![]() | This page 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. |
In many prehistoric cultures, women assumed a particular cultural role.
I don't see what this sentence adds. If women participate in culture, it is natural to assume they have some role, as do men. I think it needs expansion or clarification.
In hunter-gatherer societies, women were generally the gatherers of plant foods, small animal foods, fish, and learned to use dairy products, while men hunted meat from large animals.
It sounds correct but needs a citation
Because of their intimate knowledge of plant life, most anthropologists assert that it was women who led the Neolithic Revolution and became history's first pioneers of agriculture.
The prepositional phrase "because of..." can be associated with either "anthropologists" or "women", although "women" is the most logical choice. The idea should be stated more clearly. Also, the sentence makes a sweeping assertion, attributing it to the weaselish "most anthropolists". There needs to be a credible citation for it.
In more recent history, the gender roles of women have changed greatly.
I am confused. I should assume gender roles describes both men and women, and the phrase is only meaningful when it is related to both men and women. Describing the gender roles of women only seems very odd.
Traditional gender roles for middle-class women typically involved domestic tasks emphasizing child care, and did not involve entering employment for wages.
For the entire world? For western countries? Wage employment is only recent in human history. This sentence needs clarification. The verb "emphasising" is too vague.
For poorer women, especially among the working classes, this often remained an ideal, for economic necessity has long compelled them to seek employment outside the home, although the occupations traditionally open to working-class women were lower in prestige and pay than those open to men.
Ideal? How? There is little explanation. Clarity would help.
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.
Needs a citation. There are two unverified assertions.
The women's movement is in part a struggle for the recognition of equality of opportunity with men, and for equal rights irrespective of gender, even if special relations and conditions are willingly incurred under the form of partnership involved in marriage.
Everything following "even if" should be stated more clearly. Very little is said about what the women's movement actually is; only what it fights for is described.
The difficulties of obtaining this recognition are due to historical factors combined with the habits and customs history has produced.
POV and vague.
Through a combination of economic changes and the efforts of the feminist movement in recent decades women in most societies now have access to careers beyond the traditional one of "homemaker".
Which recent decades?
Despite these advances, modern women in Western society still face challenges in the workplace as well as with the topics of education, violence, health care, politics, and motherhood, and others.
Vague. Suspiciously like a promotion of feminism.
Sexism can be a main concern and barrier for woman almost anywhere, though its forms, perception, and gravity varies between societies and social classes.
Also Vague.
(Sexism affects men as well, though the roles it leaves open for men are most commonly equal- or higher-status.)
Confusing
These changes and struggles are among the foci of the academic field of women's studies.
"foci" makes it pretensious. It should be stated in better language.
Rintrah 04:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I like the photo with the nude fat woman. :] The Fat Guy 14:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
what fat woman?? i dont rememeber there ever being a photo of a fat woman. Cilstr 07:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
User:2nd Piston Honda made this edit which I reverted seeing it as POV (supporting a life begins at fertilization view). However I can also see that the less definite statement is itself not totally neutral. Is there better wording we can come up with that stays away from the issue of when new life is formed (which isn't a necessary subject for this article to tackle)? -- Siobhan Hansa 03:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
In the Bio section, i changed this:
The ovaries, in addition to their regulatory function producing hormones, produce female gametes called eggs which, when combined with male gametes ( sperm), can mature into new individuals.
into this
The ovaries, in addition to their regulatory function producing hormones, produce female gametes called eggs which, when fertilized by male gametes ( sperm), form a new individual human. (See Human Reproduction)
I was reverted and told to come to Talk.
It is factually and scientifically accurate to say that fertilization forms a new individual (ie Reproduction). If you want to make a claim about its legal standing in various countries, that's fine, but it's for another section or article. The section is about biology, and biologically it's a new individual of the human species at fertilization. 2nd Piston Honda 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is a source (from Human Rights Watch) that discusses the legal status of women: http://hrw.org/women/status.html It has sub-pages on the rights of women in specific regions (but not OECD ones): http://hrw.org/women/overview-mena.html
http://hrw.org/women/overview-lac.html
http://hrw.org/women/overview-asia.html Dogru144 18:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.
This article needs images of women from Europe in traditional costumes. Also the article needs one more or several images of the female nude in action, sports etc. -- Margrave1206 05:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a porn provider. Ariel. 04:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
ACtually i thought the venus would be good- but she really only shows breasts as the defining deference b/w men. ( and some ppl mite thing woman have no arms ;) ) NOt such a great example. There must be better statues. Frau was ok. BUt there is a vitrivan woman we mite b able to have?! Cilstr 07:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I see many references throughout the article referencing that "womanhood" starts at menarche, while this is typically and undeniably the most common case, some women never enter menarche, such as those with a form of Primary Amenorrhoea, who would undeniably have entered "womanhood" even though they are completely unable to have a menstrual cycle.
