Talk:Feminism/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>

, (new)(back)

In pursuit of cover - read this, help me, and let's kick this into amazing shape

What can be done to improve this article? Obviously, pictures would be a good thing to add. I also strongly dislike the Successes section, which I'm tempted to just delete. Despite its length, it doesn't seem particularly pertinent or useful, and would be better replaced with a paragraph of general summary and a small handful of examples. Criticisms can be cleaned up a bit, and Ideology needs a huge expansion. Other thoughts? ^{— Unsigned, by: AD / talk / contribs}

Just scanning through (don't have time to read it closely now as I'm at work), it looks like the "criticisms" sections are OKish, but we're not doing enough to introduce what feminism is, what the different schools of feminist thought are, how they interact with each other, influences on other rights/dignity movements (e.g. LGBT) etc. The three waves are listed only really in terms of when they were & what was fought for or achieved, not what ideas emerged. We don't even mention radical feminism, post-feminism or gender theory on this page. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Lysistrata

As this is an article about feminism, is it really good to introduce a play that is - especially at the time - anything *but* feminist? It is a total farce to prove that women are irrational; that they deserve the condition they are in, because even when they attempt a revolt, they fuck it up, make a mess of themselves, and generally reinforcing the entire sterotype of women in the day. (and, bring in some great slahes against pro-feminine power religions, like Adonis). I'm planning on removing it, in a few days, but I'll open it up for discussion first. --GodotFire! Fire! Fire! (please send spare firefighters) 03:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Cut it. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Get rid of it! :) I added it just because it always seemed very feminist to me, since they're advocating as a political force, fighting the bumbling elders of the city off, and so on. But that's why I do literature and not feminist theory!--^talk 11:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

So I largely re-wrote all the sections in history. sadly, my writing style is not as witty or concise as AD's, but I think he largely missed the core definitions of women moving from "simply wanting legal autonomy" to "wanting some measurable equality" to "evaulating society as a whole" that the movements focus on. I use active terms like "participating in one's life", to highlight the fact that it is *self acceptance* and levels of engagement that is always at stake, and not just tangible prizes like "right to vote" or "equal pay" which truly define the experience of liberation. I added a section in each wave, for thinkers/writers - but did not add any thinkers or writers to 3rd wave (as I'm still mostly 2nd wave, and am only starting to read 3rd wavers -not sure who is a big name, vs, a name i happened to have read). Would love any addtions of writers for that section.

