Talk:Gender studies

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

Putting Judith Butler's section in a category[edit]

We currently have three sections under "The development of gender theory" they are Women's Studies, Men's Studies, and Judith Butler. While Judith Butler has certainly made a contribution to this field does she really deserve an entire gender theory? Is she alone as influential as all the contributors of Women's Studies and Men's Studies? I think that although we should still reference her we should reference her in a category to which she belongs, not in a category of "herself". Could someone more familiar with her works move her? Thanks! ( (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Removal of information about Warren Farrell and David Buss[edit]

Over the Xmas period I spent a considerable amount of time adding balancing information about the contribution of Warren Farrell and David Buss to gender studies. To my dismay, this has been removed. I would, therefore, like to state here that no 'gender studies' article can be balanced - or credible - without some acknowledgement of their work. Elsewhere, it has been suggested that my adding references to his work (and my own work following a doctorate on the impact of gender relations on organisation governance) was 'biased'. It is the refusal to acknowledge his work that is biased - it shows complete ignorance of his work and influence. For the record, Warren Farrell was included by the Financial Times in their list of the top 100 thought leaders in the world, and the International Biographic Centre of London included him in their list of 2000 outstanding scholars of the 20th Century. He has now contributed 7 books on the subject (5 more than Betty Friedan), the last of which was published by Oxford University Press.

I'm also troubled by the removal of references to the work of David Buss who is surely the world's leading researcher into courtship (having conducted a 10 year study in 47 countries, and published for over a decade in academic journals and books as a result of one of the world's largest study). His contribution may have its flaws (not least his naive faith in evolutionary theory) but his contribution to our understanding of gender, sexual relations and processes of attraction, are not in doubt.

I am - and I hope I do not offend anyone by saying this - getting heartly sick of well-meaning volunteers editing the contributions of people who are teaching this subject in universities, and are at the cutting edge of the field (even if not recognised by the "public"). How can volunteer editors credibly comment - and remove material - when they have not completed PhD doctorates in the field, and are not supervising new PhD doctorates on gender related fields of study? What is Wikipedia's policy on this?

My academic colleagues and I have mixed feelings about Wikipedia. Majority opinion is that the quality of the articles are substandard in most cases. For this reason, I invested many days trying to improve a number of articles over my Xmas break with the goal that students using these pages will not be relying on out-dated perspectives that pander to naive public opinion. It stikes me that these articles will rapidly improve if the academic community contributed more readily to these pages, and that volunteer editors were less concerned to remove references to their work, and more ready to read those references to establish their quality and credibility.

If those teaching this subject in universities are going to have their contributions edited out, the Wikipedia articles will remain substandard and reflect the prejudices of 20 years ago, rather than contemporary thinking in the field. At the moment, the editorial policy seems to be to playing into the hands of my colleagues (who would be quite happy to ban the use of Wikipedia as a source for university-level assignments/essays). Personally, I would like to encourage the reverse - that my colleagues contribute to these paages. For this to happen, volunteer editors need to *check* the quality of the contributions made (and the references supplied to support them) before they consider removing them. This way, those current reshaping the field will get the recognition already achieved in parts of academia, and those who have (perhaps accidentally, or unjustifiably) dominated the field will be subject to long overdue criticism.

I can just about stomach the removal of references to my own work (even though I have a doctorate, a book and three peer-reviewed academic conference papers currently going through academic review). The removal of references to the work of Warren Farrell and David Buss, however, simply show the ignorance of those removing them, and bring the quality and competence of Wikipedia's editors into disrepute.

Apologies for being so blunt, but I feel that Wikipedia should review its policy when editing the contributions of academics in the field. (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WRemoval of Kristeva[edit]

I have noticed that Rebecca removed the section on Kristeva. It seems to me that Kristeva is influencial enough to be mentionned. Perhpas not in a whole section but still I find that to remove her completely is perhaps not such a good idea. I have an idea where to insert her, but would like first to hear other'opinions.Doraannao (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I would echo your point Doraannao. But Rebecca is right that the way the section was and is structured gives too much weight to Kristeva but equally - Kristeva is probably the most influential psychoanalyst for gender studies,[1]. I understand Rebecca's removal - we don't want a wall of fame approach to the article. But if we could restructure that section so that it properly covers the major influences of psychoanalysis on Gender studies (ie a prose paragraph rather than 3 stubs) there should be no reason to keep Kristeva out of it--Cailil talk 12:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I would not like to enter the question who is the most important influence, since, for example, according to Griselda Pollock and to Judith Butler, Ettinger is a bigger influence today. What is important is not to decide who is "bigger influence", and surely I believe that we have to keep Kristeva inside, and to have something much more explicative about Kristeva as Cailil suggests. In the meanwhile, Perhaps the way to do it is to put this sentence taken more or less from the "psychoanalysis" Wikipedia project, saying:

" Feminist theory of psychoanalysis, articulated mainly byJulia Kristeva (the "semiotic" and "abjection") and Bracha Ettinger (the "matrixial trans-subjectivity" and the "primal mother-phantasies"), and informed both by Freud, Lacan and the object relations theory, is very influential in Gender studies. "

After that, when a better explanation of Kristeva is offered, a better section on Kristeva can be restored. If there is no objection to this first step, I will proceed to put this sentence. Like this, at least for the moment, we keep Kristeva in. I will add a reference for Kristeva and a reference for Ettinger. The reference for Kristeva will be: </ref>Anne-Marie Smith, Julia Kristeva: Speaking the Unspeakable (Pluto Press, 1988)</ref>and the reference for Ettinger will be</ref>Griselda Pollock, "Inscriptions in the Feminine" and "Introduction" to "The With-In-Visible Screen", in: Inside the Visible edited by Catherine de Zegher. MIT Press, 1996. </ref>Doraannao (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's great. BTW above I meant to refer to Kristeva begin the more influential of the 3 psychoanalysts we had in article (the other two being Lacan and Freud). Of course at present there are newer voices than hers and I think your summary is a good way to go Doraannao--Cailil talk 23:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK great. I have put this passage at the end of the Lacan section--have a look---, because this is where these French psychoanalysts begin. I would like to add, when I have a moment, one more reference for Kristeva, and I would like to encourage whoever can do it to rewrite the Kristeva section in few sentences and put it back in.Doraannao (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not objecting so much to Kristeva per se, as the ever-expanding list of theorists with their own sections - which, in a field as large as gender studies, makes zero sense. I can understand having one like Butler until someone takes the time to write an integrated article (because the whole discipline is practically based on her work), but I'm not comfortable with much beyond that. Hell, I'm a gender studies honours student and I've never heard of Kristeva. Rebecca (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said above the wall of fame approach isn't good and we need to write and reference a proper piece on 'psychoanalysis and gender studies'. It would be a helpful exercise because that would then give us teh model for 'feminist theory and gender studies' and 'masculism and gender studies' etc etc.
Suprised to hear that Kristeva is new to you Rebecca, wait till you do Semeiotikè, Women's Time, and the Powers of Horror - you don't come back the same after getting to grip with those : )--Cailil talk 12:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have put the sentence on French feminist psychoanalysts as the last sentence in the first passage. I propose to put back the section on Kristeva as before, and let us slowly change it. Kristeva understands the subject as result of "abject" - reject of the mother. This is a problem, and in that sense she supports the Oedipal structure. Still the issue is important. Ettinger on the other hand understands the subject as "becoming in jointness"; thus her "trans-subjectivity" paradigmatic claim contributes to reunderstanding of gender and reformulating of feminine difference. I am sure that Kristeva's section must be returned, the easiest would be to return it as it is, and we can afterwards make an effort to rewrite it. Doraannao (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC) And one word to Rebecca: perhaps this is a question of geography. In Europe if you do Gender studies you will hear of the immense and even revolutionary influence of both Kristeva, Irigaray and Ettinger, and would want to dedicate a section to each one of them.Doraannao (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Cailil and Doraannao. If there is no objection I would proceed to put back the Kristeva section. Artethical (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hold on there a tick, I want to say this again: the wall of fame approach is a bad idea. We need to rewrite the Psychoanalysis section totally. I would recommend this: 1) we write a brief section on Freud, Lacan, Melanie Klien - early psychoanalysis and how it has been used by gender theorists; 2) then a another about French Psychoanalytic feminism and its impact on gender studies; and 3) then finally one on Judith Butler and the current relationship between Gender studies and psychoanalysis. This would solve 3 or 4 problems at once. If we reintroduce the info on Kristeva, we need to do so with a clear plan for the whole section--Cailil talk 20:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oooops, sorry, I have put in Kristeva back, but I agree with your plan, Cailil and please go ahead and try this plan. In my view, in the meanwhile, we can leave Kristeva in, this is a useful information. Again, if you feel you can do the plan as you propose, this will be great and important. I will add when I can. Artethical (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept Cailil and Artethical attitudes. However, I do not like the idea of "wall of fame" and hope that we shall not use such a term in our friendly and serious discussion. Each one of these figures: Freud, Lacan, Klein, Ettinger, Kristeva and of course Butler are not there because of "fame" but because of their extraordinary contributions to the field. Many researchers all over the world study them and write starting from them in the field of Gender studies. I would like very much to try the plan of Cailil, and until this is done, we can in my view let it stay as it is now. Doraannao (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
As one of those who does study the work of these theorists I agree with you Doraannao and the present format is most probably my fault. Rewriting this page was one of the first things I did when I cam to WP in 2006-2007 and my discomfort with the layout is partly due to the fact that I'm unhappy with the incomplete job I did here. It's great to see there are more people interested in editing here as well so I hope we can work together to really progress this page and bring up to good article status--Cailil talk 22:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, If you have proposed this structure,Cailil, you have done a very important work and you can be proud of it. Now we only need to develope and keep that structure. I also accept the point of Rebecca that there shouldn't be too many names either, that is: that we keep as separate sections only the really very significant and influential figures, starting from what we have now. As separate sections we can start with what we have (Freud, Lacan, Kristeva, Ettinger, Butler) and add Klein, and perhaps Karen Horney and Irigaray. In terms of structures to regroup these sections: (A) Freud, Klein (and Horney and maybe Riviere) as classical psychoanalysis influences, and (B) Lacan, Kristeva and Ettinger (and perhaps Irigaray) as contemporary psychoanalysis influence, and (c) Butler. In any case, even if this will take time, the structure in my view is good, and up till now the individual sections are all justified.Doraannao (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Cailil is generally on the right track here. It'd be a big step forward to get rid of the "wall of fame" approach and get an integrated section on the role of psychoanalysis there. I am quite concerned, however, about winding up with an overemphasis on it: there's a hell of a lot more to gender studies than that. In particular, I'd be expecting a hell of a lot more on Butler and her ilk than their role in psychoanalysis (which is pretty tangential outside of work directly focusing on psychoanalysis), as well as quite a bit more on the feminist studies end of gender studies.
