Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Feminism

2010-01-29T17:10:42Z

AdamBurns: This is not part of the quote. It's also confusing.

[[Image:Braque woman 400pix.jpg|right|300px]]
'''Feminism''' originally was an expression used by [[suffragettes]] - who were predominantly [[pro-life]]<ref>[http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/wallace4.html ''Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion'']</ref><ref>''"There is no question that she deplored the practice of abortion, as did every one of her colleagues in the suffrage movement."'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/13/opinion/13schiff.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ''Desperately Seeking Susan''] [[New York Times]] (13 October 2006)</ref><ref>[http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm ''Voices of our Feminist Foremothers''] Feminists for Life</ref> - to obtain the right for women to vote in the early 1900s in the [[United States]] and the [[United Kingdom]]. By the 1970s, however, [[liberals]] had changed the meaning to represent people who favored [[abortion]] and identical roles or quotas for women in the military and in society as a whole.

Specifically, a modern feminist tends to:

* believe that there are no meaningful differences between men and women (The most significant belief underlying contemporary feminism is that there are no [[sex differences]]; therefore advocacy for [[equal rights]] must be extended to advocacy for [[equal results]] or outcomes.)
* oppose [[chivalry]] and even feign insult at harmless displays of it (see [[battle between the sexes]])
* view traditional [[marriage]] as unacceptably patriarchal
* detest women who are happy in traditional roles, such as housewives,<ref> "Being a [[housewife]] is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of [[radical feminism]] is to change that." - Vivian Gornick, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981. [http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/LAF_Theme_Articles_13/You_Don_t_Know_Feminism_744100744.shtml "You Don't Know Feminism"] </ref> and especially dislike those who defend such roles
* shirk traditional gender activities, like baking<ref>"But sometime between the Ides of March and Canada Day, I remembered that I'd given up baking cookies as a political act in 1975. ... No self-respecting feminist could be found in the company of cookie dough." [http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref>
* support [[affirmative action]] for women
* prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do<ref>"[T]he wearing of pantsuits is often a useful feminism signifier, depending on the culture of the law firm." [http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=2640]</ref><ref>"I was part of a growing tribe of pesky women called feminists by friends and enemies alike. We women stormed out the door in our imitation men's suits ...." [http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/arts/story.html?k=60432&id=3b3c71f6-0d7d-4e1a-b8fb-cf8d5b1af478]</ref>
* seek [[women in combat]] in the military just like men, and coed submarines
* refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying<ref>"(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. http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/10/16/names/index.html]</ref>
* distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (Eg: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)
* object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey";<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-talk-boxer-maamjun19,0,5804401.story</ref> object to other female-only names, such as "temptress"

==History==
Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[suffrage|Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900's and the [[Women's Liberation]] (or "Second Wave Feminist") movement of the 1960's and 1970's.

The [[Equal Rights Amendment]], which proponents claimed would address the inadequacies of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] concerning women and citizenship, was proposed in the US in 1923. The amendment passed Congress in 1972 but was ultimately defeated, falling just three states short of the required [[three-quarters majority]] on June 30, 1982. Some conservatives, particularly [[Phyllis Schlafly]], felt that its passage would entail adverse consequences, including making girls subject to the [[military draft]], requiring taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] the end of [[single-sex schools]] and classes, requiring the issuance of [[homosexual marriage]] licenses, and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, such as factory or mining work. Indeed, in states that passed their own state versions of ERA, several of these results were subsequently ordered by courts.<ref>For example, the [[Hawaii]] and [[Massachusetts]] Supreme Courts ordered the issuance of homosexual marriage licenses based in part on their on their state ERAs, and the [[New Mexico]] Supreme Court ordered taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] based on its state ERA.</ref>

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of so-called [[Post-Feminism]] (also called "[[Third-Wave]]" feminism), which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized, often by women themselves, in everyday life, and in the American legal structure. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently guaranteed by American law, including the legal right to [[abortion]]. This stance is opposed by many conservatives, leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Femi-nazis" to refer to extreme feminist activists.

During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]], feminism made a partial resurgence, although feminist leadership was criticized{{who}} for largely failing to criticize President Clinton's [[sexist]] behavior toward female employees as both Arkansas Governor and U.S. President.<ref>Odone, Christina [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article528875.ece ''Left-wing misogyny is alive and well: The party’s feminist agenda allows Labour men to get away with sexist behaviour''] (2 June 2005) [[The Times]]</ref><ref>Jackson, Candice E. ''"Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine"'' (World Ahead Publishing; 2005) ISBN 0-9746-7013-8</ref>

Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], a staunch advocate of [[civil rights]] and [[non-violence]] said, "When a mother has to work she does violence to motherhood by depriving her children of her loving guidance and protection." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 203.</ref>

Larrey Anderson, philosopher, writer and submissions editor for American Thinker, links feminism to Marxism, and concludes, "Feminism by grounding itself in the philosophy of Hegel and Marx, is condemning women to a new servitude: slavery to the state."<ref>Larrey Anderson, ''The Feminine Mistake'', American Thinker], November 29, 2009</ref>

==Quotations==

===[[Robin Morgan]]===

*"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."<ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp From] "Sisterhood is Powerful"(1970)</ref>

*"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?"<ref>[http://circuitous.org/scraps/combahee.html From] her introduction to "Sisterhood is Powerful"</ref><ref>http://www.feministcampus.org/network/chat/morgan04232003.asp</ref>

*"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_/ai_n9357217 From] "Sisterhood is Powerful"</ref>

*"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199903/ai_n8831317 From] "Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape"</ref>

===[[Andrea Dworkin]]===

*"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice."<ref name="LfaWZ">[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp From] her book "Letters from a War Zone"</ref>

*"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."<ref name="LfaWZ"/>

*"In my own life, I don't have intercourse. That is my choice."<ref>Andrea Dworkin: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4024585,00.html "'They took my body from me and used it'"] (Guardian Unlimited)</ref>

*Q: People think you are very hostile to men. A: "I am."<ref>[http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIID.html "Nervous Interview"], 1978 (Background: "Norman Mailer managed to publish lots of interviews with himself, none of which made much sense, all of which were taken seriously by literati of various stripes. So this is half parody of him and his chosen form and half parody of myself and my chosen movement.")</ref>

*"Men use the night to erase us."<ref name="TNaD">[http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIb.html The Night and Danger]</ref>

*"The annihilation of a woman's personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality."<ref name="TNaD"/>

===[[Marilyn French]]===
[[Image:Marilyn French.gif|left]]
*"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women ... he can sexually molest his daughters ... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE" - ''The War Against Women'', p. 182 (her emphasis)<ref>http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/034538248X/ref=sib_dp_pt#</ref>

*"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women ... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey" - ''The War Against Women'', p. 186 <ref>http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/034538248X/ref=sib_dp_pt#</ref>

*"The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations ... obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign" - ''The War Against Women'', p. 21 <ref>http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/034538248X/ref=sib_dp_pt#</ref>

====In fiction authored by [[Marilyn French]]====

*My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter" - ''The Women's Room''

*"All men are rapists and that's all they are" - The character Mia in her novel ''The Women's Room'', p. 462<ref>http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0345353617/ref=sib_dp_pt#</ref>

===Other===

*"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)

*"The feminista agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a [[socialist]], anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, [[abortion|kill their children]], practice [[witchcraft]], destroy capitalism, and become [[lesbian]]s" - Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992<ref>http://www.gainesvillehumanists.org/patr.htm </ref>

*"The people I'm furious with are the Women's Liberationists. They keep getting up on soapboxes and proclaiming women are brighter than men. That's true, but it should be kept quiet or it ruins the whole racket" - Anita Loos

*"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex" - [[Valerie Solanas]], author of the SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men)

*"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things" - Jilly Cooper

*"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" - Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

*"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" - Ti-Grace Atkinson

*"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice" - Ti-Grace Atkinson

*"It matters more what's in a woman's face than what's on it." - Claudette Colbert, quoted in Kindling the Spirit by Lois P. Frankel

*"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" - Susan Brownmiller; Authoress of Against Our Will p.6

*"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression" - Sheila Jeffrys

*"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated" - Catharine MacKinnon

*"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman" - Catharine MacKinnon

*"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs" - Catharine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; Universities of Michigan & Yale)

*"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent" - Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in ''Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies''

*"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men" - Sharon Stone, Actress

*"Ninety-five percent of women's experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive ... women didn't go to Vietnam and blow things up. They are not [[Rambo]]" - Jodie Foster, Actress - as quoted in The New York Times Magazine

*"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race" - Sally Miller Gearhart, in ''The Future - If There Is One - Is Female''

*"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference" - Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime

*"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males" - Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001

*"If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them" - David Angier

*"To use the word [rape] carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don't care a hoot about him. … They [men unjustly accused of rape] have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. 'How do I see women?' 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?' 'Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?' Those are good questions." - Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar in 1991 <ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973077-6,00.html</ref>

*"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it" - Barbara Jordan, former congresswoman

*"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release" - [[Germaine Greer]]

