Talk:Women's rights/Archive 1

June 2005
The text on this page read:


 * First women's rights declaration: Decalartion of Sentiments.


 * A Brief Summary:
 * From women's involvement within the abolition movements, women of the early 1800s became aware of the male dominence and opression. From then on women struggled for equality.

Redirected to Feminism.


 * If I wanted Feminism I would have looked for it. Why don't we have a Women's Rights article? Feminism and Women's Rights are related, but not at all the same subject. KillerChihuahua 14:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Main entry is Legal rights of women?
I notice the main entry for this disambiguation page is currently Legal rights of women. I'm not quite sure why Alan Alda, Hillary Rodham Clinton, or any of these other articles should disambiguate to a page about Edwardian-era inheritance rights, Hebrew marriage "with a captive heathen woman or with a purchased slave", or how many pence to fine a bad brewmeistress, but hey -- who am I to argue?

To 8bitJake: your very recent addition of Civil Rights is unnecessary. We're not talking about Negroes here! You start adding links like that and the next thing you know these people will start demanding all kinds of special rights! Am I right? Or am I right? Other than that, keep up the good work! TsarChasTX 21:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
women's rights is a joke...wait, no it not! Well.. if there is a criticisim section in theMen's article Then i think there should be a criticisim section in this article. Besides, don't women want equality? ;) --Dallin Tanjo22 01:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * i'd have to say the criticism against women's rights activists is very apparent and clear in our world. But you do have a point; i think it should be added as well, feminists and women's rights activists do undergo alot of criticism regarding their involvement and the neccessity of women's rights, it does deserve to be noted...and yeah you are right; women want equality not special treatment... Bhavana tere jaan 09:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Another abuze on this site, what is the goal in not mentioning Turkey that granted equality in 1926 almost 20 years before "romantic" France, also had first female head of supreme court -as well as other high courts- in the world as well as first women war pilot, parliement etc..., Ah by the way which language doesn't contain gender spesific grammer (not mentioning words like mother and father)


 * And also does any one know which is the first social women organisation and where it used to operate, Wake up people of the west, look your racist past (not history yet) also against women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by81.214.97.81 (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be made clear in the introduction that not all women want what feminists describe as equal rights. There can be a number of definitions of what one considers to be equal rights. The balance that has exsisted between men and women since the dawn of time to the dawn of feminism a form of equality. This article is narrow minded and needs to be enlightened in some senses86.129.60.57 (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrator! Vandalism
I'm sorry for the poor formatting here, but I just wanted to make someone aware of the vandalism on this page. I don't know how to edit (hence the illogical placement of this comment - i dont know how to start my own thread), so I leave it up to one of you to get rid of the obstructing picture of male genitalia, please. Thanks - A Rather Shocked Woman


 * What the hell is with the penis pics? They obviously have nothing to do with women's rights and obscure the page.  I didn't find them in the edit page section so couldn't remove them.

- A Rather Annoyed Guy

edit: couldn't find them because someone had just removed them. Thanks.


 * Perhaps semi-protecting this page is the answer. Check edit history. Could a sysop please help out? Or make me one (ha!)? -Bennyboyz3000 06:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

women rights? LOL!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.220.249 (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a dismabig, not a link farm. This is the page
This page is not being expanded, perhaps because people think it's supposed to be a link farm. So I'm moving the majority ofthe See also entries here, for reference, and so they can be moved back after the page has been expanded.

Biased
Someone HAS TO edit this:

''In all societies, with few exceptions, women have been and continue to be subjugated by men, and other women. When John Lennon sang in 1972 that "woman is the nigger of the world...woman is the slave of the slaves" he knew what he was talking about. At all levels, women are looked down upon, and those at even the lowest caste of society can find ready and convenient objects of derision in their wives and daughters.''

If that's not biased, then I don't know what is. —Preceding unsignedcomment added by Paulus Caesar (talk • contribs)


 * I agree it's a little bombastic but is any of it untrue? Please, please, please edit it. Ewlyahoocom10:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * More to the point, is any of it sourced, except for the lyrics? The rest is not only bombastic, it is unsourced,original research. Please source this, or it will be removed again.KillerChihuahua?!? 18:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Even more to the point, since no one seems to have enough balls or ova to step up and write a decent page, how 'bout we just redirect this to a more appropriate page like e.g. Civil rights? Ewlyahoocom 18:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's looking better already; let's give it a chance. True, the development of this page is going slowely, but there has been a significant amount of work done in the past few months. It's just that a lot of it was not up to Wikipedia standards. I think redirecting this page to Civil rights would be a bad move, as women's rights are an important enough topic to merit their own article and should be considered more than just a subcategory of civil rights or human rights.rom a rin[[image:Rosemary white bg.jpg|15 px]] [talk to her ] 20:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur strongly with Romarin. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So then why, oh why, won't you get off your a** and write something!? Or do you need the full year to ruminate on this one?Ewlyahoocom 23:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but that is completely unnecessary. Please remember to assume good faith, and while you're at it,chill out a bit. The world isn't going to end tomorrow. rom a rin[[image:Rosemary white bg.jpg|15 px]] [talk to her ] 00:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a viable, good-faith-assumimg explanation for the lack of updating in of this page is that this kind of topic is not one I'd expect anyone to look up for any reason other than being required to (the same goes for any big, serious issue). Whether it's for school, business, or something else, the people who make you do research don't generally trust Wikipedia.  That's why a lighter, less important article is more likely to be updated; those topics are better suited for Wikipedia.  I'm just guessing here, but it makes sense to me. -Unknownwarrior33 04:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a theory that stubby articles that contain outrageous POV statements (usually as a result of a text dump) often end up as better articles than those that start with banal neutrel summaries; people are usually in much more of a hurry to contribute to the former. Also, having been the only man on the "women and the law" course in my year at law school, I can also vouch for the fact that neutrality does not come easily to those who take this topic seriously (ie. the sort of people we want contributing to this article).  Assume good faith, and remember there is no POV statement so outrageous that one small edit cannot fix it.Legis 12:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That has to be the most disgusting stupid thing i have EVER HEARD! These ridiculous stereotypes created by egotistical males; are not to be shared with the world to re-introduce such demeening attitudes. Bhavana tere jaan 09:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Stub v. Aid Nom
I think I should remove the Stub to make this a AID nominee Felixboy 17:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible Revisions
I did an overhaul of the article, but I wanted to get some feedback before posting anything. I tried to incorporate all the relevant information from the current article, but it's basically a complete change. If nobody has any comments or objections, I may try posting it on the main "Women's Rights" page rather than the Talk page tomorrow. But if you have any feedback, please have at it! Sasha Kopf 20:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

