Talk:Femininity

re placement of Geert Hofstede's book

I'm not sure I'm keen on Geert Hofstede's book coming up almost at the top of the Behavior and personality section, which is an important section which follows the lede.

Since we're just giving an overview of the subject for the general reader, I think the stuff starting with "Femininity is sometimes linked..."; "something something dichotomy has had a considerable influence..." is good too (assuming it's true) and "An ongoing debate [regarding nature vs. nurture]" gives a good perspective, assuming that Hotstede has not somehow conclusively proven that it's nurture, which I sort of doubt. (It would be unusual for adaptive behaviors to not influence genetics, given enough time, I would suppose.)

Not an expert, don't feel strongly about it, and it's not terribly important I guess, but I moved Hofstede down quite a bit. (I also moved Serano down with him, keeping her just below Hofstede as before. Don't know Serano but I get a polemical vibe here (her article describes her as an "activist" for instance), although I could be dead wrong about that. I'm sure she's worthwhile, but not up so high.) They could go up a few paras too I suppose (or be restored to the top if someone can indicate that Hofstede really is is more or less the last word on the matter). Herostratus (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I support you on this. I think these are interesting and useful edits, but I don't think either should come before Ann Oakley for example. I also think that if editors are going to introduce relatively little known sources such as the Hofstede book, then we should have page quotes as in the Serano (and in which case a different citation model really ought to be used, since presently we have three citations for the same book differing only in page numbers: I'll try and take care of that some time if someone else doesn't oblige first). Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Added: Regarding page numbering, I've used the reference page {{rp}} template described in Help:References and page numbers to rationalise the hitherto five duplicate Serano references and added a comment at the beginnign of mark-up to encourage editors to follow suit. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ERH. This is great work! Herostratus (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Added: incidentally I see from your User page that you translate articles from the Russian Wikipedia. The Russian article on Femininity is rather good I think and eventually I propose to incorporate some material from it here if I don't see it from elsewhere first. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll maybe take a look at that anon. Herostratus (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

"Ideal feminine"

What exactly is meant by "ideal feminine" (the heading for a subsection in the article)? It's not a collocation of itself that I recognise.

The Google search engine allows you to search for occurences of an exact string of words by putting them in quotation marks. Searching thus on "ideal feminine" gives you as a first hit this Wikipedia article on femininity, while subsequent hits as far as I can see offer it exclusively as as adjectival phrase rather than as a noun phrase - this "ideal feminine beauty", "ideal feminine figure", and so on.

Looking through the Revision History I find these from User:USchick who first created the section (Barbie dolls ...) here and then 'defined' her neologism here.

Shouldn't we be renaming this section somewhat more conventionally?

While I'm here, am I alone in being distinctly underwhelmed by Sue Gardner's (the 70th most powerful woman on planet Earth - no really :)) effort on the "ideal feminine" in Communism? A strong brianish carefully skirting whistling to oneself restraining desire to a lift back leg dog walk sort of mental image takes hold of me as I work through this piss poor collection of quotations from various sources. This would be Sue chasing the femininist vote in a safe redneck sort of way I take it (she didn't exactly cover herself in glory at New York v Strauss-Kahn valorising an investigative report by Edward Jay Epstein that was was immediately shot down in flames but was nevertheless the subject of a far from NPOV section for a very long time before I restored balance to it). I'm prepared to have a go at editing her good faith yeah right efforts, but would I, you know, get sent to Siberia for it? Exiled for life? Trolled into a lonely suicide on a Mediterranean island perhaps (just an idle thought)?

Reassurances sought. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not a blog for personal musings. Is there a question here? Since there is no consensus on what Femininity is, or how it is defined, it's reasonable to explain what is considered as the "ideal" feminine in case someone is interested in striving to achieve it. USchick (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There was a question here right at the start and that was what is meant by "ideal feminine", which is not good English. Actually we exchanged some views in the next section, but in reply here I would say in that case you should be calling the section "Ideal femininity" and I don't think it would last very long :). I noted below that English isn't your first language (Russian is?) and that the collocation "ideal feminine" appears to stem from the work of the Russian mystical philosopher Vladimir Solovyov, but he uses it in a quite different way from what indeed is your interpretation as "ideal femininity". It's frankly not a pressing concern of mine since I don't expect to edit here any more. I'm right in saying you aren't bilingual? I'm surprised you won't accept the advice of a native speaker that "ideal feminine" simply isn't right. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"Traits that have been cited as feminine include gentleness, empathy, and sensitivity ..." in the lead

Originally this was "Behavioral traits generally considered feminine include gentleness, empathy, and sensitivity ...".

