Talk:Gender feminism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): W.Robert.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 22:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

POV

The passage

"The author now pauses to sing a little song I know a song that gets on everybody's nerves... Everybody's nerves... Everybody's nerves... I know a song that gets on everybody's nerves And this is how it goes...(repeat)

Now the author returns to her article on Gender Feminism. " has no place in a wikipedia article. User:204.17.80.4 14:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victim feminism

Why does "Victim feminism" redirect here? It is a distinctly different concept. I bet someone deleted it and created a redirect because they found it offensive. Fuzzform 00:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, victim feminism is not used in Sommers' 1994 book where she introduces gender feminism, and it was in use prior to this in 1993. The two might both be criticized by the same groups but they clearly have distinct meanings. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

As this presently redirects to Sommers, and I have read claims in one book which credits her for inventing this term, I still wonder whether or not the term has gained enough notability on its own to be covered as a subject.

Previously this was lumped together with

equity and gender feminism
article which was completely inappropriate, clearly advertising with inappropriate emphasis only on Sommers' use of the first term without recognizing others' prior use of it. I have to wonder how much consensus or research went into such a merger. It was likely based on the misconception that Sommers coined 'equity feminism' in 1994 with gender feminism. Wikipedia's been misleading readers about that for 11 years. Equity feminism is a distinct subject and was in discussion in 1989 at least 5 years before Sommers introduced gender feminism in her 1994 book, so it deserves to exist on its own.

Whether or not "gender feminism" deserves a page I'm not entirely sure yet, I'd have to take a look at the sources. Are we sure it isn't just a rebranding of social feminism or something? That too has been set across from equity feminism. Does anyone know any sources explaining gender/social as different or same feminist groupings? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A true diamond in the rough would be a use of "gender feminism" prior to 1994. I'll look but my hopes are dim. This is a real pain to search though since I'm not sure how to exclude "gender: feminism" and "gender, feminism" from results. Where I do notice just a space between the words I'll include some cites though for us to review. Here's one:

Mcelroy, Wendy (2003). "Gender Feminism and Ifeminism: Wherein They Differ". Etica E Politica 5 (2):1-12 (PhilPapers). individual feminism contrasts sharply with gender feminism .. because gender feminism has dominated the movement for decades, the disagreements expressed by individualist feminism have been labeled as "anti-feminist" and even "anti-woman." It is time to reclaim this neglected and rich tradition

What interests me in this is it is not put opposite

Ifeminism (unsure what that is) and the abstract opens with referring to individualist feminism later abbreviated individual feminism
.

This is of particular interest since "individual" seems like a more polar opposite to "social" feminism.

Could this point 9 years later indicate that the concept of gender feminism might take on more of an independent meaning than merely referring to a concept isolated to Sommers' book? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JACKPOT. A reminder that Who Stole Feminism? lists a publishing date of 3 June 1994, behold:

Brady, Patrick (University of Tennessee) (May 1994). "From Feminism to Chaos Theory: Nonlinearity in Lucette Desvignes". In Henry, Freeman G. (ed.). Discontinuity and Fragmentation (French Literature Series, Vol XXI). p. 103. Moreover, this Kristevan-Lacanian mode of feminist analysis, while aligned, perhaps surprisingly, with theory like Marxism, runs counter to several other recent perspectives, including those proposed by gender feminism, structuralism, and chaos theory.

How was it that if Sommers coined 'gender feminism' in a book published June 1994 that the term was used in a book published May 1994?

In case anyone is wondering about the month, I don't see it in the book but saw May mentioned in its Amazon profile.

Is it possible Amazon has the wrong month listed? Or could "Who Stole" have an earlier debut date than June? Or perhaps advanced copies of an unfinished version were given out and the introduction of 'gender feminism' became known and spread to Brady soon enough for him to include it in his chapter in Henry's book prior to the actual source of the term being officially released? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DOUBLE-JACKPOT, found a hyphenated use in 1992:

Wiegman, Robyn (1 January 1992). "Toward a Political Economy of Race and Gender". The Bucknell Review 36.2. In marking multiplicity in this way-as within "women" and not across the very categories of gender-feminism can still be articu- lated within its foundational logic of gender, a logic that does not threaten the patriarchal opposition of masculine/feminine pre- cisely by maintaining ... {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

