Encyclopedia > Talk:Feminism

Article Content

Talk:Feminism

Talk:Feminism (archive)

(Moved old talk to the above page--the page was getting very long.)

I think it's time for me to try to write a long essay about what neutral point of view does and does not entail (in the Meta-Wikipedia, of course, and I'll invite people to edit it). I agree that the article at present obviously reflects an anti-feminist bias, but I also agree that this can and should be fixed without simply deleting useful content.

Look, we are all reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. As I see it, we have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article "should" say or what is "true," we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our jobto edit Wikipedia so that it speaks for our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding new content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides.

I know many of you, and I have great confidence in your abilities. So I am very confident we can do this!

More later in that essay which I will now bang out. --LMS

The idea that there is a good feminism, "equity feminism", and a bad feminism, "gender feminism", is recent (Sommers) and simply amounts to conter insurgency against the masculist insurgency. The earlier developments of things like "eco-feminism" and such, was also political and meant as a way to get more adherents by expanding it's advocacy, something that the women's movement has done with great success since it's beginnings. Remember the abolitionist movement? The "second wave" feminists were at core radical and had much resistence at first from the moderates, but the rad fems won and have called the shots since the mid seventies. Ignore that historical fact and we will be Wikigandists.

This feminist game is too old for a respectable encyclopedia to support it's political maneuverings, without pointing out those possible maneuvers. As for NPOV, I noticed some things in the reading, that while accurate, could have been said in a more NPOV way. When I get time, I'll check it out again. QIM

I didn't know that "equity" feminism was good and gender feminism was bnad! Don't some people argue that it is the othe way around? In any event, I think the article should not get bogged down in trying to identify good or bad feminisms but rather different kinds of feminisms (and, where possible/appropriate, describe the contexts in which different feminisms developed) -- SR

I worked some more on the first paragraph, in order to accomodate the view that "women" should be mentioned in the first sentence, while acknowledging that feminism includes far more than a struggle for gender equality. -- SR

As I understand it gender feminism is always bad because no feminist ever says they are one. It's a bogeyman used by feminists who want to justify retaining the label "feminist" by dismissing or minimising criticism of feminism as limited to bad feminists. Whoever wrote up the first page seems to be doing that for radical feminists too. It seems that in the fight over this page there are no radical feminists and therefore they may end up being the tacit scapegoat of the movement in an attempt to compromise. I wouldn't want that to happen. Radical feminists are usually the most honest of their kind (as in "Yes, we do hate men, so what?") David Byron

The first pp is looking very good.

Some questions about the following text to which I don't know the answers:

Some feminists call for social, economic, and/or political equality between genders; historically, this struggle has centered on women's suffrage, salary equivalency, and control over reproductive issues. Other feminists, arguing that gender and sexuality are themselves socially constructed, have come to question prevalent assumptions about gender and sexual differences themselves.

Is there a terminology to distinguish these two branches of feminism? Is the first kind the predominant kind, at least historically (I thought so)? (It's the predominant dictionary definition.) Is there a better term of art for "salary equivalency"?

Almost no feminists really want equality today, but a lot claim they want equality as cover for their actual beliefs. As for 19th century feminists I'd guestimate that maybe one in three wanted equality. Feminism has always been about women not equality. About one sex not two. There's no secret about the bias towards women. Never has been. Instead feminists merely claimed that by advocating only for one sex they persued equality. Clearly that is a propaganda claim. David Byron

I'm not sure I'd call it a term of art, but the phrase most often used is simply "equal pay for equal work". --LDC

BTW, the neologism Wikigandists is pretty amusing. --TheCunctator

I've heard "equity" versus "gender" feminism used quite a bit. --LMS

Sure it's used a lot -- by feminists who call themselves equity. But I've never heard anyone call themselves a gender feminist. Has anyone? For that matter many feminists who aren't equity feminists say feminists who call themselves equity feminists aren't real feminists. Its a device used to explain away "bad feminists". Most feminists would use the term "extremist" to the same effect. Similarly "extremist" isn't a real type of feminist (no one calls themselves an extremist). David Byron

concerning the distinction between different kinds of feminism: I am not a feminist scholar and have reached the limit of what I feel comfortable contributing to the article. But here in "talk" I think I can give a fair answer to the question -- I leave it to others to develop the article with more detail.

