Jump to content

Talk:Lesbian utopia

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

Question at WT:LGBT

[edit]

There's been some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Lesbian race about this article, particularly about whether race is appropriate in its name, & questions about original research & sourcing/verifiability for it. It seems appropriate to continue the discussion here, but interested editors should probably take a look at that discussion first. Or maybe we can copy if over to here? I'd do it, but gotta run! I will check in later. --Yksin 01:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation copied over from WT:LGBT

[edit]

In order to provide full context for continuing discussion here, I'm copying over the conversation that has taken place to date at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Lesbian race. --Yksin 16:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Please do not modify this copied conversation.[reply]

Um, stumbled across this article, Lesbian race, while checking changes made to templates LGBT and LGBT-footer. It seems a bit contrived, and hinges on non-inline references which never use the phrase "Lesbian race", which Googles only ~950 hits most of which read "Lesbian:race and ethnicity". I'm not sure what to do with it - can I just nom for deletion? Speedy? Help?! ZueJay (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the creator & only contributer thus far is User765 (talk · contribs) -- a fairly new editor, a bit inexperienced. Mainly this editor has worked on lesbian topics. I would assume good faith with this editor, but perhaps write to her (I'm guessing it's a her, anyway, given the topic she's editing) on her talk page, & try to ascertain what she's on about. She created a redirect page to this article called Lesbian utopia, which seems to be the overall idea driving her -- a sort of politically driven ideal of a nation based on reproduction by parthenogenesis -- which has had some relevance to some lesbian separatists; I'm not sure about it's notability though. And in its current state the article seems to have a lot of original research in it -- as a new editor, she may not be aware of such policies. I'd personally recommend that this article & Lesbian utopia be switched, so that Lesbian utopia become the actual article, as there is a lot of utopian or semi-utopian fiction out there that posits a female-only & lesbian society (e.g., Sally Miller Gearhart's The Wanderground, or the work of Suzy McKee Charnas), with this biological stuff being included in answer to "would such societies really be possible?" In sum, I think maybe this editor just needs some guidance on Wikipedia policies & the advice & help of other editors, rather than a speedy on her article. --Yksin 00:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that too, and didn't know what to do with it. Is there another article that addresses lesbian separatists in the same vein as written by Charlotte Perkins Gilman (Herland) or Katherine V. Forrest's Daughters of a Coral Dawn series? Or discusses the separatist movement in the 70s? In one of the articles I read for Patience and Sarah, a commune of women wore the novel around their necks...There is a place for an article that discusses radical lesbian separatism, but I don't think it should be titled "race". There's no ethnicity or anthropological feature connected to lesbianism. --Moni3 00:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
Don't forget A Door into Ocean by Joan Slonczewski (and in fact her other books in the "Daughter of Elysium" series. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lesbian separatism redirects to Separatist feminism, which has just a brief section on lesbian separatism -- a pretty inadequate one, & its one literature reference is to a lesbian separatist community depicted in the Gaea trilogy novels of John Varley (which are actually pretty good, & in my opinion fair in their depiction of lesbianism though in novels written by a man). I think lesbian separatism deserves its own article; but I also don't think what this editor is driving at is exactly the same thing. Seems to me she wants something like what novels that have lesbian societies in them -- like Gearhart's, Charnas' Holdfast Chronicles (which aren't exactly utopic), Gilman's, Forrest's -- but in actual biological fact. But better probably to ask her, & bring her into this conversation. Or bring this conversation to her. --Yksin 00:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC) -- added comment: I guess the better description for Suzy McKee Charnas' Holdfast Chronicle novels would be dystopic. --Yksin 01:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped a note on the user's talkpage. Can't believe ya'll saw that and made no comment! Whoa is me! ZueJay (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped a note too, with a link back to this discussion & also invited her to join the project. I hope we'll see her here. --Yksin 01:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "race" is the right title for this, either. But I am in full support of having a lesbian separatism article, which I can see including the "lesbian Utopia" article as well as the information in this one. I suspect most people would never think to look up "lesbian race" as a search term, and thus would miss this.Kootenayvolcano 01:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, "race" is not a good word for this. It may be a matter of User765 not knowing the best name for it herself. I actually see a place for two articles: Lesbian separatism and Lesbian utopia (both of which are currently redirects, to Separatist feminism & Lesbian race, respectively). Anyway, I'm adding the LGBT project template to the talk page for this article, & maybe we can continue this discussion there. --Yksin 01:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And my first thought when I saw this article title was "Is it a 10k or a marathon?" Pairadox 03:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be renamed and could be helped by citations woven more thoroughly into the text. I've commented on its talk page. Gwen Gale 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not modify this copied conversation. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Continuing conversation

