Talk:Radical feminism/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Radical feminism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Potential misrepresentation of Andrea Dworkin's statements

I was reading through the Guardian article "Take no prisoners" earlier today, which is used to support the statement that Dworkin favours a Matriarchy. On perusing the article, I did notice the piece states "So now we come to what Andrea Dworkin wants and it is this: she wants women to have their own country.". That statement could just as easily refer to concepts of separatism. I'm therefore not convinced that this statement is supportive of the claim that is made for it. Would anyone like to add anything further? Dolescum (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be rephrased to include "and separatism" just in case. On a somewhat irrelevant note, more content from Andrea Dworkin (and other radfems) needs to be added. I can provide material to be added, but I'm still having problems regarding its proper placement. Bridenh (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for going through sources; meaning to do it myself but other things going on. We should go only with what the sources say. If she did favor either separatism or matriarchy, there must be a source that says so. Meanwhile it should say "women have their own country." Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Carolmooredc. I've look over the other sources for this claim, the article on PS Review is dead but available on archive.org. That material does make noises in the direction of the claim, but not unconditionally. How much weight we want to put on that, I don't know.

I've also had a look at the primary material cited. In context, I don't think it does state what is claimed but I can see how people could read it otherwise. I've also noticed the material is a direct lift from the Matriarchy article, added here, here and here. There's been some prior debate on the reliablity of that PS Review source.

Okay, I've waffled on for long enough. Dolescum (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Garbled paragraph in "Radical feminism and transgenderism" section

In 1979 Janice Raymond released the book The Transsexual Empire, which she framed as a critique of a patriarchal medical and psychiatric establishment. Throughout the book, Jeffreys insists on using male pronouns to refer to trans women claiming that "use by men of feminine pronouns conceals the masculine privilege bestowed upon them by virtue of having been placed in and brought up in the male sex caste".

The second sentence doesn't make sense because the first is not about a book written by Jeffreys. It needs to be rearranged, reworded or similar. Thanks a13ean (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry about that, I re-read and edited that section multiple times and can't believe I haven't noticed the mistake until now. Bridenh (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

TERF continued

You stated above that you are going "immediately" to Arbcom. SPECIFICO talk 14:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What has this got to do with this thread? And please quote correctly "immediately if it continues." Ie primarily throwing slurs (aka terf or whatever may come to mind) around as if it's some neutral phrase. Geez... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

My bit about this is that I believe that it -is- a neutral term which has been called as a 'slur' because people don't want to have that label, they want to blend in as a 'radical feminist' with no qualifier. No, there should be a qualifier. And besides, it's an acronym. It's not something like 'nigger' which is actually a slur, it actually stands for a group of feminists who do not believe in Trans People. Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. It's not a slur, and I wholeheartedly invite you to go to ArbCom because I'm sick of you calling it that. Tutelary (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, clearly it has indeed continued so rather than make what appears to be an idle threat, just go ahead and do what you indicated and then instead of a provocation, you will have contributed a resolution. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The term is most commonly followed by death threats and other kinds, attempting to do nothing but misrepresent and smear an already misunderstood group, it is used as a slur, and is therefore reasonable that they see it as a such.Bridenh (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line is what does one care more about? The right to use a term RS and other editors describe as a slur or collaborative editing? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

By the, just looked up article "Tranny (slang)" and there are fewer sources there calling it a slur than there are calling TERF one here. And I'm sure anyone writing on this topic and using "tranny" would be taken to Arbitration or ANI (as is found to be appropriate) post haste. It's just time the community learns that this is not a nice term and has bad consequences. After the "c*nt" discussion at ANI we found out there are lots of male editors who don't like to see that term thrown around, and it in itself does not bring our organized online and in person threateners and harassers. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Clarification still needs clarifying

Re: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Sexology I just wrote about an edit here:

I was wondering what is happening with this clarification. I just saw this revert with the edit summary "Hungerford is a prominent radfem and terf)" and the relevant sentence was "The term is considered a slur by those at whom it is directed, such as Elizabeth Hungerford." Because some arbitrators here seemed to think it only should not be used against editors, perhaps the editor here thought it was OK to use against living persons, including those who have received threats which often use that term. FYI, Hungerford writes about being "gender critical."[1][2] So some real clarification here needed. Thanks.

Hopefully the arbitrators will get on their toes. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw your post there and yes, since the arbitrators have basically said it's only a problem used as a personal attack, especially against fellow editors. I did not use it in any derogatory manner. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going after you per se. We obviously have different impressions, and I don't have time to catalog what they all said, and its relative weight. I'm quite sure some got the BLP point. Will do later.

