Talk:Radical feminism

Possible disambig?

Many conservatives claim all feminism is "radical feminism". Should we perhaps add a hatnote to clarify/mention this to avoid confusion? OmegaAOLtalk? 12:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this edit appropriate?

This is a little late, but now that I think about it: this edit has been reverted per WP:ONUS, and the reverter suggested this be brought to the talk page first. What do you all think of it, should it be added? (You could check the edit history for more information). Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Personally I agree with the revert. I think the connection between the two pages/concepts is thin and only relies on one source that's specific to one online community in one country. I also think the female superiority page isn't really fleshed out sufficiently and not disambiguated from other concepts like matriarchy, gynocentrism, etc. That's perhaps for a different discussion, but in general I would want to see the idea of "female superiority" supported by more robust sources, especially those actually rooted in (or engaged with) feminist theory, ethics, and methodologies. The source you cited for the radical feminism article is in a communications journal which was doing a computational rhetorical analysis of one online community. I don't think that's sufficient to justify the edit, especially because there are also NPOV concerns. Additionally, most of sources in the female superiority article are older, from other disciplines, or op ed columns and news sources. It honestly feels like a cherry-picked list generated from a keyword search, and I'm not confident that it sufficiently makes the case that "female superiority" is a concept that even warrants a separate article. Hawksquill (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I would want to see the idea of "female superiority" supported by more robust sources, especially those actually rooted in (or engaged with) feminist theory, ethics, and methodologies. Want to help out? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm by no means an expert but I haven't come across any sources that use the "female superiority" term in my own work on feminism-related articles. Hawksquill (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Neither are you likely to find sources that mention "black supremacy" when researching about opposition to white supremacy... that doesn't mean that the term doesn't exist or isn't used at all. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't see what other articles have to do with your responsibility for WP:ONUS for an edit to this article. But at a quick glance I see 2-3 sources in the first few paragraphs of the black supremacy article that explicitly document and contextualize the term and its use. Hawksquill (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• I think it's undue. The framing it takes is unusual; the most highly cited source I can find on Womad describes it very differently, with much more focus on the idea that its communications are largely trolling; most of the other sources I can find likewise describe it as a trolling group. Either way, I don't think it's appropriate to take a single source, devoted to a single group, and use that to state that In some areas [...] radical feminism has been used as an encouragement to champion female superiority over male inferiority. If it's significant, there should be sources discussing the concept of female superiority in radical feminism itself, which we could use rather than just one example. For that matter, your proposed addition says "some areas" but then relies on a single example as interpreted through a single source. --Aquillion (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  What if instead of saying "some areas" it was attributed? Or is that still undue? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

References

What makes "radical feminism" radical and who call it that?

Is it radical in the same way the New York Time is a radical left newspaper? Only the most delicate snowflake could possibly call anything in this article radical.

Feminism, to begin with, was a white middle-class movement. They wanted no change. They just wanted to participate. Non-radical per definition.

For something to be radical, there has to be change. Just putting "radical" in front of a word doesn't make it radical. Sure, there's the idiotic "radical center." But that's a complete disregard for words and meaning. It's not serious. I originally took the expression as a joke. Sarcasm, to be specific. "Radical centrist. Get it?" A contradictio in adjecto. An oxymoron. Or simply words used wrong. Je ne sais quoi. I don't know what I'm talking about.

Or is radical used here to signify scary, spooky or dangerous? You know, a dog whistle. But then, what is it about it that makes it those things?

I'm not defending anything in this article. It's just gobbledygook to me. That's the point. I see nothing radical here. There's nothing about it that scares me or triggers me or do anything. It's about the blandest things I have ever read. As far as gobbledygook can be bland.

I'm here because I have run into the expression "radical feminism" online on a few occasions. I always assumed the people using the word were they same people who call mainstream media radical.

"Radical" is a clearly defined word, in spite of drivel like "radical center." It's also redundant. You don't say radical socialism, because socialism is understood as radical. The people on the populist left are collectively referred to as radicals, though. I have no idea what the people on the woke left are collectively called, aside from woke.

This article doesn't feel serious. The name that is. Wouldn't it be better to name it according to characteristics? E.g., feminist separatism/segregation. Then people can think of it as radical if they want. While the rest of us don't. ~2026-24597-33 (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

"Feminism, to begin with, was a white middle-class movement" is incorrect. Please check out History of feminism. The adjective "radical" was chosen by the members of that branch of the 2nd wave movement. The liberal feminist branch is the one criticized as being for white middle-class women. Radical (meaning "root") in this case refers to their view that to eliminate sexism, social change must be revolutionary and take place at the root of its cause (patriarchy). Liberal feminists, by contrast, focused on creating equal opportunity within the preexisting patriarchal structure. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)