Jump to content

Talk:Feminism

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cailil (talk | contribs) at 15:21, 28 June 2016 (→‎Neoliberalism section - too long for this page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Good articleFeminism has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 10, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 19, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
June 18, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 7, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Template:ArtAndFeminism2015 article

Celebrity and Media

(Under category Culture)

First coined by Jennifer Wicke, a professor at the University of Virginia, the term “celebrity feminism” refers to a modern form of feminism that is created by female celebrities who are eager to publicly claim feminist identities[1]. The past few years have been noted for the recurring trend of active feminism, in which numerous celebrities made feminism more visible through performances, open speeches, and social media. Forums, such as Elle UK, released issues solely discussing feminism and quoted that 2014 was “a year…in which feminism was increasingly visible within popular media cultures, including celebrity cultures”[2]. In their article, Introduction: feminism and contemporary celebrity culture, Hamad and Taylor also emphasize this “snowballing” effect of celebrity culture and that the figure of “self-professed” feminist celebrity became an ongoing flashpoint of cross-media celebrity landscape. The growing number of celebrities publicly identifying themselves as feminists, notably Beyoncé, Emma Watson, and Jennifer Lawrence, has defined major moments within the entertainment industry, creating multiple debates on social media platforms. Young women, contributing as the majority of the audience of mainstream celebrity culture and users of online media, are therefore exposed to such discussion and respond to them in distinct ways. According to journalist Connie Crane, social media, like Facebook and Twitter, are “relatively affordable, ubiquitous, and simple” and therefore allow broader access to feminist debates.

With celebrity feminism and social media conjoining to create this new platform, feminism has expanded to become a widespread interest of the public. Feminist blogs have become a ground for young women of different cultures and contexts to come together and advocate for their equal rights in school and work [3]. Debates over the media representations of celebrities as feminists are therefore ongoing and social media has become the major platform for teenage girls to voice their opinions. In her 2014 MTV Video Music Awards performance, Beyoncé appeared on stage with the word ‘feminist’ illuminated in oversized lettering behind her. The performance received great media attention, some critics referring to such movement as a “celebrity zeitgeist” and of “orchestrated publicity”[4]. Immediately after the performance, feminist blog posts and online discussion boards were updated with debate over whether her performance was truly a “feminist” movement. Some blamed her skin-exposing outfit, commenting that it was “contradicting to what she’s saying”, while some criticized it as a marketing tactic, questioning her understanding of the term [5][6]. In September 2014, Emma Watson, as UN Women Goodwill Ambassador, was applauded for her speech on gender equality and the launching of a campaign called “HeForShe”. While the public praised her activism, many young feminists opened online discussions, questioning the campaign’s validity[7]. They believed that the campaign’s goal, to inform young boys and ask for gender equality, was flawed and diverted “attention to men”[8].

There is great debate over “celebritized” feminism, in which young feminists appreciate the growing popularity but criticize the manipulation of fame and misunderstanding of the core beliefs of feminism. As Hamad and Taylor noted, intersections of feminism and contemporary celebrity culture are “myriad, complicated, and contradictory”. While one does not necessarily benefit or harm the other, both use appropriate methods to utilize its medium and communicative differences. The controversy that always follows feminist publicity results in critics and young women recognizing that there is no “authentic feminism that exists beyond its celebrity manifestations”[9]. There is definite increase in attention to feminism in mainstream media, yet young feminists remain skeptical of the media representation[10]. For example, news forums and magazine articles have reportedly announced celebrities’ response to the self identification as a feminist. Figures such as Katy Perry, Kelly Clarkson, and Lady Gaga were noted to either shun away from the term or ambiguously answer without a determined motive or reason[11]. Celebrity feminism is thus commonly believed as surface level feminism and is said to be turning into a “fashion” and trend in which stars use the publicity to their own career benefits and “articulate political positions” [12][13]. As awareness of gender equality is increasing, celebrities are voicing their opinions, either due to sincere passion or for publicity and reputation, and explicitly stand in positions that can greatly influence the minds of the audience.

The intersection between feminism and celebrity culture, and its portrayal through media, has thus “shaped the kinds of feminism that come to publicly circulate”[14]. Celebrity news, largely communicated through social media, creates current popular culture and the audience are keen to follow regardless of their personal stance[15]. In her article, Keller discussed the “lack of education that girls and boys receive about feminism”, and how celebrity publicity replaces this gap. Media representations of self-professed feminist celebrities frequently contradict fundamental feminist ideologies, which evidently distort the public’s understanding[16] [17]. Literature examples, such as Piercy’s poem Barbie Doll or Tiptree’s science fiction The Girl Who Was Plugged In, illustrate this misrepresentation and confusion. Both works depict extreme societal expectations on women and appearance, as well as gender embodiment. The idealized female body in which both works portray are “results of celebrity endorsement and consumerism”[18].These embellished images of female bodies however are still reproduced by celebrities who claim to be feminists, belying their publicized opinions that women have the right to disregard sexual expectations and gender roles. Influences in which society and media have on the perspectives of the young audience are discussed, and this questions the ability of celebrities to “represent the complexities of contemporary feminist issues”[19]. Through social networking and media representations, young women are expanding their knowledge by discussing the rise in celebrity feminism and interpreting the influences in which such publicity tactics can have on their, and the public’s feminist perspectives.

References

  1. ^ Keller, Jessalynn, and Jessica Ringrose. “‘But then Feminism Goes Out the Window!’: Exploring Teenage Girls’ Critical Response to Celebrity Feminism.” Celebrity Studies (2015): n. pag. Web. 7 Apr 2015.
  2. ^ Keller, Jessalynn, and Jessica Ringrose. “‘But then Feminism Goes Out the Window!’: Exploring Teenage Girls’ Critical Response to Celebrity Feminism.” Celebrity Studies (2015): n. pag. Web. 7 Apr 2015.
  3. ^ Crane, Connie Jeske. "Social Media As A Feminist Tool." Herizons 26.2 (2012): 14-16. MasterFILE Elite. Web. 14 Apr. 2015
  4. ^ Hamad, Hannah, and Anthea Taylor. "Introduction: Feminism And Contemporary Celebrity Culture." Celebrity Studies 6.1 (2015): 124. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.
  5. ^ Hamad, Hannah, and Anthea Taylor. "Introduction: Feminism And Contemporary Celebrity Culture." Celebrity Studies 6.1 (2015): 124. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.
  6. ^ Keller, Jessalynn, and Jessica Ringrose. “‘But then Feminism Goes Out the Window!’: Exploring Teenage Girls’ Critical Response to Celebrity Feminism.” Celebrity Studies (2015): n. pag. Web. 7 Apr 2015.
  7. ^ Keller, Jessalynn, and Jessica Ringrose. “‘But then Feminism Goes Out the Window!’: Exploring Teenage Girls’ Critical Response to Celebrity Feminism.” Celebrity Studies (2015): n. pag. Web. 7 Apr 2015.
  8. ^ Keller, Jessalynn, and Jessica Ringrose. “‘But then Feminism Goes Out the Window!’: Exploring Teenage Girls’ Critical Response to Celebrity Feminism.” Celebrity Studies (2015): n. pag. Web. 7 Apr 2015.
  9. ^ Hamad, Hannah, and Anthea Taylor. "Introduction: Feminism And Contemporary Celebrity Culture." Celebrity Studies 6.1 (2015): 124. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.
  10. ^ Keller, Jessalynn, and Jessica Ringrose. “‘But then Feminism Goes Out the Window!’: Exploring Teenage Girls’ Critical Response to Celebrity Feminism.” Celebrity Studies (2015): n. pag. Web. 7 Apr 2015.
  11. ^ Hamad, Hannah, and Anthea Taylor. "Introduction: Feminism And Contemporary Celebrity Culture." Celebrity Studies 6.1 (2015): 124. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.
  12. ^ Hamad, Hannah, and Anthea Taylor. "Introduction: Feminism And Contemporary Celebrity Culture." Celebrity Studies 6.1 (2015): 124. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.
  13. ^ Keller, Jessalynn, and Jessica Ringrose. “‘But then Feminism Goes Out the Window!’: Exploring Teenage Girls’ Critical Response to Celebrity Feminism.” Celebrity Studies (2015): n. pag. Web. 7 Apr 2015.
  14. ^ Hamad, Hannah, and Anthea Taylor. "Introduction: Feminism And Contemporary Celebrity Culture." Celebrity Studies 6.1 (2015): 124. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.
  15. ^ Kingston, Anne. “New Girl, Go Girl.” MacLean’s (2014): n. pag. Web. 13 Apr 2015.
  16. ^ Hamad, Hannah, and Anthea Taylor. "Introduction: Feminism And Contemporary Celebrity Culture." Celebrity Studies 6.1 (2015): 124. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 9 Apr. 2015.
  17. ^ Keller, Jessalynn, and Jessica Ringrose. “‘But then Feminism Goes Out the Window!’: Exploring Teenage Girls’ Critical Response to Celebrity Feminism.” Celebrity Studies (2015): n. pag. Web. 7 Apr 2015.
  18. ^ Kingston, Anne. “New Girl, Go Girl.” MacLean’s (2014): n. pag. Web. 13 Apr 2015.
  19. ^ Keller, Jessalynn, and Jessica Ringrose. “‘But then Feminism Goes Out the Window!’: Exploring Teenage Girls’ Critical Response to Celebrity Feminism.” Celebrity Studies (2015): n. pag. Web. 7 Apr 2015.


