Talk:Femininity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Femininity article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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	This article has been rated as start-Class.

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Femininity, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of 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, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.

Contents 1 Problems with this article 2 Not enough about breasts and stuff 3 contrast/opinion 4 Females have narrow hips? 5 POV EDIT REVERTING 6 NPOV warning? 7 Editing: Femininity in lesbians 8 Pictures? 9 Femininity extremely confused with Western beauty ideals 10 A few changes

[edit] Problems with this article

• Men "continually test the masculinity of their associates"?
• "Femininity is rooted in . . . early development", but masculinity is "mastered" well into adulthood?
• Comments on the "fake homosexual women" are just plain confusing, but certainly sounds POV.

Much of this article is well-written, but I think, Endomion, that you've made a few unsupportable statements here. I congratulate you on the work you've done, expanding this in a major way. I just think you've got a few things to tighten up, IMHO. Unschool 06:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well sue me, I have taken this article up from a little bitty stub. At any rate, it's largely completed and I can fine tune it for NPOV tomorrow maybe. Endomion 06:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, I think it's good work (didn't I say that?). My objections were largely in the first ¶, and, as I've said, you've done a lot of work. If I thought your writing sucked, I would have made the changes myself. I think you more than deserve the chance to fine-tune it. Good night. Unschool 06:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, my first remarks were out of line. Endomion 06:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's okay—as it turns out, my lawyer wouldn't pick up his cell phone anyway. :) Unschool 06:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not enough about breasts and stuff

I'm surprised at how bad this article is. I just felt I need to complain before attempting to fix it. I'll probably leave some things out, so it should be reviewed by another editor. -Barry- 03:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] contrast/opinion

If I was a female, I could be much more masculine than an action-movie lead actor.

[edit] Females have narrow hips?

The article formerly said that "narrow hips in relation to shoulders" is a feminine body trait, apparently indicating that women have relatively narrower hips and wider shoulders than men, which is obviously completely backwards. I changed that. 71.68.75.61 15:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV EDIT REVERTING

Please don't remove my writings just because you have a personal problem with them. Perhaps you could explain to me why my addition to the top of the page was removed, and why you disagree with it.

• Hi. Your additions are unverifiable because you have not provided sources. Please provide sources when you add material to an article. Otherwise, your additions may be construed as vandalism or deleted for violation of the neutral point of view policy. Srose (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a source to the page for my addition. I'd like you to note that it is the ONLY source on the page, and by your 'logic' I could delete anything I want on the entire feminity page because none of it is sourced. Please keep your point of view to yourself, thank you.

• This is a good point; the article does generally lack sources. However, the text of your edit seemed very POV. Now that it is sourced, I will take a second look and in the mean time look for sources for the rest of the article. Srose (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone seems to be continually deleteing my entries with bias. My additions to the article can probably be construed as "negative" by most women. In the "women in the media" section, I deleted useless information about celebrities and added an intelligent counter arguement to the feminist arguement presented in the same section. I understand some of you may be having a "Girl Power" moment, but instead of deleting what I'm saying because you don't like it, you instead absorb my information and debate it in your head intelligently. Thank you.

• (A) The subject matter of your edits are completly inappropriate for the introductoary paragraph of the article. (B) Unless your source represents the scientific consensus in the field, your edits still POV (whether it is your own or that of an expert). Provide context and read the policy. (C) Reasons were given for the reverts and you chose not to respond to them. Instead you've proceeded with an angry, defensive tone. (D) You don't have a right to the sanctity of your edits. If the community rejects them, please do not continue to reinsert them. You did the same over at the Christianity page. Trnj2000 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV warning?

Under "Femininity in men" the follow seems rather POV to me (not saying I disagree with the statement, just that it's POV): "However, while some do exaggerate their femininity, most are only expressing their true personalities and therefore deserve tolerance."

Perhaps this article needs an NPOV warning on the top of the page, considering it seems to be having a lot of POV issues? 129.110.199.43 04:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is definitely not currently written in a NPOV tone, and really needs authoritative references to back some of the statements being made. I'll help by editing and discussing issues here.

Just for starters, the statement: "Distinctly feminine attributes are hard to pin down ... because each attribute can be manifested in either sex." Is an interesting concept. The article isn't about those attributes which are *always* feminine, but those that are commonly attributed to femininity. The goal here isn't to write an article which only a lesbian or transgendered person would be happy with, but to write an article that would describe femininity from the perspective of the general population with sub-sections talking about disputes to the generalizations. DavidBailey 11:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing: Femininity in lesbians

Okay, for starters, this whole section has no citations and statements of opinion and even propogation of "stereotypes" as examples. I think we can do better.

While the purported homosexual women depicted in pornography tend to be feminine in the traditional sense of the word, the stereotypical "real" lesbian is imagined as a rather androgynous if not masculine woman who crops her hair short and wears jeans and leather vests (called a butch) however it is argued that this is no more than a perception. (citation needed)

I guess the question is, firstly, is it important to have a lesbian section in an article about femininity? Writing this section from authoritative sources and a NPOV is going to be challenging. I think from the LGBT social movements page the consensus is that the concept of femininity is flawed to begin with. How about we state at the end of the lead section that socially defined qualities are under dispute by the LGBT community and leave it at that? DavidBailey 12:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures?

The article for masculinity has examples of what is and has been masculine through time and what is "acceptable" in society. It'd be a good idea to have the same thing here.User:172.212.120.33 19:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Bold text

[edit] Femininity extremely confused with Western beauty ideals

The section on femininity in the media is more about Western beauty ideals than about femininity. For example, one author contradicts herself by citing the "tomboyish" flapper as a "feminine" ideal. In reality, flappers were not manifesting femininity, but rather slightly less physical oppression imposed by the dictates of femininity, as permitted briefly by the dominant culture.Jamidwyer 04:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Jamidwyer

Update: I couldn't leave it like that. I'm not super-attached to what I changed, but I do think changing the section to "Feminine physical attributes" (and eventually adding a section about non-physical attributes that are associated with femininity), is an improvement over mixing up beauty messages from the modern Western media with femininity.

[edit] A few changes

Symmetry is attractive in both men and women, so it isn't specific to femininity. Many people criticize unrealistic beauty ideals for women, not only feminists, and not only radical feminists. Also, one can not be both "boyish" and feminine, by definition, but someone keeps saying so about flappers. This section could really use some biology ("In some cultures, two X chromosomes and a vagina are considered feminine..."). Jamidwyer 06:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Jamidwyer

I agree. We need to start with some biology; perhaps a few words on genetics and the female reproductive system and then moving briskly into secondary sex characteristics. Currently the article is too focused on beauty standards (an important aspect of the topic but we need to cover other stuff too). Haukur 08:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)