Talk:Women's rights/Archive 2

modern movement
Today a disparity in pay for male and female workers still exists. The most remarkable case is that of lilly Ledbetter. Shortly before she was due to retire in 1998 Ledbetter became aware that she was making $3,727 per month, while men doing the same job were paid $4,286 to $5,236 per month. Ledbetter sued. Her lawsuit progresses all the way to the Supreme Court in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), The Court held that according to Title VII, discriminatory intent must occur during the 180-day charging period. In 2007, several Democratic members of Congress introduced the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which revised the law to state that the 180-day statute of limitations for pay discrimination resets with each new discriminatory paycheck. The Fair Pay Act was defeated in April 2008 by Republicans in the Senate who cited the possibility of frivolous lawsuits in their opposition of the bill. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed the Senate, 61-36, on January 22, 2009. The votes in favor included every Democratic senator (except Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who was absent from the vote because of health issues) and all four female Republican senators. Every male Republican voted against it except Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, who voted for it. In January 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law bring hopes of equal pay to all American women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialaware (talk • contribs) 04:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rape and sexual violence
While the extensive text under this heading is well written, is any of it actually relevant to this article? It seems all about war/genocide and is surely more relevant to an article on war crimes than to an article on rights. I propose replacing it with a more germane text on rights within the context of domestic violence, abusive relationships and/or forced sex within marriage. Ephebi (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC) This information is not worthy of what they say in here :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.26.15.10 (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive
I hope you don't mind that I began to archive this talk page. You can continue in the same format, if you desire. Though by sheer numbers, there was not very much on this talk page, the age of the first comments may prove to renew disputes that were already rectified. Happy Editing! R mosler | ●   17:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Improve structure
I am trying to improve the structure by reorganising the material. Help welcome.--SasiSasi (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi SasiSasi, I have a quick question about your reference to "Dr. Badawin" do you mean Dr Jamal Bawai? Also which book are you referring to.  I'm asking because the current way it is referenced is not good enough (see WP:CITE all information on a source must be given, book title, publication date, page no. etc)-- Cailil   talk 17:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there, the reference in the article is as follows:


 * I think that is good enough.
 * I can add his full name to the article where he is quoted....--SasiSasi (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Switzerland gave women the right to vote in 1971, not 1871
Switzerland gave women the right to vote in 1971, not 1871. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niels2k (talk • contribs) 12:10, 19 August 2009

Done Welcome and thanks for spotting that. Celestra (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Turkey
Turkey gave women the right to vote in 1930.
 * Turkey is not currently mentioned in the article. If you would like it mentioned in the article, please specify where, the wording you want, and preferably a reliable source, so this can be verified. Once you have done that, please to replace the tag.  Intelligent  sium  23:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * TURKEY GAVE WOMEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN 1930,PLS ADD IT TO ARTICLE. I don't know how can I do it:(
 * Turkey gave women the right to vote in 1930.(Source:http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/suffrage.htm)
 * TURKEY GAVE WOMEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN 1930 AND THE RIGHT FULL RIGHTS TO VOTE AND TO BE ELECTED IN 1934. BE DEMOCRATIC PLEASE!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selcuktopal (talk • contribs) 13:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Elitism and Relevance of information
"Progress was made in professional opportunities. Fields such as medicine, law, and science opened to include more women. At the beginning of the 20th century about 5% of the doctors in the United States were women. As of 2006, over 38% of all doctors in the United States were women, and today, women make almost 50% of the medical student population. While the numbers of women in these fields increased, many women still continued to hold clerical, factory, retail, or service jobs. For example, they worked as office assistants, on assembly lines, or as cooks.[40][41]"

This comes off as very elitist; "medicine, law, and science" are grouped together and mention is made of female expansion in these fields however "clerical, factory, retail, or service jobs" are left as an endnote with no expression of the impact women have had on these fields. In combination with the topic sentence "Progress was made" yet "While the numbers of women in these fields increased, many women still continued to hold clerical, factory, retail, or service jobs" this appears to make the implication that some women have not progressed into more lucrative and competitive fields.

Some of the information under Rape and Sexual Violence is only mildly relevant and is addressed more appropriately and thoroughly in other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.248.41 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

only
I don't understand why the world "only" appears in this sentence, "Switzerland only gave women the right to vote in 1971, and Liechtenstein in 1984." It reads the same with or without it. The difference being that the subjectivity is removed by removing the word "only". think about it, whoever wrote it with the word "only" is determining for themselves when they think is exceptionally late for women to be able to vote. would the editor put the word "only" in if Switzerland allowed women to vote in 1965? It seems like they definitely wouldn't have if it was 1960 since the word "only" doesn't appear in the sentence about Nigeria. Someone with editing ability on this article please remove the word "only" from the sentence in question, or unlock the page for editing so I can. Thank you. 98.204.199.107 (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

kuwait gave women the vote!
kuwait gave women the vote in 2005! now women not only vote but are also in parliament! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.129.149.223 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There are women in parliment in kuwait. sheesh this page needs editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.18.122 (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You know that wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, right? (Hint, hint). --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

well the article is semi protected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.18.122 (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC) 70.51.18.122 (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)--70.51.18.122 (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Women's rights in Islamic law and culture
Offensive Duckelf comment removed by User:ImperfectlyInformed.

Does anyone here know much about women's rights are under the literal wording in the Koran or Muhammed's teachings? Obviously, in practice women do not have a lot of rights, but this article Nana Asma'u Tradition: An Intellectual Movement and Symbol of Women Rights in Islam During the 19th Century Dan Fodio’s Islamic Reform says that Muhammed said that "women are co-equal to men" (page 4), but it's not particularly well-cited (Reform of Personal Status Laws in North Africa: A Problem of Islamic or Mediterranean laws? seems to espouse a similar view). This question particularly arises in history of human rights we we're investigating and cleaning up possible miscitations by Jagged 85, who has promoted Islam (Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85) and edited this article a fair bit (example). I suppose I should have directed this question at women in Islam, though. II | (t - c) 05:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * do your research before you bother people with you spam the talk page, whatever Jagger might have added was removed in late 2008. Non of the current section on Islam and women was written by him. Seriously, the supposed Jagger clean up has lead to any section even mentioning Islam being removed from a number of articles without explanation. Like in the Freedom of Speech article. I think the self appointed clean up people have more of an agenda than Jagger ever had.--SasiSasi (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition to being rude and assuming bad faith, you are also lying. This was added by Jagged, and is still in there. Oh and by the way, it's "Jagged", not "Jagger", so maybe you are the one who should do their "research". Athenean (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Opening tone of Women's Rights article
The opening paragraphs of this article (I did not read further) do not convey a neutral viewpoint. Quite the opposite. From the start we are clued in by the pejorative "putative" rights. Is this the intention? If yes, perhaps it should be retitled "A skeptic's view of women's rights".

Notapussycat (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Putative" is not itself pejorative: it simply means "commonly believed or deemed to be the case". It's there to add neutrality to the article, to give credence to the controversiality of some of the things the article claims. Not everything listed as a right on this article is universally accepted to be so; there are notable points of view which claim that women do not have this, that, or the other freedom or entitlement. The same is true of men's rights, children's rights, etc etc; almost every claim of right is controversial.
 * I personally don't see the need to include qualifiers like "putative" in the ledes of articles like these, since the lede is stating a definition of women's rights, not stating what, if anything, meets that definition. But when other editors take issue to more straightforward statements like "Women's rights are the freedoms and entitlements of women", adding a qualifier like "putative" (I usually prefer "purported") is a good, simple, one-word way to give a nod to the controversiality of the subject without otherwise detracting from the article or giving undue weight to criticism in the lede. The alternative (which in other subjects is sometimes a better way to do it) is to say things like "[subject] is [definition]. There is controversy as to whether and to what extent [subject] exists, or what qualifies as [subject]." Much simpler to simply add a one-word qualifier in front of the definition instead. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of "putative" as being neutral. Having checked several sources, I find general agreement that this word does have a negative connotation.

