Talk:Alternative spellings of woman/Archive 1

NPOV Discussions

I don't see anything biased about the page... --Phroziac 19:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do you pronounce this word? It looks it'd be "Whoa-Mine".

--Karmafist 08:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's pronounced the same.

Article should also point out, that they are badly mistaken (totally ignorant of the roots and bending the language):

"history"/herstory: that's nothing to do with "his" or "hers", it stems from the Latin/Greek root (historia/istoria).
"woman": "man" was originally used for both sexes, compare Latin "homo" (sometimes sapiens), then differentiated to "wifman" > "wimman" > woman, meaning a female human being.

--Palapala 18:04, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But what happened to words specifying a "male human being"? Gone; because the male is the norm. In present day english, "man" means "male human being", changing that is one of the reasons for "womyn", "wymyn" and similar.

Actually, that statement is incorrect. The word "man" does not necessary mean "male human being", in certain contexts, it is gender neutral. --SpinyNorman 04:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the original Star Trek's usage of "Where no man has gone before" was meant as gender-neutral, not as only men. Or the Lord of the Rings books refers to the race of "Men", meaning humans. "Men" is intended to be gender-neutral, but because of the shift in our language over the century where laws referring to the rights of "men" were legally used to exclude women from voting, amongst other things, the term "man/men" as gender-neutral carries with it a lot of political volitility. "Man" can still refer to either the gender or be gender neutral.. but in a more politically correct context it will refer to males only. --24.141.169.231 06:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think feminists know how the english language phonetically works. It would obviously be like the previous stated whoa-mine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.99.22.3 (talk • contribs) .

Modern English, because it promiscuously borrows words from every other language, no longer has a single pronunciation; that's why phonics as a method of teaching English reading is such a bad joke.

Atlant 23:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. For example the name Lyn doesn't sound like "line". 86.155.125.167 (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both the origin and current usage of the two words are already gender-neutral and any attempt to exaggerate this by creating new terms is pointless. - I could see this line being taken as NPOV. Marsman57

Words that are not related

This article says something that implies that many people think the words "his" and "history" are related, but I don't think they really are. Are there lots of pairs of words in the English language that people play with as if they were related but that really aren't?? Another example is "hello" and "hell" I stumbled across a few Internet sites that say that "hello" should be changed to "heaven-O". 66.245.97.131 17:22, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the section on etymology and mentions of the words "womynfacture" and "huwomynity" because both of those words (with which the etymology section deals) return vanishingly few google hits. I accordingly suspect them of being straw [wo]men. (For comparison, "womyn" returns 101,000 and "herstory" 521,000.) - Montréalais 01:40, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that "herstory" returns so many hits because of typos.....many of the hits you received likely should have read "her story".

Objectivity?

This article is very biased. --Stilanas 01:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very compelling argument you have there. Must have taken a good long think to come up with those points. --Dalar 06:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now, let's see:

historical and ongoing social subordination of women.: In many countries, yes; but the women that are actually complaining about most issues come from wealthy industrialized countries. I know for a fact that in the United States females tend to receive a lot more care than males do and tend to have a more accepted range of expression. By that, I refer to everything from simple things like programs specifically for girls in school (When was the last time you saw a "Whitaker Fund for the Education of Young Men," or something along those lines? It's unheard of.) to more important issues like sexual abuse charges. When female teachers abuse their students, they often get off with two or less years; males spend 10 or 20 years in jail. I could come up with many examples, but these are somewhat pertinent so I'll leave it at that.

since the word "man" is seen as an exclusively male term, implying that women are a subset of men, or a deviation from the norm.: Of course this one must be true. Especially since the English language has been using "mankind" or "the age of man" to refer to the human race for how long? Another example is saying something like "you guys." If there are girls and guys in the group, this is (colloquially, at least, where the term is used) perfectly acceptable. Furthermore, one could just as easily say that the "wo" prefix makes it so that women are superior to men, and not inferior.

The rest of the article seems good; the only reason I contend the first two statements is because they are put off as fact rather than opinion. The rest of the opinion also happens to be biased feminist garbage, but at least the authors made the distinction between what is believed and what is reality. Robinson0120 07:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems reasonable

The article seems to me to be a reasonable assessment of the use of the expression "womyn". I first saw it, actually, in a socialist poster saying "Womyn own 1% of the world's wealth", and I did get the purpose after a while.

The article itself is not biased even if the use of "womyn", "womon", "herstory" etc. is biased. --Phroziac 19:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disputed - Attributing to radical feminism

I question whether the term is appropriately attributed to radical feminism. While I realize that the writings of such women as Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, and Susan Brownmiller hardly comprise an exhausitve list of radical feminism's writings, I haven't encountered it anywhere in them. Plus, the reasoning behind the spelling strikes me as more typical of separatist feminism. Can someone trace the origin of "womyn" to a self- and widely- identified radical feminist?

