Talk:Femininity

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, I'm the user Elissa Rubria Honoria but I've just recently retired my account and I'm editing here on my IP. I originally reverted that edit of IP 2.102.187.12 (I see from the IP's Talk page that she has just received a formal warning that she may be blocked following vandalism elsewhere, but of course different editors might be involved here).

I reverted that IP because here edit was plainly WP:BOLD. To replace "stereotype" by "role" significantly changes the nature of the edit and the bit about "medicine" was both irrelevant and a fabrication. The IP's later justifiction that "stereotype" has negative implications is simply childish.

I had no plans to contribute further to this article. I might look in from time to time on the Talk page on my IP. I mentioned elsewhere that a long term goal was to write up P v S Cornwall County Council. I might break retirement at some point to do this and a number of other article starts I should like to introduce. 31.6.15.210 (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (ex Elissa Rubria Honoria)

According to the source Microaggressions in Everyday Life: "School counselors often discourage female students from entering occupations in mathematics, sciences, or in fields that require leadership...." According to the source, gender stereotype is what leads to microagression, not gender norm. So to be true to the source, "gender stereotype" is more accurate in this case. According to this source [[1]] the norm is for girls to outperform boys in math and science, so using "gender norms" in not at all accurate. USchick (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

In this same section, instead of talking about a random occupation like surgery, perhaps it would be more useful to explain that the norm is the exact opposite of the stereotype. USchick (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

To Elissa, it doesn't change the meaning as such. By replacing "These stereotypes" with "These roles" I am maintaining what we are referring to without the negative connotation of "stereotype". To USchick, I don't think there's much of a difference between "gender norm" and "gender stereotype", as one directly results in the other. I'll change it to "Belief in certain gender norms" just in case. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No. The word change you propose changes the meaning, and you have not in any way demonstrated that anyone accepts your claim that "stereotype" is POV. The word is a generally accepted part of gender studies, and you do not have consensus to remove it. I suggest that if you wish to push the issue, that you generate a Request for Comment to have the broader community examine your proposed changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific. What sentence has been changed and why? Also, perhaps in science "stereotype" has no negative connotations, but like "myth" in everyday English, it's seen differently by normal readers. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you examine reliable sources. For example, you might start with those linked from stereotype. "A stereotype is a thought that may be adopted about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things, but that belief may or may not accurately reflect reality." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The changes instituted by the IP editor directly contradicted the reliable sources cited here, as demonstrated by USchick and others. That is why they were reverted. There is nothing POV about the use of the widely-understood and scientifically-accepted term "stereotype" to describe the issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is the word "stereotype" compliant with NPOV in the context of femininity? Is it well-supported by reliable sources?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is the word "stereotype" compliant with NPOV in the context of femininity? Is it well-supported by reliable sources? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note: The RfC questions don't address the dispute very well. It's best to just compare the differences in reversions, as that is what we are arguing about. I argue that this [2] makes the article more POV. Note the words traditionally, stereotype, and perpetuate. I replaced these words due to the negative connotations it brings to readers. The meaning of the statements were maintained. The edit also removed scare quotes, the unsourced "outdated" claim and the link to "gender stereotypes" which is a redirect. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've ended the RfC as nobody outside has joined and it doesn't address what we're discussing. 2.102.185.234 (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It is highly inappropriate to attempt end an RfC in this manner. Please do not do so again. --Ronz (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Why? 2.102.185.234 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:RFC. --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I take this from that page as support: Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment. 2.102.185.234 (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Wikipedia is based on material published in reliable sources. There are a wide array of reliable sources which discuss gender stereotypes in the context of femininity. Among them are:

• Stanford University's Gendered Innovations project.
• Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation, published by Wiley & Sons.
• Gender: A psychological perspective, by Dr. Linda Brannon, Ph.D.

I suggest that there is broad acceptance of the idea that gender stereotypes exist. There is no evidence that any significant, mainstream group considers the use of the term "gender stereotype" to be overtly biased or otherwise violate NPOV principles. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Peer reviewed publications support that idea. Maybe gender stereotype will be replaced by another term at some point, but that's the term being used by the medical community right now.

