Have we not more to say about these interesting people than what is written in this article?
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.
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] - 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
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)~
- 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.
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