Talk:Women's rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.
This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.



Contents

[edit] Criticisim

If there is a criticisim section in the Men's article Then i think there should be a criticisim section in this article. Besides, don't women want equality? ;) --Dallin Tanjo22 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the poor formatting here, but I just wanted to make someone aware of the vandalism on this page. I don't know how to edit (hence the illogical placement of this comment - i dont know how to start my own thread), so I leave it up to one of you to get rid of the obstructing picture of male genitalia, please. Thanks - A Rather Shocked Woman

[edit] Not a dismabig, not a link farm. This is the page

This page is not being expanded, perhaps because people think it's supposed to be a link farm. So I'm moving the majority ofthe See also entries here, for reference, and so they can be moved back after the page has been expanded.

[edit] Biased

Someone HAS TO edit this:

In all societies, with few exceptions, women have been and continue to be subjugated by men, and other women. When John Lennon sang in 1972 that "woman is the nigger of the world...woman is the slave of the slaves" he knew what he was talking about. At all levels, women are looked down upon, and those at even the lowest caste of society can find ready and convenient objects of derision in their wives and daughters.

If that's not biased, then I don't know what is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulus Caesar (talk • contribs).

I agree it's a little bombastic but is any of it untrue? Please, please, please edit it. Ewlyahoocom 10:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
More to the point, is any of it sourced, except for the lyrics? The rest is not only bombastic, it is unsourced, original research. Please source this, or it will be removed again. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Even more to the point, since no one seems to have enough balls or ova to step up and write a decent page, how 'bout we just redirect this to a more appropriate page like e.g. Civil rights? Ewlyahoocom 18:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, it's looking better already; let's give it a chance. True, the development of this page is going slowely, but there has been a significant amount of work done in the past few months. It's just that a lot of it was not up to Wikipedia standards. I think redirecting this page to Civil rights would be a bad move, as women's rights are an important enough topic to merit their own article and should be considered more than just a subcategory of civil rights or human rights. romarin[talk to her ] 20:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Concur strongly with Romarin. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
So then why, oh why, won't you get off your a** and write something!? Or do you need the full year to ruminate on this one? Ewlyahoocom 23:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but that is completely unnecessary. Please remember to assume good faith, and while you're at it, chill out a bit. The world isn't going to end tomorrow. romarin[talk to her ] 00:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think a viable, good-faith-assumimg explanation for the lack of updating in of this page is that this kind of topic is not one I'd expect anyone to look up for any reason other than being required to (the same goes for any big, serious issue). Whether it's for school, business, or something else, the people who make you do research don't generally trust Wikipedia. That's why a lighter, less important article is more likely to be updated; those topics are better suited for Wikipedia. I'm just guessing here, but it makes sense to me. -Unknownwarrior33 04:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a theory that stubby articles that contain outrageous POV statements (usually as a result of a text dump) often end up as better articles than those that start with banal neutrel summaries; people are usually in much more of a hurry to contribute to the former. Also, having been the only man on the "women and the law" course in my year at law school, I can also vouch for the fact that neutrality does not come easily to those who take this topic seriously (ie. the sort of people we want contributing to this article). Assume good faith, and remember there is no POV statement so outrageous that one small edit cannot fix it. Legis 12:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub v. Aid Nom

I think I should remove the Stub to make this a AID nominee Felixboy 17:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Revisions

I did an overhaul of the article, but I wanted to get some feedback before posting anything. I tried to incorporate all the relevant information from the current article, but it's basically a complete change. If nobody has any comments or objections, I may try posting it on the main "Women's Rights" page rather than the Talk page tomorrow. But if you have any feedback, please have at it! Sasha Kopf 20:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

--> See: this version of the article for the revisions proposed.

[edit] List of important women

I think a list should also be added about important women(------ ------- was the first woman to----)70.127.34.98 13:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Basic human rights"

This whole notion of "basic human rights" is culturally biased. The concept stems from the French revolution, was written into the American constitution, and is now a common but not universally accepted concept. The article should be rephrased to eliminate the presumption that "basic human rights" exist and that we know what they are. For example, in the first paragraph the sentence

"In most societies, with few exceptions, women have historically been subjugated by patriarchal infrastructures and denied many basic human rights."

could be rephrased to

"In most societies, with few exceptions, women have historically been subjugated by patriarchal infrastructures and denied many rights afforded to men."

