Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender studies/Archive 1

Active discussions
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5
align="left" This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
  • Archives: Jan 2006 - Dec 2006


I think it's important you stress that writers avoid an anti-male bias as well. Also, I would suggest including articles like masculism and fathers rights in articles for suggested improvement. Thanks, --Urthogie 18:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Other Biased Language

Maybe we should also be trying to get rid of "subconcious" gender biased language such as "actress" and "waitress." Technical "actor" and "waitor" can be used for both genders and by keeping them separated subconciously reinforces that men and women should be separated. What do you think? Ilessthan3you 03:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've actually been long divided on that point. I like the idea of not having separate words for separate genders, but I don't like the idea of using the masculine form to generalize everyone (in the same way I don't like women being included under "men"). Sarge Baldy 07:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
People will create gender biases no matter how much you tweak language. I say go with Occam's razor and go with the simpler option of actor and waitor.--Urthogie 15:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Waiter or Waitor? Either way, I agree about the subconscious gender bias - AmishThrasher 00:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, my mistake. No making up of words!--Urthogie 12:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

what in the world is "Fat Butt and Pancake Head"?

I have a number of problems with this. First of all, why is the desire to remove gender bias compelling you to organize under a female symbol? Does not that seem a bit ironic if not hypocritical?

Secondly, I don't understand why "Miss" or Mrs. should be changed to Ms. If the goal is to remain factual, I don't see how changing to the politically correct "ms." would help things. Au contrare, it would bury facts. If the proposed change is undertaken, the reader will know less about the referrent (her marital status.) Nathaniel

agreed, we shouldn't be going blindly for some equality at all costs thing, that blurs out information.--Urthogie 09:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The use of "Ms." in lieu of "Miss" or "Mrs." is an attempt to overcome the gender bias which leads us to assume that one needs to know a woman's marital status at first glance. Within the last 50 years in the US and UK (amongst other places) it was usual for a woman to be called "Mrs. Frank Jones" where "Frank Jones" was the name of her husband. You might argue that stopping that practice eliminated the information of who the woman's husband was. On the other hand, allowing a woman her own name frees her from being subsumed as part of the male identity. Similarly, use of "Ms." as a general salutation for women (like "Mr." for men) frees women from the idea that they are changed when they become married. The usual custom is to do what is preferred by the person referred to. Some women will clearly wish to be called "Ms.", some prefer "Miss" etc. An An 10:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
This isn't freewomenopedia. We're more concerned with simply delivering information than liberating women. We shouldn't require the use of Ms, it should be optional(and Miss and Mrs. should be required when they shorten the article)--Urthogie 10:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a clear gender bias to explicitly list marital status for one gender and not the other. "Ms." was developed in order to downplay the idea that marital status was some defining characteristic among women, or (from a more radical perspective) refuses to distinguish women from those owned and those "available". Nor does it "bury facts", it only helps to retain privacy, as is done for men using the term "Mr." NPOV is not "optional". As for using the female symbol, I can certainly sympathize, but as there is no strong symbols for gender equality OUTSIDE of feminine symbolism, and women are generally seen as the more marginalized and active group synonymous with this movement, I can't think of any adequate replacements. Although I would be interested to see any ideas. Sarge Baldy 11:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Language will always be gender biased in one way or another, thanks to etymology(except in rare cases like esperanza). I'm not trying to be a traditionalist here-- I'm just saying that if gender biases give us more information, then why throw it in the trash? Just because it is rooted in bias(as is the case with several words that have no alternatives, such as 'human'), doesn't mean that using it for the purpose of giving more info is biased. The only POV at hand here in using Miss and Mrs is the POV that wikipedia should give more info-- you can't ascribe motives where they don't exist(Wikipedia:Assume good faith). The point you made about privacy is not valid, as an encyclopedia aims to give the most info possible, in the most concise and professional way we can. The information of whether someone is single or married is relevant in the biography of any notable person, man or woman. Thanks for participating in this discussion. Until you reply, I'll be looking for a symbol to replace the picture that represents balance and egalitarianism.--Urthogie 11:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The policy of an encyclopedia is to use non-sexist language where possible and appropriate. "Ms." is a common standard, widely used in business and required style of newspapers such as The Times [1] and The Guardian [2]. It might include information, but as this information is not present with males, it asserts a sexist POV. Additionally, "Ms." is the style practice most widely recognized on Wikipedia. Sarge Baldy 11:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you're using POV in the wrong context. How is it a sexist point of view? As you can see by my argument, the POV is towards information in the encyclopedia.--Urthogie 11:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It sets a double standard for men and women, and thus is sexual discrimination. Sarge Baldy 11:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Well if Mr. was divided by whether the guy is married, that would be convenient, but it isn't divided that way. We have to make the best of what we have with language, not attempt to change it and slow down the creation of the encyclopedia in the process. There is no "standard". We tell people that a guy is married in a sentance of his article, and then tell people the same thing in less words with a woman's surname on her article.--Urthogie 11:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
And that's a perfect example of setting a double standard. Generally articles get to explaining the name of an individual's spouse anyway, so highlighting it further with the term "Mrs." does not add any new information to the article, it only serves to highlight marital status in a way not done for men. Sarge Baldy 11:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see what you're saying. You're saying that marital status is overemphasized with the traditional "Mrs" and "Miss." That makes sense. But if that is the case, I think you should add to the page that if someone is replacing cases of "Mrs." and "Miss" that they should make sure to add a sentance to the article about her being married to so and so if the woman is married, so there is no loss of information.--Urthogie 12:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The point isn't to hide information, just to maintain the same standards for everyone. Sarge Baldy 12:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Erm, guys, I think you're missing the point. This whole discussion seems to be somewhat moot, as since when did we ever use either Mr, Mrs or Ms on Wikipedia? We always refer to people by their last names. Ambi 13:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
It is actually used fairly often, although as the project page says, it's better to avoid using any of them. Sarge Baldy 17:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) why are we debating which one to use when we should be chopping them out altogether? Ambi 22:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's possible there's cases where "Ms" might be appropriate, not that any come immediately to mind. I suppose I was just arguing more for the sake of generating an understanding of the term. Sarge Baldy 22:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Getting going

