Talk:Femininity

Main picture

What was wrong with the shaman picture being "too positive?" What's wrong with a picture being positive?--Aronoel (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry my edit summary had an "e" instead of a "t". It should have read, "Changed picture back. Original picture apparently cast femininity in too positive a light." My poorly made point was that the The Birth of Venus image cast the feminine nature in a positive light. Your edits clearly indicate that you do not believe in the masculine-feminine dynamic. Not that you need to, to edit this page. Never the less your picture change is yet another example of you pushing your androgynous agenda because you know very well that when people think "feminine" they do not think, "Altai shaman". That is what you WANT them to associate with the word "feminine".

Also, could you please explain to me how you feel justified in casually undoing other peoples fine work? Dave3457 (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I'm still having trouble understanding the issue with the shaman. How does it portray femininity negatively? What is negative about it?

What is so important about the Venus picture? From my understanding, there are 3 advantages to the shaman picture over the Venus. 1. It shows feminine clothing and style. 2. It depicts a feminine role/occupation/behavior. 3. It further expands this article to include more cultures. It's a good thing when an article covers topics and cultures unfamiliar to most readers. That's what an encyclopedia is for.

I'm sorry you feel like I've been undoing your work. However, if you are not comfortable having your work changed and edited, then you should probably not put it on Wikipedia.--Aronoel (talk) 05:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not that the shaman image portrays femininity negatively, it is that the Venus image portrays femininity positively which is appropriate for this page. At one point the lede image on this page was one of the “torture” images.

Below are your three points and my response to them.

1. It shows feminine clothing and style.

Being feminine is not primarily about what you wear but about the way you behave. It is not even about what sex your body is.

2. It depicts a feminine role/occupation/behavior.

Shamanism is not a typical role/occupation/behavior in society, let alone a typical role/occupation/behavior for someone that is generally characterized by society as feminine. For example, the way motherhood and nursing are.

3. It further expands this article to include more cultures. It's a good thing when an article covers topics and cultures unfamiliar to most readers. That's what an encyclopedia is for.

That is NOT what an encyclopedia is for. It is not an encyclopedia’s role to expand peoples thinking in new directions, that is a book’s role. An encyclopedia’s purpose is to summarize, the shaman picture does exactly the opposite.

By the way point 3 contradicts point 1. A picture showing feminine clothing and style, reduces the number of cultures that are included.

You said... “...if you are not comfortable having your work changed and edited, then you should probably not put it on Wikipedia”

The Venus picture was not my work. If I may quote an earlier statement you made...” it would be really appreciated if you could try and assume good faith.”

For what it is worth, I am beginning to think that you honestly don't realize that you are pushing an agenda. Just try to be more respectful of other peoples work. Dave3457 (talk)

The below is Aronoel (talk)'s response repeated from above.

You still haven't explained what is more positive about the Venus than the Shaman. I can't see what the advantage is to the Venus.

Clothing is a part of femininity, it's in the article. Feminine clothing and occupations are not universal, so no one picture can capture all examples of femininity. This one, unlike the Venus, does cover some specific objects and behaviors associated with femininity. And I don't understand what your point is about other cultures. You don't think an encyclopedia should cover different cultures?--Aronoel (talk)

Quote: You still haven't explained what is more positive about the Venus...

Venus is the Goddess of Love, I thought that was obvious.

Did you actually say that... unlike the Venus, (which is the Goddess of Love), the Shaman DOES cover some specific... behaviors associated with femininity. Are you trying to suggest that a Shaman is more reflective of the feminine nature than the Goddess of Love.

Quote: You don't think an encyclopedia should cover different cultures?

An encyclopedia such as Wikipedia should try to avoid focusing on a specific culture in the lede. While Venus is cultural, it is "past" cultural and everyone is familiar with it.
Dave3457 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your opinion about how the lead should be and I don't think there is a Wikipedia policy stating that.

Also, I still don't see what Venus being the goddess of love has to do with it being a more positive picture than the shaman, a respected healer and community leader. It seems to be a matter of subjective personal opinion. Your insistence on the Venus picture is even more confusing considering that she is not even the correct Roman goddess. Actually, on this line of thought, I think I know a good alternative picture that you are going to be happy with. --Aronoel (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"I like the other picture better" is not a good enough reason to revert my change. I like the shaman better but I'm trying to compromise. Venus is not the goddess of the feminine domain, Juno is. --Aronoel (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As you said "It seems to be a matter of subjective personal opinion.". Since it is a tie, the image should remain as it was. On what grounds are you going to suggest otherwise? Dave3457 (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about your reasons, not mine. As I've explained, the Venus picture is not correct and not useful, especially when compared to the alternatives I've proposed. --Aronoel (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

---
Despite your caption for the Juno image which reads... "The Ancient Roman goddess of women, fertility, and femininity", here is the part of the lede on her Wikipedia page that describes her..."Juno's own warlike aspect among the Romans is apparent in her attire. She often appeared sitting pictured with a peacock armed and wearing a goatskin cloak."
Contrast that to the first sentence of the Wikipedia lede for Venus which reads..."Venus was a Roman goddess principally associated with love, beauty and fertility,...". I can only assume that this self serving selection of references to further your agenda is typical for you.
Dave3457 (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Let me moderate that last comment, it was a little too personal. Your actions may not be as ill intended as I am imagining. I do however believe that, while pushing your androgynous agenda, you are being inconsiderate of other peoples work and are twisting the facts to suit your preconceived views. Dave3457 (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't help tone down your previous comments when you are just continuing to attack me.

Just because you may not personally consider one of Juno's associations to be feminine, it doesn't disprove the obvious fact that she was the Greek and Roman goddess of women and the feminine domain. I don't understand how this is even up for debate.

"Juno was originally thought of as the spirit of womanhood residing in each feminine breast...Now, this deification of the feminine principle [w]as Juno, just as the masculine element in human nature was deified as Genius..."The Classical world, Volumes 11-12 By Classical Association of the Atlantic States --Aronoel (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"While every man had his 'Genius' so every woman had her 'Juno' - a divine double which personified and protected her femininity. ..." The dictionary of classical mythology By Pierre Grimal, see also the entire entry on Juno.--Aronoel (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

---
Firstly, I did not attack you, in fact I made a point of not attacking you but rather I’m criticizing your behaviour with regards to this page. I said, “that you are pushing an androgynous agenda” also that “you are being inconsiderate of other peoples work” , also that “you are twisting the facts to suit your preconceived views.”
These are legitimate criticisms of your behaviour. One only needs to look at your recent edits on this page to see evidence of this.
For example...
- Your recent edits here overwhelmingly cast femininity in a negative light. Particularly your initial edits before you moderated them. Given the edits here and your edits elsewhere in Wikipedia this can be clearly characterised as an agenda.(Refer to the list of your edits above)

- Your initial substitution of the lede image of Venus with a picture of an obscure female shaman speaks loudly toward your lack of respect for other people’s work and your lack of understanding of the purpose of this page.

- Your instance on using the Juno lede image instead of the Venus image in spite of all the references that support the view that Venus, in the minds of society, more clearly represents the idea of femininity than Juno. This reveals your very selective choice of references.

And I can go on.

Concerning the lede image, you say above..”.. the obvious fact that she (Juno) was the Greek and Roman goddess of women and the feminine domain.”
The fact is that this is the first line of the Aphrodite Wikipedia article, “Aphrodite is the Greek goddess of love, beauty, and sexuality. Her Roman equivalent is the goddess Venus.” Again the lede of the Venus article reads “Venus was a Roman goddess principally associated with love, beauty and fertility” (Note, I predict that you are simply going to ignore these references, in favour of more obscure ones.) Given your other edits on this page, I suspect your real issue is that the Venus image associates femininity with Love and beauty.

The bottom line is that given that this page is not about the Roman Goddessess but about femininity, the very well known Roman goddessess Venus is the obvious choice. The fact is that there are many Roman Gods who are female but Venus is almost universally considered the Roman Goddess that expresses femininity in the minds of most people. (at least to the extent that a single image can)
While there is a planet named after Venus, most people do not even know who Juno is, and it is not the role of the lede of the femininity page to inform them.
In my view the ledes of the two Wikipedia articles, Juno and Venus makes the choice obvious. One should also consider the Wikipedia pages of Hera and Aphrodite as Hera is the Greek equivalent of Juno and Aphrodite is considered the Greek equivalent of Venus.

You are clearly choosing to focus on the ‘femaleness” of the Gods rather than their femininity.
Dave3457 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What is more "female" about Venus than Juno? "Love, beauty and fertility" are all nice things, I'm not going to say they're un-feminine, but they are also not necessarily the same thing as femininity. Per the many sources I've cited, Juno is clearly the goddess associated with femininity and the feminine domain. I don't think it matters what is in most people's minds, what matters is what's in reliable sources. --Aronoel (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the shaman picture is probably not the best picture to depict femininity since it's not universal, in many cultures shamans are a male occupation. As for whether or not Juno or Aphrodite best depict femininity, the problem is that for me, they both represent two different aspects of femininity - the home (Juno) and beauty (Aphrodite). If I had to pick one, I would probably lean towards Juno since the idea of beauty in the way that Aphrodite presents it is very much a western ideal of beauty. There are probably cultures out there that would not consider Aphrodite to be beautiful, but the idea of femininity in terms of women and the home is far more universal I would think.--Death by fugue (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

With a topic as broad as femininity, a single picture is probably inadequate and from the lengthy discussion here, there seems to be disagreement on what picture should be used. I would like to propose that a collage be used instead like those found on any of the articles on the various ethnic groups. Are there any suggestions on what else can be included if there is agreement on using a collage?--Death by fugue (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, You say...”I don't think it matters what is in most people's minds, what matters is what's in reliable sources.” I disagree, the word “feminine” is ultimately just a word, it evokes thoughts in people’s minds when they hear or read it. It is our job to look out into the world and find out what people generally think when they hear the word and then report on it. When people hear the word “feminine” the Goddess Juno doesn't jump into their minds nor does it inform them in any way because they have generally never heard of her. Noting in the image's subtitle, that she is a Roman Goddess associated with femininity, whether true or not, does not say anything about what femininity is. The lead image should attempt to inform and summarize, the Juno image doesn't do that in any way. The fact of the matter is that when people hear the word feminine they think of the “gentler sex” and things like empathy, sensitivity and kindness. (That's not to say that some people don't think of negative aspects like deference and so those traits should also be included.) My position on the Venus image is that it is accepted that feminine individuals, whether they be female or male, are more emotional than masculine individuals and that Love is the noblest of all of the emotions. Women who are considered feminine are generally understood to be more loving and Venus is the Goddess of Love. Love is the great thing that those who are feminine bring to the world and while those who have issues with the feminine should have a voice, the lead is not the place. One also desires an image that is not cultural. If there is anything that transcends the cultural it is Love and an old Roman goddess that no one believes in anymore is the perfect symbol for that.

Death by fugue, you say that “the idea of femininity in terms of women and the home is far more universal” whether that is true or not there would be alot of people that would have a problem with this page suggesting, in any way what so ever that “a women’s place is in the home” Some people even take offence to the idea that women deal with the emotional needs of children better than men. That’s what great about focusing on Love, everyone agrees that Love is the best emotion and that those that are feminine are more emotional than those that are masculine.

I’m not a fan of the collage idea. Beside the general messiness of the idea, even if we could agree on a balanced collection between us right now, people in the future would constantly be fighting over what should be included and even putting in ridiculous ones. For example, at one point in time even the African women with the neck rings was the lead.

In summary, the Venus picture casts femininity in a positive light as is appropriate, and it is as non cultural as you can get given the situation. She isn’t even wearing any cloths :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave3457 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A collage sounds good.

"Being feminine is not primarily about what you wear but about the way you behave.": Except that clothing is virtually the first thing most people experience about a stranger.

Wikipedia does intend to expose readers to more cultures. We have a tag ({{Globalize}}) to encourage worldwide coverage (except when a subject is large enough to require separate world and national articles).

Nick Levinson (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A collage would be good as long as all pictures included have direct links with femininity that are supported with reliable sources. Here are some additional suggestions: File:Freya and Heimdall by Blommer.jpg File:Lang De Girls.jpg File:Dallas Dubois.jpg File:Mehandi.jpg --Aronoel (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean by Venus being a positive portrayal of femininity. Is it simply because it's an attractive image? That's a bit subjective. Also, by not having Venus clothed would indicate that the basis of her femininity is her body, that it's biological in nature, which is not what the article is saying, right? At this point, I think it would be best to not have any picture there since there doesn't seem to be consensus. It's not a requirement anyway since there are other pics elsewhere in the article already.--Death by fugue (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In the behaviour section the positive traits that are associated with femininity are Gentleness, empathy and sensitivity. These are all different forms of “lovingness”. The feminine nature is generally considered to be more loving than the masculine as evidenced by these referenced terms. And so Love is the appropriate emotion for the lead image. With regards to Venus’s sex, even though a percentage of males exhibit the feminine nature, females to a vast degree are associated with the feminine nature.

Dave3457 (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Dave3457, your allegation that femininity is about behavior and not clothing is nonsensical because choice of clothing is a result of behavior. Do you propose that femininity cannot be discerned in a clothed individual? This allegation is in contradiction to the rest of the article and is one example of why the Venus picture is a poor lead for the article's subject. Roger6r (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Using an image with a caption like "The Altai people (pictured here) consider shamanism a feminine role." represents a fringe theory and undue weight. I'm removing it. USchick (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

USchick, please direct your discussion regarding the main image to the talk section titled "Main Image." There has already been considerable discussion regarding this issue.

Your claim that the image is "fringe," or "undue weight," seems inappropriate. I challenge you to explain how the image of an Altai shaman represents a "fringe theory." Is your claim that Altaic peoples did not have shamans, that they were not female, or that it was not considered a female occupation? If you argue the last point, I think you will find that in numerous Altaic and non-Altaic traditions, shamanic roles were largely performed by women, and associated with whatever notion of "femininity" or "womanhood" held by those groups. Take for example, the "mudang"(무당), a Korean female sorceress still found in North and South Korea and Northeast China (one of my professors in Harbin had a mudang-aunt).

Similarly, your claim of "undue weight" needs support. Undue weight to what? Someone from a non-Euro-American background might claim that the use of Venus or Athena as a representation of womanhood gives undue weight to a Euro-American perspective. As the discussion in the "Main Image" section indicates, the shaman image is preferable because while it represents an ideal of "womanhood" and, historically, a largely female occupation, it also adds regional, ethnic, and spiritual diversity to the article--bringing us closer to the idea of an encyclopedia as a "circle of learning" (Online Etymology Dictionary.

In summary, I'm reverting to the Altai shaman picture. We can continue this discussion, but please direct your response to the "Main Image" section of the talk page. Thanks!Fistoffoucault (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

USChick, we have a section on Female Occupations--since by your own admission, the shamanic role was often female, doesn't this provide enough justification for the picture? I'll leave the sourcing to you since you've so kindly offered your help.Fistoffoucault (talk) 03:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Altai people represent less than .0001% of the world population. Please someone explain to me how this image is representative of a world view for the entire article and not just a fringe view of one very small minority. The picture belongs in the section that talks about shamans. According to policy Wikipedia:Images images should look like what they are meant to illustrate. USchick (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

How's the painting from Marie-Denise Villers strike you as a choice? The subject in the portrait is drawing, something considered feminine, at the same time, she herself seems feminine, while you could also look at the idea of her creating/drawing as a metaphor her own choices determining what "roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes" that she might consider feminine. -- Avanu (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is really smart to use a woman's self-portrait, and I like where you're going with this. However, I think this picture might be somewhat problematic. First, was drawing really considered a feminine occupation during the Regency period? I'm not sure about this because I thought that most professional artists were men at that time. I would be more comfortable with this if we could find a source. Also, even though it looks feminine (it has a soft quality, the woman looks youthful and attractive, etc) I don't know if the casual reader would be able to consciously make the connection between the particular qualities in the image and femininity. It seems to require some analysis. The fact that she is wearing Regency feminine clothing is a bonus though. Also, I think by using a Euro-centric image we are missing an opportunity to balance systemic bias and educate people about the non-Western world. I believe the ideal final image for this page should meet the following criteria:

• Has a clear and direct connection with femininity in a certain culture, and that connection can be backed by a reliable source
• Does not confuse gender and sex (ie does not show the female body as representing femininity, etc)
• Avoids presenting European standards of femininity as the representation of universal or "true" femininity --Aronoel (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside the discussion about Altai demographics--including Korea and Japan, both countries with proposed Altaic origins, Altaic peoples make up about 2% of World Population, almost as much as the US--I think Avanu's response to the claim of "fringe"-ness is valid. I also think Avanu's idea of a self-portrait is inspired. I can't see the specific image in question as I'm in China, where Wikipedia images are often blocked, I leave the discussion up to you guys.Fistoffoucault (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at the image (thanks Google) and I'm not sure the connection with the concept of femininity as mentioned in the article is very strong. I like the shaman image for the following reasons:

1. It portrays a traditionally female occupation.

2. It portrays a style of dress associated with femininity in the society.

3. It represents a non-Western notion of femininity.

I think that we should keep the Shaman image. Honestly, the only reason I can see why some commenters don't like this image is because it's foreign.Fistoffoucault (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

World population of Altai people is 70,800 and practicing shamans are even less. The photo does not look feminine by any definition. The suggestion that in the US there is a bias against anything foreign is absurd, since everyone in the US is foreign. What was the problem with having a collage? If it's that difficult to come up with an acceptable image, it's perfectly acceptable not to have an image in the lead. Fistoffoucault, I encourage you to take that picture and show it to as many people as you want and ask them to describe it in one word. See how many people say "feminine" – not one person, I don't care where you are on the planet. USchick (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, the Kayan people (Burma) have a population of 130,000 so even the neck ring picture would be more representative than the shaman picture. Seriously, what's the problem with a collage? You can put as many fringe views as you can fit into it. See Woman.

USChick, your arguments are obtuse. First of all, you clearly don't understand what the term "Altaic" refers to--it doesn't refer to a specific group of people, but to an all encompassing term for a variety of peoples living on the Central Asian steppe (as a Ukranian, you should be familiar with this concept). Additionally, since when is taking a picture from Wikipedia and showing it to people an objective, scientific way of determining its usefulness? I might similarly take your picture of Venus, show it to the Altai shaman, and be met with a quizzical look. The main reason I continue to advocate the use of the Altai shaman is simply that it was what was here earlier. Your attitude regarding this article has been entirely negative--built on destroying the article, and not adding quality or content. I don't think I'm the only person who feels this way. Please respect the democratic, open process represented here, and stop acting as an individual actor--and note I didn't report you for your three reverts last Friday.Fistoffoucault (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

USChick, I have to agree, you are not being very respectful of other people's work.

Fistoffoucault, the Venus picture was up alot longer than the shaman picture, if that's the criteria that you are using. While I'm a strong supporter of the Venus picture it would seem to have no chance given that it so strongly associates femininity with being female.

By the way, when you changed the image, your grounds for doing so, which was that no one supported the Venus image, was false. Your talking to two of them right now. USChick originally put it up when she did a great overhaul of this page earlier. Dave3457 (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry. I'm calling a truce and I'm prepared to work more collaboratively if everyone else is willing to do the same. I'm going by what the article on Altay people says is the entire population of Altay people everywhere in the world, which is 70,800. The information is sourced from 2002; however, it doesn't say anything about world population. The shaman picture is currently with the rest of the information talking about shamanism in Asian religions, which seems appropriate. USchick (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Population size is irrelevant to this discussion. There is no population cut-off point determining a culture's validity. The fact that people here consider Altaic feminine traditions worthless or non-notable compared to Western traditions just demonstrates the importance of using this picture or a similar one for this article.--Aronoel (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No one is dismissing any culture, this discussion is about the lead picture. USchick (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Stereotype

Where is the discussion and consensus, please point it out. 74.226.119.107 (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Stereotypes" haven't been discussed here before. However, I want to comment on it because I think there's a misconception upsetting a lot of people. This article isn't about women, it's about femininity, which is a form of stereotype. Certain things in culture are associated with femininity (arguably arbitrarily) but that doesn't mean that women or feminine people are good or bad at anything or that they have to be a certain way. There's no value judgment in saying that femininity is associated with anything. It's not an endorsement. --Aronoel (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a source is needed for the following: "Some behaviors that are considered feminine include gentleness, empathy, sensitivity and deference. Femininity is distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics." Without a source, this is original research Roger6r (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's related to women, perhaps this section belongs on that page. 74.226.119.107 (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think femininity is a separate enough concept from women, but you can always open a merge or AFD discussion. --Aronoel (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a credible source to back up what you think?74.226.119.107 (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, is this a merge discussion? If it is we should probably have a merge proposal tag here and on woman.

• Vetterling-Braggin, Mary "Femininity," "masculinity," and "androgyny": a modern philosophical discussion
• Worell, Judith, Encyclopedia of women and gender: sex similarities and differences and the impact of society on gender, Volume 1
• Ussher, Jane M. Fantasies of femininity: reframing the boundaries of sex --Aronoel (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Be cautious of trying to merge two notable subjects that have lots of content and lots more sourcing. Wikipedia's article length limit is around 30–100 KiB. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm replacing "generally associated" with "stereotypically associated" in the lead first sentence to accurately reflect the purpose and scope of this article. Roger6r (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The claim that the feminine is more emotional and less logical.

Kaldari, concerning the sentence about the feminine being more emotional. While I didn't create the sentence, I edited the sentence from the derogatory version which read "highly emotional and irrational" to "more emotional and less rational". My sister has instructed me to change "less rational" to "less logical" and so I have. In my view its obvious and so I personally didn't move it or anything. I'm sure that many references exists out there and I will take a look for some more as I suspect it is a generally excepted belief. But your right, if there is some evidence to the contrary that should be mentioned. Dave3457 (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It used to say it was associated with those characteristics, which Is very different. The source also supported the previous wording before parts were changed and removed. --Aronoel (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

--
Lets start from the beginning, you(Aronoel) initially added the below sentence during this edit. [1].

“Being highly emotional, weak, and irrational are also characteristics associated with femininity.”

I personally found the sentence insulting and ultimately changed it to

The feminine nature is also more emotional, and less logical than the masculine nature.

