text:
Talk:Feminism/Archive 1

Moved the Feminist_Spirituality info intact to its own page 27 September 2001. Seemed more appropriate for it to have its own page.

-

Camile Pagilia defines herself as a Feminist (who disagrees with other Feminists about philosophy and tactics). See quote from Vamps and Tramps page 246-247 -- "I'm a feminist" -- at http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/camille.htm

 * I have never thought of her as a feminist, regardless of what she chooses to call herself, but if we are going to put her on the list, then the name of the list ought to be changed from "prominent feminists" to "prominent people who consider themselves feminists".

I'm not sure wheter I should laugh or cry about this.

Ed Poor is trying to compromise, but his compromise attempt is removed without comment. Of course the vandal is laughable, but heck, how long is this war gonna last?

 * It's over, as far as I'm concerned. I put the alternate text it talk:Feminism Debate, and if that gets deleted, I'll find a better spot. If this strategy fails, I'll give up. (By the way I did get comments from Paul and LDC.) --User:Ed Poor

Here's a quote (paraphrasing from memory) cited in an old Doonesbury strip:

 * When women start acting like people, they get accused of acting like men. --Simone de Beauvoir

The article's first paragraph reminded me of that quote. User:Ed Poor

I've added a link at the top, inviting discussion here, hoping that will head off vandalism. That link keeps disappearing. If someone on the staff is doing this, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll just keep putting it back.

Many people (most of the economists I'd presume) think that it was always "equal wages for equal work" because free market wouldn't allow it to be otherwise and all differences that feminists show are due to diferences in effictiveness of work between men and women. --User:Taw

 * I'd like to see more about this. Would you write it, please? User:Ed Poor

 * Details: Nobody in his right mind would pay more just because his employee is male. Even if majority would do so, say due to ideological reasons, those who wouldn't have major economical advantage, and mens' salaries would go down up to the point when they were equal to womens'. Of course this is assuming that woman and man are equally efficient workers. The fact is, they're not. The most obvious reasons are that women got pregnant, often take leave because of children and are less eager to take extra hours. (There are some more, but they are more controversive and aren't documented that well). Women are, on average and by purely economical criteria, worse workers. So they obviously earn less and this is RIGHT. --User:Taw

 * This is another topic on which there are probably quite a few books, which probably give a MUCH better education on the subject than a wikipedia talk page. GregLindahl

Yer both wrong (smacks heads together). Taw, you are disregarded the (possibly hypothetical case) where men demand more wages, because they support families, while women just want a little extra money; also, if we'll need to document the claim that women are worse workers. Greg, once again you are mistaking my questions as a sign of ignorance; if I misconstrue your sarcasm, perhaps you misconstrue my rhetorical questions. User:Ed Poor

 * Ed, I wasn't even really talking to you. However, if you wish to claim that your question was rhetorical and that you have read numerous books about this well researched topic, you aren't being convincing yet. GregLindahl

Your argument makes no economical no sense. Employer doesn't at all care what does his employee need money for. It will hire whoever is cheaper at the same effectiveness. Best available documentation is that they earn less on free market - so they have to be worse, because if they weren't they would earn the same amount of money. And don't shout at me now because of this prove, as that's the standard way how things are proved in economics and evolutionary biology. --User:Taw

 * Taw, I think you have mistaken our economy for a free market. It isn't in all aspects. GregLindahl

 * It's not in 100% (as if there ever were such thing), but mainly a free market. The most important things to notice is that there is no legislation that could give men higher salaries, and that employers can choose who to hire almost freely (sacking employers on the other hand is way too much controlled). --User:Taw

 * Taw, while there may be no legislation that forces employers to pay men more, there are (according to feminism) traditional and cultural values that nudges some employers in that direction. According to some feminists, men will "pat each others backs" (so to speak). Also - even if we accept your "females are worse workers" theory, wouldn't the existence of that very theory also be a reason that females are often lower paid (IMO underpaid) than men? Employer thinks "oh, she's a female, she won't work as hard as a man would, I'll have to pay her less". (Females are also generally expected to do more household work than men - feminists argue that that's due to non-physical (i.e. social or cultural) reasons as well.) Finally - and this is the killer - feminists can often point to numbers showing that females generally get paid less for the very same amount of work done. Peace, Sunnanvind.

Well, I'm glad you're so sure you're right, but you should realize that many people disagree with you. Yes, there IS legislation that could have the effect of giving men higher salaries, lots of it. And sacking of executives is generally not controlled, and guess what? Few women are executives. Yes, there's a lot of disagreement about all of this, so if you really want to write a NPOV article, I'd suggest learning about the other side. GregLindahl

I'm glad that the article on Feminism is starting to look a bit more objective -- at least at the beginning. You should compare it with the tone of the article on Masculism, which is much more objective, because it was originally written for Nupedia, a refereed encyclopedia. Even so, it was rejected there (at least, no editor was found who would accept it), and the General Editor, Larry Sanger, said he was under pressure to be biased in favour of Feminism, because most of his contributors (academics) were "liberals" (i.e. totalitarian leftists). It would be extremely easy to write an article on Masculism that was as one-eyed as the one on Feminism started out being. Don't challenge me to write one, or I'll prove it to you.

Peter D. Zohrab

 * Thank you for participating in the /Talk discussion. As a collaborative project, this effort works a lot better if we try to discuss the issues involved and our reasons for writing what we write.  It also works better if we make a serious effort at editing the articles instead of just throwing in deliberately abusive language in order to make an ideological point.

The "masculinist" article isn't even remotely objective and needs serious rewriting. Let us hope that "feminist" article doesn't begin to resemble that one.

The phrase, "promotes women's desire for legal and social parity with men" just doesn't work as a definition, as it glosses over a point of no little contention. Slightly better is, "the overarching goal has always been the promotion of equality for women both legally and socially" from a later paragraph. But there are significant currents within feminism with goals beyond or outside this.

It seems feminism promotes "what women want" for lack of a better phrase. Perhaps a list of the issues addressed by feminists and their positions on them is in order. Who can do this best?. Dmerrill, I guess. User:Ed Poor

How about this?

 * Feminism is a social and political movement that promotes the right of women to enjoy legal and social parity with men, as well as other issues seen as pertaining especially to women.

User:Ed Poor

 * Ed, do you really think a feminist would agree? After all, there is that quote: "Women's rights are HUMAN rights!" No, you're just plugging your "special rights" mantra, which is disagreed with by the other side. I guess NPOV hasn't sunk in yet. GregLindahl

Luckily for me, I did not insert my proposed change. Imagine my embarassment, if I had to take it out after an error like this! User:Ed Poor

 * Wait, don't tell me, apparently a statement with no content whatsoever... wait, I think I can get this... yeah, must be SARCASM! Or just meaningless. No, I can't tell. I give up, which one? GregLindahl

I've changed it to "promotes a woman's right to legal..." It's clearer and more accurate. and removed Lesbianism because I can't for the life of me see why it got thrown there "just for now". All feminists are not lesbians. As a matter of fact Germaine Greer was known for making a point to get home from work in time to have dinner on the table for her husband...User:JHK

If there's something missing, add it to the article. Here some ideas, if you can support them:

 * Feminists want to make little boys so "nice" that it amounts to turning them into girls.
 * Feminists want more rights then men. Like the Palestinians, they'll never be satisfied until they have it all.
 * Feminism equals lesbianism and is dedicated to destroying the family.

I have no support whatsoever for these claims, although they "ring true" to me. Until and unless I get something to back these ideas up, I choose to regard them as "opinion" and will restrain myself from injecting them into this encyclopedia. (Pats self on back for modesty and self-discipline.)

You might have better luck with this, although I'm not sure it's relevant:

 * Feminists, by insisting on equality in all respects, fail to appreciate the differences between the sexes and how these differences can complement each other, especially in marriage.

User:Ed Poor

This is really sad. It might surprise you to know that there are tons of feminists ot there who don't think feminism has anything to do with being the same as men -- just with being equal under the law, in economic and social opportunity,etc. There are also feminists who think abortion is dead wrong -- but think that it is a matter of conscience and will defend other women's right to choose. Ed, I have to say that a lot of what you have been saying just rings plain hypocritical to me. You can't pat yourself on the back for being modest -- it's a contradiction in terms. ans you aren't being modest, just disingenuous. IMO, restraint would be not starting discussions (or articles) on subjects on which you hold opinions, but of which you have little understanding, just so you can ai hose opinions. David, I look forwwardd with interest to seeing your changes. User:JHK, happily married, very heterosexual, mother of one, Christian of the papist variety, and feminist.

