Undid edit test by 84.67.145.223 |
Caesarjbsquitti (talk | contribs) →Equal rights or rights?: new section |
||
Line 257: | Line 257: | ||
I've just reworded it - to reduce the jargon and to remove ambiguity that was being caused by whether "some" or "certain" gender roles are socially constructed in these scholars views. (The sources say that 'gender roles are socially constructed' - they don't say "certain ones".) |
I've just reworded it - to reduce the jargon and to remove ambiguity that was being caused by whether "some" or "certain" gender roles are socially constructed in these scholars views. (The sources say that 'gender roles are socially constructed' - they don't say "certain ones".) |
||
The line now reads:<blockquote>Other feminists have argued that gender roles are social rather than biological phenomena.[16][17][18]</blockquote> I think it would be beneficial to qualify who says this. Whether we name de Beauvoir, West and Zimmerman and/or Judith Butler, I would strongly suggest we name drop - because this view is specific to certain people and certain theories--[[User:Cailil|<font color="grey" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="grey">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
The line now reads:<blockquote>Other feminists have argued that gender roles are social rather than biological phenomena.[16][17][18]</blockquote> I think it would be beneficial to qualify who says this. Whether we name de Beauvoir, West and Zimmerman and/or Judith Butler, I would strongly suggest we name drop - because this view is specific to certain people and certain theories--[[User:Cailil|<font color="grey" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="grey">'''talk'''</font>]]</sup> 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Equal rights or rights? == |
|||
Case in point. |
|||
The polarization of the sexes, is evident in the lack of clear logic showing that men, benefit from women working, ie their wives, girlfriends, mothers; this type of "bridge logic" as I will call it is totally lacking. |
|||
Anyway the point of this is that I recall as a member of the Credit Union, the manager stated quite clearly, that the Union was in total compliance with women's equality employment legislation. |
|||
She then laughed. All our employees are women. |
|||
So it is important to clearly state that feminism, was more about rights for women, rather than equal rights for women. In some cases the approach was not at all about gender fairness. |
|||
The devil is in the details. |
|||
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:31, 3 May 2008
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Feminism was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
Comments, part the second
This article has always improved, every time I reread it. Congratulation, all, on so successfully tackling such a difficult topic! Here are my comments:
Sections:
- The editors might think about adding a "Proto-feminism" or "Pre-feminism" section. I deleted the Mary wollstonecraft reference because it interrupted the flow of the first-wave feminism section and she isn't a first-wave feminist, but it would be nice to have a little paragraph on the writers and people who inspired the feminist movement. There has been a lot of scholarship recently on seventeenth- and eighteenth-century "feminists" - Mary Astell, Mary Wollstonecraft, etc.
- The "first-wave feminism" section has a lot of names without a lot of context for them. Either prune some of the names or add context for the names.
- The "Women's Liberation in the USA" section does not explain the goals of the movement.
- The Feminine Mystique section cites Friedan's obituary as evidence for the influence of the book - this book has been written about so much. I would suggest finding a better source - just for the sake of making wikipedia look a bit better to the outside world. The summary of Friedan's book seems to be sourced to the book itself - it would be nice if that were sourced to a secondary work on the history of feminism - scholars have interpreted Friedan's work differently and everyone summarizes differently (it's really amazing). Same goes for de Beauvoir's Second Sex.
- Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas paragraph needs a transition from the previous paragraph. It is difficult for the reader to know what to make of the quote in this paragraph because post-feminism hasn't been introduced yet. Perhaps some reordering?
- The Gilligan paragraph is good, but its topic sentence promises a different debate than the one we get - it promises a debate between feminists. It might be a good idea to add some material on how feminists react to Gilligan's work.
- The post-feminism section is still a bit hard to follow - perhaps a more chronological telling and some cultural examples of post-feminism (movies, etc.?)
- I think that the readers of this article will generally not know a lot of the feminists listed - they will be looking for information. I would include a brief sentence describing each "person of interest" in the bulletted lists. I will warn you now that I think these lists will be challenged at FAC - I see nothing wrong with them in an overview article like this, but I would be prepared to defend them. (I think a little sentence attached to them would help with that defense.)