Snottygobble 00:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Works for me, Snottygobble. Do you want to make some changes, and then people can discuss from there if there's a disagreement? Thanks for your close attention, I think some of that was my own POV creeping in without me realizing it at all. Sasha Kopf 02:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues for cleanup

===>Some impressions Some of these are easier to fix than others:

  • There is at least one link to a disambiguation page.
  • Sub-headings use improper capitalization.
  • This aricle only cites one source, and makes several outrageous claims (even if said claims are true.)
  • The article uses weasel words to create impressions or associations that are unproven. For instance:
"Historically as well as in the present day, many societies have treated women’s bodies as the property of men or the society at large."

How many societies? Which ones? In what way were they property? Culturally? Legally? Religiously? Socially? Some combination fo them? Were they equivalent to other property or in a separate category? When and how did this change in some societies?

"In most societies, with few exceptions, women have historically been subjugated by patriarchal infrastructures and denied many basic human rights."

In which ones were they not subjugated? What does "subjugation" mean? Were they slaves? Which basic human rights? All of them? Most of them? One of them?

"Although significant reforms have been made in some parts of the world to extend human rights to women and men equally, in many others women continue to be treated with the same legal standing as children or as chattel belonging to their fathers or husbands, or pressured to conform to strict gender roles which may go against their wishes."

I hope you can all see the weasel word problems with this sentence. Statements this vague are meaningless, except as propaganda.

  • The biggest problem: the POV from which it is written.

That POV would, generally speaking, be a liberal viewpoint (in the contemporary American sense, not the classical.) So, for instance the line "Women’s rights typically refers to human rights which are or have been granted to adult men but not to adult women in a particular society," would be disputed with classical liberals. Rights are something inalienable from the person, and they cannot be transferred, so laws to do grant rights; rights do not come into being. Of course, utilitarians will argue that the very concept of rights doesn't exist at all. The assumption that rights exist and that they are alienable from the person permeates this article. The term "women's rights" is used by particular individuals with a certain political agenda.

Furthermore, there are feminists that would disagree with the assesment of which "rights" are desirable. For instance, many third-wave and all first-wave feminists were opposed to abortion. The association between being an advocate of women's rights and being in favor of legal protection for abortion is unfounded and biased.

Also, there is no contradiction between the notion of "women's rights" and the notion that women don't have the same rights and responsibilities as men, as long as thoughs rights are responsibilities are of equal value (to those populations, to society at large, et al.) In point of fact, the term "women's rights" implies that women do in fact have rights different from men in some respect. For instance, women have the responsibility of bearing children (Feminists take note: I am not saying that any one woman is obliged to have children; I am saying the population of all persons that do have children is female). Is this somehow discriminatory against men? Of course. But it isn't a matter of moral, social, or political degredation, oppression, or subjugation; it's a simple fact of biology. Men and women have different biological imperatives (the very definition of the difference between men and women.) Consequently, one could believe in or advocate different classes or categories of rights intrinsic to men and women. These individuals would believe in women's rights, but they could come to very different conclusions about what those rights would be or how a society that respects said rights could be acheived.

The section on "rights granted by different religions" is almost offensive. Needless to say, it includes weasely vagueries ("of the many different religions of the world, very few categorically grant equal rights to women.") Again, the assumption in this passage is that women should be allowed into ministry at the same positions as men, which is POV. It is also written from a pro-Sikh POV, associating Sikhism in practice with advancing women's rights. One could just as easily claim that the structure of the Guru system reinforces patriarchy (Why were all gurus men if men and women are equal?) Also, Jewish and Zoroastrian commentators have advocated equality of the sexes for millenia, but that equality is simply distasteful or not the kind of equality the editor(s) of this section desired. Plus, this section simply appeals to what Guru Nanak wrote, and gives no indication that Sikhism as it is currently practiced actually advances these principles of equality. This is not to say that Sikhs are discriminatory against women, but to ignore the situation in the real world is to propagandize. (Muhammad said Islam is a religion of peace, therefore there must not be any religiously-motivated violence by Muslims justifyied by Islamic holy texts, right?) One last note, there would certainly be feminists/women's rights advocates that would take issue with this quote from Guru Nanak "In a woman man is conceived. From a woman he is born. With a woman he is betrothed and married. With a woman he contracts friendship. Why denounce her, the one from whom even kings are born? From a woman a woman is born. None may exist without a woman." This implies that women serve gender roles such as being sex objects, wives, and mothers, but would not themselves be leaders (there is no mention of queens, only kings.) Personally, I think that's an asinine misinterpretation, but this article isn't about what I think of feminists' interpretation of Guru Nanak. I say all this not to implicate Sikhs, but simply to show how näively this section is written.