[edit]

The concept of "lesbian race" is absolutely deserving of a philosophical dialogue. Yet this page loses academic/scholarly credibility in the last section, "Reality". Here, the tone shifts far from expository writing with regard to the reality of such a concept. The use of the word "overcome" patently connotes a preference for such a reality, perhaps even hopefulness, that the disregard of ethics is a noble struggle toward truth. Instead, I would encourage the author to discuss the scientific and probablistic reasoning for which the ultimate outcome of the genetic intervention would favor the Y chromosome, and then outline the underlying ethical debate in a separate section.

Thereelghostbuster 02:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)KC[reply]

I don't think "race" is an appropriate term here. Lesbian separatist and lesbian utopia, yes. Why race? There's no racial aspect to lesbians. --Moni3 02:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
  • This article should be renamed IMHO. Lesbian race could mislead readers in many ways.
  • I think an article with this kind of content would be helpful.
  • However, I have WP:V and WP:OR worries about the conclusions the text draws. I tend to agree with the conclusions, but I think they're not at all helpful here unless supported by direct citations from secondary sources.
  • I agree that some of the wording in the text implies advocacy (WP:SOAPBOX) which could also distract some readers.
Cheers! Gwen Gale 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "race" is a problematic enough term when it's applied to black/white/Asian/etc. And since lesbians come from every "race" & ethnic group, the idea of a "racial group" called "lesbian"... well, it just doesn't work. I must agree with Theree1ghostbuster that the article in its current form has WP:NPOV issues. Really, it also has notability issues: is there, in fact, some actual & significant movement or scientific proposal or project to develop means by which women could reproduce without men? Unless there is such a movement or project, as documented in reliable sources, then there's no notability to an article discussing such a movement. We do know, though, that there is a significant literature which has explored the possibilities of lesbian utopias including the reproductive strategies used by such communities, which thus gives us something to "hang our hat on" with regard to discussing such theoretical lesbian societies, complete with male-less reproduction. --Yksin 16:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is some stirring up of thought about lesbian utopias including the reproductive strategies used by such communities, yes. The citations in the article at least hint at this. I think the topic is notable, but my worries have been how to wrap, write and name an article about it on this public wiki. Gwen Gale 17:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you feel better about the notability issues & how the article should be written if it were called "Lesbian utopia", or based on the discussion we're having here? --Yksin 17:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having rewritten it along the widened lines cast by the renaming, my only worry now is that it needs more sections: Historical and current examples of LU experiments (there are many) and examples in literature could be helpful starts. Gwen Gale 22:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on lit stuff. Will try to add some tonight. --Yksin 22:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality question

[edit]

I agree perhaps "Lesbian race" wasn't quite right, I suggest a move to either of the below. You can't ague with the science, and all sections are very important, I fail to see how it isn't neutral, how is it biased? I do however agree with your point on the use of "overcome" in the Reality section, this I will change. (User765 18:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hey User765, good to see you! To me, the neutrality issue -- which falls under the Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) -- is that the article itself seems to advocate figuring out methods for women to reproduce without males, for example, in the header "The Biological Obstacle" (implying that the obstacle need to be overcome) or the sentence in the Reality section stating "There are of course ethical issues to overcome, but the reality of a lesbian race may not just be possible but perhaps probable, or even inevitable." There are in fact people who agree with these views, but under WP:NPOV, the Wikipedia cannot itself advocate those views; and to the extent the article discusses those views, they must all be attributable to reliable published sources as defined by Wikipedia policies. Furthermore, since there are also people who disagree with any move towards learning techniques for female-with-female reproduction, to meet WP:NPOV the article must also represent those views. Does this help? I would recommend reading the actual WP:NPOV policy, which has examples.
Also, "original research" in Wikipedia has a special use which is a little different from how that term is used in the big wide world. My normal understanding of "original research" in my day to day life is, "I did this research -- my conclusions aren't based on someone else's research, but on my own." In Wikipedia, "original research" as reflected in the policy WP:NOR (no original research) means that statements made in articles must be based on reliable published sources, not on our own opinions, or on facts that we are personally aware of that have nonetheless not been published. For example, if I was writing an article about my college professor: perhaps I know from my own knowledge of her that she grew up in Lynn, Massachusetts, because she told me so herself. But to strictly adhere to WP:NOR, I could not include that fact in an article about her unless I could cite a reliable published resource that includes the same fact. Again, I suggest reading the actual WP:NOR policy.
As a matter of practice, it's never a good idea to remove a tag indicating that another editor disputes an article's neutrality (or accuracy, or other matters of dispute) until discussion on the article talk page & relevant changes on the article itself correct whatever issues the disputing editor had with the article. The basic idea on Wikipedia is collaboration & WP:CONSENSUS; when a tag like that is placed on an article, it means there is an issue about which there is not consensus. So I am going to replace that tag, until the issues are resolved. --Yksin 19:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough some of it does need rewriting to resolve neutrality issues, and words such as "obstacle" aren't appropriate. But I would argue that none of it is opinion but an explanation of how such the situation would occur and why the scienfic advances are required in order for it to happen. I believe all the text is relevant, but agree should be rewritten and added to so it complies with policies. (User765 20:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Gwen Gale has done some good work, & I agree with her that POV & OR issues are pretty much resolved now, & with her removal of the tags. I am doing a bit of literature research. --Yksin 22:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Move to "Lesbian reproductive biology"