I also set up third wave in a particular way, to open up a dialoge on "why are intelligent, loving, 'normal' men, so likely to be threatened by modern "feminsim" as we see in the atheist community, and i think the fact that modern feminism is actually attacking core *ideas* of society, and not just requesting equality, is one of the pricipal problems. We don't just want to play in the rationalists world, for example, we are writing papers asking if rationalism is even all that rational! :-) (thanks nebby for lots of papers this week, that tie directly into this topic). --GodotFire! Fire! Fire! (please send spare firefighters) 14:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think your contributions are great! I learned a lot. As you could tell, I have only the most amateur knowledge of this field. If you don't mind, I will reshape what you wrote a little, because I think there might be some unintentional ambiguity in some of your phrasing.--^talk 07:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Listener X (and others) - when you write about feminism as a "goal oriented" field, or rather, when you focus the issues on the goals and achievements and remove all the comments about person involvement in one's one life (again, why terms like "participate" are actively used in feminist writings) you miss the entire point of what feminism is about. You've recast this "history" into a list of what was done, and took out the "why" or turned it into (so - called) male focused "whys" of "voting, legal status". That's disappointing. Perhaps my writing isn't clear enough for you to see women's self actualization here, but what was there you stripped out. And your subtle dislike of 3rd wave is all the fuck over the place. I get you hate it. But in an article ABOUT feminism, maybe you should just talk about the facts from an neutral point, and leave your personal views to the criticism. yes, this is "rational wiki", and we have opinions in the articles - but in this case, I'll challenge you point to point. Cause what you think 3rd wave means, and how "real" you think it is and how "valuable" you think is its, does not reflect the movement, but your own dislike of it. --GodotStop the damn screeds! 16:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there even much use in the term "3rd wave feminism"? It seems to fall into the camp of vague and weaselly terms that are more often a projection of the gripes of the author onto a straw (wo)man that can be easily batted down. (Cf. postmodernism, new atheism, etc.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Only in the sense, perhaps, that it separates the first two "waves" which were rooted very much in women's daily lives, to this more esoteric set of inquiries that happen mostly on blogs, at Universities, in Journals, etc. While they are important discussion points, i don't think it will ever really matter that I think science is gender male, or that the authors you shared think that Human Relations in Organizations are "gender male" - cause I don't think that will change anything. these kinds of feminism have now become just philo. a great way to mentally masturbate your afternoon away, but not really likely to ever change what video games do, or how women are portrayed in the media, or if economics themselves are built by and confined by this male identity. Which is actually a good thing. It might mean that by an large, in 1st world middle and upper class, women have achieve a tangeable measure of equality and are now pontificating a lot. ;-) I want to rewrite teh entire "third wave" but we'll see.... GodotStop the damn screeds! 18:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've only really encountered "third wave" in the context of sex-positivity and extensions to LGBT rights (e.g., people identifying as third-wave feminists wouldn't be seen dead associating themselves with Germaine Greer). Not really heard much else about postmodernism being tacked onto that. ^{d hominem} 19:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I really see your point, Neb. It's like how Jonathan Lethem, Michael Chabon, Jonathan Franzen, and David Foster Wallace are all mentioned in the same breath, even though they have virtually nothing in common aside from having become famous in roughly the same period.

With that said, I think the waves thing actually has a lot to it, as a useful way to describe the history.--^talk 22:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Demarcation lines, even. it's really in "modern" contexts that you get the subcategories. What's intersting is if you read WP, there is apparently argument of a "fourth wave". don't even know who that would be. GodotStop the damn screeds! 22:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand the 4th Wave stuff either, I know it's got to do with intersectionality but I haven't looked terribly deeply past that. Natalie Reed wrote a set of articles (links to the first two parts in the text) on the subject, which attracted the attention of the loathsome Cathy Brennan, if that helps. --Kels (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

But in an article ABOUT feminism, maybe you should just talk about the facts from an neutral point, and leave your personal views to the criticism. Pardon me for smarting off against a rejection of reason in a RationalWiki article. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

False impression

This section of the article suggested that Islam forbids what we would call abuse of women. The article needed modification to show Islam allows a great deal that modern people call abusive. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Self attacking.

I dunno if there is any place for this in the main page, but should something be said about how some more extreme feminists will attack other woman for doing things they feel "Enforce the status quo", such as being stay at home, or liking typical feminine things? Just an example, I over heard an argument at my university where some people said of another woman that her like of being a stay at home mom was due to "the brainwashing of society at large". --Revolverman (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, and there is a great place for it, when we talk about Bachman and Palin who are in congress, being necessarily feminsts, even if they rail against some things. if no one else gets on it, I will later! thanks.--GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 20:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There's actually a very large divide between people who study feminism and the collective pool of what 'some' feminists believe or think. It's almost as big as the variation in what atheists think. Or what people who like broccoli think. In my WomImages seminar (feminism history/theory) last year we mentioned the very trend you speak of, yet also addressed that many also think that if traditional female roles had their stigmas removed, not only would men have the option to partake of them more but also those who do partake for whatever reason would no longer be judged for their choices. In particular, many women my mom's age (second wave feminists, adults in 1970s thereabout) were encouraged to stop performing handicrafts such as sewing or knitting due to their stigma for being seeing as trappings of oppression and especially strong gender roles of the '60s... even when many of them involved complex math or engineering (especially in the upper levels of complexity and skill) and had been intellectual outlets for women with such inclinations in the past. There was quite a long time during which if you did such things you'd get 'are you a granny?' comments. Only relatively recently have handicrafts come back into vogue, etc. I still get comments when I knit in lecture, and that's after several scarf-knitting and craft fads. While some feminists would continue to dismiss such crafts as once again instruments of oppression, others would argue that reclaiming them from said oppression would be a better cause. Who's the true Scotsman? Nobody, it seems. Meanwhile, I knit. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 22:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

