From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article presents a very one-sided view of its subject! Please help improve it.

Article problems

Second Wave did not "resurge"-the feminism that emerged out of the later 80's/early 90's is Third Wave.

Also, feminism, contrary to what many people think, does not revolve around abortion. Feminist work also involves issues such as affordable access to childcare and prevention of domestic violence, just to name a couple. Couldn't this article reflect that rather than lumping all of feminism into one category of ideology? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|]] [[User talk:|(talk)]]

Please sign your comments. Also, please start a new thread at the bottom of the page. Also, "First wave, second wave, third wave" sounds like a bunch of leftist gobbledygook which may not make a lot of sense here. Thanks. RobSIch bin ein breakfast taco 18:46, September 12, 2022 (EDT)
Are you asking, or expecting our readers to know and understand, let alone care, what the distinction is between First Wave, Second Wave, and Third Wave Feminism is? Most of our readers have lives and jobs, and life is a little too short to drown in leftist bullcrap. RobSIch bin ein breakfast taco 18:49, September 12, 2022 (EDT)

Removed opinion.--Elamdri 03:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This article contains a lot of irrelevant information. ColinR 04:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

A big problem with feminism is its desire to erase sex distinctions. Masculinity and femininity are no longer seen as God-given traits, or even ideals. Women in the military, the so-called equal pay for equal work law; the forced muzzling of that Harvard president who dared suggest that women and men might not be equally suited to academic careers in math and science.

The idea that there's nothing sacred about the male-female relationship obviously provides support for gay rights agitation and same-sex "marriage". If there's nothing special about a man, then what does a woman need one for? She can have a "wife" too (as Garry Trudeau once put it). --Ed Poor 20:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think the addition of the Rush Limbaugh "femi-nazi" comment is particularly relevant, largely because it's based on the wholly erroneous assumption that all feminists are pro-abortion. To include anything based on that assumption mischaracterizes the late 20th c/early 21st c "post feminist" era, where women who self-identify as feminists are far more likely to fall within a broad spectrum of ideals than one cookie cutter. Fsm1975 23:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I just found this. This gives a leading source for a definition.

Hillary Clinton received the endorsement of the National Organization for Women, a group of a half-million members who support feminist candidates for elective office. Asked whether she saw herself as a feminist, Clinton said by the standard definition, yes. "If you look in the dictionary, the word feminist means someone who believes in equal rights for women in society, in the economy, the political process -- generally believes in the equality of women," she said. "And I certainly believe in the equality of women." RSchlafly 14:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
I’m curious why a person who would not accept a philosopher of science as a credible source for an entry on science would accept the definition of a politician/lawyer as definitive in terms of a philosophical/social/academic movement. Let alone why you would think she would be a “leading source for a definition”. Not that I object to the content of her definition, but the strongest claim I think you can support with it is “some politicians endorsed by NOW believe feminism means…” An interesting, but not especaly useful or informative claim.--Reginod 15:48, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
The article is full of errors. For example, many feminists love to cook, love having a family, and do housework – though expect their partner's help. Also women did not have equal educational opportunities for a long while, especially a university education. The article needs to be carefully revised by a conservative woman.--RobLeonardWoo (talk) 09:43, September 12, 2022 (EDT)

Defining feminism

Cut from intro:

However there is no broad consensus among feminists (followers of feminism) about how gender equality ought to be understood. In recent years this has led many feminists to argue that, because there are so many different and mutually exclusive philosophies and philosophers that are called feminist, it is more appropriate to speak of feminisms (plural) than feminism (singular) [1]. For this reason it is difficult, if not impossible, to state any belief universally held by all feminists.

This sounds like a refusal to be categorized, defined or otherwise pinned down. But it's the job of an encyclopedia to define and categorize. How can we solve this problem? --Ed Poor 16:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

The way I would suggest handling it is to take seriously the distinctions feminists make among themselves. (For example there is a clear split between the pro- and anti- pornography feminists (I’m still working on a RD of the pornography article as per our previous discussion btw) ). If we are going to really flesh out this article we ought to have a number of feminisms represented here—just as we don’t lump all creationists together but observe the very real distinction between Young and Old Earth Creationists.--Reginod 16:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Abortion poll

The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll --Britinme 17:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Can you explain why abortion polling data is so relevant to this article? What is the point? It is an article about Feminism, not abortion politics.
You put in a statement that the majority of Americans the current law on abortion rights, but in fact the most recent poll at the cited source says that only 16% support that right. So I corrected that. Now you want various other poll results. What is the point? People can follow the link to the polls if they wish. RSchlafly 18:05, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
The statement about feminist support for abortion rights was in the original version of the article I saw. I linked to the poll to provide a citation on an issue that the original article said was of great importance to many feminists, and made it clear that these rights were opposed by many conservatives and some feminists. My original simple statement about 'majority' support for the right to a legal abortion in all or some cases was made convoluted by another editor and I attempted to clarify it. It has now been totally distorted by you. In addition to the 16% support you keep citing, you omit to say that an additional 39% support abortion rights 'in most cases'. Shall we say that only 12% of people - presumably conservatives - oppose abortion? This would be equally valid by your measure of validity. People can certainly follow the link, but it is dishonest to misrepresent its content in the way you are doing.--Britinme 18:16, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
What is dishonest? It is an article about feminism, not about conservative abortion views. Maybe an article about abortion can explain the polls in detail, I don't know. The feminist organizations that support abortion rights want abortion to be legal in all cases. The 16% figure is the most relevant one. RSchlafly 18:29, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
In that case, since there is no evidence that only feminists support abortion in all cases (we know that some are opposed) the relevant figure is the 62% who support the retention of rights under Roe v Wade, which I think we can agree was agreed by most feminists to be a landmark case on this issue. I suggest we cite that instead, which gives a clearer figure both of general feminist support for abortion rights and the degree to which that issue is supported by the population as a whole. The figure was quite unequivocal on the poll, and is probably less confusing than the other poll. I propose substituting that one. --Britinme 19:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Could you give me an example of a feminist organization that opposes abortion rights in some cases? I think that the Roe v Wade poll is more confusing because it reflect not just opinions on abortion, but also opinions about legal theories. I wonder how many people even know what the legal consequence of overturning Roe v Wade would be. RSchlafly 19:32, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Sure - [] are probably the best-known group, but you can find other organisations listed on [4] and quotes from a variety of other sources on [5]. Personally, I don't think the Roe v Wade poll is confusing, because most people associate that case with abortion rights and would be unlikely to consider abstract legal theories in that context. Roe v Wade is cited as an event of significance in a timeline of women's rights on [6] and certainly supported by the majority of feminists - see [7] and [8]. I feel that it is important to demonstrate the extent to which majority feminist thinking is supported by opinion among the country as a whole over this issue, hence my wish to cite either the full figures of the first poll or the limited figures over Roe v Wade of the second. The second set are probably clearer and easier.--Britinme 20:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
There are certainly lots of feminists who are very happy with abortion law. But if you want to argue that a majority of the people agree with a majority of the feminists, then the Roe v Wade poll doesn't do it. A lot of people are for or against Roe v Wade for a lot of reasons. If you want opinions on abortion, the best polls are the ones that ask abortion questions. RSchlafly 20:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
The language on the poll numbers, as it stands, is misleading. Currently the language is “As of April 2007, women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases, and according to a recent poll, 16% of the American public favor the retention of this right.” This is simply not the case, women have a right to abortions in most cases, but it is not unlimited. Parental notification laws, parental consent laws, laws banning third trimester abortions except when necessary to protect the health or life of the mother – all of these laws are (currently) constitutional (laws banning second trimester abortions except when necessary for the life or safety of the mother are also probably, but less clearly, allowable). That means that 16% of people favor an expansion of the right to an abortion, not keeping it the same. 39% seem to favor “keeping it the same” as there is currently a right to abortion in most, but not all cases.--Reginod 20:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I agree that the numbers as currently stated are misleading. In that case, given that RSchlafly opposes using the Roe v Wade poll I think the fairest and most representative thing to do is to cite the full figures of the first poll, which is the most recent one in any case, and let people make their own minds up about the extent to which majority feminist thinking on this issue has influenced thinking in the population in general. I will edit accordingly.--Britinme 21:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Interestingly enough, even Roe v. Wade didn’t go as far as to say that a woman had a right to an abortion in all cases. It said that a woman had a right to an abortion in the first trimester, in the second trimester a woman has a right to an abortion unless the state can show a really good reason why she should be allowed to have one, and a state could outlaw almost all third trimester abortions. (The Casey decision which is the leading case at the moment, relaxed constraints on what the state could ban). So under current law more abortions can be outlawed than could be under Roe v. Wade and even under Roe it was not the case that “women in the US have the right to abortion in all cases”.--Reginod 21:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you, that's very helpful and I hope my editing of the paragraph has reflected that. Please clarify if it seems inaccurate. It sounds as if law in the US is, in practice, quite similar to law in the UK, where abortions are illegal after 24 weeks unless there are life-threatening reasons, although in practice only a minute percentage of abortions are performed after 20 weeks.--Britinme 21:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Your restatement in the article looks right to me. Just to be clear though, I am only talking about what women have a constitutionally protected right to (at the moment, I suspect that this will change in the near future). I’m not sure what the law is in any given state—the Supreme Court simply says “this is the most you can outlaw” in many states more abortions are allowed than the bare minimum. And I have no idea what the actual numbers look like here (actually I suspect that those numbers are not attainable here, given how tightly guarded medical records are).--Reginod 21:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
No, it is just not the case that abortion is limited by trimesters under USA law. Not under Roe, and not under Casey. USA law is not like UK law. RSchlafly 22:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Why the deleted quotations?

