| Revision as of 13:48, 19 September 2007 editAnythingyouwant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors91,258 edits →Biological motherhood: sp← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 01:23, 7 May 2024 edit undo2600:1700:291:dca0:659e:8e9b:635f:1930 (talk) →The first first thing that came out was a picture from a movie: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic |
| (540 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{oldafdfull|page=Mother|date=5 July 2006|result=Speedy keep}} |
|
|
|
{{Old AfD multi|page=brother|date=5 July 2006|result=Speedy keep}} |
|
{{WPSOC|class=start|importance=mid}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|
]. But until someone else deletes or (somehow) encyclopedifies this article, it might as well be accurate. - ] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biology|importance=high}} |
|
:Indeed. ] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's Health |importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Genealogy|importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
<!-- Please do not remove or change this message until the issue is settled --> |
|
|
{{ {{#ifeq:|{{void}}|void|Error:must be substituted}}|medcab-request}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(360d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Mother/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Mother|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Goddess Parvati is a widely revered deity, who holds paramount significance in the Hindu culture. Although the image of her breastfeeding Lord Ganesha is to portray a motherly activity, the sight of a deity’s breasts pictured is deemed unholy, disrespectful and obscene. It is my sincere request to replace it with a woman’s image after her consent or any drawing that not provocative and doesn’t hurt any community’s sentiments. ] (]) 19:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The image is in the religious subsection. It would make no sense to replace it a random image of a woman. Misplaced Pages is ] and the image itself is not inherently offensive. The image in question dates to 1820 and wasn't created for the article. ] (]) 19:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC) |
|
== Profanity edit== |
|
|
Removed references to 'motherfucker' and 'MILF'. These have no place here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then go a cover all erotic sculptures at Khajuraho. ] (]) 13:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
absolutely... who writes these things?] 17:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== LGBT motherhood == |
|
==Proposed move== |
|
|
] to ]. To make consistent with the title of the ] article. ] 21:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Done'''. ] 23:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**Please remove the template above if you fulfill a move request. —]<font color="green">]</font>] ] <sup>]</sup> 18:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I do appreciate the efforts of editors, I'm doubting whether the section ] gives ] to the subject. The section takes up about one fifth of the word count of the whole article and is larger than both the lead section and ] section. I'm suggesting to at least cut down the 'Trans motherhood' subsection to a single short paragraph, but I'm honestly not a fan of dedicating a whole section to this. However you look at it, LGBT motherhood is not nearly as prevalent as the 'mainstream' motherhood. If someone else has any suggestions or counter-arguments, please discuss. Otherwise, I'll be ]. Cheers, ] (]) 19:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
::This article is currently a long definition resembling a dictionary entry, with some questionable content (eg: comment about status of mothers in Romania). Why do we need it? ] 05:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{u|Pyrite Pro}}, please do. I agree that section is too long and even intended to address this after the ] wrote it, but never got around to it. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 06:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::], I'm working on a draft of several sections, such to replace the ], ] and ] sections by one larger section containing different types of motherhood. In here, I drastically shortened the LGTB motherhood (sub)section. Would you care to review? It's in my ]. Cheers, ] (]) 21:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Looks good, though I would replace the uses of "transsexual" with "transgender" since people tend to say the former is outdated as an umbrella term (some use it, but not all). Thanks. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 06:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thank you! Cheers, ] (]) 10:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}} Changes applied as discussed. ] (]) 10:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::The paragraph ''"Transgender motherhood refers to the parenting relationship between a ] parent and their child. ] may have biological children when they have not had a ] before carrying and giving birth to children"'' has now been removed by ], with the explanation that transmen are fathers not mothers. But given that in the legislation of many countries transmen are actually mothers, I think that the paragraph should stay. If there is a need of a separate section about transgender motherhood (that's a big if, because discussion of trans motherhood could be integrated in the article text, without a special section) than it has to address transmen too.] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 23:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::Do we have any ] that refer to trans men who have children as being mothers? for inclusion in fact said the exact opposite, with a section on "Institutional erasure" that clearly takes the position that trans male parents are fathers, not mothers: {{tq|Finally, most men in this study reported that it was difficult or impossible to be listed as ‘father’ on their child’s birth certificate, despite this being their parental identity. Some had to undertake a legal battle, or even adopt their own children, in order to be legally recognized as a father.}} Note that a law is not a reliable source, except for the assertion that the law exists. Some countries' laws categorize gay people as perverts, or Jews as traitors, but that doesn't mean Misplaced Pages needs to defer to those definitions. We follow the academic sources, which overwhelmingly refer to trans men as a subset of men, mothers as a subset of women, and thus trans men as not mothers. You're saying that trans men being parents should be discussed, and it is, in an article linked from the hatnote I added: ]. ] should also have at least a sentence or two on the topic, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.