Revision as of 19:32, 10 February 2015 editEvergreenFir (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators129,504 edits →Removal of "By Whom", "Which", and "Citation Needed" tags← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:47, 7 January 2025 edit undoSangdeboeuf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,514 edits →top: {{Refideas}} +1 |
(963 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Society|class=GA}} |
|
|
{{Round in circles|search=yes}} |
|
{{Round in circles|search=yes}} |
|
{{Not a forum|Feminism}} |
|
{{Not a forum|Feminism}} |
Line 32: |
Line 30: |
|
|topic=socsci |
|
|topic=socsci |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Gender Studies|class=GA|importance=high |needs-infobox=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=GA|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination|class=GA|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=GA|importance=High|Social movements=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=High|Social movements=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|social=yes|class=GA|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|social=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=GA|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|class=GA|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Men's Issues|class=GA|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Men's Issues|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{ArtAndFeminism article|2015}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Countering systemic bias|importance=high}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Infobox requested|date=January 2015}} |
|
|
{{To do|1}} |
|
{{To do|1}} |
|
|
{{Skip to bottom}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|pa}} |
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|
|
{{Consensus|'''By ], ], or ]'''<br/><br/>'''Criticism about feminism is already covered with appropriate ] and ].''' If you seek coverage beyond what you see, consider whether you are proposing content that is more suitable for other articles or for a non- website. If a criticism you wish to add lacks an adequate source, please find one first. <br/>'''Edits for other pages may be offered there, not here.''' Examples include content for specialized articles and Misplaced Pages policies, which have their own pages and their own talk pages. This is only an introductory article on feminism. To find specialized subarticles within feminism, please click on links in the ] article, including in any sidebar. <br/>'''Feminism is inherently one-sided.''' Feminism is a critique of society. That means there is a disagreement between feminism and society. In that case, generally, if society is neutral, feminism is not. Misplaced Pages requires ], but that applies to Misplaced Pages articles, not to feminism itself, nor to any source. As long as the article is neutral in how it presents its general subject, Misplaced Pages's requirement for neutrality is fulfilled. <br/>'''This article does not cover what feminism does not cover.''' If there are few feminist disagreements in a given society, feminism may have nothing to say about many subjects in that society. Misplaced Pages reports on feminism in accordance with ] sources. <br/>'''Consistency with a particular political message is not this article's purpose.''' This article represents many sources with appropriate ]. While mainstream feminism is emphasized, other branches of feminism are also covered. <br/>'''The content of this article meets ].''' Content being added to this article must conform to the community's quality standards for ]. Material not meeting these criteria should be removed and rewritten appropriately to fit them.}} |
|
|
|
|
{{Consensus|'''By ], ], or ]'''<br><br>'''Criticism about feminism is already covered with appropriate ] and ].''' If you seek coverage beyond what you see, consider whether you are proposing content that is more suitable for other articles or for a non- website. If a criticism you wish to add lacks an adequate source, please find one first. <br>'''Edits for other pages may be offered there, not here.''' Examples include content for specialized articles and Misplaced Pages policies, which have their own pages and their own talk pages. This is only an introductory article on feminism. To find specialized subarticles within feminism, please click on links in the ] article, including in any sidebar. <br>'''Feminism is inherently one-sided.''' Feminism is a critique of society. That means there is a disagreement between feminism and society. In that case, generally, if society is neutral, feminism is not. Misplaced Pages requires ], but that applies to Misplaced Pages articles, not to feminism itself, nor to any source. As long as the article is neutral in how it presents its general subject, Misplaced Pages's requirement for neutrality is fulfilled. <br>'''This article does not cover what feminism does not cover.''' If there are few feminist disagreements in a given society, feminism may have nothing to say about many subjects in that society. Misplaced Pages reports on feminism in accordance with ] sources. <br>'''Consistency with a particular political message is not this article's purpose.''' This article represents many sources with appropriate ]. While mainstream feminism is emphasized, other branches of feminism are also covered. <br>'''The content of this article meets ].''' Content being added to this article must conform to the community's quality standards for ]. Material not meeting these criteria should be removed and rewritten appropriately to fit them.}} |