My personal interpretation of "feminism" is "advocating superiority of women over men." This is my first thought whenever I see the word. I am not saying, of course, that that is what feminists really want; I am saying that the term is very misleading, and that the "reflexive" associations formed in people's minds affect their understanding of the term. I hope that made sense, I'm not thinking too clearly at the moment. --User:KamikazeArchon

 * Unfortunately, it makes lots of sense. And feminism is threatening to a lot of people because of it. Susan Faludi's  book, stiffed, deals with this, in a way -- or rather, with the betrayal of American men by society, which in turn makes feminism an easy target for those who have become to a certain extent disenfranchised (metaphorically).  User:JHK

I must say I'm extremely disappointed with the way this entry has been heading since about revision 25 or so. In the interests of supporting their views on the subject (under cover of NPOV), people are obscuring the facts of the matter. ("Mt. Everest is often considered to be the tallest mountain on Earth, although many people deny this.")

Perhaps this isn't the appropriate place to ask this, but how do other sections of the wikipedia deal with this sort of thing? In particular two questions: (1) how do you present an article which has two view points so totally opposed?

 * Good question. You make the article an in-depth discussion of the controversy itself.  Of course, since the topic is feminism, it is important to keep the discussion focused on feminism (its various possible tenets, its history, and its adherents, to name three main topics).  But any good writer with experience in writing about political and philosophical debates will have no trouble first presenting the feminist view(s) of things, followed by various leadings commentaries thereupon.  It's important, moreover, to keep the article focused on what feminists and their prominent and popular critics have actually said, rather than trying, ourselves, to construct de novo some sort of bogus version of feminism that never existed, or some new arguments against it that no one has ever advanced.  In that way, we can keep the article focused on a clear question: what have feminists said and done and accomplished, and what have others said and done and accomplished in response?--User:LMS

Removed a bunch of chat from the week. Removed some flame from what follows. David Byron

David, you are seriously confused. It is impossible by definition for quotes from one person to represent the beliefs and feelings of the majority of people. Even if you find quotes from the 20 most radical feminists and post them all, this still says absolutely nothing aboout what the majority of people feel. User:RK

 * I agree, but in what other way do you go about illustrating the thoughts of a group? Its better to let them speak for themselves. Better doesn't mean perfect. Radical feminism is a big part of feminism. I don't think the quote is at all unrepresentative of radical feminists. David Byron

You are totally wrong. I don't know why you have such a grudge against woman working hard to gain respect and equal rights, but your fear of radical feminism has caused you to construct an imaginary history in which men and women basically had equal rights. This is absolute nonsense. I want to make it clear that your additions to this article are not appreciated, they are distorted and out-of-context, and they may become destructive. I hope other Wikkipedians help work on this article. User:RK

 * I was unable to remove the flame from this without eliminating it altogether so it stands. Why don't you adress the article instead of me? The article never says anything about equal rights. I took out a claim about rights because (after brief discussion with you and others) it seemed unsupportable. If you feel this should be in there as a POV then go for it. David Byron

I agree with RK. There seems to be a deliberate attempt to sabotage this article and use it to promote an anti-feminist agenda. The question is, what can we do about this vandalism?

 * Well you could try being more positive for one thing.

I removed what I considered factually incorrect clichés from the article. Namely: the voting thing, the owning land thing, the lesser rights thing and the thing about women being seen as lesser than men. These seemed to be not so much about feminism as a justification for feminism. I would have rephrased them in terms of eg "early feminism became identified with the campaign for women's suffrage" but after adding the subsections I wasn't really sure where they ought to go. If these were supposed to be a POV not facts then by all means add them back.... I hope my actions are not interpreted as abusive. I am trying to be brave.

 * No, you are trying to be self-righteous. There's a difference.

 * Be_bold_in_updating_pages.

I seem to have screwed up the link to the page on the US constitution and US SC. I don't know if the larger quotes are appropriate. I don't know what/where to attribute the quotes. Is there any standard? I have the impression some people won't like the comments I added on "attitude towards men and women". There are probably other mistakes. Actually I have the impression I just screwed up the page, (I would enlarge but I expect someone will save me the bother), but at the same time I think there was some good stuff in there. I don't know if anyone else here knows much about 19th century American feminists...? I do feel that the most popular metaphor for male/female interactions developed from Woolstonecraft's sympathy to 19th century "master and slave" to 2nd wave "rapist and victim". I don't feel that characterises all feminists in those periods of course...

Incidentally someone seemed to object to the remark that Mary Daly advocated genocide. I actually think this is more accurate than to say she is hostile to men. She doesn't care about men. Its not personal to her. She just happens to think the planet would be better off if men were all dead. Men are toxic like nuclear weapons or car exhaust... See what you think of her comments in this interview for example: http://wie.org/j16/daly2.asp

 * And its fair to mention such hate-filled extremists such as her. Just don't pretend that such hate-filled extremists represent mainstream feminism. There are many wackos like her teaching on college campuses, and that's a shame. But there are millions of people who refer to themselves as feminists who don't bear the slightest resemblence to her. User:RK

 * Well someone buys her books. I used the word "extremist" to describe her. And immidiately you say that I am portraying her as mainstream. Huh?

Mary Daly is definitely a feminist and she's definitely extreme, but she represents a significant minority of feminists. I think the worst of feminism ought to be included if the best (Sommers etc) are. re. Sommers, her own term is "Equity Feminist" but LaFramboise says "Dissident Feminist" which I much prefer. Dissident implies an excluded minority which is a more accurate image IMO. But what is a "Difference Feminist" ??? David Byron

 * And I want to make clear that it is perfectly Ok to mention this. The problem is that you are taking the most egregious cases and using them to criticise the mainstream. If that methodology were valid, I could make a compelling case for making Republicans in the USA out to be full-fledged fascists. Patrick Buchanon, to give one example, has a large minority of Republican approval, yet his contmptuous attacks on democracy, and his praise of aspects of Nazi Germany, make clear that he and his followers are, in many ways, genuine neo-fascists. But should we rewrite the article on American political parties to make it look like Republicans are fascists? No! Do not let an obsession with the few allow you to tar the whole.  User:RK

 * I used the word "extremist". I am missing your point here.

 * If you want to know what "difference feminism" is, enter it into a search engine and find out. I entered it into Google and got back 539 responses. Regarding Mary Daly, the question is why you would want to place so much importance in this article in such a minority viewpoint that is rejected by most feminists? Is the purpose of this article to give an accurate portrayal of what most of feminism is about, or to simply attempt to discredit it by giving prominent display of what a small minority believes? The question is whether we are interested in giving an accurate or non-biased depiction of feminism. -- Egern

 * Did I attatch a lot of importance to her? She was mentioned in the context of emphasising the extreme breadth of opinions within the movement.

 * Almost the entire section on the "attitudes between men and women" is a biased polemic against feminism, and in my opinion it should be removed entirely. Someone with a more objective viewpoint, or at least a committment to NPOV (which is totally lacking at this moment in that section) should consider rewriting it, but right now this section is worse than nothing.  --Egern

 * I think that's true of much of the article, one way or another. This seems to be a product of the controversy. I don't see wiping out the whole article as the long term solution. My take on it was to add blanace to the article rather than subtract imbalance. Can't you try that too? David Byron

 * I disagree that your changes have been an attempt at balance. They are highly unbalanced and express an attempt at discrediting feminism.  -- Egern

In attempting to repair the damage to this article, I removed several long quotes that I felt were unnecessary. They were somewhat selective and long, and I think if we are going to quote from all the feminists in order to give an objective depiction of the movement, this article would just be too damn long. :)

 * The quotes were a problem. I'm frankly used to people not believing a word of what I say about feminism unless I back it up, and in fact usually even after I do ;) I'll have to add back the rape thing though. What it was replaced with is a white-wash. Remember - simply because you disagree with me does not make my comments patent nonsense. There is an issue of fact here over the prevailing metaphor used by second wave feminists about the relationship between men and women. I actually said that "rape" was a radical feminist view. Do not simply delete content unless it is patent nonsense. Use one of the other acceptable responses. Yes I know its more hard work for you. Tough. And while you're about it, how about recognising that I'm not the only one with a POV here? Otherwise I liked the changes (whoever put them in there). That first paragraph is looking good.

