Talk:Femininity

United States

Can someone indicate when this was first added? It seems to have been added in late 2007. When did it get deleted? Looks like it could use some expansion with better refs rather than being deleted outright. --Ronz (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In the United States, film, television, newspapers, and magazines have promoted dieting, clothing, makeup, and hair products, as well as cosmetic surgery and drugs to men also. What does this have to do with femininity and why is it in this article? USchick (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a topic easily expanded upon. Just because the same general types of products and services apply to men, doesn't mean the specific ones promoted to women aren't worthy of inclusion in this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I can go along with that, however, nothing specific is mentioned, and the references do not support the statements. References 9 and 10 are dead links. Reference #12 is about one uncontrolled study from 40 years ago on HRT, which is discredited by medical science and the article itself, and links HRT to cancer.

Reference #11 is a discussion on how plastic surgery, self esteem and sexuality are linked together. In medical science, the quest for plastic surgery is linked to a psychological disorder and a medical condition called body dysmorphic disorder, but this has absolutely nothing to do with femininity, which is a set of female qualities attributed specifically to women and girls. The statement we're discussing is unreferenced and unsupported by any accredited body of knowledge (and should be removed). USchick (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I left an invitation on your talk page to continue this discussion. I take your silence as consensus and I'm removing this content, ok? Thank you!USchick (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I think at least now we have clear rationale for anyone else wondering why it's been repeatedly removed.

I wish I had more time to help out. Perhaps later. --Ronz (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Effeminophobia

Hey Dave3457, why do you think these terms aren't common within the subject of effeminacy? They are notable enough to be in the lead of the article Effeminacy, and they are found in many reliable sources. Also it would be really appreciated if you could try and assume good faith. Thanks :) --Aronoel (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

First, in your edit you admit that the terms, femiphobia, effeminiphobia, and sissyphobia are terms that have only been proposed. As I said, when these terms become common then their inclusion will be appropriate. Are you actually going to deny that you didn’t include that edit in Wikipeidia with the desire that those terms come into common usage? Each term contains the morpheme “phyobia” which is defined as “an abnormal intense and irrational fear” the implication being that anyone who has a negative view of the feminine nature being expressed through the masculine form as a result of testosterone not being secreted in utero at the normal/usual times is experiencing an “intense, irrational fear”. For the record, I believe in gay marriage.

I just went through your edit history and it is quite clear you have an agenda and are trying to push your belief in androgyny. Dave3457 (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you object to my editing history. I'm not going to try to say that my edits are always 100% perfect but what's important is reliable sources. I stand by all my edits as being based on reliable sources. If you would like to discuss my behavior as an editor please open a report on the ANI. Otherwise, this talk page is only for discussing this particular page.

The effeminophobia sentence is just copied over from the effeminacy page. I am fine with using different wording. I suggest "effeminophobia (etc) are sometimes used to describe..." instead of the word "proposed." Since there are reliable sources backing this up, I don't see the justification for removing it completely.

The part I changed in the lead was taken directly from the WHO definition of gender, which is referenced. I didn't retract it, just edited it again for NPOV.

Also, please remember that civility is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. --Aronoel (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, given your treatment of other people's referenced work, a sample of which I've posted above, it is laughable that you would suggest that I am the one who is un-Wikipedian.

Second, the argument that something was first written somewhere else doesn't mean it is not POV.

You need to start being honest with yourself and respecting other people's work. Dave3457 (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The wording of the effiminophobia sentence was problematic, I agree. But I fixed it to no longer say "proposed." They are clearly commonly used terms and not just proposals (per the sources referenced above).--Aronoel (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

They are NOT commonly used terms. I Googled them and femiphobia got 5,500 hits, effeminiphobia got 960 hits and sissyphobia got 13,700 hits. They are however terms the homosexual community DESIRES would become common given that they characterize others who do not share their views as irrational. By the way, I think "homophobia", which got 7,500,000 hits, is a legitimate term because there are in fact many men who have an “intense and irrational fear” of male homosexuals. Dave3457 (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I have never heard of the term "effeminophobia" before so it's not really accurate that I, a gay male and a member of the lgbt community, desire this term to become commonly used since I didn't even know it existed. It really makes no difference to me whether or not it does, but I do think that within the gay community, there is definitely a fear that many gay men have of being perceived as effeminate, of looking "gay" so there is a sense of internalized "effeminophobia" I think. I just never knew the word for it before.--Death by fugue (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Below response by Dave3475 should have been in the below section called Main picture So I have crossed it out and moved it down. I copied Aronoel's response down but did not cross it out.

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) 15:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

First, see wp:google searches and numbers. The bottom line is that there are numerous examples of these terms in reliable sources. When there are reliable sources backing something up, its removal from Wikipedia is not justified.

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) 15:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Quote:.. there are numerous examples of these terms in reliable sources..

How numerous, what did you find? Also, I bet you can find many sources that use the derogatory terms for African Americans, would that justify their use ? These words are derogatory terms for the reasons I’ve previously stated and they are not being use by society in general.

Quote: When there are reliable sources backing something up...

We are not talking about a source “backing something up”. By the way, I’ve seen you remove alot of stuff that had reliable sources backing it up. Refer above.
Dave3457 (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If you feel you have a legitimate complaint about my behavior as an editor, then there is no reason not to open an ANI report, where I will be happy to discuss my editing history. If you don't feel you have a legitimate enough complaint, then you need to stop complaining about my editing history here, it is simply not constructive.

I don't agree that they are derogatory terms at all. But if there are reliable sources saying that they are derogatory, then please let me know.--Aronoel (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The beginning of this topic/section seems to be somewhere else, so I don't know how this discussion began, but a few things should be noted:

The intent to introduce a term in an article is not an intent to introduce it into English.

The number of Google hits is not determinative of terminological acceptance, although it may help establish poularity of usage. Many specialized terms are used mainly in a field's literature and may have to be checked in glossaries and professional articles, for example.

Whether something is best characterized as a phobia or as the result of active and deliberate oppositional agency is an important distinction but may be moot, as with homophobia, which has come to cover any opposition to homosexuality. In the U.S., we don't call Republicans Democrat-phobes; we would more often call them anti-Democrats. The term homophobia probably became established because of the history of applying psychology against gays (less so to lesbians when they supposedly didn't exist), thus it was a convenient handle, but it isn't technically accurate in the sense that phobics can be cured or should be accepted because they're incurable, neither being quite right for intentional antigays. Of course, here, we needn't debate what the terminology should be, since, whatever may be at stake about it, homophobia is an accepted word for the meaning, and if other -phobia terms are accepted for their respective meanings, then they, too, belong in the appropriate articles.

Nick Levinson (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The original sentence was copied and pasted from the effeminacy article and read...

The terms femiphobia, effeminiphobia, and sissyphobia have been proposed to characterize the generally negative attitude displayed in many societies towards effeminate men.

It was clearly an attempt to introduce terms into the English language. Do you feel doing so is appropriate for Wikipedia?

Dave3457 (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, I removed the sentence. I'm going to ask you to back the claim up. The effeminacy article says that they are only proposed. You told me to "... see wp:google searches and numbers" but that's not my job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave3457 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used to introduce words into English and the standard for preventing that is that the words are not sourceable, they not being in English at the time (or not in English for the intended use). However, people in various fields outside of Wikipedia often introduce words and usages into English and publish them in what may become sources for Wikipedia. The latter, if not too far fringe, are reportable in Wikipedia. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dave3457, I'm confused by what you mean by introducing terms into the English language. "Effeminiphobia" is already a part of the English language and is found in English language dictionaries. Do you instead mean that this word shouldn't become commonplace? If that's the case, that's entirely based on the belief that this word has negative connotations, which nothing here convinces me is the case. This seems to be based on a personal opinion, otherwise how can a word have negative connotations if it's not widely known and the public at large likely may not even know it exists.--Death by fugue (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nick, I would be surprised if your source used the phrase "to far fringe".

