Talk:Matriarchy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

The following is archived from a deleted talk page because much of the content of the associated article, also deleted, was moved, with editing, into the Matriarchy article, and the discussions about the content may be historically apropos.

Everything in the edit field corresponding to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Levinson/Gynocracy&oldid=405657100 (i.e., in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Levinson/Gynocracy&action=edit&oldid=405657100), both as accessed Jan. 30, 2011, the page as of Jan. 3, 2011, 3:54a, is included verbatim except for the disabling of some templates by nowiki elements.

Below the discussions appears a nonclickable copy (here titled Revision history) of the listings in the History page for the Talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Levinson/Gynocracy&action=history as accessed Jan. 30, 2011, mainly to disclose all of the edit summaries. It is verbatim except for the deletion of the common "cur", "prev", and "undo" link areas of each item, the insertion of nowiki elements to disable one or more templates and tilde sequences, and that it is edited into a list.

{{talkheader}} {{WikiProject Feminism}} {{WikiProject Politics}} {{notforum}}

Problems with article

Oooookay, where to begin.

Why not begin at the beginning - with the name. "Feminist superiority" is neither an accurate description nor a self-description of the philosophies described in the article - the societies are specified to be dominated by women, not feminists.

The section headings are bizarre.

As for the content - it's just a mass of original research. Well-footnoted original research, but original research all the same. I was going to detail all the problems, but quite frankly they just overwhelmed me. You need to provide a secondary source that connects these entirely discrete and completely philosophically different pieces of writing, most of which relate very little to each other and some of which do not even relate to the purported subject of the article.

I hope the article creator, or someone else, will be able to improve it. If not, I'll put it up for deletion in a few days, with a recommendation to merge any useful content into matriarchy, separatist feminism and the articles on individual texts.

-- Roscelese (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Renaming the article to Women's superiority is doable. It may confuse readers because that term includes "moral superiority" of women, largely used nonfeministically or antifeministically to keep women at home and out of community leadership. It may also confuse with "natural superiority", a biological or essentialist viewpoint on which Ashley Montagu wrote usefully, but years ago, so his book is probably outdated for the science. Combining all three topics into one article and adding the content for it would likely lengthen the article beyond 100 KiB, Wikipedia's recommended maximum article length. Feminist women's superiority may produce the same problem you saw with the existing title. Government by women of women and men seems too cumbersome. Women's superiority in government is a possibility. I'm not sure that the advocates don't assume that women's leadership doesn't imply feminism in the leadership, but perhaps that's a separate consideration. Women's superiority is a redirect to this article, so the name is effectively available for a renaming. I'll rename it in a few days to Women's superiority, unless someone responds otherwise.

The subsection headings are based on what each of the respective authors wrote or said. Previously, the subsections were named after the books and authors (e.g., one subsection was "Scapegoat, by Andrea Dworkin"). One editor said that method is wrong when I cross-referenced the subsections, but it isn't. Wikipedia policy does not bar either method. Another method would be to group similar assertions, but they're not that similar, and grouping might be overly interpretative or would make the subsections too long unless further subdivided, which would reintroduce the same problem. Or I could keep the present section headings and imbed quotation marks and brackets, but that would look rocky and be redundant of the content, where quote marks and attributions are already provided. If you can suggest a fifth method, please do.

The whole thing is research, but not original. I went to the library, read or re-read the books, and wrote up what I read that was relevant, but that's what we should do for Wikipedia.

You said "mass". The Publications section precedes the other kinds of sources because the publications and their authors probably had more impact in society. Within that section, they're ordered chronologically, newest first. I'm not sure some other sequence wouldn't present another problem.

You suggested a single secondary source has to tie all the other sources together and another editor said something to that effect. Using multiple secondary sources is expected and is typical of most of Wikipedia's articles, and many of the others, having no sources or only one, often get tagged for lacking enough sources. I cited as many secondary sources as I found on point, not just one.

The article relies on secondary and primary sources. The latter are allowed if used with care. Because of concerns with going beyond what sources say, I relied heavily on quoting rather than on paraphrasing or summarizing, even deleting nonquoted text that was mainly navigational. I also quoted more from a given source, to ensure that sufficient context was quoted. Quoting probably makes the article flow less well, even appear disjointed at points, and that's less satisfactory, but it's better than having other charges lodged against the article.

You found some of the sources did not relate to the article's subject. They all relate, which means I'm not clear on which ones you found not related. Perhaps the weakest connection is from Joreen's source, but it's the earliest of the era, so it contributes to the subject's year range. If I knew which ones seem unrelated, I could add text clarifying the connections, or look for yet more sources. Or I could extend the lede, and maybe that's the best solution. I'll think about that.

