Talk:Feminism/Archive3
Contents |
[edit] Hobby is edit-warring.
Mr. Hobby, please don't use the article to soft-sell MRA nonsense. Thanks. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- As oppose to hard selling feminist nonsense? Look, this website is obviously very pro-feminist, and while I don't have a problem with that it would be nice if less of them were radicals. Sorry for standing up for equality and all that but I think asserting that an entire group of people from varying degrees of radicalism are all equal to the most extreme segment of that group is ridiculous. There are plenty of groups who are actually trying to get things like equal child custody, equal treatment of domestic violence cases etcetera. Lumping them together achieves nothing. As for edit warring, bullshit. In future give a valid reason or your revert is as useless as your arguments. Hobby (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe after setting us straight about the good work done by the MRA movement, you can tell us how we don't recognize the good work that Stormfront and Metapedia do against the excesses of the anti-racist movement. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Equal treatment of domestic violence cases is Hitler? What a piece of work you are --82.128.250.221 (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Tell you what. Add up all the men unjustly affected by unequal treatment re: domestic violence, and I will add up every woman who gets beat up, raped or murdered by her boyfriend/father/husband/some fucking stranger. Then you can piss off. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll take you up on that. Just give me a couple of weeks to tally the statistics. We can add it to the article. --82.128.250.221 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well aside from what you asked for being incredibly one sided, maybe you should look up the UK Office for National Statistics that ran an advert about a week ago on domestic violence and how it's not taken seriously when a women is the perpetrator. How often do you think these women are prosecuted? You see, what you fail to grasp is that we have laws in place to protect women from rape, domestic violence and murder. We don't have laws protecting MEN from domestic violence. We don't have laws protecting MEN from rape. Women get justice, men get laughed at. THAT is the double standard that feminists fail to acknowledged or fight. Then you have child custody cases which frequently give the mother custody over the man. Men have higher rates of unemployment and suicide. What about women's shelters? Ever heard of a men's shelter? Didn't think so. Simply put, you are ignoring men while shouting that women have it worse. You are glazing over the rather serious levels of unreported climes and injustices against men. Hobby (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've no idea what country you live in, but most of them do actually have laws protecting men from rape & domestic violence. Men's shelters also exist. This isn't an article about those things & won't be turned into one. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Just look up the FBI's old definition of rape for starters. It was changed only 3 years ago and stated that rape is "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will". Literally IMPOSSIBLE for a man to be raped until 2011. Then you have this shit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PgH86OyEM), showing quite clearly that people don't take male domestic violence victims seriously. Finally, where are these men's shelters? Please, show them to me. Statistically speaking, for every 1 you point out I can easily label 10 women only shelters, even though the levels of domestic abuse are estimated between 30:70 and 40:60 for women and men. Not that you care anyway, it's not like anyone else does. Hobby (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- [1] Ŵêâŝêîôîď
Methinks it is a Weasel 07:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- In future you can just say no Weaseloid, you don't know of any. If you did you wouldn't need to google it. You also haven't even addressed the ratio problems with the number of shelters and the levels of domestic abuse. Again, this is simply because you don't care. How about you put some effort in and find me some shelter numbers? Especially as those are all homeless shelters, not domestic violence ones. Try again, this time with feeling. Hobby (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- How about I don't. This isn't the place for it. It's an article about feminism. Trying to wheedle it into an article or discussion about men's problems isn't going to work. Wëäŝëïöïď
Methinks it is a Weasel 12:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously you didn't even bother looking at my edit Weasel. All I changed was the part about MRAs that claims that ALL of them are dicks, when in reality there are some who use the MRA label for genuine men's problems. I was then supporting this claim with evidence. You obviously didn't know that, did you? As I said earlier "I think asserting that an entire group of people from varying degrees of radicalism are all equal to the most extreme segment of that group is ridiculous." Learn to read Weasel. Hobby (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- How about I don't. This isn't the place for it. It's an article about feminism. Trying to wheedle it into an article or discussion about men's problems isn't going to work. Wëäŝëïöïď
