Talk:Cultural feminism
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cultural feminism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jaimemarita.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
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): Lexithiede, Peccioli, Galleg37, Gaatzbry001.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
No counterpoint
This article contains information about cultural feminism, yet does not present any counterpoints against this theory.User:Matt620 21:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
-- It is a stub giving a summary of what Cultural Feminism is. That in itself is not an NPOV violation. it makes no statements as to the validity of the philosophy, only its description.User:146.145.227.194 20:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to agree, however it would certainly be excellent to add some support and criticism to the article, if someone has something in mind. NickelShoe (Talk) 22:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
-- I agree that more criticism should be added to this article. Right now, criticism coming from men's rights groups is listed. But, couldn't other critics be feminists in general as well? After all, cultural feminism asserts that women and men are fundamentally different in personality, biology, and psychology; these stereotypical differences are some things that feminists are fighting against, which would make them critics of cultural feminism.User:172.192.71.15 07:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Way too much POV and OR
There are too many misandristic statements that either aren't cited or aren't in a format appropriate for an encyclopedia (e.g. "Men suck." instead of "Jane Doe, a cultural feminist, says that men suck.[1]")
women's differences are not only unique, but superior.
women are kinder and gentler than men
the "woman's way" is the better way
women’s capacity for openness to emotional experience
women’s lower levels of aggressive behaviour and greater capacity for creating peaceful coexistence
Women are inherently more kind and gentle.
if women ruled the world there would be fewer wars and it would be a more just place.
Females value ideas such as interdependence, cooperation, relationships, community, sharing, joy, trust and peace.
If these glaring issues aren't corrected, a proposal for deletion or merge with misandry might be appropriate. JCDenton2052 (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is probably one of the worst articles I've seen in Category:feminism but I suggest a merge to Radical feminism is more appropriate than one to misandry. There are multiple sources that define Cultural feminism as part of (or emerging from) Radical feminism so it such a merger would be within policy.
I wrote a summary for this school of thought on Feminism a while ago and I actually think since this page has basically been in this atrocious state for nearly 6 months that it has had enough time already. As such I've written the lede and removed a lot of OR.
I'm revising my earlier comment based on work that I've done on the article. I'm also concerned about the use of {{totally disputed}} at this point. I had missed it earlier. This is the diff where JCDenton2052 adds it. No edit summary. The above comment "merge to misandry" as I have pointed out is against merger policy as this subject is not part of misandry. Thirdly, no basis for a complete factual dispute of the whole article which (although was badly sourced) was not unsourced is given by JCDenton2052 - using such a tag needs a good solid explaination of what's wrong from a factual and a NPOV regard - the above comment does not spell this out adequately. Yes there were POV / OR farm elements here but they can be solved by fact-checking and where necessary removing them.
If a merge were to take place this page would need to go to Radical feminism but as it stands this stub is probably alright as a starting point for an article. Also for the record I have removed {{totally disputed}} - if any such high level tag is readded please give a detailed of why and what is disputed and why such a high level of dispute is necessary--Cailil talk 22:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)- I agree with removing the tag, but only because you have removed the unencyclopedic material. Most of the statements I quoted above were unsourced, not NPOV, and factually inaccurate. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
References