Talk:Feminism/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Movements and Ideologies section

The section Movements and Ideologies seems disorganized to me. Also, other movements that I think should be in there, such as Islamic feminism and Jewish feminism are in the section Societal Impact. Does anyone know of a better way to organize and summarize this information? --Aronoel (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Error in Antifeminism

There is a citation error in the 'Reactions' section, 'Antifeminism' sub-section. The cited work "Sex and Education (1973)" should be corrected to "Sex and Education (1873)." Also, should it include the subtitle (i.e. Sex in Education: or, a Fair Chance for the Girls) as well? 72.152.250.63 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Edit: Keep on forgetting my sig

Yes, just fixed it. Thank you for pointing that out! --Aronoel (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

love and women's bad faith

I reverted the latest edit (now viewable as a past revision) because of several reasons, and I recommend that the editor rewrite and reconsider which article or articles to which to contribute this or more or less material. (It appears the editor changed their username from HkFnsNGA to PPdd about five hours after revising the Feminism article and that the difference in names is not a technical problem related to the article's provenance.)

The Feminism article is a general overview of feminism and serves as an entry point to more specific articles about areas of feminism. There may or may not be an article more closely suited to the subject of the reverted content; if there is, that's a better destination. If there is not, rather than make a new article, please rewrite to make its relevance to an existing article more obvious. It appears to be making a rather specialized point, and thus relevant to a rather more specialized article. The Feminism article has a sidebar referring to more articles and near the end of the sidebar is a link to an index to even more feminism-related articles.

The tone—in the too-sketchily explained emphasis on "bad faith" and in the paragraph on love—implies a blaming of women that may not be the editor's intent (or even the intent of any of the cited authors), and, while no one is guaranteed immunity to blame under some circumstances, I'm not sure that it's the appropriate approach to this subject, and if it is appropriate then that has to be made clear. For example, something is needed between the first and second clauses of the first sentence; as it stood, there was much too big a leap between the concepts the two clauses present.

Putting a footnote within a footnote is not a good idea. You may not have intended that, in which case you should name the external link in what was note 20 (as now reverted), so it doesn't appear as just "[1]". For instance, [http://www.example.com?query#fragment Example Page Title] would display as "Example Page Title" and when clicked would take the visitor to <http://www.example.com?query#fragment>.

Citations should include page numbers. Some do; some don't. Citing pages for the specific passages on which you rely makes verification by other editors easier.

Review citations for when lacking an author, publisher, or year of publication. They generally should be supplied.

If you get a redlink, as you did here with Simone de Beauvoir's name having been misspelled, that means you set up a link that went to a nonexistent article. Proofreading is easier because of the red in the link.

Italicizing a quote is okay if it's that way in the original; say so or don't italicize ordinary text, in general (titles are an exception).

The further-information template linking to the article on bad faith should use the article title's capitalization, even though there is a redirect that supports the capitalization you provided, because going through a redirect causes a technical problem within Wikimedia's servers that we try to minimize when we can. In general, try to avoid linking through a redirect. In the body of an article, this is avoidable by piping a link, as in [[Article's real title|true name]], which would display as "true name" but when clicked would take the visitor to "Article's real title".

Multiple links to the same destination are usually unnecessary. In this case, the further-information template was redundant of the link in the first sentence (in some cases, the redundancy would have been the other way around).

The sectioning may be too stringent. Normally, a section is not limited to one or two sentences each. However, the exact sectioning you use may depend on the article to which you contribute.

This is based on a first impression and I have not explored in depth the sources cited, so I hope I have not misunderstood something vital here, but that may only emphasize the need for you to edit to better communicate what you want to add to this encyclopedia. Thank you for your interest. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thnx. Per your reasoning, content is best for Feminist theory article, where it is more fitting. Regarding "blaming", I just tried to stick to small changes in the wording from the sources (women authors for the exact wording), or de Beuvoire's loever, Sartre), so as to not be OR. I will read up on citations, per comments. PPdd (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note, PPdd, I undid you additions of "feminist theory" etc. from the top of the article. I thought they were both unnecessary and added clutter. If the subjects are synonyms then they should be merged. Either way, the words are linked in the text. I don't see the need to add the bells and whistles pointing out the distinction. Just my view. —Zujine|talk 18:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I put the "further information" tag on because they are synonymous for many, but not all. I, for example, came to this article when I wanted a feminist theory article. Feminist theory is much more technical. So I put it up front as a convenience for those looking for femist theory, not realizing that this article is not about that.PPdd (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence of the "Antifeminist" section is obviously biased

"Antifeminism is defined as the opposition to women's equality[149][150] or, alternatively, the opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms.[151]"

The first source is an "encyclopedia" written by a NOMAS spokesperson...NOMAS, in case you were curious is a known "pro"-feminist organization, formerly known as the "National Organization for Changing Men". Essentially, you have a feminist defining opposition to feminism. This is akin to using the "conservative" definition of "liberal" (note the similarity in style to conservapedia's definition: "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons").

The second source is a yahoo dictionary entry. Yet other dictionaries define the term differently http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antifeminism . Based on etymology and as it is reflected in groups referring to themselves as "antifeminist", it literally means being against feminism...not "equality of the sexes".

If one was not opposed to women's equality, but was opposed to feminism in some way, one would be an antifeminist. If one was opposed to women's equality, but did not oppose feminism, they would not be an antifeminist...therefore the definition is incorrect.

It's obvious it was written in such a way as to immediately paint antifeminists as sexists...the bias is undeniable. It should be replaced with "Antifeminism is defined as the opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms" as A) that seems to be the accepted definition on the antifeminism page, B) it is etymologically correct, and C) wikipedia articles are supposed to remain as impartial as possible.

I would change it myself, but the page is locked.

71.23.247.6 (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Your argument hinges on the null set of people covered by this statement: "If one was opposed to women's equality, but did not oppose feminism". Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There are definitely people who oppose "women's equality", but support feminism...for example, there are female supremacists who openly support feminism. Supporting supremacy = opposing equality. Supporting feminism != opposing feminism. Therefore, the number of people who oppose women's equality but do not oppose feminism is >0. 71.23.247.6 (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interest in this article. As you can see from the sources, the word "antifeminism" is used to mean both "opposition to women's equality" and "the opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms". That's why both definitions are mentioned in this section. Also, the section includes criticism of the "antifeminist label." We may all individually have our own opinions on what antifeminism should mean, but the article must show all definitions and viewpoints for neutrality. --Aronoel (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute the fact that it has been used to mean "opposition to women's equality", just like "liberal" has been used to mean "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons". I don't even take issue with this being pointed out. I take issue with its presentation as the primary definition...especially considering the main source is so obviously biased. "The opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms" is presented as the alternate, despite it being the more obvious definition and despite it being the primary definition on the antifeminism article itself (which also presents Kimmel's definition, but puts it in its proper context). 71.23.247.6 (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we would determine which is the "primary" definition. For now, there are more examples in the article of sources giving the first definition. The word "alternatively" is supposed to clearly separate the second definition from the first, it was decided on after an editor raised similar concerns as you. You can see that discussion earlier on the talk page.--Aronoel (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I took a look in the archives, but couldn't find this exact phrasing discussed before. I did see a previous proposal (from, I believe, july 2010) with "opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms" as the primary definition. I haven't seen these concerns raised, so I'm raising them.

This section is describing a movement, not the use of a pejorative. While antifeminism has been used to mean "opposition to women's equality", the section is not called "trends in name-calling amongst feminists"...it is called "reactions to feminism". One of those reactions was a movement which sometimes refers to itself as "antifeminist". While I don't deny that there are plenty of people within that movement who do, in fact, oppose women's equality, I contend that opposition to equality is not the unifying feature, but rather opposition to FEMINISM, as the term itself implies. I would further assert that there are many within the antifeminist movement who actually support womnen's equality (as I've illustrated in the following Venn diagram: http://i.imgur.com/X05A8.png), such as the IGAF, however that discussion would only be peripherally related to the issue here. The fact remains that this article's primary definition of "antifeminist" is biased and does not accurately describe a movement the section purports to describe. I would go so far as to say it's disinformation.

Those reasons I've outlined above, provide more than enough justification for what is ultimately a VERY minor change. However, if you just need more sources showing "opposition to feminism" as the meaning, then so be it:

• "Anti-feminism refers to the opposition to feminism." http://www.globalpolitician.com/24321-feminism-anti-feminism

•"Antifeminism is the opposition to feminism" http://www.infosources.org/what_is/Antifeminism.html

• And apparently Michael Flood asserts that antifeminism denies one or more of three general principles of feminism in: http://books.google.com/books?id=EUON2SYps-QC&pg=PA21&dq=Michael+Flood+anti-feminism&hl=en&ei=0udVTMOWL86osAbnxuXhAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false ...though I don't have access to verify, hence the lack of quotation marks (however that seems to be enough for the antifeminism page).71.23.247.6 (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see that you've really put a lot of thought into this issue, and I appreciate your interest in discussion. I don't think anyone here would dispute the fact that the definition of antifeminism that you describe exists. It clearly does, and is currently reflected in the section. But there is another definition, perhaps equally or even more commonly used. At least, it is reflected in many dictionary definitions. One of the websites you linked to even says, "Anti-feminism refers to the opposition to feminism. Anti-feminism is also defined in a negative context as male-chauvinism and therefore sexism, or masculinism. It can also be said that since feminism is interested in women’s rights, anti-feminism is against women’s rights." For example, you might hear a person say, as I often do, something like, "that movie was antifeminist, because the female character was only valued for her appearance," and in this context it isn't referring to any specific movement or body of ideas, but just the concept of opposition to women's equality.

Also, the discussion I was referring to before was the one called "Anti Feminism", above, although I see the word "alternatively" was not specifically used. But I think it gives you the general idea of how this section has been changing. --Aronoel (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right, "antifeminism" is probably used as a pejorative more frequently than it is used to describe an actual movement. There are other words which are used more frequently as pejoratives, yet deviate significantly from their actual meaning...such as the terms "gay" and "nazi". Asserting that the gay movement is centrally focused on being "corny", or that the nazi movement is about being "mean", are equivalent to asserting that the antifeminist movement is all about hating women.

I believe we're finally getting to the crux of the issue here. "Antifeminist" as a term has two distinct uses. One is an insult used typically by feminists, the other is the name of a movement in opposition to feminism. The question then becomes, what is the "Reactions" section of the "Feminism" article supposed to be? Is it supposed to be a dispassionate and impartial description of the reaction of outsiders to the feminist movement? Or is it supposed to be an explanation of an insult frequently used by feminists? 71.23.247.6 (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is an insult, there are no words showing a value judgment (for example, "wrong", "ignorant", "hateful", etc). And, more importantly, Princeton University's WordNet is an objective source, see this. I understand that some people feel that the first definition mischaracterizes their position, but that's why there are two different definitions included. --Aronoel (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary (3d ed. 1992) defines antifeminist, the adjective (with no separate definition for the noun or for antifeminism) as "[c]haracterized by ideas or behavior reflecting a disbelief in the economic, political, and social equality of the sexes." No other definition is offered in that dictionary. In the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, it appears undefined in a list related to anti-. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1966) doesn't list the word; the dictionary was published as the second wave of feminism was beginning or about to, and perhaps the word hadn't had much use from the first wave or before; but it's also not in The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary ([4th] ed. 1993). Nick Levinson (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Dictionaries should not be used for defining movements. If I looked up "pro-" then "choice" or "life" do you actually think I'd get a full and accurate description of either side? If it is NPOV to say antifemeninism alternatively may seek inequality for women it would be ridiculously POV not to say feminism alternatively seeks female supremacy in contrast (even supported by some feminist writings/writers). Furthermore antifeminism is not as well known of a movement as feminism is so dictionaries would focus more on the word than the movement if at all.Props888 (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A reliable and objective publication like The American Heritage Dictionary is a good source for a word's definition. It would also be useful for finding the definition of "feminism." I think there might be confusion in this discussion because often "antifeminism" is used to not refer to a movement but instead just the general idea of being against women's equality. --Aronoel (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

And that's precisely why we should take this part out:"Antifeminism is defined as the opposition to women's equality", as it describes the meaning of the word not the movement (which the article is about).Props888 (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but there are some antifeminists and antifeminist writing that are not a part of the specific antifeminist movement, and regardless it might be useful information to have both definitions so that people aren't confused. --Aronoel (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Asmcpherson, 18 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The website for reference 110 has changed together with the ISBN of the book. All the information is contained in the following text. Can the following therefore please be substituted.

