From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article needs a thorough overhaul[edit]

This article has been improving quite a bit recently, but it is still pretty bad, and IMO needs a thorough overhaul.

I haven't yet started to think through what exactly that would look like, but I am guessing it would probably include a restructure, a greater historical emphasis, and a more systematic/comprehensive global view. I think that possibly the current sections about men's/feminist/trans* views would want to be integrated into the main body of the article. Probably the Communist section (which I think I wrote most of) is too detailed for an overview article, and would want to be shortened/summarized here, maybe with the bulk of the text and citations moved into a separate article.

I will probably work towards improving this article over the next few weeks, and would be happy to have other people contributing as well, either by critiquing the current article or actively editing it. When I start thinking about how to restructure it, my first step would likely be to look at articles on similar broad global cultural topics to see how they are structured -- so if anyone has suggestions for good models, I'd love if you would leave them here. (When I think of the types of topics that might be comparable from a structure standpoint, I think about topics such as "childhood," "leisure" or "social class," although I haven't checked to see if our actual articles on those topics are any good.) I'm also going to start looking for more detailed subset articles (like, femininity in [X country] type stuff) to see if they contain useful material. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Historically, the idea of femininity went from the original "she who suckles" (not at all sexual) to something extremely sexualized, and this phenomenon happened fairly quickly. I would love to be able to explain this transition in the article, but I don't know how. Are there any reliable opinions in this regard? p.s. If you think this article is crappy, see what you think about Masculinity. I don't have the nerves to go there. USchick (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The main problem with the article in my view is that it does not make it clear that femininity is prescriptive, not descriptive. There is very little sociological analysis in the article, although femininity is frequently analyzed and discussed in sociology textbooks. Kaldari (talk) 06:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, this article is leaning way too much toward the Western idea of what is feminine with statements like "women are socialized to present themselves as precious, ornamental and fragile." Just because a writer claims something, doesn't mean it's true all over the world. That statement contradicts the information in the Communist section, where women were not conditioned, but they went looking for cosmetics and lingerie on their own. Fragile and ornamental women are only found in developed nations where labor is no longer valued. There are just as many, if not more women doing hard work. [1] I think we need to reach consensus about a vision and direction for this article. USchick (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's what I find very interesting. While the modern Western idea of a feminine woman is weak, in Ancient Rome, the feminine was much more powerful, where a single naked woman was strong enough to stop a hailstorm and chase away enemies. Anasyrma#Apotropaic effect of nakedness In Iran, Barbie doll is a threat to their way of life [2] and "more dangerous than a nuclear weapon." (This quote was sourced in the article previously, but then deleted as irrelevant.) A comparison like that around the world is what I'd like to see. USchick (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Meanwhile in the news..... a proposed ban on high heels in Russia is not getting much traction. [3] USchick (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"Men and women" vs "males and females"[edit]

There's a notice at the beginning of the article that says: "Because the subject of femininity is so contentious, the lead of this article seems to be subject to more change than the leads of other articles. Consensus for the present lead of this article has been achieved through the work of several editors over many days. In some cases the exact wording of a given sentence in the lead has been chosen to appease all concerned. Of course it goes without saying that you are still more than welcome to contest anything in the lead."

So has this edit been discussd also? I think "males and females" is more inclusive than "men and women". If this has been discussed, then I am happy to self-revert (I don't really care about this anyway). It would be nice if someone could include a link to the lead discussion just for any future reference though. DimensionQualm (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it's more inclusive and encyclopaedic. I've just had a quick look at the archives, and I've found relevant info on the lead here, here, here and here, as well as discussion on uses of the terms "feminine", "female" and "gender" here, although I don't think this particular wording has been brought up before. I've not fully looked over the conversations though, so I'm not sure how helpful any of these links are. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes "males and females" is more inclusive, but it's too inclusive, as it is not limited to humans. This article is completely about humans, so we should use "men and women". Kaldari (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Pink for boys[edit]

This part is incorrect and not supported by the reference:

Today, the color pink is strongly associated with femininity, whereas in the early 1900s pink was associated with boys and blue with girls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyxwv99 (talkcontribs) 18:39, 13 February 2016‎ (UTC)

@Zyxwv99: The reference does support the statement: see p. 315. See check out List of historical sources for pink and blue as gender signifiers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Femininity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Is a criticism section allowed or not?[edit]

I just noticed this article does not have one where the article on masculinity does. What is wikipedia's policy on criticism sections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanikk999 (talkcontribs) 00:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)