*"Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence" - [[Judith Levine]], Authoress

*"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, 'hate in love' for the men women share their lives with - husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, co-workers." - [[Judith Levine]], Authoress of My Enemy, My love

*"There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundrylist of 'sex acts' ... includes rape, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, anal intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder" - Judith Levine; summarizing comment on the WAS document (A Southern Women's Writing Collective: Women Against Sex)

*((Delaney Nickerson, of the American Coalition for ABUSE AWARENESS, refers to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation as "The F---ing Molesters Society" (Miami Herald, April 3, 1995) The ACAA is a lobbying group, which includes Ellen Bass (co-author of THE COURAGE TO HEAL), and Rene Frederickson, leading feminist psychotherapist and strong proponent of repressed memory theory))

*((At the STONE ANGELS satanic ritual abuse conference in Thunder Bay in February, 1995, the following was contained in the handouts at a conference supported financially by the Ontario Government: FMS stands for: FULL OF MOSTLY SH*T; FOR MORE SADISM; FELONS, MURDERERS, SCUMBALLS; FREQUENT MOLESTERS SOCIETY))

*"Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do" {{Fact|Date=March 2008}} -- Popular Feminist Graffiti

*"I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father's concubine... What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What's more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal" - Sylvia Fraser, Journalist

*[[Catharine MacKinnon]] maintains that "the private is a sphere of battery, marital rape and women's exploited labor." In this way, privacy and family are reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male domination. Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state's nose out of our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid - ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed - they're "hiding from the truth" The family isn't a place where battery and marital rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don't simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to "breed" them for that purpose - Donna Laframboise; The Princess at the Window (in a critical explication of the Catharine MacKinnon, [[Gloria Steinem]] et al, tenets of misandric belief)

*"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal - a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students - I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment ... of persuading students that women are oppressed" - Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women

*"Men, as a group, tend to be abusive, either verbally, sexually or emotionally. There are always the exceptions, but they are few and far between (I am married to one of them). There are different levels of violence and abuse and individual men buy into this system by varying degrees. But the male power structure always remains intact." - Message on FEMISA, responding to a request for arguments that men are unnecessary for a child to grow into mature adulthood.

*Another posting on FEMISA: "Considering the nature and pervasiveness of men's violence, I would say that without question, children are better off being raised without the presence of men. Assaults on women and children are mostly perpetrated by men whom they are supposed to love and trust: fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, step-fathers." (Both above quotes taken from Daphne Patai's excellent critical work, [[Heterophobia]])

*"At Brandies I discovered Feminism. And I instantly became a convert... writing brilliant papers in my Myths of Patriarchy class, in which I likened my fate as a woman to other victims throughout the ages." {{fact}} - Heather Hart 7

*Here are 10 reasons why we are concerned about feminism and the National Organisation for Women

1. "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist" - National NOW Times, January, 1988

2. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" - feminist leader Sheila Cronan

3. In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" - Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China" The Washington Times, Oct. 10, 1989

4. "Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole ... patriarch!" - [[Gloria Steinem]], radical feminist leader, editor of Ms. Magazine

5. "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)

6. "By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God" - [[Gloria Steinem]], editor of Ms. Magazine)

7. "Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement, solace, and inspiration from real women ... Two thousand years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women toward the feminist 'salvation' of this world" - Annie Laurie Gaylor, "Feminist Salvation," The Humanist, p. 37, July/August 1988

8. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" - Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman

9. "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that" - Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981

10. "The most merciful thing a large family can to do one of its infant members is to kill it" - Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Race" p. 67

*"Women's chains have been forged by men, not by anatomy." - Estelle R. Ramey

*"I would have girls regard themselves not as adjectives but as nouns." - Elizabeth Cady Stanton, "Our Girls"

*"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men" - [[Elizabeth Cady Stanton]], from her diary of December 27, 1890, quoting a letter she wrote. <ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=CIsEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=%22we+are+as+a+sex+infinitely+superior+to+men%22&source=web&ots=FqYVyWK-s6&sig=tnXoiGvopCcO1vFaoF7nmSvtXPM&hl=en#PPA270,M1</ref>

From 'A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:

*MALE: ... represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants ... the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female

*MAN: ... an obsolete life form ... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched ...a contradictory baby-man ...

*TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... 'Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning"

*Letter to editor: "Women's Turn to Dominate" "... Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures. Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is: if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down" Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia. 9 February, 1996

*“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism” - Catharine MacKinnon

*The English novelist and critic [[Rebecca West]] said <ref>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/rebecca_west.html</ref> :

*<blockquote> "I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." </blockquote>

==See also==
*[[Anti-Feminism]]
*[[Feminism and housewives]]
*[[Feminist style]]
*[[Gender equality]]
*[[Gender police]]
*[[Feminists for Life]]
*[[Feminism and reason]]
*[[Feminist hypocrisy]]
*[[Battered woman syndrome]]
{{liberalism}}

==References==
{{reflist|small}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.
*[http://www.cia-on-campus.org/surveil/steinem.html Gloria Steinem and the CIA], ''The New York Times'', February 21, 1967.
*[http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg02217.html Inside the CIA with Gloria Steinem], Nancy Borman, ''The Village Voice''.
*[http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man?], Christina Hoff Sommers, ''The American'' March/April 2008.

[[Category: Liberalism]]
[[Category:Feminism]]

Free piston engine

2009-12-20T21:26:51Z

AdamBurns:

The free-piston engine was proposed by [[Raúl Pateras Pescara|R.P. Pescara]] <ref>Pescara R.P., Motor compressor apparatus, ''US Patent 1,657,641, 1928''.</ref> and the original application was a single piston [[air compressor]].

Free-piston air compressors were used, among others by, the German Navy. They were efficienct, compact and quiet. <ref>Toutant W.T., The Worthington–Junkers free-piston air compressor, ''Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers 1952:64:583–594''.</ref>.

These are of the dual piston type, creating a compact unit with a high/weight ratio. This design requires an electric machine of for low weight. Difficulties in the form of low cycle-to-cycle rates have been reported for dual piston engines. <ref>Clark N. et al., Modelling and development of a linear engine, ''Proc. ASME Spring Conference, Internal Combustion Engine Division, 1998:30:49–57''.</ref><ref>Tikkanen S. et al., First cycles of the dual hydraulic free piston engine, ''SAE Paper 2000–01–2546, 2000''.</ref>.

Several free-piston gas generators were created, and these were in widely used in large-scale applications such as stationary and marine powerplants. <ref>London A.L., Oppenheim A.K., The free-piston engine development -- Present status and design aspects, ''Transactions of the ASME 1952:74:1349–1361''.</ref>. Current research suggests these could be more efficient than internal combustion engines <ref>[http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/09/free-piston-engine-could-be-twice-as.html www.nextbigfuture.com]</ref>.

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

Free piston engine

2009-12-20T21:25:55Z

AdamBurns:

Free piston engine

2009-12-20T21:24:05Z

AdamBurns:

The free-piston engine was proposed by [[Raúl Pateras Pescara|R.P. Pescara]] <ref>Pescara R.P., Motor compressor apparatus, ''US Patent 1,657,641, 1928''.</ref> and the original application was a single piston [[air compressor]].

Free-piston air compressors were used, among others by, the German Navy. They were efficienct, compact and quiet. <ref>Toutant W.T., The Worthington–Junkers free-piston air compressor, ''Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers 1952:64:583–594''.</ref>.

These are of the dual piston type, creating a compact unit with a high/weight ratio. This design requires an electric machine of for low weight. Difficulties in the form of low cycle-to-cycle rates have been reported for dual piston engines. <ref>Clark N. et al., Modelling and development of a linear engine, ''Proc. ASME Spring Conference, Internal Combustion Engine Division, 1998:30:49–57''.</ref><ref>Tikkanen S. et al., First cycles of the dual hydraulic free piston engine, ''SAE Paper 2000–01–2546, 2000''.</ref>.

Several free-piston gas generators were created, and these were in widely used in large-scale applications such as stationary and marine powerplants. <ref>London A.L., Oppenheim A.K., The free-piston engine development -- Present status and design aspects, ''Transactions of the ASME 1952:74:1349–1361''.</ref>. Current research suggests these could be more efficient than internal combustion engines http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/09/free-piston-engine-could-be-twice-as.html.

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

Type 93 flamethrower

2009-12-17T03:22:18Z

AdamBurns: Created page with 'The type 93 flamethrower was developed by the Japanese for uses during World War 2. It was largely based on the American design used during World War 1, but used a diffe...'

The type 93 flamethrower was developed by the Japanese for uses during [[World War 2]]. It was largely based on the American design used during [[World War 1]], but used a different blend of fuel based on the flammable materials available to them.

