This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Feminism Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Libertarianism Low‑importance Individualist feminism is within the scope of WikiProject Libertarianism, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Libertarianism and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested • Become a Member • Project Talk LibertarianismWikipedia:WikiProject LibertarianismTemplate:WikiProject LibertarianismLibertarianism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Material from ifeminists.net is used with permission of the author and a link to ifeminists.net has been restored. I've reverted to a previous version due to vandalism.

Permission is not enough, you need to have permission to relicense the content under the GNU FDL which means it may be altered and used in ways the original author won't like or intend. If you cannot get such a relicensing permission, the text can not be copied here. Nixdorf 16:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Whoever removes things from this page, stop it. Do not distort facts, you only get us angry. Please read the Wikipedia NPOV policy, because you most definately have problems following it. For example:

• Do not try to disassociate the shortform "ifeminism" with libertarian groups, because such a connection exists and is interesting for the reader
• Do not try to disassociate left-wing views from individualist feminism, because there are many left-wing individualist feminists
• Do not try to remove references to other strands of feminism which are indeed an interesting comparison

Trying to make a subject impossible to juxtapose to other subjects is propaganda, not encyclopedic.

Nixdorf 06:04, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

How is this distinct from anarcha-feminism?

Individualist feminists do not necessarily confess to anarchism whereas anarcha-feminists by definition does. Inidvidualist put themselves (and other selves) ahead of any ideologies, or -isms. Nixdorf 16:03, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I just made some changes to avoid confusion with anarcha-feminism. While there is certainly a relationship between individualist feminism and anarcho-capitalism, it is very misleading to bring in the term "anarcha-feminist" here, because this term is MUCH more strongly associated with radical feminism then with individualist. Relatively few individualist feminists actually identify with anarnchism, but I removed the statement "Individualist feminism advocates the equal treatment of men and women as individuals under just law," because that would mean NO individualist feminist is an anarchist (anarchy almost literally means "absence of law").--Brian Z 14:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the use of the term "anarcha-feminism" on this page. Let's see some sources and cites before we start making comparisons between them. The way anarcha-feminism is treated on this article is very biased, and unsupported by sources. Making weasle-statements such as "there are many anarcha-feminists who are also ifeminists" or somesuch, is simply unacceptable! AnAn 02:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Z, it is incorrect to believe that anarchists inherently oppose law. What all anarchists oppose is statutory law. There's a long tradition in anarchism (Spooner, Rothbard, et cetera) in advocating natural law.

Therefore, I disagree with the presumption that the statement "Individualist feminism advocates the equal treatment of men and women as individuals under just law" would preclude anarchists.

Allixpeeke (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

contributions of 200.69.166.68

User:200.69.166.68 keeps putting "In the rest of the world individualist feminists are anti-capitalists and part of anarcha-feminism" onto the bottom of this article. Not only is this unsourced, but it appears contrary to the assertions in the rest of this article. I've left 2 notes on their talk page, without success. AnAn 03:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for and received (in Spanish) a website about "women creating". I've heard of them, but am not sure about their exact politics. Anyone speak Spanish? [1] and [2]. If these check out, I was thinking of inserting something like. "Outside the US, there are several individualist feminist groups which are also anti-capitalist", and providing these websites as support. AnAn 03:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of anarchists women in México, Spain, Chile and Bolivia (that are the feminist that i known) are radical individualists. They continue the way of thinking of Ezra Heywood and Voltairine de Cleyre (free love, etc)and the radicalism of Emma Goldman or the Mujeres Libres group (Spain). They are filosofical individualists and gender activists. You can see that a lot in anarcha-feminists groups.

For us who live out of U.S is very extrange that individualists feminists in U.S are not anarchists or anti-capitalists!

In Europe and Latin america (and i believe the rest of the world) a radical individualist is an anarchist an obviously an anti-capitalists. The same for individualists women.