My wife is a big knitter; she sells a lot to raise money for charity. When I met her she was quite an ardent feminist (but seems to have mellowed a bit now) and she used to give lectures/presentations on gender stereotypes in advertising. I remember her telling me about a group of feminists - well, four or five who shared a house together - and one of them became pregnant. This was a source of great rejoicing, as they looked forward to raising a child together as a collective of feminist moms, right up until the point that the sex of the baby was discovered; a boy. Oops, the pregnant mother was pretty much forced out of the group and had to find somewhere else to live. A couple of years ago my wife went to see "an audience with Germaine Greer" and she was continually asked about her book The Female Eunuch, Greer basically told them to move on, things have changed since she wrote it in 1970. But women reclaiming traditional handicrafts as a source of pride rather than symbol of servitude reminds me of Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party, which dates from the late 70s, so not quite as recent as you might think. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 03:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who tries to say "what feminists think," without specifying the particular type of feminism, is going to be grossly wrong, as the various views are all over the map; for example, some radical feminists seem to think that you are advocating rape if you so much as support abortion rights for the wrong reason, but many of your early feminists opposed abortion since they thought it gave the fetus's father an "easy out."

That being said, any ideology in the pietist or communist traditions — which covers most strains of feminism except for liberal, individualist, and some anarchist varieties — is likely to involve stigmatization of certain behaviors as something the Big Powerful Bad Guys (the devil/bourgeoisie/Patriarchy) want you to do, hence the attempted stigmatization of knitting, raising sons, etc., and the claims that any woman enjoying these things is guilty of false consciousness. These people are also well known for having a low tolerance of heretics, hence all the infighting among the various feminist sects. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally I have little experience with organized 'sects' of feminism. There are plenty of people who overtly identify with radical feminism, sex-positive feminism, etc. but I don't usually find that they are organized or even agree on the same things within their label; I know people who identify as radical feminist who accept transgender individuals, and those who do not, for example. I usually see feminism as reactionary to the culture of the time, as well as building on previous pushes INSOFAR as others are aware of/are directly influenced by those older waves of feminism. Personally I find there's really a very large divide between academic feminists, who tend to adhere to stricter labels (and often define their own when none fit) and individuals who simply support social change... like any other very loosely-defined group of people, they vary in creed, education level, their well-read-ness, etc. And while feminists organize, I would argue that part of the reason why feminism as a movement has been somewhat less prominent in recent years is that it is not organized into anything as concrete as 'sects.' Many people I know who are well-informed about the topic enough to really comment on it more than a cursory 'I think women are treated like shit, and I don't like it' often blend elements from many different philosophies to form their own views... not to mention those who consider it an intersectional variable/set of issues within the social sciences: an idea that ties feminist observation of male privilege to the study of privilege in general. Which in turn leads into the studies of racism, classism, and other artifacts of the culture of power. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 04:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It kinda begs the question, why is third-generation feminism so much less united, for lack of a better term, then first and second generation? --Revolverman (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Because third-wave feminism was born out of a whole lot of infighting among people steeped in the idea that any sort of formal organization was a bad thing. Also, feminism moved into the mainstream and the moderate ones became a lot less visible (there are still large, active feminist organizations like NOW, but the things they say are not too controversial anymore), leaving the third-wave cranks to grab the limelight. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

(EC) No it doesn't beg the question, but I know what you mean. The answer is that most of the main legal reforms have been won in giving women equality. The western world is a vastly different place from the 60s. When I hear old broadcasts of interviews with women from 40 years ago the patronising tone of the interviewer is often excruciating. The main issues now are largely generational and will change over time but the fragmentation of feminism as a movement boils down to the personal aspirations of individual women and, let us not forget, men. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 05:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, LX, it has very little to do with infighting by people "steeped in the idea that any sort of formal org was a bad thing", for heaven's sake. It has to do with the fact that all things change. There is no one christianity, no one way of being a baseball fan, no one set of D&D rules. There were very clear goals for both first and second wave feminism. "get the vote" "be a human in your marriage", "be legally persons" in the first wave, and "gain some measure of equality" in the second wave. Those two things happened, but anyone who lives life with boobs and uterus in the Western world, knows that we are still not equal. But now it's much harder to define, and everyone has their own version of what should matter. We are also more socially aware, aware that women of color were largely overlooked in first and second wave; aware women around the world don't have the same goals as western women do; and aware that even amongst ourselves, women are not seeking the same things. Feminism has moved from staunching "Serious Business", dominated by hushed voices, angry writings, and protocals to a world where women laugh at our selves, make jokes about men, and dare to approach feminism in a very young, very 2000's way. GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 12:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Equality

Seems we can't edit in to point out that we already have a distinct term for concepts regarding equality, and that feminism includes people and organizations with non-egalitarian aims under it's umbrella.

I attempted to widen the scope of this article but got reverted. I am not sure why the narrow scope of 'equal rights for women' over 'rights for women' is being promoted here. I think people know full well in common usage feminism is not exclusively being used to describe ONLY equality-based movements. Tyc (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"Feminism is a philosophy rooted in promoting female interests"? Because we definitely want to identify ourselves as an MRA site right off the bat, right? That was why you were reverted. Blue (is useful) 15:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

But you don't have any problems being aggressive against the claims of the MRM, even if they're not something exclusive to them and that affects everyone including women, you can disregard issues every man has despite not being an MRA by saying "The got the cock lifting pill, so it is only fair we get tree times their life expectancy". It's about being fair about the issues that affect men, whether your sexist brain gets them or not, just as you expect us to believe that Anita Sarkeesian has a more legitimate claim addressing pink Lego boxes than any man has over his physical state or mental stability.201.141.29.247 (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel good in knowing that I did something to piss off internet misogynists. It's a good thing.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"People know full well" is a shit rationale for what you're saying; if you think significant numbers of feminists don't really want gender equality, the burden of proof is on you. As for the other crap you wrote, "egalitarianism" is a loose term for various kinds of movements in favour of sort form of equality (not necessarily sexual) and its meaning depends on context, and "equalism" is a silly word made up by MRAs as a stick to beat feminism with. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, 'equalism' or similar is probably a better term than 'feminism', although it is vaguer. Nihilist 20:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Feminism represents a massive historical movement, though. "Egalitarianism" is a perfectly fine word for what you're talking about. Blue (is useful) 22:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Why should a vaguer term be preferable to a more specific one? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Because it represents the ideas of modern feminism better. If you wanted to be specific, you could say 'gender-equalism' (or similar). Nihilist 00:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Or you could just say 'feminism' instead of watering down the heritage & values of the movement just to appease haters. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it matters much either way. Personally, i would go for something like 'genderlessism' or even maybe 'agenderism'. Nihilist 00:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What now? Gender abolition is only supported by a small section of feminists. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"Personally". Nihilist 01:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"Personally" what? A few moments ago you were claiming to speak for "the ideas of modern feminism". Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"Personally", as in, what i would use myself to describe my own and similar beliefs. Nihilist 01:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't about you or your beliefs. It's about an established set of critiques and activism commonly referred to by the word "feminism." Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 02:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Really⸮ Nihilist 02:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You seriously just want to push every female editor of RW away, huh? ^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

While I'm highly sympathetic to the idea that giving "gender equality" a specifically female prefix seems insanely counter-productive, you have to remember that promoting equality implies that inequality exists. And therefore you're going to focus on raising the issues and the rights on the lesser or underprivileged group. In that sense "feminism" makes perfect sense as a term. Egalitarianism is far broader, but often implies issues of class and wealth. ^{d hominem} 11:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

@Armondikov: Fair enough. I guess 'equalism' would be for people and groups that fight against inequalities against men and womyn (preparing for backlash), which isn't necessarily better or worse than 'feminism'.