- I don't know if it is possible to explain the "French feminism" section any better, but it is worth a shot. That material is always hard to teach. The most nebulous section in this article is the last part - "1970s to the present". I would try to explain it without using the theorists' own language - it is too jargony.
- The "Black feminism" section is a bit vague and repetitive in its language. Also, it does not really explain what is different about the discrimination black women exprerience. The material on Davis is not clear - what idea did she develop and what word did Crenshaw come up with? We have to be explicit.
- In the "Post-structural and postmodern feminism" section, the ideas have to be discussed without using the language of the theorists. Readers will not understand words like "performative". We have to translate for them. Also, what is Haraway moving towards (away from dualism, Christianity, etc.), but what is her vision of the future? The last paragraph of this section is not cohesive - the topic sentence on French feminism isn't explained in the paragraph and the rest of the sentences repeat what has been stated before in the article multiple times.
- "Third-word feminism" is not explained very clearly - the long list of "-isms" is particularly unhelpful.
- Perhaps "Ecofeminism" is receiving undue weight? Also, the one sentence "However, feminist and social ecologist Janet Biehl has criticized ecofeminism for focusing too much on a mystical connection between women and nature and not enough on the actual conditions of women" needs to be better integrated into the section.
- "Individualist feminism" needs a better initial definition.
- The introduction to "Feminism and society"' is the same as the first paragraph of the "Civil rights" subsection.
- I would de-emphasize the "Language" section in "Feminism and society" as it is less significant than many of the other section topics. It also needs some sort of historical and cultural context.
- The coherence of the "Heterosexual relationships" section is not clear to me - what is the overarching theme there? I could move material from other places in the article to that section - why shouldn't I? How can we narrow its focus?
- I wonder if feminist science fiction is receiving "undue weight". Also, the section seems a bit listy.
- India:
- Rajeshwari Sunder Rajan, Leela Kasturi, Sharmila Rege, and Vidyut Bhagat are Indian feminist essayists and critics writing in English. - What are they saying?
- Contemporary Indian feminists are fighting for: individual autonomy, rights, freedom, independence, tolerance, cooperation, nonviolence and diversity, domestic violence, gender, stereotypes, sexuality, discrimination, sexism, non-objectification, freedom from patriarchy, the right to an abortion, reproductive rights, control of the female body, the right to a divorce, equal pay, maternity leave, breast feeding, prostitution, and education. - Break this list up and explain it. Some of these things don't make much sense. I tried to fix it as best as I could, but copy editing can only do so much.
- What are the broad socialist goals of Japanese feminism?
- The Norway section is only about the nineteenth century - shouldn't it have something about the present?
- The "Feminism around the world" section seems a bit disjointed - why these countries and not others? What is the logic for describing these feminist movements? That logic is not made clear to the reader.
- I wonder if the "Feminism and political movements" material shouldn't be integrated into the descriptions of the various feminisms. It seems so truncated now and it doesn't cohere into a section.
Small things:
- The second paragraph of the lead (the wave paragraph) should probably be later in the lead and the waves need to be briefly explained (in just a phrase).
- Each paragraph in the lead needs a "topic sentence" to introduce the main idea of the paragraph.
- The third wave (1990s-present) is seen as both a continuation and a response to the perceived failures of the second wave. - I would give one example here.
- Second-wave feminism refers to a period of feminist activity beginning in the early 1960s and lasting through the late 1980s and, as Imelda Whelehan suggests, it was a continuation of the earlier phase of feminism involving the suffragettes in the UK and USA. - In what way was it a continuation?
- If first-wave feminism focused on rights such as suffrage, second-wave feminism was largely concerned with other issues of equality, such as the end to discrimination. - This is not entirely clear - perhaps clarifying a bit what is meant by discrimination? It just seems a bit vague.