==Design==
The Type 93 flamethrower consists of a gun connected to a fuel unit by a hose.
The fuel unit consists of three cylinders: two outer fuel cylinders and a central cylinder. Each is about a foot long, and 6 inches in diameter. The cylinders can contain up to 23 liters of a mixture of gasoline, rice wine (sake), and tar. Pressure is controlled by two manually-operated needle valves. This tank assembly was fitted with straps to permit it to be carried on the operator's back like an infantry pack. <ref>[http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/japanese-flamethrower/index.html U.S. Intelligence Report]</ref>

The 45 inch fuel hose was made of reinforced rubber tubing, with brass fittings on both ends. The flame gun, three to four feet long, was a 1 inch diameter tube with a fuel ejection handle located near the hose connection, and a 1/4-inch nozzle with the firing mechanism attached to the other end.

==References==
{{Reflist}}

Feminism

2009-12-17T02:40:28Z

AdamBurns: As far as I can see this wasn't part of the quote at all. Am I mistaken? It just seems confusing.

Free piston engine

2009-12-17T00:29:43Z

AdamBurns:

The free-piston engine was proposed by [[Raúl Pateras Pescara|R.P. Pescara]] <ref>Pescara R.P., Motor compressor apparatus, ''US Patent 1,657,641, 1928''.</ref> and the original application was a single piston [[air compressor]].

Free-piston air compressors were used, among others by, the German Navy. They were efficienct, compact and quiet. <ref>Toutant W.T., The Worthington–Junkers free-piston air compressor, ''Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers 1952:64:583–594''.</ref>.

These are of the dual piston type, creating a compact unit with a high/weight ratio. This design requires an electric machine of for low weight. Difficulties in the form of low cycle-to-cycle rates have been reported for dual piston engines. <ref>Clark N. et al., Modelling and development of a linear engine, ''Proc. ASME Spring Conference, Internal Combustion Engine Division, 1998:30:49–57''.</ref><ref>Tikkanen S. et al., First cycles of the dual hydraulic free piston engine, ''SAE Paper 2000–01–2546, 2000''.</ref>.

Several free-piston gas generators were created, and these were in widely used in large-scale applications such as stationary and marine powerplants <ref>London A.L., Oppenheim A.K., The free-piston engine development -- Present status and design aspects, ''Transactions of the ASME 1952:74:1349–1361''.</ref>.

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

Free piston engine

2009-12-17T00:19:51Z

AdamBurns: New article

The free-piston engine was first proposed by [[Raúl Pateras Pescara|R.P. Pescara]] <ref>Pescara R.P., Motor compressor apparatus, ''US Patent 1,657,641, 1928''.</ref> and the original application was a single piston [[air compressor]].

Free-piston air compressors were used, among others by, the German Navy. They were efficienct, compact and quiet. <ref>Toutant W.T., The Worthington–Junkers free-piston air compressor, ''Journal of the American Society of Naval Engineers 1952:64:583–594''.</ref>.

Several of free-piston gas generators were created, and these were in widely used in large-scale applications such as stationary and marine powerplants <ref>London A.L., Oppenheim A.K., The free-piston engine development -- Present status and design aspects, ''Transactions of the ASME 1952:74:1349–1361''.</ref>.

Talk:Feminism

2009-12-16T23:47:23Z

AdamBurns: /* Citations? */

==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?

----
Removed opinion.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This article contains a lot of irrelevant information. [[User:ColinR|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). --[[User:Ed Poor|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. [[User:Fsm1975|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." [[User:RSchlafly|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.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:48, 30 March 2007 (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) <ref>Feminisms [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/]</ref>. 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? --[[User:Ed Poor|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.--[[User:Reginod|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 --[[User:Britinme|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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.--[[User:Britinme|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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. --[[User:Britinme|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. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sure - [ http://www.feministsforlife.org/] are probably the best-known group, but you can find other organisations listed on [http://www.gargaro.com/fem.html] and quotes from a variety of other sources on [http://www.geocities.com/livefreecritique/modernfeminists.html]. 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 [http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html] and certainly supported by the majority of feminists - see [http://www.feminist.org/courts/roe.asp] and [http://www.now.org/press/01-04/01-22.html]. 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.--[[User:Britinme|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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.--[[User:Reginod|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.--[[User:Britinme|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”.--[[User:Reginod|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.--[[User:Britinme|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).--[[User:Reginod|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:answers.com is a wikimirror site. It is an invalid citition. [[User:RobS|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 answers.com 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. --[[User:Britinme|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. [http://www.southendpress.org/2004/items/OldNazis] The reference will be removed, and the editor is hereby warned to refrain from making further insertions from such hatefilled extremist sources. [[User:RobS|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. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== Misandry ==
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.
--[[User:YoungConservative|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. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== "boys being cheerleaders for it" ==

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

: Could be. Many prominent men were once cheerleaders ... for ''boys'' playing football, not girls.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 15:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: No, please don't delete factual information, unless you see a clear [[rule]] violation.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: The quotations illustrate what feminists really think, and that is informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 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? [[User:Reaganite|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. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:58, 3 March 2008 (EST)

It really smacks of parody, and of course, there were no references. [[User:Maestro|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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). [[User:Maestro|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. :-)--[[User:Realist2|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? [[User:Dadsnagem2|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). [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 22:29, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly- why was my edit reverted? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 21:51, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

: Because [[censorship]] of the truth is not allowed here. This is not Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:16, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

==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]]?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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. [[User:TheGySom|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. [[User:TheGySom|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. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:15, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:::"Liberal POV" or not, I don't think fictional characters make very reliable as references. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I await a response. [[User:TheGySom|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? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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. [[User:TheGySom|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! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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? [[User:TheGySom|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! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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. [[User:TheGySom|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! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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:
::#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
::#The claim that feminists believe in role reversal is wrong, feminists believe in the destruction of roles altogether
::#The claim that feminists believe that dresses should not be worn is a radical belief at best, and there are no cites supporting it
::#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. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 21:56, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::In response to your four points above:

:::#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.
:::#No, feminists do crave role reversal, as in men baking cookies and women assuming traditionally male jobs. I'll add an example.
:::#I've added an example in response to your point about dresses.
:::#Your point here is not clear, and I'll look again at the entry.
:::Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|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.''
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:16, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thankyou for your reply.
:#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
:#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.
:#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
:#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. [[User:TheGySom|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?--[[User:Aschlafly|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<ref>A Dress A Day[http://www.dressaday.com/dressaday.html]</ref>, whose author writes regularly about the joys of wearing dresses; I'm quite certain she would consider herself a feminist.--[[User:Hsmom|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:17, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Cites about baking cookies and wearing pants are from 1970's, not modern feminism? [[User:TheGySom|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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.--[[User:Hsmom|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. [[User:TheGySom|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.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:20, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

[[User:Aschlafly|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. --[[User:Hsmom|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Can't. Article's locked, at least it is for me.--[[User:Hsmom|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. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 06:21, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I have unlocked the article so that the requested source can be added. [[User:DanH|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 [[liberal deceit|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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. [[User:TheGySom|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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?--[[User:Hsmom|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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."'' <ref>"(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. [http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/10/16/names/index.html]</ref> 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.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:40, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

==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. {{unsigned|Mm444}}

== 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". --[[User:MilesM|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 [http://www.feministcampus.org/network/chat/morgan04232003.asp snippet] about the quote:
{{cquote|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. --[[User:MilesM|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. :/ --[[User:MilesM|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."<nowiki><ref></nowiki>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp From] her book "Ice and Fire"<nowiki></ref></nowiki>
"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 [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp 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. --[[User:MilesM|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. --[[User:MilesM|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". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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. --[[User:MilesM|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. [[User:Learn together|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

== 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

== Citations? ==

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

and

"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.

--[[User:AdamBurns|AdamBurns]] 18:47, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Feminism

2009-12-16T23:45:23Z

AdamBurns: /* Citations? */

==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?

----
Removed opinion.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This article contains a lot of irrelevant information. [[User:ColinR|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). --[[User:Ed Poor|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. [[User:Fsm1975|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." [[User:RSchlafly|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.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:48, 30 March 2007 (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) <ref>Feminisms [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/]</ref>. 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? --[[User:Ed Poor|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.--[[User:Reginod|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 --[[User:Britinme|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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.--[[User:Britinme|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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. --[[User:Britinme|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. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sure - [ http://www.feministsforlife.org/] are probably the best-known group, but you can find other organisations listed on [http://www.gargaro.com/fem.html] and quotes from a variety of other sources on [http://www.geocities.com/livefreecritique/modernfeminists.html]. 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 [http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html] and certainly supported by the majority of feminists - see [http://www.feminist.org/courts/roe.asp] and [http://www.now.org/press/01-04/01-22.html]. 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.--[[User:Britinme|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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.--[[User:Reginod|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.--[[User:Britinme|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”.--[[User:Reginod|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.--[[User:Britinme|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).--[[User:Reginod|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:answers.com is a wikimirror site. It is an invalid citition. [[User:RobS|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 answers.com 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. --[[User:Britinme|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. [http://www.southendpress.org/2004/items/OldNazis] The reference will be removed, and the editor is hereby warned to refrain from making further insertions from such hatefilled extremist sources. [[User:RobS|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. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== Misandry ==
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.
--[[User:YoungConservative|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. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== "boys being cheerleaders for it" ==