Separatism is a different topic, since men would be excluded from the community, and matriarchy doesn't include nonmothers in leadership, and, while empowering mothers is feminist, disempowering women on the ground of not mothering is antifeminist, and both topics are distinguished in the lede. Some material may belong in both of those topics and also in this article, Mary Daly's work coming to mind. Adding to Wikipedia's book-specific articles and author-specific articles is probably a good idea in addition to content being here, and is already on my to-do plan, since I'd need to see what they already say, but that doesn't bring together content that shares a common theme, as this article does in its subject. I hope to add some more content to this article.

Thank you for your comment about the footnotes.

The subject is controversial among both antifeminists and feminists, for different reasons, and that leads to conflicts on how to edit. I'm open to other methods of preparing the article, and please suggest what you'd prefer, but other methods that are commonly used get criticized on other grounds by other editors.

Please let me know what other issues you found, and I'll try to address each one.

Thank you very much. Nick Levinson (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Original research" doesn't just mean that you can't publish your own analysis of an individual text on Wikipedia - it also means that you can't draw connections between texts without a reliable secondary source having done so. Forgive me if I'm missing something, but it looks as though the secondary sources you've cited comment on individual texts, but don't comment on their relationship to one another - which means that, as well-footnoted as it is, this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. (Of course, multiple secondary sources that describe this relationship would be even more appreciated, but let's start small.)

The Jo Freeman text is the one I was referring to specifically as having nothing to do with the subject, as (at least in the passage cited - I haven't read it) it doesn't propose a hypothetical state or society where women reign, nor does it say that women are superior in the existing society for any moral reasons. As for the tenuous relationships between the other texts, even if you just take the ones about female-ruled states (which excludes about half the content) you've still got texts proposing one, texts imagining one, texts describing ones that might have already happened...

I found the section headings strange because some of them are "names" or otherwise coined terms (Womenland, Hag-ocracy) while others are generic (gynocratic world, female state) - particularly because the latter describe the former, too. Part of the problem is admittedly that some sections are about individual texts while some aren't (which, I think, is also a problem with the article - I know you said you considered grouping similar topics together, but that isn't really any more of an OR problem than this article's existence to begin with is).

Also, the quote in the Dworkin section, in particular, is really really long.

The first priority, though, should be finding secondary sources that comment on this subject, because otherwise, it will be deleted as an essay, with my full support. Roscelese (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Just came across this myself. Nick first off I think you've done a huge amount of research here but I don't think the present form fits within site guidelines. The connections between books and ideas is synthesized. And the title seems to be original research (in wikipedia's terms) but the rename to Female/Women's superiority might solve that. However I think you've done a lot of valuable work so yes I would agree with Roscelese that perhaps a merge to Matriarchy and/or Separatist feminism might be best--Cailil ^talk 15:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This strikes me as the creation of a huge straw man. I strongly favor deletion/merging. Dylan Flaherty 17:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've revised the article substantially.

I renamed the article.

I dropped five subsections:

• Joreen's work was the weakest one.
• Robin Morgan's work had no secondary source on point, to my knowledge.
• Mary Daly's had the same lack, to my knowledge. Many sources discuss the work but not on point, as far as I know.
• Phyllis Chesler's work was supported by the review by Dale Spender, who referred to institutions, and one could understand that to mean limiting women's control to private entities, given Phyllis Chesler's subsequent leaning toward anarchy.
• Monique Wittig's work had a secondary source speaking of the winning of the war by the women and speaking of the men who joined them, but arguably the men might have promptly left even though there was a reconciliation, thus the secondary source arguably did not confirm that a lasting government over men was being portrayed in the work.

I edited and renamed three subsections:

• From the subsection on Jill Johnston's work on matriarchies, I moved the Linda Zerilli and the J. M. Adovasio secondary sources out, because they're about matriarchies but not about Jill Johnston's writing on them. On the other hand, the secondary source by Kris Franklin and Sara E. Chinn ties her concept of matriarchy to statehood, thus justifying keeping the subsection, which is also renamed to Matriarchies and Statehood. I added Kris Franklin's and Sara E. Chinn's names to the subsection's main text, so they're not just in the footnote.
• For Andrea Dworkin's work, which is supported by the Guardian interview as a secondary source, to shorten the quoting I deleted the quotation about vulnerability for marriage and part of the quotation about sheep and wolves, including deleting the Isaiah Berlin subquote, which explained the animal referents. I also edited the Guardian quotation, deleting three sentences related to executing rapists without state intervention. And I edited the main Veronica A. Ouma quotation, deleting the passage about male vulnerability, since it now lacks the context of what Andrea wrote, I having taken that out, and I added to the paragraph's beginning that it is a critical review, since it substantially criticizes Andrea's view, and I added her name to the main text, so it's not just in the footnote. The subsection is renamed to Women's Sovereignty.
• The thealogical subsection is renamed to Mythical Matriarchy. I expanded it substantially from Cynthia Eller's book. The subsection is based almost entirely on secondary sources, mostly by Cynthia Eller and a little by Margot Adler and Mary Daly. Starhawk's source is probably primary, and it is as presented in Cynthia Eller's secondary source.