|
|
{{Topic|Feminism|talk=y}} |
|
{{Topic|Feminism|talk=y}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I|age=30|dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|target=/Archive index |
Line 58: |
Line 59: |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
|counter = 20 |
|
|counter = 22 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Feminism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Feminism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Refideas |
|
|
|1={{cite book |last1=Kanner |first1=Melinda |last2=Anderson |first2=Kristin J. |editor1-last=Paludi |editor1-first=Michele A. |title=Feminism and Women's Rights Worldwide, Volume 1: Heritage, Roles, and Issues |date=2010 |publisher=Praeger |location=Santa Barbara, Calif. |isbn=978-0-313-37597-2 |pages=1–25 |language=en |chapter=The Myth of the Man-Hating Feminist}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Merger discussion == |
|
|
{{Discussion top|result=To '''not''' merge, on the grounds of ]; there are at least two distinct topics (movements being distinct from ideology/philosophy); there was some support for making ] more list-like, to differentiate the function of the page; all agree that this is a large and important topic, the length making it difficult to reduce from 3 pages to 2; further refinement of the content is warranted. ] (]) 15:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Hello, the articles ], ] and ] obviously deal with the same subject, i.e. feminism. ] (]) 18:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:They do, but the text of each is ''massive'' and mostly not redundant. They were probably split into multiple articles (especially ]) for size. Merging them doesn't seem feasible. --] (]) 18:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think the movements and ideologies article is essentially a list and it could be reworked to be more listy. I can't see a rationale for keeping ], and I would love for those who do see it to help me understand. ] (] / ]) 19:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{Ping|Aquillion|Firefangledfeathers}} I'm in favor of making a list on the one hand, and a real encyclopedic article on the other. But opposed to the separation of content. Perhaps we should consider making a synthesis by removing unsourced content? ] (]) 14:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:@Fourmidable I'm in favour of merging feminism and feminist movement. I had no idea that there are two separate articles and I personally don't know what the difference is. Isn't feminism itself a movement? I think that the ] should be kept separate as a list however. —<span style="font-family:Poppins">]</span> ] 20:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{Aye}} Feminism ''is''/''are'' (a) movement(s) according to its definition, so ]=]. ] (]) 08:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I oppose. ※] ◣◥ 〒 @「]」 14:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Please define what ] is and what ] is. ] (]) 01:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::One is an ideology/philosophy, another is a political, activist and militant way of mandating how to organise society. ※] ◣◥ 〒 @「]」 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{Reply to|Reprarina|p=,}} feminism is an ideology. That ideology is shared by various movements who go about it from different perspectives and policie. Hope that helps. Reading the article on ] should show you they're not the zame. — ] (]) 22:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Seconding this distinction as someone with an academic background in women's studies and feminist theory, for whatever it's worth. |
|
|
:::::I also came here to say that the article need not divide the movements into "waves" as this is not historically accurate and is highly contested in scholarship. |
|
|
:::::I would expect that "Feminism" would cover the variety of feminist ideologies (Marxist feminism, lesbian feminism, etc.), whereas "Feminist movements" would cover political movements centering on feminism. There is a big distinction. ] (]) 22:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Discussion bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Relevance of the "Big Three" == |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Feminism|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
|
|
|
Feminism is for the rights of BOTH and ALL sexes. NOT just women. It has "feminine" in the word as opposed to something else because most countries have always lived in a male dominant society. Feminists do not have the opinion that woman are better than men, or that we should live in a female dominant society. Feminists simply believe that all sexes should be equal and all given the same opportunity. The definition of a feminist is someone who believes in gender equality. |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 04:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] <small>]</small> 04:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== paragraph from Feminism and equality article == |
|
|
|
|
|
The following was to the ] article, largely by ], and it does discuss equality, but I think it's too large in scope for that article, so I moved it to here for discussion, to see if any of it can be used in this article or elsewhere: |
|
|
|
|
