Talk:Gender studies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Physical_attractiveness

I'd like to ask someone watching this topic to have a look and maybe discuss the page on Physical_attractiveness, as it seems to me that many arguments exposed there are clearly biased. In doubt, also check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias

--

Since this particular issue may come up more than once on this topic, I'll note that "him" and "his" are the correct singular, neuter, third-person pronoun and possessive adjective for the English language (this is true for both American and British English). Using "a person's characteristics reflect their true nature" is incorrect because of number disagreement, "person's" being a singular possessive adjective and "their" being a plural possessive adjective.

I'm not going to revert/edit unless I have something substantive to add to the entry, but (popular or not), using "his" or "him" is proper for situations in which there is one person of unknown gender because those words double as both the masculine and neuter singular pronoun and adjective.

Some people who take issue with this fact have begun to use "hisser" instead of "his" and "himmer" instead of "him" (hisser being a bastardized contraction of "his or her", himmer being the same for "him or her"). Neither of these alternatives is formal English at this time so using them in an encyclopedia may not be appropriate, but then again those words won't become official MW or OED English until they're widely used so maybe footnoted usage in this particular entry would be an appropriate starting point for them.

This would be probably a good reason for starting a new topic on language planning geared at removing androcentric structural features of language (in which work and data gathered by Deborah Cameron or Anne Pauwels, amont others, could be mentioned).

-- Endlessnameless

Sigh. Grammatically they are probably not correct. I am sure that many proponents of gender neutral pronouns already know this, but "him" is not really an acceptable term to use. And to avoid this blowing up into a full debate on whether to use gender specific pronouns or not, I think I'm going to reword that sentence to remove reference to gender... Dysprosia 04:42, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think I'm going to reword that sentence to remove reference to gender. Probably the best solution... and a pretty good job of it too. I still think our language needs to develop (or choose) distinct neuter adjectives and pronouns.

-- Endlessnameless

Thanks. And I heartily agree on that last sentiment :) Dysprosia 08:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

-This article needs more detail and it should be joined with gender and womens studies, and queer studies. ~

POV Check: Bias flag

I hope I wasn't overstepping in flagging this page as biased. What it looks like to me is that the entire field of psychology is portrayed as supprting the conclusion that evironment plays a much greater role in development than genes. If this isn't the case, if this section is just representing the view of "gender studies," and not psychology in general, that needs to be made much more clear.

Problems:

a) Badly worded. It should stick to talking about the relevance to gender studies, and not try to address general questions of nature vs. nurture. There's a seperate page for that.

b) Badly predicated. This is a really simplistic and fallacious view of the nature vs. nurture debate. "Pernicious dualism" is the relevant term here. Saying that environment plays a greater role than genes just doesn't make any sense; they both play a role in every behavior.

c) Non-NPOV. This is NOT the perspective of modern psychology, and a few references to possible roles for genes does not make it neutral. Maybe it's the perspective of modern gender theory; if so, that needs to be indicated.

d) Uninformed. "Some differences in brain size..." ?! Brain size is not a determinant of anything. This sounds like it's based on 19th century neurology.

Daniel Leavitt 12:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I reworked the section. The following two passages oversimplify the debate and are unsourced:

"In general, personality and behavioral differences are believed to be due to learning and conditioning or modeling and imitation rather than purely biologically-based tendencies"

and

"It is widely believed that the environment that a person experiences has a much greater impact upon the development and personality of that person than genetic factors"

"Widely believed" by whom? If these passages cited a review of the literature demonstrating that, say, 80% of articles attributed differences to nurture, I'd be inclined to keep them. But without such a citation, I think they are misleading. My rewrite attempts to keep the references to learning & conditioning and modeling & imitation while putting them in the context of the broader debate. I have not removed the NPOV tags, but I think it might be fair to do so. Jbelleisle 21:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You weren't overstepping at all. This page is biased. Gender theory is a front for radical gender-feminist political power plays (see misandry and many other dissident feminist writers who weigh in on this such as Wendy McElroy's Sexual Correctness). Many sex-related differences between the sexes have been shown that call into question the whole idea that ALL sex-difference are caused by gender socialization as purported by gender feminist ideologues.

The above unsigned (I can't find any reference to an editor in this talk page's history) comment is biased. There are problems with this page, primarily its lack of depth and the imprecision of its language. These problems need to be addressed. However this not an appropriate place for generalized attacks on gender theory.

