→Main picture: Another quote |
→Main picture: You are clearly choosing to focus on the ‘femaleness” of the Gods rather than their femininity. |
||
Line 483: | Line 483: | ||
:"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.--[[User:Aronoel|Aronoel]] ([[User talk:Aronoel|talk]]) 16:44, 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.--[[User:Aronoel|Aronoel]] ([[User talk:Aronoel|talk]]) 16:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
---<br> |
|||
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.” <br> |
|||
These are legitimate criticisms of your behaviour. One only needs to look at your recent edits on this page to see evidence of this.<br> |
|||
For example...<br> |
|||
- 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.” <br> |
|||
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)<br> |
|||
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. <br> |
|||
In my view the ledes of the two Wikipedia articles, [[Juno (mythology)|Juno]] and [[Venus (mythology)|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. |
|||
<br>[[User:Dave3457|Dave3457]] ([[User talk:Dave3457|talk]]) 21:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:20, 31 May 2011
Sociology Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
LGBT studies Start‑class | |||||||
|
Women's History Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Problems with this article
This article is clearly written from a western "feminist" point of view. It should be tagged for neutrality and edited appropriately to reflect encyclopedia style writing and not just a bashing of all things regarded as "feminine" and "attractive" in modern western society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.52.126 (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Men "continually test the masculinity of their associates"?
- "Femininity is rooted in . . . early development", but masculinity is "mastered" well into adulthood?
- Comments on the "fake homosexual women" are just plain confusing, but certainly sounds POV.
Much of this article is well-written, but I think, Endomion, that you've made a few unsupportable statements here. I congratulate you on the work you've done, expanding this in a major way. I just think you've got a few things to tighten up, IMHO. Unschool 06:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Well sue me, I have taken this article up from a little bitty stub.At any rate, it's largely completed and I can fine tune it for NPOV tomorrow maybe. Endomion 06:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Whoa, I think it's good work (didn't I say that?). My objections were largely in the first ¶, and, as I've said, you've done a lot of work. If I thought your writing sucked, I would have made the changes myself. I think you more than deserve the chance to fine-tune it. Good night. Unschool 06:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you, my first remarks were out of line. Endomion 06:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, it's okay—as it turns out, my lawyer wouldn't pick up his cell phone anyway. :) Unschool 06:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Not enough about breasts and stuff
I'm surprised at how bad this article is. I just felt I need to complain before attempting to fix it. I'll probably leave some things out, so it should be reviewed by another editor. -Barry- 03:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
contrast/opinion
If I was a female, I could be much more masculine than an action-movie lead actor.
Females have narrow hips?
The article formerly said that "narrow hips in relation to shoulders" is a feminine body trait, apparently indicating that women have relatively narrower hips and wider shoulders than men, which is obviously completely backwards. I changed that. 71.68.75.61 15:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
POV EDIT REVERTING
Please don't remove my writings just because you have a personal problem with them. Perhaps you could explain to me why my addition to the top of the page was removed, and why you disagree with it.
- Hi. Your additions are unverifiable because you have not provided sources. Please provide sources when you add material to an article. Otherwise, your additions may be construed as vandalism or deleted for violation of the neutral point of view policy. Srose (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I added a source to the page for my addition. I'd like you to note that it is the ONLY source on the page, and by your 'logic' I could delete anything I want on the entire feminity page because none of it is sourced. Please keep your point of view to yourself, thank you.
- This is a good point; the article does generally lack sources. However, the text of your edit seemed very POV. Now that it is sourced, I will take a second look and in the mean time look for sources for the rest of the article. Srose (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone seems to be continually deleteing my entries with bias. My additions to the article can probably be construed as "negative" by most women. In the "women in the media" section, I deleted useless information about celebrities and added an intelligent counter arguement to the feminist arguement presented in the same section. I understand some of you may be having a "Girl Power" moment, but instead of deleting what I'm saying because you don't like it, you instead absorb my information and debate it in your head intelligently. Thank you.
- (A) The subject matter of your edits are completly inappropriate for the introductoary paragraph of the article. (B) Unless your source represents the scientific consensus in the field, your edits still POV (whether it is your own or that of an expert). Provide context and read the policy. (C) Reasons were given for the reverts and you chose not to respond to them. Instead you've proceeded with an angry, defensive tone. (D) You don't have a right to the sanctity of your edits. If the community rejects them, please do not continue to reinsert them. You did the same over at the Christianity page. Trnj2000 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
NPOV warning?
