Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 January 27

= January 27 =

Curse of Timur
As our article, various books and websites state, apparently there is some kind of curse linked to the opening of the tomb of Timur. The exact description differs somewhat between sources but generally contains these elements: I want to add something about the curse to the Dutch article on Timur, but I'm having trouble verifying most of it. The most important ones are the date, three possibilities are mentioned.. and the text of the inscription, is there even an inscription or was it lost/did it never exist? - Berkoet (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The tomb contains an inscription warning whoever disturbs Timur for great suffering. In some versions it isn't an inscription but something Timur said close before his death.
 * 2) Mikhail Gerasimov opened the tomb on either 19, 21 or 22 June 1941 and -according to the curse- caused the Great Patriotic War.
 * 3) The reburial coincided with Operation Nordlicht/the Sinyavin Offensive.
 * No. 2 is absurd. The German army was planning and moving into position to invade long before that date. You can't launch a major offensive with millions of men at the drop of a hat (or opening of a tomb). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course a causality between the two is absurd, but apparently by some weird coincidence the two events actually are only a few days apart. - Berkoet (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There was always going to be something connected with it. Pick a random date: 15th June 1978, say, and you find within a week there's an earthquake killing 45 in Greece, and IRA shootout in N. Ireland, and Tito, one of the world's not-the-nicest people, becomes President for Life. Of course, that is ignoring the fact that he was probably more likely to do that because there was a war on, or that both the war and the opening were caused by an increase in technology. Either way, you could make a curse up like that about anything - they do work well at keeping people away.


 * Well, anyway, I'm afraid to say the exact curseis unlikely to ever be certain, alothough I think the reason you're having trouble finding the exact date was a) that it wasn't well recorded and b) there wasn't an exact date. They seem to have been working through the succession of kings over a fairly long period of time. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Re the inscription, yes, there are two. I suspect the best sources are in Russian. But anyway, here's a start: this pdf, page 79 refers to the inscriptions on the tomb without actually saying what they are (annoying!), but describing them generally as a semi-mythical geneology and a religious text. The original source (with, I'd hope, the full text of the inscriptions) seems to be a paper by AA Semenov (Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Semenov), called "Inscriptions on the tombs of Timur and of his descendants in the Gur-e Amir" in the journal Epigrafika Vostoka Volume II page 49 (no year given). You might ask at the WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request page if someone can find that Semenov paper. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your answers, I'll be sure to ask on the WikiProject Resource Exchange (I didn't even know it existed until now). - Berkoet (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Senate under the French Third Republic
What was the means of election or appointment to the Senate under the French Third Republic? Was it the same throughout the period, or did it change at some point to give the public more of a voice, as happened in the U.S. under the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution? As far as I can tell, neither our article Senate of France nor French Third Republic contain this information, nor does either lead in any obvious way to an article that would. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like you want the text of the French Constitutional Laws of 1875, which unfortunately is not linked from our article. Algebraist 00:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure suggests a lot of work that could be done in Wikipedia in that area, huh? Our topic-specific article isn't linked from either of what seemed to me to be the likely starting places, and it doesn't contain this reasonably substantive piece of information. - Jmabel | Talk 01:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a good French-language article, if someone feels like taking on a translation. I'll read that & find out what I need, but I'm backlogged for translation tasks. - Jmabel | Talk 01:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The document providing for the selection of senators was the "Loi du 24 février 1875", the first document on this page containing the constitutional laws of 1875. My French is not strong enough for me to translate the legalistic French of this document reliably, but it certainly spells out the method for selecting senators. Perhaps someone with stronger French can review it and answer your question.  This law provided the constitutional basis for the Senate throughout the Third Republic.  (The Senate did not exist before 1875.)  Since France was a unitary republic, with departements and territoires all subject to the jurisdiction of the central government, the departementes, colonies, and territoires would have been unable to provide for more popular input into the selection of senators, as U.S. states were able to do within the federal structure of the United States.  This suggests that the method for selecting senators didn't change during the Third Republic, though I'm not an expert and can't offer assurances.  Marco polo (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are the main points of the law linked above:


 * The Senate is comprised of 300 members, 225 elected by the départements and colonies, and 75 elected by the Assemblée nationale (House of Representatives).