==> Reply from User:Sasha Kopf, who did a lot of the writing on the article

Thanks for your input, Justin! To address a few of your points:
  • I took out a link to a disambiguation page (were you referring to autonomy?)
  • fixed the sub-headings
  • vague weasel words: agreed, they're definitely a weak point. I'll see if I can toss some out and/or add specific examples
  • citations should help with weasel words - can other editors help with this?
  • use of the word "rights": good point - I think in what I was writing, I probably should have used the word "freedoms" in a lot of places. Do you think that would help clear up the meaning and remove some of the POV?
  • feminism vis-a-vis abortion: I disagree that the two paragraphs on reproductive rights should lead you to the conclusion that all feminists agree on the issue. The phrases "the right to use contraception, obtain an abortion, or to abstain from doing either" and "being forced to carry, to prevent, or to terminate a pregnancy" are key to that section (emphasis added). My intention in writing that section was to highlight that a right to bodily autonomy must include some degree of self-determination in terms of reproduction, rather than reproduction being dictated by the state or another individual. I don't think that statement translates to "women must have access to abortion" - in my mind, it encompasses a much broader spectrum of views than that. Obviously one of these views is that abortion is an important component of upholding women's freedom, and the article as it is now acknowledges this, but this is not the ONLY viewpoint, nor do I think the article make that claim.
But in terms of your POV concerns in this area, maybe part of the problem is that I tried to keep many statements in that section flexible, to reflect the flexibility of how the concepts of bodily integrity and bodily autonomy are interpreted by different people in real life. I'd still like to make that flexibility clear, but the way I did it may have just made the issue more vague and opened the section up to POV inferences. I'll see if I can rework it, but I'm hesitant to do too much myself without more input from others.
  • re: your paragraph that starts out "Also, there is no contradiction between the notion of "women's rights" and the notion that women don't have the same rights and responsibilities as men...": I guess I'm not sure how to incorporate this bit into the article. Were you thinking of any specific point at which these issues should be addressed?
  • the section on religion: I'd been wanting to work on this part, because I completely agree with what you wrote. Unfortunately, anything I could do with it would mostly be getting rid of stuff, not adding much back in, because I'm not well-versed on religious topics. To anybody else reading this - If you can, please help with this part! (The same goes for finding citations.)
- Sasha Kopf 19:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Thanks for your efforts and good faith

  • Actually, the redirect I noticed was Nazanin, in place of Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi, which I've fixed.
  • As for the use of the word "rights" versus "freedoms" (or "liberties," etc.) I certainly think that would help, but of course, advocates of "women's rights" are purporting them as rights that should be granted by law and civil society rahter than simply things that so happen to be legal or that societies generally find acceptable. So, however it is worded, the article needs to make clear that advocates don't think that women's rights are arbitrary sets of social liberties, but necessary abilities to be protected by law in a just society.
  • Re:abortion. Pro-life feminists would not be in favor of a right to obtain an abortion, nor would they argue that women have a metaphysical or transcendent right to it. In point of fact, they would argue that the germane rights are those of the unborn to live, so women cannot have a "right" to abort (excepting possibly rape or extraordinary circumstances.) Furthermore, in the case of rape, there are pro-life feminists who would be in favor of the state intervening to bring the pregnancy to term, so they could be said to be in favor of "being forced to carry" a pregnancy to term. While I appreciate efforts to make the situation as inclusive as possible, the wording as it stands still excludes women's rights advocates. Let me know if I'm just not seeing a more subtle point being made here.
  • At the same time, you're right that in making the section flexible, you run the risk of being vague or using weasely terms. This is why sources are crucial - quote someone who said position A and someone else who said position B and suddenly you can write "Some critics contend that A [source], while others argue B [source]." The terminology is just as vague, but the source makes it concrete.
  • I suppose I might say that conservative Christians in America (men and women alike) would agree that women have rights (free speech, for instance) and an essential dignity, but that men and women, due to gender roles that are inextricably linked to sex, have different social responsibilities (women are responsible for domestic care and child rearing, men for making a household income). For that matter, the Catholic Church would profess that women have rights, but that doesn't entitle them to become members of clergy. The fact that these are both religious in nature may make things more muddy than clear. I personally don't have any way of incorporating it into the article in an intelligible way. Do you know of any philosophers that had systems of philosophy upholding women's rights with them being inherently different from men's? This is exactly why I don't feel qualified to edit the article (and a bit hypocritical at point out its shortcomings, since I have little to offer in the way of alternatives.)
  • Again, thanks Sasha. I wish that all points of disagreement on Wikipedia could be handled in such a mature and charitable way. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 20:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


