This is an archive of past discussions about Femininity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Roger, I agree that the section on Jung should be reconsidered. Since the concept of femininity has been a central aspect of feminist theory, it seems appropriate to include feminist views, and at the end of the article (where critical views are generally expressed). While important, as the concept of anima and animus is only a part of Jungian psychology and not its central concept, I think the discussion in this article seems out of place. I would propose deleting the section entirely and mentioning Jung in the "Behavior and Personality" section. Perhaps by adding a paragraph like this: "In Carl Jung's school of analytical psychology, the anima and animus are the two primary anthropomorphic archetypes of the unconscious mind. The anima and animus are described by Jung as elements of his theory of the collective unconscious, a domain of the unconscious that transcends the personal psyche. In the unconscious of the male, it finds expression as a feminine inner personality: anima; equivalently, in the unconscious of the female it is expressed as a masculine inner personality: animus." (with references lifted from the article on [anima and animus]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fistoffoucault (talk • contribs) 13:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Jung should be mentioned in this article, and I don't think it makes sense to include him with feminist views. But FoF's solution seems like a good compromise. --Aronoel (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I simply don't understand what it has to do with femininity as such. Jung's theory of anima and animus is not a theory of femininity, but a theory of the unconscious mind that borrows the vocabulary of masculinity and femininity to represent a complex of emotions and personal qualities. Do you think all instances where femininity and masculinity are mentioned are game for this article?Fistoffoucault (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, notable examples of femininity and masculinity should all be mentioned. Jung proposed a psychological model for feminine and masculine behaviors, how is that not a theory of femininity? It's outdated, sure, but it was an influential and notable theory. Also, the yin/yang is mentioned in this article, why not Jung? --Aronoel (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Feminine Athletics
Like with the historical switches in feminine/non-feminine occupations, we see such things in "feminine" sports. Whereas the first cheerleaders were male (late 1800's) cheerleading is currently widely accepted as a feminine sport and there are even organizations trying to push it through at the collegiate level as an all-female sport. However, we do see co-ed squads in some areas. I'm not sure if the trend is toward more or less co-ed squads. Roger6r (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
How about the fact that the Badminton World Federation recently declared that "women must wear skirts or dresses to play at the elite level."[2] The rule "was intended to make women appear more feminine and attractive to fans and corporate sponsors." Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to find every discriminatory practice and list it here, this is going to be a very long article. What about women's Olympic sports that don't have a male counterpart, like girls with ribbons on a mat (not sure what it's called.) USchick (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Please don't let me discourage you! The direction this article has taken lately, I'm thinking all this information related to gender roles, clothing, and occupations – can eventually be moved to its own article on "Feminine discriminatory practices" and get that crap very valuable information off this page. USchick (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for asking! :) I'd like to see every off the wall cockamaimy "pseudo science" unrelated claim to be attributed to something specific, like the source where it originated from. The way it reads now, is like an editor took a class somewhere with very limited scope, and wrote what they learned in this article, claiming that this is now the world view. Don't worry, I'll be adding content, and I'm sure there will be edit warring over that too. I hope you'll stick around as an administrator to mediate. USchick (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC) :-)
Regarding cheerleading, I found at least one blatant historical inaccuracy in the Cheerleading#History article. I'm currently investigating in the sources for that article but could use some help if anyone's interested. Roger6r (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the idea that some sports are considered feminine while others are not, but I don't think that this is enough for a separate section. Perhaps this could be incorporated into the behavior and personality or occupation roles section? In any case, I think we should delete this empty section until someone is ready to create some substantive content.Fistoffoucault (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
OED definitions of femininity, gender, and sex
Definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary (online ed.), as accessed Jul. 6, 2011:
femininity: "1. Feminine quality; the characteristic quality or assemblage of qualities pertaining to the female sex, womanliness; in early use also, female nature." "2. In depreciative sense: Womanishness." "3. In applied senses:" "[3]a. The fact of being a female." "[3]b. Feminine peculiarity (in shape)." "4. concr. Women in general; womankind." (All of the definitions.)
gender, noun, most relevant sense: "[3]b. Psychol. and Sociol. (orig. U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way." The earliest use reported in OED for this sense is dated 1945.
sex, n. 1, most relevant sense: "[2a.] ... [Note:] Since the 1960s increasingly replaced by gender (see gender n. 3b) when the referent is human, perhaps originally as a euphemism to distinguish this sense from sense 4b. The word sex tends now to refer to biological differences, while gender often refers to cultural or social ones." Contrarily, see sense 4a: "The distinction between male and female, esp. in humans; this distinction as a social or cultural phenomenon, and its manifestations or consequences; (in later use esp.) relations and interactions between the sexes; sexual motives, instincts, desires, etc. [Note:] Now usually coloured by the more explicit sense at 4b." Sense 4b: "Physical contact between individuals involving sexual stimulation; sexual activity or behaviour, spec. sexual intercourse, copulation. .... [1st note:] Now the most common general sense. Sometimes, when denoting sexual activity other than conventional heterosexual intercourse, preceded by modifying adjective, as gay, oral, phone sex, etc.: see the first element."
(All that was bold in the original is debolded here.)
Treating gender and sex as the same thing, as they used to be, some characteristics distinguishing male/masculine and female/feminine are still biologically caused and some are still socially caused. Because the causes are distinguished, because the results are distinguished, and because the results are frequently subjects of different discussions, it's concise and convenient to have different words for different things we talk about. And we don't have to invent them; that's already been done, and the usages have come to be established. While there are disagreements about the subject, that doesn't remove established word usages from English. Having been established only within our lifetimes (if so) doesn't matter. We accept lots of words and meanings, such as about technology, that didn't exist a couple of decades ago. While sex is used both biologically and culturally, when the distinction is being made by using the two different words, the biological is denoted by sex and the cultural by gender, per the OED.
I'm not sure what you're proposing, Nick, if proposing anything at all. We already state in the lead that femininity is "distinct from the simple definition of the biological female sex." Do we also state that femininity is made of both biological and sociological factors? Yes. Because that is true. This is article is not treating sex and femininity as though they are the same thing, though it largely has to do with the female sex...since femininity is mostly assigned to females. And I did clarify the difference between sex and gender somewhere in the huge discussion above. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
From reading these definitions, it's very clear that this article includes a lot of content about sex and gender, and very little information about femininity. Behavior and personality, Occupational roles, Clothing and appearance are all about gender roles and should be moved to that page. USchick (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Behavior and personality, occupational roles, clothing and appearance all have to do with femininity, USchick. What is femininity without these things? Without these things, it would mean that femininity is only about the female sex. Except wait...men can also display the things associated with femininity. That's why femininity is not just about the female sex. It's largely about the female sex, but that's because society has deemed certain things "feminine." And they have certainly deemed types of behavior, personality, occupational roles, and clothing as feminine. Even researchers deem certain personality traits to be feminine. And of course a woman's physical appearance is considered feminine. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Your argument consists in repeating your previous statement and is therefore obtuse. Based on the definition of femininity in the lead, all of the things you've mentioned could be discussed in connection with femininity. Perhaps you could propose the changes you would make to improve these sections?Fistoffoucault (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The concept of femininity is covered in various reliable sources, USchick. There's no way it fails Wikipedia's notability requirements. There's no way Wikipedia would delete the entry. It especially dealing with all things associated with women does not make it non-notable. 50.19.23.142 (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Do we need an article on Femininity?
The more I look over the way these debates go, the more I wonder if a separate article on Femininity is worth having. It seems like it might simply be misnamed. -- Avanu (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
An article on femininity is needed as much as an article on masculinity. Misnamed? The term is covered in various reliable sources. There is no other name that could be used, certainly not one that lives up to WP:COMMONAME. The main reason that there is a lot of debate on this talk page is because femininity, like masculinity, covers a lot of things and people believe that some of these things are either less important than the other or are not a part of femininity, sometimes disregarding reliable sources. Basically, POV on both sides are driving these debates. You don't see this much drama at the Masculinity article. 50.19.23.142 (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The more I look over the article, the more it seems to veer off from a discussion of Femininity into one of Feminism or simply Female. The Behavior and personality and Occupational roles sections seem to lose sight of the idea that they are in an article on Femininity. I agree that there is such a thing as Femininity, but this article does a woeful job of telling us about it. -- Avanu (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The reason for the drama is because females refuse to be defined by prescribed limitations set forth in this article – just like in real life. I can't believe I'm agreeing with Avanu lately – I agree that there is such a thing as Femininity, but this article does a woeful job of telling us about it. Totally agree. And if Behavior and personality and Occupational roles sections do not belong in this article, they should be moved to appropriate pages. USchick (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
"Do we need an article on Femininity?" YES.
The subject of "femininity" is inherently a zone of contention because the social construction and interpretation of exactly what essential attributes, behaviors, and roles are necessary and/or appropriate to women (or even more contentiously, trans women) is a field of hot dispute in what can only be termed a "culture war" ... and if you doubt that, look at Dave3457's arguments in this Talk page about how "feminists" are distorting this article by "pushing an agenda".
There's going to be a lot of disagreement over just what belongs in this article and just how it should be organized and stated, simply because there are many individual POVs (and just as many diverse WP:RS sources to cite in their support). In Wikipedia, articles are supposed to fairly represent the views articulated in WP:RS sources in a balanced fashion: in this case, it's hard.
Feminity is indisputably a notable topic; however, it's complex, and it is difficult to engage in cooperative editing with people who are inevitably going to find themselves disagreeing over a number of the issues involved. Please don't dismiss it; instead, deal with it. Thank you, -- bonze blayk (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Bonze blayk, do you have any sources to support your statement that what is considered feminine is a field of hot dispute in a "culture war"? It would be a valuable addition to the content of this article. (Much more valuable than traditional occupational roles of nursing and cleaning.) USchick (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
USChick, I think this is a very good suggestion ... however, I'm only familiar with this in general terms rather than intimate current knowledge of relevant WP:RS. But there must be a number of sources that could be used to illustrate this point; a Google search on "culture war feminism" turns up "About 3,230,000 results"! And, from my perspective, the reason there's a "war" here is because of the existence of totally opposing views of "femininity", whether it's even a meaningful concept or is merely a bogus contrivance of a patriarchal society, or a intrinsic source of superiority latent in all real women, who should therefore 1) rule the world, or alternatively 2) be chained to their pedestals (viz. George Gilder & "Sexual Suicide"; pardon me, his kind of pseudo-scientific, anti-logical rot inspires me to a state of near-fury, and that's part of why I don't care to get involved here!) etc. etc. There are loads of matches for "culture war femininity", also... -- thanks! bonze blayk (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Avanu and USChick, you can't have an article on femininity without a Behavior and personality or Occupational roles section. All of that has to do with femininity and is essentially what femininity is about. I don't understand USChick's argument to remove those things because then there would be no article on femininity here at Wikipedia, aside from equating femininity with the biological female sex. In fact, if irrelevant, there would be no such thing as femininity, aside from equating femininity with the female biological sex. The material in the Behavior and personality section doesn't lose sight of the idea that it is in an article on femininity at all. That is, when it's being neutral. That section is all about femininity and how it is defined. It actually does a decent job of presenting what is considered feminine and why, and the debate about all of that. You guys can try and get this article deleted or redirected, but it won't work. It meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, and is nothing without all these sociological things associated with it. These things that comprise femininity.
Bonze blayk, exactly. Basically what I stated about the POV-pushing at this article. I am in complete agreement with Dave3457's arguments about how feminists are distorting this article by "pushing an agenda." And then there's the ones fighting against that agenda, like myself and Dave. Though, really, I've just about had it at this article. 50.19.23.142 (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I did not remove "relevant cited information." I removed one line that stated that "the theory" is controversial, and I did so because I did not see it cited anywhere; I could not trust that it was cited when it was simply added in and a source that I added was used to back it up. If I saw it anywhere in the source that I added, I would have left it in. This type of editing that I had to revert is what was removing "relevant cited information." 50.16.87.192 (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Main picture
What was wrong with the shaman picture being "too positive?" What's wrong with a picture being positive?--Aronoel (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry my edit summary had an "e" instead of a "t". It should have read, "Changed picture back. Original picture apparently cast femininity in too positive a light." My poorly made point was that the The Birth of Venus image cast the feminine nature in a positive light. Your edits clearly indicate that you do not believe in the masculine-feminine dynamic. Not that you need to, to edit this page. Never the less your picture change is yet another example of you pushing your androgynous agenda because you know very well that when people think "feminine" they do not think, "Altai shaman". That is what you WANT them to associate with the word "feminine".
