Talk:Feminism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Feminism article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikiquote? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

/Archive 1

Off-Topic quotes

Umm.. perhaps I'm completely missing something, but why do most of the quotes on feminism not include the word feminism in them?--Cybermud 16:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Titles of theme articles are not a word index, they are a grouping by subject. If Aristophanes did not use the English word (neither the word nor the language had been invented yet), it does not mean a quote from Lysistrata has no relevance to the subject. ~ Ningauble 15:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok... on that note, what's the current price of tea in China? Actually, I'm inclined to say that we shouldn't have quotes from Aristophanes on English given that the language did not exist. Are you conflating the English language with linguistics itself? Back to the main point, it's disingenuous to pretend that feminism is equivalent to women's rights, which is exactly what people adding women's rights quotes here are doing. Clearly the terms are related in a fashion similiar to how 9/11 is related to the war in Iraq, but to put quotes that exclusively deal with 9/11 in an article on the war in Iraq is completely inappropriate and misleading. Feminism can be described as s political, social and ideological movement without controversy. While it's adherents and leaders would love for everyone to equate it directly with "women's rights" doing so IS highly controversial. Including quotes where people call feminism the same as "women's rights" is fine. Including quotes that are strictly about women's rights is not. It presupposes an actual and factual definition of feminism as being equivalent to women's rights which doesn't exist by any stretch.--200.95.162.228 15:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As the person who originally added the quote from Aristophanes, I would contest the claim that the play Lysistrata does not relate to the subject of a political, social and ideological movement. It expressly portrays political, social and ideological activism. ~ Ningauble 15:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Uhh.. How much did you say Tea was going for in China?--Cybermud 00:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sure that some people can be found who are so moronic as to not find this response in any way insulting — but I am not one of them. I made further comment below. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't going to dignify that with a response. ~ Ningauble 11:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The recent comments and edits have been made by someone who seems to be choosing to define feminism in a very narrow and apparently hostile way. As with MOST terms of common usage there are usually very wide ranges of ways to define them, and nearly all of them DO involve an insistence upon Women's rights — though some might choose to insist that the definition by restricted entirely to some extremely bigoted notions along the lines of "what some women all sensible-people-like-us-would-call-insane desire", I believe that most actually sane and reasonable people are inclined to reject such definitions as the primary ones, no matter how valid they might seem to some who are very asinine.
In the recent edit summary this person stated that my comments "the words feminism or feminists are to be preferred in quotes here — but to insist that quotes on women's rights have nothing to do with feminism is simply asinine" with the remark "Undo revision 1242927 by Kalki (talk) edit summary in violation of policy, and edit adds irrelevant content."
As Ninguable just did, I restored content that I believe others had posted and MOST people I believe DO hold to be ENTIRELY relevant to the page. I know that calling asinine acts and attitudes precisely that can go against the policies of various craven cowards and cretins. but do not believe that such policies and imperatives as yet entirely dominate in the very worthy Wikimedia projects no matter how deplorably many might be growing, and with apologies to cowards and cretins who are not so asinine, and are indulgent of the proper liberties of fools like me, I will insist on calling them asinine. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The hostility here is not coming from me. Your post, like your edit summary, is full of insults and if you continue in this vein I will report you for it. Wikimedia is no place for such behavior. We should be able to disagree without you engaging in all manner of ad-hominem attacks referring to other editors as asinine and policy makers of wikipedia as "craven cowards and cretins." As inclined as I am to call a spade a spade in reference to you this is not the forum for it. We are here to build a good encyclopedia of quotes. I'm sorry if it rubs you the wrong way that I insist that quotes about feminism actually be about feminism, but that's a pretty reasonable expectation. If you have quotes that say feminism is about women's rights, by all means include them. Wholesale dumping of quotes that don't reference feminism at all, regardless of whether they are about women's rights or moon cheese, is not what this article is about.--Cybermud 00:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You state that the "hostility here is not coming from me." You seem to manifest a hostility to feminism, and I fully support your right to add such quotes as support views you might agree with, but object to removing those you do not. I myself make no pretense of not being hostile to anyone's attempts to distort words so as to make the less attentive and more easily herded and frightened of people cower and flee from confrontations with narrow bigotry or bold hypocrisy. I simply stated in response to your remarks that you seem "to be choosing to define feminism in a very narrow and apparently hostile way." I see nothing to refute that contention.
In your further attempts to intimidate me or others with your distorted and quite blatantly hypocritically insulting remarks I find little to make me consider you a person highly inclined to be genuinely and charitably civil or politely considerate of people's rights to disagree with you or others — but rather one of those who like to distorting and prejudicial words to buttress their rather shallow shows of consideration of such rules as can be abused to restrict the rights and liberties of others, rather than respect or expand them. I am well aware that such restrictions rarely are of great concern for many people, because they are often not much concerned with speaking out against injustices or distortions of truth at all — and often find it convenient and quite comfortable to support them.
You might have problems calling a spade a spade, but I have little problem in calling a person who engages in what appears to me to be rank hypocrisy a hypocrite. I do NOT proceed to consider anyone who at any point engages in hypocrisy or errors ONLY a hypocrite or a person in error and of NO further consideration as a human being, as MANY hypocrites are inclined to do to anyone they can sufficiently vilify or smear with prejudicial language. I believe in the rights of even the most vile packs and gangs of cowards and villains to express their views and defend themselves as ably as they can against assertions of the truth and true opinions of others. Though I generally aim to be properly polite with others, I have never pretended to support the aim at being as sweetly polite as conceivably possible to all people, as I do not consider that either genuinely considerate of either humanity or its genuine ethical principles, and believe it to often be much more appropriate to be justly harsh and frank in making remarks about those who I perceive as seeking to be unjustly harsh and restrictive of the freedoms of others to present ideas and arguments. I really don't have much time to spend here now, but might address some of your concerns further in the next week. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)