The point is that if a term is used primarily as a slur and individuals consider it a slur against them and a twisting of their perspective, we don't use it. We don't say "commie" in an edit summary about a socialist or "feminazi" in one on feminists or "tranny" regarding transgenders (even if they sometimes joke among themselves using the terms), etc. because it's just understood that those are negative terms. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it on par with those terms (though "commie" just sounds quaint). It's an acronym. If the arbcom rules differently, I'll abide by it. But Hungerford is a radical feminist who excludes transwomen so TERF seems appropriate here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note:It's an acronym. Arbcom did not make any finding, but noted it should not be used as a personal attack. E.g., Fuck you you fucking terf would be considered by most a personal attack.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You are correct about no finding; they said issue would go to the community if became a problem. I'll share what I wrote at the Arbitration Clarification (which, remember, was brought by another editor). It includes some new refs of interest. (Removed the non-RS ones that I put in as FYI for Arbirators.) One of these days I'll have time to go through the article top to bottom to improve it content and ref-wise.

For the record, here are other refs calling TERF a slur or an insult (some mention the "gender critical" alternative description):

New Yorker “those at whom it is directed consider it a slur.” (This article and term mentioned at the Federalist.com.
Village Voice “a label the feminists consider a slur .”
American Conservative titles article: "Radical Feminism & The TERF War"
National Journal mentions that the female congressional staffer who recently vandalized Wikipedia's Laverne Cox article discussed her dislike of the TERF accusation.
Counterpunch: “Make no mistake, this is a slur. TERF is not meant to be explanatory, but insulting.”(2013)[3] and later described it as one of several “epithets”(2014)[4].
Bitch magazine describes a feminist who “considers a slur” the term TERF.

If I see what I think are abuses of WP:BLP, even if no editors are abused, I can bring the issue to the appropriate forum. It's always an educational discussion.

Obviously the latest edit summary using terf to describe a specific individual (thus BLP-related) was not something worth bringing to BLPN, but in the past there has been what I see as dismissive or even hostile use of the term on this page and doubtless others and that is my concern. (See above discussions and figure it out.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

New section(s)

I've previously brought up the issue that for a prominent and influential movement who's members have written many books on many topics, this article is pretty short. I plan on starting a new section: Views on the sex industry, and 2 sub-sections that are part of it: Prostitution and Pornography.

And also another section: Views on gender, with Views on transgenderism becoming it's subsection. Any suggestions? Bridenh (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Gender section obviously would be an overview of a range of radical feminist views on Gender. It might be called, or a subsection might be called, "'gender critical' views". Transgenderism per se obviously would be a subsection of the Gender section, whatever you call it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, so this is where I knew the problem would be, I gathered quite a lot about Radfem views on gender, but I have no clue how to arrange it, all the material is in my Sandbox, basically, feel free to use it or even create the Gender section, but I think I either wont be able to, will try and do bad, or it will take me ages. Bridenh (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that work. I've got about 40 more, without even looking for too many historical refs, since a lot of those sections weak. Once of these days I'll get free enough from others' dramatics to try to update this.

If the refs you have are regular websites I could extract the relevant material from them, and then you can rearrange it and put it in the article if that would help out? Bridenh (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Really busy, but have been thinking about just listing some good refs so will keep in mind for soon. Just busy and unfocused right now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Radical feminism and Gamergate

Wikipedia is not a forum--Cailil ^talk 00:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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.

Has radical feminism influenced gaming culture? What of the recent scandals involving Quinn and other people? Oreillyorly (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to actually read the radical feminism page because I doubt you know what it is and I dont know much about Quinn but I also doubt that she is a radical feminist. You have "orly" in your name so until proven otherwise, I'm just going to assume you're a 4chan troll. Bridenh (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

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.

Edit needed

I have changed one sentence under Views on transgenderism twice, and EvergreenFir has changed it back and has asked me to discuss here. The sentence reads: Some radical feminists have advocated for the exclusion of trans women from feminist events, a source of much controversy and accusations made by Lisa Vogel of transgender protesters responding with vandalism.[58][64]

I have wanted to edit for clarity. The sentence is run-on, and incomplete. I have changed it to: Some radical feminists have advocated for the exclusion of trans women from feminist events, a source of much controversy.[58][64]

If it must still mention accusations made by Lisa Vogel, perhaps it should read: Some radical feminists have advocated for the exclusion of trans women from feminist events, a source of much controversy, and accusations have been made by Lisa Vogel of transgender protesters responding with vandalism.[58][64]

I don't like this second option as much as the simpler first option, but at least it is grammatically coherent. Really, though "responding with vandalism" just hangs out there with no support here. What were they responding to, and what kind of vandalism. Is it really necessary to keep this strange hanging reference? Does it need to be expanded if not deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplerhinoceros (talk • contribs) 05:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We already discussed this at length, that part stays in, if you think its incomprehensable by all means improve it, I think it sounds like an understandable sentence: Lisa Vogel is among the radfems that advocate WBW spaces and she claims trans activists responded with vandalism to this. The kind of vandalism and other specifics are explained in the New Yorker article. Bridenh (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bridenh:, was any vandalism actually confirmed? Tutelary (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesnt state "There was vandalism", it states "accusations made by Lisa Vogel of transgender protesters responding with vandalism" - which is in fact confirmed. Cathy Brennan posted one the "Real Women Have Dicks" leaflets distributed, but idk if we can use her blog as a source? Bridenh (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

So we have one person stating that there was an accusation of vandalism. Big deal. Wikipedia shouldn't publish 'accusations' of anything, vandalism, accusations of murder, bank robbery, being a prostitute, unless it's been exactly confirmed. Additionally, 'Real women have dicks' vandalism is surely indicative of that group supposedly vandalizing, but we can't make that connection ourselves. If an 'accusation' is the best we have, I'm opting to remove it. Tutelary (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I just said Cathy Brennan posted one the "Real Women Have Dicks" leaflets that were distributed, last time I checked that's called evidence. Bridenh (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Evidence =/= inclusion into the article. Unless it's confirmed that it's vandalism by trans activists, and not just heavily implied or 1 person 'accusing' them of doing it, it should do stay out of the article. Tutelary (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Except its not just one person and it's not just an accustion when there's evidence. Consensus was reached after extensive discussion last time this was brought up, and yet you still continue pointlessly arguing against it. Bridenh (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A 2 to 1 consensus is not a consensus, it was a compromise, but now that there's another user who has a problem with it, it can be revisited. The bit where this discussed earlier was in the bottom of the 'revert' section (which I created as part of the BRD cycle) . Again, if it's not confirmed by RS, we shouldn't conclude it. We shouldn't be publishing accusations, period. Tutelary (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tutelary (as evidenced by my question). Sorry I missed discussion below. What is the citation for "Cathy Brennan said"? Not being snarky- just wanting to know what the citation looks like, is it from her blog?Purplerhinoceros (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

no response? anyone? My main problem is that the sentence does not make sense to me. "Some radical feminists have advocated for the exclusion of trans women from feminist events, a source of much controversy and accusations made by Lisa Vogel of transgender protesters responding with vandalism." Radical Feminists calling for excusion of transwomen has certainly been a source of controversy, but not really a source leading to Lisa Vogel making accusations of vandalism. I am re-instating my previous edit. Purplerhinoceros (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Radfems have caused some trans activists to respond with vandalism - according to Lisa Vogel (Brennan also, but I still haven't gotten a response as to whether we can use her blog as a source). The sentence is correct, but if you feel it's confusing, re-arrange it. "A few years ago, though, Vogel says, some protesters committed acts of vandalism—stealing electrical cables, cutting water pipes, keying cars in the parking lot, and spray-painting a six-foot penis, and the words "Real Women Have Dicks", on the side of the main kitchen tent." Bridenh (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Bridenh, absolutely not. Wikipedia should not be publishing accusations of anything. We need confirmation, and blogs don't do it. Not to mention when the source material does -not- represent 'trans activists' and does not connect the dots to such. Tutelary (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The organizer of an event is a pretty reliable source for things that happen at said event, especially when published in the New Yorker. I'm not sure what you mean by "represent 'trans activists'" but the words used are protesters - same as in the source. Regarding "connecting dots", this is the paragraph: "In the summer of 2003, Serano joined about a hundred people at Camp Trans, a protest camp near the Michfest site, which has run intermittently since 1994. Serano said that relations with Michfest attendees were often unexpectedly cordial. A few years ago, though, Vogel says, some protesters committed acts of vandalism—stealing electrical cables, cutting water pipes, keying cars in the parking lot, and spray-painting a six-foot penis, and the words “Real Women Have Dicks,” on the side of the main kitchen tent." I dont know how many more times I'll have to point it out, but the "dots" are as clear as stars on a clear night. Bridenh (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've edited the article per the source. Still satisfied? Tutelary (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Not really, your edit didn't specify which event, and Vogel didn't make the claim on her blog (where did you even get that from?) but in The New Yorker. Fixed. Bridenh (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Brennan's blog falls under our policies on self-published sources. Please refrain from using it in the article. Dolescum (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Better organization for the article

It’s just been cobbled together and needs to be organized more logically, something like the below, with sentences and paragraphs that are misplaced put in proper spots; WP:Undue, duplicative, nonsourced material reduced or removed; fill in the blanks of obviously missing material (like on views).

History (quick overview up to today from what’s relevant below)
Theory and ideology

Roots
Emergence (Relation to Marxism as properly referenced)
Divergence (Radical lesbian feminism, anarcha feminism, any other forms)

Organizing

Radical egalitarianism
Direct Action
In various nations

Views

On the sex industry (merge first 3 into two sections?)
On prostitution
On pornography
On transgenderism
(Find material on economics/politics/education/marriage/other issues)

Criticism (Most of this probably can be merged into above where helps fill out the picture.)

Thoughts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I support this, but I'm not sure whether the criticism should be merged with the rest of the article? It's quite lengthly and I feel it would make it messier and less well-organized. Bridenh (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Some concerns. How would we differentiate in sources between 'ideology' and their 'theory' as well as among 'roots', 'emergence', and 'organizing'. These all seems to be very generic words and would be hard to find sources talking about them specifically. Tutelary (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

In "criticism" section I just saw a couple items that looked more historical than something that is currently relevant. And a "history" of criticism seems a bit weird. But would have to be looked at on a sentence by sentence basis.

Re: ideology and theory, such generic terms are often used about different views. But it's certainly necessary to see if these or other terms are used more frequently. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"In "criticism" section I just saw a couple items that looked more historical than something that is currently relevant" I've wanted to address this so many times and kept forgetting, for example the criticism about racism was valid in the beginning, but with the arrival of many WOC such as bell hooks & Audre Lorde that criticism no longer applies, same with the appropriation of lesbianism ("political lesbianism") - discouraged among young radfems (apparently still practiced by older ones though), the confusing of cultural with radical feminism, not enough about male-dominated left groups (where radical feminism began) etc. - these are just some of the problems, so much of the article is bad I think we should start reforming it top to bottom or section by section and re-organize it. Bridenh (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

With all the wikidrama (plus stupid new arbitration) I'm two months behind on personal stuff, so much as I was enthusiastic enough to provide one alternative outline, that's about where my energy stops now, except quick reviews of revisions. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I know this is a bit late but If you're free I'd appreciate some clarification about what the difference between Roots and Emergence would be, because in Emergence you mention Marxism, but radical feminism in a way has its roots in Marxism, what is the distinction based on? Also a suggestion for Views:

Views

On the sex industry

On prostitution
On pornography

On gender

Gender abolition
On transgenderism

(Material on economics/politics/education/marriage/nuclear family etc) Bridenh (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I was just going by current text which has no info. Obviously whatever RS say role of Marxism is. Since feminism came out of left wing/peace/SDS type groups, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a lot of Marxism to start. Having gone to one SDS meeting in Cambridge in 1969, I found it a lot of hairy Marxist males yapping with the females remaing silent and once was more than enough for this big mouthed female. As a number of feminists also said later and lots of RS should reflect, they rebelled against male dominance in the left-wing and peace groups. By the time I got back to mixed sex activism (1979), the anti-nuke movement had discovered, if imperfectly followed, feminism and consensus process, and it was a lot better. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Radical Feminism and Marxism

Again, I think the article is confusing cultural feminism with radical feminism. It says: "Radical feminism has had a close, if sometimes hostile, relationship with Marxism since its origins.[23]" From my understanding, that's *extremely* wrong. Radical feminism calls for the abolition of class altogether, and understands the difference class can make to understanding of patriarchy. It also says: "Despite this commonality, as ideologies Marxism and radical feminism have generally opposed one another;[citation needed] radical feminism can be contrasted to socialist feminism in this respect. In practice, however, activist alliances generally form around shared immediate goals.[citation " That's also *extremely* incorrect. Radical feminism is actually a lot on par with socialist feminism and Marxist feminism. Again, I think the confusion comes from the fact that a lot of cultural feminists call themselves radical feminists, however the two are very distinct. For example, cultural feminists keep the same gender roles between men and women but simply invert them in favour of women gender roles dominating. Radical feminism, on the other hand, questions the roles between men and women altogether. So they don't think that everyone should be a supposedly loving care-giver as cultural feminism would have you believe. They would question instead why it is that men and women should be divided through their sex into care-givers, so that all women are such and men are not.

Hmmm...I appreciate the effort of the writer(s), but I think this article is grossly inaccurate.

Pass the salt...

70.72.45.131 (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Add sourced content as needed. Andrea Dworkin described herself as a "radical feminist"; while I have not read everything of hers, I don't recall her saying much, if anything, about national economic systems and she in 1974 essentially disagreed on class being more of a force than gender. But she wasn't the only well-known radical feminist and you may well be able to report a divergence of views from sources.

