Talk:Feminism/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

History/origins

I think we can progressively move most of this into the subarticle, which I have started to flesh out, and then just summarise here Mgoodyear 02:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Defining feminism

You can really tie yourself in knots over this, and it can be very divisive. Therefore I have outlined a very broad approach, as the easiest path, and worry about how the different part interact later (e.g. O'Neill's social/radical dichotomy) Mgoodyear 02:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As the author of several sub-categories of feminism, (Oxford University) I suggest that in the general sense, referring to the poltiics of women, is like referring to politics in general; there is a wide spectrum of beliefs. To merely focus on feminism is playing with a half-truth, or playing with the devil.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

These sub-categories of yours are Original Research, and not appropriate for an article in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike 03:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Orange Mike, that commenter's subcategories may be Original Research, but the idea that there are multiple feminisms certainly isn't. This article's omission of any discussion of various strains of feminism is glaring. Liberal feminism, radical feminism, convergentist feminism, gender feminism, womanism, poststructural feminism, etc. etc. etc. -- this article is incomplete without a discussion of them (and/or links to articles describing each one.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.175.230.38 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Huh? Haven't you noticed, my anonymous friend? Look at the upper right hand of the article, at the gigantic box with links to a rainbow of variations on "feminism"! Anarcha-feminism, Black feminism, Christian Feminism, Cultural feminism, Cyborg feminism, Ecofeminism, Fat feminism, Individualist feminism, Islamic feminism, Jewish feminism, Lesbian feminism, Liberal feminism, Marxist feminism, Postmodern feminism, Psychoanalytic feminism, Radical feminism, Religious feminism, Separatist feminism, Socialist feminism, Womanism, Sex-positive feminism... --Orange Mike 05:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Violence against women?

If there is anyone interested on expanding this article? I consider it part of the reasons feminism developed or is it not?. There are some narrow-minded people who simply can't stand having an article about violence against women and are trying to merge it into a narrow into a domestic violence article, when violence against women doesn't neceserarily have to be exclusively domestic but has very diverse worldwide views. I took classes in college on women studies and the impression this people are leaving is that violence against women is as entrenched as racism. So should we just merge racism into domestic violence also? I also think violence against men should also have an article separate but linked. If you have any suggestions feel free to express it. If I remember well wikipedia is suppose to be an encyclopedia. --F3rn4nd0 ^{BLA BLA BLA} 23:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is my two cents. Remember truths can lie, when they are half-truths. "Violence against women" is one of those great deceptive half-truths, you see the real issue is abuse. This model has been used by what I call cult-feminists to polarize the family and divide the sexes. How ? Well most victims of violence in society in general are male. Most victims of violence in the household may be women, but that does not address the real full spectrum of 'abuse'. Abuse is multi-faceted, silence can be abusive, so it becomes obvious to me that this campaign is flawed and often undertaken by people with an 'axe to grind'. In once case, a lesbian had involved herself with 'womens centers' to support these 'programs that stereotype 'all women as victims' and ll men as abusers. The issue is polarized. Reality is that in lesbian relationships, where there are women who are victimized by violence, the abuser is a woman in 100% of the cases. This is totally ignored by these lesbain feminists, and to some who may pursue this agenda to attack men and polarize the family.

Today in Canada is the anniversary of the murder of several women in a University by a person, a man who had it in for 'women in general'. A backlash to the anti-male agenda that he supposedly experienced. This is further highlighted and verified by the cult-feminists manipulation of this tragedy as an act of violence against women, when in fact the victims while being female were a great loss to their fathers, brothers, boyfriends; a reality totally missing from the 'cult-feminist' discussion of this tragedy.

Yes violence against women is a truth that must be dealth with, but not in a divisive and stereotypical manner that is has been manipulaled within society.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note, this Talk page is for discussions directly related to improving the article. General discussions on the nature of feminism do not belong here. see WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:CITE & WP:RS Ashmoo 23:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A simple observation about any entry, including 'feminism'.