Aronoel, I'm going to use the following MOS as the grounds for the inappropriateness of the sentence.

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

Death by fugue, I'm arguing the words are "Value-laden" on the grounds that each term contains the morpheme “phyobia” which is defined as “an abnormal intense and irrational fear” the implication being that anyone who has a concern or negative view of the feminine nature being expressed through the masculine form is experiencing an “intense, irrational fear”. Again, for the record, I believe in gay marriage :)

Dave3457 (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing said "to far fringe", to my knowledge. The concept of "too far fringe" relates to Wikipedia's acceptance of some fringe content but not all fringe content. If a reliable source presents any of the words at issue here as valid in the context, then that word is reportable in this article. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Death by fugue, I missed your earlier comment.
You said...

"Effeminiphobia" is already a part of the English language and is found in English language dictionaries.”

I checked dictionary.com and none of them were there. They are not common place.

You said...

how can a word have negative connotations if it's not widely known and the public at large likely may not even know it exists.

Each term contains the morpheme “phyobia” which is defined as “an abnormal intense and irrational fear”. The implication is that anyone who has a “generally negative attitude” when seeing the feminine nature being expressed through the masculine form is experiencing an “intense, irrational fear”.
Dave3457 (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Main picture

What was wrong with the shaman picture being "too positive?" What's wrong with a picture being positive?--Aronoel (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my edit summary had an "e" instead of a "t". It should have read, "Changed picture back. Original picture apparently cast femininity in too positive a light." My poorly made point was that the The Birth of Venus image cast the feminine nature in a positive light. Your edits clearly indicate that you do not believe in the masculine-feminine dynamic. Not that you need to, to edit this page. Never the less your picture change is yet another example of you pushing your androgynous agenda because you know very well that when people think "feminine" they do not think, "Altai shaman". That is what you WANT them to associate with the word "feminine".

Also, could you please explain to me how you feel justified in casually undoing other peoples fine work? Dave3457 (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I'm still having trouble understanding the issue with the shaman. How does it portray femininity negatively? What is negative about it?

What is so important about the Venus picture? From my understanding, there are 3 advantages to the shaman picture over the Venus. 1. It shows feminine clothing and style. 2. It depicts a feminine role/occupation/behavior. 3. It further expands this article to include more cultures. It's a good thing when an article covers topics and cultures unfamiliar to most readers. That's what an encyclopedia is for.

I'm sorry you feel like I've been undoing your work. However, if you are not comfortable having your work changed and edited, then you should probably not put it on Wikipedia.--Aronoel (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not that the shaman image portrays femininity negatively, it is that the Venus image portrays femininity positively which is appropriate for this page. At one point the lede image on this page was one of the “torture” images.

Below are your three points and my response to them.

1. It shows feminine clothing and style.

Being feminine is not primarily about what you wear but about the way you behave. It is not even about what sex your body is.

2. It depicts a feminine role/occupation/behavior.

Shamanism is not a typical role/occupation/behavior in society, let alone a typical role/occupation/behavior for someone that is generally characterized by society as feminine. For example, the way motherhood and nursing are.

3. It further expands this article to include more cultures. It's a good thing when an article covers topics and cultures unfamiliar to most readers. That's what an encyclopedia is for.

That is NOT what an encyclopedia is for. It is not an encyclopedia’s role to expand peoples thinking in new directions, that is a book’s role. An encyclopedia’s purpose is to summarize, the shaman picture does exactly the opposite.

By the way point 3 contradicts point 1. A picture showing feminine clothing and style, reduces the number of cultures that are included.

You said... “...if you are not comfortable having your work changed and edited, then you should probably not put it on Wikipedia”

The Venus picture was not my work. If I may quote an earlier statement you made...” it would be really appreciated if you could try and assume good faith.”

For what it is worth, I am beginning to think that you honestly don't realize that you are pushing an agenda. Just try to be more respectful of other peoples work. Dave3457 (talk)

The below is Aronoel (talk)'s response repeated from above.

You still haven't explained what is more positive about the Venus than the Shaman. I can't see what the advantage is to the Venus.

Clothing is a part of femininity, it's in the article. Feminine clothing and occupations are not universal, so no one picture can capture all examples of femininity. This one, unlike the Venus, does cover some specific objects and behaviors associated with femininity. And I don't understand what your point is about other cultures. You don't think an encyclopedia should cover different cultures?--Aronoel (talk)

Quote: You still haven't explained what is more positive about the Venus...

Venus is the Goddess of Love, I thought that was obvious.

Did you actually say that... unlike the Venus, (which is the Goddess of Love), the Shaman DOES cover some specific... behaviors associated with femininity. Are you trying to suggest that a Shaman is more reflective of the feminine nature than the Goddess of Love.

Quote: You don't think an encyclopedia should cover different cultures?

An encyclopedia such as Wikipedia should try to avoid focusing on a specific culture in the lede. While Venus is cultural, it is "past" cultural and everyone is familiar with it.
Dave3457 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your opinion about how the lead should be and I don't think there is a Wikipedia policy stating that.

Also, I still don't see what Venus being the goddess of love has to do with it being a more positive picture than the shaman, a respected healer and community leader. It seems to be a matter of subjective personal opinion. Your insistence on the Venus picture is even more confusing considering that she is not even the correct Roman goddess. Actually, on this line of thought, I think I know a good alternative picture that you are going to be happy with. --Aronoel (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"I like the other picture better" is not a good enough reason to revert my change. I like the shaman better but I'm trying to compromise. Venus is not the goddess of the feminine domain, Juno is. --Aronoel (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As you said "It seems to be a matter of subjective personal opinion.". Since it is a tie, the image should remain as it was. On what grounds are you going to suggest otherwise? Dave3457 (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about your reasons, not mine. As I've explained, the Venus picture is not correct and not useful, especially when compared to the alternatives I've proposed. --Aronoel (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

---
Despite your caption for the Juno image which reads... "The Ancient Roman goddess of women, fertility, and femininity", here is the part of the lede on her Wikipedia page that describes her..."Juno's own warlike aspect among the Romans is apparent in her attire. She often appeared sitting pictured with a peacock armed and wearing a goatskin cloak."
Contrast that to the first sentence of the Wikipedia lede for Venus which reads..."Venus was a Roman goddess principally associated with love, beauty and fertility,...". I can only assume that this self serving selection of references to further your agenda is typical for you.
Dave3457 (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Let me moderate that last comment, it was a little too personal. Your actions may not be as ill intended as I am imagining. I do however believe that, while pushing your androgynous agenda, you are being inconsiderate of other peoples work and are twisting the facts to suit your preconceived views. Dave3457 (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't help tone down your previous comments when you are just continuing to attack me.

Just because you may not personally consider one of Juno's associations to be feminine, it doesn't disprove the obvious fact that she was the Greek and Roman goddess of women and the feminine domain. I don't understand how this is even up for debate.

"Juno was originally thought of as the spirit of womanhood residing in each feminine breast...Now, this deification of the feminine principle [w]as Juno, just as the masculine element in human nature was deified as Genius..."The Classical world, Volumes 11-12 By Classical Association of the Atlantic States --Aronoel (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"While every man had his 'Genius' so every woman had her 'Juno' - a divine double which personified and protected her femininity. ..." The dictionary of classical mythology By Pierre Grimal, see also the entire entry on Juno.--Aronoel (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

---
Firstly, I did not attack you, in fact I made a point of not attacking you but rather I’m criticizing your behaviour with regards to this page. I said, “that you are pushing an androgynous agenda” also that “you are being inconsiderate of other peoples work” , also that “you are twisting the facts to suit your preconceived views.”
These are legitimate criticisms of your behaviour. One only needs to look at your recent edits on this page to see evidence of this.
For example...
- Your recent edits here overwhelmingly cast femininity in a negative light. Particularly your initial edits before you moderated them. Given the edits here and your edits elsewhere in Wikipedia this can be clearly characterised as an agenda.(Refer to the list of your edits above)

- Your initial substitution of the lede image of Venus with a picture of an obscure female shaman speaks loudly toward your lack of respect for other people’s work and your lack of understanding of the purpose of this page.

