edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Feminist theory:

  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling.
  • As per WP:FOOTNOTE footnotes should be located immediately after a punctuation. THis needs to harmonized throughout the article.
  • Images especially for the lead paragraph are needed to illsutrate it and the rest of the article.

Contents

Liberal FeminismEdit

It looks like the stub on Liberal Feminism has been the target of some vandalism. Some help on cleaning it up? threedimes

I am not a feminist or a proponent of Feminist theory. In fact, I have significant reservations about the role that Feminist theory plays in contemporary academia.

Be that as it may...

The rigor and energy of Feminist theory is undeniable. Its contribution to contemporary scholarship is immense. I know a number of highly intelligent writers and thinkers who identify themselves with the school, and I believe they are disserved by this article. It is far too terse, far too cursory. I hope that some of these people and their fellow travellers will step in and make the article an accurate reflection of the scope and value of their endeavors.

BradGad (Talk) 06:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The section on "Radical Feminism" is not NPOV and needs to be redone. In particular, it reads more like an anti-feminist mockery of Lesbian Separatist Feminism than radical feminism. If I knew how to put a "Disputed" tag on this page I would. I've pointed a number of radical feminist women to this page in the hopes they'll either make the required edits themselves. I'm not a radical feminist, nor do I play one on television, so I'm going to defer to someone who identifies that way to provide something NPOV in this section. Tall Girl 21:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The "there's no male equivalent" isn't a valid critique; it is akin to saying "but hey, why aren't there civil rights movements for white people?". An academic I heard of responded to the question "why isn't there a Men's Studies?" with the droll response "That's the rest of the university, dear" - the point being that almost all the existing discourses have been produced by and for men. Thus there is no place for a male equivalent because there is nothing for a male equivalent to be arguing against. As I said, it isn't a valid critique. If wikipedia standards mean that it should be included anyway why not also include a discussion of lesbian man-hating feminists? There would be as much validity in one as in the other. 59.167.175.61 17:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

what is this?Edit

feminist theory? wtf? I see no masculinist theory, hmmm, wonder why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.152.105.16 (talkcontribs) .

I read this entry with an open mind and have left no idea what the theory discussed entails. Is the first defining sentence the whole of the field? I would expect that there are some beliefs or views widely held in the theory? Can someone revise the entry not presuming that the reader is not just nodding in an affirmative stupor? "Themes explored...include Art History, ... patriarchy." Is Art History a theme? Come on people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.77.213.1 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

POV check: Misandry referencesEdit

I added two references packed with (what blatantly biased, gynocentric gender-ginning, "oppression" feminists would call 'unfriendly') explanations of what these authors call "ideological" feminist theory. However, many of their points are echoed by prominent feminist whistleblowers, other feminist disidents and non-feminist researchers. These points of view need to be shown here along with all the "friendly" POV's. I hope to see other editors bring in good references that explain feminist theories so we know that what each theory means and so there are no undue weight wars here(drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 23:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference tagEdit

This article has absolutely no inline citations to back up any of the assertions made. I don't have the background to do so myself, but I have tagged it accordingly so that other editors can improve it. Also, it should be noted that any references which have not been used either to create the article or to support any of the content (like the two "Misandry" references) have no business being there. If anyone has access to them, please demonstrate their relevance to the article by adding appropriate content. --Stephen Burnett 10:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert of essay-like sectionEdit

I have reverted this edit of Kowilliams (talk · contribs). I have nothing in principle about a criticism section but that particular section was written as an essay and was so fundamentally written with an agenda in mind to be worth re-writing. Pascal.Tesson 15:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

mergerEdit

I've merged material from Feminist analysis and turned that page into a redirect for here. There are some problems with this page - namely sourcing and I'm going to try to sort that now. If anybody wishes to contest the merger go ahead and revert - I'm happy to reach consensus. The purpose of this merger is in line with summary style - making this page a parent for the pages on feminist theory - feminist analysis was duplicating that function unnecessarily--Cailil talk 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also referenced everything I could. The sections on Liberal and radical feminism have been removed because they are already listed at Feminism.--Cailil talk 16:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

wheres a criticism sectionEdit

There is a distinct omission of a section containing criticism of feminism. There are some quite devestating criticisms of feminism and it would be good of someone to point them out.86.147.2.118 (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not criticism of feminism -- THEORETICAL feminism. As surely as there is a glass ceiling the feminists have an argument, but you don't need a massive theoretical structure around a single movement. I'm sure there is a devastating critique of feminist THEORY lying around somewhere which says in no uncertain terms what academics really think about this... field. Tcaudilllg (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Patriarchal theory, capitalist theory, etcEdit

One of the criticisms of feminist theory surrounds the academic teaching of what is essentially an ideology : the ideology of feminism. If, as critics have argued, patriarchal theory had the same amount of coverage in academia, modern liberal academia would be much different than it is today. ADM (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is "patriarchal theory"? --Gimme danger (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Much of it is explained in the book The Inevitability of Patriarchy by Steven Goldberg. ADM (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Good to know; I have never encountered the term. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you proposing any improvements to this article or are you editorializing? I'm unsure how you intend your comment. --Gimme danger (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Echoing Gimme danger's point ... wikipedia is not a forum--Cailil talk 01:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
ADM has a troubling pattern of posting, IMHO, pointy and drama-stirring posts often linking gays, pedophiles, Jewish people and Michael Jackson in various forms. Insist on reliable sourcing and the rest should take care of itself. -- Banjeboi 04:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sexual orientationEdit