Presently I personally interpret your view that ..."The source supported the previous wording..." as suggesting that because the derogatory phasing was found in a book you were justified in putting it on Wikipedia". I disagree entirely. As I said above, I believe there is truth to the statement and that is why I personally don’t have a problem with its inclusion, but on the other hand, Kaldari is right that there is no academic consensus for its present form.
I guess the best thing to do is to remove it entirely (which I’ve just done) until some sort of consensus is found.
I personally would be happy with..

It is generally felt that the feminine nature is more emotional, and less logical than the masculine nature.

I removed the reference in the above suggestion because the meaning of the sentence has changed. I appreciate that having no reference is very problematic. Dave3457 (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources supporting this association in culture besides the many already included in that paragraph. Here are a few examples: --Aronoel (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I replaced the sentence which contained Nick's recent changes and replaced the ref with Aronoel's suggested ones.

Dave3457 (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an often-stated claim. It is just as often refuted. I will add a temporarily-uncited sentence to this affect for balance. Roger6r (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

neck rings

If someone knows the subject, please clarify this sentence in the Body Modification subsection: "In parts of Africa and Asia, neck rings are a form of body modification associated with feminine beauty." If the sources support this or others do, the sentence probably should read approximately as, "In parts of Africa and Asia, neck rings are worn in order to elongate the neck, neck elongation being a body modification associated with feminine beauty." Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth including the description of Body Alteration from its main article, "the deliberate altering of the human body for aesthetic or non-medical purpose." This can help explain that this section is about body alteration to enhance or create perceived feminine characteristics. Roger6r (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the description was a very good addition. However, the sentences "These rings stretch the vertebrae until a person's neck can no longer support her head. This ironically disabling aspect is particularly troubling to humanitarian aid workers." seem to contradict what's in the neck rings article. Unless there is a reliable source supporting these sentences, I think they should probably be removed. --Aronoel (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Feminine Occupation

The first modern computer programmers were all women. They were selected due to their feminine characteristics. I have added computer programming to the list of traditionally feminine occupations. Additional citations may be needed. Roger6r (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The whole section seems a bit 1950s. Shouldn't it be updated to reflect a more modern point of view, i.e. that most people no longer think women need to be relegated to "nurturing" or clerical jobs? Kaldari (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the battle I fought all by myself and lost. I was adding a perfectly rational entry with reliable sources and was attacked repeatedly. Here it is for discussion. (See page history. If you don't mind, I will sit this one out, I'm tired of fighting.)

USchick, I feel your pain. Computer programmers? :) Dave3457 (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Feminine traits like cooperation, participation and shared accountability make women uniquely qualified for leadership roles such as head of state. USchick (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Kaldari. I'll work towards that. I think this whole article fails to represent a world view. Roger6r (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

USchick's version seems a bit "pointy". Can't we have something in between "Women should rule the world" and "Women should only be teachers or nurses"? I think Roger is headed in the right direction, but it needs better citations. Kaldari (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I revised the wording a bit to keep it in line with a broad worldview, and also added a citation. Kaldari (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The point of the occupations section is not that women should be relegated or confined to those jobs. Whether good or bad, the fact is that throughout the world certain jobs are considered "feminine." Even in the US, where women are often ecnouraged to have "masculine" jobs, that cultural distinction still exists. The "feminine" and "masculine" classification of jobs is significant and notable enough to be mentioned here. Maybe it should be clearer that it is not an endorsement of this gender division. Also, the book by Richard Anker is modern and is based off of worldwide data. These categories and associations are still going strong even today (unfortunately). --Aronoel (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

For example, the sentence "Both men and women are now welcome in the field of medicine at all levels" might be a good addition, but I'm concerned that it's not maintaining the very important distinction between "femininity" and women. Does the fact that women are welcomed as doctors mean that the occupation is considered more feminine? --Aronoel (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Good points. I've rewritten the paragraph further with your comments in mind. Let me know what you think. Kaldari (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's a huge improvement. --Aronoel (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

For true balance in this section, it ought to include occupational roles which once were considered feminine but now have flipped to be considered masculine. Without mention of these historically significant feminine occupations, this section unfairly supports current stereotypes. Computer Programmer is a good example. I wasn't joking, Dave3457. Your assumption that I was joking reinforces my argument that this section is unbalanced.

Exhibit 1: Ada Lovelace wrote the first computer program. She wasn't actually a computer programmer (as the lead implies) because computing machines didn't even exist which would run her program. The notable programming language Ada was actually named after her.

Granted, Ada did all her Algorithms and stuff because she was a capable researcher, it had nothing to do with her biological femaleness or her perceived feminine characteristics.

Exhibit 2: ENIAC#Programming is what I was really referring to. Before ENIAC, "Computer" was a profession. One who computes. There was a group of several female computers who were tapped, specifically because they were women, to be the first computer programmers. Their amazing contributions have been largely downplayed. By today's standards, they were more than just programmers, they had to do their own IT support.

This is a complex subject which is well-covered in the ENIAC article but it deserves mention here. I will add computer programmer as a feminine role and link to ENIAC#Programming. Please discuss here before reverting this addition. Roger6r (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to include computer programmer, shouldn't we include discussion of this "flip"? It seems a bit discongruous to include it along with occupations that are still often viewed as feminine. We could probably have a few sentences devoted to discussing this. Are there other examples of occupational gender flips that we could include? Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a discussion of occupation gender flips would be good, as long as there are reliable sources supporting it, and keeping in mind the women and femininity distinction. --Aronoel (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any sources that support computer programming being considered a "feminine" occupation? Kaldari (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with these proposed changes. I erased the part about early programming being associated with clerical work and typing because the first programming was done by moving around something akin to giant vacuum tubes. No typing was involved. The ENIAC programmers were mathematicians, not secretaries. The discussion about it being a woman's job deserves more attention and more citations. I'll look around at sources. Just leave the clerical part out if we're still talking about ENIAC because it's false. The ENIAC article can clarify. Roger6r (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, this discussion continues under the section Computer programming Roger6r (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing that might improve this section would be to include examples of occupations that are considered feminine in one culture, but not another. Does anyone know of any examples? --Aronoel (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In some cultures planting and/or harvesting crops was once viewed as a "woman's job" although I'm not sure if it was associated with femininity. Same for things like collecting eggs, churning butter, etc. although many of these food-related activities are either still associated with femininity or have been replaced by automated processes. Are there any cultures where cooking is viewed as masculine (or totally gender neutral)? Some other guesses to investigate: weaving, fortune-telling/shamanism. Kaldari (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this discussion, that's an excellent example about computer programming! When it comes to feminine (or any other) characteristics, anything that's "generally considered" is original research according to Wikipedia policy and does not belong in this article. However, there is a significant body of knowledge in social sciences that say traits like cooperation, participation and shared accountability are uniquely feminine traits. Can you say the same about teaching and house cleaning? Statements like, "Teaching is sometimes considered a feminine occupation" and "Historically, femininity has been associated with occupations requiring nurturing and attention to detail" are highly subjective, and are original research. USchick (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The occupations nurse, social worker, teacher, and midwife are all associated with the stereotyped feminine trait of having a "caring nature" according to the cited source. Some of the rest of the sentence may be original research although I haven't dug that deeply into the source. Kaldari (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The cited source may be an expert on International Labour, I'd like to see some documentation about him being an expert on feminine characteristics please. Sources need to have page numbers listed to be verifiable. USchick (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The section of the book that I'm referring to is completely devoted to gender theory. The parts about international labor are actually later in the book. Regarding the page numbers, on page 23 Anker lists the following occupations as associated with five feminine stereotypes: "nurse, doctor, social worker, teacher, maid, housekeeper, cleaner, cook, waiter, launderer, hairdresser, spinner, weaver, knitter, tailor/dressmaker, sewer, typist, cashier/bookkeeper, salesperson, accountant, receptionist and shop assistant." On page 24 he clarifies by stating that "occupations which require care but also require greater authority, such as medical doctor, are often male-dominated." He then goes on to break these into groups based on the individual stereotypes. Kaldari (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a more appropriate place for such commentary would be under gender theory, gender roles, stereotypes, Occupational gender segregation or Occupational segregation. What does he have to say specifically about femininity? USchick (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

He's talking specifically about gender stereotypes, i.e. femininity and masculinity, and how they affect employment opportunities for women. Isn't that relevant to the article? I've cleaned up the first paragraph so that it conforms 100% to the cited sources. Is that better? Kaldari (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :-) Personallly, I question the relevance of this information since it has to do with Occupational segregation, but it's much better than what it was. USchick (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Unfortunately I've wasted much of the day on this and don't have time to do more work on it. Maybe someone else can take over where I left off, and hopefully not with an axe ;) Kaldari (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I organized the Occupation section so that explanations for gender roles and gender imbalance is distinct from examples of roles and imbalance. Roger6r (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Feminist views and Jungian psychology can be merged under common header

These are both "Philosophical Views" on femininity. Roger6r (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Roger, I agree that the section on Jung should be reconsidered. Since the concept of femininity has been a central aspect of feminist theory, it seems appropriate to include feminist views, and at the end of the article (where critical views are generally expressed). While important, as the concept of anima and animus is only a part of Jungian psychology and not its central concept, I think the discussion in this article seems out of place. I would propose deleting the section entirely and mentioning Jung in the "Behavior and Personality" section. Perhaps by adding a paragraph like this: "In Carl Jung's school of analytical psychology, the anima and animus are the two primary anthropomorphic archetypes of the unconscious mind. The anima and animus are described by Jung as elements of his theory of the collective unconscious, a domain of the unconscious that transcends the personal psyche. In the unconscious of the male, it finds expression as a feminine inner personality: anima; equivalently, in the unconscious of the female it is expressed as a masculine inner personality: animus." (with references lifted from the article on [anima and animus]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fistoffoucault (talk • contribs) 13:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Jung should be mentioned in this article, and I don't think it makes sense to include him with feminist views. But FoF's solution seems like a good compromise. --Aronoel (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll go ahead and make the change. But I'm still open to other ideas--additional suggestions are welcome.Fistoffoucault (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Jung's theories of femininity seem relevant for this article, why were they removed? --Aronoel (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Foot-binding, use of dehumanizing image

The X-ray image representing foot-binding minimizes the horrific process which many consider torture. The X-ray shows the bones to be moved, thus communicating the truth that this process has permanent and irreversible side effects. However, I think the lack of a flesh image of a foot is dehumanizing and makes this horrible form of mutilation seem not quite so bad. This is a disservice to the unknown numbers of girls and women whose lives have been affected by foot-binding. I suggest replacing the current image with a respectful but honest picture, such as the one found in the cited article [2], or else removing the picture. Roger6r (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the X-ray image is pretty horrifying, but the other image you suggested seems like a good alternative. Both are fine to me. The New York Times image is already on Wikipedia as: File:A HIGH CASTE LADYS DAINTY LILY FEET.jpg. --Aronoel (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Image

Using an image with a caption like "The Altai people (pictured here) consider shamanism a feminine role." represents a fringe theory and undue weight. I'm removing it. USchick (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Indented line USchick, please direct your discussion regarding the main image to the talk section titled "Main Image." There has already been considerable discussion regarding this issue.

Your claim that the image is "fringe," or "undue weight," seems inappropriate. I challenge you to explain how the image of an Altai shaman represents a "fringe theory." Is your claim that Altaic peoples did not have shamans, that they were not female, or that it was not considered a female occupation? If you argue the last point, I think you will find that in numerous Altaic and non-Altaic traditions, shamanic roles were largely performed by women, and associated with whatever notion of "femininity" or "womanhood" held by those groups. Take for example, the "mudang"(무당), a Korean female sorceress still found in North and South Korea and Northeast China (one of my professors in Harbin had a mudang-aunt).

Similarly, your claim of "undue weight" needs support. Undue weight to what? Someone from a non-Euro-American background might claim that the use of Venus or Athena as a representation of womanhood gives undue weight to a Euro-American perspective. As the discussion in the "Main Image" section indicates, the shaman image is preferable because while it represents an ideal of "womanhood" and, historically, a largely female occupation, it also adds regional, ethnic, and spiritual diversity to the article--bringing us closer to the idea of an encyclopedia as a "circle of learning" (Online Etymology Dictionary.

In summary, I'm reverting to the Altai shaman picture. We can continue this discussion, but please direct your response to the "Main Image" section of the talk page. Thanks!Fistoffoucault (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a section about religion. If you'd like to write something about the fact that for the first 200,000 years of human life on earth people worshiped "the sacred feminine" (or a female deity, or Mother goddess, or whatever you want to call it) and that the first known shaman was female, please feel free to write that section. I can help in finding sources. Then after you write that section, if you'd like to include this picture, that would make it relevant to the discussion. But using this picture out of the blue as an example for the entire article, is out of context and undue weight. See Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Undue weight. USchick (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

：：：Again, USChick, I'm going to redirect you to the "Main Image" discussion and post my response there. Please don't make changes without discussion.

Citing sources

When citing sources, please adhere to Wikipedia policy of using a prevailing view within the relevant community, see WP:REDFLAG. Specifically, an appropriate source needs to be an expert on femininity, feminine characteristics, or something relevant. And please list the page numbers. USchick (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Femininity in men

Statements like: Men who behave in ways associated with femininity by a "certain culture" – are inappropriate in an Encyclopedia. What kind of "certain culture"? What kind of behavior? According to the article, Femininity is not necessarily related to a man's sexuality. If that's true, why is it being discussed in this article? See Wikipedia:Relevance. The same goes for "generally negative attitude displayed in many societies" - especially if it happens only "sometimes," as stated in the article. This is WP:NOR. USchick (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think this section could be deleted and replaced with a single sentence in the lead paragraph. The lead paragraph points out that femininity is distinct from the physiological and biological classification of femaleness. A sentence could be added along the lines of "Male or transgender people can be perceived to exhibit feminine behaviors." Roger6r (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't support removing this section. It's sourced and extremely relevant to this article. --Aronoel (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

With the section remaining, do you think it helps to add such a sentence to the lead? Roger6r (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I ask because even with the section remaining, I realize such a sentence might help solve some of the issues raised in the Lead discussion Roger6r (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think a sentence like that should definitely be in the lead only I would slightly reword it: ""Male and transgender people can exhibit behaviors associated with femininity." --Aronoel (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead discussion

Can we please have a discussion about the lead?

First sentence: Femininity refers to qualities and behaviors generally believed (by whom? original research) to be associated (when? why? how?) with women and girls, whether they be inborn or socialized.

The qualities are not "general" they are specific to women and girls.

• Proposed: Femininity refers to female qualities attributed specifically to women and girls.

Second sentence: Femininity is distinct from femaleness – According to whom? Please provide a reference. This is inaccurate and misleading because according to the Merriam Webster dictionary [3] the synonym for feminine is female. USchick (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the statement "the synonym for feminine is female" is incorrect. It might be A synonym, but it is not THE one and only. The two words have different meanings. Sometimes the boundaries of each overlap, but you can't always just substitute the one word for the other and have the same meaning in a sentence. -- Avanu (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I support changing the lead. The lead used to be sourced to this, but it has been removed for some reason. I think the new lead should be more closely based on this source ("roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women") or another reliable source. --Aronoel (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

@USchick: Your proposed first sentence is not accurate. Men can exhibit feminine qualities as well as women. You may want to review the previous discussion. Scholarly sources specific to the subject would be preferred over popular ones like Merriam Webster. Also note that lead sections are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body (WP:LEADCITE), so it is not necessary to be so rigorous with the wording, although we should of course strive for an accurate summary. Kaldari (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I just felt that saying "stereotypically" was a bad choice. I'm not stuck on a particular choice, but saying "generally" gives the same sense without the negative overtones. And since men can be percieved to have feminine qualities, these qualities are generally something females have, but not exclusively. -- Avanu (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course men can exhibit feminine qualities! And no one is stopping them. Words have meaning, and if we're going to say something, it should be accurate. If there is a scholarly source, let's use it. I'm saying that the definition is not all encomassing of general qualities. The qualities are specific to females. That's why I researched the etymology of the word, (I don't know why it was moved) which has a Latin root word that literally means (woman) "one who suckles." USchick (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, instead of generally, a more accurate word would be traditionally which is also part of the dictionary definition. For anyone who does not accept the dictionary as a reliable source, please feel free to find something more appropriate.USchick (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with using the WHO source? Let's just use that. --Aronoel (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, as it relates to gender. Even when men (or anyone else) exhibit feminine characteristics, they are still specific to the female gender. Since my proposed statement is not acceptable, please someone propose something better. USchick (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

But our definition also includes socialized behaviors, so those wouldn't necessarily be specific to a gender, since gender is something one is born with. -- Avanu (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Femininity is the set of roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a society associates with women. Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex. Male and transgender people can also exhibit behaviors associated with femininity. --Aronoel (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Femininity is the set of roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with women. Femininity is a distinct concept from a biological female sex. The exhibition of these behaviors are not limited only to females. -- Avanu (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I support Avanu's modified version, except for replacing "the" with "a." Sorry to be nitpicky, but after all there is only one biological female sex. --Aronoel (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The above statement supports the dictionary definition (which is fine with me), but does not support the WHO definition of gender if anyone thinks that's important. The rest – Femininity is a distinct concept from a biological female sex – is there a source for this? Yes, there is only one biological female sex, so how can femininity be different from it? Let's start a new discussion about this please. USchick (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It is taken almost word-for-word from the WHO definition: ""Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. To put it another way: "Male" and "female" are sex categories, while "masculine" and "feminine" are gender categories." --Aronoel (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Many things almost word for word can have different meanings "They kill you" or "You kill them" which one do you prefer when you're playing a video game? :-) Just because "Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles for men and women, does NOT mean that "Femininity" can be substituted for the word "gender" (I have to go for now, but I look forward to continuing this discussion. Thanks everyone! USchick (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It says that "femininity" is a gender category and not a sex category. I just pasted that in above. --Aronoel (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason I said "a biological female sex" instead of "the" is that essentially we are talking about gender. If a person has an XY chromosome, we tend to say they are male, XX, then we say female. What about people who are XXY or just X or XYY, etc? This presents a complication in the simple definition of "biological female gender", since it doesn't fit. Also, does this only apply to human females or any creature, for example some frogs can change their gender. Do we apply this definition of feminity broadly to the entire animal kingdom or just human beings? -- Avanu (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the initial criticism of the lead is valid. Avanu's definition is consistent with the WHO and dictionary definitions of "femininity." I will change the lead accordingly. USChick, your definition is circular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fistoffoucault (talk • contribs) 04:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

WHO Definition on this web page [4] I don't see a definition, I see examples of how gender roles influence behavior. Gender roles influence how people express their femininity. Gender roles also influence how people express themselves through fashion. Gender roles do not define femininity, just like gender roles do not define fashion. I also don't see where the World Health Organization claims expertise on definitions of words, for that, a more appropriate source would be a dictionary. To go from "feminine is a gender category" to "Femininity is a distinct concept from a biological female sex" is a too big of a leap. If you want to make this claim, please support it with a source. USchick (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There is the female sex, the male sex, and intersex. Sometimes organisms don't fit neatly into these categories, but there is still only one female sex. If you know of any reliable sources referring to multiple female sexes (not genders), let me know, maybe I'm wrong. Genders, unlike sexes, are cultural and psychological categories and don't apply to organisms other than humans. Femininity is related to gender and not sex, which is what the WHO article explains and what the sentence "Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex" is supposed to explain. --Aronoel (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

To go from "Femininity is related to gender" to "Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex" is also too much of a leap and original research. If you want to make this claim, please support it with a source. USchick (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the term "biological female sex" is supposed to mean "gender". -- Avanu (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

To be clear about what it means, please provide a source, or restate it, or remove it. USchick (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this article not clear about the sex and gender distinction? If it's not, USChick, can you explain what you believe it is saying? (Also see sex and gender distinction).--Aronoel (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where WHO claims that "Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex." I also don't see where Sex and gender distinction says that. USchick (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"The distinction between sex and gender is a concept that distinguishes sex, a natural or biological feature, from gender, the cultural or learned significance of sex." This seems very clear to me, and I just really don't understand what the confusion is about. --Aronoel (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A distinction between sex and gender is a separate discussion unrelated to how people express themselves (in feminine ways, in fashion, or anything else). If you want to make a claim that "Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex" I don't think it should be too much trouble for you to come up with a source. If this is such a common statement, what's the problem? USchick (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"When she stopped conforming to the conventional picture of femininity she finally began to enjoy being a woman." -- Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique.

If femininity is a picture, then it can be painted or repainted by society. Obviously, there is a distinction between gender, sex, or anything else, and the concept of feminine. -- Avanu (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

For menswear, Dries Van Noten gets in touch with his feminine side http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/for-menswear-dries-van-noten-gets-in-touch-with-his-feminine-side/2011/06/23/AGlieihH_story.html

If men can have a 'feminine side', then how is femininity directly restricted to women? -- Avanu (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to make a scientific claim that "Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex" please provide a scientific source. Thanks. USchick (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Is femininity a scientific concept? -- Avanu (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Gender and biological female sex are scientific concepts and a lot of research has been done in those fields as they relate to feminine and masculine expression. In fact, there is SO much written about it, that the World Health Organization mentions it on their web page. I haven't run across anything that says "Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex" and if you have, please provide asource. Thanks. USchick (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is titled "Femininity" not "Gender and biological female sex". Again, I ask, is femininity a scientific concept? -- Avanu (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/may/%E2%80%98inventing-womanhood%E2%80%99-new-book-explores-origins-femininity

Williams, who is an expert on the medieval literature and culture, set out to explore why certain gendered words – such as “womanhood,” “femininity,” and “motherhood” were used for the first time during the English medieval period.

“Previously, the way women were described was mainly as a wife, maiden or widow,” Williams said. “After the plague wiped out such a huge amount of the population, opportunities opened up for women to expand their roles in society, and language had to be created to describe these roles.”

