Talk:Gendercide

move

This page should not be moved. Gendercide also includes sex-selective killing of men. There is growing literature on this phenomenon (see Gendercide and Genocide by Adam Jones, who runs the [www.gendercide.org Gendercide Watch] website). This article should eventually discuss mass killings of both females and males. --SecondSight 03:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

the term gendercide is nothing short of silly (the term, not the topic itself of course). First of all, with even minimal awareness of Latin we would come up with the correct genericide. And then it would still mean "the killing of a gender" (as opposed to the intended "the selective killing of members of a particular gender"). This is almost as bad as "oronym". dab (ᛏ) 10:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think that's a big problem -- on occasion I can be very stuffy about Classical accuracy (as you can see over at Talk:Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia), but "Gendercide" doesn't bother me too much. It still makes a lot more etymological sense than "homophobia", and even the ancient Latin form "homicidium" seems slightly irregular (for expected "hominicidium"). AnonMoos 03:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Opposed, males are killed as well and believe it or not it is just as tragic. Life is sacred, whether it's male or female. This article is already slanted but this would be two steps back. 76.185.10.76 11:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

the question isn't whether killing males is tragic, but whether this should be within the scope of this article. fair enough, so gendercide is a neologism. We cannot just treat it as if it was a regular word, but have to state who coined it and who uses it. dab (ᛏ) 15:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I note that the correct genericide is in use, but refers to the "killing" of trademarks. dab (𒁳) 15:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

References

The references section is larger than the article itself! I doubt that these many references are actual citations for the article. It would appear to be a dumping ground for listing feminist literature. —Malber (talk • contribs) 04:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... Unless someone is willing to go through and figure out which ones actually belong, the entire section will have to be deleted. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 08:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur and have removed them. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sex selection

Don't merge it with "sex selection", which seems to refer exclusively to what happens before birth. The two topics are interrelated, but somewhat distinct... AnonMoos 03:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sex selection. I was thinking you meant sexual selection which is also another topic altogether. 76.111.80.228 (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality?

So, I see a NPOV tag on the main article, and came here to find the discussion... so what's the issue? How is this article not neutral as it stands?--Adzze 23:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No idea. Its been there since at least last October, so I'm removing it since whoever placed it didn't feel the need to come to the talk page and explain.--Crossmr 23:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Page for feminicide?

Should seperate (a) page(s) be established for feminicide and the male counterpart, or redirects put into place? Feminicide at least needs to come up when entered in wiki.. Came here first to gather consensus. --Iliaskarim 17:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No I don't think so. We should instead look to add referenced material for Viricide (murder of males) and Femicide (murder of women), the example of the bosniak men being singled out for murder is a good one. I'll try and source that. That is exactly the kind of act one would use as an example of viricide because the perpetrators are singling the men and boys out to prevent them from someday taking up arms against them. There are many examples of this throughout history. Femicide is easier to find examnples of us becuase it's more common, but Viricide is just as real.LiPollis 16:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would actually expect viricide to be more common. The "traditional" method of warfare is to kill the men and abduct the women, not the other way round. It's just that this isn't usually described as "viricide" but rather simply as "warfare". Unless, of course, you take feminicide to mean the killing of women by men, and viricide the killing of men by women, in which case I'll grant you the former is more common. In fact, I see no reason not to {{split}} this into feminicide and viricide since these are clearly two entirely different types of -cides that occur in entirely different contexts, united only by an awkward neologism. dab (𒁳) 15:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Serial Killers

Should they be mentioned or is it just larger scale events that come under this term? Would Jack the Ripper, Harold Shipman or John Bodkin Adams be relevant here? All focused on women mainly.Malick78 12:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

While some serial killers are gender-selective in their victims, Gendercide is about systematic murder (like genocide or "ethnic cleansing") - so yes it really "larger scale events" that are gendercide--Cailil ^talk 13:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Homicide, for example, is homicide, whether it's intentional or not. (Likewise I disagree with the notion that Regicide or Tyrannicide should not include such persons killed in battle. But, that's maybe apples and oranges here.) There's no point in trying to exclusively define a word that standing alone is not any more specific. If a killing is a (insert victim type here)-icide, any killing of that victim qualifies (whether intentional or even especially selective). Especially if the victims of multiple homicides by one party are only of one particular demographic then those homicides can be characterized by their shared victim qualification.

