Talk:Femininity

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


          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Gender Studies (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Feminism (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Julia Serano WP:DUE[edit]

I'm not disputing the inclusion of Serano's views or the transfeminist perspective just that this articleis far too heavily reliant on Serano's point of view. There are other transfeminists[1]. More diversity couldn't hurt--Cailil talk 12:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The statement I see as extremely relevant is: "interpreting women's interest in aesthetics as intended solely to entice or attract men." It balances out the POV in the Men's View section about waist-to-hip ratio as a feminine trait. I had a long discussion with Dave, the original editor of that section who insisted that being feminine is something women do in order to attract men. These two ideas are at odds with each other and need further discussion. If the original editor of the Serano section is still active, it would be interesting to have their input on the rest. USchick (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove Horatio Alger?[edit]

In 1876, Horatio Alger, Jr. proclaimed women of Cape Cod as the ideal feminine beauty.[57] Specifically, because they were blond, tan, physically fit and educated. << I removed this text from the article with an edit summary that said something like "who cares" and got reverted by another editor who suggested it be discussed on the talk page. Therefore: Horatio Alger, Jr. is of course himself notable, but on this topic he has no special expertise. If nobody objects I'll take out the two sentences again in a week or so. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a huge difficulty in establishing what exactly is considered "feminine," so when a reliable author provides a description, it's very valuable. His expertise is in describing the human condition of his time and culture. He is certainly a lot more qualified to have an opinion than Marjorie Rosen. USchick (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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. [2] 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 [3] 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. [4] 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)