Talk:Gender studies

Archives
Archive 1

January 6th & 7th 2007 changes

(Apologies that this is so long) Having spent sometime looking at this page and some of the justified criticisms of it I decided to rewrite it. For any one who looked at teh French or Spanish versions of the page the previous English version was shocking. All that the older version conveyed (and tried to) is still conveyed by the new one. I have deleted the "weasel words" tag on top of the page - because I completely changed the offending section - Gender in Psychology. If others find bias here then it should be re-tagged.

Major changes Gender studies is a field of Cultural Studies that analyzes the phenomenon of gender, both in people's lived experience and cultural representations. Gender Studies is sometimes related to studies of class, race, ethnicity and location.”[1] - I added this line to make clear what Gender Studies does and its scope. None of the previous editors made clear that HOW gender is studied, depends upon WHAT is being studied. If pictures, text, or film/video is being examined then the study is about the representations of gender. But if , for instance, differences between male and female salaries is being analyzed then it is people's experience of gender (and how it is socially and economically constructed) that the study will examine. I am aware that these lines are dense if it is too concise in people's opinion then it needs to be changed. In Gender Studies the word "gender" is used to refer to the social and cultural constructions of masculinities and femininities. The term does not refer to biological difference, but rather cultural difference. [...] (See also Gender#In_feminist_theory) - Due to some criticism on this talk page which confuses gender with sex I have included a piece on the terminology gender which is referred to by other gender articles. Its omission here up until now is quite extraordinary. Studies of the role of gender have been under taken in many academic areas, such as: literary theory, drama studies, film theory, performance theory, anthropology, sociology, and psychology (to name but a few). These studies have different focuses on how and where they study gender... - As with my first change I added this piece to make clear the different approaches within Gender Studies. Gender Studies and Psychoanalytic Theory In place of the old, weasel worded piece I've compilied a very short list of places that Gender Studies has been influenced by psychoanalytic theory: Sigmund Freud, Jacques Lacan and Julia Kristeva. I have also tagged it with: need for expansion.

Major deletions Work in gender studies influences and is influenced by the related fields of Ethnic Studies, African American Studies, Asian American Studies, Latino/a Studies, and Native American Studies. - I deleted this piece because it is ironically ethnocentric, focusing on American Ethnic Studies. There is no need to have a list these different areas of Ethnic Studies, because the umbrella is more inclusive without one. While work in gender studies is principally found in humanities departments and publications (in areas such as English literature and other literary studies), it is also found in social-scientific areas such as women's studies, anthropology, sociology, and psychology. - While I tend to agree with this statement I cannot verify it. I also consider this sentence to be a source of "weasel words", so I consider its deletion to be appropriate. The Gender in Psychology This piece had no place here - it was related to Gender not Gender Studies and was extremely badly written.

Expansions References: this article had no references, which for an article on an academic field was ridiculous. However the references that I have added are just preliminary, more are needed and more will be added as more sections are added. See also: links to other pertinent Wikipedia articles were found and added. External Links: links to pages on the web - found at the Gender page were added.

Merger? I've left the merger tag - even-though I strongly disagree with it. Feminism is related to but not the same as Gender Studies.--Cailil 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a start, but this article is still awfully mediocre. I'm not particularly comfortable with the classification that gender studies is part of cultural studies without some compelling source (I'm a gender studies and a cultural studies major, and the course content and work I've taken in each have tended to be quite different), and the topic could do with a decent, properly sourced definition in any case. Your deletions all make sense, and it's nice to see someone making a start on referencing. I'd also have no objection to removing the merger tag, as I don't think it's necessary. Rebecca 23:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree with you about the definition. Perhaps it should be re-phrased as: "Gender studies is a field of interdisciplinary study, analyzing the phenomenon of gender. It examines both cultural representations of gender and people's lived experience of it." I'll alter the definition to this for the moment. I'm a Cultural Studies graduate myself (but on the other side of the world in Ireland) and I'm doing my PhD within Gender Studies. Thanks again for your comments.--Cailil 00:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an improvement, yeah. :) Rebecca 04:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If nobody else has any objections I'll remove the merger tag on Sunday.--Cailil 18:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC) As foretold I'm removing merger tag. It's been here since September 2006 without any overwhelming arguments for merger beingput forward. Feel free to re-tag if you can make a case for such a merger.--Cailil 16:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits Jan. 13 2007