I created the section Religious and Secular Communities to distinguish several sources from what's in the Publications section. The latter covers what was known chiefly because an author developed an argument and advocated it, whereas the Religious and Secular Communities section chiefly covers studies in communities and includes Mythical Matriarchy.

I shortened and renamed the Ambiguity on Matriarchy section and divided it into Factual Matriarchy, with the main Margot Adler paragraph, and Second-Wave Feminism, with the Linda Zerilli paragraph that was in the Lesbian Nation subsection. The Margot Adler paragraph is shortened somewhat, so that what is left is more centered on feminism; it also serves to criticise feminist superiority. I added them as subsections to the Religious and Secular Communities section.

I moved the J. M. Adovasio secondary source on historical matriarchies into the Criticisms section and rearranged the paragraph's beginning for better flow within the section.

I rewrote the lede's first paragraph, mainly to preserve substantial differences between the Cynthia Eller, Andrea Dworkin, and Jill Johnston works, among others, thereby avoiding a sense of synthesis.

If additional secondary sources turn up, some of the above deletions might return to the article, but that's not likely in the very near term, given the research I've already done. As, for instance, moral superiority is not the only ground for superiority claims, secondary sources may support other sources. I'm open to citations that anyone has.

Otherwise, I did some minor edits, i.e., unnaming six ref elements that appear only once each, fixing one reference each to Riane Eisler's book and Alice Echol's book, restoring a book's publisher and publication city I had erroneously deleted from a prior revision, swapping two references supporting the same footnote with no effect intended on the page display, deboldfacing book titles and authors, correcting "reviewer" to the plural as the source was coauthored (my error) by naming the reviewers in the main text (already in the footnote), correcting a quoted but incorrect book title with a "sic" and a clarification (the source's error was found against the book), correcting the placement of a book subtitle from the second reference to the first (my error and corrected in the course of adding an earlier reference that became the book's new first reference), updating the Defaultsort template for the article's new title, correcting and updating the Sister Project Links template for the article's new title, adding categories, and breaking a few of the longer paragraphs.

Merging into the matriarchy and separatism articles wouldn't encompass Andrea Dworkin's work or Christine Stansell's critique, for example. What's on matriarchy in this article is related to feminism. Almost nothing is on separatism, so there isn't much that can be copied or moved to an article on that subject; Mary Daly, for one, advocated for it, but more apropos passages are in the cited books and other sources. "Feminist separatism" in Wikipedia redirects to Separatist feminism, which is more about separatism within the feminist movement, so that article would need substantial rewriting to widen the subject to encompass anything from this article.

I don't know what's meant by "straw man", unless the critic asserting that is claiming that this is all invented, which it is not. If the critic would like to be more specific about what is meant, I'd appreciate the chance to answer or assist.

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the changes are helpful, but you still haven't succeeded in doing the most important thing: finding a secondary source, or several secondary sources, that link these things together. (You've found secondary sources on individual texts, but that's only part of the problem.) Without that, it's still original synthesis. Roscelese (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the more inaccurate views of feminism is that it seeks only to reverse the direction of discrimination, kind of like the Golden Rule gone terribly, terribly wrong. While there are certainly many views of feminism, spread across three overlapping waves, this particular one is more notable as a straw man than on its own. It is essentially a fringe view being singled out for excess attention so as to create an easy target. Dylan Flaherty 23:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

A requirement that one source support the entire article because otherwise it would be synthesis introduces another problem: We'd have to generate a separate article for each source, and Wikipedia doesn't require that for any subject. For example, the Feminism article would have to be based on one source with the only other sources that could be mentioned being those mentioned in that one source. This would make it nearly impossible to update most articles, because doing so would require trashing an entire article in order to write a whole new one from the latest source without using the previous source, even though the previous one is still valid for some information. The article's title is overarching enough to encompass all of the article's content and specific enough to fit into Wikipedia alongside other articles. Synthesis is not an issue when naming an article. I'd prefer for the lede to begin with a single-concept sentence that embraces all of the content more smoothly without being deemed synthesis, but the present structure will have to do.

Many people deliberately misinterpret feminism and have at least since Mary Wollstonecraft complained of a (non)response to her main book. The play from 2,400 years ago seems to do the same. Cave-dwellers were probably doing the same. Rush Limbaugh may have injected the term feminazi, but feminism wasn't going to get his vote or those of most of his fans anyway, no matter how feminists explained their positions. Charlotte Perkins Gilman about a century ago noted in a major daily newspaper a criticism that some women are "licentious, and changeable", including some feminists. She replied that "[t]hey are not a drop in the bucket compared to men so affected" and makes several other points, none denying their existence. (The quotes are from What Is Feminism?, by her, in Boston Sunday Herald, 9-3-16.) Feminists are not required to agree with antifeminists, no matter how numerous or noisy the latter.