So, to sum up, the idea of man and woman (gender) existed prior to the word "femininity". Its about as obvious as falling off a log to me that female is not the exact same thing as femininity. But whatever. -- Avanu (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Femininity is clearly not the same as female and there have been plenty of sources offered to show this. I think this is a case of a refusal to "get the point" and we should consider this discussion closed. --Aronoel (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You say So, to sum up, the idea of man and woman (gender) existed prior to the word "femininity". But in reality, Sexologist John Money introduced the terminology of "gender" in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word "gender" to refer to anything but grammatical categories. The word "femininity" was first used in the 1300s. Do you see a flaw in your calculation and in your logic? You're only 600 years off. Again, a reliable source would clear this up. USchick (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll quote the online etymology dictionary first (which I'm almost certain you'll disregard) "The interplay of meanings now represented in female, feminine, and effeminate, and the attempt to make them clear and separate, has led to many coinages: feminitude (1878); feminile “feminine” (1640s); feminility “womanliness” (1838); femality (17c., “effeminacy;” 1754 “female nature”). Also feminality (1640s, “quality or state of being female”), from rare adj. feminal (late 14c.), from O.Fr. feminal. And femineity “quality or state of being feminine,” from L. femineus “of a woman, pertaining to a woman.”"

Second, I'll use a reliable source that I like to call 'logic'.

He is feminine. He is a man. She is feminine. She is a woman.

He is maculine. He is a man. She is masculine. She is a woman.

Simple, right? We can hear it said that a man is acting feminine. Therefore, "gender" does not equal "qualities that are generally attributed to gender". If a woman is born, does that mean she cannot mow the lawn or work on a car? If a man is born, is he incapable of being concerned about his appearance or wearing a pink shirt? I'm not sure why the incredibly obvious needs so much sourcing for you to be satisfied. -- Avanu (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also, online etymology dictionary disagrees with you about gender being 1955. Note: "the male-or-female sense from early 15c. As sex took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the common word used for "sex of a human being," often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is first attested 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie." -- Avanu (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a fact that sexologist John Money introduced the terminology of "gender" in 1955, as the Gender article states. Your etymology dictionaries are saying nothing to disagree with that. No one one said that "gender" was commonly used to refer to men and women in 1955, only that it was introduced that way in 1955. What your quote is saying is that "gender" came to be commonly used for "sex of a human being" in 1963, often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities. Likewise, the Gender article says, "However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender." 50.16.132.13 (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not me you need to satisfy, if you want to make a claim on Wikipedia, please provide a reliable source. If you can't support your claim, please restate it or remove it. Thanks. USchick (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex" is not at all controversial or questionable. Would you call a female pig "feminine"? Would you call Ru Paul "masculine"? I don't understand why you are pushing this issue. The concept has been extensively explained above and on numerous other articles. The sentence is even cited in the lead to the World Health Organization: "'Male' and 'female' are sex categories, while 'masculine' and 'feminine' are gender categories". Claiming that Merriam Webster is a better source than the WHO (or any of the sources listed above) is absurd. How the word was used in 1300 has no bearing on the discussion. This isn't Ye Olde English Dictionary, this is a modern encyclopedia. Kaldari (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere on the WHO website does it say "Femininity is a distinct concept from the biological female sex." It's absurd that people who want to make this claim refuse to provide a source. USchick (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for adding "socially defined" which makes all the difference in the world. Why was that so hard? Please remember that the rest of us are not reading off the same text book. USchick (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Glad the issue is finally moving towards consensus :) Kaldari (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are some of you acting as though gender and sex are so black and white, when even the Gender article makes clear that it isn't? Because while femininity can be distinct from biological sex, gender isn't all that distinct from the latter. Yes, of course, one can identify as a woman while being biologically male (transgender), but gender and sex match up for most people and are generally synonymous. Gender covers the whole spectrum -- biological sex, gender identity, gender role, etc. (contrary to what the WHO source states). 50.16.132.13 (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I arrived at this page via the Wikipedia: Requests for comments/society, sports, & culture ... and noticed that some discussion has arose as to issues of bias in this article. The second sentence of the lead discussion reads: "Though socially constructed, femininity is made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors." Given the debate over nature versus nurture, is no longer an either/or issue...but rather some combination of both, would the removal of "Though socially constructed" from the sentence and allowing the sentence to stand as: "Femininity is made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors." be a small step in dealing with bias issues in this article? Thoughts, comments?--4tiggy (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it isn't bias to say that what people call feminine is defined by people themselves. We can see evidence of this every day as fads and fashions change. Hair on a person's body is a human trait, and is less generally on women, but "femininity" in general society demands almost no hair at all, except for one's head where it should be long in order to be the most feminine. (again, that's according to society) If femininity is just biological, then why did nature decide to endow women with so many things they have to remove or change? The answer is that even though some of the items in the list of Femininity are biological things, they are in the list because people decided they could be. This is not the same thing as a Female. We have a checklist of things that make a Female, and those are set by nature. XX chromosome being the most basic. Anyway, I think everyone else is satisfied at least somewhat with the current wording, so it will probably be what we use for now. -- Avanu (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Avanu has articulated this issue very plainly and concisely. The example of hair is one; the additional example of soft bodies, weak muscles, or pale skin might be another. All of these things are not things that make one biologically female, but are associated with femininity as such. They are only associated with a biological female inasmuch as a certain context imagines a biological female. This sounds overly deterministic but I stand by it. 4tiggy, I really appreciate that unlike certain contributors to this talk page, you are making a positive effort to improve the page constructively. That being said, I stand by the use of "socially constructed" in the lead because it is the accepted vocabulary in this context (see Construct (philosophy of science). Looking forward to more productive discussion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fistoffoucault (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Fistoffoucault, When you make changes to a wiki page you need to include an edit summary along with your edit. That way the other editors can follow what is going on without having to go to the page. This is Wiki policy.

I noticed that you deleted the above comment with no response when I put it on your talk page . Do you disagree that it is Wiki policy? Please tell me your position on the matter. I have to be honest, I find it odd that you are "Looking forward to more productive discussion!" but then you change the lede image without so much as an edit summary. We had come to a consensus as to what that image would be. Dave3457 (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Computer programming

The information about computer programming being associated with femininity has been removed. It now just says that most early computer programmers were women. This eliminates the relevance of the paragraph to the article. The information that was removed wasn't original research; It was adapted from the cited article. Kaldari (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think this information was important for this section, sourced, and should be restored. --Aronoel (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, I posted this up in the occupations discussion just after that deletion. Probably a good idea that you started a new section. I'll take a closer look at the ENIAC article to make sure it's accurate. Here's my previous comment (Is there a Wikipidia way to shift a comment like this?):

I agree with these proposed changes. I erased the part about early programming being associated with clerical work and typing because the first programming was done by moving around something akin to giant vacuum tubes. No typing was involved. The ENIAC programmers were mathematicians, not secretaries. The discussion about it being a woman's job deserves more attention and more citations. I'll look around at sources. Just leave the clerical part out if we're still talking about ENIAC because it's false. The ENIAC article can clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger6r (talk • contribs) 20:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Correction, it wasn't vacuum tubes, it was "patch-cables and switches." I'm also looking at the Programming article for the source of the clerical comment. Just give me some time :) Roger6r (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What I removed said "Due to the fact that typing and clerical work are traditionally associated with femininity." I removed it because it's false where ENIAC was concerned. Did you adapt that from the ENIAC article or from "When Computers Were Women"? If you can direct me to what you adapted it from, I'll look at it. Roger6r (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What if we just removed "typing" and left "clerical work"? Does that seem more accurate. The actual quote from the cited article is "...the job of programmer, perceived in recent years as masculine work, originated as feminized clerical labor". Hope that helps. Kaldari (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the further explanation, Kaldari. I still oppose the term "clerical work." ENIAC was an advanced scientific labor. I think I agree that some at the time treated it as clerical work. Let me read that entire article and get back to you on the wording I would propose instead. Roger6r (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The cited article says that even though women were chosen because clerical work was considered feminine, early female computer programmers actually contributed significantly to mathematical and technical innovations in computing, but that this was diminished. Maybe this would be worth mentioning. --Aronoel (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a better source, check this out: [5]. It says: "But although they were skilled mathematicians and logicians, the women were classified as "sub-professionals" presumably due to their gender and as a cost-saving device, and never got the credit due to them for their groundbreaking work...But although the women had been categorized as "clerks," they were rediscovered by a Harvard student named Kathryn Kleiman in 1986, during her research for a paper on women in computing. " This is a largely forgotten bit of history but I am presenting the accepted understanding. They were classified as clerks. It is thought this was a money-saving or otherwise discriminatory practice. Clerks were not sought for the job. From another source: the ENIAC says the government sought women math majors. This still gives the incomplete story. At first they were computing by hand calculations for missiles. Then they computed by hand in addition to programming the ENIAC to compute. Extreme precision and attention to detail were required. These were the feminine traits that were sought. (As well as the general trait of intelligence). I might be ok to say it was treated as clerical work but only if it is made clear that it was anything BUT clerical work. And, clerical experience was not the sought out experience, mathematics was. Roger6r (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

wow, this is so interesting! Another question is whether or not the women knew what they were working on missles. During the Cold War, it was common practice for scientists to perform research only on portions of the entire project and have no idea how the final application would be used. This was done originally in the name of science, and later in the name of national security when they decided to use the research for bombs. So originally, calling them clerks may not have been only as discrimination. USchick (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

USchick, the DoD still operates on the principles of "need to know" in research divisions. These women were calculating ballistics trajectories not building the missiles. They must have known they were calculating trajectories. I don't know how much secrecy surrounded the specifics of the assaults but my guess would be a lot.

I am thinking of suggesting an article on this subject on the Women's History WikiProject group. I'm not up for making the article all on my own. For now I am looking through the ENIAC article to verify how much this is covered. I think the historical cover-up itself is notable and part of the motivation for the programmers of ENIAC to have their own article.

Kaldari, sorry about the confusion. It's my own fault for copying over the bad source from the ENIAC article. Roger6r (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent idea!USchick (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Clothing section

The clothing section was removed. It was sourced and relevant to this article. I think it should be restored. --Aronoel (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we please agree on the definition before we discuss what is relevant? USchick (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the majority seems to have agreed on a definition, let's resume the discussion of the clothing section. Whether you're Plato or Zhu Xi, the way we understand the essence of a concept is through its specific manifestation in the material world. For those non-nudists among us, clothing is an essential means of expressing identity. The feminine is expressed through clothing--we consider certain modes of dress more or less feminine, and associate the feminine qualities of costume with the wearer. Drag is an expression of and re-imagining of the feminine--would Ru Paul be Ru Paul without a feather boa, and if a feather boa weren't associated with femininity, would it be challenging to our notions of gender? I think the clothing section is needed. We can discuss its content.Fistoffoucault (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The clothing section should be more balanced with regards to cultural diversity. This is a big issue because whereas some cultures use clothing to conceal femininity others use it to emphasize it.

I'm not necessarily suggesting the following current news item belongs in the article, but it certainly parallels the contentious nature of feminine clothing:

http://www.bwfbadminton.org/file_download.aspx?id=33012 "The images above show a transparent skirt or dress in order to show the acceptable clothing under the skirt or dress. This is not intended in any way to mean that such skirts or dresses should be transparent. This is for diagrammatic purposes only."

Don't worry, UK sports minister was on top of that. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/27/badminton-women-players-skirts-dresses "To instruct people to wear unnecessarily short skirts is a regressive and damaging attempt to sex up the game. Sport should be judged on the merits of the contest and not on attempts to sex it up artificially."

The American deputy president explains his reasoning for suggesting this Victorian-era edict: "We just want them to look feminine and have a nice presentation so women will be more popular," he said. "Interest is declining. Some women compete in oversize shorts and long pants and appear baggy, almost like men." Roger6r (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The feminization of athletic uniforms would definitely be worth including. --Aronoel (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

To be nitpicky, right now this example is an attempt at feminization of athletic uniforms :)

Athletic uniforms could be a subsection of Clothing Roger6r (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well a lot of sports, such as tennis, have always had "feminine" uniforms for women. --Aronoel (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I do agree (I was only nitpicking the current badminton regulations) Roger6r (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Clothing section should be distinct from body alteration. Body and clothing are not the same. Suggest splitting the current section: Clothing is its own section. Physical characteristics is another. Body alteration becomes a subsection of Physical characteristics.

The distinction between biological femaleness and femininity should be reiterated in the Physical characteristics section. Roger6r (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am a newbie to the community and have come to this site through the community bulletin board. I would like to make a comment for consideration in the 2nd paragraph of the introductory remarks. Based on the Oxford Canadian Dictionary(2nd ed), I would suggest that the word/term "racist" 1)a belief in the superiority of a particular race ... be replaced with ... "discriminatory" 1)an act, instance, policy, etc. of unfavourable treatment based on prejudice, esp. regarding race, age, or sex .... as the term discriminatory in my mind seems to more accurately make the point of the sentence/statement. --4tiggy (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Feminine Athletics

Like with the historical switches in feminine/non-feminine occupations, we see such things in "feminine" sports. Whereas the first cheerleaders were male (late 1800's) cheerleading is currently widely accepted as a feminine sport and there are even organizations trying to push it through at the collegiate level as an all-female sport. However, we do see co-ed squads in some areas. I'm not sure if the trend is toward more or less co-ed squads. Roger6r (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested in addressing the Olympic controversy of the Olympic women's soccer team? [6]USchick (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

How about the fact that the Badminton World Federation recently declared that "women must wear skirts or dresses to play at the elite level."[7] The rule "was intended to make women appear more feminine and attractive to fans and corporate sponsors." Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Guess I should have read the previous section :) Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to find every discriminatory practice and list it here, this is going to be a very long article. What about women's Olympic sports that don't have a male counterpart, like girls with ribbons on a mat (not sure what it's called.) USchick (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

True, I guess we should be shooting for more general coverage of the issue. Kaldari (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't let me discourage you! The direction this article has taken lately, I'm thinking all this information related to gender roles, clothing, and occupations – can eventually be moved to its own article on "Feminine discriminatory practices" and get that crap very valuable information off this page. USchick (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What would you like to see more of in this article? Kaldari (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! :) I'd like to see every off the wall cockamaimy "pseudo science" unrelated claim to be attributed to something specific, like the source where it originated from. The way it reads now, is like an editor took a class somewhere with very limited scope, and wrote what they learned in this article, claiming that this is now the world view. Don't worry, I'll be adding content, and I'm sure there will be edit warring over that too. I hope you'll stick around as an administrator to mediate. USchick (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC) :-)

USchick, I'm not sure the concept of femininity can be separated from discrimination. Roger6r (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding cheerleading, I found at least one blatant historical inaccuracy in the Cheerleading#History article. I'm currently investigating in the sources for that article but could use some help if anyone's interested. Roger6r (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a section titled Feminine athleticism which briefly addresses the relation of femininity to Women's_sports. Roger6r (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There is an open move request for Women's_sports that relates to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger6r (talk • contribs) 18:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hair

It seems a bit of an oversight that this article doesn't mention hair. Could we collect some sources for the relationship between hair and femininity so that we can build some content around this. I'll go first. Kaldari (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• "Long hair on Samoan women (and American women, for that matter) is the ideal... Samoan women's femininity is judged according to the length of their hair..." Sociology: A Global Perspective, p. 271.
• Lesnik-Oberstein, Karín (2006). The Last Taboo: Women and Body Hair. (Pretty much the entire book would be useful.)
• "Underarm hair on women in the West is considered by many to be unfeminine, yet in other cultures not to remove underarm hair is considered to be as normal as hair growth itself." The Language of Magazines, Linda McLoughlin (2000), p. 96.
• "But the desire to have long hair relates to perceptions of what is considered feminine and it is associated with white women. That is, even with long dreadlocks, the model of long hair, and therefore femininity is white women like Cheryl Tiegs and Farah Fawcett." Feminist Frontiers, Verta Taylor (2008), p. 157.

I can't believe we forgot hair! Samoan women are judged on the length of their body hair? By all means, let's include that for sure! :-) I'm signing off for today, you guys wore me out! Cheers. USchick (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that sentence is referring to head hair specifically. Kaldari (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Darn, I was hoping we could have a picture, with the tribal Chief measuring it with a ruler! USchick (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, that would have been great :) Kaldari (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Shaving underarm hair is a historically recent practice. I need the source for this, but I have read that the widespread trend of women shaving underarms was started by an advertisement for a sleeveless dress and the model had her underarms shaved. If anyone has a source for this it would help balance the article by showing the origin of a perception of femininity. Roger6r (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

May 1915 Issue Of Harper’s Bazaar, an ad for depilatory powder [8]. Shaving is something men did, "smoothing" was the right term for women [9]. In ancient history see Gorgades picture [10] historical document [11]. Timeline of hairy women in history [12] In modern times, Julia Roberts [13] and Madonna's hairy 1985 Playboy Issue [14], photo sold for $37,500 [15]. USchick (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

USchick, I am impressed Roger6r (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I will reveal to you my secret of finding information, it's called the power of Google :-) USchick (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Some more sources: Kaldari (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• "The Black Power movement of the sixties made appearance a political issue with the well-known motto "Black is beautiful." Racist (and classist) norms of appearance that equate feminine beauty with long flowing hair, light skin, and aquiline features were criticized as part of a "color caste system" that historically defines black women with kinky hair and African features as "ugly" or undesirable." —Dubious Equalities and Embodied Differences: Cultural Studies on Cosmetic Surgery (Explorations in Bioethics and the Medical Humanities) p. 93 ISBN:0742514218
• "The ideal feminine voice was deemed to be soft, high-pitched, and gentle. The feminine appearance included long, flowing hair, flawless, clean, and fair-complexioned skin. Feminine embellishments, such as earrings, makeup (but not too much), ribbons and bows, perfume, and long and frilly dresses, were essential." —Female action heroes: a guide to women in comics, video games, film, and television p. xv ISBN:9780313376122
• "Long flowing hair on men during Leonardo's time was not a sign of the fop; short hair was the exception. Leonardo often referred to hair as a feature of a boy's beauty. It was not in itself a sign of sexual femininity but of beauty as defined by the feminine." —Freud, Leonardo Da Vinci, and the Vulture's Tail: A Refreshing Look at Leonardo's Sexuality p. 226 ISBN:1892746824

I've incorporated several of these sources into the Clothing and appearance section. Kaldari (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

sissyphobia, effeminiphobia, and femiphobia

I found some probably good sources using at least one of the words, but I'm not sure right now that I should do the evaluating for use in this article. None were in the Oxford English Dictionary (online) Jun. 14, 2011. Today (Sunday), they were in Academic Search Premier (EbscoHost), a paid database libraries may have free. The search was for the Boolean "femiphobia OR effeminiphobia OR sissyphobia OR femiphobic OR effeminiphobic OR sissyphobic" (without quote marks). When searching within an article, it's probably worthwhile to search just for the string "phobi" (without quote marks), because sometimes a word is spelled with a space before that string. See <ref>Eguchi, Shinsuke, ''Negotiating Sissyphobia: A Critical/Interpretive Analysis of One "Femme" Gay Asian Body in the Heteronormative World.'', in ''Journal of Men's Studies'', vol. 19, issue 1 (Winter 2011), pp. 37–56.</ref>; <ref>Lin, Dennis C., ''Sissies online: Taiwanese male queers performing sissinesses in cyberspaces 1.'', in ''Inter-Asia Cultural Studies'', vol. 7, issue 2 (Jun., 2006), pp. 270–288 (DOI 10.1080/14649370600673938).</ref>; <ref>Padva, Gilad, & Miri Talmon, ''Gotta Have An Effeminate Heart.'', in ''Feminist Media Studies'', vol. 8, issue 1 (Mar., 2008), pp. 69–84 (DOI 10.1080/14680770701824910) (full text probably not in ''Academic Search Premier'').</ref>. Nine more results were in JStor, another paid database some libraries offer for free. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC) (Corrected third reference: 19:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC))

Any chance you could site some of the actual usages in the articles (since most of us don't have access)? Kaldari (talk) 19:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No, but thank you for asking; time is short and I think I lack sufficient expertise in a subject with some controversy around it to evaluate enough to know what to select as presumptively good as content or without infringing copyright. I gather many adults in the U.S. don't have public library cards; mine allow access from home to some databases, although not JStor; the cards are free and, with one, so is access. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

occupations, secretaries, computers, and tradition

Secretary used to be a male/masculine occupation, on the supposed ground of typewriters being heavy, reported in histories on the machine. (I don't know if they were heavier than toddlers who needed carrying; if not, then the reason was likely a pretext, and there may be a source saying so.)

Computer programmer has become a largely male/masculine occupation, being viewed as part of engineering, which is a largely male/masculine occupation. Grace Hopper was female but I don't know if most programmers contemporary with her were women; I suspect not; and her work was much for the military, which was probably not considered mostly feminine at the time (or even today). Ada Lovelace probably didn't have a lot of women for company among amateur mathematicians in her time (amateur because a woman being a professional mathematician was unlikely if not forbidden). If there's an argument for why computer programming or engineering tends to be male/madculine, perhaps it's that it depends less on relationships with people: many programmers are famously social misfits who gladly focus on "6 7 mult" and other arcana instead. That's not a justification; Apple's first big GUI was designed by programmers together with liberal arts majors, was very successful on the Macintosh, and was an inspiration (at least) for Microsoft Windows. But this may point to research that can be done for this article.

One cause of confusion is in what is meant by traditional. In feminism, it tends to mean what has become traditional at the time women seek the jobs, or what men say can't or shouldn't be changed because there must have been a good reason for things being the way they were and then assert one. In my observation, customer service representatives and bank tellers tend to be women; in nonchain stores, people operating cash registers tend to be women; I think the last is because the owners tend to be men and put their wives and daughters to the cash-receiving duty because they trust them not to pocket it. I think also because women tend to be paid substantially less than are men employers tend to separate genders by occupations in order to maintain the payroll savings while drawing on a larger labor pool to fill all their positions with less internal competition, and, if that's true, then probably the relationship between occupation and femininity/masculinity may be an after-the-fact rationalization or pretext that is, in the U.S., usually illegal but nonetheless quietly practiced, so that people are not doing the same job but paid differently in a way hard to justify in court. In nations where the legal issue is nonexistent or minor, perhaps because overshadowed by religious concerns, the masculine/feminine divide may be more openly articulated by national and local leaders and employers in literature we can cite, and probably relatively consistently across many such nations.

