body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

references section very lengthy[edit]

The references on this topic are going to get very lengthy. The topic badly needs to be split into sub-topics on women in individual professional areas. --Lquilter (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: Searching Amazon for "women in the professions" leads to more than 9,760 items on the topic, mostly books. [1] That's just books indexed in Amazon. The literature in journals will be, of course, incredibly lengthy. Suggestions on how to break these topics down other than by individual profession? --Lquilter (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also find the list of recommended reading, even with subheadings by occupation, too lengthy. Each occupation's list would be better moved to a separate article on that particular topic -- Women in engineering, Women in philosophy, etc. In my opinion, anyway. OttawaAC (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sections for this article[edit]

I started this article with a brief summary at the top, but doing a cursory review of the literature has suggested some sections for the article.

There are lots of other sub-topics to women in the workforce. Thoughts on how to arrange, and other missing subtopics? --Lquilter (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Women's participation in different occupations" section needs to be converted into a navigation template (preferably footer style). Kaldari (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Women in the workforce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source about workplace discrimination of female. This article is a good explanation of women's inequalities in the workplace. "THE DISRUPTERS. By: KOLHATKAR, SHEELAH, New Yorker, 0028792X, 11/20/2017, Vol. 93, Issue 37"Mengrui Li (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split out bibliography to a separate article?[edit]

This article's bibliography is huge—the longest I've seen. It may be time to WP:SPLITOUT the bibliography to a separate article, like the other bibliography articles in Wikipedia:List of bibliographies? Biogeographist (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American figure in the introduction[edit]

"In 2017 there are around 74.6 million women in the civilian labor force[4]."

What is the interest of having this passage in the introduction? This figure is about the US's female workforce not worldwide. As such, it should be removed.

176.158.146.38 (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed it. I agree that it serves no purpose, and the article is about women in the world's workforce -- not women in the United States workforce. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When was the pre-modern era? I couldn't find a definition online.[edit]

This is of course because of the problem added in 2020. Oakime (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gaquach (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Peinini (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

citations[edit]

I added inline citations where it was marked as inline citations needed. --Gaquach (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]