Talk:Woman

Before complaining about article content, please read: Wikipedia is not censored.

Overweight Woman

The woman whose picture is used appears overweight. If a picture of a nude woman is going to be used, why should that picture be overweight? The nude picture of a man in the "man" Wikipedia article does not appear overweight. A picture of an overweight woman is misleading as an aspect of an encyclopedic article on women, because it presents an image of a woman in an unhealthy state and a state that doctors advise one to avoid. 66.171.226.69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC).

I disagree. You're probably just not used to seeing a real woman - and that's not your fault; The fashion industry is obsessed with portraying women as emaciated, skinny little boys. And celebrities with their addiction to plastic surgery, don't make the picture any prettier. Reality is often vastly different than the fantasy that you see all around you, and this photograph is a good representative sample of what a woman looks like. And, I think she looks great. Viriditas (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that she is a good representative of the "average" woman. However, unfortunately, the average woman in the United States (as well as some European countries) is overweight. For the reasons previously stated, I don't believe that having a picture of an overweight woman is appropriate for an encyclopedic article. I am not making a judgment on her attractiveness or lack thereof. I am simply stating facts and that I do not believe that a condition recognized as unhealthy should be represented in the main picture for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.226.69 (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

For further reference, here is a Wikipedia article that includes silhouettes for what represents healthy, overweight, and obese. Even though the silhouettes are for a male figure, I think they are informative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obese —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.226.69 (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The woman does not appear overweight at all, nor does she appear to be American. I suggest you take a moment to read life model and art nude, two articles which will shed light on your error. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

From personal experience of completely normal women of various ages, I would second the opinion that the woman in the picture on the article does indeed seem slightly overweight. Not enough that it would worry me too much, but yeah... perhaps we should indeed look for a better photo? 195.50.199.86 (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a late comment, in case anyone looks at this later:

A woman who is only 5'6" can weigh as much as 155 pounds and still be 'normal weight'. "Overweight" is defined by health authorities on the basis of what weights associated with a higher net risk of disease, not by the fashion authorities opinion of what looks most appealing. It seems highly unlikely to me that this woman is actually overweight (=BMI > 25). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

this was discussed

How about something like this (I just took the box from an ethnic group page and pasted in some of the image fn's):

Woman

DavidOaks (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length. Please do not change this present lede photo without first getting a group consensus. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't. I put it here to see what other people think, including their reasoning, rather than simple preference. This gets around the repeated objections (inevitable for ANY single image) to focus on body, or on culturally-determined features (like clothing, body modification rather than intrinsic distinctions of females from males), ethnocentrism, now-ism, the representation of one age or shape or activity as typical, etc. BTW, I don't know that the present image enjoys consensus. Certainly there was at least as much support for the collage concept, which I've tried to cooperate with. Here we have women of many different origins, in various types of dress, stages of life, roles...DavidOaks (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

More on the choices here: a clinical physical specimen (not confined to contemporary body-images of beauty nor standards of prudery); two heads of state, two soldiers (one of whom is a saint, the other a pioneer of computer science); two sculptures (one a goddess, the other a venerable figure for LGBT community); three elderly, three in the prime of life, three distinctly young; only one media celebrity (and this one known for her intelligence and verbal skill rather than her looks). Only one in a biologically distinctive role (nursing), none in sexualized or glamorized settings. The effort here has been to acknowledge the range of "woman" but to do so with dignity. I would offer these as governing principles for any additions or substitutions we might choose to make; icons like Mona Lisa or Whistler's Mother occured, as did an image of childbirth from the commons or a Rosie the Riverter shot. DavidOaks (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, let's give it a try. DavidOaks (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, neither a support. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 06:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Got something to say? Say it. If you have a reason to delete or alter, let's hear it. But the subject has been held in abeyance to vague discomforts way too long.DavidOaks (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the present image. There have been no complaints and I feel that it is best to leave well enough alone for now. Gandydancer (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) If you mean the collage, which is the present image, I agree that there have been no complaints, and certainly no response to the rationale which has been advanced in its favor -- though an individual being satisfied, or a lack of complaints don't amount to a ringing endorsement or the kind of reasoning we usually invoke when considering edits. If you mean the previous image (Lactancia bebe aire libre.jpg), the complaints would be the converses of the rationale which has been laid out in favor of the collage, with the additional observation that the advantages of the Lactancia image are preserved, as the image is included in the collage. It's a nice image, though amateurish, and limits this enormous subject by its very specific circumstances -- relatively propserous young European in the present day exercising a function not all women are willing to take on as defining. DavidOaks (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course I meant the previous image - I had no idea you had changed it. It's pretty obvious that when one must resort to being sneaky and change something that has been hotly contested without an edit summary, one is not using good Wikipedia policy. Please revert your change. Gandydancer (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:Civility. Then please explain what you feel I did that was, as you put it "sneaky" -- I announced what I thought was needed, laid out my rationale, waited several days for comment, and receiving no responses to the rationale, made a change while at the same time announcing that I was doing so (you are clearly watching the talkpage; I reported there what I was doing, and reported in my edit summary that I was reporting it on the talkpage). If you think that I have missed a step in procedure, please point it out to me. The one objection I can imagine is that I did not take your unilateral command not to make any changes as binding; it's in violation of WP:OWN. If you think the page needed locking, you should have requested a lock. You have experience with that procedure from another page. If you dislike the image, by all means change it, providing your response to the rationale which I laid out. If you do not have any such response except defaulting to no-change, I recommend letting it alone until another editor brings forward a reasoned response or an alternative. I'm going to point out another advantage of the current image -- individual elements can be added or substituted (though there's a hidden comment advising/requesting that people respect the px values in order to maintain visual balance). DavidOaks (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering how much conflict the lede picture has created recently and over the years, I did/do not feel that 2 or 3 days time is resonable to ask for feedback.