RobS - it is not very polite to delete another editor's work that is relevant to the article without discussing it first. I reverted your original edit so that it could be discussed. I should be grateful if you would be kind enough to do that here.--Britinme 17:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT) is a wikimirror site. It is an invalid citition. RobS 18:06, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Well that's no problem. It's an extremely famous quotation and I have plenty of other sources for it. The other quotation from Pat Robertson is not from so I presume that is OK. If that's your only problem with it, I will restore it with a different source. It would have been mannerly of you to have asked me if I had another source for it rather than just deleting it though. --Britinme 18:10, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

South End Press

My apologies, but we can't use bigotted and hate filled extremist publishers for references. A blockquote from the mainspace cites a book published by South End Press, which also published this proven and debunked piece of trash. [9] The reference will be removed, and the editor is hereby warned to refrain from making further insertions from such hatefilled extremist sources. RobS 16:07, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

To much emphasis on abortion

I think that this artical is focused mainly on abortion which is not it is for.

Agreed. I suggest cutting out all abortion references except one: Give it a bullet point in the list of goals, and no more. - NewCrusader


This article has clearly mistaken the definition of femanism for misandry. There are more even-minded, considerate, and heterosexual feminists that can be counted, where as this article only lists those who qualify as man-haters. Honestly I think this kind of blatent bias is what's ruined Conservapedia, and really the entire country, but there's no reason to suggest that feminism goes against any of the values that we all share, and I suggest we completely overhall this entire article and include a section regarding feminist inspired misandry and the differences between the two practices. I also don't think there is any reason to suggest that feminism is a sin and in any way connected to homosexual behavior, which seems to be what this article implys. I'm not so quick to put females who wish to be heard in the same boat as abominations, and I wish I could say the same for all of the Conservapidia editors. --YoungConservative 15:43, 2 February 2008 (EST)YoungConservative

What you say was true, back when the feminists really were seeking legal equality - before the radical feminists hijacked it for their attacks on family life, hate of tradition, and abortionist agenda. - NewCrusader

"boys being cheerleaders for it"

Is it not the case that George W. Bush was a cheerleader at Yale back in the day? AliceBG 13:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Could be. Many prominent men were once cheerleaders ... for boys playing football, not girls.--Aschlafly 13:27, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Excessive quotes?

I'm not sure if I'm alone here in thinking that there are far too many quotes in this article? They make the layout rather bloated and do not seem to provide much in the way of information. Might I go ahead and perhaps remove some of the less relevant quotes? Thanks. --Crookles 15:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)

No, please don't delete factual information, unless you see a clear rule violation.--Aschlafly 18:27, 3 March 2008 (EST)
There are no rule violations, but the quotations are not explained, not formatted, and are longer than the rest of the sections of the article put together. HelpJazz 20:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)
The quotations illustrate what feminists really think, and that is informative.--Aschlafly 20:34, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Have you looked at them though? Some of them don't make sense, some are (supposedly) by feminists and others are about feminists (with no clear distinction), a lot of them are redundant, there is no formatting, and some of them contain poorly-censored swear words. It might be informative, but it does not look good in an encyclopedia for 75% or so of the article to be made up of unclear, unreferenced quotations. HelpJazz 20:54, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I just put bullet points on those quotes, and it really seems like a terribly excessive list. Does anyone else think that some editing could be done to this to make it seem a little less over-the-top? Reaganite 18:05, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

The list of feminist views

Is it just me or goes the top list of feminist views come accross as humourous rather than factual , i laughed when i read it because it sounds funny and witty rather than serious and factual. I think the tone needs altering, i can imagine liberals having a field day over it. --Realist2 18:58, 3 March 2008 (EST)

It really smacks of parody, and of course, there were no references. Maestro 19:57, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Both you are clueless if you don't realize what modern feminists think. By the way, "Realist2", "across" has only on "c" and we spell "humorous" without the "our" in America. Maybe you don't have many feminists in your country. America does.--Aschlafly 20:35, 3 March 2008 (EST)
Why did you remove my reference to feminists wanting tougher penalties for rapists? Surely they do (it was the only referenced point on the list). Maestro 00:06, 4 March 2008 (EST)

If your can only edit by insulting others spelling or the spelling for the country they come from it shows a distinct lack of tolerance. I am here to be constructive so please dont put others down its not very christain at all. Also how would i know what feminists think ... funny enough im not even a woman so it would be very hard to put myself in that thought of mind. However writing with sarcasm or does not improve the article. I never said whats written is incorrect , i said the tone needs changing, didnt you read or inderstand that Aschlafly? I can say it in spanish if it helps lol. :-)--Realist2 13:38, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Where in her book did Hillary Clinton say that children should be raised by a "village" RATHER THAN their parents? Dadsnagem2 15:05, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I am removing the part about refusing to admit the wrongness of their ideology; it could be said about any ideology, but it is not listed on the Creationism or Christianity pages (or the Aethism one). Umlaut 22:29, 16 September 2008 (EDT) Aschlafly- why was my edit reverted? Umlaut 21:51, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Because censorship of the truth is not allowed here. This is not Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 22:38, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
How is removing an unsourced statement censorship? I would not take seriously any encyclopedia in which that statement appeared without evidence. Umlaut 07:16, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