@WaitingforGodot: Who, me? Nihilist 15:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Name three male interests feminism has promoted. --Henk (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

http://feminspire.com/feminism-its-good-for-men-too/ http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/08/why-men-need-feminism-3/ — Haamer 12:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Everything named in there is a female interest that benefits men by coincidence. --Henk (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to that since I'm not sure what the initial argument was. — Haamer 12:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That feminism is not egalitarianism. --Henk (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course feminism is not egalitarianism. Feminism is not egalitarianism in the sense that a house painter isn't the colour of a house he or she paints. Feminism is a movement dedicated to striving for egalitarianism.--Brendiggg (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Various anti-racist groups aren't about egalitarianism either. After all, how do they benefit white folk? Same thing with class egalitarianism -- doesn't do a damned thing for the wealthy, so it must not be motivated by equality. And so on and so on. Phiwum (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Blue (pester) 15:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

So in your mind that is exactly analogous to the situation at hand? That by definition man is rich and racist and woman is poor and oppressed? --Swedmann (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Now, do I start by explaining "straw man", "equivocation", "argument by analogy", "reification" or "argumentum ad absurdum"? ^{d hominem} 17:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What Armondikov said. I honestly can't imagine how you can misinterpret a perfectly obvious point, but let me make it even more explicit for you. Sometimes, people are unequal in money or power or this quality or that. Sometimes, some people think that such inequality is unjust and they work towards equality. Most of the time that this occurs, equality is not reached by improving everyone, but only by improving those who are disadvantaged (and maybe by worsening those who are advantaged). The people on top do not benefit from such egalitarian efforts.

I'm not saying whether egalitarianism is good or bad, but it's the nature of egalitarianism that persons who are judged unfairly advantaged do not have their lots improved. In the case of feminism, women are viewed as disadvantaged and men as advantaged and hence, it is natural that feminism aims at bettering the lot of women, but not necessarily the lot of men. That's kinda the normal situation with egalitarianism.

Really, my point isn't all that hard to get, seems to me. Phiwum (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Everything named in there is a female interest that benefits men by coincidence. - do you know of anything that couldn't be interpreted this way? It sounds like the kind of response you could say to any example given to you, unless further clarification is given. ^{d hominem} 14:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, this is a dumb line of argument. You might as well as say "the gay rights movement has done nothing to promote straight people's interests". For someone supposedly in favour of egalitarianism, you seem to have no idea of how it works. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Feminism discussion

Is there a discussion page on this site somewhere? or am I best headed to the Saloon? or?--Durbinator^Durbinating 01:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Justifications

Section title inserted by me.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Tell me if you find out, would love somebody to explain to me why enduring the hardship of being oppresed by pink Lego boxes is justification for others being trice as susceptible to illness and death, or why being born with a Y is a justification for others getting a more extensive health insurance program.201.141.29.247 (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"justification"? Are women deliberating to make men thrice as susceptible to illness and death^{[citation needed]}? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 05:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What was posted above doesn't make a whole lot of sense, so I don't think anyone else can explain or justify it for you. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It is clearly women's fault that men are more likely to be ill, die younger, and have more expensive health insurance. I thought we all knew this?--Token Conservative (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

To be more specific, old ugly harping feminist lesbian hag bitches secretly controlling the NWO are conspiring against men so they make them miserable, be cruel and withhold sex (something men need), castrate them emotionally and sexually, and take away their children… i guess i can add "make ill, die younger, and have more expensive health insurance" to the list. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 15:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Something interesting I just found because of this is that men actually pay less for health insurance, but more for auto and life insurance. But, men are getting cheaper health insurance because men don't go to the doctor as much, they have more expensive auto insurance because they are more likely to be accidents, and they have more expensive life insurance because they don't shop around. I should probably work this into the MRM article.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Men get into more car accidents because they drive unsafe cars because feminists vote for higher car taxes. --81.175.239.201 (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Idiocy, yay!--Token Conservative (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Rape of germany

