Talk:women's studies

RFC discussion: December 2017–May 2018
When I was creating Danish entries, I came across the term feminologi, which can be constructed into the English cognate "feminology" (which is indeed attested). So I looked up "feminology" on Wiktionary and found we didn't have an entry for it, which surprised me. Then I saw that Den Danske Ordbog had listed kvindeforskning, which translates to women's studies, as a synonym. So I looked up women's studies on Wiktionary (which seemed like it'd be the same concept), which gave the following definition:


 * 1) The academic field which examines topics concerning women, feminism, gender, and politics.

But then, I read the Danish definition of kvindeforskning (which literally means "woman research"). It roughly translates to:


 * 1) academic field concerning women, their biology, psychology, societal roles, and contributions to culture
 * (original text: "forskning vedr. kvinder, deres biologi, psykologi, samfundsmæssige rolle og bidrag til kulturen"; feel free to re-translate if I'm off)

So our current definition of "women's studies" looks odd to me. Try to forget the term has the word "women's" in it, and see that Wiktionary says the academic field "examines topics concerning women, feminism, gender, and politics." Semantically, I would assume that women's studies examines all four of these topics separately, but that isn't the case is it? Doesn't it have to do with their relation with one another?

So though the Wiktionary definition of "women's studies" and the Danish definition are somewhat similar, they don't mean the same thing in my eyes. The Wiktionary definition sounds a lot like the (at least American) concept of gender studies in general, whereas the Danish definition puts a greater emphasis on women in particular. It also says "their biology, psychology". So do "women's studies" among English speakers entail studying female psychology and biology? What about "societal roles and contributions to culture"? Okay, I guess feminism has to do with women's societal roles, but isn't feminism just a political movement to give women more rights, rather than the essence of their entire role in general? And "politics" is pretty vague. What politics? So do Donald Trump, Republicans and Democrats, capitalism, communism, and anarchism directly have anything to do with women's studies? By directly, I mean directly, not vaguely. And, I know, politics has to do with a lot more than just the things mentioned but I don't have all day here to make insanely long silly lists.

I think our current definition should be improved. I know we shouldn't base our decisions directly on other dictionaries, but I just have a feeling that this one is inaccurate or at least too vague. What is women's studies? What is it really? I seriously don't know; I'm not just saying that for emphasis or irony. Can someone tell me? PseudoSkull (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * My opinion/experience, definitely not authoritative: "isn't feminism just a political movement to give women more rights?": I think this is where you might be going off track. In practice, "gender studies" has tended to focus on women because in the most general sense they have been more marginalised and silenced. In theory it could be any study of gender differences. There's also any number of feminist approaches to literature, film theory, psychology, etc.; when you talk about "rights" that's a political issue, which is really narrowing the field. Equinox ◑ 12:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I tell you the definition (inacceptable by those advancing it): “Women's studies” is dealing with one’s own fancies and engaging in money laundering and other kinds of corruption; they don’t usually publish research, only arbitrary claims and slants about those who have built society, trying to get funded by saying what progressive decision-makers want to hear. Basically, it is =, as you will often find, with the “” enemy rendered as “white cis man” from which they want to see the money robbed.
 * Of course an ideology like, what ever it might be (it has been much in the time this word has been used), cannot be any “study”. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 12:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * @User:Palaestrator verborum I understand there are other opinions; however, I think Wiktionary needs to document what is most widely accepted as a neutral definition for a term. Speaking of opinions, I forgot to mention in the OP (and probably should have) that anything having remotely to do with feminism can be a very politically sensitive topic, so I advise caution.
 * @User:Equinox The only definition for feminism here (besides the obsolete one) defines the political and (I forgot to mention) social movement. That was what I was referring to. I don't think I clarified this. Also, for anyone wanting to know, the current definition here of gender studies is:


 * 1) The academic discipline which analyses constructions of gender in society, often with reference to class, race, sexuality, and other sociological characteristics.
 * So, though interest in this topic was definitely instigated by women's roles in particular, I think the modern definition especially could count for either gender just about equally. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Well I have told you what you wanted to know, I was not engaging in exaggeration or irony. One can mention how the people engaged in the thing describe it, but surely the most widely accepted, neutral definition is not what the proponents give. This one of those things where what is actually believed hugely differs from what is voiced. It is like reconstructing Proto-Afro-Asiatic or Proto-Semitic where we have only Olga Stolbova and Vladimir Orel who make very daring and in many points disputed claims but they are the only one having published that much on it, and anyhow we can’t just believe them. The same there is a shedload of publications about Nostratic where people being against it have just ceased to follow that topic because it is ridiculous. For other reasons, because it is dangerous, there are fewer objections openly advocated against that gender/women studies swamp. Or for another example: We can’t trust the government of the in their geographic descriptions while we believe most governments mostly in being right about them.
 * What can be said without raising objections (or more specifically edit wars) about anything claiming to be a study or science is that it is a bevy of people dealing with a topic. That it is science should not be claimed if we know something different. “academic field” hits it very good, because it is a field of unstated things academia deals with. So you are asking what these things are? I have told you they are not well defined, that’s why  and are interchangeable. The definition in the dictionary will necessarily stay open. You can describe phenomology: Women slanting male inventors, claiming, etc., to specify more. But alas, it can become too encyclopedic. Palaestrator verborum (loquier) 13:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm trying very hard not to say something unparliamentary right now. I will restrict myself to saying that what you are spouting is not just wrong, it's not even wrong, and it's not even wrong in a very specifically misogynistic way. I don't mind if you take red pills until you choke on them, just please don't do it here. There are other websites for that. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the definition slightly to "The academic field which examines topics concerning women, feminism, and the relationship of gender and politics." This is closer to what Wikipedia defines it as, and some other dictionaries. Other dictionaries (to paraphrase) conceptualize it more like "The academic field which examines women's roles and contributions in history, politics, literature, philosophy, psychology, etc." - -sche (discuss) 04:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think this thread can be archived now. - -sche (discuss) 20:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)