However, I strongly object to Dorannao's suggestion of maintaining seperate sections for any of these people. We can and should have an integrated section on psychoanalysis, but the in-depth stuff on specific theorists just doesn't belong here. If I was looking for information on gender studies (and I'm an honours student for gods sake), big sections on Freud and Lacan is roughly the last thing I'd be expecting to find. One solution could be bumping some of this stuff off to psychoanalysis or creating some sub-article of that. Rebecca (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca is correct about the separate sections. This page is about gender studies in general not the most notable gender theorists. Have a look at Feminism you'll see what I mean. I have a problem with Doraannao's suggested structure - sources. I have a couple of books that group Freud, Lacan and Klein in relation to Gender studies (ie Melanie Klien by Kristeva) and books grouping French pyschoanalytic feminists are easily found. Linking ideas and theorists actually requires sources, so while I think it could be written about as Doraannao is suggesting the groupings, the connection between theorists, need to be sourced. It also needs to be clear to readers (who know nothing about gender studies) why people are being linked - IMHO an historical structure seems the most accessible for passers by.
There will be a way to compromise between writing a general section and a section on the major theorists. Have a look at Feminism#Radical_feminism - it's not perfect but I feel it strikes a balance between the persons and the ideas fairly well--Cailil talk 13:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i can only say that it makes perfect sense to me to have separate general sections as well as a separate section on each of the most influential and innovative figures that contributed to the field. We can't keep only Butler with a separate section, this will put Butler's positioning itself in a very strange light and, for the uninformed reader it might even work against reading her. The balance between general sections and sections on each major theorist is indeed not in a good shape yet, but this takes time and work. This will happen and take shape slowly. In my view, we need more on the theories of Butler, but also add the others mentioned. This will take time and patience, and some people who will put their time and scholarship into this. I believe that if the structure and the sections are already there, we and others will come in slowly to make the theoretical and the historical connections. it takes some work. For me, the example of the feminism essay is not helping, quite the contrary. the whole feminism page is too confusing, and after a while it is impossinle to read, for me at least. I think that here, we have a beautiful and clear structure, which is a good basis to work from and useful for students and for the uninformed reader. Doraannao (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The sections on Freud and Lacan are to my mind very important. They even need much more elaboration: to explain the ideas more at length. For many of us modern Gender studies begins there. They are also the theorists from which Butler begins. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic project, to give major sources from the past that allowed our field to develope is very important. Butler starts from certain philosophy and certain psychoanalysis and certain sociology. It is in my view important to keep these sections and even give more. I can only say that where I have studied gender, all this material is the basis. Lets take it from where we are and make it more rich. In my view, these figures are not "fame", they are deep sources of our current knowledge, and it is the place to put these sources and give more of their general ideas concerning the structuring of gender.Artethical (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that it will become unsustainable. How can any of us select who is "most important". When we get to Helene Cixous, Luce Irigaray, etc who will we leave out. Bear in mind we have sections on postmodernism, men's studies, LGBT studies and sociology to write - the page can only be 100KB long - we are better off writing the general sections (and highlighting the appropriate names within them) and linking to the article about Freud, Lacan etc. The separate sections on what Freud has done for gender studies is actually more appropriate for the Freud article. Again we have to bear in mind that the current structure will become exclusive and will open to the charge of POV by omission. Summary style is the only way to go for a parent article and it might well be the case that a new article Gender studies and psychoanalysis needs to written and summarized here.
A problem with the current set-up is this: Freud and Lacan are not gender theorists. Yes of course their work is the basis for psychoanalytic readings of gender but they were not doing gender studies. Giving them too much weight here is actually a POV decision. It needs to be borne in mind that this is not an essay- this is an encyclopedia article. An essay can choose to focus on one area but we have to focus on everything equally. We wont be doing that if we maintain a list of persons, not all of whom are gender studies theorists--Cailil talk 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This is also one of my major problems with this setup. Going to an article on gender studies and finding swathes of material on Freud and Lacan is going make a lot of folks think the authors were on crack: where having material on Irigaray and others who derived from their work but worked and are actually read in gender studies actually does make sense. Rebecca (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism by one writer became longer then any section[edit]