Asmcpherson (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. :) Banaticus (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti feminism

This section contains mostly a list of people who self describe and are described by many as Equity Feminists, (see Wiki entry for Equity and gender feminism). This section should be moved to the main section under the heading Equity Feminism. Equity feminism whether you agree with it or not is a significant school of feminism, dating back to Fawcett, Bentham and Wollstonecraft. Otherwise do we not not have a POV fork? 142.13.22.241 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Further more is not the term "Anti feminism" a pejorative? Do such groups self identify as such as their primary reason for existence? We don't refer to Republicans as "anti-Democrats" or Democrats as "anti-Republicans"? Zimbazumba (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

To be against something is hardly pejorative. In order to comply with NPOV, we must represent multiple views, ncluding opposing views. Ar eyou saying no one is opposed to feminism? If anyone is opposed to feminism, they are by definition anti-feminism. maybe as you suggest they do not exist, but if they do, surely their views should be included. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what the OP was saying is that there might be a better term than "anti feminism" to describe those people, not that there shouldn't be a section on them.Phoenixlanding (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious, have you actually read that entry? Are you suggesting its NPOV? There is a strong suggestion through undue prominence of the stated opinion that that list of women are against women's equality. I'd like to see someone try arguing that with Camille Paglia or many others on that list. Undue prominence is also being given to this opinion through the very existence of the section. I think this section is agenda driven and an attack by one feminist group on another. The meaning of a word is primary defined by its context not its dictionary definition, again as I said before we do not refer to Republicans as "anti-Democrats". There is no such section at Republican_Party_(United_States) although I bet I could find a raft people who held that opinion or worse. And I repeat do we not have a POV fork because of Equity and gender feminism? The people on this list ARE feminists, ie equity feminists, but not to the liking of some. I'd appreciate these points being addressed. Zimbazumba (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am serious. Now, let's try to pinpoint why exactly ou asked me this qustion.

• To be against something is hardly pejorative. Do you disagree?
• In order to comply with NPOV, we must represent multiple views, ncluding opposing views. Do you disagree?
• Are you saying no one is opposed to feminism?
• Maybe as you suggest they do not exist, but if they do, surely their views should be included. Do you disagree? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Patai talks a lot about the ideological policing in women's studies courses (ie the "right" feminism.) Suppose it's not all that surprising that she is only mentioned in the section in anti-feminism despite always identifying herself as a feminist. I also take serious issue with the statement that "Antifeminism is the opposition to women's equality." This is a complete straw man. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the critiques of women's studies and feminism is NOT opposition to women's equality. It's pretty shameful that WP makes such a silly claim in an article as prominent and important as this one... yet, somehow, completely unsurprising.--Cybermud (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud—then let us fix it. —Zujine|talk 04:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100% with 142.13.22.241 and Zimbazumba. If these people were anti-feminists then they wouldn't identify themselves as equity feminists and the "anti" term is in some cases the complete reverse of reality. Equity feminists are typically far more committed to the original goals and dictionary definition of feminism than anyone else. The only type of feminism they are "anti" is the gender feminist man hating variety.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The section also defines anti-feminism as "opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms." Also the section includes criticism of the labeling of those people as anti-feminists. So it's hard for me to understand what the issue is with this section. --Aronoel (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The point is that they aren't anti-feminists at all. Most feminists would meet the definition of being opposed to "some" forms of feminism or other and the fact is that equity feminisms views are far more in keeping with any dictionary definition of feminism than most other people. It's a breach of Wikipedia's POV polices to smear people in this way, not to mention totally inaccurate.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't claim that they are anti-feminists, it just says, "Writers such as Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese have been labeled "anti-feminists" by feminists.[154][155] Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge argue that in this way the term "anti-feminist" is used to silence academic debate about feminism." If anything, I think this is a little bit too generous to these writers, implying that they've been treated unfairly without presenting much of the other side. It's definitely not smearing since it is a fact that they have been called anti-feminists by other writers, and the article is already highly critical of that "label." But of course, I'm interested in any specific re-wording ideas you have for this section, and any specific sources you want to draw on. It might be helpful to add that some of them have identified themselves as feminists, for example. --Aronoel (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's quite simple really. Those writers are not anti-feminists and it is a smear. If they are to be mentioned in this aritcle it should not be under a huge great heading suggesting they are anti-feminists, they do not belong there. One could quote all manner of smears and insults about numerous feminists calling them idiots or whatever without actually stating such a thing as a fact. The correct term is "equity-feminist", this is what many of them identify as and a section on this is much needed anyway.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Equity feminism itself is a term that was largely coined by Christina Hoff Sommers, who is also frequently called "anti-feminist" or viewed as part of the "backlash." My only real issue with this section, in terms of its current structure, is that it says "anti-feminism" is "the opposition to women's equality" or "opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms." These two definitions, which are placed one immediately after the other, are rather contradictory, with the former just being a pejorative way of calling any opposition to feminist theory misogynist and sexist. One of feminisms many strokes of rhetorical genius (besides calling anyone "antifeminist" sexist via nebulous definitions of "equality") is the way it responds to any criticism of itself by saying that "there are many flavors of feminism" (therefore your criticisms are invalid as you are only criticizing radical/gender/postmodern/etc feminism.)--Cybermud (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if we can change this though, because both definitions are used for the word antifeminism (as the sources show).--Aronoel (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it's almost impossible to change it since both definitions are pretty popular. Better to clarify who uses which definition or qualify the two statements with some prose that indicates to the reader that the two definitions are conflict. Like saying "Antifeminism is variously defined as a sexist opposition to women's equality[147][148] or, conversely, the opposition to feminism in some or all of its forms.[149]"--Cybermud (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe we should get rid of the part that lumps people who disagree with parts of feminism with those who oppose it in every way. There are certain parts of feminism, or results maybe, that I oppose. I believe in gender equality and equal opportunity and that the feminist movement was necessary, especially in the beginning. However, I do actively oppose certain parts of feminism and would like to seem some things reversed that I don't feel are really about equality. I don't feel that I am antifeminist because of that and would prefer that word was more narrowly defined to people who oppose feminism in all forms. I think oxford got it wrong. Phoenixlanding (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, we use 3rd party reliable sources on wikipedia rather than personal opinions and/or experience. We balance and weigh sources according to policy (ie WP:NPOV and WP:V) rather than our personal views about it. Even if one feels the truth is different wikipedia still relies on verifiable sources--Cailil ^talk 11:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

elaboration on men's rights

I believe that some elaboration is due on the men's rights section. I also believe there should be a link from there to the men's rights page. I have taken the time to write an elaboration on that subject (it is a rough draft though), although it is still short. Please look through it and if you feel some changes should be made actively participate in making more clear what the mens rights movement feels it is responding too and feels is a result of the feminist movement. Feel free to include feminist rebuttals in the section to the specific complaints that men's rights advocates worry about, but please allow there to be more elaboration.

Mainstream men's rights activists support true equality for both genders. Activists feel that the feminist movement has gone beyond being a movement for gender equality and that it unfairly endorses and promotes rights being taken away from men for the benefit of women. Common complaints of the men's rights movement deal with paternity fraud, family and divorce law, false accusation of rape, the interpretation and reporting of statistics of rape (argueing that false rape accusations could be anywhere from 25 to 50%) and the denial of rights to those accused of rape, the treatment of men in domestic violence cases, domestic violence statistics and stereotypes (50% of domestic violence cases are reciprical, and 70% of the nonreciprocal cases were perpetrated by women).

In the case of paternity fraud, studies have found that 30% of men forced to pay child support are not the biological fathers. Men's rights groups advocate for the correction of these kinds of injustices perpetrated against men and feel that feminist groups have ignored areas in which rights of men are denied in cases where women benefit.Phoenixlanding (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I added some of your proposed content to the article. I don't think the rest is ready to be added yet because some of it is unsourced, some of it is sourced to blogs, and some of it is original synthesis. --Aronoel (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

feminist science as objective

In response to an edit summary: All science seeks objectivity; and, depending on how we divide intellectual inquiry, science may be the most objective, to our benefit. But it isn't and wasn't free of all subjectivity and can't be, because it is performed by humans. Humans have questions. Which questions are investigated scientifically, with results published among other scientists and taught to the public, depends on who gets trained, who gets hired, who gets funded, and who does the training, hiring, funding, and publishing. Feminist science led to questions raised in feminism being answered with new scientific investigations, and now we have some of those answers in scientific literature in various disciplines. Method was also reviewed in feminism, e.g., in the U.S., when drugs were tested mostly on men and not on women. It turns out that for some drugs women react differently. And a subtler issue is that, on average, women are smaller and drug dosages perhaps should vary by body size, which took testing to determine, and it's relevant that feminists demanded that doctors listen to female patients as readily as to male patients. Feminist science is real, is scientific, and is beneficial. Feminism can be applied to reduce scienticity, but so can masculism, and feminists would argue that the latter had already happened and thus needed compensatory work. There's more, but we can leave it at this. Happy gathering of sources. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC) (Corrected one misspelling: 16:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

I agree. Regardless of how people feel about its validity, there is some evidence that "feminist science" is a commonly used term. Here are some books that use and discuss this term. --Aronoel (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What do people think of changing the section "Scientific discourse criticism" to "Feminism and science," or something like that? I think it might be clearer and allow for more information to be included there. --Aronoel (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The title change looked like a good idea. Since the article is already on feminism, the title can just be Science and then the Health section can be turned into a subsection of Science. I implemented that. If that's not what you have in mind, go ahead and do as you think best.

Yes, editor Phoenixlanding, a social commentator is not necessarily a scientist, but they may be, and there are, probably, tens of thousands of feminist scientists, across many disciplines.

Nick Levinson (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

When you hear the word "creation science," what does that conjure up in your mind? Do you automatically think of a pinnacle of objectivity, or do you imagine a political movement trying to commandeer credibility artificially by adding the word science to their description? A political movement that uses "science" not to ask questions, but to try to fabricate "evidence" in order to "prove" preconceived notions is the antithesis of science. This is a strategy political movements use, including feminism, to make themselves have an air a legitimacy that might not be there. By the same argument you could start talking about republican science or democrat science as legitimate and not politically motivated. Some people may accept it uncritically, but real objective people, real scientists would not. This is not the hallmark of a good article. Try re-reading part of what you just said but with feminist replaced by creation and see if that sounds credible to you:

In response to an edit summary: All science seeks objectivity; and, depending on how we divide intellectual inquiry, science may be the most objective, to our benefit. But it isn't and wasn't free of all subjectivity and can't be, because it is performed by humans. Humans have questions. Which questions are investigated scientifically, with results published among other scientists and taught to the public, depends on who gets trained, who gets hired, who gets funded, and who does the training, hiring, funding, and publishing. Creationist science led to questions raised in creationism being answered with new scientific investigations, and now we have some of those answers in scientific literature in various disciplines.

