Talk:Femininity/Archive 4

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.

USchick, your new section is fundamentally flawed.
First of all, given Mattell’s target customer is prepubescent girls, Barbie is the “Feminine ideal” of prepubescent girls. Not of red blooded males. If you want examples of the true feminine ideal, shape wise, you should logically look in a playboy magazine.top ten covers
As it turns out here is a quote from the Measure of attractiveness section in the WP Waist-hip ratio page.

Women with a 0.7 WHR are usually rated as more attractive by men from Indo-European cultures.[19] Beauty icons such as Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, Salma Hayek and Sophia Loren typically have ratios close to 0.7

Note Marilyn Monroe was on the cover of the first issue of Playboy and, I believe, in it the most often.

On the other hand Barbie’s hip to waist ratio is 8 inches/33 inches= 0.545 (Barbie#Controversies).
The section simply needs to be removed. Or at least no mention of Barbie should be in it.
Dave3457 (talk) 00:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave3457, welcome to the club. In my opinion, there are lots of things in this article that are fundamentally flawed. As far as this section, I added "In popular culture" – the doll is the ideal of feminine aesthetic beauty and has been used as a teaching tool for femininity in general (referenced). She has an international following of grown women and men (also referenced). The fact that Barbie is used around the world specifically for the purpose of discussion to determine what is feminine is undeniable (and referenced repeatedly). I do appreciate your willingness to talk about this first, before edit warring. :) You may also be confusing femininity with

sex appeal. Feel free to add other feminine ideals.USchick (talk

) 01:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

At least half of the Barbie section is just rambling about Barbie, and not a single word of it actually explains what is feminine about Barbie (except for the part that says she is anorexic). Can we please try to keep it limited to information that is directly relevant to femininity? Kaldari (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to trim it down to the parts that have something to do with femininity, although it's still lacking a basic explanation of why Barbie is or was considered feminine. Kaldari (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

When something is a national icon of femininity, I'm not sure an explanation is necessary about why. It simply is. :) USchick (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although I think we should explain what femininity is (or is widely considered) before we get into the more esoteric discussions. Perhaps I should just move the clothing and appearance section up higher, as it seems like something of an afterthought in the article currently. Kaldari (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we discuss "what femininity is" at length in the lead paragraph? What makes Barbie a feminine icon is all the information that was removed, things like she is sold in 140 countries and comes in 45 nationalities, so in your own country you can buy your own representation of Barbie. She was featured in films, books, video games, and in other popular culture and became so popular, that now there is an international cult following of grown women and men who go to Barbie conventions. (Hey, who are we to judge?) In the countries where she is accepted, the people can relate to her feminine nature on many different levels (and there is a lot of literature about this), that's what makes her an icon. However, in China, female consumers rejected Barbie and everything she stands for, so as a result, Mattel is pulling the brand out of that country only two years after introduction, even though all the manufacturing is staying in China. In Islamic countries (male dominated), it's a different story, the government is limiting exposure because they see Barbie as a national threat to security. Now, when a feminine concept is more dangerous than weapons of mass destruction, that's a discussion worth having. Maybe important enough to be included in the lead paragraph. (Much more important than hair and makeup). USchick (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If this were anything other than an encyclopedia article I would agree with you. Obviously, Barbie being banned in Iran is much more interesting that telling people that lipstick is considered "feminine" (duh). But we're not in the business of being "interesting", we're here to give people the boring, tedious, pedantic facts. Thus we need to establish the basic context of what femininity means before we talk about Barbie being more dangerous than weapons of mass destruction. For some reason, however, all the editors here seem to only be interested in what is contentious about femininity, not in describing the basics that we all agree on. Kaldari (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we should determine what this article is about. I can't believe all the guys here who want to talk about

hair and makeup, there is already an article for that and this is not it. Perhaps people want to talk about what is contentious about femininity because it's a contentious subject. USchick (talk

) 00:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I guess so. Kaldari (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the barbie section is appropriate for this article, as long as it has sources. One sentence though that doesn't seem to belong is: "Studies show that these men find a waist to hip ratio of 0.7 most attractive while Barbie has a waist to hip ratio of 0.545." This might have a connection to femininity, but it seems indirect or original synthesis unless the source also says that what men find attractive necessarily makes it the feminine ideal. --Aronoel (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Femininity isn't just defined by what men find attractive. Indeed, it is mostly the other way around: Men find traits attractive because they are considered feminine. Kaldari (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed the sentence somewhat to deal with your concerns, however, Kalkdari, I find your statement odd, would you say women find certain male traits attractive because men consider them masculine?

I appreciate that the sentence still stands out somewhat but only because, in my view, the claim that Barbie is an "icon of femininity" is not true. By the way USchick, it is a movie reviewer that claims Barbie is an "icon of femininity", I think you will have to find a better reference or remove the claim.Dave3457 (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I didn't realize you were working on it and I was too. Are you happy with your section? If you were planning on expanding, I was trying to create a space for it. USchick (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a book title – Barbie: the icon, the image, the ideal : an analytical interpretation of the Barbie Doll in popular culture [1] I'll be looking for more. USchick (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"America's most famous cultural icon" magazine article [2] "Around the world, she became an icon aspired to by both mothers and their daughters" magazine article [3], "Barbie remains an enduring icon" BBC news [4], "Barbie has morphed into a legend and an icon" NY Times [5], "Barbie has been dressed by more than 70 designers, including Giorgio Armani, Christian Lacroix and Monique Lhuillier." Vera Wang Barbie wedding gown $15,000 NY Times [6], "To mark the iconic doll's landmark birthday" Vogue [7], "girls may torture Barbie because they are so ambivalent about the feminine ideals she embodies" NPR [8] "Christie's in New York auctioned this custom-designed Barbie wearing a one-carat pink diamond necklace for $302,500 to an anonymous bidder. The sale, which took place on Oct. 20, marked the highest-ever price paid for a Barbie doll." ABC news [9] USchick (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Aronoel and Kaldari. If femininity consists of what men find attractive, source please. As USchick explained to me, not just any source, but a source that somehow represents the body of knowledge.

A removed the "In men's view" subsection.

Uschick, what are we supposed to do with those links you provided? Only one of them mentions the feminine ideal. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

USchick, none of your sources use the phrase “feminine icon”. I don’t mean to move the goal posts on you but even if you found several that did, would you not agree that many do not believe that Barbie is representative of the feminine ideal. In light of this should not the claims me mitigated to reflect this.

Sonicyouth86, why did you remove the "In men's view" stuff. Where is the consensus in the above discussion? Dave3457 (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You have it wrong, Dave. You need a consensus to include information in the article.

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material

, i.e. you.

So where is that evidence that femininity is what men find attractive as the section "in men's view" suggests? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, if you want to participate in a discussion without being disruptive, may I kindly ask you to read the entire discussion. My sources were to answer Dave3457's objection to Barbie being an icon.

I know that your sources were an answer to Dave3457's objection. And as I pointed out none of your sources uses the term "feminine icon." So how exactly am I being disruptive? For instance, I think that starting discussions about personality disorders when nobody's mentioned disorders is disruptive. But perhaps our definitions of the term are different. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, he was disagreeing with Barbie being an icon. She was introduced in 1959 as a feminine ideal of modern aesthetic beauty. Now 50 years later, after celebrating her 50th birthday, she is an icon. and the sources reflect that. Please go look at the links. Also, if men have an ideal version, since men represent half of the population, I think they are qualified to be represented in this article as long as there are sources to support their view. Scientific studies that measure things qualify as reliable. It's not up to me to decide if it's worthwhile to measure hip to waist ratios, or anything else. Instead of arguing, do you have a suggestion about how to improve this article?USchick (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Just now weighing in on this. I have to agree that the Section as a whole is poorly put together as it is currently written. For example the sub-section "In men's view", which is just one sentence, fails to tell us whether this applies to Men in general, or heterosexual men, or lesbian women, or whatever. I think it is an incredibly good idea to have a section like this, but Femininity itself kind of embodies the 'ideals', so I'm not sure how this would be incorporated. -- Avanu (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this section is in progress and since there is more than one editor interested, let's give it a few days. We could get a lot more accomplished if we stopped bickering. Is anyone interested in having a discussion about what this article should be about? Maybe that would help us focus on the issues and not on individual view points. USchick (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, Most women are feminine, most males are masculine, there is an attraction between the masculine and feminine. Of course what feminine traits in women, masculine men find attractive is relevant to this page. Three people now support the "In men's view" section.

