Talk:Women's rights

modern movement

Women's rights is a good joke Today a disparity in pay for male and female workers still exists. The most remarkable case is that of lilly Ledbetter. Shortly before she was due to retire in 1998 Ledbetter became aware that she was making $3,727 per month, while men doing the same job were paid $4,286 to $5,236 per month. Ledbetter sued. Her lawsuit progresses all the way to the Supreme Court in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), The Court held that according to Title VII, discriminatory intent must occur during the 180-day charging period. In 2007, several Democratic members of Congress introduced the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which revised the law to state that the 180-day statute of limitations for pay discrimination resets with each new discriminatory paycheck. The Fair Pay Act was defeated in April 2008 by Republicans in the Senate who cited the possibility of frivolous lawsuits in their opposition of the bill. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed the Senate, 61-36, on January 22, 2009. The votes in favor included every Democratic senator (except Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who was absent from the vote because of health issues) and all four female Republican senators. Every male Republican voted against it except Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, who voted for it. In January 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law bring hopes of equal pay to all American women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialaware (talk • contribs) 04:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rape and sexual violence

While the extensive text under this heading is well written, is any of it actually relevant to this article? It seems all about war/genocide and is surely more relevant to an article on war crimes than to an article on rights. I propose replacing it with a more germane text on rights within the context of domestic violence, abusive relationships and/or forced sex within marriage. Ephebi (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

the status of american women

there is no rights for american women! Back then, women were not allowed to vote. Women always argued but, when ever they do, they would always end up in jail. But now it's all good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.118.13 (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive

I hope you don't mind that I began to archive this talk page. You can continue in the same format, if you desire. Though by sheer numbers, there was not very much on this talk page, the age of the first comments may prove to renew disputes that were already rectified. Happy Editing! Rmosler | ● 17:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Improve structure

I am trying to improve the structure by reorganising the material. Help welcome.--SasiSasi (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi SasiSasi, I have a quick question about your reference to "Dr. Badawin" do you mean Dr Jamal Bawai? Also which book are you referring to. I'm asking because the current way it is referenced is not good enough (see WP:CITE all information on a source must be given, book title, publication date, page no. etc)--Cailil ^talk 17:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, the reference in the article is as follows:

Dr. Badawi, Jamal A. (September 1971), "The Status of Women in Islam", Al-Ittihad Journal of Islamic Studies, 8 (2)

I think that is good enough.

I can add his full name to the article where he is quoted....--SasiSasi (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Switzerland gave women the right to vote in 1971, not 1871

{{editsemiprotected}} Switzerland gave women the right to vote in 1971, not 1871.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Niels2k (talk • contribs) 12:10, 19 August 2009

 Done Welcome and thanks for spotting that. Celestra (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Turkey

{{editsemiprotected}} Turkey gave women the right to vote in 1930.

Turkey is not currently mentioned in the article. If you would like it mentioned in the article, please specify where, the wording you want, and preferably a reliable source, so this can be verified. Once you have done that, please to replace the {{editsemiprotected}} tag. Intelligentsium 23:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

TURKEY GAVE WOMEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN 1930,PLS ADD IT TO ARTICLE. I don't know how can I do it:(

Turkey gave women the right to vote in 1930.(Source:http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/suffrage.htm)

TURKEY GAVE WOMEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN 1930 AND THE RIGHT FULL RIGHTS TO VOTE AND TO BE ELECTED IN 1934. BE DEMOCRATIC PLEASE!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selcuktopal (talk • contribs) 13:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Elitism and Relevance of information

"Progress was made in professional opportunities. Fields such as medicine, law, and science opened to include more women. At the beginning of the 20th century about 5% of the doctors in the United States were women. As of 2006, over 38% of all doctors in the United States were women, and today, women make almost 50% of the medical student population. While the numbers of women in these fields increased, many women still continued to hold clerical, factory, retail, or service jobs. For example, they worked as office assistants, on assembly lines, or as cooks.[40][41]"

This comes off as very elitist; "medicine, law, and science" are grouped together and mention is made of female expansion in these fields however "clerical, factory, retail, or service jobs" are left as an endnote with no expression of the impact women have had on these fields. In combination with the topic sentence "Progress was made" yet "While the numbers of women in these fields increased, many women still continued to hold clerical, factory, retail, or service jobs" this appears to make the implication that some women have not progressed into more lucrative and competitive fields.

Some of the information under Rape and Sexual Violence is only mildly relevant and is addressed more appropriately and thoroughly in other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.248.41 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"During his life, Muhammad married eleven or thirteen women ..."

What is the relevancy of this being mentioned in the article? How does it help us understand women's rights during the time of Muhammad? Faro0485 (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Unnecessary info removed and the rest reorganized into the end of the first paragraph of that section--Cailil ^talk 20:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

only

I don't understand why the world "only" appears in this sentence, "Switzerland only gave women the right to vote in 1971, and Liechtenstein in 1984." It reads the same with or without it. The difference being that the subjectivity is removed by removing the word "only". think about it, whoever wrote it with the word "only" is determining for themselves when they think is exceptionally late for women to be able to vote. would the editor put the word "only" in if Switzerland allowed women to vote in 1965? It seems like they definitely wouldn't have if it was 1960 since the word "only" doesn't appear in the sentence about Nigeria. Someone with editing ability on this article please remove the word "only" from the sentence in question, or unlock the page for editing so I can. Thank you. 98.204.199.107 (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Abortion

I very much so am assuming good faith. I do, however, have a huge concern about the bias in the Abortion section of Women's rights. It seems very odd to me that two lengthy paragraphs and three lengthy quotes are used about people that support abortion rights, while only one sentence is used to show the existence of opposition to abortion. It appears that the editor of that section is trying to make it appear like abortion opposers are few and far between and their only argument against abortion is religious in nature, or, is a "moral evil". Either the pro-abortion statements should be condensed or the pro-life defense portion should be expanded. Someone with editing ability on this article please fix this issue, or unlock the page for editing so I can. Thank you. 98.204.199.107 (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)