Talk:Women-are-wonderful effect: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Reverted to revision 908204218 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk): Rv LTA (TW) |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Women-are-wonderful effect/Archive 1) (bot |
||
| (23 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|listas=Women-are-wonderful effect| |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Gender |
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=Mid|attention=no|needs-infobox=no|needs-image=no|needs-photo=no}} |
||
{{WikiProject Discrimination |
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Women's History| |
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=Mid|needs-image=no|needs-photo=no}} |
||
{{WikiProject Men's Issues| |
{{WikiProject Men's Issues|attention=no}} |
||
{{WikiProject Psychology |importance=Mid |attention=no |needs-infobox=no}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
| Line 13: | Line 14: | ||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
||
|algo = old(365d) |
|algo = old(365d) |
||
|archive = Talk:Women |
|archive = Talk:Women-are-wonderful effect/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
== WAW sarcasm? == |
|||
== This article is polluted by feminism == |
|||
Shoud there be at least a paragraph of the most used context of WAW-effect today? |
|||
Ah, the unconscious trait to regard women more wonderful than men is, of course, a sign of how women are regarded less wonderful than men. Of course. Could someone, please, remove the feminist pollution from this article? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.222.108.56|80.222.108.56]] ([[User talk:80.222.108.56|talk]]) 09:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
For those of you who live without a connection to teen world, then be informed, that this effect (women are wonderful) and especially its acronym (WAW) has become almost global sarcastic expression when "double standards" are implemented in favor of or due to women. It's also often given as the explanation to a question of why e.g. by replying "because waw". |
|||
At least I wasn't able to get any meaningfull references in Google, but that's because it lives in Discord, WhatsApp, Telegram etc... <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.153.213.133|91.153.213.133]] ([[User talk:91.153.213.133#top|talk]]) 10:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
{{RPA}}[[Special:Contributions/109.175.105.166|109.175.105.166]] ([[User talk:109.175.105.166|talk]]) 06:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:I have read the article and cannot find the "logic" you attribute to it. Could you please give quotes where the article says that? --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 06:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:: It's in the lede. The article says that "Both male and female participants tend to assign positive traits to women, with female participants showing a far more pronounced bias." The article then goes on to suggest that this is sexist against women. So women are biased in favor of women and this is actually a form of sexism against women? I have no doubt that this is the fault of the patriarchy. --[[User:Wikiman2718|Wikiman2718]] ([[User talk:Wikiman2718|talk]]) 15:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::Still don't get it. You say "it's in the lede" but then go on to say what exactly is in the lede, which does not contain the supposed "logic". Then you say "the article then goes on", implying that the "logic" is not in the lede but further down, without saying where exactly it is supposed ot be. And I still cannot find it. Please note that "sexist against women" is not the same as "women are regarded less wonderful than men". --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 06:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::: You seem to be confusing me with the IP that started this thread. --[[User:Wikiman2718|Wikiman2718]] ([[User talk:Wikiman2718|talk]]) 09:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I am not. It was you who said "it's in the lede", with the word "it" clearly referring to the "logic" the IPs talked about. If you wanted to say something else, you should have put it differently. Or preferrably started a new thread. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 07:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: The IP said nothing about logic, and my phrasing was clear. Maybe I will start a new thread. --[[User:Wikiman2718|Wikiman2718]] ([[User talk:Wikiman2718|talk]]) 14:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:<s>@[[User:109.175.105.166|109.175.105.166]] I hereby ask you to strike through your personal attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility). If you don't expect a report at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.</s> [[User:Wallby|Wallby]] ([[User talk:Wallby|talk]]) 10:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Criticism of the [[“Women are wonderful” effect#Controversy|Controversy]] section == |
|||
::I found out about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:RPA and applied it here.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Wallby|Wallby]] ([[User talk:Wallby#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wallby|contribs]]) 10:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|||
This section is a mess. What is "the original study"? |
|||
Why is an encyclopedia speculating about possible "malignant and regressive effects on women's welfare"? This claim should be removed per [[WP:OR]]. |
