Talk:Misogyny/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Sources for misogyny in literature/philosophy

Would the Epistles mention please specify the section(s) - like "Rom 16:1" ? Markbassett (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The claims that certain quotes are misogynistic in this article must be backed up by appropriate apolitical sources or they will be deleted. Jgda 00:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the tiny personal attack on my user page (and the user's touching concern for my credibility) I though I better elaborate on the above request. When an example of literature/philosophy is being held up as an example of misogyny, it must be cited as being held up as such by a neutral source, otherwise explanations for the statement other than misogyny can (and, if anyone is bored enough, will) be made. It's hardly a big ask: there's plenty of literature out there to cite on this topic: you could fill a small library, so I'm not doing this out of spite or thinking that it can't be done. It just should be done. Jgda 03:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving deleted content here:

In the 16th century the Scottish Protestant reformer John Knox wrote a book called The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women in which he argued against the ability of women to govern.

Nietzsche is known for arguing that every higher form of civilisation implied stricter controls on women [Beyond Good and Evil, 7:238]; he frequently insulted women, but is best known for the phrases, "Women are less than shallow", "Woman was God's second blunder," and "Are you going to women? Do not forget the whip!" Napoleon, Schopenhauer, Machiavelli, Aristotle, Tolstoy and Rousseau were also known for making such comments about women. It should also be noted, however, that philosophers such as Plato, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Engels, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, and Henry George supported feminism.

The philosopher Otto Weininger, in his 1903 book Sex and Character, characterized the "woman" part of each individual as being essentially "nothing", and having no real existence, having no effective consciousness or rationality. Weininger says, "No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion of them; men either despise women or they have never thought seriously about them." The author August Strindberg praised Weininger for probably having solved the hardest of all problems, the "woman problem".

No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion of them; men either despise women or they have never thought seriously about them. -- Otto Weininger

As children, imbeciles and criminals would be justly prevented from taking any part in public affairs even if they were numerically equal or in the majority; woman must in the same way be kept from having a share in anything which concerns the public welfare. Sex and Character: Otto Weininger

Ursala King in her 1987 article in Comparative Education: "World Religions, Women and Education" states very clearly that women "were always excluded from formal education once sacred knowledge became transmitted in an institutional manner".

I still do not understand the justification for deleting this content, instead of tagging it. I googled "John Knox misogyny" and I found Knox's misogyny is legendary. and there is more to Knox's literary legacy than misogynist polemic. and for a misogynist as Knox and Knox's theories about women rulers reveal him as a misogynist and a prude just from the first page of results. Same for Nietzsche and Weininger. And these aren't just blog hits, they all got hits from JSTOR and universities. How is this content unsourced? Each section specifically says where the quotes come from, and what books are in question. Seems sourced to me.--Andrew c 01:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem: just cite the link between the quoted or paraphrased material and the reputable source that connects the material to misogyny. The Christian quote remained because it did just that. As I said before, I'm quite certain it can be done: there is so much material out there. Jgda 21:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Knox material certainly states his opinions re. the inability to govern, but doesn't actually tie his motivation down to misogyny. The Weininger source doesn't back up the statements attributed to him in the article: using this source it would be accurate to say that Weininger felt that women 'failed to measure up to the ethically rigorous demands of Kantian personhood.' I haven't yet had time to look at the Nietzsche reference, but the problems with the quotations given are mentioned in several JSTOR articles, such as the well-used 'do not forget the whip' quote that is written by Nietzsche in 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' under the persona of Zarathustra and being said by 'the little old woman'(Of Our Favorite Nietzschean Question Jason S. Caro Political Theory, Vol. 27, No. 6. (Dec., 1999), pp. 750-768). 128.250.6.246 00:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Knox material demonstrates prejudice — not uncommon at the time, but pointed in the present era. If what you say of Weininger is true, I suggest you delete the reference. If I am not mistaken, Nietchsze also admonishes men, so quoting him as a source of misogyny would be equivalent to, say, quoting Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary. Rintrah 03:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't our jobs to decided whether or not these individuals were misogynists or not. It is our job to report on our sources. While not universially agreed upon, it is common for contemporary authors to call Knox, Nietzsche, Weininger, etc "misogynists". A simply google search can verify this, and I tried my best to find scholarly citations on Jgda's request, even though I didn't understand the basis for the request. -Andrew c 03:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I followed your suggestion, and I found many sources which dispute or doubt Nietschze's purported misogyny ([1], [2], [3], & [4]) — actually more than ones affirming his misogyny, and some which did only did so ambiguously. Does this literature compel me to state he is not a misogynist — according to wikipedia source guidelines? I don't think I see your point. Rintrah 04:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly not our job to say these individuals were misogynists or not, that's just my point. It's for credible source material to back up the actual statements made in the article. I'm not even asking for a balanced piece indicating the contrary postions to the ones being claimed. 'Common for contemporary authors' is weasel wording. Which authors? How common? If it was written in the article 'Knox is commonly referred to as a misogynist' and then (since the word 'commonly' is being used) say four or five references from credible sources specifcally saying 'Knox is a misogynist' then it wouldn't matter what I or you thought. The sources you use are fine (whether I agree with them or not), it's just that they don't match up to what is actually being said. And if you use specific quotes to prove misogyny, you need a source that links those quotes to misogyny. And if there's enough source material problemizing the links (as suggested above) then, to be fair, that should be accounted for also. Jgda 06:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Katherine M. Rogers

Why is Katherine M. Rogers quoted at length? In the first instance, the quote is inelegant and better paraphrased; in the second instance, Rogers foretells a war between the sexes and makes dubious, overblown conclusions about man's response to women's rights — it's untempered vitriol, not suitable for an encyclopedia. If she must be included, she should be paraphrased or quoted at smaller length, lest the article implicitly endorse her views (contra NPOV). Rintrah 14:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that, while it provides a context for the claimed connection between Christianity and misogyny, it doesn't have much to do with the statement above it. If it did, then it would imply that the Catholic Church has seen the error of its ways now. In fact, what does the material regarding the Pope's apology have to do with misogyny? The apology is for 'sins against the dignity of women and minorities'. Did he say that one of those sins was misogyny? Jgda 22:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed the second one. Rintrah 03:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Some may"

While a "seducer" like Casanova or Don Juan might appear outwardly charming and to enjoy the company of women, some may interpret these figures as being disrespectful of women, or as having no interest in them other than as sex objects and/or as trophies to collect as would a hunter.

I refer you to WP:WEASEL. Rintrah 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to imply misogyny is a collective hatred of all women. Is it possible that it may come in degress, and only manifest in regards to certain women. If Don Juan was a misogynist, did he feel that way about all women, or only the ones he desired sexually? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.203.252 (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Overcoming misogyny

Wouldn't it be a good idea to add a link to a website that discusses how to end feelings of misogyny? I've done a search for the last 45 minutes/hour and all I've found are self-pitying rants against men, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheRedVest (talk • contribs) 02:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Black America

Someone has disputed the following section, so I have moved it to talk to clear up issues, or decide whether it is notable enough, encyclopedic enough, and formatted to go live:

Misogyny in Black America

A reoccurring problem in black culture, misogyny against black women has become a serious problem. Perhaps made more popular by gangsta rap, this is not a recent problem. This exploitation began during slavery with the raping of black women and girls. An inferiority complex has developed over the years since then with negative references to commonly black features such as “nappy” or natural African hair, large hips and backsides and dark skin. The effects of this are seen in gangsta rap music and music videos where the ideal image of beauty is one that does not reflect African American qualities. Constant referencing to women as “ho’s” and “tricks” does nothing to improve the image.

While gangsta rap is a big contributor to this ever growing problem, perhaps a deeper look into American society will reveal that it is simply an extension of female exploitation that has been going since the beginning of time.

<http://www.unc.edu/~trevitte/Comp/hooks.htm>

And here is someone's comments that they added to the main article space:

"It's odd that someone went as far as to include this link (http://www.unc.edu/~trevitte/Comp/hooks.htm), and yet severely contradicted Bell Hooks' well put message. This section on Misogyny in Gangsta Rap is a perfect example of "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy", as described in the above link.