Now that the argument is over, where do we start on actually improving things? I'd been thinking of trying to get something like this going for a long while (as it is my major), and I'd like to at least get a proper to-do list up and running (and not just being left with the dregs of the countering systemic bias project in this area). Any suggestions? Ambi 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Fathers rights

I'm having a little trouble with why a fathers rights page is within the gender studies umbrella. Sure, it concerns fathers, who are men, who have gender, but its not "gender studies". Apart from its category, I'm not sure that the Fathers rights page needs the intervention of a project team. Its very long, reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article, and appears to be the ground of numerous disputes. Its a giant can of worms. An An 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia, and such cans need to be opened sometime. Fathers rights intersects with gender issues so much its not even funny. Needs to be here.--Urthogie 09:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
So, its essentially about conflicts which men face in the world because of their gender identity? I'd like to see the FR article to that standard of analysis. As it stands its an anti-woman invective which gets reverted every time its changed. If this project were to interfere, then we'd need a very clear strategy and policy to avoid getting sucked into the existing edit wars. An An 22:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Having said that, I think there are more productive, more peaceful ways that we could operate. Expanding gender-related stub articles, for instance. An An 22:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Its not an either or. I don't support most aspects of fathers rights, i think its a largely flawed movement. I would back you all up in NPOV'ing it. Please dont give-up on articles that need it really badly as far as POV. This should be an article that could use a lot of feminist and women POV editors(i'm not either of those, so that's why im bringing it to ya'll).--Urthogie 22:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

human males are known as men.

I find it interesting that the very page that says it's about removing a bias (that it cannot demonstrate) is biased.

About this Project
Observation suggests that males are over-represented on Wikipedia, though there has not been a proper survey to back this up. The aim of this Project is to correct any systematic gender bias on Wikipedia. If you're interested, add your name to the list of contributors!

Notice that men are referred to as males.

  1. Take note of details limiting women to their physical characteristics. A woman's height and weight are generally considered irrelevant except in the cases of models, athletes, and those to whom an attribute is seen as a dominating characteristic by the larger public. Similarly, remove infatuated comments related to appearance.
  2. Note that pictures can be POV representations as well. Oftentimes, the images selected to represent women are among the most sexualized, and least humanizing. If possible, attempt to locate suitable alternatives.

While women are referred to as women, not females.

The effect is simple, it dehumanizes men, which seems to be the idea behind this project, to devalue and censure work by men, because it was done by men.

Feminism is the no longer remarkable idea that women are people, and that men are not. It shows this in many ways, but it always refers to women as women, and men as males.

It's not a good thing to see that Wikipedia is following it's lead.

Can anyone tell me why it matters how much work was done by men and by women?