I deleted few sentences from a long new section full of quotes from the same writer to make it shorter; this whole text tends to violate WP:NPOV by focussing too much on one writer of criticism of the major subject matter of gender Studies. The whole passage was very unproportional. I left few sentences, and moved the reference into the list of reference ( and not inside the text,) and deleted a long argumentation that doesn't seem to belong here.Doraannao (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See also "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked". See and Perhaps this kind of academic generalities or personal research, that is not cited anywhere, doesn't have its place here at all, and should be deleted.Doraannao (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ettinger again[edit]

I don't have a professional opinion about Ettinger's contribution to gender studies. Having a whole section devoted to her does seem a bit too much, but removing it without proper explanation doesn't seem right. This was discussed earlier on this talk page and i don't see a clear consensus for removal. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say look at as objectively as possible; in general does it help the articles - our readers, that is - understand the subject. If not then maybe invoke WP:BRD and post the section to talk and see if there is consensus to re-add. Banjeboi 00:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Well Rebecca actually tried to address the current problems with this article's formatt a while ago - but there was no consensus, so nothing happened (see above). Ettinger being given a whole a paragraph is undue but the whole "wall of fame" approach is problematic in and of itself - so I would defintely support a change here. However, as has been said multiple times, blanket removal of Ettinger is pov-pushing. She is clearly notable (but does not deserve a whole section to herself) and Gender studies is one of the primary fields in which that notability exists--Cailil talk 00:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think there is consensus to rework it and I would say go for it. Banjeboi 01:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ettinger's name was removed and deleted all over Wikipedia, by what seems like an attack of a mad person or group, for political reasons probably. It seems like a purge or massacre for political reasons since her name was put on a list who monitors people who are activist for human rights and fight them on every ground. The removal of her name from just everywhere by anonymous addresses seems connected to the activism of this courageous artist. I have restored it and I invite you to consider this very serious burst of hateful interventions, that you can follow from a link in the discussion page on her page. I also suggest that you look under her name at Google Books and Google Scholars.Artethical (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ettinger's worthiness is only one issue here. The section was poorly written so it caused more confusion rather than providing more clarity. In such cases we should fix it. There is another issue of re-organizing the entire section in which Ettinger is listed. Again it's all to serve our readers.