USchick, while I see you have left my "mitigation" stuff alone, as I have mentioned elsewhere that alone is not enough. Dave3457 (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. USchick (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

USchick, I thought you where the one that removed my added sentence to the Barbie stuff. (Refer to last talk comment I made) Also the "mitigation" stuff I was referring to was this edit where I change "the" to "a" and added "Mattel". I also added the words "in the views of some," Anyway, I'm personally happy with the way things are now, it seems balanced.

By the way, I'm really enjoying this vacation, aren't you? :) Dave3457 (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The new source talks about neck rings being important in feminine beauty and there's a link for anyone interested in reading about it. I know it's not a news article, but it seems to be more accurate than allegations of broken necks. The tribe can't remember the origin of the practice, but now they use them as a sign of great beauty in their quest to find a husband (is there anything else? :-) ) and as a tourist attraction. USchick (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph, using two new sources and one old source. Do not rewrite unless you can come up with a reliable source that the neck rings are no biggie and can be taken off without any consequences. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the one unreliable source you provided does not say that neck rings can be removed without any consequences. It simply says that one particular girl named Zember could remove them without serious consequences while pointing out that experts "assumed that removing the coils would lead to suffocation and death." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's funny, thanks for making me laugh! If the "experts" (who are not medical professionals) have a theory and everyone believes it, how many real life examples does it take to disprove a false belief? The medical professionals explained that stretching the neck is not possible, because that in itself would cause paralysis. What the neck rings do is push down the collar bone to cause a visual effect of an elongated neck. Magazine article [10] USchick (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear we make each other laugh.

The "source" that you provided uses the word "experts." How come you don't know this? Do you read the sources you use?

If reliable sources say that the removal of neck rings makes the neck collapse then Zember's story, told in an unreliable source which merely mentions that there were no serious consequences, is not enough to disprove anything.

Yes, the Marie Claire printed Zember's story and mentioned that her neck didn't snap despite bruises and discomfort, deforming her body, and depressing her collar bones. Now what? Back to "No serious consequences"? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, I'm trying to understand what you're talking about. The Marie Claire article has a page 2 where it says: "Ma Lo, 24, who has also removed her neck rings" so that's two people who removed the rings. If "experts" predicted in the past about what would happen, now you have a credible source that demonstrates what happens in real life. What else are you looking for? You can watch a video [11] where another woman removes the old ring before she puts on a new one. USchick (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

USchick, oh, how I am trying to understand what you're talking about. If you knew!

I am sure that Zember isn't the only one who removed her neck rings. Now we come to the important part: Removing neck rings is not the same as removing neck rings without "serious" consequences.

Again, the "source" you provided used the term "experts." So if you object to the term, don't take it out on me.

"Truth" is not a criterion for inclusion. So even if it were true that neck rings don't haven any negative health effects, then we would still have to report what the majority of sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This article says: Giraffe women (Burma and Thailand) In late 2008, most of the young women who entered the refugee camp removed their rings. One woman who wore the rings for over 40 years also removed her rings. The women report temporary discomfort which faded after three days. The discoloration is more persistent. USchick (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

More sources: Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization [12] The Sunday Times [13] “Originally, about 50 of us wore coils in this village,” Ma Hu Htee said, “But now only 23 still wear them." [14] Children's bioethics p 59 [15] USchick (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source.

Yes, many articles relate Zember's story. Yes, some people remove neck rings. Most sources agree on the consequences of wearing neck rings. So what exactly is your point? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, do you plan on expanding your section or are you happy with it the way it is? Delete in men's view? USchick (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The "In men's view" section suggests that femininity is what men find attractive. A source for this claim has not been provided, meaning, that the

Three editors have spoken out against the suggestion that femininity is defined by what men find attractive [16] [17] [18].

Despite this, two editors, USchick and Dave3457, continue to reinsert this into the article via edit warring. What is to be done about this? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, how much have you contributed to this article? Now that we have found some semblance of a working relationship among editors, why are you disrupting? If femininity is defined by culture, and men are half of the population, who do you think defines femininity if not men and women? USchick (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Some things are so evident that we don't even need sourcing. Unless you live alone in a cave, you know that heterosexual men do like femininity. Also, we know that humans breathe air, that fish typically live in water, and money doesn't grow on trees. I would agree that if we're going to put something into Wikipedia, it should not only tell people common sense, but also serve to expand human understanding, so I might say the "In men's view" needs to be retitled or expanded, but I wouldn't demand a source for what is *UNBELIEVABLY* obvious. From

WP:V: To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged.... -- Avanu (talk

) 22:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

USchick, your edit summary is uncivil.

You do not own this article

 and I have as much right to comment on or edit the article as you.

We seem to have a very different definition of disruptive behavior. I think that your talk about hidden agendas and your completely unnecessary detour to personality disorders is disruptive and in bad faith.

I don't think that I am being disruptive, particularly because I wasn't the only editor to express doubt about your assumption that femininity is what men find attractive.

Society is more than the sum of its constitutive parts. It isn't as simply as "Women + Men = Society." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, thank you for your comment. Whether or not "heterosexual men like femininity" isn't the question here. The question is whether femininity is defined by what men find attractive in women.

No, I don't live in a cave. Yes, I know that humans breathe air, fish typically live in water, and that money doesn't grow on tress. Consider me thoroughly educated...;)

Dave3457 has been trying to insert info that directly contradicts the claim that beauty (as a tiny sub-part of femininity) is defined by what men find attractive. See [19]. Barbie is regarded as a feminine ideal despite the fact that men prefer other proportions in women.

Please also keep in mind, Avanu, that I'm not the only editor who is so craaaaaazy as so question what seems so evident to you.

I am familiar with

WP:V, thanks. You do not need to attribute everything, meaning that you do not need to attribute claims like "Paris is the capital of France" or "Humans breathe air." Controversial claims, however, must be attributed, especially if editors ask for verification. If the claim that femininity is defined by what men find attractive in women is so self-evident, then there should be no problem finding a reliable source. --Sonicyouth86 (talk

) 16:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sonicyouth86, your reading something into my addition that is not there. Here is what I initially wrote...

This is in spite of the fact that Barbie does not meet the aesthetic proportions that men in Indo-European cultures find most attractive. Studies show that these men find a waist to hip ratio of 0.7 most attractive while Barbie has a waist to hip ratio of 0.545. [20]

Which I change to...

While there are those who hold Barbie to be the feminine ideal, Barbie’s anatomical proportions are exaggerated and do not, for example, meet the aesthetic proportions that men in Indo-European cultures find most attractive.

Where in these two versions is the "claim that beauty is defined by what men find attractive." And even if the sentences did, it is pretty clear that beauty is in fact largely defined by what men find attractive. Why else would women spend billions of dollars a year trying to appear "beautiful" to men. That is undeniably their goal.

Also, it is very important that this sentence be included given that Barbie is in fact not the feminine ideal of the typical Ken, which is otherwise implied by the paragraph. Men to a certain extent are getting a bad rap as it is not men that are driving women to starve themselves to look like Barbie. I would add that men do not find some of the walking skeletons you see on fashion runways attractive either.

