Talk:Feminism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Feminism 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.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Feminism:
Improve article to featured standards
  1. The articles citations need attention. All references need to use the {{cite}} template.
  2. 16 citations need specific reference to page numbers.
  3. Section on "Mid-twentieth century" needs work: a) the first paragraph needs to bring together the de Beauvoir material and the second-wave material better; b) it should mention "difference feminism" somehow - it needs to convey that the assumptions underlying second-wave feminism were different than those underlying first-wave feminism.
  4. The "Socialism" subsection does not explain the general impact as well the other two sub-sections. It is too fact-based.
  5. Explanation of "feminisms", as in "multiple feminisms" in the Movements section
  6. Summarize Women's rights and integrate.
  7. Consider the structure and hierarchy of contents with regard to featured standards
Priority 1 (top)


Definition of Feminism, not necessarily including men's rights.[edit]

Feminism started as a movement to strive for equal rights for women compared to men's rights. It did not (yet) concern the areas where men had less rights than women. In the last decade, or so, the focus on (solely) women widened up to include also men's rights, and started to equate with what we know as "gender equality". Dictionaries largely say its definition is still something in the line of "a belief that women should be allowed the same rights/power/opportunities as men", not necessarily both ways. Meaning, it does not necessarily include a belief that men should be allowed equal rights to women (which is important in cases where men have less rights than women). But some dictionaries, Merriam-Webster e.g., define feminism as following which is not yet reflected in the article:

There is a distinct difference with this definition in Merriam-Webster, in that "equality of the sexes" does not have a particular focus. It means that both men and women should be allowed the same rights compared to each other, which is distinct from a definition in which (soley) women should be allowed the same rights compared to men (compare it with 1-way or 2-way synchronization). The definition by Merriam Webster is indeed seen in public. Just one example, from the top of my head is Emma Watson's speech before the United Nations. Since it is not up to Wikipedia to choose which definition it should be, both definitions should be mentioned. I insert my (reverted) edit again. If someone needs me to further elaborate, I am happy to provide. (cc Tony Sidaway) Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

And I'm afraid I reverted. The text as added confuses rather than clarifies the lede. It needs work and IMHO probably shouldn't go in to the lede at all. Might be better for another section or the feminism and equality article--Cailil talk 21:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Why? It is one of the used definitions. Why are we being selective and judge that Cambridge's definition is the one to go with it, while the Merriam-Webster's definition is incorrect? Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Because your wording/interpretation is confusing and poorly written for the lede. As Tony said to you there is no substantive difference between "equal rights for women" and "equality of the sexes". Furthermore ledes don't need to be referenced - they need to summarize and reflect article content (the only reason teh lede is referenced here is to stop POV-pushing). More than that lede lines are not dictionary definitions per se and trying to write etymologies, dictionary definitions ect into encyclopedia articles actually is the opposite what wikipedia is for see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#The_dictionary_definition_trap. And finally the fact that the current wording can be sourced to multiple books about feminism (for example, and only naming 2 but there are more, Beasley's What is Feminism? and Hawkesworth's Globalization and Feminist Activism) means that the current wording isn't the problem. Also at this point you've been reverted thrice by 3 other people. Please achieve consensus first - WP:BRD has been exhausted--Cailil talk 11:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
When you write "no substantive difference", I think you assume that "equal rights for women" also means that when women have certain rights that men do not have, that the goal is to curb down women's rights to mirror the rights that men have. Well, that is what I perceive as the difference. I mean, improving men's rights, It would not call an act for "equal rights for women". If I am wrong to see this difference, I would love to hear why that is the case. For the moment, I am not entirely convinced those are the same things. And if it is the same thing, I would be good to have that reflected in the article, in some way. I don't think that Wikipedia should serve a societal role, but outside Wikipedia I have seen discussions about the extent of feminism, and whether it also includes men's rights. For example, the men's right movement called out the women's right movement for their lack of interest in men's rights. If women's rights movement is not necessarily about improving men's rights, then their critic is off. But if it is about equality of the sexes, their criticism is spot on. I've seen furious debates about this. Partly due to lack of a clear definition (or lack of clarity about possible definition). I don't mean that Wikipedia has to serve that role as a mediator, but when I read the Wikipedia article it seems that feminism is concerned with women's rights (mirroring men's rights where they are lacking behind) and is not necessarily about equality of the sexes. In short, I think there should be (in the lead) something about the extent to which feminism relates to gender equality. Timelezz (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
It's about what the majority of what mainstream sources say - not what any of us individually think, opine or wish. It really doesn't matter a) whether you are convinced or not (grammar is not a matter of opinion) or b) what debates are out there on the internet.
On the substance of your edit: Webster's two part definition places the first piece (what you have above) in the context of a second definition: "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests". Furthermore if you read the research out there in libraries etc (not just on the internet - which is the worse place to look for a definition of anything like this) you'll see that defining Feminism is difficult and does cause debates, but what all the disparate groups across history and the world share is a will for women to become equal to men in every respect (law, pay, rights, esteem): the phrases "equality of the sexes" and "equal rights for women" as used synonymously by sources to mean this. Now, this page is not about men's rights and debates about father's rights (paternity rights and law) are actually off topic. I'm afraid all we can talk about is how to improve the article within wikipedia's standards (WP:FACR) not how to change the world, or as you put "serve a societal role"--Cailil talk 13:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with all the 'disclaimers'. To that extent we are on the same page. Your argument is that Webster's first definition has to be read as part of the second definition. How do you know? I understand that when Webster has definition 1. and definition 2. that these are independent definitions. How do you know that definitions should be read as part of one other? Timelezz (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Timelezz, I'm sorry but "Equality of the sexes" and "equal rights for women" are synonymous in feminism. As I said above we can use any number of other sources to cite that lede line. and the matter of men's rights is off topic. The article shouldn't be using dictionary definitions anyway, as I pointed out above. There really is nothing further to discuss--Cailil talk 21:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