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the section, the content was hardly sourced, and the stuff that was sourced was tangential and tenuous at best. aprock (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:Undue on Julie Bindel

A 10 year old incident that warrants a sentence in this article (and maybe a short paragraph in the main one) is spread out over 3 disorganized paragraphs here. Let's chop it down considerably, eh? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoops sorry, I just saw you already addressed this before starting the new section. Anyways, I think it doesn't even need 2 sentences let alone 2 paragraphs, for reasons given below. Bridenh (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Was that necessary?

Two sentences from Julie Bindel were added and then two long paragraphs attacking one article of hers? Not to mention the placement was also bad because the quote from her before these 2 paragraphs wasn't even related to that article. An opinion by an irrelevant actress/fan and criticism of Guardian for letting Bindel post the article. Its a copy-paste from the Feminist views on transgenderism and transsexualism page as well, which there is already a link to. So many problems... Bridenh (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

When the person you're quoting from a primary source when that exact same primary source has been given its due weight in criticism, it's acceptable to give that criticism due weight. I copied it from her article, and under standards of CC BY SA gave attribution in history. Since it's a primary source, we shouldn't even be quoting it anyways. But if we are, there is indeed some baggage in criticism since it caused quite a stir when it was published and is documented in RS. Especially when The Guardian themselves has achieved their own fair weight in criticism for just allowing it to be published. Tutelary (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

2 paragraphs (one an opinion by a disappointed fan no less) as response to 1 sentence is not a WP:NPOV. Extract relevant material from the 2nd paragraph and add it as a sentence or 2 of criticism if you must, otherwise I'm removing it again. Bridenh (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I've edited the section for more due weight, but the full context is needed in the second paragraph else it will look botched, so I've left it. Tutelary (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I recently shortened it - it does not look botched, it could use some more shortening considering it's an entire paragraph criticizing an article from which only one sentence was used in a section called (radical feminist) "Views on transgenderism" not "Criticism of (radical feminist) views on transgenderism". Bridenh (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Overreliance on Ellen Willis's work in a poorly sourced manner

This article appears to have been written by someone who relies predominantly on the writing of Ellen Willis, an obscure anti-radical feminist writer. It appears that the entire introduction is cited only to five pages out of some unnamed work by Willis (which given that the title and edition isn't provided, we have no way of checking) apart from a single citation to another non-radical feminist author. The rest of the article is predominantly in dialoge with or grounded on the writing of Ellen Willis.

It is inappropriate to structure the entire article around a single work by a single author who isn't even a radical feminist, let alone a prominant or movement defining one.

Just to get a sense of the scale, Willis's name appears 42 times on the page and is cited dozens of times. Catherine A. Mackinnon, likely the principle figure of the radical feminist movement, only appears 15 times and she's cited directly only three or four times. To compare their relative statures, google scholar reports that MacKinnon's Feminism Unmodified was cited 3582 times, and MacKinnon's Towards a Feminist Theory of the State cited 2698 times, and she has at least three or four other books with more than 1000 citations each. Ellen Willis's most cited book recieved 78 citations and her most cited article recieved 134 citations. Andrea Dworkin's name appears 8 times but only in passing or along with MacKinnon except for one quote and her principle work is never discussed.

Edited to add: A whole section of the article is devoted to Willis's "Radical Feminism and Feminist Radicalism", the apparent source of the whole article. Why is there a whole section fo the artile devoted to a rarely cited publication?

This article seems to be closer to a summation of a single unnamed work of an activist who opposes radical feminism than a neutral account of radical feminism.

I don't know how to best address this though since writing a balanced article from scratch takes a lot of time (a lot more time than, apparently just repeating a summary of a single book) and I don't right now have a lot of time to do that, but it should get fixed eventually. N0thingbetter (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"This article seems to be closer to a summation of a single unnamed work of an activist who opposes radical feminism than a neutral account of radical feminism."

This article in general is closer to a summation of opinions of activists who oppose radical feminism than a neutral account of radical feminism. I deleted parts of that section which were mostly about cultural feminism, but the entire page needs lots of work and one of the editors who I planned to fix it with is no longer an editor. I doubt it will be solved soon, but you can try if you have time, I have material that needs to be in the article but no time to put it in. Bridenh (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Overly assumptive and specific statements about prositution

"They see prostitution as a form of male dominance over women, as the client has sex with a woman who does not enjoy it and who may be making a tremendous psychological effort to mentally dissociate herself from the client "

'as the client has sex with a woman who does not enjoy it' should be stated as a theory and not as a fact, which the use of 'as' implies.

As an ex-sex worker (and radical feminist) and I can verify that not all sex workers are 'a woman who does not enjoy it'.