The point about it being reverse discrimination is stated in the article as a criticism but it is not appropriate to censor content on the ground that people choose to misinterpret. And affirmative action is a legitimate temporary remedy from which experiments can be extended into permanent changes whereby everyone can participate optimally in society. The ERA failed of ratification but the effort resulted in explicitly sexist laws being amended, implicitly sexist laws being challenged often successfully, courts developing a new standard of review for gender, and more women, not nearly half but still many, moving into institutional leadership, including in government, and the ERA effort helped achieve that. I wouldn't be embarrassed about striving for higher. When I mentioned to a public librarian that I'm doing research on this point, she mentioned that when she went to college she subscribed to a feminist superiority perspective. The Cynthia Eller book cited in the article reports a wide distribution of the view, mainly among feminists. This perspective may be fringe from the viewpoint of mainstream feminist organizations such as NOW and NWPC, who legitimately depend heavily on building large and bigenderal memberships and influencing legislatures, but the issue is not fringe within Wikipedia's standards, and I've quoted about half a dozen, give or take, well-known feminists. It is definitely a minority view, but just as definitely a significant minority holds the view, and we may report it. Given its importance, we should.

Lots of WP articles aren't nearly as socially useful as this one and others in feminism and, under a different set of standards, those lots would be deleted. I understand WP's most popular page is about porn. I gather it's not about to be deleted. Or even merged into reproduction or family.

Nick Levinson (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would "pornography" be merged? It's a phenomenon, and a multitude of secondary sources attest to its existence as a phenomenon. You've yet to provide a source for this article that indicates that "women's superiority" is a thing. (Specifically, a thing which encompasses the diverse philosophies represented in your writing - because the Eller, for example, is a useful source, but all content sourced to it could be merged to matriarchy.) Roscelese (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

TLDR. Dylan Flaherty 05:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Matriarchy is limited to mothers, and requiring that women be mothers is not a feminist limitation. Therefore, requiring that research on aspirations for women to govern both genders be subsumed under mothers governing when the authors cited in sources such as Andrea Dworkin and Helen Diner on feminist Amazons and some of those deleted such as Mary Daly made no such limitation would mischaracterize what they wrote. The effort here is to stay within feminism. Cross-linking is appropriate.

The sources I originally cited were somewhat diverse, but not by all that much. All were proceeding from feminist perspectives and to where women would wield most of the political power in a community or society.

I'm not averse to finding more sources and hope other editors will, too. We're probably all short of time but perhaps we'll see what more we come up with, although I suspect many will cite yet other proponents, because of the years of spread between sources.

The porn point responded to user Dylan Flaherty, who critiqued this article essentially on a ground of social good. Within Wikipedia's standards, porn is a legitimate subject for articles.

I hope you don't mind my delay in replying. I lost network connectivity just before you posted and got it back only before going to work, so I caught up on reading only after work.

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said - you need sources that link all the things you're talking about together. Matriarchy has been written about in secondary sources, that's why there's an article on it. Do you have, or are you even considering finding, a source that brings in this other stuff?

As a fairly arbitrary cutoff, I'll nominate this for deletion on Sunday if it does not, in that time, become something other than an essay. Roscelese (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I would support deletion, unless the article can be rewritten using secondary sources that link the primary sources together. Dylan Flaherty 13:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources or source? I was understanding you as meaning that a single source had to encompass everything. If you meant multiple sources, they're there. And they're secondary.

I have been looking. There's no schedule on when, or if, more will turn up. Part of the problem is in selecting keywords for database searches when the language identifying the concepts likely evolved over decades. Pitch in, if you'd like.

Nick Levinson (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple secondary sources on concepts that already exist as other articles, like "matriarchy," and on individual texts. If no secondary source links historical matriarchy to the Dworkin and other texts, that is original synthesis. If you remove the matriarchy section entirely and decide just to keep it at feminists imagining societies where women rule, but you cannot find secondary sources linking together the texts you discuss, that is original synthesis. I'm not sure how I could make it any clearer. Roscelese (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Roscelese, would you like me to mark this article for deletion? Dylan Flaherty 03:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You're your own editor, of course, and if someone nominates it for deletion I'll vote in support, but I recommend holding off a few days (I had suggested until Sunday). It's not inconceivable that some secondary source might have traced this concept through Gilman, Dworkin, others, so I think a few more days for interested parties to find such sources wouldn't be amiss. Roscelese (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It's true; I have on occasion been accused of having a mind of my own, as opposed to being an automaton. Having said that, in the interest of collaboration, so long as you have the patience to try to work with Nick, I'm willing to give the two of you a chance to fix the article so that it's worth keeping. Dylan Flaherty 05:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not necessary to find one source that supports both matriarchy and women's sovereignty as advanced by Andrea Dworkin, although it'd be nice. Both matriarchy and women's sovereignty are about women governing and thus both can be in the same article without finding a source in common. Multiple authors may use synonyms, and, in most cases, synonyms are inexact, editors are expected to paraphrase secondary sources without changing meanings, paraphrasing relies on synonyms, I quoted heavily to avoid paraphrasing anyway, the article is properly based on sources, and that is not synthesis. The Mary Daly and Phyllis Chesler discussions can probably go back in as other examples of aspiring for women to govern even without another secondary source citing their books on point, although it may be a good idea to note that either has not been covered by another author discussing her work (to my knowledge) when some authors' aspirations have been. We're not writing about one or two forgotten passers-by saying only six words, but about authors prominent in the field.