|
Many think that being a feminist is only a term for women to fall under. Truly the term feminist is a name anyone can follow as support for equality. With supporters of feminism it could help end oppression and cruel treatment against women and their fundamental rights. Over the years feminism has progressed to a new end with more equality, men supporters, and more women claiming to be a feminist. "There are still some tough issues keeping woman from capitalizing on the changes they are making".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Rudman|first1=Laurie|title=Psychology of Women Quarterly 31.2|journal="The F Word: Is Feminism Incompatible With Beauty and Romance?"|pages=125–36}}</ref> Some issues still keeping women from progression is the terms feminist are called, their image for how they are portrayed, and people not understanding the term feminism. It isn't easy living in a world where some don't let women or any gender live a normal life with the same rights as others. Equality is something each person should have. "Some people haven’t really come close enough to feminist movement to know what really happens, what it's really about".<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hooks|first1=Bell|title=Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics|date=2000|location=Cambridge, MA: South End}}</ref> The truth is equality is not all about women's rights it also about helping others reach a content spot in their life to where they feel accepted. |
|
|
|
|
|
The sources in the above are these, respectively: |
|
|
Rudman, Laurie. "Psychology of Women Quarterly 31.2". "''The F Word: Is Feminism Incompatible With Beauty and Romance?''": 125–36. |
|
|
Hooks, Bell (2000). ''Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics''. Cambridge, MA: South End. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. ] (]) 22:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:As it stands, although accurate, there are two major issues with the piece. <br>1) It is far too polemical for an encyclopedia <br>2) The grammar and syntax also require attention. <br>All in all this section is too much like an essay at the moment--] <sup>]</sup> 00:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2014 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Feminism|answered=yes}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
pornography http://search.proquest.com.lib-proxy.fullerton.edu/socabs/docview/60033852/C3C2453B70A4712PQ/2?accountid=9840 |
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 19:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Request unclear. Please format your request in a "please change X to Y" format. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 19:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Capitalization of Bell Hooks? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Just wondering if we should capitalize the title of the author Bell Hooks, and her page? Not sure, haven't read too far into it. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but author bell hooks and others have argued that, since feminism seeks gender equality, it must necessarily include men's liberation because men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
03:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Best Regards, m80s <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Thanks for the question! No, ]'s name should not be capitalized because her pen name is spelled in lowercase. For more articles with this capitalization, see ] and ]. It's not just a mass typo! :) ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
==Why is there no criticism question? revisited== |
|
|
The answer: because there is nothing to criticize about feminism, apparently. |
|
|
|
|
|
There are plenty of arguments against feminism in 2014, though I'd assume they would be labeled hate speech and inadmissible as valid criticism, because that's how totalitarian thought regimes work. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:The reason is because, per ], criticism sections are discouraged for all articles; instead of dividing everything into two or more squabbling viewpoints, articles are supposed to provide a single neutral perspective which touches on the various noteworthy opinions and strains of thought about the subject in their appropriate place. For instance, criticisms of individual threads of feminism are noted in several of the 'movements and ideologies' subsections; criticisms over different takes on sexuality are in the Feminism and sexuality section; criticisms of Feminist epistemology as it relates to science are noted in the Feminism and science section, and of course broad anti-feminism is mentioned at the bottom among responses. --] (]) 01:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:In addition, for an entire article on criticism of feminism, see the article ]. Per above, this article should not contain a criticism section per ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 21:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
There's a Criticsm of Democracy page... Criticism of Socialism.. Criticism of Capitalism.. all *kinds* of Criticism pages and subsections. That *ANTIFEMINISM* is considered Criticism of Feminism is ridiculous in the extreme, especially since the Antifeminism page is almost exclusively populated with quotes by FEMINISTS. It's like saying Judaism is the Criticism of Naziism, and then populating the Jewish article with endless quotes from Nazis. It's nonsensical in the extreme. Criticism of Capitalism, for example, doesn't link to Communism.... Criticism for Liberalism doesn't link to Conservativism. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