"Behavioural" is clearly wrong ("personality" is the appropiate quailifier if one were needed). The statement is supported by two citations, one an obscure 1980s academic citation (well. times have moved on ...) and the other is a tertiary source. In the circumstances I changed to "Traits that have been cited as feminine include gentleness, empathy, and sensitivity ... " and asked for a quotation. If an obscure source is cited that is an appropiate request.

IP Florida making a revert says that this is bogus and she can provide the quotations - so provide them please.

Thank you. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Florida IP immediately reverted. Well, one tries one's best ... Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

And your point of steadily calling out my IP location is? That type of thing makes me not want to log in (I accidentally edited this article while logged out and kept with it after that because my IP address had been exposed). I should get my IP address (which will change later regardless) wiped from the history first before replying here while logged in, which can be legitimately done upon request. I'm also a guy, so I don't know why you assume I'm a she unless that's your feminist side showing. Usually, people assume that an anonymous person is a guy unless it's evident that the person isn't. And assuming that someone is a guy on Wikipedia is usually correct. I can see from your edit history that you have a lot more experience editing Wikipedia than is expected of someone with an account that has not been registered with Wikipedia for very long, but I'm sure you don't want me calling you "not-so-new editor."

This is what I said.[1][2][3] I didn't say I can provide the quotations. If the sources use the word "generally" and that is taken into account with all the many sources saying that those (or some of those) traits are generally considered feminine or are generally associated with femininity, I don't believe you should remove "generally." WP:Verifiability doesn't care if you disagree with "generally." You are also contesting a very non-contentious statement. Though what is considered feminine varies, it is well known that these traits are generally associated with femininity. And an abundance of sources support it. Using the "need quotation to verify" tag is strange to me because a lot of sources used for Wikipedia are offline sources: WP:SOURCEACCESS. 72.216.11.67 (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It also doesn't make sense to revert me on the words "Traits cited." Using "Traits that have been cited" is unnecessary verbiage. 72.216.11.67 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In the first place what led to this was that an editor SusanLesch removed the list of traits from the lead. I had been editing here, but had refrained from editing the lead where it is claimed by Sue Gardner that a consensus had been reached, but Susan Lesch's edit seemed to me a sensible edit given an (expanded) version of these traits was also present in the main body and I thanked Susan for it. However her edit was subsequently reverted by another user Halo Jerk1 who reinstated the list.

Now I would suggest it's contentious today to maintain today that traits such as gentleness, empathy and sensitivity are "generally" associated with femininity. I would be happy with "traditionally", but "generally" strikes me as something that needs citing nowadays. But when I looked at the citations they were as I decribe them above, one ancient and obscure, the other a tertiary source (I mean an encylopedia genus Elsevier). I set to finding a more accessible source, and the point is I simply couldn't. So I think it's perfectly fair to ask for a quotation as verification.

Note that I didn't revert an edit here. I simply tried to resolve a conflict, replacing "cited" by "have been cited", deleting "behavioural" (which is just plain wrong), and asking for a quotation. If as you claim you can provide these quotations, why don't you simply provide them? What's the big deal with that?

Why so aggressive in your edit responses? The claim that I'm "biased"? That I'm "apparently new" (yeah right, there's a rite of passage for editing leads in Wikipedia? I was watching Avatar last night: is there something where I have to hitch my pony tail - you've all got pony tails in Wikipedia right - to a USB port and, you know, merge with Mother Goddess Sue Gardner, earn myself a leonopteryx from Jimbo, even get mysekf a bit of tail up against a wall the way I like it if I handle it right 'cos we're all good mates here ...)?

Well be of good cheer Florida IP, because I don't have the time for this. I came here via New York v. Strauss-Kahn where I was tidying up and I'm on my way to Postmodern feminism. Meet me there for some real sport, boyo.

