Talk:Woman/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Girl re-direct
2 Affectionate bitches
3 Femininity, womanhood, etc.
4 Painting
5 Understanding
6 Symbol
7 Gender role secion
8 Image
9 Nude drawings
10 painting of Venus comment
11 Vulgar terms??
12 Re: A suggestion about the nude picture...

Girl re-direct

In response to Notthe9 saying on Talk:Man that boy is not a good re-direct to man, I created a new boy article. Anyone have similar opinions on girl?? Georgia guy 22:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Affectionate bitches

where? cite please. Sam Spade 22:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll give citations as soon as I can (which means in the morning). That will give you time to produce your citations for "ebonics". "Bitch" (as in "you daft bitch", or "you silly bitch", etc.) is used in Lincolnshire, and parts north in the same way that men often use "bastard" ("Hello you old bastard", etc.). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

We're both up to three reverts now, so I suggest that you sleep on it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

"I'll give citations as soon as I can (which means in the morning)"

What morning would that be? 2 days later and your still reverting with no citation, and playing childish games. Do you really require evidence of the use of "bitch" in ebonics? If so, I'll take them both out. Sam Spade 21:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, your usual desperate attempt at assuming good faith and not abusing other editors personally. OK, it's true that you failed, but at least you tried.

My books are mostly in boxes awaiting the completion of the library, and finding Web references was difficult -- not only for this slang/dialext term, but for any Lincolnshire usage. Aside from a self-application by one Midlands woman (West Midlands, but there are many similarities) [1] which, though typical, is unconvincing on its own, I have only a book reference: Lincolnshire Dialects by G. Edward Campion. I'm told by a colleague that there's also a reference in Wodds and Doggerybaw: A Lincolnshire Dialect Dictionary and Companion by J.M. Sims-Kimbrey, but I haven't been able to get to the Bodleian to check that.

as for your failure to provide any citation — yes, I do require it. I'm familiar with my native linguistic usage, but not with so-called ebonics. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Thats a self labeling. I've seen bumperstickers claiming the car was owned by some sort of "bitch", and I've even been warned off of dating girls when they told me (assumably correctly ;) that they were "a real bitch". I don't disagree that the term is used in a self labeling manner. What I disagree with is what you have been trying to force into the article with 5 reverts and NO cites, since the cite you provided was of self labeling...

The two book references should be fine I suppose, but please clarify what they are backing up, and how, by quoting from them if at all possible. Sam Spade 22:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Why are deleting the whole section? If you want to delete your addition (for which, it's true, you cited no evidence), that's OK, and even deleting my addition makes sense given your little vendetta, but deleting an unrelated editor's original text is unexplained and unjustified. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Your mischaracterization is unfortunate. The entire section is redundant and inacurate. See Woman#Vulgar_terms. Sam Spade 18:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

After removing the whole section on "bitch" a couple of times, SS has placed this page on RfC, claiming that the disagreement is merely over whether the term is used affectionately... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Came here from RfC. The dispute is over the entire phrase? I can't speak to its use in ebonics specifically or what it means in other cultures, but as a woman myself I can tell you that I and my girlfriends do call each other "bitch" sometimes and it is not considered offensive. I'm not sure affectionate is exactly the word, but it's probably the closest approximation of the sentiment. Only between women, though. I wouldn't take it well if a guy called me a bitch no matter how affectionately he meant it... unless maybe he was gay. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:20, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Same here. I wouldn't hear it as affectionate coming from a man (other than a gay man), and from a woman, only if I knew her well. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:27, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

What I had in mind is that in the English Midlands (and further North), the term "bitch" is used rather differently; for example, a mother might say to her daughter (after some mistake or clumsiness) "give it here, I'll do it you daft bitch". The degree of offensiveness of words and phrases differs enormously from region to region; in the North, for example, "bugger" is used rather more widely than in the South^*, and after I'd moved South I remember feeling momentary shock when, for example, a respectable middle-aged woman told me that she felt knackered.