Under "Femininity in men" the follow seems rather POV to me (not saying I disagree with the statement, just that it's POV): "However, while some do exaggerate their femininity, most are only expressing their true personalities and therefore deserve tolerance."
Perhaps this article needs an NPOV warning on the top of the page, considering it seems to be having a lot of POV issues? 129.110.199.43 04:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- This article is definitely not currently written in a NPOV tone, and really needs authoritative references to back some of the statements being made. I'll help by editing and discussing issues here.
- Just for starters, the statement: "Distinctly feminine attributes are hard to pin down ... because each attribute can be manifested in either sex." Is an interesting concept. The article isn't about those attributes which are *always* feminine, but those that are commonly attributed to femininity. The goal here isn't to write an article which only a lesbian or transgendered person would be happy with, but to write an article that would describe femininity from the perspective of the general population with sub-sections talking about disputes to the generalizations. DavidBailey 11:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Editing: Femininity in lesbians
Okay, for starters, this whole section has no citations and statements of opinion and even propogation of "stereotypes" as examples. I think we can do better.
- While the purported homosexual women depicted in pornography tend to be feminine in the traditional sense of the word, the stereotypical "real" lesbian is imagined as a rather androgynous if not masculine woman who crops her hair short and wears jeans and leather vests (called a butch) however it is argued that this is no more than a perception. (citation needed)
I guess the question is, firstly, is it important to have a lesbian section in an article about femininity? Writing this section from authoritative sources and a NPOV is going to be challenging. I think from the LGBT social movements page the consensus is that the concept of femininity is flawed to begin with. How about we state at the end of the lead section that socially defined qualities are under dispute by the LGBT community and leave it at that? DavidBailey 12:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Pictures?
The article for masculinity has examples of what is and has been masculine through time and what is "acceptable" in society. It'd be a good idea to have the same thing here.User:172.212.120.33 19:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Bold text
Femininity extremely confused with Western beauty ideals
The section on femininity in the media is more about Western beauty ideals than about femininity. For example, one author contradicts herself by citing the "tomboyish" flapper as a "feminine" ideal. In reality, flappers were not manifesting femininity, but rather slightly less physical oppression imposed by the dictates of femininity, as permitted briefly by the dominant culture.Jamidwyer 04:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Jamidwyer
Update: I couldn't leave it like that. I'm not super-attached to what I changed, but I do think changing the section to "Feminine physical attributes" (and eventually adding a section about non-physical attributes that are associated with femininity), is an improvement over mixing up beauty messages from the modern Western media with femininity.
A few changes
Symmetry is attractive in both men and women, so it isn't specific to femininity. Many people criticize unrealistic beauty ideals for women, not only feminists, and not only radical feminists. Also, one can not be both "boyish" and feminine, by definition, but someone keeps saying so about flappers. This section could really use some biology ("In some cultures, two X chromosomes and a vagina are considered feminine..."). Jamidwyer 06:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Jamidwyer
- I agree. We need to start with some biology; perhaps a few words on genetics and the female reproductive system and then moving briskly into secondary sex characteristics. Currently the article is too focused on beauty standards (an important aspect of the topic but we need to cover other stuff too). Haukur 08:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't agree with this at all. I am biologist and I have made some changes based on which differences associated with femininity are based on biological differences (breasts, wide hips) and which are not or are some mix of biology and socialization that have yet to be teased apart. Femininity per se is not about the internal organs, but about physical appearance and behavior. A woman with no uterus or ovaries could nontheless seem very feminine, witness men who pass for women. This topic is all about the externals. I think introducing genetics would be kind of red herring here. You don't need two XX chromosomes to be feminine. Not only are there drag queens (or whatever is the polite term) but there are people with XY chromosomes who develop into women because of unusual genetic mutations. They are perfectly capable of appearing feminine. Eperotao 05:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Eperotao, I agree with you and with most of the edits you have made. I am not a biologist, but could you please provide references for biological differences such as "better sense of smell" in women if you have them? I haven't heard of such a difference; one of my areas of interest is perfume, and many of the most famous "noses" and perfumers are male, so this would be rather interesting and indeed somewhat surprising to me. -- TinaSparkle 09:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- On further reflection, you're right. Dictionary definitions tend to say something like: "characteristic of or appropriate or peculiar to women". While the chromosomes and the reproductive system should match that definition very well in practice the word just isn't used like that. Menstrual blood is characteristic of and peculiar to women but it is not considered feminine. Even very good dictionaries seem not to offer a good definition. I can't find any encyclopedia which has an entry for the word either, not even specialized encyclopedias. I'm at a loss, really. We need some solid source to anchor the basic definition in. Once we have that it'll be much easier to add nature/nurture theories, feminist criticism etc. Haukur 11:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Dictionary definition
I finally found a dictionary which is at least somewhat helpful.