Why not get yourself an account (if you can) in the meantime? Stick it in a port, make my day ... Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys. Can Halo Jerk1 please point to the precise part of MOS:INTRO that you are citing for putting a list of traits in the lead? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not-so-new editor Elissa Rubria Honoria, you say "it's contentious today to maintain today that traits such as gentleness, empathy and sensitivity are 'generally' associated with femininity"? Well, frankly, that's ridiculous. But I know it's just your feminist bias showing. Let's not pretend that there is not a general distinction (even if we say "general Western distinction") between masculinity and femininity; let's not pretend that gentleness, empathy and sensitivity are equally or are also generally associated with masculinity.[4][5][6][7] You said that when you "set to finding a more accessible source," the point is you simply couldn't. And despite that, I somehow found many sources on Google Books showing or specifically noting that gentleness, empathy and sensitivity are generally associated with femininity.[8] Not just "traditionally" associated. Also, per WP:TERTIARY, tertiary sources are fine to use. Let's not pretend that many things on Wikipedia aren't sourced to encyclopedias without any problem. I trust an encyclopedia source (non-Wikipedia one) more than I trust a source that has one author spouting their opinions. Encyclopedia sources summarize the primary and secondary sources, the majority assigning gentleness, empathy and sensitivity to girls/women/femininity a lot more than they do to boys/men/masculinity or to those who declare they are a mix of genders/in between genders (genderqueer). Nothing wrong with using Encyclopedia of Women and Gender: Sex Similarities and Differences ..., Volume 1 as a source.[9] It's not a typical encyclopedia source (such as Encyclopædia Britannica) anyhow. Elsevier is also just the publisher, so your use of genus there doesn't seem correct to me. But now I've directed you to many sources, "ancient" and new, saying the same thing about what are general feminine traits. So let's pick a few of those sources.

Regarding the rest, such as my comments about your status as a new editor, you need to pay more attention to what people say. I didn't say you are "apparently new." I said you are "apparently not new." I know you aren't. New editors don't make edits like this[10] right from the beginning (your third edit ever as Elissa Rubria Honoria) unless they have been editing for a good bit of time as an IP address or previously as a registered account. It's rare that even a student that has been assigned to edit an article edits with as good Wikipedia formatting (such as MOS:REFPUNC) as you were using in your first few days as Elissa Rubria Honoria. You again said that I claimed I can provide quotations, even though I said I never claimed that I could/would provide quotes for those two sources you object to. You asked "Why not get yourself an account (if you can)," even though I said I have a registered account. Yikes, woman. Read better. And you are biased. I can tell that you a feminist. SusanLesch too. Most feminists are biased concerning gender topics, especially aspects categorized as male vs. aspects categorized as female (unless it's just secondary sex characteristics). You two don't want the general femininity characteristics in the lead because you think they are all socially constructed and they shouldn't, or mostly shouldn't, be characterized as what defines a girl or a woman. Well, see WP:GREATWRONGS. But I guess we should focus on the content and not the editor, right? I will if you will. You can start by not calling me Florida IP. Just "IP" will do. You called on your buddy by linking her name. Maybe I should call on those with similar views to mine? Dave3457 and USchick, this IP is calling you for your opinion here. Or does calling them while an exposed IP address not work?

SusanLesch, WP:MOSINTRO says, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I don't know how you don't consider a summary of the characteristics generally (or most often) associated with femininity as something that shouldn't be there, but it should be. 72.216.11.67 (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

72.216.11.67, would you please fulfill Wikipedia policy at WP:PROVEIT? It says there the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". We need a quote, preferably an online source that anybody can use. Also, I repeat my question for Halo Jerk1, please cite the precise part of MOS:INTRO that applies. I'm asking because the article does not ever explain how or why these traits are feminine, which I think it ought to do in exact detail. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Florida IP, you're really psyched about this! Relax, you can have it. Honest. Take a walk on that beach of yours. Cool down.

For the record Susan Lesch is not a buddy of mine. I do think her edit was very sensible. I think you should get an account before indulging in this kind of edit warring. We're not really talking guest edits here.

Sorry about not reading you with the full attention you plainly imagine your merit. Oops. But I am a new editor, though (rather like Sue Gardner) part of a community that does indeed regularly edit Wikipedia. I've been working with computers all my life, so it's scarecely surprising I don't have any difficulty editing Wikipedia. It's not rocket-science. I really can't imagine why all that effort went into designing a Visual Editor. That's not why Wikipedia isn't keeping its editors. And indeed where we do have misgivings about editing Wikipedia is having our efforts reverted all the time or constantly having to deal with the kind of unpleasantness you are indulging here.

Understand I'm not going to notice you any more. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Unregistered users should be treated with the same respect as everyone else. As far as the edits go, I'm fine with either suggestion, but I support not listing specific traits. This is a minor issue IMHO. USchick (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Florida IP has an account it seems. For whatever reason she's not using it. I'm not aware that I dissed her. I rather thought she had me. Bias, newbie/not newbie (whatever) and so on.