I'll list my points:

1. "Gangsta Rap" is being used as a code for hip-hop, black people, and young black men. The point being that this section is a further scape-goating of other oppressed people, and further avoidance of confronting "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy".
2. Ironically, to single out young African-American men as the sole or primary perpetrators of misogyny is in fact an act of misogyny via racism, whereas African-American men (those who's bodies are commonly conjured up when we hear the phrase "Gangsta Rap") are being typecast as the source of the misogyny. Therefore, African-American women, as the daughters, sisters, mothers, and companions of these men, would be disproportionately related, and in partnership with the perpetrators of misogyny (upon all women).
3. All one has to do to uncover the source of misogyny in "Gangsta Rap" is notice that there has been no shortage of positive and conscious hip-hop (via male and female artists) in the last couple decades, whilst the mainstream media and corporate sponsorship has continually ignored this segment, in favor of promoting and highlighting violence, sexism, and nihilism in the African-American community. One will quickly find that those who have chosen which parties (to misogyny) to focus on and exagerate, and which to ignore, are in fact the very same sources of this ongoing misogyny.
4. To state that Bell Hooks' question is one of whether misogyny is rooted in "Gangsta Rap" or has been here since the beginning of time is a perversion of her writing. Here again, "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" is not mentioned, but now it is being suggested that "time" itself is the source of misogyny.
5. It has been noted time and again that the oppression or scapegoating of oppressed people anywhere is connected to that of oppressed people everywhere. Primarily the oppressor maintains their oppression by the "Machiavellian" tactic of pitting one oppressed group against another. That is what the poster of the above segment has attempted to do."

- Self Suffice the Rapoet

-Andrew c 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you meant to assume good faith or some such thing? Hell, I'd be a hypocrite to hold you to that: just thought I'd mention it for the record. Yes, the sourced material seems much more in the poltical protectionist mode that you identify, the problems with this approach have, of course, nothing to do with this article. I think it becomes okay as long as the critic focuses on the publisher of the music, as in C Deloris Tucker, President of the national Congress of Black Women, denouncing 'Time Warner's involvment with "violent and misogynistic" music lyrics.' Ogbar, 'Slouching Toward Bork: The Culture Wars and Self-Criticism in Hip-Hop Music', Journal of Black Studies > Vol. 30, No. 2 (Nov., 1999), pp. 165. (And I realise that Ogbar, like most of the academy, goes along with the above commentary: it's just where the quote comes from...). That way we can ironically see (oh dear: meta-irony?) the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy at fault, as in everything, and we can be safely within the canon. If you're interested in pursuing the actual connection itself for the purpose of the article, try looking at C. Delores Tucker and Calvin O. Butts perhaps - since it becomes more difficult for the mostly irrelevent race card to be played (though, of course, not impossible). Jgda 23:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• interesting - i will collect my thoughts about it

Shoopshoop 02:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Misogyny in Literature

Exactly how useful is it, even if tenuous citations are found, to level accusations of misogyny at fictional characters? It's problematic enough doing so with authors but heck, isn't the standard way of going about this to use the fictional character as symptomatic of cultural norms during textual production (with of course no consideration for irony, thematic depth or social relativism)? Jgda 23:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The way it is now, the section presents good content for a healthy laughter. I think, in the very same manner it may include pretty much all ancient mythology... I think to improve the article in a constructive manner, distinction should be made between misogyny and politically correct forms of thought, speech and expression. Suggesting removal of the section as it is now.Lost Angel 12:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Even in terms of historical context, I don't find Hamlet to ever be especially misogynistic... The section seems to be product of personal interpretation and should be deleted. Betina 17:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Section removed until meaningful content is found to fill it up with. Obviously just about any book would pass for misogynist and/or misandric if we include literature, where someone says something bad about a woman or a man or behaves badly in their regard. There should be a bit of misogynist ideology or appeals involved. Gawain cursing a woman who cheated him is hardly a suitable example, same as Hamlet exclaiming "frailty, thy name is woman" is hardly doing so out of general woman-hatred.Lost Angel 23:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Background

Added some info and split Philosphy & Religion in two as an attempt to make this article a bit more solid, actually citing references from Jack Holland's book and the Bible. It is merely a starting point so please bear with me - edit it, put it in a more organized manner - this article is begging for some massive reviewing.Betina 22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OR

This page is full of OR. Take this passage: "Other forms of misogyny may be more subtle. Some misogynists may simply be prejudiced against all women, or may hate women who do not fall into one or more acceptable categories. Entire cultures may be said to be misogynist if they treat women in ways that can be seen as harmful. Examples include forcing women to tend to all domestic responsibilities, demanding silence from a woman, or beating a woman. Subscribers to one model, the mother/whore dichotomy, hold that women can only be "mothers" or "whores." Another variant is the virgin/whore dichotomy, in which women who do not adhere to a saintly standard of moral purity are considered "whores."" Where are the citations for this? 69.86.156.243 14:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The above madonna/whore dichotomy could be sited to Gilbert and Gubar's The Mad Woman in the Attic but the whole piece is a synthesis and yes original research. In fact as pointed out above by a number of different posters teh page is awash with OR. The ideas are fine and it would make an interesting essay but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This page needs to record the major mainstream views on what misogyny is and where it comes from and what might cause it - nothing else. This is just not the place for writing essays on misogyny--Cailil ^talk 14:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ridulous as it may be, there are hundreds of scholarly sources available to back up the above statements, so many that specific citations become somewhat unnecessary donsidering the ideological hegemony. As far as the academy goes, these statements are the equivlent of stating that the sky is blue. Jgda (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Word's origin

It could be mentioned that misogyny comes from a greek word that "miso-" means in greek "hate" and "-gyny", "woman"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.88.124 (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So...the Greeks hated women? 144.92.84.206 (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course! (Because they started actually considering that hatred of this kind might be a problem. Introspection can be very damaging when it comes to the dictates of modern social relativism. Best to keep your head down and blame everyone else for your problems.) Jgda (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What should people find at this entry?

Hmmm, entries like this one are really tricky. I haven't read the rape entry, but some crimes against women are, and always have been crimes throughout history and across cultures. However, I don't think it was until recently that misogyny was used as a technical term to describe a theory of some kind of institutionalised hatred of women.

Misanthropy is not criminality. Anti-social eccentricity, reclusiveness, cynicism — Scrooge yes, Jack the Ripper no. To my understanding, misogyny used to describe some confirmed bachelors, the "hatred" was hyperbolic, merely a simplistic use of a Greek prefix. Arachnaphobia is common, sometimes extreme (like with me, but I'm Australian and spiders here are deadly); but phobia in this word is hyperbolic, "fear" only in a broad way.

The standard Greek lexicon, Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, revised and augmented by Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940, ISBN 0198642261) does have an entry for he misogunia (ἡ μισογῦνια). However, it only cites two attested uses in extant Greek manuscripts — On marriage by Antipater of Tarsus (c. 150 BC), a stoic, who argued marriage is the foundation of the state, based on divine decree. The editio princeps is, of course, Hans Friedrich August von Arnim's Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (SVF, Old Stoic Fragments, 1903). The word can be found in context there in volume 3, page 255. More conveniently, Will Deming provides a critical text and translation in Appendix A to Paul on Marriage and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7. Misogunia appears in the accusative case on page 224 as the fifth word in line 33 of Deming's Greek text. (It is split over lines 25–26 in von Arnim.)

Antipater uses misogunia to describe Euripides' usual writing — tēn en to graphein misogunian. His point seems to be that even a misogynist like Euripides cannot help but praise wives, and goes on to quote him doing just this. It is quite a warm, fuzzy bit of writing.

The second use of the word is by Chrysippus in a fragment from On affections quoted by Galen in Hippocrates on Affections. This is also in SVF volume three, the first word on page 103, the first word of a list of three "disaffections" — women, wine and humanity (misogunian, misoinian, misanthrōpian). Sounds like a general "party-pooper" to me! Chrysippus seems to be saying such things are symptoms of underlying cognitive distemper. Galen does not agree with Chrysippus. There is considerable secondary literature regarding the philosophical debate.

What a great way to start the article, but I can imagine it lasting all of 24 hours before it is removed. Perhaps we will be reminded that Wiki is not a dictionary to include such etymological digressions, perhaps some kind of bad faith will be assumed, and it will be challenged as OR or POV, perhaps no such Wiki lawyering will be offered, it will simply disappear without discussion.

I may do some work on this article, but I'm tired of cited material being removed after hours tracing sources. I simply don't have time or inclination to monitor changes. I'm afraid I find documenting sources for "sensitive" entries at Wiki often ends up being like writing letters with a finger in thin air. Doesn't stop me contributing, but it does mean I leave the censors to their own conscience, and let them "own" "their" entries.

Anyway, I had a lot of fun discovering, contrary to my expectations, that misogyny is indeed a loanword from Koine Greek, rather than a modern technical term. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is the misogyny in women restricted to Christianity?

I'm amazed that there's nothing on Islam, Hinduism or the various other religions. There's a lot of information out there. For example, male guardianship and lack of womens rights in Islam [5], the practice of Sati to name two.59.92.34.59 (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see a Christianity section at all!

