Talk:Feminism

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)

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)

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)

crap in lead about men's lib

I removed the following statement in the lead:

Some people argue that gender, like sex, are social constructions that harm all people; feminism thus seeks to liberate men as well as women.

With the edit summary:

remove statement from lead about feminists being concerned w/ men's lib totally unsupported by article's body per [[WP:MOS (lead)])

And was reverted and advised to discuss "major" changes to the lead in talk (hence this section) by an edit summarized by:

Undo Cybermud - material is about social construction of gender not men's liberation - please discuss major changes to the lede first)

For starters, "some" is a prototypical weasel word. Are these "some people" even feminists? More important than bad weasely language though is the fact, as stated in the summary, nothing in the article body supports feminism being concerned with men's liberation or being of benefit to men in any fashion. The above being more than sufficient to remove this poor sentence it should also be pointed out, in response to the reverting edit summary, there is also a sentence in the lede about the social construction of gender. Specifically:

Feminist theory emerged from these feminist movements[5][6] and includes general theories and theories about the origins of inequality, and, in some cases, about the social construction of sex and gender, in a variety of disciplines.

Which is not to mention the fact that the article doesn't even touch on feminisms's theories on the social construction of gender and sex differences and it's thus inappropriate for the lead altogether as well. In any case, I will now be bold and remove the independent clause "feminism thus seeks to liberate men as well as women."--Cybermud (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud your personal opinion about the value of material/sources (ie "crap in the lead") in the article is irrelevant and inappropriate use of this talk page once again (see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG). Your comment above also misrepresents the events - there is a substantial difference between your two edits[1][2]. The first removes a source and a substantive point of the lede paragraphs - the second does not. Hence I only reverted the first.
You are also substantially incorrect in your assertion that the article doesn't deal with social construction (see Feminism#Movements_and_ideologies for Post-modern feminism and Feminism#Feminist_science_fiction). This is a significant point about feminism and was discussed for inclusion in the lede 3 times in the last 2 years. It needs to be borne in mind that this is a parent article using 'summary style' and some of the more nuanced points about specific aspects of the subject have been spunn off into sub-articles and thus are merely mentioned here--Cailil ^talk 01:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe yours and my definitions of crap vary. In my case, I meant crap, as in a euphemism for unattributed, unsourced, and not contained in the body of the article content. You seemed to have interpreted it as "I just don't like it." I'll chalk up your varying interpretation to cultural differences rather than bad faith though. I am fully aware of feminism's fixation on the social construction of gender. It is a point which often illustrates how far they go to try to retrofit reality and science to meet ideology (surely the fact that the top 100 marathon runners in the world are men is the result of social conditioning and the patriarchal oppression of women and girls in sports.) My point was not that feminism has not made the claim of social construction being absolute, but that it was already mentioned in the lede and not in the body. Perhaps I was mistaken in that though, but I have not gone back to check the body since my main issue was with the claim of men's lib rather than the claims of absolute social construction made by feminists, which, for me reflects a deficiency in the body more than the lead.--Cybermud (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I support leaving the current version of the lead as it is. I would support removing the sentence if the information were not addressed in the article body at all. However, it all seems to be included within "Movements and idelogies". For example, as Cailil pointed out, the article has at least two sentences, "Postmodern feminists argue that sex and gender are socially constructed" and "They serve to highlight the socially constructed nature of gender roles" which should be an acceptable basis for the general statements in the lead about social construction. Also, there is information about concerns about men's equality within feminism: "Some feminists have argued that men's issues are an important part of feminism, as men's equality is necessary for women's equality.[47][48][49] These feminists point to legal and social imbalances in regard to father's rights, male rape and spousal battery, negative social expectations for men, and a narrow definition of "masculinity."" Also, it is true that there are sub-articles that include more information to back up the lead's statements. So there doesn't seem to be justification for removing parts of the lead in the current article. However, I don't think it could hurt to bring some more information into this article to further back up the lead's statements. --Aronoel (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The much more significant gestalt of modern feminism and feminists has not been to address inequities that negatively impact men but to claim that they don't exist or that the opposite is true. The overwhelming majority of feminist oriented scholarship claims that women are discriminated against in favor of men in child custody disputes and issues related to "father's rights" (a concept they often put in quotes.) Male rape is something they almost universally ignore and domestic violence against men is something they frequently deny exists or downplay massively. If you want to claimthat feminism has supported men's rights, that's fine, and I agree with you, but it's WP:Undue if you do not also include information about their constant denigration of men as violent rapists and pedophiles by their very nature as well, which is where the more significant thrust of the modern and postmodern movements have focused.--Cybermud (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, if there is sourced material you have that you feel is neglected per wp:undue, definitely post it so we can discuss it. In the meantime it seems that the lead issues are resolved since there is currently sourced material backing up the lead sentences. --Aronoel (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. There is always more that can be added to the body of an article - which is why we use hypertext to link to related articles. But this is the main article on feminism, the first one most readers will go to, and it is important to represent all significant forms of feminism - which includes the ones Mud has singled out. She is on some campaign to purge the article of all mention of men. This ia s POV crusade that will find no traction here. The introduction is pretty good for a complex topic, and we certainly should keep these brief mentions of important trends. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you really calling men's liberation an "important trend" of feminism? LOL... Is today April 1st? Such nonsense wouldn't merit a reply from me if you'd stop pretending it's a basis to revert my edits... And yet somehow your behavior continues to escape the notice of this pages' resident administrator...--Cybermud (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm just one more of the many admins who watch this article and this talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If you don't perceive "feminism being concerned with men's liberation or being of benefit to men in any fashion", Mud, that says more about your powers of observation than anything else. I'm proud to consider myself a feminist, as I have since I helped found an NOW chapter back in the mid-1970s. I happen to be the father of a young woman; but if I had a son, I certainly am glad that the feminist movement would be out there enabling him to be the best young man that he could be. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Since Cailil will never call you out on it unless you disagree with his obvious POV, your personal opinion on my powers of observation are as appropriate here as the price of tea in China (see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG). In any case you have misconstrued my statement which was directed at the body of the article not at the entire history of what is variously referred to as feminism. Much of which has obvious benefits for all people: men, women and children -- while much of it is also, thinly veiled or blatant, misandry, hatred and polemically one-sided diatribes that serve to divide the sexes to the detriment of men, women and children. If you do not see that, well, this is not a forum--Cybermud (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point about WP:NOTFORUM; I apologize for breaching it. Clearly we disagree about the balance in this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud, do the sourced sentences about men's issues I mentioned in my previous comment resolve your issue "with the claim of men's lib" and justify retaining the sentence in the lead? --Aronoel (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat. They address my objection on the grounds that the statement in the lead is unsupported in the body but, as I said above, it's WP:Undue to discuss feminisms "good will toward men" if you will, without discussing it's much more significant vilification of men. Almost anything can be, and has been, called an aspect of feminism if it's said by a woman who calls herself a feminist. Thusly, it is accurate to say that feminism has been sympathetic to the ways in which traditional gender roles made men disposable slaves. But simply stating that feminism is concerned with men's lib, without calling attention to statements like "all men are rapists" is massively WP:Undue and, as much as I'd like to see such statements in this article, I don't have the time fight with editors and admins tooth and nail for every single such statement and would, thusly, prefer to simply avoid pretending that feminism has been overly concerned with men's lib altogether as a compromise between accuracy and the entrenched POV that exists in relation to this topic on WP.--Cybermud (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud is soapboxing. This is not a soapbox. Cybermud, if you feel so passionaely about this, go start a blog. 20:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud, please follow talk page guidelines, specifically regarding indentation in responding to others. Putting your later entry above another person's entry is not conducive to comprehension or flow.