I understand that the majority are in this situation, but it generalizes sex workers as unhappy clones of one another, who's circumstances and feelings are the same (obviously the anti-thesis of feminism in all forms).

I will be changing 'a woman who does not enjoy it' to 'a woman who may not enjoy it' please do not revert the edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msgoody2shoes (talk • contribs) 20:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've reverted the edit. That statement of ideological stance is sourced to prominent radical feminist activist and theorist Catherine MacKinnon. Just putting your own opinion in falls foul of our policies on original research, so we're going to need a source before we can change that. Dolescum (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I've rewritten that paragraph to be more concise. In the process, I removed the sentence that was objected to above, as it wasn't necessary to convey the point. That entire section is overly long and should be trimmed further if possible. Kaldari (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one who created the section, during this, I tried to make it as short as possible but I firmly believe all the information in the section is valuable and needs no trimming. All the pargraphs cover and explain different important issues about prostitution. Bridenh (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Transgender views: outdated

This section seems to be outdated. For example, Elizabeth Hungerford now self-identifies as a TERF. There's no mention of Olivia Records' support of trans women (even paying for trans medical care). Dworkin's support of trans medical care is absent, as is MacKinnon's support of trans people (especially with regard to restroom access). Also, why is John Stoltenberg's support of trans people missing while Robert Jensen's voice is featured?

As this section is written, it silences nuance that's important to this topic. Ehipassiko (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Do you have any sources we could use to write a more updated account? Kaldari (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Militant Feminism

Militant feminism redirects here, but this Article does not have Contents about Militant Feminism:

[5] [6] [7] [8]

A noticable amount of cases are researchable by common search Engines, but events of that sort don't seem to be mentioned in any Feminism-related Articles. 176.0.113.99 (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe it's because 'militant feminism' is a rather vague term, like 'militant atheism', that's used more as a pejorative by opponents than to refer to any specific ideology - it basically just means 'feminists doing something I don't like'. Whereas 'radical feminism' is a particular ideology that we can write an article about. Robofish (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Trans men

For now I've merely added a ^{[citation needed]} to the sentence claiming radical feminism ignores trans men. I've seen many writings analyzing the situation of some trans men and how female gender dysphoria is rooted in internalized misogyny etc. I'll change that sentence and link to these if I find any of them again. 2A02:908:C30:3540:221:CCFF:FE66:68F0 (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a forum WP:NOTFORUM

Views on prostitution

Catharine MacKinnon argues that "In prostitution, women have sex with men they would never otherwise have sex with. The money thus acts as a form of force, not as a measure of consent. It acts like physical force does in rape."[36]

Don't most people, most of the time, do jobs, commute and - in general - do things they would never otherwise do just for money. Isnt money acting as a form of force in those situations too? How come feminisits cant see this???? 213.114.9.93 (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

self promotion?

Robert Jensen added his own book here.--Duesouthfan (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it and left a potential note about potential COI editing on the users talk page. Even without the potential for COI, having a new book in the further reading section is odd. I would expect the titles there to be established works in the field that are widely cited by other works. — Strongjam (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Radical Women: are they "radical feminists"?

In the first para of the section "Views on transgender people", Luciatesla 489 has twice removed the phrase as well as groups such as Radical Women from the sentence Many radical feminists... have supported transgender rights and trans-inclusivity., together with the reference Allen, Emma. "Unpacking Transphobia". Radical Women. Retrieved November 20, 2015. What seems to be at dispute is not whether the group Radical Women have expressed this position, but whether the group's name should be included among examples of "Many radical feminists". Rather than continuing an edit war with accompanying edit summaries, I bring the issue here for further discussion: Noyster (talk), 11:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I hope I am using this page correctly. Here is why I think this phrase should be removed: this article defines "radical feminism." Radical feminism and socialist feminism have their own Wikipedia pages that distinguish the ways in which each term refers to a specific ideology. Socialist feminists and radical feminists locate the cause of women's oppression in different places. Radical feminists view gender as the primary cause of women's oppression and socialist feminists locate women's oppression in class conflict. They are entirely different sets of politics. The Radical Women Wikipedia article describes them as socialist feminists. They also describe themselves as socialist feminists on their website.^[1] Also, in the Emma Allen article that is listed as a citation, she specifically distinguishes herself and the organization she represents from radical feminists when she states that "In contrast to radical feminists, socialist feminists view the private property system as the historical and economic foundation for patriarchy and the subordination of women."^[2] She further defines radical feminism as necessarily anti-trans in the section of the article called "Radical feminism and the anti-trans analysis."^[3] Radical Women is a socialist feminist organisation, not a radical feminist organisation, and their support for transgender inclusivity is directly related to that fact. It is inappropriate for this organisation to be listed as an example of radical feminism in a Wikipedia article that is meant to define radical feminism and distinguish it from other forms of feminism. - Luciatesla 489 (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