- In future you can just say no Weaseloid, you don't know of any. If you did you wouldn't need to google it. You also haven't even addressed the ratio problems with the number of shelters and the levels of domestic abuse. Again, this is simply because you don't care. How about you put some effort in and find me some shelter numbers? Especially as those are all homeless shelters, not domestic violence ones. Try again, this time with feeling. Hobby (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- [1] Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- Just look up the FBI's old definition of rape for starters. It was changed only 3 years ago and stated that rape is "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will". Literally IMPOSSIBLE for a man to be raped until 2011. Then you have this shit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PgH86OyEM), showing quite clearly that people don't take male domestic violence victims seriously. Finally, where are these men's shelters? Please, show them to me. Statistically speaking, for every 1 you point out I can easily label 10 women only shelters, even though the levels of domestic abuse are estimated between 30:70 and 40:60 for women and men. Not that you care anyway, it's not like anyone else does. Hobby (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've no idea what country you live in, but most of them do actually have laws protecting men from rape & domestic violence. Men's shelters also exist. This isn't an article about those things & won't be turned into one. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
- Tell you what. Add up all the men unjustly affected by unequal treatment re: domestic violence, and I will add up every woman who gets beat up, raped or murdered by her boyfriend/father/husband/some fucking stranger. Then you can piss off. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Equal treatment of domestic violence cases is Hitler? What a piece of work you are --82.128.250.221 (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe after setting us straight about the good work done by the MRA movement, you can tell us how we don't recognize the good work that Stormfront and Metapedia do against the excesses of the anti-racist movement. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Dude, there is a reason why people who are legitimately concerned about men's issues (http://goodmenproject.com/) tend to avoid the label of MRA. It's because the label is associated with people like this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/, who'd rather spend their time bashing feminism and complaining about women than building support groups for those who need it or generally being constructive. Nullahnung (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- That's not true. The good men project uses the label MRA. (http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/whats-up-with-this-mens-movement/), so thank you for making my point for me. Hobby (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's more Dan Moore here than the whole website, which, the website hosts a variety of differently opinionated people who can come together to discuss. A few comments down in the comments section we have an MRA complain about how The Good Men Project is too feminist for his liking, accusing it of having a "blame culture" against men. Nullahnung (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the website varies a lot. I've seen people from that site asking for more feminism and the complete polar opposite as well. In all honesty there needs to be a group of people that simply don't subscribe to this idea of patriarchy without being giant dicks about everything else. Is that so much to ask for? Where is the group that says "these are the problems and feminism has the wrong idea"? Hobby (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- There are lots of individuals that criticise feminism, it just happens that most of the groups that organise around this particular sentiment also sadly happen to be quite misogynistic --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the website varies a lot. I've seen people from that site asking for more feminism and the complete polar opposite as well. In all honesty there needs to be a group of people that simply don't subscribe to this idea of patriarchy without being giant dicks about everything else. Is that so much to ask for? Where is the group that says "these are the problems and feminism has the wrong idea"? Hobby (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's more Dan Moore here than the whole website, which, the website hosts a variety of differently opinionated people who can come together to discuss. A few comments down in the comments section we have an MRA complain about how The Good Men Project is too feminist for his liking, accusing it of having a "blame culture" against men. Nullahnung (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- That's not true. The good men project uses the label MRA. (http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/whats-up-with-this-mens-movement/), so thank you for making my point for me. Hobby (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Dude, there is a reason why people who are legitimately concerned about men's issues (http://goodmenproject.com/) tend to avoid the label of MRA. It's because the label is associated with people like this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/, who'd rather spend their time bashing feminism and complaining about women than building support groups for those who need it or generally being constructive. Nullahnung (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- If the problem is with the fringes, can you please provide an example that is a) representative of the less "extreme segment", b) popular, and c) explicitly identifying as MRAs?--ZooGuard (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- FVOB, that section is not written very well. This doesn't mean that Hobby's edit should stand, but the section needs a rewrite, preferably by someone who knows what they are writing about.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Womanism?
