Category talk:Gender-role reversals or women in power

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Category:Gender-role reversals or women in power.

This is a private Category! the owner is Churchh -- unsigned by Haabet 23:19, 27 June 2006

Haabet, just because you're having problems understanding it (for which your lack of facility with the English language might be partially responsible) doesn't mean that other people do also -- or otherwise Infrogmation wouldn't have linked in Category:Women in male clothing. Churchh 03:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I've capitalized some of the most important parts, if that helps you at all:

There have been many SATIRICAL CARICATURES down the centuries depicting women acting in what was considered to be an INAPPROPRIATELY "MANLY" WAY, or predicting the consequences that would result if WOMEN were to ATTAIN A POSITION OF AUTHORITY, or showing how WOMEN have achieved unacknowleged POWER even within restrictive social norms. (These may not always be obvious from a 21st century point of view.)

The restrictive social norms do not exist in Denmark. You speech about something local, and think as that was global. Have you a article in wikipedia, about 'the restrictive social norms' in that era in England?haabet 08:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Haabet, restrictive social norms most certainly did exist in Denmark during the Victorian era. There were some local variations, but also many elements of an overall common European / European colonial / American culture (call it "Victorian" for want of a beter word) which exerted a wide pervasive influence. I seem to recall that Ibsen's "Doll House" was written in Scandinavia! Churchh 18:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My source say the American woman was most free and the Danish woman was close to the American woman. Ibsen was a Norwegian. It was difference between Dane and all other, also a difference between dane and Norwegian.
"Victorian" is a fine name.

haabet 01:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


I have need of a list of the restrictive social norms; because I do not know them.
I have need of a geographical delimitation.
I have need of an age delimitation.
I have need of a social delimitation -- haabet 08:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Haabet, a "list of the restrictive social norms" would demand a book-length treatment, but to start with, non-lower-class women had to wear cumbersome and often confining clothes or face severe social disapproval; many types of employment were closed to them; they could not participate in politics directly (unless they were born to a monarchy); and they were often severely scorned if they did not conform their activities to a strict "lady-like" ideal at all times.
I mainly envisioned confining this to European and European-derived caricatures from around the 16th-century to WW1, but if there are caricatures which fall outside these limits, but validly fall within the subject matter, then I would not be opposed to including them.
However, this is for CARICATURES (humorous treatments) of cases where a woman is perceived as in some way acting manly or taking on what was then considered masculine authority or power (but NOT just acting sexually promiscuous, which has little in itself to do with this). Churchh 18:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. is Category:Newly confirmed person your own "private category"? Churchh 03:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konfirmander (konfirmanders (Newly confirmed person)) was a tema in cartoon (typical of that era) in Denmark. The bedst corresponding article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolescence and Categorys: Category:History of Denmark Category:Adolescence haabet 08:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
That's nice -- I notice Category:Newly confirmed person got deleted... Churchh 18:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"unacknowledged" .. "even within restrictive norms". To have unacknowledged influence would demonstrate the subjective exclusivity in claiming "restrictive norms". A typical hierarchy involves restrictive norms. Any sphere of influence must have difficulty to generate scarcity. To say "even within restrictive norms" implies a comparative, which the premise suggests corresponds with a historical misrepresentation. If we take the premise as accurate, then the assertion reflects a comparison of two subjective experiences without any historical witnesses claiming to have had both experiences. Since one cannot comprehend a subjective experience one has not had (see w:Mary the color scientist), one cannot compare two subjective experiences if one has not had both. Thus if we assume the premise of "unacknowledged" influence as true, the assertion of "even within restrictive norms" becomes a baseless conjecture while absent any historical transgender witnesses as references.

50.233.59.187 14:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]