I agree with the results of the studies you are talking about, but I disagree that they are inherently feminist. The last thing any scientist would ever want to hear about his work is that it was politically motivated or that it is science of a specific political movement. The results of those studies could easily be used by anti feminists who want to cite differences between men and women. Creationists also claim to have evidence and proof and studies. It is all BS but they claim it. If you want this article to appear objective you need to write it objectively. Phrases that put together a political movement and science are clearly a violation of NPOV. Also, changing the headline to just "science" is another glaring example. I thought feminist criticism of scientific discourse was fair and accurate because that is what this section is about right? I tried to inject a little actual science in here only to be told it was NPOV. Either this section is about feminist criticism of science or it is about actual science, which is it? Either way the current section title has got to change.

This is an example of the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum. "creationist science" is also a commonly used term, that doesn't mean what they do and advocate is science. In the interest of keeping this article objective, I suggest rephrasing it to avoid the problem. It should be easy enough.Phoenixlanding (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This section so far contains on feminist criticism of philosophy of science. I think Feminist criticism of scientific discourse was accurate. Feminism and Philosophy of Science would also be good. Phoenixlanding (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the title change to just "science" is good, thanks for doing that, Nick. I myself don't see what's wrong with the term "creationist science." If it's a real phenomenon, with literature discussing it, then it should be in an encyclopedia. Once there, whether it may in fact be pseudoscience can be discussed, along with other information about it. For example, Intelligent design has its own Wikipedia article, but this doesn't mean that Wikipedia is asserting its validity.

Also, PL, your content addition on evolutionary science wasn't deleted for NPOV problems (there were a few minor ones, but I tried to take them out), it was deleted because it's not related to feminism enough for it to be in this general article. See the discussion below. --Aronoel (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Phoenixlanding, a short answer: Creation science is about the answer to be arrived at, regardless of who participates in it. Feminist science is about who may participate in it, regardless of the answers arrived at. For an example of feminist science disagreeing on answers, look up Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice and what various feminist scientists have had to say about it: some agree and some disagree, in scientific and feminist terms. I doubt that creation scientists would welcome an atheist joining their research ranks, since if there is no deity then there is no creator of the sort on which creationists rely. As to whether it is a science, Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Merriam-Webster) defines science as "a branch or department of systematized knowledge that is or can be made a specific object of study" (def. 2a), among other definitions. Definitions that are much more detailed (defining method, peer review, or other elements) tend to be specific to particular branches of science; e.g., biology and linguistics may have different definitions, theoretical physics may not require observations, and I don't think math does, whereas astronomy does. I haven't read creationist books. If creation scientists systematize their data and their claims, what is called creation science is likely a science. What I have heard of it is that its answers may not deviate from certain theological claims. That is not true of feminist science. While many scientists would prefer to have no nonscientific adjective or attributive before the word "scientist" and some feminist scientists doubtless also prefer to be known simply as scientists and have earned recognition as scientists, the rest of us may nonetheless recognize the value of a scientist's work to feminism and refer to feminist scientists and feminist science. You disagree that medical science is in part feminist for responding to the needs of women after women demanded that they be listened to as men were, but I don't understand your disagreement; whether some doctors in this work were nonfeminist doesn't matter if at least one was and if that one facilitated, performed, or validated the research that improved pharmaceutical dosing, in which case you have feminist science. As to other labeling, from what I know of U.S. politics, I don't doubt that Democratic and Republican politicians look for Democratic and Republican scientists, respectively, to assist them in understanding and promoting scientific issues, even though the scientists would prefer to discard the label, and simply be known as, say, climatologists, and the politicians may do that because of conclusions sought or they may do it for trustworthiness regardless of conclusions. And there are other scientists who accept politics as a motivator: many did research on AIDS after some very observable protests by political activists who noticed, for instance, that Legionnaire's Disease led to medical mobilization after, I think, seven people died, but many more had to die from AIDS before the research foot-dragging stopped. Science is often expensive and business and politics provide the way for paying for much of it, so labels come about.

Should you know of any scientist, feminist or otherwise, who has "fabricate[d] 'evidence'", various universities where they teach and many refereed journals, even many non-refereed journals, have standards and appeal procedures (perhaps not called that) for exactly such claims. You should expect to have to meet exacting standards of proof, since the charge you would be making is very serious. People can lose their careers over such claims if upheld. However, different disciplines sometimes overlap in subject matter and apply different standards, so your claim would have to be within the field of science in which the work you challenge was published or taught. But, in such challenges, feminist science is not apart from science, in the sense that, for example, a feminist archaeologist would meet the standards of archaeology, whereas a parapsychologist may not have to adhere to the standards of psychology.

You wrote, "any scientist ... his work". I don't want to advise only about your choice of generic pronoun. I want to point out that you are discussing feminism, whether feminism has anything to do with science from the inside, and whether scientists want to be known as feminist scientists, and then you are using the male pronoun as a generic pronoun for scientists. I don't know whether to advise you to be careful or if you were being careful and we simply disagree on whether women can be scientists.

If you want to add feminist criticism of the philosophy of science, go right ahead, with the caveat that it may belong in a more focused article than this one. It depends on what you write. Near the top right of the feminism artticle is a sidebar linking to more articles, and at the end of the sidebar is an index to even more articles. Choose what fits.

Please be careful about where you position your post within a thread. Otherwise, you create more work for editors and readers. Your sig appeared on my text, your positioning made it look like another editor was agreeing with you instead of with me, and there were one or two other confusions. The best place is usually at the end of the topic, and you may refer to what it is to which you are replying.

Nick Levinson (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC) (Corrections: 06:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC))

The problem with feminist science is that they do have an agenda. For example, they have a strong political incentive that gives pressure to coming up with data or to interpret data about differences between men and women as being as small as possible in order to fit predetermined feminist ideas about sex. It is the same incentive that creationists have to reinterpret biologists work to support god belief. I understand that in feminist literature they like to refer to themselves as scientists, even when they aren't, but in this article we should try to keep this more neutral. A skeptical reader will instantly be suspicious of that phrase. This article will look more credible if you drop the feminist science in favor of scholar or specific names. That should be reason enough alone to change it.

I agree that feminism has had an impact in many areas, but that impact is not science. It is political, social, and philisophical. "Feminist science is about who may participate in it, regardless of the answers arrived at." Who may participate in science is not science, it is purely philosophical. Moreover, I must point out that changes in social environment in the lab brought about by feminism are also not science. The research women do is science, that more woman can do science now because of feminism is not. Change in what scientific questions are asked and why is also not science. It is philosophy of science, which is what this section is about and should be called by the way. "And there are other scientists who accept politics as a motivator," Motivation for science is also not science, it is motivation. WWII wasn't science because it motivated physics research. AIDS research in turn is not "gay science," but by your thinking you would have to call it that because of the motivation gotten from the homosexual community. I could go on, but this is getting pretty ridiculous now. I really think you are confused about what should and should not be considered science. It is definitely more narrow than what you seem to think.

As a scientist myself (biochemistry) I am intimately acquainted with what does and does not constitute science. At the very heart of the scientific enterprise is the experiment. Without an experiment it is not science. In your definition it mentions that these things must be subject to study. How do you study something? You do an experiment. Herein lies the problem with calling the essays written by feminists science, if there was no experiment it isn't science, it is speculation. For example Carol gilligan's book that you mention is mostly speculation and assertion of predetermined feminist ideas. Christina Hoff Sommers argues in The War Against Boys,"Gilligan has failed to produce the data for her research." If there isn't an experiment, it isn't science. It can still be a scholarly work, but it isn't science. Psychology and other social sciences have a long tradition of speculation. Sigmund Freud was pretty much all speculation and it has continued up until today in such fields as feminist "science." Collective unconscious, really? Pseudo, quasi, and badly interpreted science is prevalent in the social sciences. For example, Dr. Daryl Bem who is a professor at an Ivy league school recently published a paper on psi in one of the top peer reviewed journals in the social sciences. It is all bullshit, he is just bad at statistics. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1018886/Bem6.pdf This problem is endemic to the social sciences.

Which brings me to the pronoun thing. Simply put, I am tired of feminists telling me what pronoun I am supposed to use (who fucking cares? don't bother me about something so trivial). I am also tired of the non-objective climate that political correctness tries to enforce so until that dies down I will do the opposite of what they want. In protest to all the bunk about pronouns I have decided that in gender neutral situations I will just use he. You can use she if you want, it is a free country. It is really stupid that it is brought up at all. Stereotype threat, which is the main reason anyone cares about this incredibly asinine complaint, is unlikely to have anything more than an small or negligible impact. http://lsr.nellco.org/upenn_wps/216/

Let's get back to the bad stats. This can hinder even well designed experiments from being properly interpreted. This in turn highlights a problem that can exist in the peer review process and does exist in psychology peer review. If the reviewers are not competent enough to properly evaluate results then bad studies will get through. Do you remember the physicist who deliberately fabricated a false research report and got it published in a top psychology journal? Outright lying is probably less of a problem than bad interpretation, but ya there are examples of it. Long story short, there are good psychologists, but there are a lot of bad ones, even in top universities and published in top journals. Now compound this problem with a political movement seeking to find certain results to support certain beliefs. The foundation of the social sciences is shaky enough as it is without adding feminist ideology into the mix.

Lastly, I do have a bit of a problem with the citation of the whole encyclopedia. I sincerely doubt that every single contributor talked about the topic being discussed when it was cited. Can we be more specific on just who we are citing and where it shows up? I think the best thing to do is to mention the specific names and backgrounds of the people who are challenging the idea. For my second problem, I don't currently have direct access to this book (if you could give me a link that would be great), but I could find the list of contributors. I have gone through and looked up a number of the contributors and not a single one so far has had a background in the biological sciences. All have been some variation of a social science. I have already show why this is hugely important for the reader to know. How credible is it for someone who has no or very little formal education in biology to criticize ideas the depend on biology? Certainly it does not help his(lol)case.

I am not asking that you go into great detail about the criticisms of social science that I have laid out here. Just that you make it clear where these criticisms of biological essentialism as well as other things are coming from. In all honestly, most readers probably wont have any idea that psychology is not as reliable a field as physics or biochemistry so you really aren't loosing much by being more honest and open about this. What you will be loosing is a misleading and bias phrase. In the interest of keeping this article from being subject to criticism, choose a phrasing that is acceptable to you but isn't so blatantly biased. I suggest Philosophy of science as a very apt section heading, and identifying by name and field where the criticisms are coming from. I don't see how that suggestion (which mainly contributes accuracy) should be controversial...Phoenixlanding (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Genlemen this not a forum for the discussion of your ideas or opinions about the subject of feminist science, or your personal assessment of the quality of a source. We have policies that weigh sources for us (see WP:RS), and forum type postings are strictly prohibitted by wikipedia's talk-page guidelines (please WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG). As interesting as your conversation is much of it is inappropriate for a wikipedia talk page.
  I undestand you are new to WP Phoenixlanding, but the fact is we just use talk pages for source-based points. You have made a number of posts here that are opinion based - please stop doing that. As I stated above, wikipedia's golden rule for inclusion is verifiability not 'truth' (please see WP:V for more on that)--Cailil ^talk 16:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A criticism of a field called science as being not science belongs in the article on that science, and your criticism is of social sciences generally, a range far larger than feminist science and partly outside of it. Ditto for psychology. Those kinds of criticisms are too afield for this article; putting them here would be disallowed as coatracking.

No objection is to naming feminist scientists and it appears we have, but if your proposal is that we replace referring generally to feminist scientists or feminist science with naming only particular ones as if there's no larger class of feminist scientists of which they're part, that would be going too far.

Science as a rubric may include philosophy of science. Since the section now also includes health, Science is a reasonable title.

In the Biology of Gender subsection, we've already identified a source of criticism as Anne Fausto-Sterling, who, in the linked-to Wikipedia article, is identified as a professor of biology (and of women's studies but the important qualification here is biology). There already seem to be several sources cited by name and field in the subsection, so I'm not sure what exactly you consider lacking.