I'm listening, but feel somewhat uncomfortable with the should be's. Do I understand correctly that you basically say that even if the definition in a reputable dictionary is inconsistent with an article on Wikipedia, we should not be bothered, 'ignore' that fact and instead just go with the literature? May I then suggest to replace Webster's definition with the definition by Oxford? That one seems more in line with the lead. I mean, then at least the perceived inconsistency is fixed. Timelezz (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
No that's misrepresenting what I said. The lede, the first line and first paragraph of an article, is a summary of what's in the article. It should reflect eth article's content. You're argument is drifting away on tangents. I've said all there is to say above--Cailil talk 01:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
You may have perceived it as going off tangents, but I was actually trying other paths to get to a compromise. Kind regards. Timelezz (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Cailil, what you state is not correct. Furthermore, if you were intimately familiar with the material, a claim you aim at another poster, you would know that by no means is "but what all the disparate groups across history and the world share is a will for women to become equal to men in every respect (law, pay, rights, esteem)" is correct. In fact this virtue ethics stance is only held by a minority of third wave feminists today, with the majority basing their position on the post-modernist stance that the very conceptual framework of equality applying to such a binary is an example of socially constructed philosophical framework that needs deconstruction. More over, you'd be hard pressed to find much support within third wave feminism at all for the belief that such a framework is not inherently sexist and patriarchal, hence the basis of approaching such issues form a subjectivists mindset that will materialize in differing rights for men and women: it's just a required derivation based on the inherent differences of experiences. A topical example would be the belief that harassment laws should be different for men and women (which was a driving force in a popular video you probably have seen) due to the very noteworthy differences in experiences by men and women in general. What you say is synonymous with feminism is in fact the opposite from some of the most prominent aspect of contemporary feminism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxxx12345 (talkcontribs) 05:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Maxxx12345 you're way off. First you're points are about 3rd wave feminism not the whole of Feminism, and they don't take into account the world outside the USA. The arguments of some Western (mainly American) feminists don't change the historical worldwide definition. Furthermore you're making wild generalizations (without nuance or verification) about a divided movement (3rd wave feminism) which might be interesting in a blog or on reddit etc but not on a wikipedia talk page. Moreover your points don't reflect the foundational documents of the third wave like Walker's work which actually identifies the movement that you refer to as "third wave" as 'postfeminist feminism'. The very end of 'Becoming Third Wave' explicates this, clearly. Neither do they reflect scholarly opinion: the idea that feminism is NOT about equality of the sexes is not a mainstream scholarly position. Finally there is no need to make ad hominem remarks (i.e personalizing this), nor is this a forum--Cailil talk 09:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