Also, could you please explain to me how you feel justified in casually undoing other peoples fine work? Dave3457 (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Honestly I'm still having trouble understanding the issue with the shaman. How does it portray femininity negatively? What is negative about it?
What is so important about the Venus picture? From my understanding, there are 3 advantages to the shaman picture over the Venus. 1. It shows feminine clothing and style. 2. It depicts a feminine role/occupation/behavior. 3. It further expands this article to include more cultures. It's a good thing when an article covers topics and cultures unfamiliar to most readers. That's what an encyclopedia is for.
I'm sorry you feel like I've been undoing your work. However, if you are not comfortable having your work changed and edited, then you should probably not put it on Wikipedia.--Aronoel (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
It is not that the shaman image portrays femininity negatively, it is that the Venus image portrays femininity positively which is appropriate for this page. At one point the lede image on this page was one of the “torture” images.
Below are your three points and my response to them.
1. It shows feminine clothing and style.
Being feminine is not primarily about what you wear but about the way you behave. It is not even about what sex your body is.
2. It depicts a feminine role/occupation/behavior.
Shamanism is not a typical role/occupation/behavior in society, let alone a typical role/occupation/behavior for someone that is generally characterized by society as feminine. For example, the way motherhood and nursing are.
3. It further expands this article to include more cultures. It's a good thing when an article covers topics and cultures unfamiliar to most readers. That's what an encyclopedia is for.
That is NOT what an encyclopedia is for. It is not an encyclopedia’s role to expand peoples thinking in new directions, that is a book’s role. An encyclopedia’s purpose is to summarize, the shaman picture does exactly the opposite.
By the way point 3 contradicts point 1. A picture showing feminine clothing and style, reduces the number of cultures that are included.
You said... “...if you are not comfortable having your work changed and edited, then you should probably not put it on Wikipedia”
The Venus picture was not my work. If I may quote an earlier statement you made...” it would be really appreciated if you could try and assume good faith.”
For what it is worth, I am beginning to think that you honestly don't realize that you are pushing an agenda. Just try to be more respectful of other peoples work. Dave3457 (talk)
The below is Aronoel (talk)'s response repeated from above.
You still haven't explained what is more positive about the Venus than the Shaman. I can't see what the advantage is to the Venus.
Clothing is a part of femininity, it's in the article. Feminine clothing and occupations are not universal, so no one picture can capture all examples of femininity. This one, unlike the Venus, does cover some specific objects and behaviors associated with femininity. And I don't understand what your point is about other cultures. You don't think an encyclopedia should cover different cultures?--Aronoel (talk)
Quote: You still haven't explained what is more positive about the Venus...
Venus is the Goddess of Love, I thought that was obvious.
Did you actually say that... unlike the Venus, (which is the Goddess of Love), the Shaman DOES cover some specific... behaviors associated with femininity. Are you trying to suggest that a Shaman is more reflective of the feminine nature than the Goddess of Love.
Quote: You don't think an encyclopedia should cover different cultures?
An encyclopedia such as Wikipedia should try to avoid focusing on a specific culture in the lede. While Venus is cultural, it is "past" cultural and everyone is familiar with it.
Dave3457 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with your opinion about how the lead should be and I don't think there is a Wikipedia policy stating that.
Also, I still don't see what Venus being the goddess of love has to do with it being a more positive picture than the shaman, a respected healer and community leader. It seems to be a matter of subjective personal opinion. Your insistence on the Venus picture is even more confusing considering that she is not even the correct Roman goddess. Actually, on this line of thought, I think I know a good alternative picture that you are going to be happy with. --Aronoel (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
"I like the other picture better" is not a good enough reason to revert my change. I like the shaman better but I'm trying to compromise. Venus is not the goddess of the feminine domain, Juno is. --Aronoel (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
As you said "It seems to be a matter of subjective personal opinion.". Since it is a tie, the image should remain as it was. On what grounds are you going to suggest otherwise? Dave3457 (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I was talking about your reasons, not mine. As I've explained, the Venus picture is not correct and not useful, especially when compared to the alternatives I've proposed. --Aronoel (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
---
Despite your caption for the Juno image which reads... "The Ancient Roman goddess of women, fertility, and femininity", here is the part of the lede on her Wikipedia page that describes her..."Juno's own warlike aspect among the Romans is apparent in her attire. She often appeared sitting pictured with a peacock armed and wearing a goatskin cloak."
Contrast that to the first sentence of the Wikipedia lede for Venus which reads..."Venus was a Roman goddess principally associated with love, beauty and fertility,...". I can only assume that this self serving selection of references to further your agenda is typical for you. Dave3457 (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Let me moderate that last comment, it was a little too personal. Your actions may not be as ill intended as I am imagining. I do however believe that, while pushing your androgynous agenda, you are being inconsiderate of other peoples work and are twisting the facts to suit your preconceived views. Dave3457 (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't help tone down your previous comments when you are just continuing to attack me.
Just because you may not personally consider one of Juno's associations to be feminine, it doesn't disprove the obvious fact that she was the Greek and Roman goddess of women and the feminine domain. I don't understand how this is even up for debate.
"Juno was originally thought of as the spirit of womanhood residing in each feminine breast...Now, this deification of the feminine principle [w]as Juno, just as the masculine element in human nature was deified as Genius..."The Classical world, Volumes 11-12 By Classical Association of the Atlantic States --Aronoel (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
"While every man had his 'Genius' so every woman had her 'Juno' - a divine double which personified and protected her femininity. ..." The dictionary of classical mythology By Pierre Grimal, see also the entire entry on Juno.--Aronoel (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
---
Firstly, I did not attack you, in fact I made a point of not attacking you but rather I’m criticizing your behaviour with regards to this page. I said, “that you are pushing an androgynous agenda” also that “you are being inconsiderate of other peoples work” , also that “you are twisting the facts to suit your preconceived views.”
These are legitimate criticisms of your behaviour. One only needs to look at your recent edits on this page to see evidence of this.
For example...
- Your recent edits here overwhelmingly cast femininity in a negative light. Particularly your initial edits before you moderated them. Given the edits here and your edits elsewhere in Wikipedia this can be clearly characterised as an agenda.(Refer to the list of your edits above)
- Your initial substitution of the lede image of Venus with a picture of an obscure female shaman speaks loudly toward your lack of respect for other people’s work and your lack of understanding of the purpose of this page.
- Your instance on using the Juno lede image instead of the Venus image in spite of all the references that support the view that Venus, in the minds of society, more clearly represents the idea of femininity than Juno. This reveals your very selective choice of references.
And I can go on.
Concerning the lede image, you say above..”.. the obvious fact that she (Juno) was the Greek and Roman goddess of women and the feminine domain.”
The fact is that this is the first line of the Aphrodite Wikipedia article, “Aphrodite is the Greek goddess of love, beauty, and sexuality. Her Roman equivalent is the goddess Venus.” Again the lede of the Venus article reads “Venus was a Roman goddess principally associated with love, beauty and fertility” (Note, I predict that you are simply going to ignore these references, in favour of more obscure ones.) Given your other edits on this page, I suspect your real issue is that the Venus image associates femininity with Love and beauty.
The bottom line is that given that this page is not about the Roman Goddessess but about femininity, the very well known Roman goddessess Venus is the obvious choice. The fact is that there are many Roman Gods who are female but Venus is almost universally considered the Roman Goddess that expresses femininity in the minds of most people. (at least to the extent that a single image can)
While there is a planet named after Venus, most people do not even know who Juno is, and it is not the role of the lede of the femininity page to inform them.
In my view the ledes of the two Wikipedia articles, Juno and Venus makes the choice obvious. One should also consider the Wikipedia pages of Hera and Aphrodite as Hera is the Greek equivalent of Juno and Aphrodite is considered the Greek equivalent of Venus.
What is more "female" about Venus than Juno? "Love, beauty and fertility" are all nice things, I'm not going to say they're un-feminine, but they are also not necessarily the same thing as femininity. Per the many sources I've cited, Juno is clearly the goddess associated with femininity and the feminine domain. I don't think it matters what is in most people's minds, what matters is what's in reliable sources. --Aronoel (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I would agree that the shaman picture is probably not the best picture to depict femininity since it's not universal, in many cultures shamans are a male occupation. As for whether or not Juno or Aphrodite best depict femininity, the problem is that for me, they both represent two different aspects of femininity - the home (Juno) and beauty (Aphrodite). If I had to pick one, I would probably lean towards Juno since the idea of beauty in the way that Aphrodite presents it is very much a western ideal of beauty. There are probably cultures out there that would not consider Aphrodite to be beautiful, but the idea of femininity in terms of women and the home is far more universal I would think.--Death by fugue (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
With a topic as broad as femininity, a single picture is probably inadequate and from the lengthy discussion here, there seems to be disagreement on what picture should be used. I would like to propose that a collage be used instead like those found on any of the articles on the various ethnic groups. Are there any suggestions on what else can be included if there is agreement on using a collage?--Death by fugue (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Aronoel, You say...”I don't think it matters what is in most people's minds, what matters is what's in reliable sources.” I disagree, the word “feminine” is ultimately just a word, it evokes thoughts in people’s minds when they hear or read it. It is our job to look out into the world and find out what people generally think when they hear the word and then report on it. When people hear the word “feminine” the Goddess Juno doesn't jump into their minds nor does it inform them in any way because they have generally never heard of her. Noting in the image's subtitle, that she is a Roman Goddess associated with femininity, whether true or not, does not say anything about what femininity is. The lead image should attempt to inform and summarize, the Juno image doesn't do that in any way. The fact of the matter is that when people hear the word feminine they think of the “gentler sex” and things like empathy, sensitivity and kindness. (That's not to say that some people don't think of negative aspects like deference and so those traits should also be included.) My position on the Venus image is that it is accepted that feminine individuals, whether they be female or male, are more emotional than masculine individuals and that Love is the noblest of all of the emotions. Women who are considered feminine are generally understood to be more loving and Venus is the Goddess of Love. Love is the great thing that those who are feminine bring to the world and while those who have issues with the feminine should have a voice, the lead is not the place. One also desires an image that is not cultural. If there is anything that transcends the cultural it is Love and an old Roman goddess that no one believes in anymore is the perfect symbol for that.
Death by fugue, you say that “the idea of femininity in terms of women and the home is far more universal” whether that is true or not there would be alot of people that would have a problem with this page suggesting, in any way what so ever that “a women’s place is in the home” Some people even take offence to the idea that women deal with the emotional needs of children better than men. That’s what great about focusing on Love, everyone agrees that Love is the best emotion and that those that are feminine are more emotional than those that are masculine.
I’m not a fan of the collage idea. Beside the general messiness of the idea, even if we could agree on a balanced collection between us right now, people in the future would constantly be fighting over what should be included and even putting in ridiculous ones. For example, at one point in time even the African women with the neck rings was the lead.
In summary, the Venus picture casts femininity in a positive light as is appropriate, and it is as non cultural as you can get given the situation. She isn’t even wearing any cloths :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave3457 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
A collage sounds good.
"Being feminine is not primarily about what you wear but about the way you behave.": Except that clothing is virtually the first thing most people experience about a stranger.
Wikipedia does intend to expose readers to more cultures. We have a tag ({{Globalize}}) to encourage worldwide coverage (except when a subject is large enough to require separate world and national articles).
