Talk:Femininity

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.

You are clearly choosing to focus on the ‘femaleness” of the Gods rather than their femininity.
Dave3457 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

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).

Nick Levinson (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

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 File:Lang De Girls.jpg File:Dallas Dubois.jpg File:Mehandi.jpg --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 (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

Using an image with a caption like "The Altai people (pictured here) consider shamanism a feminine role." represents a fringe theory and undue weight. I'm removing it. USchick (talk) 22:28, 22 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)

No one is dismissing any culture, this discussion is about the lead picture. USchick (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Main picture (New section)

Here is a summary of the relevant discussion above.

Avanu (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC) How's the painting from Marie-Denise Villers (Young http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/WikEd_align_down.pngwoman drawing) strike you as a choice?
Aronoel (talk) 14:32, 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.
Fistoffoucault (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I also think Avanu's idea of a self-portrait (young woman drawing) is inspired.

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.

There was no grounds with which to change it back to the Shaman picture in the first place.
Dave3457 (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

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
• A picture should be suitable for the subject matter – Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement
• The image should be placed next to the content being described – MOS:IMAGES
• Content should be presented from a global view (not just the Western view) – MOS:CLEAR
• Describes appropriate use of an image gallery and collage – WP:IG USchick (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"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.JPG USchick (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.

Dave3457 (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

Here's another picture that I just found. We can directly link it to femininity because she is performing a traditionally feminine role, though it's non-Western. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sugimura_Jihei-Kume_no_sennin.jpg --Aronoel (talk) 04:51, 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.jpg Fistoffoucault (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Fistoffoucault, it's nice to see you discussing and not edit warring, thank you for your effort. This picture also shows feminine clothing, traditional feminine occupation, and is even more culturally diverse. File:Armoire balais paris roissy 1 IMG 9033.JPG. What do you think? USchick (talk) 15:21, 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)

Again, you must be confused, because the title of this article is not "Stereotype" USchick (talk) 16:15, 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)

Here is a book suggestion: http://books.google.com/books?id=GiJs_WSHLUIC&dq=Fantasies+of+femininity:+reframing+the+boundaries+of+sex&source=gbs_navlinks_s

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

The Altai people (pictured here) consider shamanism a feminine role.

Marie-Denise Villers, Young Woman Drawing, 1801, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City

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
  
• A picture should be suitable for the subject matter – Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement
  
• There is presently more consensus for the Young Women than the Shaman.
  

Dave3457 (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave: For both photos: are there any WP:reliable sources which directly associate the image with the concept of "femininity"? --Noleander (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

This is a very appropriate solution. Thank you. USchick (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Feminist views and Jungian psychology can be merged under common header

These are both "Philosophical Views" on femininity. Roger6r (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

OK, I'll go ahead and make the change. But I'm still open to other ideas--additional suggestions are welcome.Fistoffoucault (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Jung's theories of femininity seem relevant for this article, why were they removed? --Aronoel (talk) 06:32, 17 July 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)

Lead discussion

Can we please have a discussion about the lead?

First sentence: Femininity refers to qualities and behaviors generally believed (by whom? original research) to be associated (when? why? how?) with women and girls, whether they be inborn or socialized.

The qualities are not "general" they are specific to women and girls.

• Proposed: Femininity refers to female qualities attributed specifically to women and girls.

Second sentence: Femininity is distinct from femaleness – According to whom? Please provide a reference. This is inaccurate and misleading because according to the Merriam Webster dictionary [1] the synonym for feminine is female. USchick (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the statement "the synonym for feminine is female" is incorrect. It might be A synonym, but it is not THE one and only. The two words have different meanings. Sometimes the boundaries of each overlap, but you can't always just substitute the one word for the other and have the same meaning in a sentence. -- Avanu (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I support changing the lead. The lead used to be sourced to this, but it has been removed for some reason. I think the new lead should be more closely based on this source ("roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women") or another reliable source. --Aronoel (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

@USchick: Your proposed first sentence is not accurate. Men can exhibit feminine qualities as well as women. You may want to review the previous discussion. Scholarly sources specific to the subject would be preferred over popular ones like Merriam Webster. Also note that lead sections are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body (WP:LEADCITE), so it is not necessary to be so rigorous with the wording, although we should of course strive for an accurate summary. Kaldari (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I just felt that saying "stereotypically" was a bad choice. I'm not stuck on a particular choice, but saying "generally" gives the same sense without the negative overtones. And since men can be percieved to have feminine qualities, these qualities are generally something females have, but not exclusively. -- Avanu (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course men can exhibit feminine qualities! And no one is stopping them. Words have meaning, and if we're going to say something, it should be accurate. If there is a scholarly source, let's use it. I'm saying that the definition is not all encomassing of general qualities. The qualities are specific to females. That's why I researched the etymology of the word, (I don't know why it was moved) which has a Latin root word that literally means (woman) "one who suckles." USchick (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, instead of generally, a more accurate word would be traditionally which is also part of the dictionary definition. For anyone who does not accept the dictionary as a reliable source, please feel free to find something more appropriate.USchick (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with using the WHO source? Let's just use that. --Aronoel (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, as it relates to gender. Even when men (or anyone else) exhibit feminine characteristics, they are still specific to the female gender. Since my proposed statement is not acceptable, please someone propose something better. USchick (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

But our definition also includes socialized behaviors, so those wouldn't necessarily be specific to a gender, since gender is something one is born with. -- Avanu (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Femininity is the set of roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a society associates with women. Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex. Male and transgender people can also exhibit behaviors associated with femininity. --Aronoel (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Femininity is the set of roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with women. Femininity is a distinct concept from a biological female sex. The exhibition of these behaviors are not limited only to females. -- Avanu (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I support Avanu's modified version, except for replacing "the" with "a." Sorry to be nitpicky, but after all there is only one biological female sex. --Aronoel (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The above statement supports the dictionary definition (which is fine with me), but does not support the WHO definition of gender if anyone thinks that's important. The rest – Femininity is a distinct concept from a biological female sex – is there a source for this? Yes, there is only one biological female sex, so how can femininity be different from it? Let's start a new discussion about this please. USchick (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It is taken almost word-for-word from the WHO definition: ""Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. To put it another way: "Male" and "female" are sex categories, while "masculine" and "feminine" are gender categories." --Aronoel (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Many things almost word for word can have different meanings "They kill you" or "You kill them" which one do you prefer when you're playing a video game? :-) Just because "Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles for men and women, does NOT mean that "Femininity" can be substituted for the word "gender" (I have to go for now, but I look forward to continuing this discussion. Thanks everyone! USchick (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It says that "femininity" is a gender category and not a sex category. I just pasted that in above. --Aronoel (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason I said "a biological female sex" instead of "the" is that essentially we are talking about gender. If a person has an XY chromosome, we tend to say they are male, XX, then we say female. What about people who are XXY or just X or XYY, etc? This presents a complication in the simple definition of "biological female gender", since it doesn't fit. Also, does this only apply to human females or any creature, for example some frogs can change their gender. Do we apply this definition of feminity broadly to the entire animal kingdom or just human beings? -- Avanu (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the initial criticism of the lead is valid. Avanu's definition is consistent with the WHO and dictionary definitions of "femininity." I will change the lead accordingly. USChick, your definition is circular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fistoffoucault (talk • contribs) 04:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

WHO Definition on this web page [2] I don't see a definition, I see examples of how gender roles influence behavior. Gender roles influence how people express their femininity. Gender roles also influence how people express themselves through fashion. Gender roles do not define femininity, just like gender roles do not define fashion. I also don't see where the World Health Organization claims expertise on definitions of words, for that, a more appropriate source would be a dictionary. To go from "feminine is a gender category" to "Femininity is a distinct concept from a biological female sex" is a too big of a leap. If you want to make this claim, please support it with a source. USchick (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There is the female sex, the male sex, and intersex. Sometimes organisms don't fit neatly into these categories, but there is still only one female sex. If you know of any reliable sources referring to multiple female sexes (not genders), let me know, maybe I'm wrong. Genders, unlike sexes, are cultural and psychological categories and don't apply to organisms other than humans. Femininity is related to gender and not sex, which is what the WHO article explains and what the sentence "Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex" is supposed to explain. --Aronoel (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

To go from "Femininity is related to gender" to "Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex" is also too much of a leap and original research. If you want to make this claim, please support it with a source. USchick (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the term "biological female sex" is supposed to mean "gender". -- Avanu (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

To be clear about what it means, please provide a source, or restate it, or remove it. USchick (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this article not clear about the sex and gender distinction? If it's not, USChick, can you explain what you believe it is saying? (Also see sex and gender distinction).--Aronoel (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where WHO claims that "Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex." I also don't see where Sex and gender distinction says that. USchick (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"The distinction between sex and gender is a concept that distinguishes sex, a natural or biological feature, from gender, the cultural or learned significance of sex." This seems very clear to me, and I just really don't understand what the confusion is about. --Aronoel (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A distinction between sex and gender is a separate discussion unrelated to how people express themselves (in feminine ways, in fashion, or anything else). If you want to make a claim that "Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex" I don't think it should be too much trouble for you to come up with a source. If this is such a common statement, what's the problem? USchick (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"When she stopped conforming to the conventional picture of femininity she finally began to enjoy being a woman." -- Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique.

If femininity is a picture, then it can be painted or repainted by society. Obviously, there is a distinction between gender, sex, or anything else, and the concept of feminine. -- Avanu (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

For menswear, Dries Van Noten gets in touch with his feminine side http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/for-menswear-dries-van-noten-gets-in-touch-with-his-feminine-side/2011/06/23/AGlieihH_story.html

If men can have a 'feminine side', then how is femininity directly restricted to women? -- Avanu (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to make a scientific claim that "Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex" please provide a scientific source. Thanks. USchick (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Is femininity a scientific concept? -- Avanu (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Gender and biological female sex are scientific concepts and a lot of research has been done in those fields as they relate to feminine and masculine expression. In fact, there is SO much written about it, that the World Health Organization mentions it on their web page. I haven't run across anything that says "Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex" and if you have, please provide asource. Thanks. USchick (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is titled "Femininity" not "Gender and biological female sex". Again, I ask, is femininity a scientific concept? -- Avanu (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/may/%E2%80%98inventing-womanhood%E2%80%99-new-book-explores-origins-femininity

Williams, who is an expert on the medieval literature and culture, set out to explore why certain gendered words – such as “womanhood,” “femininity,” and “motherhood” were used for the first time during the English medieval period.

“Previously, the way women were described was mainly as a wife, maiden or widow,” Williams said. “After the plague wiped out such a huge amount of the population, opportunities opened up for women to expand their roles in society, and language had to be created to describe these roles.”

So, to sum up, the idea of man and woman (gender) existed prior to the word "femininity". Its about as obvious as falling off a log to me that female is not the exact same thing as femininity. But whatever. -- Avanu (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Femininity is clearly not the same as female and there have been plenty of sources offered to show this. I think this is a case of a refusal to "get the point" and we should consider this discussion closed. --Aronoel (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You say So, to sum up, the idea of man and woman (gender) existed prior to the word "femininity". But in reality, Sexologist John Money introduced the terminology of "gender" in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word "gender" to refer to anything but grammatical categories. The word "femininity" was first used in the 1300s. Do you see a flaw in your calculation and in your logic? You're only 600 years off. Again, a reliable source would clear this up. USchick (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll quote the online etymology dictionary first (which I'm almost certain you'll disregard) "The interplay of meanings now represented in female, feminine, and effeminate, and the attempt to make them clear and separate, has led to many coinages: feminitude (1878); feminile “feminine” (1640s); feminility “womanliness” (1838); femality (17c., “effeminacy;” 1754 “female nature”). Also feminality (1640s, “quality or state of being female”), from rare adj. feminal (late 14c.), from O.Fr. feminal. And femineity “quality or state of being feminine,” from L. femineus “of a woman, pertaining to a woman.”"

Second, I'll use a reliable source that I like to call 'logic'.

He is feminine. He is a man. She is feminine. She is a woman.

He is maculine. He is a man. She is masculine. She is a woman.

Simple, right? We can hear it said that a man is acting feminine. Therefore, "gender" does not equal "qualities that are generally attributed to gender". If a woman is born, does that mean she cannot mow the lawn or work on a car? If a man is born, is he incapable of being concerned about his appearance or wearing a pink shirt? I'm not sure why the incredibly obvious needs so much sourcing for you to be satisfied. -- Avanu (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also, online etymology dictionary disagrees with you about gender being 1955. Note: "the male-or-female sense from early 15c. As sex took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the common word used for "sex of a human being," often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is first attested 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie." -- Avanu (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a fact that sexologist John Money introduced the terminology of "gender" in 1955, as the Gender article states. Your etymology dictionaries are saying nothing to disagree with that. No one one said that "gender" was commonly used to refer to men and women in 1955, only that it was introduced that way in 1955. What your quote is saying is that "gender" came to be commonly used for "sex of a human being" in 1963, often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities. Likewise, the Gender article says, "However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender." 50.16.132.13 (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not me you need to satisfy, if you want to make a claim on Wikipedia, please provide a reliable source. If you can't support your claim, please restate it or remove it. Thanks. USchick (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex" is not at all controversial or questionable. Would you call a female pig "feminine"? Would you call Ru Paul "masculine"? I don't understand why you are pushing this issue. The concept has been extensively explained above and on numerous other articles. The sentence is even cited in the lead to the World Health Organization: "'Male' and 'female' are sex categories, while 'masculine' and 'feminine' are gender categories". Claiming that Merriam Webster is a better source than the WHO (or any of the sources listed above) is absurd. How the word was used in 1300 has no bearing on the discussion. This isn't Ye Olde English Dictionary, this is a modern encyclopedia. Kaldari (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere on the WHO website does it say "Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex." It's absurd that people who want to make this claim refuse to provide a source. USchick (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for adding "socially defined" which makes all the difference in the world. Why was that so hard? Please remember that the rest of us are not reading off the same text book. USchick (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Glad the issue is finally moving towards consensus :) Kaldari (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are some of you acting as though gender and sex are so black and white, when even the Gender article makes clear that it isn't? Because while femininity can be distinct from biological sex, gender isn't all that distinct from the latter. Yes, of course, one can identify as a woman while being biologically male (transgender), but gender and sex match up for most people and are generally synonymous. Gender covers the whole spectrum -- biological sex, gender identity, gender role, etc. (contrary to what the WHO source states). 50.16.132.13 (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I arrived at this page via the Wikipedia: Requests for comments/society, sports, & culture ... and noticed that some discussion has arose as to issues of bias in this article. The second sentence of the lead discussion reads: "Though socially constructed, femininity is made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors." Given the debate over nature versus nurture, is no longer an either/or issue...but rather some combination of both, would the removal of "Though socially constructed" from the sentence and allowing the sentence to stand as: "Femininity is made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors." be a small step in dealing with bias issues in this article? Thoughts, comments?--4tiggy (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it isn't bias to say that what people call feminine is defined by people themselves. We can see evidence of this every day as fads and fashions change. Hair on a person's body is a human trait, and is less generally on women, but "femininity" in general society demands almost no hair at all, except for one's head where it should be long in order to be the most feminine. (again, that's according to society) If femininity is just biological, then why did nature decide to endow women with so many things they have to remove or change? The answer is that even though some of the items in the list of Femininity are biological things, they are in the list because people decided they could be. This is not the same thing as a Female. We have a checklist of things that make a Female, and those are set by nature. XX chromosome being the most basic. Anyway, I think everyone else is satisfied at least somewhat with the current wording, so it will probably be what we use for now. -- Avanu (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Avanu has articulated this issue very plainly and concisely. The example of hair is one; the additional example of soft bodies, weak muscles, or pale skin might be another. All of these things are not things that make one biologically female, but are associated with femininity as such. They are only associated with a biological female inasmuch as a certain context imagines a biological female. This sounds overly deterministic but I stand by it. 4tiggy, I really appreciate that unlike certain contributors to this talk page, you are making a positive effort to improve the page constructively. That being said, I stand by the use of "socially constructed" in the lead because it is the accepted vocabulary in this context (see Construct (philosophy of science). Looking forward to more productive discussion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fistoffoucault (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Fistoffoucault, When you make changes to a wiki page you need to include an edit summary along with your edit. That way the other editors can follow what is going on without having to go to the page. This is Wiki policy.

I noticed that you deleted the above comment with no response when I put it on your talk page . Do you disagree that it is Wiki policy? Please tell me your position on the matter. I have to be honest, I find it odd that you are "Looking forward to more productive discussion!" but then you change the lede image without so much as an edit summary. We had come to a consensus as to what that image would be. Dave3457 (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Clothing section

The clothing section was removed. It was sourced and relevant to this article. I think it should be restored. --Aronoel (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we please agree on the definition before we discuss what is relevant? USchick (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the majority seems to have agreed on a definition, let's resume the discussion of the clothing section. Whether you're Plato or Zhu Xi, the way we understand the essence of a concept is through its specific manifestation in the material world. For those non-nudists among us, clothing is an essential means of expressing identity. The feminine is expressed through clothing--we consider certain modes of dress more or less feminine, and associate the feminine qualities of costume with the wearer. Drag is an expression of and re-imagining of the feminine--would Ru Paul be Ru Paul without a feather boa, and if a feather boa weren't associated with femininity, would it be challenging to our notions of gender? I think the clothing section is needed. We can discuss its content.Fistoffoucault (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The clothing section should be more balanced with regards to cultural diversity. This is a big issue because whereas some cultures use clothing to conceal femininity others use it to emphasize it.

