Category talk:Women by occupation

category justification
If there's a women by occupation category, then why not have a men by occupation category, and homologous subcategories for male equivalents of the female ones? We don't seperate English actors as a category between that and the non-existent English actresses category, although we do have a category for female guitarists. Could someone explain to me why it is necessary to have this sex distinction, without the categories for males?--HisSpaceResearch 05:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is another example of where the female/male split was seen as a bad thing. Isn't having categories for women but not for men a double standard? Please give me your views on the matter if you have any... personally, I don't see much need to divide categories by gender/sex at all really in the majority of cases.--HisSpaceResearch 06:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess we do have Category:Men, Category:Women and all their subcategories...--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Some women categories are relevant (for instance Category:Female bullfighters) that's why there is a women by occupation category. There is also men categories when it is relevant (Category:Male models, male singers, Eunuchs, and so on). In some occupations, gender is really relevant (generally for historical interest, or when the involvement of a gender in an occupation is atypical). In my opinion, this type of categorization is ok when it is a subject of studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.36.179.105 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)