To be a mother, you have to be a woman; but to be a woman, you don't have to be a mother. Matriarchy is only a subset of women governing, so the matriarchy article is not the place for all this content. Arguably, matriarchy should instead be merged into this article, rather than the other way around, but, as a subject, matriarchy is sufficiently well known to warrant its own article, so both can stand. Women's superiority subsumes matriarchy as a part of women's superiority.

Copying matriarchalist content to the matriarchy article doesn't require merger. It's editorially inefficient to place similar content in multiple articles because of the maintenance burden, but, at the least, that doesn't apply to the nonmatriarchalist content.

Where even more authoritative sourcing is available, it's to be preferred, but, as long as we stay within Wikipedia's standards for sourcing, we can use what's available that's within those policies and guidelines.

I have tentative cites leading to more research I'm likely to approach. Whether they'll add anything to the article, it's too early to tell. But some of them are new sources, rather than recaps of research already done. They probably won't link what's already in the article to each other, but rather will bring in new content on women's superiority.

I'm also interested in how you believe that women's superiority is not feminist. All the authors I cited were writing within feminism. Women being in charge only at home is not the same thing. I've gone back and forth on whether the article should be renamed back to feminist superiority.

Please suggest any specific sources I should read and use. I've read a lot but certainly not everything, and am open to recommendations. Thank you in advance. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"It is not necessary to find one source that supports both matriarchy and women's sovereignty" - Er, yes, dude, it is. That's how Wikipedia works. In order to avoid original synthesis, you must cite secondary sources that made the synthesis before you did.

I'm not going to bother addressing the other issues in your comment because I suspect it will be a waste of time. You have no sources that make this anything other than an essay, you are not looking for sources to make this anything other than an essay, and I will nominate it for deletion on Sunday, as promised. Roscelese (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Would you prefer that the content be broken up into separate articles, one on women's sovereignty, one on women monopolizing government, one on matriarchy (already an article), and so on, and then women's superiority converted into a disambiguation page to the other topics? I think that would fail to show that all are about essentially the same thing, but do you think division and a dab would be better? Nick Levinson (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The title of the article is not my major concern. If you remove all the references to historical matriarchy and make this article only about Modern Feminists Imagining Societies Politically Dominated By Women - which would seem to be quite specific - you would still need a secondary source attesting that this theme exists. Roscelese (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If one article was titled, say, Women's Sovereignty and included the Andrea Dworkin source and the other secondary sources about what she wrote and said, how would that not meet your objection? Likewise, if an article were titled Women Monopolizing Government and had its sourcing, how would that not meet your objection? Nick Levinson (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the former would clearly be an article on Andrea Dworkin! I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the latter, because that seems to be just another name for what you're trying to do with this article, and thus has exactly the same problems, viz. your complete failure to cite any secondary sources on this concept. Roscelese (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The one would not be an article on Andrea Dworkin because it wouldn't cover her other work, such as on pornography, or even cover her other writing more or less paralleling women and Jews, but would be specifically on women's sovereignty, and as such would include the Guardian interview and the PSR review. It would be expandable for any other sources on women's sovereignty. If you're concerned that if Andrea Dworkin is the sole originator of the idea with that name and therefore that the content should appear only in the Andrea Dworkin biographical article, by that premise all content in any topical article that is sourceable to anyone on whom there's a personal article would have to be moved from the nonbiographical articles, which wouldn't leave much; no policy requires that much separation of content. The article Women Monopolizing Government would, by its words, be based on Helen Diner's work, but only on that part of her work that refers to the concept by that choice of words of hers, e.g., not matriarchy as such. Thus, for example, the Andrea Dworkin-related sources on women's sovereignty would be in one article and the women monopolizing government-related sourcing would be in the other article, possibly with some overlapping across these articles if some content applies to both women's sovereignty and women monopolizing government but with the most central sources being separated so as to keep each article unique, and this kind of dividing up of content would be applied to all other cases. Does that work to solve your objections? Nick Levinson (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

