The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Feminism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Vital article

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Feminism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Feminism at the Reference desk.

	Feminism has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 10, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed August 19, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed June 18, 2008 Peer review Reviewed December 7, 2011 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Good article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Gender studies GA‑class High‑importance 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.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Feminism GA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Sociology: Social Movements GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Philosophy: Social and political GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Politics GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion GA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Men's Issues GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. 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): Jeannettesalas24 (article contribs).

By consensus, guideline, or policy Criticism about feminism is already covered with appropriate weight and sourcing. If you seek coverage beyond what you see, consider whether you are proposing content that is more suitable for other articles or for a non-Wikimedia website. If a criticism you wish to add lacks an adequate source, please find one first. Edits for other pages may be offered there, not here. Examples include content for specialized articles and Wikipedia policies, which have their own pages and their own talk pages. This is only an introductory article on feminism. To find specialized subarticles within feminism, please click on links in the feminism article, including in any sidebar. Feminism is inherently one-sided. Feminism is a critique of society. That means there is a disagreement between feminism and society. In that case, generally, if society is neutral, feminism is not. Wikipedia requires neutrality, but that applies to Wikipedia articles, not to feminism itself, nor to any source. As long as the article is neutral in how it presents its general subject, Wikipedia's requirement for neutrality is fulfilled. This article does not cover what feminism does not cover. If there are few feminist disagreements in a given society, feminism may have nothing to say about many subjects in that society. Wikipedia reports on feminism in accordance with reliable sources. Consistency with a particular political message is not this article's purpose. This article represents many sources with appropriate balance. While mainstream feminism is emphasized, other branches of feminism are also covered. The content of this article meets Wikipedia's Good Article Criteria. Content being added to this article must conform to the community's quality standards for "Good Articles". Material not meeting these criteria should be removed and rewritten appropriately to fit them.

Points of interest related to Feminism on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Feminism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:ArtAndFeminism2015 article

(Under category Culture)

First coined by Jennifer Wicke, a professor at the University of Virginia, the term “celebrity feminism” refers to a modern form of feminism that is created by female celebrities who are eager to publicly claim feminist identities^[1]. The past few years have been noted for the recurring trend of active feminism, in which numerous celebrities made feminism more visible through performances, open speeches, and social media. Forums, such as Elle UK, released issues solely discussing feminism and quoted that 2014 was “a year…in which feminism was increasingly visible within popular media cultures, including celebrity cultures”^[2]. In their article, Introduction: feminism and contemporary celebrity culture, Hamad and Taylor also emphasize this “snowballing” effect of celebrity culture and that the figure of “self-professed” feminist celebrity became an ongoing flashpoint of cross-media celebrity landscape. The growing number of celebrities publicly identifying themselves as feminists, notably Beyoncé, Emma Watson, and Jennifer Lawrence, has defined major moments within the entertainment industry, creating multiple debates on social media platforms. Young women, contributing as the majority of the audience of mainstream celebrity culture and users of online media, are therefore exposed to such discussion and respond to them in distinct ways. According to journalist Connie Crane, social media, like Facebook and Twitter, are “relatively affordable, ubiquitous, and simple” and therefore allow broader access to feminist debates.

With celebrity feminism and social media conjoining to create this new platform, feminism has expanded to become a widespread interest of the public. Feminist blogs have become a ground for young women of different cultures and contexts to come together and advocate for their equal rights in school and work ^[3]. Debates over the media representations of celebrities as feminists are therefore ongoing and social media has become the major platform for teenage girls to voice their opinions. In her 2014 MTV Video Music Awards performance, Beyoncé appeared on stage with the word ‘feminist’ illuminated in oversized lettering behind her. The performance received great media attention, some critics referring to such movement as a “celebrity zeitgeist” and of “orchestrated publicity”^[4]. Immediately after the performance, feminist blog posts and online discussion boards were updated with debate over whether her performance was truly a “feminist” movement. Some blamed her skin-exposing outfit, commenting that it was “contradicting to what she’s saying”, while some criticized it as a marketing tactic, questioning her understanding of the term ^[5][6]. In September 2014, Emma Watson, as UN Women Goodwill Ambassador, was applauded for her speech on gender equality and the launching of a campaign called “HeForShe”. While the public praised her activism, many young feminists opened online discussions, questioning the campaign’s validity^[7]. They believed that the campaign’s goal, to inform young boys and ask for gender equality, was flawed and diverted “attention to men”^[8].