I'm really not sure about this list: I think this focuses too much on the radical feminists - the bra-burning, men-hating feminists from the sixties and seventies. But hasn't feminism developed, become more mainstream? For example, I'd consider myself a (conservative) feminist, and almost all of my girlfriends are too. We'd reject all or almost all of the points listed in the article: - Yes, of course men and women are different; physically and mentally. We certainly don't believe in falsely imposing equality of outcomes - only of opportunity. - Oppose chivalry? Nope. It's charming that a few men still open doors, give up seats for us. I don't know anyone who would complain about that. - View traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal? Nope. - Belittle and mock other women who desire to have children or raise a family? No-one I know. - shirk traditional gender activities, like baking? I really don't understand this one. You're a feminist if you don't bake biscuits? Or is this a synecdoche for wider home-making activities? - support affirmative action for women? Again, no. Affirmative action does no good in the short, medium or long-term. That's more a liberal value than a feminist one, wouldn't you say? - prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do - This is straying into the dungaree-wearing radical lesbian feminist stereotype. Most feminists don't care what other women wear, as long as they're not wearing the same outfit as you at a cocktail party.

Look, I could go on, but my point is that this article paints feminism as the bête noire of conservative values and, while this may be true of more radical / historical feminism, it's too simplistic to cover the very, very large number of women worldwide who identify as feminists and conservatives.Sophierabbitte 07:34, 21 January 2011 (EST)

Difficulty of defining feminism

It's not easy to define feminism. Is it "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"? Must one support equal rights to be a feminist?

Are there feminists who want women to "get more" than men, just as their are minority advocates who are want their group to "get more" than people in other groups? (Is feminism thus a kind of "group selfishness"?)

Is "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" consistent with the Bible?

Is it possible to believe that men and women are "equally valuable" but made (in the image of God) to be inherently different? That is, are masculinity and femininity equally valuable qualities? Or what?

Are there currents in feminism which seek to advance women's interests but which do not assert that men and women are (or should be) "equal" in all respects?

What, then, is the proper relationship between men and women? Specifically, in the family, what are the proper roles? (How much leeway is there?)

Do all feminists oppose the "stay at home mom" phenomenon? (Or is that only Simone de Beauvoir?) --Ed Poor Talk 13:55, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Ridiculous Number of Quotes

About three quarters of this article is made up of selected quotes from selected feminists, often those who do not represent mainstream feminism and are radicalised in their views. There are also a couple of unsubstantiated quotes from anti-feminists which appear to be used to represent fact rather than a person's opinion. Perhaps we could cut down on these or move them to another article (Quotes by Radical Feminists and Quotes by Anti-Feminists) in order to make this one a bit more encyclopedic. TheGySom 22:50, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

"Ideological Edits"

believe that a "village" (i.e., others) should raise children rather than the child's father and mother[5]

The supporting reference for this is the title of a book, however the book itself states that it states a village (ie a large number of people - teachers, doctors etc) in addition to parents to successfully raise a child. Not once does the book say that parents are to be denied the main role in raising their children.

prefer for role-reversal, like girls playing football and boys being cheerleaders for it, or men baking cookies for women

Unsupported, mainstream feminism believes in equal roles, that is women can play football and boys can be cheerleaders, they do not believe in role reversal (ie boys cannot play football and women cannot be cheerleaders).

prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do

Unsupported, this is a radical view at best.

Quotes from fictional characters

The quotes from a character within a fiction book do not provide any valid insight into the mindset of a feminist, even if that book was written by a feminist.

Hope this clears it up, ready for reversion of reversion. TheGySom 22:59, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, but conservatives believe that no one other than the parents should have the primary role in establishment of values, etc. Perhaps instead of pushing your liberal POV in editing a conservative encyclopedia, you could work as hard finding additional citations that you will approve of, illustrating the point. You cannot deny what is factual, that Feminism is a vehicle for liberal change of the social order, and the destruction of the traditional family. --₮K/Talk 23:12, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
This article is not about conservative beliefs, it is about the beliefs of feminists, and it appears that they are currently being misrepresented (the present revision states that feminists believe a village should raise children instead of parents, whereas the truth is that feminists believe a village should support parents in raising children). Could you please point out which of my points you believe to not be factually correct? TheGySom 23:15, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
"Liberal POV" or not, I don't think fictional characters make very reliable as references. HelpJazz 00:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
I await a response. TheGySom 18:07, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