"On the fringes of feminism, radical feminists in fact argued that men were the oppressor and the enemy.". This is false. In 1848 the whole basis of the movement kicked off with the metaphor of men as oppressors and the enemy. That is a fact. Men as a sex were compared with a tyranical foreign government that women were in a war of liberation against. Radical feminists went further than this. They said men were rapists AND that metaphor was widely accepted by mainstream feminism (to their shame). Now if I am missing something here fill me in. Show me where feminists were using a less vitriolic metaphor if you can.

Some comments on the Impact sub-section. The whole idea of trying to say what feminism achieved seems dodgey to me because how can you ever really know? Is it better to say "feminists campaigned for X" than "feminists caused X"? Certainly anti-fems would be able to supply a slightly different list of achievements. Who's right? Its not objective. Perhaps this sub-section needs less objectivity then? Assuming this then, I still have some issues with some statements.

The whole "equal pay for equal work" is a crock. Feminists today don't even talk about that, instead refering to "equal pay for work of equal value" which is a propaganda tautology. This whole myth has been debunked now so often its inclusion is 'egrigious polemic'. The comment about women voting or owning land "a concept that seemed quite strange 200 years ago" is also pure fantasy and even if it were true seems phrased in a slanted manner. Is this the low standard acceptable for that section? If it is I would add as a balance that feminists have achieved the merit of being the biggest obstacle to sex equality, and a modern day popular hate movement, the elimination of basic human rights on a vast scale, and the imposition of gender apartheid. All of these could be supported far better than the clichés currently in this sub-section.

I suppose another possibility would be to move them to a new sub-section like "popular myths concerning feminism"?

I have restored an earlier version because the most recent edits have been made with a clear anti-feminist agenda with no respec towards the NPOV. -- Egern

There were many examples of why I reverted this article back to a previou sversion,; here are some sentences or phrases that reflect an attempt at attacking feminism and which do not represent NPOV and are inappropriate in an encyclopedia article:

"This simplistic separation of the sexes into two warring camps " "Feminist prejudice that women were morally superior to men reflected the social attitudes of the day" "As the reality of women's status increased the feminist rhetoric against men became more vitriolic" "The sentiment was that somehow men had it coming"

And then the article also contained various other objectionable or misleading statements, such as "The dominant metaphor describing the relationship of men to women became rape"

Most of the problems with the article were found in the "Attitudes towards men and women" section, and the problem is not just with individual sentences, but with the more or less guiding thesis of the entire section. There are also problems with individual sentences in the last section, but practically the entire section that goes into feminist history since the 18th century is simply a diatribe.

Egern you are the vandal. You think I'm a misogynist? Fine. Your POV. You hate me? Fine. You think my work sucks? Fine. All fine. But you not I were the one to wipe out a great deal of relevent and truthful content from the page. That is justified in only the most extreme circumstances. It should certainly not be done because you happen to disagree with my approach. Don't remove content. Add content. I have restored the last version before your vandalism. I don't intend to play this game with you if you proceed to delete all entries that fail to match your POV. I hope you won't push it to that. David Byron

I don't hate you. I don't even know you. I object to the fact that you have tried to turn this article into a diatribe. The content you introduced to this article is added in order to make an argument and to discredit. I don't agree with the idea of adding to bad content with good content, as the reader of the article is supposed to wade through all the bad just to get to the good. This is an extreme circumstance, and it justifies removing what you have done, in my opinion. I gave specific examples of sentences that reflect clear bias. Words like "simplistic", "feminist prejudice", and others reflect clear bias and a lack of commitment to POV. Or do you think that your use of the word "simplistic" was completely objective and appropriate?

 * YES I do think it was appropriate actually, but that's beside the point. If you hated a single word then simply replace that word. But yes, I think that saying all men make war to enslave all women is simplistic. What word would you use to describe that view?

You claim I have no respect for the NPOV, but you have no respect for Wiki. You seem to think this should be perfect first time. You have no bravery. You would produce a brittle result. Well of that's what you want I suggest you get a job with Britannia. Wiki is a highly idealistic design that depends on trust, flexibility. Show some. Work within the system and go forwards not backwards. I can afford to be brave and write crap or biased stuff ONLY because I have the checks and balances of others. But you are failing in your duty because you are too cowardly to trust the system.

I should not have to be trying to lecture you on Wiki after just two or three days. This is ridiculous. Do what's right. If you hate those passages, then fix them. Don't destroy. I rea;lly have nothing to say in reply to your comments because they are too vague. You should make your point by altering the article. ALTERING not rewinding. If you are simply too busy to do it properly then I will wait on someone to have time before I edit the article again. David Byron

 * I will point out that I did not try to delete everything you have been adding.  Earlier today, I tried to edit the article by trying to tone done the rhetoric to something that I hoped was more neutral, and only deleting a few items that I documented in the Talk section.  You responded to that by just piling on more anti-feminist text to support your thesis that the last 170 years of feminism has been about hating men.  You stated that you believe in adding content rather than deleting it, which you perhaps interpret as piling on more and more content to justify your position of a controversial issue, and perhaps the side that piles on the most content to justify their position wins.  But that doesn't make for a very useful encyclopedia article, in my opinion.

 * I honestly think the topic of feminism is big enough to take a lot more material than is on that page. And PLEASE stop trying to put words in my mouth. I am trying hard here not to return your flame but at some point someone is going to beleive what you say about me if I don't start defending myself (ie get into a slagging match).

 * I certainly don't think that Wiki should be perfect the first time. You are presumably unaware of the work I have done on other articles.  I have worked on other articles where I have built it up collaborately with others.  And I am willing to do the same here, and in earlier revisions I did just that, before you began trying to turn this article into an anti-feminist diatribe.

 * There you go again. I'm not an anti-feminist (anti-feminists are conservative and I'm liberal/communist) Ok let me say that from my perspective you are trying to turn the article into a pro-feminist white wash. In other words **gasp** we disagree. Somehow I imagine this has happened before in the history of the Wikipedia. So since you are the senior partner here as you say, I'd appreciate advice on how we proceed. I will assume that you have good faith albeit with a justify-feminism bias. David Byron

 * As for the fragility of this experiment, I totally agree. That is why, for the experiment to work, people have to care about the collaborative process.  It is fine to say that you are free to write all the crap you want because others can fix it, but it helps the process greatly if we are all committed to trying to do a good job when we make changes.  If we try to do the right thing, it advances much more smoothly.  If, on the other hand, we just say we don't care what we write because others can use checks and balances--but those checks and balances apparently never involve deleting work!  However, I am not going to fight this battle anymore.  I will restore your article and let others fight it out with you.

 * Wow. Well I completely retract my comment on your bravery. I appreciate your actions here in recognition of your view of the existing article.

 * Ok when I said that I could write crap, I was not suggesting writting crap on purpose of course. I was arguing that even if what I said was crap, then your actions seemed un-Wiki. Ok so we agree on that. I interpret the bravery of Wiki to mean that you don't have to sweat bullts as Ed said, to get a perfect article, because there's no such thing. Now this whole -pedia thing is something that I'm not so sure about. The Wiki part I'm fine with. The idea of A NPOV from one person seems impossible. I assume that's where consensus and reformatting/editing play in. I find it VERY HARD to have a NPOV. I admit this freely. And I can see that if you don't know much about 19th century feminism, that makes your job hard too, becauseall you can say is "This sucks'". Well that's better than nothing, and better than deleting stuff. David Byron

Ok let's be constructive. Do you think the entire question of asking what attitude feminists have had towards men/women is a POV? If not then what about how I did it was so destructive? David Byron

I'll throw my hat in the ring, I guess. David, your writings seem to be heavily slanted toward emphasizing the most extreme aspects. But I've seen you write little that is factually wrong. Some, but not a lot. If you made a bit of an attempt to give more balance, it would be much better. While most of your writing is *true* from a strict standpoint, it gives a *false* impression. --Dmerrill

 * LOL sort of like a conjuring act? I need help with balance.

Three things for people to keep in mind:

 * 1) When in doubt, don't delete.
 * That is, edit towards a goal, not away from what you think is bad. If someone contributes something which you find unclear or misleading, polish their work to make it shine. This polishing may involve deletion, but that shouldn't be considered the intent of the edit. (Like the aphorism about how the master sculptor carves and elephant out of a block of marble: he just removes anything that isn't elephant.)