I've been doing some more work on the page today. 1st I took-up Dfziggy's point and created a history of GS category. After some thought I decided to put the Gender and Psychoanalytic Theory section within this. I've also moved one of the previous header paragraphs down into the history section, under the title The Post-modern Influence. I briefly added a small paragraph on Mary Joe Frug but I've started to find it objectionable. A part of is in the article's history - if you want to take a look. (My objection is to an apparent conflation of sex and gender in the piece by Frug - am currently reading it). Judith Butler really got there first as well, but if any one wants to argue the case for Frug go ahead. I've also dispensed with the Literature section by adding the books (plus a few new ones) to the references section. Also would someone like to take a look at the External links:

1. Project "Women's History and Gender History in Westphalia" (in German)
2. uniGENDER - online journal (in Polish)
3. WikEd - Gender Inequities in the Classroom

All look less than notable to me, any opinions--Cailil 01:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as Undersconstruction

I've added tag {{Undersconstruction}} for the time being. It will make it clear to passers-by that this page is not finished and not perfect. My aim with this page is to make it as good as it can be - FA status is a little ambitous but I think that should be aeveryone's aim for an article.--Cailil 15:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Tag removed.--Cailil 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

criticism section

I've added the criticisms of Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young with a review of their book criticizing their approach.--Cailil 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cailil, you are adding your "criticism of Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young" paragraph all over the Wikipedia Gender project, while it only belongs in one article, the one specifically about Nathanson/Young and their "Misandry" trilogy. Criticism of a criticism doesn't belong in a criticism section. Deleting now. 83.24.120.197 17:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

83.24.120.197 You should be advised of WP:AGF. Where criticism is unbalanced, perhaps unreliable it is usual to give a balancing view. BTW this criticism was added before the recent changes to Nathanson and Young and Misandry. I did not added this section "all over the Wikipedia Gender project". I did not added it Misandry but I did added it here. If you a concern over this please RfC the article--Cailil ^talk 14:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

83.24.120.197 I have double checked the guide (not policy - because there isn't one yet) on criticism sections and you are wrong. Please see Wikipedia:Criticism#Neutral_point_of_view. Criticism of criticisms is due when it is notable, reliable and verfiable. In the words of the guide "If there are valid counter-arguments to the criticisms, then these must be fairly included."--Cailil ^talk 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Cailil, "balanced criticism" is an oxymoron. If it is "balanced" then it is assessment, not criticism. Perhaps this is why actually none of the policies/guides to which you direct me contain provisions to the effect of "where criticism is unbalanced, perhaps unreliable it is usual to give a balancing view". On the contrary, Wikipedia:Criticism#Neutral_point_of_view says: "[Criticism sections] must not be created to marginalize criticism or critics of the article's topic or imply that this criticism is not true while the more positive claims in the rest of the article are". Mentioning Lewis-Horne's unfavorable review of Nathanson's/Young's book wherever the latter is mentioned in a Criticism section of a gender-related article has exactly this effect: it marginalizes Nathanson's and Young's criticism and implies that it is not true. In addition, Nathanson's and Young's books on misandry have a Wikipedia article of their own, and this is where criticism of their work belongs.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.24.172.60 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I recommend you request comment on this artcile 83.24.120.197. I have refered you to the guide and I've also pointed out that your claim is, as I understand WP:ATT and other policies, inaccurate. I advise you to seek outside opinion on this matter. BTW "where criticism is unbalanced, perhaps unreliable it is usual to give a balancing view" are my own words. The the guide says "If there are valid counter-arguments to the criticisms, then these must be fairly included." and I am quoting Wikipedia:Criticism#Neutral_point_of_view verbatim. You seem to be quoting the head of that guide - I am referring you specifically to its section on NPOV. If outside comments support your claim I will be happy to abide by it--Cailil ^talk 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No Cailil, you are not quoting Wikipedia:Criticism#Neutral_point_of_view verbatim. Omission is a change, and you omitted important wording directly preceding the sentence you quoted. The original statement is as follows (emphasis mine):

As with all Wikipedia articles, criticisms articles must follow Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. If there is valid counter-arguments to the criticisms, then these must be fairly included.

It is clear from the unsnipped statement that the recommendation about criticism of criticism pertains to criticism articles. Nothing is being said here about criticism sections of non-criticism articles, and elsewhere the same policy document expressly formulates reservations about criticism in criticism sections (see above).