I do not think that it is at all appropriate to include Ettinger here. This has nothing to do with political reasons - she is clearly notable, and deserves her own article. On the other hand, it is ludicrous to suggest that she belongs on a list with Freud, Lacan, and Kristeva. She is simply not such an important figure in psychoanalysis and gender studies to be best placed there. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It was now formally verified. Ettinger is persecuted and eliminated because a call was passed in the Internet via extreme right-wing groups and lists to reduce her influence, because of her humanist activism. Ettinger, an Israeli Jew whose parents are holocause survivers is persectued because she is active in the Physician for Human Rights that gives medical help in palestinian villages. See Ori Redler's Facebook. I am proceeding to resotore the vandalism done to her reputation and to her importance.Artethical (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Please be careful with such accusations. I tried looking for it and i couldn't find it. Can you provide a link, please? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Whatever reason the IP may have removed Ettinger, she was in fact inappropriately included on a number of articles. I removed her not because of any political issues, but because she is simply not notable in some of the articles she is mentioned in. Unless you address that instead of crying vandalism, you should not be reverting. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC) has opened an account to eliminate Ettinger from different pages. I am asking an administrator advice here. Artethical (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been around since 2004. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Artethical, I have to agree mostly with Phil Sandifer in this matter. While the "purge" of Ettinger refs on en-WP was extremely overdone, I do think she was over-represented in a number of articles. In a number of cases, her influence and importance was over-emphasized. I think re-evaluation of these on a case-by-case basis isn't overdoing it and necessary in the aftermath of the global attempt to eliminate her totally from WP. Cheers, Pigman 18:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, i also agree with Phil Sandifer. He appears to have understanding in the subject and he appears to be neutral, unlike the anonymous Israeli guy who wanted to purge Ettinger completely. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't need female gaze (Ettinger) and female writings (Irigaray, Kristeva). Lets start with Freud and Lacan and the male gaze both here and in film studies and build the fields properly. Woman philosophers are second rate relatively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Statements like the above .."Women philosophers are second rate..." are indicative of the extreme sexism currently infecting Wikipedia. It is relentless, sneaky, and unacceptable. Wikipedia editors need to deal with this problem firmly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm hard pressed to imagine thorough coverage of gender studies that doesn't deal with Kristeva and Irigaray. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Ettinger starts to publish some 15 years after Kristeva and Irigaray, i.e.: the 90s. For anthologies we can put: Problematizing Global Knowledge (The New Encyclopaedia Project), 2006 (Sage, Routledge). Also: Face a l'Histoire 1993-1996: L'artiste moderne devant l'evenement historique. Flammarion and Pompidou Center. 1996. I also suggest Kino und Kunst, 2003. For the psychoanalytical contribution of Freud, Lacan, Kristeva, Ettinger for Gender Studies see Art History, Aesthetics, Visual Studies (Clark Studies in the Visual Arts/Yale, 2002) and Laughing with Medusa: Classical Myth and Feminist Thought (Oxford University Press, 2006)Artethical (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


Does gender studies have anything relevant to say about pedophiles ? For instance, although many pedophiles are white men and are rather domineering, psychiatrists have written that comparatively few will go after girls. Hence, many activists in the NAMBLA have protested the common exclusion of pederasty from LGBT communities. Similar research in gender studies was conducted in the wake of the US pedophile priest scandal. ADM (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I will assume good faith here that you are simply mistaken and not trying to imply that all or most pedophiles are domineering white men after boys. Our pedophilia article is pretty well written and seems to cast doubts on that. In short the research is still out and the only sweeping statement seems to be that more men than women are pedophiles. You state similar research in gender studies was conducted in the wake of the US pedophile priest scandal after reminding us that NAMBLA activists protested exclusion from LGBT communities. NAMBLA has been generally cut off from all LGBT communities for years and likely has disbanded as an organization except to possibly sell some publications. Also there were numerous "US pedophile priest scandals" so that too is confusing. Do you have some research regarding gender studies by NAMBLA or some other activists showing an expulsion of pedophilia topics? Or could you clarify what exactly you're looking for as I seem to be missing some information. -- Banjeboi 10:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Contributions of Jews[edit]

Can anything special be said about the contributions of Jews to the field of gender studies ? There are many scholars in this branch of study that have also written about Jewish feminism, such as Judith Butler and Shulamith Firestone for instance. So, there certainly may be a bit of culture-specific perspectives within the sociology of gender. ADM (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Long comment by IP[edit]

I've removed this comment by IP This comment as about gender selection and DNA and other biological issues not pertinent to Gender theory as such which is about the study of gender in culture/society. While clearly made in good faith this commentw as added to a section on Paedophelia (which I'm reviewing for relevance separately) and is completely off-topic both to that thread and this article. For that reason I have reverted the addition. Also, the comment seems to reference a book - which I cannot find, this could be a new unpublished research paper if it only someone other than the author (and with no connection to the author) who can establish its reliably it (ie how widely cited its findings are) can post it. However, as I stated in my edit summary if I'm incorrect and just couldn't find this book please reinstate the comment - but bare in mind this article is not about biology, it is about gender theory/studies It seems this comment was post on to the portal page at Portal:Human Rights[1] and is being spammed on wikipedia I retract my previous remark please do not reinstate--Cailil talk 14:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Gender study------mammal’s reproductive only dominates in the first stage of basic reproduction rule.