— I'm known by friends for not swearing, except for "bugger", which just means less to me than it does to southerners. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Thats all very hard to believe, but I'll take your word(s) on it. I especially don't understand the exception for homosexuals (would it be ok coming from a sheep shagger?), but I guess thats the sort of thing one doesn't learn from watching BBC. Sam Spade 12:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

- I've never really deconstructed it, but I would imagine it has to do with gender power dynamics. Historically, bitch has been a word that (mostly) men used to denigrate women, particularly those they found threatening or aggressive. So to have a man use the phrase with me instantly invokes that power dynamic, even if he doesn't necessarily mean it to come off that way. There's not the same gender power dynamic between me and a gay man, so it's different. It's similar to how black people use nigger, I imagine. Between other black people it's fine, but as soon as someone outside their race uses it, it invokes the old racial power dynamic and that makes it not OK. · Katefan0^(scribble) 13:51, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, slurs directed at me and mine are offensive. I am more tolerant of friends than of strangers, but calling me names isn't generally a good idea no matter who you are. Maybe as a euro-american male its especially hard for me to understand the concept of "reclaiming" a slur, I donno. Sam Spade 14:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Femininity, womanhood, etc.

Does anyone else feel that the sentence giving a list of nouns supposedly describing the qualities of being a woman is unnecessary and potentially offensive? "Womanhood" simply gives us a derived noun, "femininity" is controversial at best (and there's no article (it's a redirect to Gender roles), and "muliebrity" is a neologism, whose Wikipedia article has been taken to VfD. I've removed it, as it seems more a tactic in the VfD discussion on muliebrity than anything else. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The above are not valid reasons for deleting correct and neutral sentence.

"offensive": we already have slang terms here
"contorversial": you are welcome to describe the controversy in the corresponding article
"neologism": judging from how VfD goes, the article has high chances to survive
"tactic": he-he :-); I voted for deletion! Mikkalai 16:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Slang and offensive terms are mentioned, not used.

- I mention and not use.Mikkalai

There isn't a corresponding article; the link that you've added is to a redirect to Gender role, to which there's already a link in the summary.Mikkalai

- So what? I am editing the perfectly relevant "Terminology" section

However the VfD goes, it's still a neologism, used by hardly anyone, and the article is merely an extended dictionary definition with little useful content.

- Did you try to google it lately? Mikkalai 18:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

A peculiar tactic, then. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Irrespective of possible offensiveness, the sentence seems inappropriate because it is a dictionary definition. If it stays it should also list womanliness and femaleness but I feel that this is slithering towards the thesaural. --Theo (Talk) 17:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Before referring to a policy it is advisable to refresh its knowledge: Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term, i.e., it speaks about separate entires, i.e., articles. It goes further: Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields I don't see why woman article cannot have a mini-glossary. the section name is just this: Terms Mikkalai 18:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will add the missing synonyms. --Theo (Talk) 20:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Painting

The painting caption "The Birth of Venus" is not correct as if you follow the link, the image is different. MyNameIsNotBob 08:25, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Understanding

I came looking for a guide on understanding Women, but none was found... :(

would be a good idea tho imho. --TheJackal 06:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Symbol

Symbol for "female"

If this is to go into the article (and it seems reasonable to me that it should), we need something more. What is its origin (alchemy, or astronomy/astrology, via its use for Venus?), and why? Just sticking it in unexplained is worse than useless, I think. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the remark. I didn't realise that in the english Wikipedia this symboy was not yet described. I took the decsription from the venus article and german Wikipedia. Suggestions are welcome since i am not quite a native speaker.

regarding to the alchemy sources are some helpful links if someone wants to expand it or seeks reference: http://www.hexagongirl.com/y/22-Alchemy&Symbols.html http://www.almac.co.uk/personal/tidmaraj/paper2.htm --Leopard 17:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I've had a quick look, and the articles on Venus and Alchemical symbol have descriptions and explanations:

"Copper dominated by Venus (also: )" (from Alchemical symbol)

Its symbol is the sign also known in biology for female sex, a stylized representation of the goddess Venus's hand mirror: a circle with a small cross underneath (Unicode: ♀). The Venus symbol also represents feminity, and in ancient alchemy stood for copper. Alchemists constructed the symbol from a circle (representing spirit) above a cross (representing matter)." (from Venus)

While writing this, I checked the article, and found the new version, obviously taken from the second of the two articles above. I've tidied it, incorporating the corrections that I've amde to Venus. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Gender role secion

The Culture and gender roles section contains the following passage:

Because of their intimate knowledge of plant life, most anthropologists argue that it was women who led the Neolithic Revolution and became history's first pioneers of agriculture.