I'm not necessarily suggesting the following current news item belongs in the article, but it certainly parallels the contentious nature of feminine clothing:

http://www.bwfbadminton.org/file_download.aspx?id=33012 "The images above show a transparent skirt or dress in order to show the acceptable clothing under the skirt or dress. This is not intended in any way to mean that such skirts or dresses should be transparent. This is for diagrammatic purposes only."

Don't worry, UK sports minister was on top of that. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/27/badminton-women-players-skirts-dresses "To instruct people to wear unnecessarily short skirts is a regressive and damaging attempt to sex up the game. Sport should be judged on the merits of the contest and not on attempts to sex it up artificially."

The American deputy president explains his reasoning for suggesting this Victorian-era edict: "We just want them to look feminine and have a nice presentation so women will be more popular," he said. "Interest is declining. Some women compete in oversize shorts and long pants and appear baggy, almost like men." Roger6r (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The feminization of athletic uniforms would definitely be worth including. --Aronoel (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

To be nitpicky, right now this example is an attempt at feminization of athletic uniforms :)

Athletic uniforms could be a subsection of Clothing Roger6r (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well a lot of sports, such as tennis, have always had "feminine" uniforms for women. --Aronoel (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I do agree (I was only nitpicking the current badminton regulations) Roger6r (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Clothing section should be distinct from body alteration. Body and clothing are not the same. Suggest splitting the current section: Clothing is its own section. Physical characteristics is another. Body alteration becomes a subsection of Physical characteristics.

The distinction between biological femaleness and femininity should be reiterated in the Physical characteristics section. Roger6r (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am a newbie to the community and have come to this site through the community bulletin board. I would like to make a comment for consideration in the 2nd paragraph of the introductory remarks. Based on the Oxford Canadian Dictionary(2nd ed), I would suggest that the word/term "racist" 1)a belief in the superiority of a particular race ... be replaced with ... "discriminatory" 1)an act, instance, policy, etc. of unfavourable treatment based on prejudice, esp. regarding race, age, or sex .... as the term discriminatory in my mind seems to more accurately make the point of the sentence/statement. --4tiggy (talk) 03:37, 9 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)

Would anyone be interested in addressing the Olympic controversy of the Olympic women's soccer team? [3]USchick (talk) 18:29, 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."[4] 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)

Guess I should have read the previous section :) Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 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)

True, I guess we should be shooting for more general coverage of the issue. Kaldari (talk) 19:16, 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)

What would you like to see more of in this article? Kaldari (talk) 19:41, 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) :-)

USchick, I'm not sure the concept of femininity can be separated from discrimination. Roger6r (talk) 16:38, 25 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 suggest a section titled Feminine athleticism which briefly addresses the relation of femininity to Women's_sports. Roger6r (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There is an open move request for Women's_sports that relates to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger6r (talk • contribs) 18:24, 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)

Definition of femininity

I know that the intro has been discussed many times. I've read the previous discussions. This is why I am confused about the intro still having such a strict definition of femininity. It currently says, "Femininity is socially constructed and distinct from biological female sex." But that is not true in all cases. The human female body is considered feminine, for example. And no matter what we say about femininity being a social construct, using the term to refer to the female sex is a biological aspect of the term. Male and female bodies are not the same and are not socially constructed. Saying that the female body is feminine is simply a word used to describe it. After all, a word had to be used. Further, as pointed out above by Dave3457 in #The lead sentence section, feminine traits can also be due to biology. This is also shown in the Femininity#Behavior and personality section. At least something about this debate should be in the lead. The World Health Organization (WHO) is not the be-all and end-all definition of gender and gender categories, as demonstrated by the many researchers who would disagree with WHO in part. The lead should at least qualify the "socially constructed" mention with the word "often" or "usually," so that it reads: "Femininity is often socially constructed and distinct from biological female sex." Or "Femininity is generally socially constructed and often distinct from biological female sex." Or some variation of that, if we are not going to mention in the intro that research on femininity has been linked to biology as much as to social roles. 50.16.132.13 (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The WHO is a working definition, the definition in the dictionary is still accurate, and different from the WHO definition. USchick (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The "socially constructed" sentence is from a college sociology textbook which devotes several pages to discussing femininity and masculinity. The textbook states unambiguously that femininity is socially defined and not biologically defined: "Often we mistakenly attribute masculinity and femininity to biology, when in fact, they are socially created." This is further explained over several pages in the textbook. If you want to state the opposite, you'll need some pretty solid sources, not just a popular dictionary definition. Kaldari (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that it doesn't matter what one or two reliable sources state in favor of femininity only being a social construct, because there are reliable sources that state the opposite. Nor did I argue against it being a social construct. I argued against it only being defined as a social construct, when even some researchers state that some feminine traits/qualities are or may be due to biology. Research has definitely shown that men and women generally don't think the same, and enough research suggests that this may not simply be due to society. I don't need to provide any sources for this statement; some sources are right there in the Behavior and personality section. Others are elsewhere on Wikipedia, in the related articles. And since it is mentioned there in the Behavior and personality section, showing that femininity may be defined by something other than social factors, and is subject to debate, a bit about it should clearly be included in the intro. Or the intro should clearly define femininity in more than just one way. Per WP:LEAD. Plenty of articles give different definitions of a term, and yet you and others are restricting this article to only one when there is more than one definition. Even "popular dictionary" definitions would be considered solid enough sources to define femininity in another way in the intro. I know how Wikipedia works on that matter and cannot be fooled whatsoever. What defines femininity is clearly debated and debatable and yet you and others are arguing to define femininity in only one way. Many researchers state that gender is not only socially constructed, which is one (if not the main) reason why transgender people are not simply seen as insane by the medical community. Read up on gender identity disorder, why don't you. Listen to what Chaz Bono has to say. Research has shown that biology may be the reason that some transgender people "feel like men" or "feel like women" -- that it is biology of the mind that has made them more inclined to identify by the social constructs "man" or "woman." So that definitely blows your "femininity is only socially constructed" definition out of the water. WHO's definition as well.

I'm pretty sure that if I took this to the wider Wikipedia community, they would agree with me and the other editors who have wanted a more inclusive intro. People have been complaining about the intro being limited for the longest now, and look at it. Still limited and biased. Biased because there is obvious debate about what defines femininity, and the intro only gives one side's definition of it. And while I agree that society largely defines it (femininity), I certainly don't believe that the way women feel, think, and act is only due to society. The same goes for men. And neither do many researchers. There's a reason most people fall into their assigned gender, while the minority fall outside of it (transgender). The only people I can see as only wanting femininity to be defined as socially constructed are feminists, and I see we have a few at this article. 50.19.199.152 (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The article Definition describes different kinds of definitions. Intensional definition describes the essence of something and a Working definition is the WHO definition. Perhaps we should start with that and say that there are two definitions. USchick (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

@Anon: Our article doesn't state that femininity is has nothing to do with biology, it states that femininity is distinct from biology. Nothing you have argued refutes that. The point you are arguing against is a straw man—no one is claiming that femininity has nothing to do with biology. The traits of femininity are mostly to accentuate or exaggerate differences between the sexes that exist biologically, but the specific ways in which these biological differences are exaggerated or idealized in a given culture are defined by society. We don't have a gene for wearing make-up for example. Kaldari (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

While I don’t agree that femininity is simply a social construct, I don’t necessarily object to that claim being in the lead. The fact of the matter is that having such a blatantly false claim in the lead, which most people know not to be true, serves to discredit what's in the rest of the article. And because people won’t be taking the rest of the article as seriously I then don’t have to worry so much about what is in in. In short, those who read the lead will know who has written the article and what their slant is.

The fact of the matter is that what we have come to describe as “feminine behaviour”, as distinct from “masculine behaviour”, has arisen from our observation of the general behavioural differences between females and males. The main reason for the substantial behavioural differences amongst females, such as greater gentleness, empathy and sensitivity has its roots in the brain structure of females as compared to males. Therefore our notion of what it means to be feminine is not simply a social construct but has a significant biological origin.

The rejection of this truth by some has its origin in the fact that for some individuals, their masculine or feminine behaviour does not match what is typical for their male or female physical biology. For this reason they wish to separate, in their own minds an in the minds of society in general, femininity from femaleness and masculinity from maleness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.24.50 (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, I believe the point you are arguing is a straw man. The intro says, "Femininity is socially constructed and distinct from biological female sex." That pretty much says it has nothing to do with biology, no matter how you look at it. You already stated, "The textbook states unambiguously that femininity is socially defined and not biologically defined." Therefore, it is claiming that femininity has nothing to do with biology. Others at this talk page have basically stated the same thing. So stop playing word games, and essentially insulting my intelligence. If I were to say "women are idiots," that would be taken to mean "all women are idiots," would it not? And in the same vein that I wouldn't need to specifically and insultingly state "all women are idiots" to get across my point, the intro does not have to specifically state "femininity has nothing to do with biology" to get across its point. The wording "Femininity is socially constructed and distinct from biological female sex." gets across that point just fine. If it were in any way ambiguous, I would not have "interpreted" the line the way that I did. And to be even clearer, what I am arguing for (which is already explicitly stated above) is the representation of both sides in the intro. And since you state that no one is saying that femininity has nothing to do with biology, altering the intro in the way (or similar to the way) I suggested should not be a problem. There should be no problem in making it so that the intro does not send the message that femininity has nothing to do with biology. Your wording only defines femininity as a social construct without offering that femininity may be due to biological factors, as many researchers believe that the formation of masculine and feminine identities are due to both (the WHO calling gender a social construct is especially debated). Your intro also states that it is distinct from biological sex, when, yes, my arguments refute that. In fact, if you want to play the "not specifically stated" game, neither of your sources specifically state that the two terms (femininity and biological sex) are distinct from each other, as already pointed out by USchick in the #Lead discussion when referencing the WHO source. Let's be clear here that "can be distinct" is not necessarily the same thing as "is distinct." Personally, I fail to see how they are distinct when, as I mentioned earlier, most people fall comfortably into their assigned gender. But this isn't about my personal opinion. It's about what researchers state. And they are divided on what forms femininity, as shown in this very article and by the following sources:

Reinventing the sexes: the biomedical construction of femininity and masculinity Race, gender, and science. (1997) From Page 2: "We will also see how the conceptual division between masculinity and femininity has caused difficulties in scientists recent biological research."

From Page 4: "Most feminists subscribed to the thesis of Simone de Beauvoir, who argued that 'women are not born, but made to be women,' suggesting that only sociocultural factors affect the development of femininity in behavior. This thesis was contradicted by knowledge developed through biomedical research. Since 1959, biomedical researchers have described how the sexual organs bathe the embryo with hormones in the womb, resulting in the birth of an individual with a male or female brain." More? Okay, here's another line from Page 4: Scientists identified a distinctively male or female brain to predict future behavioral development in a masculine or feminine direction. Over the past thirty years, they have increasingly claimed types of behavior in males and females, both animal and human, are affected by prenatal hormones. In humans, such behavior varies from sexual orientation, career choice or mothering, to mathematical and verbal skills. Most effects of hormones on differentiating brains turned out to be categorically divided according to traditional perceptions of feminine and masculine characteristics: Male hormones potentiated future behavior; female hormones potentiated male behavior."

Masculinity and Femininity in the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. (2010) On Page 30, the text quite clearly asks: How important are biology and social influences in the development of masculinity and femininity?

Gender, power, and communication in human relationships. (1995) On Chapter 14, Page 333: "One's masculinity or femininity became known as a sex role, a gender role, or simply as gender that could vary independently from one's biological sex. When the term sex is used, it refers generally to one's biological or physical self; gender points to the psychological, social, and interactive characteristics. Social scientists soon learned that although gender and sex could diverge, they tended to covary. Women are more likely to be feminine than are men, and men are more likely to be masculine than are women. The close affiliation between biological sex and psychological gender has been explained in a variety of ways. MacCorquodale (1989) summarized the dialogue: The relative weight given by a belief system to social versus biological factors results in an ideology that maximizes or minimizes sex differences. Within both feminist and traditional systems of belief, there is a division between those who believe the influences of biology are indirect and mediated by society (social constructionists) and those who believe that direct effects of biology endow each gender with certain essential characteristics (biological essentialism). (Sayers, 1982, p.5). The nature versus nurture question has been debated extensively; it is continually revitalized by new research findings."

Sexual politics: an introduction. (2000) Page 37: "Oakley's sex/gender dichotomy had a considerable influence on a generation of sociologists who were encouraged to focus on the cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity - prising open and shedding critical light on the ways in which the 'norms' of masculine and feminine behavior are regulated, policed and reproduced in our society - and the ways in which power structures, relations of power, and inequalities are justified and legitimised by reference to these cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity. The sex (biology)/gender (culture) dichotomy is still a commonly cited distinction but has recently come in for some rigorous criticism by queer theorists and other postmodernists who are unhappy with what they see as a dangerous simplification."

So, yes, what defines femininity - biological or sociological factors, or both - is heavily debated (there is more of the same under different searches and in recent medical journals). And as such, there shouldn't be only one side presented in the intro -- that femininity is socially constructed and distinct from biological female sex -- when that one side is not absolute. The previously suggested intro, shown in #The lead sentence section, is more accurate: Femininity (also called womanliness) refers to qualities and behaviors generally associated with women and girls, whether they be inborn or socialized. In most cultures positive feminine features include gentleness, patience and kindness. Femininity is distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system." But since it seems the only way I will get the current intro to be neutral in its presentation is to bring the wider community in on this, I'm starting a WP:RfC below. 50.16.70.124 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should biological factors also be mentioned in the intro as a possible cause of femininity?

What should and shouldn't be in the intro of this article has been extensively debated, as the talk page can attest to.

Currently, one view is that the intro is fine as it is, and is not necessarily biased. The other view is that it is biased, as well as narrow, because it only represents one side of a debated topic. Right now, it defines femininity as only socially-constructed and distinct from the female biological sex, when researchers suggest that biology is (or may be) a factor in masculine and feminine identities/traits as well.

Basically, outside opinions are needed on this. The most recent discussions about it are above and below this RfC post. 50.16.70.124 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Request for quotes - The lead certainly reads as if the article is exclusively devoted to the meaning of feminity as a "social construct" to the exclusion of any physical/biological/genetic meanings of the word. To help uninvolved editors provide an opinion on this RfC: can editors who propose to expand the scope of the article to include physical/biological/genetic meanings please provide some quotes from sources that define (or merely use) "feminity" to include physical/biological/genetic meanings? Also, if there are significant sources that discuss the concept for non-human animals, that may be relevant. The sources should be high quality reliable sources, preferably scholarly. Please provide quotes, not just a link to Google Books. If the quotes are already above in this Talk page, please reproduce them here so the conversation can be consolidated. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Noleander. I provided quotes, page numbers, and the year of the books in the primary section above this one, not just the Google links, to show that femininity is debated among researchers and others as either sociological, biological, or both. It seems like a waste of space to again reproduce them here (I know how having an RfC too cluttered can deter others from weighing in, and I may get less replies), but if you feel it will help, here they are again:

Reinventing the sexes: the biomedical construction of femininity and masculinity Race, gender, and science. (1997) From Page 2: "We will also see how the conceptual division between masculinity and femininity has caused difficulties in scientists recent biological research."

From Page 4: "Most feminists subscribed to the thesis of Simone de Beauvoir, who argued that 'women are not born, but made to be women,' suggesting that only sociocultural factors affect the development of femininity in behavior. This thesis was contradicted by knowledge developed through biomedical research. Since 1959, biomedical researchers have described how the sexual organs bathe the embryo with hormones in the womb, resulting in the birth of an individual with a male or female brain." More? Okay, here's another line from Page 4: Scientists identified a distinctively male or female brain to predict future behavioral development in a masculine or feminine direction. Over the past thirty years, they have increasingly claimed types of behavior in males and females, both animal and human, are affected by prenatal hormones. In humans, such behavior varies from sexual orientation, career choice or mothering, to mathematical and verbal skills. Most effects of hormones on differentiating brains turned out to be categorically divided according to traditional perceptions of feminine and masculine characteristics: Male hormones potentiated future behavior; female hormones potentiated male behavior."

Masculinity and Femininity in the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. (2010) On Page 30, the text quite clearly asks: How important are biology and social influences in the development of masculinity and femininity?

Gender, power, and communication in human relationships. (1995) On Chapter 14, Page 333: "One's masculinity or femininity became known as a sex role, a gender role, or simply as gender that could vary independently from one's biological sex. When the term sex is used, it refers generally to one's biological or physical self; gender points to the psychological, social, and interactive characteristics. Social scientists soon learned that although gender and sex could diverge, they tended to covary. Women are more likely to be feminine than are men, and men are more likely to be masculine than are women. The close affiliation between biological sex and psychological gender has been explained in a variety of ways. MacCorquodale (1989) summarized the dialogue: The relative weight given by a belief system to social versus biological factors results in an ideology that maximizes or minimizes sex differences. Within both feminist and traditional systems of belief, there is a division between those who believe the influences of biology are indirect and mediated by society (social constructionists) and those who believe that direct effects of biology endow each gender with certain essential characteristics (biological essentialism). (Sayers, 1982, p.5). The nature versus nurture question has been debated extensively; it is continually revitalized by new research findings."