Of course, when one starts out from the presumption that the neutral position on women's rights is to declare them to be controversial, one has already taken a non-neutral position.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate if Wiki were to have separate contributions from opposing viewpoints, and present them as such, rather than trying to offer a putative neutral account.

former President, Washington State Federation of Democratic Women Notapussycat (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "putative" is not perjorative in any dictionary I can see, though it is not a common term outside legal circles, where language can be quite circumspect. Perhaps you have batter dictionary reference somewhere? Dictionaries do offer alternative words such as "assumed", "supposed", "claimed" or "alleged" - one of which you might think to substitute as a better term. Though if I read you right I suspect that you are objecting to the need to have to qualify it at all. But I'm sure you will appreciate that rights are intrinsically claimed as part of a legal process (which may or may not exist in a given country/state), which is why such a prefix gets used here. That such rights are not acquired without a fight, and are still not universally accepted in all jursidictions, shows that there remains a degree of controversy about this (and hence the qualification). And if we look beyond 'basic' suffrage and workplace equality rights, there remains some significant controversy in some countries (including your own) over a range if other rights - most notably perhaps the ability for a women to have control of her own body - in which case qualifying these rights as putative (or an equivalent) is a relevant encyclopaedic term, distasteful though it may seem to many of us.
 * You are right to flag the semantics as important, and where a WP page has had to stray from a neutral viewpoint then these articles sometimes gain 'controversy' sub-sections where opposing viewpoints can be explained. Perhaps this is a candidate? Ephebi (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to your first sentence, here are a few citations that I believe support the non-neutral connotation of "putative". On the chance that these are copyrighted, I supply here only the URLs. http://www.alphadictionary.com/goodword/word/putative

http://www.yourdictionary.com/wotd/putative

http://wiki.nwtresearch.com/%28S%28ic0a2l455xdf5v45zxuxva55%29%29/Default.aspx?Page=glossary&NS=&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

http://law.yourdictionary.com/putative

As a linguist, I suspect from your writing that you and I do not share the same native language (mine is American English). If this is so, it is not surprising that we would not share the subtleties of connotation.

I agree with your last suggestion.

Notapussycat (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the links - although I have some US dictionaries here, I generally use English dictionaries (OED, Chambers) and was alarmed to see the interpretation that those links gave - surprising as it has a similar legal basis. As it would seem to be an area of contention I have reworded that introduction into something hopefully less prone to accidental pejorative interpretation. While I was at it, I tried to reduce some of the over-wordy legalese which seems to have crept in. Lets see how others find it. Ephebi (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Notapussycat - based on the comments you have made on this talk page it does not appear that you are neutral. Why don’t you have a go at improving articles with referenced content that complies with wikipedia guidelines, rather than trolling on talk pages.--SasiSasi (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

HISTORY section is unbalanced
The section entitled History - Ancient Civilizations jumps from ancient India right over to Rome and Greece and on to Islam, as if nothing worth mentioning occurred in between.

All three ancient Abrahamic religions share some elements of improvements in women's lives as well as elements of suppression. And fundamentalist apologists for all three have similar 'explanations' for why women are set apart from positions of authority, none of which can pass the laugh test.

This section should be totally rewritten, preferably by a disinterested professional. As it stands now, simple editing would not suffice to make it acceptable. Notapussycat (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So why dont you have a go, presumably you are a "disinterested professional". with sources please.--SasiSasi (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sasi2, you might not have noticed that the page is semi-protected, thus its possible she's not able to make edits here herself. However, she makes good points and if she can draft a text here then maybe one of us could paste it in place. I have no experience of the topics she raises here and I would welcome a new editor with broad experience here. Ephebi (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Roman marriage
The stuff about Roman marriage is mostly wrong, at best over-simplified. I might re-write if no one else does.Brechbill123 (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: International Law
Can this be clarified?

"The seven UN member states that have not signed the convention are Iran, Nauru, Palau, Somalia, Sudan, Tonga, and the United States. Niue and the Vatican City have also not ratified it. The United States has signed, but not yet ratified."

It seems contradictory. (I am confused, has the U.S. signed the convention or not?)

66.108.243.166 (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Moi

Edit request from 69.251.176.170, 16 December 2010
Just an FYI, someone inserted this text "Women need to stop complaining about their rights because nobody cares" in the article. Please update.

69.251.176.170 (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And lots of other vandalism, too. Thanks for catching that--I've rolled it all back and warned the user. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Early reforms under Islam
I've tagged this section as a brazen example of boosterism. In addition to the superlative language used, the section is misleading, in that it implies that the local reforms over pre-Islamic Arabian practices was somehow universal, i.e. it was a reform over other societies as well. The editor who added much of the section  was a known pro-Islamic booster who was recently the subject of an RfC/U for exactly this kind of behavior. The section needs a good cleanup. Athenean (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see The current section is essentially the same which I wrote in July 2009. What Jagged added later has been removed.
 * Re neutrality tag, please outline how you think the language can be improved. Feel free to expand the section with referenced material if you think that is necessary.--SasiSasi (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * as the problem has not yet been resolved I'll return the NPOV tag which appears to have been removed prematurely. Ephebi (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I will remove the "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" tag in a couple of days, because there is no dispute. Athenean made vague assertions about the section being not neutral on the basis that he thought it had been written by Jagger 85. There has been no further detail about what he perceives as NPOV issues since December 17th. Can we have some input on the alleged NPOV issues? otherwise there is no dispute.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In case it's not plainly obvious, the section is grossly unbalanced. It is nothing short of a paean to Islam, while hiding the fact that Islamic countries today are rock-bottom in women's rights (consider Saudi Arabia, where women aren't allowed to drive). As long as the coverage is so unbalanced, the tag stays. Also, sources in the first paragraph particularly are either unverifiable (who is "Esposito 2004" and "Esposito 2005"? This is a typical Jagged cut-and-paste-from-another-article job) or selectively quoted (the interview of William Montgomery Watt is a case in point). Athenean (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a history section - it does not hide the situation of women today in Islamic countries it just does not mention it. You don’t complain that the situation of women in Hindu culture, Rome and Greece are not mentioned in the ancient history section. Please state in what way the section is not neutral in reference to the wiki policy on neutrality - Neutral point of view unless you do that, there is no dispute. The tag you have added states that there is a dispute in reference to the NPOV policy. And please stop with Jagged, what he has added has been removed.--SasiSasi (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Re the "Esposito", that is John L. Esposito. I will sort out the references in the next couple of days. I will sort out the refs in the next couple of days.--SasiSasi (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Jagged's additions are still there, that's also why some references are messed up, because he pasted the text here from another article where he entered the full citation info. The article is extremely unbalanced. The section on ancient civilizations goes on and on ad nauseam about how women had no rights whatsoever, while the Islamic sections is a paean to the wonderful reforms of Islam. No mention at all is made of the fact that Women in Ancient Sparta had considerable rights, or of the groundbreaking views of the Stoics . It seems you somehow "forgot" to include that in your recent "extension". Instead, it is mentioned 3 times in the ancient civilizations paragraph that Athenian women did not have the right to chose their husbands, which is a) malarkey, b) sourced to this , which is not an acceptable source (Institute al-Islam? I don't think so). The article is a shambles. Seems to me you are only interested in mentioning the lack of women's rights in ancient times while avoiding any mention of the dreadful state of women's rights in Islamic countries today. Until such concerns are addressed, I am tagging the whole article. Athenean (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

" b) sourced to this, which is not an acceptable source (Institute al-Islam? I don't think so)."

