Talk:Woman

Have we not more to say about these interesting people than what is written in this article?

--Juuitchan

---

Please keep content appropriate for an encyclopedia.

---

I am not advocating being inappropriate. I meant my comment at face value. Maybe we should have something about the differences between the genders, etc.

--Juuitchan

---

I agree 'chan. Also, what is the actual spelling of 'gynecology'? I think there is a sp. difference between English and American English i.e. the English is gynaecology, like the paed/ped difference in encyclopaedia. --Wiz

---

As mothers they are often abusive, beating their children far more often than fathers do, and in much more cruel ways - the main source of domestic violence are mothers, a fact which is rarely mentioned. They often try to coerce a male into supporting them in their young age, and they are very skilled in this, as it is their main purpose in life. Women are generally selfish and unconsiderate, prone to hurt and causing more suicides among males than the overall murder rate and the war crime rate combined. However, law does not protect males from women's immorality any more in the western society, but instead penalizes men for failing to detect female tricks in time.

I deleted this - if someone wants to attempt to rephrase... ;-) Martin

The above is a clear violation of our NPOV policy since it states as fact a set of very controversial statements. --mav

---

"long, fast growing hair"

I don't think so. Male hair can grow equally long (seen any hippies recently?) and I'm pretty sure rates of growth are equally fast for hair of equal length. Long hair is a difference in western gender roles, because men tend to cut their hair shorter - but that's gender not sex. If you want a sex difference, male hair is on average slightly thicker - IE, each strand is of a higher width - that's why female electric shavers don't work very well on male body hair. Martin

Agreed, and removed. I've also altered "lack of facial hair". As stated by Kelly Osborne on telly, it's a myth thatl girls don't have moustaches ;-) -- Tarquin 14:35 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

---

Why are you removing section with quotes about women? DrFreud Better add more quotes

Because it is hopelessly unscientific and adds nothing to the entry except iil-informed mysogony Tannin

---

On the white slave paragraph, is "white" necessary? Does this never occur with anyone else or what? Tokerboy

White slaves is the name used for prostitutes in this context - as opposed to ordinary slaves, which are mostly black kids sold in Sudan etc for as low as 15$-30$. Not all white slaves are white (a lot of Asians from Southeastern Asia are also called "white slaves" as far as I know - "white slaves" always denotes women) DrFreued

I deleted almost all of the paragraph. I'd love to see some documentation for it. -- Zoe

Thats not nice - see freetheslaves.net for info - i have restored the paragraph.

DrFreud

WHy is everyone censoring abuse of women? It is shameful to look away!

Nobody said you can't have the article, we just said we'd like some documentation, and mav suggested you create a new article separate from this one. -- Zoe

---

Moving a series of quotes, all negative, from male philosophers, that were the entire section headed "women in quotes". In this context, it's highly NPOV. (They might be plausible illustrations of an article on sexism Vicki Rosenzweig 03:45 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC): " Women in quotes Women, and their role in society have been studied by many philosophers thruought human history, who had different views about them.

The slave has no deliberative faculty at all; the woman has, but it is without authority, and the child has, but it is immature. Clearly, then, moral virtue belongs to all of them; but the temperance of a man and of a woman, or the courage and justice of a man and of a woman, are not, as Socrates maintained, the same; the courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying. Aristotle

Women can form a friendship with a man very well; but to preserve it - to that end a slight physical antipathy must probably help. F. Nietzsche

The fundamental fault of the female character is that is has no sense of justice. This is mainly due to the fact, already mentioned, that women are defective in the powers of reasoning and deliberation; but it is also traceable to the position which Nature has assigned to them as the weaker sex. They are dependent, not upon strength, but upon craft; and hence their instinctive capacity for cunning, and their ineradicable tendency to say what is not true. A. Schopenhauer

Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip! F. Nietzsche "

---

moved the (at best) illiterate sentence : "Statistics show that image of a single women in the western society corresponds to the one suffering from the histrionic personality disorder. " here. Why does this one disorder merit mention? There might legitimately be a list of disease to which women are more prone than men, or less prone than men, but why this particular one? I suppose trolls ARE capable of becoming more subtle.... -- Someone else

If a sentence is illiterate then you can edit the grammar. The gender roles are dicussed here, and a histrionic female has charateristics which correspond to western perception of a single women - so it is the reason to place it here.