 * 1) When in doubt, don't ascribe bad motives to people
 * Don't say that stuff you don't like is "vandalism" or "diatribe" or "screed". Rather, treat everyone as if you believe everyone is trying to make a contribution, and is in fact contributing, even if the contribution isn't clear.

 * 1) Remember that NPOV is a collective goal, not individually achievable
 * Don't call stuff that you do like is "NPOV", if you can help it. Everyone is trying to make the articles more "NPOV", so saying that's what you're doing is a way of implying that others aren't. Rather, indicate where your concern or confusion lies.

Just some thoughts that have worked for me (though my application is imperfect). (See Wikipedia commentary/WikipediAhimsa) --TheCunctator

re Facts vs Fairness, I see two possible interpretations here. One is that you are saying that you can list a bunch of facts and still be biased because the facts are selectively mentioned, and you deliberately avoid mentioning facts that would have led to a different conclusion. That's plain dishonest (and human nature too!) and no one would defend that.

The other possible interpretation is that you feel the facts are true, but that for independent reasons you feel that you know what the answer should be, what the conclusion should be, and if the facts don't agree with that end goal, then they should be eliminated or marginalised no matter how true. Now that sounds bad, but more to the point would be to ask on what basis the "correct" slant is known ahead of time, independently of the facts?

I find it hard to supply facts to suggest that feminism is a pure and wonderfull happy-clappy equality movement because I've concluded this is false (my POV). What that conclusion means is, that if I did 'know' of any evidence for this alternative view, I'd also 'know' that evidence was flawed (or else I'd have a different POV wouldn't I?) -- so should I mention that evidence? And the reason why it's flawed? Or is that just a waste of two paragraphs leading to a confusing bloat? Data barf along the lines of my excessive use of quotes in one of the earlier versions?

And if there is no known (by any of us here) data tending to contradict the facts I've given, and yet the feeling persists that what I wrote is biased, and certainly disagrees with what might be called "common knowledge" (or prejudice), what then?

Feminism is controversial topic riddled with "facts" that are well known but turn out to be bunk. Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to cut through this, or to faithfully represent it (maybe mentioning in a foot note that its wrong). For example take the notion that women had less rights than men "in history". Common knowledge? Absolutely. True? No -- its such a broad assertion it's hard to know how anyone would even try to answer whether its true or not. It's almost unknowable. Practically speaking I think it is unknowable. To my mind this implies that the "common knowledge" of its truth is due to propaganda. So what status does this statement have as far as the Wikipedia goes? Do we just parrot it because that's what everyone says? Or does the wikipedia look like a anti-feminist lunatic wrote it ("sure its factually true but how biased" people might say)

I have no doubt how commercial encyclopedias have answered this dilema. David Byron

Well I've been thinking about the bias... what can you say about feminism? In my experience very little indeed without cntroversy. That is anything you do say someone will say, oh but my feminism isn't like that at all. About the only two things I've ever noticed seemed uncontroversial is that,

 * 1) feminists CLAIM to want equality and
 * 2) feminism is about women.

And those two things are almost contradictory. That doesn't leave much space for a NPOV. I thought the 1st paragraph did well to come out as it did. I'm sure someone will object to it at some point.

The main point of controversy about feminism is what is the nature of feminism? which basically comes down to feminists trying to justify feminism as an equality movement and dismising a mountain of evidence to the contrary as oh those are just extremists. Well I didn't even want to touch that yet because I know how feminists react. In fact just glancing down the coments of the edits on this page, I was laughing to see calls for partizan "defence" of this page.

 * Call for feminists to keep working on this article.
 * This entry needs help from people who are not vehemently anti-feminist
 * This article is being sabotaged
 * Glad to know there are people who hate a concept but love to write about it

Well actually, YES, it is good that it isn't just people who like a concept that write about it because I would guess that's what normally happens. At any rate I figured I'd let the controversial its slide for a while and talk instead about something a little more factual in the attitudes towards men and women subsection. Namely how have feminist attitudes about men and women varied on the axes of

 * 1) blame - is it all men's fault, or do women contribute to how society turns out?
 * 2) intention - do normal men deliberately try to hurt women?
 * 3) universality - is it all men everywhere who are bad or just some? or are women bad too?
 * 4) victimology - are women always victims? are men never victims? something in between?
 * 5) audience - do feminists aim their message at men, women or both?
 * 6) participation - can men be feminists? can heterosexual women? can women NOT be feminist?

And NB throughout only what feminists themselves have said or claimed. Now since its easy to come up with quotes by the ton (not included in article necessarily) its not hard to prove what feminists have said, so I assume the question of bias is that people feel that maybe the commentary is selective? Ok so spliting up the attitudes into the six points above and spliting feminists into first and second wave or however -- where am I being selective? Or is it "everywhere"? I'm waiting on feedback before I proceed with more editing. If no one replies I'll leave the project. David Byron

Don't leave the project, and don't fight with Egern. Your section on attitudes was good, and so is your opening sentence (women's rights and issues). I also appreciate your outlining the meta-issues. User:Ed Poor
 * We're not fighting. However without someone like Egern, or someone who knows enough to creditably have a different POV, I can't simply keep adding what *I* know. I mean I could if I felt my POV was uncontroversial, but it is incredibly controversial. Its like you with the Creationism thing. You couldn't do that piece by yourself. The system of Wiki relies on there being a variety of people editing these files. If there are not then Egern's initial reaction, and a brittle/cowardly attitude makes sense. Without the checks and balances that enable bravery (in the Wiki sense) it would indeed make more sense to wipe out my changes. Therefore, I am unable to proceed with the article until some feminists turn up. Hmm. I could have a look at the Taliban pages though. I turned up a lot of interesting facts researching them because of feminism (that was before Sepember 11th). Anyway thanks for the support :) David Byron

The latest intro paragraph sounds like personal opinion (not summing up what feminism actually is, as seen by feminists). Contributors should attribute alternate views to named sources. User:Ed Poor

 * Ed, would you say that an entry on the Nazis should lead with what Nazism is as seen by actual Nazis? Besides which trying to formulate what feminism is, as seen by actual feminists would be impossible. We had a very good introduction a while back which I might restore. David Byron

 * Feminism is a social and political movement that is, most generally, concerned with the relationship between sex, gender, and power. Feminists are especially concerned with patriarchy (rule by men, or a gender hierarchy in which men dominate or exploit women). Radical Feminists consider this problem to be the root cause of most social problems; many question not only the relationship between "men" and "women," but the social construction of gender and sexuality and the very meaning of "man" and "woman" as well. For such feminists, feminism is a means to human liberation (i.e. the liberation of men as well as women). Other feminists acknowledge that other problems (e.g. racism or class divisions) may be separate from or prior to patriarchy, and are more narrowly concerned with achieving equal rights for women. Although the leaders of feminism have been, for obvious reasons, women, not all women are feminists; moreover, many men are feminists. Some feminists argue that men should not take positions of leadership in the movement, but most accept or seek the support of men.

 * for obvious reasons? Do you know what the reasons were? They are probably not what you are thinking. In any case an argumentative and propaganda feel to the way this is written.

In particular, the phrase "concerned with the relationship between sex, gender, and power" does not do justice to the movement.

