Talk:Straw feminism

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

Feminism Low‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Fisher, M.L.; Garcia, J.R.; Chang, R.S. (2013). Evolution's Empress: Darwinian Perspectives on the Nature of Women. Oxford University Press. p. 441. ISBN 978-0-19-989274-7.
Goodman, Ellen (January 26, 1994). "The straw man begets the straw feminist". Los Angeles Times. p. B7. ISSN 0458-3035 – via Newspapers.com.
Griffin, Penny (2015). Popular Culture, Political Economy and the Death of Feminism: Why Women are in Refrigerators and Other Stories. Routledge. pp. 139–40. ISBN 978-1-31-758037-9.
Grindstaff, Laura; McCaughey, Martha (1 October 1998). "Feminism, Psychoanalysis, and (Male) Hysteria over John Bobbitt's Missing Manhood". Men and Masculinities. 1 (2): 173–192. doi:10.1177/1097184X98001002003. ISSN 1097-184X.
Horbury, Alison (2015). Post-feminist Impasses in Popular Heroine Television: The Persephone Complex. Springer. p. 138. ISBN 978-1-13-751137-9.
Speller, Katherine (17 August 2015). "Remember That Time Your Favorite Shows Got Feminism So Wrong?". MTV News.
Vavrus, Mary Douglas (2002). Postfeminist News: Political Women in Media Culture. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. p. 168. ISBN 0-79-145445-2.
White, Michele (2022). "An Introduction to and Critique of Anti-feminisms". In White, Michele; Negra, Diane (eds.). Anti-Feminisms in Media Culture (1st ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 1–24. doi:10.4324/9781003090212-1. ISBN 978-1-0030-9021-2.

2 November 2015

I like that you mention in your introduction that the straw feminist is a fabricated character designed to delegitimize feminist arguments. However, to better stress the fabricated nature of the straw feminist, perhaps you could add a few more sentences that clarify how opponents of feminist ideology abstract from marginal or radical feminist beliefs to construct distorted representations of feminists and of feminist arguments. In addition, to illustrate further how the straw feminist argument operates, you might apply this argument's basic structure to one of the common tropes that you mention in your article. For instance, you might utilize a feminist critique against patriarchy as your point x and the misconception that feminists would like to institute a matriarchy as your point y. Lastly, as you continue to expand your article, perhaps you could refer to how the media is often complicit in the production of straw feminist tropes.

Smolfeministpup (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2 November 2015

First, since I do not know much at all about this topic I am very interested to see how your article develops and exactly what straw feminism means. In reading what you have so far, I think though I still am a little confused on the topic. I think in continuing on in your article it would be helpful to add in what things strawfeminist believe that are incorporated, and what exactly you mean by them being marginalized and radical (mentioned in your second to last sentence in your opening " Strawfeminism often incorporates actual beliefs by feminists, but these beliefs or practices are often marginal or radical, reflecting a small percentage of feminists."). I also think including some sort of historical background to this might help the reader as well. Also when you attempt to cite and fill in your outlined tropes section, I think you may want to mention or look at some of the articles on wave feminism or on problems with it because you might be able to find some sources to cite those tropes/misconceptions. Femme fatale218 (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for Further Improvement

In your "Examples" section, you could perhaps include one or two more examples that highlight the media's role in perpetuating the straw feminist archetype in an effort to invalidate feminist ideologies. In addition, you could expand your "Common Tropes" subsection by referring to the social historical origins of these exaggerated tropes, especially within the context of second-wave and third-wave feminism. By alluding to the social historical roots of these tropes, you will be able to contextualize the social historical production of the straw feminist archetype and better account for the sociopolitical aims that this archetype serves.

Smolfeministpup (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What even is this page?

This is not a term that is used in any sociology literature. Why is wikipedia pushing an ideology down its readers throat? Did NPOV get abolished? Otherwise I'll create straw communism and straw fascism, just to make this new decision that wikipedia can push an ideology apply to everyone.--Omegaalephnull (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this page for deletion. It is clearly a made up term for the purpose of shoving an ideology down the readers' throats. Not objective in the least. If you agree please participate in the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9200:D800:ECB8:EAF7:35FC:89D2 (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor you are asking to help you was blocked for vandalism. Doug Weller talk 22:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second nominating this page for deletion, it is unnecessary for an encyclopedia to instantiate every type of straw man.

Ethanpet113 (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanpet113: I've removed your notability template, notability was established after the AfD started last year by an account evidently established only to get this article deleted. If you'd actually read the top of this page you'd know that. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article needed?

Thread retitled from "There is no need for a Straw Feminist".

A straw feminist is appearently exactly the same as a "straw man". So why making a second wikipage? This doesnt seem to make sense. I would advice to delete this page and add the feminist as example in the corresponding straw man(fallacy) article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA10:4102:1B80:CA2A:14FF:FE16:DE6C (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. This page should be deleted. This term is not used anywhere in the feminism debate because it's just a straw man argument used against feminism. Some feminist created this page in order to have a link specifically discrediting anyone who would argue against feminism and portray feminists as victims as well as demonize anyone who'd dare criticize them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9200:D800:9502:5F79:2A16:5341 (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Pretty much. It's a designer re-cast of the known straw man. This is not a thing and should be deleted as it lacks the notability required for Wikipedia-worthiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:901:BE00:1FB4:FF6A:AE82:83DA (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a deletion discussion and the decision was to keep it. There's a link at the top of this talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5 October 2016

WP:NOTAFORUM. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thread retitled from "You made this up".

This article is nonesense. I thought Wikipedia was more seriousthan this, this should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.61.11 (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is feminist nonsense, and if there were such a thing as "straw feminism" it would mean the opposite, feminists using straw man arguments against anyone who'd dare criticize them. This article needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9200:D800:9502:5F79:2A16:5341 (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

WiseGEEK is not a reliable source. "Feminist frequency" is not a reliable source as it is self-published.

Can the feminists supporting this article take off the problem glasses and ask themselves if an article supported by two non-RS citations would be allowed to stand if it was about anything other than their pet ideology? The answer is no. Shame on the person (you know who you are) supporting this who is a janitor, you are poisoning YOUR Wikipedia, which is supposed to only discuss relevant things, a thing doesn't become relevant because it happens to take a political POV you agree with. My respect for the Wiki project is lowered everytime I see this literally meaningless article.--HalMartin (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfect example of a Straw feminism argument! --I am One of Many (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HalMartin: It needs better sources, but you haven't bothered to find any, right? Here are some.a Google Scholar search, some decent stuff there a book by an academic some news sources an article on MUSE that I can supply if someone wants it I'm sure there are many more. So, Hal, since you think it's badly sourced, there's enough for you to work on - I presume you would prefer this to be a better article and aren't here just to complain. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough then, though you should have made the article better yourself since you have the sources.--HalMartin (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have them, I spent about 5 minutes searching for them. But sadly I simply don't have the time to fix this. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]