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)