Talk:Feminism/Archive 1

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Beautiful[edit]

Beautiful~ Feminism is the radical idea that women are people

I don't want to delete the Afghani quote, but it's under "Anti-Feminist." This implicitly assumes that being anti-feminist is being anti-female, which is obviously incorrect. Should we make a new section for it, or what?68.51.244.148 (Robinson0120) 18:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced and poorly sourced quotes, moved from page to talk page[edit]

Unsourced and poorly sourced quotes, moved from page to talk page. Cirt (talk) 07:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Feminist quotes
Womens' rights
  • We ask justice, we ask equality, we ask that all civil and political rights that belong to the citizens of the United States be guaranteed to us and our daughters forever. --Susan B. Anthony
  • Women: their rights, and nothing less; Men: their rights, and nothing more. --Susan B. Anthony
  • It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. --Susan B. Anthony
  • We've got a generation now who were born with semiequality. They don't know how it was before, so they think, this isn't too bad. We're working. We have our attache' cases and our three-piece suits. I get very disgusted with the younger generation of women. We had a torch to pass, and they are just sitting there. They don't realize it can be taken away. Things are going to have to get worse before they join in fighting the battle. --Erma Bombeck
  • The basic discovery about any people is the discovery of the relationship between its men and its women. --Pearl S. Buck
  • When we talk about equal pay for equal work, women in the workplace are beginning to catch up. If we keep going at this current rate, we will achieve full equality in about 475 years. I don't know about you, but I can't wait that long. --Lya Sorano
  • I will feel equality has arrived when we can elect to office women who are as incompetent as some of the men who are already there. --Maureen Reagan
  • What's the point in feminism if I can't shave my legs when I damn well want to? --S. Camus
Defining feminism
  • Does feminist mean "large unpleasant person who'll shout at you" or "someone who believes women are human beings"? To me it's the latter, so I sign up. --Margaret Atwood
  • If divorce has increased by one thousand percent, don't blame the women's movement. Blame the obsolete sex roles on which our marriages were based. --Betty Friedan speech, New York City, January 20, 1974
  • I became a feminist as an alternative to becoming a masochist. --Sally Kempton, journalist
  • Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings. --Cheris Kramerae, author of A Feminist Dictionary, 1996
  • A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men. --Gloria Steinem
  • I myself have never been able to find out precisely 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. --Rebecca West, 1913
Feminist politics
  • While liberals appeared to be safely in power, feminists could perhaps afford the luxury of defining Larry Flynt or Roman Polanski as Enemy Number One. Now that we have to cope with Jerry Falwell and Jesse Helms, a rethinking of priorities seems in order. -- Ellen Willis, Lust Horizons: Is the Woman's Movement Pro-Sex? (1981)
Roles
  • Women do not have to sacrifice personhood if they are mothers. They do not have to sacrifice motherhood in order to be persons. Liberation was meant to expand women's opportunities, not to limit them. The self-esteem that has been found in new pursuits can also be found in mothering. --Elaine Heffner
  • Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, but she did it backwards and in high heels. --Faith Whittlesey
Revolution
  • 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
  • If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation. --Abigail Adams
  • This is no simple reform. It really is a revolution. Sex and race because they are easy and visible differences have been the primary ways of organizing human beings into superior and inferior groups and into the cheap labour in which this system still depends. We are talking about a society in which there will be no roles other than those chosen or those earned. We are really talking about humanism. --Gloria Steinem
  • Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition. ~ Timothy Leary
  • Every special, distinct form of work among the women of the working class is simply a means of arousing the consciousness of the woman worker and drawing her into the ranks of those fighting for a better future... Women's Days and the slow, meticulous work undertaken to arouse the self-consciousness of the woman worker are serving the cause not of the division but of the unification of the working class. ~ Alexandra Kollontai 'Women's Day'
Male and feminism
  • Men's relation to feminism is an impossible one. . . . the point after all is that this is a matter for women, that it is their voices and actions that must determine the change and redefinition. . . . Women are the subjects of feminism, its initiators, its makers, its force . . . Men are the objects, . . . agents of the structure to be transformed, . . . carriers of the patriarchal mode; and my desire to be a subject there too in feminism--to be a feminist--is then only the last feint in the long history of their colonization. -Heath, Stephen. "Male Feminism." Dalhousie Review 64.2 (Summer 1984): 70-101. Shorter version rpt. in Jardine and Smith, 1-32.
Anti-feminist quotes
  • Feminism is the radical notion that feminists are women. -Rush Limbaugh
  • Then the women got the vote, and everything went to hell. While our boys was overseas fighting the Kaiser the women got prohibition put in. Drinking and gambling and whoring were declared unlawful. All those things which come natural to men became crimes. -Judge Roy Bean
  • I'm an old-fashioned woman. Men should take care of women, and if men were taking care of women today, we wouldn't have to vote. -Kay O'Connor (Kansas Senate Republican)
  • The demise of our community and culture is the fault of sissified men who have been overly influenced by women. -Tony Evans (Promise Keepers)
  • Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society. -Rush Limbaugh
  • Rail as they will about 'discrimination,' women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism. -Pat Buchanan