Is this true? Not whether women's role in the neolithic revolution is what it says (we are not here to arbitrate truth or falsehood about reality), but that most anthropologists claim this? I have read pitifully little about this fascinating subject—should be easy enough to verify, if true.

Also, the second paragraph of that section is terrible.

In more recent history, the gender roles of women have changed greatly.

This seems to mean 20th century Western history and chronicles the change from domestic tasks to paid employment. But then it goes on,

Eventually, restricting women from wage labor came to be a mark of wealth and prestige in a family, while the presence of working women came to mark a household as being lower-class.

What time period is this supposed to be about? And what culture, for that matter? Arbor 10:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Image

I'd like to propose to include this image in the article - it's descriptive, and the pose is similar to the Venus painting that is also in the article. It would look better than the drawing from the Pioneer-Plaque at the top. The German Wikipedia is already using it in de:Frau. The background is not very good, though - maybe someone could edit it out...

Note that unlike the nude that was in the article a few months ago (and had the same file name), this one was taken and uploaded by a trusted wikipedian.

I meight have been bold, but this article is prone to edit wars, and people seem touchy about it;) I'm also not very active in the english wikipedia, so, you decide... Regards -- G. Gearloose (?!) 17:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What part of that objection didn't you understand. - Nunh-huh 22:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That there is no corresponding image available for man currently is not a valid argument for not including the image here. --Rtc 22:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is. Wikipedia cannot take the point of view that it is acceptable to objectify and sexualize women and not objectify and sexualize men, and should not suggest that the difference between women and men is restricted to the fact that women have vaginas and breasts. - Nunh-huh 22:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should think about why there is no corresponding image available for man... - Nunh-huh 22:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Everything you said would apply against the plaque image as well, so it is still not an argument against changing the plaque image to the photo. An image of a man is not available yet because obviously nobody has found a model to do the job for free and accept the resulting photo to be published under GFDL. People are working on it. Not having a photo for man is only temporary and thus per se not POV. Besides all that the text itself can clarify things enough for the photo (as well as the plaque) not to be misinterpreted in the way you say. You should care about that instead of reverting if this is really your objection. --Rtc 22:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No, we have a corresponding plaque image. And photography is more sexualizing and objectifying than drawing. POV is POV whether "temporary" or not. - Nunh-huh 22:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A photo that is sexualizing and objectifying is POV and should not be included anyway, and if there is also a sexualizing and objectifying photo of a man that wouldn't be a reason for including both: two wrongs dont make a right. However, this photo was especially shot for not being sexualizing and objectifying and it has been agreed that this goal has been fulfilled. Else we'd not have accepted in the German wikipedia. Now the context decides, and in the context of an encyclopedia this photo is absolutely neutral. Merely being a photo instead of a drawing by itself does not automatically make anything more sexualizing or objectifying. --Rtc 23:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course it does. A photograph is necessarily of a particular person; a drawing can be of a reified concept of a thing (e.g. womanness) rather than of a particular, and therefore objectified, person. - Nunh-huh 23:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That is not the kind of 'objectification' that would make the picture POV. --Rtc 23:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