• Help:Using talk pages#Indentation
• Wikipedia:Talk page layout
• Wikipedia:Indentation

Regarding the lead section, I do not believe your version is the most accurate or neutral. I agree with Cailil and Aronoel regarding content. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Cybermud, when you wrote that you felt that the statement "all men are rapists" should be included in this article, were you talking about Andrea Dworkin's views? --Aronoel (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I share some of Cybermud's concerns, though would perhaps preferthe more difficult solution he identifies. This article seems to focus almost exclusively on equity feminism whilst mostly ignoring gender feminism. Plenty of feminists are committed to equal rights but others certainly are not and I think it's important to cover both types of feminist ideologies. Also whilst "all men are rapist" type statements are important to cover, surely a more significant issue is indirect (and sometimes unintended) harm casued to men by feminists via seeking so many special privileges for women.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you should post which specific sources you feel are neglected in this article so that we can discuss their inclusion on a case by case basis and any wp:undue issues. --Aronoel (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Shake, you are begging the question by presuming ahead of time that "harm casued to men by feminists via seeking so many special privileges for women" 1) exists and 2) is a major issue. Most feminists have spent their time trying to get us guys to share the special privileges (as well as the duties) traditionally reserved to us alone. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not true at all Mike. All movements contain good and bad, and there are undoubtedly a significant number of very sexist feminists out there not to mention many more misguided ones who think discrimination against men is of use. lets take Sweden as an example give that it's topical: The Swedish feminist political party had a man-tax in its manifesto [3]. That same article also mentions Swedish feminists reprinting parts of the SCUM manifesto and stating "Men are animals" (note it's not minor figures coming out with the ideas - the views are those of party leaders, those running the government domestic violence network etc). As Julian Assange stated this week "Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism".[4] You need to bear in mind that your POV and personal experiences of feminism don't apply universally.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for posting some specific sources. Please see this article about the SCUM excerpts and the "men are animals" statement, they seem to have been taken out of context and misrepresented the party's official views. [5] Should Julian Assange's criticism of Sweden be included here under "reactions"? I'm not sure, it seems to be one defensive comment in an interview. I don't know how significant it is compared to the other criticims already included under "reactions."

Also, I would like to point out that Radical Feminism is already covered in this article, along with many other significant feminist movements. I think it's unnecessary to cover every individual feminist and his or her controversial views in this article, since it is supposed to be general. --Aronoel (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be useful to summarise notable individuals who advocate discrimination against men but that's not the point I'm making. I've provided examples of misandry by feminist political parties where sexist policies are a agreed and key part of their manifesto. This isn't just an isolated individual but a whole feminist organisation advocating sexism. Similarly the link you provided proves that those same feminists giving positive reviews of the SCUM manifesto. If everyone just laughed if off then it wouldn't be notable material, but the fact that prominent feminists still support such hateful material today. You've actually provided plenty more examples of sexism by feminist in that piece, note the shelter worker stating "it's difficult to be part of an organisation which is so strident, anti-men and aggressive", so many thanks for that. Also I'm not suggesting quoting Assange, just showing the most topical example of prominent people highlighting sexism by feminists. It's true that many feminists support equality but others clearly do not and such a fact is not represented effectively in the article. It also contradicts the lead regarding feminists being concerned with men's liberation--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but ROKS's views, as a Radical Feminist organization, seem to fit with what's already described under Radical Feminism. Also it doesn't contradict the lead because the lead says "some feminists..." which is accurate, as many feminists do support men's issues.