It is also my opinion that the policy you quoted is self-defeating, as it rests on the notion of an argument's validity. In one aspect it is even worse than if there were no such requirement. If there were no such requirement, you could purely informatively include counter-arguments to criticism, as in "such and such counter-arguments exist and are deemed notable". With the policy present, you actually assert that the counter-argument is valid (rather than just notable) when you include it - that is, if we can agree that by adding anything to Wikipedia you indirectly assert that you believe the content being added is in accordance with the policies. Asserting the validity of an argument is clearly much more POVsy than just mentioning its notable existence, which is why I think the policy is self-defeating. 83.24.119.127 22:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

PS I have just asked an admin about this--Cailil ^talk 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Coelacan I'm right - see their comments here. If you still feel strongly opposed to this I again recommend you RfC--Cailil ^talk 23:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd drop in here as well. Cailil's addition[1] is warranted; it is permissible to bring in criticism of criticism. It would probably be a good idea, Cailil, to bring the quotes from the refs directly into the body of the article, for readability. ··coelacan 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

83.24.119.127, I have sought advice on the policy & that advice is recorded here. I had been taking it for granted that you understand WP:SS. Basically, criticism articles only exist because they were too large to be sections in their parent articles. The guide on criticism articles applies to sections also on the grounds of NPOV. There is some information on this at WP:FORK.
As pointed out by Coelacan the problem with the criticism in this article is that it as not been intergrated into the text that needs to be addressed, if you would like to help do so your help would be much appreciated.
I will advise you 83.24.119.127 that there is no such policy stating "criticism of a criticism doesn't belong in a criticism section" nor is this the place for discussion the merits of policies. If you want to have that discussion try Wikipedia_talk:Criticism or WT:NPOV.
PS your comments should have been placed in chronoligal order (after coelacan's post) that is normal talkpage proceedure--Cailil ^talk 23:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Just a final point, as I understand it when the guide says "valid" it means notable, verifiable, reliable and attributrable.--Cailil ^talk 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cailil,

• You sought advice from a single admin who just happens to share your POV on the original issue, as evidenced by the link to a famous POV blog on that admin's user page.
• I think that the line between criticisms that have notable counter-criticisms and those that haven't is very close to the line between criticism that merit a separate article and those that don't.
• WP:FORK is completely irrelevant. It is an article about entire websites that mirror or fork Wikipedia.
• The problem with the criticism of criticism in this article is that it exploits its marginal notability to grab the final word.
• Indeed there is no such policy stating "criticism of a criticism doesn't belong in a criticism section", but neither is there a policy, or even a guideline, stating "If there are valid counter-arguments to the criticisms, then these must be fairly included". That latter sentence comes from a failed guideline proposal that has been long demoted to an essay.
• WP:TALK only says that new sections' should be added in chronological order ("at the bottom of the page"). It also says "thread your posts", which I understand to mean putting a response directly below the text being replied to, not necessarily at the bottom of the thread.
• When the essay (not guide) says "valid argument", I understand it to mean what the phrase "valid argument" is established to mean, e.g. "some men are rapists; all men are humans; therefore, some humans are rapists", and the opposite of "invalid argument", e.g. "some men are rapists; therefore, all men should feel guilty". Notions of "notable", "verifiable", "reliable", and "attributable" are superficial to the inherent validity of an argument, and most certainly they are not the common sense meaning of "valid argument". Plus, if I am to agree with you on your proposed definition of "valid argument" for this discussion, I must have your definition of "reliable argument" for this discussion. I don't understand how reliability is even a feature of an argument. A reliable argument is one that never fails to convince? One that you won't forget when you need it? One that keeps promises and is never late? Or what? Rulatir 07:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

References to critical reviews of work by Nathanson and Young appear to have been copypasted from Misandry. Included quotes are relevant to Nathanson's and Young's position on misandry, not to their position on gender studies. It is not clear whether the referenced reviews even address authors' position on gender studies. I keep the mention and the references, just removing irrelevant quotes. Rulatir 08:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rulatir - I take it you are the same user as the IPs. You're right about WP:FORK - apologies I should have referred you to content forking policy that was totally my fault WP:FORK is indeed irrelevant. About Coelacan - please go ahead and ask another admin about the matter I would like to see more views on the subject. I'd just like to address your point about: "Notions of "notable", "verifiable", "reliable", and "attributable" are superficial to the inherent validity of an argument, and most certainly they are not the common sense meaning of "valid argument". Plus, if I am to agree with you on your proposed definition of "valid argument" for this discussion, I must have your definition of "reliable argument" for this discussion." I'm sorry if I was unclear I was referring to the notability, verifiablity and reliability of the source not the argument - as per policy on attribution. Perhaps I was biting you about talk page proceedure if so I do apologize. You are right that the quotes are irrelevant and they were copy-pasted from misandry. I've asked for a third opinion on this discussion. If you're not happy with this please request comment - if a consensus supports your position I'm happy to accept that--Cailil ^talk 23:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives to old quotes