The religions are formally defined by their scriptures. Both Jewish and Christian scriptures have lots of passages that show a high view of womanhood. To some extent this can be traced in the cultural record as well. Orthodox and Catholic veneration of Mary is hardly misogynistic!

But in the scriptures, Jesus accepted financial support from women, healed them (if you accept the claims of the documents) and was scorned for associating with prostitutes (not as a client). Paul evangelised women, as well as men, and refers to some of them by name in his letters, sometimes with high praise.

There is no serious treatment of the Christian scriptures in this article; no evidence of consulting standard, reliable sources.

One needs to be careful about conflating religion with culture. Is sutee described in the Hindu scriptures? Is hijab required by Qur'an, or Hadith? Are they hatred of women, or simply mis-placed over-protection? Do mothers hate their children because they insist on a certain "bedtime"? Is this childish notion of hatred all there is to misogyny? I find that hard to believe. I bet even Freud would have something more substantial to offer.

It is poor treatment of religion to count any and every cultural practice as religious in nature. Religions have typically been protest movements against cultural practices. Lots of religions say, "don't do these silly things, do these sensible things instead." Religion and culture stand in a relationship of dialogue, not of heirarchy. Serious peer-reviewed history teaches this, though I admit, there is published political rhetoric that glosses history in an attempt to pursuade of its point. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair points and I'm personally with you on this. IMO organised religion, when it insists on the dignity of every individual, and proscribes codes of conduct, is a vast improvement over the more might-is-right societies which were often their precursor. And I endorse your defense of Christianity and religion on this talk page. But the role of this article is to report what has been documented about misogyny, including the allegations of misogyny leveled against religions - even when false. The article is not here to set down whether religions are in fact misogynist "at heart", although if that is the scholarly consensus, it must be reflected here even if incorrect. NZUlysses (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You may like to reference sources which argue against the existence of misogyny in certain religious teachings/traditions for possible inclusion in the article itself. NZUlysses (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"See also" section

I'm not sure if my edits were reverted on accident due to an edit conflict, or if there were reasons for the restoration of some links and removal of others. So I felt, instead of risk any chance of edit warring, come here to figure out what links should go in the "see also" section. I feel like the links that are already present in the lead should not be repeated in the see "also section". I agree with removing a number of links and keeping the section to a minimum, but I feel JCDenton2052 removed a few too many. Anyway, what do others think?-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on either. I was in the middle of reworking the lead, when I found all my edits reverted, and your edit note didn't seem to address why my edits had been reverted. I decided to revert you, go back later to see if I could work it out, and drop a note here. I just checked your edits again, couldn't make sense of them, got here ... and now I understand!

I've only been working on the first two sections. My theory is, get the top of the article looking good and people treat the rest of it with more respect. I haven't looked at the bottom of the article, except to check my references are showing up OK.

Anyway, practical things, we have two things going on atm:

1. See also and
2. the lead.

I'm now content with the lead, and am leaving this article to others, for at least two weeks (and maybe forever), this just isn't my topic. I'm happy to wrangle a bit over phrasing, additions or subtractions to the first two sections (Lead and Greek). The reason I'm happy to wrangle is not so much because I care about any of the text, but because the wrangling will be about wisdom in handling leads in "sensitive" topics. I have theories about this. It's good for Wiki to have quality discussion about it. Anyway, fire away if anything in the lead is unclear.

Regarding links. I'm not sure what I think. I'll replace all the links Andrew replaced. Personally, I'm very generous about See also sections -- the more the merrier. It's almost impossible to justify removing a See also. By definition it is notable enough to already have an article. That article has, or will have, enough sources to back it. Linkages are adding info to Wiki, and it's a place some shy editors may start contributing. A bit of bloating in See also, for the sake of welcoming new editors seems a small price to pay.

However, I do think it is amateur and unencyclopedic to have 24 See also's, for example, on every article. It "hides" the most pertinent links. But that's the issue isn't it? Who decides what's pertinent and what is not, especially as See alsos should not already be covered in the article.

So, I'm restoring the links Andrew restored, but I'm so open minded I'll not discuss See also any further. With regard to the lead and the Greek section. Please tear my work to shreds now, while I'm around, or forever hold your peace. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

PS a BIG thank you to JCDenton2052 for trying to remove systematic bias from Wiki. Your efforts are appreciated. I hope you can see you've stimulated improvements. Wiki can be frustrating, especially in this area. I hope you'll stick around and plug away ... with patience, our efforts really do progress things. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A serious comment about Ecole Polytechnique

Maybe I care more about See also than I thought. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Ecole Polytechnique Massacre is unquestionably not a case of misogyny.

I say this with deadly seriousness.

Many commentators have said the same (many have not addressed the issue).

The primary source (the suicide note) says nothing against women, it speaks specifically against feminism.

The two are not the same.

In particular, the note claims feminists seek to retain the advantages of women, while appropriating advantages of men to themselves also.

Some of the commentators have claimed that feminists have appropriated the event as evidence of violence against women.

Both are correct.

The murderer was against women, in so far as he perceived them to be feminist, and he took violent action against them.

But the point is, he distinguished feminist women from other women, even naming names in his note.

In as much as his violence was against feminists who are women, it was violence against women, so there is truth what some feminists have said about this event.

In as much as his violence was against feminists specifically, the commentators are right, feminism was the target, not femininity.

Think deeply.

Why does this article link to this event?

Is it appropriate? Is it wise? Is it even true?

Is it an example of precisely the sort of thing that the murderer took as provocation?

I feel I have taken adequate responsibility regarding this issue by raising it.

Now I ask others to share this responsibility by deciding whether this link should remain.

Alastair Haines (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

PS Perhaps an example will help make the point. I think it would be inflamatory and disrespectful to link from the Ecole article to cassus belli, righteous anger or such articles. It would be POV, and offensive POV at that. Wouldn't we all agree? Links can be POV. Wiki does not have a responsibility to make social comment. It does have a responsibility to adopt neutrality. The last thing gender related articles need is poorly considered POV links. At the very least, bury them in the context of sourced quotations. In the absence of any argument in favour of retaining the link discussed here, in due course I shall eventually remove it. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone find a citation for this?

The following section refers to a documented event, and accurately reports key features and the overall intention. I located the primary source from the Vatican website. There is additional, related material there also. However, in none of the primary material could I find reference to women as claimed in the Wiki text. When I can't find things, I never assume they do not exist. But, ultimately, if there is no actual evidence for something, we can't assert that thing at Wiki. A thing that might exist but has not been observed can indeed be notable -- extraterrestrial intelligence, for example. Things that do not or have not existed can also be notable -- unicorn, for example. Please, someone, find a reliable source documenting the following.

“ During the Great Jubilee, Pope John Paul II issued an apology for all the past sins of the Roman Catholic Church, dividing the sins into seven categories. Among general sins, sins in service of the truth, sins against Christian unity, sins against Jews, sins against respect of love, peace and culture, and sins against human rights, he also apologized for sins against the dignity of women and minorities. ”

We probably also need to discuss if this actually refers to misogyny. In the mind of the editor who supplied this text, "sins against the dignity of women" are prompted by misogyny and therefore relevant. I can see that point, but I'm not so sure. I would think an internet phisher stealing credit card info from a woman is sinning against her dignity, but would assume he robs men as well. We need published theological comment on such a claim, at the least, and probably ethical comment on what consistitutes dignity.

To my understanding violence is often a crime against human dignity. Is it a crime to arrest someone who resists, however. At what point do we have "undue force" and violence. May women resist arrest for smuggling drugs, since using force against them would be violence against women. Would the female police officer attempting this be driven by misogyny?

I think I'm getting an idea of the shape a mature version of this entry must take.

The more clear it is what we are not talking about, and what is theory and opinion, versus what has been recorded and documented, the more statisfied readers will be. Published theories must be included of course, and hopefully along with criticism.

Ah! Such a long way to go. Cheers all. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference check Holland

While I don't doubt the editor who provided a summary of Holland's views has done so accurately. If the summary is accurate, Holland is simply wrong about Eve in Gensis. Famously, Da Vinci portrays Eve under God's arm in The creation of man. Da Vinci simply reflected the history of interpretation of Genesis. In my reading, while suggestions of Eve being an after thought do exist in publication, these are not taken seriously by Bible scholars of any tradition, including the many self-confessed atheists among them. The view is not even typical of so-called feminist theologians.

