This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Femininity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Here is a collection of some
common concerns and objections that can be copied and pasted into this talk page. They can also be linked to from this talk page. |
The lead of the article includes content that is not supported by the body of the article, presenting us with a
MOS:LEAD problem. In particular, the article is not adhering to "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."
I propose we remove the suggestion that femininity as a social construct is an idea held only by sociologists, and I insist that we remove that there is "widespread recognition" that femininity is biologically influenced. I know, and the article shows, that femininity as a social construct is the mainstream view in multiple disciplines. I suspect, and would like for the article to show, that there is widespread acknowledgment of the influence of biology on femininity. That said, the failure to improve this article in a
WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY manner has led to problems, the quickest solution for which is the changes I've proposed. Pinging
Pyrite Pro, though I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of others.
Firefangledfeathers
22:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm suggesting the addition of any number of personality statistics pertaining to personality inventories. The big 5 personality inventory is perhaps the most readily available and accessible of these. Such statistics could help to avoid a non-committal tone where hard evidence is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:410:4301:4220:B8CA:B8A6:F10A:874E ( talk) 23:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Could I get another pair of eyes or two on the two religion subsections, Asian religions and Judeo-Christian theology? I'm getting lots of information about what religious concepts or deities are feminine, or argued to be so, but little about how these traditions view or understand femininity. My instinct is to start trimming, but I'd love another opinion. Firefangledfeathers 03:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The lead states: "Femininity (also called womanliness) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with women and girls."
I had changed this to end with "associated with females"
instead.
[1] Sociology: A Global Perspective states "femininity: The physical, behavioral, and mental and emotional traits believed to be characteristic of females"
on page 202 of the 9th edition.
[2]
Newimpartial reverted me although I had attempted to compromise with "female humans".
[3] I would actually prefer to write "associated with the female sex", but I thought it was safer to stick to the source's wording. The existing wording is less clear.
Kolya Butternut (
talk)
23:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
"the quality or nature of the female sex : the quality, state, or degree of being feminine or womanly". [4] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 02:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
your interpretationis what we generally call WP:SYNTH. And since femininity is, in fact, generally defined in relation to gender (not "biological sex"), it seems WP:EXTRAORDINARY to me that you assume a sociology text to mean what you think it ought to mean, i.e., this non-circular definition that you would rather have. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
female, not women and girls. I feel like you haven't addressed this. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 03:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
"Femininity is defined in various dictionaries in either a circular manner as the quality of being feminine or indirectly as qualities associated with the female sex. ... The dominant conceptualization of femininity in most modern societies is best described by sex-role theory, which proses that humans unconsciously integrate archetypical ways of behaving that are appropriate to their assigned sex from society's institutions."One source from 2004 may not be sufficient to change the lead sentence, though. My motivation for wanting this change is to provide clarity to readers. Maybe the Gender article is where the change should be to avoid circular definitions. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thoughts; I have some fairly wackadoodle opinions myself. The problem was that you repeatedly edited the lead of this article to insert one selectively chosen piece of terminology because it solved a problem in your mind, but where that interpretation couldn't be justified in this article without resorting to OR/SYNTH reasoning. There isn't a justification within the literature on this topic to insert a "non-circular" definition, because most of the sources don't support that move. Newimpartial ( talk) 10:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
"your sociology text"and
"chosen dictionary"as if they weren't just the first sources I checked which happened to use the words I expected to find.
associated withis a vague phrase doing a lot of work there. We don't do our readers any favors by dumping an additional Rorschach into the lede to make a vague gesture at
female sex, which is something your selected sociology text doesn't do (thus SYNTH).
the first sources I checked which happened to use the words I expected to findis what the rest of us typically call CHERRYPICKING. I advise against that, particularly where the point you are trying to make can only be reached by juxtaposing such sources. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
"Effeminate" men are not effeminate, they're just feminine, just like masculine women are just masculine. Read R. A. Hoskin's dissertation (Femme theory), it's very reliable. Effeminate men and masculine women it's just sexist femmephobic terminological double standards. Reprarina ( talk) 20:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Femininity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Here is a collection of some
common concerns and objections that can be copied and pasted into this talk page. They can also be linked to from this talk page. |
The lead of the article includes content that is not supported by the body of the article, presenting us with a
MOS:LEAD problem. In particular, the article is not adhering to "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."