And I don't mean to get off topic, but ROKS responded to the original unedited documentary (which is what the shelter worker is commenting on btw) with "Are you trying to say that just because we have this article in our magazine that the whole organisation agrees with that statement? It's a description based on a book." and "Time after time Rubar asked: It says in your magazine that men are animals. Is that what ROKS thinks? Time after time I replied: No, we don't think so. But if you've been the victim of repeated sexual assaults by men, I can understand why you might think that. Rubar chose not to include these answers in her programme." So it doesn't appear that they are actually endorsing any of the anti-men statements in SCUM.

It would obviously be stupid of me to claim that no feminist has ever said anything misandrous, but I don't think that automatically makes it notable here. If it were the case, it would be easy to balance out with all the pro-men comments that I could find that feminists have ever said, and I don't think that would lead to a very good article. My suspicion is that if we were to do a survey, the pro-men comments would be the majority. But that's my own analysis, I think we should stick to significant and major views and criticisms we find in published sources. --Aronoel (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you even read the lead? It doesn't say "some feminists" at all. That would be a huge improvement and 100% accurate but it certainly isn't anything like what's there at present. Perhaps we actually agree that a change is needed?--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it says "Some people." Should it be "Some feminists"? Maybe other editors can comment. --Aronoel (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Though it diverges from the point of this talk section the whole article should have an NPOV tag on it. It's almost impossible to imagine a more favorable article on feminism existing. There is no real critical response, reaction or commentary in the entire thing and the sources for such are legion (Hoffman-Sommers, Warren Farrell, Camille Paglia, Paul Nathanson, Mary Kassian, Carrie Lukas, Phyllis Schiafly, etc, etc) The whole thing reads more like a tribute to feminism more than a balanced article on it. Pick your poison: victimology, heterophobia, anti-science, anti-family, misandry, ideological policing, histrionics, historical revisionism, researched guided by ideology, anti-religion, marxist leanings, anti-privacy, presumption of male guilt, sympathy to female rapists/murderers/abusers/pedophiles -- aside from a couple wishy washy passages about womanist critics none of it is touched on at all, not even the significant criticism of feminism by self-identified feminists. Given the difficulty and drama I've experienced (being told to start a blog, stop soapboxing, "won't be tolerated," etc) in even trying to make the most minor and trivial of changes (to clarify that "men" as a group have no broadly discernible/distillable reaction or that feminism has not focused on men's lib) it's unsurprising to me that such would be the result of this article.--Cybermud (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with adding a lot of these people. One question, what do you call criticism of feminism by feminists? There are a lot of debates within feminism, so I'm not sure what the difference is. --Aronoel (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with most of the points though not necessarily the anti-religion one. It's an increasing trend for feminists to collaborate with religious groups in order to push for censorship. Similarly a lot of feminists tend to be fairly silent in terms of criticising Islamic oppression of women (yes they mention the countries involved etc and the regimes but won't necessarily reference the religious ideology behind it). Also the automatic sympathy for female murders is an excellent point but maybe better to expand it to the wider pattern of sympathy for all female criminals. For example in the UK a common feminist campaign is to call for the closure of women's prisoners and to place men in the facilities instead. Can people also please read the section above this as that is unresolved and related to these points.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

OK I've added the tag as it is clearly needed.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Found a seemingly very old version of this article on wordiq.com.[6] Unfortunately the sources aren't visible, and whilst some of the article is nonsense, there's good material in sections 6 and 7 which has since been removed.[7] For example there's the much need criticism of the inherent gender bias in using the term "feminist" itself and the piece also contains a mention of the difficult relationship between branches of feminism and transgender people.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The lack of sources is a problem. --Aronoel (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's based on an old version of this so they should be available somewhere in the history. Seems to be from around 2005 or so. Certainly interesting to see that this article once was quite balanced.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's more balanced now. I guess the appearance of balance can be subjective. --Aronoel (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: the root post of this thread: before feminism, in the main, men were solely responsible for the financial welfare of their families. Now, women regularly contribute to this. This is a benefit to men and "liberating". Before feminism, men were responsible for defending their country. Now, women are in the armed forces. This is a benefit to men since it liberates them from the sole duty of warfare. Before feminism and for much of human history, a man who had daughters found himself in the unfortunate situation not only of having more mouths to feed but suddenly saddled with debts that would mature when his daughters reached the age of majority and married. Not to mention the fact that his daughters couldn't, except in rare cases, help him with his business or start businesses or go into professions of their own and increase his family's wealth. This is no longer true, and that is a benefit to men and "liberating". Before feminism, I think it's fair to generalize that men were expected to have little direct involvement in their children's lives, certainly not in caring, nurturing, playing with them, etc. As a father, it's particularly apparent to me that the change feminism wrought in this area is a benefit to men and "liberating". I don't know how these issues should/could be incorporated into the article. I just offer them as a balance against the idea that the deleted assertion was "crap". 69.3.114.4 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not a chat-room, and no one should use this page for "soap-boxing" - for any side of an issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The crap in the lead about men's lib points to this highly polished postmodern turd of a source [8] which fails to substantiate the claim that is sourced to it (and I'd like the 30 minutes of my life back that it took to wade through such fashionable nonsense to make that determination. It's no surprise that the author of this source was in 1998, awarded by Denis Dutton's journal Philosophy and Literature with its First Prize in its "Bad Writing Competition," which claims to "celebrate bad writing from the most stylistically lamentable passages found in scholarly books and articles."--Cybermud (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, but if it doesn't support that sentence in the lead, maybe we should just remove the reference. The lead doesn't need to have sources anyway when the points are discussed in the article body. --Aronoel (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course it supports the sentence. Mud is just soapboxing. Talk pages are not for soapboxing. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed the source does support the point just as SLR points out. (see pages 4-12 of Bodies that Matter)
Cybermud once more your personal opinion about the quality of material/sources is irrelevant and inappropriate use of this talk page. Please stop making disruptive edits and comments on wikipedia--Cailil ^talk 01:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No Cailil it does not support it. Please stop being a disengenius douche every time I make a comment. I said the source does not support that "feminism thus seeks to liberate men." Please also stop trying to wikilawyer with inapplicable policies and explain how it does. There's no soapboxing here just a couple of admins that are unwilling to discuss the issues with people that disagree with them and spout policy in bad faith with anyone they disagree with. Now, if you'd be so kind, I linked to the full first chapter of the book above (ie 36 pages) where do you read anything in there about liberation of men or women Cailil and SLR? Please get lost or work to build consensus with other editors or I will refer this matter to admins that actually care about a good article and following policies rather than wikilawyering their pet articles and POV pushing.--Cybermud (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that Judith Butler likely supports the sentence (I read Bodies That Matter about 13 years ago), but if her book doesn't, probably bell hooks (in Feminism Is For Everybody), Susan Faludi (in Stiffed), and Betty Friedan (not explicitly in The Feminine Mystique but in later works), among others, do, at least for the second part of the sentence and likely usually on the ground of sexism, not men per se, being the oppressive force. If sexism is the oppressive force, it is a very small step to see gender as the oppressive force.

