Talk:Women in Antarctica

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Antarctica High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Feminism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women scientists Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Red: Polar women (2016) This article was created or improved during the Polar women edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in August 2016. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

This is an encylopedia, not a blog. It should not read like a man-hating diatribe. There is no problem in using statistics to show that there might be or have been bias against women. But to use anecdotes of women feeling "'negative pressure' by the men with 'some viewing her as an interloper who had insinuated herself into a male domain'" is not acceptable.

The following passages are particularly POV:

• "Men enjoyed having a space that was free of women..."
• "Other men felt that women's presence made life in Antarctica better and one male engineer stated that without women around, "men are pigs.""
• "As women attempted to work in science, arguments using biological determinism, evolutionary psychology and popular notions of neurobiology were used as excuses as to why there were fewer women in the sciences."

• "as an excuse" is POV.

• "Some women described feeling that they were "a bit of a joke" working in Antarctica, and felt that men regarded them as incapable."
• "The United States Navy used the excuse that "sanitation facilities were too primitive" on Antarctica as an excuse to bar women."

• "as an excuse" is POV.

• The following is under a section titled "Sexual harassment and sexism": "Rita Matthews, who went to Antarctica during the same period as Uberuaga said that the "men were all over the place. There were some that would never stop going after you."[24] In 1983, Marilyn Woody described living at McMurdo station and said, "It makes your head spin, all this attention from all these men."[21] Then she said, "You realize you can put a bag over your head and they'll still fall in love with you.""

• In an encyclopedia, seriously?

Nicolas Perrault (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in this article is cited properly, including the the portions that you have pulled out and they represent a historical point of view which hasn't always been friendly to women. The article has nothing to do with the very loaded term "man hating" and everything to do with the history and experience of women in Antarctica. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Look at the first line. "There have been women in Antarctica and exploring the regions around Antarctica for many centuries." What's next? Pediatricians in professional Darts? Buddhists in sound editing? Top five bassists you didn't know are color-blind? And I'm sure all of that could be "cited properly". Total blog material, mate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.17.235.223 (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicolas Perrault III yep, this kind of pointless articles saddens me. it's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a feminist coffee table book... 109.9.167.232 (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an encyclopedic entry, it is just manhating diatribe. Delete. Delete 10x. Delete yesterday. Delete and instate a permanent ban on re-making. 2604:3D08:778A:2400:28E2:4AE1:ABA3:49D (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]