• Masculinity, Femininity, Androgyny, and Cognitive Performance: A Meta-Analysis (American Psychological Association): "Nash has argued that individuals will perform better on cognitive tasks when their self-concepts match the gender stereotyping of the tasks." [3]
• Sexual Orientation, Gender Role Expression, and Stereotyping: The Intersection Between Sexism and Sexual Prejudice (Homophobia), American Counseling Association [4]
• Accessibility of Gender Stereotype Domains: Developmental and Gender Differences in Children, National Institute of Health [5] USchick (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the word stereotype is similar to the word myth. In professional circles neither has negative connotations or imply disbelief. To the read however, this is not so. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the word myth. A link to the word stereotype should clear up any misunderstanding. That's what an encyclopedia is for, people who wish to be informed will learn something, and people who want to hang on to their beliefs will do so no matter what. USchick (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@2.102.187.12: While that may be true, the use of the phrase "gender norms" in this context is simply not accurate. There is no gender norm of women having better manual dexterity than men, for example. This is simply a stereotype and should be described as such. Kaldari (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@USchick: Most people won't click on the link though.

@Kaldari: That only applies to the change of "Gender stereotypes" to "Belief in certain gender norms". I imagine I can fix the wording of that without using "stereotypes". Perhaps "Belief in rigid gender roles"? How do you feel about the rest of the edit? 2.102.187.12 (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Gender stereotypes is sexism and considered unacceptable, while gender norm is considered appropriate. Those terms are not interchangeable. If people are not familiar with the meaning of words and if they're also not willing to click on links, those people are not looking for information and should not be reading an encyclopedia. USchick (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Gender stereotype redirects to Gender role right now, and that's not accurate. I didn't want to change it without a discussion. It was redirected in 2007 probably because there was nothing better at the time. USchick (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

That's why I'm proposing to change it to belief in rigid gender roles, as I see my wording isn't ideal. The trouble is, those readers think they know the definition of stereotype, seeing no need to click on the link. I would say that redirect is accurate. Widely followed gender roles result in gender stereotypes and, to some extent, vice verser. Also, gender stereotypes are much more accurate than other kinds of stereotypes, therefore they are the actual gender role. I took this from the article on stereotype:

There is empirical social science research which shows that stereotypes are often accurate.[50] Jussim et al. reviewed four studies concerning racial and seven studies which examined gender stereotypes about demographic characteristics, academic achievement, personality and behavior. Based on that, the authors argued that some aspects of ethnic and gender stereotypes are accurate while stereotypes concerning political affiliation and nationality are much less accurate. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is about feminine stereotypes. According to this source [6] the stereotype is the opposite of the norm. Trying to guess what readers will think after they read something is WP:FUTURE. USchick (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@2.102.187.12: "Gender roles" is not any better than "gender norms" in that sentence. The purpose of the paragraph is to explain that some occupational gender roles are based on stereotypes about women. If we change the sentence to say that occupational gender roles are based on "gender roles", the paragraph becomes tautological (i.e. a circular statement). Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

@USchick: Our definition is that stereotypes may or may not be accurate, so that it's the opposite sometimes is fine. I guess it's FUTURE, but it's common sense as well that most readers won't click on the link.

@Kaldari: It would change to say that some occupational gender roles are based on "Belief in rigid gender roles". That seems to be the same as saying that some occupational gender roles are based on belief in gender stereotypes. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that someone might not "get" the difference is an argument for us writing the passage in a manner that educates readers. It's not an argument for using incorrect terminology. The difference between "gender roles" and "rigid gender roles" is undefined and nebulous, whereas there is a clear differentiation between "gender role" and "gender stereotype." That there is a different connotation to the word is a feature, not a bug. Taking a look at other portions of the edit... your replacement of "Traditionally" with "usually" takes the phrase further away from the sources cited. Specifically cited is the line "Gender feminists also consider traditional feminine traits..." from Recent Theories of Human Development by R. Murray Thomas. Your change of "perpetuate" to "continue" also takes the encyclopedia text further away from the source, which specifically uses the word "perpetuate." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes there is a clear difference in those two terms. However, my change is actually "Belief in rigid gender roles" which means the same thing.

We change wording from the source all the time to make it NPOV. While we can and should use POV sources, we must use quote marks to use their statements or change some terminology if it doesn't satisfy our standard of NPOV. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No, actually we don't. I don't think you understand the concept of NPOV. We base articles on what is published in reliable sources. The reliable sources available in this context use these terms. You have not provided any reliable source which rejects the use of these terms, so there is no evidence that there is a significant, non-fringe POV dispute. Your unsourced assertions are insufficient to demonstrate any genuine dispute.