Note: Those reading this may want to also read the section New_Feminine_Ideal_section_is_fundamentally_flawed.

Dave3457 (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Dave3457, I'd like kindly to point out that it's a common misperception that women do anything because "men find it attractive." This line of thinking is also fundamentally flawed. By the way, when Barbie dumped Ken the news made Businessweek [21] and the Associated Press [22]. Like you already pointed out, women starving themselves has nothing to do with men, and along the same lines, most of the things that women do is not to attract men. Men are attracted anyway, no matter what women do throughout centuries (less hair, more hair, longer necks, shorter necks, fatter, thinner, whatever – men continue to be attracted.) And we thank you for your continued dedication all these years. :-) USchick (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets take this outside :) Dave3457 (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Bring it on :) USchick (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

For all those in favor of self abasement being a feminine characteristic, you may be interested in this [23] [24] [25] USchick (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed this sentence from the "Body alteration" section:

The rings stretch the vertebrae and if the neck rings are removed, the neck muscles can no longer support the weight of the head and collapse."

for a couple of reasons:

1. It's uncited and disputed. See here.
2. Disputed or not, it's a level of detail beyond what's appropriate for this article, which covers a very broad concept. It's more appropriate being described in the
   Body alteration article. Herostratus (talk
   ) 06:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "In Politics" section from the article, and placed it here on the talkpage. I'm doing that because I think it's pretty bad, but I don't have time at the moment to fix it myself. If anyone wants to take a crack at rewriting it, I've put it here so you can do that.

Why is it bad?

• The citations for the first sentence don't support its assertion that "female leaders of nations embody feminine expectations of national identity in their society." The first citation just says that female leaders in the United States "may not deviate from the cultural stereotype of feminine." The second talks about post-war beauty contests in Italy and the third about politics and gender in Thailand -- neither says anything about female politicians/leaders.
• The second sentence claims that female leaders of nations "use their femininity to appeal to ordinary people and gain strategic advantage over their male opponents." Again, the citations don't support this text. The first citation is to a study that says that when female candidates for office in the United States choose to capitalize on gender stereotypes by focusing on issues favourably associated with female candidates and/or by targeting female voters, they improve their odds of winning. This is not the same as "using their femininity." The second citation is to a journalistic profile of Yingluck Shinawatra, which claims that in her bid to become Thailand's first female prime minister, she "asked for the chance to prove herself, saying that she planned to use her attributes as a woman." These two citations are clearly insufficient to support any contention about "female leaders of nations."
• The third sentence is a list of female politicians who the articles states are "famous examples in political leadership and the ideal in femininity," but this is just an unsupported assertion: no evidence is given to support the idea that these women are somehow linked to an "ideal in femininity."

In politics

In international politics, female leaders of nations embody feminine expectations of

Thanks, Sue Gardner (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for clarity, this (and a few other articles) were the subject of a blog post on a criticism site yesterday, so more eyes on the article would be better than fewer eyes. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 15:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Currently, the lede to this article says this: "Femininity (also called womanliness or womanhood) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with girls and women. Femininity is made up of both socially defined and biologically created factors.[1][2][3][4] This makes it distinct from the simple definition of the biological female sex,[5][6] as women, men, and transgender people can all exhibit feminine traits."

The middle sentence is inaccurate. What is biologically defined is "femaleness." What is not biologically defined is culturally/socially defined, and *that*, by definition, is "femininity." That doesn't mean there's no overlap -- obviously characteristics can be both female and feminine. But the overlap doesn't mean that the words mean the same thing.

So:

• Having breasts: female and feminine
• Having a penis: non-female and non-feminine
• Wearing nail polish: non-female and feminine

I propose therefore to rewrite the lede as follows: "Femininity is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with girls and women. Femininity is not the same as the biological state of being female: rather, femininity is culturally and socially defined,[1][2][3][4] and women, men, and transgender people can all exhibit traits that are understood to be feminine."

(Please note the OED dictionary definition which supports this rewrite here. Also, I have read this old discussion about the lede, as well as this one and this one.)

Thanks, Sue Gardner (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There was an RFC about this a couple years ago. The sentence that we ended up with was "Femininity is socially constructed, but made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors." About a year ago, an anonymous IP removed the first part of the sentence and apparently no one ever noticed the change. I would support your proposed replacement, however, as it is less confusing and redundant than the awkward sentence that was designed by committee. Kaldari (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sue Gardner, the old discussions show that the middle sentence is not inaccurate. Strong points were made that reliable sources note that feminine behavior may be or is biologically-influenced in some cases. It's what the four sources supporting the line are discussing, and is also what the "Behavior and personality" section in the article discusses.[26] It's why

WP:CONSENSUS was achieved for the current wording that you object to. Your argument that femininity does not include biologically-created factors is basically the same argument that others have made, but is also an argument that some reliable sources disagree with. I cannot support wording that makes it appear that femininity is only socially constructed. Halo Jerk1 (talk

) 01:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the complete WP:CONSENSUS version has been restored by Kaldari.[27] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. So what's the best way to stage this conversation? Do we need to do another RfC, or can we just have the discussion here with whoever's around and interested? Thanks, Sue Gardner (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Going by the edit summary, which includes "Discussion of a completely new wording is underway on talk page. Please join in.", I'd say here is fine. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

@Halo Jerk1: some specific female behaviors may be biologically influenced, and thus those feminine behaviors which also happen to be female behaviors may be biologically influenced in women. But 'feminine behavior' in general is not biologically influenced, as it is not limited to females. The fact that this isn't clear from the current wording makes me more inclined to support Sue's wording. A good analogy is the idea of beauty. Beauty includes physical traits which are 'biologically created', but it would be incorrect to say that beauty is 'biologically influenced', as beauty is subjectively defined by society. Kaldari (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I consider distinguishing between "biologically influenced" and "biologically created" to be semantics. And the lead, at this time, doesn't use the words "biologically influenced." I can't support Ms. Gardner's wording because it disregards the biological factors and is not

WP:LEAD-satisfactory since it doesn't (I pointed to the section we have that discusses the nature vs. nurture aspect of femininity), and because it contradicts the sources used in the lead. Halo Jerk1 (talk

) 23:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I’m with Halo on this one.

Sue, the middle sentence is accurate and deals nicely with the opposing views on this matter. The lead goes out of its way to point out that femaleness and femininity are not the same thing. Your suggested lead states that “femininity is culturally and socially defined”. That is not entirely true, neuroscience is clearly showing that what we call masculine behavior and feminine behavior is not just the result of the way boys and girls are being raised but has, in part, its origin in brain structure and hormones. One should be careful to distinguish between the cultural “symbols” of femininity, such as nail polish, and feminine behavior which has strong biological origins. Dave3457 (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@Halo & Dave: Yes, everything about how we behave is influenced by brain structure and hormones. And yes, biology influences some of the behaviors and physical traits that we currently include in the common Western definition of 'feminine'. No one is denying those facts. The confusion lies in whether or not the definition of femininity is somehow directly tied to biological femaleness. The sources I've looked at say it isn't (See Sociology: A Global Perspective for example). The definition of femininity is fluid and changes based on the whims of society. In theory, a culture could define femininity in such a way that it didn't include a single trait that was biological in origin. This isn't really that hard to imagine. And if femininity doesn't necessarily include any traits that are biological, it cannot be said that 'biology influences femininity'. The distinction isn't merely semantic; it is essential to understanding the relationship between femininity and femaleness. If there is no society, 'femininity' has no meaning, as it must be given meaning by society. Femaleness, however, exists even without humans. In other words, the 'biology of femininity' is incidental, not inherent. In my view, our current wording doesn't really make this clear. Kaldari (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

@Dave: Characterizing nail polish as a 'symbol of femininity' shows a misunderstanding of the relationship between femininity and femaleness. Wearing nail polish is feminine (by typical Western standards), not a symbol of femininity. Kaldari (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Until I came across this page, I thought that the occasional occurrences of "femininity" I saw on the Interwebs were playful/sarcastic/memetic deliberate misspellings of "feminity", but this entry and the redirect from

It seems that feminity is an older version of the term femininity [28] and is already addressed in the Wiktionary [29]. USchick (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it is appropriate to provide a link to the Grammatical gender page at the top of the femininity page. I can see providing a link to the Grammatical gender page to the gender page but this link is not appropriate.