- Your instance on using the Juno lede image instead of the Venus image in spite of all the references that support the view that Venus, in the minds of society, more clearly represents the idea of femininity than Juno. This reveals your very selective choice of references.

And I can go on.

Concerning the lede image, you say above..”.. the obvious fact that she (Juno) was the Greek and Roman goddess of women and the feminine domain.”
The fact is that this is the first line of the Aphrodite Wikipedia article, “Aphrodite is the Greek goddess of love, beauty, and sexuality. Her Roman equivalent is the goddess Venus.” Again the lede of the Venus article reads “Venus was a Roman goddess principally associated with love, beauty and fertility” (Note, I predict that you are simply going to ignore these references, in favour of more obscure ones.) Given your other edits on this page, I suspect your real issue is that the Venus image associates femininity with Love and beauty.

The bottom line is that given that this page is not about the Roman Goddessess but about femininity, the very well known Roman goddessess Venus is the obvious choice. The fact is that there are many Roman Gods who are female but Venus is almost universally considered the Roman Goddess that expresses femininity in the minds of most people. (at least to the extent that a single image can)
While there is a planet named after Venus, most people do not even know who Juno is, and it is not the role of the lede of the femininity page to inform them.
In my view the ledes of the two Wikipedia articles, Juno and Venus makes the choice obvious. One should also consider the Wikipedia pages of Hera and Aphrodite as Hera is the Greek equivalent of Juno and Aphrodite is considered the Greek equivalent of Venus.

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)

Collapsing off-topic discussion

Response to being accused of “attacking” a fellow editor. On this talk page I have been accused of attacking a fellow editor. Quote (Aronoel): “It doesn't help tone down your previous comments when you are just continuing to attack me.” Aronoel has gone to the Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts page and posted a complaint regarding my etiquette. The ruling was as follows... I'm not seeing any obvious Wikiquette issues here. It's clearly a content dispute, and Dave3457 patiently explains and supports evidence that suggests you are editing with a bit too much of an agenda. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Dave3457 (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC) Wasn't this just removed as not being appropriate for this page? --Aronoel (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Yes and I notified the individual that I re-posted with the desire he justify his revert. User_talk:Gerardw#Revert_of_femininity_Talk_page_section Dave3457 (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Well, it looks as if I'm going to have to weigh in here: User:Dave3457, I've been observing your dispute with User:Aronoel over her edits on this article, which were prompted by my complaint that this article on Femininity is in horrible shape after after I linked to it from Gender... and from my point of view your tone has been consistently hostile... and rather than trying to argue from WP:RS sources, you appear to rely on your own sense of what "people" perceive as "feminine", and your repeated claims that Aronoel is pursuing "an agenda supporting androgeny" are inappropriate... (And yes, I've gone over your history in editing this article, complaining repeatedly about "feminists" and their agenda, e.g., "As the radical feminists are hell bent on moving society towards androgyny...", above in Talk.) -- bonze blayk (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Well is is true that "..radical feminists are hell bent on moving society towards androgyny..." and I think Aronoel is a good example. But I also agree with you that I should not have gotten personal on this talk page. As it happens, I was about to revert the creation of this section, feeling that the above quoted ruling at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Dave3457 in my favor might have been wrong. I have expressed this view at that location. I would however disagree with your use of the word "hostile" and instead use the word "personal". For what it is worth I apologize to Aronoel for getting personal on this talk page, but I don't apologize for trying to counter act the general feminist agenda to discredit femininity. I will go about it within the rules of Wikipedia in the future. Dave3457 (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC) Radical feminism and feminism in general have long and extensively critiqued femininity, enough and in reliable sources to qualify their contributions for this article. Both feminist and nonfeminist analyses of femininity belong in the article, because plenty of sourcing supports inclusion. Limiting to discriminatory statements (such as that women are better at nursing and not just at the part of nursing that is breast-feeding), while widely believed, raises problems with neutrality and choice of sources. We don't report mainly what's popular belief but what's reliably sourced; sometimes they coincide, but not always. It is appropriate to cover the more common prejudices in contexts such as this one, but so is criticism of them insofar as germane. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC) For what its worth I agree. I have no qualms with the present Feminist Views section. That being said if someone wanted to point out a study that contradicted the first statement in that section that would also be legit. Dave3457 (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Femininity article.

Thanks for remembering that. -- Avanu (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What is this article about?

• Behavior and personality – This information does not belong in this article. If Judith Worell is not notable enough to have her own article, she is not the right authority to comment on this topic in an encyclopedia.
• Occupations – What does this have to do with anything and why is it in this article?
• Femininity in men – this belongs in the Masculinity article
• Clothing and appearance – cosmetics throughout history have been used by both men and women, body paint in particular.
• Feminist views – this belongs in the Feminism article
• Body modification – high heeled shoes are body modifications?

Please remove irrelevant information because I'm not interested in participating in an edit war. If this type of editing continues, I will nominate this article for deletion. USchick (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

All of these things have associations with the concept of femininity and there are reliable sources backing up their connection. If you think all of the sections in this article are unnecessary then it would probably be a good idea to take this article to AFD. --Aronoel (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think some of these things are as irrelevant as you might think they are. If you consider the differences between so called "lipstick lesbians" and "butch lesbians", a distinction that's largely based on behaviors, clothing, appearance, etc, most people would probably identify one category as being more "feminine" than the other, don't you think?--Death by fugue (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the others. Exactly how is behavior and personality irrelevant to femininity, considering that that's mostly what femininity is about? Just as masculinity is mostly about behavior and personality.

I highly doubt that this article would be deleted, since it is a notable topic which can be backed up by various WP:Reliable sources, but you are more than welcome to try and get it deleted. 208.64.176.157 (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If this topic is notable, there should be some credible expert opinions (and not the opinions of editors) that determine what is feminine. "I think" is not notable, sorry. USchick (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Femininity is notable. Plenty of reliable sources cover it. Therefore, the possibility that content in this article could be put into another article does not require removing it from this article.

Sourcing is not limited to that by notable authors. Authors of sources do not have to have their own Wikipedia articles before being cited.

Sourcing can easily include feminist, religious, psychological (that field believes that failure of a girl to accept femininity is a mental illness), and popular views (cf. magazines like Vogue and Playboy). The volume of good sourcing is huge.

If a proposal is that only a definition should be in the article and everything else should be deleted, that's appropriate for Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia covers the subject much more comprehensively than by a definition only.

Some occupations are associated with femininity in the sense that even people who refuse to typecast women into occupations typically recognize that large sectors of society, e.g., men seeking employment, often do typecast that way. When good sourcing reports this, so may this article.

High-heel shoes are not body modifications but they cause them. Equipment for foot-binding is not a body modification but foot-binding is.

Plastic surgery as a whole may not belong in this article, but specific forms of it could, particularly those forms specific to (as some would say) enhancing femininity.

Fringe views are reportable in an article if at least one notable person held the view according to a reliable source and lipstick lesbians are not fringe.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Nick, if "Sourcing is not limited to that by notable authors", what stops anyone from writing something on a webpage or in a book with a small print run and then having it quoted here, derogatory phrasing and all.