Description of Feminism

Considering this article itself quotes "...feminism often promotes misandry and the elevation of women's interests above men's, and criticize radical feminist positions as harmful to both men and women," the introductory paragraph should reflect that feminism is not only about making both women' and men's right equal. The first sentence states that all forms of feminism are about equal rights, when, in reality, only a portion of feminism and feminists want equal rights, while other portions want women to have more rights than men and want to see men to suffer in the ways women have suffered throughout history, and then some. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.188.114.206 (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I retract my questioning of the intro after reading what you linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.188.114.206 (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Different types of Feminism

I would like to propose a new section, detailing the different types of feminism. Seems very worthwhile, given the fact that feminism obviously consists of many shades, and there are a number of quality articles on Wikipedia already. This seems to be common on Wikipedia in different articles. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Movements and ideologies section is trying to do that but it could be improved--Cailil talk 10:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cailil. I agree this may be the section to improve.Charlotte135 (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no Feminist sexim section??

from Gloria Steinem to Anita Sarkesian, feminists are notorious for their anti-male, or just generally sexist views and quotes. Why is the page totally void of this fact? is it censorship? VC19 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would need WP:RS covering it first off. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of feminist literature considers women to be incapable of sexism towards men, as they are an 'oppressed class' and therefore cannot be the oppressors themselves. So regardless of how much they drink from mugs with 'male tears' written on them, or else use the hashtag #killallmen, they are incapable of sexism... right? Well anyway, here are a couple of sources you asked for EvergreenFir:
https://www.quora.com/Does-the-feminist-movement-create-a-sexist-bias-in-society
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/04/gender-women  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quora is not a reliable source and the Comment Is Free section of The Guardian is an opinion section. Please see WP:RS for information about identifying reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on those, it seems that by and large the mainstream media are unwilling to go out on a limb on this, so finding reliable sources is going to be pretty hard. I mean there are plenty of sources like this: [1], but they are far from independent.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's the main reason why there's no sexism section. I think WP:TRUTH is a good essay that relates to this. There's plenty of opinion pieces about it, but they tend to be fringe or by non-notable people. Some notable people like Christine Hoff Sommers have written on this, but people like her are also labeled antifeminist (often by feminists, so you get this circular thing going). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Christine Hoff Sommers has written on this, why is that not a RS for discussing feminst sexism?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think she has, or at least she claims feminism is anti-men. That would be RS material for a criticism section. Looks like she's mentioned in Feminism#Criticism_of_feminism_and_anti-feminism already, but it could be added to a bit. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

suffragettes

Emmeline Pankhurst

Was the leader of the suffragette movement. She was born in 1858 ,July 15th and in 1903 she alongside her daughters formed the WOMEN'S SOCIAL AND POLITICAL UNION (WSPU). And in 1918 due to the suffragettes efforts women over thirty were given the right to vote. feminists are the modern day suffragettes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.208.100 (talk • contribs)

Unless they have actually something to say about suffrage, no they are not. Suffrage is the "right to vote" and involves issues about who is included and who gets excluded. Modern feminism's goals are often non-political in nature. Dimadick (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick: Where do you see this text? I can't find it. Kaldari (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which text? This is my reply to the anonymous description of feminists as modern suffragettes. And the description of suffrage as "right to vote" comes straight from the article on the subject. Dimadick (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Do - Feminism and Socialism

Hi,
re the "too fact based" item on the to do list: WP has a separate article on "Socialist Feminism"
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_feminism ). Perhaps one could incorporate a summary of that,
or at least from there - perhaps something from the lead - or at least link there directly?
T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neoliberalism section - too long for this page

The current neoliberalism section is just too long for this page (see WP:SUMMARY). The content as written could possibly go into Liberal feminism though. This page here is a summary of the subpages in category:feminism it's literally the last place new information should actually go. New information goes into the specific articles and summaries/condensed versions of that new info "filter-up" to this page. Furthermore the Neoliberalism section now dwarfs the civil rights and socialism etc sections in a way that is WP:UNDUE. I'm cutting it back again for the above reasons please respond before re-adding as someone else will just have to remove it again for the same policy reasons. This is clearly a good faith attempt to improve article but everyone needs to understand how WP:SUMMARY & WP:LENGTH effect parent articles like Feminism and where and how new information etc should go within that context--Cailil talk 15:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil:, I actually added it here to try to condense the section on Neoliberalism and link to the section here as the main. At the time the two sections were almost identical copy/pastes in both articles. As odd as it may be, it seems a better fit here than there.
Not sure it can stand on its own as an article and I'm not sure there is a better place for it. It's a strange fit with Liberal feminism as Neoliberalism is more of an economic thing, and not a social thing. TimothyJosephWood 15:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's talking about Liberal Feminism for most of the text that seems to be what it's referring and hence my suggestion but I agree about your economics/society point. Another way to do it would be to make an article for Feminism and political movements and expand on the 4 sections in the current section in that new article, but TBH I don't think that's all that necessary. I think the section was just going into too much detail for a parent article like this one--Cailil talk
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminism&oldid=727373141"