[edit]
The article "lesbian reproductive biology" to me implies how lesbians go about getting pregnant and having children: turkey basters, IVF, etc. This article addresses how all-female societies, mostly in animals, reproduce. Lesbianism as the sexual and romantic attraction to women is not necessarily a factor in that. Is there a term that would be more appropriate, like "Reproduction without males" if the focus of the article is mainly on biology? Or if there is to be a more inclusive article, should it address radial lesbian separatism and have this biological aspect a portion of that article? --Moni3 15:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
I think turkey basters would be more like Lesbian reproductive strategies. That said, so far lesbian reproductive biology is the only term I've thought of so far which isn't an unsupportable neologism. Sadly, it is not short 'n sweet. :( As for putting this in Lesbian separatist, there are also non-separatist lesbians who would likely embrace this kind of thing. Gwen Gale 15:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, there are straight women or women who consider themselves asexual who would embrace it too. --Moni3 16:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
I like Yksin's idea more than mine. Gwen Gale 16:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Lesbian reproductive biology" implies that there is some biological difference between lesbians & other women when it comes to reproduction. If this article is to go in the direction of "how can/do women (or other animals) reproduce without male sperm," then "same-sex reproductive biology" or something of that nature would be a more appropriate title. The originator of the article (who I wish we would hear from) seemed to be going in the the direction of "Lesbian utopia" given the article's current lead, which reads "Lesbian race, or lesbian utopia, refers a conceptual community made entirely of women whom are not dependent on men for anything, most notably reproduction." --Yksin 16:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Lesbian utopia (over redirect)

[edit]
  • Support. As is probably obvious from my comment above, this is the move/rename I support. It would support addition of information about a significant body of lesbian & feminist literature which explores all-female societies, many of which also explore reproductive strategies of those societies, which the biological information already in this article lends support to. It also seems to reflect the article originator's intent with this article, as indicated in the article's current first sentence, ""Lesbian race, or lesbian utopia, refers a conceptual community made entirely of women whom are not dependent on men for anything, most notably reproduction," which hopefully would lead to User765 (talk · contribs) collaborating with other editors who've been drawn to this article. Another possibility might be Lesbian separatism (which currently redirects to Separatist feminism; but I think that article be developed as mainly as a historical treatment of lesbian separatism --Yksin 16:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Books/stories/etc. with all-female societies

[edit]