There is good and bad in most entries. Good angels and bad, good bacteria and bad, good feminism and bad...I hope this encyclopedia is willing to acknowledge these 'black and white' dimensions. Seems some are stopping at all good or all bad and forgeting the other half-truth.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 23:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia shouldn't be making value judgements about what is 'good' or 'bad'. The requirement for inclusion in the article is notable and sourced. Ashmoo 02:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that you should expect 'inclusions' that are both positive and negative; failure to find those 'sources' suggests a problem.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I don't think anyone will disagree that the article has to conform to WP:NPOV, provided all the material is sourced. Ashmoo 03:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I must agree, the only topic that is perfect is 'nothing' (I believe that to be God), so that we should expect something 'bad' about all concepts, (except nothing, philosophies and items. Even a good thing out of balance becomes a bad thing, feminism is no different !

Can I use the example of a provincial sign on the US/Canadian Border that reads, "In Ontario Wife Abuse is against the law".

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Jacobson

Good job everyone on the Feminism page. It's one of the best on wikipedia. Feminist and independent filmmaker Sarah Jacobson, who died in 2004, has a wikipedia page. Someone has tagged it for deletion. I would appreciate it if any of you feminist editors could review the article and then leave your comments on the proposed deletion page? Thanks --David Straub 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Article for Deletion

Editors may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque — coelacan talk — 05:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

History? Which one of them?

As a brazilian feminist I wonder which History is this described as History [of feminism]? It is not at all the whole history, so it should, at least on the title, refer to this fact. I suggest a title like: "Western version of its history" or, how about "Occidental version of its history" or even "One version of the history of feminism"? Thank you all for your understanding. Mariana Lima Hannahlima 19:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please add some of the parts that are missing! That's what the Wiki process is about. --Orange Mike 21:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation, but I don't have such interest, nor time, to write in english about Other feminisms, but I still believe that it would be a lot more interesting if the title could make clear that what it reffers to is only a small part of the history, not at all The History. I do hope that I've made myself clerarer now, it is a hard argument and I don't mean to be rude, I would want to point out that including small parts is not enough to make it a universal history, it is one perspective about some of its histories. Best wishes. Mariana Lima. Hannahlima 00:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Your points are well taken and valid Mariana, but rather than limit the article, it should indicate that much of feminism has to be considered in relation to the culture in which it exists. If you know who could provide that perspective, that would be very helpful. Also can you clarify as to whether you meant this page, or the separate and more comprehensive page on the History of feminism?--Mgoodyear 21:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I know some brazilians who have written about history and feminism from this plural perspective, but they're all in portuguese (and I guess that wouldn't be much of a help), like Tânia Navarro Swain "HISTORIA NO PLURAL". Editora UnB. Brasília. 1994. And others.

Mgoodyear, I understand the necessity of considering other perspectives in its contexts, but as much as we try filling this blanket there will always be unrepresented cultures and peoples with different feminist histories, even if we try very hard to include, we cannot speak for all the voices for many of them cannot speak for themselves in this internet universe, or the media. I worry about a desire to make an universal discourse over some perspective wich is very located but wish to make itself universal by apropriating histories that don't belong together with the occidental one.

I meant the title "History" in the page "Feminism". I haven't had time enough to read this other section you refered to yet. Including other histories is not enough to make it a complete history, there are many cultures with many feminisms that I've never heard about, and they will not apear so easily in such a encyclopedic definition. My hope is that this fact would be clear, including "some others" won't make this text "The history", it will still be one way of looking into some of the history, no matter how much effort we put in writing a better essay. I don't mean to be rude, I am only trying to make my argument more comprehensive. I do hope you are not taking any of what I have been writing as offensive, that's not my intention. Thank you for your understanding. Mariana Lima.Hannahlima 15:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Feedback

It is probably worhwhile seeing what the rest of the world thinks about this page, for instance see:--Mgoodyear 21:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC) http://womenshistory.about.com/od/practice/a/wikipedia_women.htm