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the contributions by men?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Male gender identity spawns a certain worldview, and thus, left unchecked, Wikipedia is left representing this worldview, with that of women left unrepresented. There is nothing wrong with contributions by men. But having a significant disproportion of male contributors produces a systemic bias which this project hopes to counter. I don't know why "male" is used in the place of referring to individuals as men, although it's probable that many feminist males prefer this term because "man" suggests a dominating and aggressive gender identity that they would prefer to distance themselves from (I among them). Sarge Baldy 20:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with the guy who made the accusation(i believe it was a mistake on the part of this project, not a bias). However, I think your answer isn't correct either. Male gender identity spawning a certain view is a sexist assertion, as it is false to assume that because people have the same gender identity they have certain elements to their worldview. Also, man is not a gender identity, it is a gender(even though men are usually culturally and biologically masculine). Also, you replied to his question with your POV, to back up a supposedly non-POV'd project, that aims to balance wikipedia. Sorry for holding you to a higher standard, but you clearly have more editing experience. --Urthogie 21:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how any of my comments were "sexist", by the definition of "sexist". I don't think anyone denies there are general differences in the thinking of males and females, and I am not among those that consider these differences innate. Gender (how I and most feminists use the word) means little more than gender identity; and yes, "man" is a gender identity, as well as a sex. And I wasn't suggesting the term "man" be replaced by "male" in Wikipedia, I was simply noting the reason for its preference among a number of individuals. Sarge Baldy 21:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The only difference between male and man is that man refers to humans. Im sorry if your feminism doesn't agree with The preference is clearly a POV.--Urthogie 21:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it does. defines gender as "sexual identity", which is roughly synonymous. And of course it's "POV", humans are full of POVs. They're called opinions, and they're a-OK. The point is to not force any particular POV upon Wikipedia. Sarge Baldy 21:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Everything you just said is true. However, you have to remember he wasn't asking for your opinion(or which secondary dictionary entry you favor), he was asking for an NPOV answer to why the project page, which is supposed to be NPOV, had that inconsistency. I'm sorry for being nitpicky, but he's clearly a new user and made a valid point. Not a good idea to answer him with an unecessary POV.--Urthogie 22:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You're right, it was a relevant question. And my reply was only a suggestion. Note that this user wasn't interested only in the use on project page, but also in how it tied to feminism as a whole: "Feminism is the no longer remarkable idea that women are people, and that men are not". Also, note your own "sexist" POV in that you automatically assumed this user was male. Sarge Baldy 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, I know I'm a sexist. I'm not a mysoginist though :)--Urthogie 22:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's cut the POV wars

This project is going nowhere while its talk page is riddled with accusations of POV-talking. There's POV on both sides of a coin. Wikipedia's job is to balance POVs by recognising them and naming them. Representing only a dominant view is clearly POV. Part of the aim of this project appears to be representing gender-diverse POVs. If you don't understand the nature of this project it might be better to ask a simple question, instead of posting a long rant about how underrepresented men are. An An 21:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

These talk pages have an affect on the content of the project page. However you're right about the arguing-- but I think it's ok as long as we continue to edit articles and this isn't where we devote most of our time, and also that we keep it civil. Personally, I'm just making sure that this project doesn't encourage its own bias.--Urthogie 22:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia's job is to balance POVs by recognising them and naming them.
Is it?
I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not woman's studies. Silly me. I guess today everything is woman's studies, too many men everywhere, can't have that. The part I don't understand is why this bias is being pandered as a lack of bias.

(unsigned comment by )


Archive it! I wholly agree, Ambi. An An 23:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Done / Ms./Mrs.

And done. Please all, let us stick to discussing how we can best go about engaging in writing and improving articles, and take the philosophical arguments somewhere else. Ambi 23:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was the discussion I started on the silliness of changing "Miss" and "Mrs." to "Ms." archived? This whole project is motivated by a philosophical argument, and to the extent that the philosophical arguments motivate your proposed article "improvements" and "writing," I think they merit discussion.

The archiving of this discussion is deceptive. You are launching an ideologically-influenced campaign under the guise of good wikipedia housekeeping. Nathaniel

Well I think thats a bit of a stretch. There definitely is a pro-feminist bias in this project, but I think you're exaggerating it.--Urthogie 08:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, exaggeration or not, I would like to pose the following question: What wikipedia policy supports the idea to systematically edit pages and replace "Mrs." or "Miss" with "Ms." I know of none. In fact, this has the effect of reducing the information previously available. (In all cases where this is carried out, the marital status of the woman referred to as "Mrs." will have been removed from the article unless there is mention of her current husband or marital status.)