I looked at the khup.com page and, at first glance, 51 links were too many to wade through. A more specific citation would help, but it looks like other editors have already done that book-wise and I don't have to (thank you).

Generally, challenges to sources should be made when the result would change what it supports. Challenges can legitimately be for many reasons, but if what a source purports to support isn't likely to have to change as a result, the challenge is usually not quite as important.

Nick Levinson (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Butler would generally agree with the statement is of very little relevance. Challenging inline sources is important regardless of whether or not it changes what you are calling the "content." Sources, in particular inline ones, are an important and integral part of the content. Many come to WP specifically for the sources, because they don't trust the prose that it is ostensibly derived from. Saying, essentially, that the sources don't really matter if the content is accurate makes such a view of WP entirely understandable (the fact that I disagree with the accuracy notwithstanding.) I have no doubt that other sources can be found to support that claim, just as there are mountains of sources that counter it, neither of which is relevant to the point that the included citation does not support it.--Cybermud (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The source is, of course, important, exactly because, as you say, some readers rely heavily on them. I'm just more likely to take the time to challenge a citation if, upon the challenge's being successful, the statement for which it is offered in support would therefore change. Otherwise, it usually isn't worth my time. If a book's p. 3 does not support the statement but p. 5 would, that should be challenged by editing the citation to p. 5, because leaving it at p. 3 would mean changing the supported statement to conform to the cite but editing to p. 5 does not. In this case, I think I would have looked for a page range providing the support or another book doing so, assuming I had doubted the cite, considering that the substance of the sentence has been said by quite a few sources. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Nick, Mud is here just to bait people and to try to draw them into a debate; she doesn't care about our NPOV policy, she wants to argue over what she thinks is right and wrong. I think at this point we should just stop feeding the troll. But you are actually doing just what one is supposed to do on talk pages, i.e. discuss how to improve the article, when you mention bell hooks (in Feminism Is For Everybody), Susan Faludi (in Stiffed), and Betty Friedan (not explicitly in The Feminine Mystique but in later works). My question for you - because i know you have researched this material carefully - is, do you think the body of the article does justice to these views? If not perhaps you can develop the coverage that the body of the article provides to these views? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look soon. Besides being a bit tired and fading at the moment, I just began a deletion review of an article that I created and edited but that was deleted, and I suspect that'll take a little time each day for a while. And I don't have the books, being reliant on libraries. But I'll look. And Cybermud is male (unless that's in error, but I think he's said so elsewhere, too). Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected a link: 11:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC))