Alternatives to the old quotes are

1. "Legalizing Misandry also exhibits conceptual weaknesses. "Ideological feminism," a concept that is key to the authors' central argument, is not defined and used in a consistent way. In the Introduction and much of the book it seems to be conceived as the equivalent of "gender feminism", the term that Christina Hoff Sommers applied to the radical feminism exemplified by the work of Catharine MacKinnon and the late Andrea Dworkin (which raises the question of whether this terrain has not already been exhaustively mined). However, in their discussion of scholarship, Nathanson and Young link "ideological feminism" to feminist postmodernism and also refer to "the strategic alliance between ideological feminists and ideological gay people"." - from Dorothy E Chunn. Canadian Journal of Family Law. Vancouver:2006. Vol. 23, Iss. 1
2. "Where the going gets really rough is in the second half of the book, when Nathanson and Young try to explain how the philosophies of radical feminism led to this situation. There are some suggestive ideas here, but they are not developed. "Deconstruction has become the technique of choice among feminist ideologues," the authors note; a provocative point, but they say nary a word about these feminist ideologues and their use of this trendy academic method. Instead, there is a lengthy discussion of deconstructionism in general - from Charlotte Hays in National Review. New York: Mar 11, 2002. Vol. 54, Iss. 4

These quotes are fairly long but they are about gender studies. I personally don't see the need to get into the arguments in detail. I think the single line note that "Nathanson and Young have been criticized in academic journals" is enough of a balance for NPOV--Cailil ^talk 23:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Responding to a request at WP:3O.

• This is one of the more unreadable and confusing discussions I have read on Wikipedia, especially considering its short length. Understanding WT:ATTCD is peanuts compared to this. Structuring and formatting arguments aids the point(s) made.
• One note in this discussion disturbs me, and though irrelevant to the rest of this Third Opinion, it should be clarified. User:Cailil noted: "I have just asked an admin about this". An administrator's note does not carry extra weight, as administrators are just ordinary users with a few extra buttons. No additional arguments were introduced, and essentially the note was a "Hear hear" to User:Cailil. Worse, this is a discussion involving an ipuser, who I assume is new to Wikipedia. The title "Administrator" (I personally prefer SysOp) in a non-Wikipedia context usually refers to someone whose opinion does carry extra weight. Summarized: an incorrect appeal to authority that might damage a new user's view of Wikipedia.

• Now, onto the arguments used above. I was able to extract the following distinct arguments to the question "Should Gender Studies#Criticism display criticism of a particular criticism?" :

1. Yes, criticism should adhere to WP:NPOV, as described in the Wikipedia:Criticism essay, and thus should be balanced.
2. Yes, it is an appropriate summary of a larger criticism article.
3. No, criticism does not have to be balanced, because Wikipedia:Criticism is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and it would marginalise the criticism.
4. No, the Nathanson and Young article is a better place to write this. It does not belong here.
5. No, the criticism is not valid.

• Wikipedia's policy does not seem to have a way out of this discussion, and it seems arguments were just being repeated. I was unable to find any additional arguments, and my personal opinion here is based upon extra weight to one of the arguments. An assessment:

1. True enough.
2. False. There is no "Criticism of gender studies" article, and therefore it would be inappropriate to summarize the (hypothetical) content of such an article here. A criticism section exists in the article of the authors in question, but it is not claimed that all of the content there applies to gender studies. Also, no evidence exists that the criticism in question is particularly relevant. For example, Albert Einstein has (contemporary) critics, but where his theories are summarized, they are not included. This is because the scientific community as a whole considers his theories valid, and the criticisms false. Do not attack this example on details please. I know it is flawed, but it serves its purpose. What is the case here? Are the criticisms relevant, or do they present a minority so small that listing them would be giving unwarranted weight to a minority opinion?
3. True as well. Usually a way is found between balance and marginalising criticism.
4. May be true or false - See two.
5. May be true or false - This touches an important Wikipedia principle: the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. To include the disputed criticism-of-criticism, it needs to be proven that it is true and valid to the article. If this is not proven, then the discussion could go on forever, but the disputed content would not be added to the article. Currently, the converse is true, as the disputed content is still present. I was unable to properly assess the sources, as one requires a fee, and the other requires expert knowledge.

• Proposal 1: Place one of those nifty "Expert attention needed" tags here, to assess whether the sources prove the claim, and to explain whether they represent a minority or majority opinion.

• Proposal 2: Remove the current "criticism of criticism", as the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and the claim here is not proven.

--User:Krator (t c) 00:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: When responding, please do not break up this third opinion. Respond below. Please follow the same structure as above when responding, and list point numbers where necessary.

Thank you for your swift response Krator. I'm going to remove the views critical of Nathanson and young as you recommend. Apologies if by asking Coelacan I was doing something wrong I didn't realize that I was breaking the rules (nor did I know that Coelacan would support this - i was genuinely asking for advice). I understand taht this is a very confusing discussion and I realize that I'm partly to blame for that. As a gender studies scholar I have treated Nathanson & Young's work as fairly as I can, its not widely used or discussed in academic circles at least in Ireland. However I realize that another gender studies expert will have to comment for outside expert opinion but from where I stand the criticism of Nathanson & Young's book is notable and accorded due weight.