The reason I raise this is that, where scholars make errors, it seems good form and practical to overlook this in article text. Unless their errors are really pertinent to debate, it only adds digression to articles. If Holland uses the word misogyny to describe ideology underlying both Eve and Pandora narratives (and I presume he does), he belongs in the article. If he doesn't, he doesn't (sorry for that sentence).

Additionally, at some point we will need to clarify yet another concept. Is the Second Sex concept isomorphic with the mysogyny concept? Personally, I can't see how that can possibly be rationally maintained. Our children are second, therefore we hate them? Do we really expect to find peer-reviewed scholars getting away with sloppy thinking without there being published criticism? Let's not allow the article to fall into tangential debates regarding logical trivialities.

On the other hand, to suggest that the two ideas might be related, however, seems unquestionably obvious. Racism is an example. Native American "pale face" may well have had derogatory implications. I've been told Indonesian slang bule implies sickness and weakness, which is what pale skin suggests in that culture. To ancient cultures, outsiders were barbarians -- second class non citizens.

Is viewing others as weaker always followed by hatred and violence? How do soldiers treat their wounded comrades? What do we do when friends are sick or vulnerable?

Men can view women in much more than one anti-social (and factually wrong) way. Some of these may be classified as misogyny, for others such a classification will probably not appear in serious academic treatments. Over protective fathers withholding car keys until the mini-skirt is exchanged for jeans may be underestimating and devaluing their daughter's ability to manage social situations, however it seems somewhat problematic to call this hatred.

I bet I can find sources that will suggest some silly things like this, but I'd be wasting everyone's time writing them into the article, because they'll be redundant as soon as quality sources are found.

I guess I'm working out what I'm looking for sources to teach me. How is hatred in gender relations observed and defined? What sort of studies have been proposed and conducted regarding it? Are there general characteristics of hatred that can be applied in analogous ways in cases of race, age, gender, disability etc.? Are there also differences between these things, which mean hatred of men or hatred of women are unique and special problems?

I guess I'm also interested that the Greeks listed mysogyny as a disease, but the exhaustive modern western catalogues of psychological diseases do not mention it? Is mysogyny more of an informal description of, no doubt accurate, perceptions of typical male frustrations with women? Are there symptoms to show this can actually be or become pathological in some men? Are the genders truly equal? Do women show exactly the same things? Do we actually have any answers for these questions? Are they currently being researched? How?

When I stop to think about it, I don't know the answers. Not only that, I can't know the answers. Many of them need a lot of evidence to be examined closely, and I just don't have access to the evidence, nor the tools to analyse it. But I expect others do ...

I guess we have a lot of reading to do. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Katherine M Rogers

Katherine M Rogers book is cited in a review by Jean R. Brink of Philip J Gallagher and others, Milton, the Bible, and Misogyny. In Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature 45 (1991): 94-95.

Her book is reviewed in Milton Quarterly 1 (1967): 9-10.

She also wrote Katherine M. Rogers, Feminism in Eighteenth-Century England, Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1982.

Katherine M. Rogers, "Dreams and Nightmares: Male Characters in the Feminine Novel of the Eighteenth Century", in Men by Women, ed. Janet...

I am doing some more research. The language in which she expresses her personal opinion is strong even for theological writers who call themselves feminists (that sentence would sound awful if I put it the other way around ;) ).

As such, this is probably yet another example of WP:UNDUE, where fringe writers with much education, much good to say, and the support of an editor and maybe a review committee, nonetheless say things way out of line with orthodoxy in their field. Personally, I think it is a matter of great importance that such writers are published, especially in the humanities. Censorship ultimately silences one's own heart and conscience. However, an encyclopedia is not the place for them to be cited as the "final word".

Given that Wikipedia will be visited by millions of people who hear or read Paul at least once a month (namely church-going Christians) claims of misogyny in Paul are vulnerable to massive documentation of verifiable counter-claims. I think this article should not become dominated by that debate. Claims of misogyny in the Bible will always be WP:UNDUE. They are discussed (I believe) in articles on Paul and his writings (and, imo, they ought to be).

There is genuine factual material in the Rogers quote. Yes, extra-marital sex is prohibited in the New Testament (including homosexual sex of any kind) -- 1 Corinthians 7 and others. Yes, men are forbidden to appoint women to positions of responsibility which include responsibility for men -- 1 Timothy 2 and others. However, she describes Paul in a way he would not describe himself, and in a way that the history of interpretation and the consensus of current interpretation would not use. Her descriptions are characteristic of her personal assessment of the (lack of) value in these ideas of Paul.

Personally, I cite writers like Rogers often, because they correctly understand what Paul teaches in these passages, while rejecting it out of hand. The reason I do that is because there are many people who claim to accept the Bible is always accurate, but, like Rogers, dislike Paul's teachings on sex and gender. In the writing of people like this, they seek to reinterpret Paul so that he is not saying these things. A famous and extreme example is John Spong. One of his ingenious readings of the New Testament sees Jesus marrying John, the gospel writer.

If we are looking for a neutral commentary on what Paul says, Rogers is not it. She doesn't claim to be. It is our fault, not hers if we cite her in such a way.

At this stage, the article is so small, Rogers may as well stay, but there is a huge difference between misogyny in Greek poets and various philosophers, and the alleged misogyny of the Bible. We should also note the philosophy section respects the discipline enough to give examples of non mysogynistic philosophers (at least, in the editor's opinion). Of course, no serious Bible scholar is going to list biblical writings that are or are not misogynistic.

If anyone seriously wants to research mysogyny in the Bible, gather sources and start an article, 'cause I'll be happy to provide any amount of counter sources to ensure neutrality. In the mean time though, there are more fruitful ways of building this article. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

PS After some more research it is becoming clear Rogers herself is notable for this article. She's no expert on the Bible (but she doesn't pretend to be). She gets the facts right, but is expressing a POV that she is not trying to hide. She's a foundational feminist writer and theorist. I've been poking around and finding it hard to locate genuine theorists of feminism, but Rogers is precisely that. She appears to have been an scholar of English literature. She did a lot of work on Milton, and obviously did her homework, since Milton is loaded with biblical allusions.

My suspicion is that Rogers is quite possibly the source of much feminist theorising regarding misogyny. This article must deal with feminist theories of misogyny, and I suspect Rogers will be prominent in that section.

I will change the title of the miogyny in religion section to feminist views, which is all it contains at the moment. It does not contain encyclopedic treatment of misogyny in religion. If we can find sources outside feminism that deal with misogyny in religion, we can have such a section, otherwise, it will simply be a subsection of feminist views. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bingo!

• "The decline of misogyny is fully documented by Katherine M. Rogers in The Troublesome Helpmate" -- L Brown in Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, 1982 or The Defenseless Woman and the Development of English Tragedy.

I'll have to check further for the exact source. Finished for today though. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Serious research

I'd love to get my hands on books like this one

• The praise and dispraise of women by Pyrrye, C. Imprinted at London : In Fleetstreete, by William How, 1569.

Perhaps it's been scanned and is available on the internet. It strikes me as a very Wiki / encyclopedic approach to this topic. Human beings disagree from time to time. That two brothers disagree about who will take out the garbage does not mean they hate each other. It's amazing how many bad sources there are, that conclude generalities from specifics on this subject. I'd quote some in this article, but people would accuse me of trying to humiliate their case. ;) Anyway, I'm sure we'll get things worked out here eventually. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Text removed from article

This text was removed as POV. I think I agree, but it claims to be sourced, so I'm restoring it here for discussion. One aspect of NPOV is striving to articulate all significant POVs. The trick is presenting those POVs neutrally. Is that achieved here? Why or why not? If it is unacceptable POV, what is the POV that is being expressed?

In Islam, it is regarded as the literal word of Allah that "Men are superior to women" (Quran 34:4). There is no agreement on what the punishment is for a woman that does not accept the superiority of men in Islam, although imprisonment and beatings are sanctified by Allah (Quran 4:34). In extreme cases, a Muslim family might commit an Honor Killing. Sometimes, a junior member of the family, or even the son or brother of the disobedient woman, is forced to commit the act, because western law systems dictate very limited punishment for juvenile offenders. It is not clear under what circumstances an honor killing is permitted in Islam, however the Islamic prophet did indeed commit honor killings, one woman was killed for merely disagreeing with him: Asma_Bint_Marwan.

Qur'an 34:4 according to Pickthall at www.Islam.tc has,

• "That He may reward those who believe and do good works. For them is pardon and a rich provision."

But Qur'an 4:34 has,

Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

So I think the first Qur'an reference is a typo.

It would also appear that the proposed Wiki text about is indeed a biased reading of the Qur'an, because Pickthall translates the first sentence as a statement backed by two reasons marked by because.

• Men are in charge of women,
• because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and
• because they spend of their property (for the support of women).

