Talk:History of women in Canada

Introduction
The History of Canadian women covers half the population, but until recent years only comprised a tiny fraction of the historiography.

This statement, as it is made in this sentence is badly contrived to the extent of being sexist and just plain ridiculous.

The writer of this sentence is treating the females of the Canadian population as an "other", or a very large minority.

Women are not a distinct subgroup within the population. The historic events that affected Canadian people affected males and females. History didn't pass them by. They were a 50% part of it! The question to ask here is "Has anyone written a History of Canadian men?"

I am not asking this to be facetious. I am asking it in full knowledge of the fact that History is written mainly from a male point of view, and deals with areas of activity such as politics, war and business which have, in the past, been almost exclusively male arenas. However, with females actively part of politics, war and business, they are also part of the events and the history (as written), not simply affected by it. Basically, Written History primarily concerns the pushers and shovers. Women are included in the written history, when they push and shove. This is the case whether they are pushing and shoving against male dominance or alongside men in the various fields that motivate historians to write. For example, a female politician is concerned primarily with people's rights and conditions, and participates in decision-making to that effect. A Historian writing about a bill proposed by a female politician would be seriously out of place if they described the politician as "female" instead of merely stating the name.

I am not saying that "History of Canadian women" is not a justifiable topic. But I am going to state that if this article is valid, then the matching article "History of Canadian men" ought to be considered.

The inroduction requires intelligent rewriting.
 * Firstly, Your leading sentence needs to state what the topic is: "The History of Canadian women deals with the lives, status and achievements of women living in Canada since .......(date)."
 * Next sentence: "This is a subject which has received little attention in the writing of the history of Canada until recent years."

Amandajm (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * if you look at any general history of Canada, and look at the index, you will find 90%+ of the people named there are men. The men do seem to be well served by the published books. as for the suggested sentence "deals with the lives, status and achievements of women living in Canada" -- well that's 5th grade level writing that insults the intelligence of the users.  Rjensen (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree; this article is so poorly written it's painful to bother with, and can make the eyes bleed if you try to focus on it's drivel too long. Giving it a "C" grade was generous, and appears to have been done in the vain hope someone will want to dedicate the time needed to fix it's many and robust problems.  Rather than rewrite it in it's entirity, which is desperately needed, I might just suggest we "trash-can" it and ask someone else on the portal (or otherwise) to write a new one from scratch.  The whole article reads lop-sided, neither properly regarding or acknowledging the contributions on women in context, nor placing emphasis on their participations as citizens in very much the same light as the men in similar timeframes and situations.  Writing from the "feminist" stance here has left much, much to be desired.  I'm amazed at how "empty" and unsatisfying a read it was. Ren99 (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ren99 is new as of today to wikipedia--this is her very first posting!; so we can wait for her to read around a little before we listen to such bitching. Rjensen (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Rjensen, you are missing the point.
 * Of course the majority of people named in the general index of Canadian history are mostly men. It is the case in the history of every country.
 * What is the reason? I have stated the reason in what I wrote, above.
 * No writer has thought to themselves, "Oh, I'll write a history of Canada that is only about men!" or "I'll write a history of males in Canada!" or "I'll write a history that deliberately excludes Canadian women!"
 * The lead sentence is just plain ridiculous. Go back and read it a few more times and think about it.
 * ..and as for Ren99, the fact that it is a first posting doesn't make it less valid as an opinion on the article.
 * Amandajm (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's mission is to tell the world what the RS say about the topic. That is exactly what the articles achieves. The critics are unaware of this because they seem not to have read any of the serious studies on Canadian women.Rjensen (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Canadian women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204192128/http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource_pages/pavingtheway/wrcns.html to http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource_pages/pavingtheway/wrcns.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)