 * Each département elects between 2 and 5 senators, depending on its population. The Belfort Territory (the part of Alsace not lost to Germany in the War of 1870) and overseas departments and colonies elect one senator each.
 * The départemental senators are chosen by an electoral college composed of local elected officals; they are elected from lists for a 9 year term, renewable by a third every three years.
 * The Senators elected from the National Assembly are "inamovible" (cannot be removed) except by death or resignation. --Xuxl (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Senate comprises 300 members. The Senate is composed of 300 members.  —Tamfang (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

American/British Legal System Question
Hi, first off I tried to read the articles and I did it but I don't know English very well much less the 'legal language', I want to know.

-A jury finds a person guilty or innocent, but do the jury also sentence the defendant? (I mean do the Jury impose the punishment?)

Thanks, I would like to know it in both American and British legal system. --Maru-Spanish (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that in all the various legal systems existing in the USA and in Britain, sentencing at a jury trial is done by the judge, not the jury. Algebraist 00:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * According to our article Criminal sentencing in the United States, "In the United States, a judge sentences a person convicted of a crime." --Thomprod (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Although, the judge can't impose a death sentence (even where allowed by law) without the recommendation of the jury. --Tango (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, and also the jury may have a choice of several verdicts, from manslaughter to murder 1, perhaps, with different sentencing ranges available for each. In some jurisdictions, the judge may have very little leeway in sentencing, so the jury will essentially decide the sentence. StuRat (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But the jury is not permitted to be told the penalties associated with the verdict, and they are supposed to evaluate guilt without regard to penalties which might be imposed. If it comes to light that a jury has researched or considered the sentences, it could be grounds for a mistrial (though it probably happens all the time, it's not supposed to). - Nunh-huh 05:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The jury would have to be idiots to not know that murder 1 carries a more severe penalty than manslaughter. StuRat (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's customary to exclude non-idiots from juries, as far as is practical. —Tamfang (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "In the US justice system, guilt is determined by 12 people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty." StuRat (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that they don't know, it's that they are instructed not to take the penalty into account. They may follow or disregard that instruction, of course. - Nunh-huh 07:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A jury can include a recommendation for leniency in any guilty verdict. Re: Tango's reply: Fifty states in the US, and each may have different procedures regarding when and how the death penalty may be imposed. With all due respect to Nuhn-huh, a jury knows when it is trying a capital offense (possible death penalty); in fact, one of the questions the prosecutors often ask potential jurors is whether they would be willing to find a defendant guilty, knowing that the death penalty might be assessed. Those who express qualms, or opposition to the death penalty in general, the prosecutor will want to dismiss from the jury. With all due respect to StuRat, the judge still has the final say in most cases (theft, burglary, robbery, etc. etc.), except where there are mandatory sentencing laws (e. g. "Murder 1 with aggravating circumstances: If not death, must get life without parole"). Again, variations from state to state within the US. Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "Fifty states in the US, and each may have different procedures regarding when and how the death penalty may be imposed". Many US states don't even have the death penalty; of those that do, only Texas uses it frequently. StuRat (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, there are two separate jury findings - really two separate proceedings with the same jury - in death penalty cases: the first decides guilt, while the second (if the defendent is guilty) makes or does not make the recommendation for the death penalty. Guilt is supposed to be evaluated without regard to penalty.With all due respect. - Nunh-huh 09:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * According to our article on US sentencing, linked to above, the decision that required a jury's recommendation for the death penalty was made by the Supreme Court, so presumably it applies to all states. --Tango (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This might seem like pedantry (Ed: No, really?), but in most jurisdictions the defendant is not found "guilty or innocent", as the OP suggests. The jury or judge can hand down a verdict of guilty or not guilty, the latter taken to mean, not proved guilty under the law of having carried out the crime in question. Finding someone innocent is an entirely different matter. I believe the Scottish legal system has provision for this option. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. The Scottish legal system has an additional verdict of not proven. It is no more possible to find some "innocent" in a Scottish court than it is in England and Wales. Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite right. Thanks for the clarification. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Statue of Limitations on Debt
I received a letter from a collection agency saying I owe Bank of America around $9k that my ex husband put on a joint credit card more than 10 years ago (original debt was around $3k). It was never even on my credit report last time I checked. They said they tried to subpoena me, but I was never served and never received any letters from anyone. Now they are saying I have to pay them within 30 days and all that, but isn't there a statue of limitations on debt in California and don't all negative items fall off your credit report after 7 years? I understand it was a joint credit card, but it was my ex husband that used the card and not me.