Eh, I would take the viewpoint of a radical feminist with a "grain of salt" also. One individual is definitely not the rest of the world, even if that individual has some clout or standing. Anyways, thanks for the link; it's funny to see what some people will say given a chance.Robinson0120 00:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope that no one believes that it is possible to summarize "the rest of the world" in one olnly perspective. I am very sorry if my opinions seemed "radical", I didn't mean it in that way. I guess we are all taking others' view points with "grains of salt" (if this plural form works in english). And that is probably why we're having problems in communicating the arguments which are, by far, the most important thing here. Reducing the amplitude of the article is not going to solve the problem I am pointing to neither, and eventhought I have been assured that my points were understood and well taken, it doesn't seem to be so, because no one has aswered/confronted them directly. I have been willing to switch the titles ("Histoy" leaves, and in its place I'd put "One perspective of its western history", but I wouldn't want to do so, because am not that fluent in english, so I entered this discussion looking for debating it, showing that there are other histories of feminisms around the world. For instance, in the XIXth century, brazilian (portuguese) princess Isabel, has made feminist public declarations, and that was an important part of the feminist history, for she was a public, political figure, proclaming for feminist causes from the brazilian royal family, then. This is one example. There are many others all over the world, and even before that. So, to make this article less partial it would be interesting to consider that it speaks for one small part of the history of feminism. Including others as accessories is nothing but condescension to the formal exclusion of others' histories. And who would be these "others"? The ones who are not occidental? The ones who did not write the history, or the one over whom hegemony may narrate its perspective as "the one".

Thank you all for your effort in understanding me and for all the answers I've gotten already from you. Sincerelly, Mariana Lima. Hannahlima 17:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Hannahlima, I wasn't trying to attack you through my message- the "radical" comment was directed at the author of the article you posted. I understand what you're saying about including the rest of the world too; the only problem is that feminism is historically and generally focused on the Western perspective because that's where most of the theory is constructed and changes made. Basically, Western feminism is the overwhelming preponderance of feminism; that's why this article focuses more on the Western perspective.Robinson0120 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

History of feminism in India

Why does this section exist in this article? It should not be here, otherwise we would need the history of feminism in every country where feminism has had notable influence. I will wait a few days for commentary, but I really think it should be deleted right away.UberCryxic 22:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the most frequent criticisms of this article is that it is too much centered on the West! There is reason to urge that more sections like this, and better ones, be created; rather than that they be discouraged or deleted! --Orange Mike 20:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

03:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Miss pickpocket--Miss pickpocket 03:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nominee

I've nominated feminism for Good Article review. IMHO any problems this page has are very small and it is deserving of GA status.--Cailil 19:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - In the section on representation in elected assemblies, the data in the table refers to 2004, while the data discussed in the text on Finland refers to 1985. TimVickers 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely sure about that TimVickers. While the text beside the chart says that Finland had the highest no. of women elected in 1985 with 32%. The chart says that in 2004 Finland it is 37%. Perhaps that section needs some attention.--Cailil 01:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Flawed Logic The fact that more women are elected into politics appears based on some sexist logic, is it not ?

If Bill Clinton, or his wife gets elected, do you really think there is much of a difference as opposed to a black woman or a poor black woman, or a poor white women, with three children.

You elect a person to represent people, not merely one type to represent one type; there is a reverse logical erorr there.

If you had to have 'equal' representation, would only be achieved if everyone had an equal vote.

To digest such information reflects the corruption of logic.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti, I'm unclear about your point. The reason that chart exists is to show the no. of women elected to a sampling of parliaments worldwide - its not a chart to show the number of feminists (or women) represenenting women who were elected. The text is about population UN statistics. I agree with TimVickers that the numbers need to be checked. However, I don't understand your post - could you elaborate on it?--Cailil 21:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Feminism Art movement

Should the Feminism Art movement in the mid 20th century be included? for example the 'Dinner Party', and more? And also the gurellia girls.