Sexual politics: an introduction. (2000) Page 37: "Oakley's sex/gender dichotomy had a considerable influence on a generation of sociologists who were encouraged to focus on the cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity - prising open and shedding critical light on the ways in which the 'norms' of masculine and feminine behavior are regulated, policed and reproduced in our society - and the ways in which power structures, relations of power, and inequalities are justified and legitimised by reference to these cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity. The sex (biology)/gender (culture) dichotomy is still a commonly cited distinction but has recently come in for some rigorous criticism by queer theorists and other postmodernists who are unhappy with what they see as a dangerous simplification."

There is also mention of this debate in the Femininity#Behavior and personality section. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that biological factors do indeed deserve a mention in the lead and that the statement denying them should be removed. There are many physical traits that are considered feminine, such as wide-set eyes, a strong waist-to-hip ratio, and breasts. Much of femininity is culturally determined, but stating that it has no biological component is misleading. The real problem here may be that there is more than one way to understand the word "femininity." "Gender," for example, has about five correct definitions. The WHO, for example, defines "gender" as a social construct, but most dictionaries list it as a synonym for "sex." Similarly, in common speech (and dictionaries), people think of "femininity" as "womanliness," etc. in general. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Darkfrog24. Below in the subsection, Noleander also agreed with specifically mentioning biological factors in the lead (which I'm sure you already know). It's just that I moved the extended discussion out of the RfC so that it wouldn't deter outsiders from commenting in the RfC (being too long and all). And I've definitely already brought up the narrow WHO definition of gender. Thank you again. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Continued discussion

I think everyone is in agreement that biology forms a part of what we call 'femininity'. So I'm not really sure why we need an RfC to determine that. The question isn't whether biology influences female behavior and actions, because of course it does. If you read the intro, you see two 'concepts':

• female gender (aka female biological sex)
• femininity (socially-defined thing that people equate with femaleness)

Are high heels feminine? Are they biological? What about lace? Silk? Lipstick? High-pitched voices? Intelligence? Strength? Blonde hair?

Some things are considered feminine but have no relationship to how a particular person develops biologically. They might stem from certain biological traits, but are they realistically biological? 36-24-36? How many women are size zero? I hope you understand what is *REALLY* being said when we have the phrase "distinct from the female biological sex" in the lead. -- Avanu (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The RfC is needed because the intro currently only presents femininity as a social construct, when that is debated. This is not about material things that are called feminine. This is about women generally thinking and acting a certain way, which has been called femininity, and what makes a person feminine. What makes a person feminine -- biological or sociological factors, or both -- is heavily debated. The sources I provided show that. The intro, however? Does not reflect that, and only positions femininity as a social construct. Your description of femininity above -- as a "socially-defined thing" -- is exactly what I'm talking about. Many researchers do not agree with that point of view -- that femininity is simply a "socially-defined thing." And one of your questions (intelligence, not the high-heel silliness, etc. you have thrown about) is something researchers are trying to find out when it comes to its relation to biological sex (strength, as in physical strength, is something they've connected more so to men for the longest now, but neither intelligence nor strength are significantly what the masculine/feminine debate is about).

If everyone here is in agreement that biology forms a part of what we call femininity, then there shouldn't be a problem with putting the biology aspect in the intro. Because, no, it's not currently there, and it's no misinterpretation of mine either. If it were, there wouldn't be so many complaints about the intro (as recently as an IP who responded before me above). So no thank you, I don't need a lesson on gender and gender categories. Already well-versed on the topic. I hope you understand that your intro is currently biased, and that I asked for unbiased opinions regarding this RfC (AKA outside opinions). I'm not keen on people who are defending the intro cluttering the RfC, which is meant for outside opinions. 50.16.70.124 (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify what I mean again about, I'm going to reiterate the two 'concepts':

• female gender (aka female biological sex)
• femininity (socially-defined thing that people equate with femaleness)

I've written an alternative lead for you, and this idea that you need to *only* have people comment here who never have commented before is just silly. I think we're in agreement substantially or entirely, it is simply a matter of phrasing and comprehension. As I said above, everyone is in agreement that femininity is related to "female biological sex", but I think you're looking at this like the Shadow equating to a Bit of the object casting it. If we imagine a Venn Diagram of these 2 concepts, we will see some overlap, of course. But the degree to which these two concepts overlap is determined by a society. They may overlap 100%, or they might not overlap at all (unlikely). But they are not the same concept, and femininity is not 'gender + X, Y, and Z'. To address something you mentioned above, Intelligence in relation to one's gender is not a function of femininity. HOWEVER, playing dumb so that guys will like you or feel superior, is a function of femininity (especially relating to masculinity in this example). Femininity is like the adjective describing the female. We don't say "see how female she is", but we say "see how feminine she is".

Alternative lead wording: "Femininity is a set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with women and girls. Femininity is socially constructed and although it can encompass traits found in the female biological gender, femininity is a distinct concept."

-- Avanu (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, I see you as trying to work with me, so I do thank you for that. As for reiterating, you can reiterate the two 'concepts,' but it does not negate the fact that the current lead is biased and leaves out the fact that femininity may be due to biological factors. I will also reiterate that I don't need a lesson on gender or gender categories, so please stop seemingly trying to teach me. I never stated that femininity and female biological sex are the same thing, and have clearly demonstrated an understanding of the two terms. I did state, "Personally, I fail to see how they are distinct when, as I mentioned earlier, most people fall comfortably into their assigned gender." But that is not the same as saying they are the same. That was me basically speaking of the overlap you mentioned. My main point is that the current intro is not neutral because there is no mention of biology being a cause of femininity, and because there is clear debate about this topic, which leads to my other point: Some researchers and others are in disagreement with some statements on this talk page that femininity is mostly or only socially-constructed; some believe that sociological and biological factors are equally responsible for creating femininity. You yourself also conflate "female gender" with "female biological sex," even though "gender" and "sex" are distinguished enough (even in the current lead). But then you distinguish it later, at the bottom of your statement there, which is odd. But, yes, you speak of an overlap. And by mention of an overlap, we are on the same page. Because I am arguing for mention of the biology overlap -- that biology may play a part in femininity. I'm also not sure why you and Kaldari keep bringing up material things in reference to masculinity and femininity, when, in actuality, masculinity and femininity can apply to non-human animals as well. The first source I listed above demonstrates that. So all this talk of high heels and makeup is not needed. I am not thinking of masculinity and femininity in terms of material things, and the sources I listed aren't focusing on that either. What I am speaking of (and the sources as well) is personality and behavior. While that may involve high heels and makeup for some, that is beside the point, because masculinity and femininity have a lot more to them than just the material things associated with them. Your suggested alternate wording still reads a little too biased, I feel, in light of the debate about it among researchers, scholars, and the like. I'm also not fond of the wording "female biological gender" when we are trying to separate "sex" from "gender." So I propose the following alternative lead wordings, though I still don't view the two things as distinct as you make them out to be:

Femininity is a set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with girls and women. Though largely socially constructed and distinct from the female biological sex, femininity may encompass biological factors as well. What traits are associated with femininity usually depend on a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context. Women, men, and transgender people can all exhibit feminine traits.

Or...

Femininity is a set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with girls and women, whether they be inborn or socialized. Femininity is distinct from the female biological sex, as women, men, and transgender people can all exhibit feminine traits. What traits are associated with femininity largely depend on a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context.

As for commenting in the RfC, I never stated *only* uninvolved editors should comment in the RfC. I stated that, "I asked for unbiased opinions regarding this RfC (AKA outside opinions). I'm not keen on people who are defending the intro cluttering the RfC, which is meant for outside opinions." And I mean that. RfC is indeed for outside opinions, though involved editors may comment there. I was saying that I already know how you and some others at this talk page think on the topic and that I didn't create this RfC to hear those same opinions again. Outside editors can simply look at the talk page discussions that I directed them to. They already have enough to read from that alone, and don't need to read through the same thing again. I have definitely witnessed how having an RfC that is cluttered or deemed "too long" makes others not want to weigh in. That's why I moved this particular discussion here. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support changing lead - 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. --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again, Noleander. I think I prefer my first alternate lead proposal, too. And what you stated about femininity referring to non-human animals may also be relevant enough to place in the lead if we can get access to reliable sources specifically addressing that; we likely could even have an entire section on it, but I suppose that is for another discussion. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the debate is oversimplified here. Obviously femininity encompasses biological traits and factors. That doesn't mean that femininity isn't socially defined. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. I would be perfectly happy with the sentence "Though socially defined and distinct from the female biological sex, femininity may encompasses both social and biological factors." I also don't see any reason to modify the sentence "What traits are associated with femininity...". Kaldari (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That is an absolutely perfect way to state it. -- Avanu (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the debate here is not oversimplified in my opinion. It's overcomplicated. There is nothing at all wrong with stating that femininity may be due to biological factors. And since what defines femininity -- sociological or biological, or both -- is heavily debated, both should be mentioned in the lead. Kaldari, you state that, "Obviously femininity encompasses biological traits and factors." But my problem with the current intro is that it does not state that at all, and definitely implies that femininity is only a social construct (if not outright saying it). I am not the only one who currently sees it that way, which makes it a problem. Really, what is wrong with my proposal? Why is it so difficult to just instate one of them, preferably the first one? I don't see why "largely" should be taken out of the "Though socially defined" sentence. In fact, it makes less sense to exclude "largely" when we are trying to say that femininity is not only due to social factors. If femininity is mostly due to sociological factors, which is disputed by some researchers, then it makes sense to say "largely" because it certainly isn't "all" or "only." And "mostly" is more so a WP:Weasel word. The same goes for the "What traits are associated with femininity" sentence. I added in "usually" for the same reason. But going back to "largely," it is also more neutral on the subject because, again, what defines femininity is heavily debated. Femininity being "largely" or "mostly" due to sociological factors is not entirely agreed upon. Judging by the sources I provided and more that can be found, it's not even mostly agreed upon. Different sources report different things, however. And as Noleander stated above, "editors cannot pick-and-choose which sources' definitions to use, and cannot rely on their own viewpoint." If there was some authoritative, widely-held definition of femininity, then maybe. But there isn't. WHO's definition of gender isn't even supported by most researchers today. We should be trying to accurately reflect the different interpretations/definitions of "femininity." I'm only agreeing to use "largely" as a compromise; it might also be because I happen to believe that "femininity" encompasses social factors more so than biological when you throw in the material items associated with it, but my own personal belief is not what is driving me. Having an accurate, more neutral lead is. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding what the IP 209.226.31.161 said, isn't "female biological sex" exactly the same as "female gender"? Sex (without a qualifier) is a word that encompasses several concepts, one of which is gender. But "sex" isn't as specific. -- Avanu (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, "sex" usually refers to the biological category and "gender" usually refers to the social category. I think the proposal discussed above is a good possible solution. Alternatively, I think we could remove the phrase "socially constructed" and just say "femininity is a distinct concept from biological sex," which is true regardless of any overlap. This way it wouldn't comment at all on the issue of biological or social causes for femininity. Then details about the actual debate can be left to the article body to be covered in-depth.--Aronoel (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a reasonable compromise to just leave that word out and still indicate it is clearly a separate concept. This whole discussion strikes me as a thing we all clearly understand, it is simply a matter of describing it to everyone's satisfaction. -- Avanu (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to get off track, but is anyone interested in having 2 clear definitions instead of trying to combine them into a confusing one? Definition: Intensional definition describes the essence of something and a Working definition is the WHO definition. USchick (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment about "femininity is a distinct concept from biological sex," – We already went around in circles about this before. There is no proof of this. USchick (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

USchick....

Female = one who is female.

Femininity <> Female

i.e. they are distinct concepts.

Logic, not original research. Seriously I think everyone 'gets it', but some are just being stubborn. This is one of those things that are so basic and well known that it's incontrovertible. -- Avanu (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The length of this discussion should tell you that it's not that basic. USchick (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It is like people arguing over whether a shadow is real or not. -- Avanu (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, which proposal is that? Mine, or Kaldari's reworking of mine? I stated above that I'm not really for leaving out the words "largely" and "usually," and why that is. I also can't agree with just moving "socially constructed" out of the intro, because I feel that the fact that femininity may be due to social construction, biology or both should be mentioned there in the intro. WP:LEAD definitely goes over what should be mentioned in the intro of articles, and this should be mentioned there from what I interpret (the lower body of the article is what is used to go into deeper discussion about this debate). Plus, leaving it as "femininity is a distinct concept from biological sex" can still give the impression that femininity has nothing to do with biology, especially with the rest of the intro only mentioning sociological factors: "What traits are associated with femininity usually depend on a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context."

Avanu, I'm not being stubborn. I've made my reasons clear above, and have made clear that researchers are not entirely in agreement with your definitions of things (definitely not sure about your latest example to USchick, but I ask again that you please stop with the lessons). It's not that difficult to go by different sources and not define femininity as absolutely one thing more than the other. But, as shown above, I am willing to go with "largely"...just as long as there is no implication of "only." 209.226.31.161 (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The article isn't titled "Scientific Definition of Femininity". Society-at-large has a concept of what it is, and its exceedingly clear that we all agree that at the very least, it is largely defined by society. Of course it contains things that are based in female biology, but since it is not anchored to that, it is clearly distinct. We don't need scads of researchers for us to see what is or is not considered feminine. The continual debate over obvious things is what makes me question either our communication skills or our potential stubborness. -- Avanu (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Its like the difference between saying "milk" and something is "milky". The concept of milky came from milk, but is not something equivalent to milk, and in fact, since it is a separated concept, could change over time. I feel like its very plain and clear but it simply needs to be explained in a way that conveys it so that we are communicating it between each other. -- Avanu (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't have to be titled "Scientific Definition of Femininity" to present both viewpoints. So I'm not sure what you are getting at with that. By that same token, I can argue that this article is not titled "Social Definition of Femininity." There is NOT ONLY ONE DEFINITION OF FEMININITY! MY sources and a scad of others prove that. What don't you and others get about that? We do not get to define a lead a certain way based on our personal beliefs, not mostly anyway. We first and foremost go by WP:Reliable sources here at Wikipedia. And, yes, scads of researchers say that femininity is (or may be) due to biological factors as much as sociological factors. Saying "we don't need scads of researchers for us to see what is or is not considered feminine" is rooted in personal interpretation, because "what is and what is not feminine" can be subjective, as this article's lead points out (one of the few things it actually gets right). Wikipedia needs reliable sources to define terms, and that is what I am going by. Not your and others' beliefs/personal definitions. I am not the one who objected to "largely." You and Kaldari did, by not accepting my proposal, which is pure stubborness if I have ever seen it (since we're on the subject). All I am asking for is that the intro of this article be neutral or somewhat neutral in its presentation of femininity, and you and others are fighting tooth and nail against it, even in the face of reliable sources. I don't need your personal definitions of femininity, because that means squat on Wikipedia. Saying "though largely socially constructed and distinct from the female biological sex, femininity may encompass biological factors as well" is a perfectly reasonable compromise, because it maintains your and others' beliefs that femininity has more to do with social factors while also acknowledging that it may be due to biological factors. The same goes for "what traits are associated with femininity usually depend on a variety of social and cultural factors..." Good grief. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

All that said, if I have to compromise again, which it seems that I do, I am hesitantly willing to go along with Kaldari's reworking of my proposal. More so the "socially constructed" line. Because I consider the "what traits are associated with femininity" line to be inaccurate, even though slightly inaccurate, without the word "usually" in there. It does not make sense to reestablish the traits as only sociological/cultural when we've already made it clear that they may be biological as well. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your phrase above demonstrates the problem: "maintains your and others' beliefs that femininity has more to do with social factors". I don't hold a belief that femininity has more or less to do with social factors or biological factors. What I *am* saying is that what people call feminine is defined by society. I've repeatedly acknowledged that there are biological factors that are a part of femininity. But the boundaries of what is called feminine are created by society. See the distinction? -- Avanu (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, nothing I have brought to this talk page has been "the problem." The problem has been with the intro, for some time now, as demonstrated by this talk page. From what you have stated, to me it is clear that you hold a belief. You keep stating it (that belief) without backing it up with sources. You have also fought to keep a narrow definition of femininity in the lead, despite reliable sources. Yes of course what people call feminine is defined by society. But what people call feminine is also defined by biology, and not just by researchers either (who, I might add, are also a part of society). When a heterosexual man sees the body of a naked woman, that is feminine to him. He defines her body, as well as her personality, to be feminine. See what is not a distinction to many? Like I stated, I don't need a lesson. So stop it. If anything I have familiarized you with the distinction between "sex" and "gender" (as Aronoel clarified above). It's time to move on, as I have recently stated that "I am hesitantly willing to go along with Kaldari's reworking of my proposal. More so the 'socially constructed' line." 209.226.31.161 (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

When I say "the problem", I simply mean that you seem to feel I hold a belief that femininity is ONLY based on social things, not biological things, and I don't have any such belief. -- Avanu (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I believe you feel that femininity is MOSTLY based on social things, and that this is clouding your judgment. Your comments showcase that. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, your statement about me is mistaken. I do not believe "femininity is MOSTLY based on social things". It isn't about me thinking its more social or more biological, I keep trying to explain the distinction and you keep missing it. I don't have a judgement here. Clearly people make a distinction between what is female and what is feminine. 'Female' equates 100% to things relating to biological femaleness. 'Femininity' equates to whatever the hell people decide to make it. -- Avanu (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Section break

Many of the things people associate with femininity are actually railing against biology. Look at foot binding in China. Women have smaller feet than men, but do they have smaller feet than children? That was the goal, to fight tooth and nail against biology by conforming to an impossible ideal.