{{pb}}FWIW, if there's a concern on DUE-ness, I wouldn't object to combining the "Transgender motherhood" section with the preceding one for a "Lesbian, bisexual, and transgender motherhood" section. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she/they)</span> 00:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Your claim ''"Note that a law is not a reliable source, except for the assertion that the law exists"'' is incorrect. The law is a reliable source for providing definitions and an understanding of notions, because the law is, or is supposed to be, the result of social consensus. And the reason why most countries consider a person who gives birth (regardless of gender identity) a mother is in order for this person to have the special legal and medical protections associated with biological motherhood; if such person wasn't legally a birth mother, and was a father, than such person would be deprived of such protections (perhaps this is more difficult to understand for Americans because in the US motherhood has very few protections). Note that motherhood is protected in many international conventions, including in the ], which states at Article 25 ''"2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance"'', and this is translated in laws all over the world. The protections for birth mothers are many, including special protections in the workforce regarding leave (pre-natal and post-natal), hazardous working conditions for pregnant and breastfeeding mothers, protections against unlawful termination from job, numerous medical protections in the healthcare. All these protections are given to birth mothers; and if a person giving birth would not be legally a mother that could be detrimental to that person. ] and ] are all very important and refer to birth mothers, and excluding transmen who give birth from the definition of mother would not be to their benefit. And last but not least, the section should present the subject from a global perspective, and not focus on the ]; giving ] to one country is not acceptable. ] (]) 01:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Find some ] that refer to trans men who have children as "mothers", and we can talk. Otherwise everything you're saying is ] and ]. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she/they)</span> 01:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: No, you find a reliable source which says that the global consensus (that is, ''all over the world''; please remember that the United States =/= the world) is that a transman giving birth is a father. As I pointed out, the law ''is'' a reliable source. Here is a ruling from the UK (about ]) which clearly enshrines the fact that a transman who gives birth is legally ''a mother'' (and that's the UK, a Western country with some of the most developed transgender rights and protections in the world). ] (]) 02:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::You're arguing for inclusion. The ] is on you to show usage in reliable sources. Laws are ], which in general are only reliable in terms of proving what they themselves say. The reason is that all laws need to be interpreted, and citing only a law leaves content open to the interpretations of any editor, like you're doing right now. That's ]. Furthermore, the legal sense of a term is not necessarily the sense Misplaced Pages uses. Per ], ] are strongly preferred to primary, for these reasons. So please find some reliable secondary sources saying "a trans man who has a child is a mother"—not "a court ruled that a trans man who had a child was a mother", but, in the eyes of the secondary source itself, that he in fact is a mother—and then, again, we can talk. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she/they)</span> 02:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Converting chart for visually impaired == |
|
---------- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can someone convert the material within ] used in §Social role, into a chart as described at ]? This would make the information accessible to visually impaired readers, and bring into compliance with ]. Chart would also be more readily updatable, as contributors could edit it with simple text. Thank you. -- ] '''</sup></span>]] 15:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
I also think the comment about the status of mothers in Romania is out of place. Moreover, such a comment would need to be backed up by a reference in my opinion. Better, I would suggest to remove the comment altogether. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The first first thing that came out was a picture from a movie == |
|
Yes. ] 19:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only way I could see that was to say the word and I was going through a whole lot and then it just started coming back to bite and then it was just a bunch more of the way I had a little more of the other stuff that was in the bag…..,,,, ] (]) 01:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Follow Father Page == |
|
|
|
|
|
There are, as with fathers, different types of mother, are ther not, therefore, we should include them? feedback what you think. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 14:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
:You may wish to elaborate ] 01:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I think what he's referring to is that on ] there's a long list of different types of fathers, e.g. natural, posthumous, adoptive, etc. and presumably he wants a similar list for mother. Most of the paternal terms could be easily "translated" in that case. ] 01:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Use of "mom/mommy" in British Midlands== |
|
|
|
|
|
This was deleted by user 86.146.203.197 on Valentine's Day. Why it was deleted is unclear, but usage of the above is widespread if not total throughout the West Midlands (specifically the Black Country and Birmingham). I have put this information back in, for now. If anyone has an objection, please let me know. ] 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