An important point about Gender Studies that is lost due this article's poor writing is that 'Gender' is a piece of terminology used to refer to all non-biological (and therefore social or cultural) elements of masculinities and feminities. See Gender. The term "gender" in Gender Theory does not refer to body parts. Gender Studies has its roots in post-feminist and post-structuralist philosophies. Fundamental to its thinking is the Lacanian concept that: Gender is an idea, one created by discourse, one that only exists in langauge. One of the semnal Lacanian influences on Gender Studies has been "sexuation".--Cailil 21:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

history of gender studies?

It seems like this page could benefit from having a section on how gender studies evolved and came to be part of so many universities. This would also give some context to the criticism section. I think it would also make sense to include some of the more conservative criticisms in their too, if there is going to be a criticisms section.

Dfziggy 20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

January 6th & 7th 2007 changes

(Apologies that this is so long) Having spent sometime looking at this page and some of the justified criticisms of it I decided to rewrite it. For any one who looked at teh French or Spanish versions of the page the previous English version was shocking. All that the older version conveyed (and tried to) is still conveyed by the new one. I have deleted the "weasel words" tag on top of the page - because I completely changed the offending section - Gender in Psychology. If others find bias here then it should be re-tagged.

Major changes Gender studies is a field of Cultural Studies that analyzes the phenomenon of gender, both in people's lived experience and cultural representations. Gender Studies is sometimes related to studies of class, race, ethnicity and location.”[1] - I added this line to make clear what Gender Studies does and its scope. None of the previous editors made clear that HOW gender is studied, depends upon WHAT is being studied. If pictures, text, or film/video is being examined then the study is about the representations of gender. But if , for instance, differences between male and female salaries is being analyzed then it is people's experience of gender (and how it is socially and economically constructed) that the study will examine. I am aware that these lines are dense if it is too concise in people's opinion then it needs to be changed. In Gender Studies the word "gender" is used to refer to the social and cultural constructions of masculinities and femininities. The term does not refer to biological difference, but rather cultural difference. [...] (See also Gender#In_feminist_theory) - Due to some criticism on this talk page which confuses gender with sex I have included a piece on the terminology gender which is referred to by other gender articles. Its omission here up until now is quite extraordinary. Studies of the role of gender have been under taken in many academic areas, such as: literary theory, drama studies, film theory, performance theory, anthropology, sociology, and psychology (to name but a few). These studies have different focuses on how and where they study gender... - As with my first change I added this piece to make clear the different approaches within Gender Studies. Gender Studies and Psychoanalytic Theory In place of the old, weasel worded piece I've compilied a very short list of places that Gender Studies has been influenced by psychoanalytic theory: Sigmund Freud, Jacques Lacan and Julia Kristeva. I have also tagged it with: need for expansion.

Major deletions Work in gender studies influences and is influenced by the related fields of Ethnic Studies, African American Studies, Asian American Studies, Latino/a Studies, and Native American Studies. - I deleted this piece because it is ironically ethnocentric, focusing on American Ethnic Studies. There is no need to have a list these different areas of Ethnic Studies, because the umbrella is more inclusive without one. While work in gender studies is principally found in humanities departments and publications (in areas such as English literature and other literary studies), it is also found in social-scientific areas such as women's studies, anthropology, sociology, and psychology. - While I tend to agree with this statement I cannot verify it. I also consider this sentence to be a source of "weasel words", so I consider its deletion to be appropriate. The Gender in Psychology This piece had no place here - it was related to Gender not Gender Studies and was extremely badly written.

Expansions References: this article had no references, which for an article on an academic field was ridiculous. However the references that I have added are just preliminary, more are needed and more will be added as more sections are added. See also: links to other pertinent Wikipedia articles were found and added. External Links: links to pages on the web - found at the Gender page were added.