On the issue of intelligence earlier, you wanted to turn it into a comparative biology discussion, who is smarter -- men or women? But the question for an article on femininity is not who is smarter, but why do women feel compelled to 'play dumb'? Biologically, women are just as smart as men. But femininity asks for a different outcome, but if society decides that smart women are sexy, and in many cases it does, then it is chic and feminine to be that.

It seems super clear to me where the factors that make up femininity arise. Some come from biological differences, some from unrealistic expectations of biology, some from just fads and fashion and societal expectations. But ultimately what gets put in the femininity pot is decided by society. -- Avanu (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to Kaldari's version before. I support using that version, but I still think avoiding the issue in the lead altogether could be the best solution. It's a complicated debate that is difficult to summarize, it may confuse readers who may already have trouble understanding the female and femininity distinction, and most importantly, the controversy only applies to femininity and behavior. That's why currently it's only mentioned in that section. Obviously there is no controversy about the biological vs social influences of makeup and clothes. Also, I just want to point out that there have already been a lot of authoritative sources discussed explaining the femininity and feminine distinction, so that is not OR--Aronoel (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, I don't see why this "further discussion" section is needed. The resolution is taking place above. This section is just more of your personal opinions about femininity. If you wanted to create a "section break," you could have just done that. On the issue of intelligence earlier, no, I did not want to turn this into a comparative biology discussion of who is smarter -- men or women. You did. You keep bringing up high heels, makeup, intelligence and "playing dumb" as if the above discussions by me are at all about that. It isn't. Wikipedia is not a forum, per WP:NOTAFORUM, and I do not want to discuss this with you. I want the intro to represent biological and sociological factors as defining femininity, which is backed up by reliable sources. Not some comparative biology discussion based on our own personal opinions. Not some comparative biology discussion at all.

Aronoel, neither my nor Kaldari's version is confusing. Nor is it a difficult debate to summarize. Most readers are not so unintelligent that they won't understand the simple sentence proposed by me or Kaldari. I also mentioned WP:LEAD. Well, per WP:LEAD, it should be in the intro. Per WP:LEAD, specific mention of the debate should even be in the intro. All I am arguing for, however, is representation of biological and sociological factors in the lead. I don't buy your explanation for why this is not currently mentioned in the lead. And leaving out "socially-constructed"? I explained above that it still leaves in the implication that femininity is only defined by society. So, no, I won't agree to that. As for "a lot of authoritative sources explaining the femininity and feminine distinction," I've read through all of you guys' back and forth, and all I saw being used for that was the WHO, which gets "gender" wrong when it comes to what most researchers have to state on the matter. And WHO also doesn't use the word "distinct," which was my point on that. Now can we please get back to the matter at hand? The compromise. We stated that Kaldari's version is fine, so let's go with that. And keep in mind my objection to removing "usually" from the "traits" line. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I not only object to the word, “largely” in the phrase “Though largely socially constructed” as it is POV, I reject the claim that it is a “social construct”. While dress and some behaviours may be socially constructed, the phrase suggests that the brain structure of females has played no role in the behaviour that we have come to describe as feminine.

We all agree that the word “femininity” is socially defined, given that the every word in the English language is social defined so why are we stating that in the lead? What is not socially defined is what we have come to call feminine behaviour because much of it is an outgrowth of the nature of the female brain. Of course I am not including the trivial behaviours such as styles of dress and so forth.

I like the wording “femininity is a distinct concept from biological sex”, but if social influences are mentioned then biological influences must also be mentioned. I support the idea of leaving that discussion to the body of the article. That being said the previous version of the lead which read “Femininity is distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics.” was just fine and said the same thing.

Thanks for your work 209.226.31.161.

Dave3457 (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not typical female behaviour is biologically determined or socially determined is irrelevant. Having breasts is biologically determined and included in what is defined as "femininity". That doesn't mean that biology determines femininity. Biology defines what is male and female. Society takes these definitions, polarizes and exaggerates them, and uses them to create a definition of femininity. Kaldari (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm being a bit too defensive here. I think we actually agree on a lot of points. We just need to find wording that expresses things in a way that is satisfying to everyone (or almost everyone). Kaldari (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Sociology

I finally got ahold of the Encyclopedia of Sociology (2000), which is a well-respected source and quite comprehensive (3481 pages!), so I could see what it has to say on the matter. It actually has an entire section titled "Femininity/Masculinity". The section starts out by saying:

Femininity and masculinity or one's gender identity (Burke, Stets and Pirog-Good 1988; Spence 1985) refers to the degree to which persons see themselves as masculine or feminine given what it means to be a man or woman in society. 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), and males will generally respond by defining themselves as masculine while females will generally define themselves as feminine. Because these are social definitions, however, it is possible for one to be female and see herself as masculine or male and see himself as feminine.

Later, it goes on to say: "We now understand that femininity and masculinity are not innate but are based upon social and cultural conditions." This is pretty close to our current wording, and a strong endorsement of the idea that femininity is socially defined. I think what is missing from the explanation is simply that biological factors can influence what society defines as "feminine" and even be included in the definition, but ultimately the definition itself is decided by society. There is no biological definition of femininity. This is why scientists don't talk about non-human animals being "feminine" or "masculine". Kaldari (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, you have found another source that supports your view regarding the nature vs nurture debate. Given that there are other sources that don't support your view on the subject, I don't understand your point. This debate is not about who is right but about whether both views should be presented or neither of them. And if presented, how. Dave3457 (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The above comment suffers from the same problem as the IP user. This isn't about nature vs. nurture. Society doesn't define what is 'female'. It is just biological. Society does, however, decide what is considered 'feminine'. There is a very easy to see distinction and for some reason it just isn't being properly communicated between these two 'sides'.

Of course, you can make an argument that anything anyone does is partly decided by our DNA, but that's another debate really. What we consider beauty, for example, is part DNA and part related to a zillion other socially constructed ideas. -- Avanu (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, you are mistaken, society defines a female as “a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries” Dave3457 (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't just "a source". It's one of the most highly respected sources in the field. As the American Library Association states: "Several one-volume encyclopedias on the subfields of sociology have been published since 1993. To date, however, there are no multivolume works with anything like the thoroughness and scholarly rigor that characterize this set. There is no question but that the Encyclopedia of Sociology is likely to be the definitive encyclopedia of sociology for the next generation." Given that this work devotes 9 pages to discussing femininity and does not mention any controversy about how it is defined, this seems to indicate that there is a mainstream consensus. Secondly, my point is that I think we can actually improve on this definition by incorporating some of the ideas expressed in the discussions above, although not in a way that contradicts the mainstream consensus. Perhaps there are other fringe views that can be discussed in the article, but I think the lead should reflect the predominant view in this case. Kaldari (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, While there may be other fringe views, the four independent sources cited above are not fringe and must be respected. Your argument suggests to me that this issue should be left to the body of the article. Also I do not agree that there is a mainstream consensus, although I do believe there is a consensus about what is deemed politically correct.

Dave3457 (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for looking the definition up in the Encyclopedia of Sociology, I'm actually a little surprised it so strongly rejects biology as a part of the concept of femininity. Considering the authority of this source, I feel a lot less comfortable removing "socially constructed" from the lead or adding something about biological traits to it. Now I'm not really sure how we're going to find an acceptable compromise for everyone. --Aronoel (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, your source is just a source. First of all, it's called Encyclopedia of Sociology, so I'm not surprised it rejects biology as defining femininity. Again, it is just one source. Different sources say different things on what defines femininity. You can call it authoritative on the issue of sociology all you want, but it is not authoritative on the issue of biology or on what defines femininity. I have displayed four independent, reliable sources that show femininity is considered to be due to biological factors as well, and that there is an ongoing debate about it. I have shown that researchers most definitely believe that femininity is partly due to biology, and most certainly can provide even more sources to support my arguments. This is NOT FRINGE. Certainly not with all the proof out there about the minds of transwomen. You gathering all the sources you want to support your view doesn't negate all the sources out there that support mine. And, I'm sorry, but science trumps popular belief any day. Just because it is popularly believed that only society defines femininity...doesn't make it true. And scientific consensus rejects the idea that femininity is only due to society. Mainstream consensus doesn't make anything more correct/true, in the same way that mainstream consensus believing that pedophilia includes post-pubescent teenagers doesn't make it true; scientific/medical consensus disagrees with that, just as it disagrees with your and others' belief that only society defines femininity.

You and Avanu are really pieces of work. Playing with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines in this way, to maintain your personal beliefs in the intro. The lead should represent both sides when it comes to defining femininity (and, yes, it is clear that you all have personal beliefs on the matter, so don't bother denying it). THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL FRINGE about femininity encompassing biological factors. I have shown that. Really, first, you both agree that femininity encompasses biological factors. Now you show your true colors again by agreeing with one source that outright rejects femininity as being due to biology. Laughable. But, hey, what do I expect from feminists? Feminists are the absolute worst when it comes to editing topics on gender and gender categories, because they want to describe everything as a simple social construct (as wonderfully displayed here at this talk page). Kaldari doesn't know what she's talking about as much Avanu doesn't. She says, "There is no biological definition of femininity. This is why scientists don't talk about non-human animals being 'feminine' or 'masculine'." LOL!! Someone clearly didn't read the first source I listed. Plenty of scientists subscribe masculine/feminine identities to non-human animals and use those terms for such identities. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any "personal beliefs" on this and I'm NOT here to portray "sides". I'm actually very puzzled why this whole thing is being debated, and again I think it is simply poor communication. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT IS PARTLY BIOLOGY. So why are we arguing? You're putting a lot of words in my mouth, attributing ideas to me, and you couldn't be more mistaken. Listen for once. This is a miscommunication. WE AGREE ENTIRELY IN THE SUBSTANTIVE PART OF THIS DEFINITION. -- Avanu (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have personal beliefs to me. A little higher, you quite clearly stated, "The above comment suffers from the same problem as the IP user. This isn't about nature vs. nurture. Society doesn't define what is 'female'. It is just biological. Society does, however, decide what is considered 'feminine'." And you ARE WRONG in considering that I have a problem. You ARE WRONG in saying that "this isn't about nature vs. nurture," because it is exactly about that to many people, as the sources I displayed demonstrate. And as for society deciding what is considered feminine, while that is true, researchers state that biology also determines what is feminine. So to say that femininity doesn't have a biological definition, especially when biology seems to have made some transwomen and even gay men act in ways that biological females typically would/do, is absurd. Society didn't make them act this way. Not mostly anyway. These behaviors also have to do with biology. So for the Encyclopedia of Sociology to say that "Femininity and masculinity are rooted in the social (one's gender) rather than the biological (one's sex)." and that "We now understand that femininity and masculinity are not innate but are based upon social and cultural conditions." is absolutely ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous to use that as some authoritative source on femininity. Like I stated, science trumps popular belief any day. I'm not sure why this is being debated either. It was easy enough to just accept my compromise and leave it at that. But, no, you had to act like it was/is some controversial proposal and drag this discussion out. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

To be clear AGAIN (since I explained before), the problem is miscommunication. YOU are NOT the problem. Miscommunication is. It was not a personal attack. And AGAIN, to be clear, EVERYONE here agrees that Femininity has biological components. So... why are we arguing? -- Avanu (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you refuse to go ahead and add biological factors for causing femininity to the intro...when this is backed up by reliable sources. That is no misommunication! 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Biology is determined by a fixed program that comes out of DNA. Hard science. Certain traits arise from DNA for women. Hard science. We end up with a FEMALE. Again, hard science. At this point, we diverge from hard science and ask, "Is she feminine?" The question indicates we ARE talking about a woman. Hard science declares 'this is a woman'. But hard science doesn't declare whether she is feminine. Are breasts feminine? Yes, sure. But what if fashion changes? What if people say women should have holes in their ears to be feminine? Or crushed feet? Or have their vagina sewn shut?

The point is, even though a LOT of what we call feminine are just biological traits, the decision whether those traits get called feminine is something society determines. So again, why are we arguing this? It's common sense. -- Avanu (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you cannot teach me about biology. I have demonstrated that I am well-informed on the subject, seemingly more than you are. "Feminine" may generally refer to "women," but some of what has come to be categorized as "feminine" is, according to research, also rooted in biology. Hard science recognizes femininity being rooted in biology. This is why hard science has shown that biological human males "who act like women" do so because they have minds that are very similar to biological human females. Society has come to consider certain behaviors "feminine" because women tend to act in these ways more so than men. Science believes this is not simply due to societal factors. There are transgender people for a reason, and existence of transgender people blows the notion that gender and gender categories are only social constructs right out of the water.

I don't know why you are bringing up all these weird scenarios, but it is not helping and does not matter. We are still debating this because you and others have yet to put into the intro that femininity encompasses biological factors. Put that into the intro, with respect to the way I proposed, and stop condescending to me, and I will be out of your hair. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is this even a debate?

I see a lot of people discussing the definition of Feminine or Femininity and I don't understand how this is so damned contentious.

It sounds like we have some people who want a scientific definition, which to me seems fine, but I think overall people know what femininity is without having to find a researcher to tell them. It is not an uncommon word. But whatever, either is fine, and should most likely be the same either way?

I keep seeing some people bring up nature versus nurture, and I wonder why. Femininity is a word whose expanse is determined not by what a woman HAS, but by what people think a woman SHOULD have. There is what makes a woman simply a woman, and there is what makes a woman a WOMAN. If that's not clear, look at Plato's theory of Forms. 'Femininity' encompasses all things that are in the ideal form. 'Female' is just female.

From Theory of Forms:

We call both the sky and blue jeans by the same color: Blue. However, clearly a pair of jeans and the sky are not the same color; moreover, the wavelengths of light reflected by the sky at every location and all the millions of blue jeans in every state of fading constantly change, and yet we somehow have a consensus of the basic form Blueness as it applies to them.

No one has ever seen a perfect circle, nor a perfectly straight line, yet everyone knows what a circle and a straight line are.

In that example, blue sky and blue jeans are real, just like biological factors are real in this discussion. But the realistic is then taken over to the consensus of the basic form and called Female, and then most polarized or super-Sized attributes are called Feminine.

• Why are we still debating? Who is saying Femininity isn't partly constructed of biological things? No one.
• Why are we still debating? Who is saying Femininity isn't partly constructed of socially-defined things? No one.
• Why are we still debating? Who is saying the boundaries of the definition of Femininity aren't made by a society? No one (as far as I can tell).

Why are we still debating? -- Avanu (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, Avanu. Since this discussion has mostly devolved into personal insults I don't think it's really worth continuing. --Aronoel (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Here you go again creating yet another discussion about it. Why is this being debated? Look above. This discussion is not worth continuing? Then fine. But you do not get to decide that the lead stays biased. Right now, it only represents the socially-constructed side, and I am not the only one to complain about that. An outsider in the RfC even stated that you are all wrong for your biased into. And until this is fixed, I will continue to complain about the intro. Trying to ignore me won't do a thing, because I will continue to complain to the wider the community about this until that intro is fixed. I will even attempt to fix it myself if ignored. Revert me all you want, but I will continue to complain and bring others in on this. Personally, I don't view calling feminists out as an insult. The sources I have provided quite clearly show where feminists stand on this issue. Insults started long before I made that comment, seeing as Avanu commonly refers to me as "a problem" and as "having a problem," and continually tries to teach me about sex and gender without even having known how "sex" and "gender" are commonly used. Why indeed are we still debating this, if there is no problem in mentioning that femininity is or may be due to biological factors? I am not the one who dragged out this discussion. Avanu is. It's easy enough to just present both sides in the lead, as Wikipedia leads are supposed to do. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You say it is biased, but I'm not seeing how it is. I don't agree that it "only represents the socially-constructed side". I think it makes it clear that Femininity is made up of biological and social factors. No one is trying to ignore you, just trying to ask you questions. Also, I'm not a feminist, nor am I am female.

Regarding use of the word problem. I have tried to explain how this is not personal, but you aren't hearing me.

"Your phrase above demonstrates the problem" - talks about 'your phrase' not YOU.

"The above comment suffers from the same problem as the IP user('s comments)" - my mistake for not making this clear enough, see parentheses I added.

"To be clear AGAIN (since I explained before), the problem is miscommunication. YOU are NOT the problem. Miscommunication is. It was not a personal attack" - I explain clearly what the issue is, how it is not a personal attack.