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

: Could be. Many prominent men were once cheerleaders ... for ''boys'' playing football, not girls.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 15:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: No, please don't delete factual information, unless you see a clear [[rule]] violation.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: The quotations illustrate what feminists really think, and that is informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 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? [[User:Reaganite|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. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:58, 3 March 2008 (EST)

It really smacks of parody, and of course, there were no references. [[User:Maestro|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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). [[User:Maestro|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. :-)--[[User:Realist2|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? [[User:Dadsnagem2|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). [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 22:29, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly- why was my edit reverted? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 21:51, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

: Because [[censorship]] of the truth is not allowed here. This is not Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:16, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

==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]]?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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. [[User:TheGySom|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. [[User:TheGySom|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. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:15, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:::"Liberal POV" or not, I don't think fictional characters make very reliable as references. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I await a response. [[User:TheGySom|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? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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. [[User:TheGySom|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! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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? [[User:TheGySom|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! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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. [[User:TheGySom|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! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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:
::#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
::#The claim that feminists believe in role reversal is wrong, feminists believe in the destruction of roles altogether
::#The claim that feminists believe that dresses should not be worn is a radical belief at best, and there are no cites supporting it
::#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. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 21:56, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::In response to your four points above:

:::#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.
:::#No, feminists do crave role reversal, as in men baking cookies and women assuming traditionally male jobs. I'll add an example.
:::#I've added an example in response to your point about dresses.
:::#Your point here is not clear, and I'll look again at the entry.
:::Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|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.''
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:16, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thankyou for your reply.
:#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
:#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.
:#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
:#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. [[User:TheGySom|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?--[[User:Aschlafly|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<ref>A Dress A Day[http://www.dressaday.com/dressaday.html]</ref>, whose author writes regularly about the joys of wearing dresses; I'm quite certain she would consider herself a feminist.--[[User:Hsmom|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:17, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Cites about baking cookies and wearing pants are from 1970's, not modern feminism? [[User:TheGySom|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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.--[[User:Hsmom|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. [[User:TheGySom|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.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:20, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

[[User:Aschlafly|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. --[[User:Hsmom|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Can't. Article's locked, at least it is for me.--[[User:Hsmom|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. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 06:21, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I have unlocked the article so that the requested source can be added. [[User:DanH|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 [[liberal deceit|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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. [[User:TheGySom|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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?--[[User:Hsmom|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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."'' <ref>"(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. [http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/10/16/names/index.html]</ref> 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.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:40, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

==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. {{unsigned|Mm444}}

== 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". --[[User:MilesM|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 [http://www.feministcampus.org/network/chat/morgan04232003.asp snippet] about the quote:
{{cquote|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. --[[User:MilesM|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. :/ --[[User:MilesM|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."<nowiki><ref></nowiki>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp From] her book "Ice and Fire"<nowiki></ref></nowiki>
"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 [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp 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. --[[User:MilesM|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. --[[User:MilesM|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". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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. --[[User:MilesM|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. [[User:Learn together|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

== 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

== Citations? ==

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

and

"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.--[[User:AdamBurns|AdamBurns]] 18:39, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Feminism

2009-12-16T23:42:11Z

AdamBurns: /* Citations? */

==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?

----
Removed opinion.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This article contains a lot of irrelevant information. [[User:ColinR|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). --[[User:Ed Poor|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. [[User:Fsm1975|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." [[User:RSchlafly|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.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:48, 30 March 2007 (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) <ref>Feminisms [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/]</ref>. 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? --[[User:Ed Poor|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.--[[User:Reginod|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 --[[User:Britinme|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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.--[[User:Britinme|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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. --[[User:Britinme|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. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sure - [ http://www.feministsforlife.org/] are probably the best-known group, but you can find other organisations listed on [http://www.gargaro.com/fem.html] and quotes from a variety of other sources on [http://www.geocities.com/livefreecritique/modernfeminists.html]. 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 [http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html] and certainly supported by the majority of feminists - see [http://www.feminist.org/courts/roe.asp] and [http://www.now.org/press/01-04/01-22.html]. 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.--[[User:Britinme|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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.--[[User:Reginod|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.--[[User:Britinme|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”.--[[User:Reginod|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.--[[User:Britinme|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).--[[User:Reginod|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:answers.com is a wikimirror site. It is an invalid citition. [[User:RobS|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 answers.com 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. --[[User:Britinme|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. [http://www.southendpress.org/2004/items/OldNazis] The reference will be removed, and the editor is hereby warned to refrain from making further insertions from such hatefilled extremist sources. [[User:RobS|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. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== Misandry ==
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.
--[[User:YoungConservative|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. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== "boys being cheerleaders for it" ==

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

: Could be. Many prominent men were once cheerleaders ... for ''boys'' playing football, not girls.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 15:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: No, please don't delete factual information, unless you see a clear [[rule]] violation.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: The quotations illustrate what feminists really think, and that is informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 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? [[User:Reaganite|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. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:58, 3 March 2008 (EST)

It really smacks of parody, and of course, there were no references. [[User:Maestro|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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). [[User:Maestro|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. :-)--[[User:Realist2|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? [[User:Dadsnagem2|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). [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 22:29, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly- why was my edit reverted? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 21:51, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

: Because [[censorship]] of the truth is not allowed here. This is not Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:16, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

==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]]?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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. [[User:TheGySom|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. [[User:TheGySom|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. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:15, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:::"Liberal POV" or not, I don't think fictional characters make very reliable as references. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I await a response. [[User:TheGySom|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? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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. [[User:TheGySom|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! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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? [[User:TheGySom|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! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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. [[User:TheGySom|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! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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:
::#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
::#The claim that feminists believe in role reversal is wrong, feminists believe in the destruction of roles altogether
::#The claim that feminists believe that dresses should not be worn is a radical belief at best, and there are no cites supporting it
::#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. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 21:56, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::In response to your four points above:

:::#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.
:::#No, feminists do crave role reversal, as in men baking cookies and women assuming traditionally male jobs. I'll add an example.
:::#I've added an example in response to your point about dresses.
:::#Your point here is not clear, and I'll look again at the entry.
:::Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|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.''
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:16, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thankyou for your reply.
:#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
:#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.
:#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
:#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. [[User:TheGySom|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?--[[User:Aschlafly|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<ref>A Dress A Day[http://www.dressaday.com/dressaday.html]</ref>, whose author writes regularly about the joys of wearing dresses; I'm quite certain she would consider herself a feminist.--[[User:Hsmom|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:17, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Cites about baking cookies and wearing pants are from 1970's, not modern feminism? [[User:TheGySom|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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.--[[User:Hsmom|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. [[User:TheGySom|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.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:20, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

[[User:Aschlafly|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. --[[User:Hsmom|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Can't. Article's locked, at least it is for me.--[[User:Hsmom|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. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 06:21, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I have unlocked the article so that the requested source can be added. [[User:DanH|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 [[liberal deceit|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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. [[User:TheGySom|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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?--[[User:Hsmom|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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."'' <ref>"(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. [http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/10/16/names/index.html]</ref> 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.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:40, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

==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. {{unsigned|Mm444}}

== 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". --[[User:MilesM|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 [http://www.feministcampus.org/network/chat/morgan04232003.asp snippet] about the quote:
{{cquote|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. --[[User:MilesM|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. :/ --[[User:MilesM|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."<nowiki><ref></nowiki>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp From] her book "Ice and Fire"<nowiki></ref></nowiki>
"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 [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp 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. --[[User:MilesM|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. --[[User:MilesM|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". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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. --[[User:MilesM|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. [[User:Learn together|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

== 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

== Citations? ==

I'm not clear on the policy. In the list of quotes, there are some that have written citations, like "as seen in magazine X", but don't give any more information than that. 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.--[[User:AdamBurns|AdamBurns]] 18:39, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Feminism

2009-12-16T23:39:38Z

AdamBurns: Need better citations for quotes

==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?