One approach to ascribing jobs by femininity may be to look for expert-written advice published in men's and women's magazines or self-help books on careers for people who want to stay within masculine or feminine paradigms.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I had watched a story on TV about how telephone operators were originally boys. (back in the days when the operator had to plug in all those wires) But the problem was that they were more impatient and rude with callers, so they were replaced with women. -- Avanu (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Feminine vs. Masculine

Considering that just about every cultural phenomena like jobs, dress, and appearance has flip flopped at some point in history, I recommend we say: "Gender roles have a major impact on what is considered feminine or masculine in any given culture" and leave it at that. For specific examples, I suggest moving all related information onto a separate page that deals with gender roles in history, especially if we're talking about what used to be feminine and is now masculine, or vise versa. This particular page is about Femininity only, not gender roles, not discrimination, not stereotypes, or anything else. I really think this would be a move in the right direction. USchick (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Gender roles and stereotypes have as much to do with femininity as anything else. You yourself stated, "Gender roles have a major impact on what is considered feminine or masculine in any given culture." So I'm not sure why you are arguing to exclude that from this article. After all, what is this article without talking about that stuff? 50.16.132.13 (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This may need to happen later, when the article is more developed. I don't know how examples of hairstyles in France at a particular time in history can be relevant to a world view on Femininity.

Definition of femininity

I know that the intro has been discussed many times. I've read the previous discussions. This is why I am confused about the intro still having such a strict definition of femininity. It currently says, "Femininity is socially constructed and distinct from biological female sex." But that is not true in all cases. The human female body is considered feminine, for example. And no matter what we say about femininity being a social construct, using the term to refer to the female sex is a biological aspect of the term. Male and female bodies are not the same and are not socially constructed. Saying that the female body is feminine is simply a word used to describe it. After all, a word had to be used. Further, as pointed out above by Dave3457 in #The lead sentence section, feminine traits can also be due to biology. This is also shown in the Femininity#Behavior and personality section. At least something about this debate should be in the lead. The World Health Organization (WHO) is not the be-all and end-all definition of gender and gender categories, as demonstrated by the many researchers who would disagree with WHO in part. The lead should at least qualify the "socially constructed" mention with the word "often" or "usually," so that it reads: "Femininity is often socially constructed and distinct from biological female sex." Or "Femininity is generally socially constructed and often distinct from biological female sex." Or some variation of that, if we are not going to mention in the intro that research on femininity has been linked to biology as much as to social roles. 50.16.132.13 (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The WHO is a working definition, the definition in the dictionary is still accurate, and different from the WHO definition. USchick (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The "socially constructed" sentence is from a college sociology textbook which devotes several pages to discussing femininity and masculinity. The textbook states unambiguously that femininity is socially defined and not biologically defined: "Often we mistakenly attribute masculinity and femininity to biology, when in fact, they are socially created." This is further explained over several pages in the textbook. If you want to state the opposite, you'll need some pretty solid sources, not just a popular dictionary definition. Kaldari (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that it doesn't matter what one or two reliable sources state in favor of femininity only being a social construct, because there are reliable sources that state the opposite. Nor did I argue against it being a social construct. I argued against it only being defined as a social construct, when even some researchers state that some feminine traits/qualities are or may be due to biology. Research has definitely shown that men and women generally don't think the same, and enough research suggests that this may not simply be due to society. I don't need to provide any sources for this statement; some sources are right there in the Behavior and personality section. Others are elsewhere on Wikipedia, in the related articles. And since it is mentioned there in the Behavior and personality section, showing that femininity may be defined by something other than social factors, and is subject to debate, a bit about it should clearly be included in the intro. Or the intro should clearly define femininity in more than just one way. Per WP:LEAD. Plenty of articles give different definitions of a term, and yet you and others are restricting this article to only one when there is more than one definition. Even "popular dictionary" definitions would be considered solid enough sources to define femininity in another way in the intro. I know how Wikipedia works on that matter and cannot be fooled whatsoever. What defines femininity is clearly debated and debatable and yet you and others are arguing to define femininity in only one way. Many researchers state that gender is not only socially constructed, which is one (if not the main) reason why transgender people are not simply seen as insane by the medical community. Read up on gender identity disorder, why don't you. Listen to what Chaz Bono has to say. Research has shown that biology may be the reason that some transgender people "feel like men" or "feel like women" -- that it is biology of the mind that has made them more inclined to identify by the social constructs "man" or "woman." So that definitely blows your "femininity is only socially constructed" definition out of the water. WHO's definition as well.

I'm pretty sure that if I took this to the wider Wikipedia community, they would agree with me and the other editors who have wanted a more inclusive intro. People have been complaining about the intro being limited for the longest now, and look at it. Still limited and biased. Biased because there is obvious debate about what defines femininity, and the intro only gives one side's definition of it. And while I agree that society largely defines it (femininity), I certainly don't believe that the way women feel, think, and act is only due to society. The same goes for men. And neither do many researchers. There's a reason most people fall into their assigned gender, while the minority fall outside of it (transgender). The only people I can see as only wanting femininity to be defined as socially constructed are feminists, and I see we have a few at this article. 50.19.199.152 (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The article Definition describes different kinds of definitions. Intensional definition describes the essence of something and a Working definition is the WHO definition. Perhaps we should start with that and say that there are two definitions. USchick (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

@Anon: Our article doesn't state that femininity is has nothing to do with biology, it states that femininity is distinct from biology. Nothing you have argued refutes that. The point you are arguing against is a straw man—no one is claiming that femininity has nothing to do with biology. The traits of femininity are mostly to accentuate or exaggerate differences between the sexes that exist biologically, but the specific ways in which these biological differences are exaggerated or idealized in a given culture are defined by society. We don't have a gene for wearing make-up for example. Kaldari (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

While I don’t agree that femininity is simply a social construct, I don’t necessarily object to that claim being in the lead. The fact of the matter is that having such a blatantly false claim in the lead, which most people know not to be true, serves to discredit what's in the rest of the article. And because people won’t be taking the rest of the article as seriously I then don’t have to worry so much about what is in in. In short, those who read the lead will know who has written the article and what their slant is.

The fact of the matter is that what we have come to describe as “feminine behaviour”, as distinct from “masculine behaviour”, has arisen from our observation of the general behavioural differences between females and males. The main reason for the substantial behavioural differences amongst females, such as greater gentleness, empathy and sensitivity has its roots in the brain structure of females as compared to males. Therefore our notion of what it means to be feminine is not simply a social construct but has a significant biological origin.

The rejection of this truth by some has its origin in the fact that for some individuals, their masculine or feminine behaviour does not match what is typical for their male or female physical biology. For this reason they wish to separate, in their own minds an in the minds of society in general, femininity from femaleness and masculinity from maleness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.24.50 (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, I believe the point you are arguing is a straw man. The intro says, "Femininity is socially constructed and distinct from biological female sex." That pretty much says it has nothing to do with biology, no matter how you look at it. You already stated, "The textbook states unambiguously that femininity is socially defined and not biologically defined." Therefore, it is claiming that femininity has nothing to do with biology. Others at this talk page have basically stated the same thing. So stop playing word games, and essentially insulting my intelligence. If I were to say "women are idiots," that would be taken to mean "all women are idiots," would it not? And in the same vein that I wouldn't need to specifically and insultingly state "all women are idiots" to get across my point, the intro does not have to specifically state "femininity has nothing to do with biology" to get across its point. The wording "Femininity is socially constructed and distinct from biological female sex." gets across that point just fine. If it were in any way ambiguous, I would not have "interpreted" the line the way that I did. And to be even clearer, what I am arguing for (which is already explicitly stated above) is the representation of both sides in the intro. And since you state that no one is saying that femininity has nothing to do with biology, altering the intro in the way (or similar to the way) I suggested should not be a problem. There should be no problem in making it so that the intro does not send the message that femininity has nothing to do with biology. Your wording only defines femininity as a social construct without offering that femininity may be due to biological factors, as many researchers believe that the formation of masculine and feminine identities are due to both (the WHO calling gender a social construct is especially debated). Your intro also states that it is distinct from biological sex, when, yes, my arguments refute that. In fact, if you want to play the "not specifically stated" game, neither of your sources specifically state that the two terms (femininity and biological sex) are distinct from each other, as already pointed out by USchick in the #Lead discussion when referencing the WHO source. Let's be clear here that "can be distinct" is not necessarily the same thing as "is distinct." Personally, I fail to see how they are distinct when, as I mentioned earlier, most people fall comfortably into their assigned gender. But this isn't about my personal opinion. It's about what researchers state. And they are divided on what forms femininity, as shown in this very article and by the following sources:

Reinventing the sexes: the biomedical construction of femininity and masculinity Race, gender, and science. (1997) From Page 2: "We will also see how the conceptual division between masculinity and femininity has caused difficulties in scientists recent biological research."

From Page 4: "Most feminists subscribed to the thesis of Simone de Beauvoir, who argued that 'women are not born, but made to be women,' suggesting that only sociocultural factors affect the development of femininity in behavior. This thesis was contradicted by knowledge developed through biomedical research. Since 1959, biomedical researchers have described how the sexual organs bathe the embryo with hormones in the womb, resulting in the birth of an individual with a male or female brain." More? Okay, here's another line from Page 4: Scientists identified a distinctively male or female brain to predict future behavioral development in a masculine or feminine direction. Over the past thirty years, they have increasingly claimed types of behavior in males and females, both animal and human, are affected by prenatal hormones. In humans, such behavior varies from sexual orientation, career choice or mothering, to mathematical and verbal skills. Most effects of hormones on differentiating brains turned out to be categorically divided according to traditional perceptions of feminine and masculine characteristics: Male hormones potentiated future behavior; female hormones potentiated male behavior."

Masculinity and Femininity in the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. (2010) On Page 30, the text quite clearly asks: How important are biology and social influences in the development of masculinity and femininity?

Gender, power, and communication in human relationships. (1995) On Chapter 14, Page 333: "One's masculinity or femininity became known as a sex role, a gender role, or simply as gender that could vary independently from one's biological sex. When the term sex is used, it refers generally to one's biological or physical self; gender points to the psychological, social, and interactive characteristics. Social scientists soon learned that although gender and sex could diverge, they tended to covary. Women are more likely to be feminine than are men, and men are more likely to be masculine than are women. The close affiliation between biological sex and psychological gender has been explained in a variety of ways. MacCorquodale (1989) summarized the dialogue: The relative weight given by a belief system to social versus biological factors results in an ideology that maximizes or minimizes sex differences. Within both feminist and traditional systems of belief, there is a division between those who believe the influences of biology are indirect and mediated by society (social constructionists) and those who believe that direct effects of biology endow each gender with certain essential characteristics (biological essentialism). (Sayers, 1982, p.5). The nature versus nurture question has been debated extensively; it is continually revitalized by new research findings."

Sexual politics: an introduction. (2000) Page 37: "Oakley's sex/gender dichotomy had a considerable influence on a generation of sociologists who were encouraged to focus on the cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity - prising open and shedding critical light on the ways in which the 'norms' of masculine and feminine behavior are regulated, policed and reproduced in our society - and the ways in which power structures, relations of power, and inequalities are justified and legitimised by reference to these cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity. The sex (biology)/gender (culture) dichotomy is still a commonly cited distinction but has recently come in for some rigorous criticism by queer theorists and other postmodernists who are unhappy with what they see as a dangerous simplification."

So, yes, what defines femininity - biological or sociological factors, or both - is heavily debated (there is more of the same under different searches and in recent medical journals). And as such, there shouldn't be only one side presented in the intro -- that femininity is socially constructed and distinct from biological female sex -- when that one side is not absolute. The previously suggested intro, shown in #The lead sentence section, is more accurate: Femininity (also called womanliness) refers to qualities and behaviors generally associated with women and girls, whether they be inborn or socialized. In most cultures positive feminine features include gentleness, patience and kindness. Femininity is distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system." But since it seems the only way I will get the current intro to be neutral in its presentation is to bring the wider community in on this, I'm starting a WP:RfC below. 50.16.70.124 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should biological factors also be mentioned in the intro as a possible cause of femininity?

What should and shouldn't be in the intro of this article has been extensively debated, as the talk page can attest to.

Currently, one view is that the intro is fine as it is, and is not necessarily biased. The other view is that it is biased, as well as narrow, because it only represents one side of a debated topic. Right now, it defines femininity as only socially-constructed and distinct from the female biological sex, when researchers suggest that biology is (or may be) a factor in masculine and feminine identities/traits as well.

Basically, outside opinions are needed on this. The most recent discussions about it are above and below this RfC post. 50.16.70.124 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Request for quotes - The lead certainly reads as if the article is exclusively devoted to the meaning of feminity as a "social construct" to the exclusion of any physical/biological/genetic meanings of the word. To help uninvolved editors provide an opinion on this RfC: can editors who propose to expand the scope of the article to include physical/biological/genetic meanings please provide some quotes from sources that define (or merely use) "feminity" to include physical/biological/genetic meanings? Also, if there are significant sources that discuss the concept for non-human animals, that may be relevant. The sources should be high quality reliable sources, preferably scholarly. Please provide quotes, not just a link to Google Books. If the quotes are already above in this Talk page, please reproduce them here so the conversation can be consolidated. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Noleander. I provided quotes, page numbers, and the year of the books in the primary section above this one, not just the Google links, to show that femininity is debated among researchers and others as either sociological, biological, or both. It seems like a waste of space to again reproduce them here (I know how having an RfC too cluttered can deter others from weighing in, and I may get less replies), but if you feel it will help, here they are again:

Reinventing the sexes: the biomedical construction of femininity and masculinity Race, gender, and science. (1997) From Page 2: "We will also see how the conceptual division between masculinity and femininity has caused difficulties in scientists recent biological research."

From Page 4: "Most feminists subscribed to the thesis of Simone de Beauvoir, who argued that 'women are not born, but made to be women,' suggesting that only sociocultural factors affect the development of femininity in behavior. This thesis was contradicted by knowledge developed through biomedical research. Since 1959, biomedical researchers have described how the sexual organs bathe the embryo with hormones in the womb, resulting in the birth of an individual with a male or female brain." More? Okay, here's another line from Page 4: Scientists identified a distinctively male or female brain to predict future behavioral development in a masculine or feminine direction. Over the past thirty years, they have increasingly claimed types of behavior in males and females, both animal and human, are affected by prenatal hormones. In humans, such behavior varies from sexual orientation, career choice or mothering, to mathematical and verbal skills. Most effects of hormones on differentiating brains turned out to be categorically divided according to traditional perceptions of feminine and masculine characteristics: Male hormones potentiated future behavior; female hormones potentiated male behavior."

Masculinity and Femininity in the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. (2010) On Page 30, the text quite clearly asks: How important are biology and social influences in the development of masculinity and femininity?

Gender, power, and communication in human relationships. (1995) On Chapter 14, Page 333: "One's masculinity or femininity became known as a sex role, a gender role, or simply as gender that could vary independently from one's biological sex. When the term sex is used, it refers generally to one's biological or physical self; gender points to the psychological, social, and interactive characteristics. Social scientists soon learned that although gender and sex could diverge, they tended to covary. Women are more likely to be feminine than are men, and men are more likely to be masculine than are women. The close affiliation between biological sex and psychological gender has been explained in a variety of ways. MacCorquodale (1989) summarized the dialogue: The relative weight given by a belief system to social versus biological factors results in an ideology that maximizes or minimizes sex differences. Within both feminist and traditional systems of belief, there is a division between those who believe the influences of biology are indirect and mediated by society (social constructionists) and those who believe that direct effects of biology endow each gender with certain essential characteristics (biological essentialism). (Sayers, 1982, p.5). The nature versus nurture question has been debated extensively; it is continually revitalized by new research findings."

Sexual politics: an introduction. (2000) Page 37: "Oakley's sex/gender dichotomy had a considerable influence on a generation of sociologists who were encouraged to focus on the cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity - prising open and shedding critical light on the ways in which the 'norms' of masculine and feminine behavior are regulated, policed and reproduced in our society - and the ways in which power structures, relations of power, and inequalities are justified and legitimised by reference to these cultural constructions of masculinity and femininity. The sex (biology)/gender (culture) dichotomy is still a commonly cited distinction but has recently come in for some rigorous criticism by queer theorists and other postmodernists who are unhappy with what they see as a dangerous simplification."

There is also mention of this debate in the Femininity#Behavior and personality section. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that biological factors do indeed deserve a mention in the lead and that the statement denying them should be removed. There are many physical traits that are considered feminine, such as wide-set eyes, a strong waist-to-hip ratio, and breasts. Much of femininity is culturally determined, but stating that it has no biological component is misleading. The real problem here may be that there is more than one way to understand the word "femininity." "Gender," for example, has about five correct definitions. The WHO, for example, defines "gender" as a social construct, but most dictionaries list it as a synonym for "sex." Similarly, in common speech (and dictionaries), people think of "femininity" as "womanliness," etc. in general. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Darkfrog24. Below in the subsection, Noleander also agreed with specifically mentioning biological factors in the lead (which I'm sure you already know). It's just that I moved the extended discussion out of the RfC so that it wouldn't deter outsiders from commenting in the RfC (being too long and all). And I've definitely already brought up the narrow WHO definition of gender. Thank you again. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Continued discussion

I think everyone is in agreement that biology forms a part of what we call 'femininity'. So I'm not really sure why we need an RfC to determine that. The question isn't whether biology influences female behavior and actions, because of course it does. If you read the intro, you see two 'concepts':

• female gender (aka female biological sex)
• femininity (socially-defined thing that people equate with femaleness)

Are high heels feminine? Are they biological? What about lace? Silk? Lipstick? High-pitched voices? Intelligence? Strength? Blonde hair?

Some things are considered feminine but have no relationship to how a particular person develops biologically. They might stem from certain biological traits, but are they realistically biological? 36-24-36? How many women are size zero? I hope you understand what is *REALLY* being said when we have the phrase "distinct from the female biological sex" in the lead. -- Avanu (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The RfC is needed because the intro currently only presents femininity as a social construct, when that is debated. This is not about material things that are called feminine. This is about women generally thinking and acting a certain way, which has been called femininity, and what makes a person feminine. What makes a person feminine -- biological or sociological factors, or both -- is heavily debated. The sources I provided show that. The intro, however? Does not reflect that, and only positions femininity as a social construct. Your description of femininity above -- as a "socially-defined thing" -- is exactly what I'm talking about. Many researchers do not agree with that point of view -- that femininity is simply a "socially-defined thing." And one of your questions (intelligence, not the high-heel silliness, etc. you have thrown about) is something researchers are trying to find out when it comes to its relation to biological sex (strength, as in physical strength, is something they've connected more so to men for the longest now, but neither intelligence nor strength are significantly what the masculine/feminine debate is about).

If everyone here is in agreement that biology forms a part of what we call femininity, then there shouldn't be a problem with putting the biology aspect in the intro. Because, no, it's not currently there, and it's no misinterpretation of mine either. If it were, there wouldn't be so many complaints about the intro (as recently as an IP who responded before me above). So no thank you, I don't need a lesson on gender and gender categories. Already well-versed on the topic. I hope you understand that your intro is currently biased, and that I asked for unbiased opinions regarding this RfC (AKA outside opinions). I'm not keen on people who are defending the intro cluttering the RfC, which is meant for outside opinions. 50.16.70.124 (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify what I mean again about, I'm going to reiterate the two 'concepts':

• female gender (aka female biological sex)
• femininity (socially-defined thing that people equate with femaleness)

I've written an alternative lead for you, and this idea that you need to *only* have people comment here who never have commented before is just silly. I think we're in agreement substantially or entirely, it is simply a matter of phrasing and comprehension. As I said above, everyone is in agreement that femininity is related to "female biological sex", but I think you're looking at this like the Shadow equating to a Bit of the object casting it. If we imagine a Venn Diagram of these 2 concepts, we will see some overlap, of course. But the degree to which these two concepts overlap is determined by a society. They may overlap 100%, or they might not overlap at all (unlikely). But they are not the same concept, and femininity is not 'gender + X, Y, and Z'. To address something you mentioned above, Intelligence in relation to one's gender is not a function of femininity. HOWEVER, playing dumb so that guys will like you or feel superior, is a function of femininity (especially relating to masculinity in this example). Femininity is like the adjective describing the female. We don't say "see how female she is", but we say "see how feminine she is".

Alternative lead wording: "Femininity is a set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with women and girls. Femininity is socially constructed and although it can encompass traits found in the female biological gender, femininity is a distinct concept."

-- Avanu (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, I see you as trying to work with me, so I do thank you for that. As for reiterating, you can reiterate the two 'concepts,' but it does not negate the fact that the current lead is biased and leaves out the fact that femininity may be due to biological factors. I will also reiterate that I don't need a lesson on gender or gender categories, so please stop seemingly trying to teach me. I never stated that femininity and female biological sex are the same thing, and have clearly demonstrated an understanding of the two terms. I did state, "Personally, I fail to see how they are distinct when, as I mentioned earlier, most people fall comfortably into their assigned gender." But that is not the same as saying they are the same. That was me basically speaking of the overlap you mentioned. My main point is that the current intro is not neutral because there is no mention of biology being a cause of femininity, and because there is clear debate about this topic, which leads to my other point: Some researchers and others are in disagreement with some statements on this talk page that femininity is mostly or only socially-constructed; some believe that sociological and biological factors are equally responsible for creating femininity. You yourself also conflate "female gender" with "female biological sex," even though "gender" and "sex" are distinguished enough (even in the current lead). But then you distinguish it later, at the bottom of your statement there, which is odd. But, yes, you speak of an overlap. And by mention of an overlap, we are on the same page. Because I am arguing for mention of the biology overlap -- that biology may play a part in femininity. I'm also not sure why you and Kaldari keep bringing up material things in reference to masculinity and femininity, when, in actuality, masculinity and femininity can apply to non-human animals as well. The first source I listed above demonstrates that. So all this talk of high heels and makeup is not needed. I am not thinking of masculinity and femininity in terms of material things, and the sources I listed aren't focusing on that either. What I am speaking of (and the sources as well) is personality and behavior. While that may involve high heels and makeup for some, that is beside the point, because masculinity and femininity have a lot more to them than just the material things associated with them. Your suggested alternate wording still reads a little too biased, I feel, in light of the debate about it among researchers, scholars, and the like. I'm also not fond of the wording "female biological gender" when we are trying to separate "sex" from "gender." So I propose the following alternative lead wordings, though I still don't view the two things as distinct as you make them out to be:

Femininity is a set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with girls and women. Though largely socially constructed and distinct from the female biological sex, femininity may encompass biological factors as well. What traits are associated with femininity usually depend on a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context. Women, men, and transgender people can all exhibit feminine traits.

