Talk:Ad feminam

This redirect 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

Feminism

This redirect 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

Untitled

This is the archived discussion of a merge/redirected page.
Please see:Talk:Ad hominem

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 August 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Ad hominem.

Text and/or other creative content from Ad Feminam was copied or moved into Ad Hominem with [permanent diff this edit]. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Neutrality in question

This article only discusses the term as an error. Words such as this (as with womyn/wymyn and herstory) were generally coined with specific purpose to make a specific point, which is entirely missing from this article. These neologisms are not "errors," whether in Latin or English. The originators of "herstory" for example (Mary Daly?) did not believe that "history" is related to the masculine pronoun. It is a play on words to make a point: that history as commonly taught has a masculine bias.

Seems to me that efforts to characterize these arguments has "errors" rooted in lack of English/Latin knowledge might be a very good example of what "ad feminam" was coined to describe. Stuart Strahl (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source I found that makes this point (see "Usage Notes") [1]Stuart Strahl. And another: "The derived neologism ad feminam is more specifically used to refer to sexist prejudice directed towards women. (For example, 'Their recourse ... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadersh ..." [2]

(talk) 15:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the mistake?

Could the origin of this mistake be because the common translation of ad hominem is usually "against the man", whereas if you wished to be gender neutral you should probably translate it as "against the person"? Seajay (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.

Feminazis fail at English. "Ad feminam", "womyn", "herstory"? What's next, "fimail"‽ 75.118.170.35 (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, taking political correctness to the level where people are changing problems which aren't there is just moronic (history, which is of course not etymologically related to the pronoun "he" or "his"). Ad feminam is another blatant display of lack of linguistic knowledge. Does this even deserve an entry?! --BiT (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, if we were to institute an intelligence requirement for the subjects of our articles, it would devastate our coverage of wars. --Kiz o r 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would be failing at Latin, actually. Kairos (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this is the level of understanding we come to expect from Wikipedia participants? To label ideas and approaches (for instance, approaches that try to create new meaning and change a language that is purported to be value-neutral even though it is deeply implicated in power relations) they have no clue about as "X-nazi"? To deploy dummy stereotypes with no care for critical analysis? And to agree with this empty thinking style? 71.179.220.201 (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pssh, I'm a woman and I agree this is ridiculous. "Ad feminam"? "Herstory"? Seriously? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.91.130 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respect an intelligent, independent and self-sufficient woman, but it is this sort of fringe garbage that makes no one take feminism as a whole seriously. Is this even commonly used????? TheArchaeologist Say Herro 05:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Useful for personal attacks aimed at the femaleness of the attacked?

I agree all the examples point in the direction of a misunderstood male connotation of ad hominem, but I nevertheless feel a need for a term for attacks against someones womanhood, rather than the thing discussed. Ad feminam in that use is a subclass of ad hominem, as would be, ad virum. 82.182.50.106 (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be appeal to the womanhood, not appeal to the woman. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the proper Latin for what you're talking about would be argumentum ad femininitatem, not argumentum ad feminam. The problem with argumentum ad feminam, contrasted as it is with argumentum ad hominem, is that it directly implies that women aren't human (or aren't 'people'). -Silence (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the idea goes back to the very basics of feminist theory (eg de Beauvoir's Second Sex; also see Irigaray's Speculum of the Other) where the subject of Western thought are men disguising ("unmarking") themselves as "human".

Examples?

This topic needs more examples of so-called "ad feminam" arguments beyond "is it your time of the month?". I'm failing to see much use for this phrase beyond the hormone reference. Surely we already have a word for attempting to discredit an argument based on sex - sexism. If the "ad feminam" conccept is separate from this the difference needs to be more clearly explained, otherwise it seems more suited to Urban Dictionary than Wikipedia. Kombucha (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]