FEMALE, FEMININE, EFFEMINATE are adjectives that describe women and girls or attributes and conduct culturally ascribed to them. FEMALE, which is applied to plants and animals as well as human beings, is a biological or physiological descriptor, classifying individuals on the basis of their potential or actual ability to produce offspring in bisexual reproduction. It contrasts with MALE in all uses: her oldest female relative; the female parts of the flower. FEMININE refers essentially to qualities or behaviors deemed by a culture or society to be especially appropriate to or ideally associated with women and girls. In American and Western European culture, these have traditionally included features such as delicacy, gentleness, gracefulness, and patience: to dance with feminine grace; a feminine sensitivity to moods. FEMININE is also, less frequently, used to refer to physical features: a lovely feminine figure; small, feminine hands. EFFEMINATE is most often applied derogatorily to men or boys, suggesting that they have character or behavior traits culturally believed to be appropriate to women and girls rather than to men: an effeminate horror of rough play; an effeminate speaking style. See also womanly.
Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, 1996, p. 708. Haukur 13:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Feminism
"Modern women often wear high-heeled shoes that limit their ability to walk long distances or run in ways similar to foot binding."
Wtf? No, seriously, wtf is wrong with you people?
Could this article be any more feminist? Either you've been all brainwashed by the media or you're completely ignorant of difference between Western beauty ideals and natural trait of women to be more aesthetically pleasing than men.
Don't treat femininity as women's archenemy. There are much more positive sides to it than negative. I wish someone wise in those matters could come and write this article from the start because I'm sick of this "oh women are so subordinate to men" bitchy ignorance. 85.94.112.158 18:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Dex
um highheels look good, they are for beauty and showing off, there shoudl be a larger nod to what popular as physical aspects of femininty.also girls genrally speack in a higer tone them men, and mother hood and pregnancy has a lot to do with w,pem feminity socially and biologially, the biological reason for femine characteristcs need to be underlined eg women are more shapely covered in fat so they can get pregnant.i think the physical and social (including bitchy or cattiness or dominence to men and girl power) aspects of being a women should be more talked about, and not just feminist or gender bashing.this artivle reads like a nanna wrote it as is as dry and biased as anything as it could be. also i want the article to positivly mention the cosmetec aspects of womens feminity as being important to out social exsistance like the apperance of their breasts or like women are ovulating they dress up more to help attract a potential partner.
One dimensional perspective
One of the most noticeable things about this article is the emphasis on the heterosexual male definition of femininity as opposed to a cultural definition or multiple cultural perspectives. This is especially apparent when compared to the Wikipedia entry on Masculinity which observes masculine identity at multiple levels including things that can be considered inherently or genetically produced and attributes that are cultural ideals. What comes across here then is that, as opposed too how masculine identity is the product of a person's membership in society, feminine identity is only beneficial, necessary, or only exists in relation to a heterosexual male and his sexual attraction to that person.
I believe that this article would benefit from a balance of academic sources rather than so many pop-science articles. Keep in mind that femininity does not equal feminine sexuality. That is a Component of feminine identity, but it is not the totality of it. And if it is, that needs to be acknowledged as a cultural shortcoming in how we perceive female individuals.
Also, the section on male femininity needs heavy editing. There are no citations, it comes across heavily as a personal point of view, and certain sentences are redundant rather than illuminating.
Genetics
"Masculinity has its roots in genetics"
This is taken from the article on Masculine, so shouldnt there be something about how Feminine has its roots in genetics on this article?
Edit notice debate
The edit notice for this page is currently subject to a deletion debate. The edit notice is the message that appears just over the edit box whenever the page itself is in edit mode. If you love this notice, hate it, or just would like to comment on it's existance, please come and join in the debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Not a very quality article
It's too short and doesn't look as though enough research or care has gone into it. Especially when you contrast it to the masculinity article. Femininity is a massive topic that needs far more written about it than is shown here.24.60.66.250 (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It should at least cover some of the same subject areas as the masculinity article, especially in light of how the article draws attention to male-female duality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heikediguoren (talk • contribs) 19:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Proposals.
