Talk:The Subjection of Women

message: Two articles on the same essay. I believe Subjection of women is a more in-depth analysis of the essay than The Subjection of Women but I haven't read the essay in question, so I can't be totally sure. The Subjection of Women  is the correct title of the essay, so the merged article should be under that. Kerowyn 01:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: two articles

message: While I agree a merge is more appropriate than a simple redirect, there is very little content in the The Subjection of Women' that isn't also in Subjection of women.  To merge the articles but cutting and pasting the whole of the more in-depth Subjection of women into The Subjection of Women would destroy the edit history of both articles.  I posted the article to Wikipedia:Requested moves for comment and advice.  My intent is to create an article named The Subjection of Women that would contain the merged content of both articles while preserving the edit histories.  A redirect would be left at Subjection of women. Please leave your comments below or in Talk:Subjection of women. Thatcher131 02:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge and rename request (Move)

message: This section does not cite any sources.  I'm sure that if it's criticized, it is so in print.  Any references to these criticisms, or is this original research? Llamabr 16:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: The authorship section needs more work, although not necessarily more length. I rewrote the authorship sentence, which was something like: "JSM claims that his wife cowrote the essay" to "JSM credited his wife with coauthorship", and added the line that she is rarely credited. However, we need a cite for the statement that he credited Harriet, and if there are any published discussions about authorship (I'm sure there are), then we should cite to that discussion and flesh it out.  I deleted the sentence that said "Some people focus more on this than others", since it's basically meaningless. --lquilter 14:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  authorship 

message: ""I deny that any one knows or can know, the nature of the two sexes, as long as they have only been seen in their present relation to one another. Until conditions of equality exist, no one can possibly assess the natural differences between women and men, distorted as they have been. What is natural to the two sexes can only be found out by allowing both to develop and use their faculties freely"
Where is this quote from? I own a hardcopy of the subjection and looked over the internet and I cannot find tis quotation. The first part is there, but the second I cannot locate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.68.224 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation 

message: All wiki pages on gender topics are subject to appalling bias, which detracts from whatever scholarly value wikipedia has. Lets look at this sentence "In this, men are basically contradicting themselves because they say women cannot do an activity and want to stop them from doing it" Firstly, this is unnecessary paraphrase. Secondly, I suspect Mill was talking about people - not necessarily men - but his concern is more with the argument: "if women really can't do something, why forbid them"
It's also worth pointing out that he goes on to say "What they can do, but not so well as the men who are their competitors, competition suffices to exclude them from; since nobody asks for protective duties and bounties in favour of women" This is no longer the case. Protective duties and bounties in favour of women are precisely what are being asked for
By the way, is JS Mill incorrectly quoted here? Did he not say "interfere in behalf of nature" not "intervene on behalf"?86.173.143.177 (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vagueness and possible bias 

message: The article, particularly in the sections  and , presents Mill's opinions as fact.  As a result, the article doesn't follow the Wikipedia policy of presenting a neutral point of view.  Whilst I realise that it can make tedious reading to preface every opinion with phrases such as "Mill argues that …", a skilful writer can vary the phrasing so that the meaning is both clear and accurate, without making boring reading.  And surely we have at least one skilful editor with a little time on their hands?  yoyo (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, Mill's opinions are essentially "sexism is bad" and "women and men are equally intelligent" and both of those are definitely facts. casualdejekyll 19:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality