Difference between revisions of "Talk:Women"

Latest revision as of 15:23, August 29, 2022

I'm not going into the Biblical issues here; that's for more scholarly folk than myself. However: "Also not explicitly stated in the Bible, it is obvious that," does that work? At what level of opinion and/or writer's logic does CP draw the line? Aziraphale 03:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

NO, this does not work. The logic in that is completely flawed.

Also, if Eve was created from Adam's rib, wouldn't she be his sister? They are of the same flesh and blood...

-- Orly 10:24 14 March 2007 (CET)

I agree that it doesn't work. People who talk about the "will of God" should be prepared to back it up, chapter and verse, with the Word of God. DavidE 09:35, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

If god does not approve of menstruation, why did "he" design women that way?

-- Orly 15:42 14 March 2007 (CET)

• God not only approves of menstruation, he specifically designed that process to prepare the womb for another cycle of readiness for conception. But there was an ancient obsession with blood combined with the fact that the men in charge of writing scripture found it to be, uh, yucky. And it's not exactly a load of fun. As Tammy Wynette said, "Sometimes its hard to be a woman..." But there are compensations ;-) Teresita 03:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Be careful saying "man writes scripture" and suggesting that human biases areinterjected into biblical writings, because there is a VAST majority here who take the bible LITERALLY and as directly from God Himself. They might not be too pleased lol...Jros83 03:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

I thought of taking it out to. But those verses are in the bible still... I thought it better to explain their role than to refuse to acknowledge them just for their inconvenience.

-- BornAgainBrit

Free advice for you to use, or not, as yous see fit: the reason religious debates are never resolved is simple (imo): people are trying to understand why a possibly omnipotent / omniscient being does what it does. We have no frame of reference for this, so we're stuck making all kinds of assumptions. Simple answer to any "why" question is, unfortunately, "why not?" Or "because." Or "it will all make sense 1,000 years from now, we simply lack perspective." Which doesn't mean those arguments are right, but what are you going to do?

My advice: read, study, pray if you like. But you probably won't get an answer you like, and (conversely) you not getting an answer you like doesn't prove anything.

Aziraphale 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT) , going back to technical edits where the Chicago Manual can be proved far more easily ;)

This is really a terrible article! Some facts maybe? /What

Never mind: asked and answered on TimSvendsen's page Sedge 23:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Rename 'women in the bible' as that seems to be the only section?

What a sexist article! Someone really needs to fix it up. --Ian911299 15:56, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry but I do find it rather silly that the only sources cited on an article about one entire half of the human population are from the Bible.... Is this the Middle Ages?Jros83 03:09, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

category question

Um... Wikipedia articles needing context? Say what now? Aziraphale 02:24, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

• Sooooo weird! I looked (as I am sure you did) for that stupid template...couldn't find it, and it vanished when I added the stub. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 04:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Well actually, I didn't look that hard. ;) For all I knew somebody was creating a category for articles that provide balance/rebuttal to the WP version of the same thing... or something. I started by asking, since it seems a lot of people get burned for stepping on admin toes. Believe it or not, I don't actually go OUT of my way to do so heheheheh. Aziraphale 12:58, 15 August 2007 (EDT) <-not bad, just drawn that way...

out of context

"women shall not speak in church" Paul's letter to the Corinthians 14:34 People often misquote, or take bible verses out of context. This is a perfect example of just that. The Pauline letters were actual letters that were sent to the early congregations addressing individual concerns and issues. In Corinth, the women were particularly talkative. Paul just wanted them to shut up, to use a bible verse like this is truly a mark against your faith. It shows how little you understand the bible, AND, it speaks volumes for the way that you veiw women.

Do you have any evidence for that assertion? I Timothy 2:11-15 explains why women are to learn in silence, and it has nothing to do with particularly talkative women in one church:

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

DavidE 13:07, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

That was the answer that I expected. DavidE 09:34, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

Women in history

Women have made outstanding contributions to history and have done so for thousands of years. To say they haven't and include a small exclusive list is degrading. This webiste boasts the truth and yet is unbelieviably biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ModeratesRNeeded (talk)

Put it in then! This is a user-editable site for that very reason. HelpJazz 20:33, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

Having a section that lists notable women in history is a little bit counter-intuitive because...