For us, an individualist anarchist don´t support any domination (bosses included), and capitalism is the rule of the bosses. So an individualist is anti-capitalist.

--200.69.166.68 02:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--200.69.166.68 02:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We know a little about Wendy McElroy but we see her like a liberal (that thing that in U.S is Known as Libertarian). And Libertarians is what in Latinamerica we know as Neoliberalism. All anarchists are oppose to Neoliberalism, so we oppose to Wendy McElroy.

What you name as Individualist feminism we name it Liberal feminist and we don´t related it individualists anarchists, so we don´t related it with Ezra Heywood or Voltairine De Cleyre. Individualists anarchists are anti-capitalists, liberals are capitalists. See : Feminismo liberal (Liberal feminism) or Libertarian (capitalists sense) feminism.

I suggest you to change the name or the article to Liberal or Libertarian feminism (or ifeminism) and use Individualist feminist for the anticapitalist individualist feminists of the rest of the world. (That is most bigger and with more people than U.S.)--200.69.166.68 02:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--200.69.166.68 02:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have a copyright (pardon the expression) on the title "individualist feminism." You do not seem to know the history of individualist feminism in the US or you would not try to usurp the title for yourself. The US has a long history of individualist feminism just as it has a long history of philosophical individualism. See Joan Kennedy Taylor's book Reclaiming the Mainstream: Individualist Feminism Rediscovered. You apparently know little about the philosophy of individualism if you do not understand why it is compatible with free enterprise (what you call "capitalism"). You have no right to ask that North American individualist feminists like Wendy McElroy and myself not use this term just because you don't like our views. We would not do this to you. Speaking for myself, I do not think such intolerance serves feminism very well.

SPresley 08:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Sharon Presley[reply]

is what this article should be called. Libertarians are pro-capitalism, not anarchists.

A response to the above anonymous comment:

You are wrong, whoever you are. I have been an anarchist for almost 40 years and I am also a libertarian. Just because you don't like our brand of anarchism doesn't mean you get to redefine the terms. Opposition to the coercive rule of a monopoly state is what defines anarchism, not the economic system. You may believe that free enterprise is coercive but we do not agree. Please note that NO libertarian or individualist anarchist advocates the kind of state corporate capitalism that we have today. THAT is NOT free enterprise.

Perhaps you should try reading the great anarchist feminist Voltairine de Cleyre, who said: "There is nothing un-Anarchistic about [Individualism, Communism, Socialism, or Mutualism] until the element of compulsion enters and obliges unwilling people to remain in a community whose economic arrangements they do not agree to."

If you tried to force me to be in the economic system you like or prevented me from peacefully living in the system I prefer, than you would not be an anarchist.

Voltairine also said: "Anarchism means freedom to the soul as well as the body--in every aspiration, every growth...Each choose that method which expresses your selfhood best, and condemn no man because he expresses his Self otherwise."

I choose free enterprise and private property but I would never force that choice on anyone else. I would hope you would extend me the same courtesy.

Sharon Presley [not afraid to be nonanonymous]—Preceding unsigned comment added by SPresley (talk • contribs) 08:55, 29 July 2006

Anarchism is also against class oppression, anarchism cannot be capitalist. Similarily Individualist Feminism is also against class oppression, therefore people like Wendy McElroy can't be individualist feminist. --Voidkom (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

responses to all:

Some of the above are not about improving the article (and thus don't belong on an article's talk page) and some may be more relevant to other articles. If any are meant to be future additions, sources will be needed. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Please no WP:Soapbox. One of many articles I'd like to clean up, once there was something done about the libertarian feminist vs. individualist conundrum, i.e., that there is some overlap and some differences. I think libertarian feminist should be the main article with individualist underneath, and probably others think the opposite. Though no one replied when I brought it up above. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism that opposes class oppression should not be linked with feminism that rejects the existence of class oppression. This is not a minor issue, you wouldn't do the same if the disagreement were race oppression. --Voidkom (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's content for articles, not for talk pages, and content for articles needs sourcing. If it's not in an article now and you have a source, please add it to an article. For example, there may be (and probably is) a source contrasting feminisms by their views on class oppression. In general, if you have a question or disagreement about how to edit an article, the article's talk page is a good place for that, but it appears that you're at a stage of finding sourcing and drafting for or editing an article, if it isn't covered now. Nick Levinson (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• First, I thought the cite in main article said needs more references, not that there are not any
• But it does needs a lot more research and references soon or about 80% of the article should be deleted soon as mere personal opinions.
• a lot of clumbsy writing
• not clear what the differences are between ALF and other individual feminists mentioned
• anarcha feminism article also pretty bad and not clear if it is relevant here at all, despite some abstruse reference that doesn't sound very definitive; more research needed
• abortion section pretty bad

So many crappy libertarian articles, so little time to clean them up!! Carol Moore 05:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Yes it does. I'll try to come back and work on it soon because it is really incomplete. There are many brands of individualist feminism besides that of McElroy. I tried to add a bit more tonight. Added mention of several organizations and used JK Taylor's history of individualism feminism as a citation. I will add more from that book soon.

Emmaspooner (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember to only add material with sources. Esp. regarding the women's freedom network. If you can't source that someone has called them libertarian - or not really libertarian - it shouldn't be in there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to include the anarchism template here? I would personally argue that it's not, that libertarian feminism is not inherently anarchistic, nor inherently statist; that it, like libertarianism in general, bridges the gap between minarchism and anarchism. In the same way the anarchism template wouldn't be included on the libertarianism page, neither too would I argue it should be included here.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak
Allixpeeke (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nice meeting you here also! As you can see above, this has been debated. If there was a Limited Government category then both could be inserted making it balanced. Someone probably should start that category. I think the bigger problem is lack of references for various claims. I especially don't know/can't remember what differences there might between ALF and other contemporary individuals feminists so unless someone references that soon I'm going to just put them all together. See my post directly above.

Carol Moore 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Not really sure whether the template is appropriate or not. But I do know that Wendy McElroy calls herself an "individualist anarchist" so confusion about the difference between individualist anarchism, individualist feminism and Anarcha-feminism might be the reason for its addition here. I think Carol's point about limited govt. as a category is a good idea--Cailil ^talk 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: this edit and the several reverts/restorations before it. Edit warring is bad juju! Mikkalai's point is sound: the problem with the text is that the part in parentheses is not supported by the reference attached to it (which simply discusses anarcho-feminism is; here's a direct link to the ref on Google books if anyone wants to read it). If you want to make a claim about the relative popularity of I-F vs. A-F in different places then that needs to be supported. The link given does not do that. -- Hux (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the assertions as to popularity seemed unsupported and I've tried a less sweeping wording. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikkalai I'm ok with your edit here, which is not revert warring, but helpful clarification (never mind your combative edit summary, which is not that big of a deal to me). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I think mention of the ifeminists website would be a good idea here there needs to be third party reliable sources used to create a piece for it. The material added by User:Prof Carol Williams‎ while informative is not sourced to any third party reliable sources and contains what we call "original research in its last line (the bit about the "futuristic" sound of the term). Before re-adding this please rewrite it in accordance with Wikipeida's sourcing and attribution requirements. Thanks--Cailil ^talk 13:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little choosy given the poor state of the article, but can't really argue with this on principle. Skomorokh 13:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point Skomorokh this is a very poorly sourced and written article - I'm going to recommend stubbifying it into something like this - some OR has also been removed and some rephrasing done also--Cailil ^talk 14:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully that will motivate someone to expand article with sources. I have lots of good info in my files where groups talk about themselves, which is allowable within reason, and WP:RS info about some individuals, but no time to do it. Also, if IFeminists actually has a history page that could be used for info about how it came to be. And I probably would be motivated to find and add some WP:RS material pointing out that Ifeminists has become more about blaming feminists for male problems than protecting women against the state or violent and fraudulent males. Carol Moore 23:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I put in WP:POV because a lot of (unsourced) but somewhat accurate material about the history of individualist feminism was removed and this has become all about more recent McElroy/Sommers developments, ones not necessarily embraced by all libertarian or individualist feminists. I hate to take time to do this, but obviously I'll have to work to include the much longer history of individualist feminism before McElroy/Sommers started obsessing about how much modern feminism oppresses men. Meanwhile please leave in the tag. Carol Moore 18:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

