Is our feminism bullshit? The importance of intersectionality in adopting a feminist identity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For nearly 50 years, social researchers have chronicled the continued stigmatization of feminism. Past research has evidenced the reluctance of individuals to adopt a feminist identity, despite their agreement with feminist ideals—otherwise known as the Feminist Paradox. The current study drew from a diverse sample (N = 355) and asked participants to provide their definition of feminism. Using a mixed methods approach, the current study aimed to understand how thematic differences in participants’ definitions of feminism were associated with adopting a feminist identity. Participants who emphasized the importance of integrating intersectionality in defining feminism were more likely to identify as a feminist. Conversely, those who defined feminism as exclusively attending to the needs of women were less likely to identify as feminists. The current study found very little negativity towards feminism, by feminists and non-feminists alike. As such, the current study may be indicative of a new Feminist Paradox: one that is more heavily influenced by the incorporation of intersectional politics in addition to negativity or stigmatization. Implications for the broader context of feminist identity and how feminist objectives are represented within mainstream perceptions are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".