That is, serial murderers, just the same as human rights abusers, are killing their victims according to pre-selected characteristics. Often-times by gender. This goes to motive and modus operandi, and so it is worthwhile to describe these killings by such. That the scale of the crime as well as the motivation differs from the mass murder perpetrated by nations is not really relevant. 76.111.80.228 (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Miletus

The section on Viricide makes no mention whatsoever of the massacre of Milesian men by Ionian men, and the subsequent domination of the Milesian women. Being a borderline antisocial male I've always found this chapter in history to be unhealthily interesting. Moreover it is the earliest recorded example,that I know of, of Viricide. And tradition has it, the massacre was so severe, the modern Milesian women, to this day, have not forgiven their menfolk, for their male ancestors' atrocity. I think it might be worth a mention for that. 76.111.80.228 (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds very interesting. If you have a reliable source for your information, please feel free to go ahead and add it to the article. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing is I actually mis-remembered the story. Since I read it in The Cartoon History of the Universe I remembered it as being not just the Milesian women not eating with their men, or addressing them by name; but as their actually maintaining a tradition of the women and men speaking different languages. That's really far-fetched thinking on it now (especially if it was up to the present day, or even for very long after for that matter). Yet that really interested me, not because I dream of a world where I don't have to communicate with women; but the whole thing seemed to have a Gulliver's Travels imaginary society vibe to it. Of course as it turns out, that's the reason why. It was an accidental fiction. 76.111.80.228 (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim about word's usage by radical feminists

The first paragraph contains an extraordinary claim that radical feminism, as distinguished from mainstream feminism, allows using the term 'gendercide' with reference to male victims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, but citations given to support this claim are extraordinary non-proofs. Daphne Patai not only isn't a radical feminist, but even her right to call herself a feminist is questioned by mainstream feminists, precisely because of the cited book. Mary Daly is a radical feminist, but the cited interview doesn't even have the word 'gendercide' in it, and thus it can't support any claims about the word's usage. I delete the claim about usage by radical feminists. Rulatir (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing information with dead links

Goingoveredge, please don't remove information under pretext of removing dead links like you did here. The dead links were in fact present in "External Links" which I have removed now. Please see WP:DEADLINK for wikipedia policy on this issue. Specifically, - "You can try to find the current location of the resource using a Google search. Dead links of online newspaper articles can be converted to references to off-line sources. Do not simply remove dead links; they often contain valuable information."--RoadAhead ^Discuss 19:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Viricide of Soviet Prisoners Held by the Nazis

I don't agree with the idea that this was an example of viricide. There was not an especial shortage of Soviet women along with the men taken prisoner by the Nazis; and I'm not aware of any statistics that indicate women slave laborers had any better or worse odds of survival than their male counterparts. There may have been Nazi party leaders who made sure to preserve the lives of female slave laborers, because they wanted to keep them around. But there were, I believe, other Nazi party leaders (of either the opposite sex or another sexual preference say) who preserved the lives of male slave laborers for similar reasons. Regardless the Reich's apparatus of extermination considered its mandate to include the annihilation of all the caucasian peoples (the peoples from or from around the Caucacus mountains), along with all the rest of the world's supposed sub-humans, not excluding by gender or anything else.

A better case for viricide could be made for the Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Turks. This genocide was made to annihilate all the Armenians in the Ottoman empire. Yet Armenians were diverted from the forced death marches and other atrocities to be taken as personal trophies of Turks. These slaves were almost exclusively young women or girls. Those boys that were so spared were I believe often made into eunuchs. Which one could make an arguments is a kind of viricide. 76.111.80.228 (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. The majority of Soviet victims of the Nazis may have been men, but that was due to the sample of prisoners of war taken. The actual percentage odds of survival for women were little different than their male counterparts. Meaning there was no conscious effort to kill men and spare women on the Nazis' part. The demographics of who died more was instead incidental of who was being taken prisoner more. I believe these statistics bear out with civilian and partisan casualties of Nazi atrocities, as well as with later in the war when more Soviet women participated as combatants in the war (although at that point Soviet soldiers were far more reluctant to be taken prisoner). 76.111.80.228 (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If there's no source, or a source given does not support the claim made, or is not from a reliable source, feel free to remove the information from the article. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 18:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

From the linked page Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs, "'Women in uniform are to be shot.' -- Field Marshal Günther von Kluge". 76.111.80.228 (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)