 * Hmmm... I didn't think the previous first paragraph summed up how feminists view feminism. I was (and remain) certain that a description that describes a variety of different kinds of feminisms is more likely to offer fair coverage than a description that reduces feminism to one thing.  I agree that "concerned with the relationship..." does not do justice, but not because it is inaccurate but rather because it is so general.  I hoped that what followed would resolve this by being more specific.  The original description -- movement fighting for rights for women -- definitely does not do justice to "feminism."  There certainly are feminists for whom this is feminism, and I incorporated this definition into the revised paragraph.  But there are many feminists for whom feminism is much more, or something else.  I really didn't think this was controversial.  I mean, Simone de Beauvoire's "The Second Sex" is about a lot more than equal rights for women, isn't it?  I didn't provide specific sources for three reasons:

1) I thought the claims were non-controversial 2) there are so many sources 3) I thought the rest of the article (which I didn't change) is the place for developing these differences, and providing specifics. --SR

This article still needs serious revising. Words like "simplistic", for example, are not consistent with NPOV, and much of the article is more an expression of a resentful male's wounded pride rather than a focusing of the issues of injustices against women in society. Feminism encompasses a wide range of views, some more hostile to male and some not; what they share in common is a focus on the injustices that women face in society. There is much rewriting that needs to be done with this article. -- Egern

 * Seems to be a growing amount of feminist propaganda entering the article, especially in the first paragraph there. I see a "resentful male's wounded pride" on show here by Egern, because the article isn't about so-called "issues of injustices against women" rather than the topic of feminism. I do agree about "simplistic" by the way. I regret adding that. People can easily see their attitude was simplistic and divisive from the simple facts without my editorialising. That should be taken out along with the vastly greater amount of feminist propaganda, but I'll get to it this weekend maybe..... David Byron

 * The reference to "wounded male pride" has to do with the need to characterize feminism as being all about hating men, to focus on how feminists view men at the exclusion of everything else. That is the overriding theme of the article and it is not an accurate or balanced description of feminism.  The wounded ego or pride part is simply that this whole take on feminism comes from the perspective of some men's hurt feelings over the fact that all women don't love our gender unconditionally.  Perhaps I should have referred to "male ego" rather than "male pride".  Either way, it makes no difference.  This article is highly flawed as it now stands.  -- Egern

I think its reasonable to talk about feminist attitudes towards men and women in the article. Cut out all the "male ego" talk. There is balance in the article if you read it. A range of attitudes from good to bad to godawful as reflects reality. You want the range restricted so that only the view you have of feminism is provided, perhaps mentioning "bad" feminists as if they were as rare as unicorns. That's not true as a ton of quotes could prove. Now you claim the article is inaccurate. Please specify where. I think it's inaccurate in several places too, but I doubt we have the same parts in mind somehow!

-

 * See also : Feminism

ego centric feminists
It is all well and good that woman (feminists) are fighting for their right of equal opportunities in life, but it is very regretfull on their behalf that they can not stop their hatred off man by trying to make man out to be stupid, useless ect..., at every opportunity that they dare to use. It is very unrealistic and "childish", which by the way, they like to refer to Man by, it's a shamefull nonesense. Now the question is evident in my mind that they are not at all as smart, intelligent or superior of man as they would like to think off themselves. These kind of behaviour is going to slow their cause of reaching their goal, and cause the disgust off man, about them and their struggle.

zoltan

title: Talk:Feminism/Archive 1


text:
Francis Fukuyama

Francis Yoshihiro Fukuyama (born October 27, 1952) is an American political scientist, political economist, international relations scholar, and writer.

Fukuyama is best known for his book The End of History and the Last Man (1992), which argues that the worldwide spread of liberal democracies and free-market capitalism of the West and its lifestyle may signal the end point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and political struggle and become the final form of human government, an assessment met with numerous and substantial criticisms. In his subsequent book Trust: Social Virtues and Creation of Prosperity (1995), he modified his earlier position to acknowledge that culture cannot be cleanly separated from economics. Fukuyama is also associated with the rise of the neoconservative movement, from which he has since distanced himself.

Fukuyama has been a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies since July 2010 and the Mosbacher Director of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law at Stanford University. In August 2019, he was named director of the Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy at Stanford.

Before that, he served as a professor and director of the International Development program at the School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University. Previously, he was Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University.

He is a council member of the International Forum for Democratic Studies founded by the National Endowment for Democracy and was a member of the Political Science Department of the RAND Corporation. He is also one of the 25 leading figures on the Information and Democracy Commission launched by Reporters Without Borders. In 2024 he received the Riggs Award for Lifetime Achievement in International and Comparative Public Administration.

Early life and education
Francis Fukuyama was born in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago, Illinois, United States. His paternal grandfather fled the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and started a shop on the west coast before being incarcerated in the Second World War. His father, Yoshio Fukuyama, a second-generation Japanese American, was trained as a minister in the Congregational Church, received a doctorate in sociology from the University of Chicago, and taught religious studies. His mother, Toshiko Kawata Fukuyama (河田敏子), was born in Kyoto, Japan, and was the daughter of Shiro Kawata, founder of the Economics Department of Kyoto University and first president of Osaka City University. Francis, whose Japanese name is Yoshihiro, grew up in Manhattan as an only child, had little contact with Japanese culture, and did not learn Japanese. His family moved to State College, Pennsylvania, in 1967. Fukuyama received his Bachelor of Arts degree in classics from Cornell University, where he studied political philosophy under Allan Bloom. He initially pursued graduate studies in comparative literature at Yale University, going to Paris for six months to study under Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida but became disillusioned and switched to political science at Harvard University. There, he studied with Samuel P. Huntington and Harvey Mansfield, among others. He earned his Ph.D. in political science at Harvard for his thesis on Soviet threats to intervene in the Middle East. In 1979, he joined the global policy think tank RAND Corporation.

Fukuyama lived at the Telluride House and has been affiliated with the Telluride Association since his undergraduate years at Cornell. Telluride is an education enterprise that has been home to other significant leaders and intellectuals, including Steven Weinberg, Paul Wolfowitz and Kathleen Sullivan.

Fukuyama was the Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University from 1996 to 2000. Until July 10, 2010, he was the Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy and Director of the International Development Program at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University in Washington, D.C. He is now Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow and resident in the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, and director of the Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy at Stanford.

The End of History and the Last Man
Fukuyama is best known as the author of The End of History and the Last Man, in which he argued that the progression of human history as a struggle between ideologies was largely at an end, with the world settling on liberal democracy after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The book was an expansion on ideas expressed in an earlier article, "The End of History?" published in The National Interest. In the article, Fukuyama predicted the coming global triumph of political and economic liberalism:

"What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."

Authors like Ralf Dahrendorf argued in 1990 that the essay gave Fukuyama his 15 minutes of fame, which would soon be followed by a slide into obscurity. However, Fukuyama remained a relevant and cited public intellectual, leading American communitarian Amitai Etzioni to declare him "one of the few enduring public intellectuals. They are often media stars who are eaten up and spat out after their 15 minutes. But he has lasted." Bernard Crick in his book titled Democracy spoke of Fukayama's principle of 'the end of the world' as being a poor misreading of the historical processes involved in the development of modern democracy.

According to Fukuyama, one of the main critiques of The End of History was of his aggressive stance towards postmodernism. Postmodern philosophy had, in Fukuyama's opinion, undermined the ideology behind liberal democracy, leaving the western world in a potentially weaker position. The fact that Marxism and fascism had proven untenable for practical use while liberal democracy still thrived was reason enough to embrace the hopeful attitude of the Progressive era, as this hope for the future was what made a society worth struggling to maintain. Postmodernism, which, by this time, had become embedded in the cultural consciousness, offered no hope and nothing to sustain a necessary sense of community, instead relying only on lofty intellectual premises.

The Origins of Political Order
In the 2011 book, Fukuyama describes what makes a state stable, using comparative political history to develop a theory of the stability of a political system. According to Fukuyama, an ideal political order needs a modern and effective state, the rule of law governing the state and be accountable.

Political Order and Political Decay
The 2014 book is the second book on political order, following the 2011 book The Origins of Political Order. In this book, Fukuyama covers events taking place since the French Revolution and sheds light on political institutions and their development in different regions.

After tracing how a modern and effective government was developed in the U.S., Fukuyama asserts that it is experiencing political decay. Fukuyama believes that political decay can be seen in the deterioration of bureaucracies, special interest groups capturing the legislature, and inevitable but cumbersome judicial processes challenging all types of government action.

Other works
Fukuyama has written a number of other books, among them Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity and Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. In the latter, he qualified his original "end of history" thesis, arguing that since biotechnology increasingly allows humans to control their own evolution, it may allow humans to alter human nature, thereby putting liberal democracy at risk. One possible outcome could be that an altered human nature could end in radical inequality. He is a fierce enemy of transhumanism, an intellectual movement asserting that posthumanity is a desirable goal.

In another work, The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstruction of Social Order, Fukuyama explores the origins of social norms, and analyses the current disruptions in the fabric of our moral traditions, which he considers as arising from a shift from the manufacturing to the information age. This shift is, he thinks, normal and will prove self-correcting, given the intrinsic human need for social norms and rules.

In 2006, in America at the Crossroads, Fukuyama discusses the history of neoconservatism, with particular focus on its major tenets and political implications. He outlines his rationale for supporting the Bush administration, as well as where he believes it has gone wrong.

