Edit filter log

'{{talkheader}} {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= {{WikiProject Gender Studies|class=B|nested=yes|feminism-task-force=yes}} {{WikiProject Discrimination|class=B|nested=yes}} {{WikiProject Sociology|class=B|importance=High||nested=yes}} {{philosophy|social=yes|nested=yes|class=B|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Politics|class=B|importance=high|nested=yes}} }} {{ArticleHistory |action1=GAN |action1date=2007-02-10 |action1link=Talk:Feminism/Archive 8#GA failed |action1result=failed |action1oldid=107012264 |action2=GAN |action2date=2007-08-19 |action2link=Talk:Feminism/Archive 10#GA fail |action2result=failed |action2oldid=152042544 |action3=PR |action3date=18:13, 18 June 2008 |action3link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Feminism/archive1 |action3result=reviewed |action3oldid=219506198 |currentstatus=FGAN }} {{notforum|Feminism}} {{User:MiszaBot/config |maxarchivesize = 100K |counter = 13 |minthreadsleft = 6 |algo = old(90d) |archive = Talk:Feminism/Archive %(counter)d }} {{todo|1}} {{Topic|Feminism|talk=y}} __TOC__ == This entire Article, "feminism" is violating Wikipedia's terms of service. == I don't know why Wikipedia is allowing this biased article to appear as encyclopedic information. This is a total abuse of Wikipedia's resources. Please notice how many times this article has been revised and altered.<br> Also, search for men's blogs, such as "the National Organization for men" or, "The national center for men", and these articles are no where to be found.<br> Also, Wikipedia has already removed a Fathers Rights article.<br> Plus, the Men's Rights page has a citation questioning its validity.<br> FINALLY, if the Feminists handle this article with such obsessiveness, one can only imagine the type of material being circulated throughout Universities & Scholastics.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mensrightsmovement|Mensrightsmovement]] ([[User talk:Mensrightsmovement|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mensrightsmovement|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> :This article is only as biased as its sources. It's just as revised as a great number of other articles, no different. The editors are only as obsessive as other ones that are continually under attack by people such as yourself. If you want a men's POV article to stand, you'll have to find reliable, verifiable sources, per [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]]. Regarding 'obsessiveness', he who lives in glass house... [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 19:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I can only assume that the above ("he who lives in a glass house") is a personal attack, and therefore against wikipedia's policies.[[Special:Contributions/68.146.14.97|68.146.14.97]] ([[User talk:68.146.14.97|talk]]) 07:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC) I agree with the original posting. This article is a disgrace. There isn't even a controversy section. I, myself, have been repeatedly subjected to highly partisan perspectives in classes throughout university. I have heard an account of an instructor who "lost" tenure because his (female) co-instructor blew up (i.e. was yelling) at a student who dared to disagree with her sacred tenants (I assume he was civil, but irregardless, that's unacceptable). I have been in a psychology of gender class. I received a B+, but it was likewise a disgrace (wholesale indoctrination, basically). I also experienced similar indoctrination throughout high school, with the selection of novels covered throughout my experience. Such partisanship is the reason I was so virulently antifeminist for several years (even now I fall back, on occasion). I support equal rights for women and other so-called minorities. But I'll be damned if I call myself a feminist. And yes, in case you're wondering I am a male. This should make little difference: you don't need to be an atom to understand physics, and you don't need to be a woman to understand, reason or write about them. Rationality and intellect are neither male nor female. [[Special:Contributions/68.146.14.97|68.146.14.97]] ([[User talk:68.146.14.97|talk]]) 04:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC) :So write one if you can; even better would be for controversial bits to be inserted into appropriate places in the article, rather than grouped together. Me? I don't see the need. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 04:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC) :Actually, "Controversy" or [[Wikipedia:Criticism#Evaluations_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section|"Criticism" sections]] are discouraged. Not because critical views of a given topic are discouraged within an article – [[WP:NPOV]] mandates quite the opposite. However, best practice in Wikipedia is when critical views are incorporated into the article as a whole, rather than placed into a special "criticism" section, which generally serves as a troll magnate. If a section specifically concerning reception or evaluation of an idea is called for, then a title like "Reception" or "Evaluation" (which leaves room for positive evaluation as well as negative) is what's called for. :Also, much of what has been discussed as "criticism of feminism" falls under the heading of "antifeminism", and there is actually a section in the article on that. :Another point that needs to be made – criticisms of a subject need to be criticisms that are already in verifiable, published sources and meet the criteria of [[WP:VERIFY]] and [[WP:NOTABILITY]]. In other words, these can't just be your personal pet criticisms that you happen to feel deserve "equal time". [[WP:SOAPBOX|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]]. [[User:Iamcuriousblue|Iamcuriousblue]] ([[User talk:Iamcuriousblue|talk]]) 03:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC) I am posting the following (from discussion history), because I believe it has particular merit to the subject under discussion. unfortunately, i haven't been able to format it correctly (something automatically is be applied; I don't know how to remove it). [[Special:Contributions/68.146.14.97|68.146.14.97]] ([[User talk:68.146.14.97|talk]]) 04:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC) :"''For an example of a criticism of feminism, take this excerpt from a book by Daphne Patai:''" {{blockquote|There is within much feminist writing today (as there has been for the past few decades) a pretense that the charge of male-bashing is a slanderous mischaracterization motivated by political impulses that are conservative (and thus assumed to be reprehensible). But it is plain and irrefutable that much contemporary feminism is indeed marred by hostility toward men."