Actually, Cailil, not only was my statement not way off, it's actually easily referenced via the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In fact, it's an actual sub-entry on the subject itself. What you state is not reflected by scholarly opinion, is in reality detailed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the subject. Even on top of that, this can of course be the case even with non-third wave feminism, such as classical-liberal feminism. And I quote " Some categorically reject any legal protection against private discrimination (Taylor 1992, 62)". Also, and I again quote "Classical-liberal or libertarian feminism holds that private businesses, educational institutions, and associations are free to give or withhold preferential treatment to women." I'm not accurately reflecting scholarly opinion by actually quoting Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's actual entry on the subject? That's one heck of a conclusion. Oh, and by the way, Walker's work is postmodern. I have no idea where you to the opposite conclusion. It is in fact the primary reason why she become well known: helping devise the very post-structuralist approach in moving beyond the second wave's essentialist arguments. You, literally, got that backwards. This information needs to be accurately represented. And by the way, I understand what should be in a Wikipedia entry. I did, basically, write the analytical feminism entry for Wikipedia. Maxxx12345 (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
You're not hearing me Maxxx12345 - we don't rewrite the whole article or the lede on the basis of one localized movement. You seem to be talking about the philosophy of liberal feminism and/or libertarian feminism - which is fine but these points might be better in their articles (maybe something could go in the movements section here if WP:DUE). The 3rd wave isn't just libertarianism it has multiple facets and I'd suggest you look at Walker's original documents (btw I never said she wasn't postmodern) and others to see that. I would suggest finding the original secondary sources not just using the SEP (which is tertiary). Where do think this kind of material could go here?--Cailil talk 21:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I most certainly am hearing you, and I will quote you and what you stated: "but what all the disparate groups across history and the world share is a will for women to become equal to men in every respect (law, pay, rights, esteem)" That, obviously, is false. Obviously, not all that different agree with this position, as I noted beyond question. Liberal feminism and libertarian feminism are examples of your quote being false, period. I did NOT say third wave feminism is only these two groups. I have no idea where you got that idea from. You made a statement that is false, and I provided definitive proof. I'm not saying we rewrite the entire article, but we sure hell don't base it, and/or large sections of it, on information that pretty much any undergraduate student knows is just patently false.
As for Walker, you state, and again I quote: "Moreover your points don't reflect the foundational documents of the third wave like Walker's work which actually identifies the movement that you refer to as "third wave" as 'postfeminist feminism'. The very end of 'Becoming Third Wave' explicates this, clearly." Wow. I'm sorry, but if you think that, you have no business writing and editing articles on the material. My points come FROM Walker, which is what is clear. Walker, in NO way whatsoever, equates third wave feminism, and what I call third wave feminism (which is third wave feminism) with postfeminist feminism. That's is absurdly wrong. Never, in any way whatsoever, did I describe third wave feminism as postfeminism. I'm sorry, but you are quite clearly having difficult grasping much of this material.
Again I quote you: "but what all the disparate groups across history and the world share is a will for women to become equal to men in every respect (law, pay, rights, esteem)". You, literally wrote that, I provided ample evidence that such a position is obviously wrong and you tell me, yet again, I don't know what I'm talking about.
This is surreal, absolutely surreal. Maxxx12345 (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Max your tone is way too personal and quite unnecessary - I actually do understand what your saying but no you are not hearing me. You're talking about (third wave) feminist philosophy, this article talks about everything from theory, activism, history and philosophy (yes there are overlaps but there are also differences). If you've got a problem with me then frankly Max that's your issue, and wont help[ you or this article. I have no problem with you so please drop the personal hostility, if we've been talking at cross purposes I apologize.
As for your points I have already asked for a concrete suggestion for improvement and I'm happy to work on it. My point is third wave feminism (which is about individualism but is based on a notion of entitlement to equality) does not change the historical definition of feminism as a whole. Yes there are POVs on discrimination, militancy, segregation etc but the social constructionist POV is but one and not a universal perspective. According to multiple reliable sources (R. Claire Snyder has a good article on defining the third wave) equal rights is still an issue for the third wave. However the third wave is but one form of feminism in a world with post-colonial, black feminism and other movements (the 3rd wave is notoriously Anglo-American), and with some second wavers (like Germaine Greer) who are still working. There are also people who talk about a 4th wave (very recently) so if you are arguing that 3rd wavers are the cutting edge or the most important pov then I'm afraid that argument wont stand. If you're saying this page's sections on third wave feminism needs work - absolutely have you a suggestion for improvement? If you're saying third wave feminism embraces ladette culture and prosex POVs - sure, but they do so from a position of self-actualization in the context of the existence equal rights for women (e.g Girl Power) not as advocates of inequality of the sexes per se. And yes I did write the above about equality - as Snyder says: "Third-wave feminism continues the efforts of second-wave feminism to create conditions of freedom, equality, justice, and self-actualization for all people by focusing on gender-related issues in particular, even as it offers a different set of tactics for achieving those goals."--Cailil talk 10:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