Are you referring to:

Title	The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages: Stoicism in classical Latin literature Volume 1 of The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, Marcía L. Colish, ISBN 9004093303, 9789004093300 Volume 34 of Studies in the History of Christian Traditions Author	Marcía L. Colish Edition	2, illustrated, reprint Publisher	BRILL, 1990 ISBN 9004093273, 9789004093270 Google book link: http://books.google.com/books?id=WY-2MeZqoK0C&pg=PA36&dq=stoics%2Bslavery&hl=en&ei=6hoMTeaoFoXGsAPK482mDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=stoics%2Bslavery&f=false The source complies with Identifying reliable sources

I think you are taking issues with:

"Women in ancient Athens were always minors and subject to a male, such as their father, brother or some other male kin. A women's consent in marriage was not thought to be necessary and women were obliged to submit to the wishes of her parents or husband." Source

This source as well complies with Identifying reliable sources.--SasiSasi (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes that is the source I take issue with. I am going to submit the Al-Ittihad Journal of Islamic Studies article to WP:RSN for review. It sounds very much like an advocacy-type source to me. You will also notice the article doesn't have a bibliography or use citations, which should set off red flags right away. I mean women were obliged to submit to the wishes of her parents or husband in ancient Athens but not in Islamic societies? Come on now. Athenean (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"grossly unbalanced article"
ah common... now the entire article is NPOV... please take a breather.

"Seems to me you are only interested in mentioning the lack of women's rights in ancient times while avoiding any mention of the dreadful state of women's rights in Islamic countries today. Until such concerns are addressed, I am tagging the whole article."

well, that is a personal attack, not very good form No personal attacks. Plus if you look at my edit and contribution history I think you will find it very difficult to substantiate your allegation. Also tagging an entire article as NPOV because you believe that I am, as one of the many editors of the article, "are only interested in mentioning the lack of women's rights in ancient times" does not comply with NPOV policy and is ever so slightly paranoid.

So how about you take a breather, I work on the article as I anyway wanted to do and I then submit the article to the NPOV notice board so we can have the opinion of a range of editors on whether the article or various section of it are NPOV.--SasiSasi (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, I do apologize for my distemperate outburst earlier, but I stand by my comment that this article is unbalanced. The "ancient civilizations" section is even worse than it was before. The tone is very biased, e.g. every sentence that contains "women" also contains "not" "could not" and "no" almost without exception. I'll give you an example. Consider the sentence Athenian women could seek a divorce, but where not entitled to maintenance unless they had children. and compare to Athenian women had the right to divorce, and had the right to receive alimony if they had children. Do you see the difference? In the Islamic section, every sentence has a positive tone and casts Islam in a positive light, whereas in the ancient civilizations section the exact opposite is true. Things are repeated over and over for effect, e.g. that women had no right to property, couldn't choose their husband, couldn't become citizens, etc....Each of these is repeated in the section. Why? Why aren't other city states mentioned? Also, many statements are unsourced. Any unsourced claims should either be sourced or removed. Athenean (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the tag and say this: tags should be on the page only after an actual attempt to resolve the issue has been made, right? Firstly, what is the proposed resolution for the supposed POV problem? Let's talk about that first. Perhaps my bold gesture will stimulate that discussion. In terms of good writing, the positive is to be preferred over the negative. — Zujine |talk 19:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The "ancient civilizations" section feels unbalanced to me, for reasons I have mentioned above. Much of it is unsourced, and parts that are sourced are sourced to unreliable sources. The language and tone used are excessively negative and judgmental. Also, important aspects are left-out (e.g. Sparta, the Stoics). I've been meaning to address these issues, but haven't had the time yet. I can live without the POV tag, but the section needs work, which I will try to complete over the next few days. Athenean (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Then let us fix it. The language of course should not be negative and judgemental (even mildly so). I will work on it too, in the next few days. — Zujine |talk 23:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's great, I'm glad to hear that. Athenean (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Women's rights/archives/2009
Is there any reason Women's rights/archives/2009 is blank? Seems like a waste of an archive. 86.148.33.35 (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Ancient civilizations section
I expanded, re-arranged, and copyedited the section to the point where I feel it is much stronger now. Every one of my additions is sourced from high-quality sources, please feel free to use them to expand it further if anyone wishes so. Athenean (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Re - "Contrary to these views, the Stoic philosophers argued for equality of the sexes, sexual inequality being in their view contrary to the laws of nature. "
 * The source does not actually say that... --SasiSasi (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it does. Page 37, line 6: "On this basis, the Stoics argue that slavery and sexual inequality are contrary to the law of nature." Come on now. Athenean (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sparta section sources
Athenean - you appear to have cut and paste a section from the Sparta article on women into this article - problem is the source can not be verified... given your (previous) concern with sources it appears a bit careless... ref name="Pomeroy">Pomeroy, Sarah B. Goddess, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity. New York: Schocken Books, 1975. p. 60-62</ref--SasiSasi (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How do you mean "can not be verified"? I give the title, publisher info, year of publication and page number. It is easily verifiable. The only thing missing is the ISBN, which can be easily added. Athenean (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * unfortunately it is not possible to look at the source to verify that it is correct. I have added a section on status and property ownership which can be verified. I also had to remove a bit on Athenian women and property ownership, as the source did not support the statement.--SasiSasi (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is possible to verify it. Just because it is not available online doesn't mean it's not verifiable. All you have to do is go to a library near you. Regarding ownership of property by Athenian women, from Blundell p. 114: "It would be wrong, however, to assume on this basis that Athenian women were legally barred from owning property." and from page 115: "The three principal means by which a woman could acquire rights over property were gifts, dowry and inheritance." So much for your claim then. Look I know ancient Greece-bashing is very fashionable in certain circles these days, but there is this little thing called NPOV which we must adhere to. Athenean (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I fixed the mistaken references to Blundell p. 119 with the correct ref. to p. 115. Also please be a little more careful in your edits, I note a lot of poor grammar and spelling (e.g. "worriers" instead of "warriors"). Athenean (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * can you let me work on the section - I have found a source we can all check re spartan property, and training in the nude is not relevant really for a women's right article. I am also sorting the Blundell source. I will have a look at pg115. And dont accuse me again of being anti-ancient Athens.... it would be nice if you would take a more ocnstructive attitude.--SasiSasi (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The training in the nude is relevant, it shows that Spartan women received a physical education, which was denied to women in other cities. There is also this source, which is dedicated to Spartan women and confirms what is already in the article. As far as the property question, Pomeroy 1975 says 35%, your source says 40% (and I didn't remove it, either). So, where exactly is the problem? The other thing is, if you search "Ancient Greece" and "women" books and books and books have been written on the subject. In this article, we have to keep it succinct per WP:SS. Also regarding the tenor of your edits, I can't help but observe a pattern: Every single one so far appears geared to portraying ancient Greece in the most negative light possible, as some sexist hell-hole were women were treated horribly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is just the pattern that I notice. I hope you can prove me wrong in the future. Athenean (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have sorted out the sources - re citizenship and change in the law - it was required that both parents were Athenian, not citizens (pg119). Re Sparta - I honestly don’t think that nude training is relevant. I have found a source for the property ownership estimate and some more info on Spartan women' status. Have merged the Plato and Aristotle sections into one. Will now have a look at the Stoic para, and run it into the roman section, as stoic philosophy had influence on their law. And please have a look at my edit history before you laucnh further personal attacs.--SasiSasi (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sparta should have its own paragraph. There are enough difference with Athens, and enough material there for a second paragraph. And since you insist on relevance, I don't see what Aristotle's views about the value of women's labor have anything to do with women's rights. Athenean (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, the tone of the Athens para as re-written by you is very negative, and full of terrible grammar and spelling. I'm sorry, but I cannot accept many of your edits. Athenean (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, most of the section on Plato and Aristotle is entirely unsourced. Athenean (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can ask Zujine to help. Feel free to improve my gram and spelling. Please provide exmaples of how the tone is negative - what is said in the article is supported by sources, if you think it is POV, please highlight the wording you think is problematic.