I switched it to ...

like on the Masculinity page. -- Dave3457 (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, my fault for not checking whether a disambiguation page existed (I just assumed it didn't, since it wasn't linked to). Victor Yus (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm keen on Geert Hofstede's book coming up almost at the top of the Behavior and personality section, which is an important section which follows the lede.

Since we're just giving an overview of the subject for the general reader, I think the stuff starting with "Femininity is sometimes linked..."; "something something dichotomy has had a considerable influence..." is good too (assuming it's true) and "An ongoing debate [regarding nature vs. nurture]" gives a good perspective, assuming that Hotstede has not somehow conclusively proven that it's nurture, which I sort of doubt. (It would be unusual for adaptive behaviors to not influence genetics, given enough time, I would suppose.)

Not an expert, don't feel strongly about it, and it's not terribly important I guess, but I moved Hofstede down quite a bit. (I also moved Serano down with him, keeping her just below Hofstede as before. Don't know Serano but I get a polemical vibe here (her article describes her as an "activist" for instance), although I could be dead wrong about that. I'm sure she's worthwhile, but not up so high.) They could go up a few paras too I suppose (or be restored to the top if someone can indicate that Hofstede really is is more or less the last word on the matter). Herostratus (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I support you on this. I think these are interesting and useful edits, but I don't think either should come before Ann Oakley for example. I also think that if editors are going to introduce relatively little known sources such as the Hofstede book, then we should have page quotes as in the Serano (and in which case a different citation model really ought to be used, since presently we have three citations for the same book differing only in page numbers: I'll try and take care of that some time if someone else doesn't oblige first). Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Added: Regarding page numbering, I've used the reference page {{rp}} template described in Help:References and page numbers to rationalise the hitherto five duplicate Serano references and added a comment at the beginnign of mark-up to encourage editors to follow suit. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ERH. This is great work! Herostratus (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Added: incidentally I see from your User page that you translate articles from the Russian Wikipedia. The Russian article on Femininity is rather good I think and eventually I propose to incorporate some material from it here if I don't see it from elsewhere first. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll maybe take a look at that anon. Herostratus (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is meant by "ideal feminine" (the heading for a subsection in the article)? It's not a collocation of itself that I recognise.

The Google search engine allows you to search for occurences of an exact string of words by putting them in quotation marks. Searching thus on "ideal feminine" gives you as a first hit this Wikipedia article on femininity, while subsequent hits as far as I can see offer it exclusively as as adjectival phrase rather than as a noun phrase - this "ideal feminine beauty", "ideal feminine figure", and so on.

Looking through the Revision History I find these from User:USchick who first created the section (Barbie dolls ...) here and then 'defined' her neologism here.

Shouldn't we be renaming this section somewhat more conventionally?

While I'm here, am I alone in being distinctly underwhelmed by Sue Gardner's (the 70th most powerful woman on planet Earth - no really :)) effort on the "ideal feminine" in Communism? A strong brianish carefully skirting whistling to oneself restraining desire to a lift back leg dog walk sort of mental image takes hold of me as I work through this piss poor collection of quotations from various sources. This would be Sue chasing the femininist vote in a safe redneck sort of way I take it (she didn't exactly cover herself in glory at New York v Strauss-Kahn valorising an investigative report by Edward Jay Epstein that was was immediately shot down in flames but was nevertheless the subject of a far from NPOV section for a very long time before I restored balance to it). I'm prepared to have a go at editing her good faith yeah right efforts, but would I, you know, get sent to Siberia for it? Exiled for life? Trolled into a lonely suicide on a Mediterranean island perhaps (just an idle thought)?

Reassurances sought. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not a blog for personal musings. Is there a question here? Since there is no consensus on what Femininity is, or how it is defined, it's reasonable to explain what is considered as the "ideal" feminine in case someone is interested in striving to achieve it. USchick (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There was a question here right at the start and that was what is meant by "ideal feminine", which is not good English. Actually we exchanged some views in the next section, but in reply here I would say in that case you should be calling the section "Ideal femininity" and I don't think it would last very long :). I noted below that English isn't your first language (Russian is?) and that the collocation "ideal feminine" appears to stem from the work of the Russian mystical philosopher Vladimir Solovyov, but he uses it in a quite different way from what indeed is your interpretation as "ideal femininity". It's frankly not a pressing concern of mine since I don't expect to edit here any more. I'm right in saying you aren't bilingual? I'm surprised you won't accept the advice of a native speaker that "ideal feminine" simply isn't right. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Originally this was "Behavioral traits generally considered feminine include

"Behavioural" is clearly wrong ("personality" is the appropiate quailifier if one were needed). The statement is supported by two citations, one an obscure 1980s academic citation (well. times have moved on ...) and the other is a tertiary source. In the circumstances I changed to "Traits that have been cited as feminine include gentleness, empathy, and sensitivity ... " and asked for a quotation. If an obscure source is cited that is an appropiate request.

IP Florida making a revert says that this is bogus and she can provide the quotations - so provide them please.

Thank you. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Florida IP immediately reverted. Well, one tries one's best ... Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

And your point of steadily calling out my IP location is? That type of thing makes me not want to log in (I accidentally edited this article while logged out and kept with it after that because my IP address had been exposed). I should get my IP address (which will change later regardless) wiped from the history first before replying here while logged in, which can be legitimately done upon request. I'm also a guy, so I don't know why you assume I'm a she unless that's your feminist side showing. Usually, people assume that an anonymous person is a guy unless it's evident that the person isn't. And assuming that someone is a guy on Wikipedia is usually correct. I can see from your edit history that you have a lot more experience editing Wikipedia than is expected of someone with an account that has not been registered with Wikipedia for very long, but I'm sure you don't want me calling you "not-so-new editor."

This is what I said.[30][31][32] I didn't say I can provide the quotations. If the sources use the word "generally" and that is taken into account with all the many sources saying that those (or some of those) traits are generally considered feminine or are generally associated with femininity, I don't believe you should remove "generally."

WP:SOURCEACCESS. 72.216.11.67 (talk

) 20:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It also doesn't make sense to revert me on the words "Traits cited." Using "Traits that have been cited" is unnecessary verbiage. 72.216.11.67 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In the first place what led to this was that an editor SusanLesch removed the list of traits from the lead. I had been editing here, but had refrained from editing the lead where it is claimed by Sue Gardner that a consensus had been reached, but Susan Lesch's edit seemed to me a sensible edit given an (expanded) version of these traits was also present in the main body and I thanked Susan for it. However her edit was subsequently reverted by another user Halo Jerk1 who reinstated the list.

Now I would suggest it's contentious today to maintain today that traits such as gentleness, empathy and sensitivity are "generally" associated with femininity. I would be happy with "traditionally", but "generally" strikes me as something that needs citing nowadays. But when I looked at the citations they were as I decribe them above, one ancient and obscure, the other a tertiary source (I mean an encylopedia genus Elsevier). I set to finding a more accessible source, and the point is I simply couldn't. So I think it's perfectly fair to ask for a quotation as verification.

Note that I didn't revert an edit here. I simply tried to resolve a conflict, replacing "cited" by "have been cited", deleting "behavioural" (which is just plain wrong), and asking for a quotation. If as you claim you can provide these quotations, why don't you simply provide them? What's the big deal with that?