(As you can clearly see that this argument would also apply to the photo at Toaster or any other photo as well.) --Rtc 23:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't "objectify" a toaster. A toaster is already an object! -Nunh-huh 23:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You wrote 'objectification' above in the sense of from the abstract concept (womanness) to the concrete object (the depicted woman). This is exactly the same for the toaster, as I already wrote. This is however not what you object to, since it is obviously the case for every photo. What you object to is objectification in the sense that the photo in your opinion depicts the woman as if it were an object. This is not the case, and it is also not the case that this is automatic for any picture or naked picture of humans. --Rtc 23:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is the case: removing clothing is removing social and individual context, and necessarily objectifies. That is usually the point of nudes. - Nunh-huh 23:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That might be your personal opinion; it does not hinder the inclusion in the wikipedia. The picture is descriptive, it is encyclopedic, it is neutral. If you don't have any other objections, I will include the picture again. --Rtc 00:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you don't agree with me doesn't invalidate my point. My suggestion is you wait for further input. - Nunh-huh 00:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You argue against photos of nudity in general which has been discussed over and over and the outcome has been the same every time: If the photo is neutral, encyclopedic and descriptive, it can of course be included. You did not give any reasonable arguments concerning this particular case which give any new objection beyond those already discussed and rejected for the general case. The burden of proof that this particular picture not be included is on your side. Since it has been included without any objections in German Wikipedia, what speaks against doing the edit and then waiting for further input? As you have seen above, waiting for input on the discussion page is futile, only doing the change moves something. --Rtc 00:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Some more precise information on German Wikipedia: The picture has not been 'included without any objections', on the contrary, there have been enough harsh protests to even remove it temporarily. Please don't tell me that choosing a photo which emphasizes those body features that are supposed to make a woman attractive to men is objective or neutral. I think it defines a woman in terms of physical attractiveness and male attention which is not what I'd like to see as a default in an encyclopedia.

No, I don't argue against "photos of nudity in general". I argue that the picture is not a better illustration than we have at present. P.S. The German Wikipedia is irrelevant. - Nunh-huh 00:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You did not argue that the picture fails to be a better illustration, you argued that you object it because you think it objectifies and sexualizes. Clearly a photo of the real thing is a better illustration than a rough drawing, especially given that the drawing depicts the woman only schematically and has been censored. This actually is prudery POV. (The man drawing, by the way, at least does not have the latter problem.) Wikipedia is not censored for the promotion of decency. The German Wikipedia might be irrelevant from the formal point of view; at least it shows that the objections you make are to many people not as convincing as to provide reason for a ban of the picture until further discussion. Your initial argument mentioning man did not hold up, so I hope you agree to include the photo again. Alternatively, at least put a request for comments to a prominent resp. the appropriate place for this (I am de.wikipedian, so I guess you know better how this is done here) so the further discussion can actually take place. You have seen yourself that this discussions would probably silently disappear in the archives if this is not done. --Rtc 01:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If there is no demand for the photo, there is no demand for it. Are you going around to all the various Wikipedias to promote the photo or something? - Nunh-huh 03:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. A "good illustration" for woman would not "objectify and sexualize". By definition an illustration that did that would not be "good". The last tittie photo (the one that was so roundly rejected) was also from the German encyclopedia. What's up with you guys over there?

Wikipedia is not about demand (also, a 'silent majority' is not an argument), it is about being an encyclopedia, and a picture of how a real woman looks naked is mandatory for an article about a woman, since it provides information you don't have with drawings or with text alone.

I agree about 'good', but IMO the photo *is* good/not objectifying and sexualizing. The tittie photo was rejected in the German wikipedia, too, among other things because it was probably a copyright violation. I personally have never seen it so I cannot comment much on it. --Rtc 03:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you against including any photo like this, against including this photo in particular or only against this photo here without a corresponding photo for man as you initially said? --Rtc 23:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it inferior to what is there now, but would accept them as at least equally inferior substitutes if a corresponding photo can be found in order to avoid the sexism of using it in one and not the other. - Nunh-huh 23:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

This is definitely not sexism, but a temporary technicality in the same fashion as you can't avoid bad style etc. until it is improved. The correct way would be to complain at man for them to make and include a corresponding photo, not to hinder the inclusion of the photo here because they are not so fast there. POV can only be in the context of a single article. That some picture in some other article might perhaps be sexistic to a few people if put besides a picture from this article is not an argument: It is not POV in the article itself, but POV you are generating inside your head when putting the articles side by side mentally. --Rtc 23:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

there's absolutely no urgency to place this picture here, and also no consensus that it's better than what's there now. - Nunh-huh 00:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Rtc, the primary argument against including your photo, is that the Pioneer plaque image is an alleged attempt at racial neutrality. [2] --Viriditas 06:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