In 2008, Fukuyama published the book Falling Behind: Explaining the Development Gap Between Latin America and the United States, which resulted from research and a conference funded by Grupo Mayan to gain understanding on why Latin America, once far wealthier than North America, fell behind in terms of development in only a matter of centuries. Discussing this book at a 2009 conference, Fukuyama outlined his belief that inequality within Latin American nations is a key impediment to growth. An unequal distribution of wealth, he stated, leads to social upheaval, which then results in stunted growth.

In 2018 in Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment Fukuyama enlists Plato's notion of thymos in order to understand the politics of grievance and ressentiment.

At the start of the following decade, he published some reflections on his work in the form of conversations under the title After the End of History.

In 2022, Fukuyama published the book Liberalism and Its Discontents, in which he defended liberalism from critics on the populist right and the progressive left. He also criticized neoliberalism and identity politics.

Neoconservatism
As a key Reagan Administration contributor to the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine, Fukuyama is an important figure in the rise of neoconservatism, although his works came out years after Irving Kristol's 1972 book crystallized neoconservatism. Fukuyama was active in the Project for the New American Century think tank starting in 1997, and as a member co-signed the organization's 1998 letter recommending that President Bill Clinton support Iraqi insurgencies in the overthrow of then-President of Iraq Saddam Hussein. He was also among forty co-signers of William Kristol's September 20, 2001 letter to President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks that suggested the U.S. not only "capture or kill Osama bin Laden", but also embark upon "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq".

As a supporter of the Iraq War Fukuyama defended the war against critics who accused the US of unilateralism and violating international law, saying "Americans are right to insist that there is no such thing as an 'international community' in the abstract, and that nation-states must ultimately look out for themselves when it comes to critical matters of security".

In a New York Times article from February 2006, Fukuyama, in considering the ongoing Iraq War, stated: "What American foreign policy needs is not a return to a narrow and cynical realism, but rather the formulation of a 'realistic Wilsonianism' that better matches means to ends." In regard to neoconservatism, he went on to say: "What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world – ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about."

Current views
Fukuyama began to distance himself from the neoconservative agenda of the Bush administration, citing its excessive militarism and embrace of unilateral armed intervention, particularly in the Middle East. By mid-2004, Fukuyama had voiced his growing opposition to the Iraq War and called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation as Secretary of Defense.

At an annual dinner of the American Enterprise Institute in February 2004, Dick Cheney and Charles Krauthammer declared the beginning of a unipolar era under American hegemony. "All of these people around me were cheering wildly," Fukuyama remembers. He believes that the Iraq War was being blundered. "All of my friends had taken leave of reality." He has not spoken to Paul Wolfowitz (previously a good friend) since.

Fukuyama declared he would not be voting for Bush, and that the Bush administration had made three mistakes:
 * Overstating the threat of Islamist extremism to the US.
 * Failing to foresee the fierce negative reaction to its "benevolent hegemony". From the very beginning showing a negative attitude toward the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations and not seeing that it would increase anti-Americanism in other countries.
 * Misjudging what was needed to bring peace in Iraq and being overly optimistic about the success with which social engineering of western values could be applied to Iraq and the Middle East in general.

Fukuyama believes the US has a right to promote its own values in the world, but more along the lines of what he calls "realistic Wilsonianism", with military intervention only as a last resort and only in addition to other measures. A latent military force is more likely to have an effect than actual deployment. The US spends 43% of global military spending, but Iraq shows there are limits to its effectiveness.

The US should instead stimulate political and economic development and gain a better understanding of what happens in other countries. The best instruments are setting a good example and providing education and, in many cases, money. The secret of development, be it political or economic, is that it never comes from outsiders, but always from people in the country itself. One thing the US proved to have excelled in during the aftermath of World War II was the formation of international institutions. A return to support for these structures would combine American power with international legitimacy, but such measures require a lot of patience. This is the central thesis of his 2006 work America at the Crossroads.

In a 2006 essay in The New York Times Magazine strongly critical of the invasion, he identified neoconservatism with Leninism. He wrote that neoconservatives "believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support."

Fukuyama announced the end of the neoconservative moment and argued for the demilitarization of the War on Terrorism:

"[W]ar is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a 'long, twilight struggle' [quoting John F. Kennedy's inaugural address] whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world."

Fukuyama endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 US presidential election. He states:

"I'm voting for Barack Obama this November for a very simple reason. It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush. It was bad enough that he launched an unnecessary war and undermined the standing of the United States throughout the world in his first term. But in the waning days of his administration, he is presiding over a collapse of the American financial system and broader economy that will have consequences for years to come. As a general rule, democracies don't work well if voters do not hold political parties accountable for failure. While John McCain is trying desperately to pretend that he never had anything to do with the Republican Party, I think it would be a travesty to reward the Republicans for failure on such a grand scale."

In 2007 Fukuyama criticized the American government's attitude to Iran, "If the only thing we're putting on the table is that we'll talk to you, it isn't going to work..What the Iranians have really wanted over a long period of time is the grand bargain". In 2009 he described Iran as "not quite a tyranny, petty or grand" but also not a liberal democracy and added that "Iran could evolve towards a genuine rule-of-law democracy within the broad parameters of the 1979 constitution".

In a 2018 interview with New Statesman, when asked about his views on the resurgence of socialist politics in the United States and the United Kingdom, he responded:

"It all depends on what you mean by socialism. Ownership of the means of production – except in areas where it's clearly called for, like public utilities – I don't think that's going to work. If you mean redistributive programmes that try to redress this big imbalance in both incomes and wealth that has emerged then, yes, I think not only can it come back, it ought to come back. This extended period, which started with Reagan and Thatcher, in which a certain set of ideas about the benefits of unregulated markets took hold, in many ways it's had a disastrous effect. At this juncture, it seems to me that certain things Karl Marx said are turning out to be true. He talked about the crisis of overproduction… that workers would be impoverished and there would be insufficient demand."

In a review for The Washington Post, Fukuyama discussed Ezra Klein's 2020 book Why We're Polarized regarding US politics, and outlined Klein's central conclusion about the importance of race and white identity to Donald Trump voters and Republicans.

In 2020, Fukuyama became the chair of the editorial board for American Purpose, a magazine established in 2020 to promote three central ideas. Firstly, it wants to promote liberal democracy in the United States. Secondly, it seeks to understand and opine on the challenges to liberal democracy in other countries. Thirdly, it wants to "offer criticism and commentary on history and biography, high art and pop culture, science and technology."

Fukuyama has also perceived Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election as the result of the Western system's ability to correct mistakes.

Views following Russian invasion of Ukraine
Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Fukuyama made several prognoses in the magazine American Purpose:

 * Russia is heading for an outright defeat in Ukraine. Russian planning was incompetent, based on a flawed assumption that Ukrainians were favorable to Russia and that their military would collapse immediately following an invasion.
 * The collapse of their position could be sudden and catastrophic, rather than happening slowly through a war of attrition.
 * There is no diplomatic solution to the war possible prior to this happening. There is no conceivable compromise that would be acceptable to both Russia and Ukraine given the losses they have taken at this point.
 * Russian President Vladimir Putin will not survive the defeat of his army. He gets support because he is perceived to be a strongman; what does he have to offer once he demonstrates incompetence and is stripped of his coercive power?
 * The invasion has already done huge damage to populists all over the world, who prior to the attack uniformly expressed sympathy for Putin. That includes Matteo Salvini, Jair Bolsonaro, Éric Zemmour, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbán, and of course Donald Trump. The politics of the war has exposed their openly authoritarian leanings.
 * Drones will become increasingly critical in the battlefield.
 * A Russian defeat will make possible a "new birth of freedom", and get us out of our funk about the declining state of global democracy. The spirit of 1989 will live on, thanks to the bravery of certain Ukrainians.