Even if there were significant reliable sources disputing the term, we would not remove the term - instead, we would, as you say, specifically cite the competing claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, we do. Yes we do base our articles on that, but there are a multitude of view and we must adopt a neutral presentation of those views. This article can do that without the words "traditionally", "stereotype" and "perpetuate". I assume you're not disputing traditionally and perpetuate as they are obviously POV. Here's some sources for stereotype: [7] - stereotypes have strong negative connotations because of their relationship with prejudice [8] - The word stereotype has developed strong negative connotations. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You have not provided any reliable sources which dispute the use of those words in this context, and you have not provided any reliable sources which support your assertion that there is a "multitude of views" on this subject. What are those other views, and who holds those other views? Only when reliable sources are presented can it be determined whether that POV is significant enough to merit inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. You disputed that "stereotype" has negative connotations and requested sources. I've provided them. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you are claiming that there are significant POVs which dispute the use of the term in this context. You have not provided evidence of such. If there are no significant POVs which argue that the term is misapplied or biased in the context of femininity, then we need not qualify it. Just because something is negative doesn't mean it violates NPOV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say significant. It doesn't matter what context "stereotype" is in, it still has negative connotation across the board so I don't need to provide sources that specifically focus on femininity. I'm not sure what the relevance of your last sentence is. By using "stereotype", we are passing judgement due to the negative connotations of the word. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If the view isn't significant, then we have no need or responsibility to include it. Wikipedia includes only POVs that are significant and well-supported by reliable sources. Please read WP:FRINGE for details.

Again, just because a word has "negative connotations" doesn't mean we can't use it. The word "dictator" has any number of negative connotations, yet we use it in many articles about dictators, because it is a well-sourced and widely-accepted term. The only reason we would remove or annotate the term is if there were significant viewpoints claiming that someone was not a dictator.

As the person making the claim, it is your responsibility to present reliable sources verifying that there are significant points of view opposing the application of the word "stereotypes" to this context. You have not done so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Could editors please review WP:NPOV (and Dispute resolution). Excluding a perfectly valid reference violates NPOV. We present all significant viewpoints. If differing viewpoints need to be presented in context with others, do so - propose additions with sources. We've an open RfC... --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that the view that "stereotype" has negative connotations is fringe? In reply to your dictator comment, that doesn't apply in this case. Due to the connotations of stereotype, saying These stereotypes include that women have... is passing judgement on the belief in these characteristics. I have provided sources to back this up and your request is ridiculous and not required. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Why does the comparison with "dictator" not apply?

Once again, you just don't understand NPOV. NPOV policy does not prohibit us from using a word with "negative connotations" if that word is widely used by reliable sources and is not challenged by any significant counter-claim. Unless there is a significant viewpoint which challenges the use of "stereotype" to describe gender stereotypes, then not only can we use the word, we must use the word without qualification, as doing otherwise would not reflect the reliable sources which extensively discuss and describe gender stereotypes.

Even if there were such reliable sources, we would not remove the word "stereotypes." Instead, we would cite the use of the word to those who use it, and note the opposing claims that the word does not apply. The same goes for the other words which you have challenged. They are all well-supported by reliable sources.

You are welcome to propose a sourced addition to the article which reflects your POV, if that POV can be well-supported by reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you see what I'm saying. The sources I have provided show that if we keep this: These stereotypes include that women have a caring nature, have skill at household-related work, have greater manual dexterity than men, are more honest than men, and have a more attractive physical appearance. Occupational roles associated with these stereotypes include... then Wikipedia is passing judgement due to the negative connotations of "stereotype" to readers. So while the sources to support this statement are using the word "stereotype" in the professional/narrow/neutral sense, due to the view of everyday readers that stereotypes are negative and wrong, it fails NPOV. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, everything you are criticizing is well-supported by reliable sources. That you do not agree with the conclusion of those sources is neither here nor there. Either you have significant reliable sources which rebut them - in which case we need to include that viewpoint - or there are no such sources, in which case the current wording is entirely sufficient.

