On Nov 22, 2006, at 6:18, Puppy wrote:
Puppy wrote:
> No one is claiming women handle all
> the "serious" articles and men edit only Beer and NASCAR articles.
> You
> are taking one tiny stereotype and applying it across the board. I
> personally use a computer, I am a programmer by trade, and have not
> touched a curling iron in 30 years. I know men who won't touch a
> computer. If "most of the women" you know actually have more
> interest in
> their hair than in current events, history, the rise and fall of
> nations, influential novels, paradigms which have reshaped
> society, etc,
> all I can say to you is that you need to meet some new women.
>
> --pissed puppy, who doesn't care for stereotypes
>
>
I didn't mean to imply this. I'm saying coverage of stereotypically
"women's" stuff (which many women wouldn't have a problem fixing up)
is not optimal. The women that I know who may happen to blowdry their
hair or straighten it also have computers and are interested in
history and literature. However, they don't edit Wikipedia while some
of the men I know do sometimes. I could probably have chosen a better
stereotypical subject to harp on... However, more important than our
coverage is how inviting we are to female editors, unless we wish to
argue that a male-dominated editing body will benefit us most in the
end. I think we should be equally concerned with how inviting we are
to older editors, more technophobic (if that's a good word) editors,
and such.
I wonder though, why [[Menstruation]], [[Menses]], [[Menstruum]],
[[Menstrual flow]], etc redirect to [[Menstrual cycle]] instead of
having their own articles, with menses just being mentioned (two
sentences) and the topics of menstruation near the end of the
article, almost as an afterthought.
--Keitei, who cares more about menstruation than your average woman
(and who doesn't blowdry her hair and rarely straightens or curls it
because the heat is horrible for the hair)