GySom, the changes you made, apparently to make the article more ideologically neutral, would be a fine thing on Wikipedia, where they like to keep the public sheltered from facts, but not on CP, where we actually offer a choice, not an echo to the so-called "wisdom" of the crowd. From my experience here, I would suggest you concern yourself less with seeking out articles to make neutral, and spend your time creating new articles, helpful content that is both Christian and conservative friendly, because that is the stated goals and perspective of this encyclopedia and its Founders. Leave it to Wikipedia, and the dishonest presentations there, to "cleanse" topics near and dear to the liberals hearts. If you wish to make the changes you have, please provide proof that Feminists don't think that way. Responsive enough? --₮K/Talk 18:34, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Hang on, are you asking me to prove a negative? Asking someone to prove that mainstream feminism does not accept something is akin to proving that there are no invisible unicorns on Mars. It is up to the person making the claim to support it, not my job to weed through every single quote that a feminist has made and then provide an analysis to show that mainstream feminism does not support a claim that is made, it is the job of the person making the claim to support it. Let me lay out the changes I think should be made:
  • Mainstream feminists do not believe a village should raise a child instead of his or her parents, they believe that parents should be supported in their role by others (this I can actually support, by my recollection the book in the reference specifically states that parents should play the main role in raising their children).
  • Mainstream feminists do not believe in role reversal, they believe in the destruction of roles (that is, instead of believing that boys should not be allowed to play football and girls should not believe in cheer leading, they believe that boys and girls should both be able to play football or cheer lead should they desire)
  • Mainstream feminists do not believe that women should not wear dresses and should wear pants
  • A series of quotes from a fictional character in a book does not provide any insight into modern feminism
If you have an argument about one of those points please make it, I don't need to hear about how I'm an evil liberal who should run away to Wikipedia as this gets us nowhere. It is conservative ideology to tell the truth no matter what it is, therefore it is imperative to truthfully represent the views of mainstream feminism on this encyclopedia. I guess my edits were ideological after all, just not in the way you think. TheGySom 19:48, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
Indeed, I am asking you to prove your assertion, GySom. You made the changes, now back them with proof. What Feminists believe is well known. Do you demand proof of God? That there is air? The Feminist agenda is the complete re-ordering of the nuclear family, its denigration. That has been proved countless times. Your own points above show that Feminists reject completely God's own creation, the differences between men and women. Please stop with these silly distracting arguments promoting liberal ideals! --₮K/Talk 19:59, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
If it has been proven countless times then there should be no problems with finding supporting evidence for it. I am not asking for proof of God or proof of air because the existence of these two is not being debated, rather we are discussing whether or not mainstream feminism believes in the three points I removed, and whether the forth should be included. I notice that you have only taken objection to the first point (regarding families), it is therefore acceptable to alter the information relating to the last three? TheGySom 20:05, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
Well, I am not a sysop here, so I certainly cannot stop you from doing so. If you change it back, and the Administrators and/or Andy are fine with it, so be it. I am not going to engage you in some endless discussion about the falsities and naivety of your assumptions, GySom! --₮K/Talk 20:17, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
I am very open to hearing about the "falsities and naivety of my assumptions" and changing my mind if sources are produced, however at the moment it appears that there are no sources supporting the claim that feminists believe parents should not raise their children (the current cite says the opposite) and it appears that nobody has taken objection to the rewording of the claim that feminists favour role reversal or the removal of the claim that feminists shun dresses or the quotes from the fictional character. I will change the last three points, and leave the first open for now for continued discussion with yourself or others.
Please, I am not trying to invite conflict, I just feel that this claim is not supported and therefore needs to be changed. TheGySom 20:24, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
  • Yes, to be sure, I am certain those are your intentions! I stand by what I said above, but I have taken the liberty of asking Andy, Conservative and some others to review this. I hope that helps you out. Godspeed to you! --₮K/Talk 20:26, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
I look forward to it, I was hoping that two users could have a civil discussion without going and calling in the big guns, but sadly this could not be the case. For those reviewing it here are my arguments:
  1. The claim that feminists believe a village should raise a child instead of his/her parents is unsupported by the reference, those who read the book will find that it suggests that a village should support parents in raising their child, but that parents should play the main role
  2. The claim that feminists believe in role reversal is wrong, feminists believe in the destruction of roles altogether
  3. The claim that feminists believe that dresses should not be worn is a radical belief at best, and there are no cites supporting it
  4. Quotes from a fictional character should never be used to make a point for or against feminism.
Of these only number 1 was argued, and during this discussion there was no mention of why the source was correct, nor were any other sources raised. Numbers 2 and 3 were not argued, and number 4 was supported by HelpJazz. TheGySom 21:56, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
In response to your four points above:
  1. The thesis of the book is clear: "it takes a village to raise a child," and by its very terms that denies the exclusive role played by parents in raising children. The point in this entry is correct and you have not proposed alternative language that would be more accurate.
  2. No, feminists do crave role reversal, as in men baking cookies and women assuming traditionally male jobs. I'll add an example.
  3. I've added an example in response to your point about dresses.
  4. Your point here is not clear, and I'll look again at the entry.
Godspeed.--Aschlafly 23:10, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually Andy, could we use your wording just there to clarify it?

  • believe that "it takes a village to raise a child" and deny the exclusive role played by parents in raising children.

Feebasfactor 23:16, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Thankyou for your reply.
  1. The thesis of the book is that it takes a village as well as the parents to raise a child, at the moment the entry reads that it takes a village rather than the parents, so yes the exclusivity of the role is denied, but not the role itself (by memory the book states that parents have a significant and unique role to play). I did have alternate language in my original edit: believe that a "village" (i.e., others) should assist parents in raising children or something along those lines that clarifies that the position taken by the book is not to replace the parents - edit conflict, not adjusted for Feebasfactor's comment
  2. There may be some confusion between role reversal and the destruction of roles. Role reversal in your example would be men baking cookies and women being expected not to bake cookies, and women taking traditionally male jobs with men being expected not to take those jobs. By the destruction of roles it is expected that both men and women have an equal right to bake cookies, and that both men and women have an equal right to take whatever job they want to, I believe the latter is closer to the desire of mainstream feminists to have equal roles and to breakdown the concept of gender, rather than pushing for a matriarchal society.
  3. I'm not entirely happy that a one line quote from a blog in response to another article can be used to represent mainstream feminism, but it's your encyclopedia
  4. There are quotes from a fictional character, I don't see why these should be in the article (using the same logic someone could use quotes from a fictional American president in a book to criticise America).
Hope this clears it up. TheGySom 23:19, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
Aren't the fictional quotes a tiny percentage of the quotes, and aren't they by a feminist author?--Aschlafly 23:51, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
Feminists "prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do"? Though I have met many feminists, I have never met a woman, ever, who felt that women should only wear pants. I know women who do not wear pants, because they feel the Bible calls them to wear only skirts, though this is not true for all of the Christian women I know, or even a majority of them. Most women, feminist or not, dress according to what they will be doing. If they will be hiking in the woods giving a lesson on the forest habitat, they will probably wear jeans. If they are going to a wedding or a funeral, they will almost certainly wear a dress. Some women personally prefer to wear dresses more than pants, or vice versa, but most women, feminist or not, don't feel that everyone should dress as they do. If the article is going to state that feminists "prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do", then there should be a really good citation to show this. Certainly you can find many articles where women discuss the pros and cons of pants and/or dresses, but I've never seen anything that supported the claim made here. An example to the contrary would be the A Dress A Day blog[2], whose author writes regularly about the joys of wearing dresses; I'm quite certain she would consider herself a feminist.--Hsmom 23:22, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
I've added another cite, and frankly am surprised that anyone would dispute this feminist preference to dress like men in order to make an ideological statement.--Aschlafly 23:51, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
The whole pants thing was a big deal at the time because there were people & institutions who felt that women should *never* wear pants - restaurants that wouldn't serve women wearing pants, schools that wouldn't allow girls to wear pants (even in freezing cold weather - and skirts in those days were *short*!), and so on. Feminists of the time believed that women should be allowed to wear pants if they wished. (Not that they *should* wear pants.) Nowadays, most American women, feminist or not, wear both pants and skirts, just because we like to, or for practical reasons, not for political reasons. --Hsmom 00:17, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Cites about baking cookies and wearing pants are from 1970's, not modern feminism? TheGySom 23:55, 29 March 2008 (EDT)
The 1970s is "modern". Perhaps a time period should be added to the entry? By the 1960s "modern" feminism was in full bloom.--Aschlafly 00:01, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Is the goal of the entry to describe feminism as it is understood today by the majority of women who consider themselves feminists? (I'm assuming this would be the best approach, though of course the history is of interest as well.) The radical femimism of the '60's and '70's was, well, radical, but I think that the kind of extreme views described in this article would be foreign to most women today who consider themselves feminist.--Hsmom 00:08, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

<- The section of the article in dispute is written in the present tense ("Specifically, modern feminists tend to" as opposed to "Specifically, modern feminist tended to") after having described the era of the 1970's in the past tense, therefore the points should describe those beliefs held by mainstream feminists today. I'm not too sure many modern mainstream feminists favour wearing pants or role reversal, just as we don't see burning bras or (too many) claims that all sexual relationships in marriage are rape. In short, what was mainstream in the 1970's appears to now be classified as radical compared to the views of modern feminists, which appear to be more about breaking down gender inequality and the like. TheGySom 00:14, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree - though I would add that many of the ideas discussed in the 70's were radical feminism (not mainstream feminism) even then.--Hsmom 00:20, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, Thank you for your grammar edit! It really helps! While we're cleaning up this article, here's another item that might need to be changed. I don't think the statement that feminists "oppose single-sex schooling" is accurate. There are rather a lot of feminists at all-girl colleges like Smith and Bryn Mawr and Mount Holyoke. Also, I can't see your recent changes on the main article page, only the history page - I don't know if it's me or Conservapedia. --Hsmom 00:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

It's stupid to argue about this sort of thing on an article discussion page. Just add a quote from a feminist who supports it. This goes for girls' schools, dresses, stay-at-home moms and all the other stuff above. --Ed Poor Talk 06:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Can't. Article's locked, at least it is for me.--Hsmom 14:00, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Are we trying to use the view of one feminist to represent the views of all, or are we accurately trying to report on the collective views of mainstream feminism? If it's the latter then a single quote from one feminist won't do the job. TheGySom 06:21, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
I have unlocked the article so that the requested source can be added. DanH 21:07, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Feminism and choice

Feminists say they only want choice while actually asserting various "shoulds" and "oughts".