Why so aggressive in your edit responses? The claim that I'm "biased"? That I'm "apparently new" (yeah right, there's a rite of passage for editing leads in Wikipedia? I was watching Avatar last night: is there something where I have to hitch my pony tail - you've all got pony tails in Wikipedia right - to a USB port and, you know, merge with Mother Goddess Sue Gardner, earn myself a leonopteryx from Jimbo, even get mysekf a bit of tail up against a wall the way I like it if I handle it right 'cos we're all good mates here ...)?

Well be of good cheer Florida IP, because I don't have the time for this. I came here via New York v. Strauss-Kahn where I was tidying up and I'm on my way to Postmodern feminism. Meet me there for some real sport, boyo.

Why not get yourself an account (if you can) in the meantime? Stick it in a port, make my day ... Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi guys. Can Halo Jerk1 please point to the precise part of

Not-so-new editor Elissa Rubria Honoria, you say "it's contentious today to maintain today that traits such as gentleness, empathy and sensitivity are 'generally' associated with femininity"? Well, frankly, that's ridiculous. But I know it's just your feminist bias showing. Let's not pretend that there is not a general distinction (even if we say "general Western distinction") between

genderqueer). Nothing wrong with using Encyclopedia of Women and Gender: Sex Similarities and Differences ..., Volume 1 as a source.[38] It's not a typical encyclopedia source (such as Encyclopædia Britannica

) anyhow. Elsevier is also just the publisher, so your use of genus there doesn't seem correct to me. But now I've directed you to many sources, "ancient" and new, saying the same thing about what are general feminine traits. So let's pick a few of those sources.

Regarding the rest, such as my comments about your status as a new editor, you need to pay more attention to what people say. I didn't say you are "apparently new." I said you are "apparently not new." I know you aren't. New editors don't make edits like this[39] right from the beginning (your third edit ever as Elissa Rubria Honoria) unless they have been editing for a good bit of time as an IP address or previously as a registered account. It's rare that even a student that has been

WP:GREATWRONGS. But I guess we should focus on the content and not the editor, right? I will if you will. You can start by not calling me Florida IP. Just "IP" will do. You called on your buddy by linking her name. Maybe I should call on those with similar views to mine? Dave3457 and USchick

, this IP is calling you for your opinion here. Or does calling them while an exposed IP address not work?

SusanLesch, WP:MOSINTRO says, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." I don't know how you don't consider a summary of the characteristics generally (or most often) associated with femininity as something that shouldn't be there, but it should be. 72.216.11.67 (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

72.216.11.67, would you please fulfill Wikipedia policy at

WP:PROVEIT? It says there the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". We need a quote, preferably an online source that anybody can use. Also, I repeat my question for Halo Jerk1, please cite the precise part of MOS:INTRO that applies. I'm asking because the article does not ever explain how or why these traits are feminine, which I think it ought to do in exact detail. -SusanLesch (talk

) 23:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Understand I'm not going to notice you any more. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Unregistered users should be treated with the same respect as everyone else. As far as the edits go, I'm fine with either suggestion, but I support not listing specific traits. This is a minor issue IMHO. USchick (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Florida IP has an account it seems. For whatever reason she's not using it. I'm not aware that I dissed her. I rather thought she had me. Bias, newbie/not newbie (whatever) and so on.

I disagree it's a minor issue, but such is my respect for Florida (where most of the Wikipedia servers are) and above all for Sue Gardner of the Wikimedia foundation who got that lead paragraph together for all of us, that I'm unwilling to take it on as a mere newbie.

On another issue, as I noted above, you were responsible for coining the neoligism "Ideal feminine". Actually I see from your user page that English isn't your first language. Don't you think that section heading needs channging? I suggest "Ideals and stereotypes". Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Stereotypes are already discussed throughout the article. Again, the reason to have a section for the "Ideal feminine" is that no one can agree on a definition or meaning. Currently, the heading accurately describes the information listed in that section. And many WK editors are fluent in several languages, that only improves the experience, don't you think? USchick (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not English. You might as well head it "идеальную женскую". I'm afraid most readers (and we are talking readers and not editors) of the English Wikipedia will be determinedly monoglot, especially Florida ones :). But I defer. It's not that I don't think it's important, I do, but I look to others to agree and to effect the changes needed. I'm surprised you don't recognise it's an issue.

I'll just make a concluding remark here because I don't want to edit this article any further and in any case I shouldn't have the time at the moment. When I came to this page (and I confess it was only out of curiosity because I saw that Sue Gardner had been editing a lot here) I was rather struck by a tendency to present relatively minor academic work as paradigms of the whole academic community. This was true, foe example, about the remarks to the effect that femininity was a construct arising out of the Black Death. Sue's edit about Hofstede had much the same effect. I'm sure that's something editors ought to be guarding against. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"идеал женственности" is the accurate translation for the ideal feminine, and both are proper use of language. I'm sure femininity has been around much longer than the academic assessment of it. Cheers! USchick (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

@USchick: Well, I grant my command of Russian grammar might not be as adequate as your is of English ... But you really ought to know that "ideal feminine" as a section heading sucks. It's not a proper use of the English language and that's all there is to it, and your sentence following, "What is considered as the ideal feminine is defined by each individual culture based on what that culture considers valuable, and is often the subject of heated debate", doesn't really make much sense in the light of that. This collocation "ideal feminine" appears to arise originaly in the work of the mystical Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov. As one whose first language is Russian, perhaps you could add some remarks to that effect. As for femininity preceding its academic assessment that is surely right, but perhaps not a very significant remark in an encyclopaedia assessing it? The fact is the first 40 or so citations in this article are all academic before we reach a popular one. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

SusanLesch, your WP:PROVEIT argument is without sense to me. The info is already sourced. Just because not-so-new editor Elissa Rubria Honoria questions what the sources say, or just because you do, doesn't mean that info isn't already verified. Besides, higher up, I've directed you to many sources that support gentleness, empathy and sensitivity as general feminine traits. I will use three or more of those sources to support that content in the lead, since no one else in this discussion is discussing the sources I pointed to. And re MOS:INTRO, what I pointed to about that is the precise part of MOS:INTRO that applies. What is generally considered feminine is a big part of this article and should subsequently be in the intro.

Not-so-new editor Elissa Rubria Honoria, you have continued to disrespect me by calling me "Florida IP" and "she" (the former is against my wishes, and not calling me by the latter after I've disclosed my sex as male is common sense in addition to being against my wishes). And somehow I'm the one, or only one, who is indulging in unpleasantness here? That's rich. You also act like I haven't said why I'm not using my registered account. And saying things like "Wow, Florida IP, you're really psyched about this!" is just more of your passive-aggressive behavior. No, you aren't new to editing Wikipedia, but anyhoo. If you are "not going to notice" me anymore, good.

USchick, thanks for providing your opinion on this topic and for saying "Unregistered users should be treated with the same respect as everyone else." Though I'm not unregistered, that was great of you to say. 72.216.11.67 (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on not so unregistered Florida IP, we do all know ... 207.207.24.211 (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the idea, "What is generally considered feminine is a big part of this article and should subsequently be in the intro." except for the fact that this article does not ever explain why these traits are considered feminine. Which is why, I guess, this is only a Start class article. More to the point, 207.207.24.211 solved the immediate problem with a quote that anybody with a computer can read. Well done. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Not-so-mysterious IP (with an IP range that starts with 20 and subsequently reminds of an editor I'm familiar with), then you do all know wrong.