There is great debate over “celebritized” feminism, in which young feminists appreciate the growing popularity but criticize the manipulation of fame and misunderstanding of the core beliefs of feminism. As Hamad and Taylor noted, intersections of feminism and contemporary celebrity culture are “myriad, complicated, and contradictory”. While one does not necessarily benefit or harm the other, both use appropriate methods to utilize its medium and communicative differences. The controversy that always follows feminist publicity results in critics and young women recognizing that there is no “authentic feminism that exists beyond its celebrity manifestations”^[9]. There is definite increase in attention to feminism in mainstream media, yet young feminists remain skeptical of the media representation^[10]. For example, news forums and magazine articles have reportedly announced celebrities’ response to the self identification as a feminist. Figures such as Katy Perry, Kelly Clarkson, and Lady Gaga were noted to either shun away from the term or ambiguously answer without a determined motive or reason^[11]. Celebrity feminism is thus commonly believed as surface level feminism and is said to be turning into a “fashion” and trend in which stars use the publicity to their own career benefits and “articulate political positions” ^[12][13]. As awareness of gender equality is increasing, celebrities are voicing their opinions, either due to sincere passion or for publicity and reputation, and explicitly stand in positions that can greatly influence the minds of the audience.

The intersection between feminism and celebrity culture, and its portrayal through media, has thus “shaped the kinds of feminism that come to publicly circulate”^[14]. Celebrity news, largely communicated through social media, creates current popular culture and the audience are keen to follow regardless of their personal stance^[15]. In her article, Keller discussed the “lack of education that girls and boys receive about feminism”, and how celebrity publicity replaces this gap. Media representations of self-professed feminist celebrities frequently contradict fundamental feminist ideologies, which evidently distort the public’s understanding^{[16] [17]}. Literature examples, such as Piercy’s poem Barbie Doll or Tiptree’s science fiction The Girl Who Was Plugged In, illustrate this misrepresentation and confusion. Both works depict extreme societal expectations on women and appearance, as well as gender embodiment. The idealized female body in which both works portray are “results of celebrity endorsement and consumerism”^[18].These embellished images of female bodies however are still reproduced by celebrities who claim to be feminists, belying their publicized opinions that women have the right to disregard sexual expectations and gender roles. Influences in which society and media have on the perspectives of the young audience are discussed, and this questions the ability of celebrities to “represent the complexities of contemporary feminist issues”^[19]. Through social networking and media representations, young women are expanding their knowledge by discussing the rise in celebrity feminism and interpreting the influences in which such publicity tactics can have on their, and the public’s feminist perspectives.

Currently: "Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women."

Grammatically, it should be clarified that the desired equality is among women and the rest of society, which is men. Feminism is not about giving women equality amongst eachother, or making women equal to the Martians, or making them more equal; it is about producing women = men and men = women.

Better: "Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights that are equal for women and men."

(I feel if I change this directly it will get reverted for some reason, so I'll just leave this suggestion here.) --Nanite (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rights that are equal for women and men Not historically, so it's not applicable; also it's not necessarily true for all the movements. Currently it says rights for women which is correct for all time periods, hence why it's used. --92slim (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My point is strictly about the word "equal", that it's an incomplete equation. To paraphrase, "Feminism is about acheiving (women's rights == ________)". Unless you fill in the right hand side of the equation, the sentence doesn't have any meaning.