----
Removed opinion.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This article contains a lot of irrelevant information. [[User:ColinR|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). --[[User:Ed Poor|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. [[User:Fsm1975|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." [[User:RSchlafly|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.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:48, 30 March 2007 (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) <ref>Feminisms [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/]</ref>. 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? --[[User:Ed Poor|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.--[[User:Reginod|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 --[[User:Britinme|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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.--[[User:Britinme|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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. --[[User:Britinme|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. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sure - [ http://www.feministsforlife.org/] are probably the best-known group, but you can find other organisations listed on [http://www.gargaro.com/fem.html] and quotes from a variety of other sources on [http://www.geocities.com/livefreecritique/modernfeminists.html]. 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 [http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html] and certainly supported by the majority of feminists - see [http://www.feminist.org/courts/roe.asp] and [http://www.now.org/press/01-04/01-22.html]. 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.--[[User:Britinme|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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.--[[User:Reginod|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.--[[User:Britinme|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”.--[[User:Reginod|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.--[[User:Britinme|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).--[[User:Reginod|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. [[User:RSchlafly|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.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
:answers.com is a wikimirror site. It is an invalid citition. [[User:RobS|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 answers.com 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. --[[User:Britinme|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. [http://www.southendpress.org/2004/items/OldNazis] The reference will be removed, and the editor is hereby warned to refrain from making further insertions from such hatefilled extremist sources. [[User:RobS|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. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== Misandry ==
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.
--[[User:YoungConservative|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. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

== "boys being cheerleaders for it" ==

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

: Could be. Many prominent men were once cheerleaders ... for ''boys'' playing football, not girls.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 15:32, 3 March 2008 (EST)

: No, please don't delete factual information, unless you see a clear [[rule]] violation.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:14, 3 March 2008 (EST)

::: The quotations illustrate what feminists really think, and that is informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 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? [[User:Reaganite|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. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 18:58, 3 March 2008 (EST)

It really smacks of parody, and of course, there were no references. [[User:Maestro|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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). [[User:Maestro|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. :-)--[[User:Realist2|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? [[User:Dadsnagem2|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). [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 22:29, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
Aschlafly- why was my edit reverted? [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 21:51, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

: Because [[censorship]] of the truth is not allowed here. This is not Wikipedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. [[User:Umlaut|Umlaut]] 07:16, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

==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]]?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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. [[User:TheGySom|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. [[User:TheGySom|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. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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? [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 23:15, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

:::"Liberal POV" or not, I don't think fictional characters make very reliable as references. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:04, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I await a response. [[User:TheGySom|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? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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. [[User:TheGySom|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! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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? [[User:TheGySom|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! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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. [[User:TheGySom|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! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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:
::#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
::#The claim that feminists believe in role reversal is wrong, feminists believe in the destruction of roles altogether
::#The claim that feminists believe that dresses should not be worn is a radical belief at best, and there are no cites supporting it
::#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. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 21:56, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:::In response to your four points above:

:::#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.
:::#No, feminists do crave role reversal, as in men baking cookies and women assuming traditionally male jobs. I'll add an example.
:::#I've added an example in response to your point about dresses.
:::#Your point here is not clear, and I'll look again at the entry.
:::Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|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.''
[[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:16, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thankyou for your reply.
:#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
:#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.
:#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
:#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. [[User:TheGySom|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?--[[User:Aschlafly|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<ref>A Dress A Day[http://www.dressaday.com/dressaday.html]</ref>, whose author writes regularly about the joys of wearing dresses; I'm quite certain she would consider herself a feminist.--[[User:Hsmom|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:17, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Cites about baking cookies and wearing pants are from 1970's, not modern feminism? [[User:TheGySom|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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.--[[User:Hsmom|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. [[User:TheGySom|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.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:20, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

[[User:Aschlafly|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. --[[User:Hsmom|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:18, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Can't. Article's locked, at least it is for me.--[[User:Hsmom|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. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 06:21, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I have unlocked the article so that the requested source can be added. [[User:DanH|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 [[liberal deceit|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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. [[User:TheGySom|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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?--[[User:Hsmom|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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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."'' <ref>"(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. [http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2003/10/16/names/index.html]</ref> 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.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:40, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

==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. {{unsigned|Mm444}}

== 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". --[[User:MilesM|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 [http://www.feministcampus.org/network/chat/morgan04232003.asp snippet] about the quote:
{{cquote|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. --[[User:MilesM|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. :/ --[[User:MilesM|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."<nowiki><ref></nowiki>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp From] her book "Ice and Fire"<nowiki></ref></nowiki>
"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 [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/LGB.asp 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. --[[User:MilesM|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. --[[User:MilesM|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". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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. --[[User:MilesM|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. [[User:Learn together|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

== 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:20, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

== Citations? ==

I'm not clear on the policy. In the list of quotes, there are some that have written citations, like "as seen in magazine X", but don't give any more information than that. 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.--[[User:AdamBurns|AdamBurns]] 18:39, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2009-12-16T06:25:21Z

AdamBurns:

==Liberals aren't friends of Andy?==
So let me get this straight. Are you saying that liberals will often, or even usually, only make friends with a conservative for the purpose of converting them? Isn't that ascribing an awful lot of malice without real cause? And where's the evidence for this? I have a number of liberal friends. We argue quite a lot about politics, but it doesn't mean we don't remain friends. Do you have ''any'' liberal friends, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I'm an apathetic-liberal. So, yes, Mr. Schlafly does have liberal friends. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 22:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::And are you his friend only to convert him to your heathen liberal ways? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:17, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Heathen? Does that mean you're saying liberals aren't Christians. I said that I'm apathetic-liberal, meaning I don't have a stance on a lot of political issues but some of my thinking is still sort of liberal. I friends with him, but no a great friend, so it's not like I would be capable of "converting" him. It probably doesn't help that I have a type B personality, right?. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)
==Another take==
A '''Christian friendship''' is a friendship on [[Christian]] terms, as in requiring acceptance, allowance or lack of criticism of [[Christian]] values. It is often the product of [[peer pressure]]. Someone in a '''Christian friendship''' can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[Christian]] values.

A '''Christian friendship''' can occur wherever [[Christians]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

In contrast, [[atheists]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[atheist]] principles as a condition of friendship.

:I like this take, here's another one:

:A cheese eating friendship can occur whenever cheese eaters apply peer pressure to spread their belief in eating cheese. It can occur in college, in relationships and in the workplace.

:You must eat Feta and Stilton or I won't be your friend anymore, even if you don't like cheese! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm lactose intolerant. Please don't shoot me, okay? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:24, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Die, heretic! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

When I was 15 I became a radical, creationist Christian. This annoyed my athiestic friends, but they chose to stay friends. But when I abandoned the church two years later, I never once heard from people in the youth group again. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:42, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Come on ==

Are you seriously stating that liberals are only friends with liberals? I know from experience that this is false.
I think that it is human nature to naturally be friends with people who agree with you, so people are more likely to be friends with people who agree with them politically. But this trait is not any more likely to be found in a liberal than a conservative, and to suggest that liberals refuse to be friends with people who do not agree with them politically is ridiculous. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:31, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Are you calling andy ridiculous, cuz it's his article.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the point, Tim. It seems odd that one should suggest liberals only befriend conservatives for the purpose of converting them. I would expect it's only the lunatic fringe (on both sides of the aisle) that would refuse to be someone's friend only because they hold opposite political views. Most people are friends because of mutual interests and last time I checked politics isn't the sole guiding principle of sports, music, art, literature, or entertainment. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::What I am saying is that it is wrong to claim that liberals are more likely to have friendships like that than conservatives. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::Yes, it's a voice of rationality, but conflicts directly with what aschlfly says.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::Tim, I agree with you. Let's try an experiment. Why don't you put that statement into the article and we'll see how long it lasts. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:46, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::::Which statement. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::::Schlafly specifically says that this is liberal friendship (all the stuff in the article) and you are saying that it is not unique to liberals.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:48, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: KarlJ, if you can't express yourself respectably, then please leave. You won't receive another warning. This is a high-quality site and will continue to be one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::Please excuse me...comment fixed.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:51, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Reply to all above ==

Folks, a little logic, please? The entry does not say that '''all''' [[liberals]] behave this way, or even that most do. It does describe a common type of friendship that is hardly disputable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I agree with you completely, except the "hardly disputable" part. What makes it undisputable?[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:36, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:So, it's common that liberals befriend conservatives only to convert them to liberal thinking? This really makes it sound like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Do you have any citations for this?{{unsigned|SSchultz}}
:Whilst I do not consider myself a liberal, and am very much a Christian, I have observed rather the opposite, that it is conservatives, especially Christians, seem the more likely to make approval of their value system a condition of the relationship. This seems also what one might rationally expect; conservatism is by its nature intolerant of difference. This doesn't make it "wrong", as many of the things liberals tolerate I thoroughly disapprove of, but this is an irrelvance.