1. I don't think that one line expressing that the work of Nathanson and Young has been criticized in academic journals is undue and so I felt that it balanced Nathanson & Young's views as per NPOV
2. I wasn't referring Rulatir to a criticism of gender studies article - I believe Rulatir was arguing that I misrepresented the essay on Criticism and I was trying to say that that essay applied to criticism sections as much as it applied to criticism articles. Apologies for causing the confusion.
3. I thought it best to note what are quite serious criticisms of Nathanson and Young. N&Y's point is that gender studies focuses on women "to the point of excluding the male gender from analysis" - in my experience this isn't true, if it were books like Black Male: Representations of Masculinity in Contemporary American Art or Constructing Masculinity or Performance Anxieties: Re-producing Masculinity (the list goes on just type masculinities into Amazon or Jstor) wouldn't exist. I understood this to be an extraordinary claim and I felt the inclusion of references critical of it to be good for the encyclopedia
4. As above - I also felt that the concision of the line would help with this. The criticism of Nathanson & Young is detailed in that article, its just referenced here
5. I felt that this was a straw-man argument. Is the validity of a [{WP:RS|reliably sourced]] argument debatable, if so would Nathanson & Young pass this test for their criticism of gender studies? I understood the word "valid" to mean that it is reliably sourced, recorded neutrally, vefiable and notable - if I'm wrong (or if I've misunderstood you) I do apologize.

I must ask what exactly does Rulatir find invalid about the reviews of Nathanson & Young?

As above I've removed the criticism of Nathanson and Young as recommended by Krator. I've also removed it from feminism. However I think the refs should be reinstated--Cailil ^talk 01:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Braidotti

I do not feel that the criticism by Rosi Braidotti that is cited in the criticism section is as important as the ones by Nathanson and Yong, and am not even sure whether is a serious enough criticism to warrant mention in the article. I would like to suggest that the cirticism by Nathanson and Young be moved ahead of the Braidotti paragraph since it is a more serious cirticism of gender studies. Many universities do not have "feminism" departments and I believe that most people would contend that the bulk of feminist research takes place in gender studies departments, and that the bulk of gender-studies publications are authored by women. Earpshmael 19:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point Earpshmael and I have similar feelings about it, but there is more notability in the criticism by than there is in the Nathanson and Young piece. Braidotti's work is taken seriously in gender studies and feminism - especially at this moment in time when her work on nomadism is very popular. That said I have been concerned about the weight given to that piece - it could be trimmed down to size as per WP:UNDUE with little problems--Cailil ^talk 19:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the underlying similarity between both of these cited critiques of gender-studies is an attempt to point towards favoritism towards a particular social group in gender studies. Nathanson and Young claim that gender-studies favors women; particularly in the underlying philosophy of the subject, and Braidotti claims that there is favoritism of homosexuals (although I am unclear whether she is claiming favoritism towards gay men in particular, or whether lesbians and even trans-gender individuals are included in her claims). I think that the critique section could have a more coherent point if this underlying similarity in the two cited sources was used to "congeal" this part of the page. The section could begin by stating something like "Many cirtics of gender studies claim that the subject offers favoritism towards particular social groups". Favoritism may not be the best wording, but I believe it should be something similar.Earpshmael 17:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea Earpshmael. I generally feel that criticism sections are a bad idea because they introduce a POV section into articles but I think your suggestion to give it coherence is a good one.

From my reading of the Butler-Braidotti interview I've never been sure if she's specifically talking about gay men or all men. The way its written here it infers that she's talking about gay men but I think that's the 'spin' the original author put on it and allowed it to work as a link into that 'rebuttal' by Joseph Allen Boone.

In general I think the whole section could be shortened and more to the point--Cailil ^talk 19:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

the freud section

Taking on board the good points raised by WIlyD's & Scribblingwoman in their edit summaries I propose the following as an alternative solution: Some feminist critics have dismissed the work of Sigmund Freud as sexist, because of his view that women are 'mutilated and must learn to accept their lack of a penis' (in Freud's terms a "deformity") The reason I've placed the whole clause (mutilated and must learn to accept their lack of a penis) in single inverted commas is to show that its a paraphrase of Freud. I switched the positions "lack of penis" and "deformity" because, at least in my reading, this supposed "lack" is more to the point of feminist rejections of Freud. And finally the reason I'm suggesting parenthesis is simply because the dash (which I probably introduced to the paragraph :o ) is sloppy grammar. This kind of debate about this section is healthy and will help improve the article's quality.--Cailil 00:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Hope you approve of the small changes I made, throughout. — scribblingwoman 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits to "See also" section

