Talk:Timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting). 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. |
| Archive 1 |
Legal majority in Spain?
Does enyone know when women where declared of legal majority in Spain? That's an important issue, but it's suprisingly hard to find information about this question in any country! --85.226.235.198 19:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Title
Perhaps the title should be changed to Timeline of Womens Suffrage (other than voting) in accordance with the other similar articles here on wikipedia? --85.226.235.171 (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't make sense since the word itself (suffrage) means the right to vote! The title is fine as is.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see! I'm not english-speaking, so I didn't realise that. I though it meant something like Emancipating. Thanks for making that clear! --85.226.235.171 (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Legal majority
Legal majority for US women is not listed. Massachusetts and South Carolina are listed separately, but then again Massachusetts' legal majority was short-lived (also doesn't mention that). Duzins (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps that's true! If you know, why not add it yourself? In the case you mention above, states should be mentioned separately, but the country as a whole should also be mentioned. Just leave the source of it under references and write it in the article! Im sure a lot of things are missing in it and just waiting to be added!--85.226.43.245 (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Abortion
This was deleted:
- 1975: The right to abortion are secured in Sweden, South Africa and USA.
I have reintroudced it. The reason given for deletion was: if that's a right it's not a woman'. May I remind of wikipedias policy of NPOV? --85.226.45.121 (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
622 Arabia
"who were generally given greater rights than women in pre-Islamic Arabia[1][2] and medieval Europe.[3]"
Can someone who has access to the source material enumerate the comparative rights? This broad statement comes off as POV, especially given the broad cultural differences in medieval Europe at the time. --99.108.183.5 (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- I also think this sounds like POV. Pre-islamic Arabia is one thing, Europe is another. Certainly women were more free in Europa, as they hardly even owned freedom of movement outside the home in Islamic countries. Normally, it would be necessary to check the references before removing. In this case, however, this statement does not specify exactly why the rights were greateer than in Europe, and thereby, the statement is open to subjective interpetations. And in any case, the rights varied depending on country in Europe in any case. I therefore think it will be correct to remove it, at least until it is specified. As it is now, it is a general statement which invites subjective interpetations. --Aciram (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- The text: "Arabia: The Constitution of Medina is declared, which outlines many of Muhammad's early reforms under Islam, including an improved legal status for women in Islam, who were generally given greater rights than women in pre-Islamic Arabia". Though this text is indeed referenced, it is problematic. It does not specify which rights these laws improved, which makes the information speculative and unclear. It would be more correct to state, in a clear and neutral manner (for example): "The law issued in 622, gave equal inheritance to both sexes". --Aciram (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Economy
What does this mean exactly, "separate economy"? Abductive (reasoning) 22:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- It refers to the right for a woman to handle her own economy (property, salary, income, money) by herself, as an adult, without having to ask permission from her husband. Perhaps it could be phrased better, I don't know. --Aciram (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Changes made on 10/27/15
The page said this: Cite error: Invalid <ref tag; name "ReferenceB" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
I renamed 2 of the 3 ReferenceB tags to ReferenceC and ReferenceD. I don't know if this is OK, but it seems like it should be. If anyone thinks I didn't do this right, please revert my changes and do it properly. If you know what you are doing and what I did is ok, then delete this section.
Thanks,
Shift to only legal rights?
The recent move of this page to only include legal rights has left a gap: significant events in educational and professional opportunities (like those just removed from the page), when not covered by law, are no longer in the domain of this page, but aren't appropriate for either of the other timelines indicated at the start of the article. Is there anywhere else that these extra-legal timeline events belong, or are we just dropping them from Wikipedia? Nitpicking polish (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. This is a problem. A reason for this problem is language and the difference in society between nations. For example: women could be provided with secondary education in private schools long before the law allowed them to study in state secondary education schools. Another example is that a profession could be opened to women through, for example, a legal case and a court decision, rather than a law reform.
- This create a problem with the timeline, because its purpose with this timeline is to show the formal developments and reforms of women toward gender equality with men in society, rather than informal changes. Informal changes toward gender equality is to be shown in the timeline of feminism. Formal changes toward gender equality is to be shown here. To make it possible, we must be careful to use the right phrase, to avoid a gap which can be caused by the difference between law reforms and court decisions and other examples which created formal reforms in society toward gender equality. To meet and solve the problem, a change of the title to Timeline of women's formal rights (other than voting) may be necessary. This will give room for all formal reforms toward gender equality: not only actual law reforms, but also for example court cases which caused a change in interpretations of some laws and practices and similar, legal reforms caused by Precedents and so on.--Aciram (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
But what is 'legal majority'?
There are lots of entries saying "Legal majority for married women" without saying what is meant by 'legal majority'. Legally, 'legal majority' means the age at which one becomes an adult and be expected to be responsible for one's self. So, the right to take out contracts or be made responsible for actions. This would be useful and interesting if the entry said "Legal majority at age 18/21/30 for married women" or whatever. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Page split due to page length
I have split off three parts of the page into separate articles, as this page was very long (545,644 bytes). A bot should shortly rescue the orphaned references. The 20th century page (251,015 long) may need to be split further. Finally, as this page is still 179,449 bytes long, and destined to grow further, consideration should be given to dividing what remains, perhaps by making the 2000s decade a separate article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Requesting some help
Hi,
Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.
Thanks and regards