I disagree it's a minor issue, but such is my respect for Florida (where most of the Wikipedia servers are) and above all for Sue Gardner of the Wikimedia foundation who got that lead paragraph together for all of us, that I'm unwilling to take it on as a mere newbie.

On another issue, as I noted above, you were responsible for coining the neoligism "Ideal feminine". Actually I see from your user page that English isn't your first language. Don't you think that section heading needs channging? I suggest "Ideals and stereotypes". Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Stereotypes are already discussed throughout the article. Again, the reason to have a section for the "Ideal feminine" is that no one can agree on a definition or meaning. Currently, the heading accurately describes the information listed in that section. And many WK editors are fluent in several languages, that only improves the experience, don't you think? USchick (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not English. You might as well head it "идеальную женскую". I'm afraid most readers (and we are talking readers and not editors) of the English Wikipedia will be determinedly monoglot, especially Florida ones :). But I defer. It's not that I don't think it's important, I do, but I look to others to agree and to effect the changes needed. I'm surprised you don't recognise it's an issue.

I'll just make a concluding remark here because I don't want to edit this article any further and in any case I shouldn't have the time at the moment. When I came to this page (and I confess it was only out of curiosity because I saw that Sue Gardner had been editing a lot here) I was rather struck by a tendency to present relatively minor academic work as paradigms of the whole academic community. This was true, foe example, about the remarks to the effect that femininity was a construct arising out of the Black Death. Sue's edit about Hofstede had much the same effect. I'm sure that's something editors ought to be guarding against. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"идеал женственности" is the accurate translation for the ideal feminine, and both are proper use of language. I'm sure femininity has been around much longer than the academic assessment of it. Cheers! USchick (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

@USchick: Well, I grant my command of Russian grammar might not be as adequate as your is of English ... But you really ought to know that "ideal feminine" as a section heading sucks. It's not a proper use of the English language and that's all there is to it, and your sentence following, "What is considered as the ideal feminine is defined by each individual culture based on what that culture considers valuable, and is often the subject of heated debate", doesn't really make much sense in the light of that. This collocation "ideal feminine" appears to arise originaly in the work of the mystical Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov. As one whose first language is Russian, perhaps you could add some remarks to that effect. As for femininity preceding its academic assessment that is surely right, but perhaps not a very significant remark in an encyclopaedia assessing it? The fact is the first 40 or so citations in this article are all academic before we reach a popular one. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

SusanLesch, your WP:PROVEIT argument is without sense to me. The info is already sourced. Just because not-so-new editor Elissa Rubria Honoria questions what the sources say, or just because you do, doesn't mean that info isn't already verified. Besides, higher up, I've directed you to many sources that support gentleness, empathy and sensitivity as general feminine traits. I will use three or more of those sources to support that content in the lead, since no one else in this discussion is discussing the sources I pointed to. And re MOS:INTRO, what I pointed to about that is the precise part of MOS:INTRO that applies. What is generally considered feminine is a big part of this article and should subsequently be in the intro.

Not-so-new editor Elissa Rubria Honoria, you have continued to disrespect me by calling me "Florida IP" and "she" (the former is against my wishes, and not calling me by the latter after I've disclosed my sex as male is common sense in addition to being against my wishes). And somehow I'm the one, or only one, who is indulging in unpleasantness here? That's rich. You also act like I haven't said why I'm not using my registered account. And saying things like "Wow, Florida IP, you're really psyched about this!" is just more of your passive-aggressive behavior. No, you aren't new to editing Wikipedia, but anyhoo. If you are "not going to notice" me anymore, good.

USchick, thanks for providing your opinion on this topic and for saying "Unregistered users should be treated with the same respect as everyone else." Though I'm not unregistered, that was great of you to say. 72.216.11.67 (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on not so unregistered Florida IP, we do all know ... 207.207.24.211 (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the idea, "What is generally considered feminine is a big part of this article and should subsequently be in the intro." except for the fact that this article does not ever explain why these traits are considered feminine. Which is why, I guess, this is only a Start class article. More to the point, 207.207.24.211 solved the immediate problem with a quote that anybody with a computer can read. Well done. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Not-so-mysterious IP (with an IP range that starts with 20 and subsequently reminds of an editor I'm familiar with), then you do all know wrong.