I was going to add a template requesting a page number in the encyclopedia cited in the article's footnote 113 until I saw a page number there: p. 89. I don't have the encyclopedia, so I can't check it readily to see whether the contributor/s is/are identifiable. Is that the encyclopedia you were referring to or did you mean another source?

You wrote, "For my second problem": Please say what your "second problem" is, so I could possibly address it. I couldn't tell what your antecedent is.

I'll ignore pronouns for our purposes since it won't affect article editing; we'll be genderally neutral anyway except where gender is relevant and, that being standard Wikipedia style, I assume you won't object (if you do, do so on the talk page for that style, not here).

I could address substantive points, but Cailil is right.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary Biology section and Robert Wright

The new paragraph in the Evolutionary Biology subsection, before and after the latest edit, may belong in the sex-gender distinction article, but is, at best, far too specific for this introductory article on feminism. Even prior to the last edit, little applied to feminism and what was relevant was based on a misunderstanding: Gender is defined as socially constructed and sex is defined as biologically defined, so what the original paragraph attributed to gender was really about sex even within feminist discourse. Feminists do not generally deny that sex differences exist and are important, difference feminists especially so. The challenges feminists raise tend to be about where the dividing line is between sex and gender, and that has moved over the years. I don't know if the sex-vs.-gender error is the article editor's or the book author's. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think it's too specific for this article. Does Robert Wright even mention feminism or feminist science in the cited book? --Aronoel (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

New and Confused. Intro includes argumentation?????

It's my first visit to this page, so forgive me if I say anything redundant. As a 45 y/o woman 41 y/o feminist and activist, I never felt the need to visit the page to learn. But over the course of this year, it's come to my attention that (and correct me if I'm wrong) that for years feminism has been coopted by the LGBT movement (personally I have issues with the term LGBT because as a bi I've never heard of any stiffling of rights for bis, but that's just me). I'm all for equal rights for all, but in my book that's neither here or there when I question myself on feminism. So when I read the opening paragraph and see the last line stating that "some argue" that feminism is not about women but about gender freedom for all, I have to stop and scream WTF???????

I realise there are a lot of intellectuals here who've done a lot of reading on the matter and have plenty of "sources" to argue either way. But my understanding of wikipedia is that it's not here to represent "all" opinions, but the concensus view, the definition of least surprise for a majority of readers.

As it stands, the intro reads like it was written by 10 hands having an argument. It's unreadable and ridiculous. But heck, who knows, maybe I'm not a feminist after all?? Who'd a thunk after so many years of fighting religious and patriarchal subjugation??--Tallard (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Feminism today isn't any more about political, economic, and social rights. It has overgrown the model of a more or less organized socio-political movement with a clear agenda (like fighting religious and patriarchal subjugation) and became something like a mass philosophy or a cultural trend consisting of an increasingly larger set of different (and sometimes conflicting) opinions and views all aimed to stimulate and empower women to express themselves in whatever manner they desire, and to chastise men so that they can express themselves only in a manner approved by feminist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSG123 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, i think the article needs to have more about abortion, as it seems to be the biggest litimus test many are holding out to define whether or not a person is accepted as a feminist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.154.199 (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Your mistake is to think that introductions or articles should provide a "consensus view." That is simply not the case. NPOV demands we include all significant views. This article does a decent job doing just that. The sentence you refer to is accurate. So your problem seems to be that you find it a "surprise." Well, don't we come to books and articles hoping to be surprised, hoping we will learn something new? Otherwise, why bother reading anything? The lead says "some people" hold this view. And you seem to think that if "some people" hold that view, people who hold other views are not feminists. How strange. To think that all people must think alike. I did not know feminists are battling it out to decide which one definition of feminism will over-rule all other definitions. In the meantime, at Wikipedia, we try to provide majority and minority views without taking any side or insisting that one view is the truth or that our article can tell any feminist what to believe or what not to believe. Wikipedia is just not about that. If you are looking for some ministry of propaganda, you came to the wrong place. You seem to want to make an argument, argue that your view is the only view. We make no arguments, we just describe the different views. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

69.149.154.199, the problem is that your personal views can't be included in the article. --Aronoel (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Masculism and men's rights movements

Pro-feminist academics like Michael Flood, Michael Messner, and Michael Kimmel are involved with men's studies.

This statement gives excessive prominence to Flood, Messner and Kimmel. Their names already appear multiple times in this Wiki page. There are obviously many people involved in Masculism and the men's rights movements to highlight 3 all who are of similar views shows a lack of balance. This sentence should be removed or similar number of names from other perspectives should be added so flooding the entry with names. I vote remove it.

Zimbazumba (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good point, so I've removed their names from this sentence. --Aronoel (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That reads a lot better, thanks. Zimbazumba (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Movement and Ideologies

"Contrary to common beliefs, studies have shown that feminists tend to have neutral feelings towards men, and self-identitied feminists tend to have less hostile attitudes towards men than non-feminists."

This sentence at the end of the Movement and Ideologies section is not relevant to the subject matter of the heading. Secondly the reference for this statement comes form an unrefereed book of articles and the experimental design of the work is appalling. I read the paper and wasted 15 mins of my life doing so. By narrowing or expanding the definition of feminism you could prove anything, including black is white.

I recommend the whole of the last paragraph of this section be removed. Pancur (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that that section may not be the most ideal place for it, but I'm not sure where else it should go. I'm not sure what the problem is with the source, it's a secondary source and a third-party published book with an editor. The authors of the specific article are professors of social psychology. I believe it meets all the criteria of wp:rs. --Aronoel (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I have read this article and now others in the book, I would argue the unreviewed articles strongly promote a point of view on a complex topic. In of itself this is not necessarily a bad thing. However reading wp:rs I think the source fails on every count in the scholarship section. Coming from academia I am well aware that there is a vast difference between an edited volume and a set of peer reviewed articles. Academics are are not immune from publishing poor quality opinionated work. Unreservedly accepting references from 'edited' volumes is a dangerous precedence to set and is not the intent of wp:rs.

Further more a statement essentially irrelevent to the subject matter of a heading does not justify its presence by being unable to think of where else to put it. Perhaps it is a sign it should not be in the article in the first place. Pancur (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I created a new section, put the paragraph there, and added text for which I anticipate sourcing later, although I don't think it's particularly controversial.

We don't generally require that sources be peer-reviewed, some selected articles on scholarship being exceptions by consensus on their talk pages or by practice by one or more editors. Were we to require peer review in our sources generally, many or most articles would not appear for the reason that peer review is generally applied to new discoveries and other new contributions to knowledge, whereas some knowledge has been known for so long or is so obvious that there may not be a peer-reviewed source for it, but may not be in dispute. As a polymathic reader, I've had difficulty determining which books are peer-reviewed; I've been told by a librarian that many university presses don't apply peer review, although I have one book in which the author credits one or more anonymous reviewers. I judge sources somewhat on a case-by-case basis.

Nick Levinson (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the new section is a really good change to this article, thanks. --Aronoel (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I could not agree more with Nick Levinson's statements. The phrase

".. peer review is generally applied to new discoveries and other new contributions to knowledge"

sums up where my concerns are. With the exception of the reference to a similar work, done in 1983 that I have no access to, this paper is the only study done on this topic and as such is new knowledge. I did find this volume on the web but have mislayed the link, I will dig it up. The formation of a new section has improved matters though.

Pancur (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The greater part of the article can be found here http://www.amazon.com/Feminism-Womens-Rights-Worldwide-volumes/dp/0313375968#reader_0313375968

They freely admit the following

"In addition to our empirical study that we describe shortly, Iazzo's 1983 study
is the only one we found that examines feminists' attitudes towards men."

Apart form a nearly 30yr old study, of now questionable contemporary relevance, their work is the only one on this topic and is arguably new knowledge. Contrary to that stated above I do consider this to be controversial knowledge, Feminists' attitudes towards men are commonly a topic of discussion. The Iazzo study is Iazzo, A. N. 1983. "The construction and validation of Attitudes toward Men Scale." The Psychological Record 33: 371-378.

The journal for Iazzo is a small peer reviewed journal out of SIU Carbondale, Il.

Pancur (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What I meant as not particularly controversial is the passage I added (the section's first paragraph) and the relevant controversy is about whether it would be challenged in Wikipedia as contrary to another editor's understanding; that feminists' attitudes toward males are widely discussed is also true but a separate matter.

The Psychological Record (from a different university) for 1983 is apparently unavailable online, unless JStor turns out to have it. However, the 1983 study insofar as described in the work referenced in the Wikipedia article's note 11 seems to be appropriately summarized in Wikipedia. The clause in Wikipedia that "self-identitied feminists tend to have less hostile attitudes towards men than non-feminists" I'm presuming is supported by the reference, specifically by the chapter authors' own study, and I can't see that part of the chapter (pp. 7 ff.); the clause is plausible in my experience, but if it's wrong it should be corrected.

Amazon limits what I can see from the 2010 book chapter even when I sign in, so I can't evaluate more of it. But my impression is that what I see of the chapter is fairly close to attitudes among self-identifying feminists, of whom I've met many over the years, albeit likely in another geographic area, without a control, and not systematically studied.

Studies of feminists probably often use fairly wide definitions because if narrow definitions are used an investigator needs much more funding to reach enough respondents, and widely-defined populations may be reasonably worth studying unless the definition is so wide as to be meaningless. Defining a feminist simply as 'self-identifying as one' is often adequate and probably would be for measuring what the 1983 study tries to, at least in the U.S., in addition to supporting design consistency among studies on different issues.

Even if the 2010 study was not peer-reviewed and even if the 1983 study is outdated, I don't think 2010 U.S. self-identified feminists' attitudes would have turned substantially anti-male. The willingness to self-identify privately as feminist has probably grown, among women since the 1970s and among men since the '80s or '90s (although it may not have if one has to be public about it, such as on job applications), and that growth would be among mainstream people, thus unlikely to accept being anti-male, thus diluting the anti-male attitudes more common among radicals.

If you do come across a better study, with similar or dissimilar results, we're interested.

Nick Levinson (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Speechless.

Pancur (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This entry has always concerned me as well

The title of the paper referenced here is the "Myth of the Man Hating Feminist". What myth? From my experience I don't think it is a myth that some Feminists are at least hostile to men. The paper then proceeds to extend the definition of "Feminist" and "Self Declared Feminist" to a large enough pool to dilute this population, funding arguments for this are a possible reason not an excuse. This study although not saying "black is white" it is saying "black is black", ie very little. The fact that in 30 yrs. there are only two pieces of work addressing this issue also says something.

The Wiki entry starts with the phrase "Contrary to common beliefs..", what common beliefs? I do not think it is a common belief that most feminists are hostile to men but I do think it is a common belief that some are. Unless carefully read this entry suggests it is concerned with the later but actually demonstrates the former. At best this Wiki entry is misleading and could lead to the counter myth "..studies show Feminists are not hostile to men", ergo Solanas, Dworkin, Daly etc were Feminists and hence not hostile to men.

At a minimum this should be rewritten to make it clear what it is actually being said and what the terms used precisely mean. Since imo it is frankly not very informative due to its sampling set and it is open to misinterpretation, I think it should be removed as it does more harm than good.

Zimbazumba (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the current wording is pretty clear that feminists tend to have less hostility towards men, not that no feminist has ever been hostile to men. Also, unless I'm misunderstanding something, I'm not sure what the problem is with using self-identification as a feminist as the defining criterion for a feminist. --Aronoel (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The myth is that most feminist are man-haters, at least in the U.S. Some hate men. Most, however, want men to change but see themselves as wanting men in their lives. While many feminists read the authors you cited, after a while probably most integrated their books into their more general views of feminism and of the world. Most feminists endorse a mainstreaming form of feminism and men are overwhelmingly part of the mainstream.

