|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.|
- 2 Gendercide of men
- 3 Myth about most common cause of death
- 4 no such thing as masculinicide?
- 5 Merge
- 6 Cultural materialism
- 7 Proposed Changes to Article
- 8 SWGS 322 Wiki Review
- 9 SWGS 322 Wiki Review
- 10 SWGS 322 Wiki Review
- 11 Response to SWGS 322 edits
- 12 Article Review
- 13 Response to Edit Suggestions
- 14 Mascucide or Masculicide
- 15 neutrality and tone
This article reads like feminist propaganda. If it can't be rewritten NPOV then it should be deleted. And since the term is designed as form of extreme POV propaganda I doubt it could ever be NPOV. --
I would hate to see this page deleted from Wiki --Survivor 01:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
"In addition to the other categories of hate crime, gender is increasingly being included as a status category in State and Federal hate crime laws. The current study explored how prosecutors view gender as a status category in hate crime law, specifically in terms of their knowledge of gender-bias violence and their willingness to charge violence against women as a hate crime... The authors recommend adopting an advocacy approach that supports the notion of violence against women as an issue of power and control while at the same time educates and encourages prosecutors and the public to adopt a hate crime perspective on violence against women. " (McPhail & DiNitto 2005) Violence Against Women: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal
Engendering Hate Crime Policy: Gender, the "Dilemma of Difference," and the Creation of Legal Subjects by Valerie Jenness "discusses what feminist legal scholars refer to as "the dilemma of difference" that is inherent in hate-crime policy in the United States...
The author addresses how the dilemma of difference has been managed in the formulation of hate-crime policy in the United States, as it simultaneously addresses the ways in which gender is both distinct from and similar to other status provisions recognized in hate-crime law, i.e., race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc." (Jenness 2003) Journal of Hate Studies
Gendercide of men
I'm going to delete this nonsense. It is not encyclopedic in any sense and has nothing to do with femicide. If someone wants to attempt a separate article on specifically killing men, they are welcome, but this stuff does not belong here. Femicide is a serious topic that deserves respectful attention and discourse. Myron 12:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is Gendercide of men nonsense? For instance the story of Moses, and more recently in the balkans. Gendercide is a serious topic, but since femicide is redirected from gendercide this topic belongs here. Also, the killing of men because of their gender, and the killing of women because of their gender are related topics if two seperate articles existed they would be linked to each other. To say that femicide is a serious topic and the killing of men because of their gender is nonsense shows a very clear bias. -- rom
I think this article should be moved to Gendercide and improved accordingly. Femicide is more common a motif, but only because homocide of men is usually not given any special consideration (just like the "hate crime" label, crimes are easily labelled in a particular way if there's a (intentional or coincidental) pattern in the motivation or execution that can be observed). Labelling it as nonsense feminist propaganda seems misguided and highly questionable to me, but even if femicide is more common, it seems only just to discuss the topic at large if you're going to talk about one of its variants in detail. Adding a "gendercide" subsection to the "femicide" article would make it seem too biased and shift the focus -- having a large "femicide" subsection in the "gendercide" article and discussing the topic in depth there, OTOH, would make it clear that it's more common, or at least better understood, a topic, but part of the same issue and shares the basic concept. If femicide proves detailed enough a topic to justify its own article without reducing the gendercide article to a stub, a split would make sense, and the femicide article could spare the entire introduction into the basic concept of gendercide. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 13:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I actually arrived at Gendercide from a wikilink that was refering to gendercide of men, and as such was surprised by the redirect. I have now changed it from a redirect into a stub that covers both (though there's only a sentence on each; the one on gendercide of women directs the reader to this article. Like I said, it's a stub). --Icarus 08:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your post Ashmodai,I like what you've said and done but you've misinterpreted something "Labelling it as nonsense feminist propaganda seems misguided and highly questionable to me, but even if femicide is more common" .... that line was inferring that I (rom) thought femicide was nonsense, this isn't the case, when actually Myron originally said including the selective killing of men was nonsense, and i was replying to that. -- rom
Myth about most common cause of death
I removed the following feminist myth from the end of the article:
Besides the absurdity that violence would kill more women aged 15-44 than cancer OR war, or even more than them combined, this statement has never been verified and there are no sources. The myth is commonly seen with different modifiers, for example "women in Europe", or with malaria switched for HIV or another disease. Its origins are unknown.
The blantant falsehood of this claim can easily be checked with WHO's international statistics of causes of death: http://www3.who.int/whosis/menu.cfm?path=whosis,mort
hugs, /Truncated (should get an account some day)
no such thing as masculinicide?
so now men can't be killed? so, only women can die? I don't get this logic, or whatever it is. Wow, and people wonder why there are so many gay men nowadays... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) .
I guess I just wondered about the etymology of the term -- I mean, it's not "mascucide", it's "homicide." Does this mean women are actually "femo sapiens"? Attacks on women's characters are "ad feminem"? I have no problem with drawing attention to a problem that I will emphatically agree is real (although we can argue semantics and statistics all night long), but do we need to mangle the language in the process? Just checking.
