Talk:Feminist movement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating. |
Contents |
[edit] "Feminism" is a modernity
I have some problems with the portion on "Prior to 1850". The term feminism is a modernity, and to call any person in history retroactively a feminist is questionable. I think that it invests in these long dead individuals too many qualities associated with modern feminists. More over, many of those qualities which make up modern feminist discourse were not even an a possible thought in the pre-1850s mind. I digress; the fact remains that a modernity should not be used to describe any historical thought. Any thoughts? I will wait to edit until I get some more opinions on the matter Cyclonus0102 04:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- What about retitling it something like "The Roots of Feminsm" or "The Roots of the Women's Movement"? While I agree that calling Christine di Pizan a feminist when she wrote centuries before the term was coined is a bit of a stretch, it's not a stretch at all to assert that she was writing in favor of women's rights, or even that her work was a precursor to the modern feminist movement. Basically, i think this section belongs in the article, but I agree that it could be phrased better. —This unsigned comment is by 68.161.105.25 (talk • contribs) 9 March 2006.
-
- Concur with the anon reply, especially because Women's rights is basically a disambiguation page. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dismissive of radicalism
The lead is written in such a way as to exclude radical feminists from the movement, embracing only reformism. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Other problems
I'm not ready to plunge into this one, but here are a few other problems I see:
- "Some feminists would argue that there is still much to be done on these fronts, while third wave feminists would disagree and claim that the battle has basically 'been won'." This strikes me as an inaccurate description of third wave feminists, or at least of some third wave feminists. Is there a citation to back up this claim?
- There should be more of a contrast between, on the one hand, non-sexist and gender-inclusive language, and, on the other, rhetorical figures that deliberately gender language, as in "herstory".
- "There is a so called third wave, but feminists disagree as to its necessity, its benefits, and its ideas. Often also called 'Post-Feminist,' it can possibly be considered to be the advancement of a female discourse in a world where the equality of women is something that can be assumed—rather than fought for. However, many women cite that this belief is oppressive in itself, as it assumes an equality which, to a certain degree, does not exist. Women still must face a host of issues including unequal pay, the lack of child care, the glass ceiling, sexual inequality in government programs such as social security, the burdensom assumption as to women's responsibility for the family even when working, and continuing gender stereotyping that hinder a younger generation of women from realising their abilities in math and the sciences." This reads like people arguing with each other. It does not read like an encyclopedia article.
Jmabel | Talk 06:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV?
I edited "In more or less all areas of the world, women are still paid less than men for equivalent work, hold much less political and economic power, and are often the subject of intense social pressure to conform to relatively traditional gender expectations." This is stated as fact, while the article's purpose should be to describe what the feminist movement believes, and not to validate these beliefs. I changed the text above to mention that those are the beliefs of feminists, to avoid POV. --Popsicle stick 10:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- BUT THESE ARE FACTS. Facts do not become POV because you find them inconvenient. However, they do require citation and don't seem to have any here. The "social pressure" part is arguably POV, because it is not readily measured, but the rest of it? Someone should track down citation and restore it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- On incomes, an excellent study for the U.S.: Daniel H. Weinberg, Evidence from Census 2000 About Earnings for Detailed Occupation by Men and WomenPDF (272 KiB), May 2004, Census 2000 Reports, U.S. Census Bureau
- Simple chart of income by gender for Canada: [1]
- Looks like there are a ton of related materials at [2]
- But probably thisis the goldmine: the UNECE Gender Statistics Website, which includes an extensive online database of worldwide statistics.
So does someone want to sort through some of these? If not, I guess I'll eventually get there. - Jmabel | Talk 02:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Integration
There is a lot of overlap, and duplication between this and History of feminism, on which I am in the middle of a doing a major rewrite (currently up to 1900). There will need to be some major rationalisation, at least eventually. Similat considerations apply to a lot of the feminism topics. Mgoodyear 04:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Odd statement
"Christine de Pizan, a late medieval writer, was possibly the earliest feminist in the western tradition. Indeed she is believed to be the first woman to make a living writing."
Wouldn't it make more sense for her to be the first known or recorded woman to make a living writing in Europe or France? Regardless of how sexist either of these areas may have been in the 15th century, there had to have been some women who were able to sustain themselves through writing. If not then, perhaps in a very different past. Kennard2 04:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