By "an article on Andrea Dworkin" I mean "an article on a work of Andrea Dworkin," rather than on a concept that extends across multiple texts. That would be totally fine, as it would not involve original synthesis. That hypothetical article should be titled after the book (Scapegoat) though. Likewise, an article on Mothers and Amazons would definitely be appropriate. Roscelese (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No, not a article about each book, but specifically about the concepts we're talking about, and the articles would be titled for the concepts. In each case, the book was about much more, which the article would not cover. The key issue is not Scapegoat but women's sovereignty as covered in Scapegoat and elsewhere; not Mothers and Amazons but women monopolizing government as covered in Mothers and Amazons. Someone can write book articles but these articles would not be those. The same principle applies to Mary Daly; it would not be an article about Gyn/Ecology the book but about hag-ocracy. Likewise for Phyllis Chesler. In each case, if any source turns up supporting the same concept, for example if a new book comes out with significant content on women's sovereignty, it would belong in the article on women's sovereignty along with the Andrea Dworkin work. Note that a disambiguation page would effectively tie everything together anyway, without additional sources. Does that solve your objections? Nick Levinson (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No, because in order to create an article on women's sovereignty, you must find a secondary source that has already done the synthesis. I've explained this about a dozen times - I'm done here. See you Sunday. Roscelese (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

They're there. For women's sovereignty, they're Guardian and PSR. If your position is that the Guardian and PSR sources also need secondary sources citing their content, that's a requirement for an endless chain of forever more sources, and supplying infinity on any topic is impossible. What you've explained before had to do with women's sovereignty, women monopolizing government, matriarchy, and so on being described together. Now we're talking about breaking them into separate articles, and supplying a disambiguation page, which isn't a risk for synthesis (some dab pages are very diverse in their substantive content), so with broken-apart articles I don't think there'd be anything you'd consider to be synthesis. Otherwise, assuming a dividing into articles on women's sovereignty, women monopolizing government, and so on, please point to any specific words in the present article that would be synthesizing even within a broken-apart topic. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

<Undent>I haven't seen any sources linking the idea of "Women's sovereignty" with the broader idea of "Women's superiority". Indeed, the primary source for this section, Andrea Dworkin, seems to actively oppose the idea of women's superiority. This seems to be a definite WP:SYNTH problem. I would recommend moving this section to Separatist feminism. Kaldari (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Where did Andrea Dworkin oppose what she wrote in Scapegoat or said to The Guardian? I have no clue that she ever did. Any later renunciation by her or a later position of hers amounting to a renunciation would be relevant, but I haven't seen any. If you meant that an earlier statement of hers opposed it, then Scapegoat is the successor to that extent.

This is not about feminist separatism, because it is not about a community limited to women only. Her description includes men living in it, thus she didn't propose separatism.

If you see a word of synthesis, please point to it so I can edit accordingly. I haven't found it. The wordings used by the various sources are not so disparate that a single article can't contain them.

Women's sovereignty is encompassed by women's superiority. Across Wikipedia, article titles are more encompassing than the specific points made in the articles as drawn from different sources, and that is not synthesis. If you have an idea for a better title, please suggest it.

Nick Levinson (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis isn't about particular words, it's about creating novel relationships, connections, and conclusions. Please see my reply at AfD. Kaldari (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That problem, if present, seems to be only at the lede. A lede without the beginning that's now provided was effectively objected to on the ground that the scope of the article was unclear (thus I added the lede's beginning). I don't think we can have it both ways. And the synthesis policy doesn't apply to the choice of article title, which is also about the article's scope. This discussion is continuing at the AfD discussion. Nick Levinson (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Herland as not representative

At this time, I don't consider Herland, by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, to be a call for the kind of society it describes. It is fiction and about a year later a nonfiction essay by her, What is "Feminism"?, in The Sunday Herald, Sep. 3, 1916, [§] Magazine, p. [7] [of §], of The Boston Herald (Boston, Mass.), did not call for women to govern men or even for equality (it argued for feminism on diifference grounds). Feminist Utopias, by Frances Bartkowski (Lincoln: Univ. of Neb. Press, 1989 (ISBN 0-8032-1205-4)), Introduction & ch. 1 ("a study of a group of novels", id., p. [3] (Introduction)), a secondary source, discusses the work and, at p. 28, says, "Herland is presented to its readers from the outset as a text 'written from memory.' Therefore it is meant to be seen as inherently flawed, misrecorded, and even misremembered by the narrator." Thus, the novel's author may have deliberately offered error as a part of the novel, making the novel unreliable as a source for the author's aspirations respecting the role of women in society. Perhaps it can be taken literally in the sense this article addresses for other sources, but I don't know that.