Wikipedia reflects the conclusions of reliable sources. The reliable sources available in this context have concluded that they are, indeed, stereotypes. Your counter-claim that they are not is, as of yet, unsupported by any reliable source. You have repeatedly refused to supply such sources. In the absence of any such sources, we cannot add a rebuttal presenting your point of view. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll try again. I am not criticising the sources, disagreeing with their conclusions or saying that these things are not stereotypes. I'm saying that while the sources are using "stereotype" in it's correct and non-judgemental definition, as my sources show, readers don't see it in this way. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

If you believe the word could be misinterpreted, you should propose a well-sourced addition which clarifies the use of the word but does not remove it. The word does have a specific meaning. You may or may not perceive it to be "negative" that there is a stereotype of women having better manual dexterity than men, but it is, indeed, a stereotype - that is, it is a characteristic-based generalization which misrepresents the true complexity of the situation and cannot be said to accurately describe the world. The description of stereotype is currently sourced to a Web publication by Stanford University - unquestionably a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A notice clarifying what stereotype means isn't ideal. A change such as mine, which replaces the word and preserves the meaning of the sentence is preferable. It is a reliable source that contradicts our article on stereotype as that article has multiple reliable sources and says a stereotype simply may or may not be accurate. In the body of the article it in fact says that stereotypes are usually accurate, especially those based on gender. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody else agrees with you that removing the word "stereotype" preserves the meaning of the sentence. That's because it doesn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you be specific and elaborate? If you look at the last post by Kaldari, he felt the same way but seemed to have misread my change while I corrected my proposal to "Belief in rigid gender roles" in response to USchick's concerns. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I have already been specific and elaborated. Many, many times.

As Kaldari said, "The purpose of the paragraph is to explain that some occupational gender roles are based on stereotypes about women." That statement is based on a currently-unrebutted claim made in a number of different reliable sources. As Kaldari also said, "This is simply a stereotype and should be described as such." You cannot replace "stereotypes" with any other word or phrase and have the same meaning. That's all there is to it.

If you disagree with the statement and have reliable sources which support that disagreement, we can and should add sources which rebut the claim. But we may not change the meaning of a statement made in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be done. The English language is very versatile and replacing "stereotype" shouldn't be hard. I've asked at the language reference desk to see if anybody can do it. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The word "stereotype" is specifically used in the reliable sources. That word has a specific meaning and was used by the reliable for a specific reason. Removing that word is not acceptable. That's all there is to it. If you want to keep arguing in circles, you're welcome to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken in holding word choices of sources to that of holy scripture. Due to the POV concerns I have demonstrated, replacing "stereotype" while preserving the meaning of the sources is required. In fact, due to the differing definition of "stereotype" that readers have to that of the source, it is required to replace "stereotype" with something that more accurately reflects the source. 2.103.12.52 (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the source is not reliable, so it stays. Please review WP:V and WP:RS if you want to argue different.

No one is offering sources that demonstrate it presents anything other than a prominent viewpoint, so the sourced content should be fully restored. Please review WP:NPOV if you want to argue different.

I've not reviewed the other two sources presented at the beginning of this RfC. I'm guessing that they support the additional prominence rather than less. In other words, they're reliable sources with similar viewpoints. Does someone disagree? --Ronz (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're discussing the Stanford source, which isn't what North and I are arguing about. 2.103.12.52 (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an RfC. I hope you have taken some time to understand what an RfC actually is.

You appear unable to respond to policy-based concerns about content. If you continue to do so, please be aware that your comments will have little or no effect on any changes to this article.

Since there are no policy-based responses, we have consensus for no changes. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the statement by Stanford that you re-added then made into a reference? If so, I have explained how that source contradicts our article on stereotype and the reliable sources that make up the article. While we could add the statement by Stanford as just another claim of what a stereotype is, we cannot hold the source as the one and only definition of stereotype, as your edit would have done. 2.103.12.52 (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Then you may propose additional text from a reliable source which disputes the definition provided by Stanford University, and we can present that viewpoint in proportion to its prominence. As has been explained here ad nauseam, we do not remove reliably-sourced mainstream viewpoints - which, based upon the multitude of reliable sources on offer, "gender stereotype" most certainly is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's been explained ad nauseam. Time to leave it alone per WP:STICK. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No, we're not going to go through multiple definitions of stereotype in this article. If we must give a definition (which we don't even need to in this article), we'll use our article Stereotype with the sources in that article as support. You're free to add Stanford's definition somewhere in the body of that article, as long as it is alongside our widely sourced definition. 2.102.185.234 (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's get back on topic now. The discussion here [9] has revealed many problems with our current paragraph. How do you feel about changing it to this: Commonly associated characteristics of women include a caring nature, skill at household-related work, greater manual dexterity than men, more honesty than men, and a more attractive physical appearance. Occupational roles associated with this include: midwife, teacher, accountant, data entry clerk, cashier, salesperson, receptionist, housekeeper, cook, maid, social worker, and nurse. This can create sex segregation in occupations, thus maintaining gender inequality and a gender pay gap. Women who break these gender roles can be met with acts of microaggression. 2.102.185.234 (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be inappropriate canvassing a highly inappropriate manner of getting others' assistance to help you in your efforts here without informing them what you're doing. It has absolutely no impact on the consensus here. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well no it wouldn't. Also, I'm just pointing out that the current paragraph needs to be edited due to the reasons raised there and I'm offering this as a replacement. 2.102.185.234 (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems like most of the people who discussed this here agreed that 'stereotype' was the best term and that the original wording was fine. "Characteristics of women" is the worst suggestion yet. It's blatantly inaccurate and does not agree with the cited sources. IMO, there is no POV problem with 'stereotype', regardless of whether you assume that people give the word a negative connotation. The NPOV policy does not suggest removing all value-laden terms from Wikipedia. It merely requires that the article reflects the views of reliable sources in proportion with their weight. If you have sources which suggest that 'stereotypes' is not accurate in this context, you are welcome to present them. Kaldari (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The original wording isn't fine, as the discussion at the reference desk shows. Though you can fix it up with "stereotype" remaining in the paragraph. Why is it a bad suggestion and how does it not agree with the cited sources? As the definition/connotations of stereotype among readers is different to that of sources used, then it doesn't accurately reflect their view. 2.102.185.234 (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion at the reference desk has absolutely no impact here. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the productive response. 2.102.185.234 (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to merge Ideal womanhood into Femininity#Ideal feminine