Whilst I am aware of the reasons why I should not do so, I make a certain degree of agreement with my value system a requirement of friendship. This does not mean that I don't endeavour to show love for people who do not, but it does prohibit me from meeting with them on a purely casual basis. And to a greater or lesser degree I imagine it's true of everyone.[[User:Trinity123|Trinity123]]

:: Just observe a typical conservative in any organization dominated by liberals, or a typical conservative in a class run by a dominating liberal, or observe anyone married to a determined liberal, and draw your own conclusions. The very term [[politically correct]] developed out of a [[liberal]] insistence to censor and banish conservative expression.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:50, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:As I recall, James Carville and Mary Matalin are married and Carville doesn't seem to have converted Matalin into a liberal. Now admittedly if you're a conservative and waltz into PETA or Move On, you're likely to face a lot of pressure, but that's what I said above about the lunatic fringe. I would expect a liberal would face similar pressure walking into a Focus on the Family or People for the American Way meeting. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:54, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::First of all, your example of a conservative in a liberal organization. One counterexample does not prove a statement false, and secondly, friendship works in 2 directions, so it is just as much of a counterexample against your liberal friendship idea. Secondly with your anyone married to a determined liberal example. That works both ways as well. The determined liberal is married to their spouse just as much as the spouse is married to the determined liberal. I don't see what political correctness has to do with supposed liberal friendship. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Um, Schultzie, People for the American Way are so left they are practically communists.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:58, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::Also, could you give an example of a "liberal friendship" --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:29, 26 February 2008 (EST)

==Cites==

Given that no cites or references are offered in this "encyclopedia" entry, why was my unsourced tag taken down? --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags. Your heading suggests that you don't even understand the entry yet, so try to do that first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:35, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:: The heading was a bad copy/paste error. But how can I look for sources? It appears to be a topic you just invented from the top of your head. Telling others to look for sources is roughly equivalent to me writing a page that headed George W Bush's Meeting With Aliens and then, when people complain that I have no evidence, telling them to get the evidence. I will place the tag back, since you have not provided any evidence. And the only ideology involved is that I want an encyclopedia to be encyclopedic. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:40, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::: Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't. On this site we don't allow ideologically motivated "citation needed" banners or stubs by people who won't even look for cites. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:49, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::: This encyclopedia is ''really'' starting to baffle me. I made an edit to [[They]], backed it up with references, sources and history, only for it to be reverted. Then, a completely unsourced, unverified page is created, with nothing in the way of support and a simple "uncited" tag is considered "ideologically motivated". The ideology involved is that I think an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. And this entry simply is not. It is not even close. I thought the aim of this website was to produce a reliable source of information, particularly of use to students in school. I applaud that aim, I really do, but if this page is anything to go by, any student of mine who used a reference from Conservapedia would get a poor grade indeed. Which is a shame, since I like the idea of a more conservative source of information --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 15:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::: There is nothing "baffling" about reverting your misleading edit to [[they]], which made it appear that it is correct as a gender-neutral form of "he" or "she". Anyone who tries that stunt in a respectable writing or English class, or on a college board exam, is going to lose points. Your "sources" for that ungrammatical claim are interesting and worth pursuing, but not at the expense of misleading students here. If [[Wikipedia]] allows that, then it may be a better place for you. Note, by the way, that it was not I who reverted your ungrammatical claim.
::::::: So, using a standard piece of English grammar as supported by Shakespeare, the KJV Bible, Jane Austen, Thakeray, Mirriam Webster, George Bernard Shaw and the Oxford English disctionary would lose a student points? Not on any exam board that I know about. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::: As to this entry, it just went up last night and I will add a source after 10 minutes of research later today, as I said I would. Show some patience, please.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:00, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: The correct way to go about creating an encyclopedic website is to gather facts and evidence and then to present it. Not the other way around. This way of doing things leads to unsourced, unverified pages. And I know for a fact, that if any student of mine handed in an essay using this page as a reference would definitely lose marks for using untrustworthy sources of information. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 17:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::: KimSell, your account is going to blocked unless you start contributing here in a substantive way. See [[Special:Contributions/KimSell]]. If you choose to leave, Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

::::::''"Look for cites rather than inserting ideologically motivated tags."'' When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you, not those who you are trying to prove it to. It is your job to find and give citations for your claims, not the job of people who ask you to back up your claims. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 21:31, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::: Still no references. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 12:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

==Source==
It's been over 24 hours since you promised a source. Where is it, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:56, 27 February 2008 (EST)

:Stop bugging Andy about this, your argument has no point. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 17:12, 1 March 2008 (EST)

==Please think logically==

I have acquaintances who consider themselves Liberal, and we tend to argue in a good mannered way. However, I have noticed that their inner circle consists of people of similar positions. For example, my best friend at school was conservative until he went to college. At college, he began to drink, smoke, do drugs and engage in other Liberal activities. We keep in touch but he has made new friends in College who smoke, drink and do drugs and who all seem to vote democratic... Coincidence? [[User:BenSchumin|BenSchumin]] 07:11, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== Still no cites, Andy? ==

This article should be denoted with a tag stating it needs citations. Per Andy's remarks taking them down last time, "Just spend ten minutes looking. I'm sure I could find some cites in less time, and will do so a bit later this afternoon if you don't." Since nobody has added any since that time, I think this should be tagged or deleted until it can be cleaned up. I would add cites myself, but frankly, I don't think it's an article worthy of being on CP. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 11:39, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:So, I joined this site to contribute positively (as I've said on [[user:PhoenixWright|my user page]], in this [[tabula rasa]] environment, but also to debate civilly with people of different perspectives. I think this page... is not civil, at all, and I resent that someone would make sweeping generalizations like it. Isn't it important that people of different political persuasions learn from each other, and don't just fight mindlessly?-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 13:22, 3 March 2008 (EST)

I'd love to see some cites myself. [[User:kitefox|kitefox]]

As would I. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:41, 4 March 2008 (EST)

The page is a parody, isn't it? It looks like complete rubbish. I can imagine no possible grounds for making such a distinction between "liberal" and "conservative" friendship, other than to parody Conservapedia. Where is the evidence? I suggest either deletion or removal to the Essay space. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 18:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I think a good example of this is [[Bill Maher]] and [[Ann Coulter]] :) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 09:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Misleading terminology==

The phrase "on liberal terms" means generous and accommodating, precisely the opposite of the meaning intended by the present article. Let's avoid this sort of ambiguity and talk turkey. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:04, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

== Where is the evidence? ==

The article offers no evidence, published or otherwise, in support of its thesis. This was raised over two weeks ago, but the request for sources has remained unanswered. I have looked, and I can find nothing whatsoever to back up this nonsense. I therefore propose the following amendment to the text of the article:

:'''Conservatives''' often make approval of [[conservative]] values a condition of friendship. Someone in a "conservative friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[conservative]] values.

:A '''conservative friendship''' can occur wherever [[conservatives]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

:In contrast, [[liberals]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[liberal]] principles as a condition of friendship.

Please, someone, show me the evidence - anything at all - to demonstrate that this version is any less valid than the article as it currently stands. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:46, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

:We know [[Liberals]] all too well here, Humblpi, and are on to your [[Liberal tricks]]. Reflect and improve! [[User:Koba|Koba]] 11:50, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

::I rather thought my suggestion was precisely a ''reflection'' of the article! But seriously - the point is not whether I am indulging in tricks, liberal or otherwise, or whether I believe or agree with what is said - it's simply that the article makes a sweeping assertion about human behavior that is simply not supported by the evidence. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:54, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Anything can be 'proven' with 'evidence'. Remember, this is Conservapedia. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 12:05, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::::So why doesn't somebody find the "evidence" and "prove" it? I actually went and looked - I really did - and I found nothing. Nothing. Zilch. No research on correlations between political views and nature of friendship. If there is anything, I'd be very interested to see it. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:14, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Same here. I got a lot of friends on both sides of the fence. When we disagree, we simply agree that we see things from a different perspective. I've never lost a friend over something as dumb as political views. Football, on the other hand...[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 19:43, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

: It's been a busy two weeks for me. I apologize for providing sources yet. But it's no secret that liberals insistence on censoring conservative statements and activities as a condition of friendship, marriage, promotion, tenure, etc.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:47, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Ostracize a republican ==

This cannot be used as proof by any means. If it were the other way around "Ostracize a Democrat", and WP wrote that this shows "can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the conservative values", wouldn't you cry bloody murder?

My point is, it's a stupid ANONYMOUS webpage, in could be from one frustrated guy, you can't use it as proof on all liberals. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 20:11, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

: No one is claiming anything about ''all liberals''. But what is clear -- and undeniable -- is that some liberals ostracize conservatives, and try to intimidate conservatives by making acceptance of liberal views or lifestyles as a condition of friendship, social acceptance, or advancement in employment. I've added two cites, and more can be find. Please look rather than trying to make excuses for the obvious. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:46, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
::I fail to see how conservatives are different. You make your ideology a practical precondition to not being blocked, and all of category:liberals is dedicatedto ostracizing liberals. As I said to ed poor, Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle... I don't mean to be rude, its just that your source doesn't prove anything unique.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:33, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Untrue, and I ought to block you for saying it - but I'm enjoying the delicious irony here too much. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:31, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

It's just a wee bit of a stretch to say that one anecdote about what someone overheard at a party is a good enough citation to support the statement that ''Someone in a "liberal friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values.'' [[User:Murray|Murray]] 01:12, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm glad you have found a couple of anecdotes to support your assertion. But I could find just as much support for my alternative position, from sources just as good - but I'm not going to look, because I know that it's meaningless to generalise from a single instance. If the assertion that "liberal friendships" are different from "conservative friendships" is to hold any water at all, it needs better support than this. Or, to put it another way, when I posted my alternative version above, I should perhaps clarify that no one is claiming anything about ''all conservatives''. But what is clear -- and equally undeniable -- is that some conservatives ostracize liberals, and try to intimidate liberals by making acceptance of conservative views or lifestyles a condition of friendship, social acceptance, or advancement in employment. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 05:46, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:" But I could find just as much support for my alternative position, from sources just as good - but I'm not going to look, because I know that it's meaningless to generalise from a single instance"