: If you think Misplaced Pages needs a new article on a certain topic that isn't covered elsewhere in the encyclopaedia or need more in-depth coverage, create it. --] 01:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Don't you think I've tried? They just delete it. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
: Maybe I have misunderstood what you're saying, maybe I'm misunderstanding the page logs, but I find no record of the page ] being deleted. --] 14:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::This whole thing is toeing the line of ]. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 17:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Certainly at this point it appears to have veered off topic. --] 02:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Opening should be altered to match Men's Rights Movement restrictions == |
|
|
|
|
|
From the ] article: "The men's rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who are commonly concerned about '''what they consider to be''' issues of male disadvantage and discrimination." |
|
|
|
|
|
Per discussions and . It seems to me the Feminism and Men's Right Movements should be held to the same standards. If Misplaced Pages insists on having "what they CONSIDER to be" on that article, it should be present here as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
Places it could be inserted: |
|
|
|
|
|
"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve what they consider to be equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women. |
|
|
|
|
|
This includes seeking to establish what they consider to be equal opportunities for women in education and employment. |
|
|
|
|
|
A feminist generally self-defines as advocating for or supporting what they consider to be the rights and equality of women. |
|
|
|
|
|
Feminist advocacy is mainly focused on what they consider to be women's rights, but author bell hooks, among others, argue for the necessity for it to include men's liberation, because men are also harmed by traditional gender roles." |
|
|
|
|
|
Per the linked discussion :'''Articles are not supposed to endorse views, whether those of feminists, LGBT rights groups, anti-racism groups, pro-racism groups, etc., and there is no reason to make an exception here.''' If the Men's Rights Movement article is written in a way that does not endorse anything about the Men's Rights Movement, so should the Feminism article not endorse these viewpoints listed above. ] (]) 18:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:The sources don't treat them the same, so the article don't either. RS by and large to not question the veracity of the feminist claim of gender inequality. That's not true for MRM. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 18:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*The *only* criteria here for assessing how ''this'' article opens are a) ]: how the subject is treated by ] b) ]: the recording ''without intervention'' of how the mainstream scholarly material treats the subject, giving ] in accordance with the reliability of those sources and c) ]. <p>The issues with other articles belong on their talk page. What this page deals with is what happens on ] not at ]. <br>It is absolutely not the job of wikipedia to neuter sources. It is not our job to alter what they say to fit subjective misconceptions of "objectivity". Doing so constitutes ] at best and at worst misrepresentation of sources - something that has been attempted here on a number of occasions. You should also be aware that the ] and behaviour on this site in relation to tha topic area is monitored by sysops - there is some good advice ] on what is unacceptable behaviour and how to avoid it. <br>As it stands this thread is wildly off-topic and will be closed if it continues to veer into ]--] <sup>]</sup> 19:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removal of "By Whom", "Which", and "Citation Needed" tags == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article make a point to note that feminism has the Big Three branches, consisting of liberal, radical, and Marxist feminism. But if one looks at the article, there's only a single source being cited from 1995 that seems to acknowledge the existence of this trio. No other source seems to use it. Doesn't the structure of this page privilege one person's view regarding how the feminist movement should be structured / thought of? Why the Big Three and not "Big Four"? What makes Mary Maynard's classification more important than other ones, to the point that that "Movements and ideologies" section is structured as "Liberal", "Radical", and "Materialist (Marxist)" and the "Other" variants of feminism? ] (]) 00:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Feminism&oldid=646534042&diff=prev |
|
|
|