Please discuss. ( Seong0980 04:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC) )

That might go best in the History of Feminism page instead; it seems more like an event(s) than a constituent of feminist theory to me and statistics to me. Robinson0120 22:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Feminism obviously influenced and influences art, but there was never a "feminist art" movement as such. I concur with Robinson0120 that it belongs as a thread within articles on the history of feminism, and the history of art. --Orange Mike 22:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Orange Mike. This just isn't the proper place for feminist art movements. However there is a category for Feminist Artists which is in need of work if anyone can add to it.--Cailil 20:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

POV Check: Freedom of speech in feminism and gender related articles?

Feminist Phyllis Chessler in her (2006) The Death of Feminism (Chapter 1: The "Good" Feminist) makes the following statements about totalitarian thought control in elite feminist, academic, and media circles. I added Chesslers thoughts here after noticing that there are almost no genuine criticisms of feminist ideologies, theories and other statements made in this article by other feminists, non-feminists, conservatives, or even genuine antifeminists. Unless I see some sort of reasonable NPOV balance here I am going to call a point a view check on the whole article or on particularly sections that pander to ideological-feminist propraganda. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 05:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Does she (an unnamed lifelong Democratic feminist in New York mentioned in the preceding paragraph) believe that engaging in dialogue with the designated "enemy" somehow constitutes traitorous behavior? If so, and I suspect this is the case, I must ask: Is she only afraid of the Republicans--who have not abolished her First Amendment right to speak out as feminist and who have not rescinded the Fourth Amendment against improper search and seizure--or is she afraid of the media and the academic elite who view civil conversation with anyone who opposes them as a high crime?"

"It is crucial to note that our government has not criminalized free speech nor have dissidents been jailed for saying whatever they please. In my opinion, the chilling of free speech has been unilaterally imposed by those who claim to act on its' behalf."

"What sort of group or person refuses to recognize the existence of and refuses to even talk to, no less hire, someone with whom they disagree? What sort of group or person persistently slanders and demonizes those with whom they happen to disagree on key political issues? What sort of group or person demands uniform party-line thinking--and is powerful enough to coerce people into "hiding" their potentially dissident views, sometimes even from themselves"?

"Surely I must be talking about the power of the former Soviet state or Nazi Germany, Maoist China, or any one of the many Islamic dictatorships; or I must be describing Republican or conservative thinking. Alas, I am not."

"Today totalitarian thinking is also flourishing among media and academic elites. Oddly enough, such totalitarian thinking and its consequent thought control are flying high under the banners of "free speech" and "political correctness". Dare to question these elites' rights to expose or challenge them, and you'll quickly be attacked as representing a new and more dreadfull form of "McCarthyism" and "witch hunting".

(drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 04:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Drop in Editor User:128.111.95.47 you have posted this same comment 4 times on Wikipedia talk pages since December 2006. This post here, the same on WP:GS, same comment again on Talk:women's studies, and once more on WP:GS. Your point is duly noted. Please do not post the same content on multiple talk pages, refer to the header on this page if you don't understand how to behave on talk pages, please refer topolicies on how to use talk pages. Pay special attention to assume good faith and WP:Civil since some of your above post(s) could be read to be in breach of both: "Unless I see some sort of reasonable NPOV balance here I am going to call a point a view check on the whole article or on particularly sections that pander to ideological-feminist propraganda" If you genuinely feel that there is a POV problem with this or any other page RfC it--Cailil 17:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I reserve the right to post whatever I please wherever I please unless it is against wiki policy. Each article has a different group of editors so while you and (your group?) may have noted this many other editors may not have. I am going to use a POV check where a POV check is appropriate so that you and other so-called fair-minded editors can be fair here. From watching the dicussions on this talk page it is clear to me that to assume good faith against much evidence otherwise is, to put it mildly moronic. I have successfully edited religion-related articles with much less slander, name calling, inneundos and other totalitarian ugliness than on these feminist, and gender (as female) related articles...DESPITE the controversial nature of what some might call 'anti-religious' content. While I am quite open to any and all fair-minded editors (including you) and will listen carefully to your suggestions where applicable, please spare me lectures, threats and other attacks just because I bring in well-sourced content that you don't like much. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 04:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF: "Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is [a] form of failing to assume good faith." Wikipedia policy is not moronic. Also Multiposting is against Wikipedia policy because it fragments discussion - it also looks like WP:POVPUSH. "I have successfully edited religion-related articles with much less slander, name calling, inneundos and other totalitarian ugliness than on these feminist, and gender (as female) related articles" I am not aware of any personal attacks against you - if there have been, the users should be reported in accordance with WP:NPA. Also "please spare me lectures, threats and other attacks just because I bring in well-sourced content that you don't like much." Whether or not I like a source is never an issue. Whether or not a source is accorded undue weight or is notable and reliable is my only issue in editing any article--Cailil 13:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