I am a bit less confident about this though because while I got this result from Google Scholar via the 'find sources' template, half the time I click it I get Apache errors and the only PDF preview is for the first page which does not have the full context of this excerpt. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I just want to say that I really appreciate all this work you're doing to sort this all out. Thanks you. :-)
But on this source in particular, I think the hyphen is just a poor rendering of an emdash, and that "— as within 'women' and not across the very categories of gender —" is a parenthetical phrase within the sentence "In marking multiplicity in this way [...] feminism can still be articulated within its foundational logic of gender...". So in that instance, the proximity of "gender" and "feminism" is not an instance of the phrase "gender feminism".
Keep up the good work! --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting thing I found. Not sure when in 1994 but not particularly concerned since from what I can tell this may be talking about a different idea through its antonym:

Sandoval, Chéla (1994). "Re-entering cyberspace: sciences of resistance". Dispositio Vol. 19, No. 46, Subaltern studies in the Americas. pp. 75–93. Under this new form of what Haraway calls "anti-racist," indeed, this is even an anti-gender feminism, she asserts, "there is no place for women," only "geometries of difference and contradiction crucial to women's cyborg identities" (Haraway 1991, 171). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

Is

anti-gender with pro-gender thoughts? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 06:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

If I'm reading that excerpt and Sommers' general position correctly, I don't think "anti-gender feminism" here is meant to be juxtaposed with "gender feminism" as Sommers uses it. This sounds like it means a form of feminism opposed to the concept of gender, or the division of people into gender categories; whereas "gender feminism" as Sommers uses it does not seem to be merely a form of feminism that supports or employs the concept of gender, opposite this "anti-gender" feminism, but something more than that; her equity- or liberal-feminist position doesn't seem to object to the concept of gender, only to the pitting of the genders as social classes against each other, rather than equality and liberty for individuals regardless of their gender. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... digging further, there appears to be some evidence that Sommers was using the phrase "gender feminism" (which this author compares to radical feminism) prior to the June 1994 debut of "Who Stole". So while she may well have coined it, we should not cite the book as the source for her having done so:

Beckwith, Francis J. (September 1992). "Reply to Keenan: Thomson's Argument and Academic Feminism". International Philosophical Quarterly Volume 32, Issue 3. pp. 369–376. L. Geisler, Matters of Life and Death: Calm Answers to Tough Questions about Abortion and Euthanasia (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), chapter 3. ·Sommers, who calls herself a "liberal feminist" and distinguishes herself from "radical (or gender) feminism" (see her ... {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

While this doesn't precede the January 1992, upon looking at that again I'm wondering if that hyphen was meant to be a dash and that "categories of gender", "feminism can still" was more what was intended... plus I have no clue what this September 1992 article is referring to. Unfortunately the excerpt cuts off just when we are told what of Sommers to see (an earlier work? perhaps something shorter than a book?) and I'm not sure how to find out what that was.

It is interesting though that

equity feminist
in 1992? Perhaps in the 92-93 region is when she came across the 89-90 works using 'equity feminism' and adopted this in time for the 1994 book?

It may be interesting to note this cite for other articles too. But this does beg the question: should we actually have this term redirecting to the book when we know Sommers was using it before the book came out?

Should it perhaps be redirected to "radical feminism" due to how Beckwith quotes "radical (or gender) feminism" as if 'gender' and 'radical' have the same meaning in whatever it is of Sommers' Beckwith is instructing the reader to see?

I see a problem in doing this though. In her book Sommers later speaks of 'gender' and 'equity' as rivals, and I have another source which speaks of 'conservative equity feminism' and 'radical equity feminism'.

If something which is not gender feminism (called equity feminism) can be described as 'radical' then it does not seem right to simply treat 'gender' as another word for 'radical'. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found something else from a month later with a more understandable cite:

Yates, Steven (October 1992). "Multiculturalism and Epistemology". Public Affairs Quarterly Vol. 6, No. 4. pp. 435–456. Feminists offer their distinctive twist to this approach by saying that all knowledge and cognition are "gendered"; hence the term gender feminism. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

While IPQ32-3 from September is clearly referencing Sommer, this one throws me for a loop though. Is this a different use of the phrase? It seems to be focusing more on a study on gender in vocabulary by feminism rather than some kind of internal conflict between feminists. Could Yates' statement in PAQ6-4 be the gateway to finding a different topic on which to base an article? I should get this on JSTOR and see if he elaborates more about it. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intro rewrite

