Talk:Feminism

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, on the grounds of WP:TOOLONG; there are at least two distinct topics (movements being distinct from ideology/philosophy); there was some support for making Feminist movements and ideologies 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. Klbrain (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Hello, the articles Feminism, Feminist movement and Feminist movements and ideologies obviously deal with the same subject, i.e. feminism. Fourmidable (talk) 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 Feminist movements and ideologies) for size. Merging them doesn't seem feasible. --Aquillion (talk) 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 Feminist movement, and I would love for those who do see it to help me understand. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Aquillion and 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? Fourmidable (talk) 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 Feminist movements and ideologies should be kept separate as a list however. —Panamitsu (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Y Feminism is/are (a) movement(s) according to its definition, so Feminist movement=Feminism. Reprarina (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I oppose. ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 14:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Please define what feminism is and what feminist movement is. Reprarina (talk) 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. ※Sobreira ◣◥ 〒 @「parlez」 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Reprarina, 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 Feminist movements should show you they're not the zame. — Python Drink (talk) 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. Edenaviv5 (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2023

Feminism is a range of socio-political movements and ideologies that aim to define and establish the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes "ADD" with nuanced focus on the social and performative constructions of gender and sexuality; gender, gender expression, gender identity, sex, and sexuality are understood through social theories and political activism. Y Feminism holds the position that societies prioritize "REMOVE" the male point of view and that women "ADD" patriarchal domination of all people treated unjustly in these societies. Ellgie (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. These changes could be controversial and seem out of line with the neutral point of view policy. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request - new entry to "Further Reading"

The suffragist movement, especially in Britain in the early part of the 20th century, was an important early element that isn't given much depth in the article. There is a published work by a noted suffragist and activist of that period: Constance Lytton, who wrote about her time as an activist and whose words provide a much deeper and realistic account of suffragist esperiences. Please may her book be added to the list?

Lytton, Constance and Jane Warton (her pseudonym). Prisons & Prisoners: Some Personal Experiences. United Kingdom: originally published by George H. Doran Company, 1914.

It is available in recently published print form under ISBN-10:1539167534 (ISBN-13:978-1539167532), Publisher:CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (September 30, 2016)

Also available as a free online book at https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QadX11M3PSuEBR9U6Pu85sZAxBcpSE7Z6yOVJZg7didStDGG_tkNuARdsBysAHAEsZvjgxQMdCzBZE1bFPyBcqN5bL_bE-O5wK7ogNA7FzDTtdlaM1zvnQKaC8Km5rPXSElBhibe6D042CbCKpy9hsYxgX8aqBtwm676_x5FT9y7x-M-lIK-i19_p254acT7Dv1Y_e1Baehb1ysWPh8lenrNXRT8i2CMuBvGwPtlcSIqCg6VSIBHShCV6-vnA61ZpE9NCbsN Thank you. 2600:1700:EA01:1090:AD81:5718:61E8:7B02 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Your second link doesn't work, but this one does, and it contains the full text of the book. You don't need to ask here about adding something to Further reading if it's on-topic and reliable; you can just add it yourself. Mathglot (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Relevance of the "Big Three"

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 source is Maynard, 1995 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).

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. — Bilorv (talk) 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. PanagiotisZois (talk) 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). — Bilorv (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Misandry and GA status

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 Wikipedia, 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. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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? Girth Summit _(blether) 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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 Anti-feminism and then adjust the summary here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Bro, just type "misandry" or "feminism misandry" on Google Scholar. It's that easy. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

A good suggestion. I added some content from the second source that popped up in that search. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 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. Girth Summit _(blether) 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. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to F³ for adding something, your work is appreciated. 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 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. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 04:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

If you go look at the lead of Misandry, you will find a bunch of scholarly sources cited to support the assertion 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. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)