| Revision as of 13:38, 11 August 2005 editJHCaufield (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers9,300 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:46, 11 August 2005 edit undoKillerChihuahua (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,578 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| *From the article: "''the female sections of clothing catalogues are often more comprehensive than the male sections''" Excuse me whilst I cry over the inherent unfairness of it all. Ok, I'm done. Somehow I suspect that a real article could be written on this though. I'd say '''redirect''' to ] for the time being, and maybe it will split off from that with a real article someday. ] 11:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC) | *From the article: "''the female sections of clothing catalogues are often more comprehensive than the male sections''" Excuse me whilst I cry over the inherent unfairness of it all. Ok, I'm done. Somehow I suspect that a real article could be written on this though. I'd say '''redirect''' to ] for the time being, and maybe it will split off from that with a real article someday. ] 11:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' as original research. It feels like there's some point that the article's trying to make (which is bad enough in itself) by grouping all these statistics. Few of the stats even make mention of sources. The topic itself may be important, but there's nothing here that can't be found elsewhere. --] 13:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' as original research. It feels like there's some point that the article's trying to make (which is bad enough in itself) by grouping all these statistics. Few of the stats even make mention of sources. The topic itself may be important, but there's nothing here that can't be found elsewhere. --] 13:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' and redirect to Gender Studies, or given the content of the article, perhaps a Disambig would be better (Gender Studies, Sexism). Pockets and mail-order catalogues aside, this is a laundry list of what seems to be undocumented and unexplained (not unexplainable) differences in the US. Example: Women live longer (mostly) (no sources) and Men pay more for insurance (not connected in article) Could we possibly have a less intelligent article, excepting only vanity pages? We already have an article on Sexism.--] 13:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:46, 11 August 2005
Gender gap
Male clothes are often better equipped with pockets is just one of the BJAODN-worthy "highlights" this page has to offer. The ingenial authors of this piece have made a list of stereotypes about men and women, and have not even shied away from grouping the resulting ugly list into 'gender gaps favoring men' and 'gender gaps favoring women'. (Needless to say, we all know Misplaced Pages - the "gaps favoring women"-list is of course twice as long as that of gaps favoring men.) This page is unmaintainable on Misplaced Pages.--Fenice 10:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- From the article: "the female sections of clothing catalogues are often more comprehensive than the male sections" Excuse me whilst I cry over the inherent unfairness of it all. Ok, I'm done. Somehow I suspect that a real article could be written on this though. I'd say redirect to Gender studies for the time being, and maybe it will split off from that with a real article someday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. It feels like there's some point that the article's trying to make (which is bad enough in itself) by grouping all these statistics. Few of the stats even make mention of sources. The topic itself may be important, but there's nothing here that can't be found elsewhere. --Several Times 13:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to Gender Studies, or given the content of the article, perhaps a Disambig would be better (Gender Studies, Sexism). Pockets and mail-order catalogues aside, this is a laundry list of what seems to be undocumented and unexplained (not unexplainable) differences in the US. Example: Women live longer (mostly) (no sources) and Men pay more for insurance (not connected in article) Could we possibly have a less intelligent article, excepting only vanity pages? We already have an article on Sexism.--KillerChihuahua 13:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)