The Literate Engineer 08:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Literate Engineer. If you see something which requires further research - then great, research it and update the article. This makes wikipedia a better place to live. However this is not a dispute. Maybe it constitutes a factual error, but I don't see a dispute, or even how it could be an NPOV issue.

The term might not be used in Dworkin's writings, however, it might come from the grassroots feminist organising of the Rad Fem tendency. It also might arise from, as you say, a different tendency such as seperatist feminism. In this case, you can change the first sentence to read "Womyn is a term used by many some feminists to take the "men" out of the word women" (or some such) and thus neutralise any attendant inaccuracy. I also note that the first sentence doesn't attribute the origin of the term - merely its current use.

NB: New items go at the end of the talk page, which is where I'm moving this item. Cheers, An An 15:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Womban / Wombat

Does one need a disambiguation page that points to Wombat, since the use of the word womban may confuse readers? It certainly confused me. --Confused Reader 19:52, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so as Womban is distinct from Wombat, and is pronounced the same as Woman. An An 00:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In German

A recent editor added the following text (which Atlant moved here):

<edit 09/11/05 first-language German speaker>

The German word for man is Mann, and the German word for woman is Frau. Herr and Dame are Mr. or gentleman and Mrs. or lady respectively. They have no bearing on this issue.

<end edit>

To me, this comment would seem more-relevant if we were discussing Ms..

Atlant 11:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, he is right. However Herr and Dame also have the meaning of gentleman/lady, as he said.

The whole dämlich/herrlich thing is false etymology again (in fact, apart from a few radical feminists few people ever think of that "relation" in a normal state of mind).

The correct adjectives for "gentleman-like" or "lady-like" (which is the implied original meaning) would be damenhaft and (I assume) herrenhaft, neither word has a negative connotation (not counting the negative flair of the word Herr because of the Third Reich term Herrenrasse (master race, since Herr can also mean master -- the female equivalent being Herrin)). Ashmodai 22:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

moving POV text

I just cut most of this paragraph out of the article and am moving it here. It is pretty much all POV. I fail to see, for example, how what some women or womyn, choose to call themselves constitutes "violence against men." Carptrash 23:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misandrists (those who hate men) and female suprememcist groups have used this vocabulary as a way to engage in violence against men. This word was especially prominent in women only circles especially in the San Francisco Bay region in the 1970's. Many female supremcists groups - often masquerading as feminists - continue to practice their attacks on men and anything male and espousing their violent philosophies. One might even attempt to edit a conflicting point of view in an online encyclopedia for example. In addition, it is worthy to note while there remains a "violence against women act" no such similar rights are given the male gender. A disparity often ignored by the "womyn" groups who often call out "equality now!"

It was re-added and I re-removed it. Paul3144 02:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and here it is again

Misandrists (those who hate men) and female suprememcist groups have used this vocabulary as a way to engage in violence against men. This word was especially prominent in women only circles especially in the San Francisco Bay region in the 1970's. Many female supremcists groups - often masquerading as feminists - continue to practice their attacks on men and anything male and espousing their violent philosophies. One might even attempt to edit a conflicting point of view in an online encyclopedia for example. In addition, it is worthy to note while there remains a "violence against women act" no such similar rights are given the male gender. -- By An Unsigned Person

Technically, all countries that have a "violence against women" act already have a "violence against men" act.. those would be the laws that existed before the violence against women acts.--Dalar 06:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice comment, Dalar. Couldn't feel the bias. The fact is, however, that while women have SPECIFIC laws that punish violence against them (regardless of whether it was motivated by "hate" or not), men do not. If you can find any literature to the contrary, I'd be delighted to see it.Robinson0120 22:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many rapes out of 10,000 are perpetrated by females? maybe 1? The situation is hardly symmetrical. MotherFunctor 18:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many self-respecting males would actually report a rape? Considering the fact that empirically the males of the species are generally physically stronger and hence can hold out. However,rape is just one of the many aspects of violence... mental torture, abuse etc against men are far more prevalent. Also, take a simple example, take a scenario where a guy and a girl are both traveling in a bus. Now the girl alleges that the guy tried to to take "liberties" with her, even if the woman is lying, the crowd would pretty much hold the guy guilty w/o evidence. Unfortunately, due to bra-burning feminism, the people of society have become misandrists. Stryk3r 122.167.157.129 (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for your theories. Talk pages are for discussing the article ONLY. Keep your comments strictly related to somehow improving the article. — TheBilly^(Talk) 14:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Languages

Perhaps there is this controversy in english... but it is completely non-existance in other languages, such as spanish or portuguese (and certainly others), which therefore lets us conclude that it cant be that serious of an issue, just a local unrest by some people.

this is not surprising since we are discussing an English word. However I doubt that in any other language such words are considered to be "violence against men." And how does Womyn translate into Spanish or Portuguese anyway? Carptrash 19:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's some interesting discussion of gender bias in the French language in Monique Wittig's introduction to her book The Lesbian Body. In the book she uses alternate spellings for personal pronouns.