--> See: this version of the article for the revisions proposed.

List of important women
I think a list should also be added about important women(-- --- was the first woman to)70.127.34.98 13:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is, that it is often difficult to determine just who exactly was the first to do what. And is it really important?--WiseWoman 17:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Basic human rights"
This whole notion of "basic human rights" is culturally biased. The concept stems from the French revolution, was written into the American constitution, and is now a common but not universally accepted concept. The article should be rephrased to eliminate the presumption that "basic human rights" exist and that we know what they are. For example, in the first paragraph the sentence
 * "In most societies, with few exceptions, women have historically been subjugated by patriarchal infrastructures and denied many basic human rights."

could be rephrased to
 * "In most societies, with few exceptions, women have historically been subjugated by patriarchal infrastructures and denied many rights afforded to men."

Snottygobble 00:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Works for me, Snottygobble. Do you want to make some changes, and then people can discuss from there if there's a disagreement?  Thanks for your close attention, I think some of that was my own POV creeping in without me realizing it at all.  Sasha Kopf 02:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Issues for cleanup
===>Some impressions Some of these are easier to fix than others:
 * There is at least one link to a disambiguation page.


 * Sub-headings use improper capitalization.


 * This aricle only cites one source, and makes several outrageous claims (even if said claims are true.)


 * The article uses weasel words to create impressions or associations that are unproven. For instance:
 * "Historically as well as in the present day, many societies have treated women’s bodies as the property of men or the society at large."

How many societies? Which ones? In what way were they property? Culturally? Legally? Religiously? Socially? Some combination fo them? Were they equivalent to other property or in a separate category? When and how did this change in some societies?
 * "In most societies, with few exceptions, women have historically been subjugated by patriarchal infrastructures and deniedmany basic human rights."

In which ones were they not subjugated? What does "subjugation" mean? Were they slaves? Which basic human rights? All of them? Most of them? One of them?
 * "Although significant reforms have been made in some parts of the world to extend human rights to women and men equally, in many others women continue to be treated with the same legal standing as children or as chattel belonging to their fathers or husbands, or pressured to conform to strict gender roles which may go against their wishes."

I hope you can all see the weasel word problems with this sentence. Statements this vague are meaningless, except as propaganda.


 * The biggest problem: the POV from which it is written.

That POV would, generally speaking, be a liberal viewpoint (in the contemporary American sense, not the classical.) So, for instance the line "Women’s rights typically refers to human rights which are or have been granted to adult men but not to adult women in a particular society," would be disputed with classical liberals. Rights are something inalienable from the person, and they cannot be transferred, so laws to do grant rights; rights do not come into being. Of course, utilitarians will argue that the very concept of rights doesn't exist at all. The assumption that rights exist and that they are alienable from the person permeates this article. The term "women's rights" is used by particular individuals with a certain political agenda.

Furthermore, there are feminists that would disagree with the assesment of which "rights" are desirable. For instance, many third-wave and all first-wave feminists were opposed to abortion. The association between being an advocate of women's rights and being in favor of legal protection for abortion is unfounded and biased.

Also, there is no contradiction between the notion of "women's rights" and the notion that women don't have the same rights and responsibilities as men, as long as thoughs rights are responsibilities are of equal value (to those populations, to society at large, et al.) In point of fact, the term "women's rights" implies that women do in fact have rights different from men in some respect. For instance, women have the responsibility of bearing children (Feminists take note: I am not saying that any one woman is obliged to have children; I am saying the population of all persons that do have children is female). Is this somehow discriminatory against men? Of course. But it isn't a matter of moral, social, or political degredation, oppression, or subjugation; it's a simple fact of biology. Men and women have different biological imperatives (the very definition of the difference between men and women.) Consequently, one could believe in or advocate different classes or categories of rights intrinsic to men and women. These individuals would believe in women's rights, but they could come to very different conclusions about what those rights would be or how a society that respects said rights could be acheived.