I also suspect "imprisonment and beatings" is again only half true, since there is a more obvious interpretation of "beds apart" in English at least.

• Admonish them and
• banish them to beds apart, and
• scourge them.

However, I think my comments are quibbles. It does sound like a feminist argument that Islam is misogynistic, which is precisely one POV the article needs. I think all we need is a feminist source that makes the points. I don't think that will be hard to find.

The trick here is how to be neutral, since Sura 4 of the Qur'an is all about how to look after women, as I'm sure Islamic sources will note. What do we do when sources clash? The Islamic view of looking after women is quite different to the feminist view. But also, there is Muslim culture that goes beyond the Qur'an, and feminist views that go beyond accepted definitions and call anything they don't like misogyny.

I'm thinking aloud atm, but I suspect Wiki should not get drawn into discussing actions by people of Muslim background not based on reliable sources like the Qur'an and Hadith. Nor should we get drawn into discussing views of radical feminists that redefine the terminology of reliable sources to suit their opinions.

I think the issue here is more RS rather than POV, but whatever it is, it's tricky, but we do have to tackle it eventually. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO, we cannot cite primary sources, especially something as open to interpretation as religious scripture, without citing a scholarly source who is doing the interpretation. Your call to find a feminist source sounds reasonable. We have Women and Islam which is a good place to look for references, although the article does not use the word "misogyny" once. I'm highly concerned about simply adding one anonymous person on the internet's interpretation of the Qur'an, without citing actual scholars on the topic, and providing balanced POVs (unless I am mistaken in assuming that there are multiple interpretations of these verses). What the anonymous editor just added is original research, and has no place here. We need to find sources, and we have to make sure these sources are talking about misogyny specifically, not just sexism.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for interacting on this. You are amazingly good to have around. For an article that is almost entirely primary source, see Asma bint Marwan linked above.

I actually disagree that anything in translation is ever a primary source, if that translation has been published, and especially if it has been transcribed many times. Hence, I'm not nominating Asma bint Marwan for deletion. Though I'd be interested in your view of that issue. We think differently on some things, and you usually notice a range of things I miss.

Another place where we come from different perspectives: I don't think everything in translation is hard to interpret. It's pretty OR of us if we claim this of well-known, peer-reviewed, reliable translations which aim to make a document available to public scrutiny.

My approach majors on your last point. I think misogyny and sexism are moral claims, and moral claims are always controversial. They are only made when some people think other people are doing the wrong thing. At that point, it must be sources not editors who speak or Wiki loses neutrality.

My first concern with the current issue is that I anticipate an unfair presentation, because feminist books are not widely published in Arabic and Islamic tracts are not widely distributed in the West. At least there's published debate in English between feminism and Christianity. This just doesn't exist in other religions. Without sufficient reliable sources for Hindu, Buddhist or Islamic cases against feminism, Wiki is trapped into presenting an unchallenged feminist view, simply because they've published in our language and others haven't. Perhaps I agree with you more than I realise. Feminism, in this context, is actually original research. How can readers evaluate if feminists are giving a fair impression of Islam, without an expert response from Islam?

What I'm saying is that editorial discretion is needed here. It's a small part of a large topic.

My second concern is that I think the edit shows evidence of trying to be neutral and provide quality sources. Look at the modifiers! I'm not an expert, but you don't have to be to know the things that are mentioned. The modifiers are more realistic than I've read in some published works. "In extreme cases ..." "Sometimes ..." I know sources exist that can back these words. It hurts me to read appropriately expressed statements of common knowledge with the most authoritative sources cited where these are known, and yet to revert. I don't feel welcoming. I'd rather source the statements.

But I don't want to source the statements because of my first concern. I don't want to take sides.

Your final point again seems the way forward. Is this misogyny? It's even POV and OR to take it as sexism.

I think we need to find a scientific description of misogyny, rather than simply lists of words, ideas or behaviours labelled as misogyny, by interested parties, to express disapproval.

I actually checked the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and it wasn't there, at least not under the name misogyny. It's one of the reasons I've kind of ground to a halt on the article. The Greeks thought there was a disease called misogyny, but modern medicine, in all its many classes of patterns of anti-social behaviour doesn't acknowledge it. I'm going to try law next. My current theory is that misogyny is the hypothetical motivation for sexism against women, and so the two words are used interchangeably. If I could find a source that said this, it may help us refine the scope of the article. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I note the text has been returned, with additions. Personally, I value the additional "primary" source material from the Hadith. However, I do agree with Andrew that there are, in this case, real issues of evaluating (if not interpreting) the sources. I also agree that, while a reasonable reader can easily infer a connection with misogyny, sexual jealousy, greed, or even legitimate offense may also plausibly explain behaviour that no doubt exists.

In other words, speaking only for myself, I don't doubt that the sources establish certain facts. However, misogyny is a motive or atitude, this requires considered, expert (and impartial) judgement before it can be asserted. It is sources like this that we need.

These requirements can be waived in the Feminist section. Feminists don't need to be experts or impartial to have published views. All that matters is that the views are published, and published by feminists. But even this we do not have as yet. I'm sure you're right, and feminists do note the historical facts you have established, and as matters they pronounce to be immoral. However, do they label it as sexism (in which case this information belongs in another article); or do they label it as sexism prompted by misogyny?

I'm sorry if this sounds fussy, just one feminist source refering to the incident as misogyny is all we need at this stage. I don't think that should be too hard to find. Please don't give up. We're only trying to explain how provide text to an article in such a way that it should end up being safe against those who might want to remove it later. Thanks for your patience so far. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Islamic source on Qur'an 4 An-Nisa'

Google books has Gunawan Adnan, Women and the Glorious Qur'an: An Analytical Study of Women-related Verses in Sura An Nisa`, 2004.

From what I could see it was a quality source. It appears to engage seriously with the best sources of feminist theory (unlike our current article). I don't know how representative of Islam Gunawan is, but the title of his book seems heartfelt, not irony. He looks to me like an "Islamic feminist" rather like Christians for Biblical Equity are "Christian feminists", this may mean he's not really a mainstream Qur'an interpreter. However, such "compromise" positions normally get published in any debate and at least it's some kind of Islamic response.

If anyone is interested in writing up feminist accusations of misogyny against Islam, here's something to help you present it a little more from the NPOV anyway. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You're siriously suggesting fixing a point-of-view issue with a book called "women in the glorious quran" ? It is *much* more NPOV to quote the sources themselves. That book cannot in any reasonable way be called NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.171.156 (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I agree with you completely. This book expresses a POV—a Muslim defense of the Qur'an against charges of sexism. There is not much literature in English that expresses such POVs, especially not sources that actually deal with core feminist texts.

I'm sure you'd agree that the Qur'an itself also expresses a POV.

I'm sure you'd also agree that Wiki editors cannot be assumed to add text or descriptions of the arguments of books in an NPOV fashion. In fact, the current text describing The Glorious Qur'an is clearly POV. Any such editorial text is open to being removed at any time.

As it turns out, I agree with you, that editors are perfectly capable of interpreting almost any translated source in an NPOV way—it is permitted and common, but cannot be assumed. For example, reference to the primary source document The Constitution of the United States of America can be made responsibly and in an NPOV way. However, with some documents, like the US Constitution, there is so much secondary literature in existence that editors don't need to do the interpreting. In the case of the US Consititution there are legal texts available, that are expert sources, and prefered to editorial judgements. In cases where poetry is interpreted, expert sources are preferable, even if such secondary literature is hard to come by.

In the case of highly controversial topics (like law), multiple interpretations are also frequent. Expert commentaries should be consulted if possible.

Eventually, I will remove the POV text currently describing The Glorious Qur'an and replace it with NPOV paraphrases or quotes from the book, unless someone else does one or both first.

Although we probably agree about most of the things above, there is one thing you seem to be overlooking. Feminism is a POV. In fact, it is many related POVs. Kate Millet, Camille Paglia, Katie Roiphe and Christina Hoff Sommers are all decidedly different kinds of feminist, who disagree sharply on a range of issues, including misogyny. In fact, probably only Millet and some branches of the movement actually hold to this theory (Naomi Wolf is one who follows Millet). However, there are writers who consider the theory of pervasive misogyny to be sexist at the least, and misandrous at the worst. Many other writers don't care either way, they just ignore it as an extreme view.

If no one does it before me, eventually I will write up the debate on this topic within feminism. There is no need to appeal to anti-feminist writers regarding misogyny, because everything they say is said anyway, by feminists from different branches of the movement.

