Talk:Female superiority

Copyvio - false alarm

Earwig's detector shows 59% copyvio. This is a false alarm due to medium-size quotes formatted and attributed properly, but in a way that detector does not recognize. Викидим (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Term and definition

The lead defines "female superiority" as a broad "belief". However, the Deslaurier 2022 work cited does not appear to contain neither the term (it uses "superiority of women"), nor the feminist "belief" definition. It seems that researchers in general use "female superiority" sparingly and in a narrow sense, e.g., "female superiority in decoding ability". For the avoidance of doubt, I have no position on the concept, my issue is purely with the terminology. Викидим (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Did you see the part from the quote that said in order to show the continuities and distinctive features of feminist arguments for superiority? If not should I make the quote shorter perhaps? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I shortened it and also added a second source. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I did read the text and would not equate "arguments" (that assume some substantiation) to "beliefs" (that assume little if any underlying reasoning or facts). Викидим (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

There was a second source added since, what do you think? And if you believe there's a better term for the first sentence than "belief" (eg idea) then feel free to let me know. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

It looks better to me now. Would you be OK with replacing "belief" with more neutral "assertion"? Викидим (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad we're good with the sourcing now! As for the term "assertion", I think it fits vocabulary wise, but I'm not sure whether it makes perfect sense grammatically... although, if you insist that it's the best term to use then I won't stop you. I would suggest reading the body before editing the lead though if you haven't already, per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I have edited the first sentence. Викидим (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Women's leadership

Various sources cited in the article about women being better leaders do not explicitly mention female superiority. As such this is a WP:COATRACK and WP:WEIGHT problem. "Female" does not equate to "woman" and vice versa. Straying into WP:FORUM territory here, but the perception of women as better leaders could easily be attributable to cultural upbringing and/or benevolent sexism, rather than any inherent biological difference. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you specify which sources and sections of the article fall foul of this, so they can be reassessed? Without examples this is just an observation, and as such definitely falls into forum land. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

For starters, none of the sources about women's leadership under § Contemporary views explicitly mention female biological superiority. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Feminism?

@Sangdeboeuf I gathered more sources, and was wondering whether you think are sufficient to state that female superiority is within feminism or some of its movements (not that all of feminism is female superiority).

I bolded relevant parts.

1) First, from this source from 1990: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24436878?seq=15

a) "In fact some contemporary feminists themselves embrace the identification of women and nature, for example, Mary Daly and Susan Griffin, and indeed for the writers discussed here women's special closeness with nature is the source of some of their epistemic advantages"

b) "Thought and language without dichotomies is impossible fact, there is a 'hostile and combative dualism' at the heart of the feminist standpoint itself. It has erected a sharp hierarchical dualism of feminine/masculine, in which everything feminine is both radically different and superior to everything masculine"

2) Next, using this source from 2007: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/121565765/The_Blackwell_Encyclopedia_of_Sociology_2024_Wolff_Cultural_Feminism-libre.pdf?1740625210=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DCultural_Feminism.pdf&Expires=1768278741&Signature=Ybn-weFyWPqxUl0TSMqB-E0x2kX0PKRKLyjUCtqmjRan5wTTUHDwqsUKegjghryuj823L3Z9SxStRsHsGASDMd9n7gMP~i4Was7x0MrmqXGSxsaZK57XdTgEACa7K1yKjwVcFNxCP9gk-4VK-ZzCQgN8P2Vy-23MI7jL6~2WGJjDM8jFrwLbfgQRZI8NWn5wiictewE4s4sbNo~qNpQlxtlASMQo7CCOC3h2TY6XLefAB9wOszqliH7dHmbocgsYWmQ1QWMz0xtrn5taQYUBP0j1OtOZzZDkW9ZVnZDu4Wwva2xrj8vzOTX~Vb1daknwWSgksjKDw25YJT1z4k4lxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Please take a look at the lead of Cultural feminism. You earlier reverted an edit, in part because you saw "cultural feminism" as vague. However, this source says this: "Cultural feminism is an influential form of feminism."