The section on "rights granted by different religions" is almost offensive. Needless to say, it includes weasely vagueries ("of the many different religions of the world, very few categorically grant equal rights to women.") Again, the assumption in this passage is that women should be allowed into ministry at the same positions as men, which is POV. It is also written from a pro-Sikh POV, associating Sikhism in practice with advancing women's rights. One could just as easily claim that the structure of the Guru system reinforces patriarchy (Why were all gurus men if men and women are equal?) Also, Jewish and Zoroastrian commentators have advocated equality of the sexes for millenia, but that equality is simply distasteful or not the kind of equality the editor(s) of this section desired. Plus, this section simply appeals to what Guru Nanak wrote, and gives no indication that Sikhism as it is currently practiced actually advances these principles of equality. This is not to say that Sikhs are discriminatory against women, but to ignore the situation in the real world is to propagandize. (Muhammad said Islam is a religion of peace, therefore there must not be any religiously-motivated violence by Muslims justifyied by Islamic holy texts, right?) One last note, there would certainly be feminists/women's rights advocates that would take issue with this quote from Guru Nanak "In a woman man is conceived. From a woman he is born. With a woman he is betrothed and married. With a woman he contracts friendship. Why denounce her, the one from whom even kings are born? From a woman a woman is born. None may exist without a woman." This implies that women serve gender roles such as being sex objects, wives, and mothers, but would not themselves be leaders (there is no mention of queens, only kings.) Personally, I think that's an asinine misinterpretation, but this article isn't about what I think of feminists' interpretation of Guru Nanak. I say all this not to implicate Sikhs, but simply to show how näively this section is written.


 * I could go on, but I think I've made my point. -Justin (koavf), talk,mail 16:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

==> Reply from User:Sasha Kopf, who did a lot of the writing on the article


 * Thanks for your input, Justin! To address a few of your points:


 * I took out a link to a disambiguation page (were you referring to autonomy?)


 * fixed the sub-headings


 * vague weasel words: agreed, they're definitely a weak point. I'll see if I can toss some out and/or add specific examples


 * citations should help with weasel words - can other editors help with this?


 * use of the word "rights": good point - I think in what I was writing, I probably should have used the word "freedoms" in a lot of places. Do you think that would help clear up the meaning and remove some of the POV?


 * feminism vis-a-vis abortion: I disagree that the two paragraphs on reproductive rights should lead you to the conclusion that all feminists agree on the issue. The phrases "the right to use contraception, obtain an abortion, or to abstain from doing either" and "being forced to carry, to prevent, or to terminate a pregnancy" are key to that section (emphasis added).  My intention in writing that section was to highlight that a right to bodily autonomy must include some degree of self-determination in terms of reproduction, rather than reproduction being dictated by the state or another individual.  I don't think that statement translates to "women must have access to abortion" - in my mind, it encompasses a much broader spectrum of views than that.  Obviously one of these views is that abortion is an important component of upholding women's freedom, and the article as it is now acknowledges this, but this is not the ONLY viewpoint, nor do I think the article make that claim.


 * But in terms of your POV concerns in this area, maybe part of the problem is that I tried to keep many statements in that section flexible, to reflect the flexibility of how the concepts of bodily integrity and bodily autonomy are interpreted by different people in real life. I'd still like to make that flexibility clear, but the way I did it may have just made the issuemore vague and opened the section up to POV inferences.  I'll see if I can rework it, but I'm hesitant to do too much myself without more input from others.


 * re: your paragraph that starts out "Also, there is no contradiction between the notion of "women's rights" and the notion that women don't have the same rights and responsibilities as men...": I guess I'm not sure how to incorporate this bit into the article. Were you thinking of any specific point at which these issues should be addressed?


 * the section on religion: I'd been wanting to work on this part, because I completely agree with what you wrote. Unfortunately, anything I could do with it would mostly be getting rid of stuff, not adding much back in, because I'm not well-versed on religious topics.  To anybody else reading this - If you can, please help with this part!  (The same goes for finding citations.)


 * - Sasha Kopf 19:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

===>Thanks for your efforts and good faith
 * Actually, the redirect I noticed was Nazanin, in place of Nazanin Mahabad Fatehi, which I've fixed.
 * As for the use of the word "rights" versus "freedoms" (or "liberties," etc.) I certainly think that would help, but of course, advocates of "women's rights" are purporting them as rights that should be granted by law and civil society rahter than simply things that so happen to be legal or that societies generally find acceptable. So, however it is worded, the article needs to make clear that advocates don't think that women's rights are arbitrary sets of social liberties, but necessary abilities to be protected by law in a just society.
 * Re:abortion. Pro-life feminists would not be in favor of a right to obtain an abortion, nor would they argue that women have a metaphysical or transcendent right to it. In point of fact, they would argue that the germane rights are those of the unborn to live, so women cannot have a "right" to abort (excepting possibly rape or extraordinary circumstances.) Furthermore, in the case of rape, there are pro-life feminists who would be in favor of the state intervening to bring the pregnancy to term, so they could be said to be in favor of "being forced to carry" a pregnancy to term. While I appreciate efforts to make the situation as inclusive as possible, the wording as it stands still excludes women's rights advocates. Let me know if I'm just not seeing a more subtle point being made here.
 * At the same time, you're right that in making the section flexible, you run the risk of being vague or using weasely terms. This is why sources are crucial - quote someone who said position A and someone else who said position B and suddenly you can write "Some critics contend that A [source], while others argue B [source]." The terminology is just as vague, but the source makes it concrete.
 * I suppose I might say that conservative Christians in America (men and women alike) would agree that women have rights (free speech, for instance) and an essential dignity, but that men and women, due to gender roles that are inextricably linked to sex, have different social responsibilities (women are responsible for domestic care and child rearing, men for making a household income). For that matter, the Catholic Church would profess that women have rights, but that doesn't entitle them to become members of clergy. The fact that these are both religious in nature may make things more muddy than clear. I personally don't have any way of incorporating it into the article in an intelligible way. Do you know of any philosophers that had systems of philosophy upholding women's rights with them being inherently different from men's? This is exactly why I don't feel qualified to edit the article (and a bit hypocritical at point out its shortcomings, since I have little to offer in the way of alternatives.)
 * Again, thanks Sasha. I wish that all points of disagreement on Wikipedia could be handled in such a mature and charitable way.-Justin (koavf), talk, mail 20:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

==> Response #2 from Sasha
 * Oy, the more I mull this article over, the less qualified I feel to be editing it! I tried working on re-wording just the first paragraph, and got stuck on even coming up with a simple definition.


 * Okay. In hopes of getting some feedback, what would other people include in a short definition of the term "women's rights"?  Off the top of my head, these are some keywords, phrases, concepts, etc., that I would include:


 * freedoms, liberties, _insert synonym or related concept here_
 * granted (or denied?) by society through law or custom
 * something about these freedoms being specified/grouped together/differentiated from broader notions of "'human' rights"
 * singled out because they are often different from the freedoms/liberties/whatever of men
 * often, though not always, this differentiation from the freedoms of men takes the form of women having fewer freedoms than their male counterparts (i.e., being denied the right to vote, to go to school, blah blah blah)
 * these differentiations are at least partially socially constructed rather than biologically immutable conditions, though biological differences between sexes obviously have an effect on cultural attitudes


 * But before I take the time to construct those random bits into a workable definition, I'd like to hear if other people think that's even on the right track. If anyone has thoughts (and I'm not meaning to dump this all on you, Justin, though you might be the only one here reading this!), please share.


 * I have more to write but have to run at the moment.


 * - Sasha Kopf 23:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Continuing problems
This article is poorly cited, highly sexist and a disgrace to Wikipedia. I'm just going to be bold--AndersFeder 19:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This article has undergone many changes recently, and is still being worked on. How about you make a list of what specifically you find to be wrong with it? That would be a much bigger help than just calling it a "disgrace", and that way we can all decide what the priotories are. As the issue of women's rights is extremely complex, I hope you can understand that this is a particularly difficult article. I applaud those who have spent their time working on it recently. It has come a long way in the past couple months. rom a rin [talk ] 20:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okey-doke, I went ahead and pretty much blanked the article, as it was clearly causing some serious and unintended upset. I might add back, using some of what was there, but for now, it seems more politic to start from the beginning.  However, it would be really helpful to have more in-depth input from others.  -Sasha Kopf 22:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh... I don't know that starting over is the right thing to do at this point. You've been working really hard on this article lately, no? I haven't read through it in a while, but by just glancing down the page, it looked to me like it was on the right path. The user who wrote the first comment in this section doesn't seem to be involved with any articles related to this topic; not that their comments should therefore be taken too lightly, but I don't think they warrant blanking the article. If the above editor wants to come back up their accusations with some actual constructive criticism, then there will be a place to start. But I would be very surprised if they actually decide to do that. rom a rin [talk ] 23:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, rom a rin [talk ] - It's true, I did do a lot of work on the article a month or so ago, and I do think it was getting on a better, more coherent path but also had some fundamental flaws. I agree thatAndersFeder's comment was unproductive, but I based my blanking more on comments from Justin (koavf) the other day, who ultimately did have some very thoughtful and constructive criticism.  I would like to bring back a lot of what was in the article pre-blanking, but I just thought that for now, a clean slate might be the way to go.  However, if that's stepping out of bounds on my part, I apologize and will understand if the article gets restored for now.


 * Thanks for your input and attention to this article, Romarin, and for assuming good faith. It's very much appreciated.-Sasha Kopf 15:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My comment was mainly directed at the women-in-all-societies-are-subjugated-quote I originally posted it below. I see now that this and most similar passages has been removed from the article since the revision I read and apologize for the confusion. I still think there is problems with citation though but feel free to restore of course. With regards to the word "disgrace", I do think that an encylopedia article pointing half the world's population out as nazis is a disgrace. --AndersFeder22:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Sasha, I didn't mean to imply at all that you were stepping out of bounds; I was only worried that you were deleting all of your hard work! :) rom a rin [talk ] 16:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * AndersFeder, I would entirely agree that an article calling half the world's population "Nazis" would be a disgrace and would have no place in an encyclopedia. However, POV and citation problems aside, no version of the article that I've read or contributed to did so.  The previous version, before I blanked most of it, focused on problems that patriarchal infrastructures can pose in terms of women's rights - which I still think is quite relevant, though more nuanced than the previous version made clear (see above discussions).  But there's a big difference between saying "patriarchal infrastructures are problematic and can be detrimental" and saying "men are evil."


 * In terms of the quote to which I believe you were referring ("In most societies, with few exceptions, women have historically been subjugated by patriarchal infrastructures and denied many basic human rights"), that particular sentence was a bit of a remnant from past versions, before a big overhaul of the article was done a few weeks ago. In building the article back up now, I'm happy to see it go altogether, be reworded, whatever.  I would, though, point out that your paraphrase of that sentence makes it sound even more extreme than it is.  It may not have been a good sentence, but it was a broad statement that does not implicate all men, all societies, or all times.


 * It seems from your comments that you found the article too bias towards assuming the worst of men, and whether this opinion is well-founded or not, I hope you stick around to edit the article and to add your input on the talk page. However, in doing so, I would also ask that you not be so quick on the draw to assume the worst about other editors.  -Sasha Kopf 23:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I apologize if you felt my comment were directed at your work. The passage I commented on appears under theBiased section of this discussion page (where I originally posted my comment). The inclusion of the John Lennon quote, likening women of the world to 'niggers', strongly insinuates (and intentionally so, I'm quite confident) that men are like nazis towards women. --AndersFeder 23:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, gotcha. -Sasha Kopf 00:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

men's rights
why isn't there a men's rights article? --Paaerduag 07:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * because it hasn't been written yet. Snottygobble 11:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, either this is a trick question, or you two are using a different Wikipedia than I am. 'Cuz on the Wikipedia I'm looking at, there's an article called men's rights and has been for quite a while.  -Sasha Kopf 15:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Because anytime women assert that they have rights, they are oppressing men in an amazingly ironic twist we call "reverse sexism".  I'm being sarcastic. --Lizzard 06:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a man and feminists are only 'oppressing' people if they do one of the following things:


 * -Force their beliefs down the throats of men (or rare women) that don't want to believe them or listen to them (it's true, you can be oppressive when you try too hard to convince a moron, go figure).
 * -Stereotype men as evil for the crimes of a minority or of the past (this is common). A lot of men of today don't do what was done in the past and sometimes react in an irritated when they are told that they oppress women.
 * -Hit men, hurt men, take advantage of men, etc. (obvious, but must be included)


 * In any case, I would like to say that I want to further women's rights. I think women should be just as equal as us, but that doesn't give them the right to stereotype us or to tell us that we are the root of all evil.  If feminists and men stop fighting so dang much, maybe we won't have to hear the word sexism (with or without the word reverse before it) ever again.


 * NOTE: Most of the above can apply in the reverse and to many other situations, if words are changed. The point of this was to show that we can move closer to equality by following simple rules and, perhaps, not by slinging barbs at each other.  I know I'm a man and I have my biases, but I do really wish that we could just get the damn fight for equal rights done already so that we can all be equal, happy, and maybe get on with the important things in life. --207.255.242.48(talk) 06:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 207.255.242.48 -- This page is not for discussions about the subject of women's wights. Please restrict your comments to this article and how we can improve it.  Blackworm (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Women's movement
How about it? (Wikimachine 18:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC))


 * In my opinion, no, since many issues that would fall under the label of "women's rights" do not have a "women's movement" associated with them, at least not globally. This article is obviously an incredibly tough one, but personally, I think it should ultimately be an article that can stand on its own, even if it has a long way to go.  But could you expand more on your reasoning for the suggestion?  - Sasha Kopf 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on that, Sasha; the "women's movement" is very specific, while this article is very general.-Unknownwarrior33 04:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sasha. It's important to outline ideas of women's rights. Human rights are different from specific movements, which have happened at different times and places, to demand those rights. The erasure of the many different struggles for women's rights throughout history is a problem well known to feminist historians, and I see Wikipedia as a place that can help in the fight against losing our histories. Also, in general, we need feminist articles to stand on their own on Wikipedia, and to proliferate rather than be denied, blanked, and merged. --Lizzard 06:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No - women's rights are distinct topic. This article needs heaps more material, however. It is not properly reflecting women's human rights at all. - Flickety 27 Feb 2007

Interesting Maturity Pattern
I don't claim to be an expert, but I think you'll all agree with me that the issue of Women's rights is much bigger and much more important to the world than people's taste in music, right? But the discussions here are generally very polite and rational. Now check out the talk page for nu-metal. Anyone else find it disturbing that a difficult issue like this one breeds more mature and sensible discussions than something as trivial as music? -Unknownwarrior33 04:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Activists
I like the list, but it could be split off into another page. There are so many women's rights activists! I would not count Sor Juana as one, but rather as a Category:Feminist_writers feminist writer. Also, I was thinking of working on the category tags, like this one: Category:American_women%27s_rights_activists. A general "women's rights activists" category? Also, we have aFeminists entry with what is a terribly small list. Is there a good way to make a list of entries that I think need to be written on significant women and feminists? Or should I make that list outside of Wikipedia and get people to work on it? Thanks for any feedback... I'm kind of wondering where to hop in, here. I have bios of individual women, for example, but am worried about someone just swooping in and declaring them insignificant, and I'm also trying to get a grasp on the structure of feminist information and history here.--Lizzard 16:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you please change all references to suffragists if you are discussing American women activists. British women did use the word "suffragette" but only people attempting to denigrate the American woman's work in winning the vote used that term. American women were adamant that they preferred the term suffragists. Thanks. Jean Richards

helen
hi I' m italian and I m 14 I want talk about the women's right in my exam because it was very interesting this argoument

helen or elena ( is italian name)


 * Hi Helen. I find it sad that you are going to reguritate this article to your teacher and class.  It was written by someone who did not source any of their claims, and it contains arguments from only one point of view.  It is an example of what an article in an encyclopedia should *not* be.  It would be better if it were deleted, than maintained with material which fails to adhere to Wikipedia policy.  Read this page: WP:V.  It's Wikipedia's content policy.  Note the boxed quotation from Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia.  How do you think Jimbo would feel about this article?  I think he would want it gone. Blackworm 06:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to More Information on this Article
As this webpage is all information on Women's Rights, I suggest that some information be put on this page encourage people to learn about Girl Scouts because it is very informative of all the listed information. And as well as another person, I believe that their should be a list of famous women's names, organized by their accomplishments. 4.248.59.201 20:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

what about fights ?
I found this article a little soft regarding the FIGHTS that womene had to go through to get their rights recognized.

Also, this article seems to say that everything is done ... except some struggles in developped countries ...

