Talk:Feminist separatism/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Atkinson??

Doesn't Ti-Grace Atkinson deserve some mention in this entry? 70.112.235.28 (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Root Cause Of This

Most separatist/radical lesbian feminists I've known were sexually abused/raped by a male at some point in their lives (usually during childhood or adolescence). These women are usually sexist women who hate men and view them in a negative light due to horrible past traumas. Maybe this information should be added into the article in regard to the causation of separatist feminism. Analog 9 (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Turn it around: most women who are raped or abused (there are many) do not become radical or separatist feminists. To support your point requires verifiable reliable secondary sourcing to withstand a challenge, finding the sourcing requires research, and, if you want to add the content you describe, you have your research work cut out for you. Otherwise, as you may have noted from your recent post on this page and the responses to it, the point is offensive because it assumes that someone's values are due to psychological impairment and therefore that therapy is in order when most of us would not say that for most holders of most value systems, even though vast numbers of people are traumatized by a wide variety of events or omissions of events in our lives. Wikipedia does not rely on speculation or original research. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Mr. Levinson. CarolMooreDC 15:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Lesbian commune?

What's the name of the lesbian commune in southern Oregon? They won't even let male UPS drivers on the property. If it has a wikipedia article it ought to be linked here. --76.105.145.143 (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

removed

Feminist theorist and author bell hooks believes that the beliefs of separatist feminists run counter to many of the original goals of feminism, and instead of seeking to create equality, attempt to establish a female-centric and female-dominated society in which men are subjugated and misandry is brought into the mainstream.<ref>bell hooks (2000), Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. Cited in Austin, Hannah (2004) "Separatism: Are We Limiting Ourselves?", EM 4:2.</ref>

In Feminism Is for Everybpdy, bell hooks does not, as far as I am aware, mention separatism, she does not express concerns about the possibility of a "female-centric and female-dominated society in which men are subjugated", and she makes no mention of misandry. Nor does the cited article claim that she does. --superioridad (discusión) 03:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Seconding this. I don't think bell hooks is making that argument at all. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, I am the writer of that article on separatism that quoted bell hooks, and I just wanted to say that I wrote it when I was 19 years old and just getting interested in feminism. I would much rather it wasn't quoted here, as my views have changed dramatically and I agree that it was a misinterpretation of hooks's work, so thank you for removing it! x 86.2.25.206 (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC) (Sig block added from diff and excessive blank line deleted by Nick Levinson (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC) & corrected my new error: Nick Levinson (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC))

Is Separatist Feminism really Misandry?

Why this is asserted in the article (and its categorisation) when it is more of a symptom of the Separatist Feminism, much like its transphobic elements, than its main aim. Is it a claim that all Separatist Feminists are Misandrists or that the movement has elements of Misandry, and if so, is it so important that the article needs to be categorised by that? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC) @Obiwankenobi: pinging due to staunch edits for this