PS. If you want to do some research to beef up the article, go back to an earlier version for some important omitted material that might need more sourcing. Also see the Libertarianism to women page. Carol Moore 19:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I agree with you 100% Carol, and for the record although I deleted the other unsourced material I am not the world's biggest fan of the McElroy position, and I agree that it does not adequately represent the spectrum of libertarian feminism. The 'Principle' section from the earlier although unsourced version may have some good points if it can be rewritten with sources it would help the article a lot--Cailil ^talk 21:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. It's just a matter of priorities in a busy wiki world! Meanwhile we can leave the tag unless some person comes by and get misguided by article. :-) Carol Moore 13:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I've started putting together good sources to make this article more accurate, so that it doesn't just reflect the objectives and right wing conservative views of a couple feminists or make all libertarian and even all individualist feminists seem to support those ideas. One problem is that Wendy McElroy did some good research in her earlier days (though I'll have to read some of it to see if it was more biased than I realized when first read 25 years ago) but the last ten years she has tended to focus on attacking the statist feminist movement. Many libertarian and individualist feminists might disagree with the statist means but support the actual goals of statist feminists. They can, for example, support affirmative action and even quotas in government and voluntary ones in the rest of society; they can support restructuring the political system the way women might prefer it - ie with emphasis on local government and minimal or no militaries (which are just big patriarchal prove your manhood games. Don't get me started)... Carol Moore 12:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

• I know a lot of libertarians, esp. men and McElroy, have been labeling Hoffman some sort of libertarian, but that doesn't mean she herself is one or that other more neutral, less advocacy sources consider her to be one. So one must be accurate from WP:RS per WP:BLP. (Which Advocates for Self-Govt is NOT for that purpose per wp:blp.)
• Also, what are the page numbers of those two book references where Hoffman allegedly "defines individualist feminism"? Does she use words individualist or libertarian? Please quote the sentences where she does.
• It is fair to say that some libertarians and individualist/lib feminists support her views on "equity feminism" and "gender feminism" but those views are not the same as individualist/lib feminism or agreed with in whole or in part by all such feminists. So let's be accurate in this version, even as a more accurate version is percolating in my word processor. Carol Moore 13:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

PS: when I looked further at the actual sources they included a dead link which, even if found, may not be specifically on this topic and therefore would be WP:OR or WP:Synthesis just like the paragraph I removed for that reason. There are more relevant articles to flog Sommers if you want to do so. Carol Moore 13:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

