Talk:Feminist sex wars

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gigiarvizu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nelischalich. Peer reviewers: Aroddy1, Ehernandez14, ScottyPometta.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirect to Feminism

I've boldly redirected this page to Feminism#Feminism and pornography. All the info that was on this page is now on that page along with information about Sex-positive feminism and Anti-pornography feminism. Feel free to follow WP:BRD ad revert to this version --Cailil ^talk 22:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen this, but and this was from a couple of years ago. I agree the page has minimal information and is in need of expansion. However, I think the topic actually has room for expansion way beyond what is properly contained in the Feminism article. A history of events like the Bernard Conference, the Dworkin/MacKinnon Ordinance, the Meese Commission, and the rise of FACT and its role in Booksellers v. Hudnut are all topical here. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

trans women

Minor edit, but thought I'd note: changed "transwomen" to "trans women" as per the actual title of the linked page. Gabe (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That's useful, but, because the linked-to article's title is in the singular and not the plural but the plural is useful in this article, I redid it from the form [[text displayed on this page as a link]] to the form [[formal name of destination|text displayed on this page as a link]], using the pipe character (a vertical line or broken vertical line, on one keyboard and maybe typically on the same keycap as the reverse slash).

Also, unless you meant to answer a previous topic on the talk page, it's clearer when starting a topic to click the "New section" link at the top of the talk page. I gave the title; feel free to edit it if you wish.

Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion of trans women in the first paragraph of this article is confusing because trans women and how they relate to this topic are never again brought up or clarified in this article. Can trans issues as they apply to the sex wars be expanded in the article since they are presented as being part of the scope of the article? Lostxero (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought the same thing--it's odd to see 'trans women' brought up as an issue of the feminist sex wars when in reality they were not--the topic of inclusion is more closely tied to third-wave feminism. I'd say redact it--there's a reason it's not brought up after that. It wasn't a pertinent topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.73.99.133 (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

propose to delete the POV tag

The article seems balanced to me. Perhaps a significant source is missing, but if anyone knows such a source, please post it, and the same is true of both sides represented in the article. That supplying of a source can be done at any time and without a nonneutrality template. If the template is needed, please post a more specific explanation about what is supposedly missing. Otherwise, the template appears to be pointless. I propose to delete it. I will wait a week for comment. Nick Levinson (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The article has several places where POV is obvious. Examples include some of the descriptive language used, as well as partial inaccuracies in the subject's historical context, its notables, and some of the chosen terminology. I think these factors do lend the article a somewhat biased tone. Enough to warrant the POV tag, but nothing that I can see that would be the cause of major dispute if corrected/changed. I am willing to help edit to clean it up a bit, but until further editing is done (and further discussion takes place?) I oppose removing the template for now. Ongepotchket (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's specific. Go ahead and best wishes. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the article is written fairly neutrally and well-balanced, but something about the very existence of it under this title bothers me. It suggests that in the 1980s, the feminist movement was fiercely divided and tearing itself apart over these issues, almost to the exclusion of anything else. While there are no doubt some for whom that is an accurate view, I'm sure there are others who would say it doesn't reflect their experiences of feminism in the 1980s: that most feminists did not take part in these 'wars', and that to focus on these divisions minimises the unified purpose of the movement. (As someone who was too young to be involved, I can't take either side there.) That said, it's clear from the sources that these issues did provoke serious dispute at the time and the term 'Sex Wars' was used to describe them, so perhaps it should be left as it is. Robofish (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on where I saw the movement: The term is strong if one posits (as some do) that "war" is essentially unlimited and doesn't apply to mere political disagreements (and one feminist said we don't have a war since women don't have the means to wage one), but the term may be sourceable, although more from outside the antiporn movement, in which case it's probably appropriate for the article title (other terms can redirect to it). The hostility between the two sides was more than between groups that simply differed on whether, say, employment rights or reproductive rights should get priority. In the sex/porn divide, the side that did not prioritize antiporn work was often sympathetic to the general issue but needed news media to report on their work, such as on the right to seek a career, without belittling it and thus couldn't very well oppose the First Amendment protection of a free press while the antiporn workers could find no First Amendment protection for rape and abuse either by themselves or considering that porn and violence denied women equal participation in society, including careers. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete POV tag a year on?