Wearing dresses is strongly discouraged by feminists; dressing like men is strongly encouraged. Indeed, all sorts of feminine behavior in the workplace is discouraged, and we all know that Simone de Beauvoir condemned the choice of woman staying home to raise her and her husband's children.

What we object to here is the pretense that feminism supports women choosing either traditional female roles or modern "liberated" ones. They use coercion quite openly. Pretending that they do not is something you can do on your own blog, using your freedom of press to tell lies. You can't do it here. --Ed Poor Talk 06:16, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

According to her article she made those views in 1949, we are trying to discuss the views of modern feminists, or more specifically those around in 2008. As has been stated above, these are different to the views held in the past. TheGySom 06:24, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Ed Poor explains this extremely well. I don't know what TheGySom is referencing about 1949, but that is surely "modern" also. Feminism plainly represents views about how women should act, and women who disagree with that ideology are ostracized and ridiculed by the more militant feminists.--Aschlafly 08:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Simone de Beauvoir wrote her controversial book The Second Sex in 1949. It is relevant to the history of feminism, but in no way should be used as a source to describe the views of mainstream twenty-first century feminists, as it was written almost 60 years ago. We've come a long way since then - most of today's feminists weren't even born when the book came out. I'm a woman, I have friends who are feminist and friends who definitely aren't, none of them have ever tried to encourage or discourage me from wearing dresses. Some of my friends wear only dresses/skirts for religious reasons (Christian or Jewish), but I've never met a woman who would not wear dresses for political reasons. The idea just doesn't ring true to me. Certainly for some activities or professions pants are a more practical and/or more safe choice, and some women tend towards pants or tend towards dresses for themselves, but those are not political or ideological choices, they are a matter of personal style and/or practicality. Feminists in the '70's fought for the right to wear pants in places and situations where it had not previously been allowed, mostly for practical and personal style reasons. I'm not trying to be argumentative here - just to give a woman's perspective. So far, the only sources in support of the idea that feminists encourage dressing like men have been offhand comments in blogs. Can we find some more solid sources for this idea if it is to be included in the article?--Hsmom 14:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
I'm sure there are millionaire communists who say they have no desire to interfere with private property, and that they don't know any other communists who do either. And they would be right about themselves and their friends, but wrong about the ideology of communism.
Likewise here. The sine qua non of modern feminism is for women to act like men. Why would clothes be excluded from that? They aren't. I've already provided two references and there are probably more, but I'm getting the sense that no amount of citations will persuade you because you know what you and your friends think about clothes. I suggest you spend some time researching this and ask women familiar with the feminist agenda.--Aschlafly 15:26, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Name Changes

The article says that feminists "refuse to take the husband's last name when marrying, despite the confusion and complexity that causes". However, the article used as a citation seems to be saying the opposite. It is an article about the complexity of such decisions for 21st century women, and how there are many different approaches to changing one's name, and how quite a few feminists are now changing their name to, one way or another, include their husband's name. (The author, who is marrying soon, begins the article with 8 of her own options, including hyphenation, etc.) The article goes on to give quite a few examples of feminist women who made various choices, for a wide variety of reasons. Based on the cited article, I think a more accurate statement for our article would be "feminists are likely to take a number of factors into consideration when deciding whether or not to change their last name to their husband's when they marry." Two relevant quotes from the article: "...they are doing what they can, making meaning of their own, focusing on what they do with their lives as much as what they do with their names. And by the way, isn't that the whole idea of feminism?" and "Hey, I'm a stay-at-home mom who took her husband's name and earns a fraction of our household income but none of that makes me any less of a feminist. Because for me, feminism is about respecting women and men and being able to make whatever lifestyle choices you want." [3] I did not make this change, even though the article is now unlocked, because I'd like input from others first - I think that, together, we can make this a better article.--Hsmom 21:40, 30 March 2008 (EDT)


  1. Feminisms [1]
  2. A Dress A Day[2]
  3. "(Almost half the married women in the Harvard-Radcliffe class of 1990 kept or hyphenated their names.) If you read the New York Times wedding pages, and shut up, you do, the phrase 'the bride, who is keeping her name' seems like the norm, unless his name is Rockefeller. [3]

Question for the Editor--

I just found my way to your site via Google, and read "Feminism." I noticed that your editorial policy says that you're not allowing the use of material that isn't accurate. That site says that early feminists were "suffragettes." The suffragettes were English, in fact -- in the use, the folks who supported the right to vote for women were suffragists, from Woodrow Wilson to good ol' Theodore Roosevelt. Your writers also have no idea that the term "feminist" at times has been somewhat conservative (hey! surprise!), as when the National Women's Party supported an Equal Rights Amendment while most women opposed it. In the meantime, in the twentieth century, some Republican women would have been comfortable calling themselves "feminists," from Margaret Chase Smith to Oveta Culp Hobby. The term has had somewhat varied meanings over the course of the century, and any accurate description should reflect that. Interested readers could check out Catherine Rymph's Republican Women, published by the very reputable U.North Carolina Press. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mm444 (talk)

Unsourced quotes

There are tons of unsourced quotes in this article, and I will go through the list to see how many I can actually source. I will remove those quotes I couldn't find any info on, and I'll post them here so others can re-add them if they do find reliable sources. The key words are: Where was it said, and when. Evidence should be supplied. Quote-sites that simply say "She said so." are off-limits.

  • "I feel that 'man-hating' is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." - Robin Morgan

I couldn't find anything more than just anti-feminist comments and "Men Rights" sites. No mention of where or when she supposedly said so. (Update: Found a site that says it's from "Sisterhood is Powerful". --MilesM 16:56, 16 April 2008 (EDT))

A somewhat special case is the next one:

  • "I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero-sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the sh*twork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do" - Robin Morgan

I found out that this quote comes from her introduction to the 1970 book "Sisterhood is Powerful". I also found this snippet about the quote:

Halimat: Following is a quote from you. Assuming that you weren't misquoted, do you still feel this way? How are women to get ahead without collaberation from those who currently hold the majority of legislative power? "I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power."

Robin Morgan: That quote is from the early 1970s and fortunately both the movement and I have matured in terms of developing a much more sophisticated range of tactics and strategies, due to our enormous numbers, than we ever could have imagined back in the late 60s and early 70s. While it is still true that "pale males" are at the top of the "food chain" - more men are changing every day. They're more involved with their children and families and on every level, from slowly learning to use Ms. through to adopting and adapting to anti-sexual harrassment workplace rules, men have been changing. It's not enough by far, but it is a start. And it's the power of the women's movement that has brought them even this far.

