Tag Archives: feminist

wikipedia and the gender neutral voice

I recently came across a tool that has been around for a couple of years. GenderAnalyzer claims that it can determine the gender of the author of any text that you point it to. It learns to do this by looking at thousands of blogs and the corresponding gender of the author.

Give it a try: genderanalyzer.com

As of today, it looks like it has a 63% success rate; not impressive but better than chance. Leaving aside how serious we should take this particular tool, many feel that men and women write differently. These different performances of gender through the creation of text can be documented and predicted. This study concludes,

[…] females use many more pronouns and males use many more noun specifiers. […] female writing exhibits greater usage of features identified by previous researchers as “involved” while male writing exhibits greater usage of features which have been identified as “informational”.

All of this made me think of how Wikipedia strives for a “neutral point of view” in its articles. That is, “without bias.” For fun, I picked some Wikipedia articles and ran them through the GenderAnalyzer to see if they were deemed male, neutral or female. Results indicate a strong male bias in my very small and non-random sample:

  • Male: Coffee; bell hooks; oil; love; hip hop; rugby football; philosophy; sex; web 2.0; sexism; feminism; WNBA; Ani DiFranco; men’s health; welding; women’s suffrage.
  • Gender neutral: Childbirth; bread; donuts; gravity.
  • Female: Quilt; knitting.

Whatever the validity or reliability of GenderAnalyzer, the research cited above begs the question of how Wikipedia would best be organized given different male and female writing styles. Would the ideal Wikipedia contain only the gender neutral voice? Or would it strive for a more even distribution of male and female voices throughout?

Finally, is Wikipedia’s effort to achieve a “neutrality” a male endeavor? Some feminist epistemologists (Gilligan, Harding, etc.) have argued that objectivity and value-disinterestedness are inherently male. Thus, is the neutral voice actually quite gendered? ~nathan

Is Palin a Feminist Icon?

by P Threlfall

The questions raised from the sudden rise of Sarah Palin to political prominence has forced many, who consider themselves feminist, to re-examine the definition of feminist and construct some baseline idea of what constitutes carrying the moniker.  This isn’t a new struggle, but it’s one that has primarily been confined to the halls of Women’s Studies departments and the pages of social journals for many years. 

Enter Palin and all bets are off.  Suddenly feminists are forced to question what it is that feminism stands for.  If it is political power, then Palin is an icon standing toe to toe with Hillary Clinton.  If it is promoting equity for women, then Palin fails the litmus test.  Opinions vary. 

Palin doesn’t hold the same ideologies that traditionally constitute feminism, but she has reignited the discussions, and that may very well designate her as a feminist icon- as some in academia are beginning to argue.  Is feminism a paradigm that is confined to a set of ideologies?  Is feminism a strategy of action? Or is feminism forging a new territory where, as third wavers have argued, feminism is simply about honoring every perspective that emerges from the experiences of women? 

Regardless of what anyone says, it can be argued that Sarah Palin has pressed buttons- and ultimately, that may be the most feminist thing a woman can do.  Is Sarah Palin a feminist icon? You decide.

Pearl Green on The Feminist Consciousness