An argument you consider to be for the drawing is not automatically an argument against the photo. Humans on a photo are necessarily an individual. --Rtc 15:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

And an ethnically-neutral drawing is preferred. --Viriditas 07:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If we can't decide which is better, the photo or the drawing, let's include both as a compromise. --Rtc 15:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This is quite an absurd discussion. From what I gather, Nunh-huh would object to any nude picture because of "sexualization" and "objectification". The notion that this is all the more so because there is no corresponding nude picture of a man in another article is especially hilarious. Drawings are not bad per se, but in the 19th century, a thing called photography was invented, which undoubtedly creates better likenesses than most drawings, especially than those in question. A really good anatomical drawing would be fine as a complement to a photograph, but these NASA pictures are really embarrassing in this context because of their simplicity. They are suited much better to illustrate the article on the Pioneer plaque.
Viriditas, if you're concerned about racial neutrality, I don't think anybody would object to another picture (or pictures) of a colored/Asian/other not white woman. (And the same is true for pictures of men, too.)

In closing, I second Rtc's arguments and think the picture should be used. And yes, I'm German, one of those "What's up with you guys over there?" guys. --Rosenzweig 19:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- You misrepresent what I've said. There can be no "likeness" of "woman", there can only be liknesses of a woman. There are no photographs of "woman", only of a woman. There can, however, be drawings meant to depict "woman", and the Pioneer drawing is indeed exactly that. It's nice that you're German: perhaps you can explain why you guys are now evangelizing a second "frau" photo here? Is this gal one of your friends, or what? Though I think the editorial opinions of various language Wikipedias need to be independent, I'd note that the Pioneer drawing is used by Afrikaans, Bân-lâm-gú, Català, Dansk, Esperanto, Français, Hindi, Hebrew, Nederlands, Polski, Portugés, Russian, Sicilianu, Simple English, Slovenščina, Suomi, Српски / Srpski, Svenska , and 中文 versions, while your favorite picture is used only by the German and, since 20 December 2005, when inserted by an IP from Deutsche Telekom, the Spanish editions. - Nunh-huh 00:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Fine. Then you should consider replacing all images of specific animals illustrating their respective articles (here for example) with drawings, because of course those images show not the respective species per se, but an individual of this species. I'm confident you'll take appropriate action. Or then again, perhaps you might see the absurdity of your argument, as well as that of your insinuations. --Rosenzweig 18:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that when the animals complain that objectification is an affront to their dignity. - Nunh-huh 08:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So what... Many people see things wikipedia writes about as an affront to their dignity. Many people have a POV that things should not be included in Wikipedia. That is however not a reason for excluding it: Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points. WP:NPOV So Wikipedia follows a policy of describing any POV, not excluding anything that might be an affront to dignity according to someone's POV. Then in fact, wikipedia would be empty. This topic has been discussed over and over and each time it was clearly acknowledged that wikipedia is not censored for the promotion decency. --Rtc 18:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments are wavering: first you state that a picture would not represent "woman" per se, but only a woman. Then, when I answer that this is similarly the case with many other pictures as well (the animal pictures), you suddenly switch to the "objectification is an affront to their dignity" argument. It seems to me you don't really want to discuss rationally. You only seem to be against this specific photograph, and when someone challenges your argument, you simply try to switch the topic. Because of this, a further discussion with you would obviously be fruitless, and you and your arguments cannot be taken seriously. --Rosenzweig 18:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Imagine! There are at least two simultaneous reasons for not using the photograph of your friend! Shocking! Of course, there's no need to discuss the photo unless you intend to try to reinsert it. - Nunh-huh 02:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There is basically only one valid reason that was mentioned, the background. Once this has been fixed, the photo will be inserted again. About your various Gish Gallop: It turned out not to be conclusive. You won't succeed censoring Wikipedia. Live with it. --Rtc 16:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I generally supported the previous frau image, which resulted in much contention. This one is not as good however, and considering how many images the article currently has, I am uncertain it is needed. If the background was removed I would reconsider. Sam Spade 01:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I should say that I think a good anatomical drawing would be much more scientifically informative than either the NASA image or any photograph. Surely there must be some old PD thing we could dig up.--Pharos 20:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition, yeah, but a real photo is required too. --Rtc 21:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the first, main picture here should be a picture of Kylie Minogue in her twenties. Then she looked like a Goddess.