- The phrase "Women’s Liberation" was first used in the United States in 1964[1] and first appeared in print in 1966. - Give more context for this, otherwise it is just trivia.
- Bra-burning also became associated with the movement. - Explain what this represented.
- Kohlberg revised his scoring methods as a result of Gilligan's critique, after which boys and girls scored unevenly. - They still scored unevenly?
- It now denotes a wide range of theories, some of which argue that postmodernism has destabilized the notion of a universal femininity, and take critical approach to previous feminist discourses, including challenges to second-wave ideas. - a little convoluted
- According to liberal feminists, all women are capable of asserting their ability to achieve equality - I'm not quite sure what this means.
- In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century both Clara Zetkin and Eleanor Marx were against the demonization of men and supported a proletarian revolution that would overcome as many male-female inequalities as possible. - This information has little context around it. It is just sitting there.
- Colonial oppression may result in the glorification of pre-colonial culture, which, in cultures with traditions of power stratification along gender lines, could mean the acceptance of, or refusal to deal with, inherent issues of gender inequality. - This needs to be explained a bit better.
- Feminism has driven cultural work in the fields of cinema, drama, literature and music. - Banal statement - so have a lot of things.
- Virginia Balisn et al. characterize the growth in interest since 1970 in women's writing as "powerful". - Say who everyone is!
- Caption: March 8 rally in Dhaka, Bangladesh - needs a year
- Women have developed themselves according to the situations and has become advanced in various fields. They have become independent in respect of their reproductive right. - ungrammatical and vague (I can't fix it because I don't know what it is supposed to say)
- Steven Rhoads' book Taking Sex Differences Seriously illustrates sex-dependent differences across a wide scope. - What does "across a wide scope" mean?
- She argues rather than using evidence of innate gender difference there is an over-changing hypothesis to justify inequality and perpetuate stereotypes. - very unclear
- Jeremy Bentham demanded equal rights for women in the eighteenth century. - Are we sure he demanded equal rights?
- During the suffragettes' campaign anti-suffragists numbered 160 in 1902 in Britain. - This seems odd - I would have expected that thousands of men were opposed to women getting the vote.
Prose:
- The article needs a good copy editor. I did quite a bit of work as I was reading, but it needs someone focused on that task. Here are some of the problems I noticed (I tried to fix some of these as I was reading, but more needs to be done):
- I noticed an inconsistency in the capitalization of "feminism" and "Western", for example.
- Repetition of words and phrases
- General wordiness
- Misuse of the hyphen - "second-wave" should only be hyphenated when it is a compound adjective ("second-wave feminism"). See WP:HYPHEN
- All scholars need to be identified in the article with some sort of phrase so that reader know why to trust them (e.g. "feminist historian" or simply "scholar"). Names of scholars rarely mean much to the general public. They are no J-Lo.
- Be sure that "feminists" and "feminism" are used in appropriate locations.
- The article needs to have a consistent verb tense.
Layout:
- I would look for an attractive picture for the lead - the feminism template is helpful but not eye-catching. Sometimes we have to pander.
- The "See also" list is long - try to prune.
- The "External link" list is long - can you break it up into sections or prune it?
MOS (I only list these things because I know that someday the editors will want to take the article to FAC and these things will matter):
- Inconsistent citation style in the notes (see WP:CITE)
- According to WP:MOS#Images, images should not be sized (see exceptions).
- I delinked a lot of obvious terms (e.g. "men") and linked less obvious ones, but another sweep would be wise. See WP:MOS-L for suggestions on linking.
- See WP:PUNC for rules on punctuation.
- Terms that being defined should be italicized (see WP:ITALICS).
- Inconsistent serial comma - make consistent one way or the other.
- WP:MOSQUOTE - several issues here.