I think there should be a section on it. If you don't know what I am talking about:
Womanism is a social theory deeply rooted in the racial and gender oppression of black women. There are varying interpretations on what the term womanist means and efforts to provide a concise and all encompassing definition have only been marginally successful. The ambiguity within the theory allows for its continuous expansion of its basic tenets. At its core, womanism is a social change perspective based upon the everyday problems and experiences of black women and other women of color, but more broadly seeks methods to eradicate inequalities not just for black women, but for all people.[1] The self-authored spirit of activism, spirituality, and the women's relationship with herself, other women, and her surroundings comprise an essential part of the ideology. The term womanism was first coined by author Alice Walker in her 1979 short story, "Coming Apart". Here Walker describes the protagonist of the story as a womanist. Although Walker is credited for the term, there are other contributors to the womanism movement. These contributors developed their own womanist theories independently of Walker's womanism. They include scholars such as Clenora Hudson-Weems and Chikwenye Okonjo Ogunyemi.Womanism[wp]
·Femilisk² 10:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, the Wikipedia article on this is actually pretty decent: [2] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I linked to that above! ;) ·Femilisk² 10:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Haha, I missed the WP link at the end, sorry. I agree that we should have a short section on Womanism and Intersectionality though. One of Feminisms greatest strengths is the way that it deals with the issues of its whole demographic --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Do you think we need a section on Intersectionality if we have an article already? ·Femilisk² 11:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I still cannot imagine what womanism is. If womanism is a sub category of feminism, then I guess we could have a section here, but it would have to explain with examples and the necessary consideration towards varying interpretations. A strength that a RationalWiki take would have over the Wikipedia take is explaining the concept in simple, less boring and effective terms. Who knows, confused people like me might even be able to understand what womanism is a little if we have a good section. Nullahnung (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Womanism is feminism that doesn't exclude black women. It's pretty simple. ·Femilisk² 12:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- PS: Because feminism has a history of excluding them. ·Femilisk² 12:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- PPS: This might not help, given the above quote didn't — but maybe others will find it useful. ·Femilisk² 12:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the idea of Intersectionality crosses over with Womanism quite a bit, I'd say it's a type of Intersectionality. It's definitely worth a mention either way. Feminism has had issues in the past with excluding anyone who isn't a white straight cis woman (disclaimer: I definitely do not mean men here) and it's probably worth a mention tying into these things. We could also do a section on Transfeminism that ties into these ideas --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely, check out the triple oppression link I added to Intersectionality. These things are all joined up. ·Femilisk² 12:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Excellent, I'll have a look into that soon. I agree, different types of oppression influence each other. In terms of defining Womanism for Nullahnung, in the way that I understand it, it's pretty much the idea that black woman face both sexism and racism in society, that is to say, a type of racism that is also sexist, and a type of sexism that is also racist, so it would not be accurate or useful to discuss and try to fight societal issues that face them as if they were exactly the same to that of white women --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- My only disagreement with that definition of Womanism is that I would add (as I think I did implicitly above) that they face discrimination within society at large (yes, of course), but also and most importantly within the Feminist movement. See previous links for more info. ·Femilisk² 12:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes that's probably the most important thing. It's an essential moment in Feminist history in the movement becoming more inclusive. It's probably worth including a little about Black Feminism that slightly preceded Womanism --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- My only disagreement with that definition of Womanism is that I would add (as I think I did implicitly above) that they face discrimination within society at large (yes, of course), but also and most importantly within the Feminist movement. See previous links for more info. ·Femilisk² 12:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Excellent, I'll have a look into that soon. I agree, different types of oppression influence each other. In terms of defining Womanism for Nullahnung, in the way that I understand it, it's pretty much the idea that black woman face both sexism and racism in society, that is to say, a type of racism that is also sexist, and a type of sexism that is also racist, so it would not be accurate or useful to discuss and try to fight societal issues that face them as if they were exactly the same to that of white women --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely, check out the triple oppression link I added to Intersectionality. These things are all joined up. ·Femilisk² 12:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the idea of Intersectionality crosses over with Womanism quite a bit, I'd say it's a type of Intersectionality. It's definitely worth a mention either way. Feminism has had issues in the past with excluding anyone who isn't a white straight cis woman (disclaimer: I definitely do not mean men here) and it's probably worth a mention tying into these things. We could also do a section on Transfeminism that ties into these ideas --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I still cannot imagine what womanism is. If womanism is a sub category of feminism, then I guess we could have a section here, but it would have to explain with examples and the necessary consideration towards varying interpretations. A strength that a RationalWiki take would have over the Wikipedia take is explaining the concept in simple, less boring and effective terms. Who knows, confused people like me might even be able to understand what womanism is a little if we have a good section. Nullahnung (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Do you think we need a section on Intersectionality if we have an article already? ·Femilisk² 11:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- Haha, I missed the WP link at the end, sorry. I agree that we should have a short section on Womanism and Intersectionality though. One of Feminisms greatest strengths is the way that it deals with the issues of its whole demographic --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I linked to that above! ;) ·Femilisk² 10:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, the Wikipedia article on this is actually pretty decent: [2] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Sandra Harding