1)Masculine ideals of femeninity vs modern women's ideals of femeninity.
2)World contradictions, like how something concidered femanine in one country is masculine in another.
3)Masculine fememninity in manga. This is a sort of mysandry pperhaps, but women in Japan love efeminating men in manga; making them dainty, delicate, beautiful, etc. & many women claim that that is their ideal type of man. Thsi might also be some kind of pseudolesbianism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Femininity associated with eating disorders???
wtf. men are associated with itching their sundontshine areas then, too. wtf. Take Out. lakitu (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Unsubstantiated Statements
This article seems rampant with unsubstantiated statements.
Right off the bat:
"women are generally considered to make better nurses"
In my experience this is not necessarily true, and nothing this specific should be stated without any supporting sources.
And, in general, lack of information or lack of substantiated information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.141.16 (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
USchick: Thanks for the rewrite
Thanks for the rewrite, the article seemed to be heavily influenced by those with an agenda. Specifically to cast femininity in a negative light and to portray it as a simple "Social construction" that society would best do away with.
That being said I do think that you should have created a separate section justifying your heavy deletions. After all there were people who put time into that text and I think they deserved an explanation. -line- With the above in mind, unless someone can cite a reference that will back up the view that female circumcision is an act to make a women appear more feminine rather than just a ritual, tradition, or health concern, like male circumcision is, I intend to delete it also. Dave3 (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think your explanation and the complaints from the previous two years are sufficient. The part about female circumcision was already there titled "female mutilation," which I thought was POV and instead, I used terminology already accepted in other Wikipedia articles. I do agree that since the practice is not limited to females, it does not necessarily belong in this article. I was trying to be respectful to the original writers by leaving it. USchick (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that this rewrite [1] removed sourced material and that these changes were meant to promote and individual's pov. Please review WP:NPOV. Proper neutrality is achieved by providing and properly using independent, reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Edit war: Feminine archetypes
In my view the following sentence was fine.
Feminine archetypes are patterns of womanhood and feminine behavior that are characteristic of the human condition.
The full section is here Femininity#Feminine_archetypes
You changed it to…
As defined[who?], feminine archetypes are patterns of womanhood and feminine behavior that are characteristic of the human condition.
- The fact is that each archetype is defined by a different group of people, I feel the question is impossible to answer here.
- The reader can refer to each link if he/she is concerned about the origin of each archetype. For example the Virgin article goes into detail.
- Also the sentence does not read clearly.
It is now your responsibility to explain what was wrong with the sentence and what it is that you expect of the editors of this article to do. Dave3457 (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- It was unsourced and I've since removed it. These archetypes are defined by someone, but that someone is not credited. If it's some half-baked effort by a semi-anonymous Wikipedia editor, then it needs to stay out. If these "archetypes" are the product of a scholar or someone of notability, then we must provide that information. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Because I had problems with your edit you’re going to remove the entire section? I, in good faith, am trying to seek out a solution to your concerns.
- My edit summary upon undoing you edit and before your deletion was "We seem to have an edit war, so refer here and we will try to reach a consensus."
- Here for easy reference is the section deleted.
- Because I had problems with your edit you’re going to remove the entire section? I, in good faith, am trying to seek out a solution to your concerns.
xxxxxxxxxxx
Feminine archetypes
Feminine archetypes are patterns of womanhood and feminine behavior that are characteristic of the human condition. They follow the biological life cycle of the woman and fall into the following roles:
- The Virgin
- The Damsel in distress
- The Enchantress
- The Mother
- The Warrior
- The Hag
xxxxxxxxxxx
- My stance is not that the section is perfect but that feminine archetypes do exit and they should be noted.
- The problem with your above request is that an archetype is not created by a person.You make the claim that "These archetypes are defined by someone, ... "
- That statement is simply false. You also state... "If these "archetypes" are the product of a scholar or someone of notability, then we must provide that information."
- Well that is the problem, they are not “the product of a scholar or someone of notablility” and so they can’t be referenced in the usually way. I would refer you to this webpage Archetypes in literature, films and life for a better understanding of the use of the term archetype in the context of this article. Here are some examples of the archetypes from that webpage.
- My stance is not that the section is perfect but that feminine archetypes do exit and they should be noted.