-- In addition, the amount of vandalism on this page is alarming. I assume it is due to the low standard of the article that it is not protected against such anonymous edits? It seems like this page has had ten edits since my last constructive edit, all adding and then correcting said vandalism. ] 19:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Bob???? Frank??? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I suggested that the references to these are removed and that this page is watched<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 11:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
:Thanks for spotting. This page is watched but sometimes things slip through. Eagle eyes are much appreciated. -- ] 14:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that this is a dreadfully small page, compared to the importance of mothers in sociology, literature, art, pop culture, and... well, pretty much everything. Any ideas as to why? |
|
|
|
|
|
== Biological motherhood == |
|
|
Most definitions of motherhood tend to mark the beginning of motherhood at the time of the birth of one's child. While there are biological reasons to discuss the pregnant woman as a mother, it seems to me that discussion of gestation etc. shoud be in a subsection entitled "Biological mother", not in the opening paragraph, which should conform more closely to traditional definitions. --] 13:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Please note that new sections go at the bottom of the talk page. Also, there are only two sentences in the lede about the subject to which you refer, and both are well-sourced (see respective footnotes). Therefore, I don't support moving or changing them at this point.] 14:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I have to agree here with Pleasantville. The definitions that are attached as sources seem to be pushing a not-very-veiled POV that would be better left off this article, or at least relegated to a section called "biological motherhood" or something similar. Not the lede. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 18:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Ferrylodge, I'm not clear on why it is important to you to define motherhood as beginning at or around the time of conception. Many conventional definitions of "mother" define the term as "a woman who has given birth to a child (also used as a term of address to your mother); "the mother of three children"" or "the woman of whom one was born". Surely, you are not arguing that such definitions are wrong? |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I note that you have showed similar preoccupations in the past on ]. Can you clarify why it is important to you to downplay traditional understandings of the advent of motherhood? --] 18:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::No Pleasantville, I cannot clarify why it is important to me to downplay traditional understandings of the advent of motherhood, because I have no such intention. If you would like to add a section to the article on that subject, then by all means please go ahead. I did not write the lede of this article, but rather merely inserted some footnotes. As far as I can tell, the lede is fine. But if you would like to add a well-sourced section on "traditional understandings of the advent of motherhood", then it might thereafter be appropriate to consider modifying the lede. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::And Tvoz, I would urge you to see .] 02:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That's a hell of an accusation to make, Ferrylodge, with absolutely no justification. Do you think an interest in motherhood is somehow unique to you? Don't flatter yourself so much - I actually have on-the-job training in the subject, and don't have to explain my interest to you. I commented on the lede of the article - I didn't look to see who put that text and footnotes in, and I have done nothing to harass you or to disrupt anything, anywhere. I think the citations are pushing a POV, and I think it should be reworked. You seem to be taking my comment personally - if the shoe fits, it's your problem. I didn't notice that you owned this article, or any article, or the direction they take. And if you want to make any more accusations, I suggest you do it more formally, and more carefully. <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 05:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Ferrylodge, please maintain a civil tone. --] 10:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::I have maintained a civil tone, and I am not making accusations. Some users are unaware that it is bad form to follow other users around. If Tvoz is following me around (from ] to ] to ]), then I would kindly ask her to please stop. However, if it is merely a bizarre coincidence, then we can leave it at that.] 13:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
OK. Let's see if I can get this discussion back on track. As far as I know, every natural human language has a word for mother and a concept underlying that. Medical obstetrics, on the other hand, is very recent, and its concepts figure into concepts of motherhood in only a limited way, even in cultures where this brand of modern medicine is practiced. Thus, it is really jarring to start in with gestational chronology, when for most of human history such discussion has had at best a very limited impact on the concept of "mother." |
|
|
|
|
|
In promoting the (very sound) idea that pregnant women should seek prenatal care, to some extent medicine has pushed aside the concept of the "mother-to-be" in favor of a notion that parenting starts as soon as one knows one is pregnant, or even earlier -- taking prenatal vitamins during years when one might become pregnant. But though the word mother is sometimes used this way, that is not its primary usage, but rather a secondary one. --] 12:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
Goddess Parvati is a widely revered deity, who holds paramount significance in the Hindu culture. Although the image of her breastfeeding Lord Ganesha is to portray a motherly activity, the sight of a deity’s breasts pictured is deemed unholy, disrespectful and obscene. It is my sincere request to replace it with a woman’s image after her consent or any drawing that not provocative and doesn’t hurt any community’s sentiments. 2604:2800:1:3C90:BC97:D27D:6A20:E40C (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The only way I could see that was to say the word and I was going through a whole lot and then it just started coming back to bite and then it was just a bunch more of the way I had a little more of the other stuff that was in the bag…..,,,, 2600:1700:291:DCA0:659E:8E9B:635F:1930 (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Done Changes applied as discussed. Pyrite Pro (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