Mammals, such as elephants, lions, tigers, horses, cows, goats and other primate, they evolved so many years without ending up in extinction due to a short-term singer gender births. Same rule dominated in them as in humans basic rule. If in one region, due to certain reasons,-----for example: changes in water or soil, quantity of food or nutrition or acid changes, or weather changes----animals only give birth to a single gender, the species extinction would come. But in practice, this has never happened; they have same gender balancing and alteration, though people rarely think about it. But mammals didn’t expand brain volume during evolution for IQ promotion and balancing for the sake of surviving competiveness.

In 1984, Clutton-Brok, T.H found this phenomenon in wild red deer: if female deer ranked higher in the group, the offspring contained more male deer, if female deer ranked lower, the offspring contained more female deer, to accommodate to the lower rank. If the male dear was strong, then more often a female little deer would come out.

The above mentioned superficial phenomenon should be analyzed deeply by scientific researchers. It resembles the human basic reproductive rules in the first stage of reproduction. Our analysis is like this: being the head female red deer, generally, the male deer does not dare to pursue her, it is always the female leader who pursues a male deer. This male deer flatters and performs sex with an attitude of coordination, so the female deer conceives more often a male deer, because the proactive role is the female deer. If the female deer ranks lower, any male deer can mate with her in sexual desire, and she could not resist, then she would more often conceive a female deer, because the proactive role is the male deer; if the male deer is strong, his pursuing female deer actively will make his mate conceive a female deer. Afterward, this strong male deer may become fatigue and the female deer takes over the proactive role in sex, she would conceive more male deer. This explains the third point above mentioned. The proactive and passive roles in sex are similar with human beings, and this is the basic rule for reproduction and gender balancing. This mammal reproductive rule applies to the animals with only the first baby.
Why in animal groups there are a few individuals more intelligent and flexible and easier to train? How to explain this in biological view? Probably their parents were under training before conception, and their good genes passed on to babies. Trained generation after generation, some good strains of mammals emerged. If human follow this rule of genetic inheritance, expanding related knowledge and strengthen reasonable training of brain response, more and more New Human will show up in this planet

(Talker: Q. Y. Zhang, 香港 張其澐119.236.56.117 (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC))

University organization[edit]

Universities usually have separate departments for Women's Studies and Human Sexuality Studies. Is "Gender Studies" a merger of these two studies, a general category in which these two studies are in, or synonymous with only one of the two? Also, I noticed Women's Studies has a separate article but no separate article for Sexuality Studies. Shouldn't one be made? Jigen III (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Good question. the fields is depended to each university. Some just have Women's Studies (historically), Some have Gender Studies which I think is a general category, some have Gender & Sexuality Studies. You can find it on the university's website. I will add some information. Also, the article doesnt have a clear definition for this field. I'll add definitions from some universities.--Taranet (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there an English version of the first sentence?[edit]

"Gender studies is a field of interdisciplinary study and academic field devoted to gender identity and gendered representation as central categories of analysis"

At least five jargon buzz-phrases in one sentence alone. If anyone understands that sentence they probably don't need this article. Good manners stop me from pondering what they might need. Cannonmc (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Lacking citations[edit]

I'm not sure what has happened to the citations, but there doesn't appear to be any. Can this be rectified, please? (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

They are hidden. Click "Show" in the right side of the page to display them. Still, is this actually against the reference formatting guidelines? GregorB (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Harald Martenstein[edit]

The reason I think the section is not relevant :

  • the source is in German which is odd (in particular for a topic where finding controversial, provocative material in English language is not difficult).
  • the source cited is by no means anything near providing any analysis or insight it is an entertaining editorial.
  • the author has no particular expertise or qualifications when writing about Gender Studies. Adding a section called "Harald Martenstein" does not very well reflect the fact that Martenstein writes editorials about all kind of topics for Die Zeit --Christophe (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for having to disagree (and coming from another IP)