Why is male clothing relevant? DrF[?]

If you'd prefer "Women are less likely to wear jockey shorts, pants, and cuff-links", go for it. -- Someone else 04:19 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, very rellevant. What is the subject of that paragraph? I think it is the gender role, not some random facts.

DrF

So, wearing jockey shorts is gender-role independent? -- Someone else 04:40 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

I have removed the diseases into a separate paragraph - physical deseases have nothing to do with this paragraph. DrF

Perhaps you'd like to actually participate in writing something that should reside in an encyclopedia? Just a thought. -- Someone else 04:47 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

How many articles do you think are actually written by me? I bet more than you think.

DrF

Maybe [1] (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=DrFreud&limit=500&offset=0) - or do you mean to include all your other pseudonyms? Vlad is it? Mintguy

It's the quality I'm concerned with, not the quantity. -- Someone else 04:58 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

I think there are at least 10 articles you noone would object to, not including copy-pasted. How about you stop harrasing me? Just a thought

DrF[?]

As long as you let your biases dictate your proposed additions to the encyclopedia, someone will have to correct them. Do you think you would find this article in ANY published encyclopedia? Just a thought. -- Someone else 05:13 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

One thing is to correct a bias, and another is to delete it unselectively. It is agaist your own policy - it says explicitly such things are RUDE. And for a very good reason - how would you feel if someone just erases your paragraphs without consideration. Why would this article be different from Israel-Palestine articles etc. All encyclopedias have a policy of bias - that is what I realized when I copied some articles from 1911 Britanica here - what wikipedia should be is a source where all views can be expressed in a balanced way, from the biased views of contributors. There are facts and there is a way to present them - many facts are agains women for instance, but that is not reason to exclude them, but you can rephrase and add balance. So if you behave in a way you should, there would not be a problem to work on article when you have opposite views. Do you think of your actions as tolerant?? DrF

But your agenda is to cause trouble. You are a troll hopping seats at MIT and not someone wanting to make a sensible contributions. Mintguy

You are wrong about that, thats for sure. But then you wouldnt know that. Here is one sensible contribution - look at the dresden bombing article. It was me who added the pictures and some of the text. And this is one of the POV things. Then articles about factorization algorithms (Lenstra and GFS). A couple of biographies, picture of Dubrovnik. Just a sample. But I dont think I will do any more of constructive things with such hostile crowd.

DrF

So far, DrF, your contribution to this article can be boiled down to: "At least one contributor to Wikipedia hates women." I am sorry you are so unhappy with women, but your unhappiness is not really a fit subject for an encyclopedia article. -- Someone else 05:38 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Well, I dont think that is true. There are a lot of articles which are not perfect here, but your project is not about perfection but about people who work on it - and so your undiplomatic behavior is hurting this project more than one article in particular. Maybe you can think about that. But I guess people are far from perfect too. And they are showing much of their ugly face today. DrF

No one said the articles were perfect. But they would be better if contributors had the perfecting of articles, rather than the venting of their spleens, as their goal. -- Someone else 05:56 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Which is what many of you are doing at the moment. I dont hate women (if I indeed do) as much as I like to fight. So just because people here are expressing such intolerance is the reason to fight for the views I myself might not even hold. I have seen so many lies and abuses related to other things that I do not tolerate well such intolerance - so I am against the abusive masses here as well.