The only reason I haven't made this change yet myself, is that I'm not sure what would better suit it.
-- TRFA 16:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Some examples of male secondary sexual characteristics in humans, those acquired as boys become men or even later in life, are:
- deeper voice
- taller height
- facial hair or beard
- diamond shape pubic hair pattern
- increased body size overall
- less subcutaneous fat
- increase in overall body hair
- male pattern baldness
- coarser skin
- darker skin tone
- A higher level of androgenic hormones such as testosterone, making it easier for most men than most women to develop their muscles.
I think it wouldn't be too difficult to mock up.
Some examples of male secondary sexual characteristics in humans, those acquired as girls become women or even later in life, are:
- breast development
- wider hips
- more triangle-shaped pubic hair pattern
- more subcutaneous fat
- softer skin
- lighter skin tone
- shorter height when comparied to males generally due to earlier onset of puberty
- A lower level of androgenic hormones such as testosterone, making it harder for most women than most men to develop their muscles.
Most of the other things mentioned in the male article don't have any analogy in females. Female voices don't get higher from their childhood, they just don't drop, and change. -- Puellanivis 19:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
TRFA is stripping out section on women in presitigious positions; and he is replacing this section with a photo of Marilyn Monroe. TRFA apparently has a problem with uploading section on reality of women leaders; he instead is uploading Monroe piture. TRFA said see Talk section for explanation of stripping out women premiers. However, he has actually given no rationale for this stripping out the section. Dogru144 18:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
And the vast majority of the other (i.e., unelected) leaders have been male. So, the patriarchy argument about male rule over time holds. Dogru144 00:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I find nothing faulty in the women-in-modern-society section.
Pending formidable rationalizations for the tag's preservation, I shall remove it soon. Dogru144 02:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Removed the following:
I did sleep through a couple of biology classes, but there are a lot of species that reproduce asexually without egg cells. And since we're defining female as "the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, which produces ova (egg cells)," the above statement isn't true. -- Ben Applegate 11:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Woman means adult female homo sapiens (human). This above discussion is way, way too broad. Why are we talking about other mammals, or about females of non-mammal species??? Dogru144 00:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
There was a real nude woman near the top 2 months ago. Are you afraid that some high school teen will get horny over a nude picture? We all have sex ed! Show a nice looking dame with big tits (check Domai or METART....DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT Renegadeviking
well thats a bit contradictory!! "afraid of some high school teen will get horny"..... "Show a nice looking dame with big tits " Why would you want that then??? the ida is to show woman not a "nice" one and breasts are HardLy THE defining feature. DO it. The man page has -and has had for ages an ART shot as the lead. I wouldn't mind a female version of the vetrivan man/... Cilstr 06:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I want to express my fears that people could misunderstand the pictures on the webpage: There seems to be not a single photo of a beautiful woman, only ones who are not very feminine.... I think that is no good advertising for us women! What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.51.2 ( talk) 20:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Honestly the amount of discussion about the Frau is getting a bit ridiculous, i'm suprised its been going quite this long without any hint of resolution. I for one would say that the Venus is a very apt compromise, whilst it is not fully nude it does show the female form, and its status as a famous classical art work does make it hard to object to on prudish moral grounds. LordFenix 02:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want a convenient epitome of roles womanhood in traditional eruopean or European-influenced civilization, there's Image:11-stages-womanhood-1840s.jpg . Churchh 16:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I just read through the rabble above and realised how much storm pixels depicting a woman, either clothed or no, creates. I suggest there be no picture for the following reasons:
It is not wise to assume good-faith here because I would have to deny the obvious. Please decide whether you want this talk page to be a debate forum, with a fulcrum on the question of pictures, or a page for discussing improvement of the article. At the very least, remind yourself that encyclopediae are supposed to be intellectual works, not pretty picture galleries. Meeeeep 08:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
We should restore the Frau.jpg picture at the top of the page. At the moment we have a bizarre "stone with no arms" to illustrate a woman. -- BMF81 12:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
For 112Kb of this stuff, go see Talk:Woman/Archive 4. I'm as much to blame as anyone...-- Homunq 18:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a straw poll to determine what kind of illustration to use as the lead illustration of this article, at the level of the article header. Illustrations in the subsections are not affected by this poll.
Options: (Vote for/against in as many as you must, but as few as you can. Keep your arguments very brief - preferably one short sentence, referencing the common arguments below. Edit or add to the arguments below if, and only if, your view is not represented there at all. NO counterarguments here please.)
Please understand that anyone who votes an "objection" here (ideally) has a serious issue, not merely a personal opposition. On the other hand, please try to take this issue as much on-its-own-merits as possible, not making any connections to external issues that you do not see as absolutely fundamental here.