Fukuyama has also put emphasis on the importance of national identity for a sound defense of liberal values—and thus the need to reconcile the nation-state with liberal universalism, even if they seem at odds at first—in a Foreign Affairs article:

"Liberalism, with its universalist pretensions, may sit uneasily alongside seemingly parochial nationalism, but the two can be reconciled. The goals of liberalism are entirely compatible with a world divided into nation-states. . . . Liberal rights are meaningless if they cannot be enforced by a state . . . The territorial jurisdiction of a state necessarily corresponds to the area occupied by the group of individuals who signed on to the social contract. People living outside that jurisdiction must have their rights respected, but not necessarily enforced, by that state. . . . The need for international cooperation in addressing issues such as global warming and pandemics has never been more evident. But it remains the case that one particular form of power, the ability to enforce rules through the threat or the actual use of force, remains under the control of nation-states. . . . Ultimate power, in other words, continues to be the province of nation-states, which means that the control of power at this level remains critical. . . . There is thus no necessary contradiction between liberal universalism and the need for nation-states. Although the normative value of human rights may be universal, enforcement power is not; it is a scarce resource that is necessarily applied in a territorially delimited way."

In a 2022 interview with El País, Fukuyama expressed support for social democratic policies: "In Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, you've had social democratic parties in power for a long time. [They've] done a lot of redistribution – you don't get this kind of polarized politics and you have an alteration between the center-left and center-right, which I think is much healthier." However, Fukuyama also said that while he "was never opposed to social democracy. I think that it really depends on the historical period and the degree of state intervention. By the 1960s, many social democratic societies had become mired in low growth [and] high inflation. At that point, I think it was important to roll some of that back. That is, in fact, what happened in Scandinavia. Most of those countries reduced tax rates, reduced levels of regulation and therefore became more productive. But I think that in the current period, we need more social democracy, especially in the United States."

Affiliations

 * Between 2006 and 2008, Fukuyama advised Muammar Gaddafi as part of the Monitor Group, a consultancy firm based in Cambridge, MA.
 * In August 2005, Fukuyama co-founded The American Interest, a bimonthly magazine devoted to the broad theme of "America in the World". He served as chairman of the editorial board until his resignation. In a published letter posted on his public Medium page on July 27, 2020, Fukuyama cited a disagreement with the publisher's decision to terminate Jeff Gedmin as editor-in-chief. Fukuyama also indicated other changes underway at the publication as an additional reason for his resignation.
 * Fukuyama was a member of the RAND Corporation's Political Science Department from 1979 to 1980, 1983 to 1989, and 1995 to 1996. He is now a member of the board of trustees.
 * Fukuyama was a member of the President's Council on Bioethics from 2001 to 2004.
 * Fukuyama is a Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science (WAAS).
 * Fukuyama was on the steering committee for the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Trust. Fukuyama is a long-time friend of Libby. They served together in the State Department in the 1980s.
 * Fukuyama is a member of the Board of Counselors for the Pyle Center of Northeast Asian Studies at the National Bureau of Asian Research.
 * Fukuyama is on the board of Global Financial Integrity.
 * Fukuyama is a member of the Inter-American Dialogue.
 * Fukuyama is the chair of the editorial board for American Purpose, a magazine established in 2020.
 * Fukuyama is a member of the International Advisory Board for Bellingcat.

Personal life
Fukuyama is a part-time photographer. He also has an interest in early American furniture, which he reproduces by hand. Another hobby of Fukuyama's is sound recording and reproduction. He explained, "These days I seem to spend as much time thinking about gear as I do analyzing politics for my day job." Since the mid-1990s, Fukuyama has been building his own personal computers.

Fukuyama is married to Laura Holmgren, whom he met when she was a University of California in Los Angeles graduate student after he started working for the RAND Corporation. He dedicated his book Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity to her. They live in California, with their three children, Julia, David, and John.

He is the first cousin to crime novelist Joe Ide. Fukuyama helped him get his first book published.

Scholarly works

 * The Soviet Union and Iraq since 1968. RAND Corporation (1980).

Books
After the Neo Cons: Where the Right went Wrong. London: Profile Books. 2006. ISBN 1-86197-922-3 UK edition
 * The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press, 1992. ISBN 0-02-910975-2
 * Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Free Press, 1995. ISBN 0-02-910976-0
 * The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. Free Press. 1999. ISBN 0-684-84530-X
 * Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2002. ISBN 0-374-23643-7
 * State-Building: Governance and World Order in the 21st century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 2004. ISBN 0-8014-4292-3
 * America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 2006. ISBN 0-300-11399-4 US edition
 * Falling Behind: Explaining the Development Gap Between Latin America and the United States (editor). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-536882-6
 * The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2011. ISBN 978-1-846-68256-8
 * Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Present Day. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2014. ISBN 978-0-374-22735-7
 * Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2018.
 * Liberalism and Its Discontents, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2022.

Essays

 * "The End of History?" The National Interest, no. 16 (Summer 1989).
 * "Women and the Evolution of World Politics." Foreign Affairs (Oct. 1998).
 * "Immigrants and Family Values." The Immigration Reader (1998). ISBN 1557869162.
 * "Human Nature and the Reconstruction of Social Order." The Atlantic Monthly (May 1999).
 * "Social Capital and Civil Society." Paper prepared for delivery at the International Monetary Fund Conference on Second Generation Reforms (Oct. 1, 1999).
 * "The Neoconservative Moment." The National Interest (Summer 2004).
 * "After Neoconservatism." New York Times Magazine (Feb. 19, 2006).
 * "Supporter's Voice Now Turns on Bush." New York Times Magazine (Mar. 14, 2006).
 * "Why Shouldn't I Change My Mind?" Los Angeles Times (Apr. 9, 2006).
 * "The Fall of America, Inc." Newsweek (Oct. 13, 2008).
 * "The New Nationalism and the Strategic Architecture of Northeast Asia." Asia Policy (Jan. 2007)
 * "Left Out." The American Interest (Jan. 2011).
 * "Is China Next?" The Wall Street Journal (Mar. 12, 2011).
 * "The Future of History: Can Liberal Democracy Survive the Decline of the Middle Class?" Foreign Affairs (Jan./Feb. 2012).
 * "What is Governance?" Governance (Mar. 2013).
 * "Against Identity Politics: The New Tribalism and the Crisis of Democracy." Foreign Affairs (Sep./Oct. 2018).
 * "Liberalism and Its Discontents: The Challenges from the Left and the Right." American Purpose (Oct. 2020).
 * "Still the End of History." The Atlantic (Oct. 2022).
 * See Ronald T. Libby, "The Death of Political Science and Rebirth of Politics."
 * China’s Road to Ruin, Foreign Affairs, August 22, 2023 (co-authored with Michael Bennon)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Francis Fukuyama


text:
Fingerspelling

Fingerspelling (or dactylology) is the representation of the letters of a writing system, and sometimes numeral systems, using only the hands. These manual alphabets (also known as finger alphabets or hand alphabets) have often been used in deaf education and have subsequently been adopted as a distinct part of a number of sign languages. There are about forty manual alphabets around the world. Historically, manual alphabets have had a number of additional applications—including use as ciphers, as mnemonics and in silent religious settings.

Forms of manual alphabets
As with other forms of manual communication, fingerspelling can be comprehended visually or tactually. The simplest visual form of fingerspelling is tracing the shape of letters in the air and the simplest tactual form is tracing them on the hand. Fingerspelling can be one-handed such as in American Sign Language, French Sign Language and Irish Sign Language, or it can be two-handed such as in British Sign Language.

Fingerspelling in sign languages
Fingerspelling has been introduced into certain sign languages by educators and as such has some structural properties that are unlike the visually motivated and multi-layered signs that are typical in deaf sign languages. In many ways fingerspelling serves as a bridge between the sign language and the oral language that surrounds it.

Fingerspelling is used in different sign languages and registers for different purposes. It may be used to represent words from an oral language that have no sign equivalent or for emphasis or clarification or when teaching or learning a sign language.

In American Sign Language (ASL) more lexical items are fingerspelled in casual conversation than in formal or narrative signing. Different sign language speech communities use fingerspelling to a greater or lesser degree. At the high end of the scale fingerspelling makes up about 8.7% of casual signing in ASL and 10% of casual signing in Auslan. The proportion is higher in older signers. Across the Tasman Sea only 2.5% of the corpus of New Zealand Sign Language was found to be fingerspelling. Fingerspelling did not become a part of NZSL until the 1980s. Before that words could be spelled or initialised by tracing letters in the air. Fingerspelling does not seem to be used much in the sign languages of Eastern Europe except in schools, and Italian Sign Language is also said to use very little fingerspelling, and mainly for foreign words. Sign languages that make no use of fingerspelling at all include Kata Kolok and Ban Khor Sign Language.

