Talk:Femininity

Self abasement

For all those in favor of self abasement being a feminine characteristic, you may be interested in this [1] [2] [3] USchick (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

re neck ring removal

I removed this sentence from the "Body alteration" section:

The rings stretch the vertebrae and if the neck rings are removed, the neck muscles can no longer support the weight of the head and collapse."

for a couple of reasons:

1. It's uncited and disputed. See here.
2. Disputed or not, it's a level of detail beyond what's appropriate for this article, which covers a very broad concept. It's more appropriate being described in the Neck ring article, or at most in the Body alteration article. Herostratus (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

In Politics section

I've removed the "In Politics" section from the article, and placed it here on the talkpage. I'm doing that because I think it's pretty bad, but I don't have time at the moment to fix it myself. If anyone wants to take a crack at rewriting it, I've put it here so you can do that.

Why is it bad?

• The citations for the first sentence don't support its assertion that "female leaders of nations embody feminine expectations of national identity in their society." The first citation just says that female leaders in the United States "may not deviate from the cultural stereotype of feminine." The second talks about post-war beauty contests in Italy and the third about politics and gender in Thailand -- neither says anything about female politicians/leaders.
• The second sentence claims that female leaders of nations "use their femininity to appeal to ordinary people and gain strategic advantage over their male opponents." Again, the citations don't support this text. The first citation is to a study that says that when female candidates for office in the United States choose to capitalize on gender stereotypes by focusing on issues favourably associated with female candidates and/or by targeting female voters, they improve their odds of winning. This is not the same as "using their femininity." The second citation is to a journalistic profile of Yingluck Shinawatra, which claims that in her bid to become Thailand's first female prime minister, she "asked for the chance to prove herself, saying that she planned to use her attributes as a woman." These two citations are clearly insufficient to support any contention about "female leaders of nations."
• The third sentence is a list of female politicians who the articles states are "famous examples in political leadership and the ideal in femininity," but this is just an unsupported assertion: no evidence is given to support the idea that these women are somehow linked to an "ideal in femininity."

In politics

In international politics, female leaders of nations embody feminine expectations of national identity in their society. They use their femininity to appeal to ordinary people and gain strategic advantage over their male opponents. Some famous examples in political leadership and the ideal in femininity are represented by Hillary Rodham Clinton, USA; Yulia Tymoshenko, Ukraine; Isabel Martínez de Perón, Argentina; Michelle Bachelet, Chile; Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberia Yingluck Shinawatra, Thailand; Laura Chinchilla, Costa Rica; and Ekaterina Furtseva, Soviet Union.

Thanks, Sue Gardner (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for clarity, this (and a few other articles) were the subject of a blog post on a criticism site yesterday, so more eyes on the article would be better than fewer eyes. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 15:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Problem with the lede paragraph

Currently, the lede to this article says this: "Femininity (also called womanliness or womanhood) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with girls and women. Femininity is made up of both socially defined and biologically created factors.[1][2][3][4] This makes it distinct from the simple definition of the biological female sex,[5][6] as women, men, and transgender people can all exhibit feminine traits."

The middle sentence is inaccurate. What is biologically defined is "femaleness." What is not biologically defined is culturally/socially defined, and *that*, by definition, is "femininity." That doesn't mean there's no overlap -- obviously characteristics can be both female and feminine. But the overlap doesn't mean that the words mean the same thing.

So:

• Having breasts: female and feminine
• Having a penis: non-female and non-feminine
• Wearing nail polish: non-female and feminine

I propose therefore to rewrite the lede as follows: "Femininity is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with girls and women. Femininity is not the same as the biological state of being female: rather, femininity is culturally and socially defined,[1][2][3][4] and women, men, and transgender people can all exhibit traits that are understood to be feminine."

(Please note the OED dictionary definition which supports this rewrite here. Also, I have read this old discussion about the lede, as well as this one and this one.)