If you were to say that individualist feminist Wendy McElroy agrees with Sommers (who is not individualist or libertarian feminist that is so far proven) about gender feminism then you can make specific critiques (short so not WP:UNDUE) of all three. But this sentence you use as a reference: "Sommers's book is a work of neither dispassionate social science nor reflective scholarship; it is a conservative polemic. Sommers focuses... on the feminists and cultural liberals against whom she has a long-standing animus... This intemperate book is a hindrance to such conversation." doesn't support this statement you make "Scholars and critics have commented that the label "feminist" is often used cynically in this context, as a way to co-opt general feminism rather than actually be part of feminism.[4][5]" And you don't even tell us which of the six 8 minute audio tapes or the couple of transcripts (which one must pay for) support it. So it's both WP:synthesis and not easily verifiable sourcing, when you could make it easier. I'm just talking wiki policy here, not necessarily disagreeing with your overall thrust. Carol Moore 13:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Edited page to note that De Cleyrne eventually endorsed leftist economics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.49.34 (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, a book index is not a source. That occurs regarding Sommers in the following sentence in the article: "Wendy McElroy and Christina Hoff Sommers define individualist feminism in opposition to what they call political or gender feminism.[9][10]" I discovered this when searching in amazon.com (the search-inside-book feature). However, it is possible that different versions of the book (hardcover, paperback, etc.) have different paginations, so perhaps p. 320 is appropriate. If someone has it, please check and edit as needed. If the citation is already correct, please add the book's version (hardcover, paperback, etc.) to the citation, to prevent a similar doubt in the future. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Individualist feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090828170220/http://www.alf.org:80/aboutalf/founding.shtml to http://alf.org/aboutalf/founding.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081226003724/http://www.alf.org:80/papers/gwe1.shtml to http://alf.org/papers/gwe1.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081225235956/http://www.alf.org:80/papers/abortion.shtml to http://alf.org/papers/abortion.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Individualist feminism, sometimes also grouped with libertarian feminism

This opening sentence is pretty confusing. Are these the same things or different things? Shouldn't a clear synonym ALWAYS be grouped with its cognate term?

If it is not the same thing and we are going to discuss it in the same article as a group then the title should reflect that, as individualist and libertarian feminism or something like that.

That's a bit of a mouthful though. Why don't we just have a page explaining what libertarian feminism is on its own? If there are links between the two then that can be explained on each page.

Is every individualist a libertarian? Is every libertarian an individualist? If individualism and libertarianism are separate, why is this merged? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Separating articles for individualist feminism and libertarian feminism is a good idea provided that there is enough sourcing for each to establish the notability of each subject and sources support distinct content for each article. Then they can be cross-linked and the opening sentence edited. Or, if there's not enough for separation, and the sources suggest about equal weight for both, then a move as you conditionally propose is good, but if the sources generally treat them as the same and place one term as the more common, then the article should be titled for the more common term and the body and perhaps the lead should mention the other term. Whether these subjects should be separate is a different question than whether individualism and libertarianism should be separate, since the sources for the feminist subjects will be different than the sources for the not-specifically-feminist subjects. Go according to sources and see what comes up. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Individualist feminism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050902192743/http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/heywood.html to http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/heywood.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120730235724/http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/femme.html to http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/femme.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060804001950/http://alf.org/ to http://alf.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeminism is a libertarian concept, why tarry it with the word conservative? Rjedgar (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current short description Movements for gender equality that emphasizes freedom of choice and autonomy of each person is excessively long. The description has to be just a few words preferably. ToniTurunen (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to be bold and fix it! Wracking ^💬 02:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I deleted the "History in the United States" section of this article. It was not about individualist feminism, but feminism in general. When it did allude to individualist feminism or libertarianism, the citations were not sufficient. If this content is restored, I think it belongs over at Feminism in the United States. See the diff of my edit here. Wracking ^💬 04:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have deleted the section about Camille Paglia; she is on the list of notable people. Some of the material may be salvageable for Camille Paglia, but it is unencyclopedic in tone and would therefore require a copy edit. See diff.
• I have deleted the section about Rene Denfeld and added her to the list of notable people. This material could be moved to Rene Denfeld and has fewer tone issues than the above section did. See diff.
• I have deleted the section about Wendy McElroy and added additional information about her in the list of notable people (which I will likely reformat soon). Some material could be moved to Wendy McElroy, though it needs a copy edit and to use secondary sources. See diff.
• I have deleted the section about Joan Kennedy Taylor; she is on the list of notable people. Most of the content appears to be already covered at Joan Kennedy Taylor, and this section was completely uncited. See diff.

Overall, if these people are truly especially notable in individualist feminism, they should naturally show up in the History section. Wracking ^💬 05:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]