My understanding is that by "first wave" feminism people usually mean the sufragist movement in the US in the late 18 - early 1900s, i.e. the struggle for formal political equality. The "second wave" begins in the 1950s and culminates in 1970s with the struggle for economic and social equality -- sexual liberation, reproductive rights, equal pay ... not new issues but renewed centers of activism. I believe that after a while second-wave feminists came under attack from both the left and the right. People on the left challenged this form of feminism as being too white/middle class, and people on the right reasserted the need for traditional social roles. Both of these critiques led to an interest in "difference" among feminists, mostly feminist academics. Following the left critique, they asked whether all women really had the same interests, whether Black or Hispanic or poor women had different interestes than white middle-class women. Following the right critique, they paid shifted attention away from gender relations per se (e.g. equality between men and women) to questioning gender and sexual identity as such -- what does it mean to be a "woman" (or a "man"). These two responses to two different critiques easily converge with a questioning about the role of differnce not between but within identities. On example of this kind of thinking is a questioning, within the academy and among feminists, of "women's studies." WS programs make their object of study "women," and as a consequence take a certain understanding of "woman" for granted. More recent feminist scholars question the ability to define "woman" as an object of study, since there are many different kinds of women; they also call for studies of gender and sexuality in general (in other words, try to study constructions of masculinity and study men, not just women). I do not know how this trend is identified -- I do not know if anyone calls it "third wave" feminism. One problem with identifying it may be that it is harder to link it to visible and achievable political or social goals (something rather easy for second wave feminists). Another problem with identifying it is that it raises lots of questions within the feminist movement without suggesting easy answers -- or perhaps it suggests different answers, some of which may be in conflict. Within the Academy some people identify this kind of feminist scholarship with post-structuralism or postmodernism.

I am sure I am oversimplifying -- at this popint I can only hope that there are wikipedians out there who have been members of feminist organizations for a long enough period to fill in the history, or who have been active in Women's studies, who can corrent any mistakes I have made or add more nuance. -- SR

Thanks Cunctator for appreciating my coinage "Wikigandists". As a masculist, everyone here knows what I think of feminism. It has to be one of the most ridiculous and internally inconsistent ideologies ever devised by man. Oh, that's right, it's the first exclusively female ideology.

"Third wave" feminism is a curious phenomenon if you have a sense for what "second wave feminism" is. First of all, "second wave" feminism is an expanded approach on women's rights which started in the early 1920s, not 1950s, though it manifested more and got feet in the fifties. "Second wave" feminism, unlike first wave, advocated there was no substantial sex differences in ALL AREAS of human function

I have to disagree with this STRONGLY. You touch upon it later, but feminists even in the 2nd wave had no fixed view like that. On the contrary throughout feminism runs the presumption that there is a HUGE moral gulf between men and women. Men are characterised as so evil that they are almost a separate species. While this could be blamed on upbringing, rather than biology, feminists avoided saying this because it is women who bring up children and any hint that women had any part in the evil of society was anathema. Feminists certainly used the claim that men and women were the same whenever it might prove useful to an ad-hoc argument, but like their claim to persue equality, we must make the distinction between their propaganda and their actual beliefs. You can judge the distinction by the fact that for a long time the preposed ERA had various explicit exceptions for various laws that benefited women over men, however these were eventually taken out. NOW's current version of the ERA has explicit pro-woman content back in. So do the US SC precedents. During ERA debate one issue was the draft for women. Many feminists said that ERA wouldn't mean women would be drafted but some did come out for equality on that. I'd say the majority view is that whatever is good for women is the feminist position. David Byron

...and that government had the responsibility through civil rights to intervene. They mostly achieved that goal in the early Sixties with passage of Equal Pay '63 and the Civil Rights Act of '64, but wanted it more institutinalized with the "Equal Rights Amendment", which just barely failed in the late Seventies. The population was never convinced enough that sex differences were zero, which was a necessary belief to rationalize the Equal Rights Amendment. When that failed and then Reagan got into office, the feminists felt threatened and dug in deeper by solidifying their power in the democratic party and making new alliances with the women on the Right (custody, drugs and crime).

By the early nineites, the population itself was chaffing under the "no sex differences" paradigm, which resulted in another defensive maneuver by leading feminists, that of "third wave feminism". I suspect the "second wavers" knew this gambit produced "internal consistency" problems with feminist ideology, but felt their goals were institutionalized enough to run this gambit. Third wavers believe in accepting the paradigm of substantial sex differences while still advocating for "mandated sexual equality" (second wave feminism). I don't think it will work in the long run because any opposition to feminism now has an openning that the second wave feminists knew was disasterous to their cause. Third wavers are abandoning the legal and cultural rationale for everyting the second wavers accomplished.