I am very impressed with the editors' ability to summarize so much material here. Overall, the article does a good job of balancing the general with the specific. Awadewit | talk 12:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- And I am very impresed by your thoughtful and constructive comments ... I hope you will contribute more to this article. If you feel capable of acting on any of your own suggestions, I encourage you to go ahead and do it! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Awadewit, for this truely comprehensive review, it really is very very helpful to have a fresh set of eyes and a mind that knows the subject give such a detailed examination of the page. I'm sure we can all work together on tackling these issues. Your points about the people of interest is pertinent and I think we should really consider removing them or drastically reducing them--Cailil talk 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Feminism Portal
Who thinks there should be a Portal:Feminism? I think its a good idea. What are your opinions on this? --Grrrlriot (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is a great idea, but I was wondering if we might want to make it a sub-portal of Gender Studies? Phyesalis (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. What do you mean exactly, Phyesalis? Do you mean a Portal:Gender Studies? --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's and an argument for their being both a Portal:feminism and Portal:Gender studies. However there would be significant duplication of material if both existed, so choosing one or the other is necessary - in which case I'd go for Portal:Gender studies as the more inclusive--Cailil talk 22:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- It might be a good idea to moot the idea at Project Gender studies talk page?--Cailil talk 22:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about the confusion, I assumed there was a Gender studies portal. What I meant was that, for example, the Portal:Human rights is a sub-portal of Portal:Law. In an effort to stave off duplication, I thought we could make feminism a sub-portal/sub-project of the Gender Studies portal/project. I've brought this up over on the WT:GS#Portal proposal. Phyesalis (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Picture for lead
As Awadewit suggested this article needs a picture for the lead. Unfortunately there is a dearth of pictures in the commons for this purpose - I'm going to suggest we use [[Image:8marchrallydhaka (55).JPG]] Has anybody any feelings about thsi or any thoughts about an alternative?--Cailil talk 21:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I really like the one you just posted myself. --Kukini hablame aqui 23:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Where is the criticism section?
If none exists it's a sign of heavy POV , I assume some of the feminists deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.149.17 (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:CRITICISM. Criticism sections are integrated into the text of an article otherwise they become POV sections - so at this point criticism (as has been said on this page already) exists in a number of sections, from post-feminism to anti-feminism and in other sections like postcolonial feminism. Also please sign your comments--Cailil talk 00:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Cailil on this perspective. --Kukini hablame aqui 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
To-do feminism list
I saw that the Feminism article needs copy-editing. What does this mean exactly? --Grrrlriot (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Subcategory/Task Force of Feminism
If you want more information or if you think you would be interested in participating, Take a look here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies#Subcategory.2FTask_Force_of_Feminism or stop by my talk page and let me know. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Feminist
216.26.212.37 (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Ashley Johnson I found it very interesting that you can compare how a word was defined in two different years. I think the newer version was better because it had more information with it.
Hi there, is there an article on this topic under another name? There is one on a book dealing with the subject - Sexual Politics, but I can't find an article dealing with it in general. If somebody could change that redlink to a redirect that would be great, thanks. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Requested articles
- Deborah Laake and Colleen McDannell, both opposed sexual repression in the Church of Latter Day Saints.
Thank you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Persons of interest
While useful to some degree I think we need to take Awadweit's advice and rethink the "people of interest" lists. Prime example was the addition of Benazir Bhutto to the Islamic feminism list. While Bhuto was a powerful woman she was not an Islamic feminist. The problem is that there is a concept "out there" that: she's a powerful woman therefore she's a feminist. While this is sometimes true it is not actually accurate and is not an encyclopedic way of thinking. (Following that logic somebody could add Margaret Thatcher to the list of feminists - which would be an erroneous inclusion.) Getting back to the point, these lists will be challenged at GA and FAC level, why do we have them? How do they fit into the manual of style? Isn't their purpose served by the List of feminists already? When I ask myself these questions I think we need to remove the lists. What does anyone else think?--Cailil talk 20:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Benazir Bhutto once gave a speech entitled, Speech criticizing male domination of women of Islamic religion which was studied in at least one University course entitled "Islamic Feminism."[1] She was a strong voice for gender equality within the Islamic world, often characterized as feminist[2][3] and explicitly fighting for women's rights [4]. She was clearly an Islamic feminist activist. Of course, some feminists deny that Bhutto was a feminist, because they disagree with some of what Bhutto said; but Wikipedia should not embrace that point of view especially considering Bhutto self-identified as feminist.[5] Cailil's edit and edit summary removing Bhutto from the list violate WP:NPOV.
