Talk:Femininity

Is a criticism section allowed or not?

I just noticed this article does not have one where the article on masculinity does. What is wikipedia's policy on criticism sections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanikk999 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Femininity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130831002012/http://geert-hofstede.com/dimensions.html to http://geert-hofstede.com/dimensions.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107191849/http://web.missouri.edu/~rouderj/3010/readings/Singh.pdf to http://web.missouri.edu/~rouderj/3010/readings/Singh.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://universityhonors.umd.edu/HONR269J/projects/wolf.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Inanna and the lead image

Hello! I am the editor who wrote almost the entire article Inanna and brought it up to GA, so I thought I would comment that whether Inanna symbolizes femininity depends greatly on your definition of the word; she definitely does not embody the traditional English definition of the word as "submissive and subservient," but she would certainly embody a much more modern feminist conception of what a strong woman ought to be like. She was seen as very powerful (in fact, quite terrifyingly so), but she was generally regarded as benevolent (albeit highly capricious). Her domain included a broad diversity of different attributes and, although she was the goddess of love, beauty, sex, and fertility (which are all traditionally considered very feminine), she was also the goddess of war, combat, and political power (about as masculine as you can get); in fact, in the image that is used in the lead, she is actually shown carrying a flail in her right hand. I am not sure which definition of "femininity" this article is going for, but if you are trying to go by the more traditional definition, you would be far better off with the old image of Aphrodite that was here before it was replaced with Inanna. (Coincidentally, I also wrote almost the entire article Aphrodite and recently brought it up to GA as well, so, either way, the image would be of a deity I have written about extensively.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

this is a good point. Can we engage with it? AnaSoc (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyromai, what more is needed in order to change the image? If what you've written is true, the replacement is urgent.--MisterSanderson (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@MisterSanderson: I have now replaced the image of Inanna with the painting Venus with a Mirror by Titian, which is very famous and which presents the goddess Aphrodite as the personification of femininity. It certainly represents a more conventional idea of femininity than the Inanna relief, although I am not entirely sure if that is necessarily a good thing. One major problem with the articles femininity and masculinity is that ideas about what is "feminine" and what is "masculine" vary drastically across cultures and belief systems. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

feminism sidebar displayed twice

the this article is part of a series on feminism side bar appears near the top (under woman in society) and lower down in the feminist views section. is this intentional? 🌸 𝐖𝐞𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐊 ^ 🌸 10:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Weegaweek: I strongly suspect that it was accidental. I actually noticed the exact same thing a few minutes ago before seeing your comment here and I have already removed the first navbox with this edit, leaving the second one where it was. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Framing

I've reached this article to read about how hormonal differences between women and men lead to differences in world-view between the sexes. But again, found nothing. Why all articles about sex are totally framed in anatomy + politics? I need objective information, from the Biological and Psychological Sciences, not feminist propaganda.

This article is worse than the other article Woman. This one here presents every information as just a point of view, which is contradicted on the next paragraph. After reading, you get the impressions that no one is sure, or noone is correct in what they are saying.--MisterSanderson (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@MisterSanderson: I actually mentioned something similar to this problem in my comment above. The problem is that, while man and woman are mostly biological concepts, "masculinity" and "femininity" are both cultural concepts that vary drastically across cultures and belief systems and, quite simply, no one actually agrees on what either of the two words really mean. All efforts to biologically define what constitutes as "masculine" and "feminine" behavior have been fruitless. Frankly, they are both concepts that we are probably better off just abandoning, but that does make it difficult to write encyclopedia articles about them! --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand MisterSanderson's complaint about feminist propaganda here or at Talk:Woman. Also, I disagree that "no one actually agrees on what either of the two words really mean." We can see from the articles that femininity is mainly associated with girls/women and why that is and that masculinity is mainly associated with boys/men and why that is. It is societal/cultural, but it is also linked to biology with regard to behavior; this is because of certain differences between boys and girls/men and women that are, in part, rooted in biology...such as males being more aggressive, which is deemed by society to be more masculine. Femininity and masculinity are part of the nature versus nurture (or rather the nature and nurture) topic. As for the feminism side bar, it belongs in this article whether located at the top or at the bottom. And this article will obviously cover feminist points of views; so MisterSanderson's complaint on that is illogical.

On a side note: Regarding the lead image change, I'm not sure that it's best to go with a partially nude image since we recently had an editor complain about a nude image at the Woman talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@MisterSanderson, I tried for several days, years ago to bring some objectivity to this page but finally gave up. What you were looking for has been deleted because it conflicts with a common feminist belief that gender is entirely a cultural construct. The real question here is why do many feminists need it to be a cultural construct. Personally I would quote Gloria Steinem when she said "We are becoming the men we wanted to marry". That is the goal of many feminists but if gender is not entirely a cultural construct, that makes their dream to do away with gender and have only "men", impossible.

Dave3457 (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)