Personally, I have sympathy with the feminists who consider the doctrine of misogyny to be foundational to feminism, however, the reality is that people call themselves feminists and are considered feminists in reliable sources, yet don't "toe the line" on every point. The same is true of any big social movement, politics and religion being the obvious examples.

When it comes to some feminist writers choosing to interpret scriptures of various religions according to the feminist POV (called feminist readings in biblical studies), Wiki has an obligation to present the POV of the expert interpreters of those scriptures. Normally these are actually two POVs—some religious interpreters argue feminists misunderstand the scriptures and that those scriptures are not sexist or misogynistic, others argue that feminists understand the scriptures accurately, but are wrong to complain about the differences of treatment given to men and women in the scriptures discussed.

The bottom line is that it is up to the reader to decide what is true. Wiki needs to try only to present a logical summary of all the major opinions held by experts.

So, yes, a POV critism of Islam is addressed by a POV response from Islam. The editor's responsibility is to express no preference for either view. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Text removed again. Please stop adding original research. Believing men are superior to women is specifically called male chauvinism. Misogyny is the hatred of women. There is a difference between the two that the recent edits by the anon completely ignored. We need to have a source that specifically uses the word "misogyny". We cannot quote the Qur'an in places we personally feel are sexist, and claim that it is coming from a hatred of women (i.e. "misogyny"). That is the epitome of original research, which is strictly forbidden. I suggest that the anon read up on basic wikipedia policy before trying to edit further. Sorry to be blunt, but these edits are clearly unacceptable, and not inline with the basic mission of Wikipedia, and they need to stop right here and now.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In context, belief in superiority (or inferiority) is usually linked to endemic contempt, or a philosophy of hatred. Islam cannot automatically be assumed to be this, and the chauvinism and hatred would have to be shown as linked, and specified, even in cases of violence. This is why I restored a wikilink to Honor killing, as a related See also, to aid in serious considerations. As for my text revert, that was a reflex action to an anon blanking cited text; you are correct to leave it out w/o context. Cheers, Yamara ✉ 17:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that reflex. The feminist section needs to be written up properly, until that's done I'm not too fussed about what it says or how it says it, or about what is not included. I find it interesting watching the edits though.

Regarding honour killings, I doubt very much that there's any substantial case for misogyny, though I'm sure someone will have published their anger about them in such language. That's the way any such link needs to be incorporated into the article—within text paraphrasing a source.

If it does end up being me that re-writes the feminist section, I'll make sure I make a point of researching the various views for and agin connection with honour killings. From what I've picked up from Islamic sources, there is probably a specific Arabic word or phrase for these, and it is probably used more often to describe killing men. If that is so, honour killing in general is really not relevant to this article, except in so far as feminists consider honour killing of women to be a special case of honour killings, and a special case of misogyny, in its feminist interpretation. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

PS An important Arabic term is sharaf—simply honour. One academic term in English appears to be HRV—honour related violence. There are other important issues at stake. It is POV to claim that death penalties for drug trafficking are legitimate, but not for adultery. Different societies consider different behaviours to be threats to their social fabric. Encyclopedias need to report ethical systems, not endorse or condemn them.

Thapar-Björkert, Suruchi. 'Conversations Across Borders: Men and Honour Violence in U.K. and Sweden]'. From INTER: A European Cultural Studies Conference in Sweden. Norrköping, 11-13 June 2007. Advanced Cultural Studies Institute of Sweden. Proceedings via Linköping University Electronic Press. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Encyclopedias need to report ethical systems, not endorse or condemn them." ... so in the "holocaust" article killing Jews must not be condemned, or even given a hint that it might be bad behavior ? There are other situation, obviously nothing that certain persons did is consideren antiethical in islam, and even to be admired. Including massacring, or more relevant to this artile, paedophilia, buying and selling women, kidnapping women into slavery, raping captives of war, ... You're not being very realistic about "not condemning ethical viewpoints". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.202.72 (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Islam, misogyny and Wikipedia

Can someone explain to me why quoting the qur'an to illustrate the islamic standpoint on women is not neutral (that standpoint is obvious to anyone who has ever seen a picture of a muslim society) is unacceptable ? I am re-adding the text. And yes obviously the quran is POV, obviously it shows the islamic POV. If the quran directly states that women are inferior, which it does, surely such a fact should be mentioned on this page ? There are 1 billion people living their lives by order of that book, and therefore it affects the lives of 500 million women.

The topic of this article is not "Islamic standpoint on women". The topic is misogyny. Quoting from the Qur'an , and then implying that those words prove the religion is misogynistic is something called original research, and forbidden on wikipedia. As stated previously, you need to find a reliable source to cite that says "Islam is misogynistic because of X". What is the definition of misogyny? Is it "women are inferior"? Nope. All you need to do is find a source. It seems like you have a strong belief that you want to present to the article. That is not the appropriate way to approach wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here for you to use as a platform to spout your views. Instead of starting with a preconceived notation that you want to push in the article, why not start with a blank slate, and do some research, and add content to the article based on the research, not your personal beliefs. It very well may be a notable view that some scholars believe Islam to be a misogynistic religion, but without citations, adding that content is against policy. So find sources, and see what they have to say. I hope this helps, and good luck!-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to discuss this rather than just editing backwards and forwards.

Thank you for asking a question, not just offering an opinion.

Yes, the Qur'an does express the Islamic POV. Yes, we are talking about a very large number of people.

I, personally, can see the good sense and good feeling of your comments.

Like Wikipedia, I will take no sides though. Or, to say it better, I will try to take BOTH sides.

Misogyny is hating women. This can be conscious and deliberate, or unconscious and accidental (without this excusing anything).

Also, I don't know what is best for me all the time, let alone what is best for others. So here are some questions for you.

Does Qur'an or Haddith tell us that "God hates women" or "Muhammed hated women"?

Does Qur'an or Haddith tell us that "Allah knows and wants what is best for women"?

Let us make this even simpler and more concrete. Is it good and safe for women to be physically intimate with men other than a husband? (The same question could be asked of men, but that is not our point here.)

Would it not be fair to say that Islam thinks it is unsafe for women and seeks to protect them by forbidding this?

Isn't it fair to say that feminism suggests freedom in such things is the ultimate best for women?

The two views disagree about what is best for women. In their own minds they both love women. But both could accuse the other of hating women by organizing things in a way that puts them at risk.

There are many conservative writers, not just religious ones, that argue that feminism damages women. Generally, though, they assume good faith, and attribute bad ideas, not bad motives to feminist theorists.

What is a Wikipedia article on misogyny about? It is about motivation. Hatred is a motivation offered to explain actions. Actions are evidence of motivation to be sure. But this involves interpretation.

Wikipedia needs to rely on the interpretation of experts in publishing text about the motives of the Qur'an and those who follow it. Your interpretation may well be correct, Andrew is just asking that you provide a reference to a published source for it. We all know there are many such sources. Once you give a source, we will defend the interpretation against anyone who wants to remove it. Alternative opinions need to be sourced also, if they are, then both views stand in the text, and readers can make up their own minds.

Does that sound unfair? Alastair Haines (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Since it seems to be critical to specify actual hatred of women on the part of islamic sources, how about this hadith :

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/006.sbt.html#001.006.301

Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."

Is considering women "deficient" in more than 3 different ways, purely based on gender nothing else, not hatred of women ? If not, then what is. I would also like to submit that most entries that are considered "misogynistic" do not actually go this far. For example the Christian source merely states that women are to be controlled, and this is considered misogynistic. This official islamic source states that women are lying (by default), stupid, impolite and false (tempt others to betrayal). Note also that what this hadith does is false : it is circular reasoning. Women are stupid because they "lie to courts" and they lie to courts because they're stupid, which is another strong indication that the religion is misogynistic. Also Ayaan Hirshi Ali and many others (such as the beautiful Naomi Campbell) have very relevant stories to tell about islam's misogynism

Or if you prefer, we could find the exact same statement that is called misogynistic when uttered by a christian in the quran (4:34 for example, but repeated at least 10 times), specifying that men are to control women using violence ("if necessary").

So can we please agree on an acceptable wording (not that muslims will consider any criticism, however worded, acceptable). If you wonder about how muslims respond to criticism, and as a first indication as to what responses islam would consider appropriate : first check how the islamic prophet responded to critisism : Asma_bint_Marwan, also note that this women had children sleeping beside her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.198.96 (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would submit that any early islamic source is NPOV (basically anything considered "older" than 1000 years, and the translations on reputable sites such as usc.edu). Just as the new testament is NPOV Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.198.96 (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The usc.edu link did not mention misogyny anywhere. You are mistaking a bias against women for misogyny. Maybe you should focus your efforts at Women in Islam which can discuss the manner in which old Islamic texts present women. However, you can't cite primary sources and make the original claim that it is misogynistic, without citing another reliable source which is making the claim using the M-word. This isn't the proper place to discuss the general topic of women in Islam. This is the place to discuss "misogyny". And if your sources aren't discussing misogyny, then they have no place here. Hope this helps redirect your efforts to a more appropriate venue. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* I'll see what I can do.