You say that I exaggerate, but I would like to give you an illustration of what I am talking about. When I first encountered this "project," (to remove "gender bias" in wikipedia articles), I objected to the fact that it was being organized under an image for the sign associated with the female symbol. The next day, the image was amended to show both the male and the female symbol. My point is that the "Ms./Mrs./Miss" aim of this project should not be given serious consideration, because it is just as silly as pushing for the elimination of "gender bias" under the banner of the female symbol.

Instead, the aim to replace Mrs. with something more palatable is the reflection of an ideological viewpoint. This is unacceptable. Another one of the aims, to create a greater number of articles of feminists is perfectly acceptable. This is expanding the information available to wikipedia users rather than reducing it. Nathaniel

I actually agree (I think) - Ms., Miss, Mrs., or anything else is unnecessary. Just as when referring to men, beyond the first mention of her name, a woman may be referred to by her last name only, without anything appearing before it. And this seems generally to be the case on wikipedia articles already. -Seth Mahoney 23:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes. That was the intention in the first place. I actually dislike seeing "Ms." on Wikipedia, especially to the extent it is used, because it provides a "gentleness" that you don't generally see used with men's names. The notice even discouraged the use of "Ms.", so I don't know where this debate came from. Sarge Baldy 23:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Organising the front page

Hi all, I've been thinking that we could clean up the front page a bit more so that its more obvious what needs to be done. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law (which I also participate in sometimes) has some sub-pages to classify work to be done - this might be a useful idea here to minimise the clutter. Also we should consider whether establishing templates could be a useful device for us to bring some articles under a subject umbrella? AnAn 11:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - I think that would make this a lot easier to work on. I'm one of those who could probably contribute quite a bit here (seeing as it is my major, after all), but I'm probably too early in my degree to really know where to start on my own. Ambi 11:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I've created a /to do pagefor us. But that only moves the clutter from the front page to the to do page. To do has the advantage that you can use it to populate a pretty yellow {{todo}} box on the front page, but that's no use if the info itself is very messy. So, we can go about categorising the info on the to do page, or make an 'open tasks' template of the kind found here. The drawback with the template is that it looks difficult to maintain. What do people think? AnAn 02:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I think a template might be a good idea. Keeping a box isn't so difficult, just so long as you make sure there's an "edit" button handy to edit it at our whim. Sarge Baldy 03:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

New tasks box

I've created {{Template:WikiProject Gender Studies Tasks}} which inserts a lovely tasks box into the page. I largely copied it from WP:CSB, but changed the colour from grey to the WP:GS lilac. I've made it so there's a link to /to do, and also an edit this list. I reckon we can continue dicussion and comments about the tasks on /to do, at least for now. In populating the tasks box with articles from /to do, I did the following:

  • refered to List of feminists and List of women poets, but didn't extract any of the individual articles. I think these lists will need ongoing attention, and they're also open at WP:CSB.
  • tried to include as many non-anglo, non-US, non-leaderly people in the main lists as possible, while making it balanced and interesting.
  • couldn't really see any articles should be classified under "update". Maybe that could be deleted from the list?
  • used a "reserved" (i.e. commented out) list to hold any overflow, so that the lists don't look cluttered. When updating, move items from the reserved list into the main list.

I've been really tempted to split the expands into "people" and "topics", but I'm not sure that would work out in the long run. I hope that what I've done is OK with everyone. Cheers, AnAn 01:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I do like how the box came out! I don't know about "update" either, since even if we do need to use it, it might leave things unclear just what needs to updated. I like the idea of a person/topic split as well, although on the other hand I'm not sure how we'd justify it. But it does all look nice, and it makes the project page look less hefty. Sarge Baldy 02:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Make it gender studies

Thank you for including the male symbol in the graphic. Now it would be good to make your project actually gender studies rather than only women's studies. The prejudices against women have long been discussed and recognized (at least by a large portion of the population), whereas the prejudices against men tend to be misunderstood or ignored - probably a bias of our time, which is only beginning to change.

I have always been open to feminist viewpoints, and it disturbes me that this is not reciprocated. I am not suggesting that all oppression has been evenly doled out - women seem to have been far more oppressed - but I'm neither willing to accept the view that men have suffered none, or that there are only biases against women but none against men in Wikipedia. There are many feminist contributors to Wikipedia, but probably few masculists, so this in itself might incorporate a bias. My hope is that people involved in your project are open to these possible biases, instead of insisting that gender issues belong to women alone. Further to this point, it is probably fair to say that we all have way too much emotional baggage around this issue to properly assess it, so we should be as open as possible. If you don't like or agree with what I'm saying, consider the possibility that you haven't yet become aware of some of the hidden men's issues that have had little air time. This is in no way a denial of women's issues, however.

