Talk:Feminism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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
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 factoid-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] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarober4 (talkcontribs) 00:52, September 27, 2016 (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”[1]. 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 [2]. 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”[3]. 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 [3][1]. 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[1]. They believed that the campaign’s goal, to inform young boys and ask for gender equality, was flawed and diverted “attention to men”[1].

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”[3]. There is definite increase in attention to feminism in mainstream media, yet young feminists remain skeptical of the media representation[1]. 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[3]. 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” [3][1]. 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”[3]. Celebrity news, largely communicated through social media, creates current popular culture and the audience are keen to follow regardless of their personal stance[4]. 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[3][1]. 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”[4].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”[1]. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarober4 (talkcontribs) 00:52, September 27, 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i 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. ^ Crane, Connie Jeske. "Social Media As A Feminist Tool." Herizons 26.2 (2012): 14-16. MasterFILE Elite. Web. 14 Apr. 2015
  3. ^ a b c d e f g 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.
  4. ^ a b Kingston, Anne. “New Girl, Go Girl.” MacLean’s (2014): n. pag. Web. 13 Apr 2015.

Trans people[edit]

The article, so far as I can see, does not mention transgender people even once. This seems like a massive oversight for a page that is 9000 words long and solely about (specific areas within) the topic of gender. I reckon a paragraph or two under "Movements and ideologies", summarising parts of Transfeminism and Feminist views on transgender topics, would be due weight. Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I just reverted the edit you made in 'Men and Masculinity' - this isn't because I don't think the article should mention trans people, it's just because we need to represent what the sources say fairly rather than putting words into the authors' mouths. I agree with you that the article would benefit from a discussion on the various feminist perspectives on transgender people; would you be in a position to draft something?Girth Summit (talk) 07:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I've looked at the reference given and I can't see any use of binary language. It's just a few pages about men's role in feminism. But more importantly, we're not quoting a passage here, but writing in the editorial style of Wikipedia, which (though I can't find a policy on this) should be to avoid trans-exclusionary language (such as how Angel Haze's article refers to them with the pronouns "they/them"). If you object to the phrasing "people of any gender", how about the phrasing "The consensus today in feminist and masculinity theories is that men should cooperate with women to achieve the larger goals of feminism" (changes in bold)?
I'll try to draft a couple of paragraphs at some point today. It struck me as very surprising how the lead of Feminist views on transgender topics gave about a 50:50 weighting to pro/anti-trans views (I expected mostly positive, though maybe the article actually is representative), and transfeminism doesn't look like a very good quality article, so it may take a while to write a fair summary. Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate that it wasn't a direct quote, but with referenced statements we need to stick to the spirit of what the source says. A phrase like 'any gender' has clear (albeit laudable) connotations, and so if the source doesn't use it then I don't think we can either. I'd have no problem with your revised wording; another possibility, which would change the meaning even less, would be "The consensus today in feminist and masculinity theories is that men and women should cooperate to achieve the larger goals of feminism".
I'm personally not surprised that there are 'pro' and 'anti' feminist perspectives on the concept of transgender topics described on the relevant page. There are some well-grounded feminist criticisms of the whole concept, which are well worth discussion, although this page isn't the right forum.Girth Summit (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Have been watching this with interest, and I'd like to chime in at this point. I think that Bilorv's opening comment set the tone, especially the part about summarizing Transfeminism and Feminist views on transgender topics on this issue, which I think is exactly the right approach (except that I'd add, "briefly summarize"). To that end, WP:SS is the summary style guideline. In addition to the two articles you mentioned which might deserve summary treatment on this topic, you could add Radical feminism and Transmisogyny.
To your second point, I don't believe there's anything in Wikipedia about avoiding "trans-exclusionary language" because it's up to sources what they choose to write about and how they say it, we merely report what they say (with due weight, of course). You might be thinking about MOS:IDENTITY, but this concerns language used to refer to how an individual identifies, and not about using Wikipedia's voice to make judgments about what's fair or isn't, for example, if binary language in a source ignores trans people. One could, of course, introduce other sources which don't ignore them in counterbalance, if that was warranted. But really, I think most of the discussion including what to add should take place at one of the other articles, and probably after that's resolved, we should come back here and summarize it. In particular, your "50:50" comment would be appropriate and worth discussing, at the other venue, and I'd probably have something to say about that, but this isn't the best place for it. Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Apologies for the delay, but I've boldly added a new section on transgender people (and made the "men and women" change discussed above) in these edits. I welcome any copyedits, or additions, or rebalancing of due weight that anyone thinks is necessary. Further discussion here would also be helpful. Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the section looks pretty good - it's not too long and it seems to summarise the key arguments. I don't think that the 'TERF' acronym needs to be included however - to dedicate an entire line to it, in a section of less than five lines describing the whole subject, seems undue. The main article on Feminist views on transgender topics doesn't give it nearly that much weight, although anyone wanting to know what it stood for could go there to find out; I'd suggest you cut that sentence out. Girth Summit (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Yep, that's fair – I've removed it. Bilorv(c)(talk) 09:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Looks good!Girth Summit (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Antifeminism/Criticism of Feminism[edit]

The article conflates Criticisms of Feminist theories with Anti-feminism. The stance is not justified — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talkcontribs) 13:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed your {{NPOV}} tag because your reasoning is just an assertion, not really any evidence of a problem. (It also broke some formatting, and you were looking for {{POV section}}, as it's a section rather than an article.) By the definition given by the article, anti-feminism is simply opposition to some or all of feminism... and that's what criticism of feminism is also about. Do you have any reliable sources which clearly demonstrate there's a difference? Or can you expand upon your rationale a bit? Bilorv(c)(talk) 13:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Anti-feminism and criticism of feminism?[edit]

Why are these combined?

And why is there this intro to the section? "Anti-feminism is opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms."

They are not two mutually inclusive things. One can be critical of an aspect of feminism without being "anti" the whole concept.

And in fact the Oxford dictionary used as source to try to do this is wrong.

The current Oxford dictionary definition of anti-feminism is "A person opposed to feminism. ‘an ardent anti-feminist who campaigned against equal rights’" Oxford Definition

Not "in some form" --TheMightyAllBlacks (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)