You say that "funding arguments ... are a possible reason not an excuse", but I don't know what "not [being] an excuse" means, since they may not have had an obligation to do the more thorough study. If you want to conduct a survey in which you determine what kind of feminist each respondent is and you have access to the money (it may cost you several dollars per respondent for a detailed phone poll and you'll want a large enough respondent pool to be meaningful for each type of feminism, so for a national survey with five kinds of feminism you may be talking about $20,000), and you can get your study refereed and published, go ahead.

Relying on self-definition helps with consistency between investigators and studies over years. It's not the only way to qualify respondents but it is accepted for many fields of inquiry.

If these are the best studies because they're the only studies, they probably should be cited in the article.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I could rephrase my arguments like so.

The sentence under discussion is awash with prevarication, weasel words and multiple interpretations.

(1) The phrase "Contrary to common beliefs..", what common beliefs? That Feminists tend to be hostile to men? I don't think it is a common belief, although you may think it is a common belief. This statement is in the same league as "Some researchers think..". It should either be clarified to a point of consensus agreement or referenced. If we are to believe the referenced paper it is concerned with the "Myth of the Man Hating Feminist", no ambiguity about that.

(2) Even we if agree with the phrase ".common beliefs.." does the definition of Feminism for the common believer correspond to that of those who consider themselves to be Feminists. (hidden prevarication)

(3) "Hostile" and "Neutral" are weasel words and can mean many things. The reader should have a reasonable idea about what is meant by these words without having to read the source paper.

(4) The sentence as a summary of the referenced work provokes a very different emotional response when re-phrased, eg. I could re-phrase it as

"..feminists tend not to have positive feelings towards men, and self-identified feminists although tending to have hostile attitudes towards men are in general less hostile than non-feminists. In general women tend not to have positive attitudes towards men".

Which I would argue is as valid and inane as the original wording. This is a sign of a sentence with problems.

(5) There are a wealth of peer reviewed papers on Feminist topics but a paucity of papers on this very interesting one. Perhaps it is not measurable or sufficiently well defined as a problem for meaningful research and commentary. Or possibly other researchers obtained results less palatable for publication?

(6) It was Nick Levinson not me who brought up funding, I was just responding.

In short I think this entry needs to be more precise or removed. I am open to suggestions.

Zimbazumba (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(1) Many women who agree with feminist goals and who live lives benefiting from feminism want nothing to do with the label, and many say they want or have equality but are not against men and so they don't call themselves feminist. Mary Daly wrote an anti-male book (Gyn/Ecology), but relatively few feminists take a position like that. But it's much more common for men to treat feminism as anti-man and, because of that, many women have steered clear of describing themselves as feminist. It's not a bad idea to add a reference to the effect that either many men view feminism as anti-men or many women who agree with feminist goals or live feminist-like lives decline the self-label as feminist because of the common perception that feminists are anti-men. There probably are such statements in many secondary sources, even if there's no study on point.

(2) "[D]oes the definition of Feminism for the common believer correspond to that of those who consider themselves to be Feminists[?]" No, not entirely; the common believer would raise the level to which feminism is anti-male above what most feminists would say of their own beliefs. But a common believer and a common woman would also often disagree on whether she's a feminist, given joint knowledge of her particular beliefs but no joint knowledge of her labeling or lack thereof. E.g., equal pay for equal pay is widely endorsed by paid women but not as much pursued because men proceed as if there's already enough being done in that regard; comparable worth has even less support from men. This definitional difference is not prevarication; it is difference between people. One could design a survey in which we ask average people to name some feminists and then interview the latter, but that's even more expensive than what I suggested above, and I don't know of such a study; if it doesn't exist, we won't be able to cite it, and in that case we have to rely on the best sources that do exist and that still meet our standards.

(3) If you want to suggest a more precise term or meaning for hostile, go ahead. I think neutral as reflecting a middle value may be quite workable, but if you want to define it more precisely, go ahead, although I think taking up space to describe the scale and that a range around 80.00 (if I recall right) is what we're talking about may be more confusing for readers unless a lot more explanation is provided, and this is an article intended to introduce readers to all about feminism within 100 kibibytes and preferably less. It's okay for some content to be in cited sources; that's why they're cited. When a Wikipedia reader delves into a source and encounters a different dialect (such as that of scientists in a field who expect other readers to be scientists with approximately their level of expertise), because it's in the source and not in the Wikipedia article it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to explain all of what's in the source.

(4) Propose a better sentence, if you wish. I'm not sure how much can be proven by drafting a worse sentence.

(5) We rely on what's available. Study results being not "palatable for publication" is a problem known in medicine and elsewhere and perhaps in feminism. If nonpalatability resulted in publication, we can still cite them. If it did not, we can't cite them and that complaint has to go elsewhere and not here. I don't know of a study in feminism that was withheld from publication because its results were undesirable despite the work being well done.

(6) I did introduce funding, because it 's relevant to whether studies are defining feminism too loosely. To study more forms of feminism as distinct from each other and still produce totals that reflect general feminism costs more. That such a study doesn't exist is likely not an investigator's fault, so to say there's no "excuse" when there's no duty to get and spend more is incorrect.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll address (4) first by proposing the following. It eliminates the unsubstantiated introductory phrase and further illuminates the results of the study:-

"A study shows that feminists tend to have neutral feelings towards men, and self-identified feminists although tending to have hostile attitudes towards men are in general less hostile than non-feminists. In general women tend not to have positive attitudes towards men".

Prevarication, weasel words and 'studies' are a double edged sword. If you use one edge then the other is just as valid.

Zimbazumba (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If you still see prevarication given that a definitional difference between people is not necessarily prevarication by either, point to the specific words constituting it. If you see a weasel word for which there is a feasible alternative, point to it and propose the alternative, but you seem to have decided not to and then complain about it anyway; weasel words without feasible alternatives stay. The word studies is correct in this context; two are cited (one within the article on the other). If you wish to suggest that most women, including nonfeminists, tend to have nonpositive attitudes toward men, please source it, as that is rather astonishing (one could push and make such a claim about feelings rarely revealed but for those a source is needed). Please tell us what you believe the common beliefs are, if the opening clause is wrong, but if you don't think it's wrong just unsourced, note that it is not necessary to source obvious statements, so your challenge is appropriate only if you think it is wrong, not merely that you think someone might wish it to be wrong. If you propose deleting the sentence on misandry, explain why. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

All women are either non-feminist, feminist or self-identified feminists. The study shows

Feminists tend to have neutral feelings towards men.

Self-identified feminists tend to have hostile attitudes towards men.

Non feminists are more hostile than non-feminists.

Ergo ALL women tend not have positive attitudes to men.

My source is the very study you are defending, the result is pretty damned significant and clearly should be mentioned. Either this work is a revolutionary piece of sociological research or nonsense. I choose the latter due to the absurd suggestion that women in general do not have positive attitudes towards men, I am using reductio ad absurdum.

As for the 'common belief' it has to be referenced, we can wiki lawyer that later is if you wish. As for weasel words it is for others not me to provide an alternative, their definition is embedded in the 'paper'. Your stance on prevarication is stone walling. My approach atm is that if you accept the study then you must accept all women tend not have positive attitudes to men. So either include this point or remove the entry.

Further more reading Pancer's entry again I agree this entry fails on wp:rs alone. Using Iazzo's work is ok albeit rather old, but all we know is that he addresses this issue (I don't have the paper).

Zimbazumba (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The first clause is supported directly in the source provided: "Contrary to popular stereotypes, self-identified feminists had lower levels of hostility toward men than non-feminists." These popular stereotypes are also discussed specifically in the article.

I don't agree that "neutral" and "hostile" are weasel words. They are pretty specific, and they are used prominently in the source's conclusions. At the very least they are more specific than "not positive." I understand that you believe the sentence is poor and you are trying to demonstrate that, but really any sentence can be reworded to be misleading and confusing. So I don't think this justifies its removal.

Original analysis of studies is original research, which can't be included in the article. But I just want to point out that the study discussing hostility uses only two categoroes: self-identified feminists and nonfeminists. And also, hostility in this study was measured on a scale, so even men scored some degree of hostility. That doesn't mean that men tend to not have any positive attitudes about men. The highest reported score of hostility was among nonfeminists of color at 2.7 out of 5. Even that is not far from what could be considered neutral. --Aronoel (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

After going back and reviewing the sentence again, I think it has caused some confusion so I've made a few small changes to make it clearer. A possible clearer way that what is now the second sentence could be reworded is: "Additionally, feminists are less likely to have hostile attitudes towards men than non-feminists." I think this might be less confusing since there have been misinterpretations of the meaning of a scale of hostility. Please let me know if this might be a better option. --Aronoel (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The reader should not have to read the original paper to understand what "neutral" or "hostile" mean, these are nuanced words in this context. If you consider "neutral" and "hostile" as well defined then so is "not positive" ie as "neutral or hostile" we can use that is you wish. My reductio ad absurdum still stands if you disagree with that statement. And I repeat Pancer's point that this study does not satisfy wp:rs, Iazzo's might this doesn't.

Zimbazumba (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, sorry I missed your second post. Although now clearer I don't think it really changes much, albeit better written.

Zimbazumba (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• First of all this is VERY simple. The point should be attributed to the source, so it should begin with;

  In their essay 'The Myth of the Man-Hating Feminist', Kanner and Anderson say that...

  Secondly, (and this is important) it is not our job to neuter sources because quotes from them use words we don't agree with: that is a serious and fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. We record all relevant mainstream perspectives neutrally - that measn we don't alter them. Thirdly: Zimbazumba, your decree that this source does not meet WP:RS is incorrect. If you wish to explore how an essay in an academic, editted collection relates to wikipedias policies on verification do it at WP:RS/N--Cailil ^talk 17:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Zimbazumba. I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying about "neutral" and "hostile." Most people understand what those specific attitudes mean and can look them up in a dictionary if necessary. "Not positive" is a very general term that could refer to any attitude thinkable that is not positive.

I believe the article (not study) meets wp:rs per my reply to Pancur above. --Aronoel (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the addition of the introductory phrase

In their essay 'The Myth of the Man-Hating Feminist', Kanner and Anderson say that...

in conjunction with Aronoel's rewording enormously improves the entry. I can live with it as a suitable compromise. I thank you all for responding to my points.

I still agree with Pancur and will pursue that issue in the appropriate forum.

Zimbazumba (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Approach to men

The first paragraph should include some of the very extreme attitudes of fairly well known authors. Although distasteful I think they should be there. Also the last sentence reads like a false dichotomy. Suggest changing it to

"Some feminist ideologies oppose sexism but not men personally, because men will benefit from feminism,because men must be welcomed as allies in a struggle for women's rights and both genders must cooperate, because men and women are both oppressed with "men ... betrayed by their culture"[9] while most men have no power over women and "no clearly defined enemy ... oppressing them", and because men are oppressed by gender roles. Other feminist ideologies oppose both sexism and men as the agents and perpetrators of sexism, prominent examples being radical feminism and authors who have advocated that women ought to govern men, separate from men or destroy men. In the U.S., most feminists are more closely aligned with the former view."

The references for the included phrase "..have advocated that women ought to govern men, separate from men or destroy men." would be

Daly, Mary, Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism (Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, pbk. 1978 & 1990)

Bunch, Charlotte/The Furies Collective, Lesbians in Revolt, in The Furies: Lesbian/Feminist Monthly, vol.1, January 1972, pp.8-9

Solanas, Valerie SCUM Manifesto AK Press, 1996. ISBN 1-873176-44-9 and [... link (deleted)]

Solanas actually said "destroy the male sex" not "destroy men" not sure if I am being PC here. I am aware 9 years later Solanas claimed her phrase was a literary device and there were attempts by others to characterize her work as a satire. The fact is she very publicly said it and attempts at damage control by her and others came much later.