I think that the new categorical organization is superior to the older alphabetical organization. It provides equal consideration of both sexes, and is more logical and understandable. Fuzzform 06:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I guess you could merge them, but do you really want a list of Gender studies related topics added to this article? It might make sense to rename Gender and sexuality studies to List of gender studies topics and expand it significantly, or simply delete it. - TheMightyQuill 15:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that proposal. Its nearly a year know. I think another option would be to go through the list - make sure everything is in Category:Gender_studies and then simply redirect Gender and sexuality studies to here. That page has been sitting there without improvement for a long time, something needs to happen with it--Cailil ^talk 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and redirected it to here. I checked that the appropriate pages were listed Category:Gender_studies & added those that should be. If anyone feels strongly about doing this another way - just revert and discuss--Cailil ^talk 16:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent removal

Andrew c, you removed this link with no edit summary. Would you mind explaining your rationale? Just curious. -Phyesalis (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm not prejudging what Andrew will say, but from what I can see the link looks like spam, or at least it was spammed on WP. The Asmith8674 account made 9 edits to 9 different articles[2]. But each edit was an addition of the same link. This is prima facae spamming - this may have been unintentional but the effect is no different from deliberately trying to use WP to advertise a site which is a breach of WP:EL--Cailil ^talk 15:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

WRemoval of Kristeva

I have noticed that Rebecca removed the section on Kristeva. It seems to me that Kristeva is influencial enough to be mentionned. Perhpas not in a whole section but still I find that to remove her completely is perhaps not such a good idea. I have an idea where to insert her, but would like first to hear other'opinions.Doraannao (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I would echo your point Doraannao. But Rebecca is right that the way the section was and is structured gives too much weight to Kristeva but equally - Kristeva is probably the most influential psychoanalyst for gender studies,. I understand Rebecca's removal - we don't want a wall of fame approach to the article. But if we could restructure that section so that it properly covers the major influences of psychoanalysis on Gender studies (ie a prose paragraph rather than 3 stubs) there should be no reason to keep Kristeva out of it--Cailil ^talk 12:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I would not like to enter the question who is the most important influence, since, for example, according to Griselda Pollock and to Judith Butler, Ettinger is a bigger influence today. What is important is not to decide who is "bigger influence", and surely I believe that we have to keep Kristeva inside, and to have something much more explicative about Kristeva as Cailil suggests. In the meanwhile, Perhaps the way to do it is to put this sentence taken more or less from the "psychoanalysis" Wikipedia project, saying:

" Feminist theory of psychoanalysis, articulated mainly byJulia Kristeva (the "semiotic" and "abjection") and Bracha Ettinger (the "matrixial trans-subjectivity" and the "primal mother-phantasies"), and informed both by Freud, Lacan and the object relations theory, is very influential in Gender studies. "

After that, when a better explanation of Kristeva is offered, a better section on Kristeva can be restored. If there is no objection to this first step, I will proceed to put this sentence. Like this, at least for the moment, we keep Kristeva in. I will add a reference for Kristeva and a reference for Ettinger. The reference for Kristeva will be: </ref>Anne-Marie Smith, Julia Kristeva: Speaking the Unspeakable (Pluto Press, 1988)</ref>and the reference for Ettinger will be</ref>Griselda Pollock, "Inscriptions in the Feminine" and "Introduction" to "The With-In-Visible Screen", in: Inside the Visible edited by Catherine de Zegher. MIT Press, 1996. </ref>Doraannao (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's great. BTW above I meant to refer to Kristeva begin the more influential of the 3 psychoanalysts we had in article (the other two being Lacan and Freud). Of course at present there are newer voices than hers and I think your summary is a good way to go Doraannao--Cailil ^talk 23:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK great. I have put this passage at the end of the Lacan section--have a look---, because this is where these French psychoanalysts begin. I would like to add, when I have a moment, one more reference for Kristeva, and I would like to encourage whoever can do it to rewrite the Kristeva section in few sentences and put it back in.Doraannao (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not objecting so much to Kristeva per se, as the ever-expanding list of theorists with their own sections - which, in a field as large as gender studies, makes zero sense. I can understand having one like Butler until someone takes the time to write an integrated article (because the whole discipline is practically based on her work), but I'm not comfortable with much beyond that. Hell, I'm a gender studies honours student and I've never heard of Kristeva. Rebecca (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said above the wall of fame approach isn't good and we need to write and reference a proper piece on 'psychoanalysis and gender studies'. It would be a helpful exercise because that would then give us teh model for 'feminist theory and gender studies' and 'masculism and gender studies' etc etc.

Suprised to hear that Kristeva is new to you Rebecca, wait till you do Semeiotikè, Women's Time, and the Powers of Horror - you don't come back the same after getting to grip with those : )--Cailil ^talk 12:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have put the sentence on French feminist psychoanalysts as the last sentence in the first passage. I propose to put back the section on Kristeva as before, and let us slowly change it. Kristeva understands the subject as result of "abject" - reject of the mother. This is a problem, and in that sense she supports the Oedipal structure. Still the issue is important. Ettinger on the other hand understands the subject as "becoming in jointness"; thus her "trans-subjectivity" paradigmatic claim contributes to reunderstanding of gender and reformulating of feminine difference. I am sure that Kristeva's section must be returned, the easiest would be to return it as it is, and we can afterwards make an effort to rewrite it. Doraannao (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC) And one word to Rebecca: perhaps this is a question of geography. In Europe if you do Gender studies you will hear of the immense and even revolutionary influence of both Kristeva, Irigaray and Ettinger, and would want to dedicate a section to each one of them.Doraannao (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cailil and Doraannao. If there is no objection I would proceed to put back the Kristeva section. Artethical (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold on there a tick, I want to say this again: the wall of fame approach is a bad idea. We need to rewrite the Psychoanalysis section totally. I would recommend this: 1) we write a brief section on Freud, Lacan, Melanie Klien - early psychoanalysis and how it has been used by gender theorists; 2) then a another about French Psychoanalytic feminism and its impact on gender studies; and 3) then finally one on Judith Butler and the current relationship between Gender studies and psychoanalysis. This would solve 3 or 4 problems at once. If we reintroduce the info on Kristeva, we need to do so with a clear plan for the whole section--Cailil ^talk 20:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oooops, sorry, I have put in Kristeva back, but I agree with your plan, Cailil and please go ahead and try this plan. In my view, in the meanwhile, we can leave Kristeva in, this is a useful information. Again, if you feel you can do the plan as you propose, this will be great and important. I will add when I can. Artethical (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept Cailil and Artethical attitudes. However, I do not like the idea of "wall of fame" and hope that we shall not use such a term in our friendly and serious discussion. Each one of these figures: Freud, Lacan, Klein, Ettinger, Kristeva and of course Butler are not there because of "fame" but because of their extraordinary contributions to the field. Many researchers all over the world study them and write starting from them in the field of Gender studies. I would like very much to try the plan of Cailil, and until this is done, we can in my view let it stay as it is now. Doraannao (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As one of those who does study the work of these theorists I agree with you Doraannao and the present format is most probably my fault. Rewriting this page was one of the first things I did when I cam to WP in 2006-2007 and my discomfort with the layout is partly due to the fact that I'm unhappy with the incomplete job I did here. It's great to see there are more people interested in editing here as well so I hope we can work together to really progress this page and bring up to good article status--Cailil ^talk 22:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, If you have proposed this structure,Cailil, you have done a very important work and you can be proud of it. Now we only need to develope and keep that structure. I also accept the point of Rebecca that there shouldn't be too many names either, that is: that we keep as separate sections only the really very significant and influential figures, starting from what we have now. As separate sections we can start with what we have (Freud, Lacan, Kristeva, Ettinger, Butler) and add Klein, and perhaps Karen Horney and Irigaray. In terms of structures to regroup these sections: (A) Freud, Klein (and Horney and maybe Riviere) as classical psychoanalysis influences, and (B) Lacan, Kristeva and Ettinger (and perhaps Irigaray) as contemporary psychoanalysis influence, and (c) Butler. In any case, even if this will take time, the structure in my view is good, and up till now the individual sections are all justified.Doraannao (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Cailil is generally on the right track here. It'd be a big step forward to get rid of the "wall of fame" approach and get an integrated section on the role of psychoanalysis there. I am quite concerned, however, about winding up with an overemphasis on it: there's a hell of a lot more to gender studies than that. In particular, I'd be expecting a hell of a lot more on Butler and her ilk than their role in psychoanalysis (which is pretty tangential outside of work directly focusing on psychoanalysis), as well as quite a bit more on the feminist studies end of gender studies.