Andrew's right, of course, and it's a clever thought to direct your good faith editing and diligent research to a broader article. I've got to say, though, I personally think you're doing really well. Modern writers can often be poor sources on old texts, but you show discernment in both selection of primary sources and in comparison between them. I also think that the text you quote does indeed fit the feminist classification of misogyny, but then a lot of things do.

In my understanding, the only problem with adding your text to the article is that Wikipedia would then be arguing your point: "Islam says X. This is hatred of women a.k.a. misogyny." The first has a source, the second is an appeal to common sense, but not from a source, from editors who allow the text to remain in the article. It's then Wiki v Islam, which is POV. I think you'd get the same problem at any article.

I think your personal interest is in mistreatment of women in general, there are published feminists who call anything they dislike misogyny. I've been told off for opening doors for women, standing up so they can have a seat and so on. I consider it a signal of good-will, feminists consider it patronising chauvanism, hence misogyny. The problem is not finding things that published feminists have called misogyny, the problem is citing those publications. Search on "Islam misogyny feminism" and I'm sure you'll find plenty of writers that say what you want to say. Then Wiki can publish your contribution of these sources. Don't worry about being POV, as long as you're only quoting what others have published. I'll do my best to find the best Islamic responses, not because I'm taking sides (I disagree with both), but just to be fair, encyclopedic and serve readers.

Please don't give up. It's really important that views like these are written up at Wikipedia, everybody thinks about these things, but most people don't have the patience to search out the actual sources like you do. Don't just aim to expose Islam from sources, aim to give a voice to the professional feminist writers who've published about this. Wiki really needs people like you who are willing and able to do this. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I think I've worked out what the NPOV on this article is. From what I can see in the literature, misogyny has broadly three contexts of usage as a word, each has slightly different associations, consistently identifiable in their contexts.

• Greek usage: surviving Greek literature views misogyny as "hatred of women" [+technical sense -- a disease]
• English usage: until 1960s English language writers use misogyny simply as "hatred of women" [+null], the level of hatred varies with context -- from vague avoidance, to downright contempt -- there is no additional theoretical association with the word.
• Feminist usage: with the rise of feminist theory (possibly anticipated by Katharine M Kroger) misogyny is "hatred of women" [+technical sense -- structural embedding]

It would appear that the feminist theory of structural embedding of misogyny has been widely considered plausible, and alongside use of the word in this technical sense, the usual English usage is also found -- i.e. writers speak of misogyny without clearly intending the feminist technical sense, but aware of the basic idea of "hatred towards women".

Now, two critical encyclopedic considerations are:

• we are interested in the concept of woman-hating, not the word misogyny, we need only to ensure that all concepts indexed by the word are covered in Wiki articles and disambiguated. In this case, it is easy to do that in a single article. English and Greek usage are already covered, feminist usage is still to be covered, and forms by far the most documented and involved set of concepts, it should be the bulk of the article (but comes chronologically, and logically last in presentation).
• we must adopt the neutral point of view. We cannot adopt the Greek view that says misogyny is a disease (and in fact no modern medical publication lists such a disease). Nor can we adopt the feminist view, that misogyny is an immoral motivation inherent in many human societies. (I haven't checked the article on Sin, but I bet it doesn't adopt the position that sin is real.) I think we need to adopt the simple English language view, that expresses no theory of the embedding of misogyny in cultural structures like language or social practices. English usage of misogyny does not presume feminist theories, but nor does it exclude them. That's the NPOV, that's the title, that's the usage and OED is just one of many sources that presents it.

The next thing to note is that feminism falls within the science of sociology. There are well-known sources for the feminist theories of misogyny, just like there are sources for theories of nuclear physics. Sexual Politics by Kate Millet is the "Genesis" of feminist ideology regarding misogyny. There is a "canon" of feminist works that sociologists occasionally add to, or subtract from. These are found in the bibliographies provided by standard reference works in the discipline of sociology. Kate Millet's original research has become so well accepted by feminists that it is now hard to be a "true feminist" without affirming belief in "misogyny". If we want to know what the feminist POV is, we look for reliable secondary sources that tell us what the feminist "canon" is. Now we can consult those works and those who comment on them for an authentic picture of the feminist theory of misogyny.

One thing we can do is quote Kate Millet, it would be odd not to do so, because she is a primary source. Because she is part of the "official canon" we would be rather unencylopedic not to quote the most reliable source regarding feminist views on mysogyny. Also, by sticking closely to this "canon", we stay on topic, and stay where secondary sources will be most numerous, to guide our understanding of views pro and con "belief in embedded misogyny". So, for example, an anti-feminist work that isn't addressing ideas in Millet is probably going outside our brief, but likewise also feminst works that move beyond Millet and the central debate.

One thing we cannot do is assume embedded misogyny exists. That would be like writing an article about Islam and assuming Allah exists. The canonical sources of Islam believe Allah exists, so we must state this, along with quality secondary sources that might confirm the sources say this, support the objective reality, or challenge the objective reality of the "theory of Allah". In fact, we need to seek quality secondary sources that say each of these things to present a NPOV.

Another thing we cannot do is simply keep expanding the article to include every new book that argues for or against embedded misogyny. We need to find the canonical best examples that clarify or challenge interpretation of Sexual Politics and only change these if better sources become available (better defined by academic consensus) in that they offer new information. Likewise with new books covering old evidence for or against Kate Millet's theory. Additionally, we need to try to apportion appropriate weight to the arguments for and against. Since there is no "Non-misogyny" article we need to be extra careful to include such arguments here.

Unless people beat me to it, I'm going to rewrite the second half of this article to conform to normal encyclopedic practice (which is described in Wiki policy). I'm happy to do this because I'm very interested in the topic. I'll also declare my own personal opinion, so people can check to see if my opinion ends up biasing what I contribute. Personally, I think misogyny is common, but I don't believe in "embedded misogyny" (but I've not read Kate's work yet). I do believe in "embedded misandry" (as argued by the canonical source Legalizing Misandry).

I'll say in advance what I think would be the best strategy to push my POV were I that kind of person (but I'm not). The best way to undermine the feminist belief system is to express it as strongly as possible. The worse and more widespread misogyny is claimed to be, the better arguments against it look. "All men are liars" is disproved much more easily than "many men are liars".

It's going to take me a while to get around to doing all the research and writing it up. I would really appreciate it if someone else would do the work for us. I hope the bibliographical material I've been supplying saves someone else time, so they can save me time by writing the feminist section instead of me. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent protection of article

Just wanting to note my support both for the decision to protect this article and to unprotect it. What I mean is, I think it is tragic that any article ever be protected, I don't think we need it here right now, and hopefully never will. However, I have noticed that there's been a fair bit of "edit turn-over"—the same kind of text being reverted and restored—without discussion of this on the talk page by those who want inclusion of this text. This has been coming from more than one anonymous editor. These editors must know that there is a talk page, since they have quoted a source cited here, however they have not actually responded with a case for inclusion, in response to the administrator's case against inclusion. A low level of protection encourages anonymous editors to register or use the talk page regarding these edits, and saves the admin the tedious job of repeatedly removing OR and POV commentary on a source. This was a good idea in my opinion. I have sympathy with what I imagine are the concerns of all parties involved, and also with some parties who are not!

I hope I'll be able to help eventually, by providing sourced text from the NPOV expressing the sorts of things the anonymous posters have been trying to include. In the mean time, I'd like to encourage anyone wanting to contribute text from the feminist POV on misogyny to do so, only please try to source it. A quote farm would be easy to produce, and a lot better than what we currently have. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Journal article on Islam and feminism

Just thought I'd drop this onto the talk page, may come in handy some time if we need a reliable source from the Islamic POV.

• Elizabeth Giglio, American Female Converts to Islam and Their Feelings of Liberation, Agora 14 (2005). — Lynchburg College Symposium Readings

That's like having the fox guard the henhouse. What about stories from women who didn't agree with islam and lost ... their life, their family, their clitoris. What about the stories of women like Ayaan Hirshi Ali ? Naomi Campbell ? Aren't they a lot more relevant here ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.172.188 (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wiki can't take sides, we need to neutrally present reliable sources from all significant points of view.