The Plato and Aristotle section is not enturely unsourced.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed those parts of the Plato and Aristotle para that were unsourced, nothing more. Examples of negative tone (from your version): By law Athenian women could not enter into a contract worth more than the value of a “medimnos of barley” instead of: "By law Athenian women could enter into a contract worth less than the value of a “medimnos of barley”..", which makes more sense considering the second clause "thereby allowing women to engage in petty trade". Also, there is hardly a sentence without the word "not" or "no". It's litany of "Athenian women..could not..did not..had no.." Athenean (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

reverting my edits
You just reverted all my edits - the para you ahve written on stoic philosophy in the Greek section does not reflect what the source says. I will see if we can get an admin to resolve this. You appear to ahve a particular problem with the ancient greece section.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not revert all your edits. That is a blatantly false accusation. But some I found unacceptable and undid. In fact I kept far more of your additions than you kept of mine. Also, let me remind you that you were the one that started the reverting. Btw, my version on the Stoic section did reflect what the source said. Let me remind you that at first you thought it the source didn't support the claim about sexual inequality, which I showed to be completely false since I stuck very closely to the wording of the source. I could just as easily argue that you are the one that has a problem with the ancient Greece section. I do not like where the current process is heading, and yes, I think outside mediation is needed at this point. I don't think it is possible for me to work with you. Athenean (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I noticed that you even undid the way I had formatted refs (using the harvnb format). Is even that too much? For a source that is used throughout the article, e.g. Blundell, the harvnb format is preferrable. I mean, really now. Athenean (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for not having weighed in on this topic sooner. Since the debate appears has died down and some reasonable compromises appeared to have been reached, I'm reluctant to jump in now, but I wanted to offer a couple suggestions. My thoughts are not especially well organised, so bear with me... SasiSasi, if you think I have misunderstood the points of contention here, or if there are outstanding issues that you would like resolved, you can let me know by clearly (and hopefully concisely) describing the specific content issues. — Zujine |talk 05:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand by my earlier suggestion that good writing should favor active, positive assertions. However, I am also sensitive to the concern that writing in the positive can greatly change the colour of a statement. Adopting a positive tone can, in effect, trivialise deprivations of rights that some editors may consider inalienable. I doubt that this is Athenean's intention, but I would advise that he/she be sensitive to this nonetheless. I actually think there's a pretty decent balance in the article right now, so kudos.
 * Athenean, I agree that there seems to be a lack of balance between the description of women's rights under Islam and in ancient Athens. I'm not prepared to wade into the particulars of the debate on Islam, but if you were inclined to add a short overview paragraph, for instance, to that section, that may help some.
 * Regarding Plato, I am no expert on classical philosophy, but as I recall, Plato espoused some fairly radical views in support of sexual equality. In the Republic, he advanced the idea that women should be guardians along with men, sharing in most of the same responsibilities, and should been allowed the same education as men. Aristotle's views on women (as defective men, essentially), always rubbed me the wrong way.  So I find the current representation of their respective views to be rather curious.

India
I find the latest additions on India by User:Arjun024 problematic, for a number of reasons. First none of the sources used appear reliable. The first source appears to be some sort of political, boosterish, unscholarly book from a dubious publisher. Any book that claims that "India has the most progressive constitution in the world" in its blurb raises a red flag. What kind of publisher is Vedams Books? Is this the sort of publishing house associated with right-wing Hindu advocacy groups? The second source comes up blank, the third source is in fact a wikipedia article (Katyayana). The fourth source is what, exactly? It doesn't even appear to be a publication. Regarding the 5th source, what kind of publisher is Bharatiya Vidhya Bhavan? Again, I get a whiff of right-wing advocacy groups. The remaining sources are self-published websited, two of which are dead links, and one of which is about.com. This is not how we source things. Second, the whole addition is typical of the right-wing "in-ancient-India-everything-was-wonderful-until-the-Muslims-came-and-ruined-everything" Hindutva POV. This impression is compounded by the claim that the Muslims are somehow responsible for the practice of Sati, which is nonsense. Ditto with blaming the deterioration of women's status in India due to Christianity. As we all know, Christianity has only had a peripheral influence, if any in India. Lastly, there is a lot of irrelevant material. What does the institution of nagarvadhu (a type of beauty pageant) have to do with women's rights? What does the fact that the Rig Veda mention women seers have to do with women's rights. For the above reasons, I find the latest additions unacceptable and unencyclopedic. While a section on India would be greatly welcome, the current one falls woefully short, and should be removed in its entirety. I don't see anything that can be salvaged. Athenean (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.4.132.233, 21 February 2011
Rome for womens rights

Any historical investigation into the lives of ancient women involves individual interpretation and much speculation. One can read the ancient sources concerned with women and their place in society, but to a large degree, they are all secondary sources that were written by men about women. No ancient journals or personal diaries written by Roman women were uncovered, so it is not known what their hopes and dreams were, or if they had any. What Roman women felt about most political issues and the numerous wars and upheavals is also a mystery. Nor can we read about what women thought of slavery, marriage, or the fact they had no legal rights over their children or even themselves. The scope is truly limited, but many questions may still be asked and considered, such as: what was the role of Roman women in their society? Were they considered citizens who had personal freedom, or were they sequestered away and given little or no education? Was individuality and personal choice a part of women's lives, or were they overshadowed by the patriarchal society of which they were a part? The answers may be difficult to uncover, but they are important questions when one realizes that so much of Roman civilization went on to lay the foundation of our own modern society. Understanding the past makes the present that much clearer and hopefully provides insight into the future, thereby helping society not to make the same mistakes again.

When looking at the sources for ancient Roman women, it is quickly evident that most of them deal with the aristocracy. It was men from the upper classes who received the best education and the best positions in society, and this enabled them leisure time to reflect on their world and to write about it. As is the case with most people, they wrote about their own experiences and when it came to women, it was their own relatives and wives whom they depicted on paper. Certainly, aristocratic women and those from the other upper levels of Roman Society did not make up the majority of the female population, but it is pieces of their lives that we have to look at. Evidence for what the poorer women suffered during the Roman Republic and the Empire is very fragmentary, however, women of all economic levels shared one overwhelming and pervasive role and responsibility, no matter the social position they possessed: that of child bearer.

Women, or more correctly, girls, were usually married by the time they were twelve years old, sometimes even younger.(1) In our modern world, this seems scandalous, but everything must be put into societal contexts. Life expectancy was very different in ancient Rome compared with today. Granted, there would be some people who died of old age, but the majority only reached their twenties and thirties,(2) if they were lucky. Girls married very young and often died in childbirth or because they were weakened from having too many children without reprieve.(3) A funerary inscription to a woman named Veturia provides a good example: she was married at eleven, gave birth to six children, and died at twenty-seven.(4) Women were expected to have as many babies as they could because they were never sure how many of the children would reach maturity.(5) Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, gave birth to twelve offspring, but only two boys and one girl survived.(6)

Aristocratic families wanted male children to carry on the family name and lineage,(7) and expected their wives to be perpetually pregnant.(8) Infertility was actually grounds used for divorce, and women would often offer a divorce so that their husbands would have the opportunity to have children with someone else.(9) Women from the lower classes would not be expected to have as many children because they did not have the means to support them.(10) These women may also have worked outside the home to help support their families,(11) but their husbands would still have wanted a son to carry on their names and if, they were a rural family, to help work on the farm. But certainly there was a difference between the higher echelon of Roman society and the lower classes: upper class women had more children.

