This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
To the anon 190 editor, I am the anon 76 editor. I did not revert your edit, I changed them. I agree that the original wording was perhaps not NPOV, but I think your edit over compensated, so in good faith I made changes in the interest of further neutrality. The language I used is neutral "can be" instead of "is" and "said to be" instead of "is" I do not believe it is also necessary to toss in superfluous "according to her" and "supposedly" every other word, which I believe crosses the line from neutral to borderline discrediting an academically respected idea. I will refrain from editing the intro for a time to give you a chance to possibly restore my edits, or compromise with a new edit you feel works better. But eventually I do believe the wording can be changed. 76.103.47.66 (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. The original reason why I changed the lead was to make it clear that not everyone believes that absolutely all women are subjugated to the means explained in the article and that not everyone believes that Western societies are patriarchical. It is not my intention to question or discredit Ås's ideas, but rather to clarify that those are solely her own. I am open to suggestions on how to improve the lead. Meanwhile, how do these examples sound to you?
Example 1: The master suppression techniques were a framework articulated in the late 1970s by the Norwegian social psychologist Berit Ås[1] to describe five means by which, according to her, women can be subjugated to in arguably patriarchical Western societies. I included "according to her" to avoid presenting her point of view as a fact beyond all doubt. "Arguably" is necessary since as I said not all scholars are of the opinion that Western societies are patriarchical.
Example 2: The master suppression techniques were a framework articulated in the late 1970s by the Norwegian social psychologist Berit Ås to describe five means by which, according to her, women can be subjugated in a Western patriarchical society. The same sentence as in this edit of yours, but with "according to her" added.
Mind explaining how? I am not ignoring persons in opposition (first technique); I am not portraying the arguments of, or opponents themselves, in a ridiculing fashion (second technique); I am neither excluding anyone from the decision-making process nor knowingly not forwarding information (third technique); I am neither punishing nor belittling the actions of a person (fourth technique); I am neither embarrassing anyone nor insinuating that they are themselves to blame for their position (fifth technique); I am not discussing the appearance of one or several persons (sixth technique); and I am not threatening with or using my physical strength towards one or several persons (seventh and last technique). It seems to me that your accusation lacks any basis in reality. --190.19.104.234 (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, your phrasing does marginalize this topic. "According to her", "supposedly" -- these are hedge words you inserted to attempt to erode Ås' arguments without actually addressing them. You are inserting your own opinions here, claiming to defense some objective position. If you want to argue that western society is not patriarchal or that men do not use these techniques to silence women, this article is not the place to do so :). This article describes Ås' work; it is not a forum for your own opinions. 108.199.240.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