Re: Miss or Mrs. changed to Ms. - agreed it should be last name only. But if you're going to use a title, it should be whatever title that person uses, not necessarily Ms. It's simply inaccurate to call someone Ms. when they are legally Mrs. This is an encyclopedia, after all, and readers are relying on us to inform them correctly. Even if you consider it sexist, that sexism should not be disguised. It's also disrespectful to the person's choice, and may be culturally insensitive. 09:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you're welcome to pitch in and participate! You might want to consider getting a user account so that its easier for people to communicate you. AnAn 13:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Less intrusive flag?

Ummm. This logo is a bit obnoxious. Can where be something a little more thumbnail or perhaps a stub-style gizmo? I'm doing the Good Goddess' work over in the menz' articles, and the current size is just too much for me. Rorybowman 04:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this template is a bit intrusive. But its actually a lot smaller than other templates are. I think the key is in making it a more useful template (one that acts to point to a collection or continuum of information). I really like the template found on anarchism, and the Wikipedia:Project Law ones are also pretty good. I reckon we need to start organising all the info we have into the template. AnAn 01:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Flag issues

Again, with the issues with the symbol for this project! Anyway, if the aim of this project is actually to make wikipedia more gender-inclusive, in terms of content and quality of work, there may be problems with the current symbol, as it reinforces the idea of a male/female gender binary that, as all you gender theorists out there know, not only doesn't reflect the way the world actually is, but represents an anti-trans, anti-intersexed, and possibly anti-gay bias. Since all of these are issues that gender articles work with, perhaps there's a way to alter the symbol so that these issues don't rear their ugly heads? -Seth Mahoney 01:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. I had a similar problem in working with a feminist userbox template earlier. Unfortunately, I don't know any true feminist symbol that rejects this binary or effectively emphasize femininity. Even the term "feminism" is problematic when you think about it (for my own purposes, I tend to define it similarly to "gender egalitarianism", but even that term is problematic because it presupposes the existence of gender divisions). But uh. As for the image, I'd be happy to see any suitable replacement. But I basically conceded that there was no good symbol. (I have been tempted to design one, however). Sarge Baldy 01:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I couldn't think of one myself, but thought I'd throw out the complaint in case someone feeling more creative than I am at the moment could come up with something. -Seth Mahoney 01:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems almost resistant to symbolism. If you reject gender, what do you have left to put into a symbol? It seems like it'd be hard to design anything that doesn't enforce gender division and still retains meaning. Sarge Baldy 01:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
How about one where there's a single circle, and the male and female prings coming off it. It could mean, "male" and "female" together, or it could mean "transgender", or each of those separately. AnAn 02:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I actually had this same idea for a symbol, and rejected it for reasons I've forgotten now. But on second thought it does look pretty nice. I'll see if I can't make a cleaner version later, with transparency. Sarge Baldy 04:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I like that. It could be read as hetero-centric, but in this context, I don't think that's so likely. It would also reduce the size of the image, which would help with some of the complaints about the template, woultn't it? -Seth Mahoney 02:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hehe! Doesn't this symbol mean the divergence of male and female? It makes me think of hermaphrodites, personally. Nathaniel

I don't think so. AnAn 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The symbol for hermaphrodites is Mercury (planet), "Venus with horns." I think of this one as "the unicorn" 8^) - Rorybowman 23:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Something I ran across

In articles on Soviet snipers, such as Zikan, the links to articles on other snipers are in the see also section. Maybe I'm just being hypersensitive, but does it strike anyone as wrong that the female snipers are listed [[Name]](female). Seems like an irrelevant detail. Why dont the male snipers have (male). I corrected one instance, but it seems like this could be a lot more prevalent. Anyone with better wikiskills than me should probably look into this. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Its not really relevent to have the gender after the name. Ultimately, a reader will go to the article and discover the gender for themselves. I've removed the "(female)" from these pages. AnAn 05:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hah, thank you. It's been bothering me for quite a while, and I kept meaning to take ten minutes and hunt them all down, but laziness always got the better of me. It's like a double-whammy, not only are we saying "This sniper was female" which shouldn't be surprising in the Soviet army, but we're saying "Soviet names are weird, you can't tell if they're male or female unless I tell you". Anyways, much thanks Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Penis envy and Evolutionary psychology