Finally, this is an attempt to find consensus, not a vote. Any one of the options below could be considered untenable on the basis of a few firm, well-reasoned objections, even if it has broad support. (Say "weakly object" if you don't want this to happen.) Conversely, an option with only tepid support may "win" just because it lacks firm, well-reasoned objections.
The options on this poll, in no particular order, are: Nude Photo, Montage, Nude art, Nude line drawing, No lead illustration, and Other. For some possible, non-definitive examples of the first four options, see here.
21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Common arguments, with consensus explanation and counterargument for each common argument above (no more than one paragraph each, edit in place rather than responding, only edit those you agree with. ):
1. It is pornographic.
2. It is too culturally/racially specific.
3. It is ugly.
4. It is not informative enough.
5. It demeans women.
6. Not enough information
There's absolutely no reason for a poll. It has been amply demonstrated that there is no concensus to have "Frau" in the article. - Nunh-huh 18:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Kollontai was not a Russian ambassador but a Soviet ambassador to Norway... [ Kollontai article] 88.227.59.108 06:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
you are turning wikipedia in to a porn site , damn you!
I suggest using these as the main images for the Woman and Man articles, for the following reasons:
The captions also link to the full image for scale comparison. I believe a picture is absolutely necessary for this article, and I think this is the best option given the concerns cited so far.
-- popefauvexxiii 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The image on the left is a poor choice since it is "non-photographic" while there are photographic nudes available.-- BMF81 05:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
alright, i've removed the main image altogether, and i suggest it remain that way until consensus is reached. the top of the page clearly states that any image which has not shown support here will be removed and since no image has clearly shown itself to be the frontrunner, then no image it should be until something else takes its place. On that note, i submit:
For the consideration of anybody who thinks symmetry between the man and woman articles is worth maintaining: the picture of a nude man on the right is already featured in the man article (they could probably be convinced to move it to the top), and it was suggested on the talk page there that the woman on the left would make a good compliment.
i like the aesthetic of this pair. it is both photographic and art, classy yet uncensored, while remaining natural. additionally, it is less contemporary (for people who feel the frau is a little too close in hue to internet porn, and are looking for a degree of separation).
-- popefauvexxiii 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Like I stated before, a Montage is a poor lead image. -- Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 01:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
FYI I have created an gallery of potential lead images here: Talk:Woman/sandbox. I think this will help keep this talk page from being cluttered with images, and help focus the discussion. The idea for this was the Talk:Breast/sandbox page, as the Breast article has similar discussions periodically. Ciotog 08:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused, why is Frau-2 not in the gallery as displayed on the page? For all the image's flaws it's a lot more approriate than "Israeli woman in a bikini throwing the horns". 24.21.143.244 13:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. Homunq drew my attention to the discussion about images here. (Frankly, I think it's silly, since Frau-2 seems to fit almost all of the criteria you want.) I have a suggestion for a "quick fix" that will undoubtedly be controversial. I, too, am seeking several photos of a woman (and a man) in standard anatomical position for use in the article Anatomical terms of location. By definition, the pose is neutral (non-suggestive), and shows the whole body in anatomical detail.
My suggestion is, if you are a woman and object to the other images here, find a friend with a digital camera, assume the standard anatomical position against a neutral background, take the pic and submit it to the Commons for all to use. My suggestion for men who object to the image is the same! Then they can be used here, on the man site, and in my article as well. (And yes, I would, but I can't assume the position, and so am seeking volunteers.) So, anyone out there gutsy enough to replace Frau-2? She doesn't have the false "ideal" body, and you don't need to, either. Race doesn't matter - just no tattoos, piercings and shavings... Let the storm begin! ;) Esseh 03:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. Quiet aroud here, isn't it....? I have noticed a profound dearth of commentary on my last post, and notably also on
Talk:Woman/sandbox. Whassup? Everyone had an objection/comment/solution to the lead image for this article, but when someone goes to the trouble of adding a talk page to discuss it.... nobody responds. Similarly, when I suggested a "simple solution"... nobody is there. What's up, people? Surely everyone interested in this article isn't gutless. (Is your
dander up yet?) Reply here, and maybe nobody will suggest you supply the image ;) (or not), but let's have some discussion on this, OK? Or at least write me and let me know if the problem is with me. Honestly, I'm not trying to stifle discussion.
In case I am the problem, I'll start a thread on my Talk page. Better still, if the discussion in my talk page is relevant, I'll pe-post your comments here, without signature, and delete them from my discussion page (so you can be a bit more anonymous). OK, yes, it can be traced, but it might make some feel more comfortable. Sound fair? Speak up, people! Let
vox populi be heard!
Esseh
06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This whole discussion on whether to include an image of a nude woman is silly, and here is my thinking on it.