:The source is and it's an analysis of typographies of feminism. Maynard is actually critical of this classification, but she describes the origin of the "Big Three" and provides references demonstrating that the classification is commonly used (e.g. Yates 1975, McFadden 1984, Deckard 1975).{{pb}}What other classifications and sources do you feel should be mentioned in the article? No doubt we could find some more recent references, though we have to be careful as we are trying to organise content from a historical perspective and more recent sources might focus on typographies of modern movements or of academia only. — ] (''']''') 19:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thank you for your reply. If the "Big Three" is indeed that prominent in feminist discourse, I do think it would be better if the article added a few more sources (2-4 additional ones) in reference to this classification. ] (]) 19:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think it's quality rather than number that are important, but you are welcome to add more reliable citations if they're not redundant to Maynard (1995). — ] (''']''') 15:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Misandry and GA status == |
|
I believe all of these "By Whom" and "Citation needed" tags I added (a total of four) are completely justified. The lede makes claims that are not cited, despite copious amounts of citations in the lede. |
|
|
|
{{atop|OP has withdrawn the proposal. ]] 07:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Alright, so I believe that this needs to be discussed. This article gives the impression that feminism is a wonderful idea devoid of any negative aspects. I'm not suggesting that feminism is bad per se, but we should discuss some of its drawbacks. I suggest adding a section regarding the harmful things that this group may do and the misandry claims made against feminism. I found nothing on toxic feminity or femaleness on Misplaced Pages, but I was able to find a lot on toxic masculinity. A simple paragraph of 100 words would suffice; that's all I'm asking for. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, this article is in no shape to be a GA. Improvements could and should be made. ] <sup>(])</sup> 17:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
"Feminist campaigns are generally considered {{By whom}} to be main force behind major historical societal changes {{Which}}, particularly in the West, where they are near-universally credited {{By whom}}" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The thing you haven't done here, when asking for such a section to be written, is mention any high-quality scholarly sources that could be used to support such a section. You haven't mentioned any sources ''at all''. So, other than your own personal opinion, what is it that makes you think this is (a) not GA standard, and (b) in need of a section like the one you describe? ]] 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
First: "Generally considered" is, as I understand it, a phrase frowned upon by Misplaced Pages. It's quite literally a generalization, which has no place here. I believe this tag is valid, because that particular bit needs reworded. It should include some specific names of notable people or organizations who hold this view. |
|
|
|
::The current content on misandry and other criticisms of the movement are present in §Anti-feminism and criticism of feminism, which looks solid. That content is also summarized in the lead. Happy to see it improved, though a good first step would be to improve ] and then adjust the summary here. ] (] / ]) 18:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Bro, just type "misandry" or "feminism misandry" on Google Scholar. It's that easy. ] <sup>(])</sup> 18:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::: A good suggestion. I added some content from the second source that popped up in that search. ] (] / ]) 18:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The irony of you addressing another editor as 'bro' on this talk page is quite delicious. Waving at Google searches is not helpful: you're advocating for change, you need to find the sources and read them for yourself then propose a change. ]] 19:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Anyone searching on Google Scholar for sources covering misandry will find the exact sources that say misandry isn't very important relative to misogyny, and that misandry is a fairly recent concern of marginalized men who are less successful in competing in the world of men. Those sources will say that misandry is a backlash to the advances of feminism. People coming from a misandry viewpoint cannot define feminism in their preferred terms. ] (]) 19:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thanks to F³ for adding something, your work is appreciated. {{U|Binksternet}}, you may be right to say that most scholars view misandry as far less important than misogyny, but I still think that's biased. You state that those sources say that {{Tq|Misandry is a backlash to the advances of feminism}}, but I can't see that anywhere; which source are you using? I read two sources about this on May 2023 and they largely contradict your statement above. ] <sup>(])</sup> 04:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::If you go look at the lead of ], you will find a bunch of scholarly sources cited to support the assertion {{tq|modern activism around misandry represents an antifeminist backlash, promoted by marginalized men}}. I too appreciate FFF's contribution to the article - I wonder whether you actually read it? They used one of the sources that your proposed Google Scholar search yielded - a meta-analysis which found that feminists' views of men were no different to those of non-feminists or indeed men, and which describes the stereotype of feminists hating men as the "misandry myth". You might view all this as biased in some way, but you have not presented any sources which posit an opposing viewpoint - there isn't anything to discuss until you do that. ]] 09:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Hey {{u|Wolverine XI}}, are you happy for this discussion to be closed off, or do you have any further input to make? Just wanted to know if I should keep monitoring this. Thanks ]] 22:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I'm good. Besides, I have bigger fish to fry. ] <sup>(])</sup> 06:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{abot}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Promoting misandry == |