- As for the "people of interest" links, I think they are useless and should be removed. People of interest should be wikified in the prose where their relevance to feminism is presented. Blackworm (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- On a point of order Blackworm the fact that Bhutto stood-up for feminist and women rights issues in an Islamic state is undisputed. And for the record I have no issue with her or anything she said. Your assertion, is based upon something I should not have taken for granted above, that editors would know what an Islamic feminist is. So what is an Islamic feminist - is it a feminist who happens to be a Muslim or live in a Muslim country, or is it a feminist who is explicitly engaged with issues of Muslim theology? We have Islamic feminism listed under religion here. We have it side by side with Christian feminism and Jewish feminism, both of which deal with theological issues. There is a difference between being a muslim and a feminist and being part of the Islamic feminist movement. This is why I am objecting to her inclusion on that list (I would have had no problem with her on the Postcolonial feminism and third-world_feminism list, because that has is about feminism in formerly colonized regions).
- My wording might be unclear above, I apologize if it is. Obviously Bhutto is a feminist (just like Mary Robinson is a feminist), I have no problem with Bhutto being described as a feminist in the ordinary sense - my issue is with her inclusion on that list and the general use of those lists here. If somebody added Mary Robinson to the list of Liberal feminists I would remove her from it too. Yes she is liberal, yes she is a feminist but there is no description of her as a liberal feminist (which is a different thing to being a liberal and a feminist) - therefore that inclusion would be OR.
- Now I don't believe I'm infallible so if I'm wrong please contradict me but although she is discussed and/or mentioned in some books to do with women's rights in Muslim countries where is she described as an Islamic feminist who deals with theological issues? I've only read a few books in this area, perhaps Blackworm you have done more research than I?
- Having said that I'm happy to abide by consensus here so if everyone else thinks she should go on the list fine. Also can we keep in mind the point of this thread is the future of the people of interest lists. I would not have answered the above in such length but for the serious accusation that Blackworm leveled at me. Also, I have requested an overview of my edit by a third party--Cailil talk 22:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- There was indeed somewhat of a misunderstanding between us. The section was "persons of interest," not "Islamic feminist activists" nor "persons who are feminists and explicitly engaged with issues of Muslim theology." Couldn't there indeed conceivably also be other "persons of interest" to the subject without being involved in feminism at all?
- I am also not comfortable with you requiring other criteria than one being Islamic and a feminist to justify calling someone an "Islamic feminist." What is a black feminist? Is it a feminist who, in your words, "happens to be" black? I say, yes. It doesn't mean they are specifically involved in "Black feminism" however. They just "happen to be" a black feminist. If they are further involved with Black feminism, they are Black feminism proponents. (Note why the word "black" is capitalized in "Black feminism" but not in "black feminist.") They just "happen to be" a black feminist. I believe the same of "Islamic feminist," whether I have "researched" the subject of Islamic feminism more than you or not. Perhaps my error is that I don't allow "experts" to tell me I'm wrong to use an adjective or two plus a noun as an intersection of each of the properties, when I believe it is a perfectly reasonable usage? Does that accurately describe what you are suggesting I do? And again, if your criteria for inclusion in that list is that one is a proponent of Islamic feminism, then the list title should be "proponents of Islamic feminism," not "persons of interest." See also WP:LIST: Embedded lists should have a lead paragraph in cases where the title is ambiguous or when the list has non-obvious characteristics.