A. How do you define notability? How do you define one's impact on history?

B. There are far to many women that would be "notable" to even think about including a list. After all, women make up about half of the human race. To have an exclusive list is almost to delegate their impact in society to a small list. A list like this can never be complete. Also remember that there are probably several women who we don't know about--think of all the rulers who had wives, after all.

If nobody objects with a very good reason, I'm going to delete that entire section. -Ilikecake 22:04, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Mutant statistics

Was this a case of mutant statistics?

When you look at strength per unit of lean body weight (body weight minus fat weight), women have slightly stronger legs

Joel Best writes about how sloppy journalists mutate factoids like this and distort the facts when making a point.

Sixth day?

In Genesis 2, it sayes God rested on the seventh day, he planted a garden in Eden, and Adam named the animals. Only after the animals were named did God make woman (otherwise there would have been much more arguing as to the name of the platapus). Woman was not made on the sixth day.

I will add the appropriate Bible verses to clarify matters. DavidE 11:17, 20 December 2007 (EST)

New Testament

In the section on the New Testament, we read, "Most of these things are not believed by even the strictest Christians, and such views are considered extreme by even the most conservative Christians." On what basis do those "strictest" and "most conservative" Christians dismiss God's Word as unbelievable and extreme? DavidE 12:05, 26 October 2012 (EDT)

Vandalism

This page needs updating., especially the sexist "sole" (parody vandalism?). Suggested revision to the beginning of the lede:

Women are the female of the human species, and a young woman, is a girl. Most women have two Y-chromosones. They also have different reproductive organs from men and normally can give birth. While on average women’s brains are smaller than men this is not an indication of a lower intelligence.^[1] --Jackin the box (talk) 11:20, May 15, 2022 (EDT)

Have at it. RobS^Z 13:58, May 15, 2022 (EDT)

Notability

What is the criterion for notability here? Jill Biden is notable only because she is the wife of a sitting president. Is a governor of an American state notable in the same way as Joan of Arc is? A queen of Sparta is included but not Sappho! Why are Madonna and Lady Gaga privileged over Clara Schuman, Jessye Norman, and hundreds of other musicians? Furthermore, it would be better if the list was replaced by sections discussing women in politics, music, literature, science, etc. Using the current criterion the list could be endless. --Jackin the box (talk) 11:33, May 20, 2022 (EDT)

I agree. Never heard of some Celtic queen. That appears to be some junior high Eurocentric feminist stuff, probably. RobS^Z 15:19, May 20, 2022 (EDT)

Thanks, Rob. --Jackin the box (talk) 17:17, May 20, 2022 (EDT)

I asked for User:Northwest's forbearance. Sorting out subheadings will probably take some time and maybe discussion. Thanks. RobS^Z 17:21, May 20, 2022 (EDT)

See this comment on my Talk page, which should have been posted here: User_talk:Jackin the box#Re: Women

Jackin the box, you accuse me of "edit-warring" by restoring information that you wrongly removed regarding the entries included in the article because of claims of "non-notability" by you, yet you yourself were the one who started the edit war to begin with by removing some of those entries and making edits of your own to impose liberal POV yet again (which you claim as "improvements" but are, in fact, not). Northwest (talk) 17:37, May 20, 2022 (EDT)

I invited comment and waited for a response. My edits were non-controversial. I fail to understand why minor pop starsr are so important to you, or political figures that will be forgotten in a few years. This is supposedly an encyclopaedia. A clear definition of notability is needed here, otherwise the list will be excessively long. For example, their are dozens of women PMs or Heads of State, major American writers alone. The list format is unsatisfactory. --Jackin the box (talk) 17:54, May 20, 2022 (EDT)

May I suggest we begin subheadings with politics, music, literature, science, etc. as suggested. Then we could possibly have a subhead on "contemporary figures" whose names can be rotated in and out as their 15 minutes of fame passes. RobS^Z 18:22, May 20, 2022 (EDT)