The speed and clarity of fingerspelling also vary among different signing communities. In Italian Sign Language fingerspelled words are produced relatively slowly and clearly, whereas fingerspelling in standard British Sign Language (BSL) is often rapid so that the individual letters become difficult to distinguish and the word is grasped from the overall hand movement. Most of the letters of the BSL alphabet are produced with two hands but when one hand is occupied the dominant hand may fingerspell onto an imaginary subordinate hand and the word can be recognised by the movement. As with written words, the first and last letters and the length of the word are the most significant factors for recognition.

When people fluent in sign language read fingerspelling they do not usually look at the signer's hand(s) but maintain eye contact, as is normal for sign language. People who are learning fingerspelling often find it impossible to understand it using just their peripheral vision and must look straight at the hand of someone who is fingerspelling. Often they must also ask the signer to fingerspell slowly. It frequently takes years of expressive and receptive practice to become skilled with fingerspelling.

Families of manual alphabets in sign languages

Power et al. (2020) conducted a large-scale data study into the evolution and contemporary character of 76 current and defunct manual alphabets (MAs) of sign languages, postulating the existence of eight groups: an Afghan–Jordanian Group, an Austrian-origin Group (with a Danish Subgroup), a British-origin Group, a French-origin Group, a Polish Group, a Russian Group, a Spanish Group, and a Swedish Group. Notably, several defunct versions of German, Austrian, Hungarian and Danish manual alphabets were part of the Austrian-origin group, while the current MAs of these sign languages are closely related to the French, American, International Sign and other MAs in the French-origin Group. Latvian Sign Language's MA dangled somewhere between the Polish and Russian Groups, Finnish Sign Language (which belongs to the Swedish Sign Language family) had a French-origin MA, while Indo-Pakistani Sign Language (whose lexicon and grammar have independent origins) currently used a two-handed manual alphabet of British origin.

Yoel (2009) demonstrated that American Sign Language is influencing the lexicon and grammar of Maritime Sign Language in various ways, including the fact that the original BANZSL two-handed manual alphabet is no longer used in the Maritimes and has been replaced by the one-handed American manual alphabet, which has been influencing lexicalisation. Although all participants in her survey had learnt and could still produce the BANZSL fingerspelling, they had difficulty doing so, and all participants indicated that it had been a long time since they last used it.

One-handed
Two families of manual alphabets are used for representing the Latin alphabet in the modern world. The more common of the two is mostly produced on one hand and can be traced back to alphabetic signs used in Europe from at least the early 15th century.

Some manual representations of non-Roman scripts such as Chinese, Japanese, Devanagari (e.g. the Nepali manual alphabet), Hebrew, Greek, Thai and Russian alphabets are based to some extent on the one-handed Latin alphabet described above. In some cases, however, the 'basis' is more theory than practice. Thus, for example, in the Japanese manual syllabary only the five vowels (ア /a/,　イ /i/,　ウ /u/,　エ /e/,　オ /o/) and the Ca (consonant plus "a' vowel) letters (カ /ka/, サ /sa/, ナ /na/, ハ /ha/, マ /ma/, ヤ /ya/, ラ /ra/, ワ /wa/, but notably not タ /ta/, which would resemble a somewhat rude gesture) derive from the American manual alphabet. In the Nepali Sign Language only four 'letters' derive from the American manual alphabet: अ /a/, ब /b/, म /m/, and र /r/).

The Yugoslav manual alphabet represents characters from the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet as well as Gaj's Latin alphabet.

Manual alphabets based on the Arabic alphabet, the Ethiopian Ge'ez script and the Korean Hangul script use handshapes that are more or less iconic representations of the characters in the writing system.

Two-handed
Two-handed manual alphabets are used by a number of deaf communities; one such alphabet is shared by users of British Sign Language, Auslan and New Zealand Sign Language (collectively known as the BANZSL language family) and another is used in Turkish Sign Language. Some of the letters are represented by iconic shapes and in the BANZSL languages the vowels are represented by pointing to the fingertips.

Letters are formed by a dominant hand, which is on top of or alongside the other hand at the point of contact, and a subordinate hand, which uses either the same or a simpler handshape as the dominant hand. Either the left or right hand can be dominant. In a modified tactile form used by deafblind people the signer's hand acts as the dominant hand and the receiver's hand becomes the subordinate hand.

Some signs, such as the sign commonly used for the letter C, may be one-handed.

Latin manual alphabet
Some writers have suggested that the body and hands were used to represent alphabets in Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Assyrian antiquity. Certainly, "finger calculus" systems were widespread, and capable of representing numbers up to 10,000; they are still in use today in parts of the Middle East. The practice of substituting letters for numbers and vice versa, known as gematria, was also common, and it is possible that the two practices were combined to produce a finger calculus alphabet. The earliest known manual alphabet, described by the Benedictine monk Bede in 8th century Northumbria, did just that. While the usual purpose of the Latin and Greek finger alphabets described by Bede is unknown, they were unlikely to have been used by deaf people for communication — even though Bede lost his own hearing later in life. Historian Lois Bragg concludes that these alphabets were "only a bookish game."

Beginning with R. A. S. Macalister in 1938, several writers have speculated that the 5th century Irish Ogham script, with its quinary alphabet system, was derived from a finger alphabet that predates even Bede.

European monks from at least the time of Bede have made use of forms of manual communication, including alphabetic gestures, for a number of reasons: communication among the monastery while observing vows of silence, administering to the ill, and as mnemonic devices. They also may have been used as ciphers for discreet or secret communication. Clear antecedents of many of the manual alphabets in use today can be seen from the 16th century in books published by friars in Spain and Italy. From the same time, monks such as the Benedictine Fray Pedro Ponce de León began tutoring deaf children of wealthy patrons — in some places, literacy was a requirement for legal recognition as an heir — and the manual alphabets found a new purpose. They were originally part of the earliest known Mouth Hand Systems. The first book on deaf education, published in 1620 by Juan Pablo Bonet in Madrid, included a detailed account of the use of a manual alphabet to teach deaf students to read and speak.

This alphabet was adopted by the Abbé de l'Épée's deaf school in Paris in the 18th century and then spread to deaf communities around the world in the 19th and 20th centuries via educators who had learned it in Paris. Over time variations have emerged, brought about by the natural phonetic changes that have occurred over time, adaptations for local written forms with special characters or diacritics (which are sometimes represented with the other hand) and avoidance of handshapes considered obscene in some cultures.

Meanwhile, in Britain, manual alphabets were also in use for a number of purposes, such as secret communication, public speaking, or used for communication by deaf people. In 1648, John Bulwer described "Master Babington", a deaf man proficient in the use of a manual alphabet, "contryved on the joynts of his fingers", whose wife could converse with him easily, even in the dark through the use of tactile signing. In 1680, George Dalgarno published Didascalocophus, or, The deaf and dumb mans tutor, in which he presented his own method of deaf education, including an arthropological alphabet. Charles de La Fin published a book in 1692 describing an alphabetic system where pointing to a body part represented the first letter of the part (e.g. Brow=B), and vowels were located on the fingertips as with the other British systems. He described codes for both English and Latin.

The vowels of these early British manual alphabets, across the tips of the fingers, have survived in the contemporary alphabets used in British Sign Language, Auslan and New Zealand Sign Language. The earliest known printed pictures of consonants of the modern two-handed alphabet appeared in 1698 with Digiti Lingua, a pamphlet by an anonymous author who was himself unable to speak. He suggested that the manual alphabet could also be used by mutes, for silence and secrecy, or purely for entertainment. Nine of its letters can be traced to earlier alphabets, and 17 letters of the modern two-handed alphabet can be found among the two sets of 26 handshapes depicted.

Gallery
Engravings of Reducción de las letras y arte para enseñar a hablar a los mudos (Bonet, 1620):

Historic texts

 * Bonet, Juan Pablo (1620). Reducción de las letras y arte para enseñar a hablar a los mudos . Scan from Biblioteca Histórica de la Universidad de Sevilla.
 * Dalgarno, George (1834). Didascalocophus, Or the Deaf and Dumb Man's Tutor in The Works of George Dalgarno of Aberdeen (Maitland Club publications 29) pp. 110–160.
 * Rossellius, Cosmas (1579). Thesaurus Artificiosae Memoriae p. 101-105.
 * Wilkins, John (1641) Mercvry, or, the Secret and Swift Messenger
 * de Yebra, Melchor (1593) Refugium Infirmorum (Refuge of the Sick)

title: Fingerspelling