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. 10 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)


Intersectionality[edit]

Intersectionality is a newer term in feminist theory, coined by Kimberly Crenshaw in 1989 as "the view that women experience oppression in varying configurations and in varying degrees of intensity". Intersectionality is not an original concept of Crenshaw, however. [1]

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2017[edit]

External Weblinks[edit]

http://feministberlin1968ff.de/ Stories, interviews and reflections of the beginning of the feminist movement in Berlin 1968-1974 (in English). Lucida Grande (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC) Lucida Grande (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lucida Grande: Ummm... That's a book review. I do not find it very suitable for the exlinks section. The book, yes, but not the review. Kleuske (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Not doneIVORK Discuss 06:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2017[edit]

I need to add more towards Feminism, my grandmother wants me to add some things. Thanks. Idkmemez420 (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done — no specific edits were requested. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest Data[edit]

I've been reviewing the latest data on single mother families and its very disturbing: 85% of incarcerated youths come from single mother families; 71% of high school dropouts (80% of people in prison are high school dropouts); 90% of runaways; 80% of rapists. I think a section called "The Failure of Feminism" is called for at this point. And the situation is going to get worse: currently only 20% of men aged 18 to 30 are married. Feminism is communism, it's Cultural Marxism using Critical Theory, and communism always fails. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You kind of trailed off into a political rant towards the end there. Why are you equating single mother families with feminism anyway? nagualdesign 14:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
If you connect the dots, you'll find correlations between feminism and sociological problems. For instance, the divorce rate shot through the roof in the 1970's and we started getting the kids of divorce in the schools in the 1980's and this is when the "disruptive classroom" became the norm. Previously, the well behaved classroom was the norm. And currently the USA is only ranked 17th in education worldwide (and 75% of all USA teachers K-12 are female, so the women are going to have to take the blame for this one). Not all single mother families produce criminals, of course, mothers who have a job and a university degree seem to raise kids okay. And feminism is certainly political--it's Cultural Marxism using Critical Theory, which is pure politics. Feminism caused the single mother family syndrome in this country. In fact, all sorts of things have gotten worse for women: Women drink more, smoke more, do drugs more, more traffic tickets, stress, heart attacks, strokes, etc. I'm particularly attuned to this because I have a sister who's a hard core femiNazi--her femiNazi buddies turned on her, which increased her stress enormously--she had a stroke, and now she's half paralyzed ,living in a wheelchair. I've seen first hand the damage feminism does and all the data I've read correlates this. We definitely need a section on the failures of feminism. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay. To quote the guidelines, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. In short "connecting the dots", as you have attempted to do here, is what we call "original research". You'll have to find a reliable, published source to back-up your claims if you want to add anything to the article. nagualdesign 17:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

When you mention data, provide external links to other users for verification.

As for the phrase: "If you connect the dots, you'll find correlations between feminism and sociological problems.", may I remind you that correlation does not imply causation? The United States has always had sociological problems, and feminism is in part a response to such problems. High school dropouts in particular are far from a new phenomenon.

I searched for a bit about U.S. High School Graduation Rates, prior to the 1970s. The following list gives the number of students who actually managed to graduate in specific periods. The rest did not make it. The numbers are sobering: http://www.safeandcivilschools.com/research/graduation_rates.php

  • Period 1899-1900. 6.4% of the students graduated.
  • Period 1909-1910. 8.8% of the students graduated.
  • Period 1919-1920. 16.8% of the students graduated.
  • Period 1929-1930. 29.0% of the students graduated.
  • Period 1939-1940. 50.8% of the students graduated.
  • Period 1941-1942. 51.2% of the students graduated.
  • Period 1943-1944. 42.3% of the students graduated.
  • Period 1945-1946. 47.9% of the students graduated.
  • Period 1947-1948. 54.0% of the students graduated.
  • Period 1949-1950. 59.0% of the students graduated.
  • Period 1951-1952. 58.6% of the students graduated.
  • Period 1953-1954. 60.0% of the students graduated.
  • Period 1955-1956. 62.3% of the students graduated.
  • Period 1957-1958. 64.8% of the students graduated.
  • Period 1959-1960. 65.1% of the students graduated.
  • Period 1961-1962. 69.5% of the students graduated.
  • Period 1963-1964. 76.7% of the students graduated.

The data is from a statistics report published in 1965, so I am not certain whether graduation rates continued to increase through the 1960s. Dimadick (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 **Your data has to be viewed in context.  For instance, in 1900 only 34 states had compulsory education (through elementary school). In 1918 Mississippi was the last state to require compulsory education through elementary school.  By 1940 only 50% of kids had completed high school.  Many kids opted not to go to high school since it wasn't required. In 1900 94% of kids didn't go to high school.  50.202.81.2 (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitions Suggestion[edit]

Limiting feminism to a rights issue is as far as I can see philosophically and sociologically incorrect. See https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=feminism for a starter on many strands. While rights feminism is exceedingly important and also the most visible strand, there are many others, included broadly in a heading of the celebration of womanhood. The importance of this is that it is not limited to a relationship vis-a-vis men as the yardstick (There are many examples in the academic and non-academic press and many notable individuals). This is a controversial topic so I think will need some careful work to handle appropriately. Regards, Parzivalamfortas 19:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talkcontribs)