I'm not sure to have read everything right, but what I know is that TODAY, individuals or groups try to establish basic rights for women in developping countries. Look at this story of women trying to have one of their basic right re-established : see their kids, know where they are and what they are doing ! : http://www.intifada-des-perles.org/index_017.htm

Sorry for the tone, I just wan to understand what is the purpose of this article ... Jean-Marie 89.80.234.133 14:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To duplicate feminism, except without sources or balance? I'm really not sure.  Blackworm 07:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well no its not a duplicate of the Feminism article. It is totally unreferenced and needs a lot of work but the notability of Women's Rights should be eminently clear-- Cailil  talk 13:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The notability of the subject should be proven by citing reliable sources, not by assertion that it should be clear. The work this article needs most urgently is the application of WP:V, which calls for the aggressive removal of unsourced material.  I notice you have been aggressively putting Fact tags on the Men's rights article; perhaps you and I should go through this article and do the same? Blackworm 16:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm I'm sorry if adding fact tags to Men's rights looks aggressive - it's not. I've made a number of alterations to this article, some of them are whole-sale removals and replacements others are just verifications using references I've got here. There are now two sections that need attention "The modern movement" and "Historical background" - these have already been tagged with cn - it'd be great if you could help verify these sections-- Cailil  talk 17:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no need for apologies; "aggressive" is not negative in this context, quite the contrary. I find your choice of statements to tag disappointing, however.  You've tagged a couple of banal, easily verifiable claims with Fact, yet passed over several seemingly dubious and/or potentially misleading claims, such as, "As time progressed, most women still enjoyed few, if any, rights." and "Through laws and mythology (stories describing beliefs), the view that women were weak was passed on from one generation to the next."  These are some of the unsupported claims that make this article seem unworthy of being part of Wikipedia, not whether some pharaoh was a woman.  I'm not one to address them, since I have yet to be convinced that this article is not simply an unreferenced, unfettered fact-free feminism zone. Blackworm 19:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually those claims are tagged - just not individually. Tagging whole unreferenced paragraphs once is better than tagging each individual sentence that needs a source in a completely unreferenced piece - some people prefer to tag whole unreferenced section with a single headline refimprove or unreferenced rather than use inline tags at all.  I do agree that the tone and content of the 'History' section needs a complete overhaul.  Blackworm, please read over WP:TALK - this not the place for asoapbox about how you feel about feminism.  Keep your comments about how to improve this article - there's no need to be negative about it, it just needs work-- Cailil  talk 22:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cailil, please do not assert that I have violated Wikipedia policy. It is clear that my comment "I have yet to be convinced thatthis article is not simply an unreferenced, unfettered fact-free feminism zone" is criticism of this article, and criticism of unsourced material (which ironically, DOES violate WP:SOAP), not criticism of feminism.  I will also not respond to demands that I "keep" my comments to your liking -- I interpret such demands as patronizing, and bullying, and as they imply that my presence is not constructive, as a personal attack.  If you wish to adopt this combative, accusatory, and personal tone with me, I assure you that I will defend myself well; I suggest instead that you apply your own advice to yourself. Blackworm 02:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a note to point out that that section has been totally re-written. Some content has been removed from History of feminism, reduced and reworked to fit in here (which kills to birds with one stone - shortening that article and verifying this one).  The history section is now focussed and verified.  It deals with the 17th, 18th and 19th & early 20th centuries explicitly and has a brief note about patriarchy.  I can't verify the previous section but a record of it'shere if anyone else wants to try.  Also I think this is a pertinent moment to address Jean-Marie/User:89.80.234.133's point about this article's eurocentrism - this article needs serious attention to the Modern movement section: first to verify what's there and second to expand it to cover the facts about Women's rights today and specifically in the developing wold-- Cailil  talk 23:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, whatever, my taste for improving this article through discussion and Fact tags just went out the window. I'll just remove unsourced sections from now on, as WP:V mandates.  Blackworm 02:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry if you feel that way and I apologize if you think I was being combative, I'm not trying to be. Nor am I accusing you of anything when I say keep your comments about how to improve this article - that's a direct reference toWP:TALK (see the Be positive).  If you wanted to point out anything specific that you think needs improving here please do, I'll do my best to make this article comply, to the letter, with policy.  Bare in mind I wouldn't have noticed this article if you hadn't raised it's problems here on the talk page - I personally think its current state, although far from perfect, is a step forward and I'm glad you brought its problems to wider attention-- Cailil   talk 02:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The accusation was that I violated WP:SOAP. I overreacted, however, and for that I apologize.  Thank you for improving this article.  Blackworm 02:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick clarification
This is primarily for Cailil, who I think added this bit: The "Historical Background" section currently contains these two sentences: "In the 16th century the Reformation allowed more women to add their voices, although it is argued that the closure of convents deprived women of one path to education. These include Jane Anger, Aemilia Lanyer, and Anna Trapnell." Right now it's unclear whether Anger, Lanyer, and Trapnell were women who added their voices, or if they also argued that the closure of convents deprived women of one path to education. I assume it's the former, but could you clarify? - Sasha Kopf 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out Sasha - I'm having a look at that now-- Cailil  talk 22:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

maybe there is massive systematic bias in favor of 'womens rights'?
According to scientific research, happiness and satisfaction with life of American women has declined in recent decades. Actually the worst happiness trend of all commonly studied American demographic groups (gender, race, income, age, marital status, etc). I came across scientific studies relating to this recently but don't know of the sources at the moment. But it's something to look into and consider for this article. Peoplesunionpro (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Image of Sandra Day O'Connor
For now, I removed an image of Sandra Day O'Connor uploaded and added to the article by Barnett11. The image is of dubious copyright status, and even if it were not, including it as the only image of a person on the page seemed a little odd to me, particularly as O'Connor is not mentioned anywhere in the text. Barnett11, if you think it's an oversight not to include her, I'd encourage you to flesh out the written parts of the article before adding pictures. With only a picture, her relevance to the topic is unclear aside from her status as a first-woman-to-accomplish-______. Thanks! - Sasha Kopf00:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I Barnett11 uploaded the picture of Sanda Day O'Connor to the "Modern Movement" section of the Women's Rights Wikipedia article because I think that she has had a rather large role in the movement today. I did forget to check the copyright status of the picture and for that I am sorry. Once I learn how to use pictures that "legal" I think that Sandra Day O'Connor should be left on the page. I will also mention Her along with other women who have been influential as well to make the picture fit that particular section. The current page seems a little plain to me and I plan to make it a little more elaborate. I think that there need to be more pictures/information of women such as Susan B. Anothony or Elizabeth Katie Stanton. If you have any suggestions as to what else I could do please let me know. Barnett11