This article is just PR. There are a number of propaganda statistics in this article. Hitler type "Big Lie", "Make the lie big and keep repeating it". The citations frequently refute the assertions in the article. This article should be deleted because its gendered propaganda that does not meet standard for objectivity or neutrality. 2605:E000:1310:81D7:48F5:F333:9D81:C64D (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm missing the reference to Marvin Harris here. Femicide was a normal way of population control in ancient times.
War is done by men. So men are more valuable then woman. A tribe who reached his maximum population, that it can support by its means of technology and land, will therefore maximize the number of men, by killing girls just after birth. And try to enslave women from neighboring tribes. This had been done by Greeks, Vikings, and most other successful warrior states. And its still common practice in India, and other 3rd world regions.
War is not suitable for population control alone, as war is done by men, but women get children. But when the number of women are reduced by femicide, the tribe will get less children. Therefore war + femicide = population control. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Proposed Changes to Article
I and another student from Rice University have selected to greatly expand and reorganize this current femicide article as a class project for a class in the Poverty, Justice and Human Capabilities Minor. As the Talk discussions currently discuss right now, a major concern of this article is that femicide does not deserve its own separate definition and should instead by moved under the greater Wikipedia Article of Gendercide. However, the planned proposals I and my partner wish to make would include a great expansion of this article, and its future contents would most certainly be able to stand alone on its own page. We do understand the struggle in maintaining a NPOV, and although we will quote heavily from Diane Radford and other academics that are in favor of the term femicide and its definition, our goal is to include other points of view that argue against femicide as a concept, and to quote just as heavily from them while still allowing a definition of the term. If any of you have suggestions as to what these sources might be, please let us know.
We have multiple reasons why we want to see this article be expanded. This current Wikipedia article on Femicide is only a few paragraphs longs and utilizes very few resources in its discussion of the topic. We plan on using a multitude of resources that far exceeds the current number, and hopefully will offer a more NPOV on the issue. Although the existing article introduces the concept of femicide, it does not discuss in detail the many different kinds of femicide nor does it give differing examples of how, why and where femicide occurs world-wide. A nuanced and neutral perspective is absolutely imperative on this subject in order to represent the many different facets of this issue, which this article does not currently offer. Another flaw in the article is that it does not reference many other Wikipedia articles that already touch on aspects of femicide including, Female homicide in Juarez, Honor killings, Corrective Rape, Infanticide and Female genital mutilation to name a few. The goal in revising this article is to create an overview on the subject that will allow users to not just get a general understanding of femicide, but also to have easy connections that allow them to examine other articles that discuss specific aspects of the issue.
Our current plan is to reorganize the outline of the article into this organization:
1.1 Specific definition
1.2 Distinction from other forms of homicide
1.3 Perpetrators of femicide
1.4 Historical development of the term
1.5 Controversy over term
2 Types of femicide
2.1 Intimate partner femicide
2.2 Racist femicide
2.3.1 Corrective rape
2.4 Serial femicide
2.5 Mass femicide
2.6 Sex-selective abortion
3. Femicide around the world
3.1 United States
3.1.1 Notable Cases
3.2 Latin America
3.3 South Asia
3.3.1 Sex-selective abortion
4.1 Legal Solutions
As we only have a semester to do this project, we cannot cover all countries in the world and their relation to Femicide, but we hope to give a broad overview of different areas. We would appreciate any feedback on our proposed changes, and also any possible sources that would help in writing this article. I and my partner feel very strongly that this article has merit as a stand-alone article, and that with proper revision, more people will truly understand the term femicide and why it is important.
SWGS 322 Wiki Review
Lena and Robin,
I liked the broad perspectives of definitions that you gave. It was here that I saw your efforts to provide neutral information. You used appropriate images (maps) and a good amount of linking to other articles. The quality and quantity of your sources were also appropriate. I also liked that you covered several areas of the world. You had a few grammatical errors: first sentence of lesbicide, need to make "conviction" plural in "only 127 conviction occurred in 2010" (Guatemala Decree 22). Under Intimate Partner Femicide, you wrote that "each day in this country results in the death of 4 women", but that's assuming that the reader would know your country of origin. Please specify which country you were referring to. You provided a broad amount of information that covered many aspects of femicide. My only major criticisms are that much of your information was repeated throughout the article (in several sections) and you heavily rely on direct quotations.
SWGS 322 Wiki Review
Really thorough, well cited, well written article. I think it was very well organized, with focus on the different types of femicide, the development of the definition, and the various case studies.
A few recommendations:
- I would maybe rename the "definition" section to "background" or "overview" so that the heading is more encompassing. You do a lot more than just simply define the term - instead you provide a very in-depth historical overview of how the term has changed and how it has been influenced. "Definition" doesn't seem to be encompassing enough for the depth of information you present.