[3]}} :What would be inappropriate about including mention of that criticism here? There are many, many examples of both mainstream and academic writing generally critical of feminism. By focusing on internal debates within feminism, or if you prefer, between streams of feminism, this article seems to have an implicit stance that there is little or no notable criticism of feminism itself. That implied stance contradicts your statement that most people aren't feminists or that many people reject feminism -- the latter especially is not made clear at all by reading this article, and we can't assume the reader knows anything about it. I personally have been put in a position to argue just that to people who believe the contrary, i.e., that most people are feminists (some add "but they just don't know it") or that almost no one rejects feminism (some offer the explanation that "they don't really reject it because they don't really know what feminism is"). The latter explanation sounds much like your argument against including criticism here. These additions and your argument are counter-points at best, not reasons for Wikipedia to leave criticism of feminism out of the feminism article, in my view. If what you say is true, it should be clear from reading this article. I claim that it is not clear, at the moment.'' :Your analogy to evolution suffers from a lack of attention to some glaring differences, namely a lack of scientific rigour in gender studies, and a lack of a scientific consensus (or any apparent consensus, except within feminism) on the validity of feminism's central tenets, or on, say, the net benefit to society of the exploration of those tenets as expressed by feminism's adherents. :Finally, I do not see a valid basis for excluding criticism of feminism on the basis that the article does not explore internal divisions within feminism adequately. Respectfully, this seems like a non-sequitur to me, and an artificial hurdle. I suggest we instead let the reader decide if the abundant criticism of feminism is valid. Of course, such criticism should not predominate the article, and should be supported by good sources. I'm afraid our views on the application of WP:NPOV in relation to this article</nowiki> seem for the moment to be in stark contrast. (originally posted by Blackworm (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)) The formatting will fix itself if you don't indent a paragraph. Each line of text must start at the left edge, with no tabs or spaces. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 14:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Guys [[WP:DFTT]], old discussions which keep getting churned out in the same way again and again are not helpful. Criticism sections are discussed in WP:CRITICISM, as Iamcuriousblue has pointed out. If anyone wants to included critical amterial just put in the appropriate place within the article and follow [[WP:DUE]] and [[WP:NOR]]. And please remember wikipedia is not a forum--[[User:Cailil|<font color="#999999" size="2">'''Cailil'''</font>]] ^{[[User_talk:Cailil|<font color="#999999">'''talk'''</font>]]} 12:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Not if you would the lack of a link to [[Masculism]], where as there is one to Feminism on the Masculism page.(Signed by Tally) This article is indeed an outrage. To call (feminist or non feminist) critics of feminism 'antifeminist' is Orwellian. As one goes back through the history of the discussions about criticisms of feminism one always finds the same editors who squelch valid content by resorting to idiotic WIKIPEDIA rules which themselves are an insult to reason/readers. No one with any intelligence can countenance Wikipedia's editor standards. That may be one reason why participation in Jimbo's Maoist experiment is tapering off. No genuine editor has time to waste on apparatcheks who stifle reasonable content for political purposes. [[Special:Contributions/72.215.174.26|72.215.174.26]] ([[User talk:72.215.174.26|talk]]) 03:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC) :I will remind our anonymous "[[:Troll (Internet)|friend]]" that [[:Jimmy Wales|Jimbo]] is a [[:Objectivism|Randroid]], not a [[:Maoism|Maoist]]! --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] &#x007C; [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 14:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC) ::The proof is in the pudding. Where is critical comment content like that from feminist Daphne Patia's What Price Utopia?: Essays on Ideological Policing, Feminism, and Academic Affairs or from feminist Ellen Klien's Undressing Feminism: A Philosophical Expose seen in this article or any other related article. Politically Correct perverts rule Wikipedia...and Jimbo seems to care little about reason or respectful discourse. To label the previous author a 'troll' for posting thoughtful criticisms that speak directly to the integrity of the article is precisely what one would anticipate in Maoist states. 