A collage would be good as long as all pictures included have direct links with femininity that are supported with reliable sources. Here are some additional suggestions: File:Freya and Heimdall by Blommer.jpg[1] File:Lang De Girls.jpg[2] File:Dallas Dubois.jpg File:Mehandi.jpg[3] --Aronoel (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you mean by Venus being a positive portrayal of femininity. Is it simply because it's an attractive image? That's a bit subjective. Also, by not having Venus clothed would indicate that the basis of her femininity is her body, that it's biological in nature, which is not what the article is saying, right? At this point, I think it would be best to not have any picture there since there doesn't seem to be consensus. It's not a requirement anyway since there are other pics elsewhere in the article already.--Death by fugue (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
In the behaviour section the positive traits that are associated with femininity are Gentleness, empathy and sensitivity. These are all different forms of “lovingness”. The feminine nature is generally considered to be more loving than the masculine as evidenced by these referenced terms. And so Love is the appropriate emotion for the lead image. With regards to Venus’s sex, even though a percentage of males exhibit the feminine nature, females to a vast degree are associated with the feminine nature.
Dave3457, your allegation that femininity is about behavior and not clothing is nonsensical because choice of clothing is a result of behavior. Do you propose that femininity cannot be discerned in a clothed individual? This allegation is in contradiction to the rest of the article and is one example of why the Venus picture is a poor lead for the article's subject. Roger6r (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
USchick, please direct your discussion regarding the main image to the talk section titled "Main Image." There has already been considerable discussion regarding this issue.
Your claim that the image is "fringe," or "undue weight," seems inappropriate. I challenge you to explain how the image of an Altai shaman represents a "fringe theory." Is your claim that Altaic peoples did not have shamans, that they were not female, or that it was not considered a female occupation? If you argue the last point, I think you will find that in numerous Altaic and non-Altaic traditions, shamanic roles were largely performed by women, and associated with whatever notion of "femininity" or "womanhood" held by those groups. Take for example, the "mudang"(무당), a Korean female sorceress still found in North and South Korea and Northeast China (one of my professors in Harbin had a mudang-aunt).
Similarly, your claim of "undue weight" needs support. Undue weight to what? Someone from a non-Euro-American background might claim that the use of Venus or Athena as a representation of womanhood gives undue weight to a Euro-American perspective. As the discussion in the "Main Image" section indicates, the shaman image is preferable because while it represents an ideal of "womanhood" and, historically, a largely female occupation, it also adds regional, ethnic, and spiritual diversity to the article--bringing us closer to the idea of an encyclopedia as a "circle of learning" (Online Etymology Dictionary.
In summary, I'm reverting to the Altai shaman picture. We can continue this discussion, but please direct your response to the "Main Image" section of the talk page. Thanks!Fistoffoucault (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
USChick, we have a section on Female Occupations--since by your own admission, the shamanic role was often female, doesn't this provide enough justification for the picture? I'll leave the sourcing to you since you've so kindly offered your help.Fistoffoucault (talk) 03:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Altai people represent less than .0001% of the world population. Please someone explain to me how this image is representative of a world view for the entire article and not just a fringe view of one very small minority. The picture belongs in the section that talks about shamans. According to policy Wikipedia:Images images should look like what they are meant to illustrate. USchick (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
How's the painting from Marie-Denise Villers strike you as a choice? The subject in the portrait is drawing, something considered feminine, at the same time, she herself seems feminine, while you could also look at the idea of her creating/drawing as a metaphor her own choices determining what "roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes" that she might consider feminine. -- Avanu (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it is really smart to use a woman's self-portrait, and I like where you're going with this. However, I think this picture might be somewhat problematic. First, was drawing really considered a feminine occupation during the Regency period? I'm not sure about this because I thought that most professional artists were men at that time. I would be more comfortable with this if we could find a source. Also, even though it looks feminine (it has a soft quality, the woman looks youthful and attractive, etc) I don't know if the casual reader would be able to consciously make the connection between the particular qualities in the image and femininity. It seems to require some analysis. The fact that she is wearing Regency feminine clothing is a bonus though. Also, I think by using a Euro-centric image we are missing an opportunity to balance systemic bias and educate people about the non-Western world. I believe the ideal final image for this page should meet the following criteria:
Has a clear and direct connection with femininity in a certain culture, and that connection can be backed by a reliable source
Does not confuse gender and sex (ie does not show the female body as representing femininity, etc)
Avoids presenting European standards of femininity as the representation of universal or "true" femininity --Aronoel (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Setting aside the discussion about Altai demographics--including Korea and Japan, both countries with proposed Altaic origins, Altaic peoples make up about 2% of World Population, almost as much as the US--I think Avanu's response to the claim of "fringe"-ness is valid. I also think Avanu's idea of a self-portrait is inspired. I can't see the specific image in question as I'm in China, where Wikipedia images are often blocked, I leave the discussion up to you guys.Fistoffoucault (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I just looked at the image (thanks Google) and I'm not sure the connection with the concept of femininity as mentioned in the article is very strong. I like the shaman image for the following reasons:
1. It portrays a traditionally female occupation.
2. It portrays a style of dress associated with femininity in the society.
3. It represents a non-Western notion of femininity.
I think that we should keep the Shaman image. Honestly, the only reason I can see why some commenters don't like this image is because it's foreign.Fistoffoucault (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
World population of Altai people is 70,800 and practicing shamans are even less. The photo does not look feminine by any definition. The suggestion that in the US there is a bias against anything foreign is absurd, since everyone in the US is foreign. What was the problem with having a collage? If it's that difficult to come up with an acceptable image, it's perfectly acceptable not to have an image in the lead. Fistoffoucault, I encourage you to take that picture and show it to as many people as you want and ask them to describe it in one word. See how many people say "feminine" – not one person, I don't care where you are on the planet. USchick (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
In addition, the Kayan people (Burma) have a population of 130,000 so even the neck ring picture would be more representative than the shaman picture. Seriously, what's the problem with a collage? You can put as many fringe views as you can fit into it. See Woman.
USChick, your arguments are obtuse. First of all, you clearly don't understand what the term "Altaic" refers to--it doesn't refer to a specific group of people, but to an all encompassing term for a variety of peoples living on the Central Asian steppe (as a Ukranian, you should be familiar with this concept). Additionally, since when is taking a picture from Wikipedia and showing it to people an objective, scientific way of determining its usefulness? I might similarly take your picture of Venus, show it to the Altai shaman, and be met with a quizzical look. The main reason I continue to advocate the use of the Altai shaman is simply that it was what was here earlier. Your attitude regarding this article has been entirely negative--built on destroying the article, and not adding quality or content. I don't think I'm the only person who feels this way. Please respect the democratic, open process represented here, and stop acting as an individual actor--and note I didn't report you for your three reverts last Friday.Fistoffoucault (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
USChick, I have to agree, you are not being very respectful of other people's work.
Fistoffoucault, the Venus picture was up alot longer than the shaman picture, if that's the criteria that you are using. While I'm a strong supporter of the Venus picture it would seem to have no chance given that it so strongly associates femininity with being female.
By the way, when you changed the image, your grounds for doing so, which was that no one supported the Venus image, was false. Your talking to two of them right now. USChick originally put it up when she did a great overhaul of this page earlier. Dave3457 (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'm sorry. I'm calling a truce and I'm prepared to work more collaboratively if everyone else is willing to do the same. I'm going by what the article on Altay people says is the entire population of Altay people everywhere in the world, which is 70,800. The information is sourced from 2002; however, it doesn't say anything about world population. The shaman picture is currently with the rest of the information talking about shamanism in Asian religions, which seems appropriate. USchick (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Population size is irrelevant to this discussion. There is no population cut-off point determining a culture's validity. The fact that people here consider Altaic feminine traditions worthless or non-notable compared to Western traditions just demonstrates the importance of using this picture or a similar one for this article.--Aronoel (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Not seen in the talk, through reverts and so forth which changed the image from the Shaman to the Young Woman drawing picture Dave3457 and USchick who initially supported the Venus picture displayed that they were willing to live with the Young Woman Drawing picture.
When all is said and done, Dave3457, USchick, and Avanu, all very active editors, definitively support the Young Women Drawing picture and Aronoel and Fistoffoucault now support the Shaman picture.
By the way, I'm not too stuck on any choice yet, but I will say this. The majority of our readers will be Westerners. I think it would be helpful if the top image were one that a person can immediately identify with as being part of 'femininity', and not one where the connection is obscure at best. For this reason, I wouldn't support the shaman picture as a lead picture at all. Even with a description, it doesn't have an immediately feminine quality to most people. I also don't particularly like the idea of a collage, because that requires a person to sit and analyze the images and figure out what is going on. I think a simple, iconic, and elegant picture is best, and although I'm not stuck on the picture I suggested, I do feel that it comes close to meeting that standard. -- Avanu (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
"I think" is not the appropriate measure of how a picture is selected for an article. There is policy in place to dictate the selection process:
A picture should look like the subject matter – WP:IUP#Content
"I think" is perfectly acceptable in line with the other guidelines you mentioned, all of which I was mentioning, even if it was only indirectly. Don't be a rules-douche. A collage is kind of a messy approach, in my opinion. From WP:IG - "If a gallery would serve as well as a collage or montage, the gallery should be preferred, as galleries are easier to maintain and adjust better to user preferences." Since this is a LEAD image, it would be better to find the iconic image, and since you can't please everyone, make it something that MOST can readily identify with. The idea that every image must conform to MOS:CLEAR/WESTERN BIAS is a bit silly. Certainly a tribal shaman does very little to identify with the average reader who might want to learn more about Femininity. -- Avanu (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
When everyone has their own version of "I think" it helps to go back to policy, especially when no iconic image can get consensus. In that case, perhaps no image is necessary. USchick (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I was looking at articles on Femininity linked in other languages. Most consist of a definition and nothing more. In French, they have an article branching off to Feminine Images. They use an image that represents both biological and social feminine roles, and it uses international symbols. Based on the descriptions written in this article, it meets all the criteria. What do you think about using it for the lead image? File:Armoire balais paris roissy 1 IMG 9033.JPGUSchick (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
"I think" is all about consensus. Definitely there is not consensus for the Shaman. It is too 'out there'. I would be fine with no image at all, but that tends to make articles very text heavy and forboding. -- Avanu (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I’m not for a college either, I think the pictures would be to small. It worked for the women article however.
A picture I think is called for, and I don’t care for the French Wikipedia version. What does that image say about the feminine nature? and what’s with the broom?
Any argument against the Young Women Drawing image can be made against the Shaman image and yet more people can identify with the Young Women Drawing image.
I concur with Avanu on all her points above.
Aronoel, here is a quote from you...
I think it is really smart to use a woman's self-portrait, and I like where you're going with this. However, I think this picture might be somewhat problematic.
Avanu, what specifically doesn't look feminine about the Shaman picture that would be confusing for Western readers? What feminine quality should be illustrated in the main picture, but is not in the shaman picture? I'm open to other suggestions besides the Shaman, but so far none of the other proposals meet the criteria I listed above, which I believe are reasonable criteria. --Aronoel (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Your criteria, from a Western standpoint...
1. Feminine clothing and style (not at all)
2. It depicts a feminine role/occupation/behavior (not at all)
3. It further expands this article to include more cultures (yeah, it does, but why?)
Some person standing next to a dirty hut, despite whatever you might put next to it doesn't exude 'Femininity'. Perhaps it shows that a certain role can be occupied by a woman, but that is *not* femininity nor feminine; it is just feminism, and that is a completely different concept. -- Avanu (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The shaman does have feminine clothing, and does have a feminine occupation, although they're non-Western. However, healing is a role almost universally associated with femininity, so that's hardly radical. I think the average reader is more tolerant of foreign cultures and more interested in learning about them than people here are assuming. Can we just abandon the idea here that we can't accept any non-Western depictions of femininity, and just move on to other considerations?