Womban/Wombat

I agree with a previous reader(ess?), I was a first struck with the similarities in Womban and Wombat. Consequently, I could not help but laugh hysterically. In fact, I plan to call all future feminists I encounter wombats and advise others to do so in hopes of it becoming an accepted alternative to Women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.200.84 (talk • contribs)

Neutrality and recent changes

I've removed the "neutrality disputed" tag from the article. I didn't see any arguments on this discussion page supporting the notion that the current version of the article is non-neutral. If you want to re-add the NPOV tag, please also use this page to discuss why you think it's called for.

I also made some small changes that hopefully make the article more inclusive and neutral. I attribute the support of the new spellings to "some feminists" rather than "some radical feminists", and I added a sentence to the effect that some feminists consider the issue a "trivial distraction". (Please note the "some" before you get pissed at me.) I really think the article does a good job of presenting all (rational) views of the issue in a neutral way. KarlBunker 17:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, but doesn't wikpedia consider that "weasel words"?

Yeah, saying "some feminists" view them as a "trivial distraction" = weasel words. Find an actual source making this argument or don't bring it up.

Strange accusation, in my opinion. It seems obvious that it's a trivial distraction, and many feminists are highly intelligent, I think the statement is obvious and needs no qualifying. MotherFunctor 18:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it seems a good idea to keep the NPOV/neutrality disputed tags until & unless 'some feminists' is made specific as to which groups/schools of feminism are for this. Moreover, a criticism section seems rather required, perhaps talking about reasons why some feminist groups think this is not important or even stupid. As it is, it seems to beg the question of why there is no effort to simply return 'man' to its old gender-neutral meaning & the encouragement of a new gender-specific term for male men, or the revival of a lost one. It might even be easier to force, if nothing else when it comes to bathroom's. Consider what would happen to Men's Rooms signage if everybody starts treating man/men as only indicating 'human'...or even as simply indicating a sentient & sapient being. 75.177.89.14 (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beavis & Butthead episode

I would love to give the Beavis & Butthead episode Womyn (episode 40 season 5), a mention where that word were brought forward to a lot of people outside the US, what do you think? Willirennen 4 April 2006, 13.24

Gender bias

The article refers to 'women' using these alternative spellings. This ignores the fact that many males, myself included, also use them. The idea that "feminism is for girls" pretty much flies in the face of, well, feminism.

You should sign your posts. I have no idea when you made the above comment, I could of course look in the history but I don't see why I should have to. In any case, in the current version, it says used by feminists not women/womyn. Indeed, saying that the term womyn is used by women is kind of akward to say the least. Nil Einne 21:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other languages

This has been hinted at before but I feel this is an approriate article to discuss whether this is an issue in other languages. For example, from above it appears it isn't an issue in German. I can't think it'll be an issue in Malay either. Obviously the words themselves won't be womyn or man etc but whether this issue occurs is still relevant. Nil Einne 21:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should redirect to Woman

Seeing as how that is what it refers toTrevorLSciAct 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um........ No. KarlBunker 00:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha..--Ablablablablabla 08:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear that the article is discussing a political concept which is pretty separate from our generic article about women. I believe the article should stay right here.

Atlant 13:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Womynism // Women of Color Feminism

This is "feminism" with a women-of-color consciousness. It is a reaction to white, middle-class, liberal feminists lack of analysis of the intersection of RACE and GENDER. Womynism is very much linked to Third-wave feminism.

Neutrality?

"Womyn is one of a number of alternate spellings of the word "woman", which some feminists use." Implies a feminist viewpoint, there are no alternate spellings of woman in modern English.

Should read, "Womyn is one of many bastardisations of the word "woman", which some feminists use." Syphon8 03:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're in charge of modern English? (Random House disagrees with you, btw: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/womyn ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.236.219 (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Although technically it's not even in the English language, hence sometimes the people who use the word are mocked and called idiots, To avoid being mocked, users of the word are suggested to shut the hell up."? Just removed that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.239.174 (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wæpmen?