'Good Faith' indeed! [[Special:Contributions/72.214.255.148|72.214.255.148]] ([[User talk:72.214.255.148|talk]]) 05:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC) :::Yep, looks like one of the many faces of the [[WP:CABALS|Great Wikipedia Cabal]]. Variously described as Politically Correct Pervert Maoists, [http://feministlawprofessors.com/?p=4226 Rabid Anti-Feminist Pro-Pornographers], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_bias_in_Wikipedia Liberals], [http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/wikipedia-ziopedia-or-judeopedia/ Zionists], [http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/12/why-wikipedia-wont-work.html Jihadists], and much else. Believe me, being all enemies to all people is tough job, but sombody's got to do it! [[User:Iamcuriousblue|Iamcuriousblue]] ([[User talk:Iamcuriousblue|talk]]) 20:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC) ::::Looks to me like Iamcuriousblue is less curious than her/his name denotes. Sarcasm will hardly suffice 'for all the people'. I, for one, believe that 'all the people' need nice people to call things like the Enron debacle, the recent Wall Street collapse, and even today's Climate Change Data Hacking Tempest. "Proof in the pudding" may be onto something. [[Special:Contributions/128.111.95.31|128.111.95.31]] ([[User talk:128.111.95.31|talk]]) 02:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC) == Biology of gender introductory sentence, innacurate, bias? == I suggest an edit to the first sentence. It seems to contradict the the balanced content of the rest of the section which states clearly that modern feminism is concerned with BOTH the biological and socially constructed elements of gender identity. It does so without citations. I feel that this is a critical point. I do not have editing privileges. Here is my suggested replacement: : Modern feminist science challenges the biological essentialist view of gender, however it is increasingly interested in the study of biological sex differences and their effect on human behaviour. This is supported by the references included in the rest of the paragraph. Thanks! [[User:Seblopedia|Seblopedia]] ([[User talk:Seblopedia|talk]]) 05:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)seblopedia :Done. Anybody can edit. :-) -[[User:SusanLesch|SusanLesch]] ([[User talk:SusanLesch|talk]]) 06:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC) == Pro Fetal Life == Both Elizabeth Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and others are pro fetal life. It is shameful that Feminism is equated with the pro-choice position without a mention of difference of opinion. Pro-life feminists are a significant force and whenever I add anything about this in the article, I am shot down. This article reeks of intellectual dishonesty. Users like Binksternet are stifling my right to post valid, honest, relevent information to the article. For Shame. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Boromir123|Boromir123]] ([[User talk:Boromir123|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boromir123|contribs]]) 15:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :"Fetal rights" is not a feminist issue—it is a parenting issue, and a social issue, common to both sexes. Yes, some feminists are interested in those rights, but we are not here to list all the things that some feminists are interested in. :Also: you are gravely mistaken about Susan B. Anthony, who pushed against slavery and the drinking of alcohol, and above all worked for the right for women to vote. Her other concerns were all very much smaller than those big three. Stanton spread herself more widely across the breadth of feminist concerns, and she did talk about "child murder" from time to time. Her main two interests were in striking down the male-dominated hierarchy, what we now call [[sexism]], and thus gaining rights for women. Did you know she wrote ''[[The Woman's Bible]]''? She was a very dynamic character, but she did not devote her life to saving fetuses. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 16:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC) ::Again, fetal rights is not a feministi issue. It is a social issue, a religious issue and a parenting issue. It involves men and women who have conceived, men and women who care about the issue in society, and both male and female fetuses. As such, it has nothing to do with purely female concerns. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 01:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC) '''See also''' [[Yoni]] : -- [[Special:Contributions/188.102.31.118|188.102.31.118]] ([[User talk:188.102.31.118|talk]]) 13:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC) == getting this article to A class == so what needs to be done do get this article all the way up to A class? [[User:Andyzweb|andyzweb]] ([[User talk:Andyzweb|talk]]) 03:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC) == French Feminism - main article link needed == Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so I'm not sure how to do this. I'm conducting some research for a college English course at the moment to help with my literary criticism, and thought at first that there was no article for French Feminism. Turns out there in fact is an article, titled "Feminism in France." How about adding a "Main Article:" link to the French Feminism section? EDIT: I see now that the page is protected (which I suppose makes sense). That explains why I couldn't figure out how to edit. Please make the change! <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Sauercrowder|Sauercrowder]] ([[User talk:Sauercrowder|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Sauercrowder|contribs]]) 23:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == gender positive == we must include in this article that feminism is not necessarily anti-male. new feminist trends are attempting to talk considerably about men's liberation too and not just women's liberation. men's lib is the new feminism today. I've tweaked in a bit in the intro, let's see what else others can do? [[User:Alinovic|Alinovic]] ([[User talk:Alinovic|talk]]) 10:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC) :I gree with you. But I reverted one edit because what you had written reduced all of feminism to on set of objectives when there are other kinds of feminisms.[[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 12:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)'