Yes, "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity". So perhaps the best is to occupy you with "Wikipedia as sport" lest "Wikipedia as product" suffer further degradation at your hands. -- Someone else 06:22 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, throw more insults, its nothing new. Passion is something I take pride in - which does not mean I am blind. As for degradation, you can have that if you really want me as an enemy. But, I dont think that even someone who is passionately onesided necessarily is degrading this "product" - if you read the articles from the newspapers about it, you will see that partisans working on the same article is something quoted as an exclusive quality of wikipedia. But if you want degradation, thats another story.

DrFreud

Passionate onesidedness is zealotry. Zealotry does not make for a neutral discussion, or even rational discussion, of issues. We want our articles to be neutral on points of contention: to state points of contention fairly: not unfairly, by selective inclusion of only that information which bolsters one side. Neutrally stated or attributed points of view are welcomed here. Deliberately distorted selections of 'fact' are, as you will no doubt have noticed, less welcome. If a zealot can work toward a neutral statement of his passion, if a zealot can cooperate with others, then perhaps that zealot may be able to make a productive contribution to the Wikipedia. Past history suggests, though, that most zealots prefer the sowing of discord to cooperativity. (i.e. "sport" vs. "product") --- Someone else 07:10 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)~

Well, you dont think erasing parts of articles repeatedly counts as a discussion? As far as discussion is concerned, I am always willing to discuss - and admit that I am wrong if I am. But I dont want information simply excluded - and I will fight for that. As for the zealotry, I am far from zealous womenhater. But I will be as zealaous censurehater as you require. DrFr

You've been attacking women under several different names for several days now. Unless you're just a troll, your beliefs show us where you stand. And your bias doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. -- Zoe

What about the pro-Israelis/pro-palestinians? How is that different? You dont suppose that I am just going to give up exposing the ugly side of females (as well as the likes of Zoe)

You promised you would go away. I wonder what a letter to the administrators at MIT would do. -- Zoe

Yeah, if your idea is that posting messages on some forum/public project is forbidden then you are very much wrong. It shows only how abusive you realy are - there is nothing wrong in expressing your own views in a place like this (either ethicaly or legally) - while on the other side I find your attempts at intimidation quite disgusting. And I dont see that you have replied to me at all.

DrFreud

- I did not ever mention leaving - I dont think you understood what I said. Maybe you can read it again and try to figure it out.

Please read NPOV. We don't place our "own views" in articles. --mav

Most of us believe that the mere fact that some text is biased is not enough, by itself, to delete the text outright. If it contains perfectly valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly, and certainly not deleted.

You could do it as well DrF

sic : "perfectly valid information" --mav

yup, and you guys are deleting it. DrF

OK DrF, I don't think you last edit contains "perfectly valid information". What is this rubbish saying a mother cannot be charged with murdering a child under 1 year old in Britain. This is simply nonsense. Mintguy

Well, it may sound like it is, but that is the fact - infaticide is not murder, it is not even a felony. Check murder page - there are some references. I was very surprised myself but I found out about it when there was a trial of that mother who drowned 5 kids in texas - in US this was considered murder, but it is not the case in Britain. DrF

WRONG! read this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2708737.stm

Well, how about this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1401667.stm

A qyote from this page "Unlike the UK and other countries, the US and the state of Texas does not include post-natal depression as a defence for murder" MURDER

Ill be back with more specific info

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel082801.shtml

This is just bad reporting. "The killer need then only show that the "balance of her mind was disturbed" This is a gross simplification. A woman CAN be charged with murder.

here one more link that mentiones countries I quoted.