Women did not have a choice between having children or not, and they could not overrule the husband if he chose to expose a newborn. Many female infants were exposed by their families because they could not carry on the family name and they also required a dowry at the time of their marriage.(12) Eva Cantarella in Pandora's Daughters, states:

The earliest power that the father could exercise over a filias familias was that of exposure. At birth, in a highly symbolic rite, newborns -- male and female -- were deposited at the feet of the father. He -- without explanation or justification -- either recognized the child as his by picking it up, or withheld his recognition by leaving it where it was. The recognized child became a member of the familia; the unrecognized child was abandoned to the river or left to die by starvation.(13) Most of the exposed were girls, but some were sickly or weak-looking males.(14) On an Oxyrhynchus Papri, a letter from a husband to a wife instructs her to let the infant live if it is a boy; [but] "if it is a girl, expose it."(15) It was as simple as that. This practise of exposure greatly reduced the female population, as did the neglect of girls. Augustus was so concerned with the decline in Roman population, particularly in the aristocracy that he passed both the Julian Laws in 18 BC and the Papia-Poppaean Laws in 9 AD. These laws placed penalties on celibacy and not marrying; and rewarded marriage and having children. Neither set of laws really helped generate a great increase in the population rate of Rome.(16)

Although the role of women in ancient Rome was primarily child-bearing, women also played an important in raising the children.(17) This differed greatly from the Athenian tradition which placed both the cultural and educational facets of raising boys exclusively in the hands of men. In the Roman world, women were encouraged to teach the children Roman culture.(18) When the boys grew up, the mother would spend her money and time to advance their political careers.(19)Even the girls would receive this sort of home education because they would be expected to teach their own children one day.(20) In The Elements of Oratory, Quintilian reports that Cornelia, mother of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, played a major role in their education and cultivation.(21) Roman women had children, but they were not exclusively "tools of reproduction"(22) -- they "were also a fundamental instrument of the transmission of a culture ... [and] it was their job to prepare them to become cives romani ... "(23) Who were they preparing to become Roman citizens? Were only the males given citizenship, as was the case for centuries in Athens? This is a difficult question to answer.

In the introduction of As the Romans Did, Jo-Ann Shelton discusses how the Romans "took the remarkable action of granting Roman citizenship to every free person within the borders of the Roman Empire."(24) It does not sound as if women were excluded. In Women and Politics in Ancient Rome, Richard A. Bauman says that "the public position of women was so unfavourable that it has even been doubted whether they were Roman citizens. The doubts are unfounded ..."(25) So it seems that they had a higher position than the Athenian women, who were not considered citizens. They did have something in common: neither was allowed to vote or to participate in political activities. This applies primarily to the Republican Period, since the kings made the decisions during the Monarchy and the Emperor had the final say during the Roman Empire. In Augustus' time, the assemblies began to fade into the shadows. Regardless of the laws, inscriptions uncovered in Pompeii from the first century AD prove that women had an interest in politics. An example, painted on the side of a house states: "Nymphodotus, along with Caprasia, asks you to vote for Marcus Cerrinus Vatia for the aedileship."(26) Another, found on the side of a wine shop reads: "Caprasia along with Nymphius -- her neighbors too -- ask you to vote for Aulus Vettius Firmus for the aedileship; he is worthy of the office."(27)

Women had more than a passing interest in politics years earlier when the Romans initiated the Oppian Laws. These laws prohibited women from buying any luxury items such as jewelry or fancy clothes(28) -- they could not buy anything that cost any amount of money. The government felt that there would be more money available to fight Hannibal. The women went along with this because they were willing to do their share for the war effort, but twenty years later, they tried to have the law repealed.(29) Livy, in his A History of Rome, explains how the women poured into the Forum, where the assembly was under way. They were trying to convince their male relatives to vote in favour of the repeal. One of the opponents of the repeal gives us some insight into what some men felt about the incident. Marcus Porcius Cato wonders "what kind of behaviour is this, running around in public and blocking streets and talking to other women's husbands? ... it is not right, even in your own homes for you to concern yourselves about which laws are passed or repealed here."(30) The law was abolished and women had won a victory. It showed them that they had strength in numbers. One can only imagine the scandal it caused within families. This incident makes one wonder what other things were off limit to women. Where did they go when they left their homes?

It seems as if they regularly attended Roman public baths, since bathing "was a recreational activity enjoyed by people of all ages, sexes, and social classes."(31) There were often separate baths for women and men, but if not, the women bathed in the morning and the men in the afternoon. This was an integral part of the lives of most Romans, and for the upper classes, so were dinner parties. Women were able to accompany their husbands to these affairs, which could vary from quite ordinary functions to wildly fantastic ones like the kind Trimalchio presented. In Petronius' book The Satyricon, one notes that women were present for the festivities and that Scintilla arrived with her husband Habinnas, having just left another banquet.(32)

Women were also able to attend religious festivals, such as the Ambarualia and the Lupercalia.(33) Women could also attend amphitheater events like gladiatorial matches and circuses. There is even evidence that women fought as gladiators,(34) but they were not allowed to be seen on stage as actors.(35) Ovid, in his Love Affairs advises men that the racetrack is a good place to meet women, which is evidence that they could even attend those events.(36) It is very intriguing that Roman women who had so few legal rights could also possess so many personal freedoms: the Roman women were certainly not sequestered away in gynaeconitis as Athenian women were in Greece. Girls did receive some informal education in their homes and learned to read and write. Both mothers and fathers had a role to play in the transmission of Roman culture and education to their children, however, it was frowned upon for women to become too educated, as can be seen in Juvenal's writings. He scoffs at the women who have opinions on Homer, grammar, and ethics, and he implies that these sorts of women have forgotten their place in society by being so knowledgeable -- it was not their place.(37)

Women were already finished their educations and having babies when their male contemporaries were practicing eloquence or studying philosophy abroad in places like Athens. Of course, this would only apply to males from upper class families. Women from the lower classes received enough education to assist them in running small businesses and working as dressmakers or salespeople in the markets.(38) It would seem as if a dichotomy existed within the lives of Roman women. Sarah Pomeroy, in Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves, points out that "Roman women were involved with their culture and were able to influence their society ... Roman women dined with their husbands and attended parties, games, and shows."(39) Eva Cantarella makes some similar observations:

The Romans did not believe that women should be shut up in a special part of the house or that they should be forbidden to dine with men or go out in the street ... Perhaps the liberality of the Romans toward their women is not altogether accidental. Given their duties, women had to participate in some way in men's lives in order to assimilate their values and become more faithful transmitters of them.(40) Women did have some personal freedoms, but they had little chance for individuality or personal choice. They were under the constant supervision of their fathers, male relatives, and husbands, who regularly kissed them on the mouth to find out if they had drunk wine.(41) Drinking wine was strictly forbidden for Roman women and they could be punished by death. In Memorable Deeds and Sayings from the first century AD, Maximus tells of how Egnatius Metellus beat his wife to death for drinking wine.(42) It was believed that wine caused women to have adulterous relationships, which were very common because so many of the marriages were for political or economic reasons, and not for love or passion. Women often were expected to marry men who were much older then themselves. They married whoever they were told to. Women found to have committed adultery could be put to death by their fathers or guardians.(43)