Or...

Femininity is a set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with girls and women, whether they be inborn or socialized. Femininity is distinct from the female biological sex, as women, men, and transgender people can all exhibit feminine traits. What traits are associated with femininity largely depend on a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context.

As for commenting in the RfC, I never stated *only* uninvolved editors should comment in the RfC. I stated that, "I asked for unbiased opinions regarding this RfC (AKA outside opinions). I'm not keen on people who are defending the intro cluttering the RfC, which is meant for outside opinions." And I mean that. RfC is indeed for outside opinions, though involved editors may comment there. I was saying that I already know how you and some others at this talk page think on the topic and that I didn't create this RfC to hear those same opinions again. Outside editors can simply look at the talk page discussions that I directed them to. They already have enough to read from that alone, and don't need to read through the same thing again. I have definitely witnessed how having an RfC that is cluttered or deemed "too long" makes others not want to weigh in. That's why I moved this particular discussion here. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support changing lead - The sources above definitely indicate there are a variety of views of "femininity", perhaps even a sharp disagreement. Clearly the lead needs to reflect the various definitions. The sentence from the proposal above "Though largely socially constructed and distinct from the female biological sex, femininity may encompass biological factors as well" seems like a very good characterization, and should probably be in the first 2 or 3 sentences. I understand that some editors may find the clean definition "femininity is a social construct, period" very tempting, but the article must follow the sources (editors cannot pick-and-choose which sources' definitions to use, and cannot rely on their own viewpoint). If the sources provide a variety of interpretations to "femininity", so must the lead paragraph. --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again, Noleander. I think I prefer my first alternate lead proposal, too. And what you stated about femininity referring to non-human animals may also be relevant enough to place in the lead if we can get access to reliable sources specifically addressing that; we likely could even have an entire section on it, but I suppose that is for another discussion. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the debate is oversimplified here. Obviously femininity encompasses biological traits and factors. That doesn't mean that femininity isn't socially defined. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. I would be perfectly happy with the sentence "Though socially defined and distinct from the female biological sex, femininity may encompasses both social and biological factors." I also don't see any reason to modify the sentence "What traits are associated with femininity...". Kaldari (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That is an absolutely perfect way to state it. -- Avanu (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the debate here is not oversimplified in my opinion. It's overcomplicated. There is nothing at all wrong with stating that femininity may be due to biological factors. And since what defines femininity -- sociological or biological, or both -- is heavily debated, both should be mentioned in the lead. Kaldari, you state that, "Obviously femininity encompasses biological traits and factors." But my problem with the current intro is that it does not state that at all, and definitely implies that femininity is only a social construct (if not outright saying it). I am not the only one who currently sees it that way, which makes it a problem. Really, what is wrong with my proposal? Why is it so difficult to just instate one of them, preferably the first one? I don't see why "largely" should be taken out of the "Though socially defined" sentence. In fact, it makes less sense to exclude "largely" when we are trying to say that femininity is not only due to social factors. If femininity is mostly due to sociological factors, which is disputed by some researchers, then it makes sense to say "largely" because it certainly isn't "all" or "only." And "mostly" is more so a WP:Weasel word. The same goes for the "What traits are associated with femininity" sentence. I added in "usually" for the same reason. But going back to "largely," it is also more neutral on the subject because, again, what defines femininity is heavily debated. Femininity being "largely" or "mostly" due to sociological factors is not entirely agreed upon. Judging by the sources I provided and more that can be found, it's not even mostly agreed upon. Different sources report different things, however. And as Noleander stated above, "editors cannot pick-and-choose which sources' definitions to use, and cannot rely on their own viewpoint." If there was some authoritative, widely-held definition of femininity, then maybe. But there isn't. WHO's definition of gender isn't even supported by most researchers today. We should be trying to accurately reflect the different interpretations/definitions of "femininity." I'm only agreeing to use "largely" as a compromise; it might also be because I happen to believe that "femininity" encompasses social factors more so than biological when you throw in the material items associated with it, but my own personal belief is not what is driving me. Having an accurate, more neutral lead is. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding what the IP 209.226.31.161 said, isn't "female biological sex" exactly the same as "female gender"? Sex (without a qualifier) is a word that encompasses several concepts, one of which is gender. But "sex" isn't as specific. -- Avanu (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, "sex" usually refers to the biological category and "gender" usually refers to the social category. I think the proposal discussed above is a good possible solution. Alternatively, I think we could remove the phrase "socially constructed" and just say "femininity is a distinct concept from biological sex," which is true regardless of any overlap. This way it wouldn't comment at all on the issue of biological or social causes for femininity. Then details about the actual debate can be left to the article body to be covered in-depth.--Aronoel (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a reasonable compromise to just leave that word out and still indicate it is clearly a separate concept. This whole discussion strikes me as a thing we all clearly understand, it is simply a matter of describing it to everyone's satisfaction. -- Avanu (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to get off track, but is anyone interested in having 2 clear definitions instead of trying to combine them into a confusing one? Definition: Intensional definition describes the essence of something and a Working definition is the WHO definition. USchick (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment about "femininity is a distinct concept from biological sex," – We already went around in circles about this before. There is no proof of this. USchick (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

USchick....

Female = one who is female.

Femininity <> Female

i.e. they are distinct concepts.

Logic, not original research. Seriously I think everyone 'gets it', but some are just being stubborn. This is one of those things that are so basic and well known that it's incontrovertible. -- Avanu (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The length of this discussion should tell you that it's not that basic. USchick (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It is like people arguing over whether a shadow is real or not. -- Avanu (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, which proposal is that? Mine, or Kaldari's reworking of mine? I stated above that I'm not really for leaving out the words "largely" and "usually," and why that is. I also can't agree with just moving "socially constructed" out of the intro, because I feel that the fact that femininity may be due to social construction, biology or both should be mentioned there in the intro. WP:LEAD definitely goes over what should be mentioned in the intro of articles, and this should be mentioned there from what I interpret (the lower body of the article is what is used to go into deeper discussion about this debate). Plus, leaving it as "femininity is a distinct concept from biological sex" can still give the impression that femininity has nothing to do with biology, especially with the rest of the intro only mentioning sociological factors: "What traits are associated with femininity usually depend on a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context."

Avanu, I'm not being stubborn. I've made my reasons clear above, and have made clear that researchers are not entirely in agreement with your definitions of things (definitely not sure about your latest example to USchick, but I ask again that you please stop with the lessons). It's not that difficult to go by different sources and not define femininity as absolutely one thing more than the other. But, as shown above, I am willing to go with "largely"...just as long as there is no implication of "only." 209.226.31.161 (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The article isn't titled "Scientific Definition of Femininity". Society-at-large has a concept of what it is, and its exceedingly clear that we all agree that at the very least, it is largely defined by society. Of course it contains things that are based in female biology, but since it is not anchored to that, it is clearly distinct. We don't need scads of researchers for us to see what is or is not considered feminine. The continual debate over obvious things is what makes me question either our communication skills or our potential stubborness. -- Avanu (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Its like the difference between saying "milk" and something is "milky". The concept of milky came from milk, but is not something equivalent to milk, and in fact, since it is a separated concept, could change over time. I feel like its very plain and clear but it simply needs to be explained in a way that conveys it so that we are communicating it between each other. -- Avanu (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't have to be titled "Scientific Definition of Femininity" to present both viewpoints. So I'm not sure what you are getting at with that. By that same token, I can argue that this article is not titled "Social Definition of Femininity." There is NOT ONLY ONE DEFINITION OF FEMININITY! MY sources and a scad of others prove that. What don't you and others get about that? We do not get to define a lead a certain way based on our personal beliefs, not mostly anyway. We first and foremost go by WP:Reliable sources here at Wikipedia. And, yes, scads of researchers say that femininity is (or may be) due to biological factors as much as sociological factors. Saying "we don't need scads of researchers for us to see what is or is not considered feminine" is rooted in personal interpretation, because "what is and what is not feminine" can be subjective, as this article's lead points out (one of the few things it actually gets right). Wikipedia needs reliable sources to define terms, and that is what I am going by. Not your and others' beliefs/personal definitions. I am not the one who objected to "largely." You and Kaldari did, by not accepting my proposal, which is pure stubborness if I have ever seen it (since we're on the subject). All I am asking for is that the intro of this article be neutral or somewhat neutral in its presentation of femininity, and you and others are fighting tooth and nail against it, even in the face of reliable sources. I don't need your personal definitions of femininity, because that means squat on Wikipedia. Saying "though largely socially constructed and distinct from the female biological sex, femininity may encompass biological factors as well" is a perfectly reasonable compromise, because it maintains your and others' beliefs that femininity has more to do with social factors while also acknowledging that it may be due to biological factors. The same goes for "what traits are associated with femininity usually depend on a variety of social and cultural factors..." Good grief. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

All that said, if I have to compromise again, which it seems that I do, I am hesitantly willing to go along with Kaldari's reworking of my proposal. More so the "socially constructed" line. Because I consider the "what traits are associated with femininity" line to be inaccurate, even though slightly inaccurate, without the word "usually" in there. It does not make sense to reestablish the traits as only sociological/cultural when we've already made it clear that they may be biological as well. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 01:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your phrase above demonstrates the problem: "maintains your and others' beliefs that femininity has more to do with social factors". I don't hold a belief that femininity has more or less to do with social factors or biological factors. What I *am* saying is that what people call feminine is defined by society. I've repeatedly acknowledged that there are biological factors that are a part of femininity. But the boundaries of what is called feminine are created by society. See the distinction? -- Avanu (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, nothing I have brought to this talk page has been "the problem." The problem has been with the intro, for some time now, as demonstrated by this talk page. From what you have stated, to me it is clear that you hold a belief. You keep stating it (that belief) without backing it up with sources. You have also fought to keep a narrow definition of femininity in the lead, despite reliable sources. Yes of course what people call feminine is defined by society. But what people call feminine is also defined by biology, and not just by researchers either (who, I might add, are also a part of society). When a heterosexual man sees the body of a naked woman, that is feminine to him. He defines her body, as well as her personality, to be feminine. See what is not a distinction to many? Like I stated, I don't need a lesson. So stop it. If anything I have familiarized you with the distinction between "sex" and "gender" (as Aronoel clarified above). It's time to move on, as I have recently stated that "I am hesitantly willing to go along with Kaldari's reworking of my proposal. More so the 'socially constructed' line." 209.226.31.161 (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

When I say "the problem", I simply mean that you seem to feel I hold a belief that femininity is ONLY based on social things, not biological things, and I don't have any such belief. -- Avanu (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I believe you feel that femininity is MOSTLY based on social things, and that this is clouding your judgment. Your comments showcase that. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, your statement about me is mistaken. I do not believe "femininity is MOSTLY based on social things". It isn't about me thinking its more social or more biological, I keep trying to explain the distinction and you keep missing it. I don't have a judgement here. Clearly people make a distinction between what is female and what is feminine. 'Female' equates 100% to things relating to biological femaleness. 'Femininity' equates to whatever the hell people decide to make it. -- Avanu (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Section break

Many of the things people associate with femininity are actually railing against biology. Look at foot binding in China. Women have smaller feet than men, but do they have smaller feet than children? That was the goal, to fight tooth and nail against biology by conforming to an impossible ideal.

On the issue of intelligence earlier, you wanted to turn it into a comparative biology discussion, who is smarter -- men or women? But the question for an article on femininity is not who is smarter, but why do women feel compelled to 'play dumb'? Biologically, women are just as smart as men. But femininity asks for a different outcome, but if society decides that smart women are sexy, and in many cases it does, then it is chic and feminine to be that.

It seems super clear to me where the factors that make up femininity arise. Some come from biological differences, some from unrealistic expectations of biology, some from just fads and fashion and societal expectations. But ultimately what gets put in the femininity pot is decided by society. -- Avanu (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to Kaldari's version before. I support using that version, but I still think avoiding the issue in the lead altogether could be the best solution. It's a complicated debate that is difficult to summarize, it may confuse readers who may already have trouble understanding the female and femininity distinction, and most importantly, the controversy only applies to femininity and behavior. That's why currently it's only mentioned in that section. Obviously there is no controversy about the biological vs social influences of makeup and clothes. Also, I just want to point out that there have already been a lot of authoritative sources discussed explaining the femininity and feminine distinction, so that is not OR--Aronoel (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, I don't see why this "further discussion" section is needed. The resolution is taking place above. This section is just more of your personal opinions about femininity. If you wanted to create a "section break," you could have just done that. On the issue of intelligence earlier, no, I did not want to turn this into a comparative biology discussion of who is smarter -- men or women. You did. You keep bringing up high heels, makeup, intelligence and "playing dumb" as if the above discussions by me are at all about that. It isn't. Wikipedia is not a forum, per WP:NOTAFORUM, and I do not want to discuss this with you. I want the intro to represent biological and sociological factors as defining femininity, which is backed up by reliable sources. Not some comparative biology discussion based on our own personal opinions. Not some comparative biology discussion at all.

Aronoel, neither my nor Kaldari's version is confusing. Nor is it a difficult debate to summarize. Most readers are not so unintelligent that they won't understand the simple sentence proposed by me or Kaldari. I also mentioned WP:LEAD. Well, per WP:LEAD, it should be in the intro. Per WP:LEAD, specific mention of the debate should even be in the intro. All I am arguing for, however, is representation of biological and sociological factors in the lead. I don't buy your explanation for why this is not currently mentioned in the lead. And leaving out "socially-constructed"? I explained above that it still leaves in the implication that femininity is only defined by society. So, no, I won't agree to that. As for "a lot of authoritative sources explaining the femininity and feminine distinction," I've read through all of you guys' back and forth, and all I saw being used for that was the WHO, which gets "gender" wrong when it comes to what most researchers have to state on the matter. And WHO also doesn't use the word "distinct," which was my point on that. Now can we please get back to the matter at hand? The compromise. We stated that Kaldari's version is fine, so let's go with that. And keep in mind my objection to removing "usually" from the "traits" line. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I not only object to the word, “largely” in the phrase “Though largely socially constructed” as it is POV, I reject the claim that it is a “social construct”. While dress and some behaviours may be socially constructed, the phrase suggests that the brain structure of females has played no role in the behaviour that we have come to describe as feminine.

We all agree that the word “femininity” is socially defined, given that the every word in the English language is social defined so why are we stating that in the lead? What is not socially defined is what we have come to call feminine behaviour because much of it is an outgrowth of the nature of the female brain. Of course I am not including the trivial behaviours such as styles of dress and so forth.

I like the wording “femininity is a distinct concept from biological sex”, but if social influences are mentioned then biological influences must also be mentioned. I support the idea of leaving that discussion to the body of the article. That being said the previous version of the lead which read “Femininity is distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics.” was just fine and said the same thing.

Thanks for your work 209.226.31.161.

Dave3457 (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not typical female behaviour is biologically determined or socially determined is irrelevant. Having breasts is biologically determined and included in what is defined as "femininity". That doesn't mean that biology determines femininity. Biology defines what is male and female. Society takes these definitions, polarizes and exaggerates them, and uses them to create a definition of femininity. Kaldari (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm being a bit too defensive here. I think we actually agree on a lot of points. We just need to find wording that expresses things in a way that is satisfying to everyone (or almost everyone). Kaldari (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Sociology

I finally got ahold of the Encyclopedia of Sociology (2000), which is a well-respected source and quite comprehensive (3481 pages!), so I could see what it has to say on the matter. It actually has an entire section titled "Femininity/Masculinity". The section starts out by saying:

Femininity and masculinity or one's gender identity (Burke, Stets and Pirog-Good 1988; Spence 1985) refers to the degree to which persons see themselves as masculine or feminine given what it means to be a man or woman in society. Femininity and masculinity are rooted in the social (one's gender) rather than the biological (one's sex). Societal members decide what being male or female means (e.g., dominant or passive, brave or emotional), and males will generally respond by defining themselves as masculine while females will generally define themselves as feminine. Because these are social definitions, however, it is possible for one to be female and see herself as masculine or male and see himself as feminine.

Later, it goes on to say: "We now understand that femininity and masculinity are not innate but are based upon social and cultural conditions." This is pretty close to our current wording, and a strong endorsement of the idea that femininity is socially defined. I think what is missing from the explanation is simply that biological factors can influence what society defines as "feminine" and even be included in the definition, but ultimately the definition itself is decided by society. There is no biological definition of femininity. This is why scientists don't talk about non-human animals being "feminine" or "masculine". Kaldari (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, you have found another source that supports your view regarding the nature vs nurture debate. Given that there are other sources that don't support your view on the subject, I don't understand your point. This debate is not about who is right but about whether both views should be presented or neither of them. And if presented, how. Dave3457 (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The above comment suffers from the same problem as the IP user. This isn't about nature vs. nurture. Society doesn't define what is 'female'. It is just biological. Society does, however, decide what is considered 'feminine'. There is a very easy to see distinction and for some reason it just isn't being properly communicated between these two 'sides'.

Of course, you can make an argument that anything anyone does is partly decided by our DNA, but that's another debate really. What we consider beauty, for example, is part DNA and part related to a zillion other socially constructed ideas. -- Avanu (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, you are mistaken, society defines a female as “a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei and normally having a vagina, a uterus and ovaries” Dave3457 (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't just "a source". It's one of the most highly respected sources in the field. As the American Library Association states: "Several one-volume encyclopedias on the subfields of sociology have been published since 1993. To date, however, there are no multivolume works with anything like the thoroughness and scholarly rigor that characterize this set. There is no question but that the Encyclopedia of Sociology is likely to be the definitive encyclopedia of sociology for the next generation." Given that this work devotes 9 pages to discussing femininity and does not mention any controversy about how it is defined, this seems to indicate that there is a mainstream consensus. Secondly, my point is that I think we can actually improve on this definition by incorporating some of the ideas expressed in the discussions above, although not in a way that contradicts the mainstream consensus. Perhaps there are other fringe views that can be discussed in the article, but I think the lead should reflect the predominant view in this case. Kaldari (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, While there may be other fringe views, the four independent sources cited above are not fringe and must be respected. Your argument suggests to me that this issue should be left to the body of the article. Also I do not agree that there is a mainstream consensus, although I do believe there is a consensus about what is deemed politically correct.

Dave3457 (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for looking the definition up in the Encyclopedia of Sociology, I'm actually a little surprised it so strongly rejects biology as a part of the concept of femininity. Considering the authority of this source, I feel a lot less comfortable removing "socially constructed" from the lead or adding something about biological traits to it. Now I'm not really sure how we're going to find an acceptable compromise for everyone. --Aronoel (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, your source is just a source. First of all, it's called Encyclopedia of Sociology, so I'm not surprised it rejects biology as defining femininity. Again, it is just one source. Different sources say different things on what defines femininity. You can call it authoritative on the issue of sociology all you want, but it is not authoritative on the issue of biology or on what defines femininity. I have displayed four independent, reliable sources that show femininity is considered to be due to biological factors as well, and that there is an ongoing debate about it. I have shown that researchers most definitely believe that femininity is partly due to biology, and most certainly can provide even more sources to support my arguments. This is NOT FRINGE. Certainly not with all the proof out there about the minds of transwomen. You gathering all the sources you want to support your view doesn't negate all the sources out there that support mine. And, I'm sorry, but science trumps popular belief any day. Just because it is popularly believed that only society defines femininity...doesn't make it true. And scientific consensus rejects the idea that femininity is only due to society. Mainstream consensus doesn't make anything more correct/true, in the same way that mainstream consensus believing that pedophilia includes post-pubescent teenagers doesn't make it true; scientific/medical consensus disagrees with that, just as it disagrees with your and others' belief that only society defines femininity.

You and Avanu are really pieces of work. Playing with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines in this way, to maintain your personal beliefs in the intro. The lead should represent both sides when it comes to defining femininity (and, yes, it is clear that you all have personal beliefs on the matter, so don't bother denying it). THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL FRINGE about femininity encompassing biological factors. I have shown that. Really, first, you both agree that femininity encompasses biological factors. Now you show your true colors again by agreeing with one source that outright rejects femininity as being due to biology. Laughable. But, hey, what do I expect from feminists? Feminists are the absolute worst when it comes to editing topics on gender and gender categories, because they want to describe everything as a simple social construct (as wonderfully displayed here at this talk page). Kaldari doesn't know what she's talking about as much Avanu doesn't. She says, "There is no biological definition of femininity. This is why scientists don't talk about non-human animals being 'feminine' or 'masculine'." LOL!! Someone clearly didn't read the first source I listed. Plenty of scientists subscribe masculine/feminine identities to non-human animals and use those terms for such identities. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any "personal beliefs" on this and I'm NOT here to portray "sides". I'm actually very puzzled why this whole thing is being debated, and again I think it is simply poor communication. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT IS PARTLY BIOLOGY. So why are we arguing? You're putting a lot of words in my mouth, attributing ideas to me, and you couldn't be more mistaken. Listen for once. This is a miscommunication. WE AGREE ENTIRELY IN THE SUBSTANTIVE PART OF THIS DEFINITION. -- Avanu (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have personal beliefs to me. A little higher, you quite clearly stated, "The above comment suffers from the same problem as the IP user. This isn't about nature vs. nurture. Society doesn't define what is 'female'. It is just biological. Society does, however, decide what is considered 'feminine'." And you ARE WRONG in considering that I have a problem. You ARE WRONG in saying that "this isn't about nature vs. nurture," because it is exactly about that to many people, as the sources I displayed demonstrate. And as for society deciding what is considered feminine, while that is true, researchers state that biology also determines what is feminine. So to say that femininity doesn't have a biological definition, especially when biology seems to have made some transwomen and even gay men act in ways that biological females typically would/do, is absurd. Society didn't make them act this way. Not mostly anyway. These behaviors also have to do with biology. So for the Encyclopedia of Sociology to say that "Femininity and masculinity are rooted in the social (one's gender) rather than the biological (one's sex)." and that "We now understand that femininity and masculinity are not innate but are based upon social and cultural conditions." is absolutely ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous to use that as some authoritative source on femininity. Like I stated, science trumps popular belief any day. I'm not sure why this is being debated either. It was easy enough to just accept my compromise and leave it at that. But, no, you had to act like it was/is some controversial proposal and drag this discussion out. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

To be clear AGAIN (since I explained before), the problem is miscommunication. YOU are NOT the problem. Miscommunication is. It was not a personal attack. And AGAIN, to be clear, EVERYONE here agrees that Femininity has biological components. So... why are we arguing? -- Avanu (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you refuse to go ahead and add biological factors for causing femininity to the intro...when this is backed up by reliable sources. That is no misommunication! 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Biology is determined by a fixed program that comes out of DNA. Hard science. Certain traits arise from DNA for women. Hard science. We end up with a FEMALE. Again, hard science. At this point, we diverge from hard science and ask, "Is she feminine?" The question indicates we ARE talking about a woman. Hard science declares 'this is a woman'. But hard science doesn't declare whether she is feminine. Are breasts feminine? Yes, sure. But what if fashion changes? What if people say women should have holes in their ears to be feminine? Or crushed feet? Or have their vagina sewn shut?