- I don't believe Wikipedia is a list of persons related to topics. I don't believe the feminism article should contain any lists of propopents, especially in sections that already have sub-articles. If these lists must be there they should be summarized as a link to a subarticle, which could hopefully eventually develop into a stub with text describing the person's contribution. If these people are notable proponents, we should present something they said or did, not merely list them. All this is IMO, of course; I will abide by consensus. Blackworm (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well this is where WP:PROVEIT really comes into its own. A feminist movement like Black feminism is a specific cultural, social and historical movement - being an African-American woman and a feminist is not the same thing as being part of the Black feminist movement (Cheryl Clarke and Patricia Hill Collins[1] have actually written articles about the issues with the definition of black feminists as you are outlining it above). Black feminism is a specific ideological construct & discourse[2][3]. Just like Marxist feminism is or Christian feminism is or Islamic feminism is. (in the case of Black feminism it is described as "a process of self-conscious struggle [towards] ... a humanist vision of community"[1]) Even the concept of French feminism is defined by a common philosophical grouping (Julia Kristeva, from Bulgaria, is considered to be a "French Feminist" becuase of the discourses in which her work are engaged[4]). A casual linking of ideas (muslim+woman+feminist = Islamic feminist) is not encyclopedic thinking (it actually borders on WP:OR), journalists might do it all the time but in an encyclopedia we use reliable third party sources to define what Islamic feminism is (btw that article needs attention in this regard) and to decide who is part of that movement and who might be better categorized as "a Feminist from Pakistan". There are at least 4 books which are quite good as a beginning in researching the difference between Islamic feminism and feminism in Islamic countries[5][6][7][8] Your point is made Blackworm and I broadly agree with you about the lists but at this time I think this thread has been derailed and it's purpose lost--Cailil talk 13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- If I understand you correctly, you are asking me to prove that a black feminist is a feminist who is black. I believe this follows from fundamental principles of the English language. I understand you use the phrase differently, but contrary to your claims, encyclopedia are for people without specialist knowledge. I understand you have books detailing what Islamic feminism is, and note that I do not dispute what Islamic feminism is, I dispute only the claim that an Islamic feminist is necessarily a proponent of Islamic feminism under that definition.
- How has this thread been derailed? Blackworm (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I would like to counter your statement, there is no description of [Mary Robinson] as a liberal feminist. Please see: In the years as Irish head of State, Mary Robinson has redefined this primarily ceremonial role. A prominent liberal feminist and high achiever academically ...[6] Also, When President Robinson was elected it caused a stir throughout the world. [...] As people abroad saw it, we had a liberal feminist President elected in what they perceived, [...][7] There are other examples. Blackworm (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- You asked why is this thread derailed - well this thread is entitled persons of interest, it was about the future of those lists - it's now about your objections. Secondly, you are incorrect a parliament discussion is not necessarily a reliable source for definitive categorization, nor does the european list of women in decision making contradict the library of definitions for Liberal feminism as being a historically and culturally specific socio-political & philiosophical movement. In this case it would be impossible for Mrs Robinson to be part of the same Liberal feminist grouping since that movement is American being bound-up with NOW and the ERA (there was also a British dimension to that broader movement). There is no doubt that she was influenced by them but that's not the same thing as being part of that same movement. Also above when you ask "If I understand you correctly, you are asking me to prove that a black feminist is a feminist who is black" - you have totally misunderstood everything I said above if you are left with this idea. Please re-read the posts. Simply put Black feminism is a philosophical movement. African-American women don't automatically belong to that category just because of their race - they could be radical feminists or marxist feminists etc. As I said before scholars have already explained why your definition of black feminism (a feminist who is black) is inaccurate. Similarly categorizing a muslim woman as an Islamic feminist just because of her religion and/or ethnicity is wrong. I am disengaged from this--Cailil talk 11:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I would like to counter your statement, there is no description of [Mary Robinson] as a liberal feminist. Please see: In the years as Irish head of State, Mary Robinson has redefined this primarily ceremonial role. A prominent liberal feminist and high achiever academically ...