However, I strongly object to Dorannao's suggestion of maintaining seperate sections for any of these people. We can and should have an integrated section on psychoanalysis, but the in-depth stuff on specific theorists just doesn't belong here. If I was looking for information on gender studies (and I'm an honours student for gods sake), big sections on Freud and Lacan is roughly the last thing I'd be expecting to find. One solution could be bumping some of this stuff off to psychoanalysis or creating some sub-article of that. Rebecca (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Rebecca is correct about the separate sections. This page is about gender studies in general not the most notable gender theorists. Have a look at Feminism you'll see what I mean. I have a problem with Doraannao's suggested structure - sources. I have a couple of books that group Freud, Lacan and Klein in relation to Gender studies (ie Melanie Klien by Kristeva) and books grouping French pyschoanalytic feminists are easily found. Linking ideas and theorists actually requires sources, so while I think it could be written about as Doraannao is suggesting the groupings, the connection between theorists, need to be sourced. It also needs to be clear to readers (who know nothing about gender studies) why people are being linked - IMHO an historical structure seems the most accessible for passers by.

There will be a way to compromise between writing a general section and a section on the major theorists. Have a look at Feminism#Radical_feminism - it's not perfect but I feel it strikes a balance between the persons and the ideas fairly well--Cailil ^talk 13:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i can only say that it makes perfect sense to me to have separate general sections as well as a separate section on each of the most influential and innovative figures that contributed to the field. We can't keep only Butler with a separate section, this will put Butler's positioning itself in a very strange light and, for the uninformed reader it might even work against reading her. The balance between general sections and sections on each major theorist is indeed not in a good shape yet, but this takes time and work. This will happen and take shape slowly. In my view, we need more on the theories of Butler, but also add the others mentioned. This will take time and patience, and some people who will put their time and scholarship into this. I believe that if the structure and the sections are already there, we and others will come in slowly to make the theoretical and the historical connections. it takes some work. For me, the example of the feminism essay is not helping, quite the contrary. the whole feminism page is too confusing, and after a while it is impossinle to read, for me at least. I think that here, we have a beautiful and clear structure, which is a good basis to work from and useful for students and for the uninformed reader. Doraannao (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The sections on Freud and Lacan are to my mind very important. They even need much more elaboration: to explain the ideas more at length. For many of us modern Gender studies begins there. They are also the theorists from which Butler begins. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic project, to give major sources from the past that allowed our field to develope is very important. Butler starts from certain philosophy and certain psychoanalysis and certain sociology. It is in my view important to keep these sections and even give more. I can only say that where I have studied gender, all this material is the basis. Lets take it from where we are and make it more rich. In my view, these figures are not "fame", they are deep sources of our current knowledge, and it is the place to put these sources and give more of their general ideas concerning the structuring of gender.Artethical (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it will become unsustainable. How can any of us select who is "most important". When we get to Helene Cixous, Luce Irigaray, etc who will we leave out. Bear in mind we have sections on postmodernism, men's studies, LGBT studies and sociology to write - the page can only be 100KB long - we are better off writing the general sections (and highlighting the appropriate names within them) and linking to the article about Freud, Lacan etc. The separate sections on what Freud has done for gender studies is actually more appropriate for the Freud article. Again we have to bear in mind that the current structure will become exclusive and will open to the charge of POV by omission. Summary style is the only way to go for a parent article and it might well be the case that a new article Gender studies and psychoanalysis needs to written and summarized here.

A problem with the current set-up is this: Freud and Lacan are not gender theorists. Yes of course their work is the basis for psychoanalytic readings of gender but they were not doing gender studies. Giving them too much weight here is actually a POV decision. It needs to be borne in mind that this is not an essay- this is an encyclopedia article. An essay can choose to focus on one area but we have to focus on everything equally. We wont be doing that if we maintain a list of persons, not all of whom are gender studies theorists--Cailil ^talk 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is also one of my major problems with this setup. Going to an article on gender studies and finding swathes of material on Freud and Lacan is going make a lot of folks think the authors were on crack: where having material on Irigaray and others who derived from their work but worked and are actually read in gender studies actually does make sense. Rebecca (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism by one writer became longer then any section

I deleted few sentences from a long new section full of quotes from the same writer to make it shorter; this whole text tends to violate WP:NPOV by focussing too much on one writer of criticism of the major subject matter of gender Studies. The whole passage was very unproportional. I left few sentences, and moved the reference into the list of reference ( and not inside the text,) and deleted a long argumentation that doesn't seem to belong here.Doraannao (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See also "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Perhaps this kind of academic generalities or personal research, that is not cited anywhere, doesn't have its place here at all, and should be deleted.Doraannao (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

World's longest sentence?

In the criticism section,

"Such criticism is irrelevant both to Butler who emphasizes performance and to contemporary psychoanalytically informed contemporary Gender studies since Kristeva and Ettinger contribute different insights concerning sexual difference and the maternal, Kristeva in terms of pre-Oedipal and "abjection", and Ettinger in terms of "trans-subjective coemergence", psychic "pregnance" and same-sex differentiation which are concepts and processes that inform gender and identity from beyond social constructs."

Absolutely turgid.Onaraighl (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)