This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Marxist feminism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() |
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 22 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Tcochran6. Peer reviewers:
Tcochran6.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Mjo82.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 03:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Erm...should the criticism section really be longer than the main body of the article? Just a question. - Anon
I agree with the concern of Anon above. Like many theories, Feminist Marxism can be explained quickly or in detail, so can the criticisms of it. Wouldn't it be possible to write a short description of evolution and then a book about the criticisms of it? Having a critique section longer than the article looks like a bias against it to me. - Another Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.179.125 ( talk) 02:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph implies that capitalism is the root of women's oppression, despite the fact that women have been oppressed before capitalism arose. Marxist DO recognise this, and the article is wrong. The oppression of women came out of the development of CLASS SOCIETY, not specifically capitalism. - user:mattkidd12 18 July 2005 21:23
I agree with mattkidd12's comments: Engel's book on the origins of women's oppression makes the case clear. Unless there are any objections, I suggest we revise that.-- Duncan 13:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Why does the article say "Radical Women, a major Marxist-feminist organization, bases its theory on Marx' and Engels' analysis".... Why not just "Marx' and Engels' analysis was"... It just looks like an unncessary name-check. -- Duncan ( talk) 12:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The changes that have been done to the Marxist Feminist page; were done as a part of a project for an Introduction to Feminist Theory class, it was found that the information given on the original page was incomplete and needed to be added to. This was the goal of the project. To gain as much knowledge as possible and condense it, in order to give correct and complete information on the different subjects found in Feminist Theory. This is an attempt to expand the knowledge and history of Marxist Feminism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylier Autumn ( talk • contribs) Dec 9, 2008
Feminism itself is communism--it's Cultural Marxism using Critical Theory. I think this matter might be mentioned in the article. The emergence of feminism via the Frankfurt School (q.v.) should also be mentioned, to give more completeness to the article. --Just some suggestions. A good book to start with is "Red Feminism" by Kate Weigand. 50.202.81.2 ( talk) 20:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
The article could definitely use some revision. I think my brief critique can be best identified in the "Productive and Reproductive Labour" section. The first issue in the section is with the link two types of labor exist. The article is defining it as "productive and reproductive", but the link is sending it to "productive and unproductive". If these are different subjects the link should likely not exist. If it's the same subject, they difference should likely be reconciled between pages, or at least addressed in this particular article here. Secondly, this article is representing philosophical and/or economic theory. As such, to avoid being opinion and adhere as strictly commentary of opinion. Using statements like "according to..." and "as defined by..." tends to be preferable. The theoretical background on Marxism seems to do this appropriately, but you can tell it gets lost in the "productive and reproductive labour" section. I'm not even sure if this is a writing style issue or if the author of how it currently stands is actually just inserting opinion as fact (hopefully the former). Hobbeswood ( talk) 00:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
A important trend to day in Marxist feminism seems to be social reproduction theory. (Since Lise Vogel, 1983?) I became aware of that trend trough https://monthlyreview.org/2018/01/01/women-nature-and-capital-in-the-industrial-revolution/. There is much about reproductive labour in the page, but no mention of social reproduction theory. There is a Wikipedia page about social reproduction, but in the sense of cultural heritage of social positions à la Bourdieu. I see therefore the following program: (1) mention social reproduction theory in this page; (2) a Social reproduction theory page; (3) a disambiguation page mentioning the new Social reproduction theory page and the existing Social reproduction page. I am in the comfortable situation of leaving this program to others because (i) I am not a social scientist; (ii) my English is not good enough. -- Dominique Meeùs ( talk) 06:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
With some feat of acrobatics, it might be said that Gilman was a "socialist", but it's simply inaccurate to claim that she was a Marxist. Only one source cited claims that Gilman was a "socialist" and even here, it is claimed that she was a "19th century utopian modernis[t]", which was explicitly not a Marxist theory.
If Gilman's contribution to Marxist feminism is notable enough, it should be clearly stated that Gilman was not a Marxist. Otherwise the reference should be removed. If there is no discussion after a week or so, I will opt for the latter.
AndersLeo ( talk) 13:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Removing Gilman would remove a lot of other valuable information that does relate to the Marxist feminism movement. I recommend rewording it to make it more accurate or incorporating another reference. Do you have another reference to replace Gilman with? Anne Phillips and Barbara Taylor can be good additions or starting points for a new reference for this section. Mjo82 ( talk) 15:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I've done a manual revert of the page because the recent edits made by User:RTG were problematic for a number of reasons.
First: Multiple paragraphs were blanked, and entire new paragraphs were added. This is not necessarily a problem in and of itself, but most of the new edits involved detailed accounts of Engels' text, which has its own Wiki page and does not belong here.
Second: Content was added immediately before citations that were in the previous edit, effectively "piggy-backing" on the citation that was provided. If new content is added, the editor should decide whether or not the claim needs a source cited and if so cite properly.
Third: The edits were made in rapid succession, making collaboration and evaluation difficult. I may be mistaken, but to me this is seems to be poor etiquette. Unless there is a pressing reason not to do so, editors should try to make substantial edits at once, not 14 consecutive edits over the course of a few hours.
Fourth: Much of the added content was poorly worded and difficult to understand. In places where the content between the edits overlapped, the original edit represented a clearer overview of the subject.
AndersLeo ( talk) 19:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
While sex work is a worthy section for this topic, the current content could be deleted entirely. I've kept it for now until there's either something to replace it or more discussion in favor of removing earlier.
Deltacubes ( talk) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.
Thanks and regards
Bookku ( talk) 03:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Andreaag0nzalez (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Giselleam317.
— Assignment last updated by WGST320 ( talk) 01:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Samsara 11 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
KingKibba.
— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz ( talk) 20:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Marxist feminism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() |
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 22 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Tcochran6. Peer reviewers:
Tcochran6.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Mjo82.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 03:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Erm...should the criticism section really be longer than the main body of the article? Just a question. - Anon
I agree with the concern of Anon above. Like many theories, Feminist Marxism can be explained quickly or in detail, so can the criticisms of it. Wouldn't it be possible to write a short description of evolution and then a book about the criticisms of it? Having a critique section longer than the article looks like a bias against it to me. - Another Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.179.125 ( talk) 02:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph implies that capitalism is the root of women's oppression, despite the fact that women have been oppressed before capitalism arose. Marxist DO recognise this, and the article is wrong. The oppression of women came out of the development of CLASS SOCIETY, not specifically capitalism. - user:mattkidd12 18 July 2005 21:23
I agree with mattkidd12's comments: Engel's book on the origins of women's oppression makes the case clear. Unless there are any objections, I suggest we revise that.-- Duncan 13:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Why does the article say "Radical Women, a major Marxist-feminist organization, bases its theory on Marx' and Engels' analysis".... Why not just "Marx' and Engels' analysis was"... It just looks like an unncessary name-check. -- Duncan ( talk) 12:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The changes that have been done to the Marxist Feminist page; were done as a part of a project for an Introduction to Feminist Theory class, it was found that the information given on the original page was incomplete and needed to be added to. This was the goal of the project. To gain as much knowledge as possible and condense it, in order to give correct and complete information on the different subjects found in Feminist Theory. This is an attempt to expand the knowledge and history of Marxist Feminism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylier Autumn ( talk • contribs) Dec 9, 2008
Feminism itself is communism--it's Cultural Marxism using Critical Theory. I think this matter might be mentioned in the article. The emergence of feminism via the Frankfurt School (q.v.) should also be mentioned, to give more completeness to the article. --Just some suggestions. A good book to start with is "Red Feminism" by Kate Weigand. 50.202.81.2 ( talk) 20:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
The article could definitely use some revision. I think my brief critique can be best identified in the "Productive and Reproductive Labour" section. The first issue in the section is with the link two types of labor exist. The article is defining it as "productive and reproductive", but the link is sending it to "productive and unproductive". If these are different subjects the link should likely not exist. If it's the same subject, they difference should likely be reconciled between pages, or at least addressed in this particular article here. Secondly, this article is representing philosophical and/or economic theory. As such, to avoid being opinion and adhere as strictly commentary of opinion. Using statements like "according to..." and "as defined by..." tends to be preferable. The theoretical background on Marxism seems to do this appropriately, but you can tell it gets lost in the "productive and reproductive labour" section. I'm not even sure if this is a writing style issue or if the author of how it currently stands is actually just inserting opinion as fact (hopefully the former). Hobbeswood ( talk) 00:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
A important trend to day in Marxist feminism seems to be social reproduction theory. (Since Lise Vogel, 1983?) I became aware of that trend trough https://monthlyreview.org/2018/01/01/women-nature-and-capital-in-the-industrial-revolution/. There is much about reproductive labour in the page, but no mention of social reproduction theory. There is a Wikipedia page about social reproduction, but in the sense of cultural heritage of social positions à la Bourdieu. I see therefore the following program: (1) mention social reproduction theory in this page; (2) a Social reproduction theory page; (3) a disambiguation page mentioning the new Social reproduction theory page and the existing Social reproduction page. I am in the comfortable situation of leaving this program to others because (i) I am not a social scientist; (ii) my English is not good enough. -- Dominique Meeùs ( talk) 06:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
With some feat of acrobatics, it might be said that Gilman was a "socialist", but it's simply inaccurate to claim that she was a Marxist. Only one source cited claims that Gilman was a "socialist" and even here, it is claimed that she was a "19th century utopian modernis[t]", which was explicitly not a Marxist theory.
If Gilman's contribution to Marxist feminism is notable enough, it should be clearly stated that Gilman was not a Marxist. Otherwise the reference should be removed. If there is no discussion after a week or so, I will opt for the latter.
AndersLeo ( talk) 13:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Removing Gilman would remove a lot of other valuable information that does relate to the Marxist feminism movement. I recommend rewording it to make it more accurate or incorporating another reference. Do you have another reference to replace Gilman with? Anne Phillips and Barbara Taylor can be good additions or starting points for a new reference for this section. Mjo82 ( talk) 15:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I've done a manual revert of the page because the recent edits made by User:RTG were problematic for a number of reasons.
First: Multiple paragraphs were blanked, and entire new paragraphs were added. This is not necessarily a problem in and of itself, but most of the new edits involved detailed accounts of Engels' text, which has its own Wiki page and does not belong here.
Second: Content was added immediately before citations that were in the previous edit, effectively "piggy-backing" on the citation that was provided. If new content is added, the editor should decide whether or not the claim needs a source cited and if so cite properly.
Third: The edits were made in rapid succession, making collaboration and evaluation difficult. I may be mistaken, but to me this is seems to be poor etiquette. Unless there is a pressing reason not to do so, editors should try to make substantial edits at once, not 14 consecutive edits over the course of a few hours.
Fourth: Much of the added content was poorly worded and difficult to understand. In places where the content between the edits overlapped, the original edit represented a clearer overview of the subject.
AndersLeo ( talk) 19:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
While sex work is a worthy section for this topic, the current content could be deleted entirely. I've kept it for now until there's either something to replace it or more discussion in favor of removing earlier.
Deltacubes ( talk) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.
Thanks and regards
Bookku ( talk) 03:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Andreaag0nzalez (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Giselleam317.
— Assignment last updated by WGST320 ( talk) 01:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Samsara 11 (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
KingKibba.
— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz ( talk) 20:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)