I propose we remove the suggestion that femininity as a social construct is an idea held only by sociologists, and I insist that we remove that there is "widespread recognition" that femininity is biologically influenced. I know, and the article shows, that femininity as a social construct is the mainstream view in multiple disciplines. I suspect, and would like for the article to show, that there is widespread acknowledgment of the influence of biology on femininity. That said, the failure to improve this article in a
WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY manner has led to problems, the quickest solution for which is the changes I've proposed. Pinging
Pyrite Pro, though I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of others.
Firefangledfeathers
22:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm suggesting the addition of any number of personality statistics pertaining to personality inventories. The big 5 personality inventory is perhaps the most readily available and accessible of these. Such statistics could help to avoid a non-committal tone where hard evidence is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:410:4301:4220:B8CA:B8A6:F10A:874E ( talk) 23:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Could I get another pair of eyes or two on the two religion subsections, Asian religions and Judeo-Christian theology? I'm getting lots of information about what religious concepts or deities are feminine, or argued to be so, but little about how these traditions view or understand femininity. My instinct is to start trimming, but I'd love another opinion. Firefangledfeathers 03:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The lead states: "Femininity (also called womanliness) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with women and girls."
I had changed this to end with "associated with females"
instead.
[1] Sociology: A Global Perspective states "femininity: The physical, behavioral, and mental and emotional traits believed to be characteristic of females"
on page 202 of the 9th edition.
[2]
Newimpartial reverted me although I had attempted to compromise with "female humans".
[3] I would actually prefer to write "associated with the female sex", but I thought it was safer to stick to the source's wording. The existing wording is less clear.
Kolya Butternut (
talk)
23:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
"the quality or nature of the female sex : the quality, state, or degree of being feminine or womanly". [4] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 02:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
your interpretationis what we generally call WP:SYNTH. And since femininity is, in fact, generally defined in relation to gender (not "biological sex"), it seems WP:EXTRAORDINARY to me that you assume a sociology text to mean what you think it ought to mean, i.e., this non-circular definition that you would rather have. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
female, not women and girls. I feel like you haven't addressed this. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 03:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
"Femininity is defined in various dictionaries in either a circular manner as the quality of being feminine or indirectly as qualities associated with the female sex. ... The dominant conceptualization of femininity in most modern societies is best described by sex-role theory, which proses that humans unconsciously integrate archetypical ways of behaving that are appropriate to their assigned sex from society's institutions."One source from 2004 may not be sufficient to change the lead sentence, though. My motivation for wanting this change is to provide clarity to readers. Maybe the Gender article is where the change should be to avoid circular definitions. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thoughts; I have some fairly wackadoodle opinions myself. The problem was that you repeatedly edited the lead of this article to insert one selectively chosen piece of terminology because it solved a problem in your mind, but where that interpretation couldn't be justified in this article without resorting to OR/SYNTH reasoning. There isn't a justification within the literature on this topic to insert a "non-circular" definition, because most of the sources don't support that move. Newimpartial ( talk) 10:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
"your sociology text"and
"chosen dictionary"as if they weren't just the first sources I checked which happened to use the words I expected to find.
associated withis a vague phrase doing a lot of work there. We don't do our readers any favors by dumping an additional Rorschach into the lede to make a vague gesture at
female sex, which is something your selected sociology text doesn't do (thus SYNTH).
the first sources I checked which happened to use the words I expected to findis what the rest of us typically call CHERRYPICKING. I advise against that, particularly where the point you are trying to make can only be reached by juxtaposing such sources. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
"Effeminate" men are not effeminate, they're just feminine, just like masculine women are just masculine. Read R. A. Hoskin's dissertation (Femme theory), it's very reliable. Effeminate men and masculine women it's just sexist femmephobic terminological double standards. Reprarina ( talk) 20:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)