Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This 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.

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.

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)

Contents 1 Other Biased Language 2 Getting going 3 Fathers rights 4 human males are known as men. 5 Let's cut the POV wars 5.1 = 6 Archive

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)

...so 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?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.172.115.2 (talk • contribs).

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 dictionary.com. The preference is clearly a POV.--Urthogie 21:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it does. Dictionary.com 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 64.172.115.2 )

Archive

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