- I am curious about your inclusion of AIDS and FGM as examples of femicide in Africa. I understand the rationale behind it, but it seems to not fit your definition, which seems to focus more on intentionality. While I get that AIDS and FGM affects female deaths disproportionately, I feel that including it under the intentional killing of females or being female may be a stretch.
- I would make the "femicide worldwide" section to perhaps read "case studies" in order to encourage other authors to contribute as well.
- "policy solutions" appear to be country-specific case studies rather than overviews of the types of policy solutions available and attempted. Perhaps you could provide an overview, and then go into the specifics?
SWGS 322 Wiki Review
My recommendations are:
- I would add some citations to the header--it's clearly well-researched and tracks the work of Diana E. H. Russell, but what specific sources did you use for this information?
- I think the term "sexual terrorism" in the header is a little unclear, but see how it gets cleared up in later sections.
- I would clarify the language of the sentence, "Globally, femicide has seldom been investigated separately from homicide, and the goals of many of these authors is to change this concept." Are the authors trying to change the fact the femicide is understudied, or change the concept and definition of femicide itself?
- Is "properly" neutral in this sentence: "Dr. Diana Russell is popularly lauded as the first to instigate the usage and to facilitate the publishing of the term at the Crimes Against Women Tribunal in 1976."?
- I think the semicolon in this sentence should be a colon (and the same for another sentence in that paragraph): "Risk factors that increase the likelihood of intimate partner femicide include; when a male has previously threatened to commit suicide or kill the women if a woman cheats/leaves him, when there is elevated alcohol or drug abuse by either partner, or when a male attempts to control a woman's freedom".
- Capitalize "south asia".
Beyond these grammatical and neutrality considerations, I do not have too many more recommendations. I agree with Lillyyu above that you might want to consider renaming the final two sections. In terms of structure and overall content, the article was well very well done. Great work! NSDhaliwal (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Response to SWGS 322 edits
Thanks so much for your input Raven, Lilly and Navi. I corrected the mistakes you mentioned in your post already Raven, and I will also correct the grammatical and punctuation errors you mentioned as well Navi. I like the idea of renaming the worldwide section case studies, and will make that change. I agree that the Policy section needs some work, especially an overview. That section is still a work in progess, and by the final Contribution Lena and I will have expanded it greatly. Lilly, I understand the confusion as to why FGM and HIV/AIDS are femicide. These are forms of femicide only when misogynistic practices result in the death of a female. Diana Russell sees FGM as a practice that is essentially to please men and subordinate women and their sexual pleasure, and when this results in death it is included in her definition of femicide. Russell also writes extensively on AIDS and how if women are forced into sex with a man with HIV and the woman later dies of the disease than that is femicide as well. However, these are forms of covert femicide rather than overt femicide, so I will try and clear that up in the passages. I also will more specifically state that these are forms of femicide under Diana Russell's definition but not necessarily under other definitions. Finally, I like the idea of renaming Definition to Overview, and I will do so. Once again, thanks for all the suggestions! Robinkvest (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys. Your page is overall extremely impressive. Judging from the past discussions on the talk page it sounds like you guys turned an extremely controversial page into a very neutral, thorough, and very readable article. I like Lily was a little bit confused about your inclusion of AIDS and FGM in the article. The information is great but I wonder if there might be a better way to incorporate it into the page without seeming like it's a bit out of place. Another suggestion I had was to possibly reconsider the title 'Policy Solutions' only because the word solution slightly suggests a less neutral point of view. A small detail but the two policy solutions you listed might look better capitalized. Additionally your graphics are great but another one or two would definitely balance the page out a little bit better. Victoria.delgado (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Response to Edit Suggestions
Thanks Lilly, Navi, Raven and Victoria for your thorough review and helpful suggestions! I agree that some information was repetitive so I did my best to go through and delete/rephrase certain things (I cut some things from certain sections and added them to others - see "Historical evolution of the term". I also added one more graphic to the Ciudad Mujer section and changed "Policy solutions" to "Policy implications" - thanks Victoria for the advice. I also reorganized a few of the beginning sections so they would flow better. Other than that I corrected a few more grammar errors and I think it reads stronger now! Thanks again for the help!
Mascucide or Masculicide
- Feminist author Diana E. H. Russell is one of the early pioneers of the term, and she currently defines the word as "the killing of females by males because they are females."
Have there been times in history where males have been killed by females because they are males? If so, could that potentially warrant an article also? I am wondering in terms of numbers how much femicide has occurred and what the opposite would be compared to.
Also presuming femicide excludes the killing of females by females for being female, I assume that mascucide would exclude the killing of males by males for being male, right? Ranze (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
neutrality and tone
There are some issues with neutrality, tone, and synth. For example much of the material on HIV has nothing to do with femicide (eg sources don't mention it) and is coatracked here. There are also tone issues in a few paras which sound a bit too conversational, chatty or even angry. I think we should not have expansive sections on issues called femicide unless there is significant consensus amongst RS that such a thing is indeed femicide, vs just violence against women - so I'm going to look at sources around FGM for example to see if this qualifies.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)