The article Ideal womanhood has very little content (basically just 2 lists of examples) and would be better handled within the "Ideal feminine" section of this article. Kaldari (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If there are feminine aspects, by all means they belong here. The rest should be merged into Woman. USchick (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me, Kaldari. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Please remove traits from the lede

Dear all, regarding the list of traits: "Traits traditionally cited as feminine include gentleness, empathy, and sensitivity". I request that this list be removed from the lede, because as of today, Wikipedia's article on masculinity does not list any traits that are considered "masculine". Masculinity is slightly more developed than this one because it is rated B and Start class. The sentence we have can stand on its own: "traits associated with femininity vary depending on location, century, and context, and are influenced by a variety of social and cultural factors". It would also be helpful if the lede stated that feminine traits are culturally created and that they are not the product of gender but I won't push my luck there. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What do the sources say, and which of those sources are most prominent and authoritative on the matter? --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Two of the sources, both given in the bibliography to this article, both say that femininity is created by culture. There is no possible way for me to speak for perhaps hundreds of others who want to cart around prejudice. As recently as 2004 somebody would argue that femininity is a biological state. Best I can do is offer my sources, Bleier and Fine. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not to include the traits in the intro was discussed with SusanLesch recently. Those interested can find the discussion at Talk:Femininity/Archive 4#"Traits that have been cited as feminine include gentleness, empathy, and sensitivity ..." in the lead. There was agreement, seemingly including from SusanLesch, to the leave the traits in the intro. They should be there because of WP:LEAD. They provide, in an efficient way, traits that are traditionally, and are still generally, cited as feminine. The inclusion is an important summary of this topic.

The intro does say that feminine traits are culturally created, but it also says "but made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors" because that is WP:Neutral since there are (which the article discusses) sources that say that feminine behavior is sometimes influenced by biology in addition to social construction. There was a very long discussion about this in 2011, which included a WP:RfC, and consensus was achieved to include/maintain that phrasing. It can be found starting at Talk:Femininity/Archive 2#Definition of femininity. That discussion also shows that this edit[10] by SusanLesch is wrong because whether or not the authors discuss biological and social factors and how they relate to femininity in their introduction, they do discuss them. Consensus was not for the "partially" part in "Femininity is partially socially constructed." An IP added it in July.[11] So I don't care if that word is removed.

To sump up, what SusanLesch is proposing has proven problematic or controversial in the past. And I disagree with her proposals. And using the Masculinity article as an excuse to reintroduce these problems is flimsy reasoning. The Masculinity article should have traditional/general traits in the lead too. It probably did until someone exercised WP:I don't like it and removed them. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's very sad to see Wikipedia be so wrong about this. I came in fairly neutral and read a book that was recommended to me for "science based" reasoning. Delusions of Gender is so convincing that you'd have to match the reception to this author's work in order to change my mind. Which I'm open to.