SusanLesch, I was going to change that IP's edit[11] by trading traditionally for generally, with this message: "You don't get to insult me on the the talk page and then inject your preferred wording of 'traditional' just to 'beat me to the point' and have your edit stand as the final word. I said I'd add 'generally' with reliable sources and that's what I'm doing now." I changed my mind because someone told me that Wikipedia shouldn't be about winning, and is often a process filled with compromising. I have often experienced it as both, but compromising is fine if it satisfies or generally satisfies all significant sides. So I didn't add generally out of spite. It appears that traditionally satisfies all sides here, even though the traits we've discussed are still generally cited as feminine and using generally would be a tad more accurate. I appreciate you being civil to me. As for the article not explaining why such traits are generally considered feminine, the Behavior and personality section broaches that. 72.216.11.67 (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Susan. It might be an area to broach for editors wanting to contribute here, and there are other lacunae, notably femininity in other cultures such as Islam that need filling. I see that IP Florida is identifying me with 207.207.24.211 (erm... I didn't get that about IP addresses beginning 20 - these are the Wikipedia servers perhaps? I see it's another Florida IP). I don't know what her concerns really can be, but I do know it's virtually impossible to edit Wikipedia on your IP by accident, so effectively she was challenging me from the outset. I really object to the implication I have been rude to this editor. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying really hard not to curse you out. I'm not identifying you with that IP (though, who knows, you could be). I'm identifying that IP with a certain stalker and troll who I'm very familiar with. And it's not virtually impossible to accidentally edit Wikipedia while logged out. It is a common occurrence, especially when one of the servers logs a person out or when the marked days for being logged in runs out. I was not out to get you from the start. I have not been out to get you at all. And repeatedly referring to someone by words they have requested not to be referred to by, especially the wrong gender identity, is rude! It is no different than if you were referring to SusanLesch as "he." You are being a WP:DICK, and maybe need to jump into the Chelsea Manning debates to understand what it means to respect someone's gender identity. Not that I don't think you already know what that means. I am biologically male and my gender identity is male. You basically said you would ignore me, so do so. I have no interest in communicating with someone who won't even show me the basic respect of referring to me by the correct gender pronoun. Repeatedly referring to me as "she" or any other female pronoun is a WP:CIVIL violation. 72.216.11.67 (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No. You're identifying Florida IP II 207.207.24.211 with a user whose preferred wording is "traditional", and that's me. I don't care about your experience with a certain stalker, troll or whatever. My guess is that Florida IP II is the same person as Florida IP I (i.e you), not that I really care about that either. I notice she's using one of the citations you found in your Google search. If you look at my sandboxes you will see one of my projects here, commenced before this debate is write up P v S and Cornwall County Council (I am a lawyer by training), a landmark ECJ judgment on the rights of transexuals I was slightly involved in and where I will be using a template provided by a colleague (right I don't know the sophisticated Wikipedia markup for that kind of citation model, though I should imagine it can scarcely be the work of more than a few minutes to familiarise myself with it). I really don't think I need any lectures from you on respecting an individual's gender identity. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Now you're accusing me of using a different IP to insult myself just so I could use traditionally, a term I do not prefer in this case? A term that only you have expressed preferring above? And you also base that on the fact that he or she (notice "or") used one of the many sources I presented above for anyone here to use? And you took that opportunity to indirectly call me a "she"? How asinine! Furthermore, if the IP is the person I suspect he is, other than being you ("he" because I know that person to be a he), then it's an editor who jumps around using WP:Proxies. I don't care about any transsexual work you've been doing, as if that gives you the excuse to disrespect my biological sex/gender identity the way you have been doing. The fact that you may not need a lesson from me on respecting someone's gender identity just shows all the more how unbelievably wrong you are intentionally being toward me. It's like being racist and then saying, "Oh, but I'm friends with that race." Whatever the case, I'm not standing for it any longer. Call me "she" or by any other female pronoun, directly or indirectly, one more time, and I will be reporting you at the Wikipedia:No personal attacks talk page for assistance (and they will help) or to the nearest WP:Administrator.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.11.67 (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Please take personal discussions to your talk page. Thanks. USchick (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Feminine vs Female vs Gender

I'd like to point out that the subject of this article is Femininity, not Female, and certainly not Gender. In depth discussions on what makes a male/female in the womb and other similar concepts not related directly to Femininity should be relocated to other articles. USchick (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, USchick. You seem to have contributed many edits to this article so I defer to your opinions. There's no question that I confuse the words sex and gender and feminine and female. The array of articles on related topics is almost overwhelming and dizzying. Perhaps you can explain where you would like this article to go?