[6] Also, When President Robinson was elected it caused a stir throughout the world. [...] As people abroad saw it, we had a liberal feminist President elected in what they perceived, [...][7] There are other examples. Blackworm (talk) 03:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well this is where WP:PROVEIT really comes into its own. A feminist movement like Black feminism is a specific cultural, social and historical movement - being an African-American woman and a feminist is not the same thing as being part of the Black feminist movement (Cheryl Clarke and Patricia Hill Collins[1] have actually written articles about the issues with the definition of black feminists as you are outlining it above). Black feminism is a specific ideological construct & discourse[2][3]. Just like Marxist feminism is or Christian feminism is or Islamic feminism is. (in the case of Black feminism it is described as "a process of self-conscious struggle [towards] ... a humanist vision of community"[1]) Even the concept of French feminism is defined by a common philosophical grouping (Julia Kristeva, from Bulgaria, is considered to be a "French Feminist" becuase of the discourses in which her work are engaged[4]). A casual linking of ideas (muslim+woman+feminist = Islamic feminist) is not encyclopedic thinking (it actually borders on WP:OR), journalists might do it all the time but in an encyclopedia we use reliable third party sources to define what Islamic feminism is (btw that article needs attention in this regard) and to decide who is part of that movement and who might be better categorized as "a Feminist from Pakistan". There are at least 4 books which are quite good as a beginning in researching the difference between Islamic feminism and feminism in Islamic countries[5][6][7][8] Your point is made Blackworm and I broadly agree with you about the lists but at this time I think this thread has been derailed and it's purpose lost--Cailil talk 13:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
how are we now as far as being liberal or radical? the u.s. as a whole?
04:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)kc 02-25-08
Persons of interest lists
cross posted from Portal talk:Feminism/Feminism Task Force
I've made a "mock-up" of this article minus the "persons of interest lists" in my sandbox. I realize that edits like IronAngelAlice's are good contributions but the lists are in breach of WP:LIST and they do not conform to the style for summary articles. What I'm proposing is we either merge these lists into the see also sections of the appropriate sub-articles or we prune them and use {{related}} to list the most notable terms (3-5). Unless anyone objects to the removal of the lists I'm going to remove them at the weekend--Cailil talk 22:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I made this edit earlier this morning. I've also made a number of grammar and syntax changes. However probably the biggest change is the commenting out of the Anita Hill case. As Awadewit said months ago the weight it was being given may be undue - I am not 100% sure of the need for this article to delve into the story of that case so fo the moment I've commented it out. If the page is not making sense without it we should reintroduce it either in part or in whole. Any other opinions?--Cailil talk 02:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Have had to revert IP 117.200.224.164 who was re-adding spam and blanking {{fact}} templates--Cailil talk 19:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Removal of POVCHECK
Okay, I've removed the povcheck template added by IP 69.140.152.55 as it is very unclear what they are asking for to be checked. I left them a note about this already[8]. If anyone wants to discuss POV in a section could they please put a message here as well as putting a template in the article. It will allow the rest of us to understand what exactly is being disputed / asked to be checked--Cailil talk 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Zaphraud's edit
I've undone this edit by User:Zaphraud but I'm assuming good faith. There are a number of issues with it - which need discussion and explanation.
First of all giving Lactivism the weight Zaphraud's edit did was undue. This page has not gone into reproductive rights or other legal rights in this way because it's linking to those articles instead. Secondly, everything added needs sourcing. What was added was completely unsourced (see WP:PROVEIT). Thirdly, there needs to be a source that specifies exactly why this belongs here rather than at Women's rights. Fourthly, why put this in the history section?
The other move Zaphraud made in the edit, and the one I have serious issues with, was to put French feminism in the 'regional feminism' section. This was probably done in the best faith and probably because teh subject has the name "French feminism". The problem is putting that subject into 'regional feminisms' is inaccurate. French feminism is also known as Poststructural feminism and is a highly significant movement in Feminist thought and philosophy it belongs in the history section. Feminism in France and French feminism are two distinct subjects - it is confusing so your move was totally understandable.