I'm awaiting new sources for the misandry categorization but the see also should remain - feel free to add see also transphobia as well - but a number of writers have likened the separatist feminist philosophy as being misandrist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
It feels like weak categorisation but I won't make any more edits against it until said sources come through. I don't know if that's a good idea, it's much like adding Misogyny to Men's rights movement right? Considering both are social movements, both are frequently referred to as being sexist by weak sources and blogs, and members of both movements act in that manner, but I would argue that neither is defined by it. Would you approve of me adding Misogyny to article Men's rights movement in tangent to this or would you 3RR? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC) @Obiwankenobi:
The incredible sexism of some transgenders - including redefining what is a woman, accusing women of being "privileged", invading women's spaces, demanding males who have beaten and raped women to be incarcerated in women's prisons because they claim their gender is female, internet harassment and death threats at females who disagree with all this, certainly sounds a lot more sexist than any alleged transphobia. (As I could provide dozens of WP:RS to evidence, but don't feel like being smashed for it.) Sounds like a reason women will become feminist separatists! Of course, women already are practising boycotting of Wikipedia because of the atmosphere and I'm getting closer to that every day myself. Thus I leave a whole series of extremely sexist articles just as they are. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
We aren't arguing that transgendered people are sexist. I honestly abhor the idea that transwomen could possibly invade women's spaces considering the fact that they are women, but I digress. That is a different argument for a different place. I agree with what you say about Wikipedia being a largely sexist place, I have been editing a few weeks and encountered a huge amount of misogyny and sexist agenda pushing (most of it subtle in the work of editors) but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying to make it a more neutral place. When people go on the article for 'Separatist feminism' and see it listed as 'Misandry', then will often take that as fact, even if it is not sourced on the article. The fact that it is one of the few movements for equal rights on Wikipedia listed as being prejudice just goes to show the editors own prejudice, but it doesn't mean we can't change that. I've read about women boycotting Wikipedia for its misogyny, I would argue that it is worth staying. Wikipedia has its own systems and if you fight sexism at the level that the website functions, it can be fixed. It's much more ordered than the world outside and it is possible to change it, otherwise people who are entirely neutral on these matters will be influenced by the sexist editors dogma --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I find it rather telling that at "sexist" Wikipedia one of your first acts was to delink 'violence against men' from 'violence against women' and then try to delete the violence against men category. Plz take a look in the mirror re sexism - which means discrimination based in gender. If you wanna make the world a better place take a look at yourself and make a ... Change.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:PA --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@Obiwankenobi:Can I take your lack of a response as evidence that consensus supports me removing Misogyny from the page? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
drowning, no. Putting 'see also' is not the same thing as saying this is == misandry. Additionally, listing it in the misandry category is also not equivalent to saying it is an example of misandry - rather that separatist feminism is relevant to the topic of misandry which is dislike, hatred or prejudice against men or boys. I'm holding off on the category pending some sources I prob need to get from library but again I see no reason put forward to not have a see-also here esp given that reliabLe sources regularly link the two.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd argue that reliable sources support this though. I know what Misandry is, I linked to the article on it earlier. Could you clearly state in what way is Separatist feminism relevant to the topic of Misandry? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, to keep to the subject: misandry might be a relevant "See also" because some males will see it as such, though one ref saying so really is necessary since negative WP:OR really should be sourced. Just like "Lystrata" is relevant, and a ref there would help, too. But to put it under category Misandry is definitely a problem. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense actually. Do you know of any legitimate works that could be used as a reference for it? It seems that the idea of Separatist feminism being Misandry is at best an opinion, but is would help the reference to have it stated as such. I agree with the category, it would be like stating that the movement is Misandry straight out, which is definitely not NPOV --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Books.google is best place for high quality refs. I also found a relevant one for Lysistrata and separatist feminism, but then when trying to decide where to put it I looked at the whole article which really is disorganized and a mess. Other things to do today but it is a subject of interest so shall return. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Here is bell hooks (quoted in several places, I'm trying to find source): "the beliefs of separatists run counter to the many of the original goals of feminism, and instead of seeking to create equality, they attempt to establish a female-centric and female-dominated society in which men are subjugated and misandry is brought into the mainstream."
  • Here is The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History, Bonnie G. Smith, Editor: "But this call for radical independence, this insistence on the superiority of women over men (which threatened nuclear and extended family traditions), and this separatist mentality that fostered both gynocentrism and misandry have provoked reactions that have contributed to the growth of fundamentalism, which has moved the traditionalist element in most world religions further to the right." p 430
  • Again, adding something to the category Category:Misandry is not equivalent to saying "All separatist feminists are misandrists" or "the separatist feminist movement is ABOUT misandry" - in the same way Two_Cunts_in_a_Kitchen or War_on_Women are not _about_ hatred of women, but are nonetheless relevant to the TOPIC of misogyny.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
So put in your p 430 quotes, though the second one needs context (which was limited to some religious women's few demands) and b) to just fully quote the sentence - or only summarize it - since it looks like synth when it is just one long sentence. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