- Male: The Chief, The Warrior, The Charmer, The Lost Soul, The Professor, The Best Friend, The Bad Boy, The Swashbuckler
- Female: The Librarian, The Nurturer, The Seductress, The Free Spirit, The Boss, The Spunky Kid, The Crusader, The Waif
- Male: The Chief, The Warrior, The Charmer, The Lost Soul, The Professor, The Best Friend, The Bad Boy, The Swashbuckler
- Archetypes are in fact created by societies and cultures. I don’t see how we can do anything but leave it to each of the webpages linked to give light to the origin of each archetype.
- This wikipedia webpage, not long ago, was virtually controlled by a group a people with a social agenda until a major edit by USchick. As proof of this I would have you compare the present Wikipedia page on masculinity and a past Wikipeida page on Femininity [2] from a time when “The gallery of torture” played a more prominent role. Below is an example of the kind of text that existed.
"Feminine physical attributes often involve standards that are unnatural, even dangerous, to achieve. These standards are also time-consuming to achieve, and nearly always serve to weaken women physically, leaving them dependent on, and subordinate to, men."
- Also, the introduction made a point of excluding the possibility of femininity being anything but a product of socialization.
- There is a segment of society who do not even like the very existence of the masculine-feminine polarization that exits in societies. As a result, they try to down play it at every opportunity. I fear that you are one of these individuals who do not like the existence of these archetypes and your behaviour, being unreasonable, is an attempt to remove even the very mention of the existence of these archetypes.
- Also, the introduction made a point of excluding the possibility of femininity being anything but a product of socialization.
- That being said the second paragraph in the above reverenced femininity article, goes to what I believe is at the heart of our dilemma.
"Distinctly feminine attributes are hard to pin down, as are the masculine, because each attribute can be manifested in either sex. The attempt to categorize traits into strict categories of masculine and feminine has been the subject of philosophy, sociology, psychology and science for centuries, and is unlikely to be resolved satisfactorily as there are diverse views, clues, and subsequent conclusions about the matter."
- I personally would suggest that we consider reintroducing the above paragraph into the present femininity article. Perhaps we can even lead the Archetype section with a version of it.
- That being said, I would hate to see this article degrade back into its previous form or have entire sections be deleted because someone has a problem with the idea of femininity in general.
- I would like to think that we can discuss these matters maturely and so I have not reverted your edit in the hope that the level of this discussion will rise.
- Please respond to my claim of the unreasonableness of your request. Dave3457 (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I personally would suggest that we consider reintroducing the above paragraph into the present femininity article. Perhaps we can even lead the Archetype section with a version of it.
- Look, Dave, you're preaching to the wrong person. I love feminine females. What I'm saying is that these "archetypes" require a reference. Find who defined these archetypes or lists them, and, if they're a reliable source, then we can reintroduce the information with that reference. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- So you are arguing that these are not necessarily archetypes? That to me sounds like a reasonable position.
- Wiktionary has the following two relevant definitions of “archetype”.
- 1. An original model of which all other similar persons, objects, or concepts are merely derivative, copied, patterned, or emulated; a prototype
- 3. An ideal example of something; a quintessence.
- The definitions at dictionary.com are similar.
- This would suggest that feminine archetypes would take the nature of the Virgin Mary or some Divine Goddess. A Hag clearly does not meet this definition. The issue still remains however that a feminine "ideal" is a subjective matter and even if one found "someone of notability" proclaiming something an archetype it would still be a personal opinion. The ideal would have to be a cultural ideal reflecting a society's views in general. As the radical feminists are hell bent on moving society towards androgyny, I have a hard time imagining them accepting any feminine "ideal" as culturally acceptable unless it was equivalent or superior to the masculine ideal.
- Anyway, I will look into this farther. Dave3457 (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. I do stand by the view that your edit was sloppy at best, and your deletion curt. Just the same, I will travel back in time and delete the crack I made.
- So you are arguing that these are not necessarily archetypes? That to me sounds like a reasonable position.
Feminine archetypes
Hello gentlemen, thank you for taking interest in this page. I propose the following references up for discussion.
- Archetypes in Literature: Maiden, mother, crone, queen [3]
- 3 stages of life: Maiden, mother, crone [4] and [5]
USchick (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was wondering when you were going to show up :) I'll leave things with you,(at least for now) literature and culture is not my strong suit. You might look into the Wikipedia section.. Triple_deity#Triple_goddessess there are lots of references there. Dave3457 (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Why was my information removed?