So, are we clear now? -- Avanu (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The intro is biased for all the reasons I and others have stated throughout this talk page. The fact that you cannot see that, and won't even follow WP:LEAD or compromise anymore, is the word ridiculous at its best and shows just how corrupt this article's editors are. I don't care for you clarifying to me that I'm not the problem or your take on femininity. Or that you aren't a feminist, especially since one or two of the three of you are feminists. I care for what WP:Reliable sources say and different reliable sources say different things about what defines femininity -- regarding both biological and sociological factors. That should be in the lead. Period. You cannot keep that out of the lead based on your own personal opinion that the lead is fine, when more than one person has stated that the lead is NOT FINE -- that it only represents the socially-constructed side. If it was clear that the lead says femininity is made up of biological and social factors, there wouldn't be any complaints. What don't you understand about that? Look past your own stubborness and realize that. The lead being problematic to more than one person speaks volumes about how un-fine it is. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that you just offered up another compromise; I will weigh in below. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Does this change work for everyone?

Changed the lead a little bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Femininity&diff=437563511&oldid=437511598

From:

Femininity is a set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with women and girls. Femininity is socially constructed and distinct from biological female sex.

To:

Femininity is a set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with women and girls. Femininity is socially constructed, but made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors. This makes it distinct from a simple definition of biological female sex.

Does this work? -- Avanu (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That works for me. Yes, thank you, Avanu. It might need a little refining, but at least "biological factors" is specifically in there now. I'm not seeing how it is that much different than my proposals, or the reworking of my proposals, and why you couldn't just accept them, but I accept this proposal by you. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, your addition needs to be backed up by at least one of the reliable sources I provided, if not all. I'm thinking the first source I listed is best. I'll do that if no one else does. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you 209.226.31.161 for your undying effort. Everyone else should be ashamed of themselves for pushing personal bias. I hope we can all be more understanding going forward. USchick (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have a bias. As I said before, all of this seems like common sense to me, but if it helps to modify it slightly, fine. I don't see that anything substantive has really changed. -- Avanu (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, judging by my, Dave3457's, USchick's, Noleander's, Darkfrog24's, and even an extra IP's take on the lead before your change, adding "biologically-created factors" is a substantive change. And I appreciate it. USchick, you're welcome. I also added the sources to back it up and expanded the section regarding the debate about it. Everyone agreed that the actual debate should be handled and expanded in that section, so I believe all is okay now. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Precision

Comment This is the wrong word, to start with; "femininity" is the social contruction; correspondingly, we should not be using it in Leads, or this policy (except for such articles as Coco Chanel. When this gets around to discussing "femaleness", do let us know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson, do you mean we shouldn't say "Femininity is socially constructed"? If so, maybe you are right, but others at this talk page feel that we should. And since we appear to have achieved some sort of consensus on the matter, I'd rather leave it at that instead of debating it for many more hours/days/possibly months. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me like they are saying "femaleness" is the better subject for an article. Its completely clear that they say "femininity" is the social contruction. -- Avanu (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what, Pmanderson is saying, and would rather Pmanderson clarify. I do know that Pmanderson primarily deals with grammar, though, and I'm pretty sure a grammar reference was in there. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm a classicist. "Femininity" is the property of being feminine; clearly a social construction; some women and girls lack it; in another sense, it is a property of nouns, pronouns, and adjectives.. "Femaleness" is the property of being female, which may well be debateable for some people, but which a woman (whatever that means) cannot lack. That is what you appear to arguing about. (And I may be an "it"; I am not a "they"; that would be an abuse of the account.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think your comments are fantastic and perfect. You have an excellent grasp of the problem here. :) It is a problem of communication and precision in language. We have had several editors who miss the distinction between a set of things being defined by society, even though the members of that set themselves might be defined by biology or whatever else. -- Avanu (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't "miss the distinction" between anything. But you will continue to believe what you believe. Everything is defined by society, but I touch on that lower in this section in my response to you (after my response to Pmanderson). 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson, that's not quite what we've been arguing over. Somewhat, but not quite. We've been arguing because reliable sources say that femininity is not merely a social construct. While some girls and women may lack feminine behavior, that does not negate the fact that biology plays a role in femininity for some women and even men; according to research, it plays a role in femininity for all women (except maybe in the cases of some biological women who are transgender). Girls and women who lack feminine behavior are still considered to be feminine in the mind; according to research -- they still show emotion in ways that most human biological males wouldn't. The way that human biological males generally show emotion has been labeled "masculine." The way that human biological females generally show emotion has been labeled "feminine." And while I can understand how that is a social construct, I also look at it as having merely given these different behaviors a name. I don't believe that had gender and gender categories never been exaggerated (as I agree that they have been), men and women would generally act the same. I believe there would still be some distinct behavior going on between the sexes. I don't see the problem in having named these behaviors. And let's not forget that the physical traits of women (ones due to biology), such as breasts, have also been deemed "feminine." Merely a name to describe these traits. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, I disagree, while IP 209.226.31.161 may have lost his cool with you for I while there, as I did earlier, he has been very clear, logical and fair. He has also given me back my will to fight :) Dave3457 (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I personally think Avanu’s proposal is truthful and accurate but it doesn’t matter what I think, it is bound to be removed or changed by someone who knows a source, such as the Encyclopedia of Sociology, which contradicts the claim that biology plays any role.

Here are the three versions we have been fighting over.

1 - lead claims it is entirely cultural

2 - lead claims it is entirely biological

3 - lead claims it is a mixture of the two.

All three claims will be removed or changed on the grounds that there is a notable source that contradicts it. In fact this latest brewHaHa all began with someone changing the lead from version 3 to version 1.

We need to state something that is true for every reliable source that exists which means making no claim at all.

This means saying something like….

There is much debate about the extent to which sociological factors versus biological factors play in determining what is considered feminine behavior.

I appreciate my grammar in the above isn’t very good, and I welcome a rewording but I think we need to just leave it at that or else we are all just going to be back here again later, fighting over what the truth is.

My suggested lead is...

Femininity is a set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with women and girls. Some behaviors that are generally considered feminine include gentleness, empathy and sensitivity. There is much debate about the extent to which sociological factors versus biological factors play in determining what is considered feminine behavior.

Femininity is distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics.

The complement to femininity is masculinity.

I hate to have complicated things by including some behaviors that are considered feminine but a lead that is about femininity has to include some examples of it or its not doing its job.

Dave3457 (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Dave. I see you're responding to Aronoel's statement about not continuing discussion with me. And you're right that I "lost my cool," though I do feel I had valid reason for doing so. I wasn't truly looking to upset people by trying to get a more neutral lead, but my frustration just came out in that moment. I apologize for not being more professional. If this were work, that behavior would not have been appropriate at all. I need to remember to always think of Wikipedia talk pages as more of a work place instead of sometimes as a forum.

I'm not sure when you all fought about the lead claiming femininity is entirely biological, because I don't believe it has ever been that, but I must have missed that discussion or part of it. While your proposal for the lead is a good proposal in my opinion, especially since it mentions the debate (as WP:LEAD says it should), I'd rather just keep the lead that is there now because it is clear that having "socially constructed" in the lead satisfies three of the main editors of this article. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave3457, you said "I personally think Avanu’s proposal is truthful and accurate but it doesn’t matter what I think, it is bound to be removed or changed by someone who knows a source, such as the Encyclopedia of Sociology, which contradicts the claim that biology plays any role."

This statement is not true.

The Encyclopedia of Sociology did say this: "Femininity and masculinity are rooted in the social (one's gender) rather than the biological (one's sex)." 'Rooted in', meaning that the boundaries of the definition are decided by the social. HOWEVER.... the definition that people decide includes biological factors and probably always will. PLEASE don't ignore that, it is why we have to keep arguing this stupid argument because we ALL agree, yet you're not seeing that we are in agreement. -- Avanu (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, that's your interpretation of what the Encyclopedia of Sociology means by its definition of femininity. Aronoel, for example, obviously feels that "it so strongly rejects biology as a part of the concept of femininity." We have not all been in agreement. We have only been half in agreement. I agree that people define femininity, but you and others have taken the fact that people define it -- when humans define everything, really -- to identify femininity as only or as mostly a social construct. The debate has been that some people (researchers included) do not view it as only or as mostly a social construct. And I know, I know, you agree that what we define as femininity encompasses biological factors. I get that. No need to keep debating this. Dave is not debating the sociological vs. biological anymore. He is proposing a new lead, which I have already commented on. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Is a ham sandwich made by a pig? No, it is made by a person, but yet it does include ham. -- Avanu (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Refer to everything I've stated above. Put simply, everything in this world has been defined by human beings. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not the point though. When we define 'female', the definition comes from the one of the two parts of a heterosexual pair. In other words, it isn't terribly subjective. We don't really define it, as much as name it. However, when we come upon something like 'ugly', 'cool', or 'femininity', we DO define it. And that's why different people have different understandings of what is ugly or not. Or cool. Or feminine. Someone might stick a feather in their cap and call it Macaroni and another bloke might say it's stupid or ugly. And same thing is true of femininity. Without a doubt femininity will always include biological traits, and we ALL agree on that, so why do we keep arguing? -- Avanu (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It is the point, though. You say, "We don't really define it, as much as name it." That is partly the same thing I stated above about femininity. I stated: Girls and women who lack feminine behavior are still considered to be feminine in the mind; according to research -- they still show emotion in ways that most human biological males wouldn't. The way that human biological males generally show emotion has been labeled "masculine." The way that human biological females generally show emotion has been labeled "feminine." And while I can understand how that is a social construct, I also look at it as having merely given these different behaviors a name. I don't believe that had gender and gender categories never been exaggerated (as I agree that they have been), men and women would generally act the same. I believe there would still be some distinct behavior going on between the sexes. I don't see the problem in having named these behaviors. And let's not forget that the physical traits of women (ones due to biology), such as breasts, have also been deemed "feminine." Merely a name to describe these traits. So, in closing, femininity is as much named as it is defined. You keep arguing against reliable sources who view this differently than you. You keep arguing with me because it is clear that we do not view femininity entirely the same way, no matter how much you claim that we do. It's also clear that we both want the last word. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

:) We are really saying very much the same thing. 'femininity can be as much named as it is defined' Make that tiny change and we're there. If you lived in a village of Amazons (the Greek kind), femininity would be something different. The 'female mind' that you describe above would not be tolerated as proper female behavior. Breasts would be cut off in favor of the ability to use the bow better. These biological traits can be expelled from femininity or brought back in. That's the difference. -- Avanu (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we are saying "very much the same thing"; I just don't agree that we see things entirely the same way on this matter, at least not always. In either case, you keep me on my toes in thinking (even if you always feel the need to give me lessons in things I already know about, which annoys me, LOL). So thanks for that. And good points about the Amazons. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

About the breast thing regarding Amazons, I do want to point out, however, that some sources, such as this one (though I'm not sure how reliable it is), dispute that they would cut off their right breasts or any breasts at all. Your point on the matter, whether the breast thing is true or not, is still a strong point about what may be considered feminine...so no worries about that. I just wanted to enlighten you about that part of the Amazon history being viewed as myth. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well of course it would be myth, since they're women... myther would be for men. How bad is the joke.....? -- Avanu (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Extra section break

IP 209, no the lead never proposed claim 2, I just included it for completeness sake.

Please note that I only said that “Avanu’s proposal is truthful and accurate”, I did not say it was good, and for two reasons.

Reason 1- As I said, someone in the future is undoubted going to justifiably object to it on the grounds that they have a source that supports claim 1. They are either going to just delete it or they are going to replace it with claim 1 or they are going to create something along the lines of my suggested version. I just went through the recent history of the lead and from june 23rd to July 04th, it has gone from claim 3 to no claim(deleted) to claim 1 and now its back to claim 3.
You say you have 3 involved editors on side but that’s not going to mean an end to this. In my opinion, the only relatively stable version is mine or something like it.

Reason 2- The fact that you guys are arguing over what the sentence means is evidence that the sentence isn’t clear. Sure, with much effort, think I now understand where Avanu is coming from with her phase “socially constructed”, but the average high school student is not going to be able to make much sense of the sentence. In your quest to make an accurate statement, at least with regards to your own POV’s, you forgot to make it intelligible for the average reader. I can also easily see someone who comes across it, trying to improve it. In my opinion, “social construction” as used in the sentence is simply too abstract and the fact that we have been arguing ad nauseum about its meaning here for some time now is evidence of that. I’m also concerned that people who read the sentence will think that “socially constructed”, means no biological input. For example, Aroneol, referring to a different proposed version containing the phrase “socially constructed”, but which didn't mention biologically-created factors, said earlier...

Thank you for looking the definition up in the Encyclopedia of Sociology, I'm actually a little surprised it so strongly rejects biology as a part of the concept of femininity. Considering the authority of this source, I feel a lot less comfortable removing "socially constructed" from the lead or adding something about biological traits to it.”

May I remind you that before that change of heart, she supported deferring the debate to the article body as I do.

While I don’t support your version, I have put it in. I’ll just wait awhile until we’re all back here again, at which point I’ll tell you I told you so :)
I replaced it with ...

Femininity is a set of behaviors and attributes generally associated with women and girls. Femininity is socially constructed, but made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors. This makes it distinct from a simple definition of the biological female sex. Some behaviors that are considered feminine include gentleness, empathy and sensitivity Women, men, and transgender people can all exhibit feminine traits.

The complement to femininity is masculinity.

I will let you guys add any references.

I removed the below sentence because it made claim 1.

What traits are associated with femininity depend on a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context.

I added examples because I think its a no brainer
I removed "roles" and "activities". I don't know who put that in but it doesn't make sense to me.

Of course, feel free to discuss if you object to any of my extra changes.
Dave3457 (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, are you saying someone will come along and remove the mention about biological factors? If so, we can revert them. WP:Consensus on this talk page has been to include biological factors in the intro. An editor cannot come along and have his or her version imply or state that only cultural factors define femininity, unless he or she achieves new consensus for that on this talk page. And even then, the intro would be biased and not neutral (as even two outside editors in the RfC basically stated), and complaints could be made about that to the wider community. There would be no valid reason to keep the mention of biological factors out of the lead, when reliable sources back up biological factors partly determining femininity and when the biological/sociological issue is extensively debated. As for the intro that was agreed upon before your recent change, I was saying that we have three editors strongly in favor of keeping the "socially constructed" line. We also have two (you included) who do not want it there, and one who (me) doesn't mind too much as long as biological factors are mentioned there as defining femininity as well. So, obviously, we should try and find a balance that satisfies all. Or at least generally satisfies all. I felt that Avanu's latest version did that. Yes, you weren't completely happy with it (neither was I), but at least biological factors were now in the lead, and they still are. Yesterday, Avanu and I were not arguing over the line being in the intro. We were arguing over the definition of femininity, which, yes, includes "what is and what is not" a social construct. And I suppose that's your point: Social construction is not so clear in this case. And while I agree that it isn't, there is no denying that femininity is partly social construction.

I don't mind your text changes to the intro, but others here might. The only problem I had with your intro change was that, as I stated in my edit summary, "you removed all the sources that support the line about biological factors, which in return made those same sources invalid below -- non-existent. You have to be more careful with your editing." References that are duplicated are usually being duplicated from the primary reference source. For more on what I mean about that, see Wikipedia:REF#Footnotes and References -- at the bottom where it talks about attributes. If still using the reference, the primary one should never be removed; it makes the duplicates nothing but attributes if you do. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, it does make sense to me to include "roles" in the intro, because of social and gender roles. And the line "What traits are associated with femininity depend on a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context." just needed some tweaking. Yes, we already mention social factors as partly determining femininity, but that line is talking about all the other ways it is determined as well. Your issue is with the part that says "what traits are associated with," because it makes it seem as though only sociological factors determine femininity after we've already made clear that it's more than that. So you should have left that sentence as "Traits associated with femininity include a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context." 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not stuck on my wording, just that once I realized what the kerfuffle was really about, there was no reason not to make a minor change that was more accomodating of the concerns mentioned. To me, the meaning in the lead didn't change, just the emphasis. -- Avanu (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know how you felt about the previous lead before specific mention of biological factors was included, Avanu. It's just that others (myself included) disagreed with you that the lead already represented biological factors as determining femininity. I didn't see that at all. It only stated "socially constructed" and "distinct" from the biological female sex. The exact opposite of representing biological factors as determining femininity, in my opinion. But it's best not to dwell on that anymore because we aren't going to agree there. I made these changes to Dave's version, per above and because it flows better. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this works too. I feel I should have thought of placing it there myself. I'm sure I immediately placed it where I did to demonstrate the "variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context" line. But I'm satisfied with either order of that line. Both versions work. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 905.x.x.x., sorry to cause you trouble, yea as it happens I was familiar with naming references to use them twice, I should have checked. Also you seem to think that the new line is bullet proof but its not, its as POV as the “entirely nature” point of view. All the consensus amongst us doesn’t change that.

IP 905.x.x.x, Would adding "Some", creating the sentence "Some traits associated with femininity include a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context." still result in a grammatically correct sentence? Grammar is not my strong point. I'd prefer it included if it does.

Regarding my lead “update”, please note that I didn’t go ahead and make the changes because I thought we had a complete consensus about what to put there but only a consensus that what was there couldn’t stand. I hated the idea of hundreds of people a day reading what was there.

I know you two(Avanu and IP 905.x.x.x) are probably thinking that this debate is over but I’m starting to have a change of heart. I just visited the Social constructionism wikipage and it reads...

When we say that something is socially constructed, we are focusing on its dependence on contingent variables of our social selves rather than any inherent quality that it possesses in itself.”

The key phrase here being... “we are focusing on”. Below is the sentence adjusted a bit, but where it should read the same thing.