It might be useful to compile a list of books, stories, etc. that contain all female societies, esp. if they also discuss the reproductive strategies used by those societies. Please feel free to add to it. Don't restrict to the English language. If you know of other sources (nonfiction, theoretical, etc.) which touches on these questions, please include them. --Yksin 17:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is, like, more than 3 women, right? Women who make it a point to live in all-female societies, or are stranded in all-female socies. Are we also including prison and convents? --Moni3 17:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
Yes, more than three women. I think that also can widen the scope to real-life all-female societies such as those created by lesbian separatists, but again, I think we should have two articles -- Lesbian utopia & Lesbian separatism, the first which is about the more "speculative" ideas as depicted especially in literature, & the other focusing on the history & current manifestations of lesbian separatism -- which goes as wide as the politics of the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival or lesbian communes, etc. I don't think we should included, whether in this list or in those articles, prisons & convents -- one which is a coercive rather than voluntary community where a lot of the sexuality is distorted by that; & the other with is a presumably nonsexual religious community (though of course we know from the classic nonfiction study Lesbian Nuns that there's lot of lesbianism there, just like in the military). The intent of those societies is a lot different. --Yksin 17:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wtf are socies? Why do I spell like that sometimes? Anyway, what about boarding schools and sororities? --Moni3 17:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
I'd say that they also have a different intent. Maybe I should have titled this section "Books/stories/etc. with all-female lesbian societies", I dunno... basically, the idea is, an all-female society which fit the ideal of "lesbian utopia", in which the primary affectional/sexual relationships are between women. This would leave out of this list, for example, The Gate to Women's Country by Sheri S. Tepper, which posits women & men living separately, but still all sexual relationships are heterosexual -- in fact, according to the article on that book, "it also depicts homosexuality as a genetic and hormonal disorder which has been eugenically removed from the population." (Which turned me off from reading the book, struck me as homophobic, though I have enjoyed other Tepper novels.) --Yksin 18:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC) BTW, I took my B.A. from a women's college (Wellesley) -- also not within my meaning here. We had a lot of dykes there, but that's not what the organizing purpose of the college was, & most of the students were, as they are in the rest of society, heterosexual. --Yksin 18:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found this great link re: Utopian SF books and parthenogenesis: http://feministsf.org/bibs/parthenogenesis.html Kootenayvolcano 18:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all- I must have missed out on the conversation where the booklist was removed from the article and added to the discussion. I thought it was a valuable part of the article. Why was it decided to remove it? Kootenayvolcano 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction

[edit]
A classic, first published by the lesbian publisher Persephone Press way back in the days. --Yksin 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have all of these -- even wrote a review of the first two for Gay Community News (Boston) when I was in college. I haven't read The Conqueror's Child yet, though. --Yksin 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gaea trilogy by John Varley (Titan (1979), Wizard (1980), Demon (1984)
Written by a man, but he's got strong female characters (a Varley trait), & two major characters come from an all-female society which gets a lot of discussion. There's also a lesbian relationship between the two major characters, Cirocco Jones & Gaby Plauget (though Cirocco is not exclusively lesbian). --Yksin 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SatyrTN wrote "Don't forget A Door into Ocean by Joan Slonczewski (and in fact her other books in the "Daughter of Elysium" series." Yes! Love that book. Sclonczewski isn't herself a lesbian, to my knowledge, but the society depicted in that novel certainly is. She's also a Professor of Biology at Kenyon University College. Her web page there has a link to a page at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute on "teach[ing] ahead of the textbook" on Reproduction: Molecular and Cellular Biology, which might be mined for good sources/info for this article. --Yksin 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another classic. Three Four different women who "might" be the "same" woman. One of them comes from the planet Whileaway, where a disease caused the men to die out; the women worked out reproductive strategies to continue on. --Yksin 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another classic. I haven't read it, but I think it's an all-female society. --Yksin 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Winner of the James Tiptree, Jr. Award and the Lambda Award. This is also a planet where disease wiped out the men, or at least most of them. The James Tiptree, Jr. Award has to do with explorations of gender in speculative fiction (science fiction) that more or less explode gender myths; in the case of Ammonite, Griffith was lauded by judges for depicting an all-female society which avoided romanticizing such a society as necessarily all peaceful & sweet & nurturing -- there were some pretty violent characters in it. --Yksin 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]
  • Feminist Utopias (1989) by Frances Bartkowski.
Critical evaluation of several feminist utopias. I'm familiar with some but not all of them, so don't know if all of these posit all-female societies. But I have this book, so I can find out. She discusses: Charlotte Perkins GilmanHerland, Les Guérillères by Monique Wittig, The Female Man by Joanna Russ, Woman on the Edge of Time by Marge Piercy (does not posit an all-female society), Walk to the End of the World and Motherlines by Suzy McKee Charnas, Archaos, ou le jardin étincelant by Christine Rochefort, A Weave of Woman by E.M. Broner, The Eugelionne by Louky Bersianik, The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. --Yksin 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women or Lesbians

[edit]