I'd appreciate it if some people who work on this page could check out this discussion and see if you can add some clarity? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Theory"?Edit

From what i have read of this these are not theories the proper term would be hypotheses 98.250.4.115 (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

In response to the comment above, Cindy L. Griffin writes, "Early theories about what scholars mean by theory also suggest that the traditional definition of theory as an objective body of facts, which must be tested again and again over time in order to be credible, is a sexist and patriarchal notion of theory. Feminist theorists began to challenge this definition and to suggest that theory, from a feminist perspective, required neither testable fact nor objectivity, but was instead a subjective compilation of explanations that were highly contextual, bound by the ideologies of the researcher, and deeply influenced by the social milieu from which they emerged." [1] --Laurarob (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ griffin, cindy (2009). "Feminist Communication Theories". In Encyclopedia of Communication Theory: 390–394.

CriticismEdit

NorthBySouthBaranof reverted my inclusion of a short criticism chapter, that is based on the PhD thesis Only women bleed?: a critical reassessment of comprehensive feminist social theory. This passage was removed from the article gender studies because "Lindberg writes about feminist social theories" and not the main topic gender studies, thus I inserted it in this article. I agree that you have to be careful with criticism sections and not bloat them, but definitely this is a reliable source and we tell who wrote and what (unlike if we used weasel words "is criticized as..."). The Phys.org news article and the university database excerpt are just easy-access references: the source itself is the thesis.

Many scientific studies have large criticism sections like Sociobiology#Criticism or even a whole article dedicated to them like Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology. There's no reason to remove all criticism of feminist theory from this article. --Pudeo' 19:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You will note that all of the criticism in the mentioned articles has been published either in peer-reviewed journals, edited volumes or other systems of editorial control.
An unpublished doctoral dissertation has not met standards of peer review for publication, and is effectively a primary source. From what has been presented here, it is not a reliable source for anything other than her opinion and there is no evidence that anyone considers her opinion notable. An unbylined press release is not sufficient. Has the piece been published in a journal, reviewed in the literature or otherwise become a notable subject of debate and discussion? If not, then it's really not useful to us.
See WP:SCHOLARSHIP for details about what we look for in academic sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
That thesis is published (ISBN 978-91-7668-658-4, see WorldCat). Notable critics of the feminist theory atleast include Christina Hoff Sommers and Daphne Patai. Are you claiming the criticism is too fringe to be included or what? There is no Wikipedia rule that would state that criticism must only come from peer-reviewed journals, although I'm sure you could find plenty of that there (unfortunately my current access to social science databases is limited). --Pudeo' 19:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, no, it's not "published" in academic terms. While a bound copy is available in the university library, it's not been published in any edited volume or peer-reviewed journal - which means that it is unpublished from an academic standpoint - it has not undergone external peer review or editorial control. See our handy article on academic publication for details.
Notable academic criticism of feminist theory surely exists and you're welcome to insert it. An unpublished, unreviewed and unremarked doctoral dissertation is not notable criticism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
It has been published in their Örebro Studies in Political Science, ISSN 1650-1632; 24. Please read the link to the university database above. Either you or I have been mistaken, in the case it is me, can you explain this "next level" of publication if the Studies in Political Science is not enough? --Pudeo' 19:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The ISSN leads to the same link you have posted above, which is labeled as a "doctoral dissertation." No copies are held by any other library in the world.
I don't know why you don't just insert criticism from the two sources you cite above, both of which appear to have multiple peer-reviewed academic publications. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, so it is a series in which all of the PhD theses (of the subject) are released in. Thanks. --Pudeo' 21:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis sectionEdit

Hi,
the sentence "As a solution it was suggested by some to avoid the gender-specific structuring of the society coeducation" seems to miss something, but what?
Also, shouldn't Karen Horney get a mention here?
T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Feminist theory. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 17:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Essay styleEdit

The contemporary sex and gender model paragraph is written in essay-style, not neutrally & descriptive. Probably should be changed.

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Feminist theory. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 20:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Patriarchy in the WestEdit

Perhaps it would be fair to point out that, according to feminist theory, the developed West is a patriarchal system. This premise is the basis of modern feminism in the West, and very few feminist initiatives make any sense if the premise is not accepted. The story with feminism would be easier for everyone to understand if this departure from reality was brought to light. If it's the foundation of the theory, why is it not explicitly stated in the intro? Nikolaneberemed (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that that is accurate. Feminist theory has many schools and not all have the idea of patriarchy at their center, and not all think o patriarchy as something particularly western. The intro is obviously not a full summary of the topic the way it is written, and the article is a mess, making it hard to even thikn about how to make an intro that summarizes the topic out of it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

What was a historical landmark for the concept of feminist theory? RosePerera21 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Return to "Feminist theory" page.