You can put the "different feminisms" in here, but not in good conscience without stating what the opposition feels about this, that it is a blatant political maneuver to both confuse the population and the opposition as to the core of feminism, ie "mandated sexual equality". The "different feminisms" also function to expand their base by incorporating other advocacies, something the women's movement has done with great success since their beginnings (ie abolitionists). QIM

On the first paragraph:

Feminism is a set of social theories and political practices that are critical of past and current social relations, and whose critique is primarily motivated and informed by the experience of women. It questions the relationship between gender, sexuality, and power in social relationships. The feminist movement (or equality feminism) calls for social, economic, and/or political equality between genders through an increase in women's rights; central concerns include women's suffrage, salary equivalency, and control over reproductive issues. Gender feminism argues that gender and sexuality are themselves socially constructed, have come to question prevalent assumptions about gender and sexual differences themselves.

It claims (falsely IMO but certainly controversially) that,

feminism represents/ed women.
(by ommission) that feminism fairly represents issues of both sexes
identifies equity feminism with feminism
(by ommission) that feminists want equality
gender feminism is an actual type of self-identified feminist

Radical feminism considers patriarchy to be the root cause of most social problems; many question not only the relationship between "men" and "women," but the social construction of gender and sexuality and the very meaning of "man" and "woman" as well. Under such an ideology, feminism is the primary means to human liberation (i.e. the liberation of men as well as women, and men and women from other social problems).

Second one claims (falsely IMO but certainly controversially) that,

only radical feminists use 'patriarchy' as a term
radical feminists care about men

Now all these things are under the heading of "attitudes about men and women" which is being discussed in much more length, and is controversial (despite the lack of anyone willing to put up the alternative POV in that section) so why would they appear in the first two paragraphs? Certainly if they are going to be in there then the alternative views need to be there too, as a range of beliefs. I think that can get a little clumsy reading.

Many such feminists are more narrowly concerned with achieving equal rights for women.

I could write quite truthfully that Many feminists are more concerned with the genocide of the male sex. The idea that feminism wants equality is controversial and that means it shouldn't be expressed so early on in the essay without a balance. I think that the feminists here believe that feminism is about equality. That's fine as a POV with balance. But it is controversial and there's a ton of evidence that it's false. Its should absolutely NOT be stated as a fact. David Byron

Only through ignorance could you write such a thing. I've been a feminist, and involved in feminist groups and causes for 20 years. I have never heard that position advocated, not once, not ever. Not even by the most radical lesbian separatist feminists! --Dmerrill

There was a link to an interview of Mary Daly (text is all on-line) expressing these ideas in the stuff that's now in Old talk. I understand that you aren't as well informed as some on this topic, but it would help if you read what was provided for you. You were around when I posted the link weren't you? I could enlarge on this if you like but if I did would you even bother to read it? David Byron

I did read the interview with Mary Daly, and I am fairly well informed on the topic. I know there are people who advocate that position, but I don't think there are "many". As with the people who advocate murder of abortion clinic staff, it is the most violent and vocal who get the most press, but that doesn't mean they're really the majority. --Dmerrill

Ok now you are really causing me concern about your bias. Did you not just say (above) I have never heard that position advocated, not once, not ever. Did you not just emphasise repeatedly that you had never heard of this in all your twenty years? And as soon as I point out that you have, you come back with this 180 degree turn around? Why did you repeatedly emphasise something you knew was false?

I never said I've never heard of it, I said I've never heard it advocated. I have never heard it expressed by any feminist I have encountered. I have of course heard second and third hand that there are extremist positions, but I've never encountered them personally, nor in detail. I'm sorry if I was not clear. I meant the term "heard" to be taken both literally (i.e., personally heard) and within the context of the paragraph, which means in my interactions with other feminists. And I will go further and state that until I read that article you mentioned I had never seen nor heard of that extreme of a position at all. It is definitely a minority position. And finally, please do not accuse me of lying. I make mistakes in communication and otherwise, and I've certainly been wrong on more than one occasion, but I do not lie. --Dmerrill

Ok well I apologise for that comment then. But surely you've heard of Solanas before two weeks ago? Surely you've seen the SCUM manifesto in 20 years? How about any feminist utopias? In any case Wikipedia is more to do with representing the leaders than the people who don't have any influence I'd have thought. However below I've made some comments. for what it's worth, in support of why i'd also say that many 'ordinary' feminists are sympathetic to Daly's views (I already mentioned her book sales figures, right?)