References

In the light of the above argument Bbb23, would you still wish to uphold the inclusion of the Radical Women group in the sentence in question, which you restored recently? - In theory we would appear now to require sources to verify not only that each individual and group listed espoused the stated position on transgender issues, but also that each was rightly included in a list of "radical feminists" within the terms of this article: Noyster (talk), 14:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Noyster: Honestly, I know little about this subject. I know only that it's a very controversial article and that bold changes may be problematic. I appreciate Luciatesla's explanation of her change, although at the same time it would be helpful if she included secondary sources rather than just the organization's website. However, if you are satisfied that the change is reasonable, I have no objection to her edit being restored.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Noyster: Can I restore this edit this myself or do you have to do it? Luciatesla 489 (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Please go ahead, Luciatesla 489! In your edit summary it may be an idea to mention the discussion on this talk page. Wikipedia may sometimes seem rule-bound but in fact, with a few exceptions, anyone may edit any page. We try to base our contributions on reliable published sources, and where there is disagreement we are expected to engage in discussion. There are some useful links in the message on your own talk page that may help you to grasp how it all works: Noyster (talk), 11:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed some sources

Radical Women are socialist; Dworkin did not support trans inclusivity, in that she did not consider transwomen as women (but supported trans rights to transition in societies with gender polarization, in case of re-adding the source this should be specified). She also said: "the phenomenon of transsexuality will disappear and that energy will be transformed into new modes of sexual identity and behavior" as well as co-authoring an article with Nikki Craft against John Money and "the transsexual intelligentia" - for which I'm pretty sure she would even be considered transphobic.

Also the reliability of John Stoltenberg on this topic in general is definitely put into question after a series of articles by Nikki Craft accusing him of molding Andrea's words and legacy to fit the current dominant views for attention and approval (as well as not believing Andrea when she told him she was raped among other things). I support removing him as a representative of radical feminist as that has been put into question on top of the fact that radical feminists claim feminism should be a female only safe space and male allies can't call themselves feminists just as LGBT allies can't call themselves LGBT.

Almost forgot to add, Stoltenberg's embarrassing proof that Dworkin considered transwomen as women was the following: “The use of men, children, or transsexuals in the place of women…is also pornography.” I'm pretty sure anyone can tell the ridiculousness and utter lack of logic in this, I guess Dworkin considered men and children as women as well then. (Sarcasm aside, this quote actually proves the opposite i.e that she considered transwomen as distinct from women (grouping them with men and children aka non-women) and should be used in the section among other radfems who hold this view). Bridenh (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources call John Stoltenberg a radical feminist,[9][10][11][12] so we reflect the sources, not our own personal opinions, per Wikipedia policy (See WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS). He also clearly identifies himself as a "trans-inclusive radical feminist",[13] which adds weight per MOS:IDENTITY. As for Dworkin, there seem to be few reliable sources discussing her stance on trans issues, but the ones I've seen support the claims that she was both a supporter of trans rights (as is evident by her own writing) and that she was "trans-inclusive" ("Andrea's views were trans-inclusive when I first met her in 1974...").[14][15][16] If there are sources that disagree with that, please present them. Kaldari (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, it seems pretty biased that you think John Stoltenberg shouldn't be considered a radical feminist because he is a man, but you're fine with Robert Jensen being listed as a radical feminist (for the trans-exclusionary camp). Regardless, we follow the sources, not personal opinions. Kaldari (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually there are not "sources" but one lone source that claims Dworkin was trans-inclusive and that is John Stoltenberg whose reliability has been seriously put into question by Dworkin's long-time collaborator and best friend Nikki Craft whose claims that Dworkin often did not trust him he confirmed himself in an article you yourself used (you seem not only to not have thoroughly read my post but your very own sources as well). I'll repeat again then, a source that shows Dworkin considers transwomen as distinct from women is the same one Stoltenberg embarrassingly uses as "proof" of the opposite, apparently it's not biased to use a hilariously flimsy interpretation of someone with doubtful reliability.