  • The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." - Pat Robertson
In the media and popular culture
  • I love my country, by which I mean I am indebted joyfully to all the people throughout its history, who have fought the government to make right. Where so many cunning sons and daughters, our foremothers and forefathers came singing through slaughter, came through hell and high water so that we could stand here, and behold breathlessly the sight; how a raging river of tears cut a grand canyon of light. Why can't all decent men and women call themselves feminists, out of respect for those that fought for this? --Ani Difranco Grand Canyon

The Wickedictionary[edit]

This is not a reliable source. Cirt (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Look again, it is an academic source. Stingray 05:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Not really, says who? Cirt (talk) 07:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Look at the URL. It is an academic institution. Please explain your problem in more detail. Stingray 12:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It is a wiki. The quotes at the wiki are unsourced. There are no dates provided to the quotes, or sources. There is no editorial review. And it is being used on this project as spam by established sockpuppets. Cirt (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
It is an academic website. The sources are acknowledged using footnotes. It is no different to if an academic published it as a book. They are quotes that have merit and do not seem like spam to me. Stingray 13:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It is a personal website that happens to be hosted by an academic domain name. The footnotes just say who said the quotes, not when, where, what date, full cite, etc. There is no way to verify the quotes to the original place and time they were said. Get it? Cirt (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
There are some with full cites. The page is obviously a work in progress. But anyhow there are gazillions of pages here on Wikiquote where there are special sections for "unsourced quotes" and "attributed quotes". This seems to be the status quo on the pages here, if the quote is good and yet the sources need further work on. Why don't you delete those too? Because half of Wikiquote would disappear! What might more sense is to restore the deletions you have done, and give them an appropriate heading such as "attributed" or whatever. Stingray 22:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
That is not the status quo. Those are pages that need cleanup. "Unsourced" sections should be removed outright. Other "wiki" type websites should not be used. Cirt (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I found the WP on removing "unsourced" stuff; your are totally right. However, please point me to the WP that outlaws "other" wikis. IMHO, a wiki is no different from another website or a publication, especially in this case which appears to be a closed academic wiki that is not open to the public. I tried logging in and it wouldn't let me as I'm only a pleb. Stingray 03:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
It is a personal website. Let's move on to another discussion about some other source. Cirt (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think attribution is really at issue here. While Dr. Abbott invites others to contribute, the page is almost entirely his creation. In the absence of evidence that his account there has been hijacked, it is reasonable to assume words attributed to him therein are claimed by him as his own.
More pertinent to quotability here is that it's just a personal page. It is customary for academic institutions to provide MySpace-like pages for their faculty, and most are hardly more notable than their student's FaceBook pages. There are a only a very few highly prominent academics whose personal pages are widely discussed, and Wikiquote sometimes quotes them on author pages. I see no indication that the good doctor's personal "fun stuff" musings are notable enough to be included in the author page, much less to be scattered in theme pages such as this one. ~ Ningauble 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Responding to Cirt's comment above, I would like to point out that a website of this nature is no different to, say, the case of a famous novelist being quoted out of a book he wrote. It's a personal book. It contains the musings of the novelist. What's the difference? The key thing that in both cases the material is out there in the public domain. You may say the book is different because at least it has been edited. All the editor does is check the spelling. So what? I don't see any true difference between the two media. Pls enlighten me, as I would like to learn. I am open for you to present an argument that is convincing. Stingray 02:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
If the person is, as you say, a "famous" novelist, then the book is not just a "personal" book. Cirt (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
And what is the thing that makes such a book "just not personal"? Please explain. Because whatever it is, it seems a very fine line for deciding whether to include or exclude some very fine quotes! I hope you can identify something solid and convincing. Stingray 02:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone can create a personal website and then attempt to disruptively spam out quotes on a wiki using socks. Cirt (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure. But in this case we are talking about something notable. Let's make an example to illustrate the point. Let's pick a random famous person such as Salman Rushdie. Now let's say one day Salman writes an autobiography. We at Wikiquote obviously like to have good quotes from that autobiography. We don't label it as disruptive. We don't care how many Salman Rushdie fans out there put up these quotes as we don't think of it as spam (so long as they were apposite quotes). We don't even care if some are socks as are they are doing nothing disruptive. Right? Now imagine one day he has a "Salman Rushdie Official Website" for his fans. Say he mentions a few notable things there that weren't in his autobiography. My question is this: why is his website different to his autobiography for quoting the man himself? To my mind, they are both forms of artistic expression in public domain media. The only difference is that in the autobiography he has had his spelling checked by a human editor! Are you trying to imply that all autobiographies should be outlawed from Wikiquote? Please clarify where you are going with this. I'm trying to learn and am finding your answers rather brief and unforthcoming. Stingray 02:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
In the Rushdie example, it would be preferable to use quotes that secondary sources had commented on and identified as noteworthy. Cirt (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
So would you like to go ahead and delete this page: The Autobiography of William Butler Yeats of autobiographical quotes of a very famous author, or do you think other administrators would decry this as disruptive? There are many other examples. We should also delete Hitler's Mein Kampf as that was autobiographical too and there is an autobiographical section on the Charles Darwin quote page. None of these examples are quoting the secondary sources that you suggest; they are directly quoting the autobiography. There are over 300 pages of autobiographical quotes on Wikiquote. Then on top of that Shakespeare quotes use the original Shakespeare reference rather than a secondary source that commented on Shakespeare. Same is true for all novels here. Are you really suggesting we delete these? If not, what's the difference? Stingray 03:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is now pointless and bordering on disruptive. Your saying that based on my prior statement of what is preferable, that one should go around deleting other pages, seems to be a bit POINTy. Cirt (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Please reread my last two sentences again. I was arguing by hypothetical example.. And my question was asking you "what is the difference"? If you can answer that, it could enlighten me tremendously. At the moment I'm still in the dark. Stingray 05:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Let us please focus on one article at a time. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
We are focusing on the one issue. I am trying to point out an apparently contradictory position you are maintaining and I am trying to understand. Please can you answer the above question? Stingray 05:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
We should strive to emphasize usage of quotes from secondary sources, so as to avoid individual Wikiquote users making determinations about which quotes are noteworthy and which are not. Cirt (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
So what point are you trying to prove by selectively deleting the Wickedictionary quotes that had no secondary sources stated, as opposed to, say, those Yeats or Hitler quotes that have no secondary sources? Are you being perhaps a little disruptive by these actions? Would it not be more constructive to restore your deletions to allow editors time to research secondary sources? Given that we have had Shakespeare around for 400 yrs and haven't gotten around yet to collating secondary sources for all his good quotes, does this appeal to your sense of fair play that Rome was not built in a day and to ease up a bit?Stingray 06:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
To answer your question, I removed those particular quotes because they were being spammed by sockpuppets. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