Another controlling device that was used against Roman women was the practise of not allowing them to have personal names. Instead, a woman took her father's middle name or nomen and feminized it. From a Roman woman's name, you could tell who her father was and therefore, her position within society.(44) Women existed within their families and had no identity of their own. Their fathers had absolute control over their lives and could even sell them into slavery or force them to get a divorce.(45) If they had children at the time of the divorce, women were forced to leave them behind. When marriages dissolved, women had no legal rights concerning the offspring and often never saw them again. Marriages were often without manus, meaning that the father kept the property of his daughter and would therefore, retain a hold over her wealth. A marriage with manus gave power over the women to her new husband, as well as ownership of her property. In either case, the women were not permitted to do anything they wanted with their own money, since personal wealth is always equated with power. Of course, there were some exceptions: mothers could spend money on their sons' political careers or education, and one can also read about Cicero's wife, Terentia, who had personal wealth and made land investments on her own. It would seem likely that women with wealth would have more power over their lives, but this would depend upon her father or guardian or husband. Women were expected to have a legal guardian because they were not considered smart enough to act in their own best interests. When Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, was widowed, she refused to marry again and as a result, made her own decisions, but this was very rare. The only real power that most women possessed was over their personal interactions within the circle of their friends and family. Still, women had to know their place, remain modest, be tireless, and both loyal and obedient -- emotionally, physically, and financially to their families. That was what Roman men were looking for.(46)

So it is evident that women had certain prescribed roles to play within Roman society: child bearer, mother, daughter, and wife. They were considered citizens, but they were not permitted to vote or participate in government procedures. If they did try, it was frowned upon. Some women were more educated than others and they all had some personal freedoms. Lower class women could work, but upper class women were expected to meet the expectations that their families had set out for them and stay at home. None of the women really had their own identities or an array of personal choices put before them. There are always some exceptions and surely there were individual women who were considered very radical in their time. Women were overshadowed by the men in their lives because Rome was a very patriarchal society, built on a peasant culture and on the old customs of mos maiorum.(47) As Cicero said, "the strength of Rome is founded on her ancient customs as much as on the strength of her sons."(48) Women probably did not have much of a life, especially those of the lower classes, and they died at a young age. One can only hope that they had pleasures that were never documented by the men who wrote about them. Some did get involved in the rites of Bacchus(49) and probably did enjoy themselves a great deal for short periods of time -- before they were caught.

But we will never know what the women of ancient Rome thought about their inferior social position or what they thought about the many layers of separation that existed between themselves and Roman men. The ancient Roman world was a very patriarchal culture, with men holding all the positions of power. Women and children really did not have many rights. In reality, life must have been difficult for the majority of people in Rome when one considers all the years of war and conquer: life was not very easy for anyone. Although the Romans were not pioneers in social equality, the civilization had a great influence on both men and women who came later. They were building an empire and as the legendary H.I. Marrou stated in his book, A History of Education in Antiquity:

If Greek civilization in its turn had remained the jealously guarded preserve of a few Aegean cities, it too would have disappeared long ago, without renewing, as it has, the face of the earth. And the fact that it has fulfilled its destiny is largely due to Rome. Rome's historic function was to complete the work begun by Alexander, and plant Hellenistic civilization from the Sahara to the lochs of Scotland, from the Euphrates to the Atlantic; and to give it such deep roots that it could withstand the storms of Teuton and Slav invasions, and the Arab invasion, if not that of the Turks. It is this profound labor, ensuring the renaissances of the future, that constitutes Rome's real honor and imperishable glory.(50) Related Papers

Ancient Athenian Women: A Look at Their Lives Courtesans and Kings: Ancient Greek Perspectives on the Hetairai Annotated Bibliography of Women in Classical Mythology Roman Slavery: Social, Cultural, Political, and Demographic Consequences Humble Beginnings, Glorious Destiny: A Look at Roman Art Roman and Etruscan Wall Paintings of the Tarquinia Tombs and Pompeii

Notes

1 Jo-Ann Shelton, As the Romans Did (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988) p. 37.

2 Ibid., p. 292.

3 Ibid.

4 CIL 3.3572.

5 Shelton, p. 292.

6 Ibid., p. 24.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 CIL 6.1527, 31670 (1LS 8393).

10 The Law Code of Theodosius 11.27.1.

11 Shelton, p. 306.

12 Ibid., p. 27-28.

13 Eva Cantarella, Pandora's Daughters (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1987) p. 115.

14 Shelton, p. 27.

15 Oxyrhynchus Papri 744 (Select Papyri 105).

16 A.D.A, pp. 174, 184, 187; Dio Cassius, Roman History 54.16.1-2; and Tacitus, Annals 3.25.

17 Tacitus, A Biography of Agricola 4.2-4.

18 Ibid.

19 Quintillian, The Elements of Oratory 1.1.6-8, 15-17, 20.

20 Shelton, p. 300.

21 Quintillian, 1.1.6-8, 15-17, 20.

22 Cantarella, p. 134.

23 Ibid.

24 Shelton, p. 3.

25 Richard A. Bauman, Women and Politics in Ancient Rome (London: Routledge, 1992) p. 2.

26 Mary R. Lefkowitz and Maureen B. Fant, Women's Life in Greece and Rome (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1992), p. 152.

27 Ibid.

28 Shelton, p. 299.

29 Ibid.

30 Livy, A History of Rome 34.2.2, 2, 8-11, 14.

31 Shelton, p. 31.

32 Petronius, The Satyricon.

33 Shelton, p. 33.

34 Lefkowitz and Fant, p. 213.

35 Shelton, p. 35.

36 Ovid, Love Affairs 3.2.1-14, 19-26, 33-38, 43-59, 61-84.

37 Juvenal, Satires 6.434-456.

38 Jane Francis, lecture notes.

39 Sarah Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves (New York: Schocken Books, 1975) p. 189.

40 Cantarella, p. 134.

41 Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights 10.23.

42 Valerius Maximus, Memorable Deeds & Words 6.3.9.

43 ADA, p. 113-116, 123, 126.

44 Jane Francis, lecture notes.

45 Shelton, p. 18.

46 Jane Francis, lecture notes.

47 H.I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity, (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1956) p. 231.

48 Ibid.

49 Livy, 39.8, 9, 14, 17, 18.

50 Marrou, p. 293.

Above text added by: 68.4.132.233


 * I'm not sure what to make of the above - it appears to be a direct copyvio of other text found on the web. As such, it cannot be used. If a precis could be made then perhaps that would be a better candidate - or maybe turned into its own article abour Womens right in Rome. Ephebi (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

"AN" NOT "AND"
In this paragraph (Spartans):

By contrast, Spartan women enjoyed a status, power, and respect that was unknown in the rest of the classical world. Although Spartan women were formally excluded from military and political life they enjoyed considerable status as mothers of Spartan warriors. As men engaged in military activity, women took responsibility for running estates. Following protracted warfare in the 4 century BC Spartan women owned approximately between 35%[8] and 40% of all Spartan land and property.[9] By the Hellenistic Period, some of the wealthiest Spartans were women.[10] They controlled their own properties, as well as the properties of male relatives who were away with the army.[8] Spartan women rarely married before the age of 20, and unlike Athenian women who wore heavy, concealing clothes and were rarely seen outside the house, Spartan women wore short dresses[11] and went where they pleased. Girls as well as boys received and education, and young women as well as young men may have participated in the Gymnopaedia ("Festival of Nude Youths").[8][12]

Girls as well as boys received !!and!! education

Semi-protected, can't fix. Someone please do this for me!