Even at 37 she is rather well-preseved. Ruby 23:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Nude drawings

"The news media faced one rather embarrassing dilemma with this particular story:the man and the woman on the Pioneer plaque were depicted in the nude...Robert Kraemer...was nervous about it...I feared...taxpayers might label it pornographic...John Naugle, had no such fears and approved the design but with the one compromise....[3] The public was concerned, dismayed, even angered by the idea of sending drawings of nude human beings into the cosmos." [4] --Viriditas 07:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The draft with the line was never published, public never saw it. Thus it couldn't object to it, which in turn means that couldn't be the reason for the removal. What public objected was the modified drawing without the line. --Rtc 14:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you are misinterpreting the statement. "Due to public objections to human nudity" refers to Kraemer and Naugle's decision in the face of taxpayers who would label it pornographic. Naugle's "compromise" was made in response to Kraemer's "fears". There was (and probaly still is to a lesser extent) a public objection to human nudity at the time. This does not refer to objections to the plaque itself, which obviously came later. Your statement "what public objected was the modified drawing without the line" is not necessarily true. There was a massive, public outrcy against the male and female nudity on the plaque. A few journalists, writers, and commentators did object to the removal of the vulva, but the vast majority objected to the nudity itself, and this contoversy is widely documented, especially in the book, Carl Sagan's Cosmic Connection: An Extraterrestrial Perspective. Sagan touches upon the issue, but does not exactly answer the question as to why the vulva is missing. Murmurs of Earth: The Voyager Interstellar Record, is supposed to have some answers, but I don't have access to it. --Viriditas 00:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You are speculating and making a hypothetical statement which can be misinterpreted. My version just tells the facts, without any further speculation: that it was removed at Naugle's request. I hope we agree on this. --Rtc 19:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There's no speculation and nothing hypothetical about it. Kraemer and Naugle's decision is based on the public objection to human nudity, not the plaque itself. What is not clear, is the exact words used in Kraemer's memoir, as well as Sagan's description of the controversy, but this is not the place for this discussion. I will be pursuing further research on this matter on my own time, and hope to resolve this issue by quoting sources which eliminate any ambiguity. --Viriditas 09:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am looking forward to see something like that, but be careful not to do something that might be considered original research if you want to include it in the article.

Besides that, I think the note should perhaps be eliminated and instead simply put a reference saying that the vagina thing is described at the plaque article. --Rtc 18:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

God makes it very clear in the Garden of Eden that nudity is good, but shame is bad. Way to go Kraemer, you wanker! Sam Spade 00:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

painting of Venus comment

The following sentence was at the end of the Etymology section:

The painting of Venus, while having an impressive name, is only of the ideal woman of the Victorian era, incorporating such aspects as being hairless except for her head, having pale skin, and having a fragile look about her.

I have moved it here because it seemed odd for several reasons: First, it is not clear what painting it refers to -- Bouguereau's Birth of Venus? Second, it has little connection with the etymology of "woman" or "Venus". Third, it is somewhat POV. --Allen 15:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Vulgar terms??

I fail to understand why the section vulgar terms should stand in this article. The following passage is tangential to the topic in question (if not totally irrelevant).

In some cultural groups, terms considered extremely offensive to most women (e.g., bitch, cunt, or ho) are used to refer to women in general. Many terms that refer to women's physical appearance (e.g., hottie, a sexually attractive woman) see wide use, but many consider them to imply sexual objectification.