Regarding the current picture, what specific feminine role or quality does it illustrate, other than feminine clothing? --Aronoel (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
First-wave and Second-wave Feminism was about equality in society and equality in the workplace, but damned if femininity got a place in that. Third-wave feminists can say, why the hell did that ever matter? Femininity, as we have argued extensively here, is partly made up of things that are inherently female. So dropping femininity means dropping part of who women are. And that's just not right. If you want a shaman, show how she is actually feminine, not how religious leadership is not male-centric in that society. -- Avanu (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Although I'm not stuck on the Young Woman Drawing as a lead pic, it simply exudes femininity without being overly sexual. Like it or not, qualities like youth, beauty, demureness, and occupations that aren't physical, like drawing, are all considered feminine qualities. Add to that the idea that she is drawing herself, her conclusions about herself, her inner eye describing who she sees herself as, showing us the inherent tension between what one feels internally and the pressure by society to draw ourselves publically as we are expected to be seen, the psychological conflict and tension between what she might draw and what she feels like she *should* draw, yet we don't see what she draws. It is hidden from the viewer, something she can see and we can't, yet the irony is that we see the finished work in the very picture itself. To me, it is picture waiting to become a subject of an entire lecture on femininity in all its aspects. -- Avanu (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
While of course I agree that youth, beauty, and demureness are all feminine qualities, I don't think the average reader would be able to analyze the femininity of the picture on that level. I think it would be better to have a picture that specifically illustrates demureness, for example, so it can be explained in the caption. I don't think most people would be aware that those are in fact the reasons that picture might seem feminine to them. Also, weren't most artists at that time men? --Aronoel (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what's up with you and USchick in these last 2 suggestions... first a broom, and now someone washing clothes. I was kind of hoping for femininity without sexism creeping in as well. Although it is certainly possible to be feminine while undertaking manual labor like sweeping or hand-washing clothes in a bucket, it certainly isn't first on anyone's list that I could imagine. -- Avanu (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion was based on traditional occupational roles assigned to women in this article, and I was joking! Aronoel, who claims to be a feminist, is serious. USchick (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad we're still talking about this. I think that having a set of guidelines for choosing a picture that we can all agree on is the only way to come to a mutually agreeable conclusion. So far, I like Aroneol's list:
1. Feminine clothing and style
2. It depicts a feminine role/occupation/behavior
3. It further expands this article to include more cultures
While I disagree with the arguments being made against the shaman picture, like Aroneol, I'm open to other suggestions which conform to this criteria. Avanu, I think your selection of the self-portrait and explanation of why you chose it is well-reasoned and interesting. However, it's more of an argument and an image concerning representation. What do you think of the picture mentioned earlier? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sugimura_Jihei-Kume_no_sennin.jpgFistoffoucault (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Criticizing the image for being sexist for this page makes very little sense, since this article is all about stereotypes and socially constructed roles for women. If you mean that it portrays femininity too negatively for the main image, I disagree, but at least I could understand that line of thinking. It would honestly be more sexist to have an image conveying subtle feminine stereotypes without actually explaining them or presenting them in a deconstructed way for the casual reader, as the current image does. Honestly I would rather have no image than an image like that. --Aronoel (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's not get confused here. This article is about Femininity. It has been hijacked and turned into stereotypes and socially constructed roles for women. USchick (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Is femininity a quality that is innate to women and cannot be separated from them? Is it a set of associations a society invents for women? If it's not one of these things, what do you think it is? A combination? --Aronoel (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought this was an article about Femininity, not Sexism and Stereotypes, but I guess I got fooled by the title. -- Avanu (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Aronoel, if you're interested in having a philosophical discussion, a more appropriate place would be a coffee shop. I refer you to the top of this page where it clearly says: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. A sexist picture does nothing to demonstrate the subject of this article. USchick (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
From the article Stereotype: "A stereotype is a popular belief about specific social groups or types of individuals. The concepts of "stereotype" and "prejudice" are often confused with many other different meanings. Stereotypes are standardized and simplified conceptions of groups based on some prior assumptions." If this page is about women and not cultural stereotypes and socially constructed roles for women, as explained in the WHO definition, the Encyclopedia of Sociology, and the OED definition, and all the other sources we talked about when we discussed the lead, I honestly have no idea what this article is about. I think we should stick with the definition of femininity from these reliable sources per Wikipedia's policies. --Aronoel (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Femininity is not just a stereotype. Women make up half of society, so you can't just say "cultural stereotypes and socially constructed roles" and act like it is determined FOR women without their input on it. No one is arguing that WHO, EoS, or OED are wrong. No one has said that. I really don't understand why we're moving back toward that lame argument. It is so common sense what Femininity is and is not, but some people seem like they need a dictionary to understand a simple concept. At the same time that Femininity is clear, it is ineffable. One of those 'you know it when you see it' things. As simple as the way a woman combs her hair, or as complicated as the whole of her life. To me, it seems like you just want to undermine this article with stuff that is hard-edged and cynical. -- Avanu (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Avanu, I'm not trying to undermine this article. I believe everyone here is acting in good faith to improve this article, but I see now that we all have different ideas about what this article is truly about. I think we need to discuss this again and really come to an agreement or we're just going to have more disputes like this in the future. You say that the concept of femininity is obvious to everyone, but clearly people disagree or there wouldn't have been so much argument about the lead in the first place. My interpretation of the reliable sources we discussed is that they make a distinction between real, biological women and the cultural associations a society gives to women (this includes women too, obviously, in creating these associations.) "Stereotype" is just another word for a set of simplified associations.--Aronoel (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I also just want to say that I personally think these stereotypes are negative and problematic for women, but I don't think we should approach this article on that idea. I think we should try to be like objective anthropologists and just say, "culturally, for whatever reason, washing clothes is associated with women and not men," which is plainly true and can be backed by reliable sources. Explaining that fact doesn't reflect on real women and whether or not that association should exist at all. --Aronoel (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it is "obvious to everyone", but it should be. Stereotypes might form a part of a "Femininity" article, but they are not the major part of it. Washing clothes might be a stereotype, but it is unlikely to be called 'feminine', except in some insulting way. Caring about the way your husband or kids look and making sure they have clean clothes *might* be feminine, but the motivation there is a concern for others, not just washing clothes. You need to learn to separate the power of Femininity from the stereotype side of Femininity. There is a lot of control one can exert through Femininity, and its like you're acting as if it is just a boat anchor dragging women down. -- Avanu (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments Aronoel. Please go back and read the previous discussion about "I think" and then please consider that washing clothes and laundry has nothing to do with the subject of this article. USchick (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Washing clothes and other domestic tasks are feminine. They are feminine roles and not masculine roles. They are viewed as emasculating. Here is one example from reliable source: "Gender equality did not mean that soviet women were 'acting like men' at home; they had retained their feminine virtues and strengths. Women were willing to cook, clean and take care of children, as they knew that they were better at these domestic tasks." Pedagogy of democracy: feminism and the Cold War in the U.S. occupation of Japan by Mire Koikari
A quick google search shows more sources backing up the idea that domestic work is considered feminine work. I think we are going to have to go beyond just gut feelings about femininity to improve this article, and (using reliable sources) deconstruct all the aspects of it, though some of the aspects may seem negative to us. If there is another way of approaching femininity other than the cultural associations and roles society gives women, please explain more or provide a source explaining it because I genuinely don't see how.--Aronoel (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
If you genuinely don't see how to improve a WP article, perhaps you're working outside your area of expertise and would be more comfortable working in a different subject matter. USchick (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
This book is comprehensive and carefully deconstructs femininity. It would be a good source to base the structure of this article on. The main disadvantage is that it only covers Western culture. --Aronoel (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Judging by what I'm reading so far it is also the same tired refrain that women are just condemned to live a stereotypical life where beauty is good and ugly is evil. The book also says 'femininity is a mask' and a 'prison'. Yeah, wonderful book to base the article on, if you want people to just feel like crap. I agree that views like these have a place, but as the centerpiece of the article? Really? -- Avanu (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that that book has an argument against the idea that women should be confined to femininity, but I think most of it is pretty well-researched and valuable. It will be hard to find books about femininity that don't have some kind of argument. Take the book "Set-Apart Femininity" which has a radically different perspective, yet the aspects of femininity discussed are extremely similar. We should take the facts out of books from all perspectives without the argumentation and make them the basis for this article. --Aronoel (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Totally agree with this idea. I dare you to find me any source that successfully discusses "femininity" without some ideological component. Avanu, while I agree that different viewpoints should be expressed, the point of an encyclopedia article is not to avoid hurting people's feelings--its point is to provide a concise summary of the set of knowledge regarding a thing. You seem to hold the opinion that femininity can be empowering or fulfilling, and I don't disagree with that; what I think we need to recognize (and a problem I see in a lot of 'third-wave' feminism) is that the terms of what is 'feminine' or empowering to women--the terms of sexuality, even--is not defined by women themselves. Women are subjected by sexism, racism, and economic exploitation to a secondary position in the social structure: a position in which they lack the power to frame discourse. See Catherine MacKinnon's "Pleasure Under Pornography."Fistoffoucault (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Such things need to be dealt with carefully though. This article is supposed to be about Femininity, not sexism, exploitation, etc. While I can see how there is a clear interplay among all these things, the focus of the article should stay on Femininity. These kind of points are why I questioned below whether we need an article on Femininity. (I think we should... but) The comments at times make it seem like this article might be mistitled or simply about something other than Femininity because of the many tangents. -- Avanu (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Main picture (New section 2)
The fact the an individual just added an image to the lede, presumably feeling that some image was better than no image, illustrates that an image needs to be chosen. If an image already exist it is far less likely to be changed. No image on the other hand suggests that no one has bothered to come up with one and so they will tend to go ahead and put one there.
I replaced the image that was there with the Young Women Drawing because that image presently has the most support. Of course an image of a know person is unacceptable. Dave3457 (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not an acceptable image. It doesn't directly illustrate anything about femininity. Yes, there are feminine things in it, but it's not explained or made very obvious. This is a very basic, important criterion for the main image. An article doesn't have to have an image. It seems the only thing most people find acceptable is no image. I will remove it until a better one can be found. --Aronoel (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
RfC: Which of two photos in more appropriate for the lede of the femininity article
There is presently an "edit war" of sorts with regards to which of these two photos should be in the lede of the femininity article. A third option, supported by some, is that there should be no photo at all since we can't reach a consensus.Dave3457 (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I support the Young Women image on the right, here are some reasons.
Shamanism is not a typical role/occupation/behavior in society, let alone a typical role/occupation/behavior for someone that is generally characterized by society as feminine.
The women in the Young Women image is feminine according to most people’s understanding of the word while the Shaman does not look feminine by most people’s definition.
A picture should look like the subject matter – WP:IUP#Content
No photo unless sources use it - We editors cannot make the association of a photo with Feminism. The WP Verifiability requirement requires that sources provide the foundation for all material in an article. A photo in the top-right corner of an article is a very key part of the article, and we cannot rely on the judgement of an editor to claim that a particular photo or piece of art is representative of femininity. Now, assuming that some reliable sources do associate photos/art with femininity, which should go into the article? It is probably wisest to include several pictures, covering a range of viewpoints. Singling-out one picture is vulnerable to bias and may be misleading to readers. Perhaps pick three illustrations (associated with femininity by reliable sources!!) and include all three. --Noleander (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
That's good advice Noleander, that should help a lot. Although I'm not sure how well multiple pictures would work space wise. They would end up being pretty small. I would now support a row of several pictures below the lede but I've never seen that before. Dave3457 (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I might have misunderstood the location issue. I was speaking about pictures in general, so when I said "use three" I meant to just scatter them through the article randomly, and to not select a special one for the top of the article. Selecting one for the top of the article is just asking for trouble. I don't think it would look good to put 2 or 3 pics at the top. So I guess my recommendation is to have no picture at top, instead just a few throughout the article (but even there there is still a requirement that sources make the association, not editors). --Noleander (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I personally could live with that however people are going to periodically dropping in and when they see the empty spot are going to dig up their own image. It happened just two days ago diff
I found a reference for the Young Women drawing and put it in the Behavior and personality section. I found two references for the Venus image and put it in the History section. Dave3457 (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Before you complain about women in politics section, I used references that specifically claim each one is the ideal in femininity. You can check the links if you'd like. I'm especially proud of the international representation in both of these sections that show examples of how feminine ideals are viewed around the world. USchick (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Feminine national identity
Since I anticipate more than one discussion here, I'm separating it. I didn't look to see who was questioning this part, but here it is for discussion. "In international politics, female leaders of nations embody feminine expectations of national identity in their society." This is usually said about feminine First Ladies, that they "embody the feminine national identity." This is not usually said about not very feminine First Ladies. (I can show examples if this is not clear, just let me know.) This statement is supported by one of the references used later in the text to describe two of the leaders of nations. [3] It says: Photography, as an indispensable tool of capturing and reflecting cultural phenomena, is used in this research to demonstrate cultural specifics of gender representation in the political sphere in the society of the USA and Ukraine. Both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Yulia Tymoshenko, being front-line political representatives of their countries, serve as elected embodiments of women’s expectations and visions. Importantly, they also represent visual projections of women’s national identities of their societies. Then for each leader, I used a reference to show that she is considered the ideal feminine leader in her culture.