 * I've added a couple of images of some of the participants who struggled to get recognised ; from the Wiki commons there are images of Pankhurst and Boissevain, to give a reflection of more modern times I unearthed a nice photo beshawled women in Dhaka. I've tried to put in a mix of "struggle" and "poise" but its hard to give a coherent picture story. Barnett11, to getSandra Day O'Connor a mention, if she is notable as a women's rights activist, would she warrant an entry in the related List of women's rights activists?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephebi(talk • contribs) 23:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to help add citation & verify other citations on the page but i'm not really sure how. could anybody lend me some advice?

Subcategory/Task Force of Feminism
If you want more information or if you think you would be interested in participating, Take a look here:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gender_Studies or stop by my talk page and let me know. Thanks!--Grrrlriot (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Abortion
Template:Abortion debate sidebar links here, so I feel this article could make it clear how in the world it is a women's rights issue, or it should not be linked to from Template:Abortion debate sidebar. Novjunulo (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, also extended section on reproductive rights --SasiSasi (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Baha'i Role in the Emancipation of Women
I'm not a neutral party on the matter (as I am a Baha'i) so I'd prefer not to edit it in myself, but I think it bears noting Baha'i efforts for establishing the equality and rights of women in the nineteenth century (an example, see Tahirih, also Bahá'í Faith and gender equality) that historically the efforts even precede the first wave of the feminist movement in the united states. Of course, I will write the portion myself if no one else wants to edit it in, I just thought it'd be best if I let someone not personally attached to the issue have a crack at it first. Peter Deer (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Timelines
Considering that the page links to Timeline of women's suffrage I've commented out the unreferneced "US timelines". Besides the redundancy and unsourced aspects of these lists they are also US-centric. If we are giving the USA's timeline why not give Britain's, Ireland's, New Zeland's, Australia's, Canada's or states where English isn't spoken as a first language? The article has a fairly global perspective otherwise so really I think removing these lists and highlighting the link to Timeline of women's suffrage is the way forward here. Any other views?-- Cailil talk 17:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost peer review time
It'll soon be time to get this page peer-reviewed. Before that happens I'd like to point out the obvious issues here. First some copy-editing is needed. Checking against WP:MOS would be good also. But the major issue is the lede. The list in the lede is bad encyclopedic writting. Also it doesn't really do it's job at the moment - it needs to summarize what's here in the article. If anyone can help with this please do-- Cailil talk 21:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

women's rights in the military(there should be more)
My name is Sarah i am 21 years old and have wanted to be in the military ever since i can remember, the only reason i am not is because of our rights in the military. Women cannot be in front line in the military and thats all i want to do, and i want to change that! If women can get to work and get paid just like a man, then why cant we join the military,serve our country and do what we want because not all women want to do nursing,be cooks,clean and etc...there are many of women that would love to be in the front line. And the only logical thing i can come up with is the one big reason why they wont let women in the front line is that we cant handle the physical and most of all the emotional expense of being in front line possibly at war.And i feel that,that is very degrading because woman have proven time and again we can do anything a man can if thats what we choose to do in our lives.I have many of friends and family in the military in every branch.My dream that i want to come is for me to be in the marines in the front line then eventually become a nurse one day. I have already went to college and graduated and now i want to do more with my life, and to be able to open the door for the future women of the united states. To do so i am going to educate myself more on womens rights,our military and our government then i will be writing to congress,starting programs and gathering a lot of people to support me in my dream as well as other women's dreams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by69.239.205.71 (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-writing "Historical background" section
The "Historical background" section states that all human society was once believed to be patriarchal, then jumps to the Middle Ages and Islam, then jumps to 16th century Europe. I think it is very significant to add that early Ireland had the Brehon law codes in which "Women as well as men could divorce on equitable terms. Women remained in possession of all the property that they brought into the marriage, and, if they divorced or were divorced, were entitled to half of the wealth, which accrued during the marriage. ... There were laws against sexual harassment and rape. A woman was protected against rape by her even her husband. Similarly, she was protected from physical violence from her husband." Women had rights as property owners, in marriage, and in pursuing education and professions such as judges, lawyers, doctors, and even as rulers. "It was in 1605 that Sir Arthur Chichester, the new English Lord Deputy in Ireland, issued a proclamation "discontinuing and abolishing forever. those odious customs" and, indeed, a Royal proclamation was issued in 1613 putting the entire country under English Statute and Common Law and forbidding all forms of Irish cultural express, language, law and custom." Irish Democrat Irish women had several of what we might consider "modern" rights prior to the coming of Christianity.Brehon laws Jlhilton (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jlhilton, that's a good point. But please be aware of what we call "weighting" - that is information deserves due weight and should not be made to seem relatively more significant than it actually is.  All the above information would be excellent for an article about Women's rights in Ireland - but they should only be summarized here.  I certainly would be interesting in collaborating on article about Women's rights in Ireland if you're be interested-- Cailil   talk 23:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps womens rights should be noted in earliest to recent history in that section? Faro0485 (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Some basic grammar....
Im no professor, but... it struck me that in the opening, " Women and their supporters have campaigned and in some places continue to campaigned for the same rights as modern men" is improper grammar, and should be changed to "Women and their supporters have campaigned and in some places continue to campaign for the same rights as modern men." -note that campaigned has been changed in its second instance to better fit the present tense. Also, it seems like it should be a sentence with multiple clauses: "Women and their supporters have campaigned and, in some places, continue to campaign for the same rights as modern men." with the comas around "in some places" isolating it as a clause. I feel that it is simple mistakes such as these that make the less enlightened feel that wikipedia is less reliable a source than it is... Although these are the only mistakes I've found, they should certainly be changed. Someone let me know if I'm wrong. Thanks,

68.45.253.144 (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Enaris 5/8/2008

The History section appears written as a straw-man logical fallacy, comparing Islamic 'emancipation' of women with the western oppression of women. It's very one sided (Islamic bias) and completely ignores most other cultures.