There's been a lot of work done on this article over the past year and as far as I'm aware any language that is obviously POV has been removed. Has anyone got any specific POV issues with the article as stands? If people want to correct, or suggest things for me to correct, that would be great. Otherwise perhaps we could remove the tag? --Dakinijones (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and have done so. The original reason for the POV tag addition (2012-08-04T20:56:05) was only given in the revision comment: (the text highly favors anti-pornography feminists, and at points actively makes arguments for that perspective. At the same time, the view of the pro-sex feminists are so under explained to seem at times like an afterthought.). Since then there has been discussion here, and it seems that edits since then have resolved that problem. If there are remaining issues, please discuss them here and/or fix them. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This entire article needs a rewrite

And I say this as the editor who first started this article! "Feminist sex wars" has a very specific meaning, namely, the ideological battle between sex-positive feminism and radical feminism during the late 70s and through the 80s. And while these issues are still very much with feminism, the events and ideas of that era are what this article is supposed to refer to. Instead what it's become is simply a fork from Feminist views on sexuality (and in some sections, an outright WP:Coatrack). Most of this article needs to be scrapped - what's usable in Feminist views on sexuality can be moved there. What's specific to the 70s-80s "sex wars" can stay, even if that only leaves a stub of an article.

There is most certainly a full, well informed article to be written here, about events concerning Dworkin, MacKinnon, and Women Against Pornography, their proposed legislation, the emerging sex positive feminist opposition to such legislation, analogous battles within feminism around sadomasochism and bedroom practices, and notable events like the early 80s Barnard Conference. But that requires some work, digging into a number of now-out-of-print sources, etc. Not just cutting and pasting sex-positive vs anti-porn feminist material from other articles. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Andrea Dworkin.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Feminist Philosophy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2025 and 2 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hehe0405 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by PhilosophyProf (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

See the discussion started below as to whether this article is appropriate to the topics contributed, or whether Feminist views on sexuality or some other article is a better fit. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

This article has gone far off of its original topic

Greetings - I just wanted to give feedback on the current state of this article, as the editor who first started it 19 years ago this week. (Admittedly, my contribution at the time was pretty minimal and left the topic ambiguous.) In short, this article has drifted way off the subject that it was originally written about. It was originally supposed to be an article not about feminist debates on sexuality in general - there's already a comprehensive article on that, Feminist views on sexuality - but historically how the debate played out during what's been called the "sex wars", from about the late 70s through the 1980s, and maybe into the early 90s, depending on which events and figures you include. That's not to say those debates were ever resolved or that new positions didn't come along, but the so-called "sex wars" were a period of distinct historical events that this article was meant to cover. Examples would include things like feminism's late 70s shift toward hyperfocus on issues like sexual practices, pornography, sex work etc, 80s attempts by antiporn feminists to pass specific legislation against pornogaphy (in particular, the Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance) and the polarization that caused within feminism, the rise of sex-positive feminism, the events around the 1982 Barnard Conference on Sexuality, etc. It probably should have ended up as a short-to-medium article on a specific historical series of events, and instead has spun out into a lengthy and largely off-topic content fork of another article.

I propose that the majority of this article be merged into Feminist views on sexuality, unless the discussion is specific to the events and debates of the "sex wars" era.

I also added the "Cherry-picked" tag. I see that this article has been assigned as a class topic numerous times and I see a tendency here that I see in a lot of student writing, which is to basically shop around for an article giving a perspective that more or less agrees with that of the writer, then use that to coatrack their own views onto. The relative weight of that point of view in the larger debate on the topic is largely not taken into consideration, and the writer's summary of the source is often at variance as to what the original author actually said. That's a content issue that needs fixing regardless of which article the content in question ends up in. WP:NPOV needs to be adhered to - describe what the other person said and not inject "Why I think this person is right/wrong" language that simply reflects editor's own POV. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I noticed a big editorializing problem too after I went to track down the source for a summary that was only credited to an author in-text with no link (I appreciate you fixing my work here by the way, I'm still a novice contributor and that kind of feedback is helpful). The arguments attributed to that source seemed to be based on a highly distorted interpretation of the source material, and after checking several other sources used in the article I found this to be the case throughout the article.

I think reorganizing the article into roughly chronological sections would help a lot with maintaining the focus of the article. For example: Section 1, "Background" covering the development of sexual justice topics within the feminist movement and the increasing focus on pornography, the sex industry, and sex work throughout the 1970s in both feminist and popular discourse; section 2, "Anti-Pornography Feminist Movement," covering that movement (which was the primary focal point of the feminist sex wars), including specific sub-issues and [attempted] legislation; section 3, "Opposition and Sex-Positive Feminism," covering the rise of dissenting views on pornography and sexuality, the 1982 Barnard Conference, and the evolution of this movement; section 4, "Aftermath," covering the end of second wave feminism and other relevant topics; section 5, "Key Figures and Arguments" covering influential feminist authors, activists, and groups (this would allow the article to cover the central debates of the feminist sex wars without leaving as much room for off-topic expansion; and section 6, "Cultural Impact," which may be superfluous but could cover some additional interesting topics that currently aren't included but are relevant.

It would also be good to harmonize this article with subsections covering the topic in other articles, such as Feminist views on sexuality. AcsubOcsiba (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)