Source for Feminists saying this, please? I think you are taking two ratios and saying "ONE BIGGER THAN OTHER!" It's not appropriate statistics to take ratios over different time periods and compare. My chance of dying of a heart attack is very low (today). My chance of dying of a heart attack is very high (in my lifespan). Hipocrite (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Most acadmeic sources suggest that 1 in 4 women will be sexually attacked or face ATTEMPTED RAPE in highschool or college. http://www.popcenter.org/problems/rape/ I have no idea where he's getting his numbers. Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 20:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Estimates vary, but should not be dismissed on the basis of "that sounds too high" or "worse stuff happened in the war" or "rape is only like being stuck in a traffic jam" or "feminists are idiots" or whatever crappy Chewbacca argument we get next. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Could it be dismissed for not being backed by evidence and seemingly manufactured as a guess by someone trying to argue his or her theory? 79.205.249.119 (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Der ewige Patriarch

It sounds a bit like some sort of tin foil hat conspiracy theory. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 07:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What is it? Sophie^Wilder 08:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There's an international world conspiracy by men to control the world and oppress women. Not just the Middle East, but every country is a Patriarchy Occupied Government. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 15:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, this is a common misunderstanding. 'Patriarchy' is not really the kind you'd think of when you think 'archy' in the sense of 'monarchy' which means a formal rule. The concept or patriarchy refers to that men are afforded the dominant place of privilege in most of culture which translates then, to every other aspect of life. It has nothing to do with men being part of a knowing 'conspiracy' to keep down women, but more that there is a self-perpetuating system that keeps the people who have always had more societal leeway, opportunities, and merits, in power, which has many subtle parts that are definitely less overt than 'new world order.' Calling the idea that we live in a patriarchal society an 'international world conspiracy' is ridiculous for the same reason suggesting that there's an 'international world conspiracy of white western people that control the world and oppresses people of color.' It's undeniable that white, western countries hold arguably a lot of the power and historical dominance within recent history at least. It's also undeniable that men are, in our society, dominant over women. This is not some kind of 'conspiracy' but the shape of our culture and society that makes it so... which is problematic because it's not a very good shape for a society to be in, a shape that hasn't changed much (legal rights to person-hood and other things does not an egalitarian society make) in hundreds, or even thousands of years. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 04:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Am I really supposed to believe that this shape really didn't change much in hundreds, or even thousands of years? To completely refute your claims, one only needs to look upon United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia. The former is a modern country where women can vote, work, own property, be a chief of government, crimes against women are treated specially (that is, more severely), they have extreme privilege in custody courts and there is a governmental project for making all women exempt from prison (based on Baroness Courston's reports). The second country requires women to be subordinate to their male relatives, they can't vote or drive a car. "All women, regardless of age, are required to have a male guardian. Women cannot vote or be elected to high political positions." (from Wikipedia, link). Saudi Arabia is largely a medieval country in terms of culture (as evidenced by punishments of criminals by cutting their limbs off). And you say that society didn't change much in thousands of years? The very fact you are educated (the majority of graduates in US are already women), allowed to enter intellectual discourse and treated as an equal proves your claims wrong. - Azradun (talk) 10:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"(legal rights to person-hood and other things does not an egalitarian society make)" - you are making a 180 degree turn here. As much as "we freed slaves, there is no racism" is factually wrong, the reverse "there is still racism, so the fact that there is no slavery and black people have legal rights has no meaning" is also factually wrong. This is an ideological inflexibility, according to an "all or nothing" principle. In reality, societal problems are not black and white (pardon the pun). Some modern feminists like Anita Sarkeezian are decrying patriarchy in anything, even in a commercially produced series of toys or games. Not everything needs to be about women, not every product needs to be directed to women, not every single company has an obligation to produce things that pass the "equality check" by feminists. - Azradun (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Because the Western world is clearly superior, and there is no culture of oppression here. See, cultures run along a linear axis of development, and the Western world is at the good end, and the brown people are at the bad end. It's not like women are expected to be empty-headed sex toys in the West. And oh man, that hijab is so much worse than our bikinis and shaved legs! Oh my goodness, they hack off limbs? It's not like the US goes around the world hacking off the limbs of everyone ever, or tearing down democratically elected governments for the profit of its corporations. No, that never happens, because we're the good guys. Nice to see you're blind to the ideology you've been force-fed.^{— Unsigned, by: 67.11.201.232 / talk / contribs}