I think Sandra Harding is being mischaracterized, which is unsurprising, since the only citation is to a non-feminist's criticism of what he thought she had said. In context it seems less an attack on Newton and more an attack on claims that apparent misogyny in (for example) 15th- to 20th-century scientific literature is mere metaphor -- Harding was turning it around, suggesting that one could also interpret the science as metaphor for misogyny. But I don't want to add that if I misread the original (quoted here, also criticism).Calieber (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't read the text but I'd suggest being bold and removing it if that is the point being made. Feminism hardly needs more fallacious attacks and the whole "feminists seeing rape everywhere" thing has always rubbed me the wrong way considering that the movement puts so much of its resources into supporting rape survivors --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think it's even feminism. It's just postmodern psychoanalysts being stupid, example #144567388. See also: everything written by Luce Irigaray, everything written by Jacques Lacan, Susan McClary's "Beethoven's 9th is RAPE RAPE RAPE" thing. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
All you need is some monkey magic, and all will be alright 19:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think it's even feminism. It's just postmodern psychoanalysts being stupid, example #144567388. See also: everything written by Luce Irigaray, everything written by Jacques Lacan, Susan McClary's "Beethoven's 9th is RAPE RAPE RAPE" thing. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
[edit] Mandela's Quote
Given the subject it is kinda ironic that Graça Machel chose to keep her late husband's surname instead of taking on Mandela's. For Mandela to take the Machel surname would have been simply absurd in this circumstances. I'm not sure if his comments were some sort of political joke, considering Samora Machel was such an important man in neighboring Mozambique. — Unsigned, by: 81.193.65.128 / talk 06:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Suggesting A Rename From Feminism to Equalism
I mean there isn't the NAACP calling them selves Africanists for the empowerment of Africans. — Unsigned, by: 50.156.82.190 / talk / contribs 02:59, 17 October 2014
ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 07:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- From a realistic standpoint, that's never going to happen. If only because they call themselves feminists, and there's not a damn person who looks for feminism under the title of "equalism." Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are suggesting that we rename the feminist movement? I don't think RationalWiki has that sort of influence. Somebody ask the moderators --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- It would start with actual feminists (rather than MRA concern trolls) wanting to rename the movement. Also, the NAACP analogy falls flat: is "advancement of colored people" (what the abbreviation stands for) much different from "empowerment of Africans"? Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 13:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- I believe he means using "Africans" would mean they weren't talking about any other groups who have similar concerns. Still a shit example, what he's actually saying is more like "Why isn't it the national association for the advancement of humans?"King Skeleton (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah I was joking with my previous comment. Gender inequality predominately affects women so renaming it from feminism to equalism would obscure the issue at hand and effectively neuter one of the movements successes, namely getting people talking about women's issues --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- It would start with actual feminists (rather than MRA concern trolls) wanting to rename the movement. Also, the NAACP analogy falls flat: is "advancement of colored people" (what the abbreviation stands for) much different from "empowerment of Africans"? Wēāŝēīōīď
[edit] "Radical Feminism"?
I've been hearing the term "radical feminist" thrown around a lot on forums. Think it's actually a thing? Greatnecro (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's enough of a thing to have its own Wikipeadia article. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- I might object to calling it A thing. Typically "radical X" tends to mean taking X ideology and coupling it with plans for extreme, rapid, and dramatic changes to society, and a belief that compromising ever on X is universally unacceptable. This tends to come in many flavors of radicallity for any given ideological system. As an example, in rad-fem that can mean things like banning marriage as a facet of patriarchy, whereas standard feminism might see it as a historically patriarchal concept that can evolve to be better. Ikanreed (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Greatnecro: Radical feminism can refer to different things depending on who said it in what context. Read our article on it. Nullahnung (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is a specific ideology and movement called Radical Feminism, I'd recommend following up some of the links on the Wikipedia article rather than reading the article itself, it's been under attack by MRAs for a year or so (check the talk page for evidence of this), or reading our article. However, the term itself is generally used online to refer to feminists that are seen as "radical" in some way, with this notion of what makes a feminist "radical" differing depending on who is being described. Some MRAs tend to see radical feminists as feminists that dare to be critical of masculinity or men as a group rather than just prejudicial laws (that is to say, feminists who don't call themselves "equity feminists"). Really though, there are many different types of feminist groups, with radical feminists being just one of them, and the way their ideologies differ are interesting. I'd recommend looking more into the topic if you have the time --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you for this article