Firstly, sorry for not being academically knowledgeable regarding the history of feminism and waves and philosophy, and for that reason not following all of the above. But I feel like the debate is tied up in knots. To me even the phrase "equal rights for women" doesn't make much sense. If a thing is equal in one direction it's equal in both. That's what equality means. Certainly throughout history the balance of power has favoured men, hence feminism developing to deal with that as the more pressing issue. But you talk about "the areas where men had less rights than women". What does that mean? In areas a, b and c women had some kind of "rights rating" of 3, 5 and 12 respectively, compared to 8, 11 and 53 for men? And men had a 3 for area d compared to 8 for women but feminism wasn't about that area? I don't want to sound childish but it's more complicated than that. For example women getting more of the responsibility for childcare means they have less opportunity to pursue careers but sometimes do better when it comes to custody. And that isn't to say the two balance out - I'm not saying women haven't done worse out of it. It's nothing to do with the history, but the phrase "equal rights for women", despite its popularity (because it makes a point), isn't meaningful or helpful. If you have two apples, what does it even mean to talk only about the "equal" qualities of the first apple? And of course it isn't up to Wikipedia to promote feminism, but I also think by mis-using the word "equality" Wikipedia doesn't do itself or feminism itself any favours.Biguana (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is... dated, to be polite.[edit]

Perhaps were we dealing with first-wave feminism, this article would be wholly accurate. But the confining feminism to "a belief in equality for the genders" is a mistake when one compares it to what feminism actually accomplishes today. DawnDusk (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh look, it's an uneducated conservative trying to turn wikipedia into a platform for reactionary propaganda. Please, tell us more about your vast knowledge of feminism and how literally none of this massive, diverse movement has done anything ever for men. Also lol you don't know what the waves of feminism even represent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:6FC0:5:606E:7F5C:6BE:A961 (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, well at least some of what feminism accomplishes today is described in the article, but there is more that may be difficult to source reliably. An example would be the correlation between the human birth rate and the way women are treated in various nations. It appears that countries that have moved forward with the feminist progress also sport lower birth rates, which makes feminism a factor in control of the human overpopulation challenge. Maybe I can find a source or two that makes the correlation. Meanwhile, you should feel free to make improvements to this article. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 23:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
In the history section right after the lede I think this article does a good job of explaining how feminism has had different "waves" and what they are. What do you think the mistake is, all 3 waves do consider equality a major part of their feminism. And correlation between birth rate and feminism? I'm thinking we'd need a reliable source saying that although I can imagine why it is obviously the case. But can't be in the article if it's original research. I don't think it's such an obvious thing as the sky is blue for example. But birth control is part of feminism. Popish Plot (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── For some reason, an editor seems to feel that this discussion about improvements to this article is more than just that. I would like to hear why at some point, but more importantly, if the lead does not correctly summarize the article, then maybe that is a good starting point? – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 09:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page - which BTW would have been the right place to ask me why I closed this originally. This is not a thread about improving the article. The lede issue was asked and answered above, and you're throwing up a strawman with your last comment. That matter is resolved. Personal theories about birth rates etc are not appropriate to wikipedia talk pages and fail the WP:NOTFORUM test.
Attempting to change the lede of this article to reflect a fringe POV would be a very bad idea - this page and topic area is under discretionary sanctions and furthermore this article is currently at Good Article standard. Improving articles of this quality is done by following the featured article criteria. These guidelines there detail how to improve a good article to a higher standard and I'm more than happy to work with anyone who wants to help. But repeated flamebait stating "feminism ≠ equality for men" in the wake of the ArbCom Gamergate ruling is a) unconstructive, b) plainly disruptive, and c) in danger of incurring sanction. If anyone wants to improve this page - great but do the research, don't assume everyone who has contributed to this page over the last 14 and a half years is an idiot. Move on from the lede--Cailil talk 09:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I would venture that your response above is the result of your high esteem for this article in its present form; however, it also seems to exhibit a very low esteem for the thoughts and ideas of other editors. As I've said on my talk page, this discussion, with the exception of your response above and this my response to you, is in my opinion most certainly about possible improvements to this article, so I would give you the same courtesy you gave me and say that you should be very careful about making such accusations as you have made above:
  1. No matters are ever perfectly resolved, so the "strawman" is in thinking that they can be.
  2. The so-called "personal theory" is actually something I've read – I just have to refind it.
  3. I find your threats warnings about sanctions to be absolutely uncalled for – in my opinion the OP may have been simply expressing their feelings about how this article might be improved. Nobody here has said nor done anything that might disparage any group of editors on Wikipedia, with the sole exception of yourself. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 10:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
"I would venture that your response above is the result of your high esteem for this article in its present form; however, it also seems to exhibit a very low esteem for the thoughts and ideas of other editors." @Paine Ellsworth: do not make conjectures about the thought processes of other editors. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, alerting users to discretionary sanctions is not only "called for", it's encouraged. People need to know about them if. Calli is correct that flamebait and rants would not be acceptable on this (or any) talk page, and this particular page is under extra scrutiny. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The contention that feminism is no longer about gender equality is a fringe opinion and not reflected in reliable sources. Also, don't take the sanction warnings personally. It's standard practice for DC articles. Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I understand, and I thank all editors who are involved in this discussion. Among the other concerns I mentioned, I suppose I should admit that it was the closing of what I deemed a perfectly appropriate discussion about improvements to this article, and mainly being accused of being involved with flamebaiting and soapboxing, both of which I have fought myself in the past. If I was wrong then so be it, and yet it still appears to me that at least some editors involved with this important and crucial article behave as if it's perfect and that only a few special contributors may know what is best for it. Editors here may be too quick to judge (perhaps misjudge?) the opinions of editors they don't know, and that's a good way to stagnate this article and keep it from ever reaching FA status. I guess all I'm saying is that people shouldn't be so quick to draw their pistols and fire at anything that moves. Here's wishing joy and happiness to all involved! – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 15:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Celebrity and Media[edit]

