In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Wiki Women

Jill

I adore Wikipedia, and so I was more than a little disappointed to read their definitions of “man” and “woman.” Via Scribblepad, we find that the headings for “man” include:

Contents
[hide]

* 1 Etymology
* 2 Age
* 3 Biology and sex
* 4 Gender roles
* 5 Further reading
* 6 See also

Ok, fair enough. Now for “woman”:

* 1 Etymology
* 2 Biology and sex
* 3 Legal rights of women historically
o 3.1 Biblical law
* 4 Culture and gender roles
* 5 Terms
o 5.1 Slang
o 5.2 Vulgar terms
* 6 See also
* 7 References
* 8 External links

Vulgar terms, eh? Scibblepad posted this on January 2 — and since then, it appears that “vulgar terms” has been changed to just “terms.” A link to “misogyny” was added, if anyone is interested in finding out “terms for women often considered offensive.” Glad to see it was edited, but it’s nonetheless disturbing that femaleness is apparently so tied to degradation that it’s proper to include insults in a encyclopedic definition of “woman.”

Also, their picture of the female reproductive system is pretty crappy, but that’s a different bitching point altogether.

13 thoughts on Wiki Women

  1. Keep in mind that in this case “they” means “some assholes.”

    You may know this already, Jill, but you can always go delete the offense stuff and make your case on the talk page (or make your case first and spark a full discussion.)

  4. Oh, I see. I still wonder about not having a parallel structure for the “Man” and “Woman” articles…maybe someone with more time on their hands than I (or you, I’m betting) ought to add a “terms” section and a link to “Misandry” in the “Man” article…

  5. Then again, and oh-by-the-way-completely-shockingly, the “Misandry” article doesn’t contain any handy list of derogatory terms for men.

  6. Alrighty then, while Mr Tog isn’t looking over my shoulder and I’m on my second glass of bubbly:

    Penile life support
    Surrogate dog
    Handbag
    Beta-test replicator unit

    God I’m a geek.

  7. Last I heard, misandry wasn’t even in Microsoft Word, so just like positive names for female genitalia, you probably won’t find much unless you make some up.

    Though, from what I’ve read, there’s no shortage of contempt for men here (even from guys themselves!).

  8. hi… i popped in to see who’d linked to me, and am i glad i did! you both have a fantastic blog happening!

    also, thanks for taking up the issue – its because there are folks like you who’ll speak up that we’ve managed to have it changed so quickly 🙂

    cheers

    m.
    (India.)

  9. When I wiki my name, I get a list of people who have been considered deities. Awesome.

    Yeah, but…

    The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see discussion on the talk page.

    I guess they found out who you were 🙂

  10. It’s nonetheless disturbing that femaleness is apparently so tied to degradation that it’s proper to include insults in a encyclopedic definition of “woman.”

    Actually, I disagree, Jill. I think as long as the playing field isn’t level it’s necessary and proper to point out and enumerate the many ways in which women are discriminated against which don’t apply to men, and insults are part and parcel of that discrimination. The dictionary isn’t being judgmental, it’s not saying this discrimination is right, but it does exist and ought to be made and kept visible so we can fight it rather than ignore it.

  12. Just fix it. Anyone can change the entry, obviously; while I admire rousing people to action through blogs or whatever, it’s also important to remember that we can’t expect “them” to “have it changed.” “They” are “us.” passively waiting for people to fix the entry is anathema to the wikipedia model

  13. I’m bothered that the “men” entry has been marked to get checked for “neutrality” but the “women” entry has not. I’m guessing it’s more of an issue in the women’s entry (the stuff it says right now would certainly support that theory).

Comments are currently closed.