No, I really haven't heard of either one, at least not that I recall. I've heard of extreme positions, usually in a dismissive and ironic way, but don't really know their details. They really are on the fringe and not held by the majority of feminists. I've been involved with several feminist groups, usually working on local issues, but I am by no means a feminist scholar. I only have a general knowledge about feminism and especially how it is practice within NOW, of which I am a member. I don't follow the literature, for example.

I am truly committed to maintaining a npov, and I hope you are too. I'm not convinced of that, though. Please consider making an attempt to carefully state that the beliefs of certain subgroups of feminism are not necessarily beliefs feminists as a whole agree on. Readers will make their own judgement about which beliefs they buy and which they don't. It isn't up to us to steer them one way or another. And have a Happy Holiday! --Dmerrill

That's ok, I don't really think you are commited to a NPOV either. I wasn't expecting much from the Wikipedia though. If I leave it won't be because of you calling me a troll every few days, but because of the tin-pot dictator. And also because what I would have liked to find here is some alternative POV on feminism that could be defended. All I've had is undefended POV which are a dime a dozen. And Larry criticising me for not pointing out a valid feminist POV when as far as I can see none exists. I mean I did what I could. I said in effect, I don't think there exists a rational feminist point of view here, but I'll wait until a feminist turns up claiming to have one, but I don't think it will happen. And it hasn't yet. I mean this is just one little example, ok, with the argument over the popularity of Daly's views.... but what is your argument? Should I say some people claim these views are a tiny minority among feminists but they are wrong? Not that I doubt your claim that you were in a group where no one said that per se, because I suppose like minded people go together. I've certain met feminists who support these ideas. Daly is popular enough that when she was fired (you remember - for refusing to teach students who were male?) there was a popular campaign to raise money for her defence fund. So I find your "argument" lacking in support. One thing I will say though - you almost seem suprised to find that feminists are saying this and hardly any feminists I mention this to are suprised. Were you suprised? Or just angry at my saying it was "many" feminists?

So I know what the feminist argument is on this "issue". Your defence is typical. The defence is a simple denial of the facts. Its the same defence that Flat Earthers (if they actually existed) and Holocaust revisionists would use. Its a simple propaganda "big lie" defence. My difficulty in presenting a feminist point of view is this is just silly. To me it sounds silly to have a belief in something that you admit you didn't know about (ie you claim you've never heard of Daly's arguments) but are immidiatly sure you know all about. Huh? I could ask you- well I did - if you've ever heard any feminist criticising Daly's ideas as pro-life dismiss the clinic bombers. Evidently, you'd say you have not heard any such criticism. So you are telling me that this entire issue is newly sprung upon you, BUT you are going to call ME ignorant (you did call me ignorant) and proceed to lecture me about the issue you know nothing about. Doesn't this strike you as bizarre behaviour on any level? Don't you feel you should have some basis in fact before you up and accuse me of ignorance? Have I given the impression of ignorance before this? Seems to me that the last time you assumed I didn't know my stuff (over the Taliban) you had to eat your words. To my mind delivery of such assurance on the basis of a total (and admited!) lack of knowledge is breath-taking. Unless that is, the "knowledge" is propaganda based, because that is how propaganda operates. Either way I don't see this POV as a good thing to put in an encyclopedia.

As a skeptic I realise I can't be properly skeptical of my own conclusions and I figured participation here would be good to keep me on the straight and narrow. If I had found someone who was capable of arguing a feminist defence properly I'd probably have stuck around despite the fascist. But "oh my friends don't say that" isn't up to it. I mean you can see that, right?

Besides they are probably poisoning your coffee ;-) David Byron

Why don't we stop worrying about whether we trust each other, and look to a reliable third source? Maybe there have been some surveys or research on these issues. I will try to find some tomorrow. Would you agree to accept them, and of course we will not reject any research based on its conclusion, only its methodology. Internet polls, for example, are highly inaccurate.