SusanLesch, I was going to change that IP's edit[40] by trading traditionally for generally, with this message: "You don't get to insult me on the the talk page and then inject your preferred wording of 'traditional' just to 'beat me to the point' and have your edit stand as the final word. I said I'd add 'generally' with reliable sources and that's what I'm doing now." I changed my mind because someone told me that Wikipedia shouldn't be about winning, and is often a process filled with compromising. I have often experienced it as both, but compromising is fine if it satisfies or generally satisfies all significant sides. So I didn't add generally out of spite. It appears that traditionally satisfies all sides here, even though the traits we've discussed are still generally cited as feminine and using generally would be a tad more accurate. I appreciate you being civil to me. As for the article not explaining why such traits are generally considered feminine, the Behavior and personality section broaches that. 72.216.11.67 (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Susan. It might be an area to broach for editors wanting to contribute here, and there are other lacunae, notably femininity in other cultures such as Islam that need filling. I see that IP Florida is identifying me with 207.207.24.211 (erm... I didn't get that about IP addresses beginning 20 - these are the Wikipedia servers perhaps? I see it's another Florida IP). I don't know what her concerns really can be, but I do know it's virtually impossible to edit Wikipedia on your IP by accident, so effectively she was challenging me from the outset. I really object to the implication I have been rude to this editor. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying really hard not to curse you out. I'm not identifying you with that IP (though, who knows, you could be). I'm identifying that IP with a certain stalker and troll who I'm very familiar with. And it's not virtually impossible to accidentally edit Wikipedia while logged out. It is a common occurrence, especially when one of the servers logs a person out or when the marked days for being logged in runs out. I was not out to get you from the start. I have not been out to get you at all. And repeatedly referring to someone by words they have requested not to be referred to by, especially the wrong

WP:CIVIL violation. 72.216.11.67 (talk

) 00:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No. You're identifying Florida IP II 207.207.24.211 with a user whose preferred wording is "traditional", and that's me. I don't care about your experience with a certain stalker, troll or whatever. My guess is that Florida IP II is the same person as Florida IP I (i.e you), not that I really care about that either. I notice she's using one of the citations you found in your Google search. If you look at my sandboxes you will see one of my projects here, commenced before this debate is write up P v S and Cornwall County Council (I am a lawyer by training), a landmark ECJ judgment on the rights of transexuals I was slightly involved in and where I will be using a template provided by a colleague (right I don't know the sophisticated Wikipedia markup for that kind of citation model, though I should imagine it can scarcely be the work of more than a few minutes to familiarise myself with it). I really don't think I need any lectures from you on respecting an individual's gender identity. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Now you're accusing me of using a different IP to insult myself just so I could use traditionally, a term I do not prefer in this case? A term that only you have expressed preferring above? And you also base that on the fact that he or she (notice "or") used one of the many sources I presented above for anyone here to use? And you took that opportunity to indirectly call me a "she"? How asinine! Furthermore, if the IP is the person I suspect he is, other than being you ("he" because I know that person to be a he), then it's an editor who jumps around using

WP:Administrator.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.11.67 (talk

) 08:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Please take personal discussions to your talk page. Thanks. USchick (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the subject of this article is Femininity, not Female, and certainly not Gender. In depth discussions on what makes a male/female in the womb and other similar concepts not related directly to Femininity should be relocated to other articles. USchick (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, USchick. You seem to have contributed many edits to this article so I defer to your opinions. There's no question that I confuse the words sex and gender and feminine and female. The array of articles on related topics is almost overwhelming and dizzying. Perhaps you can explain where you would like this article to go?

Maybe it will help if I can tell you my assumptions for recent edits. The section "Theories of gendered brains" is about 80% what was here before (but it was in the section "Behavior and personality" which I found inexplicable). I moved it up, segregated if you will, to "History" and filled in about three sentences so it functions more like an overview of the topic. Can you tell me please if the section title is a problem? (Perhaps it should say "sex differences" in place of "gendered".) -SusanLesch (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I was simply pointing it out before you got carried away, that's all. The "feminine" is the topic and any deviation from that has beed reverted in the past as SYNTH. At one time this article was a battle zone and I have the scars to prove it. Cheers! USchick (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the battles, but happy to see that you are still here. Can you suggest a book to use as a source? I ordered one (Science And Gender: A Critique Of Biology And Its Theories On Women by Ruth Bleier) but don't know if it's any good yet. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I would say that any one book or any one source would be biased toward the time and culture that produced it. A previous editor was using a text book from her class, claiming her teacher as the ultimate authority, lol. Each culture has their own version of crazy, like this for example [41] USchick (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting observation about 'crazy'. I mentioned the article needed a section about Islamic views on femininity. Perhaps you can provide one? You can call it "Ideal islamic" perhaps? Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned earlier, femininity has been around much longer than the academic assessment of it. Any RS is acceptable as long as it adds something valuable to the discussion and specifically addresses femininity and not a related topic like gender. I used the word "crazy" to describe each culture's version of femininity because rarely is there any logic that goes along with the assessment. For example, femininity is: (dictionary definition) "A characteristic or trait traditionally held to be female." Well, in that case, menstruation and menstual blood should be clearly feminine, right? And yet, I'm not aware of any culture that would consider it so. Where's the logic in that? With that in mind, it's not really about the female, it's about the sexualized version of the female that someone else created in their mind and called it "feminine." Take the example of the woman swimming in Iran. They're not objecting to her swimming. The objection is that her "feminine features" were visible after she came out of the water. What feature are they referring to? Her face was visible the entire time, so her feminine facial features (like no beard) are not objectionable apparently. What other features? Is it reasonable to say that after she came out of the water, her wet clothes were clinging to her body, and someone caught a glimpse of the shape of her breast? The horror! Off with her head! :-) USchick (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi USchick. I'm the user formerly known as Elissa Rubria Honoria but I've just retired my account following an extremely disagreeable spat with an administrator, a gesture I'm not prepared to compromise on in any way, so I'm editing on my IP: Moscow - no really, I suspect I'm a couple of floors above you :) (below, whatever) - and it's a proxy because it has to be.

Aren't you confusing feminine with femininity here? At a basic grammatical level they are different (one an adjective, the other a noun) and your neologism "ideal feminine" which you persist in retaining rather suggests to me that you haven't really taken that on board.

Whatever your views about Islamic nations such as Iran, they do nevertheless have their own traditionss on what constitutes 'femininity' and they should be represented in Wikipedia. 31.6.15.210 (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (ex Elissa Rubria Honoria)

I had more Islamic views in the article, but they were removed by other editors as non pertinent. Feel free to add more. As far as Feminine vs Femininity, until there are 2 separate articles, I don's see any reason to differentiate. Other concepts like Female belong in those articles. Other opinions welcome. USchick (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone here suggest books that can be used to source this article? USchick explained in answer to my previous question that every culture may have its own idea about femininity. Certainly I am seeing the subject through a Western US filter: Google results for "feminine" for the first seven or eight pages are practically useless, so is Amazon book search and Google Book Search. Ideas? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

All I came up with are How to Be a Woman by Caitlin Moran and Femininity by Susan Brownmiller. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Try http://scholar.google.com and find who's studying femininity from cultural, social, etc perspectives. --

talk

) 15:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Ronz. I found a couple right away. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the

I had no plans to contribute further to this article. I might look in from time to time on the Talk page on my IP. I mentioned elsewhere that a long term goal was to write up P v S Cornwall County Council. I might break retirement at some point to do this and a number of other article starts I should like to introduce. 31.6.15.210 (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (ex Elissa Rubria Honoria)

According to the source Microaggressions in Everyday Life: "School counselors often discourage female students from entering occupations in mathematics, sciences, or in fields that require leadership...." According to the source, gender stereotype is what leads to microagression, not gender norm. So to be true to the source, "gender stereotype" is more accurate in this case. According to this source [[42]] the norm is for girls to outperform boys in math and science, so using "gender norms" in not at all accurate. USchick (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

In this same section, instead of talking about a random occupation like surgery, perhaps it would be more useful to explain that the norm is the exact opposite of the stereotype. USchick (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