I'll leave the quote in the article, but I will also link to that interview so people can get a more modern reflection on the quote. --MilesM 16:03, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

One more from Robin Morgan:

  • "Women are not inherently passive or peaceful. We're not inherently anything but human."

It's a really nice quote, so I regret that I couldn't find any proper sourcing for it. :/ --MilesM 16:42, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Took out two (for now) from Dworkin:

  • "I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."<ref>From her book "Ice and Fire"</ref>

"Ice and Fire" is a novel. As in fiction. As such, I won't treat this as her own quote, just like I don't claim that authors like King or Clancy endorse every sentence from their books as their own views.

  • Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."

This quote is attributed to "Liberty", but I couldn't find it in her Bibliography, so I'll cut it until somebody actually figures out whether it's a book (and whether it's fiction or non-fiction) or a paper or something. Citing made-up books sounds vaguely unlikely, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. --MilesM 17:27, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Dworkin again:

  • "To be rapeable, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is."

Couldn't find any proper sourcing, only quote pages that simply say she said it, but not where or when. --MilesM 18:00, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Quotations and flowing prose

There are way too many quotations here. Sure, we've proved the point. There's a lot of nasty things that were said by genuine, card-carrying feminists. But quotes don't make an article.

I want to know the roots of feminism, what it originally tried to do, what else it started to do, and how it did (and does) differ from simply "making sure women don't get mistreated". --Ed Poor Talk 16:11, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Agree with the "way too many quotations" bit. A few quotes from several eras to illustrate how feminism developed and matured would be nice. If that's not possible, just crop it down. --MilesM 16:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
It probably wouldn't hurt to review this. I am also pleased Miles that you have chosen a constructive approach of finding and adding references instead of just complaining. There is a greater chance of seeing constructive changes occur under that format than merely confronting. Learn together 16:40, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

I think we have misrepresented Jilly Cooper

I think Jilly Cooper, the veteran right-wing journo and toff, would be surprised to find herself identified as a feminist and downright astonished to be labelled a member of SCUM. Somebody has got a little confused here. (Or else they are being mischievious).

Suggestion for separation

I personally feel it would be beneficial to make two articles on this subject. What's described here is what many call "radical feminism" whereas average everyday feminism is quite different. I'm not an expert in this field, but I can assure you that the generalizations made here are on the most extreme examples of feminists. -EternalCritic

I agree, much of what is addressed here under the heading of "feminism" would more properly be described as "radical feminism" (of the all women should be lesbians/all heterosexual intercourse is rape slant), and much of the substantive article seems to be un-cited impressions that appear to be sourced in popular culture (for example, if the ideological doctrine is too difficult to define, how can it be said that *all* feminists balk at chivalry or belittle family women?). Can the lengthy list of sound-bite quotations (from which the reader is apparently supposed to cobble together an idea of what feminism is) be removed to ultimately be replaced with an attempt to seriously engage with the tenants of feminism with a stronger focus on peer-reviewed academia reflecting a broader overview of the field rather than a relatively small group of extremists? -- BillyWest 11:28, August 28 2011

Reversion explained

The edit summary to the last edit said, "I changed some awkward phrasing. I also think the bullets should be made into one coherent paragraph. Thoughts?" In fact, that edit introduced liberal bias and censored conservative truth. It was fully reverted even though it did also include some harmless stylistic changes.--Andy Schlafly 13:20, 17 August 2009 (EDT)


I'm not clear on the policy. In the list of quotes, there are some that don't have real citations like:

"The nuclear family must be destroyed ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process" - Linda Gordon


"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women ... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism" November, 1971)

I think these need real citations or they should be removed. Also, quotes about feminists should be in a separate section than quotes from feminists. Pat Robertson is mixed in with a bunch of feminists right now, under the "Other" heading.

--AdamBurns 18:47, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Enough quotations?

This article could make a more mature examination of feminism than putting up a bunch of quotations. --Marxian21 22:53, 22 January 2010 (EST)

"No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do"

I cannot find the phrase in either of the two references given. AlexWD 21:12, 30 January 2010 (EST)

Please feel free to delete that phrase, then.--Andy Schlafly 21:18, 30 January 2010 (EST)
I would, but TK has already reverted someone who edited it out--and I don't want to anger him. AlexWD 21:22, 30 January 2010 (EST)

Reversion explained

Modern feminists are overwhelmingly pro-abortion, and even those who are not pro-abortion are still anti-motherhood.--Andy Schlafly 09:54, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

Full rewrite

I like the quotes, and we certainly need a conservative critique of modern "radical" feminism, but the movement has also had its good points. There are even places/issues where currents in contemporary feminism match up with conservative ideas.

The idea that men shouldn't use their power to abuse women is a longstanding conservative idea (see Chivalry), although this is nothing more than the general idea that no one, male or female, should abuse his power; it doesn't matter if it's man to woman, white to black, rich to poor, educated to ignorant, etc. However, many feminists bristle at the idea of accepting any help from men (such help seen as condescending at best). Most conservative Christians oppose pornography and sexual slavery, and so on. --Ed Poor Talk 11:23, 8 September 2010 (EDT)

I am trying to make this page compatible with a little Amazon Alexa Mod I cooked up, so far when It reads it, There were multiple spelling errors, and when she spoke it sounded more like a rant then an actual informative conservative essay. Also the bulleted list doesn't play and the alexia device just stops playing, I believe the hardware isn't used to bullet points not being with-in heading or heading font so the Device just tries to reload the text in pure html using Wikipedias default source php (which I deleted to make my own.) I understand that I need to be of higher standing, so can someone edit the article so it doesn't sound like a gigantic rant without any sources. --Reevestehsnek Talk 10:59, 8 November 2018 (EST)

Sorry, we don't change pages so Amazon Alexa handles them better. That's Alexa's problem, not ours. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2018 (EST)
I wasn't clear I made a mod for an alexa device that uses conservapedia as its source, but its obvi you don't care about all the hard hours of work it took to actual remove the php through bluetooth and rewrite the script using BSD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reevestehsnek (talk)
I'm not saying that at all, and that sounds like a great accomplishment that I could not do myself.
What I am saying is that this is not a sufficient reason for making major changes to the article. We simply cannot change an article's wording and point of view because it runs better through a speaking device. Articles are generally created to be read, and it's unusual for people to have them spoken to them by a device. Wording and point of view changes should only be made based on their own merits. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2018 (EST)

feminism and obesity

feminism and obesity: I will leave it up to others decide what constitutes feminism as I am taking a break from Conservapedia barring any news events. conservative 04:03, 5 February 2011 (EST)

Create a feminism and obesity article

Consider creating a Feminism and obesity article at Conservapedia and cite this material: Conservative 06:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

The blog you want cited makes a huge leap in its conclusions. Being a working mother does not automatically translate into being a feminist. I would guess the majority of working women are in the job market because there is a need for a second income to support a family, given the cost of basic necessities such as rent, food, gasoline, electricity, medical costs, clothing, etc. I know that is the case in my situation. We can't pay for the basics on my husband's salary alone. We haven't had a vacation in years. Most of my friends are in the same situation. And the blog completely ignores the single working mother - what is she supposed to do? Not work? --SharonW 11:01, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

I agree that this article is no good, even though I wish it were true. --corneliuscalvin 7:56, 26 November 2012 (PDT)

Can't talk now. of the World happening. AlanE 23:01, 26 November 2012 (EST)

No Christian feminism?