Dave3457 (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Standards are appropriate but not notability as a standard for the purpose, because notability is already a standard for Wikipedia in deciding whether a subject should get its own article, whereas not every fact in an article has to be notable. If notability were required for all sources, probably most sources already cited in Wikipedia could not be cited. Whether a source is suitable for an article probably has to do with the article: if a notable subject has little content and few sources, a minimal (though nonzero) reliability standard suffices, but when the material is huge for one article then standards should rise to prevent overloading. Perhaps notability was not what was meant by the original commentator. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe your view is workable, I think it would allow Wikipedia to become anyone's soapbox.

Dave3457 (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dave3457, "what stops anyone from writing something on a webpage or in a book with a small print run and then having it quoted here, derogatory phrasing and all" is that such sources fall under WP:SPS "Self-published sources" rule, and in general do not qualify as valid citations in Wikipedia. Note though that a "small print run" does not necessarily disqualify a source... it's the publishing standards that are relevant. -- bonze blayk (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Bonze blayk, generally we can all find someone who has already said what we believe. Also Wikipedian editors can be completely anonymous if they wish. You are appealing to the honor system, which again I don't think is workable.

Dave3457 (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Soapboxing is already prohibited.

Self-published does not generally mean 'published by the Wikipedia editor'; it generally means 'published by the author (as opposed to being published by a publisher with an editor other than the author).'

Nick Levinson (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Content

In an effort too salvage this article, I propose we create an outline of relevant topics to include.

• Definition:Dictionary definition

Anything else? Fringe views of "lipstick lesbians" and "butch lesbians" are not encyclopedic. USchick (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Really? We have an encyclopedic article about it: Butch and femme. 208.64.176.157 (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So what? USchick (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So..."lipstick lesbians" and "butch lesbians" are not fringe views, and the material is/can be encyclopedic. 208.64.176.157 (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There's really no need to be rude. I disagree with your claim that the idea of "lipstick lesbians" and "butch lesbians" as a "fringe view". I think it is pretty widespread view that "lipstick lesbians" are more feminine than "butch lesbians" don't you think?.--Death by fugue (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source that "lipstick lesbians" and "butch lesbians" are the expert opinion on what is feminine. USchick (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere did I claim that this is the "expert opinion". You asked whether or not things like behavior, clothing, appearance, etc. was relevant and I was just giving an example of how based on those characteristics, lipstick lesbians are seen as more feminine than butch lesbians. There's nothing right or wrong about it, it's just an observation. --Death by fugue (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think everything could be expanded, especially "clothing and appearance." --Aronoel (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with others that butch/femme and possibly tomboy would be good to include in this article. --Aronoel (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there agreement on the definition that is already in the article or does it need to be changed?--Death by fugue (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's taken from the WHO's definition of gender, but did you have something else in mind? --Aronoel (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the accusation that I did not have consensus for adding the "Behavior and Personality" section. I did not add this section, nor did I add any material to it. Please be more informed. As for changes made to the "Occupations" section, I changed "Occupations" to "Feminine roles" to placate editors who felt "Occupations" was too vague and might be irrelevant. I thought that everyone found that acceptable since objecting editors later contributed material under "Feminine roles", material that was very valid. Changes consisting of removing entire sections, material, and references is far more substantial.--Death by fugue (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If a proposal is that only a definition should be in the article and everything else should be deleted, that's appropriate for Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia covers the subject much more comprehensively than by a definition only. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC) (Copied to this topic/section because erroneously included in topic/section What Is This Article About?.)

Main article links

I know a lot of people are editing simultaneously right now, but what do people think about the main article links under the sections? For example, "body modification" is linked with Fundamental attribution error. The reason for these links aren't clear to me, and I think they could be original synthesis. --Aronoel (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the links is to balance out the POV of having these sections included under the topic of Femininity. Body modification is also performed on men, so the topic does not belong in this article. Can we agree to delete the entire section? USchick (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What? This argument for a link to Fundamental attribution error in the body of the article makes no sense at all.

I thought you were "not interested in participating in an edit war", but that's precisely what this looks like to me. -- bonze blayk (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This entire article is original synthesis. That's why I propose a discussion about what should be included and what are reliable sources. Just because it's published doesn't mean it belongs in this article. USchick (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "body modification:" I don't think the section is implying that all forms of body modification are feminine, but just that certain kinds are considered feminine in certain cultures, just like clothing. Foot binding and neck rings are pretty notable and famous, so I don't support removing this section. It could also possibly be expanded with earrings, nose jewels, and plastic surgery. --Aronoel (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Earrings and nose rings are used by men as well. Adorning the body with jewelry is not specifically a feminine trait. Plastic surgery has already been discussed earlier. In medical science, the quest for plastic surgery is linked to a psychological disorder and a medical condition called body dysmorphic disorder, but this has absolutely nothing to do with femininity, which is a set of female qualities attributed specifically to women and girls. USchick (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Just because in some times and cultures men wear something, that doesn't mean it doesn't have a feminine association in others. For example, high heels used to be a masculine shoe, and now they're feminine. It seems worth mentioning. Also, are you saying that everyone who has plastic surgery has body dysmorphic disorder? Anyway, plastic surgery could only be added if there were reliable sources making the connection with femininity. --Aronoel (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

When something is used by men and women, by definition it becomes unisex. "Just because in some times and cultures men wear something, that doesn't mean it doesn't have a feminine association in others" – Exactly! How do you plan to determine what to include in this article? USchick (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

When a connection with femininity is discussed in a reliable source. --Aronoel (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

For every published opinion, I can provide you with an opposite opinion, also published by a reliable source. USchick (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be worth including all viewpoints if they are equally represented in reliable sources. --Aronoel (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I just corrected a few main article links not realizing that it was being discussed here. The simple fact is that there is no way that they would have withstood the test of time. As evidence, I just corrected them thinking that my actions were a no brainer. Dave3457 (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Feminine roles

• "Roles that are considered feminine" – by whom?
• Richard Anker – what makes him an expert?

Richard Anker was the Senior Economist at the United Nations' International Labour Office and the author of many scholarly books on gender and occupations. "Considered" may not be the best word, how about "associated" instead? --Aronoel (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Stereotype

Where is the discussion and consensus, please point it out. 74.226.119.107 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Stereotypes" haven't been discussed here before. However, I want to comment on it because I think there's a misconception upsetting a lot of people. This article isn't about women, it's about femininity, which is a form of stereotype. Certain things in culture are associated with femininity (arguably arbitrarily) but that doesn't mean that women or feminine people are good or bad at anything or that they have to be a certain way. There's no value judgment in saying that femininity is associated with anything. It's not an endorsement. --Aronoel (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a source is needed for the following: "Some behaviors that are considered feminine include gentleness, empathy, sensitivity and deference. Femininity is distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics." Without a source, this is original research Roger6r (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's related to women, perhaps this section belongs on that page. 74.226.119.107 (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think femininity is a separate enough concept from women, but you can always open a merge or AFD discussion. --Aronoel (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a credible source to back up what you think?74.226.119.107 (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, is this a merge discussion? If it is we should probably have a merge proposal tag here and on woman.