While femininity is socially constructed, it is made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors.

I would be much happier with this version as it emphasizes the “we are focusing on” part of the definition of “socially constructed”. But I’m still not sure that the above sentence doesn’t contradict itself. A later sentence in the Social constructionism article reads....

Social constructs are generally understood to be the by-products of countless human choices rather than laws resulting from divine will or nature.

Does this sentence not in effect say that... femininity, since it is a social construct, is not the by-product, in anyway, of nature/biology? Note that I don’t take much solitude in the word “generally” in the above Social constructionism quote given that it is left out in the below definition I found.

From this definition, social constructs can be understood to be the by products of countless human choices rather than laws resulting from divine will or nature, however unintended or unconscious they might have been. [5]

And I strongly suspect that it is the source of the wiki quote which would make it the more authoritative of the two.

Dave3457 (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What new line are you speaking of, Dave? The biologically-created factors line? Yes, I believe it's bullet proof, per everything stated above. Anybody removing it from the lead would need to give pretty valid reasons for removing it. And WP:Consensus is a policy. People cannot go against it, unless new consensus is formed. And as I stated, no new consensus can give a valid reason for not including biological factors in the lead as determining femininity, when this can be backed up by reliable sources. Femininity is due to both (biological and sociological), and both should therefore be mentioned in the lead. It's as simple as that.

There's no point in adding "some" to the line you speak of." First of all, "some" is a WP:Weasel word, and we should avoid it when we can. It's used lower in the article because it cannot be avoided and is properly attributed. Most importantly, the line you speak of is not implying or saying "all." If it were, I would not be for that line whatsoever. I'd accept it, like I previously did, but would not have advocated re-including it. The only reason I re-included it is because it now uses the word "include," meaning "there are other things that make up femininity," such as biological factors, and because it speaks of other factors determining femininity (how it varies). Further, we already mention that femininity is also made up of biological factors, so it's not like that line can be taken to mean that femininity doesn't include them. So, really, why is the the word "some" needed in any way?

Your newest change -- the addition of "while" -- is not bad, but I don't like it because I feel it is unneeded and makes the sentence fall more on the weasel word side. However, to combat that, I would have worded it as "While socially constructed, femininity is" or "Though socially constructed, femininity is." That flows better than saying "While femininity is socially constructed, [so and so]." Basically, I feel that you are unnecessarily complicating things, Dave. There is no need to keep a sense of foreboding going on, and wondering what may happen to the lead in the future. Why keep arguing against aspects of the lead when everything is pretty much okay now? I get that you've been burned in the past on this talk page, and you're still not completely satisfied with "socially constructed" being in the intro, but not everyone is always going to be completely happy when compromises are involved. Like I mentioned, we are trying to find a balance that satisfies both sides. And if you don't call it "satisfied," then what I mean is "acknowledges both sides." You being completely happy with the intro is not going to happen when there are people who also want their side in the intro. Unless all or most editors here agree to exclude "socially constructed" and just leave that part up to the "both socially-defined and biologically-created factors" line, you are not going to be completely happy with the intro. That's just how compromises go. No, I don't feel that saying "femininity is socially constructed but made up of both sociological and biological factors" is a contradiction. I don't feel that way because femininity is partly social construction; we don't say it is only or mostly a social construction. We just say "socially constructed." No need to mention "partly" when the lead already mentions both sociological and biological factors. I have to admit that I feel you are nitpicking at the lead right now, Dave. I mean, you gotta accept a compromise, or else this issue will keep going on and on. It's just not possible to make you completely happy with the lead without going against what others want, unless all or most here agree to remove "socially constructed." And I don't see that happening (not with the current editors). 209.226.31.161 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 905.x.x.x, First, I don’t understand why you removed “(lede discussion)” from the heading. When looking at one’s watch list, the heading “Extra section break” tells you nothing about what is being discussed and as a result if some other editor looks at his watchlist he's not going to know what's being discussed.

Anyway, we’ll have to agree to disagree about how bullet proof the new line is, but I think I appreciate your position a bit more now. I also disagree about the word “some” being a weasel word in this case. For example... Some cows are black and white just as Some traits associated with femininity include...”. I do agree that the word “include” now makes the sentence accurate but I was hoping to include “some” for emphases, but I’ll try to do like a yogi let it go.

I also think your wrong about the definition of “socially constructed” not excluding biological factors and thus making the new line self contradictory but, even though you unjustly accused me of nitpicking, :) , I’ll also let it go without putting up a fuss, particularly since the new phasing of the new line mitigates things a bit for me.

That all being said I’m afraid you will not be able to argue consensus if someone shows up insisting that we instead use a line something like the following...

There is considerable debate within the scientific community concerning the extent to which sociological factors as compared to biological factors play a role in determining what is understood to be feminine behavior.

...for the reasons I’ve outlined above.

Now that we have something, in principle, that all the present editors, who care, seem to more or less to agree with, I think I have a crazy idea that might keep us from having to go though this, all over again. I’ll be creating a new section in a day or two that outlines my crazy, outside the box, idea. If you think it is a good idea I’ll run with it and notify all concerned. If you don’t, I’ll abort it.

Dave3457 (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I removed "(lede discussion)," because this whole discussion, starting with the #Definition of femininity section I created above, is about the lead discussion. We just have different title sections to break up the discussion and make replies easier. Look above, this section is a subsection of that lager section. Everyone at this talk page knows that we are talking about the lead. And if some outside editor is watching this article but not weighing in on this discussion, they know too, unless they are just tuning in. And if they are just tuning in, it's easy enough to see what this discussion is about.

"Some" is not needed for the reasons I stated above. And, yes, we'll have to agree to disagree that "some" is not a weasel word in this case. According to Wikipedia, it's a weasel word no matter even if needed and properly attributed.

I also disagree with you about "socially constructed" meaning "not at all defined by biology." How can you argue against femininity being socially constructed? It clearly is, by just considering how what is considered feminine varies by society. But just because femininity is socially constructed doesn't mean that it is not also comprised of biological factors. You and I agree that femininity is generally made up of biological factors. You also agree that femininity is made up of sociological factors. Well to that, I say anything partially defined by social factors is a social construct (yes, including clothes, since it is society that decides we must wear them). The word "woman" is a social construct, for example. But "woman" is also made up of biological factors. There is nothing contradictory about it. I don't feel that I unjustly accused you of nitpicking. I mean, you keep finding "problems" with the lead, as if the lead is supposed to make you completely happy in a compromise situation that is trying to please both sides. As I stated before, there is no way we can make you completely happy with the lead and please the other side as well (not unless the other side agrees with you).

I absolutely could still argue consensus. Read WP:Consensus if you have not. Consensus must be respected until new consensus is formed. Again, this is a Wikipedia policy. Not merely a guideline. Editors have been reported and blocked for going against consensus. That said, I wouldn't mind the following line you suggested. I've stated before that I'm not against the debate being mentioned in the lead. But let's be clear here: That line is pretty much what you suggested earlier for the lead. The thing is...consensus is for the current phrasing, and editors are tired of weighing in on this, which is why it's just mostly you and I discussing right now.

As for your new idea, you'd have to tell me what it is. But, honestly, I don't think I'm going to like it. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 905.x.x.x you said:

Can we stop nitpicking at the lead now? It's getting ridiculous.

I’m not sure why your slight changes aren’t nitpicking but ours are. Actually, assuming Avanu moved the line down rather than up because she likes it down rather than up, suggests that you think your single opinion overrides our two opinions. Also alot of people have looked at that line sitting down there on its own and didn’t seem to have a problem with it. I’ve also seen other articles do the same thing with similar “by the way” short statements.

That being said, I’m not going to object to it as you have been very respectful of my concerns.

I can’t let the claim that the word “some” is always a weasel word go un-challenged. I just read the Weasel word page and it neither said nor suggested any such thing.

We’re going around in circles on the “social construction” thing, I'm going to go ahead and repeat myself because you don't seem to be addressing my point.

In my opinion the most accurate definition of “social construction” is from this very reliable source which reads as follows...

From this definition, social constructs can be understood to be the by products of countless human choices rather than laws resulting from divine will or nature,...” [6]

I equate the word ‘nature’ above with the word ‘biology’. If we’re not using the phase “socially constructed” in the technical sense then we shouldn’t be linking it to the Social constructionism page. In fact, undoing that internal link would be a good “nitpicking” edit :) , which I’d support. :)

I hope you’re not suggesting that I’m being difficult just because I don’t agree with the outcome, after all, I’m the one who went ahead and entered the disputed line into the lead. I think I have clearly indicated that I’m willing to live with it. What I’m not necessarily going to do is support it if an option like the one I suggested above is insisted upon by someone else. Lets just cross that bridge if we come to it.

I’m not sure you appreciate that “fly by nighters” are going to be constantly “dropping in” and “nitpicking”. There is no reason to think that that sort of thing is going to suddenly stop just because we like it the way it is now. I’m hoping the idea I’ve presented in the new section below will help give some stability to the lede and prevent this ordeal from happening all over again.

I just read the consensus page, (which I should have read a couple of years age), and I’m not sure that you could just argue consensus. For example one part reads...

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions.

Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change

I have just started a new section below called “Ideas on how to give stability to the new lede which was reached through consensus”. Note that the suggestion below is not the “out of the box” one, I had to scale it back after reading that every revert has to accompany an immediate reason. I guess I was too far “out of the box” :)

Given that you absolutely hated my "out of the box" idea, I hope you like this one :)

Dave3457 (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, you neglected to show the link where I also call my own slight change nitpicking. I explained quite well above why I felt you were nitpicking, and I really shouldn't have to explain again. I didn't accuse others. I accused you. And the reason I did so is because you are the one still constantly proposing changes to the lead, and are seemingly unable to accept a compromise unless you are completely happy with it. This is a compromise situation. How can it be a compromise, if you get your way completely at the expense of what others want? In a situation like this, you cannot get your way completely unless the ones who are for "socially constructed" being in the lead suddenly agree with you to toss it out. I don't think my opinion overrides anything. I actually sought out discussion on this talk page before implementing any significant changes. I'm just tired of this discussion and needless dwelling on it. A lot of people have looked at that line sitting down there on its own and didn’t seem to have a problem with it? Well, maybe that's because they aren't the best at formatting? I don't see a reason for a lone sentence, unless it needs to be alone (as in nothing else to add to it). The "Masculinity" line, however, does not need to be alone. And I felt Avanu was rejecting your edit of adding "br" to it, not the placement. But whatever.

You read the wrong Weasel word page. WP:Weasel word clearly points out "some" as a weasel word. You can even ask about it on the talk page there. "Some" should only be used when it is needed and properly attributed. "Some" is not needed whatsoever in the line in question there. WP:Weasel words used to have a bigger section dedicated to explaining this. Only recently has it, and many other guideline and policy pages, significantly cut down their sections.

Yes, we are going around in circles on the definition of "social construction" and I still don't understand what you mean. It makes no sense to me because you are acting as though things cannot be both socially constructed and biological when "Man" and Woman" are exactly that. You are acting as though "socially constructed" is significantly different than "socially defined," to which I don't agree. But all that aside, different definitions are still just different definitions. Saying which is more accurate is an opinion in this case. Just as you and I told Kaldari much higher above. But, hey, if you want to continue to combat other editors at this article just so you can be completely happy with the lead, go ahead.

Not agreeing with the outcome is one thing. Not accepting an outcome where both sides are saying "this is the only outcome I will accept" is another. I'm not sure what disputed line you speak of, because it is Avanu who added "both socially-defined and biologically-created factors." Unless you mean the line about specifics traits associated with femininity. If so, doesn't seem that disputed to me.

No, I don't appreciate the "fly by nighters" who are going to be constantly "dropping in" and "nitpicking" because this article isn't that active and they can be reverted.

Yes, we can just argue consensus. You know why? Because, once more, consensus must be respected until new consensus is formed. Not merely a guideline, but rather a policy. If saying "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions, then how do you factor in the many editors who have been blocked for going against consensus? After all, people wouldn't have to gain new consensus through the talk page, would they? Consensus on talk page would mean nothing, wouldn't it? WP:Consensus wouldn't even be a policy, would it? I tell you what, I 'll go ask about this on that talk page there and see what they say about consensus being respected until new consensus is formed. But I'm pretty sure they will agree with most of what I have stated on the subject, unless the editors have fallen out of line with general practice on Wikipedia. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I assure you I’m trying to wrap this thread up as quickly as I can :)

IP 905.x.x.x, Sorry, I missed that self admission of nitpicking.

You said: “..you are the one still constantly proposing changes to the lead..”

My last suggestion and the agreed upon change was based on what I perceived to be a clear contradiction. I don’t see that as trivial. For what it is worth, I’m happy with it the way it was before Avanu just changed it and I’m happy with it the way it is now. That been said, if someone showed up arguing for certain changes that I would also like to see, I would go on record supporting those changes also. That seems fair to me.

You said: “I'm not sure what disputed line you speak of, because it is Avanu who added "both socially-defined and biologically-created factors."”

You’re right that Avanu added that line, I apologize, I though that I did. I have no idea why, but I still have the clear memory that I did, but Diffs don’t lie. Sorry for that claim.

I know you’re tired of all this, so am I, but let me just run through things as I see them because it would be unfortunate if you developed hostility toward me over a miss communication. I do respect your views, I think your “performance” in that debate with Avanu was stellar. Your arguments were strong, forceful and exhibited fantastic clarity. Whatever you may think of me, I have a lot of respect for you.

This was my thinking when I made this edit that shook up the lede. Diff please bear with me.

First, I thought I had just taken it upon myself to integrate Avanu’s suggested new “social construction” line. As I’ve said, I have no idea why I have the memory of being the one to include that line but I do. Note how the Edit summary of that Diff directly above says, "Changed lead to consensus" which of course is ridiculous.

Anyway, I made several changes during that edit, thinking that, since it as so gracious of me to make such a comprise :) that I would take the “opportunity” to make some desired changes of my own and see how they float. In hindsight the comments I made on the talk page must of seemed very strange. Here they are...

When I wrote...

I will let you guys add any references.

you must of thought I was mad. But I was thinking...

I will let you guys add any references, to the line “Femininity is socially constructed, but made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors.” which I just added.

But of course, I didn’t add that line.

I suspect that maybe it is at this point that you began to get impatient and all these “negative vibes” I’ve been getting from you started to begin.

That being said you seem to have taken things in stride and you even agreed with my edits, more or less. From my end I thought all the edits by everyone after that were very healthy and productive and was just what you would expect of a healthy exchange. I didn’t see any “nitpicking” including on your part, just a lot of healthy back and forth editing.

You said: WP:Weasel word clearly points out "some" as a weasel word.

I’m very surprised that that is your take, the objection in that paragraph is to the phrase “some people say” not the word “some”. I would urge you to read it again. At the end of that paragraph, it says in summary...

Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe,... should be clearly attributed.

I’ll place my views on consensus in the new “Ideas on how to give stability...” section

Dave3457 (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing it back if people prefer that slightly older version. I was just trying to solve complaints as 209 said. -- Avanu (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I mean no disrespect. But if you are trying to "wrap this thread up as quickly as [you] can," why keep giving such long replies? Why even still discuss it at all? To me, it was like we could do nothing to satisfy you. I mean, everyone is in agreement, but you kept and still keep dwelling on phrasing and what might happen in the future, acting as though we will be powerless if someone comes along and changes the lead. No, we will not be. It will not be up to us to convince an individual of consensus. It will be up to that person to convince us of changing the consensus.

Glad you found it.

You were the one still constantly proposing changes to the lead. Yes, you pointed out what you feel is a contradiction (which we disagree on), but that was you also suggesting we change it. You didn't seem happy with the lead before Avanu's change at all. But if you say that you were, I suppose I'll just have to take your word for it.

No need to apologize for a simple mistake. But I also apologize for offending you if I did, for saying that you have been nitpicking.

No, I'm not going to develop hostility toward you. Not permanently anyway, LOL. Because we may get into heated arguments in the future (who knows?). And, look, now I'm talking about the future, LOL. Avanu and I got into a passionate debate (as you know), and I held temporary hostility toward Avanu and others, but now I'm over it. Thank you for respecting me. I respect you as well. It's true that I don't agree with everything you state, but I do respect your right to state them.

I see. I appreciate the explanation of your mindset then and now. And, no, I didn't think you were strange or angry. Sorry for the negative vibes. I'm just frustrated with this discussion, and, like you stated, tired of it.

I said WP:Weasel word clearly points out "some" as a weasel word because it is stressing the words "some," "most" etc. It's not simply about using "some people." Like I stated, "WP:Weasel words used to have a bigger section dedicated to explaining this. Only recently has it, and many other guideline and policy pages, significantly cut down their sections." That may be why you are now interpreting it the way you are. But if you were to pose this question on the talk page, or go through the archives of that talk page, you will very specifically get answers that words such as "some" and "most" are considered weasel words. I already pointed out that such words should only be used when they are needed and properly attributed. So I don't see why you are pointing out the attribution line to me as well. But my bigger point on the matter was that "some" is not needed at all in the discussed line.

But, yes, talk with you later. Well, maybe. I'm ready to move on from this. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 905.x.x.x, I'm ready to move on as well but you keep saying things that aren’t true like...

you kept and still keep dwelling on phrasing

With regards to your statement...