@Loginnigol: regarding the cite of Who Stole Feminism, could you clarify which quote in the book has the term opposite individualist feminism? You put 320 but that's the total page count and just an index so I'm having trouble finding an excerpt to verify. Managed to find it in McElroy's LFw okay. Ranze (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gynocentrism

Why is gender feminism described as gynocentric, since it's central concept is the cultural construction of gender? I also can't seem to find it anywhere in the cited source.. CorvusMonedula (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed dispersal

NAC: No consensus. There are good arguments both in favor of retention of this topic, in particular as a book topic, and in favor of dispersal with this page becoming a disambiguation-style page. Recommend a new RFC that can be neutrally publicized. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal
I propose a merge of
dab
page.
Rationale
"
Biogeographist: Pages on derogatory terms can be appropriate for terms that have reliable sources which discuss their use in public discourse sociologically, politically, or historically. I don't see such sources on this topic. Without clear definition or any good source providing comprehensive coverage of these diverse definitions, I don't see a basis for an article at Gender feminism
.

I welcome comments from earlier contributors to the discussion at Talk:Social construction of gender#Merger proposal, since I have substantially edited this article since then: @Richard3120, The Vintage Feminist, Staszek Lem, and Pfhorrest:. Daask (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: I agree with the sentence that
    Biogeographist (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Do any of the results not mention Sommers and / or Who Stole Feminism? - it seems more like an argument for a re-direct to her book and the creation of a criticism section on that article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
Biogeographist: Nussbaum is a great source. She mentions "gender feminism" in quotation marks only in a summary of Sommers view
. The use of quotation marks here indicates that Nussbaum does not recognize this category, and the fact that she uses the term only in her summary of Sommers and not even in her further discussion and rebuttal indicates to me that she doesn't find it meaningful. I believe Sex and Social Justice strongly supports the understanding that this is not a meaningful term.
Heywood is less clear. She is clearly responding to Sommers and seems to reject most of Sommers historical and typological claims about feminism. However, at other points, she seems to use "gender feminism" as if she considers it a valid and meaningful term. No definition or description is offered. Daask (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
Biogeographist (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
From Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?, page 16, (my bold) American feminism is currently dominated by a group of women who seek to persuade the public that American women are not the free creatures we think we are... The feminists who hold this divisive view of our social and political reality believe we are in a gender war, and they are eager to disseminate stories of atrocity that are designed to alert women to their plight. The "gender feminists" (as I shall call them) believe that all our institutions, from the state to the family to the grade schools, perpetuate male dominance. Believing that women are virtually under siege, gender feminists naturally seek recruits to their side of the gender war. They seek support. They seek vindication. They seek ammunition.
So? How is that derogatory? More to wikipedantically,
talk) 19:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
??? I just gave you the source, page 16 of Sommers book. Sommers thinks gender feminism is a divisive view to hold. Definition of divisive. The full title of her book is Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women - in her view gender feminists have betrayed other women. She is derogatory about gender feminists throughout her entire book. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is that a "divisive view" is derogatory? Of course the title is attention-grabber. But the main idea is something went astray in feminism. If somebody says someone makes an error and invents the term for this error, this does not make the term automatically derogatory. Just as when somebody says "these Poles" or "these Irish" (I hope you know what I mean) does not make the words "Poles" or "Irish" derogatory.
talk) 17:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't realize that Oxford Dictionaries had defined it. The only definitions I had seen were Sommers and then critiques of her definition. There's a case for Social construction of gender being re-named "Gender feminism", including The New York Magazine piece if we could get it.
I'm a bit confused by your comments in this discussion where you say "feminism" is a subject separate from "gender" and ilks thereof. Have you changed your mind in light of finding the Oxford Dictionary definition? Also, as I said above some of the articles on feminism are a bit of a mess, I would have no issue with merging liberal feminism and individualist feminism (which libertarian feminism re-directs to). Both articles date back to 2003 and again, if they were both created today I think they would be merged fairly quickly. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
subject separate -- clarification: there are political/social movements and there are political/social theories, and they are different subjects; the fact that some movements are based on some specific theories does not mean that they must be merged into one page. "Social construction of gender" is a reasonable theory (If taken as an absolute, it may lead to an absurd, of course.) "Gender feminism" is the ideology based on the idea that social construction of gender in the way as it is works now is the result of abusive male dominance. As rightly noted in sources, this is surprizingly parallel to Marxism with its
talk) 20:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not quite sure what your background is (you may be a doctor of political philosophy), but for what it is worth my degree is in Social Science with Politics. The lead section of social construction of gender could be changed to read, Gender feminism is the view that society and culture create gender roles, and these roles are prescribed as ideal or appropriate behavior for a person of that specific sex. Advocates of this view believe that these social constructs are upheld and exploited by men in order to exert dominance over women. (I think you might mean separate subject rather than subject separate.} Whether the existing page on gender feminism is a movement / theory / ideology is a mute point, the existing page was rubbish, now it's abridged ("butchered" is harsh) rubbish. Social construction of gender, with a few tweaks, would be a better definition of gender feminism. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid this is not a mute point. "Social construction of gender" is a scientific/sociological theory. "Gender feminism" is a movement based on a certain interpretation of this theory. They cannot be one and the same subject; they are in completely different categories of articles. On the other hand, its seems that you are starting to agree there is enough material for a separate article.