Another possibility is to take a survey of feminist magazines with the highest subscription rates, and summarize their editorial positions. Or document NOW's policy directly from their website, along with any criticisms of the organization. Many organizations are accused of not following their own purported policies, and I know these allegations are made about some feminist organizations. Although I am a feminist, I expect plenty of criticism, and will support your right to provide it, as long as it is in context. I don't expect feminist organizations to get special treatment. I promise you that I will do my best to never delete factual information. The worst I might do if I find something dubious is request that you provide a source or reference. You have the right to do the same if you question anyone else's facts.

Last, I apologize for having been rude. I will try not to do it again. If you do insist on doing something I think is not npov, I'm going to just let it pass. It's not worth the effort. Anything that really isn't npov will get corrected by someone. I'm going AWOL in the NPOV Crusade. --Dmerrill

Hmmm.... I'd certainly be very interested in any data you can dig up but don't underestimate the difficulties. You certainly won't find any polls on this. I am aware of polls on feminism and they generally stick to something like "do you think feminism is a good thing?" type questions. Far too vague. Incidentally you may be suprised to hear that men support feminism more than women generally, but the difference isn't great. Don't trust the Feminist Majority Foundation poll on this one because they rigged it with a prepared "definition" of feminism. Any internet poll would be a SLOP of course so that's quite useless (and would likely be biased against what the result you want?)

As for magazine circulation I don't know about NOW, they seem not too bad to me, not radical anyway. Perhaps Ms. Book sales might be better because Amazon has sales figures and ranking... but Daly's subject is feminist theology which is already such a minority interest. Another way to gauge her support is references to her, or perhaps there is some reaction to her ideas on the women's studies list server. I'll check. I know the reaction to her refusal to teach male students was mixed (that is to say, not all supported her).

Claims about how popular certain types of feminism are among feminists who never make the headlines as Solanas did, never write any utopias featuring perfect worlds where men have all been bumped off, never become professors like Daly, and never do anything to distinguish themselves, are hard to back-up, by their very nature, and I'm not sure its even worth trying that much. Do you have any data to support the idea that "many" feminists don't have sympathy for this sort of gendercidal idea? I take it you agree that "many" feminists who are well know have taken or supported this view. Your idea is that the leadership doesn't represent the members? That has NOT been my experience of talking to (ordinary) feminists on-line. As for larger evidence, you could look at how popular the SCUM manifesto is as a feminist article on-line. I beleive that it is one of, if not the most, popular feminist tract on line but I could be wrong. On a good day you can find 50 copies of it on personal websites by feminists scattered over the net. I don't know of a more popular tract. There's also the popularity (in terms of hits) of the "All men must die" web site.

Now many of the feminists who support these ideas do so in a light hearted (!!!!) manner, but as the Daly interview testifies there is plenty of serious thought here too. The arguments Daly makes are taken seriously. That the 'ordinary' members of the movement don't appreciate them, but do have a good positive feeling about their expression, certainly doesn't strike ME as supporting your case. I'd be interested in seeing how you plan to substantiate your opinion here. I'm not claiming most feminists beleive this crap, but I do think it is an influential voice within the movement and one that has NOT been slammed down or criticised by other feminists, as for example, abortion clinic staff murder has been heavily criticised and rejected by pro-life leaders across the board. David Byron

David Byron, you've made it abundantly clear that you have no understanding whatever of what "neutral point of view" means. You want to commandeer the article so that it does not express the feminist view sympathetically at all. I am requesting that you stop working on this article altogether. --LMS

You've made it abundantly clear that you act like a little Hitler on this web site. Your bio says you edit Nupedia. I suggest you go back there because that is where your attitude is acceptable and appropriate. It is not acceptable here. So far from "commandeering" this article I refused to work on it until there was someone else of alternative POV here . Ok? I haven't touched it in two weeks. It must really eat you up that you can't call me a vandal (because I've changed no text). Because of the little-Hitler atmosphere here I've refused to edit any other pages in the last 2 weeks too. REQUEST noted and REJECTED. I have a counter suggestion: why don't you stop ordering people about? David Byron

The article can express sympathetic views of feminism as much as it likes if there is a balance of views. Currently my criticism (above - which you don't bother to address) is that it states as a fact a view sympathetic to feminism. David Byron

Who uses an encyclopedia, and why? Isn't this the basic issue? I can only speak for myself. If I want to learn about speciation, I would turn to a biologist. If I wanted to learn about the bib bang, I would ask an astronomer. If I wanted to learn about feminism, I would ask a feminist.