To Elissa, it doesn't change the meaning as such. By replacing "These stereotypes" with "These roles" I am maintaining what we are referring to without the negative connotation of "stereotype". To USchick, I don't think there's much of a difference between "gender norm" and "gender stereotype", as one directly results in the other. I'll change it to "Belief in certain gender norms" just in case. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

No. The word change you propose changes the meaning, and you have not in any way demonstrated that anyone accepts your claim that "stereotype" is POV. The word is a generally accepted part of gender studies, and you do not have consensus to remove it. I suggest that if you wish to push the issue, that you generate a

Request for Comment to have the broader community examine your proposed changes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk

) 13:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific. What sentence has been changed and why? Also, perhaps in science "stereotype" has no negative connotations, but like "myth" in everyday English, it's seen differently by normal readers. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you examine

reliable sources. For example, you might start with those linked from stereotype. "A stereotype is a thought that may be adopted about specific types of individuals or certain ways of doing things, but that belief may or may not accurately reflect reality." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk

) 19:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The changes instituted by the IP editor directly contradicted the reliable sources cited here, as demonstrated by USchick and others. That is why they were reverted. There is nothing POV about the use of the widely-understood and scientifically-accepted term "stereotype" to describe the issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The article Ideal womanhood has very little content (basically just 2 lists of examples) and would be better handled within the "Ideal feminine" section of this article. Kaldari (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If there are feminine aspects, by all means they belong here. The rest should be merged into Woman. USchick (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me, Kaldari. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Theories of gendered brains

This section is devoted to issues of male vs. female, not masculine vs. feminine. Indeed, the word 'feminine' doesn't even appear in the section, but 'female' appears four times. This material belongs in the article

Sex differences in human psychology which is a different subject. I would also like to point out that there is some extremely misleading wording in this section. Currently it says "Later, IQ tests would legitimize these social prejudices." If you look at the cited source, you will see that it is talking about racial prejudices, not gender prejudices. According to the cited source, the opposite is actually true regarding gender: women consistently scored higher than men in early IQ tests (see pages 102 and 103) before they were normalized to eliminate score differences between genders. There are several other sources that verify this as well such as The Measurement of Intelligence and Our Voices: Psychology of Women. I'm going to go ahead and correct the material that is misleading, but I would like to propose that the entire section be removed from the article as it is not relevant to the subject. Kaldari (talk

) 18:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Kaldari, that's fine with me. My intent was not to mislead and not to misquote. I was trying to compress the topic into one paragraph. I will try to restore the article to a state before my edits. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Done to the best of my recollection. If I missed anything please holler. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, this turned out to be deeply embarrassing because I had cut corners on them, which is disrespectful to the author, but then argued to insist on page numbers. So, by pretty much wiping out the article history, I tried to disassociate these sources from my editing. Someone else can benefit from these authors. Also I apologize for trying to shoehorn my own point of view into Wikipedia. Although we may disagree on some things, thank you to Kaldari, Halo Jerk1 and USchick for sticking up for the encyclopedia. Cheers. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries. This is obviously a complex subject with lots of points of view to balance. Thanks for your continuing work on it! Kaldari (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually Kaldari, I disagree with you fundamentally. Ronz asked me the right question here! There is nothing to balance at all. The New York Times published a ten page article last week called "Why Are There Still So Few Women in Science?" (Solvay Conference of 1927 pictured at right). The author concludes "As so many studies have demonstrated, success in math and the hard sciences, far from being a matter of gender, is almost entirely dependent on culture...."

So please pardon my outrage when this article still seems to me to contain cherry-picked sources stating some "neutral point of view" in the lead which really is not: "Traits traditionally cited as feminine include gentleness, empathy, and sensitivity, though traits associated with femininity vary depending on location and context, and are influenced by a variety of social and cultural factors." -SusanLesch (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Despite Halo Jerk1's bizarre interpretation, there is nothing in the lead that says that femininity is, or might be, biologically defined. It merely states that femininity includes "biologically-created factors", for example, hair length or skin color. If you can come up with a less confusing way to word it, please feel free to propose it. Kaldari (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Aren't Marie Curie's and Albert Einstein's hair about the same length? Seriously, I'm only half done reading Talk:Femininity/Archive_2. Dave3457 (who tried to summarize the debate in Talk:Femininity/Archive_of_common_concerns#Removal_of_.E2.80.9Cbiologically-created.E2.80.9D_from_Social_construction_sentence) 50.16.70.124 and 209.226.31.161 appear to believe one source (Marianne van den Wijngaard, who I have not read and don't plan to). From what little I know, and from Google Scholar, recent sources completely overturn her theses. Sorry, at this point I wouldn't dare propose anything. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There isn't anything bizarre about my interpretation. Nor is it only my interpretation. Repeatedly claiming that femininity is only socially constructed is the bizarre thing here. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be using different definitions of femininity. Please see my reply at the end of Talk:Femininity#Please remove traits from the lede. Kaldari (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Please remove traits from the lede

Dear all, regarding the list of traits: "Traits traditionally cited as feminine include gentleness, empathy, and sensitivity". I request that this list be removed from the lede, because as of today, Wikipedia's article on masculinity does not list any traits that are considered "masculine". Masculinity is slightly more developed than this one because it is rated B and Start class. The sentence we have can stand on its own: "traits associated with femininity vary depending on location, century, and context, and are influenced by a variety of social and cultural factors". It would also be helpful if the lede stated that feminine traits are culturally created and that they are not the product of gender but I won't push my luck there. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What do the sources say, and which of those sources are most prominent and authoritative on the matter? --

talk

) 15:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Two of the sources, both given in the bibliography to this article, both say that femininity is created by culture. There is no possible way for me to speak for perhaps hundreds of others who want to cart around prejudice. As recently as 2004 somebody would argue that femininity is a biological state. Best I can do is offer my sources, Bleier and Fine. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not to include the traits in the intro was discussed with SusanLesch recently. Those interested can find the discussion at Talk:Femininity/Archive 4#"Traits that have been cited as feminine include gentleness, empathy, and sensitivity ..." in the lead. There was agreement, seemingly including from SusanLesch, to the leave the traits in the intro. They should be there because of

WP:LEAD

. They provide, in an efficient way, traits that are traditionally, and are still generally, cited as feminine. The inclusion is an important summary of this topic.

The intro does say that feminine traits are culturally created, but it also says "but made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors" because that is

WP:RfC, and consensus was achieved to include/maintain that phrasing. It can be found starting at Talk:Femininity/Archive 2#Definition of femininity. That discussion also shows that this edit[51] by SusanLesch is wrong because whether or not the authors discuss biological and social factors and how they relate to femininity in their introduction, they do discuss them. Consensus was not for the "partially" part in "Femininity is partially socially constructed." An IP added it in July.[52]

So I don't care if that word is removed.

To sump up, what SusanLesch is proposing has proven problematic or controversial in the past. And I disagree with her proposals. And using the Masculinity article as an excuse to reintroduce these problems is flimsy reasoning. The Masculinity article should have traditional/general traits in the lead too. It probably did until someone exercised

WP:I don't like it and removed them. Halo Jerk1 (talk

) 16:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's very sad to see Wikipedia be so wrong about this. I came in fairly neutral and read a book that was recommended to me for "science based" reasoning. Delusions of Gender is so convincing that you'd have to match the reception to this author's work in order to change my mind. Which I'm open to.

• This discussion you cite that I "seemingly" agreed with veered so off track I left it in the hands of the main participants.
• I did ask you, specifically, there to tell us what part of
  WP:LEAD
  says the article supports this list of traits in the lead. I still don't find any evidence in the article, which is only Start class (I'm repeating myself). You didn't answer that question.
• "Because the article has "sources that say that feminine behavior is sometimes influenced by biology" does not make them correct. I gave my sources in good faith, and I tried to cite them by page number. Right now the lead lists three sources, without page numbers (all three give the total page count in the page number field) to support the idea of "both social and biological" factors.
• It's not "wrong" to require page numbers in citations of books.
• Thank you very much for the pointer to Talk:Femininity/Archive 2#Definition of femininity. There's enough there to keep me busy for the next three thousand years.