|||
Nothing in the quoted sources supports the claim that WaW effect "doesn't diminish backlash against women in leadership roles"; this claim should be removed per [[WP:OR]]. |
|||
[[User:AfungusAmongus|AfungusAmongus]] ([[User talk:AfungusAmongus|talk]]) 23:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Criticism section - unnecessary padding and illusion of more flaws through circular reasoning == |
|||
:I want to have the WaW effect contextualized; obviously, sexism against women still exists. But yeah, I pitched the whole rest of that controversy section. [[User:Red Slash|<font color="#FF4131">Red </font>]][[User talk:Red Slash|<b><font color="#460121">Slash</font></b>]] 19:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Parts about ''"Some authors have claimed the "Women are wonderful" effect is applicable when women follow traditional gender roles"'' and ''"Several scholars have argued that the "women are wonderful" effect might be better phrased as "women are wonderful when" effect"'' - are quite literally about the same proposed effect, but edited in such a way to create an illusion of a greater number of flaws.<br> |
|||
From the second cited source: <br> |
|||
''"Thus, a way of synthesizing these lines of research is to dub it "the women are wonderful when" effect - when they are not in power. |
|||
That is, women are wonderful provided they are communal and stick to traditional female roles (Eagly & Diekman, this volume)."''<br><br> |
|||
Meanwhile, the OTHER source cited is the same source cited in the previous paragraph '''AS A REFUTATION''' of such an effect.<br> |
|||
I.e. The entire criticism section is about a single point, disguised as multiple points, being both supported AND refuted by citing a singular source for both points of view. [[Special:Contributions/109.175.105.166|109.175.105.166]] ([[User talk:109.175.105.166|talk]]) 06:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Logically wrong statement == |
||
"... found that the effect decreased the higher a country's measure of gender equality. This effect seemed to be due to men being viewed less negatively the more egalitarian a country was rather than women being viewed more positively." |
|||
For this statement to make sense, 'more' at the end would need to be changed into 'less' (or otherwise would need to be rephrased). I looked at the abstract of the source, and this is indeed how the authors meant it (obviously). So I changed it. |
|||
This article appears to be plagued with issues regarding neutrality. This page should be a lot shorter based on the amount of cited information from sources. |
|||
--[[User:Felix Tritschler|Felix Tritschler]] ([[User talk:Felix Tritschler|talk]]) 22:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Please check the revision history for validation of this. As an example, in the 'empirical evidence' section, a new paragraph was added recently to point out that women were considered inept at the workplace. |
|||
There is certainly plenty of space on wikipedia, as well as articles where gender studies in the workplace where this data is relevant and should be included and described, but it simply doesn't belong on '''this''' page. After editing and fixing this, the previous author went to give the entire article an effective re-write with many more examples of female victimhood. This article needs to remain neutral, and focus on the core aspects of the WAW phenomenon. The edits were effectively off topic, and derail from describing the phenomenon to place the focus elsewhere. |
|||
[[User:Jrockets|Jrockets]] ([[User talk:Jrockets|talk]]) 04:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Please, do read the links I've provided. Because all I did was use the sources talking about “Women are wonderful” effect. I'm not actually sure this should even be a separate article since it's really just a small part of what sociologist call benevolent sexism. Also, a huge ton of the “Women are wonderful” effect is tied into women and their issues with work. Those are what the studies are about. The only reason I can tell for all these issues is the article has been so poorly researched previously. ''Why aren't you giving any links???'' <font color="#D60000">[[User:MurderByDeadcopy|'''<i>MurderByDeadcopy</i>''']]</font><sup><font color="Black">[[User talk:MurderByDeadcopy|<i>"bang!"</i>]]</font></sup> 04:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
I have checked the links, the issue is not with your sources, it is the content that you are choosing to cherry pick and add to the page that is simply not relevant. It is rather distracting. I think some of the changes that you submitted were good corrections for the page overall, but the article itself is not a study of women in the workplace. It is discussing the WAW effect, and specifically any empirical evidence for the effect itself. The scope of this article is too small to be expanded into a full "women in the workplace" study, it's simply beyond the scope of the article. In addition, the (+4,468) edit effectively re-wrote half of the article with an extreme number of changes. All of those proposed changes should be discussed on talk. |
|||
They shouldn't simply be bulk applied accepted as the one true edit, then anyone who wants to revert them has to provide proof. |
|||
Here's another example, in one of the edits that's simply off topic: |
|||
→which suggests that people's stereotypes of [[women]] were more positive than their stereotypes of [[men]], ''although both sexes were viewed as positive.'' |