The wording does strike me as a bit fuzzy though, as a result of the finicky wording; it says "some feminists" and then makes a general claim about femenism off the back of that. I'm not certain that is accurate. Perhaps: Some feminists argue that gender is a social construction that harms all people and that feminism thus seeks to liberate men as well as women. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I have had chance to review the source - and read the portions that I suppose are meant to support the statement. Unfortunately I do not think they do support what is written. I suspect the second part of the soap-boxing is WP:SYNTH and soapboxing on the part of whoever added it. Certainly there is content to support the idea that some feminists have issues with the whole of the gender construct - but nothing (so far as I can see) that then concludes that feminism liberates men as well. Can anyone point to the specific part of the text that is supposed to support this? --Errant ^(chat!) 17:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Errant the precise paragraphs are at the top of p. 4 (the breakdown of sex and identity, the political aspect of feminism and queer studies) then p. 11 & 12. The pagesin-between exlain the history of 'sex' as a category and a construct.
There is a fuzziness in the line in the article and I think it could be better worded. Butler is not talking about the men's lib movement, she's talking about the ideas and the categories of sex and gender, but NOT just for women. Nick and SLR have pointed out that there are many other boks that make a similar point, and indeed there are feminists who have argued for a liberation of women from patriarchy etc etc. But I'd support a reword of that final clause about liberation to remove the confusion--Cailil ^talk 01:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't believe this issue is still ongoing. Trying to remove any unsourced pro-feminist (or anti-male) nonsense from this article is like herding cats. My utmost respect to anyone trying to improve this article by challenging/deleting such material.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that this criticism is unfair, considering that I've made many changes to try to address some of the issues you and Cybermud have brought up.--Aronoel (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to question your editing. I don't know the full info about how this article became so unbalanced but a quick glance at the recent history suggests it's others who are adding/restoring problematic material (even to prominent parts of the article). You're not to blame but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Given how hard it's been for me to make any edits at all here, I have no problem understanding how this article got this way. The problem very much does exist, though Aronoel very much does deserve credit for working to address it. I point out a problem, try to make an edit, get mass reverted for it, and shouted at with claims of soapboxing, misusing talk pages and POV pushing (and now have editors recommending I be blocked in ANI [9].) Meanwhile Aronoel quietly comes in and makes the edits that I've been arguing for -- somehow largely escaping the ideological policing of editors more concerned with reverting me than paying attention to what she's been doing. I would hazard to guess that the only people allowed to add critical or balancing content to this article are women who self-identify as feminists (and perhaps only then when the ideological police are distracted by other "problem" editors.)--Cybermud (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this edit? In the lede, we could replace "Some feminists argue that gender is a social construction that harms all people; feminism thus seeks to liberate men as well as women.^[4]" with "Some feminists argue that sexism harms all people and that feminism thus seeks to liberate men as well as women.^[4]" Reasoning: That "gender is a social construction" is already settled and is a point not only among feminists but also among other social scientists, so it can be removed as the predicate of "[s]ome feminists argue". "Some feminists argue that sexism harms all people": Some do. I think probably more feminists argue that oppression is due to sexism rather than being due to men, at least in the U.S. and other nations where feminism is widely (if not majoritarianly) supported by women, so there'll be adequate sources for that (nations where very few women are feminist may have a majority of local feminists seeing the problem as coming from men in particular rather than sexism in the abstract, but I'm not sure and I suspect that in such nations local feminist publications are scarce or nonexistent). That "feminism thus seeks to liberate men as well as women" does follow from "[s]ome feminists argue that sexism harms all people"; thus the "thus" belongs. It could be contended that only feminists would say that "feminism thus seeks to liberate men" and that others would say that "feminism thus seeks to tie men up" or some such, but this is an article about feminism, the verb "liberate" is widely used in such feminist contexts and sourceable, to view what feminism seeks for men as the constraining of men is to criticize feminism, and criticisms should be only a short part of any article (if more criticisms are warranted than would fit they might be the core of a separate article, such as on masculism). I don't have Judith Butler's book, so perhaps someone else can place the reference in the right place or places, or perhaps it can just be left at the end of the sentence. (I understand, not having read her Bodies That Matter in about 13 years, that she argues that sex is also a social construction, but, while that might be worth mentioning as a contrariness on the meaning of sex, I don't think most feminists agree with that, and so, generally, gender should be kept separate from sex.) How does the proposed sentence sound? Nick Levinson (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected "sex" to "sex" and clarified the last clause, both in the parenthetical sentence: 04:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC))

Cailil already did, above, his 01:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)edit. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

To quote myself from a previous comment, "the much more significant gestalt of modern feminism and feminists has not been to address inequities that negatively impact men but to claim that they don't exist or that the opposite is true." It's WP:Undue to ignore this well-documented history and claim that feminism "seeks the liberation of men." Even in the sources you cite, Friedan, post-backlash Faludi, etc feminists have not sought the liberation of men, so much as they have argued that the liberation of men would be an incidental benefit to the liberation of women. The word seek implies actual action on behalf of men, rather than various pieces of rhetoric that have argued that liberating women would liberate men (which ignores the fact that feminists have generally argued for an expansion of female rights without an expansion of responsibilities.) Arguing good-will towards men is WP:Undue but, if you must persist in keeping any notion of this concept in the lead it should say something to the effect "thus eliminating traditional sex/gender roles would benefit men and women," rather than feminism seeks to liberate men (when feminists tell us they are all rapists.)--Cybermud (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I add an outside view to this discussion? (If it's relevant: I'm a man, I couldn't call myself an expert in feminism but I have studied it.) I think Nick Levinson's sentence is pretty good, but Cybermud's phrasing of it might be better. On the one hand, it is true that feminists have generally argued that sexist stereotypes and prejudices affect men as well as women, as expressed by the phrase 'patriarchy hurts men too' or this image [10]. On the other hand, the primary focus of feminism is addressing women's injustice, not men's; and feminists argue that men benefit from various unfair advantages over women, so making society fairer for women will necessarily mean making men worse off in some ways. Of course, there are lots of different feminist views, and I don't know if they can all be summed up in one sentence; but it could be something like 'some feminists argue that eliminating traditional gender roles would benefit both men and women; others say that traditional gender roles benefit men at the expense of women'.