• This discussion you cite that I "seemingly" agreed with veered so off track I left it in the hands of the main participants.
• I did ask you, specifically, there to tell us what part of WP:LEAD says the article supports this list of traits in the lead. I still don't find any evidence in the article, which is only Start class (I'm repeating myself). You didn't answer that question.
• "Because the article has "sources that say that feminine behavior is sometimes influenced by biology" does not make them correct. I gave my sources in good faith, and I tried to cite them by page number. Right now the lead lists three sources, without page numbers (all three give the total page count in the page number field) to support the idea of "both social and biological" factors.
• It's not "wrong" to require page numbers in citations of books.
• Thank you very much for the pointer to Talk:Femininity/Archive 2#Definition of femininity. There's enough there to keep me busy for the next three thousand years.

Cheers, -SusanLesch (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed the "partially" inserted by the IP in July since that was not part of the consensus version from the RfC. I'm still not a fan of the sentence, however, since I think it is overly confusing. Kaldari (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, there are no reliable sources that say "feminine behavior is sometimes influenced by biology". There are sources that say "female behavior is sometimes influenced by biology", but there is a world of difference between those two sentences. Frankly, I'm quite tired of debating this matter with editors who don't even understand the meaning of the word "feminine" and conflate it with the word "female". Take a gender studies class or read a sociology textbook, then come back and help write the article. Kaldari (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

SusanLesch, in response to "Because the article has 'sources that say that feminine behavior is sometimes influenced by biology' does not make them correct.", similar can be said of the sources you provided. You don't have to like what the sources say, but you and the rest of us should be neutral. WP:Verifiability says, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." We've applied that to this intro and following parts of the body.

Re the intro, you got answers in that discussion about why those traits should be in the lead and how WP:LEAD supports them and I replied initially in this section. I would be reiterating. I don't understand why you don't see the inclusion as supported by WP:LEAD. The article does support that list of traits in the lead. I read your responses and still don't understand your view on that. So we remain at a crossroads on it.

Re the very long discussion I linked to (I like your sense of humor about the length of that discussion), page numbers for sources used in the intro are provided there.

Kaldari, then I believe that you also have a problem with WP:Reliable sources on this topic because there are a lot of them that give or debate the argument that "feminine behavior is sometimes influenced by biology." This is partly shown in the very long discussion I linked to. There are many reliable sources out there using the words "feminine behavior" instead of "female behavior," or even interchangeably, on this topic. However, there are just as many arguments that female behavior, aside from biological things like giving birth, is socially-constructed too. For the femininity topic, there is no need for a personal attack on those who hold views different than yours. At least you toned it down a bit.[12] For example, I could say similarly of those who want to make it seem like femininity is only socially constructed. There is a biological vs. sociological femininity debate among scholars, for reasons partly shown in this article, and we should document that neutrally. Neither side has won in the debate. But hardly any scholar says that femininity is only biologically influenced. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, the consensus phrasing resulted from all of that discussion, not just the small RfC. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the disconnect here is that we are using different definitions of 'femininity'. Modern sociology defines femininity as the traits that society dictates are appropriate for women (regardless of whether those traits are actually related to being biologically female or not). The general public's definition of femininity, however, is more like "common traits of women", since cultural conditioning is by definition invisible to those within a culture. In most cases, the distinction between the two definitions doesn't make any difference, since there aren't any women that exist in a cultural vacuum. The important distinction that the sociological definition clarifies, however, is that femininity is relative, i.e. it changes over time and is different in different parts of the world. Are feminine traits ever derived from biological traits? Yes. Is femininity defined by biological femaleness? No. Society is free to pick and choose whatever characteristics they want to associate with femininity, regardless of biology. So when you say "feminine behavior is influenced by biology", what you really mean is "Some behavioral traits that my particular culture currently defines as feminine are influenced by biology." I certainly don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is the idea that femininity is some sort of biological quality. Female cats do not have feminine traits, not because male and female cats are identical (they aren't), but because femininity is defined for humans by humans. It is a social construction applied on top of biological distinctions. Kaldari (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Kaldari, I don’t know what definition you are using, but dictionary.com has three entries for femininity and they are…

1. the quality of being feminine; womanliness.

2. women collectively.

3. effeminacy.

The 4 entries for feminine that are relevant here are..

1. pertaining to a woman or girl: feminine beauty; feminine dress.

2. having qualities traditionally ascribed to women, as sensitivity or gentleness.

3. effeminate; womanish: a man with a feminine walk.

4. belonging to the female sex; female: feminine staff members.

The simple fact is that scientists say that there is scientific evidence, dealing with the structure of male and female brains, that suggest that the behavior that what we often observe in males and call masculine and the behavior that what we often observe in females and call feminine is not “subjective and only socially-defined”, as you believe, but that it, in part, has a physical and biological origin. Because these scientific views exist they need to be represented in this article.