I would like to add the words "or Lesbians" after the word "Women" in the first paragraph, (...conceptual community made up entirely of women "OR LESBIANS" who are not dependent on men...)if no one objects. My reason is as follows: Monique Wittig, a notable French radicalesbian has a fair bit of theory about how some lesbians do not identify as "women", even though they are biologically female. Wittig feels the concept of "woman" is inherently heterosexual. Thus, in an article about lesbians, especially one with separatist underpinnings like this one, I think we should use both terms. Kootenayvolcano 02:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed women to biological females. This still would not be inclusive for a transgendered male who identifies as a lesbian but a) such identification is very controversial in some lesbian communities and b) I don't think it's notable enough to address in the header. I could support a mention of transgendered males who self indentify as lesbian later in the body of the text after the article has grown a bit, but for now I'm for giving sway to WP:WEIGHT. All the best. Gwen Gale 03:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me right now. I was thinking about Kootenayvolcano's question all during my drive home from work, & WP:WEIGHT is what stuck in my mind. There's also the fact that, even if this article's subject has separatist underpinnings, it's still a Wikipedia article, & common usages are what Wikipedia calls for. It would be fair to include a statement about Wittig's viewpoint in the article as it grows, but not fair under WP:WEIGHT to actually adopt that usage for the article, just as it wouldn't meet policy to change the spelling of woman or women to womon or womyn, as many radical lesbians would prefer. Gwen's solution is a good one, I think. -- (On a personal note, I'll bet a lot of lesbians would respond just as I do: I'm both a lesbian and a woman, despite Wittig's POV.)
I think it's also fair to ask if it's completely true that lesbian utopias are completely grounded in lesbian separatism. I did a bit of research today, & it seems that lesbian utopias in fiction are often basically a writer's way of exploring issues having to do with gender roles in society -- more or less asking, "what can I do to create a society which isn't dominated by the gender roles we feel oppressed by in patriarchal society? Oh, I know: let's see what happens if there are no men." The speculation of speculative fiction doesn't necessarily equate to a writer saying "I'd like to arrange things like that for real" -- some notable writers who've depicted lesbian utopias aren't in fact separatists, or even lesbians (for example, Sloncewski). Though undoubtedly some writers would like such a world. Interesting stuff. --Yksin 03:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughtfulness on this, Gwen Gale and Yksin , what you're saying makes a lot of sense. I look forward to continuing to work with you both.Kootenayvolcano 19:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be nice if you could just use the word cis, because, last time I checked, trans women (no need to refer to them by their assigned sex unless you're trying to rely on patriarchy to read certain women out of lesbianism) are women, with biology and everything. You can still easily refer to the typical construction of Lesbian Utopia, as it's previously been advanced, as exclusively for cis women. Non-normative language would be far more in keeping with NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.93.107.136 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs more sections

[edit]

Examples in fiction, real world examples cited in non-fiction, maybe some sundry criticism (by lesbians I would hope), I can think of others but these three would (only IMHO though) helpful. Cheers. Gwen Gale 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten my commitment to this article -- specifically to the fiction examples stuff. But I realized that I've stacked up a few commitments to various articles, & I'm confusing myself. So... I'm in the process both of organizing my work & then working on the various articles I've made a commitment to on Wikipedia. Right now I'm more actively working on Battle of Washita River, as those commitments are of longest standing; but I will be back here as soon as I can be. --Yksin 02:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Yksin and so you know, I only posted this so other editors who stumble across this article will understand further development is on the way :) Gwen Gale 02:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited stuff - help!

[edit]

Here are the two remaining assertions which do need citations. I'll say straight off, though I didn't put them in the text myself (only re-worded them a bit for flow), I tend to agree with these assertions and think they are reasonable, have thought about them before and have read/heard snippets along these lines (hence they're nobody's OR). So I think they belong in the article but very much need to be wholly supported by a secondary source (and not through spanned citations, which I could easily do myself).

  • In the most direct method, two women would always produce another female due to the absence of a Y chromosome.[citation needed]
  • Because of genetic or environmental factors this female offspring might be more likely to also be lesbian.[citation needed]

Gwen Gale 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first does not require a citation I believe, in that it isn't likely to be challenged and falls under common knowledge (2X+2X always yields 2X and therefore a female). As for the latter, I removed it pending verification.(It sounds far-fetched). Cheers—Cronholm144 09:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here are the two sentences from the article:

In the most direct (but still speculative) method, two women would always produce another female due to the absence of a Y chromosome. Because of genetic or environmental factors this female offspring might be more likely to also be lesbian.