Feminist Utopias has other points that may be useful if Herland is to be cited in this article: "What makes ... [this] utopian fiction ... feminist is that women are not dismissed as one question among many, as in classical utopias; their place is everywhere." Id., p. 24. "The women of Herland ... are ... in power." Id., p. 43. The men who came to Herland are described as escaping and being recaptured and guarded. Ibid. Id., p. 40, discusses law in Herland as being updatable, which appears to show the functioning of a government in Herland, and given that the three men who arrive appear to come under Herland's control, that there is a government by women of women and men seems evident. Id. at p. 34 & ante discuss a mother/amazon split.

If you think Herland should be cited in this article, I am not an expert on the novel, its author, or the novel's reception. Other sources about it may make clear that intention (thus countering Feminist Utopias) or may show that feminists took or take Herland as an inspiration for feminist superiority. Please cite one.

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A Council of War

Possibly, A Council of War, fiction by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, published in Summer, 1913, may be relevant as promoting government by women of both genders.

A secondary source is Knight, Denise D., Charlotte Perkins Gilman: A Study of the Short Fiction (N.Y.: Twayne Publishers (imprint of Simon & Schuster Macmillan) (Twayne's Studies in Short Fiction ser., no. 68), hardcover [1st printing?] 1997 (ISBN 0-8057-0866-9)) (author assoc. prof. Eng., State Univ. of N.Y. Coll. at Cortland, id., dust jkt., rear flap (The Author)), which discusses the story at pp. 81–82 (the straddling paragraph only), 216 (only 2d paragraph's 1st sentence), & 217 (only the 1st paragraph & possible inferences from the 2d paragraph). The latter says, at p. 81, "a group of women vote to establish 'a world within a world' populated by a community of peaceful women (p. 228).¹²⁵ ... [T]he women decide to wage 'war' to 'establish a free and conscious womanhood for the right service of the world' (p. 223)." (Id., p. 81 n. 125, says, "125. 'A Council of War,' Forerunner (August 1913): 197–201; rpt. Kessler, 220–28. Page numbers in the text refer to the reprint edition.") It continues, at p. 82, "'A Council of War' merely recounts the steps necessary to effect change, and it ends with the women forming a committee to investigate further...." At p. 217, it says, "London women plan 'to remove this devastating error in relation [namely, male rule, the 'war' of the title] ...." (bracketing so in id.). "They plan 'a government within a government; an organization of women,' .... They would employ 'women only,' or the 'right kind' of man (225)." Ibid. "In the utopian stories published between 1909 and 1913, Gilman seems to have moved ... to ... deciding that a better persuasive strategy would be to suggest to (especially male) readers that women have abilities important to society as a whole." Ibid.

If this story is important to this article, this is not a strong enough secondary source to back adding the story. If you know of a better source as a justification, please post it.

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

{{Requested move/dated|Gynocracy}}

Women's superiority → {{no redirect|1=Gynocracy}} — This move is per the AfD (posts of Jan. 1, 2011, and after). The AfD is pending, but the renaming responds to concerns, has been discussed, and has not been objected to. The new title is now in use by a redirect, which had a history and a talk page before this was begun. I posted a request there that talks and talk histories be merged or that one talk and talk history be userfied so I can combine them. 69.114.139.144 (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC) (My login had expired, so I logged in again and here's the sig, and I corrected a link: Nick Levinson (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC))

As I mentioned at the AfD, no one has managed to find secondary sources that make this article worth keeping. I'd hold off on the move until you know that the article won't be deleted, just to avoid wasting your time. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Most of the sources are secondary and the content is notable and belongs together, as discussed at the AfD. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Revision history