In any case, whether feminists want to make men better off or not, what they're really concerned about is making things better for women. I think it's fair to say, as Cybermud does, that liberating men is more of a byproduct of liberating women than a main aim of feminism. However, I have to disagree with Cybermud's assertion that 'feminists tell us they are all rapists'; I'm personally not aware of any feminist who's actually said such a thing. There might be a few on the radical fringe, but it's definitely not a statement most feminists would agree with. Such inflammatory language isn't helpful here. Robofish (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the best comment and suggestion yet Robofish. I think the line "some feminists argue that eliminating traditional gender roles would benefit both men and women; others say that traditional gender roles benefit men at the expense of women" is a good starting point.
I'd like to add to the discussion of that 'some' needs rethink since, Butler is a postmodern feminist, bel hooks is a Black feminist, etc etc but I'm sure there's a 2ndary source that has already made a point similar to this so we should look for that source and quote it--Cailil ^talk 02:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually the essay 'Doing Gender' by West and Zimmerman might be useful - or the Book by West and Fenstermaker of the same title - both give a good, and more accessible, overview of feminism and the social construction of gender--Cailil ^talk 02:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I propose writing something like, "Because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men's liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism." I think that Robofish's proposed sentence is a little confusing, because those two points aren't necssarily opposed to one another; a person can believe that gender roles have benefited men at the expense of women in many ways, and still believe that eliminating gender roles would ultimately benefit both men and women. Also, regarding wp:undue, my personal impression has been that the vast majority of feminists and feminist writings take the position that feminism benefits men, and that any "anti-men" ideas are a part of a small minority of feminism, but I'm not sure where to find a source confirming or refuting this. Does anyone know of one? --Aronoel (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I take your point Aronoel but that sentence deviates a little from the idea of gender as a social construction. But I think you're spot on about the two ideas not being opposites. I think it would be best to look for secondary sources that discuss these ideas in context, like 'Doing Gender' and others, to see what they say and to then quote them where due--Cailil ^talk 00:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Some good points by Robofish. There are actually a few feminists supporting the "all men are rapists" idea, but it is a reasonably small number who actually come out and say it. Surely the real issue all the methods with which feminists attack and belittle men taken together rather than one extreme phrase? Some feminists might not actually say or even believe that all men are rapists, but they constantly make and imply similar points. I.e. that men are not to be trusted with children, men are violent (and women are not) and that men are always guilty (and women should always be believed). Perhaps the most high profile and successful feminist campaign or recent times is the "White Ribbon campaign". It seeks not to tackle simply domestic violence, nor even violence against women - the sole issue is "men's violence against women" - they couldn't be any more sexist if they tried and it's the antithesis of equality.

We also see a fair amount of sexism in feminist culture. For example the most successful feminist play by some distance is the Vagina Monologues. Not only does it support female child abusers, but almost every single sexual experience with a man in the production is a negative one and every man a bad person. The play is joined at the hip to v-day - again a major feminist event and perhaps the only rival the the White Ribbon campaign. So much modern day feminist activity/culture is linked to and rooted in hateful/radical feminism. Take back the night marches are a global feminist phenomenon and were none other than Andrea Dworkin's invention. Here in the UK all the first such marches were by what were termed "revolutionary feminists" who made it perfectly clear that men were the enemy and women should should all be lesbians (with some even abandoning their male children). I really don't' think that misandry is as an insignificant part of feminism as some here suggest. We need to perhaps differentiate between what the ideals of feminism are and what the reality can be in some cases.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