|
Changing the "are generally considered to be" to something like "have been attributed to be" with a few citations linking to articles that support that claim would be far better. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
]'s ] is a criticized primary source for the claim "Some have argued that feminism often promotes misandry". I am not sure that the claim should be used this way in the preface. In the article ] we decided that there is such a reliable source in this topic as ''Misandry myth'' article. There is quite consensual point of view in academy, that feminism is not a misandrist ideology and that feminists promote misandry at least not more often than those who are not feminists. Perhaps this is what should be added to the preface. ] (]) 06:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Second: "Main force behind major historical societal changes" is a MASSIVE claim - and completely nonspecific. WHAT, specifically, are the major historical changes made by the feminism movement? As far as I know, this line is claiming that Feminism is the main force behind EVERY major historical societal change. What is the level considered "major"? Who has decided what is and is not "major"" historical societal changes? Who is claiming they are the "main force"? Also, that line is missing a "the". THE main force, not "to be main force". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Protected edit request == |
|
Changing "main force behind major historical societal changes" to something like "a driving force behind several historically significant societal changes" solves a lot of issues, but it still needs to specify which ones. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is an image entitled "Photograph of American women replacing men fighting in Europe, 1945" in the article. I understand from the description that these are ] members. Should a link be provided? --] (]) 18:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Third: "where they are NEAR-UNIVERSALLY credited" - Honestly, I can't see any justification for this wording. Just like "generally considered", there is absolutely nothing to back up or clarify this statement, and it's a generalization. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:{{added}}, how is that? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 19:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
"Feminists have also advocated for workplace rights, including receiving the right to paid work, paid ], and eradicating all forms of ].{{Citation needed}}" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each one of these claims could easily have a citation. I'm sure there are plenty of sources. ] (]) 19:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
::Like it much better now and the way you put it, thank you. --] (]) 20:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:While I agree the lead could use some improvement to address those whom issues you raise, I just want to note that the lead does not ''need'' sources. Per ], the lead should reflect the article itself and the references for statements in the lead should be easily found in the article body. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 19:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
The article make a point to note that feminism has the Big Three branches, consisting of liberal, radical, and Marxist feminism. But if one looks at the article, there's only a single source being cited from 1995 that seems to acknowledge the existence of this trio. No other source seems to use it. Doesn't the structure of this page privilege one person's view regarding how the feminist movement should be structured / thought of? Why the Big Three and not "Big Four"? What makes Mary Maynard's classification more important than other ones, to the point that that "Movements and ideologies" section is structured as "Liberal", "Radical", and "Materialist (Marxist)" and the "Other" variants of feminism? PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Alright, so I believe that this needs to be discussed. This article gives the impression that feminism is a wonderful idea devoid of any negative aspects. I'm not suggesting that feminism is bad per se, but we should discuss some of its drawbacks. I suggest adding a section regarding the harmful things that this group may do and the misandry claims made against feminism. I found nothing on toxic feminity or femaleness on Misplaced Pages, but I was able to find a lot on toxic masculinity. A simple paragraph of 100 words would suffice; that's all I'm asking for.
There is an image entitled "Photograph of American women replacing men fighting in Europe, 1945" in the article. I understand from the description that these are Women's Army Corps members. Should a link be provided? --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)