Given the etymology explained on this page, wouldn't it make more sense to change the word for males and reclaim "man" as gender-neutral? I just don't see the logic in changing the "a" in "woman." I bet even the lesbian separatists would be happy with "wermen;" it sounds so vile.75.49.251.170 (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the idea is that "man"=man, and also human, so men=human and women=subset of human. feminine terms in english all are an addition to the masculine term, i.e. wo/man, fe/male, s/he —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.143.103 (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

which means women get more. That's not quite fair to the gender that gets only 3 letters to their title. Men want more! "hemen?" MotherFunctor (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"S" and "sh" are completely different. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally prefer HeMan when talking about guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.62.147 (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If my understanding is correct, "were" for male and "waepman" for males--as in "werewolf"?--would've had to serve as the prefix, creating "wereman" as analog to Modern English /men/. But I think the /r/ in /*wereman/ would've dropped out over time, leaving /*we'eman/ which would've sounded too much like "woman," and fallen from use in common speech, and similarly for /p/ in /waepman/, the plural, which would have left us with /*wae'man/ and the same problem. The words were and waepman didn't survive in usage, possibly because they sounded too much like "wyf," leaving us the current mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O. Geek (talk • contribs) 16:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

arguments vs criticisms

Maybe I'm being nitpicky, but why are the pro/con sections named that way? Argument is not an antonym for criticism, it's praise or at least support. Also, a more common way of referring to criticism is "criticisms of", not "criticisms against". Perhaps a better division would be call them "support" and "criticism" or at least "arguments for" and "arguments against"... Glebonator (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph

The ~~current~~ previous concise lead paragraph didn't establish why this word has a separate article, nor why it's included in the Feminism series. This is confusing when cited from external articles, talking about the "concept of womyn", only to be fed with an etymology lesson. I'll try to expand the lead paragraph and explain its relevance. Diego (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plural

Is "womyn" plural? What's the singular? 75.118.170.35 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe womon is intended to be the singular, but I haven't added that into the article for lack of any reliable, or even unreliable, source stating as such. I think that there's a lot of variation in usage with many people unaware of the reason for the spellings (namely, to get "man" and "men" out of the words), and assuming that feminists are doing it because they just really like the letter Y. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, some of the sources that come up on this google search agree with me, but some of them don't. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, encyclopedicity

"womyn" should probably just be a bullet-list entry at alternative political spelling. I cannot see any potential for a real article here. --dab (𒁳) 11:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

womyn has been applied much more consistently in feminist articles and more extensively debated than many in that article (which is now satiric misspellings) and has been accepted into some mainstream dictionaries, raising the debate level more. The debate has centered on the politics of its etymological reason. That would seem to make it notable.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed

I am incredibly amused by the idea that the "Arguments for" appear to not need citation, whereas "Arguments against" do. This is incredibly common when edited by a biased framepoint. Please add, or remove, these labels accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.146.50 (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.9.246 (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghmon?

In the etymology of "man" the following fact is not mentioned in any other site on Internet apart from this article: " and perhaps from proto-Indo-European reconstructed ghmon-[2]". Is this really true and if so why is it not being mentioned anywhere else? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.157.76.143 (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who added the fact on proto-IE. It's in the dictionary cited, which is authoritative for etymology. Not all authoritative information in books and journals has been copied to the Web; note the discussions online about Google's book project. The Oxford English Dictionary, even the online edition, does not trace words back to proto-Indo-European roots even though English linguists generally agree that proto-IE does provide those roots; the OED has chosen not to give etymologies back to that time. Probably most dictionaries, most being derivative, do not trace that far back. The American Heritage Dictionary does, however, in a separate appendix (the hardcover's appendix may be bigger than the paperback's) (a version of the appendix also appeared some years ago in a separate volume, perhaps more thorough). There may also be more obscure sources on proto-IE, known to academic etymologists.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more detail

This article attempts to say a lot - but actually says very little. I'm an educated person, and having read the article I'm not considerably more educated. Sections need to be included on usage (including quotes) and why the word exists in the first place. 82.26.162.87 (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Husman, and why the word word womyn is stupid

Husman is not mentioned at all. I've actually never heard of waepman, but I know that some of the earliest words used to distinguish the sexes were husman and wifman. Obviously these are also the origins of husband and wife. One of the reasons that the elimination of "man" from woman, is stupid. All I can think every time someone uses this word is that they can't spell. I usually attribute the word's usage to the crazy man-hating women supremacists. I mean, I'm okay with the feminism that's for equality, but the other feminism, not so much. I really wish people wouldn't even call it feminism. That makes one thing of supremacy, even though the common usage of the word hasn't developed as such, usually referring to female empowerment and equality. Because someone like me, well, I'm not for feminism, I'm not for LGBT rights, I'm not for [insert color here] rights. I'm for human rights. I'm for equality. That means everyone, no matter sex, color, sexual preference, or anything else.