talk) 16:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
As I mentioned at
Biogeographist (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
a bit of a mess -- Are you English :-) ? (explanation of the joke: in my culture, a stereotype of an Englishman is that true English gentlemen speak in understatements: e.g., "not bad" means "very good", and in our case "a bit of a mess" would mean "total disarray"). -- This I attribute to lack of scholarly discipline in an average wikipedian. And the same problem is with modern feministics.
talk) 20:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm British, born and raised in England (but I don't call myself English). In my case "not bad" means "not bad" and "a bit of a mess" means "a bit of a mess". --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
talk) 16:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
In case it's not clear, Support merge and/or redirect into book/author articles. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was my initial suggestion here. I didn't realize there had previously been an Equity and gender feminism page. However, if there is an Oxford English Dictionary definition is: "Advocacy of the view that the differences between the male and female genders are social constructs upheld and exploited by men in order to exert dominance over women.", then there's a case for an article on that basis with a criticism section or "use as a pejorative term" or "use by C. H. Sommers" section. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "criticism" is to a significant degree due to Sommers shooting herself in the leg by chosing the polemic style, embellished with rhetorical exaggerrations and other frivoloties with facts, offering quite a few tasty bites for critics.
talk) 16:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Re: this and your comment above that: On the other hand, it seems that you are starting to agree there is enough material for a separate article. - Not really but seeing as this article exists it ought to be correct. There is no doubt that Sommers is criticizing gender feminism, and that has nothing to do with style or rhetoric. If there has to be an article on gender feminism the description - from Oxford Dictionary is one of advocacy. A gender feminist is an advocate of gender feminism which supports social constructs of gender. Then criticism of the term from Sommers, Pinker etc. At the moment it is slanted towards - "you'll never guess what this lot believe, dear, oh dear, oh dear" with advocacy as a footnote.
If that is what is being proposed then gender feminism is clearly a re-direct to a section within Who Stole Feminism? on Sommers use of the term gender feminism. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
gender feminism which supports social constructs of gender -- yes, but this statement is not complete definition of gender feminism. Not only gender feminists support social construction of gender (SCoG). (I support it as well, to a degree :-). Gender feminists take one step further: their position of struggle is that SCoG has been influenced and abused by male dominating pigs.
talk) 19:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
on Sommers use of the term Not only Sommers uses this term, as we see; It appears that the definition of Sommers was embraces and elaborated by others. therefore your suggested redirect is too narrow a target. No more than the term "
talk) 19:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Sommers has taken a disperate group of feminists, labelled them "gender feminists" and defined them as taking SCoG one step further. It's not only Sommers - but which of the theorists who agree with her definition do not quote her? All roads lead back to her definition. Movements go somewhere, Sommers is discussing feminist philosophy as though it is a movement in and of itself - it is not. The philosophers that came through in the 1960s and 1970s decribed / explained / analyzed the various feminist movements of the day including (to her horror) left-wing feminst movements e.g. Socialist feminism, Marxist feminism etc. They formed the Society for Women in Philosophy (1972), created the journal Hypatia and made a case for its academic study. Sommers sees this as a threat, a liberal agenda e.g. her 1988 article Should the Academy Support Academic Feminism? - her conclusion, no it should not, because that would be a recruitment drive for the left. Her definition of gender feminism, picked up and carried as a banner by other like-minded theorists is a (false) claim that teaching feminist philosophy = a movement and that movement ought to be stopped. Gender feminism has only two possible end-games (1) a realization that Jagger et al are correct when they say the teaching of feminist philosophy is not a movement or, (2) Sommers, Pinker et al succeed in convincing the academic world that feminist philosophy is a Trojan horse for a thing they are calling a "gender feminist" movement and the academic world comply and ban it. It would make more sense to have an Anti-gender feminist article with a description of what Sommers et al think is going on and their movement to try and and stop feminist / gender studies. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of looking at this is to say, "Okay, there is such a thing as gender feminism, a movement" What are the movement's aims? - not according to Sommers / McElroy / Pinker / Kuhle / other conspiracy theorists etc. What are the movement's aims according to those inside the movement? Wanting to teach subjects which historically have been taught from an androcentric perspective (remember we're talking about academics who came through in 1970s and 1980s) is not a political movement. The academic curriculum changes all the time. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support redirect to book topic I see no indication that these terms exist outside of a discussion of the author or the book. I can find no sources related to any movement of any kind, any participants/activists, etc. While it may well be a valid idea/theory, and have prompted discussion as well as a dictionary definition, it is only apparently within the context of that particular book and author and/or refutations of her work. It does not appear to have spawned any type of political group adhered to the ideas expressed who identify as gender feminists. SusunW (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    Biogeographist, The Vintage Feminist, Staszek Lem, Rhododendrites, and SusunW. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC) (edited 01:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC))[reply
    ]