==> Response #2 from Sasha

Oy, the more I mull this article over, the less qualified I feel to be editing it! I tried working on re-wording just the first paragraph, and got stuck on even coming up with a simple definition.
Okay. In hopes of getting some feedback, what would other people include in a short definition of the term "women's rights"? Off the top of my head, these are some keywords, phrases, concepts, etc., that I would include:
  • freedoms, liberties, _insert synonym or related concept here_
  • granted (or denied?) by society through law or custom
  • something about these freedoms being specified/grouped together/differentiated from broader notions of "'human' rights"
  • singled out because they are often different from the freedoms/liberties/whatever of men
  • often, though not always, this differentiation from the freedoms of men takes the form of women having fewer freedoms than their male counterparts (i.e., being denied the right to vote, to go to school, blah blah blah)
  • these differentiations are at least partially socially constructed rather than biologically immutable conditions, though biological differences between sexes obviously have an effect on cultural attitudes
But before I take the time to construct those random bits into a workable definition, I'd like to hear if other people think that's even on the right track. If anyone has thoughts (and I'm not meaning to dump this all on you, Justin, though you might be the only one here reading this!), please share.
I have more to write but have to run at the moment.
- Sasha Kopf 23:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing problems

This article is poorly cited, highly sexist and a disgrace to Wikipedia. I'm just going to be bold --AndersFeder 19:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This article has undergone many changes recently, and is still being worked on. How about you make a list of what specifically you find to be wrong with it? That would be a much bigger help than just calling it a "disgrace", and that way we can all decide what the priotories are. As the issue of women's rights is extremely complex, I hope you can understand that this is a particularly difficult article. I applaud those who have spent their time working on it recently. It has come a long way in the past couple months. romarin [talk ] 20:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Okey-doke, I went ahead and pretty much blanked the article, as it was clearly causing some serious and unintended upset. I might add back, using some of what was there, but for now, it seems more politic to start from the beginning. However, it would be really helpful to have more in-depth input from others. -Sasha Kopf 22:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh... I don't know that starting over is the right thing to do at this point. You've been working really hard on this article lately, no? I haven't read through it in a while, but by just glancing down the page, it looked to me like it was on the right path. The user who wrote the first comment in this section doesn't seem to be involved with any articles related to this topic; not that their comments should therefore be taken too lightly, but I don't think they warrant blanking the article. If the above editor wants to come back up their accusations with some actual constructive criticism, then there will be a place to start. But I would be very surprised if they actually decide to do that. romarin [talk ] 23:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, romarin [talk ] - It's true, I did do a lot of work on the article a month or so ago, and I do think it was getting on a better, more coherent path but also had some fundamental flaws. I agree that AndersFeder's comment was unproductive, but I based my blanking more on comments from Justin (koavf) the other day, who ultimately did have some very thoughtful and constructive criticism. I would like to bring back a lot of what was in the article pre-blanking, but I just thought that for now, a clean slate might be the way to go. However, if that's stepping out of bounds on my part, I apologize and will understand if the article gets restored for now.
Thanks for your input and attention to this article, Romarin, and for assuming good faith. It's very much appreciated. -Sasha Kopf 15:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
My comment was mainly directed at the women-in-all-societies-are-subjugated-quote I originally posted it below. I see now that this and most similar passages has been removed from the article since the revision I read and apologize for the confusion. I still think there is problems with citation though but feel free to restore of course. With regards to the word "disgrace", I do think that an encylopedia article pointing half the world's population out as nazis is a disgrace. --AndersFeder 22:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sasha, I didn't mean to imply at all that you were stepping out of bounds; I was only worried that you were deleting all of your hard work! :) romarin [talk ] 16:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
AndersFeder, I would entirely agree that an article calling half the world's population "Nazis" would be a disgrace and would have no place in an encyclopedia. However, POV and citation problems aside, no version of the article that I've read or contributed to did so. The previous version, before I blanked most of it, focused on problems that patriarchal infrastructures can pose in terms of women's rights - which I still think is quite relevant, though more nuanced than the previous version made clear (see above discussions). But there's a big difference between saying "patriarchal infrastructures are problematic and can be detrimental" and saying "men are evil."
In terms of the quote to which I believe you were referring ("In most societies, with few exceptions, women have historically been subjugated by patriarchal infrastructures and denied many basic human rights"), that particular sentence was a bit of a remnant from past versions, before a big overhaul of the article was done a few weeks ago. In building the article back up now, I'm happy to see it go altogether, be reworded, whatever. I would, though, point out that your paraphrase of that sentence makes it sound even more extreme than it is. It may not have been a good sentence, but it was a broad statement that does not implicate all men, all societies, or all times.
It seems from your comments that you found the article too bias towards assuming the worst of men, and whether this opinion is well-founded or not, I hope you stick around to edit the article and to add your input on the talk page. However, in doing so, I would also ask that you not be so quick on the draw to assume the worst about other editors. -Sasha Kopf 23:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, I apologize if you felt my comment were directed at your work. The passage I commented on appears under the Biased section of this discussion page (where I originally posted my comment). The inclusion of the John Lennon quote, likening women of the world to 'niggers', strongly insinuates (and intentionally so, I'm quite confident) that men are like nazis towards women. --AndersFeder 23:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. -Sasha Kopf 00:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] men's rights