Now the source says: "Cultural feminists view womens “essential” ability to nurture as a powerful asset that should be honored. Socially conditioned aspects of femininity, which include characteristics such as passivity and submissiveness, are redefined and revalidated as exemplifying womens innate capacity to be loving, nonviolent, co-operative, and egalitarian. Men and masculinity, in contrast, are viewed as inherently violent, aggressive, and competitive. Some cultural feminists believed that men, seen as the enemy by virtue of their nature, were biologically conditioned to oppress women."

3) https://iasj.rdd.edu.iq/journals/uploads/2024/12/18/057df7554d36d017583e2f538fa0ee30.pdf (made recent, it cites sources as recent as 2022):

a) "Accordingly, cultural feminism is keen to show the distinguished and superior virtues in women." (check earlier part to see evidence of cultural feminism counting.)

b) The text begins as this: "This paper examines the theme of female superior qualities in Gillian Flynn’s novel Gone Girl." Gone Girl is feminist: "Gone Girl serves as a powerful example of the potential of feminist literature to challenge societal norms and transform cultural attitudes." (However, I don't want to violate WP:SYNTH, so we should be careful with this one.)

4) "https://blog.richmond.edu/introwgss/files/2019/03/Feminism-and-Abortion-The-Atlantic.pdf"Says it's from The Atlantic, 1990

a) "But these comparisons were spurned by those academic feminists who preferred to believe that social science had proved the existence of a separate, and morally superior, female mind" (There seems to be opinions inserted into this essay, although I'm not sure if this part specifically is opiniated also)

5) https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/14736/3421 (from 2021)

a) "Womad, a South Korean online “feminist” community, has since its inception been the center of national controversy stemming from its avowed belief in the biological superiority of women (and the innate inferiority of men)." (Not sure why feminist has scare quotes here, could be either because they're casting doubt on them being feminist, or because they're quoting them ver baitum).

b) "This article will situate Womad’s radical feminist politics —referring to its espousal of radical feminist-cum-separatist politics(Whelehan, 1995),which has been translated inWomad into a championing of female superiority over male inferiority(J. Choi, 2018)—within a feminist media studies discourse that examines how neoliberalism has influenced online feminist activism " (this part might be more about radical feminism specifically, however, that's still a movement within feminism).

Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems you are working backward from the view that feminists believe in female superiority, trying to find sources to support that position. As a result, most of the above sources are being cited out of context. What is your evidence that any of these sources represent a majority view among experts as opposed to fringe viewpoints?

I don't have time to pick through all of the sources listed. However, the first source, besides being written 35 years ago and likely out of date, seems to focus on feminist epistemology, not female superiority itself. Why would we add anything to this article before mentioning female superiority at the Feminist epistemology or Feminist philosophy articles?

Since the feminist movement encompasses millions of people holding a range of beliefs existing over more than a century, it's fair to say that some of them probably believe in female superiority. That doesn't mean the information belongs in an encyclopedia. Unless your intention is to create a point-of-view fork (not recommended), I would propose adding this information to Feminism or one of its subtopics before creating a standalone article about it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems you are working backward from the view that feminists believe in female superiority, trying to find sources to support that position I disagree: I'm trying to find information about the relationship between female superiority and feminism, to see whether it is related, not because I have an opinion and am trying to insert said opinion.

What is your evidence that any of these sources represent a majority view among experts as opposed to fringe viewpoints? Are you referring to feminism being entirely female superiority? Because that's not what I nor these sources claim. Just that this movement is within feminism, or some of its movements: this is what the sources seem to support.

I don't have time to pick through all of the sources listed. Well, should I ask in another place? Because I want to see which of these sources are reliable enough to include in this article, and other related articles.

besides being written 35 years ago and likely out of date (Some of the other sources are more recent)

seems to focus on feminist epistemology, not female superiority itself. Why would we add anything to this article before mentioning female superiority at the Feminist epistemology or Feminist philosophy articles? First off, part b from this source literally says "superiority", and it talks about how women are better than men in this regard. As for adding to other articles, I completely agree that should be done, and I am planning on doing this. However, the information included in this article even without these extra sources is already enough to have it merit its own article.