  • Comment Responding to ping. I still support a re-direct to Sommers book. I'm not quite sure what points are being made here but I will try to respond anyway.
A - "You're a Cuckservative!"
B - "If by Cuckservative you mean I reject white supremacy and other intolerant behaviour then okay I'll support the term." - that doesn't mean they self-identify as one.
      • Thanks for responding. To clarify, the three sources I linked to are independent academic works in the area of sociology/political science, which I think is the field most appropriate for an article about a political movement such as feminism. I don't consider McElroy to be such a source. To use your John McCain analogy, a "notable feminist" writing about feminism would be like McCain writing about conservatism. His opinions may or may not be noteworthy, but he's not an authoritative source just by virtue of being notable and a conservative himself. That said, McElroy seems to be just using the term as a slur for
        sources describing the dispute. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Barry X. Kuhle ... and Pinker -- the quotes you cited do not define the term as derogatory. Neither criticism of the term nor criticism implied in the term make it automatically derogatory.
talk) 18:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
P.S. A clarifying example of the difference I have in mind: "you are an idiot" is derogatory; "you are mistaken" is not (despite the fact that 90% will take an offense). The quotes given are of the second kind.
talk) 18:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
If the term is the creation of Sommers then it is critical to our reading of other sources. -- Every term is someone's creation. I fail see why for understanding, say,
talk) 18:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The reason there isn't more research / commentary from the academic community over this disparaging term is because it would give the Sommers' term traction. The Encyclopedia of Women and American Politics is published by Infobase Publishing who I don't really know, and the chapter Feminist Theory in Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society is written by Rosemarie Tong, she also wrote Feminist Thought, Student Economy Edition: A More Comprehensive Introduction whose index says "Gender feminism see care-focused feminism". I'm not really sure of her politics to comment on her omission of Sommers work either. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a logical explanation, but is there a published source saying that's what happened, or is this just a different kind of conspiracy theorizing? Infobase is the parent company of
structure of fact-checking and editorial oversight in place, which all the named sources certainly have. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
How is there two meanings? -- Please see my explanation above where I wrote there are at least three meanings. Wikipedians will have hard time to establish now exactly many meanings there are. When the dust settles and we start converting it into a disabmig page, we will have to have a serious discussion to nail down what each writer has in mind under this term.
talk) 21:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
sex and gender distinction (basically all modern feminists and most social scientists) and the alternative sense of difference feminism as receiving any attention. So I don't think a DAB page is needed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment Responding to ping. I still support a re-direct to Sommers book and the analysis above by The Vintage Feminist confirms my previous conclusion. SusunW (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Responding to ping. I am willing to change my opinion, because after some extra reading I see at least two or three sources which define the term apparently differently: Sommers' and that of in two footnotes in the lede of
    talk
    )
  • Note: To attract more input to this discussion, I've notified members of several related WikiProjects: Women's History, Philosophy, Sociology, Feminism, and Gender Studies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disperse/merge with Christina Hoff Sommers/her book. The article as it currently stands is nonsense that lacks sources because they don't exist. No one identifies as a "gender feminist": it's a dismissive label for feminists by an anti-feminist author (Hoff Sommers) with an article that tries to portray it as being an in-reality division of feminism and to have a broader usage beyond Hoff Sommers. Every source here (apart from those in the background section that are completely irrelevant to anything) is people engaging in various critical ways with Hoff Sommers' book - the logical place to put it would be to be in the article about the book. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are writing nonsense yourself: sources are cited. Yes this article is mainly about Sommers. But other people use this term in differetn ways, hence the suggestion to make a disambig page. NO it is not "dismissive label for feminists" - It is a classification for some feminists, whether they like it or not. That Sommers disagrees with what she calls "gender feminism" does not make it dismissive.
      talk) 21:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Quote from Sommers (my bold): The feminists who hold this divisive view of our social and political reality believe we are in a gender war... That's more than merely disagreeing. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes its is a disagreement and an accusation in splitting/derailing feminist movement. Are you insulted? Feel it disparaged? Well, that's you opinion. We in wikipedia write articles in which every statement, and especially every opinion must come from WP:RS.
talk) 20:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kuhle?