Hi. I recently made some comments on the penis envy article in regards to evolutionary psychology. The comments are at: Talk:Penis envy#Ev Psyche and Penis Envy. I'd be curious to hear some feedback. EPM 19:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Transsexuality in Iran

Hi, the above article needs significant expansion - any help would be much appreciated (mind you I am assuming this WikiProject also deals with trans-related issues - if not, please feel free to remove this request). SouthernComfort 15:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I was wondering if there's a reason why no "This User is a member of WikiProject Gender Studies" template has been created. Userboxes like this are used by other WikiProjects and are a great way to direct people to the project headquarters. If there are no objections, I'll make one, but I just wanted to check it out first. Thanks! Romarin 04:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone ahead and made one... if there is still no opposition I'll post it on the project page later on. Check it out for now at Template:User_WikiProject_Gender_Studies. Romarin 18:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for back-up and/or input

I recently came across a template on the Esperanza Programs page that I believe could be viewed as derogatory toward women. I have left a note on the corresponding talk page voicing my concerns. In an effort to make Wikipedia free of sexist references, I would appreciate back-up by any others who also disagree with the usage of this template, as well as any input (whether in support or not) on the subject of my concern. Thanks, romarin  19:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem appears to be fixed. Very good. --Singkong2005 10:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Gender and development

It would be good to see more information on "gender and development". Any input appreciated - see discussion at Talk:Gender. Thanks! --Singkong2005 10:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Help over at Veganism#Feminist_motivations?

Hi, the content over at Veganism#Feminist_motivations is so sparse as to be mildly confusing. Would someone familiar with feminist critiques of meat-eating (or feminist advocacy of veganism) please expand upon that section? Much appreciated! Coelacan 17:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sexual apartheid

This Afd is likely to be of interest. --Ian Pitchford 15:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Come support change of Defenceman article to 'Defence Player'

Know anything about sports? Do you have an opinion?
Come voice your opinion at Talk:Defenceman. ColtsScore 14:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for tracking that one. Deebki 13:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Gender Bias in Sports Articles

I'm inspired by User:ColtsScore's request for support and would like to suggest that sports articles be given a little attention. I've been working hard for months by myself (and walking to school barefoot, in the snow, uphill both ways - just kidding...) to bring some gender balance to the sports articles. I began because I was unable to find even the most basic information on Women's sports, especially football (soccer), with the Women's World Cup coming in 2007. And now, I'm also faced with the daunting task of finding collaborators to support the inclusion of men in articles on "traditionally more female" sports. I've met with quite a bit of resistance (see my page for a glimpse of the dialogue) and could use help from some very tactful, collaborative and patient editors. Is that you? Please help when you're able. Deebki 13:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel your pain. When I started working on netball articles, we didn't even have an article on the major Australian national league, and only had articles on one country's national team. It's now improved to the point where there's at least basic coverage, but it still has such a long way to go. I couldn't agree more about the football issue, either - I'll keep an eye on things. Rebecca 13:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm still bothered that it's so androcentric. Like that women have "Women's basketball" category where men just go in the "Basketball" category. It makes it sound like basketball is a men's sport, where women play some far less important deritative called "women's basketball". Sarge Baldy 22:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I work on a lot of sports articles where women are "under-represented" and often encounter the androcentric issue. I've sometimes re-titled a section or article "men's..." in order to point out that it's exclusive. But, I worry that that may only widen the gap. Deebki 19:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Well put. Alas, how do we go about changing it? Rebecca 01:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I wish I knew. It's just such a rampant problem. I was considering making a proposal earlier that would end double standards, and there seemed to be at least some support for it. It's not just a problem for sex, either. I'm just not sure how easy it would be to pass something like that. When you're categorizing information, people can always argue that it's OK to have double standards when something is much more "common" than the other. Like that it's OK to have a "gay actors" category without a "heterosexual actors" category, because heterosexuality is just so "normal" that you don't need to call them that at all. You can just "assume" actors are heterosexual or that football players are male. Sarge Baldy 18:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's one way to begin: There's a discussion on my talk page right now, where the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football "creator"/manager asserts that he can't see the gender POV in football articles. He says, "football in general is about men," and cites low women's participation in football as a justification for limited Wikipedia focus on women in football articles. I could use help from each of you in outlining the gender POV problems for the football (soccer) project editors. Take a look at some of the androcentric pages (List of football (soccer) clubs, Football (soccer) around the world, Talk:List of football (soccer) players with 100 or more caps, Soccer dad redirects to Soccer mom. Please drop by and voice your opinion. Deebki (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
(Correction: The creator of Wikiproject Football is not an admin, as I've just learned. Deebki 08:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC))