• Vetterling-Braggin, Mary "Femininity," "masculinity," and "androgyny": a modern philosophical discussion
• Worell, Judith, Encyclopedia of women and gender: sex similarities and differences and the impact of society on gender, Volume 1
• Ussher, Jane M. Fantasies of femininity: reframing the boundaries of sex --Aronoel (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Be cautious of trying to merge two notable subjects that have lots of content and lots more sourcing. Wikipedia's article length limit is around 30–100 KiB. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm replacing "generally associated" with "stereotypically associated" in the lead first sentence to accurately reflect the purpose and scope of this article. Roger6r (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sourced material

Why is sourced material being removed without a discussion? 74.226.119.107 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The scope of this article is the social construct of femininity, not the biological qualities of females. Material related to the latter concept should be added to the woman article, or an appropriate sub-topic. Also, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/USchick has been started. If there's been any sockery here, I will be very disappointed. Chester Markel (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think "Women and Leadership: A Contextual Perspective" is a good source though, and when all of this blows over I think some info about what "feminine leadership" is should be added. --Aronoel (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead sentence

Was the removal of the lead sentence[1] accidental? If not, what was problematic about it? Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), the lead should clearly and concisely define the subject. The article now begins with "Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex, and men may behave in ways considered feminine, and vice versa.", which doesn't define the topic at all, except in a negative sense. Chester Markel (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I just when back in the pages history and dug up what I think was a very fair, balanced and well written version. [[2]] I modified it a bit to take into account some of the concerns of others that have been raised since it was initially posted. In hindsight I should have checked for minor edits to it since the date I grabbed it from. I'll do that now. Dave3457 (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It went relatively untouched for 3 years (April 2007 to March 2010) indicating that a hell of alot of people were fine with it. I just now added one positive improvement to it that another editor had made in that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave3457 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I may agree with what's in the lead for the most part, but there are no sources referenced. There needs to be sources especially since the lead is the most important part and defines the topic of the entire article. I also don't see why there needs to be a specific mention of western culture. Can you explain? --Death by fugue (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What was wrong with the lead taken from the WHO definition?--Aronoel (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

If there are no sources that can be used to support the current lead, I don't have any problem with using the WHO definition.--Death by fugue (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The current lead has some problems. Suggesting that secondary sex characteristics may be socialized doesn't make sense. Secondary sex characteristics are physical characteristics. You don't socialize physical characteristics. Secondary sex characteristics have far more to do with femaleness than femininity. Also, the grammatical structure of the opening sentence is awkward. The previous opening sentence said virtually the same thing, but was worded more clearly. Finally, the following sentence that was added "The feminine nature is also more emotional, and less rational than the masculine nature" is POV. This should either be moved to discussion of female stereotypes or explicitly attributed in the text, i.e. "According to so-and-so, the feminine nature...". Stating this as if it were the academic consensus is quite misleading. Kaldari (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

---
The problem with the WHO definition in that in the view of many, it is simply wrong. It says..”Gender.. is a social construction...” This Harvard study contradicts that. [3] I also think that Wikipedia can do better than to just quote someone else. Particularly for the lead.
I agree that things don’t flow as well as they could.
I’ve just replaced my “new and improved” version with the original older one as a point at which to begin the discussion. As I say it lasted 3 years so there can’t be too much wrong with it.

Concerning the old version just posted...
Personally I would change the “western culture” reference to “most cultures” or something like that to be more inclusive. There is no choice but to include, in the lead of an article on femininity, some traits that are considered feminine.
I agree with the “secondary sex characteristics” point.
I think the “ideally associated” language is POV, and it should be changed to “generally associated”. I would drop the “better suited” for the same reason.
I would add the word “positive” when mentioning some of the traits as there are those who look at femininity in a negative light. The lead however is no place to mention the “negative” controversial traits in my opinion.
All this would result in the below.

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.

The complement to femininity is masculinity.

I believe references for all of the above can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave3457 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Dave3457, you are missing something crucial here, when you state: "I also think that Wikipedia can do better than to just quote someone else."

Since the introduction of the WP:RS policy, Wikipedia is all about paraphrasing and organizing citations of reliable sources in a sensible way, while giving weight to all WP:RS points of view WP:NPOV... and NOT editing in such a manner as to introduce your own WP:OR opinion, or "original research". -- bonze blayk (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The lede does not need sourcing for content that's in the body, and the lede can be a summary of the body.

The Harvard study of chimps carrying sticks as dolls does not prove that gender is not socially constructed. It probably shows that certain behaviors previously thought to be socially constructed may be biologically driven, but that moves the behavior studied from the realm of gender to the realm of sex. It does not redefine gender as a word.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Nick, I was addressing that comment to Dave3457, while trying not to be too "pointy" about it. For example, Dave3457 states below: "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." Well, no, that's not at all correct, at least in the sense of editing according to the rules.

As far as article ledes go, sure, the summary doesn't have to be a citefest; but it should accurately represent reliable sources, including reliable sources which vary in viewpoint and interpretation when such sources are available. -- bonze blayk (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

bonze blayk, what is in the version of the lede which I’m proposing that isn’t in the article? As far as what I meant by “we can do a better job”, I meant that we could customize the lede to match the article. I think Nick has it right about the lede.

As far as the gender versus sex thing... this goes to the heart of what I’m having a problem with. In order to hold that gender is a social construction, you seem to be ejecting behaviours from the definition of gender that are shown to be biologically driven.

My position is that female juvenile apes caring sticks like they were babies, is evidence that nurturing behaviour is partly biologically driven. This contradicts the view that femininity, in this case, nurturing behaviour, is a social construction. It also supports the view that nurturing behavour is associated with females for biological rather than cultural reasons.

To try and make my point clear, let me add three words to one of the sentences you wrote above. The three words are in bold in the sentence below...

It probably shows that certain behaviors previously thought to be socially constructed, like nurturing tendencies, may be biologically driven, but that moves the behavior studied from the realm of gender to the realm of sex.

As it happens, nurturing behavior is not on the list of feminine behavours in this article, would you object if I added it?

Dave3457 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Without editing my comment above: Some nurturing behaviors, yes; all nurturing behaviors, no. And I'm not sure scientists know enough about where to draw the line other than to say "some" or wording like it. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nick, I'm not sure you addressed my point. It seems to me that in your view if something has been shown to be biologically driven it should no longer should be defined as gender behavior. Let me quote an above sentence fragment.."that moves the behavior studied from the realm of gender to the realm of sex".

Dave3457 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Bonze, you're right and I was wrong about "It is our job to.. and then report on it." That's more what a dictionary is about. As it happens that view hurts my position with regards Nick here anyway. He, in my view, has included "not biologically driven" into his personal definition of the word Gender.

Dave3457 (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Words are often defined with a precision of separation that seems to mask the difficulty of applying the distinction between them to phenomena. For example, red means a color due to a certain electromagnetic frequency or wavelength but we can't tell with our eyes when a color is one nanometer off; but if we use a popular definition (based on knowing it when we see it) then it's impossible for most of us when lacking instrumentation to tell it apart from orange similarly defined. Nonetheless, red, orange, sex, and gender are all important for discourse, even if we can't be sure exactly what within the act of purchasing clothing is about gender and what of it is about sex. Both realms, of gender and of sex, exist, even when we disagree about what belongs in which realm. You questioned whether gender is social; it is and a good source says so. It may be in dispute, in which case citing another reliable source, one saying gender is not social or that sex is social (within the nature-nurture debate), is also a valid contribution to Wikipedia. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You made a reference to the purchasing of clothing, but that has only confused the issue since we both agree that clothing is a culturally thing.

My focus is on behaviour, specifically gentleness, empathy and sensitivity.

It all seems very straight forward me.

In general, females are overwhelmingly known to be feminine, and males overwhelmingly known to be masculine. While the bodies of males and females are different, it has been scientifically proven that their brains are different also. This is true even to the point of one scientist referring to the brain as a sex organ.

It is a scientific fact that brain structure determines behavior whether the structure is the result of inborn, “hard” wiring or socialized, “soft” wiring. Given the very high correlation between someone having a female brain and behaving in a feminine manner, I simple don’t understand the clear resistance to the idea that a percentage of what we understand to be feminine behavior is due to “hard” wiring.

You say that I am free to "cite another reliable source" that supports my view but you just "shot down" my Harvard study ref on the grounds that it was about sex. And I would add that nurturing a young infant well is all about gentleness, empathy and sensitivity.