I dont see why the above passage should stand when there is no section called 'Vulgar terms' in Man. This strongly suggests a contextual POV. I plan to remove the above passage in a couple of days. Any objections? Chancemill 05:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that some women live in environments where people habitually refer to them in offensive terms does seem to me relevant to understanding Woman. And as the application of offensive terms to men is far rarer, it makes sense to me that the articles Woman and Man could be asymmetrical in this way. But perhaps the idea that people often apply offensive terms to women comes across enough in the "Slang" section above? If you and others feel like that's the case, I could support removing the "Vulgar terms" section.

On the other hand, are you suggesting that some might question whether people apply offensive terms to women more often than to men? If you are, then it sounds like we need to find some references for the idea and present it as an opinion rather than as a fact.

--Allen 09:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Women are refered to in a vulger manner based on their gender far more often then men. They also suffer many other advantages and disadvantages. That said, men have their own ups and downs (more raw power vrs. more danger, etc...). Many mens rights organisations feel that men have the worst of it in the end, since they are much more likely to get killed in wars and dangerous occupations and such. I think the vulger section takes up to much of the article, but the answer should be to expand other areas. How about a section on significant women in history, female accomplishments and so forth? I can see a new article on Vulgar terms for women, or something of that sort being created if the content gets much longer. Sam Spade 12:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

To me, this is always a question of whether societal 'norms' are essential or constructed. An argument that states that men are at a disadvantage in a particular society because they are 'more likely to get killed in wars and dangerous occupations' fails to take into consideration the manner in which the society is set up, i.e. that men are in these positions because we as a society choose to put them there. There are many examples of women who capably and ably take on these dangerous roles; if they're not encouraged to do so in our society, it is our own bias towards women that causes it.

In addition, I'd like people to take a step back and think about how biases (and oppression) towards women are perpetuated. When a focus on vulgarity against women is given so much attention by a high-profile resource like Wikipedia (while leaving the 'Man' article alone, so to speak), the environment that validates and allows for the vulgarity is nurtured and allowed to continue. Wikipedia strives towards neutral documentation, well fine, the article should be mentioning the fact that sexism and this kind of vulgarity against women is so rampant, and that language plays a huge role in that sexism. But why should there be a list of these terms, making the article lopsidedly focussed on the terms? Besides, shouldn't lists of vocabulary of that nature be relegated to the Wiktionary or some other repository of terminology? Wikipedia is always (and admirably) shooting for NPOV, but NPOV doesn't preclude equity. We have an obligation to acknowledge this wrong in society, but we also have an obligation to not participate in it as well. :: Salvo (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone took out the vulgar terms section, on the grounds that it's asymmetrical with the Man page. I'm not necessarily against that. But the Man page also doesn't have a Slang section. And if I'm reading Salvo's comments right, it might make sense to keep the Vulgar Terms section, but delete the Slang section instead. Salvo, does that make sense to you? --Allen 02:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I should've read this before I took out the vulgar terms section. I also don't like the slang section and I think both should stay out. --Mmarchin 02:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the article should mention anywhere that people often call women offensive things? If not, why not? --Allen 03:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No. I think vulgar terms would be better under Misogyny. Anti-semitism is a separate page from Jew (for example). --Mmarchin 03:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to mention in this article that misogyny and sexism exist, but I agree with Mmarchin's suggestion that these things be put in the article about Misogyny. As for the notion of symmetry, I realize that NPOV ideals would suggest that the Woman and Man pages should be symmetrical, but the truth of the matter is that women endure oppression of a different nature and a different degree than men do, at least in many societies, and this oppression is often manifested in the form of language (i.e. slang and vulgarities). My opinion is that neither list, of slang or vulgarities, belong on this page, as they are demeaning to women, and to include them here is to perpetuate the misogynist environment that such language creates. I have no problem to a short reference, with a link, to the Misogyny article. :: Salvo (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sold. I hadn't thought about putting things into Misogyny. It doesn't sound like there'll be much opposition. I'll go ahead and start moving things; please improve on whatever I do. --Allen 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)