Merger? I've left the merger tag - even-though I strongly disagree with it. Feminism is related to but not the same as Gender Studies.--Cailil 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a start, but this article is still awfully mediocre. I'm not particularly comfortable with the classification that gender studies is part of cultural studies without some compelling source (I'm a gender studies and a cultural studies major, and the course content and work I've taken in each have tended to be quite different), and the topic could do with a decent, properly sourced definition in any case. Your deletions all make sense, and it's nice to see someone making a start on referencing. I'd also have no objection to removing the merger tag, as I don't think it's necessary. Rebecca 23:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree with you about the definition. Perhaps it should be re-phrased as: "Gender studies is a field of interdisciplinary study, analyzing the phenomenon of gender. It examines both cultural representations of gender and people's lived experience of it." I'll alter the definition to this for the moment. I'm a Cultural Studies graduate myself (but on the other side of the world in Ireland) and I'm doing my PhD within Gender Studies. Thanks again for your comments.--Cailil 00:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an improvement, yeah. :) Rebecca 04:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If nobody else has any objections I'll remove the merger tag on Sunday.--Cailil 18:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC) As foretold I'm removing merger tag. It's been here since September 2006 without any overwhelming arguments for merger beingput forward. Feel free to re-tag if you can make a case for such a merger.--Cailil 16:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits Jan. 13 2007

I've been doing some more work on the page today. 1st I took-up Dfziggy's point and created a history of GS category. After some thought I decided to put the Gender and Psychoanalytic Theory section within this. I've also moved one of the previous header paragraphs down into the history section, under the title The Post-modern Influence. I briefly added a small paragraph on Mary Joe Frug but I've started to find it objectionable. A part of is in the article's history - if you want to take a look. (My objection is to an apparent conflation of sex and gender in the piece by Frug - am currently reading it). Judith Butler really got there first as well, but if any one wants to argue the case for Frug go ahead. I've also dispensed with the Literature section by adding the books (plus a few new ones) to the references section. Also would someone like to take a look at the External links:

1. Project "Women's History and Gender History in Westphalia" (in German)
2. uniGENDER - online journal (in Polish)
3. WikEd - Gender Inequities in the Classroom

All look less than notable to me, any opinions--Cailil 01:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as Undersconstruction

I've added tag {{Undersconstruction}} for the time being. It will make it clear to passers-by that this page is not finished and not perfect. My aim with this page is to make it as good as it can be - FA status is a little ambitous but I think that should be aeveryone's aim for an article.--Cailil 15:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Tag removed.--Cailil 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

criticism section

I've added the criticisms of Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young with a review of their book criticizing their approach.--Cailil 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cailil, you are adding your "criticism of Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young" paragraph all over the Wikipedia Gender project, while it only belongs in one article, the one specifically about Nathanson/Young and their "Misandry" trilogy. Criticism of a criticism doesn't belong in a criticism section. Deleting now. 83.24.120.197 17:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

83.24.120.197 You should be advised of WP:AGF. Where criticism is unbalanced, perhaps unreliable it is usual to give a balancing view. BTW this criticism was added before the recent changes to Nathanson and Young and Misandry. I did not added this section "all over the Wikipedia Gender project". I did not added it Misandry but I did added it here. If you a concern over this please RfC the article--Cailil ^talk 14:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

83.24.120.197 I have double checked the guide (not policy - because there isn't one yet) on criticism sections and you are wrong. Please see Wikipedia:Criticism#Neutral_point_of_view. Criticism of criticisms is due when it is notable, reliable and verfiable. In the words of the guide "If there are valid counter-arguments to the criticisms, then these must be fairly included."--Cailil ^talk 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Cailil, "balanced criticism" is an oxymoron. If it is "balanced" then it is assessment, not criticism. Perhaps this is why actually none of the policies/guides to which you direct me contain provisions to the effect of "where criticism is unbalanced, perhaps unreliable it is usual to give a balancing view". On the contrary, Wikipedia:Criticism#Neutral_point_of_view says: "[Criticism sections] must not be created to marginalize criticism or critics of the article's topic or imply that this criticism is not true while the more positive claims in the rest of the article are". Mentioning Lewis-Horne's unfavorable review of Nathanson's/Young's book wherever the latter is mentioned in a Criticism section of a gender-related article has exactly this effect: it marginalizes Nathanson's and Young's criticism and implies that it is not true. In addition, Nathanson's and Young's books on misandry have a Wikipedia article of their own, and this is where criticism of their work belongs.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.24.172.60 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I recommend you request comment on this artcile 83.24.120.197. I have refered you to the guide and I've also pointed out that your claim is, as I understand WP:ATT and other policies, inaccurate. I advise you to seek outside opinion on this matter. BTW "where criticism is unbalanced, perhaps unreliable it is usual to give a balancing view" are my own words. The the guide says "If there are valid counter-arguments to the criticisms, then these must be fairly included." and I am quoting Wikipedia:Criticism#Neutral_point_of_view verbatim. You seem to be quoting the head of that guide - I am referring you specifically to its section on NPOV. If outside comments support your claim I will be happy to abide by it--Cailil ^talk 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No Cailil, you are not quoting Wikipedia:Criticism#Neutral_point_of_view verbatim. Omission is a change, and you omitted important wording directly preceding the sentence you quoted. The original statement is as follows (emphasis mine):