I think that this article would be served well if a section on Christian feminism was included. Maybe a new article on it would be better.Mr. Guye (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2017 (EST)

That seems like a good idea, but an article on it would have to be from a theologically conservative point of view. But there's also the fact that the same term can have a different meaning for different people -- what one person considers Christian feminism can be completely different than what another person does. We would need to define the term clearly, but I think we'd be talking about second- and third-wave feminism, adherents of which have theologically and socially left-wing views. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2017 (EST)
No, there is no requirement that a Conservapedia article discussing the topic of Christian feminism "would have to be from a theologically conservative point of view." There are no such requirements on content at Conservapedia, and no one, except perhaps Andy, has the authority to enforce such a requirement. All that is required is that "Conservapedia is a politically conservative, Christian encyclopedia project". Though many of our members are not Christians and are not politically conservative, they are required to edit in a manner consistent with the Conservapedia:Commandments. To require otherwise would turn this wiki into a Wikipedia-style "mobocracy" rather than a "best of the public" project.
The concept of feminism covers a lot of ground. There are conservative feminists, Christian feminists, and Republican feminists. Not all feminists subscribe to some of the silly excesses that one sometimes sees looking around on the internet and various media outlets. Many conservative feminists, for example, fully support encouraging girls to go into STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects.
So feel free to write sensible content on this topic. I look forward to reading it.
SamHB (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2017 (EST)
SamHB, they have found that promoting the idea that women are underrepresented in STEM fields and that this has to be corrected has the effect of telling women that STEM is not feminine/girly and thus women are more likely to avoid those fields. In other words, the policy is probably backfiring. See:
Women tend to be more likely to be conformists and not mavericks.
Over and over again, liberals fail to take into account the unintended consequences of their social engineering! Conservative (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2017 (EST)
Once Christian denominations filly embrace the notion of female pastors, their memberships almost invariably spiral downward. That should surely be mentioned in relation to "Christian feminism".
"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." - 1 Timothy 2:12-13Conservative (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2017 (EST)
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think Mr. Guye was even talking about female pastors when he was talking about Christian feminism, just something akin to, say, the Suffragettes, many of whom were Christian women who would NEVER advocate the pill, let alone abortion. But yes, we probably should note that bit somewhere either way. Pokeria1 (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2017 (EST)
What percentage of so-called "Christian feminists" believe that a wife is to obey her husband and that a husband is the head of the family? At least in its present form "Christian feminism" is just another endeavor to infect Christianity with unbiblical ideas. As far as the suffragette movement, I don't know if any of them were Christian women who held biblical Christianity views related to women. I do know that various suffragettes burned down churches.[10]
Christianity was at the forefront of various movements like abolition, child labor laws, etc. etc. Christendom is also known for its favorable views on the treatment of women (husbands loving their wives like Christ loved the church, etc. etc.), but it is not known for leading the charge as far as feminism. Conservative (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2017 (EST)
Well, I do know that Susan B. Anthony specifically condemned abortion and the pill and stated that would make women even more enslaved, and I do know that Christians also do not support abortion and the pill (in fact, among us Catholics, it's considered a mortal sin), so there's that to consider. Pokeria1 (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2017 (EST)

First-wave feminism was good?

This article makes it sound like first-wave feminism was good and its doctrines were just simply corrupted in the 1960s. As it turns out, first-wave feminists were anti-Christianity and anti-man too, as pointed out by Matt Walsh of the Daily Wire and John Doyle.[11][12] Elizabeth Cady Stanton once said that the Bible and the church were the two greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation. Susan B. Anthony was a religious skeptic, and other early feminists held similar views too. In fact, many were free lovers, like Victoria Woodhull. I strongly recommend that the early section saying liberals just twisted the term be deleted. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 20:22, November 9, 2021 (EST)

But the early feminists were pro-life, right?--Andy Schlafly (talk) 20:45, November 9, 2021 (EST)
The Bible says wives must submit to their husbands (Pauline epistles and the Apostle Peter taught this). No doubt this was anethema to first wave feminists. Conservative (talk) 21:04, November 9, 2021 (EST)
I'm pretty sure if they were truly anti-Christianity, they'd be all in favor of unlimited abortion on demand even back then (especially when the Church was ALWAYS against abortion), and yet, as demonstrated with Susan B. Anthony, several of them were AGAINST abortion. I know Vladimir Lenin certainly was all in for unlimited abortion, being notorious for literally legalizing unlimited and unrestricted abortion in the USSR and being the first state leader to EVER do so, even having the audacity to claim THIS emancipated women, and was such that even the likes of Margaret Sanger, herself no pro-life adherer, was reportedly aghast at it. Besides, my idea of having my hypothetical wife submitting to me would be closer to what Geldoblame advocated for everyone under his rule from Baten Kaitos, and I'm pretty sure even Jesus and his disciples NEVER advocated for that kind of submission (even less so when Geldoblame used THAT as justification for committing mass murder against a mining community by torching it simply because they withheld ore shipments thanks to his draconian labor statutes that left them dangerously overworked). Pokeria1 (talk) 22:03, November 9, 2021 (EST)
Being pro-life does not necessarily make one pro-Christianity. Victoria Woodhull was against abortion and she was a Marxist and practically a communist. Also even Sanger claimed to be against abortion if I am not incorrect, saying birth control got rid of the need for it. Planned Parenthood did not start to endorse the legalization of abortion until 1969, and abortion did not even start to become popular until after Roe v. Wade. That was really more of the Overton Window being shifted in conservatism's direction back then than feminism being conservative. It just really goes to show how much ground we've lost. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 22:42, November 9, 2021 (EST)
Maybe so, but the anti-Christians most certainly tended to be very much anti-life, as Lenin and even Trotsky proved there (not to mention the Bolsheviks), and even the Jacobins, their ideological ancestors, were known to practice abortion in the most crude manner (specifically, bayonetting pregnant women, and/or using wine pressers to crush them). And since Marx was brought into it, Marx himself advocated massively for abortion as well, as did Engels, all in their plan to "abolish the family." And what better way to abolish the family than to destroy reproduction. If she was a Marxist, it only shows she didn't know Marx all that well, as otherwise, she'd be all in favor of abortion like her idol Marx. And let's not forget that this view of pro-abortion has been going on since 1923 with Dr. Antoinette Konikow, who was a fellow traveler of Trotsky during the Russian Revolution, AND committed several abortions in the Boston area specifically as part of her Marxist advocacy. Pokeria1 (talk) 22:49, November 9, 2021 (EST)
That may be true, but some anti-Christians are more radical than others. Also America was more conservative than Russia at the time of the Russian Revolution, so something like abortion would definitely be seen as morally unacceptable in that time regardless of where you were on the political spectrum. But my main point is if Stanton said Christianity got in the way of feminism, and she was the founder of American feminism and first-wave feminism, I just don't know how you can say feminism wasn't anti-Christian even back then. -Mr. Nationalist (talk) 23:27, November 9, 2021 (EST)
I've heard of some feminists getting back to the Christian faith. Victoria Woodhull, for one actually renounced the free love bits and advocated strongly for the Christian concept of motherhood later in life (too bad she didn't quite own up to how she did badly during that time, though). Besides, technically speaking, there have been PLENTY of Founding Fathers in America who were significantly anti-Christian, including Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and apparently even John Adams. By that same logic, America ITSELF is anti-Christian from conception. In fact, Christopher A. Ferrara actually makes this argument in his book Liberty: The God that Failed. I guess you could also argue that liberty in itself was anti-Christian. For that matter, I'd argue Freedom of Religion is ultimately anti-Christian as well. The Israelites tried that bit back in the day, and that led directly towards the Babylonian Exile, per God's direction. And Russia was still conservative enough to have abortion be deemed explicitly illegal until Lenin and his Bolsheviks took over (there's a reason why the USSR under Lenin was the first country in all of history to actually make unlimited abortion legal, to the extent that STALIN of all people threw a bone to us pro-lifers by outlawing abortion for a year). I'd mention divorce, but Robespierre and the French Revolution beat Lenin to that bit. Pokeria1 (talk) 23:33, November 9, 2021 (EST)