First of all, to include a nude to illustrate reproductive function is pointless unless the image is a medical photo of the internal organs, i.e. taken during surgery or autopsy, and drawings are far less messy and more clearly show the organs in isolation. I studied human anatomy and physiology in college 20 years ago and the most instructional images in the texts were drawings, while the lab provided the opportunity to learn what it is like "in the real world".
Second, how do you arrive at a female body type to present as typical of all women? Voluptuous, slender, athletic, black, white, Asian,...?
Having a gallery of images of women wearing national costumes would better illustrate a world-wide sense of how women are seen and how they want to present themselves. Having a series of photos like "Here is a Vietnamese woman wearing the traditional ao dai, and here she is not wearing it; Here is a Korean woman wearing a han bok, here she is not wearing it; Here is an American woman wearing business attire, and here she is naked" would do nothing to inform.
There are two types of readers potentially viewing Wikipedia articles... those who know what a woman looks like nude (so any photo displayed will not be very informative) and the very young (whose parents and/or teachers would probably ban them from using Wikipedia as an educational resource if nudity contained herein is viewed as being gratuitous, especially in articles likely expected to be non-medical). Yes, we as editors and contributors have the duty to be comprehensive in the information we post but we also have a responsibility to not unnecessarily offend.
I personally have no problem looking at photos of nude women, but is a general topic article on Wikipedia the place for it? The vast majority of my experience with women was when they were fully clothed and I think that this is fairly typical.
Look at the Wikipedia article on pornography...there is not a single image of a nude woman in spite of nude photographs being the bread and butter of that industry. The Human anatomy, article has a single graphic that labels male and female anatomical features. If there is a need to expand articles on anatomy and physiology with better illustrations then it should be done, but this is a general article on women.
Why are people so hell-bent on having a nude photo here? Having a well-illustrated anatomy article is one thing but it just doesn't seem necessary here. CWPappas 06:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I have uploaded a new image for consideration in the "sandbox": nude1.jpg. Just FYI. Kym777 07:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
as the page is semi-protected. I wanted to add Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka and Indira Gandhi of India to the list of Prime Ministers, as they were, respectively, the first and second ever female PMs and therfore really ought to be in the list, if Golda Meir is in as the third! I think year of first taking office would be useful too as a representation of how shamefully late women have been elected to these positions. No, I'm Spartacus 13:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
A couple of comments: Yes, this could end up being an open-ended list, but so what? Female leaders are unfortnately rare enough (so far). My questions are four-fold:
Just a few questions. Esseh 05:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
-- Homunq 17:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone is deleting a major article about Iranian women Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian women. Please have expert editors in this issue address this problem. Such articles are very important. Thanks.-- Zereshk 20:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
If the debate about canvassing is over the very first entry in this "Major article about women being deleted" section, then I don't see Zereshk's notifying people here as being excessive or propaganda. Certainly anyone motivated enough to ask for experts' opinions would think of the article in question as being important and of major concern. Zereshk did not plead a case here for why it is important, thus remaining as neutral as possible while bringing attention to the debate. CWPappas 06:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
85% of women in the world are women of color in developing countries, yet they're represented in only 2 of 7 images in the article. A bit of math should convince anyone that the women of China, Africa, India, South-East Asia and indigenous women worldwide comprise the overwhelming majority of female humans. Commutator 08:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not like the phrasing of the "social leaders" section. It is essentially a list, and a list that seems very short. I think it gives the impression that women who are social leaders are exceptional. There are lots of people we could add, however, I do not think we should be filling the article with lists. Perhaps the list could be replaced by a prose section, which includes some important examples. Comments? Thehalfone 18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
On a small part of the article with a picture of Michelle Bachelet, the caption simply reads "President of Chile." Shouldn't that read 'current' president of Chile? "President of Chile" is like saying she's the first and only one there's ever been. 81.145.241.123 13:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
A WikiProject for pregnancy and childbirth related articles has been proposed. For more information and to express interest, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Pregnancy_and_childbirth. Thanks! -- Ginkgo100 talk 23:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Who is savvy enough with wikipedia tables to copy the table of current " Heads of State" and " Heads of Government" which currently appears in the French " Woman" article at:
The painting of a nude woman that is currently on the site representing a woman is inaccurate due to the painting's subject's complete lack of genitals. I don't think it's nitpicking to think a more accurate representation is called for. Losteem 00:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I have switched the entry of Empress Wu Zetian in "Political, monarchial and social leaders" -> "Monarchial" women from "In the modern era:" to the "In ancient history:" category because Theodora is also listed under Ancient.
Nsae Comp 18:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice for there to be a section on suffrage for women in this article, it being a rather significant event. There is a link to it at the bottom of the page, but little else mentioning it. 72.1.217.146 04:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems obvious, but apparently it's news! LeadSongDog ( talk) 17:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
In many prehistoric cultures, women assumed a particular cultural role.