As with all Wikipedia articles, criticisms articles must follow Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. If there is valid counter-arguments to the criticisms, then these must be fairly included.

It is clear from the unsnipped statement that the recommendation about criticism of criticism pertains to criticism articles. Nothing is being said here about criticism sections of non-criticism articles, and elsewhere the same policy document expressly formulates reservations about criticism in criticism sections (see above).

It is also my opinion that the policy you quoted is self-defeating, as it rests on the notion of an argument's validity. In one aspect it is even worse than if there were no such requirement. If there were no such requirement, you could purely informatively include counter-arguments to criticism, as in "such and such counter-arguments exist and are deemed notable". With the policy present, you actually assert that the counter-argument is valid (rather than just notable) when you include it - that is, if we can agree that by adding anything to Wikipedia you indirectly assert that you believe the content being added is in accordance with the policies. Asserting the validity of an argument is clearly much more POVsy than just mentioning its notable existence, which is why I think the policy is self-defeating. 83.24.119.127 22:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

PS I have just asked an admin about this--Cailil ^talk 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Coelacan I'm right - see their comments here. If you still feel strongly opposed to this I again recommend you RfC--Cailil ^talk 23:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd drop in here as well. Cailil's addition[1] is warranted; it is permissible to bring in criticism of criticism. It would probably be a good idea, Cailil, to bring the quotes from the refs directly into the body of the article, for readability. ··coelacan 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

83.24.119.127, I have sought advice on the policy & that advice is recorded here. I had been taking it for granted that you understand WP:SS. Basically, criticism articles only exist because they were too large to be sections in their parent articles. The guide on criticism articles applies to sections also on the grounds of NPOV. There is some information on this at WP:FORK.
As pointed out by Coelacan the problem with the criticism in this article is that it as not been intergrated into the text that needs to be addressed, if you would like to help do so your help would be much appreciated.
I will advise you 83.24.119.127 that there is no such policy stating "criticism of a criticism doesn't belong in a criticism section" nor is this the place for discussion the merits of policies. If you want to have that discussion try Wikipedia_talk:Criticism or WT:NPOV.
PS your comments should have been placed in chronoligal order (after coelacan's post) that is normal talkpage proceedure--Cailil ^talk 23:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Just a final point, as I understand it when the guide says "valid" it means notable, verifiable, reliable and attributrable.--Cailil ^talk 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Cailil,

• You sought advice from a single admin who just happens to share your POV on the original issue, as evidenced by the link to a famous POV blog on that admin's user page.
• I think that the line between criticisms that have notable counter-criticisms and those that haven't is very close to the line between criticism that merit a separate article and those that don't.
• WP:FORK is completely irrelevant. It is an article about entire websites that mirror or fork Wikipedia.
• The problem with the criticism of criticism in this article is that it exploits its marginal notability to grab the final word.
• Indeed there is no such policy stating "criticism of a criticism doesn't belong in a criticism section", but neither is there a policy, or even a guideline, stating "If there are valid counter-arguments to the criticisms, then these must be fairly included". That latter sentence comes from a failed guideline proposal that has been long demoted to an essay.
• WP:TALK only says that new sections' should be added in chronological order ("at the bottom of the page"). It also says "thread your posts", which I understand to mean putting a response directly below the text being replied to, not necessarily at the bottom of the thread.
• When the essay (not guide) says "valid argument", I understand it to mean what the phrase "valid argument" is established to mean, e.g. "some men are rapists; all men are humans; therefore, some humans are rapists", and the opposite of "invalid argument", e.g. "some men are rapists; therefore, all men should feel guilty". Notions of "notable", "verifiable", "reliable", and "attributable" are superficial to the inherent validity of an argument, and most certainly they are not the common sense meaning of "valid argument". Plus, if I am to agree with you on your proposed definition of "valid argument" for this discussion, I must have your definition of "reliable argument" for this discussion. I don't understand how reliability is even a feature of an argument. A reliable argument is one that never fails to convince? One that you won't forget when you need it? One that keeps promises and is never late? Or what? Rulatir 07:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