I also know that when I turn to an encyclopedia article it is just a starting point. I think one would have to be a fool to take one article as authoritative; I want something that will orient me and help me map out braoder debates so I can get started on further research later.

I know that thee are different arguments among biologists about speciation, and arguments among astronomers about cosmogeny. I would hope that an article would inform me about differences among biologists and astronomers, and I hope an article on feminism would talk about different forms of feminism.

I also know there are people -- for example, religious fundamentalists -- cho challenge certain theories of evolution and cosmogeny. Not only do I have no objection to their being mentioned in an encyclopedia article on these topics -- it could really be useful to me. Similarly, I think there is a place in an article on feminism for "Critiques of feminism." But just as I wouldn't want to read an article on speciation that started from a creationist point of view, I wouldn't want an article on feminism that starts from a masculinist view. I agree with Byron that articles should be balanced. I do not believe that balance is something that can be worked into every sentence or paragraph -- it would be overwrought and utterly unhelpful, and when it comes to controversial topics I am not sure it can be achieved at all. I think you just have to be clear: here is what feminists say about themselves, and here is what critics say about feminism, and make it two different sections. -- SR

Even among feminists (let alone critics) the comments currently in the first two paragraphs could not be agreed on. If feminism is hard to pin down with certainty, if there ARE few facts that aren't controversial then that should be what the first paragraph says, along with the very few things that are common ground, or that do genuinely mark feminism distinct from similar movements or ideas. Surely these things do exist or there would be no basis for saying anyone or anything was "feminist". We used to have an introduction that did that. I do NOT think that feminist attitudes deserve any priority merely because this is an article on feminism. David Byron

I would like to take your comments in good faith, and would like to respond to the substance with three points. First, I believe that you misunderstand some claims in the intro to the article. The second paragraph does not claim that "ONLY radical feminists use 'patriarchy' as a term." The first paragraph does not claim that feminists "represent" women (indeed, the close of the section makes explicit that many women are not feminists. This section was once one paragraph and therefore one sentence cannot be taken out of context -- it was broken up by another contributor who felt it would make for a more readable presentation). Second, I simply disagree that feminists would not agree with the first couple of paragraphs. I am sure that some would -- I doubt that any encyclopedia article (especially one paragraph of an article taken out of context) would be accepted by everyone. But I have known people who called themselves feminists but were not involved in the "femihnist movement" in any way; activists in feminist organizations like NOW and WHAM; and academic feminists -- and I believe that almost all of them would consider this intro reasonable, although I bet many might suggest ways of improving it. Of course it leaves a lot out -- for example, the place for a detailed discussion of the SCUM manifesto and how people use it today would be in the body of the article. You have pointed out many specifics about specific feminists (e.g. Mary Daly) and a good article should cover these people -- but you can't put everything in the first paragraph. Ultimately, you and I may simply disagree with what constitutes a good short description of feminism that would help someone distinguish it from non-feminist movements and also help one recognize diversity within the movement. Based on my experience, the current intro does a good job of this. Third, I understand from other comments you have made that you are critical of many feminists and much of the feminist movement. But being critical of feminists does not invalidate a particular description of feminism -- as a matter of fact, it requires a description of feminism that you can be critical of. The opening description presents certain claims made by feminists, both about themselves and the society in which they live. Critics have a right to challenge feminists' claims about themselves and claims about the world. But in my opinion a good encyclopedia article needs to set out what those claims are. The first few paragraphs should do it generally -- and I still believe the opening of this article does so, and well. The body of the article should develop this in detail (e.g. including a look at Mary Daly versus Betty Friedan etc) and I admit that this article still needs work. And then there is a place for a review of criticisms of these claims. But the fact that there are criticisms of these claims does not mean that these claims should not be described.-- SR

I personally take responsibility, in cases like this, to make sure that Wikipedia travels in a positive direction. In recent weeks, several of us have noticed that a lot of new people (and a few older ones) have been feeling emboldened to use articles like the feminism and masculism articles as platforms for their own biases. (I honestly thought that you were continuing to do so on the feminism article; I hadn't noticed that you had stopped.)

I'm not suprised. You have a habit of ignoring reality in persuit of your own vision of it. Your utter lack of NPOV in even your discussion of the NPOV is ironic.