The point is, even though a LOT of what we call feminine are just biological traits, the decision whether those traits get called feminine is something society determines. So again, why are we arguing this? It's common sense. -- Avanu (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you cannot teach me about biology. I have demonstrated that I am well-informed on the subject, seemingly more than you are. "Feminine" may generally refer to "women," but some of what has come to be categorized as "feminine" is, according to research, also rooted in biology. Hard science recognizes femininity being rooted in biology. This is why hard science has shown that biological human males "who act like women" do so because they have minds that are very similar to biological human females. Society has come to consider certain behaviors "feminine" because women tend to act in these ways more so than men. Science believes this is not simply due to societal factors. There are transgender people for a reason, and existence of transgender people blows the notion that gender and gender categories are only social constructs right out of the water.

I don't know why you are bringing up all these weird scenarios, but it is not helping and does not matter. We are still debating this because you and others have yet to put into the intro that femininity encompasses biological factors. Put that into the intro, with respect to the way I proposed, and stop condescending to me, and I will be out of your hair. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is this even a debate?

I see a lot of people discussing the definition of Feminine or Femininity and I don't understand how this is so damned contentious.

It sounds like we have some people who want a scientific definition, which to me seems fine, but I think overall people know what femininity is without having to find a researcher to tell them. It is not an uncommon word. But whatever, either is fine, and should most likely be the same either way?

I keep seeing some people bring up nature versus nurture, and I wonder why. Femininity is a word whose expanse is determined not by what a woman HAS, but by what people think a woman SHOULD have. There is what makes a woman simply a woman, and there is what makes a woman a WOMAN. If that's not clear, look at Plato's theory of Forms. 'Femininity' encompasses all things that are in the ideal form. 'Female' is just female.

From Theory of Forms:

We call both the sky and blue jeans by the same color: Blue. However, clearly a pair of jeans and the sky are not the same color; moreover, the wavelengths of light reflected by the sky at every location and all the millions of blue jeans in every state of fading constantly change, and yet we somehow have a consensus of the basic form Blueness as it applies to them.

No one has ever seen a perfect circle, nor a perfectly straight line, yet everyone knows what a circle and a straight line are.

In that example, blue sky and blue jeans are real, just like biological factors are real in this discussion. But the realistic is then taken over to the consensus of the basic form and called Female, and then most polarized or super-Sized attributes are called Feminine.

• Why are we still debating? Who is saying Femininity isn't partly constructed of biological things? No one.
• Why are we still debating? Who is saying Femininity isn't partly constructed of socially-defined things? No one.
• Why are we still debating? Who is saying the boundaries of the definition of Femininity aren't made by a society? No one (as far as I can tell).

Why are we still debating? -- Avanu (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, Avanu. Since this discussion has mostly devolved into personal insults I don't think it's really worth continuing. --Aronoel (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Here you go again creating yet another discussion about it. Why is this being debated? Look above. This discussion is not worth continuing? Then fine. But you do not get to decide that the lead stays biased. Right now, it only represents the socially-constructed side, and I am not the only one to complain about that. An outsider in the RfC even stated that you are all wrong for your biased into. And until this is fixed, I will continue to complain about the intro. Trying to ignore me won't do a thing, because I will continue to complain to the wider the community about this until that intro is fixed. I will even attempt to fix it myself if ignored. Revert me all you want, but I will continue to complain and bring others in on this. Personally, I don't view calling feminists out as an insult. The sources I have provided quite clearly show where feminists stand on this issue. Insults started long before I made that comment, seeing as Avanu commonly refers to me as "a problem" and as "having a problem," and continually tries to teach me about sex and gender without even having known how "sex" and "gender" are commonly used. Why indeed are we still debating this, if there is no problem in mentioning that femininity is or may be due to biological factors? I am not the one who dragged out this discussion. Avanu is. It's easy enough to just present both sides in the lead, as Wikipedia leads are supposed to do. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You say it is biased, but I'm not seeing how it is. I don't agree that it "only represents the socially-constructed side". I think it makes it clear that Femininity is made up of biological and social factors. No one is trying to ignore you, just trying to ask you questions. Also, I'm not a feminist, nor am I am female.

Regarding use of the word problem. I have tried to explain how this is not personal, but you aren't hearing me.

"Your phrase above demonstrates the problem" - talks about 'your phrase' not YOU.

"The above comment suffers from the same problem as the IP user('s comments)" - my mistake for not making this clear enough, see parentheses I added.

"To be clear AGAIN (since I explained before), the problem is miscommunication. YOU are NOT the problem. Miscommunication is. It was not a personal attack" - I explain clearly what the issue is, how it is not a personal attack.

So, are we clear now? -- Avanu (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The intro is biased for all the reasons I and others have stated throughout this talk page. The fact that you cannot see that, and won't even follow WP:LEAD or compromise anymore, is the word ridiculous at its best and shows just how corrupt this article's editors are. I don't care for you clarifying to me that I'm not the problem or your take on femininity. Or that you aren't a feminist, especially since one or two of the three of you are feminists. I care for what WP:Reliable sources say and different reliable sources say different things about what defines femininity -- regarding both biological and sociological factors. That should be in the lead. Period. You cannot keep that out of the lead based on your own personal opinion that the lead is fine, when more than one person has stated that the lead is NOT FINE -- that it only represents the socially-constructed side. If it was clear that the lead says femininity is made up of biological and social factors, there wouldn't be any complaints. What don't you understand about that? Look past your own stubborness and realize that. The lead being problematic to more than one person speaks volumes about how un-fine it is. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that you just offered up another compromise; I will weigh in below. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Does this change work for everyone?

Changed the lead a little bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Femininity&diff=437563511&oldid=437511598

From:

Femininity is a set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with women and girls. Femininity is socially constructed and distinct from biological female sex.

To:

Femininity is a set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with women and girls. Femininity is socially constructed, but made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors. This makes it distinct from a simple definition of biological female sex.

Does this work? -- Avanu (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That works for me. Yes, thank you, Avanu. It might need a little refining, but at least "biological factors" is specifically in there now. I'm not seeing how it is that much different than my proposals, or the reworking of my proposals, and why you couldn't just accept them, but I accept this proposal by you. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, your addition needs to be backed up by at least one of the reliable sources I provided, if not all. I'm thinking the first source I listed is best. I'll do that if no one else does. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you 209.226.31.161 for your undying effort. Everyone else should be ashamed of themselves for pushing personal bias. I hope we can all be more understanding going forward. USchick (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have a bias. As I said before, all of this seems like common sense to me, but if it helps to modify it slightly, fine. I don't see that anything substantive has really changed. -- Avanu (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, judging by my, Dave3457's, USchick's, Noleander's, Darkfrog24's, and even an extra IP's take on the lead before your change, adding "biologically-created factors" is a substantive change. And I appreciate it. USchick, you're welcome. I also added the sources to back it up and expanded the section regarding the debate about it. Everyone agreed that the actual debate should be handled and expanded in that section, so I believe all is okay now. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Precision

Comment This is the wrong word, to start with; "femininity" is the social contruction; correspondingly, we should not be using it in Leads, or this policy (except for such articles as Coco Chanel. When this gets around to discussing "femaleness", do let us know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson, do you mean we shouldn't say "Femininity is socially constructed"? If so, maybe you are right, but others at this talk page feel that we should. And since we appear to have achieved some sort of consensus on the matter, I'd rather leave it at that instead of debating it for many more hours/days/possibly months. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me like they are saying "femaleness" is the better subject for an article. Its completely clear that they say "femininity" is the social contruction. -- Avanu (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what, Pmanderson is saying, and would rather Pmanderson clarify. I do know that Pmanderson primarily deals with grammar, though, and I'm pretty sure a grammar reference was in there. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm a classicist. "Femininity" is the property of being feminine; clearly a social construction; some women and girls lack it; in another sense, it is a property of nouns, pronouns, and adjectives.. "Femaleness" is the property of being female, which may well be debateable for some people, but which a woman (whatever that means) cannot lack. That is what you appear to arguing about. (And I may be an "it"; I am not a "they"; that would be an abuse of the account.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think your comments are fantastic and perfect. You have an excellent grasp of the problem here. :) It is a problem of communication and precision in language. We have had several editors who miss the distinction between a set of things being defined by society, even though the members of that set themselves might be defined by biology or whatever else. -- Avanu (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't "miss the distinction" between anything. But you will continue to believe what you believe. Everything is defined by society, but I touch on that lower in this section in my response to you (after my response to Pmanderson). 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson, that's not quite what we've been arguing over. Somewhat, but not quite. We've been arguing because reliable sources say that femininity is not merely a social construct. While some girls and women may lack feminine behavior, that does not negate the fact that biology plays a role in femininity for some women and even men; according to research, it plays a role in femininity for all women (except maybe in the cases of some biological women who are transgender). Girls and women who lack feminine behavior are still considered to be feminine in the mind; according to research -- they still show emotion in ways that most human biological males wouldn't. The way that human biological males generally show emotion has been labeled "masculine." The way that human biological females generally show emotion has been labeled "feminine." And while I can understand how that is a social construct, I also look at it as having merely given these different behaviors a name. I don't believe that had gender and gender categories never been exaggerated (as I agree that they have been), men and women would generally act the same. I believe there would still be some distinct behavior going on between the sexes. I don't see the problem in having named these behaviors. And let's not forget that the physical traits of women (ones due to biology), such as breasts, have also been deemed "feminine." Merely a name to describe these traits. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, I disagree, while IP 209.226.31.161 may have lost his cool with you for I while there, as I did earlier, he has been very clear, logical and fair. He has also given me back my will to fight :) Dave3457 (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I personally think Avanu’s proposal is truthful and accurate but it doesn’t matter what I think, it is bound to be removed or changed by someone who knows a source, such as the Encyclopedia of Sociology, which contradicts the claim that biology plays any role.

Here are the three versions we have been fighting over.

1 - lead claims it is entirely cultural

2 - lead claims it is entirely biological

3 - lead claims it is a mixture of the two.

All three claims will be removed or changed on the grounds that there is a notable source that contradicts it. In fact this latest brewHaHa all began with someone changing the lead from version 3 to version 1.

We need to state something that is true for every reliable source that exists which means making no claim at all.

This means saying something like….

There is much debate about the extent to which sociological factors versus biological factors play in determining what is considered feminine behavior.

I appreciate my grammar in the above isn’t very good, and I welcome a rewording but I think we need to just leave it at that or else we are all just going to be back here again later, fighting over what the truth is.

My suggested lead is...

Femininity is a set of roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a society generally associates with women and girls. Some behaviors that are generally considered feminine include gentleness, empathy and sensitivity. There is much debate about the extent to which sociological factors versus biological factors play in determining what is considered feminine behavior.

Femininity is distinct from femaleness, which is a biological and physiological classification concerned with the reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics.

The complement to femininity is masculinity.

I hate to have complicated things by including some behaviors that are considered feminine but a lead that is about femininity has to include some examples of it or its not doing its job.

Dave3457 (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Dave. I see you're responding to Aronoel's statement about not continuing discussion with me. And you're right that I "lost my cool," though I do feel I had valid reason for doing so. I wasn't truly looking to upset people by trying to get a more neutral lead, but my frustration just came out in that moment. I apologize for not being more professional. If this were work, that behavior would not have been appropriate at all. I need to remember to always think of Wikipedia talk pages as more of a work place instead of sometimes as a forum.

I'm not sure when you all fought about the lead claiming femininity is entirely biological, because I don't believe it has ever been that, but I must have missed that discussion or part of it. While your proposal for the lead is a good proposal in my opinion, especially since it mentions the debate (as WP:LEAD says it should), I'd rather just keep the lead that is there now because it is clear that having "socially constructed" in the lead satisfies three of the main editors of this article. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave3457, you said "I personally think Avanu’s proposal is truthful and accurate but it doesn’t matter what I think, it is bound to be removed or changed by someone who knows a source, such as the Encyclopedia of Sociology, which contradicts the claim that biology plays any role."

This statement is not true.

The Encyclopedia of Sociology did say this: "Femininity and masculinity are rooted in the social (one's gender) rather than the biological (one's sex)." 'Rooted in', meaning that the boundaries of the definition are decided by the social. HOWEVER.... the definition that people decide includes biological factors and probably always will. PLEASE don't ignore that, it is why we have to keep arguing this stupid argument because we ALL agree, yet you're not seeing that we are in agreement. -- Avanu (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, that's your interpretation of what the Encyclopedia of Sociology means by its definition of femininity. Aronoel, for example, obviously feels that "it so strongly rejects biology as a part of the concept of femininity." We have not all been in agreement. We have only been half in agreement. I agree that people define femininity, but you and others have taken the fact that people define it -- when humans define everything, really -- to identify femininity as only or as mostly a social construct. The debate has been that some people (researchers included) do not view it as only or as mostly a social construct. And I know, I know, you agree that what we define as femininity encompasses biological factors. I get that. No need to keep debating this. Dave is not debating the sociological vs. biological anymore. He is proposing a new lead, which I have already commented on. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Is a ham sandwich made by a pig? No, it is made by a person, but yet it does include ham. -- Avanu (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Refer to everything I've stated above. Put simply, everything in this world has been defined by human beings. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Not the point though. When we define 'female', the definition comes from the one of the two parts of a heterosexual pair. In other words, it isn't terribly subjective. We don't really define it, as much as name it. However, when we come upon something like 'ugly', 'cool', or 'femininity', we DO define it. And that's why different people have different understandings of what is ugly or not. Or cool. Or feminine. Someone might stick a feather in their cap and call it Macaroni and another bloke might say it's stupid or ugly. And same thing is true of femininity. Without a doubt femininity will always include biological traits, and we ALL agree on that, so why do we keep arguing? -- Avanu (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It is the point, though. You say, "We don't really define it, as much as name it." That is partly the same thing I stated above about femininity. I stated: Girls and women who lack feminine behavior are still considered to be feminine in the mind; according to research -- they still show emotion in ways that most human biological males wouldn't. The way that human biological males generally show emotion has been labeled "masculine." The way that human biological females generally show emotion has been labeled "feminine." And while I can understand how that is a social construct, I also look at it as having merely given these different behaviors a name. I don't believe that had gender and gender categories never been exaggerated (as I agree that they have been), men and women would generally act the same. I believe there would still be some distinct behavior going on between the sexes. I don't see the problem in having named these behaviors. And let's not forget that the physical traits of women (ones due to biology), such as breasts, have also been deemed "feminine." Merely a name to describe these traits. So, in closing, femininity is as much named as it is defined. You keep arguing against reliable sources who view this differently than you. You keep arguing with me because it is clear that we do not view femininity entirely the same way, no matter how much you claim that we do. It's also clear that we both want the last word. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

:) We are really saying very much the same thing. 'femininity can be as much named as it is defined' Make that tiny change and we're there. If you lived in a village of Amazons (the Greek kind), femininity would be something different. The 'female mind' that you describe above would not be tolerated as proper female behavior. Breasts would be cut off in favor of the ability to use the bow better. These biological traits can be expelled from femininity or brought back in. That's the difference. -- Avanu (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we are saying "very much the same thing"; I just don't agree that we see things entirely the same way on this matter, at least not always. In either case, you keep me on my toes in thinking (even if you always feel the need to give me lessons in things I already know about, which annoys me, LOL). So thanks for that. And good points about the Amazons. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

About the breast thing regarding Amazons, I do want to point out, however, that some sources, such as this one (though I'm not sure how reliable it is), dispute that they would cut off their right breasts or any breasts at all. Your point on the matter, whether the breast thing is true or not, is still a strong point about what may be considered feminine...so no worries about that. I just wanted to enlighten you about that part of the Amazon history being viewed as myth. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well of course it would be myth, since they're women... myther would be for men. How bad is the joke.....? -- Avanu (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Extra section break

IP 209, no the lead never proposed claim 2, I just included it for completeness sake.

Please note that I only said that “Avanu’s proposal is truthful and accurate”, I did not say it was good, and for two reasons.

Reason 1- As I said, someone in the future is undoubted going to justifiably object to it on the grounds that they have a source that supports claim 1. They are either going to just delete it or they are going to replace it with claim 1 or they are going to create something along the lines of my suggested version. I just went through the recent history of the lead and from june 23rd to July 04th, it has gone from claim 3 to no claim(deleted) to claim 1 and now its back to claim 3.
You say you have 3 involved editors on side but that’s not going to mean an end to this. In my opinion, the only relatively stable version is mine or something like it.

Reason 2- The fact that you guys are arguing over what the sentence means is evidence that the sentence isn’t clear. Sure, with much effort, think I now understand where Avanu is coming from with her phase “socially constructed”, but the average high school student is not going to be able to make much sense of the sentence. In your quest to make an accurate statement, at least with regards to your own POV’s, you forgot to make it intelligible for the average reader. I can also easily see someone who comes across it, trying to improve it. In my opinion, “social construction” as used in the sentence is simply too abstract and the fact that we have been arguing ad nauseum about its meaning here for some time now is evidence of that. I’m also concerned that people who read the sentence will think that “socially constructed”, means no biological input. For example, Aroneol, referring to a different proposed version containing the phrase “socially constructed”, but which didn't mention biologically-created factors, said earlier...

Thank you for looking the definition up in the Encyclopedia of Sociology, I'm actually a little surprised it so strongly rejects biology as a part of the concept of femininity. Considering the authority of this source, I feel a lot less comfortable removing "socially constructed" from the lead or adding something about biological traits to it.”

May I remind you that before that change of heart, she supported deferring the debate to the article body as I do.

While I don’t support your version, I have put it in. I’ll just wait awhile until we’re all back here again, at which point I’ll tell you I told you so :)
I replaced it with ...

Femininity is a set of behaviors and attributes generally associated with women and girls. Femininity is socially constructed, but made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors. This makes it distinct from a simple definition of the biological female sex. Some behaviors that are considered feminine include gentleness, empathy and sensitivity Women, men, and transgender people can all exhibit feminine traits.

The complement to femininity is masculinity.

I will let you guys add any references.

I removed the below sentence because it made claim 1.

What traits are associated with femininity depend on a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context.

I added examples because I think its a no brainer
I removed "roles" and "activities". I don't know who put that in but it doesn't make sense to me.

Of course, feel free to discuss if you object to any of my extra changes.
Dave3457 (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, are you saying someone will come along and remove the mention about biological factors? If so, we can revert them. WP:Consensus on this talk page has been to include biological factors in the intro. An editor cannot come along and have his or her version imply or state that only cultural factors define femininity, unless he or she achieves new consensus for that on this talk page. And even then, the intro would be biased and not neutral (as even two outside editors in the RfC basically stated), and complaints could be made about that to the wider community. There would be no valid reason to keep the mention of biological factors out of the lead, when reliable sources back up biological factors partly determining femininity and when the biological/sociological issue is extensively debated. As for the intro that was agreed upon before your recent change, I was saying that we have three editors strongly in favor of keeping the "socially constructed" line. We also have two (you included) who do not want it there, and one who (me) doesn't mind too much as long as biological factors are mentioned there as defining femininity as well. So, obviously, we should try and find a balance that satisfies all. Or at least generally satisfies all. I felt that Avanu's latest version did that. Yes, you weren't completely happy with it (neither was I), but at least biological factors were now in the lead, and they still are. Yesterday, Avanu and I were not arguing over the line being in the intro. We were arguing over the definition of femininity, which, yes, includes "what is and what is not" a social construct. And I suppose that's your point: Social construction is not so clear in this case. And while I agree that it isn't, there is no denying that femininity is partly social construction.

I don't mind your text changes to the intro, but others here might. The only problem I had with your intro change was that, as I stated in my edit summary, "you removed all the sources that support the line about biological factors, which in return made those same sources invalid below -- non-existent. You have to be more careful with your editing." References that are duplicated are usually being duplicated from the primary reference source. For more on what I mean about that, see Wikipedia:REF#Footnotes and References -- at the bottom where it talks about attributes. If still using the reference, the primary one should never be removed; it makes the duplicates nothing but attributes if you do. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, it does make sense to me to include "roles" in the intro, because of social and gender roles. And the line "What traits are associated with femininity depend on a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context." just needed some tweaking. Yes, we already mention social factors as partly determining femininity, but that line is talking about all the other ways it is determined as well. Your issue is with the part that says "what traits are associated with," because it makes it seem as though only sociological factors determine femininity after we've already made clear that it's more than that. So you should have left that sentence as "Traits associated with femininity include a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context." 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not stuck on my wording, just that once I realized what the kerfuffle was really about, there was no reason not to make a minor change that was more accomodating of the concerns mentioned. To me, the meaning in the lead didn't change, just the emphasis. -- Avanu (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know how you felt about the previous lead before specific mention of biological factors was included, Avanu. It's just that others (myself included) disagreed with you that the lead already represented biological factors as determining femininity. I didn't see that at all. It only stated "socially constructed" and "distinct" from the biological female sex. The exact opposite of representing biological factors as determining femininity, in my opinion. But it's best not to dwell on that anymore because we aren't going to agree there. I made these changes to Dave's version, per above and because it flows better. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this works too. I feel I should have thought of placing it there myself. I'm sure I immediately placed it where I did to demonstrate the "variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context" line. But I'm satisfied with either order of that line. Both versions work. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 905.x.x.x., sorry to cause you trouble, yea as it happens I was familiar with naming references to use them twice, I should have checked. Also you seem to think that the new line is bullet proof but its not, its as POV as the “entirely nature” point of view. All the consensus amongst us doesn’t change that.