Dave3457 (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel , I thought you created the "Behavior and personality" section that contained the sentence. I couldn't find the existence of the sentence before this edit of yours. Should I keep looking.

Dave3457 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That sentence is not in that edit anywhere. So no, I didn't add it. --Aronoel (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok sorry, I see the problem, I included the words patience and kindness. As it happens I made a conscious point of trying to not include words that you didn’t use but I guess messed up somehow.

I will put in the lead what I consider to be far summary of your sentence, it is below.

Some behaviors that are considered feminine include gentleness, empathy, sensitivity and deference.

For comparison purposes here is your original sentence...

While the defining characterists of femininity are not universally identical, some trends exist. Nurturance, succorance, deference, self-abasement, passivity, gentleness, empathy, and sensitivity are behaviors that are considered feminine.

Dave3457 (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The claim that the feminine is more emotional and less logical.

Kaldari, concerning the sentence about the feminine being more emotional. While I didn't create the sentence, I edited the sentence from the derogatory version which read "highly emotional and irrational" to "more emotional and less rational". My sister has instructed me to change "less rational" to "less logical" and so I have. In my view its obvious and so I personally didn't move it or anything. I'm sure that many references exists out there and I will take a look for some more as I suspect it is a generally excepted belief. But your right, if there is some evidence to the contrary that should be mentioned. Dave3457 (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It used to say it was associated with those characteristics, which Is very different. The source also supported the previous wording before parts were changed and removed. --Aronoel (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

--
Lets start from the beginning, you(Aronoel) initially added the below sentence during this edit. [4].

“Being highly emotional, weak, and irrational are also characteristics associated with femininity.”

I personally found the sentence insulting and ultimately changed it to

The feminine nature is also more emotional, and less logical than the masculine nature.

Presently I personally interpret your view that ..."The source supported the previous wording..." as suggesting that because the derogatory phasing was found in a book you were justified in putting it on Wikipedia". I disagree entirely. As I said above, I believe there is truth to the statement and that is why I personally don’t have a problem with its inclusion, but on the other hand, Kaldari is right that there is no academic consensus for its present form.
I guess the best thing to do is to remove it entirely (which I’ve just done) until some sort of consensus is found.
I personally would be happy with..

It is generally felt that the feminine nature is more emotional, and less logical than the masculine nature.

I removed the reference in the above suggestion because the meaning of the sentence has changed. I appreciate that having no reference is very problematic. Dave3457 (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources supporting this association in culture besides the many already included in that paragraph. Here are a few examples: --Aronoel (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the sentence which contained Nick's recent changes and replaced the ref with Aronoel's suggested ones.

Dave3457 (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Susan Brownmiller's book

Femininity, by Susan Brownmiller, if not too dated, may have much for a feminist perspective. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

sexuality

In the section Femininity in Men, in the second paragraph, the sentence "Effeminacy is not necessarily related to a man's sexuality, though effeminacy is associated with homosexuality in modern Western culture." is somewhat confusing. I haven't checked its sourcing. It probably should be edited to (if true) "Effeminacy is not statistically correlated with a man's sexuality, though effeminacy is popularly associated with homosexuality in modern Western culture." Thanks for considering. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think using the phrase "not statistically correlated" is just going to confuse the ordinary reader, who has no idea of what a correlation is. -- bonze blayk (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Nick, are you suggesting that the sentence should read that society is only under the illusion that a percentage of gay men can be identified as gay by observing their feminine characteristics? (at least with a relatively high statistical probability)

Dave3457 (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how much correlation there is. People often think they know but don't. Cross-dressing often challenges assumptions. On the other hand, there are claims for gaydar. Much of the public does believe it knows just by looking (often an argument against condom usage in the earlier years of AIDS), and I think that's separate from gaydar, if gaydar is based on the observer being gay, and I think, but don't have a source for this, that the public is often but not always wrong, with a correlation too weak to be trustworthy. A U.S. general some decades ago told one of his staff to start the process of discharging homosexuals and her response was that he'd have to start with her since she's a lesbian, so he changed is mind; that's anecdotal but not unique on not knowing (I also don't know if she was butch/femme/other).

How about "not necessarily scientifically related"?

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Why bring "science" into the issue at all? It's an exceedingly difficult question to answer in any kind of "scientific" fashion...

Offhand, the cites that come to mind regarding "effeminate" = "gay" would be related to cross-dressing; it's commonly asserted that the vast majority of male cross-dressers are heterosexual; Ray Blanchard has commented that no one can accurately estimate the prevalence of cross-dressing in men (since it's covertly conducted), and no one really understands the causes. Helen Boyd is one of those who makes this assertion in her book, "My Husband Betty" (and she's actually quite knowledgeable, having run an online forum for wives of cross-dressers.)

In cases of early onset Gender Identity Disorder, where young boys exhibit extremely feminine behavior at a young age, most eventually grow up to be homosexual - "gay" - men, with more-or-less average masculine presentations. (Or so it's claimed, by Zucker and others.)

Personally, I react to the term "effeminate" as an insult; a curse word. "Femininity" is a neutral term; "Femininity in men" is neutral; "Effeminacy", as reserved for males, turns many otherwise admirable behaviors into negatives. Which is why "feminophobia" is an appropriate term to note... if not here, at least in the (wretchedly titled) article on Effeminacy -- bonze blayk (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I looked into it a bit. Here is a reputable study that says a gay individual can be recognized by a still image of his face alone. I'm personally presuming that it is the feminine facial features that are being identified. I think that one has to assume that if video was used instead of still images the "above chance" results would be even higher. The statement, "Effeminacy is not statistically correlated with a man's sexuality.." is going to need a reputable source.

Dave3457 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

phobias and derogation

The article says the terms "femiphobia, effeminophobia, and sissyphobia ... have been criticized as derogatory terms." I'm confused. Are they derogatory of the people who are the -phobes or of the people who characterize others as the -phobes? Or, if they simply indicate that fem(i)-, effemin(o)-, and sissy- are the subjects of the respective fears (phobias), then a criticism of the terms as derogatory is just as applicable to all phobias, making the clause unnecessary for this article, the criticism belonging in an article about, say, the psychology of fear. If someone knows the intent of the clause, please clarify. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

neck rings

If someone knows the subject, please clarify this sentence in the Body Modification subsection: "In parts of Africa and Asia, neck rings are a form of body modification associated with feminine beauty." If the sources support this or others do, the sentence probably should read approximately as, "In parts of Africa and Asia, neck rings are worn in order to elongate the neck, neck elongation being a body modification associated with feminine beauty." Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth including the description of Body Alteration from its main article, "the deliberate altering of the human body for aesthetic or non-medical purpose." This can help explain that this section is about body alteration to enhance or create perceived feminine characteristics. Roger6r (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the description was a very good addition. However, the sentences "These rings stretch the vertebrae until a person's neck can no longer support her head. This ironically disabling aspect is particularly troubling to humanitarian aid workers." seem to contradict what's in the neck rings article. Unless there is a reliable source supporting these sentences, I think they should probably be removed. --Aronoel (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

phrasing "in preference of masculinity"

The phrase "in preference of masculinity" doesn't seem to quite fit in "[o]thers ... argue that feminism shouldn't devalue feminine culture and identity in preference of masculinity". I'd drop the phrase, but I haven't checked the sources; at the least, I question the preposition, which perhaps should be "to". What I'm getting from the sentence is that some feminists oppose devaluing feminine culture and identity because the devaluation inevitably leads to enhancing masculinity; or because masculinity should be preferred; or because the feminine culture and identity prefer masculinity and therefore feminism shouldn't undermine masculinity. The differences are somewhat subtle and maybe the sources aren't clear on this, so I'm not sure what to recommend. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. They all sound good to me. --Aronoel (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Feminine Occupation

The first modern computer programmers were all women. They were selected due to their feminine characteristics. I have added computer programming to the list of traditionally feminine occupations. Additional citations may be needed. Roger6r (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The whole section seems a bit 1950s. Shouldn't it be updated to reflect a more modern point of view, i.e. that most people no longer think women need to be relegated to "nurturing" or clerical jobs? Kaldari (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the battle I fought all by myself and lost. I was adding a perfectly rational entry with reliable sources and was attacked repeatedly. Here it is for discussion. (See page history. If you don't mind, I will sit this one out, I'm tired of fighting.)

