between the ideals and goals of the leaders of the movement. There is no specific mention of NOW or ERA or any of the other significant accomplishments of second-wave feminism, or of its various internal struggles and disagreements. It definitely was not a wholly unified movement, marching in lockstep, and the article should show that.

Also, what is meant by "the genders (which until this time did not exist)"? I can't make any sense of this sentence no matter how I parse it, and am inclined to remove the parenthetical.

This in mind, I'm planning a minor rewrite. Please reply here if you have any suggestions on improvements. -Kasreyn 21:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the beginning of the article it says the movement lasted until the early '90s, and later it says until the late '90s. Shouldn't the timeline be kept consistent? Carnival Honey (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the main "Feminism" page, it says second-wave feminism continues to the present. I'd tend to agree with that. Carnival Honey (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

liberal feminist focus

Reading through this page, I can't help but notice that it focuses almost exclusively on the liberal feminist version of the 2nd wave (Friedan, Steinam, co-education, etc.). Any thoughts and/or objections to rounding out this article, expanding to include a wider variety of issues and viewpoints contained within the 2nd wave? -clm17 19:01, 22 June 2006

(Sorry if that is not the right sign to signal my suggestion. I would suggest that the following be inserted at the beginning of the paragraph on second wave feminism)---- "Simon De Beauvoir was a very important feminist writer whose book The Second Sex had a great deal of influence when it was first published in France in the late 50's and then in the rest of the western world a couple of years later."----

Article focuses on USA

This article focuses almost exclusively on the American situation. It would be good to see subsequent efforts include women's experience and legislation from other countries, even if just western countries to start with. User:Lyn V C 03:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four years later, your comment is still true. I will try to flesh out the article a little over the next few weeks; it would be great if others can help. Sue Gardner (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and the "third wave"

From the Overview section:

Since many "Third Wave" feminists refuse to challenge the status quo, and endorse exploitative practices such as prostitution, it is debateable whether a third wave "feminism" even exists, and is not just an anti-feminist reactionary wave trying to muddy the waters.

This is way out of line from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view guidelines. Citing an authority who makes this claim would be all right, but outright stating it as a fact is not. --70.237.144.112 10:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

second that one. and apparently 'debatable' is spelled wrong


Trivia section

This section should be sourced and integrated more fully into the article. -Classicfilms 21:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideals and debates associated with second-wave feminism were reflected in popular culture of the 1970s and 1980s (see references below). These figures would be revisited during the late 1990s and early 2000s period of Girl Power.

Blaxploitation films and characters

Other characters

General films, plays, and television

Move the page

I move to move this page to United States feminist movement, United States Feminist movement (1963 - 1981) or United States women's movement (1963 - 1981 due to the fact that it is all about America. You don't see South Africa's racism in the U.S. Civil Rights movement article; the U.S. movement should have its own page. One should also be created for the many other movements that arose globaly in the 1960s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moderate2008 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved —harej (talk) (cool!) 00:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Feminist Movement in the United States → Second-wave feminism — (see talk page) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thanks! Iamcuriousblue (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It's probably just my reading but where are the links in this article to women? For example, there's a wikilink for Eugene McCarthy but none for Mary Daly. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It wasn't a huge problem. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence in the article confuses me:

Feminists during the movement viewed popular culture as just another example of lesbians, gender equalities that tried to prove the idea that woman are classified into false images of how they should act and the roles they should play.

I don't understand how "popular culture" is an "example" of "lesbians" in the "view" of "[f]eminists". The best I can make of this is that popular culture is a lesbian. I think it's just a misdrafted sentence.

I take it that "gender equalities" are proving inequalities, but maybe there's a better way to say this.

Questioning the syntax of "woman are" is too easy. That doesn't require questioning but I suspect it'll disappear when the rest of the sentence is repaired.

If you know what was meant, could you please edit it?

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently fixed by another editor. Thank you very kindly. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:STOP ERA.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:STOP ERA.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:STOP ERA.gif)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving timeline to separate article

I would like to propose that the lengthy timeline in this article be moved to its own article: Timeline of second-wave feminism. Kaldari (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Good idea. Best wishes. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

when a wave ends and consistency with sourcing

Just because a feminist wave began the last previous wave did not end. The overlap was substantial. Many who participated in the earlier wave continued doing much as they had before, sometimes strongly disagreeing with the newer wave's participants and perhaps doubting the later wave's legitimacy for years. You could find evidence for first-wavers still being around today, albeit more quietly (e.g., they may feel everything important in feminism as already been accomplished and disagree with the newer, um, "militants" for wasting their time while agreeing with, say, Margaret Sanger). In the U.S., third- and second-wave organizations, for example, are usually different organizations. Determining when a wave began and when it ended are two quite distinct problems of evidence, and sources likely disagree, although there will be prevailing views on when winding-down happened, coming within approximately a 20- or 30-year frame, I think. Starts are within shorter frames.

The most recent edit changing a termination time frame relies on the same source before and after the change. That's concerning. Does someone have the source handy (I don't) and can it be checked to see which statement it supports or if the source is more fluid?

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gynocentrism

Gynocentrism lies behind much of what feminism is really about 2014. Why is there zero mention of this in the current article?


Scholars Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson state that ideologically, the overriding focus of gynocentrism is to prioritize females hierarchically, and as a result may be interpreted as misandry (the hatred and prejudice towards men). Feminist calls for equality or even equity are often, according to them, a subterfuge for gynocentrism.

Young and Nathanson define gynocentrism as a worldview based on the implicit or explicit belief that the world revolves around women, a cultural theme so well entrenched that it has become 'de rigueur' behind the scenes in law courts and government bureaucracies, which has resulted in systemic discrimination against men.''

KatiiK2 (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second-wave_feminism&oldid=630548868"