You didn't seem happy with the lead before Avanu's change at all.

There is a difference between, being happy with the lede and being willing to live with it. Maybe I didn't state clearly enough that I would be willing to live with it.

I have the grounds to argue that the simple word "some" is no longer stated to be a weasel word because people decided that its not, and that it was a mistake to suggest so. You can’t argue past policy to defend your position. Nor can anyone else that agrees with you.

Dave3457 (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I don't feel that I was stating untrue things. While everyone else was no longer offering up lead changes, you were. You were even speculating about what people might do in the future in regards to the lead. How is that not dwelling on it?

As for "some," I was not arguing "past policy." It is considered a weasel word, even when attributed to a source. Wikipedia only wants the word "some" used when it is needed or attributed, because it doesn't truly specify anything. "Some" could mean "two," "three," etc. But, anyway, we don't completely agree. The main point was/is that "some" is unnecessary in this instance. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If you noticed my revert of the archiving bot, things have been taken care of.

I think the archiving bot messed something up because there was a hidden section.

Things have been taken care of. (Assuming there was a problem to take care of)

I left a message here on the bot talk page. User_talk:Misza13#I_believe_your_bot_might_not_be_handling_hidden_sections_correctly.

Dave3457 (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a thread inside the collapsed discussion that didn't have a timestamp at the end; a comment was appended. I've moved that so the thread will archive now. I've re-adjusted the archive params to correct a few issues.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ideas on how to give stability to the new lede which was reached through consensus

At this point we seem to have a consensus concerning the lede. I’ve started this section in the hope that we might get proactive and discuss how we could best avoid a repeat of what just happened concerning the lede. Of course other editors and “fly by nighters” are going to be making changes to it and that of course is fine but because the subject of femininity is so contentious, this lede seems to be subject to more change than the ledes of other articles.
First I would point out that we can’t just argue consensus to prevent further changes as consensus policy states....

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change

The consensus page also says that you have to state a valid reason when you revert an edit.

My proactive suggestion is that maybe we as editors would be less likely to let edits to the lede just “slide” if responding to those edits was not so time consuming. Having to re-explain everything over and over again can be quite the time consuming drag. For example a person just recently changed the lede from suggesting that feminine attributes were both “inborn and socialized” do saying that they were a “social construction”. IP 905.x.x.x and I strongly objected and through alot of effort we all agreed on the following compromise...

Though socially constructed, femininity is made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors.

If someone changes it again, while we would not be at square one, depending on how far in the future the change is made, a lot of time will be spent trying to convincing the individual to accept the compromise we have just arrived at.
Anyway I was thinking of creating an archive page in Talk Space that contained a collection of some of the common concerns and objections that we have and we could just copy and paste the appropriate concern or objection into this talk page. Each pasted version would then be fine tuned to the specific edit. The archive page, unlike this one could be edited like an actual article. Unlike an actual article however, reaching a consensus about something would not be an issue because anyone could just branch off and create their own version of a response. I appreciate that no one likely cares if I personally create an archive page and start putting common responses in it for my own personal use, but I thought it would be good if others at least knew that it was there and new that they were free to use it and maybe even make their own contributions. I’ve started the archive page and it is right here. I welcome any feedback on it.

Anyway, I’d also be interested in any ideas or advice on how to best create a more stable lede.
Dave3457 (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that this archive of common concerns is a good idea. You could place a hidden comment at the lede paragraph or an edit template, to warn users trying to modify the definition that they should first understand what the current consensus is before trying to challenge it. Article 0.999... is a good example of this - they have created a note in the wikicode,[7] a FAQ in the talk page and a common arguments archive. Diego Moya (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Especially since it has already been changed without any discussion. USchick (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Diego Moya. That is pretty much what I was trying to point out to Dave. Despite WP:Consensus saying "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions, consensus must be respected until new consensus is formed. So WP:Consensus is contradictory to me on that point. People are blocked all the time for not following WP:Consensus (when they keep edit warring against consensus), for example (and, no, I don't mean blocked just for edit warring). We wouldn't have to spend a lot of time trying to convince the individual to accept the compromise we have arrived at. They would have to convince us to go against that compromise, which would then create new consensus. I also brought this up at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#"According to consensus" and "violates consensus". Either way, Avanu has already taken the initiative and removed "socially constructed." So we'll see how that goes. If no one who has participated at this talk page adds it back, we can safely assume that consensus is for it being removed. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add it back without being accused of edit warring. USchick (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And I didn't comment at the previous discussion, but feel that the current version is better. So I'm afraid I don't think we can say there's consensus either way. But I'd prefer something along the lines of "Femininity is perceived as being comprised ... by different analysts" Diego Moya (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel that we should say "Femininity is perceived as being comprised of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors." But I'm not opposed to it. The reasons I don't feel it's needed, however, is because: For one, femininity is definitely comprised of sociological factors; that we all agree on. And sociologists stand by that. On the other hand, researches state that biological factors also make up masculine and feminine behaviors. They stand by that. Third, we make clear after the sociological/biological line that what is considered feminine varies by culture and context. So it's already clear that perception plays a part in femininity. I don't see a need to make the "both socially-defined and biologically-created factors" line sound like a theory. If you want to mention the sociological/biological debate specifically, then I would prefer Dave's suggestion for that; his suggestions takes out the "both socially-defined and biologically-created factors" line altogether and just leaves it up to mention of the debate. But I don't feel that specific researchers/analysts should be mentioned in the lead at all. That should stay in the lower body of the article. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So much for sticking to the consensus. Removing the part about "socially constructed" changes the whole gist of the first paragraph. I don't really think we have consensus on the current wording, so I don't see any reason to try to enshrine it. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Since we have consensus on the previous wording, I would support you reverting. But it also seems we were missing the opinion of another editor (Diego Moya). I believe Avanu was mostly just trying to appease Dave, even though I've already explained to Dave that no one can be completely happy with the lead in the case of this article. We are trying to compromise. That means finding common ground, though not being completely in agreement. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't care particularly how the lead is phrased, as long as it is actually true. -- Avanu (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I bow to the decision of the editors that have been discussing the matter, since they have a thorough understanding of the nuances involved. I just wanted to express my opinion that, if there are several possible points of view here, the lead definition should take all off them into account to keep balance. Diego Moya (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days, so coming back here I'm surprised that people are saying there is consensus for the lead. I'm pretty sure a lot of editors here do not agree with the lead. Maybe we can do an informal poll or something, so that it will be easier to keep track of which person takes which position? Also, I think considering there have been sockpuppeting issues here before, we might want to keep in mind that it may be happening again. --Aronoel (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego Moya, thanks for your suggestions, I’ve acted upon them.Dave3457 (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, every editor here seemed okay with the current lead. We needed a compromise. Exactly what is wrong with saying that femininity is made up of both sociological and biological factors, when this is backed up by reliable sources and can be backed up by many more? If the word "is" bothers people, then we can use "may," but I see the no reason at all to restrict the lead to a social definition of femininity when there is extensive debate about biological factors also comprising femininity. As for sockpuppet issues... If you mean me, I must state that just because I am an IP, it does not make a sockpuppet. Am I sockpuppet of Dave? Did I really take the time to extensively debate and often disagree with myself? Am I a sockpuppet of USchick? Did I really seek out and thank myself? Do I at all sound like any of these editors in my reasoning, other than we all agree on including biological factors in the lead? I think not. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the article

Maybe we could take a break from arguing about the lead and actually work on the article itself, which is pretty terrible. I collected a bunch of sources above about hair and femininity. The article could probably use an entire section devoted to this. We also need a section on cosmetics and a section on clothing (with a subsection on shoes). Right now the only places we mention cosmetics, high-heeled shoes, dresses, and perfume are in the history section, as if these things had nothing to do with current ideas of femininity. Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agree with that. I'm not sure editors here can put the lead aside for now and focus on the rest of the article, however. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs work. If you're interested in working on clothing, shoes and make-up, you may want to do it on the masculine article, especially since the fastest growing market segment in the cosmetics industry is men, who are willing to pay almost twice as much for the same body wash, lotion and shampoos with "manly" packaging. Even European men [8] and Indian men [9]. Please feel free to work on these topics and I encourage you to get them out into a separate but related article. Appearance is no longer a feminine interest only. According L'Oreal, men's skin care sales surged three times the rate of the overall market [10]. USchick (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And I suppose high-heeled shoes are considered masculine now as well? Next you'll tell me that RuPaul is modelling for Old Spice. If only :) Kaldari (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "meel" is the term for men's high heels [11]. They got international attention with French President Nicolas Sarkozy [12], and are very popular with men like Frank Sinatra, Michael Douglas, Sylvester Stallone, and Tom Cruize who want to gain a few inches [13]. :-) USchick (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, there are parts of India where long hair is considered the norm for both men and women. And of course in many Native American cultures, long hair is considered gender-neutral. Regardless, in most of the world, there are still strong associations between certain styles of appearance and femininity, and those styles often include cosmetics and certain types of clothing and shoes. The fact that the article doesn't discuss this at all is a shortcoming. Without discussing the basic assumptions of femininity, it doesn't make sense for us to point out the exceptions and historical changes. They don't make sense if presented without any context of what femininity is usually assumed to mean. Kaldari (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there are issues in the rest of the article about confusing women with femininity. For example, this sentence: "According to English Common Law, all property a wife held at the time of marriage transferred to her husband, and as late as 1537, according to the translated version of the Matthew Bible, it was perfectly acceptable for a husband to beat his wife into submission." --Aronoel (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree about that sentence and removed it. USchick (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting, from Human Behavior in the Social Environment: A Multidimensional Perspective p.460: There are four gender role classifications – androgynous, masculine, feminine and undifferentiated. [14]. So in sociology, it's a much broader question than the two classifications we currently have in this article. In Indonesia, there are 5 genders [15]. No wonder we struggle with definitions, if we only have two main classifications. USchick (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggest removal of History section.

The present history section is more about the history of women then femininity. The sentences below kind of give this away.

... women were prized for their creative ability to reproduce..

females were defined simply by their biological attributes

Women in the Middle Ages were referred to simply as

The concept of "woman" changed in a number of ways..." .

For completeness of this new section, I copied and pasted below an exchange that just took place.

I think there are issues in the rest of the article about confusing women with femininity. For example, this sentence: "According to English Common Law, all property a wife held at the time of marriage transferred to her husband, and as late as 1537, according to the translated version of the Matthew Bible, it was perfectly acceptable for a husband to beat his wife into submission." --Aronoel (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree about that sentence and removed it. USchick (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Any support? Dave3457 (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, you don't think it's important to explain how the concept of femininity came about in history? USchick (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's important. I don't know why my comment was pasted here as if I was supporting complete removal of this section. However, I do think a few of the sentences Dave mentioned could be tweaked or deleted to make sure the woman/femininity distinction is maintained. Also, I don't think the etymology info belongs in this article. It's not an unusual or notable etymology. --Aronoel (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What I think is important to keep from the etymology and history section is that the concept of femininity was originally tied to biology, specifically breastfeeding and childbearing. If that changed at some point, it would be nice to know when and how. Considering how much controversy there is among editors, the history of how the concept developed over time is very important. USchick (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the current discussion in the history section is more about the history of women in society and not about the history of the concept of femininity as such. Additionally, the words "masculinity" and "femininity" here are used simply as stand-ins for men and women, i.e. "By the Iron Age the roles between masculine and feminine were strongly delineated." (I should also mention that this sentence does not conform to standard English grammar). Unless someone can rewrite this section into a discussion of the history of the concept of femininity as such (I imagine this will be a very difficult task) with sources, then we should delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fistoffoucault (talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, sorry, I didn’t mean to misrepresent you views. I’ve stricken your comment.

I have to be honest, since creating this section, my view has changed some what. What really soured me about this section was the line, “according to the translated version of the Matthew Bible, it was perfectly acceptable for a husband to beat his wife into submission." When I read that a while ago, I asked myself, what the hell is this doing here? And put creating a discussion about whether or not to remove the section on my what-to-do list. When Aronoel made her comment, I stopped putting it off and did it. I have since read it without that line and it is not so bad.

Personally I think it has to be agreed that what it means to be a “women” is tied up very intimately with what it means to be feminine. What I don’t agree with is that at one point in history, what it meant to be feminine was to allow yourself to be beaten up by your husband. That sentence speaks about the attitude of men at that point in time, in that culture, rather than what it was to be feminine.

I still think there are problems with the section however, for example the line “females were defined simply by their biological attributes.” I would be very surprised if that is supported by the reference and not a bit of POV. That statement suggests, for example, that raising children (ages 2-12) at that point in time was not considered part of what it meant to be feminine.

I'm going to repeat an above sentence of mine because I want to stress it...

I think it has to be agreed that what it means to be a “women” is tied up very intimately with what it means to be feminine.

Dave3457 (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I understand the need to finesse the wording, but the concept should be preserved. Women could be brutally beaten according to law, and the law was supported by the Bible. At that point, it's difficult to say that women allowed themselves to be beaten. Women's rights is a recent development in history, and "females were defined simply by their biological attributes” is exactly what the source says and you can follow the link to page 140 in the book. We don't have to say it though. The idea is that once iron weapons were developed, war became extremely valued as an activity and elevated men to a position of glory. It's not that women were devalued, they were simply left out because they didn't feel the need to participate. We talked about long hair, make up and everything else, changing over time between masculine and feminine, war has been exclusively a masculine activity from the time of the Iron Age (I have references). As a result, women went from being extremely valued for their fertility – to being left out and marginalized in society, with the same rights as slaves. Aristotle described women as "infertile males," unable to produce semen (I have references). What a difference to go from one extreme to another! USchick (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

USchick, you said: Women could be brutally beaten according to law, and the law was supported by the Bible.

I agree that males physically dominated females back then, but we have to be clear and make a distinction between what it meant to be a feminine female back then and what where the consequences of being female. Males wrote the bible and males were stronger back then, if females were stronger than males, I can’t imagine that they would have allowed themselves to be beaten in order to be seen as feminine. They were beaten by males because they were weaker and had no choice. Again it was a consequence of being female. In my view it is not at all “difficult to say (whether) women allowed themselves to be beaten.”

If the exact statement in the book is “females were defined simply by their biological attributes” then I agree, but the truth of the matter is that today what it means to be female is “defined simply by ones biological attributes”, one only needs to look in a dictionary for proof of this. Also since the statement is about what it means to be female and not about what it means to be a feminine female it doesn’t belong in a “history of femininity” section.

I would even have problems if you were to find a book that stated that what it meant for females to be feminine back then, was simply defined by their biological attributes. I don’t know what your position is on the nature VS as nurture debate but it is held my many that what it means for a women to be feminine is in part determined by their brain structure. You would have to first prove that brain structure has no effect on what it means to be feminine before you would be able to make the claim that only biological attributes defined what it was to be feminine.

I might also add that an abundance of female figurines is not evidence that their physical form is the only thing that determined what it was to be feminine. Today on the internet you find an extreme abundance of naked female forms, that isn’t evidence that only the female form defines what it is to be feminine.

Dave3457 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, what do you recommend? USchick (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to find more sources for this section, and we need to make sure those sources are talking specifically about femininity and not just women. Then this section will not just be based on one author's claims. In the meantime, Dave makes good points and I think we could remove the Bronze age info altogether. Also, that justification for the etymology info doesn't make sense. The fact that femininity is based on the Latin word for women doesn't have anything to do with whether it had a biological meaning at that time, and to suggest so is original reasearch. --Aronoel (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel you said: …we need to make sure those sources are talking specifically about femininity and not just women.

Aronoel, I agree with the above if you replace the word “women” with “ being female”. That fact is that authors very often use the word “women” when they are talking about the feminine nature. For example in the sentence, “It is common for men to open doors for women” the sentence is clearly discussing the relationship between the masculine and feminine. On the other hand the sentence “It is common for men to impregnate women” is clearly discussing biology. I think each reference to “women” has to be considered on its own merit. If I’m not mistaken, I believe this distinction is the reason we both objected to the “it was considered alright for men to beat women in the past” comment.

Aronoel you said: The fact that femininity is based on the Latin word for women doesn't have anything to do with whether it had a biological meaning at that time, and to suggest so is original research.

Aronoel, I believe that you are the one that just engaged in original research. Where is the source that says that they were not making a reference to biologically. The origin of the word strongly suggests otherwise. But what you or I believe doesn’t matter, the reader is free to draw what conclusions they like, we are simply presenting them with a fact. It would be very unfair for you to object to a given fact being presented because you don’t like what the fact suggests. If we editors start objecting to facts concerning the subject being presented, then we are all in big trouble.

USchick said: Dave, what do you recommend?

To be honest I’m not sure I want to invest much time on this section, I can easily see this debate about the difference between being female and being feminine going on forever.

I will say, for the reasons I’ve stated above, I object to the statement “females were defined simply by their biological attributes.”

Dave3457 (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is to remove the ancient history section. The modern history section talks about where the notion came from, I reinstated it. USchick (talk) 20:30, 15 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.

