Talk:Feminist effects on society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Feminism (Rated C-class, Mid-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology  
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Name?[edit]

Shouldn't this be called "Impact of feminism on society"? Or perhaps "Societal impact of feminism"? At the moment it is ambiguous: Feminist efforts on society. That's different to the effects of feminism. It's a singularly odd construction. —Zujine|talk 18:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I created the article and named it and the rationale for the title was probably that it was an article within feminism, therefore the first word should be about that largest concept, with the rest of the title focusing attention to what the specific subject is. Titles like those you suggest may be more suitable for magazines or journals, where relatively few articles compete for readers' attention. Also, using the noun impact in the title would raise concerns among some feminists, who associate impacts with trucks whacking pedestrians, and prefer avoiding using that noun figuratively. And, efforts sounds more hopeful than post-achievement; feminism has already accomplished a lot, even as its proponents hope to accomplish more. In general, I'm not enthusiastic about renaming any articles, especially when that would mean editing other pages to catch up to a new name, and writing content seems more productive. Thanks for the thoughts, though. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm I agree with Zujine. Although exactly what the article should be called is a bit of a problem. Generally I've seen this topic dealt with through histories of feminism(s) - perhaps it should be dealt with through the article History of feminism?--Cailil talk 22:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Too long; history of feminism is already 129 KiB long (desirable is 30–100). So either it has much that's redundant or something is going to get broken out anyway. If we merge feminist effects on society into it, all the more so. And effect and history are not the same scope. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree with your assessment not to merge, though I'm not familiar with the naming convention you refer to earlier — that the first word in an article title should be directly related to the topic. Moreover, what is this about feminists not liking the word "impact" because of the association of trucks "whacking" (as you so colourfully put it) pedestrians? Who are these feminists who have overblown fears of trucks? —Zujine|talk 00:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The sequence of elements in an article title is not addressed in Wikipedia:Article titles unless I missed it; the closest seems to be "[d]o not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another" (Article Title Format, bolded in original), which looks inapplicable. The concept I relied on comes instead from software usability studies; Jakob Nielsen, a leader in that field, says that when people read down a list of titles they tend to read the left end of a title and often skip the rest of the title. In Wikipedia, we often see titles in running text or piped into other words, in which case which word is first may not matter, but in categories and indexes it would.
The language issue is about using masculine language of war, sports (less so today but still a factor), and other endeavors in which women are largely bystanders, survivors, victims, and such while men are participants and leaders and thus linguistically tending to exclude women from discourse. That is the core of an objection among many feminists concerned with language use; the figurative use of impact to mean 'effect' is one example of that. Impact probably would generally be appropriately used for negative or unusually powerful effects; effect is more neutral about negativity or positivity; and presumably feminism is not mainly negative or it would have been stopped by society before it caused practical effects. A Wikipedia article title should be neutral.
Nick Levinson (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC) (Added the last two sentences: 03:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)) (Corrected this sig paragraph: 03:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC))

work proportion[edit]

I deleted content even though it was sourced and I deleted rather than tag because tagging it would have been hard to explain with just a tag.

The two prior edits, lowering the work done by women worldwide from two thirds to one third, so they would be doing half the work men do, caught my eye and I wanted to check it. But the source at the URL cited doesn't even hint at the claim (I didn't check archive.org but that might be irrelevant if the publisher chose to delete it). I supplied the quotation to Google and found a few discussions, but one from The Atlantic led me to wonder if we couldn't do better.

If we do put it back, the 33% and 66% work figures seem to be misunderstandings of what the UN said, which, at any rate, was said several decades ago. Probably what we should do is quote a couple of sources that are reliable and modern on how much of the world's work is done by women and to hew closely to what the sources say. An old source is okay if we're sketching the history of the point, but if we're not then we should try to be relatively up-to-date.

Nick Levinson (talk) 05:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Negative effects?[edit]

Shouldn't negative effects also be mentioned here? Like lower birth rates, lower marriage rates, fewer men who get children, more children out of marriage, more children who live only with mother, more people living alone, less male chivalry, men viewing females more negativly etc.? 37.253.208.79 (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead, using reliable sources that make the connection between a phenonenon and feminism, giving due weight, being neutral reative to the balance in sources, and so on. Not everything you list is necessarily negative. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Feminist effects on society. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Feminist effects on society. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)