References to critical reviews of work by Nathanson and Young appear to have been copypasted from Misandry. Included quotes are relevant to Nathanson's and Young's position on misandry, not to their position on gender studies. It is not clear whether the referenced reviews even address authors' position on gender studies. I keep the mention and the references, just removing irrelevant quotes. Rulatir 08:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rulatir - I take it you are the same user as the IPs. You're right about WP:FORK - apologies I should have referred you to content forking policy that was totally my fault WP:FORK is indeed irrelevant. About Coelacan - please go ahead and ask another admin about the matter I would like to see more views on the subject. I'd just like to address your point about: "Notions of "notable", "verifiable", "reliable", and "attributable" are superficial to the inherent validity of an argument, and most certainly they are not the common sense meaning of "valid argument". Plus, if I am to agree with you on your proposed definition of "valid argument" for this discussion, I must have your definition of "reliable argument" for this discussion." I'm sorry if I was unclear I was referring to the notability, verifiablity and reliability of the source not the argument - as per policy on attribution. Perhaps I was biting you about talk page proceedure if so I do apologize. You are right that the quotes are irrelevant and they were copy-pasted from misandry. I've asked for a third opinion on this discussion. If you're not happy with this please request comment - if a consensus supports your position I'm happy to accept that--Cailil ^talk 23:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternatives to old quotes

Alternatives to the old quotes are

1. "Legalizing Misandry also exhibits conceptual weaknesses. "Ideological feminism," a concept that is key to the authors' central argument, is not defined and used in a consistent way. In the Introduction and much of the book it seems to be conceived as the equivalent of "gender feminism", the term that Christina Hoff Sommers applied to the radical feminism exemplified by the work of Catharine MacKinnon and the late Andrea Dworkin (which raises the question of whether this terrain has not already been exhaustively mined). However, in their discussion of scholarship, Nathanson and Young link "ideological feminism" to feminist postmodernism and also refer to "the strategic alliance between ideological feminists and ideological gay people"." - from Dorothy E Chunn. Canadian Journal of Family Law. Vancouver:2006. Vol. 23, Iss. 1
2. "Where the going gets really rough is in the second half of the book, when Nathanson and Young try to explain how the philosophies of radical feminism led to this situation. There are some suggestive ideas here, but they are not developed. "Deconstruction has become the technique of choice among feminist ideologues," the authors note; a provocative point, but they say nary a word about these feminist ideologues and their use of this trendy academic method. Instead, there is a lengthy discussion of deconstructionism in general - from Charlotte Hays in National Review. New York: Mar 11, 2002. Vol. 54, Iss. 4

These quotes are fairly long but they are about gender studies. I personally don't see the need to get into the arguments in detail. I think the single line note that "Nathanson and Young have been criticized in academic journals" is enough of a balance for NPOV--Cailil ^talk 23:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Responding to a request at WP:3O.

• This is one of the more unreadable and confusing discussions I have read on Wikipedia, especially considering its short length. Understanding WT:ATTCD is peanuts compared to this. Structuring and formatting arguments aids the point(s) made.
• One note in this discussion disturbs me, and though irrelevant to the rest of this Third Opinion, it should be clarified. User:Cailil noted: "I have just asked an admin about this". An administrator's note does not carry extra weight, as administrators are just ordinary users with a few extra buttons. No additional arguments were introduced, and essentially the note was a "Hear hear" to User:Cailil. Worse, this is a discussion involving an ipuser, who I assume is new to Wikipedia. The title "Administrator" (I personally prefer SysOp) in a non-Wikipedia context usually refers to someone whose opinion does carry extra weight. Summarized: an incorrect appeal to authority that might damage a new user's view of Wikipedia.

• Now, onto the arguments used above. I was able to extract the following distinct arguments to the question "Should Gender Studies#Criticism display criticism of a particular criticism?" :

1. Yes, criticism should adhere to WP:NPOV, as described in the Wikipedia:Criticism essay, and thus should be balanced.
2. Yes, it is an appropriate summary of a larger criticism article.
3. No, criticism does not have to be balanced, because Wikipedia:Criticism is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and it would marginalise the criticism.
4. No, the Nathanson and Young article is a better place to write this. It does not belong here.
5. No, the criticism is not valid.