why isn't there a men's rights article? --Paaerduag 07:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

because it hasn't been written yet. Snottygobble 11:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Um, either this is a trick question, or you two are using a different Wikipedia than I am. 'Cuz on the Wikipedia I'm looking at, there's an article called men's rights and has been for quite a while. -Sasha Kopf 15:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Because anytime women assert that they have rights, they are oppressing men in an amazingly ironic twist we call "reverse sexism". I'm being sarcastic. --Lizzard 06:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Women's movement

How about it? (Wikimachine 18:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

In my opinion, no, since many issues that would fall under the label of "women's rights" do not have a "women's movement" associated with them, at least not globally. This article is obviously an incredibly tough one, but personally, I think it should ultimately be an article that can stand on its own, even if it has a long way to go. But could you expand more on your reasoning for the suggestion? - Sasha Kopf 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you on that, Sasha; the "women's movement" is very specific, while this article is very general. -Unknownwarrior33 04:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Sasha. It's important to outline ideas of women's rights. Human rights are different from specific movements, which have happened at different times and places, to demand those rights. The erasure of the many different struggles for women's rights throughout history is a problem well known to feminist historians, and I see Wikipedia as a place that can help in the fight against losing our histories. Also, in general, we need feminist articles to stand on their own on Wikipedia, and to proliferate rather than be denied, blanked, and merged. --Lizzard 06:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting Maturity Pattern

I don't claim to be an expert, but I think you'll all agree with me that the issue of Women's rights is much bigger and much more important to the world than people's taste in music, right? But the discussions here are generally very polite and rational. Now check out the talk page for nu-metal. Anyone else find it disturbing that a difficult issue like this one breeds more mature and sensible discussions than something as trivial as music? -Unknownwarrior33 04:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] List of Activists

I like the list, but it could be split off into another page. There are so many women's rights activists! I would not count Sor Juana as one, but rather as a Category:Feminist_writers feminist writer. Also, I was thinking of working on the category tags, like this one: Category:American_women's_rights_activists. A general "women's rights activists" category? Also, we have a Feminists entry with what is a terribly small list. Is there a good way to make a list of entries that I think need to be written on significant women and feminists? Or should I make that list outside of Wikipedia and get people to work on it? Thanks for any feedback... I'm kind of wondering where to hop in, here. I have bios of individual women, for example, but am worried about someone just swooping in and declaring them insignificant, and I'm also trying to get a grasp on the structure of feminist information and history here.--Lizzard 16:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/o/m/Talk%7EWomen%27s_rights_8c58.html"