Edit — don't get me wrong, I don't mean to promote men's rights or whatever -isms are flying around on reddit these days, it's just that I was always taught that feminism was about achieving equality among the sexes to improve humanity as a whole. --Nanite (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking the idea of equality for women implies to men, because women and men are the same category of thing (human). Actually from a purely linguistic grammatical point of view adding "to men" is redundant (and is in fact less grammatical). Furthermore the definition as written matches how the sources define the subject. This is the primary and over-riding point. If the reliabel sources don't need to say it - we don't--Cailil ^talk 13:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary would be considered a reliable source for the definition of a word, I suppose? --Nanite (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:DICTS says, dictionaries present a few problems as sources (often there's a degree of nuance that they lose.) Beyond that, though, I don't think there's anything unclear about saying "equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social rights for women"; its meaning is obvious from the context. And your proposal just seems more clunky to me. --Aquillion (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Feminism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceB":

• From Gender: Cagatay, Nilufer. "Trade, Gender and Poverty." pp. 4–8. United Nations.
• From Socialism: "Socialism" at Encyclopedia Britannica
• From Sexual violence: McDougall (1998), para. 22 harvp error: no target: CITEREFMcDougall1998 (help)
• From Law: Robertson, Crimes against humanity, 90.
• From Age of Enlightenment: Beard and Gloag, Musicology, 60.
• From Individualism: "Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations." Emma Goldman. "What it Really Stands for Anarchy" in Anarchism and Other Essays.
• From Women in music: Rosina Ncube. "Sounding Off: Rosina Ncube [:] Why So Few Women in Audio?" in Sound on Sound. September 2013

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This article has been vandalized with a pornographic image overlaid on the top of the page. It needs to be fixed. 72.24.217.30 (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see what you are talking about and there is nothing in the edit history to say that this ever happened. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assure you this occurred. Yesterday the article had an obscene image overlaid on its contents. The image linked to the Wikipedia page for the GNAA, indicating that this was likely to have been a direct hacking attack as opposed to a case of simple vandalism. It appears to have since been remedied. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No log or diff of this exists. If indeed this happened it had to be a hack--Cailil ^talk 16:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really what feminism is? Doesn't it count for both genders? Isn't it gender equality? Or am i just wrong? Is it purely for females? If so what is the opposite called (as in an ideology that opposes sexism towards men)? I thought feminism was for men too but i might just be wrong. If someone answer i'll be greatfull Simen1337 (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the 'clenched fist in Venus sign' supposed to be? Has it actually been used anywhere outside of Wikipedia or was it just made up? It strikes me as rather odd, particularly the colour. What sort of organization for the empowerment of women in society would opt for such a stereotypically infantile 'girly' colour?! nagualdesign 00:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the term "gender politics" in this article and wasn't familiar with it, so I checked if there was an article. What I found was a redirect of "gender-politics model" to the "Theories of victimization" article. In that article it defines the gender-politics model as "an attempt to schematise abuse of women as attempts by males in general to maintain their position of power over females." I can't check the citation, because it's offline. But that doesn't sound very WP:NPOV to me. And the redirect strikes me as suspicious in general. I won't change it, however, until I confirm with someone who knows more about gender politics than I do that I should look in to it more and fix it or just leave it to the experts. Thanks for any help! -wʃʃʍ- 03:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some potential problems with the few sentences in this article about Flower Power Feminism:

1. I don't know what the boldface words are about. I haven't come across usage like that in other articles, and it doesn't seem to be used anywhere else in this article.
2. I understand the intended meaning of "For the first time a woman's life, sex was about desire, not marriage. A marriage might get to wait a few years to make sure it was about love," but it's not strictly correct to say "For the first time (in) a woman's life. . ." (I think the intended meaning is for the first time in western society) and "A marriage might get to wait. . ." (the marriage itself isn't waiting, but a couple might be waiting to get married) The precision of language and tone of this section is very different from the rest of the article.
3. None of this is sourced in this article. There's a separate article about this movement with citations, but strong assertions- especially generalizations- should be directly sourced in the article in which they are made, right?

I don't feel comfortable changing the section myself, since I'm no expert on the topic. I thought it was worth pointing out, tho. Best! -wʃʃʍ- 04:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping some more people can weigh in on the discussion "Debunked and retracted" or "retracted" on the talk page. There's been a bit of back and forth about using words like debunked, hoax and fabricated in reference to Jackie's story. Permstrump (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]