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/statuteLimitations.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.202.12 (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You need a lawyer's advice. We can't give you any advice here; we're not qualified. - Nunh-huh 05:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with above reply, but would like to add that what is or isn't on your credit report has nothing to do with the statute of limitations on collecting a debt. They're two different things. Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a scam to me, but yes as always the advice is to consult a lawyer. Dmcq (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, it's a statute of limitations, not a statue. "Statute" is basically just another word for "law".   --Sean 13:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a minor correction: The Statue of Limitations is an award which has been proposed to honour the humble fallibility of our great political leaders.
 * Due to obscure circumstances, this plan could not be realised in the last eight years, as the designers repeatedly had to increase the size of the statue to reflect the outstanding limitations of the clear winner of the award. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Homicides by Juveniles
How is a homicide by a juvenile treated in the Judicial system, is the juvenile sent to a juvenile detention center or prison? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.38.88.252 (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They can be tried as an adult if a court hearing decides that they had the mental capacity of an adult, to understand the act, the wrongness of it, and its consequences. Otherwise, juvenile. This is US-only, and procedures vary among states. Hope you weren't planning on committing one. Unimaginative Username (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you appear to be in Queensland, try Young people and crime from the Australian Institute of Criminology. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

words of Bush talk with Helen Thomas
Hello, I would like to read the exact words of the press conference which is linked to from the Helen Thomas article where she had a go at Bush. There's only a short citation in the article, and the reference link to the WH goes into nirvana. I'll refrain from speculating as to possible reasons for this. Can you help? --Ayacop (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a transcript of the exchange.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Birth of art according to ancient Greek mythology
"The Ancient Greek tradition associates the birth of art with a Corinthian maiden who longing to preserve her lover’s shadow traces it on the wall before he departed for war," according to Hrag Vartanian. Anyone know what Wikipedia article covers this myth? Alientraveller (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See Butades, which, however, doesn't make the claim that the story explains "the birth of art." Deor (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hindu castes in West Bengal, Tripura and Bangladesh
What are the surnames that identify a Bengali-speaking Hindu a Brahmin, a Kshatriya, a Vaishya and a Shudra? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.165 (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We have rather extensive articles on Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudra, as well as on Varna in general. I am not versed enough in Hindu culture to know or comment on what the relationship between surname and caste is; I suspect that the surnames for each caste are likely to number in the thousands and probably it would be infeasible to list them all here.  However, if you read our articles, you may find additional information and/or links to other resources which may help you answer your question.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you aware that the Brahmin/Kshatriya/Vaishya/Shudra distinction is varna (a very loose and broad general overall way of classifying castes), while the actual specific groups that govern intermarriage and social status and collective political action are far more numerous than four, and known as jāti? There may not be any very good answer to your questions at the varna level... AnonMoos (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Foreigners campaigning in USA elections: espionage?