• Wikipedia's policy does not seem to have a way out of this discussion, and it seems arguments were just being repeated. I was unable to find any additional arguments, and my personal opinion here is based upon extra weight to one of the arguments. An assessment:

1. True enough.
2. False. There is no "Criticism of gender studies" article, and therefore it would be inappropriate to summarize the (hypothetical) content of such an article here. A criticism section exists in the article of the authors in question, but it is not claimed that all of the content there applies to gender studies. Also, no evidence exists that the criticism in question is particularly relevant. For example, Albert Einstein has (contemporary) critics, but where his theories are summarized, they are not included. This is because the scientific community as a whole considers his theories valid, and the criticisms false. Do not attack this example on details please. I know it is flawed, but it serves its purpose. What is the case here? Are the criticisms relevant, or do they present a minority so small that listing them would be giving unwarranted weight to a minority opinion?
3. True as well. Usually a way is found between balance and marginalising criticism.
4. May be true or false - See two.
5. May be true or false - This touches an important Wikipedia principle: the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. To include the disputed criticism-of-criticism, it needs to be proven that it is true and valid to the article. If this is not proven, then the discussion could go on forever, but the disputed content would not be added to the article. Currently, the converse is true, as the disputed content is still present. I was unable to properly assess the sources, as one requires a fee, and the other requires expert knowledge.

• Proposal 1: Place one of those nifty "Expert attention needed" tags here, to assess whether the sources prove the claim, and to explain whether they represent a minority or majority opinion.

• Proposal 2: Remove the current "criticism of criticism", as the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, and the claim here is not proven.

--User:Krator (t c) 00:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: When responding, please do not break up this third opinion. Respond below. Please follow the same structure as above when responding, and list point numbers where necessary.

Thank you for your swift response Krator. I'm going to remove the views critical of Nathanson and young as you recommend. Apologies if by asking Coelacan I was doing something wrong I didn't realize that I was breaking the rules (nor did I know that Coelacan would support this - i was genuinely asking for advice). I understand taht this is a very confusing discussion and I realize that I'm partly to blame for that. As a gender studies scholar I have treated Nathanson & Young's work as fairly as I can, its not widely used or discussed in academic circles at least in Ireland. However I realize that another gender studies expert will have to comment for outside expert opinion but from where I stand the criticism of Nathanson & Young's book is notable and accorded due weight.

1. I don't think that one line expressing that the work of Nathanson and Young has been criticized in academic journals is undue and so I felt that it balanced Nathanson & Young's views as per NPOV
2. I wasn't referring Rulatir to a criticism of gender studies article - I believe Rulatir was arguing that I misrepresented the essay on Criticism and I was trying to say that that essay applied to criticism sections as much as it applied to criticism articles. Apologies for causing the confusion.
3. I thought it best to note what are quite serious criticisms of Nathanson and Young. N&Y's point is that gender studies focuses on women "to the point of excluding the male gender from analysis" - in my experience this isn't true, if it were books like Black Male: Representations of Masculinity in Contemporary American Art or Constructing Masculinity or Performance Anxieties: Re-producing Masculinity (the list goes on just type masculinities into Amazon or Jstor) wouldn't exist. I understood this to be an extraordinary claim and I felt the inclusion of references critical of it to be good for the encyclopedia
4. As above - I also felt that the concision of the line would help with this. The criticism of Nathanson & Young is detailed in that article, its just referenced here
5. I felt that this was a straw-man argument. Is the validity of a [{WP:RS|reliably sourced]] argument debatable, if so would Nathanson & Young pass this test for their criticism of gender studies? I understood the word "valid" to mean that it is reliably sourced, recorded neutrally, vefiable and notable - if I'm wrong (or if I've misunderstood you) I do apologize.

I must ask what exactly does Rulatir find invalid about the reviews of Nathanson & Young?