(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.


Removal of 'described as misandric' from the lede[edit]

Regarding this, I've got a few problems with it. One, who describes it as misandric? Two, where in the cited source supports this assertion? Three, it seem like minority position and we shouldn't give it undue weight in the lede. — Strongjam (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That looks like it was the usual drive-by GamerGater-style intrusion of a very fringe opinion into the lede. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Specifically, that was Gorgi, who keeps trying to insert his PoV into articles on this and related topics, but keeps coming back here. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Article Neglects Misandry[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Thread has descended into ranting and Wikipedia is not a forum. Point was asked and answered--Cailil talk 11:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I was reading the "men's rights" article after hearing about MRA's and I noticed that, that particular article has in the first section a line that claims that some consider the movement "misogynist." However the feminist opening description lacks any mention of the fact that many consider and have demonstrated that the movement contains a lot of misandry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.61.144 (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers aspects of a subject considering the prevalence of that aspect within the body of reliable sources about the subject. This just means that misogyny is a more prominent part of the body of reliable sources on men's right than misandry is a part of the body of reliable sources on feminism. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Feminism and the Men's Rights Movement are not equivalent. The characterization of feminism (which includes over a century of various social movements across the globe) as misandric is a fringe POV. The characterization of the Men's Right Movement as misogynistic is common. The WP:NPOV policy requires that we weigh these characterizations according to their prominence within the bodies of work devote to these topics. Kaldari (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course, it does. This is Wikipedia! Articles like these are patrolled and protected by activists concerned with it. You have a snowball's chance in hell to get any kind of noteworthy criticism into the article. So far feminists have been very good at propaganda. That's because feminists are usually well-trained and talented when it comes to social media and PR. Typically, that's even their profession. They're very good a networking. Feminists are good at taking advantage of pro-female discrimination (e.g. females are assumed to tell the truth, being weaker than males, being less powerful, having good intentions) which is deeply ingrained in most western societies. For whatever reasons a lot of males but certainly females as well are very naive when it comes to feminism and take it at face value. Almost everybody even completely ignores the obvious: Feminism is supposed to be about equality between genders - according to feminists - when the name clearly states the opposite. It's about empowering females and females only - actually only females who agree with that. So feminism is, indeed, misandry by it's very definition. Of course, feminists are not as stupid to literally encourage misandry. However, actions speak louder than words. Just look at any recent public incident involving feminists (e.g. Gamergate, Tim Hunt, Alan Elliott). They tear down male existances and with their families' for no other reason than powerplay. Except for physical violence - feminists are provably every bit as vicious as any other fascist movement. Heck, even if we give feminism the benefit of the doubt. Look at what communism was supposed to be and how it was actually implemented (a complete perversion of the original idea). That's exactly what's happening with feminism (assuming for a moment it's actually about gender equality). --93.130.15.86 (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
almost nothing about that rant had to do with the article poli 00:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Image in lede[edit]

I just undid this edit[2] by Mohanbhan. I understand their sentiments but actually this is one of the better images on Commons for the lede. But I agree we could work towards replacing this. If anyone has any suggestions on what to change it leave them here. I had a look through commons and TBH I'm stumped--Cailil talk 13:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)