Done!Fconaway (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Dutch female suffrage
Women in the netherlands didn't get the right to vote until 1919 and could not use this right until 1922. In 1917 the constitution was change so a law could be summitted which gave women the right to vote. So, although 1917 was very important to the subject of female suffrage in the Netherlands, the right to vote was not bestowed until 1919. This is a relatively wll know fact among Dutch political scientists, so there are meny sources where one could find this, for instance: "Land van kleine gebaren" by R. Aerts, H de Laigre Böhl, P. de Rooy and H. te Velde, page 165.

Shocksrivers (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"political" misspelled
In the second sentence of the section that describes a ranking of countries based on gender equality, the word "political" is missing its second "i." Can a confirmed user help me fix this please?

Please Change X to Y:

politcal to political
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Economic Impact
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/20/girl_power_and_the_fragility_trap Jad Chaaban (American University of Beirut) and Wendy Cunningham (World Bank) measured the loss in terms of the "opportunity cost" of not allowing girls to finish high school, not allowing them to join the labor force, and inducing them to have children prematurely.


 * Worth a mention here? Hcobb (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Newsweek study needs citations?
The '2011 Study of status by country' seems lacking to me. No citation, no way for the reader to get further detail. Could a more scholarly source for the actual study be found, such that readers could follow for more information? Or at the least a mention of who did the study, where etc? Tempted to 'citation needed' it, but this is a somewhat major article, so not sure if I'm out of line.

www.l3.net.nz (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The article itself is a citation from a RS but I will insert the researcher and a reference & citation. There are actually more details, a website reference, etc. I will look at what might be changed here but a RS report like this pretty much stands on its own. Seeing you are from .nz you might be interested to note NZ was #11. I don't think inserting the bottom 10 or 20 would be beneficial to the article (you can probably guess what countries are in it). Obotlig (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added citations, tables and a world map of all the rankings. Obotlig (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That reads much better. I was interested to read more, but couldn't find a way to do so, thanks. Yeah, I don't think a lot of time needs to be devoted to it - the main article is already pretty long. I guess if there's more interest then 'Current status of womens rights' or something could break out to be its own article? KingJackaL (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Womens rights in the civil war
Women were as important or even more important then men in the civil war or even any war really. This is true because women worked as the nurses and some even as soldiers that played as men to serve our country. The ones that played as men that were soldiers did that either to help their husbands or just to help the other men and some were never even found out that they were women. Also the importance of the nursers was to help all the injured and dead men and some even saved their lives or just helped them but both were important. Women sometimes did this stuff because they thought they were as important as the med which was very true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessStew (talk • contribs) 19:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

== Womens rights in the civil war ==

Women In India/Pakistan
Hi this source seems to contradict the newsweek report it says Pakistan is faring better with womens right than India Rezawiki09 (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

lack of information in the christianity section
two example are not enough. it has ignored all the oppression to womens rights such as that the should not speak in churches and various others is this a sweep under the rug topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rydusx742 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC) In Matthew 25:1 Jesus says: "At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom."
 * some exaples

In John 20:17 Jesus says to Mary: "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father," as though the touch of a woman is somehow improper, but a few verses later, is happy to have Thomas touch him.

In Genesis chapter 3, God punishes Eve, and all women for thousands of years, with greatly increased pain during childbirth. No such pain is inflicted on Adam.

In Ephesians 5:22-24 we find this: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

In 1 Peter 3:7 we find: "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."

In 1 John 2:13, John says, "I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father." No mention is made of women. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels. info from godisimaginary i30 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rydusx742 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to correct the mistake in the Entry with title Roman Marriage (which affected all later entries by making them all into subheadings of Roman Marriage), by changing its heading from = Roman marriage = to the normal heading == Roman marriage ==.  I just hope it straightens out the crazy Table Of Contents.  I also hope I'm signing here at the appropriate point, trying to help other WP editors....     For7thGen (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2012
The second sentence of this article is a sentence fragment. I suggest revision in order to make it grammatically correct.

209.105.191.83 (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. What is your suggested fix?  RudolfRed (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

the status of american women
there is no rights for american women! Back then, women were not allowed to vote. Women always argued but, when ever they do, they would always end up in jail. But now it's all good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.118.13 (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Jolly good show great info you got here hahahaha

This is not productive or very relevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.29.62 (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Welsh Women Equality
Can we please have some mention of Wales here? It was one of the only countries in the ancient to have given Women equal rights in law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.228.140 (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else disagree with this title: Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)?
On the Talk page I've just said it is sexist and patronising beyond belief to have this title, because it suggests that this women is only definable by reference to her husband. Can you please leave your thoughts to have this moved to an alternate title? Thanks,  Wik idea  15:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I notice you are a moron. The reference is in relation to notoriety, NOT that her place is as a wife. If her husband was known because of her and the roles were reversed, Gordon Brown would be listed as (husband of Sarah Brown). As happens, quite a lot, when a woman is well known and her lesser known husband merits a separate article but is only known through his wife. The same occurs for children of well known people and parents of well known people. Don't be so deliberately ignorant. 124.169.35.195 (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

POV template
As the discussion for the POV section template (in the Qur'an section) is long dormant, I've removed it per #3 in the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

I'd encourage editors to continue to revising to correct any issues they see, however. Thanks to everybody working on the article, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sparta
Regarding Sparta, most books on the subject of women in antiquity devote equal amounts of space to Athens and Sparta (e.g.), so One paragraph for Athens and one for Sparta seems logical. Athenean (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems like a reasonable approach to me. — Zujine |talk 05:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "By contrast, Spartan women enjoyed a status, power, and respect that was unknown in the rest of the classical world." What is the source of this assumption? There are many examples around middle and near east in ancient times that women enjoyed equal status. From Hittites to Egypt. From Lidians to Sumerians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.222.234.215 (talk) 11:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Islam
"The general improvement of the status of Arab women included prohibition of female infanticide and recognizing women's full personhood."

First of all the heresay of female infanticide in arabia, is just a heresay, someone should bring an evidence for it. Secondly, Before Islam, women of arabian peninsula(especially of Makkah) were entitled to rights much greater than Byzantium and Persia of its time. There were business women( first wife of Mohammad Hatice was), apperently (and contraryto popular belief) they inherited large sums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.222.234.215 (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Remove Hillary Clinton
The fact that Hillary Clinton has spoken about Women's Rights does not qualify for inclusion in this article. It does not explain what Women's Rights is. I suggest that her picture and the whole paragraph about her is removed.It is not pertaining to the article.95.34.177.209 (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep it It's in the subsection Human Rights and Women's Rights, and talks about some important recent events in the international theater of Human Rights and Women's Rights. These events either involved, or were started by Hillary Clinton, and the sources show that they helped link the Women's Rights movement and Human Rights movement closer together. I think it belongs exactly where it is.Cameron Ehteshami (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Women's rights do not include "religious rights" those are separate issues.
It says in the main article:


 * "and to have marital, parental and religious rights."

However, religious rights are not women's rights. Women is about the gender equality under the law, it is not about cultures or religions or beliefs.

A women who asks for special religious privileges is not asking for women-rights--she is asking for religious rights. Religious freedom / religious rights are a separate issue. A women does not get special privileges under any law based upon a belief that is different than that of men.

Otherwise, if I am a woman, and my religion is nudism, then I would have the right to say "yes it is my woman-right to be naked in public." But that is not a woman-rights-request, that is a human-rights-request---a man could have a similar religious or cultural desire: "yes it is my man's-right to be naked in public too." It doesn't make sense, these people are asking for religious or cultural rights or human rights or civil liberties---they are not asking for "gender rights." Thus it does not belong in this article.