:Free advice, and worth every penny - Conservapedia has its own, internal logic. You're making an intuitive leap here without considering where it is you're talking, imo. "...but I'm not going to look" puts you within spitting distance of what is considered a typical liberal tactic. Go find the cites and present them, seriously. You may feel like you're wasting time, but no more so than the time you spent typing the above, because it's not going to get you anywhere without evidence. Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:16, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks, and yes, I take the point. When I have time I will look, as you suggest - but my contention is actually that whatever I find by way of anecdote and blog will prove ''nothing whatever'' about the generality that this article claims to establish. I cannot prove my alternative contention by such methods, any more than [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] can prove his orginal claim in this way. I have been looking for research on any correlations between (a) political beliefs / religious outlook / worldview and (b) style of friendship, and I find nothing. Without such research, I submit, it's all mere speculation and hearsay. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

== Since it's been a while now... ==

...and for "references" we still have only two anecdotes, don't we think it's time for this to be moved to the essay namespace? The essay's creation by the founder ought not be the ''imprimatur'' of truth, and commandments apply to all, no? I see Andy's been busy, so maybe if he gets actually impressive sources it could be moved back.[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 10:49, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
:I agree. Using the same sort of "sources" we can write: ''Conservatives often make approval of conservative values a condition of friendship. Someone in a "conservative friendship" can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the conservative values.'' and it would be just as "true". You know, [[Michael Moore]]'s book "Dude, Where's my country" has a "guideline": 'How to talk to your conservative brother-in-law', in the chapter he writes among other things to concede to the good points conservatives have. On the other hand in [[Ann Coulter]]'s "How to talk to a liberal, if you must", she writes to '''never''' concede '''anything''' to a liberal. Just some food for thought. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 22:28, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::Don't fall into the tit for tat trap. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:32, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Huh? I was just saying that it should be an essay like Phoenix did, what do you mean tit-for-tat trap? [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 22:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is anyone saying the entry has only two anecdotes? It has much more than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:23, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:There are 2 anecdotes and a website. I'm not sure if that qualifies as "much more". [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Plus a detailed article that cites that overwhelming evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:::"Overwhelming evidence" of what? That there have been a few instances of people whining about the behavior of "liberals", '''yes'''. That there is any distinct pattern to the way that liberals form friendships, '''no'''. Maybe the correct conclusion is not that liberals are characterized by a particular set of friendship-related behaviors, but that conservatives are especially prone to whine and moan when they are dumped or feel put down. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 09:40, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

I have responded to everyone of your so-called pieces of evidence, it doesn't show that liberals harass their '''friends''', (after all, that is the title of the article).
[[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 09:57, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

== No evidence for this article period ==

Your "reference" to Ronald Coase does not prove your case '''whatsoever''': ''They thought the work we were doing was disreputable. They thought of us as right- wing extremists. My wife was at a cocktail party and heard me described as someone to the right of the John Birch Society. There was a great antagonism in the '50s and '60s to anyone who saw any advantage in a market system or in a nonregulated or relatively economically free system.'' Wow. That's harsh, sounds a lot like "loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values." Furthermore, you have no evidence that the remark came from a liberal! For all we know it could have come from a conservative whose views were different then Coase.

Your second "reference" I already discussed it's absurdity.

Your third "reference" is from an Op-Ed! Right, that's good unbiased scientific evidence. It's from someone whining about peer pressure! She complains that she got comments for sporting a Bush-Cheney pin on her backpack; if someone had a Kerry-Edwards pin on their backpack at [[Bob Jones University]] you don't think they'd get flack?!

For sanity's sake Andy, I implore you, move this to an essay page! I have shot down every "proof" you've given, it's time for you to act! [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 23:11, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

The David Brooks article doesn't prove your case for this article, it's about liberal bias in '''university's''', it doesn't have anything to do person-to-person friendship, so, once again you have no evidence. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 23:31, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

: I'm happy to add more evidence, and continue to do so. I just added another example. Instead of complaining, you might contribute to this effort.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:29, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::If it were up to me this would be an essay, (one which I no-doubt would find offensive). Your latest gem (from '''opinion'''journal.com), doesn't provide any proof for '''this''' article. Why? It doesn't show that his friends threatened him with "loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the liberal values.". It's speaks about his standing in the African-American community.
::Andy, you and I will never see eye-to-eye on many issues. I'm Liberal, you're Conservative. I'm Jewish, you're Christian etc. But I've never tried to censor anybodies opinion on this site, and that's all this article is '''opinion'''. Have there been falling-outs among friends due to political differences? Without a doubt. But to say that "Liberals '''''often''''' make approval of liberal values a condition of friendship", is hearsay. [Just before I sign out: You haven't given any proof that "In contrast, conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship.")
::I'm not whining for the sake of whining, I have a suggestion: Change it to a essay. Or, at the very least put it up for a vote. As always, I am [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 10:45, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I think the point is that liberals all too frequently '''do try''' to censor people's opinions, and one tactic is to threaten people with the withdrawal of friendship; see [[conditional love]]; compare [[unconditional love]].

:::Unless your are trying to censor [[Liberals and friendship|this opinion]], you would do well to examine the evidence for and against it. So far, you have been advocating that the idea not be included as an article; that's no help, other than providing an example of what the article describes (wry grin).

:::To participate as an equal in this project, you must regularly provide trustworthy information. This includes information that casts doubt on "conservative opinion". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:56, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::::I refer you to Conservapedia Commandment number 5:'Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited.' [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:44, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: DLerner, there is no reason to convert an entry about observable social behavior to an essay. Such behavior is observable fact. Now, you may feel the facts are wrong or incomplete in the entry, in which case you can supplement the entry with your own evidence. But this entry is not opinion. It is observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:07, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: What happened to 'true and verifiable'? DLerner has explained how all your 'examples' aren't evidence, and, in addition, your 'example' of Clarence Thomas, if you actually go to the [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17241-2004Aug19.html original source], is actually a review criticising a book that seemingly says pretty much the complete opposite, with no clear-cut evidence offered backing up either position (in the article, at least - I haven't read the book it's referring to). In short, you're posting an assertation, originally with zero evidence at all, then adding weak evidence, at best, then challenging people to definitively prove you wrong, even after all your 'evidence' has been dismissed, rather than actually offering hard evidence that you're right. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:44, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: And now you've added another 'example', which, if you simply read the original source, makes it clear the 'ostracization' was down to the intense friction between Dr. Teller and Dr. Oppenheimer, and, in the hearing alleging that Dr. Oppenheimer was a Soviet spy, Dr. Teller's testimony didn't exactly help that situation. Oppenheimer's colleagues chose to be loyal to Oppenheimer, which meant they turned their backs on Teller, and it was therefore nothing whatsoever to do with political beliefs. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Thanks, for correcting that, DrSandstone - I originally called Dr. Teller Dr. Turner. However, as no doubt Aschlafly will reinsert his comment, I will address it. Quite frankly, if the best you can come up with is pointing out I misread his name, then all that does is reinforce the idea that this article is pure personal opinion, and the various 'examples' you have inserted is simply you trying, and failing, to make it look like something other than that. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 17:46, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly says: "But this entry is not opinion. It is observation." Yes indeed - bits of it are observation. But it also makes sweeping statements such as "Liberals often make approval of liberal values a condition of friendship," and "In contrast, conservatives virtually never require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship." These are not observations, they are presented as general facts. And they are not in any way justified by the anecdotal observations presented as "evidence". That makes them '''opinions'''. I refer you to [[Deliberate ignorance]]: "Deliberate ignorance is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions." [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:11, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: And now another example of an opinion by the film critic Michael Medved. Does he offer any proof to back up his opinion, as it relates to personal relationships? Nope. Instead, he gives a variety of examples of films being altered from the original book/film/screenplay/whatever to, as he sees it, give a liberal slant. However, even though the article is actually from Fox News, it does actually give alternative opinions and explanations from Jack Valenti, the former president of the MPAA, and even Medved is quoted as saying, 'Most movies are absolutely non-political'. As such, we have an opinion cited as 'fact', with the only actual evidence being somewhat arguable evidence of something only tenuously related to this article, if it is related at all. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:23, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

Anecdotes are still not evidence, no matter how many of them there are. There is still no evidence. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

: Nonsense. Observations certainly are evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
::'''Evidence of what?''' ''First'', unsystematically collected anecdotal observations are subject to all sorts of biases and do not allow you to draw any conclusions about generalities. ''Second'', any evidence you have presented in the article could just as easily be evidence that '''conservatives have a tendency to whine and complain when they feel dumped or let down'''. There is certainly evidence (of a sort) there, but it does not support the conclusions, which remain unsubstantiated (and hurtful) opinion. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:02, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== The summary ==

This seems to sum up to the entirely non-controversial, "shocking" observation that people with different ideological beliefs often disagree, and sometimes tensions flare. ...is there evidence that conservatives ''don't'' do that?-[[User:HankS|HankS]] 16:00, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Closing Arguments ==

The premise of this article is “Liberals often make approval of liberal values a condition of '''friendship'''. My previous arguments haven’t been on the premise, I have instead focused on the '''references''' which to the best of my understanding, do not bolster Andy’s case. They do (perhaps) show bias from liberals in other areas, but they don’t show any '''friendships''' lost due to politics.