USchick, I feel your pain. Computer programmers? :) Dave3457 (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Feminine traits like cooperation, participation and shared accountability make women uniquely qualified for leadership roles such as head of state. USchick (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Kaldari. I'll work towards that. I think this whole article fails to represent a world view. Roger6r (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

USchick's version seems a bit "pointy". Can't we have something in between "Women should rule the world" and "Women should only be teachers or nurses"? I think Roger is headed in the right direction, but it needs better citations. Kaldari (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I revised the wording a bit to keep it in line with a broad worldview, and also added a citation. Kaldari (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The point of the occupations section is not that women should be relegated or confined to those jobs. Whether good or bad, the fact is that throughout the world certain jobs are considered "feminine." Even in the US, where women are often ecnouraged to have "masculine" jobs, that cultural distinction still exists. The "feminine" and "masculine" classification of jobs is significant and notable enough to be mentioned here. Maybe it should be clearer that it is not an endorsement of this gender division. Also, the book by Richard Anker is modern and is based off of worldwide data. These categories and associations are still going strong even today (unfortunately). --Aronoel (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

For example, the sentence "Both men and women are now welcome in the field of medicine at all levels" might be a good addition, but I'm concerned that it's not maintaining the very important distinction between "femininity" and women. Does the fact that women are welcomed as doctors mean that the occupation is considered more feminine? --Aronoel (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Good points. I've rewritten the paragraph further with your comments in mind. Let me know what you think. Kaldari (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's a huge improvement. --Aronoel (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

For true balance in this section, it ought to include occupational roles which once were considered feminine but now have flipped to be considered masculine. Without mention of these historically significant feminine occupations, this section unfairly supports current stereotypes. Computer Programmer is a good example. I wasn't joking, Dave3457. Your assumption that I was joking reinforces my argument that this section is unbalanced.

Exhibit 1: Ada Lovelace wrote the first computer program. She wasn't actually a computer programmer (as the lead implies) because computing machines didn't even exist which would run her program. The notable programming language Ada was actually named after her.

Granted, Ada did all her Algorithms and stuff because she was a capable researcher, it had nothing to do with her biological femaleness or her perceived feminine characteristics.

Exhibit 2: ENIAC#Programming is what I was really referring to. Before ENIAC, "Computer" was a profession. One who computes. There was a group of several female computers who were tapped, specifically because they were women, to be the first computer programmers. Their amazing contributions have been largely downplayed. By today's standards, they were more than just programmers, they had to do their own IT support.

This is a complex subject which is well-covered in the ENIAC article but it deserves mention here. I will add computer programmer as a feminine role and link to ENIAC#Programming. Please discuss here before reverting this addition. Roger6r (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to include computer programmer, shouldn't we include discussion of this "flip"? It seems a bit discongruous to include it along with occupations that are still often viewed as feminine. We could probably have a few sentences devoted to discussing this. Are there other examples of occupational gender flips that we could include? Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a discussion of occupation gender flips would be good, as long as there are reliable sources supporting it, and keeping in mind the women and femininity distinction. --Aronoel (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any sources that support computer programming being considered a "feminine" occupation? Kaldari (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with these proposed changes. I erased the part about early programming being associated with clerical work and typing because the first programming was done by moving around something akin to giant vacuum tubes. No typing was involved. The ENIAC programmers were mathematicians, not secretaries. The discussion about it being a woman's job deserves more attention and more citations. I'll look around at sources. Just leave the clerical part out if we're still talking about ENIAC because it's false. The ENIAC article can clarify. Roger6r (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, this discussion continues under the section [Talk:Femininity#Computer_programming|Computer programming] Roger6r (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing that might improve this section would be to include examples of occupations that are considered feminine in one culture, but not another. Does anyone know of any examples? --Aronoel (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In some cultures planting and/or harvesting crops was once viewed as a "woman's job" although I'm not sure if it was associated with femininity. Same for things like collecting eggs, churning butter, etc. although many of these food-related activities are either still associated with femininity or have been replaced by automated processes. Are there any cultures where cooking is viewed as masculine (or totally gender neutral)? Some other guesses to investigate: weaving, fortune-telling/shamanism. Kaldari (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this discussion, that's an excellent example about computer programming! When it comes to feminine (or any other) characteristics, anything that's "generally considered" is original research according to Wikipedia policy and does not belong in this article. However, there is a significant body of knowledge in social sciences that say traits like cooperation, participation and shared accountability are uniquely feminine traits. Can you say the same about teaching and house cleaning? Statements like, "Teaching is sometimes considered a feminine occupation" and "Historically, femininity has been associated with occupations requiring nurturing and attention to detail" are highly subjective, and are original research. USchick (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The occupations nurse, social worker, teacher, and midwife are all associated with the stereotyped feminine trait of having a "caring nature" according to the cited source. Some of the rest of the sentence may be original research although I haven't dug that deeply into the source. Kaldari (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The cited source may be an expert on International Labour, I'd like to see some documentation about him being an expert on feminine characteristics please. Sources need to have page numbers listed to be verifiable. USchick (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The section of the book that I'm referring to is completely devoted to gender theory. The parts about international labor are actually later in the book. Regarding the page numbers, on page 23 Anker lists the following occupations as associated with five feminine stereotypes: "nurse, doctor, social worker, teacher, maid, housekeeper, cleaner, cook, waiter, launderer, hairdresser, spinner, weaver, knitter, tailor/dressmaker, sewer, typist, cashier/bookkeeper, salesperson, accountant, receptionist and shop assistant." On page 24 he clarifies by stating that "occupations which require care but also require greater authority, such as medical doctor, are often male-dominated." He then goes on to break these into groups based on the individual stereotypes. Kaldari (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a more appropriate place for such commentary would be under gender theory, gender roles, stereotypes, Occupational gender segregation or Occupational segregation. What does he have to say specifically about femininity? USchick (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

He's talking specifically about gender stereotypes, i.e. femininity and masculinity, and how they affect employment opportunities for women. Isn't that relevant to the article? I've cleaned up the first paragraph so that it conforms 100% to the cited sources. Is that better? Kaldari (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :-) Personallly, I question the relevance of this information since it has to do with Occupational segregation, but it's much better than what it was. USchick (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Unfortunately I've wasted much of the day on this and don't have time to do more work on it. Maybe someone else can take over where I left off, and hopefully not with an axe ;) Kaldari (talk) 00:42, 23 June 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)

Foot-binding, use of dehumanizing image

The X-ray image representing foot-binding minimizes the horrific process which many consider torture. The X-ray shows the bones to be moved, thus communicating the truth that this process has permanent and irreversible side effects. However, I think the lack of a flesh image of a foot is dehumanizing and makes this horrible form of mutilation seem not quite so bad. This is a disservice to the unknown numbers of girls and women whose lives have been affected by foot-binding. I suggest replacing the current image with a respectful but honest picture, such as the one found in the cited article [5], or else removing the picture. Roger6r (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the X-ray image is pretty horrifying, but the other image you suggested seems like a good alternative. Both are fine to me. The New York Times image is already on Wikipedia as: File:A HIGH CASTE LADYS DAINTY LILY FEET.jpg. --Aronoel (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Image