So basically, feminine women in high visible positions "embody the feminine national identity" whether they play a supporting role as First Lady or play a primary role such as President or Prime Minister. If you don't think this is clear, I'll be happy to provide more references, just let me know what you think needs to be supported. Thanks. USchick (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Using femininity as a strategic advantage
"They use their femininity to appeal to ordinary people and gain strategic advantage over their male opponents." This statement was reverted because I used a reference where this only happened in the Thai Election. It also happened in many other elections, and if this is hard to believe, I'll be happy to provide more references, please let me know what you think needs to be explained. Thanks. I understand that what is very clear to me may not be clear to everyone. USchick (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
You'll notice that I am partial to reporting what the sources actually say. Therefore I don't appreciate it when you write that many other female politicians use "feminine appeal" as a strategic advantage when the source only mentions one such incident.
When women choose to capitalize on gender stereotypes by focusing on issues that are favorably associated with women candidates and targeting women or other social groups, they improve their prospects of electoral success. p 251 [4]
Examples
1. Nonye Opara – "has the feminine advantage over all the other contenders" [5]
2. Nancy Pelosi – "The pronounced femininity works because it is naturally who she is, but it is also savvy politics" [6]
3. Michelle Bachelet – "shattered the mold of traditional Chilean politicians." [7] "Bachelet explicitly framed her leadership style as more feminine" [8]
Historical femininity is discussed in Herzog, Don, Poisoning the Minds of the Lower Orders (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, [1st printing?] 1998 (ISBN0-691-04831-2)), chap. 6 (author teaches law & poli. theory, Univ. of Mich., per id., p. [560] (About the Author)) (also at Google Books). Nick Levinson (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Accusations of POV pushing are not appropriate nor are they warranted. People are going to have various opinions on what is best for the article, but labeling people or declaring they have hidden agendas is not helpful, nor is it in line with Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Assume good faith). Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but when I see this type of editing that I have to revert, then it is POV-pushing to me. It is toning down Money's "theory," removing the fact that the source is speaking of what effect it has on feminine behavior (which is what it is supposed to do or else including the information is irrelevant), making it seem like the latter research is more accurate by saying "later scientific research has shown," and removing the fact that Money also reported age 3 gender identity development (which of course would show that Money and this "later research" have something in common). Kaldari accuses me of spreading misinformation. Err, no, I have not done that. I removed a line that I did not see properly cited. There were two sources for it. One was a source that I added, and I did not see anything in that source about this "theory" being controversial. The other source that was there? I could not (and still cannot) trust if it backs up the "controversial" line, seeing as the source is not a url and I'd need personal access to it. It was simply added in there by another editor, with no regard to the fact that one of my sources was being used to back it. Kaldari only recently added that other source. And despite what Kaldari thinks or says about me, I am one of the few here, it seems, who have "done their homework" on the topic of femininity. While Kaldari looks at femininity from only a sociological point of view, I look at it from both points of views (meaning biological as well). If someone is only reading up on one half of what is considered to define femininity, it would seem that person is the one who needs to "do their homework."
But I agree, Avanu, that labeling people or declaring they have hidden agendas is not helpful. However, people at this article do have different POVs about what defines femininity, and that is clear. I simply stated the obvious and backed the agreement with it. It's the main reason there is so much drama at this article and talk page. Most here are not wanting to go by what some of the sources say. They often go by their own POV, using narrow sources to support that POV, when various sources define femininity from both a sociological and biological point of view. And since they do, I don't see what's so hard about presenting both points of views in this article and leaving it at that. 50.16.87.192 (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Funny, none of my biology textbooks mention femininity. Considering that the vast majority of works that discuss masculinity and femininity are sociology works, it seems entirely appropriate (per WP:UNDUE) that this article be based primarily on those sources. Kaldari (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
It's funny that you would be looking through biology textbooks for any mention of femininity. It's funny that you would even bring up such a thing, as though textbook sources are what we should mostly rely on. What is this, high school? It's not. But it sure feels like it. It also shows just how narrow your understanding of femininity is. To only define femininity by a sociological standpoint (and, yes, "only" applies to you because you have repeatedly shown that that's how you feel about femininity -- that it is only man-made) is to neglect all the research that supports biology as having to do with the formation of a feminine identity as well. For example, you call Money's belief "a theory" and act as though it is fringe, when it is actually supported by a lot of research done on the topic of transgender (as seen in that article), and which is clearly something I will have to keep bringing up...since you seem to so strongly stick to your "femininity is only sociological" standpoint. "Primarily" is one thing. "Only" is another. This is why defining the lead from only a sociological standpoint is wrong, as even stated by outside editors in the RfC. 178.33.105.220 (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Ip 50.19.x.x.x, in my opinion you are right about the recent edits to the Behavior and personality section. The other edits were attempting to cast the “nature and nurture” position as a fringe view which is simply false.
Neutrality requires that each article…fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.
If you read the above carefully it does not state that the article should represent views in proportion to the number of sources expressing a given view but in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.
The fact of the matter is that I suspect the vast majority of people in society believe that biology plays a role in masculine-feminine behaviour including a majority of scientists let alone biologists. That sociologists, who talk about gender most often, tend to believe that gender behaviour is sociology driven should not surprise anyone. In my view the popularity of the “nurture only” position reached its peak at the height of the feminist movement and, with all the recent brain and neurology research, it is really only the sociologist that are still holding to that view now. It would be great if one was able to find a pole which asked scientists in general what their position on the matter was.
Avon, you said:
Accusations of POV pushing are not appropriate…
It my understanding that accusations of POV pushing are appropriate if they are on a person’s talk page. I found the following quote [10] “… discussion of a user's conduct is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. the user's talk page)…
When it comes to these talk pages, we have to be very careful to not let things get personal. I know I’m trying my best. It only serves to make the whole experience very unpleasant.
You're having your debate at the wrong article. Femininity is not about nature vs nurture. Femininity is taking nature and redefining it according to nurture. There is no biology to femininity. There is biology to femaleness, which is part of the basis of femininity. It wouldn't matter if 100% of feminine characteristics were biological - the choice of which characteristics are "feminine" and which are simply "female" is defined completely by society. There are no "feminine" genes, just feminine roles which may be related to female genes (or not). This is why sociologists care about femininity and biologists don't. The article where we should be discussing nature vs. nurture is Sex and psychology. Kaldari (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Wrong again, because according to some of the reliable sources in the Behavior and personality section, as well as many others I could randomly gather, femininity is most definitely about nature vs nurture. Saying that "Femininity is taking nature and redefining it according to nurture. There is no biology to femininity." is disputed by various reliable sources. You can spout your own belief and use sources to back that belief all you want. But many sources also back what Dave and I are saying. As I stated above, Money's "theory" is supported by a lot of research done on the topic of transgender (as seen in that article), which believes feminine behavior to be due to biology in part. As the Transgender#Genetic studies section states, "The authors say that it is possible that a decrease in testosterone levels in the brain during development might result in incomplete masculinization of the brain in male to female transsexuals, resulting in a more feminized brain and a female gender identity." And that's just one section of that article. And there have been various other studies linking feminine behavior partly to biology. Your belief that biologists don't care about femininity is, needless to say, "off." But thank you again for your showing your POV. You might also want to provide a source that says "The theory is universally referred to as 'prenatal hormone theory, not 'neonatal hormone theory'" because the reliable source the line is attributed to says "neonatal."
And, Dave, yes, no offense to Avanu, but there's a lot of POV-pusing going on. As even implied in the RfC. Take this edit by Fistoffoucault, for example, saying, "Please maintain neutrality and respect consensus (as you frequently ask me to do)." Are you kidding me? There is nothing non-neutral about including what relation this "theory" has to do with femininity, as reported through the reliable source. Further, I have not frequently asked Fistoffoucault to do anything. I have not even talked to Fistoffoucault. Unless Fistoffoucault is also someone else here. And consensus was not reached for such a POV edit. Which is why I had to revert. 178.33.105.220 (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
All human behavior, including feminine, is due to biology in part. Your arguing against a straw man. What is defined as "feminine", however, is determined by society. If you don't understand that, it's pointless to continue this conversation. Kaldari (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
And if you were actually familiar with John Money's research, you would know that he argued against gender identity being a product of biology. He argued that even if the human brain is predisposed to being more male or female, a person's gender identity is fluid in early childhood and is defined by social expectations (the "interactionist theory" of gender identity). This opinion is now considered outdated, however, as it now believed that gender identity is partially determined by biology and partially by society. None of that contradicts the lead of this article, however, as femininity is not equal to female gender identity. Femininity is a subset of the attributes of female gender identity (with some classism and racism thrown in) that specifically deals with gender polarization as defined by society. Pick up any sociology textbook and this will be thoroughly explained. Kaldari (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
If you were familiar with what defines femininity, you would know not to say that "There is no biology to femininity." Reliable sources disagree with you. Work done by researchers, including research on transgender people, disagrees with you. I understand that "what is defined as 'feminine' is determined by society" and I stated as much in some other discussion(s) above. However, what you are neglecting is that this behavior was simply given a name. This behavior, which is especially typical of women, would exist whether we call it femininity or not. Just because we call it "femininity" does not mean "there is no biology to femininity." That's silly. I am quite familiar with Money's work, since he is the one who distinguished sex and gender and it is because of him that many feminists embraced that distinction. What you stated about him does not negate his "neonatal hormone theory" which argues that the sexual organs bathe the embryo with hormones in the womb, resulting in the birth of an individual with a distinctively male or female brain. Whether Money believed this predicts a masculine or feminine direction is what seems to be the issue now, as demonstrated by Aronoel and Fistoffoucault continually removing that line (unless they are just removing it due to bias). The source is not attributed to Money by name in regard to this research. It says "biomedical researchers." Money's name was added in by Aronoel. So perhaps the line should exclude Money, or state that some of the researchers believe it to predict "a masculine or feminine direction," which I will go and tweak now to stop this edit war. As for femininity not being equal to female gender identity, what does that have to do with the fact that research suggests that the reason some transgender women, and even some gay men, display feminine behavior is due to biology? Because that was my point. In cases such as those, it is absurd to say "there is no biology to femininity." And as for the lead, yes, it's not contradicted now. But that's because it's been fixed. I don't have to pick up a sociological textbook to learn about femininity. I am well-versed in what these text books have to state about masculinity, femininity, gender roles and the like. What some people at this article need to do is research on more than just the sociological viewpoint of femininity. 178.33.105.220 (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Kaldari, My central point is that, given that feminine behaviour is in part determined by the structure of one’s brain and the hormones circulating in that brain, how is that is not relevant for an article which is about feminine behaviour?
You say...
All human behavior, including feminine, is due to biology in part. Your arguing against a straw man. What is defined as "feminine", however, is determined by society. If you don't understand that, it's pointless to continue this conversation.
Your position is very odd to say the least.
Consider this somewhat parallel example...
What is a tree and what is a shrub is “determined by society” but why a tree has the characteristics of a tree is not determined by society. Your argument would suggest that the Wikipedia article on trees should not discuss why trees have the characteristics of trees. “IP guy” and I are simply putting forth some reasons that some people, mostly female, have the characteristics society calls feminine.
Here is another example...
What is a planet and what is a dwarf planet is completely defined by society, again you would argue that discussing how something becomes a planet rather than a dwarf planet would not be appropriate in the Wikipedia article on planets.