I don't see what this sentence adds. If women participate in culture, it is natural to assume they have some role, as do men. I think it needs expansion or clarification.
In hunter-gatherer societies, women were generally the gatherers of plant foods, small animal foods, fish, and learned to use dairy products, while men hunted meat from large animals.
It sounds correct but needs a citation
Because of their intimate knowledge of plant life, most anthropologists assert that it was women who led the Neolithic Revolution and became history's first pioneers of agriculture.
The prepositional phrase "because of..." can be associated with either "anthropologists" or "women", although "women" is the most logical choice. The idea should be stated more clearly. Also, the sentence makes a sweeping assertion, attributing it to the weaselish "most anthropolists". There needs to be a credible citation for it.
In more recent history, the gender roles of women have changed greatly.
I am confused. I should assume gender roles describes both men and women, and the phrase is only meaningful when it is related to both men and women. Describing the gender roles of women only seems very odd.
Traditional gender roles for middle-class women typically involved domestic tasks emphasizing child care, and did not involve entering employment for wages.
For the entire world? For western countries? Wage employment is only recent in human history. This sentence needs clarification. The verb "emphasising" is too vague.
For poorer women, especially among the working classes, this often remained an ideal, for economic necessity has long compelled them to seek employment outside the home, although the occupations traditionally open to working-class women were lower in prestige and pay than those open to men.
Ideal? How? There is little explanation. Clarity would help.
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.
Needs a citation. There are two unverified assertions.
The women's movement is in part a struggle for the recognition of equality of opportunity with men, and for equal rights irrespective of gender, even if special relations and conditions are willingly incurred under the form of partnership involved in marriage.
Everything following "even if" should be stated more clearly. Very little is said about what the women's movement actually is; only what it fights for is described.
The difficulties of obtaining this recognition are due to historical factors combined with the habits and customs history has produced.
POV and vague.
Through a combination of economic changes and the efforts of the feminist movement in recent decades women in most societies now have access to careers beyond the traditional one of "homemaker".
Which recent decades?
Despite these advances, modern women in Western society still face challenges in the workplace as well as with the topics of education, violence, health care, politics, and motherhood, and others.
Vague. Suspiciously like a promotion of feminism.
Sexism can be a main concern and barrier for woman almost anywhere, though its forms, perception, and gravity varies between societies and social classes.
Also Vague.
(Sexism affects men as well, though the roles it leaves open for men are most commonly equal- or higher-status.)
Confusing
These changes and struggles are among the foci of the academic field of women's studies.
"foci" makes it pretensious. It should be stated in better language.
Rintrah 04:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I like the photo with the nude fat woman. :] The Fat Guy 14:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
what fat woman?? i dont rememeber there ever being a photo of a fat woman. Cilstr 07:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
User:2nd Piston Honda made this edit which I reverted seeing it as POV (supporting a life begins at fertilization view). However I can also see that the less definite statement is itself not totally neutral. Is there better wording we can come up with that stays away from the issue of when new life is formed (which isn't a necessary subject for this article to tackle)? -- Siobhan Hansa 03:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
In the Bio section, i changed this:
The ovaries, in addition to their regulatory function producing hormones, produce female gametes called eggs which, when combined with male gametes ( sperm), can mature into new individuals.
into this
The ovaries, in addition to their regulatory function producing hormones, produce female gametes called eggs which, when fertilized by male gametes ( sperm), form a new individual human. (See Human Reproduction)
I was reverted and told to come to Talk.
It is factually and scientifically accurate to say that fertilization forms a new individual (ie Reproduction). If you want to make a claim about its legal standing in various countries, that's fine, but it's for another section or article. The section is about biology, and biologically it's a new individual of the human species at fertilization. 2nd Piston Honda 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is a source (from Human Rights Watch) that discusses the legal status of women: http://hrw.org/women/status.html It has sub-pages on the rights of women in specific regions (but not OECD ones): http://hrw.org/women/overview-mena.html
http://hrw.org/women/overview-lac.html
http://hrw.org/women/overview-asia.html Dogru144 18:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.
This article needs images of women from Europe in traditional costumes. Also the article needs one more or several images of the female nude in action, sports etc. -- Margrave1206 05:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a porn provider. Ariel. 04:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
ACtually i thought the venus would be good- but she really only shows breasts as the defining deference b/w men. ( and some ppl mite thing woman have no arms ;) ) NOt such a great example. There must be better statues. Frau was ok. BUt there is a vitrivan woman we mite b able to have?! Cilstr 07:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I see many references throughout the article referencing that "womanhood" starts at menarche, while this is typically and undeniably the most common case, some women never enter menarche, such as those with a form of Primary Amenorrhoea, who would undeniably have entered "womanhood" even though they are completely unable to have a menstrual cycle.
