Talk:Feminist legal theory

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

Feminism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hgg25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 August 2020 and 24 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ackfemstudent.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Britweese.

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

I don't fully understand this article. It states that there are four models (liberal, difference, dominance, and post-modern) but mentions a fifth model in the text (sameness). In addition, I fail to see how these models are all mutually exclusive. I also fail to see how the dominance model is a model for women's liberation - the only items mentioned in this article for the dominance model is the model's assumption of sexual exploitation and subordination. Further information is required here.

I think this page should be formatted so that it will be easier to read Ingramhk (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sameness model you mentioned is actually part of/the same as the sexual difference model. It is two sides of the same argument. Information has been added to show this. JPoley99 (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be copied word for word from some website. http://feminist_legal_theory.totallyexplained.com/ I lack the expertise to fix it, but it is my sincere hope that somebody eventually does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.191.68.194 (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131005044235/http://www.law.emory.edu/academics/academic-programs/feminism-legal-theory.html to http://www.law.emory.edu/academics/academic-programs/feminism-legal-theory.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 2008 complaint above, the readability of the article remains worse that legalese plus Marxism combined. (OK I am exaggerating... a bit.) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to add more to the history section in order to develop it, since there isn’t much information. I also might be updating the sources to include some that are more recent because most of them seem to be older. A big thing I plan on doing is clarifying the information in the anti-essentialist model section because it has been noted that the terminology is confusing and requires more thinking from the reader than it should. I want to clarify terms and add information that makes the content more understandable. JPoley99 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not end up editing the anti-essentialist model section because the terminology was easy to understand for me and I could not see how editing it would make it any better. I added to the history section like I said, plus I added to the overview and the sexual difference model sections. I also made a new section on a related topic. JPoley99 (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]