Zimbazumba (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC) (Link deleted as apparent copyright violation facilitation, discussed infra: Nick Levinson (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

Whether to discuss in this article that some women advocate for governing men, which is true to a significant but definitely minor degree in recent decades in the U.S., has already been discussed at length on this page. The consensus is that it is to such a degree a minority position even among feminists that it belongs elsewhere but not here. (An article elsewhere about it was deleted after debate.) Calls for the destruction of men, by which I assume is meant mass murder and not the mere disheartening or disenfranchising of masses of men, in any calls that are clearly serious (e.g., not literary devices), are even rarer or (to my knowledge) may not exist and whether it's enough to meet a test of significance has to be considered. If the significance comes only from antifeminist criticisms, that may not be enough because of the tendency of opponents in any major political field to exaggerate (e.g., consider how in U.S. politics Republicans count most Democrats as extremist and how Democrats do likewise about most Republicans but we don't consider the U.S. government to be run mostly by Communists and Nazis).

I'm reading a later edition of Valerie Solanas' work for another article. Because she apparently did say that it was a literary device (albeit much later, I think), apparently including what "SCUM" may stand for, and her work with, or attempted work with, Andy Warhol suggests that literary devices may well have been part of her way of working at the time she wrote the book and before, it's pretty well necessary to explain that and to get a source to back up that even if not meant literally the Manifesto was understood and influential as advocacy of the sort, I'm not sure it's good for an introductory article. I'm also not clear yet whether it was proseparatist or advocacy for governing men and therefore how to characterize it. While some writers probably did accept her recharacterization as a downgrading of the work's importance, some feminists promoted it anyway, so the work may stand on its own, but I'll see.

Linking to a purported text, apparently full text, of the SCUM Manifesto looks like copyright violation facilitation, which is unlawful. I'm not sure if it can stay in the talk page. I don't plan to put it into the article unless someone can show that it is lawful. The book is available for purchase, probably in more than one edition.

(I've long thought that a copy I read years ago at a public library and that had handwritten markup may have been marked up by her, but I don't know; I can't very well argue that no one else did the markup.)

I'll look for Charlotte Bunch's article. I think she also wrote an anthology and maybe it has it.

Mary Daly's Gyn/Ecology is already cited in support of the second sentence and at the point of discussing radical feminism, since she was a radical feminist.

If you're proposing deleting most of the references or pagination, I disagree.

I changed the third sentence to replace "more feminists align with" to "most feminists align more closely with", applying part of your suggestion but keeping women's agency as active rather than passive.

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

wp:npov states quite clearly that all significant views should be represented proprtionately. Significance does not necessarily infer believed by some numbers. A belief can be believed by very few yet be influencial in spawning debate, raisng awareness and inflaming passions. Addressing the phrases I wished to be included:-

Separate from men:- Mentioning Separatist Feminists I don't think is a matter for much debate. It was and is a significant movement, although not large in numbers. It has its own Wiki page.

Govern men:- Mary Daly's work might have been discussed in other contexts, but this is a new section about the approach to men. The playing field has now changed and the significance of her work has increased greatly. Mary Daly was an important Feminist thinker who had and still has a following. Her book Gyn/Ecology that I quote from is a famous book and the phrase ".. believing that women ought to govern men" appears on the Wiki page about Daly in the section "Views on men". I believe you have read the book yourself. This book is still available on Amazon, Chapters etc and receives a very significant number of positive reviews. Excluding her views on men as not relevant in a section entitled "Approach to men" violates wk:npov imo.

Destroy the male sex:- Valerie Solanas and the SCUM Manifesto are iconic, Both with their own wiki pages. The SCUM Manifesto imo is a historical document and remarkable piece of literature. It captures albeit as a deeply grotesque characture the inner resentments of many women. Even today quite moderate women chuckle when they read it. It raised passions and created debate. It was highly influential in extreme feminist circles of the time and now. I also have no reason to believe that Solanas considered it satire at the time of writing. The phrase "Destroy the male sex" appears in the first sentence of the manifesto.

I strongly feel that these 3 ideas belong in this section if added in an appropriate manner. We can work on the wording.

And finally the phrase "..most feminists align more closely with..", is now original research imo. Most women, ie those who agree with equality etc, would not of heard of most of the phrases in the opening sentence let alone proactively aligned themselves with them.

Zimbazumba (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is that elsewhere is where they belong, not here. They're covered in articles linked to from here, including in the sidebar. In a single article that would be all about feminism, most or all of that and more could be in one place. But Wikipedia articles are limited to about 100 KiB each, preferably less, and so we break out subarticles and link them, and there are many already. By far, the prevailing view among U.S. feminists is nonseparatist and for equality (given many definitions of equality) and plenty of sources support that. One editor supplied roughly 20 of those sources and there are more. Both feminist and popular literature support the prevalence and I doubt there's a study contradicting that. (As a side note, this is a consequence of feminists appealing to mainstream women to be feminist and, almost by definition, most mainstream people do not turn radical; instead, either they reject feminism altogether or, in embracing feminism, they mainstream feminism itself, adapting ideologies to fit what adopters need in the mainstream. Acceptance of men is mainstream. I can quote Betty Friedan to that effect.)

The key difference between the first two sentences respecting how most U.S. women think or feel as to how feminism approaches men is in feminist opposition being "not [to] men personally" or affirmatively to "men as the agents and perpetrators". Any notion that far and away the first is not the more common view among U.S. women would need strong sourcing. Mary Daly, for example, was aspiring and not describing how most women already live. While you're right that most of the first sentence's subsidiary clauses' phrases as specific phrases would not be immediately familiar to most women, the phrases support the leading part of the sentence and are sourced.

Mary Daly is dead and I doubt her influence has grown since. Where her influence seems to turn up the most in popular or feminist literature is in what she demonstrated about language, such as in breaking down the word disease into dis-ease to show hidden meanings vital to feminism; this kind of linguistic analysis is employed in books by various authors, and she can get credit for inspiring a lot of it. And she's known as a feminist, probably known as a radical feminist. But I doubt most women can go much further than that in describing what she stood for. As an indirect example of that, I had difficulty finding a secondary source specifically citing her call for women to govern men (using any words to that effect). If you find one, it may be useful elsewhere, but it probably still wouldn't be enough for this article.

Valerie Solanas' work has been published a few times, including 2004 (the edition I'm reading), and multiple republication is important, but I don't agree on the ease of the interpretation without a secondary source backing it up. The best I can think of it Ultra Violet's book, and if that's the only one I'm not sure it would be adequate (although the book, while primary for much or most of its content, is probably secondary for her interview of Valerie). One could argue that shooting Andy Warhol was an act implementing such an interpretation, but we'd need a secondary source making that connection or find if she's been quoted to that effect, but she turned herself into to a police officer and I doubt her statements would be even nearly consistently in that direction; I think she spoke of his not taking her artistic work seriously. Even if she made some of her statements in order to lighten the court's reaction, she was freed in a few years and had plenty of opportunity in many later years to renounce any post-shooting statements, apparently at little or no cost to her. So we're left with substantial inconsistency at best, making interpretation something for an off-Wiki author to do in a secondary source. If you find one, please let us know.

The Furies: Lesbian/Feminist Monthly is not in my local libraries' large collections (one has catalogued an extensive feminist collection on microfilm) or at WorldCat.org. I searched for The Furies at the libraries and, when that got too many results at WorldCat, for "The Furies: Lesbian" at WorldCat and also for "The Furies" as a journal, magazine, or newspaper. I thought there was such a serial but maybe no library kept it. If you can verify the serial title you provided, please do. Otherwise, I can look for Charlotte's book. My impression is that she was separatist, not about governing men, but I can see.

Adding the new section to this article was mainly a reorganizing of content, not a redefining of the article's scope.

I considered whether to ask other editors about adding separatism, albeit not about governing men, and looked to see if separatism is already in the article. It is. In the Movements and Ideologies section, it's in the third paragraph, with a link. A common problem in Wikipedia is to move stuff to the top of an article until the top becomes top-heavy, and some editors might say I've also been guilty of that at least once. The same happens to the most prominent article of a set. In this case, it's a question of moving what's covered in other articles and in this article into a section on approach to men. All of feminism is about approaches to men, so maybe half the subject could be written into that section. A book or magazine article could be titled Approach to Men: The History of Feminism, but this is Wikipedia, where a length limit and internal prioritization apply.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking the advice of Wiki for Beginners I have been bold and inserted a paragraph that highlight some of negative reactions to men. It feel has been added in a proportionate way and balances the entry. The text of which is

Betty Friedam criticized radical feminists for co-opting the Feminist movement with anti-male sentiments. Some more radical feminists have advocated that women ought to govern men, separate from men or even more extremely, although considered satire by some, "destroy the male sex".

I have removed the sentence "In the U.S., most feminists align more closely with the former position." it is original research as it asserts proactive taking of those stances. The latter stances are anyway indicated as being less popular by describing them as radical.

Zimbazumba (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted both edits. Please discuss first, in consideration of what I raised above. In addition, you did not supply page numbers for most of the references you added. If you do not agree with what I did or wrote and don't want to discuss it with me, you may ask other editors on this page for their feedback. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought my response spoke volumes. However I'll be to be more explicit

(1) I have made significant well substantiated reasons why this material should be included.

(2) Your above reasons for their non inclusion is a long list of trivial objections. eg we might exceed the Kb limit for the page or that this material can be found on other wiki pages. We can go on for weeks like that.

(3) You have not meaningfully responded to my point of your inclusion of clearly original research that you included without any discussion.

(4) The Friedam point needs no discussion. It is a well know of view one of the most important feminists of the 20th century.

This entry is short, proportionate and adds balance to the entry.

I have reverted your edits. Unless you can offer significant, concise and well substantiated reasons for its removal then please do not revert my edits.

The opinions of other editors would be welcome as well. If this have to go to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view then so be it.

Zimbazumba (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think having some info on criticism within feminism of radical feminism's approach to men is a positive addition to this section. However, I don't think SCUM or gynocracy need to be included because gynocracy is very fringe for this general article and isn't a significant part of radical feminism, as Nick has explained. SCUM's relationship with actual feminist movements is dubious and a better source for the inclusion of "destroy the male sex" would be a neutral or feminist source that says "destroying the male sex was an aim of some radical feminists" or something like that. Separatism is a type of radical feminism, so I don't know if this section really needs to get that specific on radical feminism.

I think the sentence about how most feminists align is important for this section, because there should be some indication of the prominence of these views on men. I think the sentence was factually correct but I'm having trouble finding a source that can back it up. At the very least, most of the sources currently in that section say things like "feminism is not anti-men" etc which I think indirectly supports the sentence. I'm not really sure if that's enough though.

Also, I think the first paragraph is good but the length makes it a little confusing, so I will try to summarize it a little. Please let me know what you think of my changes and the alignment sentence issue. --Aronoel (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, thank you for your input. I disagree with you on removing my sentence on the fringe ideas, although fringe I still feel they are worthy of mentioning. Since agreement on this point is unlikely I'll possible take it to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Concerning the sentence you added, I think Friedam is more than just criticising radical feminism. She is "..critical of radical feminists for co-opting the feminist movement with anti-male sentiments" this is different and the common way that commentators of her work represent her view. This is not an idea she communicated just once it was an opinion she repeated many times.

I simply can't agree with the final sentence inferring that most women aligned with the former view. This still imo is original research. The term feminist in this section has already been used to include that large block of women who loosely agree with ideas of women's equality. This group would have had little exposure to these sentences, and actually may not agree with them.

This section is about "Approaches to men" there has over the years been a streak of anti-maleness in the feminist movement in places and I think this should be represented in a proportionate way here.

I have reworded your sentence and will come up with another perhaps to add to it. I think your rewording of the first sentence is excellent(just read it).

Zimbazumba (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually reading your first sentence I am not sure about this?