The only reason I haven't made this change yet myself, is that I'm not sure what would better suit it.
-- TRFA 16:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Some examples of male secondary sexual characteristics in humans, those acquired as boys become men or even later in life, are:
- deeper voice
- taller height
- facial hair or beard
- diamond shape pubic hair pattern
- increased body size overall
- less subcutaneous fat
- increase in overall body hair
- male pattern baldness
- coarser skin
- darker skin tone
- A higher level of androgenic hormones such as testosterone, making it easier for most men than most women to develop their muscles.
I think it wouldn't be too difficult to mock up.
Some examples of male secondary sexual characteristics in humans, those acquired as girls become women or even later in life, are:
- breast development
- wider hips
- more triangle-shaped pubic hair pattern
- more subcutaneous fat
- softer skin
- lighter skin tone
- shorter height when comparied to males generally due to earlier onset of puberty
- A lower level of androgenic hormones such as testosterone, making it harder for most women than most men to develop their muscles.
Most of the other things mentioned in the male article don't have any analogy in females. Female voices don't get higher from their childhood, they just don't drop, and change. -- Puellanivis 19:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
TRFA is stripping out section on women in presitigious positions; and he is replacing this section with a photo of Marilyn Monroe. TRFA apparently has a problem with uploading section on reality of women leaders; he instead is uploading Monroe piture. TRFA said see Talk section for explanation of stripping out women premiers. However, he has actually given no rationale for this stripping out the section. Dogru144 18:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
And the vast majority of the other (i.e., unelected) leaders have been male. So, the patriarchy argument about male rule over time holds. Dogru144 00:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I find nothing faulty in the women-in-modern-society section.
Pending formidable rationalizations for the tag's preservation, I shall remove it soon. Dogru144 02:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Removed the following:
I did sleep through a couple of biology classes, but there are a lot of species that reproduce asexually without egg cells. And since we're defining female as "the sex of an organism, or a part of an organism, which produces ova (egg cells)," the above statement isn't true. -- Ben Applegate 11:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Woman means adult female homo sapiens (human). This above discussion is way, way too broad. Why are we talking about other mammals, or about females of non-mammal species??? Dogru144 00:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
There was a real nude woman near the top 2 months ago. Are you afraid that some high school teen will get horny over a nude picture? We all have sex ed! Show a nice looking dame with big tits (check Domai or METART....DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT Renegadeviking
well thats a bit contradictory!! "afraid of some high school teen will get horny"..... "Show a nice looking dame with big tits " Why would you want that then??? the ida is to show woman not a "nice" one and breasts are HardLy THE defining feature. DO it. The man page has -and has had for ages an ART shot as the lead. I wouldn't mind a female version of the vetrivan man/... Cilstr 06:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I want to express my fears that people could misunderstand the pictures on the webpage: There seems to be not a single photo of a beautiful woman, only ones who are not very feminine.... I think that is no good advertising for us women! What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.51.2 ( talk) 20:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Honestly the amount of discussion about the Frau is getting a bit ridiculous, i'm suprised its been going quite this long without any hint of resolution. I for one would say that the Venus is a very apt compromise, whilst it is not fully nude it does show the female form, and its status as a famous classical art work does make it hard to object to on prudish moral grounds. LordFenix 02:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want a convenient epitome of roles womanhood in traditional eruopean or European-influenced civilization, there's Image:11-stages-womanhood-1840s.jpg . Churchh 16:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I just read through the rabble above and realised how much storm pixels depicting a woman, either clothed or no, creates. I suggest there be no picture for the following reasons:
It is not wise to assume good-faith here because I would have to deny the obvious. Please decide whether you want this talk page to be a debate forum, with a fulcrum on the question of pictures, or a page for discussing improvement of the article. At the very least, remind yourself that encyclopediae are supposed to be intellectual works, not pretty picture galleries. Meeeeep 08:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
We should restore the Frau.jpg picture at the top of the page. At the moment we have a bizarre "stone with no arms" to illustrate a woman. -- BMF81 12:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
For 112Kb of this stuff, go see Talk:Woman/Archive 4. I'm as much to blame as anyone...-- Homunq 18:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a straw poll to determine what kind of illustration to use as the lead illustration of this article, at the level of the article header. Illustrations in the subsections are not affected by this poll.
Options: (Vote for/against in as many as you must, but as few as you can. Keep your arguments very brief - preferably one short sentence, referencing the common arguments below. Edit or add to the arguments below if, and only if, your view is not represented there at all. NO counterarguments here please.)
Please understand that anyone who votes an "objection" here (ideally) has a serious issue, not merely a personal opposition. On the other hand, please try to take this issue as much on-its-own-merits as possible, not making any connections to external issues that you do not see as absolutely fundamental here.