SusanLesch ,Thank you for drawing my attention to this new talk page activity, I appreciate it.

Regarding your agreement with the book “Delusions of gender” and how “It's very sad to see Wikipedia be so wrong about this.”… That fact is that it is not Wikipedia’s job to be right or wrong about this, it is Wikipedia’s job to report the findings of the scientists. And the simple fact is that many scientists believe that brain structure plays a role in what we call gender. In fact one went so far as to describe the brain as a “sex organ” because of the significant differences she observed. For what is worth, regarding the views found in the book Delusions of Gender, the existence of gender identity disorders contradicts the view that brain structure plays no role in gender. With that being said there is no point in us discussing here which view is right or wrong, our job is to report on what the scientists believe. And again, many of them believe that brain structures and hormones play a role in what we are calling masculinity and femininity.

Halo Jerk1, I agree with you, you can't remove from the lead the list of what is generally meant by the word femininity since the article is about femininity and the lead is suppose to summarize the article. This is because, in part, many people only read the lead.

Also, as I have said before, it is a contradiction to say “femininity is a social construction" and then point out that it is "made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors". Myself and another guy spent several days a while ago trying to convince others of that. Their argument seems to have been that the ‘concept’ of femininity is a social construction. But that to leads to a contradiction because if men and women behave differently because of, in part, structural brain differences then it is not a made up ‘concept” but a word created to represent the observed differences in behaviors between men and women that are, in part, a product of biology.

Also, it can’t be argued that a discussion about the differences between the male and female brains is out of place in this article when it is believed by many scientists that those differences are, in part, responsible for what we call masculinity and femininity. If femininity has a possible biological origin it is completely appropriate to discuss those possible origins. I for one don’t object to discussing the possible cultural origins of femininity. Dave3457 (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Theories of gendered brains

This section is devoted to issues of male vs. female, not masculine vs. feminine. Indeed, the word 'feminine' doesn't even appear in the section, but 'female' appears four times. This material belongs in the article Sex differences in human psychology which is a different subject. I would also like to point out that there is some extremely misleading wording in this section. Currently it says "Later, IQ tests would legitimize these social prejudices." If you look at the cited source, you will see that it is talking about racial prejudices, not gender prejudices. According to the cited source, the opposite is actually true regarding gender: women consistently scored higher than men in early IQ tests (see pages 102 and 103) before they were normalized to eliminate score differences between genders. There are several other sources that verify this as well such as The Measurement of Intelligence and Our Voices: Psychology of Women. I'm going to go ahead and correct the material that is misleading, but I would like to propose that the entire section be removed from the article as it is not relevant to the subject. Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Kaldari, that's fine with me. My intent was not to mislead and not to misquote. I was trying to compress the topic into one paragraph. I will try to restore the article to a state before my edits. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Done to the best of my recollection. If I missed anything please holler. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, this turned out to be deeply embarrassing because I had cut corners on them, which is disrespectful to the author, but then argued to insist on page numbers. So, by pretty much wiping out the article history, I tried to disassociate these sources from my editing. Someone else can benefit from these authors. Also I apologize for trying to shoehorn my own point of view into Wikipedia. Although we may disagree on some things, thank you to Kaldari, Halo Jerk1 and USchick for sticking up for the encyclopedia. Cheers. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries. This is obviously a complex subject with lots of points of view to balance. Thanks for your continuing work on it! Kaldari (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Marie Curie seated in the front row.

Actually Kaldari, I disagree with you fundamentally. Ronz asked me the right question here! There is nothing to balance at all. The New York Times published a ten page article last week called "Why Are There Still So Few Women in Science?" (Solvay Conference of 1927 pictured at right). The author concludes "As so many studies have demonstrated, success in math and the hard sciences, far from being a matter of gender, is almost entirely dependent on culture...."