I would add that the notion of “what a planet is” has changed over time.
The fact is that one general structure of the brain leads to what we have come to call masculine behaviour and one general structure leads to what we have come to call feminine behaviour. How is that information not appropriate for an article on femininity?
Kaldari, you say :There is no biology to femininity. There is biology to femaleness, which is part of the basis of femininity.
No there is biology to femininity, refer to the below two references...
Ref 2: The Female Brain Louann Brizendine, M.D., pg XV “How hormones affect a woman’s brain...Testosterone—fast, assertive, focused, all-consuming, masculine; forceful seducer; aggressive, unfeeling; has no time for cuddling.”
Ref 3: The Female Brain Louann Brizendine, M.D., pg XV “How hormones affect a woman’s brain... Oxytocin—fluffy, purring kitty; cuddly, nurturing, earth mother; the good witch Glinda in The Wizard of Oz; finds pleasure in helping and serving;...”
So biology somewhat effects whether someone behaves in a masculine or feminine nature, again how is that not relevant to an understanding of femininity?
Note, the author included the word “masculine” in the behaviours associated with Testosterone but “choked” and didn’t include the word “feminine” in the behaviours associated with Oxytocin. This has everything to do with present political correctness.
Kaldari, you say :There are no "feminine" genes, just feminine roles which may be related to female genes (or not). This is why sociologists care about femininity and biologists don't.
Your claim that “sociologists care about femininity and biologists don't” is simply false.
All the below references prove that statement to be false.
I would ask you to read the statements below that are in bold and explain again how the information in those statements is not appropriate for an article on femininity?
By the way, “IP guy”, feel free to use any of these references to write about the relationship between biology and femininity. Dave3457 (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Well you can misinterpret what I'm saying all you want, but you're still beating a dead horse. Yes, a few biologists have studied "feminine" traits (by some society's definition), but in general biologists are not interested in "femininity". They are interested in sex, and rarely, gender. I agree with pretty much every point that you're making, but I still believe that biology is only indirectly relevant to femininity and I still think that this article is the wrong venue for a nature vs. nurture debate. The scope of this article isn't female behavior, it's femininity. If you put those two things on a Venn diagram, they intersect, but neither is contained within the other. Thus it doesn't make sense to conflate them. Nor would it make sense to say that they are mutually exclusive, but I don't think anyone is arguing that. Kaldari (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kaldari, this is exactly the place for the nature vs. nurture debate regarding femininity. Particularly given that extreme feminists are pushing hard the belief that feminine behaviour is purely the result of whimsical cultural ideas. IP Guy and I are simply trying to put forth the evidence for the other point of view. If we didn’t the nurture point of view would be the only one expressed on this page.
Also, we are not discussing female behaviour, we are putting forth the evidence that feminine behaviour, in part, is linked to brain structure and the presence of hormones. It happens that females usually have the brain structure and hormones in question.
Kaldari, to me, there was no misinterpreting of your words. There was repeating of what you stated and then refuting it. There are not just "a few biologists [who] have studied 'feminine' traits." And to say that "in general biologists are not interested in 'femininity.'" is your opinion. I somewhat disagree because from what I have seen, a lot of them are interested in what makes an individual masculine or feminine, as well as heterosexual or homosexual, etc., etc., all in relation to biology. If they were not interested in what makes people masculine or feminine, we would not have the Sex and psychology article. Do I believe that most of the things associated with femininity are biological? No. I believe that enough of the behavioral differences in men and women are due to biology. These differences were simply given a name (masculine and feminine), and then exaggerated on by society. It's not that these behaviors were created by society. That is my point. While both sexes can (and do) exhibit these behaviors, certain behaviors are more typical of men and certain behaviors are more typical of women, and research suggests that this is not simply due to sociological factors. So, yes, this article is the right venue for a nature vs. nurture debate, since its role in defining masculinity and femininity is extensively debated. You say "[t]he scope of this article isn't female behavior, it's femininity," but the matter of the fact is...femininity is mostly tied to female behavior. What is femininity if not mostly about female behavior? It's not like it's mostly associated with men. I don't 't feel that I'm "beating a dead horse" by disagreeing with your assertion that "there is no biology to femininity." This article would not be complete without mentioning the perceived role biology plays in femininity and the debate about it. But, anyway, we'll just have to agree to disagree on some points. While it's clear we're on the same page regarding some (maybe most) points, we are not on others. 107.20.6.6 (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I hope that nobody minds if I participate in this lively discussion. Due to my work I am familiar with the studies discussed here. Before I begin to address the major methodological concerns with much of the research (like the fact that the Money study is a correlative rather than an experiment in the true sense, and therefore statements that begin with "predict" or "cause" are impossible) I think there is a clear misunderstanding at work here.
IP 107, you say "it's not that these behaviors were created by society." I hope you do not mind if I make things less abstract? So let us use a specific example like wearing a skirt. Wearing a skirt is considered "feminine" behavior in most cultures. You say that this behavioral difference between men and women is not caused by society. Why not? Are women born with the wish to wear skirts and are men averse to wearing skirts form birth?
I know that there are correlative studies that found some evidence that certain behaviors that we consider "feminine" or "masculine" are there from birth. But these kinds of studies can't make any statement on the cause of anything (i.e., hormones) because they only deal with correlations and are ex post facto in most, if not all, cases.
IP 107, you also say: "What is femininity if not mostly about female behavior? It's not like it's mostly associated with men." What has biology have to do with the fact that society links the wearing of skirts to women and not men and regards such behavior acceptable for women and not acceptable for men (in most cases, I should add)?. If we lived in a social vacuum, then behavior that we currently associate with women might become associated with men.
@Anon: Why do you say that most of the things associated with femininity are not biological? I think it's entirely plausible that the majority of things that most societies define as feminine are originally based on female biology. What I meant when I said that "there is no biology to femininity" is that there is no direct relationship between the two (i.e. there is no causality as Sonicyouth86 explains above). The relationship is completely mediated by society. Society takes what it perceives as "female", exaggerates it to the extreme, adds some classism and racism, and the end result is femininity. It doesn't matter one whit whether those characteristics originate from biology or purely from social conventions. If they are perceived as being associated with women, they are likely to be incorporated into femininity. The system is a complex feedback loop, not a simple one way stream. If we all agree that femininity is a social construction which incorporates both biological traits and social conventions, how is the nature vs. nurture debate relevant to this? I don't see any relevancy whatsoever. It isn't necessary for us to trace the origin of every feminine trait. Some feminine traits come from European culture, some come from American culture. Some come from biology, some don't. Do we need to debate which ones came from where? No. It's a total waste of time since this article doesn't even do a decent job of defining what traits are currently considered feminine. You can keep burning down your straw man if you want, but the point that people are trying to make is that nature vs. nurture isn't relevant to the scope of this article, not that female behavior is completely defined by society. We need to focus on explaining what femininity is, not a tangential debate about the origin of certain feminine traits. Kaldari (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Sonicyouth86, when I said "it's not that these behaviors were created by society," I was specifically speaking of behaviors that already existed before society simply gave them a name. I did not say that "this behavioral difference between men and women is not caused by society." If you read carefully what I clearly stated before the line you cited, I said, "Do I believe that most of the things associated with femininity are biological? No. I believe that enough of the behavioral differences in men and women are due to biology. These differences were simply given a name (masculine and feminine), and then exaggerated on by society." Skirt-wearing, lipstick, etc. would be "exaggerated"; this was created by society.
No matter what you speak of correlative studies, the fact remains that these studies found evidence that certain behaviors that we consider "masculine" or "feminine" are there from birth. It's also clear that men typically exhibit different behaviors than women. If you believe this to only be due to sociological factors, then that is your opinion.
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up skirts and things that are actually created by society. That has not been my argument at all. Perhaps you should go back and read everything I stated above about femininity, including throughout this talk page. I am seriously baffled by your argument. My point has been that both sociological and biological factors comprise femininity, according to reliable sources, and that both should be represented in this article. I don't know what you are arguing. If it's to keep this article designated to the "only sociological factors comprise femininity" viewpoint, then that is not accurate and violates WP:Neutral.
Kaldari, I am confused by your arguments almost each and every time. You backtrack and then come out and state something that completely contradicts what you have previously stated. I said that most of the things associated with femininity are not biological for the same reason you have continuously stated that most things we consider feminine are due to sociology and not biology...such as skirts, lipstick, clothing, etc. Most of femininity is comprised of sociological factors, which is something you have stated time and time again. It's why you (and others) have given the "pig example," often asking, "Are pigs considered feminine?" So I don't know why you are now saying, "I think it's entirely plausible that the majority of things that most societies define as feminine are originally based on female biology." That's not the same thing as stating a belief that some feminine behaviors are due to biology. I was not arguing that most "feminine behaviors" are assigned to the female sex. That, we agree on. I was arguing that some female behaviors are directly caused by biology. As for what Sonicyouth86 states (and what you seem to be now using as an explanation for your feelings), enough researchers believe that there is a direct relationship between the two. And if even none didn't, it does not stop the fact that many suggest that there may be a direct link. Which should be presented in this article. It's absurd that you state "It doesn't matter one whit whether those characteristics originate from biology or purely from social conventions." It's absurd that you would state that such a debate about femininity, and the debate does exist (as the sources I have provided show), should not be in an article titled Femininity. That is my response to your odd reasoning. This: "If we all agree that femininity is a social construction which incorporates both biological traits and social conventions, how is the nature vs. nurture debate relevant to this?" Seriously? You're seriously asking that? Um, how about because the nature vs. nurture debate is relevant for the very reasons mentioned in your question. Some people (mostly feminists) state that femininity is only sociological. Some people (including researchers) state that it is biological as well. Therefore, it belongs in this article -- an article titled Femininity. It's not a "total waste of time" to address what is believed to be feminine and why. It's a total waste of time to argue that it's not important to an article titled Femininity. Including such things is called making a good article -- covering all relevant aspects of a topic. And covering the debate is relevant. To say that people would not want to read about things that are believed to contribute to femininity is ridiculous. If this article is not doing a decent job of defining what traits are considered feminine, then fix it. Don't remove relevant material. 196.3.105.250 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Sonicyouth86, in my view you just set up a straw man and then knocked it down. I can’t imagine anyone who doesn’t think that the wearing of a skirt is not completely cultural. But I can’t imagine anything that isn’t more cause and effect than, for example, giving a person different hormones and then watching their behavior.
You would have not only to give a person different hormones, you would also have to control all other factors that could influence the outcome. Unfortunately or fortunately (depending on your point of view), the "little Albert" kind of laboratory experiments on humans are regarded as unethical, in many cases they are illegal nowadays. So what you have are correlative studies which don't say anything about the cause of anything. They only show if there is a connection or isn't through the use of matched samples and control groups.
I fail to see how I am "setting up a straw man." We shouldn't get into what I think and what you think, correct? We'll think each other silly. The sources agree that femininity is rooted in society rather than biology. What remains to be seen is if the part that is rooted in biology (think again of the wearing a skirt example) is large enough to deserve extensive mention in this article. Therefore, I suggest that you provide convincing evidence that femininity is rooted in sex, i.e., biology, since the burden of evidence lies with you.
If I am missing some vital consensus about the importance of biology in femininity, please let me know. It is certainly not my intention to rehash issues that have been settled in the discussion so far. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Kaldari and others that the nature vs nurture issue is not central to this article. It's worth mentioning the issue as it relates to femininity, but it doesn't change the definition of femininity as being a social construction. For example, all females have leg hair, but in many cultures leg hair is not considered feminine. There may be some overlap between biology and cultural associations, but ultimately what biological or non-biological traits are associated with women is up to society. --Aronoel (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It's no surprise that you agree. But Kaldari was not saying it is not central to the article, and I agree that it's not. Kaldari was saying that it doesn't belong in this article. And as I stated to Kaldari above, "It's absurd that you would state that such a debate about femininity, and the debate does exist (as the sources I have provided show), should not be in an article titled Femininity. Some people (mostly feminists) state that femininity is only sociological. Some people (including researchers) state that it is biological as well. Therefore, it belongs in this article -- an article titled Femininity." 196.3.105.250 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Sonicyouth86, the burden of proof is met. As is happens, with regards to correlation, Sociology is one of the most "messy" applications of the scientific method out their.