---

On a side note (I've not looked at the histrionics of this article today) I'm all in favour of quotes. Philosophers and such people have talked about the role of women, and such a POV should be reported. And quotes from famous people are precisely the way that the neutral point of view policy recommends it should be done. 'Lax it, brethren. Martin

---

Despite Martin's efforts to rescue it, the entire second section of this entry reads like a deranged adolescent essay with severe POV problems. If that bizarre collection of unrelated factoids had crossed my desk back when I was teaching, I should have needed a great deal of red ink in my pen, and the student would probably have needed to schedule in another twelve months to repeat the course next year. As it stands, it's hopeless and would be better off deleted. Tannin

I agree. This article is currently full of the POV of User:DrFreud, who seems to have similar opinions to User:Annetit. Serious NPOV editing is required. The Anome 10:54 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

So the first section is OK? Woo! :)

I agree, it is a bizarre collection of unrelated factoids, but note editing_policy - "During this process, the article might look like a first draft--or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into beautiful prose". Martin

You are right of course, Martin, on both counts. The first section is ... well ... let's just say it's better than the second section. But then, so is a head cold. I don't envy you your self-appointed task. I should hop in and help a bit, but I am suffering from a gross over-supply of "must do soon" projects. In particular, I want to get my longish new entry on the B-24 Liberator posted up tonight. (OK, so that one is less important than this one. But sometimes you just have to work on an unimportant entry because you feel like doing it.) Tannin 12:34 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

Moving this to talk:

In US only 22% of women have normal weight, as opposed to 47% of males - in other parts of the world this discrepancy is not that pronounced. Amongst young women in developed countries, anorexia is a serious problem. Many people believe this is due to the objectification of the female body by all sections of the media. Thin female celebrities (eg, Calista Flockhart get attacked in newspapers for setting a bad example - while a few pages later the same newspapers attack other celebrities for being fat (eg, Emma Bunton).

1. What is "normal" weight?
2. This whole bit feels a bit strange: anorexia is a real issue, but I'm not sure this is how to tackle it.

I agree with the removal. I was gonna do it a few days ago, but decided to wait until the dust settled. Thanks for being brave. It's clearly POV, expressing the idea that the media has created or contributed to anorexia. Tokerboy

Now that the trolling has subsided a bit, and the article is beginning to nearly start to be almost reasonable<G>, I remain curious about the assertion that differences in mortality between males and females is partially attributable to the "effect of high levels of androgens in men." Does this actually have a basis? My understanding is that it really is the lack of a cardioprotective effect of estrogen in men that accounts for much of the difference, and know of no instance where normal male levels of testosterone are associated with particular diseases (other than, say, prostate and testicular cancer, which might be more accurately attributed to the presence of said organs rather than the testosterone which sustains them). -- Someone else 00:09 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

We need a proper biologist to answer this with authority, but my understanding is that the male sex hormones increase the risk of many things. In the Australian Blue Wren, for example, high levels of testosterone decrease the birds' resistance to disease. Tannin

I've heard of studies that castrates live a few years longer then normal men, on average, but I'm not a doctor.Martin

---

explain your removals about the frequency of anexorea bulimia bpd and hpd

I already asked this question on one of your thousands of talk pages (how many names do you need, anyway?). I would like some proof of your assertion, and some indication as to whether what you say applies to all women all over the world, or only to particular communites, civilizations, etc. -- Zoe

as far as i know bpd and hpd are twice more likely in women. i dont know about the bulimia and anexoreia, but probably the one who posted it does. it is quite easy to do a google test of this.

"The one who posted it" not being you, of course. -- Zoe

i said i dont know about bulimia/anexoreia. i have found this link

http://www2.health-center.com/mentalhealth/personality/borderline.htm

please read it and do not remove posts just like that

---

The issue is not really whether this particular point is correct, but why you feel compelled to repeatedly add only "negative" information to this article. You don't mention, for example, the fact that women are less likely to commit murder than men (15% vs 85%), probably because it would be less likely to get the response you are seeking. -- Someone else 06:29 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

People who have biases will know more information that supports their position than information that opposes it. Often there is a causal relationship: one has a bias because one has been exposed to only a subset of the information available. No malicious intent need apply. Martin

The changes made by this one user under a number of aliases to a fairly limited subset of articles strongly suggest malicious intent. They are certainly not beneficial to the Wikipedia. -- Someone else 11:10 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)