So please pardon my outrage when this article still seems to me to contain cherry-picked sources stating some "neutral point of view" in the lead which really is not: "Traits traditionally cited as feminine include gentleness, empathy, and sensitivity, though traits associated with femininity vary depending on location and context, and are influenced by a variety of social and cultural factors." -SusanLesch (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Despite Halo Jerk1's bizarre interpretation, there is nothing in the lead that says that femininity is, or might be, biologically defined. It merely states that femininity includes "biologically-created factors", for example, hair length or skin color. If you can come up with a less confusing way to word it, please feel free to propose it. Kaldari (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Aren't Marie Curie's and Albert Einstein's hair about the same length? Seriously, I'm only half done reading Talk:Femininity/Archive_2. Dave3457 (who tried to summarize the debate in Talk:Femininity/Archive_of_common_concerns#Removal_of_.E2.80.9Cbiologically-created.E2.80.9D_from_Social_construction_sentence) 50.16.70.124 and 209.226.31.161 appear to believe one source (Marianne van den Wijngaard, who I have not read and don't plan to). From what little I know, and from Google Scholar, recent sources completely overturn her theses. Sorry, at this point I wouldn't dare propose anything. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There isn't anything bizarre about my interpretation. Nor is it only my interpretation. Repeatedly claiming that femininity is only socially constructed is the bizarre thing here. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be using different definitions of femininity. Please see my reply at the end of Talk:Femininity#Please remove traits from the lede. Kaldari (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed lead

...Deteriorates into pretty much a 2-way conversation. Dave said "I added examples because I think its a no brainer" and said feel free to discuss if you object to any of my extra changes (Talk:Femininity/Archive_2#Extra_section_break). All right. I usually defer to those who came before me, and do so again here. Dave left us his thinking at Talk:Femininity/Archive_of_common_concerns#Removal_of_.E2.80.9Cbiologically-created.E2.80.9D_from_Social_construction_sentence and the IP thought his or her ideas are pretty much "bullet proof".

User:Dave3457 and User:209.226.31.161, because of the time lapsed (over two years), I will post a note to each of your talk pages. I would like the lead of this article to omit a list of traits. It's fine if you want to add detail later in the article. Would you please defend your stance that biological factors are partly responsible for determining femininity?

Proposed lead:-SusanLesch (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"Femininity (also called womanliness or womanhood) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with girls and women. It is distinct from the definition of the biological female sex, as both men and women can exhibit feminine traits. Traits associated with femininity vary depending on location and context, and are influenced by a variety of social and cultural factors. The counterpart to femininity is masculinity."

Nopes. I can't agree to that. Are you going to keep attempting to get the traditional traits, and still commonly cited traits, regarding femininity out of the lead, SusanLesch? Are you going to keep attempting to get the note that femininity is partially biologically-influenced out of the lead? Yeah, I think "biologically-created factors" broaches "partially biologically-influenced." Please try to keep the feminism bias out of this article, unless imparting that view neutrally. Many reliable sources exist saying that femininity (yep, I mean what we call feminine behavior) is sometimes (can be) partly rooted in biology. So the lead should also broach that. Kaldari is tired of people not understanding femininity. So am I. Repeatedly claiming that it's only socially constructed does not make it so. Higher up, in the section titled "Please remove traits from the lede," I told Kaldari that a lot of reliable sources "give or debate the argument that 'feminine behavior is sometimes influenced by biology'" and "There is a biological vs. sociological femininity debate among scholars, for reasons partly shown in this article, and we should document that neutrally. Neither side has won in the debate. But hardly any scholar says that femininity is only biologically influenced." There is nothing to defend, and leaving a note for that IP is a waste of time, but I will shoot Dave3457 an email. I call Darkfrog24 too because that editor understands how biology can influence gender (which, as is obvious, includes the masculinity and femininity components), and participated in the RfC about defining femininity. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You still misunderstand my entire argument. If I used your definition of femininity, I would agree with you 100%. But we are using entirely different definitions of femininity. Kaldari (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

How about "traits considered feminine can vary depending on location and context and these beliefs are influenced by a variety of social and cultural factors"? The "considered" would establish that we're talking about the way human beings think about biological gender and how it's translated into human culture rather than any objective and absolute reality. But the comma before "and" has to go. That's not an independent clause. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Susan, it is entirely possible for us to write about beliefs without endorsing those beliefs. For example, we have an article on Adam and Eve, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia endorses their literal existence. Is there any way that we can explain what femininity is traditionally described as without making you feel like we are suggesting that such a definition is written in stone and defined by biology? I feel like it is important that we convey what traditional femininity means (within society) so that it provides context for the criticism sections. I don't really care if this definition of traditional femininity is given in the lead or elsewhere, but it needs to be somewhere in the article. I'm also fine with putting lots of caveats and disclaimers on such a definition, to explain that it is traditional, subjective, socially-defined, etc., but so far you don't seem to be satisfied with such disclaimers. Is there any way that it could be worded that would be acceptable to you (other than just removing it entirely)? Kaldari (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)