The reader is free to take sides though, and choose what not to read! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Usage

On July 1 when removing my edit of the Usage section, "Among the concerns some of Hillary Clinton female backers have with Barack Obama is the perception that he can slide into misogynist comments at the blink of an eye.", Alastair Haines noted, "Usage: nice contemporary example, BUT misogyny is not named in the reference provided, so the interpretation of the primary source is the editor's".

I believe:

1. While it may be my interpretation, there is no other logical interpretation can be made from the reference or its usage of the word misogynist;
2. The edit can help a reader understand its current usage since all other usages, that give the reader any context clues, date back more than a century;
3. I realize that the word misogyny is not used in the reference, BUT misogynist redirects to this article.

Is there any objection to its reinclusion but perhaps with the qualifier used in a previous edit, "...using the related word misogynist..."?

Bgautrea (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think your proposed example should not be used here because it seems to be purposely controversial (given that it is an election year in the states), and additionally brings up BLP issues. Can't we use something much less partisan?-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it could be considered controversial, but it is contemporary and I believe more importantly it is quoted from a highly reliable and non-partisan source (In other words, I didn't write it, only quoted it). I'd gladly welcome a less partisan quote from an equally reputable source though. Bgautrea (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary usage of misogyny in the "women's issues" sense is so substantial that it has its own section. That section is in dire need of sourcing. It also needs to be presented from the NPOV, as reflecting a usage that presents a POV, a theory. Several third wave feminists present the same theory but with the more neutral terminology androcentrism, precisely because they want their important views heard, without being clouded by emotive language. On the other hand, others are so familiar with, and so convinced of, the second wave language and the view it put forward, that misogyny is more a cliche than emotive in any sense.

I understand this last perception, and think Bgautrea accurately utilised it in interpreting the source provided. However, the source itself did not make the connection. It identified comments made by Obama which could be considered chauvanist, without labeling them misogynistic. I think the author probably did think the comments both chauvanistic and misogynistic, but Wiki cannot "guess" this, nor can it even assume the "theory of misogyny" to be correct. Instead it needs to find the sources that explicitly present this theory, as clearly, coherently and powerfully as possible, ideally with a few other sources that represent the most substantial criticisms of the theory (but not in such a way that these criticisms invalidate a main focus of the article).

We dearly need someone to summarise Kroger and Millet, they provide abundant examples of the recent technical use of misogyny. Additionally, they are foundational sources for its use, cited very widely indeed. We do not need to be restricted to presenting their published text as mere usage of the word, but actually as definitive of a new sense of understanding it. In other words, we need for the feminist usage what we already have for traditional English and Greek usage. Abundant sources exist, and some of the best have been named.

Have you read Sexual Politics by Millet, Bgautrea? Would you be able to find a little time to summarise some of it for us? Any other source viewed by feminists as definitive of their views would do, though Millet and a few others are normally considered the originators (and Millet is quite easy to read). Alastair Haines (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not read Sexual Politics, and nor did I intend to open the can of worms about sexism and politics, I was only trying to use a modern example. Oddly enough, I did catch the usage in an episode of The Big Bang Theory where Sara Gilbert (aka Leslie Winkle) mentions that Jim Parsons (aka Sheldon Cooper) has a misogynistic opinion of women. If I can find the quote, I'd gladly use that instead.Bgautrea (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great example to me. Context would help clarify whether it is the run-of-the-mill, tongue-in-cheek exaggeration typical of English usage until the 60s and 70s, or whether it is more in line with popularised usage of the feminist technical term. In either case it would be relevant and helpful. And in neither case would it need to be carefully justified. Fictional characters certainly help drain examples of unwanted commentary on real people and events. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

misoinian ?

exist such word called misoinian (hate to the wine) ?.

--190.47.241.187 (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)--190.47.241.187 (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This is a Greek word, listed alongside misogyny in one document we possess. It does indeed mean hatred of wine. In context, it suggests hatred of women is as bizarre as hatred of wine and hatred of humanity generally.

If I remember correctly, I actually found the Greek text with this word online somewhere and included a link to that in a footnote. You can actually see this word in context if you are familiar with the Greek alphabet. I also seem to remember transcribing the Greek of the word into the article, or the footnote, so a reader could verify this visually even if not familiar with the alphabet.

Thanks for your interest in this. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Labelling Authors "Misogynist"

There are a large number of authors cited expressing negative views towards women, particularly (at time of writing) philosophers but also religious texts. I have two points to raise which I believe need to be addressed:

• Can a mere negative view of women be described as "misogynist" if source can be found arguing that that view is misogynist? The definition of "misogyny", when going beyond simply woman-hating, can be vague and I think it would be best not to refer to someone or something as misogynist unless a either reliable source can be found which describes them as misogynist, or the person in question themselves expresses hatred (not merely a belief in the inferiority of) of women. NZUlysses (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• If these "grey-area" texts cannot be explicitly described as misogynist, can they still be included in this article? I think so - although you can't necessarily call these views misogynist, they could be included if, for instance, a RS can be cited linking specific writers or attitudes to misogny. NZUlysses (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite correct. The article does try to address this by pointing out that there are two senses of the word misogyny: the Greek usage borrowed into English and covered at the top of the article, and the specifically feminist theoretical usage of the word. As you say, there is certainly no reliable consensus that the Bible, for example, is misogynist in any ordinary sense of the word. However, it is undoubtedly the case that a considerable number of prominent writers of a broadly feminist perspective most certainly deconstruct it in this way. But to say this is also fraught with difficulty, since there are many nuanced views within feminism. There are excellent feminist Bible scholars who take a range of more positive approaches to the text. There are also non-feminist scholars of the Bible, for example, who also vary in their views, some rejecting, others endorsing the various feminist analyses.

Sorting these things out into a neutral presentation is indeed a matter of some time consuming and rigorous work. Any contribution to that, however small you might think it is, is actually of great assistance in moving forwards.

The bottom line is that misogyny is an unproven theoretical construct within some types of feminist political criticism. It has easily enough about it to be notable and broadly credible, but the feminist movement is not regulated in any formal way. Like any movement it has its extremists and its mainstream writers. Certainly, any claims of misogyny need to be clearly attributed, such claims are not neutral statements of fact, but sometimes highly idiosyncratic personal opinions.

The article will only improve if people make the effort to source material and present it neutrally. You are welcome to remove unsourced material and rewrite sourced material to neutrality at any time you wish. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag

The article on Misogyny focuses primarily on misogyny in the western hemisphere. Except for a small paragraph, here is hardly any mention of misogyny in the rest of the world. I therefore placed the "toofewopinions" tag. Feel free to let me know if you think the tag is not justified. Please state your reasons too.

(Neutronstar2007 (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC))

Male equivalent of misogyny?

Whats the male equivalent of misogyny, that is, the word for hatred of men? --98.232.180.37 (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's there in the lead—misandry.

The two words are not parallel in published usage, however, neither in frequency nor in association.

Misogyny has a far longer pedigree, and has recently (in the last 40 years or so) developed an additional, technical sense, in some theoretical and political literature.

The use of misandry seems mainly to be even more recent, refering among other things to the recent theoretical proposals regarding misogyny. I'm sure you'll work it all out for yourself.

Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The cause of Misogyny-pschychological

I had a very in depth relationship with a male of this persuasion, meaning sexually intimate. The causes and roots to this phenomenon for this individual, to me, were very simplistic. A dominating mother, lacking in compassion, love and nurturing, absent in times of need, violence and degredation. The parents divorced. A father, also a Misogynist,who sexualized this individual, along with his brother at the ages of 7 and 8 years, during weekend stayovers. The degree of abuse was severe, also the father offered up his sons to his pediphile freinds. Another issue, its possible that the mother also defiled the sons sexually, at some point in their adolescent years. I believe these practices were generational for this family. I can definitely see how this individual could hate women, startin with his mother.76.115.150.149 (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree this would be a helpful section. Misogyny has at least two slightly different senses: specific men who generally dislike women (the classical definition); and a hypothesized general dislike of women—"girls have germs"—by men generally (the feminist definition). There are reliable sources that discuss both the psychology of individual men, and that of men generally.

Misogyny is not, however, listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Greek section

There seems to be a lot of white space under the Greek section. Can this be corrected? Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this helpful observation. Done. Until someone objects that pictures should be on the right. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Misogyny in Judaism

"Blessed art thou, O God, for not making me a Gentile, slave, or woman."

Very little on women in Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.28.244 (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia tends to suppress any criticism of Jews. Have you noticed there are long articles on "Criticism of Islam", "Criticism of Christianity" but almost nothing on "Criticism of Judaism" (there is an article that discuss only criticisms from a purely theological point of view). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.194.96 (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)