Unless your intention is to create a point-of-view fork (not recommended) I believe there is a misunderstanding here, which I have tried to clarify, but apparently haven't done so well enough: I (nor ANY of these sources) do NOT claim that all of feminism is about female superiority. The claim is that female superiority is a movement/belief/assertion WITHIN feminism. Here's an example: Marxism is a movement within left-wing politics, but that does NOT mean all of left wing politics support Marxism.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Some feminists have tattoos. Others don't shave. Both tattooing and not shaving therefore exist within feminism. Not everything some feminists happen to do or think is encyclopedic information.

Reliable sources are generally those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The best sources for the relationship between female superiority and feminism will be those considered authoritative in the field and focused on the topic at hand, not random results from a keyword search.

When different articles cover the same topic from different points of view, it's a point-of-view fork. Left-wing politics mentions Marxism as a prominent example, whereas neither Feminism nor its spinoff articles prominently mention "female superiority". Hence this is an example of a POV fork. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Some feminists have tattoos. Others don't shave. Please see WP:OTHER. If someone thought that writing an article about the relationship between shaving or tattoos and feminism, they could propose that, with a chance that said articles would be written. This is nonetheless a separate discussion from this one.

The best sources for the relationship between female superiority and feminism will be those considered authoritative in the field and focused on the topic at hand, not random results from a keyword search. I believe the sources I have showed you do that.

When different articles cover the same topic from different points of view, it's a point-of-view fork. POVFORK occures when two articles disagree about their topic, not when they cover different things if they don't contradict each other.

Left-wing politics mentions Marxism as a prominent example Even if it didn't, Marxism would still be left wing. A better example might be how the Turning Point USA mentions Trump prominently while the Trump article doesn't mention TPUSA at all.

neither Feminism nor its spinoff articles prominently mention "female superiority". I believe this also violates WP:OTHER. (Again, if the article said the opposite was true that would be something else). Also, I'm planning on adding such information to those articles anyway.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Some feminists have tattoos. Others don't shave – this was merely an analogy. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING.

When two articles disagree about their topic – this is what your proposal will create.

I believe the sources I have showed you do that – based on what?

Neither Feminism nor its spinoff articles prominently mention "female superiority" – if the information is encyclopedically relevant, then it belongs in those articles first, where it can be shown in its proper context. That's not an WP:OTHERCONTENT issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

NOTEVERYTHING doesn't mean that new articles can't be created at all -- especially if they're verifiable and notable.

this is what your proposal will create. No it does not -- nowhere in the other articles does it say that female supremacy is not a part of feminism. It just doesn't mention it at all (yet, I might add the information onto there very soon), as you said, which I tried to explain is NOT a POVFORK.

based on what? Based on the fact numerous scholars bring it up and none seem to refute it.

if the information is encyclopedically relevant, then it belongs in those articles first, where it can be shown in its proper context. it's relevant to both articles.

PS it also turns out some of these other articles already do mention this. The lead section for the cultural feminism article says "Cultural feminists diverged from radical feminists when they rejected the problematization of femininity and returned to an essentialist view of gender differences in which they regard female nature as superior.[1][4][5]"

Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

NOTEVERYTHING doesn't mean that new articles can't be created at all – I didn't say it did.

Nowhere in the other articles does it say that female supremacy is not a part of feminism – if your argument is that female supremacy is an important part of certain branches of feminism, then we can read the omission as a contradiction.

Numerous scholars bring it up – in what context?