Nick Levinson (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

Behavior and personality, occupational roles, clothing and appearance as described in this article, has more to do with gender stereotype than anything else. USchick (talk) 16:07, 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)

As I stated, USchick, what is femininity without those things? There wouldn't be an article on femininity without them. 107.20.19.183 (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that this article fails to meet the Wikipedia:Notability guideline and should be nominated for deletion. USchick (talk) 15:52, 18 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)

Totally Agree USchick (talk) 19:46, 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)

@Anon: Please do not remove relevant cited information from the article without discussion. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 21:30, 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)

Accusations of POV Pushing

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.

Refer to the talk space of your IP 50.16.87.192

Kaldari , WP:UNDUE states..

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 [16] “… 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.

Dave3457 (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

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?

Ref 1: Masculine girls and feminine boys: genetic and environmental contributions to atypical gender development in early childhood. by Ariel Knafo, Alessandra C Iervolino, Robert Plomin pg 402 (pg 2 of sample) “Twin studies of masculinity- and femininity– related personality traits have given mixed results, but they generally suggest some genetic influence (Elizabeth & Green. 1984: Lippa & Hershberger. 1999: Mitchell, Baker. & Jacklin. 1998: Rowe. 1982)

Ref 4: Reinventing the sexes: the biomedical construction of femininity and masculinity Race, gender, and science. (1997) By Marianne van den Wijngaard Pg 2 and 4: “differentiating brains turned out to be categorically divided according to traditional perceptions of feminine and masculine characteristics”

Ref 5: Masculine girls and feminine boys: genetic and environmental contributions to atypical gender development in early childhood. by Ariel Knafo, Alessandra C Iervolino, Robert Plomin pg 400 (pg 1 of sample) “There is evidence for both social and biological influences on normal variation in gender role development (Muccoby. 1998: Ruble & Martin. 1998).

Ref 6: Masculine girls and feminine boys: genetic and environmental contributions to atypical gender development in early childhood. by Ariel Knafo, Alessandra C Iervolino, Robert Plomin pg 402 (pg 2 of sample) “... it has been found that prenatal testosterone levels predict girls' gender role behavior at the age of 3.5 years (Hines, Golombok. Rust, Johnston, & Golding, 2002).”

Kaldari, your logic just doesn’t hold up.

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)

Thanks, Dave. And I like the name IP guy. Feel free to call me that any time. 178.33.105.220 (talk) 23:02, 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.

Dave3457 (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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.

I am seriously baffled by the content as well as the tone of this discussion. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@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.

Dave3457 (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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?

Dave3457 (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

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.

I'm quite sure that if I were to take this matter to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, someone there would pretty much say the same thing about the article as a whole. 196.3.105.250 (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

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 [17] [18] [19] [20]. 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. [21] [22] [23][24]

Therefore if homosexuality can be biological and not mentioned in these books so can femininity. Dave3457 (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

They're about as related as potatoes and tires. -- Avanu (talk) 02:13, 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?

The Royal College of Psychiatrists says…[25]

..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)

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.

Dave3457 (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

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.

I added some more positive feminine traits.

Note that nurturance and caring are not the same.

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.

Dave3457 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Traits vs Personality disorders

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)

Could you post five examples of "historical women who fit that category"? Thanks;) --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:44, 27 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 [26] 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)

Self-abasement – Psychoanalytic Diagnosis (book) describes how self-abasement and the connection between suffering and reward (taught by most religions) is part of a Masochistic personality disorder. [27] However, it's not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and doctors who treat this personality disorder use the diagnosis of Personality disorder not otherwise specified with the official code number, 301.90. USchick (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's enough to remove it go ahead. Dave3457 (talk) 00:08, 24 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)

Self-criticism and self-reflection have to do with spirituality more than anything else. Now if you can show that spirituality is a feminine realm, that would make sense. USchick (talk) 16:48, 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)

The reason for removing it is because the claim is not supported by a body of knowledge. According to the American Psychiatric Association, a body of knowledge, that claim is false. USchick (talk) 16:52, 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 I must ask again, what is the problem here? Why do you remove something that is in a reliable source? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, what body of knowledge (not just one source) identifies "self-abasement" as a feminine trait? USchick (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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.

What sentence? "False claim"? Says who? You? Nah, Dave, you'll have to do better. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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.

You provided an example? Thanks! I'm dying to read it. Please be so kind and reply to the first request here. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

Are you asking for 5 examples of women in history who were violent? I want to make sure I understand. USchick (talk) 15:42, 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....

It wouldn't be such an issue for me.

In fact I have a reference that reads...

Masculine girls and feminine boys: genetic and environmental contributions to atypical gender development in early childhood. by Ariel Knafo, Alessandra C Iervolino, Robert Plomin pg 402 (pg 2 of sample) “... it has been found that prenatal testosterone levels predict girls' gender role behavior at the age of 3.5 years (Hines, Golombok. Rust, Johnston, & Golding, 2002).”

That I think needs to be worked in.

Dave3457 (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

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 (clearly a 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)

New Feminine Ideal section is fundamentally flawed.

USchick, your new section is fundamentally flawed.
First of all, given Mattell’s target customer is prepubescent girls, Barbie is the “Feminine ideal” of prepubescent girls. Not of red blooded males. If you want examples of the true feminine ideal, shape wise, you should logically look in a playboy magazine.top ten covers
As it turns out here is a quote from the Measure of attractiveness section in the WP Waist-hip ratio page.

Women with a 0.7 WHR are usually rated as more attractive by men from Indo-European cultures.[19] Beauty icons such as Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, Salma Hayek and Sophia Loren typically have ratios close to 0.7

Note Marilyn Monroe was on the cover of the first issue of Playboy and, I believe, in it the most often.

On the other hand Barbie’s hip to waist ratio is 8 inches/33 inches= 0.545 (Barbie#Controversies).
The section simply needs to be removed. Or at least no mention of Barbie should be in it.
Dave3457 (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave3457, welcome to the club. In my opinion, there are lots of things in this article that are fundamentally flawed. As far as this section, I added "In popular culture" – the doll is the ideal of feminine aesthetic beauty and has been used as a teaching tool for femininity in general (referenced). She has an international following of grown women and men (also referenced). The fact that Barbie is used around the world specifically for the purpose of discussion to determine what is feminine is undeniable (and referenced repeatedly). I do appreciate your willingness to talk about this first, before edit warring. :) You may also be confusing femininity with sex appeal. Feel free to add other feminine ideals.USchick (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

At least half of the Barbie section is just rambling about Barbie, and not a single word of it actually explains what is feminine about Barbie (except for the part that says she is anorexic). Can we please try to keep it limited to information that is directly relevant to femininity? Kaldari (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to trim it down to the parts that have something to do with femininity, although it's still lacking a basic explanation of why Barbie is or was considered feminine. Kaldari (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

When something is a national icon of femininity, I'm not sure an explanation is necessary about why. It simply is. :) USchick (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although I think we should explain what femininity is (or is widely considered) before we get into the more esoteric discussions. Perhaps I should just move the clothing and appearance section up higher, as it seems like something of an afterthought in the article currently. Kaldari (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we discuss "what femininity is" at length in the lead paragraph? What makes Barbie a feminine icon is all the information that was removed, things like she is sold in 140 countries and comes in 45 nationalities, so in your own country you can buy your own representation of Barbie. She was featured in films, books, video games, and in other popular culture and became so popular, that now there is an international cult following of grown women and men who go to Barbie conventions. (Hey, who are we to judge?) In the countries where she is accepted, the people can relate to her feminine nature on many different levels (and there is a lot of literature about this), that's what makes her an icon. However, in China, female consumers rejected Barbie and everything she stands for, so as a result, Mattel is pulling the brand out of that country only two years after introduction, even though all the manufacturing is staying in China. In Islamic countries (male dominated), it's a different story, the government is limiting exposure because they see Barbie as a national threat to security. Now, when a feminine concept is more dangerous than weapons of mass destruction, that's a discussion worth having. Maybe important enough to be included in the lead paragraph. (Much more important than hair and makeup). USchick (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If this were anything other than an encyclopedia article I would agree with you. Obviously, Barbie being banned in Iran is much more interesting that telling people that lipstick is considered "feminine" (duh). But we're not in the business of being "interesting", we're here to give people the boring, tedious, pedantic facts. Thus we need to establish the basic context of what femininity means before we talk about Barbie being more dangerous than weapons of mass destruction. For some reason, however, all the editors here seem to only be interested in what is contentious about femininity, not in describing the basics that we all agree on. Kaldari (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we should determine what this article is about. I can't believe all the guys here who want to talk about hair and makeup, there is already an article for that and this is not it. Perhaps people want to talk about what is contentious about femininity because it's a contentious subject. USchick (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I guess so. Kaldari (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the barbie section is appropriate for this article, as long as it has sources. One sentence though that doesn't seem to belong is: "Studies show that these men find a waist to hip ratio of 0.7 most attractive while Barbie has a waist to hip ratio of 0.545." This might have a connection to femininity, but it seems indirect or original synthesis unless the source also says that what men find attractive necessarily makes it the feminine ideal. --Aronoel (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Femininity isn't just defined by what men find attractive. Indeed, it is mostly the other way around: Men find traits attractive because they are considered feminine. Kaldari (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed the sentence somewhat to deal with your concerns, however, Kalkdari, I find your statement odd, would you say women find certain male traits attractive because men consider them masculine?

I appreciate that the sentence still stands out somewhat but only because, in my view, the claim that Barbie is an "icon of femininity" is not true. By the way USchick, it is a movie reviewer that claims Barbie is an "icon of femininity", I think you will have to find a better reference or remove the claim.Dave3457 (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I didn't realize you were working on it and I was too. Are you happy with your section? If you were planning on expanding, I was trying to create a space for it. USchick (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a book title – Barbie: the icon, the image, the ideal : an analytical interpretation of the Barbie Doll in popular culture [28] I'll be looking for more. USchick (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"America's most famous cultural icon" magazine article [29] "Around the world, she became an icon aspired to by both mothers and their daughters" magazine article [30], "Barbie remains an enduring icon" BBC news [31], "Barbie has morphed into a legend and an icon" NY Times [32], "Barbie has been dressed by more than 70 designers, including Giorgio Armani, Christian Lacroix and Monique Lhuillier." Vera Wang Barbie wedding gown $15,000 NY Times [33], "To mark the iconic doll's landmark birthday" Vogue [34], "girls may torture Barbie because they are so ambivalent about the feminine ideals she embodies" NPR [35] "Christie's in New York auctioned this custom-designed Barbie wearing a one-carat pink diamond necklace for $302,500 to an anonymous bidder. The sale, which took place on Oct. 20, marked the highest-ever price paid for a Barbie doll." ABC news [36] USchick (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Aronoel and Kaldari. If femininity consists of what men find attractive, source please. As USchick explained to me, not just any source, but a source that somehow represents the body of knowledge.

A removed the "In men's view" subsection.

Uschick, what are we supposed to do with those links you provided? Only one of them mentions the feminine ideal. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

USchick, none of your sources use the phrase “feminine icon”. I don’t mean to move the goal posts on you but even if you found several that did, would you not agree that many do not believe that Barbie is representative of the feminine ideal. In light of this should not the claims me mitigated to reflect this.

Sonicyouth86, why did you remove the "In men's view" stuff. Where is the consensus in the above discussion? Dave3457 (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You have it wrong, Dave. You need a consensus to include information in the article. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, i.e. you.

So where is that evidence that femininity is what men find attractive as the section "in men's view" suggests? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, if you want to participate in a discussion without being disruptive, may I kindly ask you to read the entire discussion. My sources were to answer Dave3457's objection to Barbie being an icon.

I know that your sources were an answer to Dave3457's objection. And as I pointed out none of your sources uses the term "feminine icon." So how exactly am I being disruptive? For instance, I think that starting discussions about personality disorders when nobody's mentioned disorders is disruptive. But perhaps our definitions of the term are different. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, he was disagreeing with Barbie being an icon. She was introduced in 1959 as a feminine ideal of modern aesthetic beauty. Now 50 years later, after celebrating her 50th birthday, she is an icon. and the sources reflect that. Please go look at the links. Also, if men have an ideal version, since men represent half of the population, I think they are qualified to be represented in this article as long as there are sources to support their view. Scientific studies that measure things qualify as reliable. It's not up to me to decide if it's worthwhile to measure hip to waist ratios, or anything else. Instead of arguing, do you have a suggestion about how to improve this article?USchick (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just now weighing in on this. I have to agree that the Section as a whole is poorly put together as it is currently written. For example the sub-section "In men's view", which is just one sentence, fails to tell us whether this applies to Men in general, or heterosexual men, or lesbian women, or whatever. I think it is an incredibly good idea to have a section like this, but Femininity itself kind of embodies the 'ideals', so I'm not sure how this would be incorporated. -- Avanu (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this section is in progress and since there is more than one editor interested, let's give it a few days. We could get a lot more accomplished if we stopped bickering. Is anyone interested in having a discussion about what this article should be about? Maybe that would help us focus on the issues and not on individual view points. USchick (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Neck rings

The new source talks about neck rings being important in feminine beauty and there's a link for anyone interested in reading about it. I know it's not a news article, but it seems to be more accurate than allegations of broken necks. The tribe can't remember the origin of the practice, but now they use them as a sign of great beauty in their quest to find a husband (is there anything else? :-) ) and as a tourist attraction. USchick (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph, using two new sources and one old source. Do not rewrite unless you can come up with a reliable source that the neck rings are no biggie and can be taken off without any consequences. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the one unreliable source you provided does not say that neck rings can be removed without any consequences. It simply says that one particular girl named Zember could remove them without serious consequences while pointing out that experts "assumed that removing the coils would lead to suffocation and death." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's funny, thanks for making me laugh! If the "experts" (who are not medical professionals) have a theory and everyone believes it, how many real life examples does it take to disprove a false belief? The medical professionals explained that stretching the neck is not possible, because that in itself would cause paralysis. What the neck rings do is push down the collar bone to cause a visual effect of an elongated neck. Magazine article [37] USchick (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear we make each other laugh.

The "source" that you provided uses the word "experts." How come you don't know this? Do you read the sources you use?

If reliable sources say that the removal of neck rings makes the neck collapse then Zember's story, told in an unreliable source which merely mentions that there were no serious consequences, is not enough to disprove anything.

Yes, the Marie Claire printed Zember's story and mentioned that her neck didn't snap despite bruises and discomfort, deforming her body, and depressing her collar bones. Now what? Back to "No serious consequences"? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, I'm trying to understand what you're talking about. The Marie Claire article has a page 2 where it says: "Ma Lo, 24, who has also removed her neck rings" so that's two people who removed the rings. If "experts" predicted in the past about what would happen, now you have a credible source that demonstrates what happens in real life. What else are you looking for? You can watch a video [38] where another woman removes the old ring before she puts on a new one. USchick (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

USchick, oh, how I am trying to understand what you're talking about. If you knew!

I am sure that Zember isn't the only one who removed her neck rings. Now we come to the important part: Removing neck rings is not the same as removing neck rings without "serious" consequences.

Again, the "source" you provided used the term "experts." So if you object to the term, don't take it out on me.

"Truth" is not a criterion for inclusion. So even if it were true that neck rings don't haven any negative health effects, then we would still have to report what the majority of sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This article says: Giraffe women (Burma and Thailand) In late 2008, most of the young women who entered the refugee camp removed their rings. One woman who wore the rings for over 40 years also removed her rings. The women report temporary discomfort which faded after three days. The discoloration is more persistent. USchick (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

More sources: Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization [39] The Sunday Times [40] “Originally, about 50 of us wore coils in this village,” Ma Hu Htee said, “But now only 23 still wear them." [41] Children's bioethics p 59 [42] USchick (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source.

Yes, many articles relate Zember's story. Yes, some people remove neck rings. Most sources agree on the consequences of wearing neck rings. So what exactly is your point? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

In politics

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. [43] 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)

These added sections are a big improvement, especially with some of the adjustments. Thanks. --Aronoel (talk) 02:53, 26 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.

"It also happened in many other elections." Reliable source please :) --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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 [44]

Examples

1. Nonye Opara – "has the feminine advantage over all the other contenders" [45]

2. Nancy Pelosi – "The pronounced femininity works because it is naturally who she is, but it is also savvy politics" [46]

3. Michelle Bachelet – "shattered the mold of traditional Chilean politicians." [47] "Bachelet explicitly framed her leadership style as more feminine" [48]

4. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner – "very sexy, very strong and very attractive woman...had not seen such a good-looking woman in Argentina politics since Eva Peron, who died 55 years ago." [49]USchick (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Poisoning the Minds of the Lower Orders

Historical femininity is discussed in Herzog, Don, Poisoning the Minds of the Lower Orders (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, [1st printing?] 1998 (ISBN 0-691-04831-2)), 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)

Ha! Not much has changed. USchick (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Dave, do you plan on expanding your section or are you happy with it the way it is? Delete in men's view? USchick (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"In men's view" section

The "In men's view" section suggests that femininity is what men find attractive. A source for this claim has not been provided, meaning, that the burden of evidence hasn't been met.

Three editors have spoken out against the suggestion that femininity is defined by what men find attractive [50] [51] [52].

Despite this, two editors, USchick and Dave3457, continue to reinsert this into the article via edit warring. What is to be done about this? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, how much have you contributed to this article? Now that we have found some semblance of a working relationship among editors, why are you disrupting? If femininity is defined by culture, and men are half of the population, who do you think defines femininity if not men and women? USchick (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)