Talk:Feminization (sociology)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): R.best.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2018, between 16 January 2018 and 2 May 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angelfeathers6.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marquez504.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Texas_Christian_University/Introduction_to_Women_and_Gender_Studies_(Spring_2018)
This article has potential with some more work. I deleted irrelevant information and added other topics within Feminization. I hope the next student that has the opportunity to add to this article can give examples like statistical data and examples within each heading. A lot of the original content was unsourced and there may still be a few sentences without sources. Angelfeathers6 — Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Feminization of Christianity
Certain ecclesiastical writers have criticized a phenomenon of feminization within Christianity, pointing to the fact that more women are likely to attend modern-day liturgies. This could perhaps be mentioned in the article, along with appropriate sources of course. ADM (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Judging by Celsus' impression of Christianity in the second century AD (“a religion of women, children and slaves,”), this is nothing new. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed quote
That quote about cyberspace and nukes isn't particularly relevant to the article. Besides having been written in 1994, talking about the future of the internet, and being generally nonsensical and without basis in fact, it is from a personal reflection/opinion/blog. That is not appropriate on Wikipedia. 70.52.210.242 (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Disparate topics
Even though this article is itself a sub-article, as it were, of "feminization," it still discusses two separate topics - one, the shift in culture to traits considered more feminine, as in the Douglas example of nineteenth-century literature, and second, the shift in demographics to women, as in feminization of poverty, labor, etc. I'm inclined to think that the latter would be the primary meaning in a sociological context - do you think we should split off the former into something else? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Strange Manifesto
I found this article earlier today, where I discovered that the vast majority of the article's content came from the manifesto, which had been added by a user named "Satyr Calicantsar". Besides not being a well-known source in the first place, this manifesto also appears to be fairly anti-scientific in its assertions. Examples:

"In truth homosexuality is a distinctly human mutation and an extreme result of human male degradation."

"The gradual extinction of the male started in the human species when human physical weakness forced man to evolve social sensitivities in order to improve survival odds."

"It is then perplexing why homosexuality would exist in nature, since it has no purpose [...]"

"The levelling [sic] of man continues."

Opinion pieces, especially those with particularly controversial assertions, do not conform with Wikipedia's standards, so I deleted it. However, I still think this article needs some cleaning-up and some more information. I honestly know nothing about this subject, though, so I can't really help with that.

The Cypress Station (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)The Cypress Station

Deleted Unsupported Generalizations
I deleted part of the section titled feminization of the labor force that included generalized assertions that state women "incorporate, less quantities of corruption or fraud, misappropriation of assets or slipping away of obligations furthermore, they are known for their adaptability, and meeting due dates." The grammar was confusing. It was hard to understand what the contributor was trying to suggest. One example using the phrase "ladies characteristics" is nonacademic, further downplaying the credibility of the claims. The deleted section is provided.

"In introductory set up, men were known to go to social crises like passing of a nearby relative, taking care of an ill parent, and this could mean being missing from the occupation for some days consequently this could mean less or no profitability and they too accommodated the family while women handled the household. Be that as it may, in spite of the outlook change in societal parts where work is no longer sex situated, men still could have more issues in the work put because of ladies characteristics which incorporate, less quantities of corruption or fraud, misappropriation of assets or slipping away of obligations furthermore, they are known for their adaptability, and meeting due dates." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradisethecrew (talk • contribs) 22:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I will add the melodramatic: right in the very heart and depths of the struggling urban poor....

along the "Downtrodden workers unite against the filthy capitalist swine opressor and their lackeys!" and such. Off with such uncyclopedic UNDUE POV.

Zezen (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review Cont.
I think the introductory paragraph could be shorten or more precise. I think all the information is there but maybe consider looking at ways to reorganize the sentence structures so that the important information goes first. Also if there was more information on the different meanings of the definition in separate sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiavick (talk • contribs) 14:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)