Ah, the good old "cultural relativism" argument. We can't criticize other countries or scale them in how egalitarian their views are, doing that is apparently racist. I have nothing against pointing out biases in Western culture, but do not marginalize the struggles of people in the third world. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Biased?

This article seems completely for feminism without criticising any of the wingnuttery that exists in the movement. I'm not saying that all feminists are wingnuts, but certain sections of the movement are definitely either misandrist, or anti-egalitarian (such as radical feminism's disdain for transgender people. There also should be criticism of the branches of feminism that use women's rights as a front for deconstructionism. ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.20.40.61 / talk / contribs}

Complains about missing material. Links to that material in his post. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 16:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Both front and deconstructionism link just fine for me, thank you very much. 142.177.239.206 (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with deconstruction? In any case, I would think feminism would use women's rights as a "front" for feminist criticism. Then again, I'm not sure what this article has to do with literary analysis.--Dowdicus (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention the self-righteous smack Cathy Brennan gets. ^sshole 22:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Should we change the page security?

Given the amount of vandalism from non-logins, is it time to put some security on this page. Specifically, should we set the page to only be editable by members? Rand0 (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I see only one blatant vandalism on the first page of the revision history, and that was from the IP today who committed vandalism on several other articles as well. Maybe I'm missing something here. I don't count little things where some pissed off anti-feminist rudely puts his own view in the article without asking on the talk page (though they usually include an edit summary). That's not blatant vandalism. Nullahnung (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's an annoyance, but it's no more an annoyance on this page, than on the Thunderfoot page, or on the racism page, or on a number of our pages that tick off "anti women" types, racist types, conservatives if it's a liberal position, alien lovers, etc. If we ever had a page really targeted for a short time, sure. but this page isn't it. (i have wondered if Tfoot or the amazing atheists are worth locking, and ever than come away with "nah, not really")Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Just reading the beginning of the page the first time.

Okay, so I'm a new editor here (well, not as a person, but as this account). While I agree with the article, there are a few little things that I would like to point out, but don't want to edit in case my edits get taken the wrong way (me being a new user and everything). Firstly, one of the quote thingies that shows up says that there is "no fuzzy middle ground", and that, "you think women are people or you don't". I'm inclined to disagree with this sentiment- it just seems a bit inflammatory, as it comes across as saying "if you're not a feminist, you're automatically a hateful person", which is not necessarily true- one can, for example, agree with some or most feminist ideas, while not being comfortable with calling themselves a feminist. Likewise, one can have a serious misunderstanding of what feminism is due to ignorance on the subject, and, while not actually really being opposed to the whole "equal rights" part, sees feminism as "female superiority". Henceforth, I believe that we should delete that quote, as I find it too aggressive. Does anybody else agree? Also, in the first paragraph, it talks about logic vs. emotion- I really don't understand what that is trying to say. If anybody could give me some links or something to sources, or explain it to me, that would be great. Anyway, nice wiki you have here, and I hope I don't come across as an asshole! Cal McCallum (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You certainly don't come across as an asshole to me! I think the Whedon quote has been taken out of context, honestly (he was talking more about word choice than about ideology). I think it might warrant removal.