  • this very article (AFAIK there was only one gender-related article form Martenstein) had quite an impact in Germany. You can still find the numerous reactions (google "Martenstein Gender") pro and con not only in the mainstream media and feminist weblogs but even on a couple of university sites (e.g. fu-berlin)
  • "source is in German" should not be "odd" - Martenstein wrote in German, the summary here (not by me) sums it up quite well, so where is the problem? - shall we remove every citation in Wikipedia which is not written in the actual article language?
  • YMMV but the article makes comparisons and raises some questions AFAIK not found in other citable references - of course you do not have to agree with Martenstein and like his provocative style (not sure if I do, but this is highly irrelevant anyway), but his article is definitely a relevant response (as proven by the numerous reactions from both sides - gender studies approvers and critics) (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is an editorial - maybe this is relevant for an article about "Gender Studies in the German press" but not in an article that tries to outline a research area in general - in particular not with a distinct section for a German journalist that happened to write an editorial. (apart from the fact that the section is written in word to word from German to English translation style that might be hard to understand for anybody not speaking German) --Christophe (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Sorry for having to disagree (and coming from another IP)" and are both located in Berlin (Germany) - coincidence ?
Not really, I am just one person using two different computers (and in the evening I was, as mentioned for your convenience, "coming from another IP") - am I missing the point or are you trying to imply something?

If you know another (english) article having a similar impact you are really welcome to add it here. As I mentioned before, the points in Martensteins article are surely controversial and provocative but AFAIK cannot be found in another citable source (if you have one - please add it, really). If you do not like the translation (BTW I agree) you are more than welcome to improve it. (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I had a closer look at source - Martenstein's article is about a lot of stuff - but not about Gender studies as a field of research. His article is trying to make a point about gender differences and whether or not they are "natural" or not. Generally speaking the source is about gender theories not about gender studies. -- (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure, you read the correct article? Martenstein criticism on gender science starts very much at the beginning (and yes, he explicitly names it!):

...können sich unter den Wörtern "Gender", "Gender Mainstreaming" und "Gender Studies" nicht viel vorstellen. Letzteres ist wahrscheinlich der am schnellsten wachsende Wissenschaftszweig in Deutschland. 2011 gab es 173 Genderprofessuren an deutschen Unis und Fachhochschulen, die fast ausschließlich mit Frauen besetzt werden. Die Förderung dieses Faches gehört zu den erklärten bildungspolitischen Zielen der Bundesregierung, SPD und Grüne sind auch dafür. Die Slawisten zum Beispiel, mit etwa 100 Professoren, sind von den Genderstudies bereits locker überholt worden. Die Paläontologie, die für die Klimaforschung und die Erdölindustrie recht nützlich ist, hat seit 1997 bei uns 21 Lehrstühle verloren. In der gleichen Zeit wurden 30 neue Genderprofessuren eingerichtet.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but having a look at your latest changes it seems you are just trying to remove every critical point regarding the subject gender science... (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

the article does describe a field of research called "Gender Studies" not "gender science" or "gender and science" or "gender and ..." -- (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
What I removed were entries that where not related to the topic of gender studies as a field of research - that does not mean the citric is not valid - it is just off topic and might be added to another article about specific gender theories of specific people doing gender research. You are providing a good example just above - Martenstein elaborates on the number of chairs on German universities (he actually compares the numbers of chairs for Gender Studies in Germany against numbers for other random fields of research in Germany - he does not say where those numbers come from nor does he provide any insight as to why he is comparing Gender studies with Slavic studies) Even if you would consider that comparison being serious - the topic is not gender studies at large - evtl. is would fit in something like "Bildungspolitik in Deutschland - Kritik - Gender studies". For the other articles I did remove - the words "gender studies" did not even figure in the sources. While I do understand the temptation to "unload" critical views on gender topics in this article - most of them are indeed off topic if you have a closer look at them. It is a little like adding a critics section to Atomic physics about victims of nuclear weapons.-- (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Men's Studies =/= Male Studies[edit]

Cleek0727 (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC) There are several BIG problems with the men's studies section of this page.

First, It is time to remove references to Warren Farrell and other Male Studies scholars from the Men's Studies section. Warren Farrell is one of the only citations in the Men's Studies section despite the fact that he does not participate in Men's Studies. In fact, he is one of men's studies biggest critics. If we want to include him in the critics section that is fine, but don't cite him as a major contributor to a field that he thinks is invalid. [2]

Second, the terms "masculist" and "masculism" are used multiple times in the description of men's studies despite the fact that there are no citations showing that that type of work is prominent in men's studies. In fact, men's studies takes a decidedly feminist approach to studying men and masculinity. Check here [3] and here [4].

Finally, men's studies and male studies are not the same thing. In fact, they are distinctly opposed to one another. Male studies is anti-feminist and masculist and disavows both women's studies and gender studies. Meanwhile, men's studies is distinctly feminist and seeks to further the academic agenda of women's studies and gender studies. References to Warren Farrell and masculism belong under the label "male studies" not "men's studies." See The Making if Masculinities by Harry Brod for more info on how men's studies developed [5] and see [6] for info on how Male Studies developed. Finally, see this article <re></ref> from Inside Higher Ed that explains the important differences between the two fields.