IP 905.x.x.x, Would adding "Some", creating the sentence "Some traits associated with femininity include a variety of social and cultural factors, and often vary depending on location and context." still result in a grammatically correct sentence? Grammar is not my strong point. I'd prefer it included if it does.

Regarding my lead “update”, please note that I didn’t go ahead and make the changes because I thought we had a complete consensus about what to put there but only a consensus that what was there couldn’t stand. I hated the idea of hundreds of people a day reading what was there.

I know you two(Avanu and IP 905.x.x.x) are probably thinking that this debate is over but I’m starting to have a change of heart. I just visited the Social constructionism wikipage and it reads...

When we say that something is socially constructed, we are focusing on its dependence on contingent variables of our social selves rather than any inherent quality that it possesses in itself.”

The key phrase here being... “we are focusing on”. Below is the sentence adjusted a bit, but where it should read the same thing.

While femininity is socially constructed, it is made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors.

I would be much happier with this version as it emphasizes the “we are focusing on” part of the definition of “socially constructed”. But I’m still not sure that the above sentence doesn’t contradict itself. A later sentence in the Social constructionism article reads....

Social constructs are generally understood to be the by-products of countless human choices rather than laws resulting from divine will or nature.

Does this sentence not in effect say that... femininity, since it is a social construct, is not the by-product, in anyway, of nature/biology? Note that I don’t take much solitude in the word “generally” in the above Social constructionism quote given that it is left out in the below definition I found.

From this definition, social constructs can be understood to be the by products of countless human choices rather than laws resulting from divine will or nature, however unintended or unconscious they might have been. [16]

And I strongly suspect that it is the source of the wiki quote which would make it the more authoritative of the two.

Dave3457 (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What new line are you speaking of, Dave? The biologically-created factors line? Yes, I believe it's bullet proof, per everything stated above. Anybody removing it from the lead would need to give pretty valid reasons for removing it. And WP:Consensus is a policy. People cannot go against it, unless new consensus is formed. And as I stated, no new consensus can give a valid reason for not including biological factors in the lead as determining femininity, when this can be backed up by reliable sources. Femininity is due to both (biological and sociological), and both should therefore be mentioned in the lead. It's as simple as that.

There's no point in adding "some" to the line you speak of." First of all, "some" is a WP:Weasel word, and we should avoid it when we can. It's used lower in the article because it cannot be avoided and is properly attributed. Most importantly, the line you speak of is not implying or saying "all." If it were, I would not be for that line whatsoever. I'd accept it, like I previously did, but would not have advocated re-including it. The only reason I re-included it is because it now uses the word "include," meaning "there are other things that make up femininity," such as biological factors, and because it speaks of other factors determining femininity (how it varies). Further, we already mention that femininity is also made up of biological factors, so it's not like that line can be taken to mean that femininity doesn't include them. So, really, why is the the word "some" needed in any way?

Your newest change -- the addition of "while" -- is not bad, but I don't like it because I feel it is unneeded and makes the sentence fall more on the weasel word side. However, to combat that, I would have worded it as "While socially constructed, femininity is" or "Though socially constructed, femininity is." That flows better than saying "While femininity is socially constructed, [so and so]." Basically, I feel that you are unnecessarily complicating things, Dave. There is no need to keep a sense of foreboding going on, and wondering what may happen to the lead in the future. Why keep arguing against aspects of the lead when everything is pretty much okay now? I get that you've been burned in the past on this talk page, and you're still not completely satisfied with "socially constructed" being in the intro, but not everyone is always going to be completely happy when compromises are involved. Like I mentioned, we are trying to find a balance that satisfies both sides. And if you don't call it "satisfied," then what I mean is "acknowledges both sides." You being completely happy with the intro is not going to happen when there are people who also want their side in the intro. Unless all or most editors here agree to exclude "socially constructed" and just leave that part up to the "both socially-defined and biologically-created factors" line, you are not going to be completely happy with the intro. That's just how compromises go. No, I don't feel that saying "femininity is socially constructed but made up of both sociological and biological factors" is a contradiction. I don't feel that way because femininity is partly social construction; we don't say it is only or mostly a social construction. We just say "socially constructed." No need to mention "partly" when the lead already mentions both sociological and biological factors. I have to admit that I feel you are nitpicking at the lead right now, Dave. I mean, you gotta accept a compromise, or else this issue will keep going on and on. It's just not possible to make you completely happy with the lead without going against what others want, unless all or most here agree to remove "socially constructed." And I don't see that happening (not with the current editors). 209.226.31.161 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 905.x.x.x, First, I don’t understand why you removed “(lede discussion)” from the heading. When looking at one’s watch list, the heading “Extra section break” tells you nothing about what is being discussed and as a result if some other editor looks at his watchlist he's not going to know what's being discussed.

Anyway, we’ll have to agree to disagree about how bullet proof the new line is, but I think I appreciate your position a bit more now. I also disagree about the word “some” being a weasel word in this case. For example... Some cows are black and white just as Some traits associated with femininity include...”. I do agree that the word “include” now makes the sentence accurate but I was hoping to include “some” for emphases, but I’ll try to do like a yogi let it go.

I also think your wrong about the definition of “socially constructed” not excluding biological factors and thus making the new line self contradictory but, even though you unjustly accused me of nitpicking, :) , I’ll also let it go without putting up a fuss, particularly since the new phasing of the new line mitigates things a bit for me.

That all being said I’m afraid you will not be able to argue consensus if someone shows up insisting that we instead use a line something like the following...

There is considerable debate within the scientific community concerning the extent to which sociological factors as compared to biological factors play a role in determining what is understood to be feminine behavior.

...for the reasons I’ve outlined above.

Now that we have something, in principle, that all the present editors, who care, seem to more or less to agree with, I think I have a crazy idea that might keep us from having to go though this, all over again. I’ll be creating a new section in a day or two that outlines my crazy, outside the box, idea. If you think it is a good idea I’ll run with it and notify all concerned. If you don’t, I’ll abort it.

Dave3457 (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I removed "(lede discussion)," because this whole discussion, starting with the #Definition of femininity section I created above, is about the lead discussion. We just have different title sections to break up the discussion and make replies easier. Look above, this section is a subsection of that lager section. Everyone at this talk page knows that we are talking about the lead. And if some outside editor is watching this article but not weighing in on this discussion, they know too, unless they are just tuning in. And if they are just tuning in, it's easy enough to see what this discussion is about.

"Some" is not needed for the reasons I stated above. And, yes, we'll have to agree to disagree that "some" is not a weasel word in this case. According to Wikipedia, it's a weasel word no matter even if needed and properly attributed.

I also disagree with you about "socially constructed" meaning "not at all defined by biology." How can you argue against femininity being socially constructed? It clearly is, by just considering how what is considered feminine varies by society. But just because femininity is socially constructed doesn't mean that it is not also comprised of biological factors. You and I agree that femininity is generally made up of biological factors. You also agree that femininity is made up of sociological factors. Well to that, I say anything partially defined by social factors is a social construct (yes, including clothes, since it is society that decides we must wear them). The word "woman" is a social construct, for example. But "woman" is also made up of biological factors. There is nothing contradictory about it. I don't feel that I unjustly accused you of nitpicking. I mean, you keep finding "problems" with the lead, as if the lead is supposed to make you completely happy in a compromise situation that is trying to please both sides. As I stated before, there is no way we can make you completely happy with the lead and please the other side as well (not unless the other side agrees with you).

I absolutely could still argue consensus. Read WP:Consensus if you have not. Consensus must be respected until new consensus is formed. Again, this is a Wikipedia policy. Not merely a guideline. Editors have been reported and blocked for going against consensus. That said, I wouldn't mind the following line you suggested. I've stated before that I'm not against the debate being mentioned in the lead. But let's be clear here: That line is pretty much what you suggested earlier for the lead. The thing is...consensus is for the current phrasing, and editors are tired of weighing in on this, which is why it's just mostly you and I discussing right now.

As for your new idea, you'd have to tell me what it is. But, honestly, I don't think I'm going to like it. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 905.x.x.x you said:

Can we stop nitpicking at the lead now? It's getting ridiculous.

I’m not sure why your slight changes aren’t nitpicking but ours are. Actually, assuming Avanu moved the line down rather than up because she likes it down rather than up, suggests that you think your single opinion overrides our two opinions. Also alot of people have looked at that line sitting down there on its own and didn’t seem to have a problem with it. I’ve also seen other articles do the same thing with similar “by the way” short statements.

That being said, I’m not going to object to it as you have been very respectful of my concerns.

I can’t let the claim that the word “some” is always a weasel word go un-challenged. I just read the Weasel word page and it neither said nor suggested any such thing.

We’re going around in circles on the “social construction” thing, I'm going to go ahead and repeat myself because you don't seem to be addressing my point.

In my opinion the most accurate definition of “social construction” is from this very reliable source which reads as follows...

From this definition, social constructs can be understood to be the by products of countless human choices rather than laws resulting from divine will or nature,...” [17]

I equate the word ‘nature’ above with the word ‘biology’. If we’re not using the phase “socially constructed” in the technical sense then we shouldn’t be linking it to the Social constructionism page. In fact, undoing that internal link would be a good “nitpicking” edit :) , which I’d support. :)

I hope you’re not suggesting that I’m being difficult just because I don’t agree with the outcome, after all, I’m the one who went ahead and entered the disputed line into the lead. I think I have clearly indicated that I’m willing to live with it. What I’m not necessarily going to do is support it if an option like the one I suggested above is insisted upon by someone else. Lets just cross that bridge if we come to it.

I’m not sure you appreciate that “fly by nighters” are going to be constantly “dropping in” and “nitpicking”. There is no reason to think that that sort of thing is going to suddenly stop just because we like it the way it is now. I’m hoping the idea I’ve presented in the new section below will help give some stability to the lede and prevent this ordeal from happening all over again.

I just read the consensus page, (which I should have read a couple of years age), and I’m not sure that you could just argue consensus. For example one part reads...

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions.

Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change

I have just started a new section below called “Ideas on how to give stability to the new lede which was reached through consensus”. Note that the suggestion below is not the “out of the box” one, I had to scale it back after reading that every revert has to accompany an immediate reason. I guess I was too far “out of the box” :)

Given that you absolutely hated my "out of the box" idea, I hope you like this one :)

Dave3457 (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, you neglected to show the link where I also call my own slight change nitpicking. I explained quite well above why I felt you were nitpicking, and I really shouldn't have to explain again. I didn't accuse others. I accused you. And the reason I did so is because you are the one still constantly proposing changes to the lead, and are seemingly unable to accept a compromise unless you are completely happy with it. This is a compromise situation. How can it be a compromise, if you get your way completely at the expense of what others want? In a situation like this, you cannot get your way completely unless the ones who are for "socially constructed" being in the lead suddenly agree with you to toss it out. I don't think my opinion overrides anything. I actually sought out discussion on this talk page before implementing any significant changes. I'm just tired of this discussion and needless dwelling on it. A lot of people have looked at that line sitting down there on its own and didn’t seem to have a problem with it? Well, maybe that's because they aren't the best at formatting? I don't see a reason for a lone sentence, unless it needs to be alone (as in nothing else to add to it). The "Masculinity" line, however, does not need to be alone. And I felt Avanu was rejecting your edit of adding "br" to it, not the placement. But whatever.

You read the wrong Weasel word page. WP:Weasel word clearly points out "some" as a weasel word. You can even ask about it on the talk page there. "Some" should only be used when it is needed and properly attributed. "Some" is not needed whatsoever in the line in question there. WP:Weasel words used to have a bigger section dedicated to explaining this. Only recently has it, and many other guideline and policy pages, significantly cut down their sections.

Yes, we are going around in circles on the definition of "social construction" and I still don't understand what you mean. It makes no sense to me because you are acting as though things cannot be both socially constructed and biological when "Man" and Woman" are exactly that. You are acting as though "socially constructed" is significantly different than "socially defined," to which I don't agree. But all that aside, different definitions are still just different definitions. Saying which is more accurate is an opinion in this case. Just as you and I told Kaldari much higher above. But, hey, if you want to continue to combat other editors at this article just so you can be completely happy with the lead, go ahead.

Not agreeing with the outcome is one thing. Not accepting an outcome where both sides are saying "this is the only outcome I will accept" is another. I'm not sure what disputed line you speak of, because it is Avanu who added "both socially-defined and biologically-created factors." Unless you mean the line about specifics traits associated with femininity. If so, doesn't seem that disputed to me.

No, I don't appreciate the "fly by nighters" who are going to be constantly "dropping in" and "nitpicking" because this article isn't that active and they can be reverted.

Yes, we can just argue consensus. You know why? Because, once more, consensus must be respected until new consensus is formed. Not merely a guideline, but rather a policy. If saying "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions, then how do you factor in the many editors who have been blocked for going against consensus? After all, people wouldn't have to gain new consensus through the talk page, would they? Consensus on talk page would mean nothing, wouldn't it? WP:Consensus wouldn't even be a policy, would it? I tell you what, I 'll go ask about this on that talk page there and see what they say about consensus being respected until new consensus is formed. But I'm pretty sure they will agree with most of what I have stated on the subject, unless the editors have fallen out of line with general practice on Wikipedia. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I assure you I’m trying to wrap this thread up as quickly as I can :)

IP 905.x.x.x, Sorry, I missed that self admission of nitpicking.

You said: “..you are the one still constantly proposing changes to the lead..”

My last suggestion and the agreed upon change was based on what I perceived to be a clear contradiction. I don’t see that as trivial. For what it is worth, I’m happy with it the way it was before Avanu just changed it and I’m happy with it the way it is now. That been said, if someone showed up arguing for certain changes that I would also like to see, I would go on record supporting those changes also. That seems fair to me.

You said: “I'm not sure what disputed line you speak of, because it is Avanu who added "both socially-defined and biologically-created factors."”

You’re right that Avanu added that line, I apologize, I though that I did. I have no idea why, but I still have the clear memory that I did, but Diffs don’t lie. Sorry for that claim.

I know you’re tired of all this, so am I, but let me just run through things as I see them because it would be unfortunate if you developed hostility toward me over a miss communication. I do respect your views, I think your “performance” in that debate with Avanu was stellar. Your arguments were strong, forceful and exhibited fantastic clarity. Whatever you may think of me, I have a lot of respect for you.

This was my thinking when I made this edit that shook up the lede. Diff please bear with me.

First, I thought I had just taken it upon myself to integrate Avanu’s suggested new “social construction” line. As I’ve said, I have no idea why I have the memory of being the one to include that line but I do. Note how the Edit summary of that Diff directly above says, "Changed lead to consensus" which of course is ridiculous.

Anyway, I made several changes during that edit, thinking that, since it as so gracious of me to make such a comprise :) that I would take the “opportunity” to make some desired changes of my own and see how they float. In hindsight the comments I made on the talk page must of seemed very strange. Here they are...

When I wrote...

I will let you guys add any references.

you must of thought I was mad. But I was thinking...

I will let you guys add any references, to the line “Femininity is socially constructed, but made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors.” which I just added.

But of course, I didn’t add that line.

I suspect that maybe it is at this point that you began to get impatient and all these “negative vibes” I’ve been getting from you started to begin.

That being said you seem to have taken things in stride and you even agreed with my edits, more or less. From my end I thought all the edits by everyone after that were very healthy and productive and was just what you would expect of a healthy exchange. I didn’t see any “nitpicking” including on your part, just a lot of healthy back and forth editing.

You said: WP:Weasel word clearly points out "some" as a weasel word.

I’m very surprised that that is your take, the objection in that paragraph is to the phrase “some people say” not the word “some”. I would urge you to read it again. At the end of that paragraph, it says in summary...

Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe,... should be clearly attributed.

I’ll place my views on consensus in the new “Ideas on how to give stability...” section

Dave3457 (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing it back if people prefer that slightly older version. I was just trying to solve complaints as 209 said. -- Avanu (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I mean no disrespect. But if you are trying to "wrap this thread up as quickly as [you] can," why keep giving such long replies? Why even still discuss it at all? To me, it was like we could do nothing to satisfy you. I mean, everyone is in agreement, but you kept and still keep dwelling on phrasing and what might happen in the future, acting as though we will be powerless if someone comes along and changes the lead. No, we will not be. It will not be up to us to convince an individual of consensus. It will be up to that person to convince us of changing the consensus.

Glad you found it.

You were the one still constantly proposing changes to the lead. Yes, you pointed out what you feel is a contradiction (which we disagree on), but that was you also suggesting we change it. You didn't seem happy with the lead before Avanu's change at all. But if you say that you were, I suppose I'll just have to take your word for it.

No need to apologize for a simple mistake. But I also apologize for offending you if I did, for saying that you have been nitpicking.

No, I'm not going to develop hostility toward you. Not permanently anyway, LOL. Because we may get into heated arguments in the future (who knows?). And, look, now I'm talking about the future, LOL. Avanu and I got into a passionate debate (as you know), and I held temporary hostility toward Avanu and others, but now I'm over it. Thank you for respecting me. I respect you as well. It's true that I don't agree with everything you state, but I do respect your right to state them.

I see. I appreciate the explanation of your mindset then and now. And, no, I didn't think you were strange or angry. Sorry for the negative vibes. I'm just frustrated with this discussion, and, like you stated, tired of it.

I said WP:Weasel word clearly points out "some" as a weasel word because it is stressing the words "some," "most" etc. It's not simply about using "some people." Like I stated, "WP:Weasel words used to have a bigger section dedicated to explaining this. Only recently has it, and many other guideline and policy pages, significantly cut down their sections." That may be why you are now interpreting it the way you are. But if you were to pose this question on the talk page, or go through the archives of that talk page, you will very specifically get answers that words such as "some" and "most" are considered weasel words. I already pointed out that such words should only be used when they are needed and properly attributed. So I don't see why you are pointing out the attribution line to me as well. But my bigger point on the matter was that "some" is not needed at all in the discussed line.

But, yes, talk with you later. Well, maybe. I'm ready to move on from this. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

IP 905.x.x.x, I'm ready to move on as well but you keep saying things that aren’t true like...

you kept and still keep dwelling on phrasing

With regards to your statement...

You didn't seem happy with the lead before Avanu's change at all.

There is a difference between, being happy with the lede and being willing to live with it. Maybe I didn't state clearly enough that I would be willing to live with it.

I have the grounds to argue that the simple word "some" is no longer stated to be a weasel word because people decided that its not, and that it was a mistake to suggest so. You can’t argue past policy to defend your position. Nor can anyone else that agrees with you.

Dave3457 (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, I don't feel that I was stating untrue things. While everyone else was no longer offering up lead changes, you were. You were even speculating about what people might do in the future in regards to the lead. How is that not dwelling on it?

As for "some," I was not arguing "past policy." It is considered a weasel word, even when attributed to a source. Wikipedia only wants the word "some" used when it is needed or attributed, because it doesn't truly specify anything. "Some" could mean "two," "three," etc. But, anyway, we don't completely agree. The main point was/is that "some" is unnecessary in this instance. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Re-instated Etymology section

The section was earlier created by another editor and then removed by a second with no explanation.
The Etymology of a word in a Wikipedia article is a legitimate section according to MOS.
In fact there are whole articles on the etymology of words in Wikipeidia, such as Witch_(etymology)
Dave3457 (talk) 06:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved the etymology section to Wiktionary as explained in the edit summary, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I also corrected 2 errors while I was at it. "Felare" is misspelled and it isn't the root of "femina". Kaldari (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

In Dave3457's defense, Wikipedia not being a dictionary doesn't mean you were justified in removing the Etymology section. As he stated, Etymology sections on Wikipedia are perfectly acceptable and even encouraged in articles about terms. True, the one here is small, but it can likely be expanded. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, although personally I don't think etymology belongs in an encyclopedia (unless the etymology is notable for some reason). I'm fine with leaving it if people want it, though. Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Synonyms

I added some synonyms for feminine. I considered adding some definitions but they basically just repeated stuff in the lede. For the list of synonyms I didn’t include some words that were in the sources, specifically, modest, girlish, effeminate and soft. Feel free to include them if you think my choices were subconsciously bias in some way. I fear there will be those who will fight to remove this list of synonyms because they cast femininity in a positive light. They are free to add negative synonyms to the list if they are from a reputable source.

The reason I think femininity's etymology is notable is because it is felt by many that femininity has little relation to being female. The etymology of the word suggests otherwise and will help give balance to this page.

Dave3457 (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Your expansion is a start, Dave. If it can't be expanded too much further, though, you should merge it with the History section as Etymology and history. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You guys are aware that we have a separate dictionary project, right? It could really use some etymology and synonyms. Wikipedia, however, is not a dictionary. In fact, we have an entire policy called "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". I'm willing to live with the etymology, but encyclopedias do not list synonyms! As Wikipedia is not a dictionary explains, Wikipedia articles are about concepts, not words. Kaldari (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I could not find on the links you provided the MOS that we should not or can not list synonyms. Could you quote it for me? I doubt very much that you are going to find MOS which says that because something is in a dictionary entry you are not allowed to put it in a Wikipedia article. The “Wikipedia is not a dictionary” link you provided discusses how a Wikipedia article should not simply be a dictionary entry. This is because people were creating Wikipeidia articles that where dictionary entries.