Fatherless children

Does only feminism cause this? --Jackin the box (talk) 10:28, January 24, 2022 (EST)

Re-reading the section "Cultural Marxism", it seems out of place in an article on feminism. Isn't it about men who abandon their children? --Jackin the box (talk) 13:24, March 11, 2022 (EST)


I thought feminists went out of business with vaccine mandates (my body my choice) and transgenders taking over girls sports. Not to mention rape in prisons by transgenders. It's the law now. We've finally reached full equality. What more is there to debate? RobSZ 20:18, May 28, 2022 (EDT)


I'm puzzled by the linking of pants and feminism. I suppose it is an assertion by women of their independence but hardily any women, whatever their age, wears a dress where I live, though there's a few more in hot weather (I'm envious). Isn't more a matter of convenience than ideology? It's the norm and so non-partisan. --RobLeonardWoo (talk) 16:49, August 7, 2022 (EDT)

Phyllis Schlafly was a conservative woman who defeated the feminists by preventing the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. I have never seen a picture of her wearing pants. Conservative (talk) 22:50, August 7, 2022 (EDT)
What has this to do with the fact that most women of all ages wear trousers in North American? This has far more to do with comfort and convenience than feminism. I suspect that more women wear dresses in more liberal Europe. Personally I find women more attractive in dresses but I would not be so arrogant to insist that any woman has to wear one! --RobLeonardWoo (talk) 13:52, August 8, 2022 (EDT)
There's too much feminism in the USA and the fruits are not positive. 13th highest divorce rate in the world.[13] Lots of women taking depression pills. And there are surveys which show that women are now LESS happy post feminism. Thank God that the religious have a higher fertility rate, Roe vs. Wade was overturned and that the Bible is not pro-feminism. Conservative (talk) 15:10, August 8, 2022 (EDT)
Have you read the essay: Andy Schlafly, Phyllis Schlafly and the Amish. All they do is win against secular leftists (Rap song). In 22nd century North America, the majority of women may be wearing dresses. In all likelihood, should Jesus tarry, the majority of women in North America will not be pant-wearing, feminist whores!!!Conservative (talk) 15:16, August 8, 2022 (EDT)
Oh dear!--RobLeonardWoo (talk) 16:57, August 8, 2022 (EDT)

Does the Bible forbid women from wearing pants?

According to the United Church of God it does not.

Does Deuteronomy 22:5 forbid women from wearing pants? No, it doesn't. In fact, clothing “that pertains to a man” at the time the verse was written would not have been understood to mean pants. Men in the Middle East through the history of the Old and New Testaments did not ordinarily wear pants, trousers or slacks; they wore robe-like garments. And in many cultures such as in China, women have commonly worn pants. The scripture more specifically addresses and forbids transvestism and cross-dressing.
The underlying principle certainly applies to today. Men should dress in an appropriately masculine manner and women should dress in an appropriately feminine manner. Clothing manufacturers make pants designed for men, and pants, slacks and pantsuits designed for women. The Bible emphasizes modesty, and for women, slacks are often more modest than a short skirt.
God does not intend for this scripture to be understood in an extreme or unreasonable way. For example, it’s perfectly fine for a woman to wear her husband’s old shirt when she’s painting or to put on her male friend’s jacket when she’s cold.on Jan 27, 2011 by United Church of God

--RobLeonardWoo (talk) 14:37, August 28, 2022 (EDT)

A sensible and intelligent reading of the Bible and history, --RobLeonardWoo (talk) 14:42, August 28, 2022 (EDT)
Thanks. I guess we were all too stupid to figure that out. Does this apply to Drag Queen Story Hour at Pizza Hut, as well? RobSIch bin ein breakfast taco 14:45, August 28, 2022 (EDT)

See also [14] and [15]. Can you clarify RobSRobSmith? The above quotation does not support transvestism! And trousers didn't exist in the biblical world. --RobLeonardWoo (talk) 15:57, August 28, 2022 (EDT)

There is no reference to Deuteronomy in the article. And the Deuteronomy reference basically is about honesty, not enticing a member of your own sex by dressing up as something that you are not. RobSIch bin ein breakfast taco 16:26, August 28, 2022 (EDT)
The point you are trying to make has nothing to do with feminism. It does, however have to do with gender confusion or dysphoria. While modern science may brand gender dysphoria as a mental handicap (perhaps involuntary or uncontrollable), Deuteronomy says gender confusion is a choice. But that is not a discussion for here in this article. RobSIch bin ein breakfast taco 16:32, August 28, 2022 (EDT)
Really I was responding to another editor's ranting, though this article isn't so much about feminism as an extreme version of it. Even Andy Schafly agreed in an interview that his mother believed in the equal rights of women:
Schlafly wants to know what I mean by "feminist". I offer a dictionary definition: "A feminist is someone who believes in equal rights for men and women."
His response is surprising. "She may have agreed with that sort of general statement - as stated like that, yes."
It seems that - as her opponents always maintained - the matriarch of American antifeminism was deep down a feminist herself. Daily Telegraph Jul 23, 2020
Feminists today are taking the lead in the anti-transgenderism movement. So maybe it's time for a reconciliation. (Oh, and they are doing so because what Phyllis prophesied about the 1970s Feminist movement has come true). RobSIch bin ein breakfast taco 17:27, August 28, 2022 (EDT)

Reversion of legitimate copy edits

Why were minor, non-ideologial, copy editsb recently reverted without adequate explanation?--RobLeonardWoo (talk) 19:26, September 13, 2022 (EDT)

I now see that you did copy edits. So I restored your edits. Regardless, your former ideological edits, bias tag, etc. are not wanted in the article.
If you want to edit the article further, you will have to understand the conservative perspective better. You will need to read the Bible from front to cover and read the book Equality: The Impossible Quest by Dr. Martin van Creveld before editing the article again.
Below are a few reviews of Dr. Martin van Creveld's book.
Thanks. I am trying to respect the fundamentalist Christian values of this site, even though I have problems with the lack of awareness, at times here, of the profound difference between the Old and New Testaments. The book that you recommend sounds most interesting. --RobLeonardWoo (talk) 09:25, September 14, 2022 (EDT)