Neither is any more farfetched than the other, neither is supported by a reliable citation. I've looked some and can't find any support for them yet. I've no doubt both statements are more or less reasonable and supportable (and no I didn't put either of them in the article) but IMHO so many editors are expressing concerns (which I understand) I think they should be kept here for now. Gwen Gale 09:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to turn up anything on the topic using JSTOR or google scholar, perhaps the person who added the material can shed some light on where to find some sources.—Cronholm144 20:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sexism

[edit]

I think adding this article to Category:Sexism could be highly misleading and PoV. Comments? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking "5-12" to 2007 Karachi riots is most likely not the author's initial intention. Could someone better qualified, please, correct this? --Oop

In reality, this is what all forms of Feminism are in disguise, so no it is not inaccurate that it simply represents Misandry. One gender douse not make a Utopia anymore then one race or one religion douse.

Might I suggest that you go right back to Conservapedia with your outlandish "all feminists want to kill all men" nonsense? 77.250.97.191 (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction section & quick note

[edit]

The reproduction section strays off topic and seems a bit misplaced. Rewrite or removal seems necessary.

Also does anyone know any advocates for a lesbian utopia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookingthrough (talk • contribs) 14:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Bizarre article

[edit]

I'm sure this article deserves to exist, but as it is right now there are major issues. The bulk of the article appears to be a report of mixed results from one very strange experiment involving mice and a disorganized list of "lesbian utopia" fiction. Also, it doesn't help to have sentences worded like, "...without male assistance." It makes the article sound like teenage anti-male complaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrkkyhammas (talk • contribs) 18:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist speculations and feminist-influenced science fiction were a somewhat notable phenomenon of the 1970s. However, the article seems to express a rather personal perspective... AnonMoos (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debate on feminism

[edit]

I'm afraid that Gendercide is the goal of all feminist in all its forms because they all find everything misogynistic, they all blame and hate the entire male gender for women's oppression and all ignore the fact that men suffer similar situations as women and anyone who says feminist should be about equality and not supremacy is called a straw misogynist by all feminist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.223.221 (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"men suffer similar situations as women" What is the reverse equivalent (and prevalence) of Female genital mutilation, rape, honor killing? I know a number of lesbians who don't fit your image. Maybe you should broaden your horizons? Jim1138 (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Men aren't raped? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And prevalence. How many men walk down a dark street fearing rape compared to women? Jim1138 (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Men aren't raped? Do your research not all rape victims are female and centennially not all males are potential rapist despite what you believe. Men may not fear being raped but they still fear being tortured, murdered, falsely accused of rape and imprisoned for a crime they wont commit because all feminist have stated all men are criminals and all women are victims of men and only men. If you think man can't harm other men then think again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.223.221 (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prevalence a few men might fear it, but most women do. Jim1138 (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So men don't fear or even physically feel pain when they are being beaten, crippled, tortured or raped by other men because none have any feelings? As for saying most women live on anxiety of being raped is your way of saying all men are automatically violent potential rapist?

I believe I answered your first question in a previous post. As to the second, you made said that, not I. BTW: please sign your posts with ~~~~ Jim1138 (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have gotten way off topic here: see wp:notaforum Jim1138 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All feminist believe all men are rapist is why they not only hate and stereotyped men but also choose to be useless when women are actually harmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.238.212 (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but if your a feminist of any "different group" you naturally hate men and want them to all be wiped out. Just like if your an Atheist you naturally hate anyone who is religious and want them all to be wiped out or if your an ecologist you naturally hate all humans and want them to all be wiped out. All feminist are lesbians/misandrist because after all, all feminist are man haters and all lesbians are feminist/misandrist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.98.216 (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This whole section violates WP:NOTFORUM. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. Robofish (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing on how to improve it from the perspective of a neutral view of feminism but after researching it both for it and against it its view become more and more blatantly negative. I tried to make edits about feminism on different pages about this topic but they keep on getting deleted. The statements I have made prior on the subject is an argument on how to change the articles about feminism on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.21.188 (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I wonder why so few women feel inclined to take part in editing Wikipedia. It's not like the articles on feminism and women's issues are dominated by sexist guys who believe it's a giant conspiracy to neuter all the men. 77.250.97.191 (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apoligise for my judgment of the lesbain community because I have't met any but I still see feminist as misandrist and whoever said there are no girls on the internet has lied from day one because they take up at least half of the world wide web. --120.151.106.44 (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian utopia in fiction

[edit]

--Jugydmort (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lesbian utopia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lesbian utopia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lesbian_utopia&oldid=1173652148"