The bit about logic versus emotion is pretty well written as it is now, I think. It's about people's preconceptions about masculinity and femininity, and how they don't hold up to scrutiny. There's three points in the traditional view:

1. Logic is masculine and emotion is feminine; they're incompatible.
2. Logic is superior to emotion.
3. Masculinity is superior to femininity.

And they're all becoming increasingly suspect. My personal belief is that logic and emotion complement one another; that neither is purely masculine or feminine; and that neither is inferior to the other.

What was your previous username, if you don't mind my asking? Or are you keeping that under wraps for now? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 01:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You were certainly right to remove the Joss Whedon quote. It was an awful quote from a pompous mansplaining speech that annoyed a lot of feminists; hardly a great way to introduce the subject. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with it. I wouldn't know where to begin with this article. It seems to be strictly party line stuff from an adherent of one rather doctrinaire branch of feminism (the word itself is kind of a Rorschach test) with more than a few puerile screeds, rants, and smears directed towards anyone who might disagree. For example, the intersection of gender roles and evolutionary psychology is a topic that deserves serious consideration in all its subtleties, not an arrogant, ignorant dismissal as "woo." Gender equality is a noble ideal we should strive for, but on the way we encounter paradoxes that can only by solved with respectful inquiry, not with tunnel-visioned campaigning.

Analysis of Dworkin is incorrect

Dworkin is commonly attributed the view that all sex is rape (eg, by the Wikipedia page on her and on her book Intercourse), and as far as I am aware never said that all men view sex as rape; she did, however, say that in a culture in which consent is constrained (eg, where a wife cannot refuse consent to a husband), there is no such thing as consent, with the corrolary that in such situations, all sex is rape. She also argued that this was the state of the culture in her day, but note that she was writing before spousal rape and sexual harassment laws. 192.76.7.216 (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Reply

I don't think Dworkin's argument about constrained consent is based on spousal exemptions from rape laws. According to the "Rape Culture" discourse under patriarchy theory, rape is the fundamental defining characteristic of power relationships between men and women on which patriarchy is based. No interaction between a man and a woman can escape that dynamic, thus, there is no such thing as consensual sex between a man and a woman, i.e. all heterosexual sex is rape. Dworkin was an adherent of that view.

Catherine McKinnon's claim that "All sex is rape" was attributed to her falsely by the pornography industry in an effort to discredit her ignores the popularity that the idea had among lesbian separatists. It was a real, often-repeated claim and not simply from a work of fiction as the author of the wiki article would have us believe.

Surprisingly, Dworkin's argument is not the most extreme expression from radical feminists about rape and power. Some have extrapolated the theory to every man being culpable for rape if they have any interaction with women at all. That was a central thesis of Susan Brownmiller's book, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape. "All men are rapists!" was a rather inflammatory slogan that gained some popularity among lesbian separatists in the 1970s. It fell out of favor, but it did encapsule that point of view.

— Unsigned, by: 75.111.20.66 / talk / contribs 

Intersectionality and social justice?

Why are these modern feminist (3rd/4th wave) principles not mentioned?dildz^zzz 08:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if social justice is actually a principle, but maybe intersectionality should be in here (I've seen it get opposition by people who think that feminism must be for and by women exclusively). Nullahnung (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Intersectionality should be a separate article; social justice already is one. They aren't things that belong exclusively within feminism. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Intersectionality should be a separate article, yes. However the question posed by Dildz is suggesting that maybe it would be useful to make mention of them here, preferrably then creating a blue link also to our main article on the topics, which I would support for intersectionality. Nullahnung (talk) 12:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I must agree. Third-wavers did a great job with adding intersectionality, and to not at least mention it here is to leave out something very valuable. Rand0 (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Anybody want to take a stab at both a new article on Intersectionality and adding a link to it in this article (with me)? dildz^zzz 09:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

So, what do you think? Rand0 (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you're quick. I need to do some more teaching and PhD writing. But I'll add some of my own mini edits too over the weekend. Awesome. dildz^zzz 10:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)