Violence against Women

I got involved with the article after reading some of the comments on a recently closed AfD #15 on this days listing which has since been recreated and expanded as Domestic violence against men. I was appalled at the WP:POINT being exhibited, especially by those who contended that if that article got deleted then the corresponding Violence against Women should also. Looking at the article, I agreed that it needed some POV clean up and general expansion. I started to do some re-write on the article but time contraints will limit my ability to devote extensive time. Any help from other editors would be greatly appreciated. Agne 16:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

asking for comments regarding the exclusion of women in List_of_major_opera_composers

I would like to request comments and suggestions for the following situation in Talk:List_of_major_opera_composers#Not_so_fast.__There_is_obvious_POV_gender_bias_here . This is a very long, complicated situation involving whether women should be included on this list of Opera composers. As a male musician who has done quite alot of research on women in music, I firmly believe that a representative sample should be on the list (I'm not suggesting 50/50 or even 30/70, just two or three representative women). When I first noticed this article, it was completely unsourced, and the "important composers" were chosen by a collegial system ("I like that." "I don't like that") without any mention of sources. I marked the article NPOV and Unsourced. The article quickly became sourced, but I continued to bring up the issue of gender bias and brought three sources to the discussion after consulting the International Alliance of Women in Music [[3]], all of which were dismissed because they only contained works by women. However, when the list was finally completed (I was asked not to participate, as I was considered to be have a POV agenda towards women and living composers), six of the ten lists used only contained the names of men. The other four only contained one woman (Judith Weir). If lists of only women composers are unacceptable, why are lists of only men composers acceptable? And was are sources which could prove the importance of women in music dismissed as having a POV agenda.

A colleague who is a teacher of Women's studies at an American University has suggested that this is a textbook case of "canon forming" or the creation of hierarchies using preconceived notions. The process involves making a hypothesis using the notions that one already has, such as "Important operas are only composed by dead, White, European males", using the sources already utilised for making the hypothesis for proving the statement and then dismissing contradictary sources or discrediting individuals who make statements which oppose the primary hypothesis.

I am certainly not asking anyone to get directly involved here, as this is already become quite violent and an RfA is currently underway. I would however appreciate any ideas concerning how to confront this sort of gender bias, any useful sources and other ideas, as well as general comments. Thank you Jean-Thierry Boisseau 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for help

I'm working on an article for a rather odd play by W. S. Gilbert, Charity about the differences in treatment of women and men who have had sex outside of marriage, and, basically, attempting to demonstrate the Victorian view of women in that situation as baseless and wrong - that women can commit what was then considered sexual impropriety whilst remaining good women, and not being permanently fallen women. Aye, it's probably irrelevant now: We've gone beyond those beliefs, but it deserves to be known about.

However, whilst my knowledge of the Victorian attitudes is reasonably good, I'm not sure of my ability to produce a well-cited section on the historical background. Can anyone direct me to appropriate books? Adam Cuerden talk 15:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


I can't help but notice that you have only feminist categories and NO masculist categories. If you really intend to eliminate or reduce gender bias from WP, you ought to start with the PGS page. You can't ever acheive gender neutral from a solely feminist view. How about cleaning up the sexist bias in the Categories.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC).


After someone's comment at Superhero, I thought I would offer a suggestion. You might want to create a different template for talk pages instead of using your navigational template (Template:WikiProject Gender Studies). Check out Talk:Superman for some examples, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide for why this may be preferred. - jc37 17:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Front page

I've just happened upon this WikiProject, and while it interests me I'm finding the front page a little busy and lengthy - I think it could be streamlined a bit to better facilitate new people immediately seeing tasks to be done of interest, thereby contributing new work to the project. I'm going to make some changes, feel free to revert them if you don't think they're good ideas. Kurieeto 01:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

POV Check: Freedom from censorship in wikipedia articles?