External links

A general note on external links, before adding please read the policy on ELs. If your link is

1. about feminism directly
2. a link to specific media about feminism
3. a site "that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as ... [statistics or] interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."

Then please go ahead and add it!
Links to, or lists of, feminist or anti-feminist organizations and or persons are not acceptable unless in each case of they fulfill the above criteria. Please pay specific attention to the 3rd note "neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article" All links that fail this test will be removed. If you feel there is good cogent reason for keeping a link that has been removed please discuss here; please do not just repost it. --Cailil 20:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed 3 Links for the moment. Concerned Women for America & men's activism Reasons:Concerned Women for America (CWFA) is a women's biblical organization: We are the nation's largest public policy women's organization with a rich 27-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy. - being a women's organization and being a feminist one are two totally different things. Men's activism is a Men's activism site and links to 4 subsites. Neither of these are directly related to the subject of the article. CWFA was also posted twice.--Cailil 20:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

POV check Academic section

This section has NO critical content on feminist ideologies, scholarship, and science. People like the following academics (and many many others) have made many wide-ranging and credible criticisms of modern feminist ideologies, gynocentric gender-ginning, falsehood, fraud and other inane ugliness that pervade post-modern feminisms. This section and much of the rest of the article panders to post-modern feminist POV pushing about feminism. Where is NPOV balance here?

I notice that every time in the discussion pages someone tries to tackle the totalitarian control that is maintained on this page they are shouted down, ridiculed, slandered or otherwise silenced. Legitimate critical content belongs here if this article is to be a genuine NPOV take on feminism. I insist that any editor who takes issue with this POV template addresses the fundamental issues of totalitarian censorship here before removing the template. This article is no place for feminists to write propaganda by and for feminists. It is supposed to be a NPOV take on all POV's about feminism...and that includes those from feminist whistleblowers, feminist dissidents, non-feminists, academics, scientists, credible conservatives and yes even genuine 'antifeminists'.

• Patia and Koerge (Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies)
• Nathanson and Young (Spreading Misandry and Legalizing Misandry)
• Brizendine (The Female Brain)
• Kantor (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Literature) This may not be 'academic' enough to fit here but it includes academic research on how post-modern feminists use and misuse literature.

(drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Relevance: Academic section

I added critical content from academic researchers who study the ideological, rhetorical and scholarly foundations of post-modern feminism because it is ACADEMIC in nature and done by ACADEMICS on FEMINIST issues which is what the section's TITLE refers to. Please refrain from reverting this content before discussing the scope of this section. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 05:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"Other researchers who have exposed flaws in social and scientific theories cited by some anti-feminist authors" Statements like this in a section called Academic Research contradict, rather than criticize the subject of this article. (in a similar way to the edits made to Women's Studies) The characterization of Luker as an "antifeminist" is debatable - can anyone reference such a characterization? She has been used in both feminist & antifeminist arguments but I haven't heard her describe herself as either. Kasreyn has made this point on the page as well. If such claims cannot be evidenced they will be deleted. There are 9 {{fact}} tags in pieces critical of feminism these need to properly sourced and cited as soon as they can be

The section on Carol Tavris is too long - I'm replacing that with a concise paragraph. As is the Evelyn Fox Keller paragraph.

The Patai and Koertge criticism is about Women's Studies and incidentatlly about feminism. BTW criticism should be in the criticism section.

Placing Nathanson & Young's arguments in this section without a balancing criticism of their work is misrepresentative. Also their work is about Gender studies not feminism.