There are several books which have been written recently on the topic of misandry, so I'm just going to get those which cover this subject in detail and its relationships to feminist movement esp separatist feminism. I gave the quotes above just to demonstrate that reliable sources, including noted feminists, have made this connection so it's not out of left field and the see-also is perfectly reasonable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you find the source of that bell hooks quote? I've tried google books and it doesn't come up in any of her listed books. I found a wiki sourcing the Separatism: Are We Limiting Ourselves chapter of Feminism is for Everybody, but again, google books doesn't find anything. I just want to make sure it's a real quote and not a summary of her ideas with the word Misandry included. I found some forums discussing a page with it on and claiming its conjecture --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Google books is lame - it misses a lot. We need to just get the book from a library.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I have a pdf here from my University's e-library and it's not listed. The copy I have is 122 pages long and she doesn't talk about male subjugation. I'm fairly sure it might be conjecture unless it's in another of her books. I could download all the ones they have here and search through if you'd like? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure, would be good to find out where that quote came from, it's replicated all over the internet.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, they didn't have everything, but the quote doesn't appear in Feminism is for Everybody, Ain't I A Woman, Black Looks, Where We Stand, Teaching to Transgress, All About Love, Yearning, We Real Cool, or Representing Whiteness in the Black Imagination. She has a huge biography though. Are you sure one of those places where it's replicated doesn't have it? The only ones I could find wrongly attribute it to Feminism is for Everybody (which makes the most sense thematically but not in practice) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I just searching on google and that isn't a quote from bell hooks, the full quotation states, "Feminist theorist and author bell hooks believes that the beliefs of separatist feminists run counter to many of the original goals of feminism, and instead of seeking to create equality, attempt to establish a female-centric and female-dominated society in which men are subjugated and misandry is brought into the mainstream." In other words, it's somebody talking about bell hooks, and is synthesis at best having just read through Feminism is for Everybody --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
no, that's an amateur blog post. "The future of post-human sexuality: a preface to a new theory of the body and spirit of love makers" has the full quote we just need to get it from library to clarify who said it. There is a golf ball finding maxim I invented - it doesn't matter how hard you search for a golf ball - if you're looking in the wrong place you'll never find it...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find a copy when I'm at the Library tomorrow. That is a very clever maxim --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Edit* I couldn't find the book at my University, wasn't available to order in either. The previews available online are quite disturbing though (the text insults Foucault for his "promiscuous homosexuality" on the fourth page and links it to his death of AIDS. Stating his "freedom led him to a tragic end, all by his own creation". It goes on to call "fields like gender studies, queer studies, and cultural studies scholarly nonsense") I really don't think we should be sourcing from a book that expresses prejudice against homosexuals and calls gender studies scholarly nonsense in the opening pages and its highly likely the book just included the possibly synthesised quotation "replicated all over the internet" --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm slightly wary about linking reactionary groups to discrimination categories in the first place. The thought that feminist reactionary groups are now going to be categorised as sexist is problematic for many reasons. For one thing, where exactly do we stop? The natural progression of this anti-reactionary categorisation could lead to groups such as the Black Panther Party being categorised as Category:Black supremacist groups in the United States, because we would apparently need a counterpart to Category:White supremacist groups in the United States. It becomes increasingly problematic when users consistently try to push Feminism as an anti-male agenda, when the reality is movements such as Separatist Feminism just want equality for women --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Um... Category:Black supremacy. Just because you believe something shouldn't have a counterpart, doesn't mean that it doesn't. Wikipedia is a vast vast world, and there is a salt for every pepper, in most cases. In any case, I think I can find the book locally here, will take a shot. I don't really care about the book, just what it says the source of this mystery quote is. Finally, remember that categorization is NOT the equivalent of saying "All separatist feminists are misandrists", you're really misinterpreting how topic categories work; instead, it is saying that the "separatist feminist movement" has been linked in RELIABLE SOURCES to misandry, and is thus relevant to the topic at hand - feminism more broadly has also been so-accused, but it is almost always the separatist/radical wing, so that's the only one I'd put in this category. As to whether people take SCUM seriously, you may want to read www.(a voice for men).com/feminism/radfem-hub-the-underbelly-of-a-hate-movement/ - a certain small group of radical feminists that were espousing, somewhat seriously, concepts taken from SCUM. Doubt they acted on it, but it doesn't seem like they were just having a laugh.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
We're still waiting on those reliable sources linking it. You keep repeating that but it's a NPOV standing and there are no sources in article to back it up. Nobody seriously links the movement as a whole to misandry, it's rarely anybody but extremists who take that sort of standing. You are misappropriating the entire movement. I honestly wouldn't believe anything written on A Voice of Men, it's a hugely bias website and has falsified information to push an extreme agenda in the past. Are you seriously editing feminist articles as a readership of a website like that? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
no I don't read a voice for men - google found that for me, and I simply linked to that to give an answer to your question of whether any radical feminists took those ideas in SCUM seriously. If you read it carefully you'll see it's not fake, they have over 150mb of screenshots, this would take an inordinate amount of time to fake, even the staunchest MRM dorks don't have that much time (plus much of it is rather mundane, so why waste time faking mundane posts?) I'm sure there are dark corners of the internet where men rip on women - I've seen many - but this was an example of a dark corner where radfems discussed violence against men and the inspiration they get from Solanas. Now obviously they don't speak for feminists or radical feminists but you wanted proof of anyone taking it seriously, well there you go.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