There is a whole subsection about the views of "Kuhle" - no first name or other description given. Would this be Barry Kuhle? We don't have an individual article on this person. Given that, is he important enough that his views deserve a separate section, or even mentioning at all? --GRuban (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is Barry Kuhle, he was first added here and removed here. The new article from him was added here, which ends with this gem: "Feminist psychology needs to evolve. To paraphrase one of Darwin’s closing sentiments in On the Origin of Species (1859): In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Feminist psychology will be based on equity feminism, that of the necessary civil and social liberties of both sexes, and not the untenable perspective that psychological sex differences did not evolve." The article is only there because it names gender feminism and equity feminism as though they are well established branches of feminism, like Marxist feminism or Conservative feminism.
I went looking to see if there was anything else from Steven Yates (ref 10, last sentence in the "history" section). I found this WordPress article in which he mentions a paper by Sommers - “Feminism Against the Family” which I've not been able to trace. I also found another blog he wrote in 2006 in which he quotes Aaron Russo, Russo reports how he once defended his sympathy with the women's movement and with equal opportunity to an unnamed member of the Rockefeller clan. Russo describes the chilling response: "He looked at me and said, "You know, you're such an idiot in some ways. We created the women's movement, and we promote it. And it's not about equal opportunity. It's designed to get both parents out of the home and into the workforce, where they will pay taxes. And then we can decide how the children will be raised and educated."" Yates reporting Russo, reporting an unamed source.
This wasn't even an article until March 2016, I think the whole thing should be a re-direct. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • About this
    talk) 20:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Staszek Lem: This isn't the place to debate the merits of evolutionary psychology as a discipline. Daask (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes this is the place to discuss the expertise of the sources. If a person is engaged in non-mainstream (to put it delicately) science, we have rights to question his wisdom and relevance of his opinion.
    talk) 21:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I added some of the content from Kuhle not because he is notable, but because I was trying to catalog every person who ever discussed "gender feminism". There really isn't much to work with. Daask (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's an understandable, but questionable motivation for adding someone's opinions to wikipedia.
talk) 21:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I concur with Staszek Lem on this this one; in articles about terminology, notability is demonstrated by
not every published claim about established topics is noteworthy; for instance, in writing about the Western world, we wouldn't seek to include commentary from every modern so-called "public intellectual" waxing rhapsodic about the glories of Western "civilization". I'm thinking this is more justification for merging the article as discussed above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Request for comment: merge proposal

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus against C: the discussion has been stale for two weeks so I see little value in relisting it, and neither A nor B has clear consensus, however it is clear that C, which is the status quo, is not desired. I shall therefore convert the page into a redirect to
RfD. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply
]


Should this page either (A) redirect to Who Stole Feminism? as was done for Equity and gender feminism, (B) become a disambiguation page, or (C) be kept as an encylopedia article? These options and others were discussed here recently with a result of no consensus. Other suggestions are welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nota bene* Post-RfC comment: the result of the RfD discussion was disambiguate. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of gender feminism listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect History of gender feminism. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Paradoctor (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender_feminism&oldid=1066117850"