Now, it’s a '''fact''' that many friendships have been diminished, damaged, strained, weakened, tested, or even destroyed because of politics, religion, associations with various characters, marriage, and yes, because of voting. I’m sure that there are many stories out there that will bolster Andy’s argument.

'''However''', the conclusion/Parthian shot of the article states: “In contrast, conservatives '''virtually never''' require censorship or acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship.” It’s '''impossible''' to prove this; it’s a classic example of [http://www.safalra.com/philosophy/fallacies/negativeproof/ negative proof,] or “proving a negative”, a '''logical fallacy'''.

But just for fun, I’ll bring some sources to show that might '''disprove''' it:
*[http://liberal-debutante.com/religion/why-religion-must-change-or-die.html Katie Kish writes:] “Not only have I lost friends over being an atheist - I’ve lost jobs, been told I can’t listen to some musicians because they’re “Godly” and I’m not...”
*[http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_13/article.html Bruce Bartlett] was fired from his job at the National Center for Policy Analysis, because he spoke ill of President Bush.

I can go on, but it won’t prove anything.

In conclusion: To your surprise I agree with your premise! Yes! People have falling out’s over politics/religion. My problem is with your '''closing'''. There is no way to '''prove''' that Conservatives aren’t just as guilty; and to say “prove it” is a logical fallacy. (We see X but we don’t see Y, obviously Y doesn’t exist etc.)

I’ll conclude with a prayer: Let us hope that through discussion on real issues, we can work together to make the world a better place for all of us. Amen

God bless.

[[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 05:45, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:It proves that you are unclear about the distinction between employment and friendship ([[Bruce Bartlett]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
::Pray do tell what is your view of the distinction? BTW, please don't put comments in the middle of my posts. [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 08:41, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I think you have put your finger on something useful here, DLerner. We can allow the premise, but the conclusion does not follow from it. Equally, of course, we could put it the other way around, and accept the "conclusion" but not the premise. The closing remark may well in fact be true: I for one am quite happy to believe that indeed "conservatives virtually never require acceptance of conservative principles as a condition of friendship". What I object to, though, are the words "In contrast" - because it is surely equally true that '''''liberals''' virtually never require acceptance of '''liberal''' principles as a condition of friendship''. All the examples of liberals rejecting a friend because of his/her conservative values will do nothing to alter the fact that in general, people don't behave that badly. And finding lots of examples of conservatives dumping on their liberal friends would likewise do nothing to disprove the general truth that conservatives are on the whole pretty good to their friends. I have no problem with a Conservapedia article which displays a list of stories of liberals being mean to their friends (or any other list of alleged misdemeanors by liberals - take your pick from a large number of articles). That's all perfectly fine, and indeed, collecting such stuff seems to be the main function of Conservapedia these days. What I object to, however, is the pretense that collecting anecdotes like this can prove anything about "liberal" behavior in general. That is simply nonsense. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

==No Closing argument needed==

Frankly this shouldn't even be a debate. If this is an encyclopedia this tabloid rubbish shouldn't be here. If it is a blog it belongs. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 21:53, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

==Drivel==
The arguments in this article are weak as Hercules is strong. Essentially it is a long list of quotes and anecdotes. This is the weakest class of evidence after pure hearsay. For all I know, for every story of conservatives being "persecuted", there might be 314 stories of conservatives being given the
red carpet. You should use proper evidence or delete this article. I personally nominate this article for deletion, on the grounds of being so ludicrous that RаtionalWiki couldn't better it, even if they tried. Please bear in mind that the burden of proof is on the author, as one user forgot during the discussion on Professor Values. [[User:Innsmouth|Innsmouth]] 16:57, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

== Delete? ==

Andy, there's been alot of talk about deleting this page, so why don't put up a delete nomination, I'd do it but I'd probably be blocked again. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 08:43, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:It won't be deleted and likely won't be moved. I'd say focus your efforts on improving the article. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

You people keep saying that as if this article had any value to begin with. Listen to me, this article is bunk, rubbish, trash, nonsense, drivel, propagandist and a whole lot of other adjectives. The only way for it to be improved is it's nomination for deletion. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 22:19, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

And when I nominate it Andy of course removes the [[Conservapedia:AFD Liberals_and_friendship|nomination,]] Well I should have expected as much. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 23:41, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Anecdotes, anecdotes and MORE anecdotes. ==

Andy, I believe you're a lawyer, would any court accept this to "convict" Libs of being mean-hearted SOG's? '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 23:44, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reply ==

This is a thoroughly supported and well-referenced entry, and your insistence on deleting this information smacks of [[liberal bias]]. This isn't [[Wikipedia]] where [[liberal]] editors censor and delete informative entries. And we don't want to be like [[Wikipedia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

DLerner, please do yourself a favor and become open-minded about how militant [[liberals]] sometimes behave, and how they try to intimidate and ostracize conservatives. Just observe some of the vandals here, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

[[Wikipedia]] gets a lot more vandals then here you know that. You're right Andy "militant [[liberals]] along with just about everybody in the world sometimes behave" poorly. This site is guilty itself of intimidating and ostracizing liberals who come here to help. I am one of those liberals.

P.S. According to your last note, shouldn't this article be called "Militant Liberals and friendship"?

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 23:53, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:You're right about one thing: Wikipedia does get hit by vandals ... who are often smearing entries about conservatives. There are no conservative vandals on Wikipedia or here.

:[[Liberal denial]] is rampant. I guess we have to add liberal denial of ostracizing conservatives to the growing list. Do yourself and your cause a favor by admitting to the excesses on your side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:58, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

There are nuts on all sides except the indifferent. Yes, sometimes conservatives are ostracized by liberals, but look at <big>'''title'''</big> of the damn article. Which article have you shown that proves liberals will throw out '''<big>friends'''</big> because of politics?

And pray to do tell why can't we discuss deleting it, I haven't challenged all your "liberals-like-barbecuing-babies-using-the-fire-of-a-burnt-flag-during-a-gay-wedding" articles, just this one. Do the AMERICAN thing, put it up for a vote.

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 00:05, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

<sigh> didn't I tell you that ''In contrast, [[conservatives]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[conservative]] principles as a condition of friendship'' is a [[logical fallacy]], you can't prove a negative!!!!

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 00:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

When liberals want us to delete an article, that's a great reason to '''keep it''' and make it even better! --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 00:17, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

*LOL! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:25, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reagan ==

''Ronald Reagan had many close personal friends who were liberals, and dozens of political ones, like Speaker Tip O'Neil and Senator Ted Kennedy.''

Aha, so if RR had liberal friends, all conservatives must have them... '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 09:51, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:... and presumably, by the same token, those liberals (O'Neil and Kennedy) had at least one conservative friend (Reagan). Or did they behave in a typical liberal manner and reject his friendship? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 11:06, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
::They were pretending. See [[Liberal deceit]]. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 11:17, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::My dear, you have to take all of those "Liberal ______" with a grain, nay a spoon of salt, Andy's thoughts are unfortunatly not reality. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 11:40, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Andy's project, Andy's word is gospel. My dear. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 11:48, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::No "Good news" in it. Well if he wants he can change it back, let's not have an edit war here. Oh, and it takes big spheres to say that somebody faked a friendship without anything to back it up. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 11:53, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::Fine, then, let's get him involved. I'm sure he's got nothing better to do. You fail to see the point. Still. My dear (condescending a**hole). -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 11:56, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Ok kids, if you can't play nice I'm going to have to turn this car around. Please stop edit warring, and stop calling each other names. If you do not follow the rules of civility, both of you will be blocked. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:25, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Ed blocked "Doctor" Sandstone, but for the edit comment, not the one above. I have a feeling that might change. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:32, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

"In contrast, there are many instances of [[conservatives]] not requiring acceptance of [[conservative]] principles as a condition of friendship. For example, [[Ronald Reagan]] had many close personal friends who were liberals, and dozens of political ones, like Speaker [[Tip O'Neil]] and Senator [[Ted Kennedy]].

This paragraph destroys the whole mesage of the article... Obviously the stated liberals made friends with Reagan even though they had political differences. I don't agree with this article (as I have friends who are liberals), but I would suggest that in the spirit of the article this part should be removed.
--[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Maybe we should keep it in as a counterpoint, and as further evidence that this article should just be gotten rid of. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:19, 13 November 2008 (EST)
==Please Mr. schlafly==
As has been stated above, there are numerous problems with this article. The evidence is mostly anecdotal. On top of that, the topic is of your own invention, and you seem to have written it before looking for citations.
I'm new here and hoping to make some positive changes to this encyclopedia. A more professional tone would be helpful in legitimizing the concept of the site. I agree with many who have posted before me that this page has numerous problems, and would add there are many similar pages. I would suggest you delete this page. Perhaps some of this information is relevant to other articles and it could be merged. Please consider this. Pages like this make my liberal friends laugh at me.
[[User:AdamBurns|AdamBurns]] 01:12, 16 December 2009 (EST)