Female-only spaces are of high importance and a running theme in radical feminist works which you should know if you plan to make serious contributions to this article, as it's one of the main characteristics which separates them from other feminist groups. A lack of condescension would be greatly appreciated next time. Bridenh (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bridenh: Please provide some sources. (That means a URL or a link.) If Nikki Craft said that Dworkin was not trans-inclusionist, where did she say that? I don't see any statements by Nikki Craft in the articles that I linked to. Your personal interpretation of Dworkin's statement is not a reliable source (especially if other people disagree with it). We need sources that verify all claims made in the article, especially if they are controversial. Original interpretations are not allowed on Wikipedia. And even if they were, your interpretation doesn't make any sense. The quote you are citing is from a model legal ordinance, not a philosophical essay. In the 1970s women were most definitely defined as not including transwomen by the law. That has nothing to do with Dworkin's opinion. Their model ordinance had to be effective within the context of the law at that time. Kaldari (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course Craft is not mentioned in the inherently biased trans advocacy sites and articles you used as sources. I am well aware of what "reliable source" "verify" and "original interpretation" are as I have brought them up on this very talk page many times, no reason to link me to them, looking up sources with POVs that do not fit yours would be a more productive way to spend time. I am currently having multiple exams per week and will compile the sources and add them when I get the time. I don't think I'll be able to reply again until then. Bridenh (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Radical feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

TERF edits

In this edit, TaylanUB added content regarding the acronym TERF. I reverted it because it seems UNDUE to give weight to rather WP:FRINGE opinions regarding the term. THe sources used (counterpunch, an op-ed on feminist current, and others) are not WP:RS. Because they are WP:SPS/blog/op-ed, any opinions must be ascribed to their authors. But that opinion should be a notable one per WP:DUE. I don't think Sarah Ditum's or Meghan Murphy's opinion here is a notable one, though Hungerford's would be. I also reverted because there's a bit of WP:OR regarding violent events between (people labeled) TERFs and trans people. The association between the acronym and the violent events is an assertion of TaylanUB's, not the sources'. Moreover, the "celebration" part is UNDUE.

TaylanUB, I know you have a strong POV regarding the term TERF (evidenced by your editing in the past few days), but we need to stick to generally mainstream WP:RS on this. Op-eds and such are not appropriate here unless they are the undeniably notable opinion of a well-known, notable individual (e.g., bell hooks, Sheyla Jeffries, Kate Borenstein). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Also it appears a lot of these issues are mentioned already (and in a better way) at TERF. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, EvergreenFir. I was trying to combat this issue over on Transphobia (see the extensive logs at Talk:Transphobia for the back and forth), but got largely shouted down. Even submitted an edit warring report, but TaylanUB slipped it because I got the edit times wrong and the first one was an hour outside of the 24 hour limit. Left for my own mental health eventually. I'm really grateful that you're addressing this. 80.6.59.134 (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi EvergreenFir. I went over this extensively in another talk page but I guess I'll have to repeat it.

Op-eds on sites like CounterPunch are relevant sources when talking about the viewpoints of radical feminists. Viewpoints of radfems are not by any measure fringe views within the context of a page about radical feminism. Sarah Ditum is a well-known radfem journalist who writes for The Guardian and New Statesman. Feminist Current is Canada's most popular feminist website (not just radical feminist, but feminist in general) as per several criteria such as Alexa ranking, Google ranking, and social media follower counts. Meghan Murphy who runs Feminist Current has appeared in public government hearings, worked with Julie Bindel, worked with Rachel R. Moran (who successfully led the Irish movement to criminalize the buying of sex and founded SPACE International, in case you don't know her), and did podcasts with well-known radfems like Sheila Jeffreys and Robert Jensen, which have been published on Feminist Current.

Based on all of the above, I challenge your assumption that the views I added to the article are considered "fringe" and mentioning them "undue".

Further, the assault at Speaker's Corner has had coverage by several highly reliable sources like The Guardian and The Times. TaylanUB (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Op-eds can be used to talk about individuals' views. After reviewing more about Sarah Ditum, I agree her view would likely be notable. However, the anti-trans viewpoints within radical feminism (e.g., Jefferys or Cathy Brennan) is rather fringe within the larger movement imho. Discussions of TERF and those opinions would be better suited for TERF. As for the events at the Music Festival or Speakers Corner, there's coverage but compared to the entire history of radical feminism, it's a drop i the bucket. Moreover, you've not presented any reliable sources which link the violence to TERFs and/or transfeminists in any meaningful way (by which I mean sources which say these groups are inciting violence, prone to it, or whatever). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The articles on New Statesman and especially The Times are clear enough to me in that the woman was attacked by transgender activists over their framing of women as "TERFs". I also think Feminist Current is reliable enough to take news from. I think all three of: 1. Ditum's position on the term, 2. the vandalization of the Vancouver Women's Library, and 3. the Speaker's Corner incident should be added back to the part of the article that mentions "TERF". TaylanUB (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.radicalwomen.org/intro.shtml

[2] ttp://www.radicalwomen.org/transphobia.shtml

[3] ttp://www.radicalwomen.org/transphobia.shtml

[1]

[2]

[3]