Women like Sarah Bernhardt or Zsa Zsa Gabor were largely regarded by their contemporaries like Madonna or Lady Gaga. I see no reason to include historical figures like that, but our contemporary figures can have their 15 minutes. And in contemporary figures, we don't need to delineate between politics, art, etc. Just toss 'em into the same cauldron. RobS^Z 18:30, May 20, 2022 (EDT)

Thanks. Perhaps what is needed is a new separate section <Some important contemporary women>? Though my point re Madonna or Lady Gaga, is there are so many, many other contemporary singers, who equally deserve to be included. And re Jill Biden, there are hundreds of women, who have achieved more politically than her. --Jackin the box (talk) 19:06, May 20, 2022 (EDT)

Yah, that's my point. Jill Biden is out the door in something like 19 months or less; then Chasten Buttigieg of somebody gets rotated in. As to Madonna, her 14 minutes of fame is just about up like Joe Biden's, as she departs the gerontocracy. Lady Gaga represents a more middle-aged successor group, and Miley Cyrus or Nicki Minaj a younger group. So in the contemporary field, we limit it to two or three representatives, either generationally or competing heads in t he youth generation.

Nina Jankowicz expiration date has passed already, but AOC can remain, competing to become a historic legend like Eleanor Roosevelt or Margaret Chase Smith. The idea is, the contemporary figures are hoping to be added to the historic figures, although about 99% probably will fail. RobS^Z 19:17, May 20, 2022 (EDT)

Suggestion: Divide the ==Women in History== into subgroups and figure out an average number to round out, and use that number for ==Contemporary figures== with X number from each of the historic subgroups. RobS^Z 19:31, May 20, 2022 (EDT)

We may need a ===Women in business=== or ===Social activist=== subhead, too. RobS^Z 19:38, May 20, 2022 (EDT)

Maybe a new article/section on famous contemporary women might be a good idea. Women in history implies that the person is of historical importance. Thus, being a woman premier or even president isn’t sufficient, because there have been several dozens such women. Also, maybe there should be a separate article/section on Nobel prize winners? Again there are too many of them to include. Who to include requires more thought. Several additions that I made should, on further thought, probably be deleted. I looked for a comparable Conservapedia article on men, but couldn't find one. I found this resource online: "100 Women Who Changed the World" . --Jackin the box (talk) 09:36, May 21, 2022 (EDT)

Keep in mind our target readership, which would be basically school aged girls. It's meant to be inspirational. A separate article on Nobel winners sounds like an excellent idea. A separate page on contemporary women would be a nightmare to maintain. RobS^Z 14:31, May 21, 2022 (EDT)

Interesting that you put Rachel Carsen in Politics and not Science. Can we call this the Politicization of science, and how deeply ingrained it is? RobS^Z 16:26, May 22, 2022 (EDT)

And why would Phyllis Schlafly be in Religion and not Politics? Sure, she never held elected office or an appointed position in government, but Schlafly & Carsen could easily go into a ==Social activism== subhead since Carsen, presumably was lacking in scientific credentials. RobS^Z 16:36, May 22, 2022 (EDT)

Amelia Earhart, really?

Amelia Earhart, the most celebrated of all women aviators. Yah, that's how the liberal media sold her when she took off for her much-publicized trip around the world....until she crashed and burned in the South Pacific. Other say she was eaten by cannibals. Some say the Japanese executed her. But she never made it around the world. Hanna Reitsch had more "celebrated" accomplishments as an aviator in that period. RobS^{Ich bin ein breakfast taco} 22:38, August 28, 2022 (EDT)

People made jokes about her disappearance - like they did Jimmy Hoffa - decades after her disappearance, basically to mock all the liberal media hype about her. RobS^{Ich bin ein breakfast taco} 22:46, August 28, 2022 (EDT)

• Interesting. Add her! --RobLeonardWoo (talk) 10:16, August 29, 2022 (EDT)

To fly in and out of Berlin while it's under Russian siege is an accomplishment; to fly in and out to save Hitler not necessarily so. RobS^{Ich bin ein breakfast taco} 11:20, August 29, 2022 (EDT)

But Hanna Reitsch definitely could be considered the Luftwaffe's best pilot at that time. RobS^{Ich bin ein breakfast taco} 11:23, August 29, 2022 (EDT)

refs