RationalWiki talk:Gender Studies project

And please, lets not have this devolve the way the crap on my talkpage went and keep this focused and what does need to be dealt with, rather than arguing about whether or not our sex, gender, and sexuality articles need to be dealt with at all.--Token Conservative (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this is totally on-mission. Most of the anti-feminist rhetoric I encounter is very obviously the work of cranks (e.g., the stuff that manboobz documents), and expanding our coverage of these topics is a great way to counter that. Wehpudicabok (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What's this? A wikiproject?

Unfortunately I can't help, but I'll be interested in reading. Peter ^mqzp 08:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Even just pointing out something that needs to happen would be pretty useful.--Token Conservative (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Mission

Off mission, personal project, we are not an academic compendium. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was bored.

So long as they stay within the green part, as they say they're going to do, why is this any different from improving any other collection of articles that intersect our mission? Peter ^mqzp 09:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to starting my race relations project and art portal. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Nazi paintings, Pleiadian diplomacy—don't be so quick to dismiss the potential! Peter ^mqzp 09:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, we already have a race portal. I don't see what the difference is here, as long as the articles are focused on gender-related pseudoscience, religious bigotry, etc. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Racism yes, race relations no. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And since I explicitly said "as it relates to RW mission statement" followed by quoting the whole fucking thing, I can only imagine that if you are seriously questioning how ontopic this is, it can only be because you were too stupid/lazy to bother to read through the first fucking sentence of the page, and instead went right to the talkpage to bitch about how much you hate the very notion of talking about people's genitals. --Token Conservative (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't get to dominate the discussion simply by quoting the mission and stating that the project is going to be entirely consistent with it when you're the only person who's bothered to even discuss this and most responses to objections to a portal, which I understand this purportedly is not but I'm waiting to see how quickly it veers off course, have been angry non-responsive screeds swearing at us. You know, this is exactly what I've come to expect from RW discussions - you're raising a pathetic strawman in a discussion that's already become meta to the point that it doesn't even resemble the legitimate concerns people raised. If you think we're coming in bad faith, just say so and we can end this by going our separate ways - you taking your chances, me doing exactly what I said I'd do. This comes in the context of a broader discussion I've attempted to force about providing solid resources that are strongly consistent with our mission - it's about being a go-to resource and ... the RWF making $$. We ain't going to make a nickel when core material is dusty and out of date and with people concentrating on their pet projects. Go start your own wiki if you intend for this project to exceed description - I can't see how it won't, particularly now that you and Knight have already tried turning it into a battle of personalities. Otherwise, mind yourself. Nobody ever said they "hate the very notion of talking about people's genitals." You're basically answering your own question if that's what you intend this to be. There are good reasons to talk about genitals, but since you're framing things so broadly in your responses to actual concerns, I'm pretty suspicious. 15:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, there are lots of crank ideas involved in the anti-feminist movement. Examples include insistence on biological determinism, religiously motivated adherence to strict gender roles, and politically motivated denial of scientific research which shows women are able to achieve as well as men. This would seem to fall well within "the full range of crank ideas." Can we please cut the personal attacks and get back to actually working on this stuff? Wehpudicabok (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That would indeed seem to fall within "the full range of crank ideas". I'm less sure about it falling within "gender studies" unless we broaden the definition to include any comment made about gender in any context. It seems a bit like saying a DVD review on Amazon is an example of film studies. Really it's hard to assess how on-mission this project is going to be (or why it even needs to be a project) until it's clearer what it will involve. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I couldn't come up with a better name then 'gender studies'. If you have a better name, say so. And as I said in the project page itself, it's about cleaning up and expanding RW articles about sex, gender, and sexuality.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

EC There are probably a couple of dozen articles with long pedigrees on the wiki that already, unquestionably, fall under the rubric of this wikiproject and are decidedly on-mission. I'm not sure how a few folks working together to develop those articles and linking them with a navbox or something is that big a deal. We've pretty much been doing this project in our usual half-assed way for a couple years, if not more. That said, Nutty's point--made here or on one of the talk pages this discussion has metastasized onto--that we need to make sure that core articles don't get stale and out-of-date is worth taking seriously. I don't see why we can't do both. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 17:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Project tasks

I have to step away from this atm, didn't feel like moving it to my sandbox. I'll be back in 30ish to finish. If nothing else, you can get a better idea for what I was talking about with this.

Some suggestions for things that I think the project should work on:

_{There was a large list, moved to the project page since no one seems to be discussing the matter}

--Token Conservative (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The furry image was actually deleted on commmons. Peter ^mqzp 23:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Issue resolved. Thank you.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I could continue with this page. Boss (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)