How does "take back the night" make "men" the enemy? I thought it just meant women should be ale to walk the streets at night alone with the same sense of safety that most men feel. To say that some men are rapists does not mean that all men are rapists - or is that your point? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakehandsman wikipedia is not a forum and talk pages are NOT for eth discussion of article's subject but for the discussion of source based improvements. Have you a sourced based point to make about the current suggestion?--Cailil ^talk 21:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My points pretty much are all sourced, just click on the links and the material is in the Wikipedia articles. Perhaps I haven't spelt out fully the implications of the points I've made, the issue is that a number of ideas and events organised by Dworkin are central to feminism today, she has quite a legacy and is widely respected and praised amongst feminists. Therefore all her quotes about hall heterosexual sex being rape, an "occupation of women's bodies", women who have sex being "collaborators", sex being a "violation of women's boundaries", "a means of physiologically making a woman inferior", and "the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women". These comments cannot be dismissed as those of a lunatic in this context due to the amount of influence Dworkin has had on feminism and they totally contradict the idea that such feminists even respect men nevermind actually wanting to help them.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How about "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." Also, I would like to point out that I can find many examples of feminist writing which mention the importance of men's issues within feminism, so I think there is some evidence for this being a mainstream part of feminism. Here is a quote from Feminism is for everybody: passionate politics By Bell Hooks: "Before the contemporary feminist movement was less than 10 years old, feminist thinkers began to talk about the ways in which patriarchy was harmful to men. Without changing our fierce critique of male domination feminist politics expanded to include the recognition that patriarchy stripped men of certain rights, imposing on them a sexist masculine identity." There are many more quotes like this, but I think this one in particular is a good basis for the sentence about men's issues in the lead. --Aronoel (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice work Aronoel - I found the source (p68) of that quote. I think your suggested is good and should deal with the issue of men's liberation and feminism very well. We could always deal with gender as a social construct (ie Butler etc) before that in the lede. This point should be elaborated on further in the "Men_as_feminists" section and possibly Feminism and equality--Cailil ^talk 21:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Also Wood's book Gendered lives: communication, gender, and culture and Dickinson's Community and the world: participating in social change both examine bel hook's points and are secondary sources so are worth checking--Cailil ^talk 21:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cailil, I'll take a look at those books and try and work on some of the subjects you mentioned expanding. --Aronoel (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh.. Feminist concern for men does exist. To reiterate the same point I've made a number of times now, it is extremely undue to claim, in any way, in this article's lead that feminism has actively sought the liberation of men, to understand the way rigid gender roles limited and harmed them, or to free them from it. At it's core, this is not a question of whether a source for such a statement exists (although Butler's "Bodies That Matter" sure ain't it), I'm sure a number of sources for it do exist, they are just contradicted by a veritable mountain of sources that speak to the fact that feminism has generally ignored, or been blind, to the suffering of men. Not only have they been blind to it, but they have actively increased it by villainizing and pathologizing men, boys and masculinity. The reliable sources for misandric elements in feminism are everywhere. I'm fully willing to concede that "some feminists" have expressed concern for men's problems, but some is the prototypical weasel word and the lead of an article that is the parent to a veritable horde of other articles is no place for ambiguous and misleading language. If you insist on putting a statement in the lead that says "some feminists argue that men's liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism" I must insist on including a statement that says "some feminists say all men are potential rapists." ...And don't think that I can't source that all day long.--Cybermud (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's really well explained Cybermud. Lets either keep dubious statements out of the lead section or tell the other side or the stroy too in order to maintain accuracy and balance. Also whatever one's perspective, the term "some" is to be avoided please.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously there is some disagreement about what the mainstream view in feminism is of men. I don't think we are going to get anywhere by just arguing about it. The only way to resolve this is by drawing on reliable sources. I think bel hooks' characterization of the majority of feminists' views on men is very useful in this case for establishing the major views of feminism, since she is a very famous feminist herself. There are more reliable sources supporting this idea, some of which are already in other parts of the article. When looking for sources to contradict the point that you disagree with, I would recommend not looking to anti-feminist writers, since there may be a bias issue. Drawing directly on feminists' statements would be more accurate. (For example, if you wanted to determine Obama's views on a certain issue, you wouldn't use Sarah Palin's quotes about him as sources.) Also, I would not recommend looking to non-academic sources, such as random quotes from non-notable individual feminists, since these wouldn't be reliable either. I hope we can resolve this soon so we can move on to other ways to improve this article. --Aronoel (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What would constitute an "anti-feminist" source to you? The way you have framed what sources are valid for showing that feminism is misandric, or at least indifferent, to the suffering and concerns of men is unreasonable. Many definitions of anti-feminism would encompass any and every criticism of feminism or acknowledgement of the fact that is has not, despite endless platitudes and assertions to the contrary, sought genuine equality between the sexes. It is as though you are saying that, the only sources we can use to show misandry and promotion of female privilege (ie the polar opposite of men's liberation), rather than equality, are precisely those sources which do not show misandry and the promotion of female privilege (which are, by definition part of the "anti-feminist backlash.") In short, I completely disagree. Your Obama and Palin example makes sense to a degree, but it can't be extended to this topic. Leaving aside the fact that WP prefers tertiary sources to primary sources (ie WP prefers other Encyclopedias on Obama more than Obama on Obama,) feminism is a huge political and ideological movement that has spanned generations and involved countless people, cultures and ideas. Obama really can speak for what Obama thinks (and is a primary source for it.) Conversely, not even a feminist has any real ability to speak for what feminism as a whole thinks. There are just too many branches and flavors of feminism for it to lend itself to any individual source in isolation. For every feminist that says feminism is about X there is another feminist who will say it is not about X. To make this more concrete, I would maintain that both Warren Farrell and Daphne Patai are feminists and can source them both (amongst many others) to statements that feminism has been misandric and blamed men rather than viewing them as being victimized in equal, but different ways, but I can also source people calling them both "anti-feminist" authors.--Cybermud (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also to respond to SHM's quotes from Dworkin above (Try not to post in the middle of a thread, otherwise it's easy to miss): I'm not going to say that all of your arguments are necessarily wrong, but it is original synthesis to make the conclusions you did. To explain, you argued 1. that Dworkin's arguments without a doubt reflect contempt for all men 2. that Dworkin without a doubt argued that all heterosexual sex is rape (she denied this interpretation) 3. that contemporary feminism is extremely influenced by her work 4. Because of everything mentioned above, mainstream contemprary feminism involves contempt for men. Maybe this train of logic seems obvious to you, but it is still synthesis. That conclusion also goes against the evidence already available in the article. Also, about the word "some," I will try to think of a better word but I'm not sure if it's possible to make it more specific, so I think we may have to make an exception. --Aronoel (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So to sum up Aronoel's points, we should only summarise feminism by those who agree with it and say ncie things about it. The views of neutrals or critics are somehow not worthy of inclusion even if they have many of the same goals and even if they are part of the movement. I wasn't aware of this new Wikipedia policy, do we now only define the activities/agenda of a political party by asking it's public relations people and supporters too? By the way, we're not trying to establish feminism as hugely misandric here, the issue at hand is whether the misandry and harm to men's equality that is part of the feminist movement is as (or more) notable/widespread than it's attempts to achieve "men's liberation".--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course I'm not saying the views of critics shouldn't be included. (I've added some of those views myself!) Also, Cybermud, I think your point about the Obama analogy makes sense. Let's discuss a different analogy. Let's say you're working on the article Atheism. There are many published books arguing that atheism is a religion, is satan-worshipping, etc. Would you put it in the definition in the article that atheism is a religion, based on those sources? There is of course a place in the article for the views of critics, but you can't use those kinds of sources to identify a belief of atheism. I believe the same goes for this article. As for the feminist anti-feminists, my view is that their books arguing against feminism are problematic in the same way the anti-atheism example is. Anyway, I don't see why this is a problem. If misandry is a large part of feminism, then there should be books out there written by feminists arguing that feminism involves hating men or being anti-male. Also, I just want to point out, the sources in the article by feminists are secondary sources I think, but of course, the lines between primary/secondary/tertiary are not always very clear. --Aronoel (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also I just thought of another analogy, what about trying to use a feminist book arguing that antifeminism involves hating women into the article Antifeminism? Maybe under the criticism section or identified as coming from a feminist, but definitely not in the lead as an objective fact. --Aronoel (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(WP:BLP violations removed,  Sandstein  19:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)) --Shakehandsman (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakehandsman the language you use to characterized the above named writers[11] is a breach of wikipedia talk page guidelines (WP:TPG) and is also a serious breach of WP:BLP as it makes controversial, potentially damaging and unsourced claims about named living people in the talk space. See Wikipedia:BLP#Where_BLP_does_and_does_not_apply ifd you don’t understand these rules.
You have 12 hours to remove these remarks your self and show good faith that this was a mistake. During that time I will be seeking a review of this where I deem necessary (either by another sysop or at WP:BLP/N) and will inform you of it in your talk space when I do. If after the 12 hours of this post being made you have not removed these remarks violating WP:BLP - I will and will simultaneously report it to ANI. However, be aware that another user may do this before I do.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, not a forum or a blog and talk pages are not for the discussion of the subject--Cailil ^talk 12:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok I've rejigged the phrasing so it's more accurate and added more quotes and sources. It needed pointing out exactly where these people are coming from and the points about their agenda and views are extremely important, therefore I totally reject any suggestion that it's not relevant to discuss these people in this context. Again I commend Aronoel for finding yet more problematic Wikipedia articles. TBH it would be better if the points I've made were part of the Michael Flood article then I could have just linked to that, but it seems no criticism is allowed on that page unfortunately.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Feminism developed in the U.S. in the second wave with The Feminine Mystique, by Betty Friedan, critiquing the state of women. The response was in significant part a radicalization in which many new feminists blamed men. Betty Friedan, who probably did not much anticipate that response, responded that she was not arguing against men but against sexism and spent years battling radicals and lesbians, and she was not even close to being alone. It is also likely that the first wave was mostly about being against sexism and not against men, especially for the suffrage movement, which could not succeed unless most men agreed to vote for suffrage, and I imagine Alice Paul likely saw feminism as against sexism and not men. The second wave's growth reflected in, I gather, a Gallup/Newsweek poll reporting more than half of U.S. women self-identifying as feminist, and it's hardly likely that half of that half condemned men as perps. To report the view that feminism is primarily against sexism and not against men, while implicitly a criticism of feminism that is primarily against men as perpetrators of sexism, the best sources are those from within feminism, because that adds to the study of the major strains of thought within feminism, and thus adds to the understanding of feminism itself, while keeping a criticism section short, which it should be, by Wikipedia's design. An analogy is that a critique of feminism which seeks full participation in society where that society is capitalist arises from both socialists who see feminism as a bourgeois impediment to socialist progress and from socialist feminists who merge both movements, and in that case articles on feminism should rely on describing socialist feminism rather than adding socialist antifeminist criticism to the criticisms section and lengthening the latter. Throughout Wikipedia we generally report the views of movements and institutions primarily from within them and then from other sources when the latter uncover what is not covered from within. We do that primarily because the people who know any subject best tend to be within that subject's practice and so the experts tend to be approvers, just as if you disagree with math (such as if you believe that for 2 + 2 to equal 4 requires the grace of a deity and is not independently true) you probably don't become a mathematician. While the CEO of the Feminist Majority Foundation does not speak for all feminists, the Pope does not either. There are plenty of sources within feminism that support feminism being against sexism, including sources (often articles) critiquing feminists who are against men.