I have the impression, especially from The Guardian's Operation County Clark, that foreigners campaigning in elections in the United States of America can be prosecuted for espionage. On the contrary, I have heard several British Labour politicians (who did not seem to have USA citizenship) boasting about campaigning for their Democrat counterparts in the USA. Has anyone ever been so prosecuted? Could there be some clarification please? Cheers. – Kaihsu (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "campaigning"? There's nothing illegal about citizens of foreign countries campaigning for American politicians.  They have free speech rights, too.  AnyPerson (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are, however, limitations on financial contributions that are allowed to political parties and candidates by foreigners. Perhaps that's what you heard. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Espionage (aka "spying") involves gathering information. I don't see how campaigning in an election could be considered espionage, regardless of who you are. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Federal Election Campaign Act "prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly." --- OtherDave (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I read (in The Guardian) that Operation Clark County was met with almost universal derision by the local inhabitants, who really did not appreciate foreign interference in their democratic process. Astronaut (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The specific link for that is The Guardian. --Anon, 22:47 UTC, January 28, 2009.
 * You know, I skimmed the Guardian article for just that info and somehow missed it :-) Astronaut (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the US should be more cautious on this issue and limit intervention by foreign agencies or individuals in elections. There is incident where the Indian espionage agency Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) gave illegal campaign money to several candidates of the Democratic Party. Alouatta palliata palliata (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps they have to register as foreign lobbyists under the Foreign Agents Registration Act? I recall an earlier episode where the American Institute in Taiwan tried to get out of having to register because it was handling a property in Taiwan on behalf of the British government. And can campaigning or endorsement be considered as donations in kind? And nobody has heard of anything that has gone to court? – Kaihsu (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the term "espionage" sometimes has been used in a rather broad, derogatory sense. I remember official information from the Swedish Defence during the cold war. Among the many kinds of "espionage" it enumerated was something perhaps translatable as influence espionage.  This consisted inter alia in the spread of selected false or true statements (with no further specification of the kinds of statements), in order to try to influence public opinion.
 * The official brochures did not state from where these "influence spies" came. On the other hand, in interviews and background articles in the largest newspapers it was made very clear that the main danger was agents from the USSR.  The local office in Sweden from the (official) Soviet news agency were named together with the Soviet embassy as the main "spy centrals".  I remember that I  thought about the irony of the situation; if even the spreading of true news items is construed as espionage, then how could possibly a news agency perform its work without "spying"?
 * I'm fairly sure that during the cold war, the US restrictions on internationally supported Communist activities also influenced the ability for the organisations or foreign governmental representatives defined as "communists" to support candidates in US election, not only by economic means, but also by "influense". This does not answer the question whether or not the support of political candidates in itself was judged illegal.  I'm also not at all sure of to what extent the old cold war legislation is still in force in the US to-day.  I strongly suspect that persons acting on behalf of Cuba or North Corea caught supporting certain political candidates in the US would be found guilty of something, but perhaps not of precisely that.
 * Also, this represents just one side of the coin. You might wish to bear in mind that the Cuban authorities explicitly forbid their citizens to accept money from foreign government agencies for the purpose of influencing the Cuban people politically; and in fact have sent a number of "dissidents" to prison with precisely the motivation that they broke those laws.  JoergenB (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A link from the Guardian, already cited above, contained a letter that said "As a US citizen, I want to advise you that you and anyone that participates in subverting the US presidential election can be criminally charged and perhaps even charged as spies. California", along with more vague legal threats such as "Please be advised that I have forwarded this to the CIA and FBI. United States". I wonder how trial-worthy the first suggestion is. – Kaihsu (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

existence of a non sexist society?
Does the world contain any societies, big or small, that are essentially non-sexist and truely equal in terms of rights and treatment of the members of that society? I once heard of some small Asian society existing as such, but I am uncertain of the details or the validity. 75.34.180.97 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say British society is pretty non-sexist these days. I think it ends up being quite a subjective questions - no society is going to treat men and women the same, since there are pretty major differences between the sexes, so you have to decide if those differences make the sexes unequal or not. --Tango (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you're wrong. I don't know much about British society in general, but a quick fact check tells me that in the UK women earn 79% of what men do for the same job and that there's more than four times as many male MPs as female. Not that 125 is bad number, but British society is most certainly not "truly equal" (I could dig up more interesting little factoids, but you get my point).