I agree that Wikipedia is about concepts and not words and in this case one gains an understanding of the concept of femininity by understanding of the word's origin and other meanings. Dave3457 (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's fine to discuss how the word "femininity" is used and what it's meaning is, but simply listing synonyms is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Nor would listing antonyms, anagrams, translations, rhymes, or derivations. Listing synonyms (rather than discussing meaning) is the purview of Wiktionary. Why are you guys so opposed to contributing there? Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to contributing there; I'm just not interested. I'm hardly ever interested in contributing to etymology sections. I have noticed that Wikipedia allows synonyms, however, as seen in the Buttocks, Fuck, and Finger (gesture) articles, and are even often blended in etymology sections. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The list in Finger (gesture) is a list of alternate titles, not synonyms. The list in Fuck is within the context of usage history. The list in Buttocks is pure cruft and would never survive a featured article review. Kaldari (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The alternative titles are still synonyms, in my opinion. And the list in the Fuck article, though "within the context of usage history," deals with synonyms. And the Buttocks article would not survive a featured article review either way, because it's just not a good article right now (if ever), but I highly doubt that including synonyms would keep it from achieving featured article status if it were. There are many examples of decent Wikipedia articles that include a section devoted to synonyms, such as the short section currently included in the Transient synovitis article. I've seen good articles include them, too, though I can't remember them by name. Maybe all of the ones I considered "good" hadn't actually reached good article status. I don't know. But I do know that it is your personal preference that Wikipedia articles shouldn't have sections devoted to synonyms, not anything based in Wikipedia rules or guidelines. I don't believe the "not a dictionary" thing applies in such cases unless that is mostly or only what the article is. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, I agree with your last point but not your first. I do support your view that a Wikipedia article should generally not just list stuff. A list would ideally be done in the context of something. Part of my problem is that some editors on this page, on all sides, are trigger happy with the Undo button and you don’t know whether your just wasting your time creating something. I suspect the behaviour its because it such an emotional issue for many people.

Toward that end I have rephrased the etymology sentence and put it at the end of the history section where it seems to fit.

I have removed, temperately I hope, the synonyms list and hope to maybe one day introduce it into a section that is about society’s present understanding of femininity or maybe integrate it into the present behaviour and personality section. I’m not really sure I want to make the effort however, given the trigger happy nature of the editors of this page. I suspect it would cast femininity in too positive a light to last very long given that there are no negative synonyms for femininity. They would certainly use the “synonyms belong in a dictionary” excuse.

That all being said, dictionaries are in fact considered a legitimate source of information. Pronunciations are often presented and the WHO definition of femininity was just presented as a legitimate lead for this article. The bottom line is that if something in a dictionary is useful, it can be included. Knowing what society considers to be the synonyms of feminine is extremely useful in understanding what is meant by the word. I don’t understand how that can be argued, particularly for the subject of femininity where the notion of what is feminine is so controversial. Dave3457 (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved it to the beginning, because etymology information should generally come first. And, Dave, try not to let any actions at this talk page just have you give up. You can always take things to WP:RfC (though that now seems to be a bust most days) or to some other form of WP:Dispute resolution. When you're in the minority or can't come to agreement with other editors at the talk page of an article, the best thing to do is to try to bring in outside views from outside Wikipedia editors. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If you noticed my revert of the archiving bot, things have been taken care of.

I think the archiving bot messed something up because there was a hidden section.

Things have been taken care of. (Assuming there was a problem to take care of)

I left a message here on the bot talk page. User_talk:Misza13#I_believe_your_bot_might_not_be_handling_hidden_sections_correctly.

Dave3457 (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a thread inside the collapsed discussion that didn't have a timestamp at the end; a comment was appended. I've moved that so the thread will archive now. I've re-adjusted the archive params to correct a few issues.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ideas on how to give stability to the new lede which was reached through consensus

At this point we seem to have a consensus concerning the lede. I’ve started this section in the hope that we might get proactive and discuss how we could best avoid a repeat of what just happened concerning the lede. Of course other editors and “fly by nighters” are going to be making changes to it and that of course is fine but because the subject of femininity is so contentious, this lede seems to be subject to more change than the ledes of other articles.
First I would point out that we can’t just argue consensus to prevent further changes as consensus policy states....

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change

The consensus page also says that you have to state a valid reason when you revert an edit.

My proactive suggestion is that maybe we as editors would be less likely to let edits to the lede just “slide” if responding to those edits was not so time consuming. Having to re-explain everything over and over again can be quite the time consuming drag. For example a person just recently changed the lede from suggesting that feminine attributes were both “inborn and socialized” do saying that they were a “social construction”. IP 905.x.x.x and I strongly objected and through alot of effort we all agreed on the following compromise...

Though socially constructed, femininity is made up of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors.

If someone changes it again, while we would not be at square one, depending on how far in the future the change is made, a lot of time will be spent trying to convincing the individual to accept the compromise we have just arrived at.
Anyway I was thinking of creating an archive page in Talk Space that contained a collection of some of the common concerns and objections that we have and we could just copy and paste the appropriate concern or objection into this talk page. Each pasted version would then be fine tuned to the specific edit. The archive page, unlike this one could be edited like an actual article. Unlike an actual article however, reaching a consensus about something would not be an issue because anyone could just branch off and create their own version of a response. I appreciate that no one likely cares if I personally create an archive page and start putting common responses in it for my own personal use, but I thought it would be good if others at least knew that it was there and new that they were free to use it and maybe even make their own contributions. I’ve started the archive page and it is right here. I welcome any feedback on it.

Anyway, I’d also be interested in any ideas or advice on how to best create a more stable lede.
Dave3457 (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that this archive of common concerns is a good idea. You could place a hidden comment at the lede paragraph or an edit template, to warn users trying to modify the definition that they should first understand what the current consensus is before trying to challenge it. Article 0.999... is a good example of this - they have created a note in the wikicode,[18] a FAQ in the talk page and a common arguments archive. Diego Moya (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Especially since it has already been changed without any discussion. USchick (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Diego Moya. That is pretty much what I was trying to point out to Dave. Despite WP:Consensus saying "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions, consensus must be respected until new consensus is formed. So WP:Consensus is contradictory to me on that point. People are blocked all the time for not following WP:Consensus (when they keep edit warring against consensus), for example (and, no, I don't mean blocked just for edit warring). We wouldn't have to spend a lot of time trying to convince the individual to accept the compromise we have arrived at. They would have to convince us to go against that compromise, which would then create new consensus. I also brought this up at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#"According to consensus" and "violates consensus". Either way, Avanu has already taken the initiative and removed "socially constructed." So we'll see how that goes. If no one who has participated at this talk page adds it back, we can safely assume that consensus is for it being removed. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add it back without being accused of edit warring. USchick (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And I didn't comment at the previous discussion, but feel that the current version is better. So I'm afraid I don't think we can say there's consensus either way. But I'd prefer something along the lines of "Femininity is perceived as being comprised ... by different analysts" Diego Moya (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel that we should say "Femininity is perceived as being comprised of both socially-defined and biologically-created factors." But I'm not opposed to it. The reasons I don't feel it's needed, however, is because: For one, femininity is definitely comprised of sociological factors; that we all agree on. And sociologists stand by that. On the other hand, researches state that biological factors also make up masculine and feminine behaviors. They stand by that. Third, we make clear after the sociological/biological line that what is considered feminine varies by culture and context. So it's already clear that perception plays a part in femininity. I don't see a need to make the "both socially-defined and biologically-created factors" line sound like a theory. If you want to mention the sociological/biological debate specifically, then I would prefer Dave's suggestion for that; his suggestions takes out the "both socially-defined and biologically-created factors" line altogether and just leaves it up to mention of the debate. But I don't feel that specific researchers/analysts should be mentioned in the lead at all. That should stay in the lower body of the article. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So much for sticking to the consensus. Removing the part about "socially constructed" changes the whole gist of the first paragraph. I don't really think we have consensus on the current wording, so I don't see any reason to try to enshrine it. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Since we have consensus on the previous wording, I would support you reverting. But it also seems we were missing the opinion of another editor (Diego Moya). I believe Avanu was mostly just trying to appease Dave, even though I've already explained to Dave that no one can be completely happy with the lead in the case of this article. We are trying to compromise. That means finding common ground, though not being completely in agreement. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't care particularly how the lead is phrased, as long as it is actually true. -- Avanu (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I bow to the decision of the editors that have been discussing the matter, since they have a thorough understanding of the nuances involved. I just wanted to express my opinion that, if there are several possible points of view here, the lead definition should take all off them into account to keep balance. Diego Moya (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days, so coming back here I'm surprised that people are saying there is consensus for the lead. I'm pretty sure a lot of editors here do not agree with the lead. Maybe we can do an informal poll or something, so that it will be easier to keep track of which person takes which position? Also, I think considering there have been sockpuppeting issues here before, we might want to keep in mind that it may be happening again. --Aronoel (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego Moya, thanks for your suggestions, I’ve acted upon them.Dave3457 (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, every editor here seemed okay with the current lead. We needed a compromise. Exactly what is wrong with saying that femininity is made up of both sociological and biological factors, when this is backed up by reliable sources and can be backed up by many more? If the word "is" bothers people, then we can use "may," but I see the no reason at all to restrict the lead to a social definition of femininity when there is extensive debate about biological factors also comprising femininity. As for sockpuppet issues... If you mean me, I must state that just because I am an IP, it does not make a sockpuppet. Am I sockpuppet of Dave? Did I really take the time to extensively debate and often disagree with myself? Am I a sockpuppet of USchick? Did I really seek out and thank myself? Do I at all sound like any of these editors in my reasoning, other than we all agree on including biological factors in the lead? I think not. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the article

Maybe we could take a break from arguing about the lead and actually work on the article itself, which is pretty terrible. I collected a bunch of sources above about hair and femininity. The article could probably use an entire section devoted to this. We also need a section on cosmetics and a section on clothing (with a subsection on shoes). Right now the only places we mention cosmetics, high-heeled shoes, dresses, and perfume are in the history section, as if these things had nothing to do with current ideas of femininity. Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agree with that. I'm not sure editors here can put the lead aside for now and focus on the rest of the article, however. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs work. If you're interested in working on clothing, shoes and make-up, you may want to do it on the masculine article, especially since the fastest growing market segment in the cosmetics industry is men, who are willing to pay almost twice as much for the same body wash, lotion and shampoos with "manly" packaging. Even European men [19] and Indian men [20]. Please feel free to work on these topics and I encourage you to get them out into a separate but related article. Appearance is no longer a feminine interest only. According L'Oreal, men's skin care sales surged three times the rate of the overall market [21]. USchick (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And I suppose high-heeled shoes are considered masculine now as well? Next you'll tell me that RuPaul is modelling for Old Spice. If only :) Kaldari (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "meel" is the term for men's high heels [22]. They got international attention with French President Nicolas Sarkozy [23], and are very popular with men like Frank Sinatra, Michael Douglas, Sylvester Stallone, and Tom Cruize who want to gain a few inches [24]. :-) USchick (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, there are parts of India where long hair is considered the norm for both men and women. And of course in many Native American cultures, long hair is considered gender-neutral. Regardless, in most of the world, there are still strong associations between certain styles of appearance and femininity, and those styles often include cosmetics and certain types of clothing and shoes. The fact that the article doesn't discuss this at all is a shortcoming. Without discussing the basic assumptions of femininity, it doesn't make sense for us to point out the exceptions and historical changes. They don't make sense if presented without any context of what femininity is usually assumed to mean. Kaldari (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there are issues in the rest of the article about confusing women with femininity. For example, this sentence: "According to English Common Law, all property a wife held at the time of marriage transferred to her husband, and as late as 1537, according to the translated version of the Matthew Bible, it was perfectly acceptable for a husband to beat his wife into submission." --Aronoel (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree about that sentence and removed it. USchick (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This is interesting, from Human Behavior in the Social Environment: A Multidimensional Perspective p.460: There are four gender role classifications – androgynous, masculine, feminine and undifferentiated. [25]. So in sociology, it's a much broader question than the two classifications we currently have in this article. In Indonesia, there are 5 genders [26]. No wonder we struggle with definitions, if we only have two main classifications. USchick (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggest removal of History section.

The present history section is more about the history of women then femininity. The sentences below kind of give this away.

... women were prized for their creative ability to reproduce..

females were defined simply by their biological attributes

Women in the Middle Ages were referred to simply as

The concept of "woman" changed in a number of ways..." .

For completeness of this new section, I copied and pasted below an exchange that just took place.

I think there are issues in the rest of the article about confusing women with femininity. For example, this sentence: "According to English Common Law, all property a wife held at the time of marriage transferred to her husband, and as late as 1537, according to the translated version of the Matthew Bible, it was perfectly acceptable for a husband to beat his wife into submission." --Aronoel (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree about that sentence and removed it. USchick (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Any support? Dave3457 (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, you don't think it's important to explain how the concept of femininity came about in history? USchick (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's important. I don't know why my comment was pasted here as if I was supporting complete removal of this section. However, I do think a few of the sentences Dave mentioned could be tweaked or deleted to make sure the woman/femininity distinction is maintained. Also, I don't think the etymology info belongs in this article. It's not an unusual or notable etymology. --Aronoel (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What I think is important to keep from the etymology and history section is that the concept of femininity was originally tied to biology, specifically breastfeeding and childbearing. If that changed at some point, it would be nice to know when and how. Considering how much controversy there is among editors, the history of how the concept developed over time is very important. USchick (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the current discussion in the history section is more about the history of women in society and not about the history of the concept of femininity as such. Additionally, the words "masculinity" and "femininity" here are used simply as stand-ins for men and women, i.e. "By the Iron Age the roles between masculine and feminine were strongly delineated." (I should also mention that this sentence does not conform to standard English grammar). Unless someone can rewrite this section into a discussion of the history of the concept of femininity as such (I imagine this will be a very difficult task) with sources, then we should delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fistoffoucault (talk • contribs) 01:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, sorry, I didn’t mean to misrepresent you views. I’ve stricken your comment.

I have to be honest, since creating this section, my view has changed some what. What really soured me about this section was the line, “according to the translated version of the Matthew Bible, it was perfectly acceptable for a husband to beat his wife into submission." When I read that a while ago, I asked myself, what the hell is this doing here? And put creating a discussion about whether or not to remove the section on my what-to-do list. When Aronoel made her comment, I stopped putting it off and did it. I have since read it without that line and it is not so bad.

Personally I think it has to be agreed that what it means to be a “women” is tied up very intimately with what it means to be feminine. What I don’t agree with is that at one point in history, what it meant to be feminine was to allow yourself to be beaten up by your husband. That sentence speaks about the attitude of men at that point in time, in that culture, rather than what it was to be feminine.

I still think there are problems with the section however, for example the line “females were defined simply by their biological attributes.” I would be very surprised if that is supported by the reference and not a bit of POV. That statement suggests, for example, that raising children (ages 2-12) at that point in time was not considered part of what it meant to be feminine.

I'm going to repeat an above sentence of mine because I want to stress it...

I think it has to be agreed that what it means to be a “women” is tied up very intimately with what it means to be feminine.

Dave3457 (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I understand the need to finesse the wording, but the concept should be preserved. Women could be brutally beaten according to law, and the law was supported by the Bible. At that point, it's difficult to say that women allowed themselves to be beaten. Women's rights is a recent development in history, and "females were defined simply by their biological attributes” is exactly what the source says and you can follow the link to page 140 in the book. We don't have to say it though. The idea is that once iron weapons were developed, war became extremely valued as an activity and elevated men to a position of glory. It's not that women were devalued, they were simply left out because they didn't feel the need to participate. We talked about long hair, make up and everything else, changing over time between masculine and feminine, war has been exclusively a masculine activity from the time of the Iron Age (I have references). As a result, women went from being extremely valued for their fertility – to being left out and marginalized in society, with the same rights as slaves. Aristotle described women as "infertile males," unable to produce semen (I have references). What a difference to go from one extreme to another! USchick (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

USchick, you said: Women could be brutally beaten according to law, and the law was supported by the Bible.

I agree that males physically dominated females back then, but we have to be clear and make a distinction between what it meant to be a feminine female back then and what where the consequences of being female. Males wrote the bible and males were stronger back then, if females were stronger than males, I can’t imagine that they would have allowed themselves to be beaten in order to be seen as feminine. They were beaten by males because they were weaker and had no choice. Again it was a consequence of being female. In my view it is not at all “difficult to say (whether) women allowed themselves to be beaten.”

If the exact statement in the book is “females were defined simply by their biological attributes” then I agree, but the truth of the matter is that today what it means to be female is “defined simply by ones biological attributes”, one only needs to look in a dictionary for proof of this. Also since the statement is about what it means to be female and not about what it means to be a feminine female it doesn’t belong in a “history of femininity” section.

I would even have problems if you were to find a book that stated that what it meant for females to be feminine back then, was simply defined by their biological attributes. I don’t know what your position is on the nature VS as nurture debate but it is held my many that what it means for a women to be feminine is in part determined by their brain structure. You would have to first prove that brain structure has no effect on what it means to be feminine before you would be able to make the claim that only biological attributes defined what it was to be feminine.

I might also add that an abundance of female figurines is not evidence that their physical form is the only thing that determined what it was to be feminine. Today on the internet you find an extreme abundance of naked female forms, that isn’t evidence that only the female form defines what it is to be feminine.

Dave3457 (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dave, what do you recommend? USchick (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to find more sources for this section, and we need to make sure those sources are talking specifically about femininity and not just women. Then this section will not just be based on one author's claims. In the meantime, Dave makes good points and I think we could remove the Bronze age info altogether. Also, that justification for the etymology info doesn't make sense. The fact that femininity is based on the Latin word for women doesn't have anything to do with whether it had a biological meaning at that time, and to suggest so is original reasearch. --Aronoel (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel you said: …we need to make sure those sources are talking specifically about femininity and not just women.

Aronoel, I agree with the above if you replace the word “women” with “ being female”. That fact is that authors very often use the word “women” when they are talking about the feminine nature. For example in the sentence, “It is common for men to open doors for women” the sentence is clearly discussing the relationship between the masculine and feminine. On the other hand the sentence “It is common for men to impregnate women” is clearly discussing biology. I think each reference to “women” has to be considered on its own merit. If I’m not mistaken, I believe this distinction is the reason we both objected to the “it was considered alright for men to beat women in the past” comment.

Aronoel you said: The fact that femininity is based on the Latin word for women doesn't have anything to do with whether it had a biological meaning at that time, and to suggest so is original research.

Aronoel, I believe that you are the one that just engaged in original research. Where is the source that says that they were not making a reference to biologically. The origin of the word strongly suggests otherwise. But what you or I believe doesn’t matter, the reader is free to draw what conclusions they like, we are simply presenting them with a fact. It would be very unfair for you to object to a given fact being presented because you don’t like what the fact suggests. If we editors start objecting to facts concerning the subject being presented, then we are all in big trouble.

USchick said: Dave, what do you recommend?

To be honest I’m not sure I want to invest much time on this section, I can easily see this debate about the difference between being female and being feminine going on forever.

I will say, for the reasons I’ve stated above, I object to the statement “females were defined simply by their biological attributes.”

Dave3457 (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is to remove the ancient history section. The modern history section talks about where the notion came from, I reinstated it. USchick (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

OED definitions of femininity, gender, and sex

Definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary (online ed.), as accessed Jul. 6, 2011:

• femininity: "1. Feminine quality; the characteristic quality or assemblage of qualities pertaining to the female sex, womanliness; in early use also, female nature." "2. In depreciative sense: Womanishness." "3. In applied senses:" "[3]a. The fact of being a female." "[3]b. Feminine peculiarity (in shape)." "4. concr. Women in general; womankind." (All of the definitions.)
• gender, noun, most relevant sense: "[3]b. Psychol. and Sociol. (orig. U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way." The earliest use reported in OED for this sense is dated 1945.
• sex, n. 1, most relevant sense: "[2a.] ... [Note:] Since the 1960s increasingly replaced by gender (see gender n. 3b) when the referent is human, perhaps originally as a euphemism to distinguish this sense from sense 4b. The word sex tends now to refer to biological differences, while gender often refers to cultural or social ones." Contrarily, see sense 4a: "The distinction between male and female, esp. in humans; this distinction as a social or cultural phenomenon, and its manifestations or consequences; (in later use esp.) relations and interactions between the sexes; sexual motives, instincts, desires, etc. [Note:] Now usually coloured by the more explicit sense at 4b." Sense 4b: "Physical contact between individuals involving sexual stimulation; sexual activity or behaviour, spec. sexual intercourse, copulation. .... [1st note:] Now the most common general sense. Sometimes, when denoting sexual activity other than conventional heterosexual intercourse, preceded by modifying adjective, as gay, oral, phone sex, etc.: see the first element."

(All that was bold in the original is debolded here.)

Treating gender and sex as the same thing, as they used to be, some characteristics distinguishing male/masculine and female/feminine are still biologically caused and some are still socially caused. Because the causes are distinguished, because the results are distinguished, and because the results are frequently subjects of different discussions, it's concise and convenient to have different words for different things we talk about. And we don't have to invent them; that's already been done, and the usages have come to be established. While there are disagreements about the subject, that doesn't remove established word usages from English. Having been established only within our lifetimes (if so) doesn't matter. We accept lots of words and meanings, such as about technology, that didn't exist a couple of decades ago. While sex is used both biologically and culturally, when the distinction is being made by using the two different words, the biological is denoted by sex and the cultural by gender, per the OED.

Nick Levinson (talk) 01:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're proposing, Nick, if proposing anything at all. We already state in the lead that femininity is "distinct from the simple definition of the biological female sex." Do we also state that femininity is made of both biological and sociological factors? Yes. Because that is true. This is article is not treating sex and femininity as though they are the same thing, though it largely has to do with the female sex...since femininity is mostly assigned to females. And I did clarify the difference between sex and gender somewhere in the huge discussion above. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

From reading these definitions, it's very clear that this article includes a lot of content about sex and gender, and very little information about femininity. Behavior and personality, Occupational roles, Clothing and appearance are all about gender roles and should be moved to that page. USchick (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Behavior and personality, occupational roles, clothing and appearance all have to do with femininity, USchick. What is femininity without these things? Without these things, it would mean that femininity is only about the female sex. Except wait...men can also display the things associated with femininity. That's why femininity is not just about the female sex. It's largely about the female sex, but that's because society has deemed certain things "feminine." And they have certainly deemed types of behavior, personality, occupational roles, and clothing as feminine. Even researchers deem certain personality traits to be feminine. And of course a woman's physical appearance is considered feminine. 209.226.31.161 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Behavior and personality, occupational roles, clothing and appearance as described in this article, has more to do with gender stereotype than anything else. USchick (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your argument consists in repeating your previous statement and is therefore obtuse. Based on the definition of femininity in the lead, all of the things you've mentioned could be discussed in connection with femininity. Perhaps you could propose the changes you would make to improve these sections?Fistoffoucault (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)