...And none seem to refute it – citation needed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The lead section for the cultural feminism article – that's one article about a specific branch of feminism, not feminism as a whole. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

if your argument is that female superiority is an important part of certain branches of feminism, then we can read the omission as a contradiction. my omission? I have said that NUMEROUS times by now.

in what context? Different contexts from different sources. But most of them either discuss female superiority and bring its relationship to either feminism or one of its branches, or vice versa.

citation needed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Citation needed that no other sources seem to refute it? I'm obviously not saying that the other sources not mentioning it is evidence that it's true.

that's one article about a specific branch of feminism, not feminism as a whole. I have said this before in all bold, did you still not read it? Perhaps I should state this in all caps:

I AM ABSOLUTELY -->NOT<-- STATING THAT ALL OF FEMINISM SUPPORTS FEMALE SUPERIORITY. I AM MERELY CLAIMING, AS YOU AND THE SOURCES SEEM TO AGREE, THAT FEMALE SUPERIORITY IS WITHIN SOME MOVEMENTS OF FEMINISM AND IS HELD BY SOME FEMINISTS, -->NOT<-- ALL.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

My omission? – no, the omission in the Feminism article and its spin-offs.

Different contexts from different sources – such as?

Citation needed that no other sources seem to refute it? – yes. If you're going to claim these sources are authoritative (which is doubtful), you're going to need to provide some evidence.

Female superiority is within some movements of feminism – which movements specifically? So far you've only provided a reliable source for cultural feminism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

no, the omission in the Feminism article and its spin-offs. I just showed you examples from its spinoffs that mention this, and explained to you why even if this wasn't the case, one article being mentioned in one doesn't mean the other has to mention it.

such as? I explained it literally right after saying that, did you read my entire answer? If you're going to claim these sources are authoritative (which is doubtful), you're going to need to provide some evidence. Citation needed that no other sources seem to refute it? – yes. That would be Evidence of absence, unless I misunderstood what you're asking. which movements specifically? So far you've only provided a reliable source for cultural feminism. That's the one mentioned the most, but if you look at my answers and sources more carefully, you see other movements are mentioned, such as radical feminism, third-wave feminism, and yes -- feminism in general. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

One article being mentioned in one doesn't mean the other has to mention it – when the topics are closely related (as you claim), then yes it does. Otherwise it's a POV fork.

I explained it literally right after saying that – no, you said most of them either discuss female superiority and bring its relationship to either feminism or one of its branches, or vice versa, which summarizes what the sources are saying, but not the context in which they are saying it, e.g. the primary topic(s) of the publication, its general reliability, whether the author is a relevant subject-matter expert, etc.

That would be Evidence of absence – yes, you are claiming absence, so you need to provide evidence.

You see other movements are mentioned – those mentions are either trivial, taken out of context, or from insufficiently reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

when the topics are closely related (as you claim), then yes it does. Otherwise it's a POV fork. Perhaps a hypothetical example would help: if the Trump article said Trump was bad, but a new article titled "the etiquette of Trump" saw him as good, that would be POVFORK. However, if the article "the etiquette of Trump" mentions Trump, but the Trump article doesn't mention "the etiquette of Trump", then that is not a POVFORK.

e.g. the primary topic(s) of the publication, its general reliability, whether the author is a relevant subject-matter expert, etc. The authors of these works are generally PhD professors related to this subject, if that's what you were asking. If you want, I can give you farther details about the authors of these works.

yes, you are claiming absence, so you need to provide evidence. How do you gather that type of evidence, that says no other scholar disagrees with a position? I think the best way is to just follow what the majority of the WP:RS say.

those mentions are either trivial, taken out of context, or from insufficiently reliable sources. What makes you say that? You said you didn't even have time to look at the sources I've shown you.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

If the article "the etiquette of Trump" mentions Trump, but the Trump article doesn't mention "the etiquette of Trump" – that is a POVFORK. Either the Trump article would be deliberately omitting unfavorable information or the etiquette article would be unduly emphasizing unfavorable information. If a claim is noteworthy and relevant, then it should be mentioned somewhere in the main article.