You said :The sources agree that femininity is rooted in society rather than biology.
That is simply false. Refer to the many sources cited above. Are you saying that the people that made those statements are poor scientists?
Are you saying that I am saying that the people are poor scientists? *Joke*
I assume that you refer to the 2-3 sources above? How do you quantify "some genetic influence"? 15%-20%? 10%?
You found 2-3 sources that found evidence of "some genetic influence." These sources are not meta-analyses or overview sources. All they do is offer individual research findings and they don't pretend to offer an overview of what the scientific consensus is at the moment. We shouldn't get into the whole "who will find more individual studies" thing. We should focus on finding sources of highest quality that summarize the academic and public discourse about femininity. The Encyclopedia of Sociology is such a source.
No offense, but "The Female Brain" has as much credibility as "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus." I hear John Gray has a Ph.D. and all.
The burden of evidence is not met because the authors of the one peer-reviewed study do not pretend that their findings can be generalized as their research is of severely limited scope (i.e, in terms of sample size, operationalisations, "highly atypical gender development" etc.).
I agree with Aronoel and Kaldari. Femininity is a social construction. I apologize if I stirred up the long settled nature vs. nurture debate as it pertains femininity. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Dave, I replied to both Sonicyouth86 and Kaldari above. I'm going to have to go with "poor scientists," especially since they qualify as WP:Reliable sources. I'm not sure why Sonicyouth86 keeps bringing up skirts and things that are actually created by society, as if we have been arguing that things entirely created by society are biological.
Sonicyouth86, The Encyclopedia of Sociology is ONE source, and it is no surprise that The Encyclopedia of Sociology is going to define femininity from only a sociological viewpoint. It's not the authority on what defines femininity. And even if it were, the point is that reliable sources define femininity differently and that some of them state that there is (or may be) a biological component to behavior that has been described as feminine. As Noleander stated above at #RfC: Should biological factors also be mentioned in the intro as a possible cause of femininity?,
The sources above definitely indicate there are a variety of views of "femininity", perhaps even a sharp disagreement. Clearly the lead needs to reflect the various definitions. The sentence from the proposal above "Though largely socially constructed and distinct from the female biological sex, femininity may encompass biological factors as well" seems like a very good characterization, and should probably be in the first 2 or 3 sentences. I understand that some editors may find the clean definition "femininity is a social construct, period" very tempting, but the article must follow the sources (editors cannot pick-and-choose which sources' definitions to use, and cannot rely on their own viewpoint). If the sources provide a variety of interpretations to "femininity", so must the lead paragraph.
You say "as if we have been arguing that things entirely created by society are biological." How can something that is entirely created by society be biological?
How can The Encyclopedia of Sociology be just one source for a concept that is almost exclusively discussed in sociology? "Femininity" is a sociological concept. This is why encyclopedias of biology don't mention femininity. Not even once [11][12][13][14]. Each academic discipline has a right to define their own concepts. When you want a definition for "cognitive dissonance" or "depression" will you look in psychology books or in political science books? Yes, latter might mention "cognitive dissonance" in passing but that can't compare to the definition and the state of research on the subject that a psychology book can offer. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Sonicyouth86, I don't understand your argument at all. The Encyclopedia of Sociology is just one source for the reasons I stated above. Some Encyclopedias of biology perhaps don't mention femininity, but that has nothing to do with the fact that many researchers of biology mention masculinity and femininity in the context of biology. It also does not get past the fact that, as Noleander stated above, "The sources above definitely indicate there are a variety of views of 'femininity', perhaps even a sharp disagreement. Clearly the lead needs to reflect the various definitions." The same applies to the article as a whole, or at least the Behavior and personality section. 207.234.145.49 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It is believed that people do not “choose to be gay” but are born homosexual and therefore homosexuality is biological. Yet here are the search results using the word “homosexuality” for those same four books. There were no hits. [15][16][17][18]
I hope it is obvious that homosexuality and femininity are not the same thing, so a comparison of them as biological traits or not really isn't logical. I thought this issue of what composes femininity was put to bed already. Without question the components of what we call femininity (i.e. the set) are determined by a culture or society. ALSO, without question, some of those components are biological traits. So what we call femininity isn't determined by biology, but it is composed in part of things biological.
I don't know why homosexuality is even being mentioned or compared here, but this entire thread is off of its topic. My initial request was just that people be nice and argue based on the material we have and not make it personal. -- Avanu (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Avanu. The fact that homo- and heterosexuality are in no way comparable to concepts like femininity/masculinity should be obvious to anyone. But perhaps I am wrong.
"Without question the components of what we call femininity (i.e. the set) are determined by a culture or society." Agree.
I think the discussion so far has remained lamentably abstract. What do you mean when you say that femininity is composed in part of things biological. Can you provide one, maybe two, specific examples?
If this is too much bother please just ignore my request. I can tell that the discussion has moved on and that you consider this issue settled. I read the RfC about it but I simply do not agree with the outcome and with the current lead. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, some biological things we typically consider feminine: curvy hips, breasts, hormonal behavioral changes, small hands or feet (relative to men), slender neck (again relative to men). These traits can vary depending on the culture or sub-culture, some magazines push the idea of femininity including smaller hips or boyish/androgynous features, whereas some subcultures value very large hips. This all seems incredibly obvious, but there you go. -- Avanu (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the concepts of homosexuality and femininity must be related at least in ideology because they keep showing up in this article, together, and related. USchick (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Primary and secondary sex organs like breasts and vagina are associated with women, i.e., being female? Like, really? What about feminine men? I think you are clearly confusing sex and femininity.
Now be so kind a tell me some examples of personality traits and behavior that is biological and is typically considered feminine. This should be interesting for the "Behavior and personality" section. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
A comparison of the biological origin of feminine and homosexual behavior might be an interesting discussion and might help strengthen the case for the biological origin of some feminine behaviors but it has no relevance to this specific argument.
The question put to Sonicyouth86 was that given that a search of the four biology encyclopedias he listed showed no hits for the word “homosexuality” just like a search of the word “femininity”, does that mean homosexuality has no connection to biology?
..sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment…”
He was reasoning that femininity has no connection to biology because there were no hits for the word “femininity” in the four biology encyclopedias, his reasoning was clearly flawed. Dave3457 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Sexual orientation is a different thing than femininity. I think I agree with Dave here (I guess he said it just to refresh what the topic was), as for what Sonic said last, it doesn't seem to follow what we're talking about, not sure who Sonic was just replying to, but I would say that determining with certainty that a personality trait or behavior came out of one's biology is a tad bit harder than a clearly physical trait. "Look there... we have a girl acting 'girly', why it must be biology at work. Yet I am dumbfounded now when I glance at the other girl there who is tomboyish, oh dear, my firmly held idea must now be bunk, whatever shall I do?" The idea that you expect a real answer to that question makes it sound like you think behavioral traits must be robotically programmed, like we are salmon or bees. Oh well. -- Avanu (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Biological feminine behavior
In response to Sonicyouth86, who asked: Now be so kind and tell me some examples of behavior that is biological and is typically considered feminine. This should be interesting for the "Behavior and personality" section. I'd like to go out on a limb here and suggest that nursing a baby (breastfeeding) especially in public, is a biological behavior that is considered normal and feminine in many cultures, and has been questioned in others. There's an entire category on Commons – Category:Breastfeeding in art. USchick (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I replied to Sonicyouth86 again above (it was short and "to the point"), but I must reply in this spot as well: I cannot agree with Sonicyouth86's views on femininity whatsoever (aside from skirts and other materialistic things being completely cultural). No one is confusing sex and femininity here. We are going by reliable sources. Reliable sources, included in the lead, show that there is a belief among researchers that biological factors play a role in masculine and feminine behavior/identity. Research done on transgender people shows this. Some researchers who have participated at the Transgender article and related topics have stated this. But Sonicyouth86 ignores it all and seems to believe that feminine and masculine behaviors are due to society only, saying he disagrees with us mentioning in the lead that femininity is comprised of biological factors. Even if one disagrees with biology determining feminine behavior, as Sonicyouth86 does, it does not stop the fact that femininity is comprised of biological components because the physical traits of women are considered feminine as well. That's not confusing sex and femininity. That's recognizing that what is considered feminine also has to do with physical characteristics, especially in regards to women. Avanu already knows that I partially disagree with the notion that "what we call femininity isn't determined by biology, but it is composed in part of things biological," because I believe that some things we call feminine are determined by biology. But we've already been over that, and it can be seen as a word-game. The main point there is that at least Avanu does not completely disregard biology as being a part of femininity. Avanu also recognizes that some behaviors are due to biology. But with Sonicyouth86, it's as though Sonicyouth86 would have us believe that all behaviors are determined by society only. And if Sonicyouth86 does not believe that, and believes that the way human beings act is partially due to biology, then I'm not seeing why he or she is so adamant that what we call masculine and feminine behavior cannot at all be due to biology as well. 207.234.145.49 (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry that I missed your reply USchick. The "behavior and personality" section doesn't mention breastfeeding. It says that gentleness, empathy, sensitivity, caring, compassion, tolerance, nurturance, deference, self-abasement, and succorance are behaviors generally considered feminine. The first source, for instance, says that women are socialized to be more caring, not that they are inherently more caring. My objection is this: The claim that femininity is determined by biology is not reflected in the rest of the article. The claim itself is questionable since it's based on three sources that cannot compare to the Encyclopedia of Sociology or any other source that summarizes the current state of knowledge on a given subject.
What are the categories on Commons supposed to tell me? Commons has also many categories about flora and fauna, for all the relevance it has to this subject, none.
IP 207, I read the three (?) reliable (?) sources in the lead and I must have missed where they say that "there is a belief among researchers that biological factors play a role in masculine and feminine behavior/identity." Would you be so nice and point me to the exact page where the sources say that? Thank you! --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Sonicyouth86, the reason we have broken out in sections is to focus on one issue at a time. Would you be so kind and follow the process that we have all agreed to follow. If you think we're all in agreement here, I invite you to go back and read the history of this article. If you'd like to open yet another discussion about the definition of femininity, knock yourself out. In this section, you asked for an example of a biological feminine behavior. You have an example. USchick (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Sonicyouth86, there are four reliable sources in the lead. Question them all you want, but they pass WP:Reliable sources. If you cannot see where these sources, such as the first one, discuss the belief that biological factors play a role in femininity, whether among researchers or general society, then I don't know what to tell you. Except that editors before you would not have agreed to use them if they did not make clear that there is a debate about nature vs. nurture in regards to masculinity and femininity. If you go back up to the RfC (#RfC: Should biological factors also be mentioned in the intro as a possible cause of femininity?), specific pages and phrases are already pointed out. 107.20.41.128 (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Behavior and personality Section
Fistoffoucault, you claim to be editing in good faith. Then please explain this edit. On what ground did you remove the words, “and predicts future behavioral development in a masculine or feminine direction” given that the title of the book referenced was in part..“...the biomedical construction of femininity and masculinity....” and the article is about femininity. Dave3457 (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Kaldari, you said in the Accusations of POV Pushing section that:”…nature vs. nurture isn't relevant to the scope of this article.”
I’m afraid it is, consider this quote from the Encyclopedia of Sociology
Femininity and masculinity are rooted in the social (one's gender) rather than the biological (one's sex). Societal members decide what being male or female means (e.g., dominant or passive, brave or emotional)...
If the Encyclopedia of Sociology itself doesn’t believe that some feminine behavior have a biological origin then the origin of different feminine behaviors must be discussed in this article.
Another example would be Sonicyouth86’s recent comment in the section Accusations of POV Pushing…
If we lived in a social vacuum, then behavior that we currently associate with women might become associated with men.
While I respect his position, there is clear scientific evidence that it is wrong. Again as long as there are people who believe this, it is very appropriate for this article to present the evidence that it is not true.