"..and propose that men should be welcomed as important allies"

This may be the opinion of some, but actually part of the theory? Men being welcomed as important allies is not a phrase I here often in feminist writing or articulated very often by feminists in general. Are we not verging on original research again?

I'll remove it for now and we can discuss. I think we are beginning to get somewhere.

Zimbazumba (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I clarified in the article which of Nick's references supported that specific claim. Regarding the Friedan sentence that you restored, could you provide a quote or something supporting it? I skimmed through the source before but I couldn't find an example of her arguing something like that. I may have just missed it though. Also, why did you remove the source I added about other feminists criticizing radical feminism?

The disagreement here is mainly about how significant negative views of men are in radical feminism and in the feminist community in general. This is an important question for this section. Fringe views are by definition not significant and don't belong in a very short, very general overview section. The rest of this disagreement has to be resolved with appropriate reliable sources and not our opinions. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like there is much literature addressing this specific question, but I'll keep looking. --Aronoel (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel. We are editing at the same time here and perhaps getting in a muddle in a rush to get to consensus. I believe we are close to it, perhaps we should slow down a bit.

I removed the source as it did not pertain to Freidan. The opinion of Friedan perhaps was not stated by her explicitly as is but is a well know synopsis of some of her thoughts in "2nd Stage" and other places. Commentators of her work frequently make the point that she held that opinion. We either find a source or reach a consensus that that was her view. It think stating her view in this form is important for balance.

I still am uncomfortable with "..and propose that men should be welcomed as important allies" without it the paragraph looks short, sharp and informative. Although it may the view of some it is a view that is not articulated very often. I think we have undue prominence issues.

Zimbazumba (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, I have done some web crawling.

Re:- "Most feminist theories........ propose that men should be welcomed as important allies"

I can't find anything saying anything like this in "The Feminist Promise" in or around p. 394, which is what your RS is. Wrong page number? Its on google books http://books.google.ca/books?id=n6IBA0grWR4C .

Concerning Friedans opinion it is alluded to but not explicitly referenced as a quote but as a synthesis of her views Here are a few:-

(1) Houghton Mifflin Chronology of US Literature: http://www.answers.com/topic/betty-friedan

" She also targets for criticism radical feminists who have co-opted the movement with an anti-male, anti-family orientation that Friedan finds counterproductive"

(2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2006/feb/06/guardianobituaries.gender

"In The Second Stage (1981), Friedan, her eye on middle America, argued that feminists were alienating support by being confrontational and anti-men"

The author of this obituary is Sheila Rowbotham who is a well known British socialist feminist theorist and writer.

(3) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/betty-friedan-465800.html

"I'm at odds with the radical feminists,"

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Friedan (although this page needs some work)

"As early as the 1960s Friedan was critical of polarized and extreme factions of feminism that attacked groups such as men and homemakers."

Zimbazumba (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Most feminists welcome at least some men as potential supporters of some part of feminism; the feminists who reject all men are, proportionately, strikingly few. I've inserted a rephrasing, but I don't understand a claim that this basic division is not believable until sourced. I doubt anyone has statistically studied the ratio in the population, because no surprise has been likely. It would never have been close except possibly in the beginning of any wave or movement and probably not even then. Books and articles about feminism, both academic and lay, are overwhelmingly mainstream and not radical; and rarely even discuss gynocracy. Organizations including NOW welcome men as members and supporters; I think most or all of the larger feminist U.S. organizations do, and did even when radicals got most of their publicity during the second wave, in the late 1960s. There are proportionately few men in the pro-mainstream feminist organizations, but they accept them on the basis, usually, of agreement with principles. I don't think you can point to even one credible source that contradicts that with a claim of a nearly 50:50 division or that rejection of men outweighs acceptance. If the proposal that men be welcomed as important allies strikes anyone as infrequent in feminism, perhaps it's the particular wording that is unusual, but the welcoming as allies is far and away predominant over rejectionism. This is basically well known from a wide reading of feminist literature. I've added a statement on point; feel free to add sourcing as you come across it and I might do the same. I don't think anyone familiar with U.S. feminism will seriously challenge its veracity until we add sources.

I've integrated Betty Friedan's objection to radical feminism in brief, but the main place to put it is where radical feminism is criticized, and that's in the article on radical feminism. That's not what this feminism article is. This article is introductory to many branches of feminism, and there is not room in this article to include a critique of each ideology, each theory, each wave, and each proponent or advocate named. That's where the 100KiB limit has meaning. Look through subarticles.

Synthesis is discouraged in Wikipedia. I've supplied a source and used one of Zimbazumba's. She certainly did repeatedly and angrily criticize radical feminism, but I wonder if she said that it had co-opted the feminist movement generally, since that would mean that she had conceded radicalism had taken over. She might have said it might co-opt feminism if they aren't stopped. For specific quotations offered by Zimbazumba, one is from Wikipedia and Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia and another is from answers.com, which is generally considered only weakly reliable (example of position), and I don't evaluate the source answers.com is quoting, the Houghtoin Mifflin Chronology of US Literature, until seen. I deleted her Second Stage; if it's still useful, please cite it but with a page citation.

Removing content and its source on the ground that it wasn't what Betty Friedan wrote is inapropos. This article may include her work but is not exclusively about her. This being an intro to feminism, thus many more advocates should be cited.

Ideologies is indeed loaded (on the false supposition that only other people have one), but it seems to survive in Wikipedia, maybe because of a need to clarify that something is not fact (subject to more dispute) and maybe because of a prevailing bias on gender issues among Wikipedia editors generally. But theories has another use, illustrated in the article's Feminism sidebar. And feminisms may be too advanced, so that to some readers it may look like a grammatical error. So instead I'm trying movements, albeit also imperfect.

Grouping footnotes instead of locating them with each statement or substatement is not my style, but some editors prefer its visual simplicity. It does have a drawback of making tracing back a little harder, but past revisions permit that for the intrepid. The other drawback is that a long list of consecutive inline references may lead to a complaint of there being too many, so, for a little help, I'm combining three into one; they're for the same book, for different pages.

The Feminist Promise was a library book that I've returned. I've now reserved the book at two libraries, since neither Google nor Amazon shows p. 394. However, I don't doubt the paraphrase or citation I supplied.

No objection I raised was trivial. Length of the article is relevant to its scope, room has to be left for growth as usually more gets added over time than gets subtracted, and editing entails choosing what fits the scope. That something relevant is in another Wikipedia page often justifies linking to it, but not usually moving it up. Putting similar content in multiple articles creates an editorial maintenance burden. Some overlap is convenient, as when one article introduces another, but a lot of overlapping repetition is burdensome when new information requires finding and changing multiple articles.

Nick Levinson (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Movements" is better, thanks. Page 394 says, "the commitment to women... depends undeniably on the fact that women must take their place with a new generation of brothers in a struggle for the world's fortunes. Herland, whether of virtuous matrons or daring sisters, is not an option." Also see bell hooks' entire chapter called "Men: Comrades in Struggle" in her book Feminist theory: from margin to center. --Aronoel (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the previous edit

Nick, Two editors have spent a a considerable amount of time working on this entry. You have significantly rewritten it with out feed back from them. Please do not do that.

Friedan was was clear in that she was critical of radical feminism AND how it had infiltrated mainstream feminism. Two of the sources I found explicitly summerise her work that way. One of those being Sheila Rowbotham who is a well known British socialist feminist theorist and writer. I feel the Rowbotham opinion is the stronger reference, I have included her words with respect to Friedan.

My new version is short, sharp and informative. Please remember this is an introductory article were brevity and clarity are important. I am sure you will agree with me that my shorter entry alleviates greatly the limited Kb problem for each page as well, which as you well know is a serious problem.

Zimbazumba (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel. Sorry there was an element of cross posting there. I agree with movements rather ideologies. I still don't see how you sources support the statement

"...and propose that men should be welcomed as important allies..."

Some feminist may propose but whole movements?

Zimbazumba (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

ZZ, there are 3 active editors in this discussion right now, and I did give feedback on Nick's edits.

Regarding Friedan: not even Rowbotham says that Friedan believed the entire feminist movement had been co-opted. I think it's fine to say that she criticized radical feminism, but let's not go too far.

Regarding the other sentence you removed: I think this sentence is justified given the large amount of sources already in the section of feminists supporting men's involvement in feminism and the studies showing that most feminists are not anti-men. --Aronoel (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, Nick rewrote that entry with out any consultation with you or me. At the time I reverted we were cross posting. If you read my last edit I changed the Friedan opinion of that given by Rowbotham.

Betty Freidan was one of the most famous and important feminists of the 20th century, of that there is absolutely no doubt. I think here views on this matter of enormous significance, to partially express them and bury them at the end of another sentence is simply not good enough. I had put

"In The Second Stage (1981), Betty Friedan argued that feminists were alienating support by being confrontational and anti-men"

With the reference being written by Sheila Rowbotham. So here I have the opinions of one of the most significant feminists of the 20th century, on the subject matter of this section, summarized by a respected and well known socialist feminist theorist and writer. Further more, the Rowbotham opinion appears as an obituary, ie a summary of her life, in the The Guardian which is a highly respected newspaper that has a left leaning and pro-feminist slant.

This deserves the prominence I gave it.

Make no mistake I will fight all the way on this one.

Please could we discuss things before changing the first part of this section. Things went so well yesterday and we made progress doing that.

Zimbazumba (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nick's behavior was fine, he discussed his changes on the talk page. It's not like he has to get our approval before editing. You didn't get our approval when you reverted both of our edits today.

Honestly I can't understand why this particular quote about Friedan is so important, or worth fighting "all the way" about. It should instead be a brief mention of liberal feminist criticism of radical feminism if anything at all. Friedan is not the only notable feminist and Rowbotham's interpretation of her views is not the final word on the subject. Besides, Nick is right that in-depth discussion of radical feminism is not supposed to be in that section. Also I think the sentence you removed is important and justified, as I explained before. So I don't support this current version. --Aronoel (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel. I'll split posts for clarity. The reason I feel the Friedan reference is important atm is because without it this section lacks balance. An anti-male streak in the feminist movement (or lack of it) is a pretty important issue with regard to feminism. I think, as did Freidan and others, that it has existed to some degree. Friedan warned that it would be counter productive as it would alienate many woman and men. She was right it has. It has set the feminist cause back.

A passing reference to anti-male attitudes amongst radical feminists is not enough and a lack of balance. It is an overly sympathetic picture of feminist attitudes to men that frankly that most people would not recognize.

As Cailil says above "We record all relevant mainstream perspectives neutrally.." . The reference to Friedan is one single sentence from one of the important feminists of all time made by a significant author in a significant publication. Rowbotham my not be the last word but she is a fairly substantial word and more so than the commentators on other issues in the latter part of this section. Everything I have read, seen and heard suggests this corresponds to Friedan's view.

If you can not agree to this then either another editor, eg Cailil helps break the deadlock or we go to arbitration of some sort.

Zimbazumba (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel. I am not sure what sentence you are suggesting I removed. I am very uncomfortable with that:- Movements....

" propose that men should be welcomed as important allies"

which is still on the page. I think this is disproportionate. Some women might feel this and it might be the formal response of a movement if asked. But it should also to be seen to be acted on. The NOW website, which is a flag ship of communication for the largest mainstream feminist group in the USA, has a far as I can see absolutely nothing on it concerning this issue. I checked the main page, all links off the main page and searched the whole site for a number of relevant keys words. Basically nothing.

