Talk:Alternative gender systems

Merger into Gender systems
The present article has a lot of problems:
 * 1) There's already an article called Gender systems that is not so long it requires alternatives split off.
 * 2) The lead isn't WP:NPOV, and if it were cleaned up it would read a lot like the lead in Gender systems.
 * 3) The first section after the lead should not be "related concepts." Ideally you'd explain necessary related concepts throughout the article and put the rest in a See also.
 * 4) The Theory of gender power section duplicates Gender role.
 * 5) The Nongendered egalitarianism section mentions two scholars but only cites one, and gives only one example, the Yoruba people.
 * 6) The Gynecratic egalitarianism section duplicates Matriarchy, and its direct relevance here is unclear. (They're both about gender, but why is matriarchy an alternative gender system?)
 * 7) The article as a whole reads like a class assignment, which the original author all but admits to be the article's purpose on their user page.

Therefore, I propose that the present article be merged into Gender systems. The proposed fate of each section of this article is as follows.
 * 1) Drop the lead.
 * 2) Drop Theory of gender power because Gender role is already linked in Gender systems.
 * 3) Incorporate Nongendered egalitarianism as an example in Gender systems. Remove the uncited scholar and make it explicitly about the Yoruba people.
 * 4) Drop Gynecratic egalitarianism.
 * 5) Incorporate the examples into Gender systems.
 * 6) I'm open to suggestions about what to do with Gendered violence. One thought is to incorporate it into Sexual assault, but that's not quite the same thing. The subject may merit its own article, but I don't have the expertise to get one started.

As noted in the Gender systems article, it has its problems as well, but it's in better shape than this article and is probably where this stuff belongs, at least for now.

Lagrange613 (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge it into gender systems. I believe this was one of several articles created by a school project that should have been immediately deleted or merged into other existing articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Khazar (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * merge there is no reason to have two articles at about the same level on generality. The Gender systems article is at present much superior, and this should be merged in selectively. The a.g.s. article as it stands reflects the Eurocentric designation of other than the conventional West European gender systems as "alternative".The very unfortunate terminology does exist, and the .  The lead section of the a. g. s. article reflects the use,  but  be reworded to be presented as a POV, not a conclusion.     DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)