I certainly wouldn't have a problem with some info on lactivism being here but it needs to be given due weight and no more than that. The info would also need proper sourcing. I'm putting a link to it into the 'See also' section--Cailil talk 13:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I can't find it there, so I will add it for ya. I will try to bring more sourced information in the future; the challenge here I am assuming is finding it from reporters who discuss the event in terms of women's rights rather than just reporting about the event in question? What would be preferred for this article?
- If you take a look at http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/breast50.htm you will find a list of breastfeeding laws, state by state. It really is shocking how recently (post 2000, all too often) that public law has been altered to prevent breastfeeding from being defined as public obscenity or as an act that a corporate entity can use as an excuse to tell someone to leave. Also, entirely too many citizens are totally unaware that the laws have been changed, as is often the case whenever any law has changed. How long did it take to educate most people about the "new" sexual harassment laws when THAT situation was rectified how long ago? Most people have a long way to go towards understanding these newly guaranteed rights and why they are so important. Zaphraud (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is no doubt that a mother's right to nurse in public is an important woman's issue. And it has a place in feminist debate. But we cannot give it undue weight. Our own views on the matter are irrelevant. Since this is an article on feminism, the only questions are: (1) which feminists are concerned with lactivism? (2) For these feminists, is lactivism a major concern or a minor concern? (3) within the feminist movement, are these feminists highly notable, un-notable, or somewhere in-between? Provide reliable sources that answer these questions, and we can determine how much weight to give the matter in this article. And, as Calil said, there is nothing at all wrong with having a separate Wikipedia article entirely devoted to this topic (see the journal article a couple of years ago by Jackie Wolf in Signs as a valuable source), going into detail about the struggle (1) with medical professionals (2) with employers (3) with legislators and (4) with feminists - a detailed history of each of these struggles and the various views within them, presented in an NPOV way (no room for the word "shocking") would make for a great article, which of course we could link to this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
social construction in the lede
A while ago we had a discussion about naming Judith Butler in the lede (see here) - this was in connection with social construction of gender. We decided to remove mention of her from the line. I've just reworded it - to reduce the jargon and to remove ambiguity that was being caused by whether "some" or "certain" gender roles are socially constructed in these scholars views. (The sources say that 'gender roles are socially constructed' - they don't say "certain ones".)
The line now reads:
Other feminists have argued that gender roles are social rather than biological phenomena.[16][17][18]
I think it would be beneficial to qualify who says this. Whether we name de Beauvoir, West and Zimmerman and/or Judith Butler, I would strongly suggest we name drop - because this view is specific to certain people and certain theories--Cailil talk 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Equal rights or rights?
Case in point.
The polarization of the sexes, is evident in the lack of clear logic showing that men, benefit from women working, ie their wives, girlfriends, mothers; this type of "bridge logic" as I will call it is totally lacking.
Anyway the point of this is that I recall as a member of the Credit Union, the manager stated quite clearly, that the Union was in total compliance with women's equality employment legislation.
She then laughed. All our employees are women.
So it is important to clearly state that feminism, was more about rights for women, rather than equal rights for women. In some cases the approach was not at all about gender fairness.
The devil is in the details.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- ^ a b Patricia Hill Collins, 'Defining Black Feminist Thought' in Philomena Essed, David Theo Goldberg eds., Philomena Essed, David Theo Goldberg (London: Blackwell publishing Ltd., 2002) p. 174
- ^ Bell Hooks, Ain't I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism (London: South End Press, 1999)
- ^ Heidi Safia Mirza, ed., Black British Feminism: A Reader (London: Routledge, 1999)
- ^ Elizabeth A. Grosz Sexual Subversions: Three French Feminists (Allen & Unwin, 1989)
- ^ Warnock Fernea, Elizabeth, In Search of Islamic Feminism, (1998)
- ^ Ali Hussain al-Hakim, Islam and Feminism: Theory, Modelling and Applications (2005)
- ^ Haideh Moghissi, Feminism and Islamic fundamentalism : the limits of postmodern analysis (1999)
- ^ Amina Wadud, Inside the gender Jihad : women's reform in Islam (2006)