Finally, this is an attempt to find consensus, not a vote. Any one of the options below could be considered untenable on the basis of a few firm, well-reasoned objections, even if it has broad support. (Say "weakly object" if you don't want this to happen.) Conversely, an option with only tepid support may "win" just because it lacks firm, well-reasoned objections.
The options on this poll, in no particular order, are: Nude Photo, Montage, Nude art, Nude line drawing, No lead illustration, and Other. For some possible, non-definitive examples of the first four options, see here.
21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Common arguments, with consensus explanation and counterargument for each common argument above (no more than one paragraph each, edit in place rather than responding, only edit those you agree with. ):
1. It is pornographic.
2. It is too culturally/racially specific.
3. It is ugly.
4. It is not informative enough.
5. It demeans women.
6. Not enough information
There's absolutely no reason for a poll. It has been amply demonstrated that there is no concensus to have "Frau" in the article. - Nunh-huh 18:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Kollontai was not a Russian ambassador but a Soviet ambassador to Norway... [ Kollontai article] 88.227.59.108 06:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
you are turning wikipedia in to a porn site , damn you!
I suggest using these as the main images for the Woman and Man articles, for the following reasons:
The captions also link to the full image for scale comparison. I believe a picture is absolutely necessary for this article, and I think this is the best option given the concerns cited so far.
-- popefauvexxiii 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The image on the left is a poor choice since it is "non-photographic" while there are photographic nudes available.-- BMF81 05:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
alright, i've removed the main image altogether, and i suggest it remain that way until consensus is reached. the top of the page clearly states that any image which has not shown support here will be removed and since no image has clearly shown itself to be the frontrunner, then no image it should be until something else takes its place. On that note, i submit:
For the consideration of anybody who thinks symmetry between the man and woman articles is worth maintaining: the picture of a nude man on the right is already featured in the man article (they could probably be convinced to move it to the top), and it was suggested on the talk page there that the woman on the left would make a good compliment.
i like the aesthetic of this pair. it is both photographic and art, classy yet uncensored, while remaining natural. additionally, it is less contemporary (for people who feel the frau is a little too close in hue to internet porn, and are looking for a degree of separation).
-- popefauvexxiii 04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Like I stated before, a Montage is a poor lead image. -- Honeymane Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam 01:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
FYI I have created an gallery of potential lead images here: Talk:Woman/sandbox. I think this will help keep this talk page from being cluttered with images, and help focus the discussion. The idea for this was the Talk:Breast/sandbox page, as the Breast article has similar discussions periodically. Ciotog 08:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused, why is Frau-2 not in the gallery as displayed on the page? For all the image's flaws it's a lot more approriate than "Israeli woman in a bikini throwing the horns". 24.21.143.244 13:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. Homunq drew my attention to the discussion about images here. (Frankly, I think it's silly, since Frau-2 seems to fit almost all of the criteria you want.) I have a suggestion for a "quick fix" that will undoubtedly be controversial. I, too, am seeking several photos of a woman (and a man) in standard anatomical position for use in the article Anatomical terms of location. By definition, the pose is neutral (non-suggestive), and shows the whole body in anatomical detail.
My suggestion is, if you are a woman and object to the other images here, find a friend with a digital camera, assume the standard anatomical position against a neutral background, take the pic and submit it to the Commons for all to use. My suggestion for men who object to the image is the same! Then they can be used here, on the man site, and in my article as well. (And yes, I would, but I can't assume the position, and so am seeking volunteers.) So, anyone out there gutsy enough to replace Frau-2? She doesn't have the false "ideal" body, and you don't need to, either. Race doesn't matter - just no tattoos, piercings and shavings... Let the storm begin! ;) Esseh 03:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. Quiet aroud here, isn't it....? I have noticed a profound dearth of commentary on my last post, and notably also on
Talk:Woman/sandbox. Whassup? Everyone had an objection/comment/solution to the lead image for this article, but when someone goes to the trouble of adding a talk page to discuss it.... nobody responds. Similarly, when I suggested a "simple solution"... nobody is there. What's up, people? Surely everyone interested in this article isn't gutless. (Is your
dander up yet?) Reply here, and maybe nobody will suggest you supply the image ;) (or not), but let's have some discussion on this, OK? Or at least write me and let me know if the problem is with me. Honestly, I'm not trying to stifle discussion.
In case I am the problem, I'll start a thread on my Talk page. Better still, if the discussion in my talk page is relevant, I'll pe-post your comments here, without signature, and delete them from my discussion page (so you can be a bit more anonymous). OK, yes, it can be traced, but it might make some feel more comfortable. Sound fair? Speak up, people! Let
vox populi be heard!
Esseh
06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This whole discussion on whether to include an image of a nude woman is silly, and here is my thinking on it.