So are you agreeing that the quotes in themselves are acceptable? If so then they are not spam. Correct me if I am wrong, but spam in wikiquote is defined as unsourced non-notable stuff. If it is a good sourced quote then it is not spam. If it is not spam then any editors cannot be classed as outlawed socks (socks are only verbotten if they are breaking rules; there is no rule against a harmless sock; many admins have benign socks). I would suggest they are properly sourced good quotes. Why? Because check the WP here, which clearly states that self-published material is ok if it relates to the person who self-published. I would go so far as to say Wickedictionary isn't even classed as self-published because it is hosted on an academic institution website. On this basis, would you kindly reconsider and restore the deleted quotes? Stingray 07:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
No. You are bringing up points you have already made, in circular fashion. This was already commented on, above, by Ningauble. Cirt (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It is not circular at all. See the WP link above. That breaks the circle.Stingray 08:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Already addressed by the comment by Ningauble. Cirt (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It did not address my problem. Where is the appropriate forum to get further advice? Is it the village pump? Please let me know where to go next, as I think we are at an impasse here. Stingray 09:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It has already been discussed there. Do you have any other intention to contribute to this project Wikiquote other than socking and attempting to spam one particular website? Cirt (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Please can you answer my question what I should do next to take this further. I also do not appreciate the accusatory tone in your messages. Stingray 13:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
Aphaia agreed The Wickedictionary was spam [1], Jusjih agreed that blocks of users for spamming The Wickedictionary were appropriate [2], and Ningauble said The Wickedictionary should not be used [3]. Not sure what else there is to be said about it. Cirt (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Off-Topic quotes[edit]

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)