I agree with Cleek on both points. It's rather unprecise - why not sinply refer to the main article? (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Condensing Theorists[edit]

I have changed the "Influences of gender studies" section to summarize influential theorists rather than give a paragraph on each. Part of the reason for this is because anybody reading the article could go to the page of the theorist for more information on them if that's what they wanted. Another reason is because I felt like, with the way it was currently written, it seemed like a very finite list of theorists that had anything to do with the development of gender studies, when, in fact, the list could be expanded indefinitely. Does anyone have any thoughts, suggestions, or feedback? I would appreciate considering the change before just taking it down entirely! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canthony11 (talkcontribs) 15:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirect Inaccuracy[edit]

Why does "Sexuality Studies" redirect here? Sexuality ≠ gender. – SarahTehCat (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Other people whose work is associated with gender studies[edit]

a bunch of the people listed are just french politicians who voted for changing sex education. that's weirdly specific. i'd like to see most of those people removed from the list and see more academics or artists included.

Date of creation[edit]

Would it be possible to more clearly establish the major moments of creation in this field? Like for example when the first doctorate/PhD of gender studies was created? I'm not getting a clear sense of dates in relation to historical events in reading this. Not a single openly stated year in the introduction, for example.

There are a couple dates in the history section but they speak to either related topics or offshoots:

  • It was not until the late 1980s and 1990s that scholars recognized a need for study in the field of sexuality.
  • In 2015 at Kabul University the first master's degree course in gender and women’s studies in Afghanistan began

In what decade did scholars recognize a need for study in the field of gender? In what year did the first master's degree course in gender (and/or women's) studies begin in the world entirely, rather than Afghanistan?

Are these particulars more the event of women's/men's studies history in particular, with "gender and" being slapped on as some kind of unifying label in later years? What was the first degree called? These seem like major events worth mentioning in the history. I'll see if I can find something. (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Gender studies is not studies in the field of sexuality except how cultural understandings of sexuality impact gender identity of men and women. The study of sexuality is more in the area of psychology and physiology. Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"Importance of gender studies" Section[edit]

The title of this section comes across as if the article itself is trying to self-validate itself to the reader. It's like the article is assuming that the reader is doubting the importance or usefulness of this subject, so it decides to suddenly preempt them with an explanation of the various reasons and uses for this study. The section's presence seems reactionary, as if it were made in response to the recent increase in the awareness of this subject's existence and the negative attention that followed, where its relevance and usefulness was called into question. When framed like this, the entire section comes off as a bit preachy, which I feel compromises the neutrality of this article. The purpose of an article is to give the reader as much relevant information on a given topic as it can, not to sell the reader on said topic. That being said, it might not hurt to create a section dedicated to addressing criticism of this subject, some of the information in this section is transplanted into this new section. In the end, I feel that this would be a better way to convey this information as a counterpoint as opposed to simply bombarding the reader with all this information in an attempt to put to rest any doubts they have about this subject before they can even form. Framing it like this just comes across as manipulative and detracts from the article's neutrality. –Nahald (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The section in its entirety is nothing more than a glorifying endorsement of the subject, which is something that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. It is not Wikipedia's job to tell people what they should consider important.Rimmer7 (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Nearly unreadable—should be rewritten from scratch[edit]

This has to be one of the most unreadable and opaque articles I've accessed on Wikipedia. So many statements are provided without any attempt to contextualize them. Look at this, from the opening section:

Bracha L. Ettinger transformed subjectivity in contemporary psychoanalysis since the early 1990s with the Matrixial feminine-maternal and prematernal Eros of borderlinking (bordureliance), borderspacing (bordurespacement) and co-emergence. The matrixial feminine difference defines a particular gaze and it is a source for trans-subjectivity and transjectivity in both males and females. Ettinger rethinks the human subject as informed by the archaic connectivity to the maternal and proposes the idea of a Demeter-Persephone Complexity.

What in the FSM is this supposed to mean to a general reader with no background in the subject (the taget audience of Wikipedia)? It jumps out in the middle of an already-opaque section, seemingly out of nowhere. The whole article is like this. No, the answer is not to hyperlink all the terms. The answer is to consider the audience and rewrite this entire article from scratch. It reads like the scattered notes for a book- or paper-in-progress, not an encyclopaedia article trying to enlighten curious non-specialist readers. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Anne-Marie Smith, Julia Kristeva: Speaking teh Unspeakable (Pluto Press, 1988)
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^