First of all, to include a nude to illustrate reproductive function is pointless unless the image is a medical photo of the internal organs, i.e. taken during surgery or autopsy, and drawings are far less messy and more clearly show the organs in isolation. I studied human anatomy and physiology in college 20 years ago and the most instructional images in the texts were drawings, while the lab provided the opportunity to learn what it is like "in the real world".
Second, how do you arrive at a female body type to present as typical of all women? Voluptuous, slender, athletic, black, white, Asian,...?
Having a gallery of images of women wearing national costumes would better illustrate a world-wide sense of how women are seen and how they want to present themselves. Having a series of photos like "Here is a Vietnamese woman wearing the traditional ao dai, and here she is not wearing it; Here is a Korean woman wearing a han bok, here she is not wearing it; Here is an American woman wearing business attire, and here she is naked" would do nothing to inform.
There are two types of readers potentially viewing Wikipedia articles... those who know what a woman looks like nude (so any photo displayed will not be very informative) and the very young (whose parents and/or teachers would probably ban them from using Wikipedia as an educational resource if nudity contained herein is viewed as being gratuitous, especially in articles likely expected to be non-medical). Yes, we as editors and contributors have the duty to be comprehensive in the information we post but we also have a responsibility to not unnecessarily offend.
I personally have no problem looking at photos of nude women, but is a general topic article on Wikipedia the place for it? The vast majority of my experience with women was when they were fully clothed and I think that this is fairly typical.
Look at the Wikipedia article on pornography...there is not a single image of a nude woman in spite of nude photographs being the bread and butter of that industry. The Human anatomy, article has a single graphic that labels male and female anatomical features. If there is a need to expand articles on anatomy and physiology with better illustrations then it should be done, but this is a general article on women.
Why are people so hell-bent on having a nude photo here? Having a well-illustrated anatomy article is one thing but it just doesn't seem necessary here. CWPappas 06:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I have uploaded a new image for consideration in the "sandbox": nude1.jpg. Just FYI. Kym777 07:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
as the page is semi-protected. I wanted to add Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka and Indira Gandhi of India to the list of Prime Ministers, as they were, respectively, the first and second ever female PMs and therfore really ought to be in the list, if Golda Meir is in as the third! I think year of first taking office would be useful too as a representation of how shamefully late women have been elected to these positions. No, I'm Spartacus 13:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
A couple of comments: Yes, this could end up being an open-ended list, but so what? Female leaders are unfortnately rare enough (so far). My questions are four-fold:
Just a few questions. Esseh 05:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
-- Homunq 17:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone is deleting a major article about Iranian women Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian women. Please have expert editors in this issue address this problem. Such articles are very important. Thanks.-- Zereshk 20:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
If the debate about canvassing is over the very first entry in this "Major article about women being deleted" section, then I don't see Zereshk's notifying people here as being excessive or propaganda. Certainly anyone motivated enough to ask for experts' opinions would think of the article in question as being important and of major concern. Zereshk did not plead a case here for why it is important, thus remaining as neutral as possible while bringing attention to the debate. CWPappas 06:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
85% of women in the world are women of color in developing countries, yet they're represented in only 2 of 7 images in the article. A bit of math should convince anyone that the women of China, Africa, India, South-East Asia and indigenous women worldwide comprise the overwhelming majority of female humans. Commutator 08:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not like the phrasing of the "social leaders" section. It is essentially a list, and a list that seems very short. I think it gives the impression that women who are social leaders are exceptional. There are lots of people we could add, however, I do not think we should be filling the article with lists. Perhaps the list could be replaced by a prose section, which includes some important examples. Comments? Thehalfone 18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
On a small part of the article with a picture of Michelle Bachelet, the caption simply reads "President of Chile." Shouldn't that read 'current' president of Chile? "President of Chile" is like saying she's the first and only one there's ever been. 81.145.241.123 13:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
A WikiProject for pregnancy and childbirth related articles has been proposed. For more information and to express interest, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Pregnancy_and_childbirth. Thanks! -- Ginkgo100 talk 23:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Who is savvy enough with wikipedia tables to copy the table of current " Heads of State" and " Heads of Government" which currently appears in the French " Woman" article at:
The painting of a nude woman that is currently on the site representing a woman is inaccurate due to the painting's subject's complete lack of genitals. I don't think it's nitpicking to think a more accurate representation is called for. Losteem 00:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I have switched the entry of Empress Wu Zetian in "Political, monarchial and social leaders" -> "Monarchial" women from "In the modern era:" to the "In ancient history:" category because Theodora is also listed under Ancient.
Nsae Comp 18:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice for there to be a section on suffrage for women in this article, it being a rather significant event. There is a link to it at the bottom of the page, but little else mentioning it. 72.1.217.146 04:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems obvious, but apparently it's news! LeadSongDog ( talk) 17:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)