Zimbazumba (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I, too, believe the claim should be removed, 1 feminist saying something is not enough to write on the feminism page that feminists believe..., that would be like 1 man saying "Most people consider The Lion King the best movie made" and then writing in the article, "The best movie by consensus".Props888 (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Also in the sentence: "In the West, the movements and theoretical developments were historically led predominantly by middle-class white women from Western Europe and North America, but, since then, more women have proposed additional feminisms.", there are two problems 1. It's still led predominantly by middle-class (ironically it could be led predominantly by upper-class white women now but I'm not sure) 2. "Feminisms"? How can it be possible to have "a feminism" that's different from feminism yet fit the definition of feminism, can I propose a communism or racism that's different from communism/racism yet at the same time communism/racism? Maybe who ever edited the page meant femenist movements?Props888 (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've lost a network connection for a while, so I'm elsewhere and catching up piecemeal.

Zimbazumba, reverting one editor's edits regardless of content is not good reverting. You've done it without even trying to explain or discuss each point. Please consider every item in any edit you revert and, unless every one should be reverted, edit manually and specifically only.

If you dispute only part of an edit, reverting all of it is overkill. Select what you dispute.

If you believe a citation is needed and don't wish to do the research yourself, you may add a {{Citation needed}} template at the proper location.

On NOW, see http://www.now.org/organization/faq.html#found ("truly equal partnership with men") and http://www.now.org/history/purpos66.html ("women and men"), both as accessed Mar. 17, 2011. That remains current.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of "Mainstream feminist organizations and literature, along with most self-identified feminists, take the former position," instead of "In the U.S., many more feminists accept some men as supporters of feminism than blame all men"? I think the Kanner and Anderson source and references 7-16 support this statement. (ZZ, this was the sentence I was referring to that you removed) --Aronoel (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel. I think the sentence at the end is not correct and that there is a lack of balance. I am also of the opinion re-reading carefully that the first sentence is not correct either. Many feminists/movements have little to say on gender roles at all, and many have only a passing opinion on how sexism affects men. Though many do as well. In general it is fair to say that feminists/movements are accepting of men, though actively "proposing they be accepted as important allies" is not a picture I quite see. The views of a few authors do not imo prove these points.

I think the sentiments your are trying to express should be in this paragraph but in a proportionate and reasonably correct manner. The sentence you suggested is possible a bit more accurate but perhaps a bit wordy. I think we can incorporate the ideas of both sentences in some thing like,

"Most feminists and feminist movements oppose sexism but not men personally, and are accepting of men as allies. Many also feel that men are also oppressed by gender roles, and can ultimately benefit from feminism."

with appropriate references and scrap the last sentence, I thinks its sentiments are expressed in this sentence. The paragraph would also should shorter and clearer. The Friedan quote should be pulled out as before.

Zimbazumba (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

So the first section would now look like (with references added):-

"Most feminists and feminist movements oppose sexism but not men personally, and are accepting of men as allies. Many also feel that men are also oppressed by gender roles, and can ultimately benefit from feminism. Other feminist movements oppose both sexism and men as the agents and perpetrators of sexism, a prominent example being radical feminism.

In The Second Stage (1981), Betty Friedan argued that feminists were alienating support by being confrontational and anti-men."

I can go for that.

Zimbazumba (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that you feel that many feminist movements have little to say about gender roles, and are not accepting of men as allies. But those are really your personal opinions and there are more than a few authors listed as sources, as you can see. Maybe other people can comment on the sentence I proposed? --Aronoel (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel. My reading of my proposed sentences are that they express fairly explicitly that "Most feminists and feminist movements ... are accepting of [men as] allies" and that "Many also feel that men are also oppressed by gender roles"

I actually thought my proposal was fairly conciliatory. We can wait for other input if you wish.

Zimbazumba (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In the interim since my previous offering was rebuked I have hardened on "Most" to "Some" in 2nd sentence so my offering is (with references added):-

"Most feminists and feminist movements oppose sexism but not men personally, and are accepting of men as allies. Some also feel that men are also oppressed by gender roles, and can ultimately benefit from feminism. Other feminist movements oppose both sexism and men as the agents and perpetrators of sexism, a prominent example being radical feminism.

In The Second Stage (1981), Betty Friedan argued that feminists were alienating support by being confrontational and anti-men.

etc, etc "

Zimbazumba (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Aroenel, here's what (at least what I think) you don't understand you say/assume that since most (or at least what you believe to be most since you've never put forth any evidence supporting that claim) feminist accept men as supporters they promote equality for men (which is SYNTH). If I start a political movement that states women should be slaves to men and I allow women who agree with my movement to support it does that mean my movement unquestionably promotes equality for women (allowing a group to support you and promoting equality for that group are two different things)? Props888 (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I like Aronoel's sentence and can accept Zimbazumba's formulation with caveats: The U.S. or a more encompassing polity should be referenced since nations that repress feminism more effectively may have a higher share of radicalism, but I don't have a source for that; at least we shouldn't imply worldwide coverage for the statement. Aronoel's has some specificity that should be preserved. The Betty Friedan sentence should not be separate.

I'll probably have another source to add soon.

I can't log in as often nowadays but will try to stay in touch.

Props888, most U.S. feminists promote or accept equality. Also, most U.S. feminists accept men as partners or supporters of feminism. Most plus most equals most, even if not everyone in one camp is in the other. Reviewing literature will show that overwhelmingly those are the views that are supported.

Feminisms is a term accepted in academic literature, but perhaps it shouldn't be used here, because of the kind of confusion you illustrated. There are multiple communisms (re your analogy), Soviet and Maoist being examples. I don't recall reading of multiple racisms but it could be argued: in the U.S., that based on color alone vs. that based on color unless the subject person was born in a certain place considered acceptable for origin.

Nick Levinson (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we at an impass on multiple issues and going round in circles, we need help coming to a resolution. Unless Aronoel has some more to say. Could either Nick or Aroneol please indicate the way they would like this section to look like so I can then make a post at wp:NPOVN

My final version is (references included later):-

In the West most feminists and feminist movements oppose sexism but not men personally, and are accepting of men as allies. Some also feel that men are also oppressed by gender roles, and can ultimately benefit from feminism.. Other feminist movements oppose both sexism and men as the agents and perpetrators of sexism, a prominent example being radical feminism. In The Second Stage (1981), Betty Friedan argued that feminists were alienating support by being confrontational and anti-men. etc, etc

Zimbazumba (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the NPOVN could be a good idea. I believe that the final version should be:

Most feminist movements oppose sexism but not men personally, accept men as allies, and argue that men are also oppressed by gender roles and can ultimately benefit from feminism.. Other feminist movements oppose both sexism and men as the agents and perpetrators of sexism, a prominent example being radical feminism, which has been criticized by other feminists for its anti-male views. In the U.S., mainstream feminist organizations and literature, along with most self-identified feminists, take the former position.

--Aronoel (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Props888, most U.S. feminists promote or accept equality" that statement pretty much breaks half of wikipedia's guidelines and is just plain wrong because 1. Anyone who says "situation x is unfair to make it fair/equal we must do y" is just speaking their personal opinion no matter how fair/equal it seems to you (or even if it seems fair to every single person and/or thing capable of thought) 2. You must also say people who don't agree with "most" (at least your definition I doubt you tested every single feminist and over 50% agreed with something, down to the letter, that can only have 1 out of essentially infinite possibilities) feminists are promoting inequality and thus are immoral which is WP:JDLI 3. How do you know the exact definition of equality unless you're omniscient or somehow attained divin`e knowledge that allows you to become the only person to speak about things like morality and equality objectively?Props888 (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Post made at Neutral_point_of_view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Feminism_Page:_dispute_over_NPOV_on_Reactions_to_Men_section._We_need_help_resolving.

Still no sure if we have original research dispute here as well

Zimbazumba (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a lot of this article is POV and almost like it's an advertisement about how great feminism is, especially with statements like this (in the lede of all places):"Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men's liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles." Somehow I doubt that the feminist vision of equality is established as, unquestionably, true equality (which it represents as an established fact), it's also ridiculous to say that men would somehow benefit from feminism if the movement had it's way (at least legislation wise). Pertaining to your dispute over the section, it should be scrapped as different parts of the movement has had very different "approaches" to men.

Props888 (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

My post was, If there are any rational counter arguments I'd be interested.

We need help on the wiki Feminism page, we can not come to an agreement. I feel one version is balanced and the other is promoting a point of view and verging on original research. We are going round in circles. My version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminism&diff=419509002&oldid=419311345#Approach_to_men Version I dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminism&diff=419509513&oldid=419509002#Approach_to_men (1) "Most feminist movements ....... argue that men are also oppressed by gender roles and can ultimately benefit from feminism." I do not believe this to be true. There are numerous forms of feminism, including probably the largest being the social movement of most women who just believe in equality for women, for whom gender roles has no part of their thinking or would have no idea what you are talking about. The term "most", imo, requires either (a) A reliable source that has through empirical or other means has confirmed this. or (b) Consensus. In this case we have neither. (2) "In the U.S., mainstream feminist organizations and literature, along with most self-identified feminists, take the former position" This has not be verified as true and is circular. It asserts through its references that:- US mainstream feminism = Those who believe in gender role arguments There are many forms of feminism as this article shows. And what is a self identified feminist? (3) Removal of "In The Second Stage (1981), Betty Friedan argued that feminists were alienating support by being confrontational and anti-men" It has been removed with its reference being moved to those to do with radical feminism. This opinion belongs to one of the most famous feminists of all time and is not specific to radical feminism but a general commentary on feminism in general. It belongs in this page. Zimbazumba (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Zimbazumba (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Single sources are acceptable. Wikipedia does not try to catalogue all of them if one is representative.

If you haven't seen the passage in Betty Friedan's Second Stage yourself, you can still cite it, but you should do it indirectly, in this form: <ref>Source A citing source B.</ref> If A quotes B and you use the quote, you may cite <ref>Source A quoting source B.</ref>.

The sources on feminism repeatedly say that their pursuit is for equality, with many differences about exactly what that is (often, equality of opportunity) and how to achieve it. Criticisms are addressed. Beyond that, a disagreement with feminism itself is outside the scope of this talk page.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes "the sources" do but not necesarily all or most pages/books/articles that are viable sources on feminism, pretty much all the sources on here are profeminism and statements by feminists on the feminism are taking at face value (it might be hard to believe but feminists tend to have a pro-feminist bias, shocking isn't it). And saying x promotes equality is like saying apples are better than oranges, it's an opinion, and even if it is true it would be impossible to prove, and it would be an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. P.S. sorry if I sounded condescending that was not my intention.Props888 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I put up my version then immediately put up Aronoel's version for people to see in NPOVB. That has been up for 24hrs, for purposes of balance I will now put up mine for 24 hrs.

Zimbazumba (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I know this might be a bit too early to be editing your version but, "Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men's liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles." It's way to undue, if not simply untrue, "Feminism is mainly focused on women's issues", is an understatement, I've never heard of any major feminist group go out and specifically advocate men's rights, the "some feminists" seem to be the few that are cited here. And "They have opposed domestic violence, sexual harassment, and sexual assault." is just unnecessary, I doubt feminism is one of the few groups that don't promote those things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Props888 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Feminists' contributions on "domestic violence, sexual harassment, and sexual assault" included explaining that rape is bad not just for the masculist reason that fathers want assurances of children's lineage but because it denies women's choices especially when rape is considered tainting and when rape results in an unwanted pregnancy for which abortion is to be politically denied, that sexual assault includes much more than rape, that domestic violence may justify intervention even if the batterer considers the home his castle not to be entered without his permission and the marital relationship none of anyone else's business, and that sexual harassment was to be named (the name came, I think, in the 1970s) and a subject for civil law enforcement in employment so that women could pursue their careers without (or with less) sexism and nations could thrive economically from women also doing nontraditional work. Thus, the subjects are appropriate for feminism articles.

People who don't consider feminism valid probably don't study it beyond that point and probably don't write about it, likely preferring other fields. A POV in a subject or person is reportable in Wikipedia as NPOV, because the Wikipedia article, not the source, must be NPOV.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A more experienced editor over in NPOVN thinks otherwise.

Zimbazumba (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)