Anyway, this is a trend that it is my personal (paid) responsibility to nip in the bud. In your case, on Meta-Wikipedia (http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Neutral+point+of+view--draft), you've written several things that have led me to conclude that you are incapable of understanding our neutrality policy. I (wrongly) assumed that you were still working on the feminism article, and that you were taking your stated views seriously. So I told you to get lost; I'll reconsider that. But I do reserve the right to tell people to get lost, if necessary--if I am convinced that they are unequivocally a burden to the project. I've done so once before. (That person has come back and has become a relatively productive member, I'm happy to say.) I am one of two people who are paid to work on this project, which I started, and I'm the closest thing there is to an administrator for the project. I imagine you might not have known all this, which is fine. Now you do.

So the Wikipedia is run by a fascist and is not a community project as advertised? I do not wish to contribute to it then. Please clarify your EXACT position. And I'd appreciate it if others did too since, if you'll forgive me, I've grown skeptical of your claims.

The policy, by the way, is not that articles are to be "balanced." It is that they are to be neutral. This generally implies what you might consider to be balance; but surely it doesn't always. In cases where you have a minority view, for instance, an article that compares competing views might not spend as much time on your view; it might nonetheless be perfectly neutral, but it won't be balanced (in the sense of giving "equal time" to the other side; the other, minority side will have its own article). In the case of an article about feminism, while the article should not in any place imply that feminism is correct or incorrect (that would be biased, according to our definition of "bias"), it should spend the bulk of its space presenting (not asserting) the feminist point of view and information about the feminist movement. This means, among other things, that you shouldn't expect the article to represent the masculist point of view just as much as it does the feminist one; the article's subject is, after all, feminism. --LMS

Sounds good. I assume the article on Nazism is similarly largely from the point of view of Nazis then? So much for the NPOV. Thanks for your clairifcation. David Byron

Is Godwins law operating here? --KA

I'm done talking to you, David. --LMS

I doubt that having met your type before. Anyway if you reply again try to keep the Summary the same as I'd like to hear what others have to say.

Hooray for holiday spirit!

Peace on earth, good will to men (and women).

--TheCunctator

WOW! Entry is looking very good as of end of December 2001. I am very impressed! (And surprised. :-) ) Kudos to all who've been working on it.

Is there a reason for being radical feminism redirected to feminism, and then links in the article to radical feminism? Quite confusing. I guess links in the article should be removed, or redirect.szopen

Perhaps the article should have something on how the washing machine, refrigerator, sewing machine, and indoor plumbing have freed women from great amounts of labour (example: who carries water anymore?) --Juuitchan

My sense is that these innovations have never been part of the feminist project and indeed have been critiqued by some feminists. The real question is NOT how such machines saved "women" from great amounts of labor -- the real questions (for feminism, I mean) are: 1) WHY were women condemned to wash clothing, sew, and cook before these innovations (in other words, why is it that "women" were freed from such chores, rather than "people")? 2) did this really lead to liberation (this is of course what Freidan criticizes), and 3) to what extent does the production or operation of such machines still depend on the labor of women (in other words, women working in a factory to produce a labor saving device that will help a rich woman or woman working as a lawyer or doctor; or women working as maids using such machines, etc.) This third question is a purely empirical question and may be the least interesting of the three, and perhaps not relevant to this particular set of issues, although in other areas it is very important Slrubenstein

I haven't modified anything, but I would like to query the statement that "As most abolishionists were white, so most feminists have been male." (6th paragraph from start). Either this is incorrect, or if not, it deserves some elaboration as it is quite counter-intuitive. This was possibly the case in the very earliest days (ie. 19th century) but surely that is no longer the case...?

I do not believe that even in the 19th century the abovce was correct. On another note, can someone explain why in the list of early feminists George Sand comes before Mary Wollstonecraft? Can someone with more knowledge than me go over the chronology here? Slrubenstein

Off-topic, but for anyone wishing to read a tremendously funny critique of modern consumerism disguised as feminism, see this onion article (http://www.theonion.com/onion3906/women_now_empowered). Tuf-Kat

This was found on the page Lavender menace[?]. The author didn't leave his/her name:

The feminist article that preceeds this page is horribly written and judgmental towards the women that began the feminist movement. It is full of hasty generalizations toward organizations and particular sects of feminism. This is disturbing, untrue and unfortunate that it is found under this text proclaiming to be like and encyclopedia.

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

Search Encyclopedia

Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!