Feminism Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This seems very WTF-y. Now I'm not saying she wasn't important, but we don't lead ((Electromagnetism)) with Maxwell, nor ((New Thought)) with Pembley. If the goal is to start with an image, I feel the cover of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, i.e. File:Vindication1b.jpg would be more apt/representative of the topic. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, her image itself is fairly irrelevant to the subject of feminist philosophy, even if her works were very important. A smaller image would suit the sidebar as well, as it is overlarge at the moment anyway. I removed the image for now, but am not adverse to a different, more appropriate and relevant image being added instead. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 08:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has a list of many women's studies-related journals. Some of them likely ought to be include in here, but I don't know where I'd draw the line between feminist theory journals vs feminist philosophy journals, or if the distinction even matters. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template needs to be remade with collapsible sections, like the Feminism template. At the moment it is way too large, especially given that it is likely to be used in addition to the feminism template on many articles. I tried to do it myself using the feminism template as a guide, but couldn't get it working properly in preview and gave up. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Made some major changes to the lists. They skewed heavily toward the early years of feminist thought, and especially the popular texts of the 60s-70s, which is pretty idiosyncratic for the contemporary field of philosophy. While all those people and works can be argued to be feminist philosophy (especially because feminist philosophy is grounded on slackening the boundary policing of the field), it is unhelpful and actually counterproductive for an encyclopedia to list people like Clara Fraser or Gloria Steinem who are not generally read by feminist philosophers, despite their importance as feminist thinkers. I've also deleted Firestone, while leaving The Dialectic of Sex...it was an important book, but she is not a major theorist of the field. I've added others, like MacKinnon, who are very often discussed in the field, as well as several of the biggest philosophers in both analytic and continental traditions--Haslanger, Kristeva, Irigaray, Pateman, Baier, Young. --Jazzcowboy (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]