Talk:Feminism

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. 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”. 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 . 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”. 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 . 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. They believed that the campaign’s goal, to inform young boys and ask for gender equality, was flawed and diverted “attention to men”.

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”. There is definite increase in attention to feminism in mainstream media, yet young feminists remain skeptical of the media representation. 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. 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” . 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”. Celebrity news, largely communicated through social media, creates current popular culture and the audience are keen to follow regardless of their personal stance. 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 . 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”.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”. 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

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)

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)

@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)

Since it's talking about Liberal Feminism for most of the text I removed that seems to be what that portion is referring to, 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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2016

• • • EXPLANATION FOR THE CHANGE: This article is written very well, but the section on the Visual Arts does not seem to touch upon the contemporary developments of feminist aesthetics and shall be updated. This is the reason why, at the end of the section on the Visual Arts, I would add this sentence:

A feminist approach to the visual arts has most recently developed through Cyberfeminism and the posthuman turn, giving voice to the ways "contemporary female artists are dealing with gender, social media and the notion of embodiment".

The reference is a peer-reviewed article published by academic publisher Palgrave and distributed under a Creative Commons license.

This is the way the coded section appears, once updated:***

Visual arts

Main article: Feminist art movement

Corresponding with general developments within feminism, and often including such self-organizing tactics as the consciousness-raising group, the movement began in the 1960s and flourished throughout the 1970s. Jeremy Strick, director of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, described the feminist art movement as "the most influential international movement of any during the postwar period", and Peggy Phelan says that it "brought about the most far-reaching transformations in both artmaking and art writing over the past four decades". Feminist artist Judy Chicago, who created The Dinner Party, a set of vulva-themed ceramic plates in the 1970s, said in 2009 to ARTnews, "There is still an institutional lag and an insistence on a male Eurocentric narrative. We are trying to change the future: to get girls and boys to realize that women's art is not an exception—it's a normal part of art history." A feminist approach to the visual arts has most recently developed through Cyberfeminism and the posthuman turn, giving voice to the ways "contemporary female artists are dealing with gender, social media and the notion of embodiment".

Pressutopia (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Request seems reasonable and the text suggested has not immediately visible problems. Thank you Pressutopia adding content to the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Iroquois

Thinking of adding something: http://www.feminist.com/resources/artspeech/genwom/iroquoisinfluence.html. Let me know what ya'll think. 67.204.211.172 (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear what it is you want to add. TimothyJosephWood 02:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't like adding things to an already established article. However, if you don't see the merit, it is another resolve I'm willing to undertake. Thanks. 216.223.90.33 (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Feminism

This section seems very shallow and does not fairly represent the logical criticisms of the current feminist movement. It implies an anti-feminist must be bigoted in order to hold those views. I don't think I have the capability to articulate a better revision to this section without harming the neutrality of the article, but leaving it as is does hurt this article's neutrality. 0xFFF1 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey 0xFFF1. I moved this section to the bottom. That's usually where new threads on talk pages go (with some exceptions). This would probably work better if you could be specific with what it is that you wanted changed in the article. TimothyJosephWood 19:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(re-ping 0xFFF1, since I messed it up. TimothyJosephWood 19:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

As a philosopher what I find most striking is the near complete lack of criticisms based on the merits of the philosophical positions. By the time the reader gets to the third sentence of the first paragraph, they're reading a laundry list of carefully selected issues which seem to be quite purposefully designed to highlight the bigotry OxFFF1 noted. The fact that it does not even mention analytic feminism, much less the point that it has become the dominant avenue of feminism within academia, is particularly surprising, and disappointing. This would be akin to a criticism of a creationism entry that not only listing, say, 'failure to believe in science' but not mention evolution, at all. With all due respect, did you not notice that the last sentence of the entry is in fact a distortion of a critique of feminism, that was morphed into the opposite of what the author stated? That should set off a huge red flag within anyone reading a criticism section of a philosophical approach, regardless if it's feminism, post-modernism, or epiphenomenalism in epistemology. If a reader, after reading any entry, again regardless if it's feminism or utilitarianism, forms the impression that based on the article the position is all but beyond reproach and belief in a contrary position is absurd, more than likely the authors of the entry have failed, quite profoundly. The section should include widely discussed, and often near universally settled, problems with the position, such as objectification (which has been noted as nearly fatally flawed for more than a century now), inconsistencies in addressing entailed responsibilities of rights, a over reliance on identity politics, and oppression as shared experience, (a position so widely considered bankrupt that even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy took the highly unusual step of noting that some scholars believe the suspicion has gone so far as to make it impossible to make even generalizations, and that was over 20 years ago!) A short, but accurate and critical criticism section should exist, as it should for pretty much any philosophical position. As this one stands now, OxFFF1's critique of being shallow and implying bigotry is spot on. Maxxx12345 (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As stated before, this works better if there are specific changes you would like addressed, rather than a general commentary. TimothyJosephWood 01:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that's what I had done. Include actual merit based criticism. Rewrite the list of positions argued against in the first paragraph. Include oft unaddressed (or denied) entailed responsibilities tied to rights, such as failure to mandate selective service registration when mandating open access to all roles in the military. Note the critiques of shared oppression, which is all but universally included philosophical encyclopedias and authoritative anthologies. (It's lack of inclusion here is a big red flag to those in the field.) A short paragraph beginning with a criticism of narrative and subjective based approaches would be an excellent idea, particularly in demonstrating both its oft noted entailed problems with logical stringency, and as a segue. These criticism are so ubiquitous within the relevant fields that they were instrumental in the massive growth of analytic feminism. With that approach one of the most predominant criticism can be included as well as including analytic feminism, which in no reasonable criticism section could be left out. Hope that helps give a little direction. I'm one of those old people who aren't good at all this internet code stuff. :p Maxxx12345 (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I should be a bit clearer, by specific I mean:

In the second paragraph of the section titled "Completely true things about France", please change "France is in Asia", to "France is in Europe".

Even better, you could propose a draft of changes you would like done. Then it can be discussed and evaluated by others. TimothyJosephWood 21:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I can write something up, but I can't do all this coding stuff: I know content, not technology. Plus, I was really hoping a budding young mind would get interested in the project and contribute. Either way, let me know but keep in mind I can barely indent and sign my name on this thing. ;) Maxxx12345 (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)