As above I've removed the criticism of Nathanson and Young as recommended by Krator. I've also removed it from feminism. However I think the refs should be reinstated--Cailil ^talk 01:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Braidotti

I do not feel that the criticism by Rosi Braidotti that is cited in the criticism section is as important as the ones by Nathanson and Yong, and am not even sure whether is a serious enough criticism to warrant mention in the article. I would like to suggest that the cirticism by Nathanson and Young be moved ahead of the Braidotti paragraph since it is a more serious cirticism of gender studies. Many universities do not have "feminism" departments and I believe that most people would contend that the bulk of feminist research takes place in gender studies departments, and that the bulk of gender-studies publications are authored by women. Earpshmael 19:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point Earpshmael and I have similar feelings about it, but there is more notability in the criticism by than there is in the Nathanson and Young piece. Braidotti's work is taken seriously in gender studies and feminism - especially at this moment in time when her work on nomadism is very popular. That said I have been concerned about the weight given to that piece - it could be trimmed down to size as per WP:UNDUE with little problems--Cailil ^talk 19:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the underlying similarity between both of these cited critiques of gender-studies is an attempt to point towards favoritism towards a particular social group in gender studies. Nathanson and Young claim that gender-studies favors women; particularly in the underlying philosophy of the subject, and Braidotti claims that there is favoritism of homosexuals (although I am unclear whether she is claiming favoritism towards gay men in particular, or whether lesbians and even trans-gender individuals are included in her claims). I think that the critique section could have a more coherent point if this underlying similarity in the two cited sources was used to "congeal" this part of the page. The section could begin by stating something like "Many cirtics of gender studies claim that the subject offers favoritism towards particular social groups". Favoritism may not be the best wording, but I believe it should be something similar.Earpshmael 17:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea Earpshmael. I generally feel that criticism sections are a bad idea because they introduce a POV section into articles but I think your suggestion to give it coherence is a good one.

From my reading of the Butler-Braidotti interview I've never been sure if she's specifically talking about gay men or all men. The way its written here it infers that she's talking about gay men but I think that's the 'spin' the original author put on it and allowed it to work as a link into that 'rebuttal' by Joseph Allen Boone.

In general I think the whole section could be shortened and more to the point--Cailil ^talk 19:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

the freud section

Taking on board the good points raised by WIlyD's & Scribblingwoman in their edit summaries I propose the following as an alternative solution: Some feminist critics have dismissed the work of Sigmund Freud as sexist, because of his view that women are 'mutilated and must learn to accept their lack of a penis' (in Freud's terms a "deformity") The reason I've placed the whole clause (mutilated and must learn to accept their lack of a penis) in single inverted commas is to show that its a paraphrase of Freud. I switched the positions "lack of penis" and "deformity" because, at least in my reading, this supposed "lack" is more to the point of feminist rejections of Freud. And finally the reason I'm suggesting parenthesis is simply because the dash (which I probably introduced to the paragraph :o ) is sloppy grammar. This kind of debate about this section is healthy and will help improve the article's quality.--Cailil 00:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Hope you approve of the small changes I made, throughout. — scribblingwoman 00:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits to "See also" section

I think that the new categorical organization is superior to the older alphabetical organization. It provides equal consideration of both sexes, and is more logical and understandable. Fuzzform 06:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I guess you could merge them, but do you really want a list of Gender studies related topics added to this article? It might make sense to rename Gender and sexuality studies to List of gender studies topics and expand it significantly, or simply delete it. - TheMightyQuill 15:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that proposal. Its nearly a year know. I think another option would be to go through the list - make sure everything is in Category:Gender_studies and then simply redirect Gender and sexuality studies to here. That page has been sitting there without improvement for a long time, something needs to happen with it--Cailil ^talk 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and redirected it to here. I checked that the appropriate pages were listed Category:Gender_studies & added those that should be. If anyone feels strongly about doing this another way - just revert and discuss--Cailil ^talk 16:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gender studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121212181127/http://www.whitman.edu/content/genderstudies to http://www.whitman.edu/content/genderstudies
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031210215132/http://xyonline.net/index.shtml to http://www.xyonline.net/index.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050604083319/http://moodle.ed.uiuc.edu/wiked/index.php/Gender_Inequities_in_the_Classroom to http://moodle.ed.uiuc.edu/wiked/index.php/Gender_Inequities_in_the_Classroom
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530132529/http://www.turtlebayandbeyond.org/2012/homosexuality/nordic-countries-defund-gender-ideology/ to http://www.turtlebayandbeyond.org/2012/homosexuality/nordic-countries-defund-gender-ideology/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)