Thanks, Sue Gardner (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There was an RFC about this a couple years ago. The sentence that we ended up with was "Femininity is socially constructed, but made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors." About a year ago, an anonymous IP removed the first part of the sentence and apparently no one ever noticed the change. I would support your proposed replacement, however, as it is less confusing and redundant than the awkward sentence that was designed by committee. Kaldari (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sue Gardner, the old discussions show that the middle sentence is not inaccurate. Strong points were made that reliable sources note that feminine behavior may be or is biologically-influenced in some cases. It's what the four sources supporting the line are discussing, and is also what the "Behavior and personality" section in the article discusses.[4] It's why WP:CONSENSUS was achieved for the current wording that you object to. Your argument that femininity does not include biologically-created factors is basically the same argument that others have made, but is also an argument that some reliable sources disagree with. I cannot support wording that makes it appear that femininity is only socially constructed. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the complete WP:CONSENSUS version has been restored by Kaldari.[5] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. So what's the best way to stage this conversation? Do we need to do another RfC, or can we just have the discussion here with whoever's around and interested? Thanks, Sue Gardner (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Going by the edit summary, which includes "Discussion of a completely new wording is underway on talk page. Please join in.", I'd say here is fine. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@Halo Jerk1: some specific female behaviors may be biologically influenced, and thus those feminine behaviors which also happen to be female behaviors may be biologically influenced in women. But 'feminine behavior' in general is not biologically influenced, as it is not limited to females. The fact that this isn't clear from the current wording makes me more inclined to support Sue's wording. A good analogy is the idea of beauty. Beauty includes physical traits which are 'biologically created', but it would be incorrect to say that beauty is 'biologically influenced', as beauty is subjectively defined by society. Kaldari (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I consider distinguishing between "biologically influenced" and "biologically created" to be semantics. And the lead, at this time, doesn't use the words "biologically influenced." I can't support Ms. Gardner's wording because it disregards the biological factors and is not WP:LEAD-satisfactory since it doesn't (I pointed to the section we have that discusses the nature vs. nurture aspect of femininity), and because it contradicts the sources used in the lead. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I’m with Halo on this one.

Sue, the middle sentence is accurate and deals nicely with the opposing views on this matter. The lead goes out of its way to point out that femaleness and femininity are not the same thing. Your suggested lead states that “femininity is culturally and socially defined”. That is not entirely true, neuroscience is clearly showing that what we call masculine behavior and feminine behavior is not just the result of the way boys and girls are being raised but has, in part, its origin in brain structure and hormones. One should be careful to distinguish between the cultural “symbols” of femininity, such as nail polish, and feminine behavior which has strong biological origins. Dave3457 (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@Halo & Dave: Yes, everything about how we behave is influenced by brain structure and hormones. And yes, biology influences some of the behaviors and physical traits that we currently include in the common Western definition of 'feminine'. No one is denying those facts. The confusion lies in whether or not the definition of femininity is somehow directly tied to biological femaleness. The sources I've looked at say it isn't (See Sociology: A Global Perspective for example). The definition of femininity is fluid and changes based on the whims of society. In theory, a culture could define femininity in such a way that it didn't include a single trait that was biological in origin. This isn't really that hard to imagine. And if femininity doesn't necessarily include any traits that are biological, it cannot be said that 'biology influences femininity'. The distinction isn't merely semantic; it is essential to understanding the relationship between femininity and femaleness. If there is no society, 'femininity' has no meaning, as it must be given meaning by society. Femaleness, however, exists even without humans. In other words, the 'biology of femininity' is incidental, not inherent. In my view, our current wording doesn't really make this clear. Kaldari (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@Dave: Characterizing nail polish as a 'symbol of femininity' shows a misunderstanding of the relationship between femininity and femaleness. Wearing nail polish is feminine (by typical Western standards), not a symbol of femininity. Kaldari (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

"feminity" vs. "femininity"

Until I came across this page, I thought that the occasional occurrences of "femininity" I saw on the Interwebs were playful/sarcastic/memetic deliberate misspellings of "feminity", but this entry and the redirect from Feminity indicate that this isn't the case. However, the number of instances of "feminity" in Talk:Femininity and its archives would indicate that the confusion isn't uncommon. Should there be a discussion of the use of both words (or perhaps a mention in the lede, since that also mentions womanliness and womanhood as alternate names)? Or is there a better place for that? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of feminine disambiguation at top of page

I don't believe it is appropriate to provide a link to the Grammatical gender page at the top of the femininity page. I can see providing a link to the Grammatical gender page to the gender page but this link is not appropriate.

I switched it to ...

"Feminine" redirects here. For other uses, see Feminine (disambiguation).

like on the Masculinity page. -- Dave3457 (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)