It is also grammatically incorrect for one to say "Im no professor[...]." You ought to have said "I'm not a professor[...]."

WOW there is nothing on women's rights south or 'east' here
I wish I had the time to correct this major major blindspot. The entire history presented is European. I understand that that's where we find the most English sources. But I hope someone corrects this imbalance. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right LamaLoLeshLa we do need to globalize this article's perspective - you can help if you have sources about women's rights in Asia, Africa and/or South America. At the moment I'm swamped and haven't been able to get to this page in my list of "things to do" but I'd be very interested in helping give this page a world view rather than the limited one it currently has-- Cailil   talk 11:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Our Rights
it is our right to have a say in rights. i heave just looked at the women's rights page and i cannot have my say. this restriction of free speech and not being able to express ourselves is a breech of basic human rights. these fanatical womens rights activists are hypocrites not allowing equality in speech, opinions on having your say. this is not equality, it is a dictatorship! —Preceding unsigned comment added by220.233.111.221 (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

women's hard time
i hope these women's hada hard time during the 1960's. i mean they don't get any freedom they have to listen to their husband. —Preceding unsigned comment added by74.73.4.164 (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Faulty lead

 * "The term women's rights refers to the freedoms inherently possessed by women and girls of all ages, which may be institutionalized, ignored or suppressed by law, custom, and behavior in a particular society."

It has not been demonstrated in the following article, that rights are inherent. Rights are social concepts that do not "exist" independent of human subjectivity. The article, and others linked to it should reflect this.forestPIG(grunt) 19:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the language in rights: Rights are legal or moral entitlements or permissions. We could adapt this here to read,Women's rights are legal or moral entitlements given exclusively to women.  Blackworm (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be a vast improvement (minus the term "exclusively"). There are also problems with the term "inherent", as it does not appear in the "gay...", "youth...", "minority..." articles, raising the obvious question of who decides what is inherent.forestPIG(grunt) 19:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do think the intro could do with improvement. However, there are some rights with may be considered women's rights without being exclusive to them, such as suffrage, freedom from discrimination or reproductive rights. I think in the moment the article covers two women's rights areas : fulfilment of what are considered human rights for women (or in simple terms getting the same rights as men), and rights which cover "special needs of women", for example relating to motherhood or sexual violence.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way the term "inherent" is often used in human rights treaties, but that does not mean that it has to be in the intro.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Elaborating on my revert
It cannot be assumed that rights are inherent or otherwise fixed, as suggested by the changing of "given to" to "of". As explained in the core article, rights, what we are dealing with is theoretical and fluid:


 * "The contemporary notion of rights is universalist and egalitarian. Equal rights are granted to all people. By contrast, most historical notions of rights were authoritarian and hierarchical, with different people being granted different rights, and some having more rights than others. For instance".

forestPIG(grunt) 22:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I reproduce an edit summary for convenience:
 * "That rights conventions are passed and conceptions of rights are fluid - is acknowledgment that they do not exist in a mind-independent or socially-independent fashion"
 * "Of" as opposed to "given to" remains a concession to the philosophically fringe concept of rights are static or inherent. This idea is largely undermined by the central article, and fails to elaborate the social process by which rights-philosophies come about. forestPIG(grunt) 01:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Rights article states that peoples' notions of rights has changed over time, but that does not imply that rights are only social constructs any more than a statement that peoples' notions about the shape of the Earth or its motion relative to the sun implies that those facts are only social constructs. Furthermore, dismissing the idea of natural rights as a "philosophically fringe concept" is a pretty biased statement; there are many prominent supporters of that position (see Natural and legal rights for further discussion).


 * One way or another, this article needs to remain neutral on the issue, and I think the "of" terminology fits that need. Even though I personally believe in natural rights, I too had an issue with the pre-exsiting wording which was biased toward that opinion, as it is POV. But "given to" is equally POV. Just as we can't assume that rights are inherent as that is a controversial question, neither can we assume the opposite, that they are not. "Of" does not imply either assumption, so I think we should go with that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add my support to Pfhorrest's argument here. "Of" does not imply anything about how women come to have these rights (whether they are inherent or granted), while "given to" does imply that rights are not inherent. Further, saying that women's rights are those rights "given to" women contradicts the following sentence, which talks about certain rights which women are supposed to hold, which are not recognized in a given case. Now, it might be possible to come up with a wording that better conveys neutrality about different views of the nature of rights; however, the nature of rights is not the topic of this article, and so explicitly raising the question would unnecessarily clutter the opening sentence. Better to simply avoid mentioning the issue, which I think "of" does admirably.VoluntarySlave (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Women voters in 18th century Sweden
Women were allowed to vote in Sweden during the age of liberty (1718-1771), providing they were tax-paying members of the guilds. Perhaps it should be inserted? It was early. --85.226.43.62 (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That should be inserted. Perhaps that would make Sweden the first country were women were allowed to vote?--85.226.47.10 (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)