Avoiding some as a weasel word would be a challenge, and I propose that the critic of it suggest an alternative and, failing that, note that WP:WEASEL "should not be applied rigidly." This is not a case where a survey finds "20%" and we mush that into "some". But a reading of a range of feminist literature shows that the quantity is neither "all" or "none" and that "some" is often both apt and as close to precise as we'll get anytime soon.

Nick Levinson (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think this makes more sense than the way I tried to explain it. --Aronoel (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Shakehandsman, those are definitely important concerns so I think you should discuss them at Talk:Antifeminism. --Aronoel (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Aronoel, very much appreciated . It's highly commendable that you took the take the time to make such a comment.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful and well-informed comment, Nick. But I think historians distinguish between feminism as an intellectual movement - which they date to Mary Wollstonecraft and also JS Mill, and feminism as a social movement, which I think you are right begins with the founding of NOW (the National Organization for Women, not "of" women, in order to include men or course). Slrubenstein | Talk 23:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. No disagreement. I don't know when the earliest major feminist expounding was, of those still preserved. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Stretching back into this long thread to the post by Slrubenstein 09:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC), I think text needs to be added to the article's body on feminism as seeking to liberate men (an outgrowth of feminism opposing sexism rather than opposing men). I'll peek around for material and maybe write a short passage; my guess is that adding a sentence or so should do it, although it may need a subheading set to some level, because it may not fit any existing heading very well. Nick Levinson (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 work.

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)