Hi, I'm a relatively new user on Wikipedia ans just wondering why the changes I made regarding this article have been reverted. If I failed to follow some rule or guideline, please inform me of this fact and I will gladly comply in the future. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zynthosdruid (talk • contribs) 23:42, 16 September 2010
Cultural Norms
This section does not only lack sources, it is also clearly biased in a "all-norms-are-evil-made-by-men-to-suppress-womyn-heil-judith-butler"-fashion. What about make up and jewelry? What about long hair? --83.248.239.86 (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
United States
Can someone indicate when this was first added? It seems to have been added in late 2007. When did it get deleted? Looks like it could use some expansion with better refs rather than being deleted outright. --Ronz (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- In the United States, film, television, newspapers, and magazines have promoted dieting, clothing, makeup, and hair products, as well as cosmetic surgery and drugs to men also. What does this have to do with femininity and why is it in this article? USchick (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like a topic easily expanded upon. Just because the same general types of products and services apply to men, doesn't mean the specific ones promoted to women aren't worthy of inclusion in this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- I can go along with that, however, nothing specific is mentioned, and the references do not support the statements. References 9 and 10 are dead links. Reference #12 is about one uncontrolled study from 40 years ago on HRT, which is discredited by medical science and the article itself, and links HRT to cancer.
- Reference #11 is a discussion on how plastic surgery, self esteem and sexuality are linked together. In medical science, the quest for plastic surgery is linked to a psychological disorder[1] and a medical condition called body dysmorphic disorder, but this has absolutely nothing to do with femininity, which is a set of female qualities attributed specifically to women and girls. The statement we're discussing is unreferenced and unsupported by any accredited body of knowledge (and should be removed). USchick (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like a topic easily expanded upon. Just because the same general types of products and services apply to men, doesn't mean the specific ones promoted to women aren't worthy of inclusion in this article. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Effeminophobia
Hey Dave3457, why do you think these terms aren't common within the subject of effeminacy? They are notable enough to be in the lead of the article Effeminacy, and they are found in many reliable sources.[2][3][4][5][6] Also it would be really appreciated if you could try and assume good faith. Thanks :) --Aronoel (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
First, in your edit you admit that the terms, femiphobia, effeminiphobia, and sissyphobia are terms that have only been proposed. As I said, when these terms become common then their inclusion will be appropriate. Are you actually going to deny that you didn’t include that edit in Wikipeidia with the desire that those terms come into common usage? Each term contains the morpheme “phyobia” which is defined as “an abnormal intense and irrational fear” the implication being that anyone who has a negative view of the feminine nature being expressed through the masculine form as a result of testosterone not being secreted in utero at the normal/usual times is experiencing an “intense, irrational fear”. For the record, I believe in gay marriage.
I just went through your edit history and it is quite clear you have an agenda and are trying to push your belief in androgyny.
Below is a summary of some of your contributions.
First there is the feminist section you just created on this page which contains these phrases… “being female is not “natural”” … “…they regard as constricting standards of female beauty, created for the subordination and objectifying of women”
You created the article about the book Delusions_of_Gender
On Sexual Division of Labor (Evolutionary Perspective) you changed...
- Recent studies have found that males are better at tasks that involve spatial ability, while females have an advantage in object memory tasks.[7]
to this
- Many studies investigating the spatial abilities of men and women have found no significant differences,[8][9][10] though metastudies show a male advantage in mental rotation and assessing horizontality and verticality,[11][12] and a female advantage in spatial memory.[13][14]
The edit you removed was correct by your own admission given your change but it didn’t have the spin that you wanted. [6]
On the masculinity page you replaced the referenced sentence below..
- Masculism is controversial amongst some feminists, who use and define the term synonymously with male chauvinism; the belief in the superiority of men or of masculine things and ideas.[15][16] It is the general opinion of modern feminists that masculism defined as "male superiority or dominance" is inherently opposed to the equality cause and is labeled as a form of misogyny.[17]
with..
- Feminists respond to the different ideologies of Masculism in different ways. Masculists who promote gender equality are often considered male feminists.[18] It is the general opinion of modern feminists that masculism, when defined as "male superiority or dominance,"[19][20] is inherently opposed to the equality cause and is considered a form of misogyny.[21]
One of the references of the other person quoted was the online merriam-webster dictionary [7] which defines masculism only as “: an advocate of male superiority or dominance”
You described your edit as “added source, and some cleanup” [8]
On Sex and psychology you changed…(Bold is mine)
- The importance of testosterone and other androgens as a cause of sex differences has been a subject of study. Adult women who were exposed to unusually high levels of androgens in the womb due to a condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia score significantly higher on tests of spatial ability.[22]
- Girls with this condition play more with "boys' toys" and less with "girls' toys" than unaffected controls.[23] Many studies find positive correlations between testosterone levels in normal males and measures of spatial ability.[24] However, the relationship is complex.