Yes I do watch this page; your lede picture change did not show up on my watchlist.

No, I have no experience with requesting a lock.

And finally, I did prefer the previous photo, however there has been no objection to your change and it's been some time now, and I see no reason for me to object since others seem to be OK with it. Happy editing to you! Gandydancer (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at what we're using, David you were right - it was a good idea and you did a great job.Gandydancer (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I love the multiple images, but I notice that the problem of the female nude having a shaved pubic area has not been resolved. I feel strongly that this is important - pubic shaving is a highly cultural practice and the point of the nude woman was (I understand) to show a real, anatomically correct female human. This reinforces misleading representations in popular culture of women as hairless and pre-pubescent looking. Is another image possible, just to replace that one? Mirandak (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Two observations

Currently this page lists the pronunciation of the plural as /wʊmɛn/. I am unable to find this in any dictionaries. The OED has /ˈwɪmɪn/, which I believe is correct. Secondly, the montage caption says "clockwise from left." But the caption's list of names is not clockwise, which would suggest a spiral; rather, it is in rows, left to right and top to bottom. 66.31.40.197 (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 14 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The statement "In the United States women who are ages 30 to 44 and hold a university degree make only 62 percent of what similarly qualified men do" is undocumented and blatantly false. See "The 76-cent myth" (http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/21/commentary/everyday/sahadi/), "What's Really Behind Female Inequality in America?" ("Even the liberal American Association of University Women concluded that three-quarters of the wage gap is due to factors such as education, occupational choice and hours worked.", http://iwf.org/news/show/22723.html) and "Gender Wage Gap Is Feminist Fiction" (http://www.iwf.org/blog/2432979/Gender-Wage-Gap-Is-Feminist-Fiction). Please remove that statement, indicate it is being disputed, or provide opposing viewpoints.

72.79.221.118 (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Example of opposing viewpoint: "A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job." (from http://www.iwf.org/blog/2432979/Gender-Wage-Gap-Is-Feminist-Fiction)

72.79.221.118 (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, please, but I removed the {{edit semi-protected}} for now, because I don't think this is a simple, uncontroversial 'change X to Y' type of request - which is the point of "edit semi-protected". It needs discussion, and some agreement to make a specific change

I'm sure others will see your comments, and discuss them. If there is consensus shown here for a change, you could re-request; please allow some time for responses here; if nobody object, please ask again. Thanks.  Chzz  ►  06:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that it is blatantly false and undocumented since those are the facts that the source has given. However, it seems to me that you have come up with some excellent information that shows that it's not quite so simple as that. A section that explains the pay inequality more fully would be a great addition to the article if you would be willing to write it. You could find a lot of information here Male–female income disparity in the United States and Economic inequality and several other articles as well. Gandydancer (talk) 10:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the good suggestions and thank you for correcting me. According to Male–female income disparity in the United States: In 2009 the median income of full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers was $47,127 for men, compared to $36,278 for women. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77, not statistically different from the 2008 ratio. The female-to-male earnings ratio of 0.77 means that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 23% less than male FTYR workers. The statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked as long as it qualifies as full-time work." Is there any reason that quote cannot be included in the current article? The source given for the 62% statistic is dated 13 September 2005. The 2011 version (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/6/48614460.xls) of the same OECD report where that statistic originated indicates female workers earned 20% less than male workers. From http://thebleedingear.blogspot.com/2005/09/women-vs-men_13.html: "Ultimately, the numbers cited by the Organization for Cooperation and Development are so broad as to be meaningless and so misconstrued as to blind the public from the true fact". I propose that the outdated and misleading 62% statistic be updated to reflect the most recent version of the source, and language included to the effect that "The statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked as long as it qualifies as full-time work." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.205.39 (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Another source: A 2009 report prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor entitled "An Analysis of the Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women" states "the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas without fully explaining the reasons behind the gap." (http://chamberpost.typepad.com/files/gender_wage_gap_final_report.pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.205.39 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Great sources. Obviously the issue is quite complex. An in-depth section to the article would be a good addition. Gandydancer (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello??? The page remains locked and inaccurate. Does anyone care enough to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.143.130 (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"In a 2010 study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30, the research firm Reach Advisors found that women earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.212.62 (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a message to anyone who came here questioning the "62 percent" statistic asserted on the main page: In the United States and much of the western world, there exists a vast conspiracy whose purpose is to perpetuate the myth that women in western societies are more oppressed and victimized than men. Wikipedia is already well known for its bias and lack of objectivity, but here is irrefutable proof that Wikipedia actively perpetuates the conspiracy to pretend that western women are oppressed. 17:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.201.105 (talk)