 * The fact is that there's not a single country in the world that doesn't contain some amount of sexism. Generally speaking, the Scandinavian countries rank highest when it comes to gender equality (the World Economic Forum puts Norway, Finland, Sweden and Iceland as the top four, with Denmark at seven). Sweden, for instance, is the best country to be a mother in and women account for 47% of the Riksdag (the Swedish parliament), but even they aren't perfect. A wage-gap of only 9% is pretty good, but it's still a wage-gap, not to mention the 79% of Swedish CEOs who happen to be swinging pipe (if it wasn't obvious already, I'm Swedish).
 * I believe strongly that a gender-equal society is possible, but lets not kid ourselves: we have a long road row to hoe. Feminism is not just a dirty word, it's a struggle worth supporting and fighting for. Belisarius (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Swinging pipe"? DuncanHill (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, isn't that a wonderful little expression :) It means "are equipped with male genitalia". Belisarius (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, thank you. Now, while we're all here, why would you want to hoe a road, whatever its length? A vegetable plot certainly, or a flower bed, but a road? DuncanHill (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A common mishearing/misreproduction of "a long row to hoe." Deor (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Man, I hate it when that happens. Belisarius (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would still have been a new phrase to me, but it does make sense now, thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hoes aside, so far we've been talking only of gov't and corporate positions. What, if any, restrictions are placed on women in the military of the Eden named Sweden? Surely feminism would have women in combat positions, right? Dismas |(talk) 03:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to sound jingoistic, I apologize if I came off that way. My point was more that even though we've all made some advances, everyone still has a long way to go.
 * To answer your question, Sweden has mandatory conscription into military training for all men that reach 18 years of age. Today, the "mandatory" part is pretty much only a formality, as most people don't get to go through their military training (funding has been heavily slashed, so if you say "I don't really wanna" to your conscription officer, you get relieved of that particular patriotic duty). Women aren't automatically conscripted, but if a young woman chooses to go through military training, she absolutely can and she would have a high chance of being accepted. There has been some debate about the inherent inequality in the current state of affairs (people are arguing that either we should get rid of the mandatory conscription all together or extending it to include both sexes). Not a lot of debate though, it's not high on the agenda.
 * As for women assuming combat positions, I have no idea. We haven't been in a war in a while, so the question is essentially theoretical. Women can certainly go through their military training in the position as a soldier, so I imagine that if we were to go to war with someone, they would serve in combat positions.
 * To get back to my point: I'm not saying that Sweden is some sort of paradise of equality, I'm saying the exact opposite. It might be marginally better here than in other places (a fact we are very proud of, because, really, we don't have much else), but sexism still runs extremely deep. I only used Sweden as an example because that's the country I know best. But we're still guilty of having a sexist society, of not having done enough, just like the rest of the world is. Belisarius (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually Dismas there is no restriction on women serving in combat positions (or really any postions) in a number of countries. See History of women in the military for more. The same is of course true in a number of former or current communist countries. Somewhat OT but openly LGBT people are also allowed to serve without problem in a number of countries as well, see Sexual orientation and military service. Point being if you're comparing things to the US, it's probably a bad comparison Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Salary differences are largely explained by women taking time off work to have children - that's a matter of personal preference, not sexism. The remainder can probably be explained by men being more ambitious when it comes to earning money, while women have other goals in life (obviously, this is a generalisation, but we're talking about averages). The number of women in parliament is a meaningless figure unless you compare it to the number of women that want to enter politics - I would guess (although I don't have any statistics to back this up) that more men want to be politicians that women. It is also possible that men make better politicians than women (although how you would measure that fairly, I don't know). Would you consider it sexist that 70% of primary school teachers are female? (As with 95.4% of statistics, that number is made up, but you get the point.) --Tango (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I belive that compared to the past and many other countries today, the countries of northern Europe (Scandanavia, UK, Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium, etc.) have certainly made great moves in the right direction regarding equality.