This section may need a subpage if editors want to expand on the information in it. This page is long enough as it is, if it continues to grow content forks will need to be created.--Cailil 22:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've altered the firest line: Some natural and social scientists have used science in order to question theories of innate social or cognitive differences between men and women, feminist ideologies and feminist scholarship. To refledct content. It now reads: Some natural and social scientists have used scientific discourses to question theories of innate social or cognitive differences between men and women. I've also changed the section title, again to reflect content - Scientists (natural & social) dominate the section so I have reflected that by renaming it Scientific research into feminist issues I've also delted "Many anthropologists (Haviland, Prins, Walrather, McBride) noted that in studies of human evolution and culture taking a non masculine-centric perspective is a relatively new concept. " from the Evelyn Fox Keller paragraph because it is to vague, if anyone can refernce this properly please do--Cailil 22:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost two weeks later I've removed the paragraph questioned by myself and Kasreyn. I've placed inverted commas in the lines where appropriate and removed the POV tag.--Cailil 21:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

After looking over the article at a quick initial glance, I counted 18 citation needed tags. All of these need to be fixed or removed before it can be nominated again. Also before nominating again, be sure to review the GA criteria. --Nehrams2020 18:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice Nehrams2020. At this moment in time [1] I agree with you. One of the major issues for GA criteria is that the artcicle: "is factually accurate and verifiable." That it (a) "provides references to any and all sources used for its material;" and (b), that "Unambiguous citations of reliable sources are [used]... any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." (c) that its "sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;" and (d) "it contains no elements of original research." Anything that fails this criteria will be tagged, and discussed here. If consensus cannot be reached on it after a reasonable amount of time it will be RfC'd either in one of the Projects or at WP:RFC.--Cailil 21:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering how contentious this subject is, I highly doubt it will be nominated again any time soon. Robinson0120 02:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree that the problem isthe subject being contentious. Feminism should be no more so than any other field of sociology or philosophy - it's more the article content that's the problem. But you're right, Robinson0120, until this page stabalizes (with the exception of vandalism) it wont pass GA nomination.--Cailil 14:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

regarding recent blatant vandalism

I've requested semi-protection for this page. Too much time is taken up in undoing the huge amount of blanking and other forms of blatant vandalism. If this goes through only editors with accounts (more than 4 days old) will be able to edit the article --Cailil 19:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

women/feminist self-consciously

I was looking for "women or feminist self-consciously"...nothing abuout that in 'en' feminism? In italian that is ' autocoscienza femminista', Rhockher,10-3-2007

The phrasing is not good English (traditore, tradutore). Could you briefly explain what this means in Italian feminism? We may call it something else, or it may be a unique aspect of Italian feminism. --Orange Mike 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

feminism is really a misnomer

As I see it (as a guy) what people mean when they say feminism, isn't really feminism its just a belief in justice, equality and fairness, with no pro women attitude what so ever i.e. a so called "feminist" isn't asking for a preference of women over men at all! just equality, its like calling martin luther king a "blackist" or even a "racist" when in fact he and those calling themselves feminists are just freedom fighters, justice seekers, people against oppression, democrats... whatever you want to call them they're not feminists. That is a label which is more appropriate for people who actually hold the less common view that women should have exclusive or atleast preferential access to power and that men should be barred from voting or running for office (in the same way as children) due their demonstrated desire for violence, inferior social skills and scientificly proven inability to multitask and manage complex systems such as an economy or government (we're basically just one dimensional homohunters)Esmehwp 12:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Feminism officially means the belief that men and women are equal, although I agree with you in saying that many "feminists" are after superiority. But that's not the point here.

Yoda921 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Yoda

Whoa...

Why is there not a single mention of the prevalence of radical feminism today, particularly in the U.S. and U.K.? Even if you don't agree with it, it is still quite a force in politics. 76.179.235.134 03:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say most of that is covered under "effects of feminism" and "famous feminists." (And radical feminism is not prevalent much of anywhere outside of certain departments of certain university campuses; some would say that is tragic, others wonderful.)--Orange Mike 03:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)