Template talk:Feminism sidebar

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Feminism sidebar template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

Add intersectional feminism to the types of feminism category?

There's already an article about intersectionality, which is a fundamentally feminist concept, but it's not linked to *anywhere* in the sidebar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolstoyan at Heart (talk • contribs) 02:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, intersectionality should be in there, either under theory or under types of feminism, considering its influence on the mainstream current of feminism right now... Jan sewi (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2016

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

Under the Legacy section, this paragraph: "Many women write to Hanna in hopes of reviving the Riot Grrrl Movement. Hanna says, “Don’t revive it, make something better".[53] In 2010 Girls to the Front: The True Story of the Riot Grrrl Revolution, by Sara Marcus, was published. It is the first published history of the Riot Grrrl movement.[54][55] Sara Marcus herself had attended Riot Grrrl meetings.[56] As of now there are approximately ten weekly Riot Girl meetings nationwide, and bands multiplying faster than can be counted.[44]"

The final sentence, "as of now there are..." is misleading, because the citation references an article written in 1992. This would be appropriate somewhere else in the article, but not in a paragraph talking about reviving the Riot Grrrl Movement today in the 201X's. 98.222.18.73 (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Wrong page. This page is for the template. You appear to be referring to an article. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split concepts section into "concepts" and "outlooks", possibly "movements", and general section cleanup.

Many of the items presently under concepts are less "concepts" and more "overviews of active debate" such as Feminist views on prostitution, and indeed any title beginning with "Views on..." or "Criticism of..." .

Some of them are not concepts, but are umbrella articles Feminist effects on society.

Some duplicate variants(general) such as Socialist feminism, Victim feminism, State feminism.

Some are movements, "Feminist movement - African-American women's suffrage movement - Art movement (In hip hop)"

Because of this, I think there should be another section or two of the sidebar, so those items don't all wind up in a catchall bin of "concepts", when they have yet to be established as concrete.Ethanpet113 (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Variants (religious)

I don't agree with the introduction of Section "Variants (religious)" first introduced in this edit. It appears to give religious types of feminism a hierarchical equality with all other types of feminism lumped together which give it undue importance. If there's going to be a hierarchy (not sure that there should at all) then this is not the right breakdown. I'm inclined to just revert and lump them all together the way it was before, but I'm open to other types of substructure or hierarchical organization. Just not this one. Mathglot (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding boys and men to the template

WanderingWanda made this and this edit because of a dispute at Talk:Man. Personally, I don't think that Men, Boys, Fathers and Masculinity should be added to the template since, like the Feminism article currently states, "Feminism incorporates the position that societies prioritize the male point of view, and that women are treated unfairly within those societies." The whole reason that feminism exists is because of the inequality that girls and women face. That is the reason it's seeking "social equality of the genders." Furthermore, significantly more women than men identify as feminists. I'll alert Talk:Man and Talk:Feminism to this matter for others' input. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say I added them "because of a dispute" but because I thought they might improve the template. In any case, though, I welcome a dialogue about whether they're good additions. One thing I think we should seriously consider is eliminating all those top-of-the-template links to Woman, Girl, etc per MOS:OVERLINK: which advises against linking Everyday words understood by most readers in context. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an issue with wp:point Springee (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I have never made edits with which [I] do not actually agree to illustrate a point. Please do me the courtesy of assuming good faith. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion that was the origin of these changes - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies#Men's Rights sidebars. My take on WanderingWanda's comment "I went ahead and added the Feminism sidebar to Man. (As for the idea that people might laugh at it, well, I figure it is good to spread laughter in the world!)" is that this edit was done mostly for the laughs. -- Netoholic @ 07:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand why you think so, as you've indicated that you think that feminism is something to laugh at:

I'm almost tempted to say go ahead because I'd love to see the laughs at Wikipedia's expense when screenshots of Feminism sidebars and iconography being used on male-specific articles gets spread around.

But as I've explained to you already, I did not do it for the "laughs", but because feminism concerns both genders. WanderingWanda (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a sign of good faith, I went ahead and removed Man/Boy etc from template while their inclusion is being discussed. WanderingWanda (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they should be included. It would be odd to find a feminism template on which one of the first things you see, in bold, are links to men, boys, fathers and masculinity. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More inclusive symbol

In a template on "feminism" (rather than just radical or second-wave feminism), we should use a more inclusive symbol than the symbol specifically associated with radical feminism, a symbol that is described in the relevant article (Venus symbol) specifically as the "symbol of second-wave feminism".

Feminists in the tradition of first-wave feminism, including modern mainstream/equality/liberal feminists, don't use the radical feminist symbol, which is simply the general feminist Venus symbol merged with a general (hard) left-wing symbol.

The most inclusive feminist symbol is the plain Venus symbol without any additional symbols, that is also used in comparable templates like Feminist philosophy.

Broad feminist organizations tend to use inclusive symbols. For instance the European Women's Lobby uses the plain Venus symbol without the fist, as do many other feminist organisations and campaigns that seek to be inclusive of all feminists (e.g. File:Mind the gap2.png). --Maria Blaska (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - we should use the most general symbol and not a symbol only used by a fraction of feminists movements. Christian75 (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edits have removed the feminist symbol and added the symbol for female (the Venus symbol). The feminist symbol (Venus with a fist) dates back to 1969 (see this snippet view from Spare Rib, 1982, p. 10). It isn't necessarily associated with second-wave feminism now; that's just when it was created. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]