bell hooks fake quote

  • on bell hooks I found the book in question mentioned above at my local library (Posthuman sexuality), which indeed quotes bell hooks with the misandry quote above. But guess what the source is? Wait for it... Wikipedia - and this article no less, as of 2009. Ugh. I can't believe people are allowed to publish books that cite Wikipedia articles - the editor should be fired. We may have an example of citogenesis here. I struck my comment above attributing this to hooks, I don't find any evidence of it. We need to do some more digging to find out when this was added to the article, and what the original source was - I've looked at the blog mentioned but this quote is missing, so either the blog was changed or the quote was invented. We need to find out who did this and see what other edits they may have made, as if invented, this was a subtle vandalism and there may be other instances, so need to check contribs of that editor.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought as much. The quote in question just seemed strange considering what I'd read by bell hooks. She does talk a little about mens issues (mostly race issues men of colour face) but I don't think she'd have a word like misandry in her syntax. I think we should look into it, I did find a website that uses it but it's not a direct quote, rather a summary of some of her general points. I do think bell hooks critiques Separatist Feminism in some of her works but she doesn't mention it being prejudice against men, rather, she argues that an exclusionary viewpoint distracts from the true goal of Feminism that is equality. I agree with that, I wish I could find more. I'm pretty sure somebody quoted a summary of the text and attributed it to bell hooks. I'm inclined to believe it's POV-pushing (take a famous Feminist name, attribute a quote that suits your cause to her, hope it legitimises your cause in the eyes of other Feminists) Either way, I'm sure we'll find it. I apologise for the Voice for Men comment, but I do think editors of extreme standings (that is, radicalised opinions of said movements, because it's difficult to not hold a viewpoint on gender issues) probably shouldn't edit articles associated with them. I do know that there are areas of the internet where extremist feminists talk about those sorts of things out of frustration, but I don't think there are any recorded instances of them acting them through, and I sincerely doubt Solanas has inspired any real world violence against men --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
your instincts were right. I found the original blog here [1] in which that quote doesn't appear. It was added here: [2] - but this was just adding a (false) source to a quote that had previously existed uncited. So we need to go back in time further to find who put that first quote in, but it seems like pure fiction. We should add this to the citogenesis page, since the quote has since spread around the interweb, even getting published (albeit in a book that cited Wikipedia grrr)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I suppose these things do happen. It is worth adding to the citogenesis page though, if it's been replicated across the internet then it'll only keep getting sourced back here. It is annoying, I'm surprised it did get through editing, it looks like the book might be self published though. Either way, I'm glad that we solved this one aha --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
bingo found it. So, seems to be invented by this editor. Amazingly, the blog in question seems to have been a red herring- it never had anything to do with the quote. It was added in 2006, then "sourced" in 2007 through some dubious editing. We should check the contribs of this person to see if they have any other such dubious edits.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh really? So it was sourced to them as a direct quote, and then the author of the book must have looked it up on Wikipedia and took it on face value. That's really quite questionable editing, I mean it's one thing making bold edits, but faking references is dangerous practice. Interesting how these things happen though --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
it happened in 3 phases - phase 1 was addition of text, no source, sprung from mind of wp editor. Phase II linked said text to bell hooks, as paraphrase, with link to blog which kinda made that point but not really. Phase 3, in Peter's book, it became a quote by Bell Hooks. Beautiful example of citogenesis. Sort of like an airplane accident, where multiple things went wrong, not just one. Someone finally caught it here, im not sure when.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
found it: phase 4, quote is removed from WP in 2013 by astute editor. [3]. So this phrase lasted at least 5 years, 4 of which it was attributed to hooks. During that time it spread to many a blog and at least one book, there may be others.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • re: sketchy editing - the book was published by Cambridge scholars which seems to take itself seriously as an outlet. However, the book itself is littered with information sourced to wikipedia. I can't think of a single reason to ever cite wikipedia in serious writing, unless you're writing about wikipedia itself - go here and scroll to the end, before the index [4] and you can see he pulled information from around 30 articles.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia generally doesn't allow citing a source that itself cites Wikipedia or any other wiki as the source on the same point, even though book publishers are free to republish Wikipedia's content. I forgot what policy or guideline stated it, but many editors may not realize it or may not check sources closely enough to see what a source cites as its source. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
So what is sketchier - us citing a RS that cites wikipedia, or a RS citing wikipedia? I'd say the latter... what sort of academic publishing house, as these guys claim to be, lets this out of the printing press?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that an academic text citing Wikipedia is extremely bad practice and definitely worse than us citing an RS that cites Wikipedia, as that can quickly be fixed. It seems to be a poor one, and I'd be wary with any text that cites books published by either that writer or from that publishing house --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

All forms of Feminism are in reality Misandry and the Separatist feminist are the core of feminism who unite all other forms of feminism to their cause to hate and oppress men and boys.--106.68.23.249 (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Bob Black rant unverifiable and non-RS

