Talk:Independent Women's Forum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Independent Women's Forum has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
May 29, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
 :This article uses content from a SourceWatch article from Sourcewatch.org under the terms of the GFDL.

Contents

[edit] POV?

It seems as if some of the material in the history section is passing judgement. Perhaps it should be moved to the criticism section.

Agreed Njerseyguy 19:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the last change for POV was warranted, and was support the person who wrote it in a RV. It simply states facts.--Epeefleche 02:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Funding info

I removed info about the funding organizations that was messy, seemed out of place, and offered no sources. I am guessing that at least some of that material came from other articles, but Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia per WP:RS. I am also not convinced that this information needs to be in this article at all since we have articles about those organizations that are linked from here. DickClarkMises 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SourceWatch material

(In re: this edit by User:TreveX) It is not clear to me that SourceWatch can be used for this claim under WP:RS. Citing an unsourced assertion on SourceWatch is like citing an unsourced assertion in another Wikipedia article--they are both freely licensed. If some third party has noted in a reliable source that IWF's donors are composed of a "significant" number of conservative donors, we can include it. Asserting this without a reliable source is a misuse of the encyclopedic voice in my view. Such potentially controversial views should always be attributed to a reliable source. DickClarkMises (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the reference to Media Transparency. Is this okay? TreveXtalk 02:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review

  1. Well written: This article could explain some concepts, like the difference betwenn equity feminism and gender feminism, Title IX, very briefly. What does the Women's Educational Equity Act do? What is the Duke University lacrosse scandal? I'm not necessarily asking for full paragraphs of context, just enough to aid basic understanding. The funding and board member sections could be converted into prose, perhaps by adding information on the organisations or personnel concerned.
  2. Factually accurate: Can we please have a source for the first sentence?
  3. Broad in coverage: PASS
  4. Neutral point of view: In a few sections, we need something balancing out IWF's positions. What would their opponents say to their positions on Title IX or 'advocacy for school choice'. Why do their critics deride them as anti-feminist? Why did the FMF object to the state department funding? I've just done a quick google and it seems that the organisation is somewhat controversial and I don't think this has been dealt with fully here. It's also widely characterised as a conservative movement organisation - this should be in there somewhere.
  5. Stable: PASS
  6. Illustrated with images: PASS

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. TreveXtalk 02:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Queries/Responses to Good Article Reviewer

  • Well written:
    • Slightly expanded the Duke University Lacrosse section lead to provide context: [1]
    • Co-opted some material from the equity feminism article to cover Hoff Sommers' distinction between equity and gender feminism: [2]
  • Factually accurate: The first sentence is supported by the other citations in close vicinity to it. I personally think this is probably within the bounds of Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations, but as that style guideline suggests this is really something to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Let's go through the assertions of the first sentence:
    • "non-profit" and "non-partisan": This has to be true because the organization is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. This is cited in the very first source, in the infobox at page right. Both of these assertions are factually and legally accurate, and are supported by documents in the public record.
    • "research and educational": Covered in the section on Reaction to radical feminism.
    • "domestic and foreign policy": All policy that isn't domestic is foreign, right? This seems to be true even on a purely philosophical level. More on point, of course, is the fact that the article cites numerous sources discussing both domestic and foreign IWF programs, so this is supported by reliable sources.
    • "of concern to women": Source is cited in the second sentence of the second paragraph in the lead for this assertion.
  • NPOV:
    • I'll see if I can find more on the Title IX, which I agree could be expanded if we could find relevant sources. The problem I have encountered is that most sources I am finding criticize the elimination of Title IX, which IWF doesn't advocate (see sources in that subsection). I haven't been able to find any direct criticism of IWF's Title IX position.
    • The school choice subsection does include discussion of NOW's alternative view on the topic, which I included to allow readers to investigate further the positions of prominent organizations discussing the topic, and to provide context that better explains IWF's tactics--in this case, criticizing a notable feminist organization's publicly voiced policy position.
    • I expanded the FMF criticism to include a characterization of the IWF as "right-wing." This, in combination with the material in the "origin and history" section should be adequate to give the reader some idea of how critics place the IWF on the political spectrum: [3]
    • The fact that so many notable criticisms are cited speaks for itself. To further label the organization controversial based on that fact would be a violation of WP:SYN.

Thanks for all the good editorial suggestions. I think the article is better for your having made them. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gender/Equity feminism

I really prefer this version:

The group promotes an equity feminist view—called antifeminist by critics[1]—that is contrary to what IWF National Advisory Board Chairman Christina Hoff Sommers[2] describes as the more prevalent gender feminism.[3] She defines equity feminism as an ideology that aims for full civil and legal equality and distinguish it from gender feminism, which she describes as the idea of much of modern academic feminist theory and the feminist movement which aims at the total abolition of gender roles and structure of the society which they claim is still dominated by patriarchal structures.[4]

...to this one:

The group advocates what is described, in the terminology of the IWF National Advisory Board Chairman Christina Hoff Sommers,[2] as 'equity feminism' as distinct from 'gender feminism'.[5] Equity feminism is held to "[demand] for women what it demands for everyone -- fairness and equal opportunity"[5] in contrast with gender feminism, as espoused by some other women's organisations, which focuses on perceived issues around gender roles and patriarchy, [6] "[thriving] on the myth that American women are the oppressed 'second sex'."[7] This view has been described as anti-feminist by critics.[8]

The first one just seems easier to read, and it isn't clear to me that the second one is as appropriate for the lead as is the first one. The articles on equity feminism and gender feminism adequately cover these topics, if the reader wishes to further investigate those ideological distinctions. The quotations seem to me to obfuscate rather than explicate the ideas here. Those quotes would be good for the equity feminism article, though. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that 'equity feminism' to be one of the ideological pillars of the IWF. If this is the case then the lead has to outline this clearly, albeit briefly. The intention of the rewrite was to address this. My specific concerns with the first formulation are as follows:
  • It isn't clear what the difference is between equity/gender feminism.
  • The lead should be clear that the idea of 'equity feminism' is one conceived and developed by Sommers, not just that she is outlining it on behalf of IWF.
  • The Ruth Connif article cited never mentions either of these terms specifically.
  • The phrase "which she describes as the idea of much of modern academic feminist theory and the feminist movement" is very wooly and the weakest part of the whole lead. I don't know because I haven't read the source (it's in print not online) but that whole sentence sounds like paraphrasing, which is difficult with such hefty concepts. These all have separate articles of their own, as you've noted! This is why I shifted towards the direct quotations but maybe we can find another way around this?
I know what I rephrased wasn't perfect, but felt it went some way to addressing the concerns above. Perhaps we could agree on a wording which doesn't use those quotations? TreveXtalk 00:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, how about this:
The group advocates "equity feminism," a term first used[5] by IWF National Advisory Board Chairman Christina Hoff Sommers[2] to describe an ideology that aims for full civil and legal equality for women. She used the term to distinguish this view from gender feminism, which aims at the total abolition of gender roles and features of society perceived as patriarchal.[9] According to Sommers, the gender feminist view "thrives on the myth that American women are the oppressed 'second sex'."[10] Sommers' equity feminism has been described as anti-feminist by critics.[11]
I think that hits all the points we want. I don't think we should say that Sommers invented equity feminism, because the IWF folks claim that theirs is the more direct descendant of early 20th C. feminism. Saying that Sommers devised the ideology would be a violation of NPOV, since this is part of the basic controversy. I think it is best to simply note that Sommers first used the term "equity feminist." How does this wording look to you? DickClarkMises (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I dropped the above version into the article pending further revision. DickClarkMises (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Provided Sommers says "total abolition" I'm happy with this. What's the exact quote? TreveXtalk 17:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The person who wrote that verbiage (originally at the equity feminism article) was not directly quoting, but here is what I believe he or she was citing from page 22 of the Sommers book:
Heilbrun, Steinem, and other current feminist notables ride this First Wave [of equity feminism] for its popularity and its moral authority, but most of them adhere to a new, more radical, "Second Wave" doctrine: that women, even modern American women, are in thrall to "a system of male dominance" variously referred to as "heteropatriarchy" or the sex/gender system. According to one feminist theorist, the sex/gender system is "that complex process whereby bi-sexual infants are transformed into male and female gender personalities, the one destined for command, the other to obey." Sex/gender feminism ("gender feminism" for short) is the prevailing ideology among contemporary feminist philosophers and leaders. But it lacks a grass roots constituency.
(From p. 23) ...Kate Millet's Sexual Politics was critical in moving feminism in this direction. It taught women that politics was essentially sexual and that even so-called democracies were male hegemonies: "However muted its present appearance may be, sexual dominion obtains nevertheless as perhaps the most pervasive ideology of our culture and provides its most fundamental concept of power."
The New Feminists began to direct their energies toward getting women to join in the common striggle against patriarchy, to view society through the sex/gender prism. When a women's feminist consciousness is thus "raised," she learns to identify her personal self with her gender. She sees relations to men in political terms ("the personal is the political"). This "insight" into the nature of male/female relations makes the gender feminist impatient with piecemeal liberal reformist solutions and leads her to strive for a more radical transformation of our society than earlier feminists had envisioned.
[From p. 24] ...We hear very little today about how women can join with men on equal terms to contribute to a universal human culture. Instead, feminist ideology has taken a divisive, gynocentric turn, and the emphasis now is on women as a political class whose interests are at odds with the interests of men. Women must be loyal to women, united in their principled hostility to the males who seek to hold fast to their patriarchal privileges and powers.
I would be fine with cutting the word "total" if it makes you uncomfortable, but it seems accurate to me with regards to what Sommers was arguing in the above passage. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The phrase that sticks out for me is "prevailing ideology among contemporary feminist philosophers and leaders". How about:
"[...] gender feminism, which she describes as "the prevailing ideology among contemporary feminist philosophers and leaders", offering a strident opposition to traditional gender roles and patriarchal societal structures."
Once we've got this sorted I reckon we're nearly done! :-D TreveXtalk 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here is the diff on my latest try at a consensus version: [4]. What do you say? DickClarkMises (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 29, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.TreveXtalk 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)