Talk:Separatist feminism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Separatist feminism article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click [show] for further details
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. B This article has been rated as B-Class.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.

Contents 1 Not all feminists agree with this seperatist 2 Merging lesbian separatism into this article 3 Two comments 4 Holly Near "associated"? 5 Association between Lesbian Separatism and Queer Nationalism 6 Controversies 7 "Aristasia": questionable relevance

[edit] Not all feminists agree with this seperatist

You cant assume that all feminists agree with this seperatist process. I believe in some aspects of feminism but not with seperatist feminism, and whos to say im not a feminist. You? It's not factually true to say they all agree, so it doesn't go in an encyclopedia. Urthogie 02:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't even contain the word agree and plainly...

• Doesn't assert that all feminists agree on separatistism
• Doesn't say you're not a feminist

Try re-reading the article...? Wyss 17:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• I must say, however, that the wording of the article was so sloppy that I can see how someone reading through it quickly might be confused. I have fixed the syntax and done a few other things to ensure clarity. Wyss 17:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

looks good now, was a problem in communication i guess. Urthogie 20:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging lesbian separatism into this article

As lesbian separatism is a subsect of separatist feminism, it would be wise to combine the two articles into a single, more comprehensive entry. Would anyone object? - Nihila 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems fair to me, especially if lesbian separatism gets its own section, so it's clear it's a subset, not an equivalent thing. NickelShoe 23:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two comments

• Lesbian separatism should be more differentiated. I'm not sure I agree with the merger but I guess it's ok if the article evolves to reflect that.

• I put back the link to Lesbian science fiction since it's referred to repeatedly in the article. Wyss 04:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holly Near "associated"?

I took this line for Holly Near out of the list of people "associated" with lesbian feminism. I think Holly was shunned by the separatist movement, as noted in her page, but I think the word "associated" makes it sound more like she is a separatist, which is clearly wrong. Another option would be to separate the list into supporters and those affected, but I don't know enough about the others to do that.

• Holly Near, American singer/songwriter

[edit] Association between Lesbian Separatism and Queer Nationalism

I qualified the implied relationship between Lesbian Separatism and Queer Nationalism because in my extensive research on Lesbian Separatism I have found many Separatists to be in disagreement with "Queer Theory" and "Queer Culture", many of these lesbians believing that the "Queering" of Lesbian Culture is a plot to co-opt the energy and time of lesbians. Thus I feel the two schools of thought have a tenuous relationship at best/

[edit] Controversies

This section seems rather biased. I tried to clarify the "many people find" type passages to remove the implied appeal to a right-thinking minority and be clear that criticisms (like defences) are only opinions.

Critics of feminism sometimes describe women-only events and organizations as "separatist." While organizations restricted to or geared towards only women are separatist, they may not carry the extremist ideologies and highly controversial ideas embodied in separatist feminism.{{ - this seems odd. I adjusted the wording to make more sense, but even so the "geared towards only women" bit seems to imply that, say, a prenatal class or bellydancing troupe would be separatist in a different way than, say, the South Australian Trailer Boat Club is male separatist?

Lindleyle 00:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lindleyle. That was a good start. What you were dealing with are what Wikipedia calls "weasel words" and we have a guideline over at WP:WEASEL regarding these kinds of phrases. Basically you can delete that crap on sight, but please read the guideline first and cite WP:WEASEL in your edit summary. And these "critics say blah blah blah" can be tagged with {{fact}} and if nobody adds a citation in a reasonable amount of time (maybe a week or two for a slow-moving article like this one), then you can rip it out entirely. I'll leave it all at your prerogative right now. Note that there is at least one {{fact}} tag in the article right now, and if it's attached to something that you want to keep, try to find a supporting citation to replace it with. I don't check this article regularly so if you have questions about my comments hit my user talk page. — coelacan talk — 00:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I think I was actually editing as you said this! I missed the edit summary tag, sorry - read your comment too late. But I've tried to clean it up and cite.

Lindleyle 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Great edits! They really move the article forward. - N1h1l

[edit] "Aristasia": questionable relevance

I'm wondering about the legitimacy of "Aristasia"; looking at the links given, I wonder if it's anything more than a role-playing game for people (many of them doubtless male or m-t-F TG) looking to play around with traditional gender stereotypes of "classic" Western femininity? It looks more like a butch/femme chat and fiction site than a real organization of human beings actually relevant to this article. --Orange Mike 21:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)