• 08:56, 16 January 2011 Dbachmann (talk | contribs) m (210 bytes) (moved Talk:Gynocracy to User talk:Nick Levinson/Gynocracy)
• 08:56, 16 January 2011 Dbachmann (talk | contribs) (210 bytes) (←Replaced content with 'Talkpage undeleted, blanked and userified to make history accessible. This is an archive, not a live talkpage. --~~~~')
• 08:30, 3 January 2011 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) m (46,333 bytes) (moved Talk:Women's superiority to Talk:Gynocracy: Move per Db-Move template on Gynocracy page, with request there to keep all talks and histories or to userfy.)
• 03:54, 3 January 2011 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (46,333 bytes) (Added the WikiProject Politics template.)
• 20:48, 2 January 2011 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (46,308 bytes) (→Requested move: Replied.)
• 20:27, 2 January 2011 Roscelese (talk | contribs) (46,070 bytes) (→Requested move: I'd wait)
• 20:25, 2 January 2011 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (45,711 bytes) (Corrected, per sig.)
• 20:17, 2 January 2011 69.114.139.144 (talk) (45,551 bytes) (Added Requested Move section, per Wikipedia:Requested_moves.)
• 18:48, 2 January 2011 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (502 bytes) (Seeking a page move by an administrator, thus the Db-Move template added.)
• 05:39, 31 December 2010 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (44,815 bytes) (→Problems with article: Replied.)
• 02:57, 31 December 2010 Kaldari (talk | contribs) (44,200 bytes) (→Problems with article)
• 00:10, 31 December 2010 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (43,975 bytes) (→Problems with article: Replied.)
• 17:20, 30 December 2010 Kaldari (talk | contribs) (42,838 bytes) (→Problems with article)
• 01:35, 24 December 2010 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (42,394 bytes) (→Problems with article: Replied.)
• 01:00, 24 December 2010 Roscelese (talk | contribs) (41,304 bytes) (→Problems with article)
• 00:50, 24 December 2010 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (40,988 bytes) (→Problems with article: Replied.)
• 23:56, 23 December 2010 Roscelese (talk | contribs) (39,839 bytes) (→Problems with article)
• 23:31, 23 December 2010 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (39,355 bytes) (→Problems with article: Replied.)
• 23:01, 23 December 2010 Roscelese (talk | contribs) (37,671 bytes) (→Problems with article)
• 22:54, 23 December 2010 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (37,239 bytes) (→Problems with article: Replied.)
• 22:03, 23 December 2010 Roscelese (talk | contribs) (36,803 bytes) (→Problems with article)
• 21:48, 23 December 2010 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (36,369 bytes) (→Problems with article: Replied.)
• 14:12, 23 December 2010 Roscelese (talk | contribs) (35,836 bytes) (→Problems with article)
• 01:34, 23 December 2010 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (35,157 bytes) (→Problems with article: Replied.)
• 00:30, 23 December 2010 Dylan Flaherty (talk | contribs) (32,156 bytes)
• 22:44, 22 December 2010 Roscelese (talk | contribs) (31,615 bytes) (→Problems with article)
• 22:07, 22 December 2010 Dylan Flaherty (talk | contribs) (31,146 bytes) (→Problems with article)
• 12:46, 22 December 2010 Roscelese (talk | contribs) (30,849 bytes) (→Problems with article)
• 08:55, 21 December 2010 Dylan Flaherty (talk | contribs) (30,225 bytes) (→Problems with article)
• 04:01, 21 December 2010 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (29,868 bytes) (→A Council of War: new section)
• 03:51, 21 December 2010 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (27,592 bytes) (→Herland as not representative: new section)
• 00:33, 21 December 2010 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (25,032 bytes) (→Problems with article: Replied.)
• 00:10, 21 December 2010 Roscelese (talk | contribs) (24,505 bytes)
• 23:57, 20 December 2010 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (24,001 bytes) (→Problems with article: Replied.)
• 00:21, 20 December 2010 Roscelese (talk | contribs) (22,544 bytes) (→Problems with article)
• 00:00, 20 December 2010 Dylan Flaherty (talk | contribs) (21,999 bytes) (→Problems with article)
• 23:50, 19 December 2010 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (21,758 bytes) (→Problems with article: Replied.)
• 19:10, 19 December 2010 Roscelese (talk | contribs) (17,413 bytes) (→Problems with article)
• 18:39, 19 December 2010 Dylan Flaherty (talk | contribs) (16,984 bytes) (→Problems with article)
• 07:17, 19 December 2010 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (16,319 bytes) (→Problems with article: Replied.)
• 05:43, 19 December 2010 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) m (9,785 bytes) (moved Talk:Feminist superiority to Talk:Women's superiority: Discussed on the article's talk page, in the topic/section Problems with Article.)
• 12:18, 18 December 2010 Roscelese (talk | contribs) (9,785 bytes) (→Problems with article)
• 12:07, 18 December 2010 Dylan Flaherty (talk | contribs) (7,637 bytes) (→Problems with article)
• 10:43, 18 December 2010 Cailil (talk | contribs) (7,317 bytes) (→Problems with article: note)
• 08:14, 18 December 2010 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (6,615 bytes) (→Problems with article: Replied.)
• 21:44, 17 December 2010 Roscelese (talk | contribs) m (1,244 bytes) (→Problems with article: - clarification)
• 20:36, 17 December 2010 Roscelese (talk | contribs) (1,250 bytes) (→Problems with article: new section)
• 12:46, 11 December 2010 Nick Levinson (talk | contribs) (60 bytes) (New talk page.)
• 03:09, 27 June 2008 Vianello (talk | contribs) (351 bytes)
• 03:08, 27 June 2008 JCDenton2052 (talk | contribs) (192 bytes) (←​Created page with 'Why is this a redirect to matriarchy when androcracy is not a redirect to patriarchy? ~~~~')

END OF ARCHIVE 3

Nothing should be added to this page. All new discussions to be archived should be archived at Talk:Matriarchy/Archive 4 or subsequent subpages.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8