Cheers, -SusanLesch (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed the "partially" inserted by the IP in July since that was not part of the consensus version from the RfC. I'm still not a fan of the sentence, however, since I think it is overly confusing. Kaldari (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, there are no reliable sources that say "feminine behavior is sometimes influenced by biology". There are sources that say "female behavior is sometimes influenced by biology", but there is a world of difference between those two sentences. Frankly, I'm quite tired of debating this matter with editors who don't even understand the meaning of the word "feminine" and conflate it with the word "female". Take a gender studies class or read a sociology textbook, then come back and help write the article. Kaldari (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

SusanLesch, in response to "Because the article has 'sources that say that feminine behavior is sometimes influenced by biology' does not make them correct.", similar can be said of the sources you provided. You don't have to like what the sources say, but you and the rest of us should be neutral.

due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view

." We've applied that to this intro and following parts of the body.

Re the intro, you got answers in that discussion about why those traits should be in the lead and how WP:LEAD supports them and I replied initially in this section. I would be reiterating. I don't understand why you don't see the inclusion as supported by WP:LEAD. The article does support that list of traits in the lead. I read your responses and still don't understand your view on that. So we remain at a crossroads on it.

Re the very long discussion I linked to (I like your sense of humor about the length of that discussion), page numbers for sources used in the intro are provided there.

Kaldari, then I believe that you also have a problem with WP:Reliable sources on this topic because there are a lot of them that give or debate the argument that "feminine behavior is sometimes influenced by biology." This is partly shown in the very long discussion I linked to. There are many reliable sources out there using the words "feminine behavior" instead of "female behavior," or even interchangeably, on this topic. However, there are just as many arguments that female behavior, aside from biological things like giving birth, is socially-constructed too. For the femininity topic, there is no need for a personal attack on those who hold views different than yours. At least you toned it down a bit.[53] For example, I could say similarly of those who want to make it seem like femininity is only socially constructed. There is a biological vs. sociological femininity debate among scholars, for reasons partly shown in this article, and we should document that neutrally. Neither side has won in the debate. But hardly any scholar says that femininity is only biologically influenced. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, the consensus phrasing resulted from all of that discussion, not just the small RfC. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the disconnect here is that we are using different definitions of 'femininity'. Modern sociology defines femininity as the traits that society dictates are appropriate for women (regardless of whether those traits are actually related to being biologically female or not). The general public's definition of femininity, however, is more like "common traits of women", since cultural conditioning is by definition invisible to those within a culture. In most cases, the distinction between the two definitions doesn't make any difference, since there aren't any women that exist in a cultural vacuum. The important distinction that the sociological definition clarifies, however, is that femininity is relative, i.e. it changes over time and is different in different parts of the world. Are feminine traits ever derived from biological traits? Yes. Is femininity defined by biological femaleness? No. Society is free to pick and choose whatever characteristics they want to associate with femininity, regardless of biology. So when you say "feminine behavior is influenced by biology", what you really mean is "Some behavioral traits that my particular culture currently defines as feminine are influenced by biology." I certainly don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is the idea that femininity is some sort of biological quality. Female cats do not have feminine traits, not because male and female cats are identical (they aren't), but because femininity is defined for humans by humans. It is a social construction applied on top of biological distinctions. Kaldari (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Kaldari, I don’t know what definition you are using, but dictionary.com has three entries for femininity and they are…

1. the quality of being feminine; womanliness.

2. women collectively.

3. effeminacy.

The 4 entries for feminine that are relevant here are..

1. pertaining to a woman or girl: feminine beauty; feminine dress.

2. having qualities traditionally ascribed to women, as sensitivity or gentleness.

3. effeminate; womanish: a man with a feminine walk.

4. belonging to the female sex; female: feminine staff members.

The simple fact is that scientists say that there is scientific evidence, dealing with the structure of male and female brains, that suggest that the behavior that what we often observe in males and call masculine and the behavior that what we often observe in females and call feminine is not “subjective and only socially-defined”, as you believe, but that it, in part, has a physical and biological origin. Because these scientific views exist they need to be represented in this article.

SusanLesch ,Thank you for drawing my attention to this new talk page activity, I appreciate it.

Regarding your agreement with the book “Delusions of gender” and how “It's very sad to see Wikipedia be so wrong about this.”… That fact is that it is not Wikipedia’s job to be right or wrong about this, it is Wikipedia’s job to report the findings of the scientists. And the simple fact is that many scientists believe that brain structure plays a role in what we call gender. In fact one went so far as to describe the brain as a “sex organ” because of the significant differences she observed. For what is worth, regarding the views found in the book

gender identity disorders

contradicts the view that brain structure plays no role in gender. With that being said there is no point in us discussing here which view is right or wrong, our job is to report on what the scientists believe. And again, many of them believe that brain structures and hormones play a role in what we are calling masculinity and femininity.

Halo Jerk1, I agree with you, you can't remove from the lead the list of what is generally meant by the word femininity since the article is about femininity and the lead is suppose to summarize the article. This is because, in part, many people only read the lead.

Also, as I have said before, it is a contradiction to say “femininity is a social construction" and then point out that it is "made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors". Myself and another guy spent several days a while ago trying to convince others of that. Their argument seems to have been that the ‘concept’ of femininity is a social construction. But that to leads to a contradiction because if men and women behave differently because of, in part, structural brain differences then it is not a made up ‘concept” but a word created to represent the observed differences in behaviors between men and women that are, in part, a product of biology.

Also, it can’t be argued that a discussion about the differences between the male and female brains is out of place in this article when it is believed by many scientists that those differences are, in part, responsible for what we call masculinity and femininity. If femininity has a possible biological origin it is completely appropriate to discuss those possible origins. I for one don’t object to discussing the possible cultural origins of femininity. Dave3457 (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You are completely talking past my points. I agree with everything you say about biology. I disagree with the definition of femininity you are using. Let me say this again. Our difference of opinion is about the definition of femininity, not a difference in understanding of science. Femininity is not an observation of biological reality. Femininity is a social construction designed to enhance the differences between the sexes in society (notice I said 'enhance', not 'describe'). This construction is influenced and informed by observations of biological reality, but it is not defined by it. Does that make sense? I didn't invent this definition of femininity. It is how it is defined in every sociology textbook I've ever seen. The definitions given in dictionaries are completely vague and could be interpreted in numerous ways (as is our current lead apparently). Our definition should be based on scholarly sources, not vague dictionary definitions. Kaldari (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

1. ^ "Ledership and shared dignity". Google. Retrieved November 13, 2011.
2. ^ "Feminine Beauty, National Identity and Political Conflict in Postwar Italy, 1945±1954". Google. Retrieved November 13, 2011.
3. ^ "Flower of the Nation: Gendered Representations of Thailand beyond the Borders". Google. Retrieved November 13, 2011.
4. ^ "Women Running "as Women": Candidate Gender, Campaign Issues, and Voter-Targeting Strategies". Google. Retrieved November 13, 2011.
5. ^ Aljazeera. Profile: Yingluck Shinawatra. June 30, 2011.
6. ^ "Visual Representation of Women in Politics: An Intercultural Perspective". Google. Retrieved November 13, 2011.
7. ^ "Yulia Tymoshenko – Portraits of a challenging woman". Kyrylo.com. Retrieved November 13, 2011.
8. ^ Feminism and women's rights worldwide. Google Books. Retrieved November 13, 2011.
9. ^ "Los Angeles Times". Treasuresofwonderment.com. Retrieved November 13, 2011.
10. ^ Friday, June 23, 1961 (June 23, 1961). "Russia: Feminine Ideal". Time. Retrieved November 13, 2011.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)