 * If it is somewhere in Asia you were thinking of, a few years ago I read some good things about Kerala state in India. You might find the Kerala model provides some explanation.  Astronaut (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: the 79% of earnings figure, when you account for the higher proportion of female population working limited-hours the difference virtuall disappears. The biggest trouble with your question is equality is not a static thing. Example...If I earn $10m and you earn $10,0000 - should we both pay the same tax amount? If we did that would be 'equal' tax-contribution wise, but unequal because I would pay much less tax (proportionally). If we do it proportionally then is it 'equal' that I pay significantly more than you? Both ways are 'equal' in a sense, and i'm sure most would fall on the side of the second being 'fair' but therein the problem lies. Equality and fairness are very different things. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Men's rights is quite an interesting read in regard to this topic. As a male when I think of sexism I think of an inequality in treatment between males and females, with females coming off worse, but the article addresses some of the perceived(?) inequality suffered by males in comparison to females.  Lanfear's Bane |  t  10:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I skimmed through the article and while it provides some food for though, as I expected it missed a lot of areas as it concentrates on the areas which most 'men's rights' campaigners emphasise (and as such for which it hases sources). Having done an assignment on gender equality a long while back and it being something I've always been interested there is IMHO a lot of other stuff. For example while the wife of a family can often choose to work or to stay at home and raise the kids (depending on the family income) it's still (IMHO) a lot more difficult for a husband who wants to do the same thing both in terms of the support available and in societal expectations and perceptions. Or as I mentioned below, the way the husband of a high profile women is often treated. On the same tangent, while there's often nothing wrong with a female displaying some traits considered 'masculine' a male displaying traits considered 'feminine' tends to have far bigger problems (unless perhaps he's gay). Or the way a male nurse is more likely to raise eyebrows then a female doctor. The article, while arguing over how common domestic violence against males by females is, it doesn't mention the problems male victims of domestic violence are likely to encounter. Similarly, it speaks of rape accusations but doesn't mention the problems male victims of rape have and indeed if the rape is commited by a female, it may not even be classified a rape in a number of jurisdictions. On a related note, there's the way an underage female who sex with a male is likely to be seen as a victim and the male an evil sexual predator whereas the same is far less likely of an underage male and female which often has 'wink, wink, nudge, nudge' acceptance and the male seen as a sort of 'hero' as well as the difference in prosections of such crimes (indeed in some countries the laws are unequal anyway) and in media potrayal of such crimes (there's a few cases in the US where this has been dicussed, e.g. the way some female teacher who was found guilty of raping her male student had media interviews and stuff whereas the same would be very unlikely where the sexes reversed. (Of course this can be seen as unfair to both sexes, indeed in most of the examples I've discussed.) In other words, in terms of men's rights there is IMHO a lot more that tends to be missed. Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the purposes of this discussion, does a hypothetical society where men and women have completely equal rights and privileges count as an "equal society"? Or do equal numbers of men and women need to choose to exercise those rights?
 * For instance, imagine there was an overall average pay gap, but it was caused entirely by some percentage of women (or men) not pursuing their carears as aggressively, and instead choosing to be "homemakers", mothers, etc.
 * Alternatively, what if men and women are equally agressive in their carears but women (or men) tend to go into traditionally lower paying jobs? Does that count?
 * I think you need to define the question more narrowly if you're going to get a meaningful answer. What do you mean by "essentially non-sexist and truely equal"? How would you know it when you saw it? What measurement can we take that would tell us how far from "non-sexist" our society is? APL (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer the main question, is a good read IMHO. According to the list, the top 4 are indeed Scandinavian with Sweden coming in top. New Zealand is fifth followed but Phillipines being 6th. As with anything of the sort, the methodology/ranking system is going to be disputed. One of the things I heard is that there is a resonable effect if you have or have had a female leaders for a length of time, one of the reasons NZ has increased. Coming from NZ, I can definitely say that while we do have a decent level of equality, we're far from perfect. To use one example, I've seen lot of things said about Helen Clark the now former PM and her husband which never would have been said about a male PM and his wife, e.g. people questioning and joking about Peter Davis's sexuality, masculinity, and their married life. Indeed Peter Davis probably hasd it lucky in that he at least has a resonable successful career. To a lesser extent I've seen the same with some of our high profile female CEOs (of which we've had a number). Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)