Talk:Women in Antarctica

POV
This is an encylopedia, not a blog. It should not read like a man-hating diatribe. There is no problem in using statistics to show that there might be or have been bias against women. But to use anecdotes of women feeling "'negative pressure' by the men with 'some viewing her as an interloper who had insinuated herself into a male domain'" is not acceptable.

The following passages are particularly POV:
 * "Men enjoyed having a space that was free of women..."
 * "Other men felt that women's presence made life in Antarctica better and one male engineer stated that without women around, "men are pigs.""
 * "As women attempted to work in science, arguments using biological determinism, evolutionary psychology and popular notions of neurobiology were used as excuses as to why there were fewer women in the sciences."
 * "as an excuse" is POV.


 * "Some women described feeling that they were "a bit of a joke" working in Antarctica, and felt that men regarded them as incapable."
 * "The United States Navy used the excuse that "sanitation facilities were too primitive" on Antarctica as an excuse to bar women."
 * "as an excuse" is POV.


 * The following is under a section titled "Sexual harassment and sexism": "Rita Matthews, who went to Antarctica during the same period as Uberuaga said that the "men were all over the place. There were some that would never stop going after you."[24] In 1983, Marilyn Woody described living at McMurdo station and said, "It makes your head spin, all this attention from all these men."[21] Then she said, "You realize you can put a bag over your head and they'll still fall in love with you.""


 * In an encyclopedia, seriously?

Nicolas Perrault (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Everything in this article is cited properly, including the the portions that you have pulled out and they represent a historical point of view which hasn't always been friendly to women. The article has nothing to do with the very loaded term "man hating" and everything to do with the history and experience of women in Antarctica. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Look at the first line. "There have been women in Antarctica and exploring the regions around Antarctica for many centuries." What's next? Pediatricians in professional Darts? Buddhists in sound editing? Top five bassists you didn't know are color-blind? And I'm sure all of that could be "cited properly". Total blog material, mate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.17.235.223 (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @Nicolas Perrault III yep, this kind of pointless articles saddens me. it's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a feminist coffee table book... 109.9.167.232 (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

nominated for deletion
This is not an encyclopedic entry, it is just manhating diatribe. Delete. Delete 10x. Delete yesterday. Delete and instate a permanent ban on re-making. 2604:3D08:778A:2400:28E2:4AE1:ABA3:49D (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)