to
- The possibility of testosterone and other androgens as a cause of sex differences in psychology has been a subject of study. Adult women who were exposed to unusually high levels of androgens in the womb due to a condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia score significantly higher on tests of spatial ability.[25]Girls with this condition play more with "boys' toys" and less with "girls' toys" than unaffected controls.[26]
- Many studies find positive correlations between testosterone levels in normal males and measures of spatial ability. [27] :However, the relationship is complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_and_psychology&diff=411837577&oldid=411834663
You changed
- Spatial abilities: large differences favoring males are found in performance on visual-spatial tasks (e.g. mental rotation) and spatio-temporal tasks (e.g. tracking a moving object through space).[11] The male advantage in visual-spatial tasks is approximately 1 standard deviation, and becomes experimentally discernible at puberty.[28] A minority of opinions are known to differ on this issue:
To
- One study found a male advantage in visual-spatial tasks of approximately 1 standard deviation, which becomes experimentally discernible at puberty.[29][full citation needed]
And in your edit summary said that you..” moved Siann and Schaie info, fixed ref”
You deleted the below “embarrassing” information. You changed…
- In 1995, a report was prepared by the American Psychological Association on the state of IQ testing and research. "Most standard tests of intelligence have been constructed so that there are no overall score differences between females and males." However, “this overall equivalence does not imply equal performance on every individual ability. While some tasks show no sex differences, there are others where small differences appear and a few where they are large and consistent.“ Tests in which males consistently excel, such as in quantitative and spatial reasoning, are balanced with tests in which women excel, such as verbal reasoning, in order to yield equivalent overall scores.[30]
To
- In 1995, a report by the American Psychological Association concluded that "there are no important sex differences in overall intelligence test scores," but that differences were found in specific areas such as mathematics and verbal measures.[30]
Your edit summary read “Reversing order of studies discussion and summarizing the APA report's conclusions from their conclusion section”
I could go on and on with examples.Dave3457 (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Here is an absolutely laughable one you just made and then retracted on this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Femininity&diff=431184359&oldid=431182991
- It sums up your agenda to a T. Dave3457 (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- ^ http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com/news/cosmetic_surgery.shtml
- ^ Pedophobia, effeminophobia, and hypermasculine desire in the work of Juan Goytisolo by Ryan Prout
- ^ Interrogating Caribbean masculinities: theoretical and empirical analyses By Rhoda Reddock
- ^ Philippine Studies: Have We Gone Beyond St. Louis? By Priscelina Patajo-Legasto
- ^ The lives of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: children to adults
- ^ The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars, and the Politics of Anxious Masculinity By Stephen J. Ducat
- ^ David C. Geary. Sexual selection, the division of labor, and the evolution of sex differences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 21. (1998): 444-447. Web.
- ^ Corley, DeFries, Kuse, Vandenberg. 1980. Familial Resemblance for the Identical Blocks Test of Spatial Ability: No Evidence of X Linkage. Behavior Genetics.
- ^ Julia A. Sherman. 1978. Sex-Related Cognitive Differences: An Essay on Theory and Evidence Springfield.
- ^ Developmental Influences on Adult Intelligence: The Seattle Longitudinal Study
- ^ a b Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns
- ^ Chrisler, Joan C. Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology. Springer, 2010. ISBN 1441914641, 9781441914644.
{{cite book}}
: Check|isbn=
value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter|coauthor=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Lee
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Halpern
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ http://www.allwords.com/word-masculism.html
- ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masculinist
- ^ Susan B. Boyd; Dorothy E. Chunn; Hester Lessard (2007). Reaction and resistance: feminism, law, and social change. UBC Press. pp. 65–97. ISBN 9780774814119.
- ^ Janet M. Martin, Maryanne Borrelli, Other Elites: Women, Politics, & Power in the Executive Branch, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2000, ISBN 1555879713, 9781555879716
- ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masculinist
- ^ http://www.allwords.com/word-masculism.html
- ^ Susan B. Boyd; Dorothy E. Chunn; Hester Lessard (2007). Reaction and resistance: feminism, law, and social change. UBC Press. pp. 65–97. ISBN 9780774814119.