Feminist Phyllis Chessler in her (2006) The Death of Feminism (Chapter 1: The "Good" Feminist) makes the following statements about totalitarian thought control in elite academic and media circles. I added these excerpts here because I added well-sourced qualification to this project (see discussion below) that reflects these concerns about gynocentric, reverse-sexist, and misandric gender bias. Ironically but not surprisingly, I already see I face the same tactics (as an editor) to silence this so-called "non-consensus" content from, I imagine, 'good' feminists and/or other editors who sympathethize with personal offense to any editor here. I have no problem with constructive NPOV criticisms but I have sound cause to suspect that this project in particular, is a politically loaded project being used to pander to 'oppression' feminist POV with no consideration given to other POV's much less to GENUINE NPOV gender-bias corrections. I hope we will use civil, overt, and constructive discussions here rather than cunning, covert, and destructive totalitarian tactics to resolve issues related to the addition or subtraction of politically incorrect and/or politically correct content in this project. To see a blatantly reverse sexist ("feminist") project is POV to me. I added some balance to the project so that we can INDEED eliminate all forms of blatant gender bias be they for or against 'gender'-feminist POV. Please keep in mind that so-called 'gender-oppression' is an untested and often falsified "GENDER"-feminist theory that is being used shamelessly as an ideology. We need some sort of NPOV balance here.

(drop in editor)

"Does she (an unnamed lifelong Democratic feminist in New York mentioned in the preceding paragraph) believe that engaging in dialogue with the designated "enemy" somehow constitutes traitorous behavior? If so, and I suspect this is the case, I must ask: Is she only afraid of the Republicans--who have not abolished her First Amendment right to speak out as feminist and who have not rescinded the Fourth Amendment against improper search and seizure--or is she afraid of the media and the academic elite who view civil conversation with anyone who opposes them as a high crime?"
"It is crucial to note that our government has not criminalized free speech nor have dissidents been jailed for saying whatever they please. In my opinion, the chilling of free speech has been unilaterally imposed by those who claim to act on its' behalf."
"What sort of group or person refuses to recognize the existence of and refuses to even talk to, no less hire, someone with whom they disagree? What sort of group or person persistently slanders and demonizes those with whom they happen to disagree on key political issues? What sort of group or person demands uniform party-line thinking--and is powerful enough to coerce people into "hiding" their potentially dissident views, sometimes even from themselves"?
"Surely I must be talking about the power of the former Soviet state or Nazi Germany, Maoist China, or any one of the many Islamic dictatorships; or I must be describing Republican or conservative thinking. Alas, I am not."
"Today totalitarian thinking is also flourishing among media and academic elites. Oddly enough, such totalitarian thinking and its consequent thought control are flying high under the banners of "free speech" and "political correctness". Dare to question these elites' rights to expose or challenge them, and you'll quickly be attacked as representing a new and more dreadfull form of "McCarthyism" and "witch hunting".

(drop in editor) 01:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

POV Check: "Correcting any systemic gender bias" indeed!?

Content in question:

However other researchers who study the usages of the term gender have distinctly opposing views. Misandry researchers Nathanson and Young assert that 'gender' is a term used by radical, or what they call "ideological" feminists to propagate gynocentric misandry. They assert that almost all gender research is gynocentric, and that the very term 'gender' is a "front" for Marxist, Romanticist, and Classist forms of female-superiority feminism. Other oppression-feminist authors may also have POV's about these researchers POV' which case they deserve to be well-sourced and shown here with NPOV balance as well. The aim of this Project is to correct any systematic gender bias on Wikipedia.

Someone reverted the content above from this project as being not in 'consensus' whatever that means in a project like this that is aimed at ALL forms of systemic and gender bias on wikipedia. I added this content to flag systemic and GYNOCENTRIC gender biases I see all over feminist related pages after reading Nathanson and Young, Hoff-Sommers, and other non-gender-ginning feminists' takes on this. I suspect this project was created to pander to the points of view of misandric, gender-ginning, 'patriarchal oppression' feminists (please see Women's studies, misandry and feminism ) who use the term 'gender' as a cunning, covert, and blatantly gynocentric weapon of war. Many other more moderate feminists and non-feminists have challenged these blatantly gynocentric, and often misandric "gender feminist" ideologies. I insist on a non-sexist, non-'genderist', non-reverse sexist project...otherwise this project is just the usual type of cunning totalitarian tactic we see so much in other politically correct channels. To revert the above content just because none of the orginal authors of this project page like it is a POV stunt to have ones cake and eat it too. I am going to reinsert the content. I insist that before it is reverted again good NPOV reasons be provided. My aim here is some kind of GENUINE non-sexist, non-reverse sexist, and non-'genderist' may be shown well in Sexism (drop in editor) 00:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A flaw in your logic...?

I noted on your front page you do not wish to add pro-female POV, et al, however you also say right above it, quote, This project does not aim to correct a perceived pro-female or anti-male bias in Wikipedia. Nor does it seek to write general critiques of articles about gender-related topics.. So you wont add pro-female bias, but you won't remove it either? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Fuchs (talkcontribs) 21:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

Return to the project page "WikiProject Gender studies/Archive 1".