Maybe it will help if I can tell you my assumptions for recent edits. The section "Theories of gendered brains" is about 80% what was here before (but it was in the section "Behavior and personality" which I found inexplicable). I moved it up, segregated if you will, to "History" and filled in about three sentences so it functions more like an overview of the topic. Can you tell me please if the section title is a problem? (Perhaps it should say "sex differences" in place of "gendered".) -SusanLesch (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I was simply pointing it out before you got carried away, that's all. The "feminine" is the topic and any deviation from that has beed reverted in the past as SYNTH. At one time this article was a battle zone and I have the scars to prove it. Cheers! USchick (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the battles, but happy to see that you are still here. Can you suggest a book to use as a source? I ordered one (Science And Gender: A Critique Of Biology And Its Theories On Women by Ruth Bleier) but don't know if it's any good yet. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I would say that any one book or any one source would be biased toward the time and culture that produced it. A previous editor was using a text book from her class, claiming her teacher as the ultimate authority, lol. Each culture has their own version of crazy, like this for example [12] USchick (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting observation about 'crazy'. I mentioned the article needed a section about Islamic views on femininity. Perhaps you can provide one? You can call it "Ideal islamic" perhaps? Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned earlier, femininity has been around much longer than the academic assessment of it. Any RS is acceptable as long as it adds something valuable to the discussion and specifically addresses femininity and not a related topic like gender. I used the word "crazy" to describe each culture's version of femininity because rarely is there any logic that goes along with the assessment. For example, femininity is: (dictionary definition) "A characteristic or trait traditionally held to be female." Well, in that case, menstruation and menstual blood should be clearly feminine, right? And yet, I'm not aware of any culture that would consider it so. Where's the logic in that? With that in mind, it's not really about the female, it's about the sexualized version of the female that someone else created in their mind and called it "feminine." Take the example of the woman swimming in Iran. They're not objecting to her swimming. The objection is that her "feminine features" were visible after she came out of the water. What feature are they referring to? Her face was visible the entire time, so her feminine facial features (like no beard) are not objectionable apparently. What other features? Is it reasonable to say that after she came out of the water, her wet clothes were clinging to her body, and someone caught a glimpse of the shape of her breast? The horror! Off with her head! :-) USchick (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi USchick. I'm the user formerly known as Elissa Rubria Honoria but I've just retired my account following an extremely disagreeable spat with an administrator, a gesture I'm not prepared to compromise on in any way, so I'm editing on my IP: Moscow - no really, I suspect I'm a couple of floors above you :) (below, whatever) - and it's a proxy because it has to be.

Aren't you confusing feminine with femininity here? At a basic grammatical level they are different (one an adjective, the other a noun) and your neologism "ideal feminine" which you persist in retaining rather suggests to me that you haven't really taken that on board.

Whatever your views about Islamic nations such as Iran, they do nevertheless have their own traditionss on what constitutes 'femininity' and they should be represented in Wikipedia. 31.6.15.210 (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (ex Elissa Rubria Honoria)

I had more Islamic views in the article, but they were removed by other editors as non pertinent. Feel free to add more. As far as Feminine vs Femininity, until there are 2 separate articles, I don's see any reason to differentiate. Other concepts like Female belong in those articles. Other opinions welcome. USchick (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Can anyone here suggest books that can be used to source this article? USchick explained in answer to my previous question that every culture may have its own idea about femininity. Certainly I am seeing the subject through a Western US filter: Google results for "feminine" for the first seven or eight pages are practically useless, so is Amazon book search and Google Book Search. Ideas? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

All I came up with are How to Be a Woman by Caitlin Moran and Femininity by Susan Brownmiller. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Try http://scholar.google.com and find who's studying femininity from cultural, social, etc perspectives. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Ronz. I found a couple right away. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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 [[13]] 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?

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 [14] 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)

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." [15]
• Sexual Orientation, Gender Role Expression, and Stereotyping: The Intersection Between Sexism and Sexual Prejudice (Homophobia), American Counseling Association [16]
• Accessibility of Gender Stereotype Domains: Developmental and Gender Differences in Children, National Institute of Health [17] 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 [18] 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: [19] - stereotypes have strong negative connotations because of their relationship with prejudice [20] - 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)