The only thing I'm not for is certain ideologies and thinking. Hating someone for the way they are born is idiotic, but what they think and do, yeah, I can dislike them for that. For example, those who can't spell. I'm only joking, but not really. 76.114.42.231 (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This point of view would be perfectly approriate for inclusion if it is quoted from WP:RS -- in this case, probably a linguist, or a social critic of repute with specialization in language or gender issues. DavidOaks (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACTUALLY, your etymology is incorrect - husband (n.) O.E. husbonda "male head of a household," probably from O.N. husbondi "master of the house," from hus "house" (see house (n.)) + bondi "householder, dweller, freeholder, peasant," from buandi, prp. of bua "to dwell" (see bower). Beginning late 13c., replaced O.E. wer as "married man," companion of wif, a sad loss for English poetry. Slang shortening hubby first attested 1680s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.3.23 (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Against the background of a patriarchal legal and social system"

This phrase in the "Background" section keeps being removed or weasel-worded by anonymous users without explanation, then reverted, over and over. So I am putting the relevant questions here for reference:

Are there reliable sources claiming that medieval England was not patriarchal, so that this cannot be stated as fact?
Are there reliable sources claiming the etymologies of "man" and "woman" are not as Spender and Swift (and numerous other sources) describe?
If these can be stated as fact, is there something wrong with stating them together, while stopping short of the explicit cause/effect claim made by Spender and Swift?

98.207.57.82 (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that feminist writers have suggested that fact. I don't see why the sources should be removed without reason. 67.165.249.244 (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary to preface the statements in any way? See questions above. 98.207.57.82 (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to correct the etymology in these articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_%28word%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman ? 67.165.228.132 (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly concerned with those articles. I'm also not going to try to guess how they might reflect in the dispute here. 98.207.57.82 (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you could misunderstand. Those articles also describe the etymologies of "man" and "woman" just like is being disputed here, particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_%28word%29. If you don't want to fix them, no problem. I'll add your suggested changes to those articles. 67.165.228.132 (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? There hasn't been any "dispute" over the etymologies here, just a series of drive-by edits to lazily suggest that there is one. If you want your edit to the disputed sentence to stick, you're going to have to put up some kind of rationale for it with sources. Tit-for-tat games will get you nowhere. 98.207.57.82 (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There sure has. The only sources you've provided that propose the cause of the shift in the meaning of "man" are from a feminist ideology. I don't see any other linguist cited. Also, questionable is why a manual on how to write is cited, but I guess everyone needs a little advertising now and then. Maybe you seem to think that this means universal consensus because this topic is tagged with the feminism portal, but you should probably remember that this is not a feminist encyclopedia; it's a general encyclopedia. Just because feminist sources state something, that doesn't make it a consensus. There are no drive-by-edits or tit-for-tat games, only your constant classification of everyone you disagree with as trolls or "attempts to spin". In any case, I see you're busy removing factual information from other articles that you disagree with without any discussion. I'm not surprised you feel such an ownership of this article. Feel free to put whatever you want here. I've already wasted enough time on an article that I only intended to fix an obvious omission with. 67.165.228.132 (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about "female"

I mean it has "male" in it, is there another ridiculous spelling change here too? Like "femole" ? 128.79.0.176 (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion about one's personal feelings about an article. An article's talk page is for improving the article -- NOT for talking about how "stupid" the things in the article are. Please do not waste Wikipedia's hard drive space and processing power by inserting content that does not belong here. 67.166.128.44 (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wo-myn

The word womyn actually descends from the word woman. The latter part of man is changed to myn which means "my" or "property", and that is why "womyn" means "my wife". Therefore womyn is actually a word that degrades women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.144.37 (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion about one's personal feelings about an article. An article's talk page is for improving the article -- NOT for talking about how "stupid" the things in the article are. Please do not waste Wikipedia's hard drive space and processing power by inserting content that does not belong here. 67.166.128.44 (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal feeling, it's a fair argument. but, please cite sourcesKendoSnowman (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Okay, genuinely nothing in the Criticism section has any citations. Can I just "be bold" and get rid of it, since it's clearly not up to Wikipedia's standards? This doesn't mean that there isn't criticism (tbh I don't know if there is, I'm not an expert) but it seems crazy to me to have a whole section with no citations. Kmwebber (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Kmwebber[reply]