- ^
Resnick, S.M.; Berenbaum, S.A.; Gottesman, I.I.' Bouchard, T.J. (1986). "Early hormonal influences on cognitive functioning in congenital adrenal hyperplasia". Developmental Psychology. 22 (2): 191–8. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.22.2.191.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Berenbaum, S.A.; Hines, M. (1992). "Early androgens are related to childhood sex-typed toy preferences". Psychological Science. 3 (3): 203–6. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00028.x.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Janowsky, J.S.; Oviatt, S.K.; Orwoll, E.S. (1994). "Testosterone influences spatial cognition in older men". Behav. Neurosci. 108 (2): 325–32. doi:10.1037/0735-7044.108.2.325. PMID 8037876.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Resnick, S.M.; Berenbaum, S.A.; Gottesman, I.I.' Bouchard, T.J. (1986). "Early hormonal influences on cognitive functioning in congenital adrenal hyperplasia". Developmental Psychology. 22 (2): 191–8. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.22.2.191.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Berenbaum, S.A.; Hines, M. (1992). "Early androgens are related to childhood sex-typed toy preferences". Psychological Science. 3 (3): 203–6. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00028.x.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^
Janowsky, J.S.; Oviatt, S.K.; Orwoll, E.S. (1994). "Testosterone influences spatial cognition in older men". Behav. Neurosci. 108 (2): 325–32. doi:10.1037/0735-7044.108.2.325. PMID 8037876.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Siann (1977).
- ^ Siann (1977).
- ^ a b "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns", Task Force established by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association, August 7, 1995.
Section break
- I'm sorry that you object to my editing history. I'm not going to try to say that my edits are always 100% perfect but what's important is reliable sources. I stand by all my edits as being based on reliable sources. If you would like to discuss my behavior as an editor please open a report on the ANI. Otherwise, this talk page is only for discussing this particular page.
- The effeminophobia sentence is just copied over from the effeminacy page. I am fine with using different wording. I suggest "effeminophobia (etc) are sometimes used to describe..." instead of the word "proposed." Since there are reliable sources backing this up, I don't see the justification for removing it completely.
- The part I changed in the lead was taken directly from the WHO definition of gender, which is referenced. I didn't retract it, just edited it again for NPOV.
- Firstly, given your treatment of other people's referenced work, a sample of which I've posted above, it is laughable that you would suggest that I am the one who is un-Wikipedian.
- Second, the argument that something was first written somewhere else doesn't mean it is not POV.
- You need to start being honest with yourself and respecting other people's work. Dave3457 (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- The wording of the effiminophobia sentence was problematic, I agree. But I fixed it to no longer say "proposed." They are clearly commonly used terms and not just proposals (per the sources referenced above).--Aronoel (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- They are NOT commonly used terms. I Googled them and femiphobia got 5,500 hits, effeminiphobia got 960 hits and sissyphobia got 13,700 hits. They are however terms the homosexual community DESIRES would become common given that they characterize others who do not share their views as irrational. By the way, I think "homophobia", which got 7,500,000 hits, is a legitimate term because there are in fact many men who have an “intense and irrational fear” of male homosexuals. Dave3457 (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- The wording of the effiminophobia sentence was problematic, I agree. But I fixed it to no longer say "proposed." They are clearly commonly used terms and not just proposals (per the sources referenced above).--Aronoel (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The Below response by Dave3475 should have been in the below section called Main picture So I have crossed it out and moved it down. I copied Aronoel's response down but did not cross it out.
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) 15:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- First, see wp:google searches and numbers. The bottom line is that there are numerous examples of these terms in reliable sources. When there are reliable sources backing something up, its removal from Wikipedia is not justified.
- 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) 15:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Quote:.. there are numerous examples of these terms in reliable sources..
How numerous, what did you find? Also, I bet you can find many sources that use the derogatory terms for African Americans, would that justify their use ? These words are derogatory terms for the reasons I’ve previously stated and they are not being use by society in general.
Quote: When there are reliable sources backing something up...
We are not talking about a source “backing something up”. By the way, I’ve seen you remove alot of stuff that had reliable sources backing it up. Refer above.
Dave3457 (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- If you feel you have a legitimate complaint about my behavior as an editor, then there is no reason not to open an ANI report, where I will be happy to discuss my editing history. If you don't feel you have a legitimate enough complaint, then you need to stop complaining about my editing history here, it is simply not constructive.
- I don't agree that they are derogatory terms at all. But if there are reliable sources saying that they are derogatory, then please let me know.--Aronoel (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
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.
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)
---
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)