Thank you for this fine article, doubtless written entirely by women. It trulu exposes how all male culture is assholish and destructive, and the good that only women can do. 92.232.117.212 (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- No problem, mate. After reading what you've written, I think you might also be interested in our strawman article. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 05:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- StrawMAN? Disgustingly sexist, think of the women, please.92.232.117.212 (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping us evaluate gender-specific language in modern culture. After reading your edit, I think you might be interested in our article on Concern trolling. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 10:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but by removing my name you are enforcing patriarchy by making me a mere object. #yesallwomen
- Berta Lovejoy, Feminist, promoter of equality, world peace 92.232.117.212 (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping us evaluate gender-specific language in modern culture. After reading your edit, I think you might be interested in our article on Concern trolling. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 10:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- StrawMAN? Disgustingly sexist, think of the women, please.92.232.117.212 (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
[edit] new section on peer-reviewed studies
I'd love to delete this articles new BoN-written section "Peer-reviewed studies in gender and behavior". It's written sloppily and has a point of view that clashes with the rest of the article. However, the links I actually followed (on colors and toys) are legit. Is there anyone more ambitious/knowledgeable/opinionated than I am to change/revert it? MarmotHead (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Here's the text in question:
| ===Peer-reviewed studies in gender and behavior===
It is a commonality among many mainstream feminists that nurture plays a far more prominent role in behavior than does nature. This has been the source of continued, ongoing debate. Two topics that appear often in this debate are on the subject of children and behavior: toy preferences and color preferences. In September of 2009, a study showed that, among primates, our closest biological relatives, males preferred to play with toy trucks and cars, whereas females showed a preference for toy dolls. <ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ </ref> This study suggests that toy preference is driven more by nature than nurture. Contrasting this viewpoint, however, are a number of anthropological studies that have shown the opposite, such as a study of kindergartners, which found that toy preference was shaped largely by preconceived notions of gender. <ref> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01555034 </ref> Similarly, modern feminism argues that color preference is also a product of society, with marketing influencing boys to prefer blue and girls to prefer pink. They also cite a period in history in which pink was a color for boys. However, recent studies by neuroscientists have shown that, while all people like blue, females had a tendency to prefer redder shades of blue. <ref> http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2807%2901559-X </ref> |
The problem is that a) it tries to pass off those studies as academic criticism of feminism, instead of incorporating them into something about gender differences; b) tries to make broad claims based on those studies that don't necessarily reflect the specific questions studied in them; c) it's difficult to base a judgement based on a spoonful of articles without following a field and understanding where these articles fit in context. And the summary doesn't quite match what the sources say...--ZooGuard (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah. That's the problem I was seeing, but couldn't fit in to words. It's a critique of gender stereotypes and tendencies, but not of feminism. I'm not sure where it fits, but I don't think it fits here. Maybe it belongs in one of the other articles in the broader category of gender. MarmotHead (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- If it's incorporated, definitely don't keep the vervet study. It's really dumb. [3] Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys. Just a head's up that this issue was pretty much settled in a different article gender and I no longer consider my objections relevant to this article where I originally proposed them, as in the article on gender, we were able to come to a reasonable compromise that includes the biological argument for gender roles while carefully making sure not to leave any slack for subsequent use of it for the purpose of misogyny. Parogar (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Pseudo Feminism and the Scientific Basis of Feminism
This is a preliminary rationale/outline for a Pseudo-Feminism section. Issues related to feminism are touchy subjects, so I thought I'd bring this to the Talk section first. These questions and such are just ideas for a new section, of which just seems to want to be made.
Does pseudo feminism work against the progress legitimate women's rights activists have made? Feminism needs a strong basis in empirical fact, while each argument is presented through a case-by-case manner. Pseudo-feminism as opposed to feminism is done under the guise of "feminism." Such mistaken methods merit the label of pseudo-feminism. Pseudo-science is given this label for the same or similar reasons. Also, I thought of including an exploration of this question: Is subjecting feminism to the same rigor of science, fair or practical?
What do you think? I feel arguments are made or broken due to whether they are consistent with demonstrable fact. Social sciences are not an exception, but tend to be considered softer. I would say that science gives the best opportunity for social acceptance. People don't usually take a scientific perspective when dealing with social issues, unfortunately and in spite of this, they also have a lot to say about it. Not entirely sure what the exact reasons for this are, but I have a few guesses that I'm just going to keep to myself so as not get too off of the main topic. EMosso (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Is "pseudo feminism" an existing concept or something you've made up? Who decides what qualifies? Any examples? Щєазєюіδ
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)