Talk:Radical feminism
Contents |
[edit] Roseanne Barr
Well, since Roseanne has recently come out as a flag-waving TERF, Cathy Brennan-boosting, bathroom panic and all, is it reasonable to put something about her in the article? She's not a major voice within that community, to be sure, but she's a very recognizable name in the public sphere outside of TERF-land with a pretty big pulpit to get her views out. --Kels (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe include some commentary about well known TERFs?-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 15:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
[edit] TERF Not Equal Radical Feminism
When you edit TERF it brings up Radical_feminism. This is severely broken. TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) are a subset of radical feminism and do not represent the majority of this brand of feminism. They are a specific group within the movement who's main agenda is to exclude, specifically, trans women from being included in feminism as well as women's spaces. Not all radical feminists share their philosophy. In fact, most do not. TERF should have it's own page and not point to Radical Feminism. --Angrywoman (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Most RadFems may not agree with TERFs, but it's the logical outcome of their ideology.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 04:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- TERF is a redirect - to edit it, you need to click on the link in the "(Redirected from TERF)" text that appears under the article title. Or just directly here: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=TERF&redirect=no
- The redirect was probably created because TERFs are covered in the "Transphobia" and "The TERF wars" sections of the article. If you think that you have enough material for a separate article, feel free to expand the redirect to a full page.
- In the meantime, I've modified the redirect to point to the section of this article that actually defines TERFs.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Two problematic edits that might still be salvaged
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Radical_feminism&oldid=1287661 http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Radical_feminism&oldid=1287660
My contention in reverting these is not that they're wrong, per se, but that they represent a rather oversimplified view of the issues at hand. Specifically, I don't think anyone in feminism really disagrees with the idea that violence in porn is an issue, but that doesn't mean that the arguments against BDSM are always sound, especially when practitioners have very different opinions. Also, the quibble over the meaning of "voluntary" seems to be a bit hairsplitting. Thoughts? EVDebs (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't follow. When you say "they represent an oversimplified view of the issues at hand", are you referring to the pieces of text I removed or my reasons for removing them? Obviously not all arguments against BDSM are sound, but they're not all without merit either, & handwaving them away as the concerns of some feminazis with quack theories who conflate one thing with another is ignorant at best, if not disingenuous. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- A little of both. Might be worth going into depth on the point, although honestly I suspect it might be better covered on the BDSM page itself. EVDebs (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- None of that has happened, so I've taken that bit back out again. Please don't revert unless you're going to make some attempt at improving what is obviously a flimsy strawman. Wëäŝëïöïď
Methinks it is a Weasel 02:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- None of that has happened, so I've taken that bit back out again. Please don't revert unless you're going to make some attempt at improving what is obviously a flimsy strawman. Wëäŝëïöïď
- A little of both. Might be worth going into depth on the point, although honestly I suspect it might be better covered on the BDSM page itself. EVDebs (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
[edit] More problematic edits
Jelo added the sections below, the rest of his edits were vandalism.
“”A reclaimed word is a word that was formerly used solely as a slur but that has been semantically overturned by members of the maligned group, who use it as a term of defiant pride. Queer is an example of a word undergoing this process. For decades queer was used solely as a derogatory adjective for gays and lesbians, but in the 1980s the term began to be used by gay and lesbian activists as a term of self-identification. Eventually, it came to be used as an umbrella term that included gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people. Nevertheless, a sizable percentage of people to whom this term might apply still hold queer to be a hateful insult, and its use by heterosexuals is often considered offensive. Similarly, other reclaimed words are usually offensive to the in-group when used by outsiders, so extreme caution must be taken concerning their use when one is not a member of the group." [1]
|
In 1989, twenty-five-year-old Marc Lépine, armed with a legally obtained Mini-14 rifle and a hunting knife, shot twenty-eight people before killing himself. He began his attack by entering a classroom at the university, where he separated the male and female students. After claiming that he was "fighting feminism" and calling the women "a bunch of feminists," he shot all nine women in the room, killing six. He then moved through corridors, the cafeteria, and another classroom, specifically targeting women to shoot. Overall, he killed fourteen women and injured ten other women and four men in just under twenty minutes before turning the gun on himself.[1] He left a note at the end of his suicide letter stating:
“”Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive.
Alea Jacta Est.[2]
|
- ↑ Sourour, Teresa K., (1991) Report of Coroner's Investigation (PDF). Retrieved on December 28, 2006
- ↑ Malette, L. and Chalouh, M. The Montreal Massacre, Gynergy Books, 1991
Is any of the above worth working into any articles? Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Raymond and Helms
There's an interview with Janice Raymond on Counterpunch that mentions RW in one of the questions. Raymond denies any collaboration with Jesse Helms. Anyone willing to clarify that? And clarification in one direction or another would be nice to be included in the Janice Raymond article itself.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- She has written about some of the criticisms about here here: http://janiceraymond.com/fictions-and-facts-about-the-transsexual-empire/ it includes her mention of Rationalwiki and the Jesse Helms thing. Maybe someone in the know could fisk it real good, like we do for some of the arguments written by creationists. Dowdicus (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)