So, I added some of the things suggested by the users in this talk thread. My personal opinion, is that the "Woman" article should not really get too deep into this particular issue. The page at Male–female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States does the job much better than we can in this limited space. But, as long as the 62% claim was there, I felt it was right to balance that with the sources given that indicate it may be incorrect. Jacobitten (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Female biologist

Any particualr reason why this picture is there? If it is intended to show a modern eductaed woman, fine but do we really need to know exactly where and under whose aegis she is realeasing her tortoise? Epeeist smudge (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and fixed. On the other hand, the Tibetan farmer in the first image sticks out like a sore thumb as the only one of the 20 who is nameless. If there were another image of a traditional farmer woman who'd agreed to give her name (no, I don't expect a traditional farmer to know what wikipedia is, just a simple "can I tell people who see this picture your name?" is plenty), I'd favor replacing the Tibetan woman. Until then, she can remain. Homunq (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I propose we add a picture of a transsexual woman

Transsexual women are woman even though they are not genetically or biologically a female. They are legally known as women and consider themselves as women. Gender is very fluid and we need some representation that does not automatically fit a stereotypical mold or definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.15.212 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Transsexual women are female. Gelatinous cubism (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If you would like to add an image of a trans woman, then perhaps you should go and add one. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Go to Christine Jorgensen. Images of such a person can be found in their own article. Georgia guy (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

They are not female because they are biological male.--93.128.1.34 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Cissexism/dyadism

From the opening paragraph: "Unlike men, women are typically capable of giving birth."

This is cissexist/dyadist. Men can give birth. While the majority of human beings capable of giving birth are women, this doesn't mean that all people who are capable of giving birth are women. Some genderqueer/non-binary people, some trans men, and even some cis intersex men, can give birth. Gender/sex does not imply anything about reproductive anatomy.

I would fix this myself, but this account hasn't been autoconfirmed yet.

I find no offense in the statement. I do not see how this statement is cissexist. Women are typically capable of birth. Men are typically not. That a few men can does not make it typical. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

There are two ways of interpreting the sentence:

• "Men cannot give birth. Women typically can give birth."

• "Men _typically_ cannot give birth. Women typically can give birth."

The first interpretation would be cissexist. The second would not (it looks like you interpreted it as the second one, I the first). As it stands, the sentance is ambiguous and needs to be changed (as the ambiguity can and will result in cissexism). Gelatinous cubism (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Biologically male

Although women typically have a female reproductive system, some intersex people with ambiguous genitals, and biologically male transgender people, may also be classified or self-identify as a woman.

This statement appears to point towards the statement that trans women are really men who call themselves women simply because they want to. We need to alter the above statement to make it not point towards this statement so much. Georgia guy (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think it points to exactly what it says: "some intersex people with ambiguous genitals, and biologically male transgender people, may also be classified or self-identify as a woman." Rather than "really men" or "simply because they want to", it says "biologically male" and "may also be classified or self-identify". These are wholly accurate and starkly contrast with what you say they "point to". Am I wrong? 04:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.46.33 (talk)

Yes, just like your whole life is 71.246.152.92 (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be more information in here about transsexual women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.144.215 (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Fix in etymology

The old english form of woman is wimman[1]. 'wifmann' is possible as an earlier form, but not with a double N.

So you've found one source, that is not the most thorough specialist source on Old English, but one intended for popular consumption, where it is spelled with only one N, and that enables you to say then it is not "possible" with a double N? How does that account for all the specialist and original sources on Old English that do spell it "wifmann" with two Ns? There is nothing to fix here. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)