Gender-rights are about having equality under the law between all other genders. It is not about having special privileges based on desires/beliefs.

Thus I am removing that small fragment from the article, please reinstate it if you find this objectionable.

&mdash; talk § _Arsenic99_  00:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Providing the Qur'an "citation needed"
The 1st paragraph of this article's Qur'an section, with its tag for "citation needed", seems to be begging for someone to provide the sura (or chapter) and verse sources for the paragraph's conclusion about the wife receiving a dowry (herself) from the husband. It so happens that I can easily-enough provide those sources, from my own copy of the Qur'an (which I bought for my own edification and which is well-indexed). So I'll do that, hopefully within a few days... Trying to help all of us WP readers,  For7thGen (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Obotlig raised doubts about the accuracy of my paraphrasing of the translated-and-thus-copyrighted Qur'an, by removing my work or my "paraphrased primary source claims about a religion", as he or she worded it in her or his Edit summary, on 29 June 2012.  Obviously, to help such editors judge the accuracy of my paraphrasing in the article, I need to go back to the drawing board.  What can I do?  That is, even placing the copyrighted Qur'an verses on a private website (for other WP editors to compare my paraphrasing to) would be illegally "reproducing" copyrighted material.


 * Bottom line: If WP (WikiPedia) had a mechanism for officially certifying the accuracy of paraphrased text in WP articles, the problem would be solved, and I could help all WP readers as I tried to do until Obotlig stopped me.  It is Wikipedia's problem (due to Obotlig), not mine.  Nonetheless, I'm willing to help if anyone wants to continue this matter, either here on this talk page or by emailing me through the normal WP channel (for which my edress is officially registered).  (I believe it would be legal for me to provide the desired quotes to particular editors by email.)  Otherwise I'm stopping my work on this matter.  (Boohoo), I'm crying on behalf of our WP readers,  For7thGen (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) I now see that Obotlig has not contributed since 12Jul2012, just two weeks after removing my work. From what I now see of her earlier contributions, I think she was sincere.  Since no-one has helped WP readers by suggesting anything else, I'll try again to paraphrase the Qur'an's "primary source claims", to quote Obotlig, when I find time, maybe within a year from now.  This time I'll directly quote more of the critical phrases, to reassure WP readers (and my fellow WP editors) that I am accurately paraphrasing the Qur'an.  And this time my paraphrasing will be in a footnote (or endnote, or whatever you call it), as I hope it was last time too.  Trying to help our WP readers,  For7thGen (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Out of desperation, I actually looked at the next source Reference, which many other WP editors could have done, as well. And it luckily appears to be the source for the whole first paragraph (except for the phrase about 610 and 661), as well as the beginning sentence of the next paragraph, where this source Reference was and still is located.  Of course I now added appropriate source References for the first paragraph, References which can be verified online, even.  Whew! that saved me a lot of work, as well as allowing my Qu'ran copy to continue its resting on a bookshelf.  Now I'm smiling on behalf of our lucky readers, For7thGen (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The rights of women in ancient Celtic and Germanic societies
The 'History of women's rights' section could be further expanded upon via discussions regarding the rights of female persons in ancient Celtic and Germanic societies.46.226.186.42 (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2014


Hi, can someone please update the link http://69.94.11.53/ENGLISH/annualreports/a54/9925571e.htm to http://www.unictr.org/Portals/0/English%5CAnnualReports%5Ca-54-315.pdf ? Thanks!

2003:74:CE21:2E01:894D:C84:587C:95D2 (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

✅, in the article's subsection, Rape as an element of the crime of genocide, as requested, see my article Edit summary of today, 13Aug. For7thGen (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the UNICTR link above that I updated is now a dead link as well.


 * So today I provided a different and better source reference for the paragraph which described a certain genocide trial (in the above-mentioned subsection, Rape as an element of the crime of genocide), namely the actual record of the described trial.  For7thGen (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

2011 study of status by country
I removed that section because it gave WP:UNDUE to that one study. Numerous studies and ranking methods exist to determine the level of gender equality by country. This one study should not be singled out. 123username (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

As a reader of WP articles, I need to have a reasonably-reliable ranking of women's rights by country included in the article, so I can find it again whenever I want it. Please do pick out one or more of the "numerous studies and ranking methods" which meet your criteria, and substitute them in an appropriate manner. Or add the other sources together with this Newsweek source somehow, or whatever you decide is best. But please don't leave me and other readers totally deprived. Let's all help the WP readers, For7thGen (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying. Maybe that section is needed, but in the form it was, it was very simplistic and rudimentary. A summary of Measures of gender equality page, perhaps together with the map of the Global Gender Gap Report 2013 findings would be better.123username (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Women's rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hrw.org/women/abortion.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150705044308/http://www.amnesty.org.nz/web/pages/home.nsf/0/e57ea3f05f6aa848cc256e460012f365?OpenDocument to http://www.amnesty.org.nz/web/pages/home.nsf/0/e57ea3f05f6aa848cc256e460012f365?OpenDocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150627194040/http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/rape.html to http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/rape.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Section on the Bible
That section must be either rewritten, or deleted. I reverted the last edits by User:Andrew_Swallow: you can't just go through the Bible and choose whatever verses you like and claim they support women's rights. There must be reliable sources (WP:RS) citing these verses as being pro-women's rights, otherwise it is WP:OR. Incidentally, you have chosen verses which, far from being beneficial to women, have been used and are still used, to support women's oppression, such as forced marriage and servitude inside marriage. I didn't delete all the section, but it is in urgent need of reform.123username (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Are these women's rights? For most of history the prime alternatives to marriage have been for a woman to become a nun or a prostitute. Consequently there are plenty of pimps and rakes who suspect they will gain from the abolition of marriage. Where as there are plenty of girls who nag their boy friends into marrying them, so women appear to both like and gain from marriage. Anything that puts a duty on a man is a cost to him, so on the face of it those verses are not men's right - although a man may honour them as part of a deal. It is far from impossible that in the last 2000 years someone noticeable has used these verses to support women's rights. Andrew Swallow (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are talking about two rights here (a) the right for women to marry and (b) the right to choose/reject the man. The quote says nothing about choice so anyone using it to support forced marriage is probably misusing the verse. (I did not include the verses telling women to obey their husbands or that punishes a rapist by basically forcing him to eat his victim's (burnt?) cooking for life.)
 * Religious text are primary sources, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. See WP:WPNOTRS and WP:PSTS. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So each quote needs following by a paragraph saying why it is or is not a woman's right that references secondary sources. Andrew Swallow (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2016
some user pressed enter and created a paragraph half way through the sentence, i would like to fix this error. You can find this mistake in the medieval Europe section on the 6th line where it just says "their"

Dank memes melt steel beams (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Relevant discussion and work to be done
To all involved: there is a discussion relating to this article and Women in Greece, located here. Both pages have sections which are virtually identical, but each claims that the other is the main page. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Women's rights. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/nea/119126.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221131635/http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/convention-violence/thematic_factsheets/IC%20Global%20Tool_EN.pdf to http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/convention-violence/thematic_factsheets/IC%20Global%20Tool_EN.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Punctuation
There's quite a bit of punctuation errors throughout this article. I might fix them myself another time, but not at the moment, as I am only perusing this article in the middle of the night out of insomnia. Sol Pacificus (talk) 11:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Weird subtitle in the Android app
This article has the subtitle

But are they real? Find out next week on Breaking Wiki

I cannot find where this comes from, but it's clearly not appropriate. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancrumb (talk • contribs) 16:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

---

It's all good... I fixed it. The subtitle comes from WikiData