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)

Indented line 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)

There is a section about religion. If you'd like to write something about the fact that for the first 200,000 years of human life on earth people worshiped "the sacred feminine" (or a female deity, or Mother goddess, or whatever you want to call it) and that the first known shaman was female, please feel free to write that section. I can help in finding sources. Then after you write that section, if you'd like to include this picture, that would make it relevant to the discussion. But using this picture out of the blue as an example for the entire article, is out of context and undue weight. See Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Undue weight. USchick (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Citing sources

When citing sources, please adhere to Wikipedia policy of using a prevailing view within the relevant community, see WP:REDFLAG. Specifically, an appropriate source needs to be an expert on femininity, feminine characteristics, or something relevant. And please list the page numbers. USchick (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Femininity in men

Statements like: Men who behave in ways associated with femininity by a "certain culture" – are inappropriate in an Encyclopedia. What kind of "certain culture"? What kind of behavior? According to the article, Femininity is not necessarily related to a man's sexuality. If that's true, why is it being discussed in this article? See Wikipedia:Relevance. The same goes for "generally negative attitude displayed in many societies" - especially if it happens only "sometimes," as stated in the article. This is WP:NOR. USchick (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think this section could be deleted and replaced with a single sentence in the lead paragraph. The lead paragraph points out that femininity is distinct from the physiological and biological classification of femaleness. A sentence could be added along the lines of "Male or transgender people can be perceived to exhibit feminine behaviors." Roger6r (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't support removing this section. It's sourced and extremely relevant to this article. --Aronoel (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

With the section remaining, do you think it helps to add such a sentence to the lead? Roger6r (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I ask because even with the section remaining, I realize such a sentence might help solve some of the issues raised in the Lead discussion Roger6r (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think a sentence like that should definitely be in the lead only I would slightly reword it: ""Male and transgender people can exhibit behaviors associated with femininity." --Aronoel (talk) 20:46, 23 June 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 [6] the synonym for feminine is female. USchick (talk) 20:15, 23 June 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 [7] 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'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)

Computer programming

The information about computer programming being associated with femininity has been removed. It now just says that most early computer programmers were women. This eliminates the relevance of the paragraph to the article. The information that was removed wasn't original research; It was adapted from the cited article. Kaldari (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think this information was important for this section, sourced, and should be restored. --Aronoel (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, I posted this up in the occupations discussion just after that deletion. Probably a good idea that you started a new section. I'll take a closer look at the ENIAC article to make sure it's accurate. Here's my previous comment (Is there a Wikipidia way to shift a comment like this?):

I agree with these proposed changes. I erased the part about early programming being associated with clerical work and typing because the first programming was done by moving around something akin to giant vacuum tubes. No typing was involved. The ENIAC programmers were mathematicians, not secretaries. The discussion about it being a woman's job deserves more attention and more citations. I'll look around at sources. Just leave the clerical part out if we're still talking about ENIAC because it's false. The ENIAC article can clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger6r (talk • contribs) 20:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Correction, it wasn't vacuum tubes, it was "patch-cables and switches." I'm also looking at the Programming article for the source of the clerical comment. Just give me some time :) Roger6r (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What I removed said "Due to the fact that typing and clerical work are traditionally associated with femininity." I removed it because it's false where ENIAC was concerned. Did you adapt that from the ENIAC article or from "When Computers Were Women"? If you can direct me to what you adapted it from, I'll look at it. Roger6r (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What if we just removed "typing" and left "clerical work"? Does that seem more accurate. The actual quote from the cited article is "...the job of programmer, perceived in recent years as masculine work, originated as feminized clerical labor". Hope that helps. Kaldari (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the further explanation, Kaldari. I still oppose the term "clerical work." ENIAC was an advanced scientific labor. I think I agree that some at the time treated it as clerical work. Let me read that entire article and get back to you on the wording I would propose instead. Roger6r (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The cited article says that even though women were chosen because clerical work was considered feminine, early female computer programmers actually contributed significantly to mathematical and technical innovations in computing, but that this was diminished. Maybe this would be worth mentioning. --Aronoel (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a better source, check this out: [8]. It says: "But although they were skilled mathematicians and logicians, the women were classified as "sub-professionals" presumably due to their gender and as a cost-saving device, and never got the credit due to them for their groundbreaking work...But although the women had been categorized as "clerks," they were rediscovered by a Harvard student named Kathryn Kleiman in 1986, during her research for a paper on women in computing. " This is a largely forgotten bit of history but I am presenting the accepted understanding. They were classified as clerks. It is thought this was a money-saving or otherwise discriminatory practice. Clerks were not sought for the job. From another source: the ENIAC says the government sought women math majors. This still gives the incomplete story. At first they were computing by hand calculations for missiles. Then they computed by hand in addition to programming the ENIAC to compute. Extreme precision and attention to detail were required. These were the feminine traits that were sought. (As well as the general trait of intelligence). I might be ok to say it was treated as clerical work but only if it is made clear that it was anything BUT clerical work. And, clerical experience was not the sought out experience, mathematics was. Roger6r (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

wow, this is so interesting! Another question is whether or not the women knew what they were working on missles. During the Cold War, it was common practice for scientists to perform research only on portions of the entire project and have no idea how the final application would be used. This was done originally in the name of science, and later in the name of national security when they decided to use the research for bombs. So originally, calling them clerks may not have been only as discrimination. USchick (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

USchick, the DoD still operates on the principles of "need to know" in research divisions. These women were calculating ballistics trajectories not building the missiles. They must have known they were calculating trajectories. I don't know how much secrecy surrounded the specifics of the assaults but my guess would be a lot.

I am thinking of suggesting an article on this subject on the Women's History WikiProject group. I'm not up for making the article all on my own. For now I am looking through the ENIAC article to verify how much this is covered. I think the historical cover-up itself is notable and part of the motivation for the programmers of ENIAC to have their own article.

Kaldari, sorry about the confusion. It's my own fault for copying over the bad source from the ENIAC article. Roger6r (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent idea!USchick (talk) 19:15, 24 June 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)

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? [9]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."[10] 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)

Hair

It seems a bit of an oversight that this article doesn't mention hair. Could we collect some sources for the relationship between hair and femininity so that we can build some content around this. I'll go first. Kaldari (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Long hair on Samoan women (and American women, for that matter) is the ideal... Samoan women's femininity is judged according to the length of their hair..." Sociology: A Global Perspective, p. 271.
• Lesnik-Oberstein, Karín (2006). The Last Taboo: Women and Body Hair. (Pretty much the entire book would be useful.)
• "Underarm hair on women in the West is considered by many to be unfeminine, yet in other cultures not to remove underarm hair is considered to be as normal as hair growth itself." The Language of Magazines, Linda McLoughlin (2000), p. 96.
• "But the desire to have long hair relates to perceptions of what is considered feminine and it is associated with white women. That is, even with long dreadlocks, the model of long hair, and therefore femininity is white women like Cheryl Tiegs and Farah Fawcett." Feminist Frontiers, Verta Taylor (2008), p. 157.

I can't believe we forgot hair! Samoan women are judged on the length of their body hair? By all means, let's include that for sure! :-) I'm signing off for today, you guys wore me out! Cheers. USchick (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that sentence is referring to head hair specifically. Kaldari (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Darn, I was hoping we could have a picture, with the tribal Chief measuring it with a ruler! USchick (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, that would have been great :) Kaldari (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Shaving underarm hair is a historically recent practice. I need the source for this, but I have read that the widespread trend of women shaving underarms was started by an advertisement for a sleeveless dress and the model had her underarms shaved. If anyone has a source for this it would help balance the article by showing the origin of a perception of femininity. Roger6r (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)