I fully appreciate that which behaviors are of a cultural origin and which are of a biological origin is very controversial, and that will make presenting this debate very difficult, but it needs to be done.
Kaldari, you said in the Accusations of POV Pushing section: Do we need to debate which (traits) came from where?
The only reason I’m supporting your removal of Aronoel’s paragraph on empathy is because it was very slanted towards nurture and it was way way to long. If we are going to keep this nature vs nurture debate under control we can’t be writing entire paragraphs on a single trait. I do not however rule out mentioning given traits in passing or even in a sentence or two. But taking a full paragraph to argue a single trait is just not workable.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I see your point that if the origin of a certain feminine trait or traits is the subject of much debate within discussions of femininity then it may be relevant to mention in the article. I agree, however, that we can't devote entire paragraphs to debating nature vs. nurture for individual traits. Such paragraphs would quickly multiply and take over the article. Let's try to keep such digression to a minimum and focus on describing what femininity actually means in various cultures and across history. Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
This section has been expanded considerably since I added the empathy info, so I think it makes sense to cut some of it out. The current size seems good to me. --Aronoel (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I just want to mention to anyone taking an interest in this section that the section Accusations of POV Pushing which is presently directly above this section discusses to some extent the nature vs nurture debate. Dave3457 (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm okay with the removal of the empathy paragraph. It was only about empathy and no discussion of how it relates to femininity. I know the beginning of the Behavior and personality section mentions how empathy is associated with femininity, but, again, the paragraph about it was not discussing that. If the sources do, then that should have been made clear in the paragraph. And since it seems Kaldari has now recognized our point (made in the Accusations section) about the nature vs. nurture debate being a relevant discussion of what defines femininity, I feel things may be a little better now. While we don't need many paragraphs on it, I feel that what is there now is fine. That whole section is about Behavior and personality. So of course biology and what role that plays in these two things is going to be discussed there. As long as the section doesn't become huge, there shouldn't be a problem. 196.3.105.250 (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually IP guy, I think the stuff about how different hormones can move an individual between the masculine and feminine needs to be added. I also plan to tweak it a bit.
Also note that compassion and empathy are not the same thing. The WP [empathy] article says “Someone may need to have a certain amount of empathy before they are able to feel compassion.
I'd like to point out that there is a significant difference between traits (like caring) and clinical personality disorders like self-abasement. For every "expert" who claims that self-abasement is a feminine trait, there is another "expert" who claims that narcissism is also a feminine trait expressed through make-up, clothing and appearance. Let's not get wrapped up in personality disorders, and instead, let's focus on uniquely feminine traits if there are any. Can we please remove all personality disorders as defined by the American Psychiatric Association? Thanks. USchick (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Although there are sources that correlate personalities disorders with genders, I don't think these are considered normal masculine or feminine traits. For example, being violent has been correlated with being male by many sources, but I don't think it would be considered a normal masculine trait or ideal (at least not in modern Western society). Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
As far a violence, there are plenty of historical women who fit that category. I'll identify personality disorder and list them here for consensus. USchick (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
According to Interpersonal diagnosis and treatment of personality disorders (book) there are primary human needs like air and food. Then there are secondary psychogenic human needs (that ALL humans need) like achievement, autonomy, aggression (which explains violence). According to the same source, psychogenic human needs also include – deference, abasement, nurturance, and affiliation. For a complete list see [20] p.20 this is for discussion only, please list others sources if you like them better. USchick (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
There are also virtues of moral character like: empathy, integrity, gentleness and tolerance. If we are going to claim that one of these issues that pertain to ALL humans are more feminine than masculine, I think we need very strong evidence to support that claim, much stronger than a sociology text book. (I'm sue we can find all kinds of textbooks from the 1950s that claimed all kinds of things.) Not to discredit anyone, but the claim needs to be accepted by an existing body of knowledge. USchick (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed USchick. If you can show that the American Psychiatric Association considers self-abasement is a disorder, how can anyone successfully argue that its a trait. I did some searching and couldn't find a reference however. Dave3457 (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't really understand why personality disorders can't be included if they are in reliable sources. Maybe they are not considered "normal" but they might still be heavily gendered. Violence is a trait that's very closely associate with masculinity in modern Western society. Kaldari, do you think you could comment again? --Aronoel (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The source used the term "self-abasement," but I am pretty sure it meant in the sense of shame or self-criticism. Those behaviors are definitely normal. Even though the source says "self-abasement" specifically, would it be acceptable to people to include "self-criticism" instead? It seems worth mentioning, I don't really see what the problem is. --Aronoel (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Aronoel, I hope you don't mind if I comment. "Self-abasement" has a long history associated with it of violence against women. Historically, masochism has been associated with feminine submissiveness. This disorder became politically awkward when associated with domestic violence. There is too much political agenda associated with this term for it to be meaningful when describing femininity. There are other disorders that affect women more than men, breast cancer for example, what does that have to do with anything? USchick (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
This isn't acceptable that we are removing something that is clearly mentioned in sources just because we don't consider it a feminine behavior, because it's spiritual, self-destructive, or whatever. It's not up to us to decide what categories of behavior should or shouldn't be feminine, it's up to the sources. --Aronoel (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
USchick, what is the problem here? No, self-abasement is not a personality disorder. Yes, it is part of a personality disorder. But so is washing hands, for instance. If you do it 1000 times a day you have an (obsessive-)cumpulsive personality dirsorder.
So you admit that self-abasement is not a personality disorder and that you've been wasting our time with this "traits vs. personality disorder" stuff? Thanks;)
Can I go ahead and delete the sources that say that femininity consists of biological things and use the "body of knowledge excuse"? I'll say: "But USchick, again, what body of knowledge (not just two sources) identify biology as playing a role in femininity?" Yes? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way, USchick, does your body of knowledge objection extend to gentleness, empathy, sensitivity, caring, compassion, tolerance, nurturance, deference, self-abasement, and succorance? If not, why? What body of knowledge (not just one source that only focuses on positive feminine traits) identifies "tolerance" as a feminine trait? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The WP page that "self-abasement" links to a proven disorder, yet the sentence says that it is a "characteristic", therefore it is a false claim, and it can not stand. Dave3457 (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a source, so there's no reason to mention WP pages.
No, self-abasement is not a personality disorder. It can be part of a personality disorder when it's excessive. But so is washing hands, or loving yourself, or being uncomfortable in large crowds etc.
Sonicyouth86, I know you're joining us late in this discussion, and I encourage you to read through the previous threads someday when you want to give yourself a migraine. :) YES! I object to all of the above traits without a body of knowledge claiming that they are feminine, because as far as I can tell, they apply to all humans as secondary psychogenic human needs. However, I'm in the minority on that. Since you have professional expertise in this subject, would you like to comment? Also, I invite you to comment on a previous discussion where you asked for a biological behavior and I provided an example. Thanks. USchick (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
If you object to gentleness, empathy, sensitivity, caring, compassion, tolerance, nurturance, deference, self-abasement, and succorance, why only remove the info about self-abasement?
So again, can I go ahead and remove everything you added with this body of knowledge argument? A yes or no answer would be nice;)
I have professional expertise when it comes to personality disorders and research designs, for instance. But I am not an expert (I know you hate the term:)) when it comes to the traits and behaviors that society associates with women and men.
Since you don't know me, please don't make assumptions about what I hate, what I like, or what I think. If you look at history, experts don't have a good track record – the world is not flat, it does not sit on top of a turtle, it was not created from anyone's bodily function, and you won't fall off the edge. You also don't need my permission to do anything. What you need is consensus, which you don't have right now. USchick (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
You persist to put the word expert in quotation marks in the "neck rings" section, despite the fact that I wasn't the one who came up with it. The source you provided uses that term. Hence my assumption that you don't like the word.
Actually, you are the one who needs consensus to remove something that is directly and unambiguously supported by a reliable source. The three arguments you tried, "disorder," "political agenda," and "body of knowledge simply don't work. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I suppose I should have added *joke* You wrote: "As far a violence, there are plenty of historical women who fit that category." My reply was a way of saying so what if you can find five or even "plenty" of violent women? This doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of perpetrators (as well as victims, btw) of physical violence are men and that physical violence is associated with men. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The reason I am unable to remove gentleness, empathy, sensitivity, caring, compassion, tolerance, is because there is no consensus. USchick (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. There is also no consensus for removing self-abasement.
Now that we have established the fact that self-abasement is not a personality disorder and that you have no consensus to remove self-abasement, can we move on? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Violence is associated with power, not men. What body of knowledge have you produced to verify that self-abasement is a feminine trait? The burden of proof is on you, and since you do have professional knowledge in this area, how about providing a body of knowledge to support the other traits. Otherwise, they are not supported and should be removed. USchick (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Power? What power? You mean physical power?
The burden of proof is met as a reliable source lends direct and unambiguous support for the claim.
What body of knowledge have you used to verify that biology determines femininity? Does this mean that I can remove the claims about biology determining femininity? Awesome;) --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Do whatever you think needs to be done if you think you're so smart and don't act surprised when you get banned for vandalism. USchick (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The Money sentence
"...gender identity can develop as early as three years of age. Money also argued that gender identity is formed during a child's first three years." This last sentence about Money adds nothing to the section except to make Money sound less controversial. It's not our place to defend or attack Money's reputation (he's not a BLP), and I think it's a needless digression. I would like to propose removing the last sentence of this paragraph so that we can keep it focused. Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, this whole section talking about gender identity belongs in the gender identity article, unless they have something relevant specific to femininity. Just a thought. USchick (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
USchick, here is a quote from the gender identity article...
In gender identity disorder, there is discordance between the natal sex of one's external genitalia and the brain coding of one's gender as masculine or feminine.
This disorder is only mentioned in passing and is relevant to the section as discussed above regarding nature vs nurture.
Kaldari, I agree the sentence sticks out. I think maybe IP Guy was thinking how the sentence preceding it was leading the reader to believe this gender identity at 3ys stuff was due to cultural influences only. I personally have a problem with the sentence preceding it for that reason. However if the Money sentence read something like...
Money argued that gender identity formed during a child's first three years as a result of....
I think the sentence can be removed. I don't think it makes much of a difference to the section either way, which I guess is a sign that it's unnecessary.. --Aronoel (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Kaldari says, "This last sentence about Money adds nothing to the section except to make Money sound less controversial. It's not our place to defend or attack Money's reputation (he's not a BLP), and I think it's a needless digression." Well, I say it needs to stay because the sentence before it makes it sound like the 2005 research discovered this about gender identity first. That's clearly not true, as it was already argued by Money. It's also clear that Fistoffoucault only keeps removing it because she obviously believes it lends more credibility to Money's views. "Less controversial," whatever. It's not our job to defend him? It's not our job to make his research seem bogus either. Because to many, he is not controversial if he is saying that masculine and feminine identities can partly be determined by biology. The line on gender identity about him does not "stick out" any more than the previous one about gender identity. Including it is being neutral and accurate, in my opinion. It shouldn't be made to look as though these later researchers were the first to state that gender identity can develop as early as three years of age.
Dave, as you know, we aren't mentioning gender identity disorder in that section; we are mentioning gender identity. And, yes, it has plenty to do with masculinity and femininity. Both topics do. However, we only mention gender identity briefly in this article, and so there should not be a problem with that. 207.234.145.49 (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
So the only reason you want the sentence in the article is because you want to make sure that Money is credited with thinking up the idea first? How does that add anything important to the article? Kaldari (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
How does it add anything important to the article to mislead people into thinking that these later researchers were the first to state that gender identity can develop as early as three years of age? Because that's exactly what that sentence does without the Money sentence there to balance it out, no matter what you state. That's why I want the sentence there. Because it belongs there; it correctly informs people of the fact that this research reported in 2005 about gender identity forming at age 3 is not some recent hypothesis/discovery. Clearly, my reason for wanting the Money sentence included is more valid than any reason wanting it excluded.
I'd also appreciate that you don't edit my comments. We focus on the editors and not the content on this talk page all the time. Just one of the reasons there is so much drama at this article and talk page. If I'm not attacking someone in a way that would need to be reported, then leave my comments as they were. 107.20.37.175 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