The authors of these works are generally PhD professors related to this subject – incorrect. One of the above sources was written by an M.A. student and another by a cultural critic, not a social scientist. These are not relevant subject-matter experts. Basing a key claim on a single 35-year-old journal article is also a red flag that the material is not supported by mainstream scholarship.

The best way is to just follow what the majority of the WP:RS say – I agree, but that is not what is happening here. I don't have time to read each source in depth, but I did skim the sources you tried to insert into several articles, enough to see that they were not reliable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

If a claim is noteworthy and relevant, then it should be mentioned somewhere in the main article. Not true. There are minor facts about Trump that might go on other articles but not his main one, for example the 2025 Russia–United States summit.

One of the above sources was written by an M.A. student and another by a cultural critic, not a social scientist. those are only two you're naming, when I named at least 5... and for the MA I'm pretty sure that was also a PhD in it, and for the "cultural critic" that's from The Atlantic, which see WP:THEATLANTIC: it's considered generally reliable.

Anyhow hopefully we can get these issues resolved at dispute resolution or something like that... going back and forth will probably start to give diminishing returns by this point.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

There are minor facts ... that might go on other articles but not [the] main one – are you saying that belief in female superiority is a minor fact? That's a new claim that doesn't reflect your recent edits at this and other articles.

Per WP:THEATLANTIC: Editors should beware that The Atlantic does not always clearly delineate between reporting and opinion content. The above essay by Martha Bayles is clearly an opinion piece, and so falls under WP:NEWSOPED and WP:RSOPINION. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

are you saying that belief in female superiority is a minor fact? Not exactly, I was responding to you saying If a claim is noteworthy and relevant, then it should be mentioned somewhere in the main article. But just like the 2025 Russia–United States summit article, female superiority might be a minor fact within feminism and other movements but not minor within itself, if that makes sense.

Both WP:NEWSOPED and WP:RSOPINION say that opinion pieces can be cited if you're attributing it as an opinion. So you can say, "according to author X ..." could we do that here for example, and say something like "According to Bayles, this is also referred to as "feminist superiority"?

Also, what do you think the overall point you're making is? Is there some change you want from the article?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Female superiority might be a minor fact within feminism and other movements – another word for that is WP:UNDUE.

Opinion pieces can be cited if you're attributing it as an opinion – "can" does not equal "should". Bayles is is a cultural commentator, not a relevant subject-matter expert, making her opinion WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

another word for that is WP:UNDUE. I said "might" on purpose for the sake of the analogy, I'm not sure whether it's actually minor for that -- and even if it was, that would simply mean it's UNDUE for the feminism article, but it's certainly more than minor for some of its branches, such as cultural feminism.

WP:NEWSOPED states Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures), so I believe this applies to political commentators as well, not just subject area experts.

Also have you seen this question I asked: Also, what do you think the overall point you're making is? Is there some change you want from the article?? And I believe you said you wanted to edit some of this information into some other related articles (such as feminism's branches), do you want to help me do that? I'd be happy to work together on that. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe you said you wanted to edit some of this information into some other related articles (such as feminism's branches), do you want to help me do that? I'd be happy to work together on that. @Sangdeboeuf Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

---

3O Response: Given the broadness of the article topic and it being currently politically sensitive, best to rework this article around academic treatments of the general topic, to avoid POV problems. The references identified in the first comment in this discussion do not meet that criteria. Hipal (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Can you elaborate on what you mean by best to rework this article around academic treatments of the general topic, to avoid POV problems.? Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

At least some of the dispute involves changing the lede section with Wikipedia's voice. Best-quality sourcing verifying widely accepted information should be used in such cases, and the article body should clearly support that the information belongs in the lede. --Hipal (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

+1, controversial subject matter like this should be written by surveying and summarizing the body of academic writing on the subject. On this note, I've removed the hodgepodge of opinions that are provided without context. Secondary (or tertiary) sources should be used to analyze opinions and determine which ones carry weight on the subject as opposed to one-off commentary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2026 (UTC)