I removed this self-published? Bob Black rant a long time ago and it was put back. Doing an internet search, including Books google, I still don't see a source for who published it besides http://www.inspiracy.com/, republished at Anarchist Library; his once mentioning he wrote it; and a couple other non-notable/non-RS mentions of it. Wikipedia tries to use better sources now a days, so let's delete it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Second this, it seems you've done your research into the source being weak --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Will do. Have to do equally thorough check on all sources, as other threads have shown. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I found at least 15 refs to this essay "Feminism as fascism" in published books. We can cite a better source, for example his book the abolition of work and other essays in which this one appears. Bob Black is a highly cited anarchist/leftist writer and his views have clear relevance here, esp given that his essay is referenced in a number of other books. (nb: The title essay even has a wikipedia article at The abolition of work)--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide this list of other references Obiwankenobi I can't find it. I can find 15 citations to "the abolition of work and other essays" by Bob Black but not to this essay Obiwan--Cailil talk 16:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
[5]. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
book can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-915179-41-5. If you search in google you can find snippets of the quote.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Guess we'll just need more credible quotes to outweigh the crappy ones. Have been having Wikihounding issues last couple months so still reluctant to do much editing til resolved, hopefully very soon. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Obiwankenobi You do realize the mentions of the article need to be in the context of Separatist feminism and not in the context of Bob Black's biography/output/general opinion (see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, & WP:SCHOLARSHIP). There are no (that is zero) citations to this essay in google scholar, it's not peer-reviewed & as far as I can see it's not taken as seriously as other criticisms that are peer reviewed and journal published.
Also the link you cite comprises 3 or 4 books by Black himself and 1 Book by Wikipedians - even if those other 15 are thorough engagements (which for the most part they're not, a number of them just list the book title) that's a fairly small number of sources for a whole section in this article. There are far better sources that are far more reliable. Currently Obiwan this emphasis on Black's opinion is very unduely weighted--Cailil talk 08:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Cailil, if our criticism needs to be only stuff that is peer reviewed, then we should delete all of the criticism. None of it is peer reviewed as far as I can tell - they are all published essays/opinions, not journal articles from peer-reviewed journals.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Obiwan there's a lot of critical sources of this topic - we should be using the best quality ones. Peer review is one matrix for reliability the other is citation. When a source has neither that's a clear signal. When the discussion of it is tangential to the topic or mainly about the author and not the topic then that's another signal. Fundamentally a better source can be found--Cailil talk 18:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section renamed reception

Given no RS calls anything a controversy, only the first paragraph gives the impression RS could be found to call it a controversy, and most other paragraphs are comments and criticisms. See Wikipedia:NPOV#cite_note-1 which links to some relevant project pages. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree enthusiastically with this change, Reception definitely fits with how the section is being used and is definitely more NPOV than Controversy --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Gee. I'd say the content of this section ranges from rejection to condemnation. I agree, there's no controversy mentioned, but I would say criticisms, problems, or concerns would be more descriptive of the text. SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I would say Problems is POV as it suggests critics of the movement (or any movement) can be wholly correct in a criticism rather than speculative. Criticisms would work though if there's a consensus against Reception (which I personally thing is absolutely fine) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
That said, "Cultural critic Alice Echols describes the emergence of a lesbian separatist movement as a response to what she sees as homophobic sentiments expressed by feminist organizations like the National Organization for Women. Echols argues that "...the introduction of (homo)sex troubled many heterosexual feminists who had found in the women's movement a welcome respite from sexuality". Echols considered separatism as a lesbian strategy to untie lesbianism from sex so heterosexual women in the feminist movement felt more comfortable" definitely doesn't sound much like a "rejection or condemnation", more of a general reflection on the movement, don't you think? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Controversy usually means at least two, preferably 3 or 4 RS weigh in, ones not involved in the dispute, even if they are fighting it out in RS. Otherwise it's just criticism by involved or uninvolved parties. (I don't know if this is made explicit anywhere in Wikipedia. Doesn't seem to be in the essay Wikipedia:Controversial articles. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Separatist feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Separatist feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Separatist feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Lesbian separatism?

The vast majority of separatist feminism thought comes from lesbians[1] If anything, the title should be lesbian separatism (as basically all things lesbian separatist are rooted in the ideals feminism is about) with either 1) a subheading for heterosexual feminist separatism, linking to the page for Cell 16 or 2) moving the het section to women-only space? The only notable feminist separatist org was Cell 16, the rest were/are lesbian. I'd be interested in discussing a possible change related to the title or content with anyone else knowledgeable on lesbian and feminist separatism.Woodsy lesfem (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Some Reflections on Separatism and Power – Feminist Reprise". feminist-reprise.org. Retrieved 2018-01-04. [separatism] isundeniably connected with lesbianism
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feminist_separatism/Archive_2&oldid=1141536819"