|||
While certainly the research may find that both sexes are viewed as positive, it is simply an off topic statement injected into the description header - it doesn't need to be there and it detracts from the main point of the WAW effect. |
|||
[[User:Jrockets|<span style="color: red">'''J'''</span><span style="color: black">'''Rockets☯'''</span>]] [[User talk:JRockets|<span style="color: green">talk</span>]] 05:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
: And just what is it that you are trying to prove? Because all I did was research the subject... and almost all of it relates to work. That's exactly what Eagly's main focal point is - finding what causes create the gender wage gap. Also I believe it was only like .08% better than the men that only began in 1987. This phenomenon didn't exist in the 1970's and effect was reversed in 1950's. Only two studies exist and the second one was an on-line study. Also, I didn't add things like men are considered the default, superior gender even though that was also in those links. Nor did I add |
|||
→which suggests that people's stereotypes of [[women]] were more positive than their stereotypes of [[men]], ''although both sexes were viewed as positive.'' |
|||
:which was part of the original study and should be included here. Or, just whom is this study comparing women to? I also am highly amused by this huge "push" to keep this idea of a traditional gender role as being positive. Other info found within the links I added is feminist are the most egalitarian, however, women who endorse traditional roles more frequently experience frustrating interactions in which men exercise their dominance, creating greater resentment to men.<ref name="bad_but_bold">http://www.researchgate.net/publication/8545830_Bad_but_Bold_Ambivalent_Attitudes_Toward_Men_Predict_Gender_Inequality_in_16_Nations</ref> Even how this article is used against women by the men's rights/the red pill groups already proves the idea "injection of female victimhood" already exists. I didn't do that - it's already there. If you truly want to delete that aspect, I believe it would be best to merge this with ambivalent sexism as an example of benevolent sexism. <font color="#D60000">[[User:MurderByDeadcopy|'''<i>MurderByDeadcopy</i>''']]</font><sup><font color="Black">[[User talk:MurderByDeadcopy|<i>"bang!"</i>]]</font></sup> 05:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Regarding this reference: "Bad but Bold: Ambivalent Attitudes Toward Men Predict Gender Inequality in 16 Nations" <ref name="bad_but_bold"/>. This statement seems well supported by experimental evidence: |
|||
"A growing body of research demonstrates not only that people in high-status groups typically show strong in-group favoritism but also that low-status group members often exhibit less in-group favoritism or even exhibit out-group-favoring biases on general evaluative measures." |
|||
:but the third paragraph attempts to rationalize the assumption of female victimhood in the face of the disconfirming evidence presented by the set of studies behind the Women are Wonderful effect: |
|||
"How can men be both privileged and viewed less positively than women? One possibility is that hostility toward men reflects the increasing delegitimization of men’s greater status and power." |
|||
:Occams razor<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor</ref> suggests a simpler explanation: The victim assumption is unmerited. Women are the high-status group. [[User:Waylonflinn|Waylonflinn]] ([[User talk:Waylonflinn|talk]]) 16:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:: Let's finish |
|||
→"How can men be both privileged and viewed less positively than women? One possibility is that hostility toward men reflects the increasing delegitimization of men’s greater status and power." |
|||
:: that thought... |
|||
→the less favorable evaluation of men (in comparison to women) stems from beliefs that reflect and perhaps even reinforce men’s higher status by suggesting that male dominance is inevitable. |
|||
:: It's one 16 page article. At least read the last paragraph below. |
|||
→Intuitively, one might expect that hostile attitudes toward dominants and benevolent attitudes toward subordinates would be endorsed more strongly in relatively egalitarian as opposed to hierarchical societies. In the case of gender, however, hostile (as well as benevolent) attitudes toward men and benevolent (as well as hostile) attitudes toward women reflect highly traditional attitudes that predict structural indicators of gender inequality. Al-though men may be evaluated less positively than women (by men and women alike), these attitudes hold little promise for greater equality so long as the basis for hostility toward men is the belief that they will inevitably and naturally retain greater status and power and the basis for benevolence toward women is paternalistic solicitude toward the supposedly weaker sex. |
|||
:: Also, trying to prove this thought concept... |
|||
→Women are the high-status group. |
|||
:: while this statement is still true... |
|||
→Fewer Women Run Big Companies Than Men Named John<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/upshot/fewer-women-run-big-companies-than-men-named-john.html</ref> |
|||
:: or the fact that the USA has never had an elected woman president in a country that still says, "All men are created equal," will be a difficult one! <font color="#D60000">[[User:MurderByDeadcopy|'''<i>MurderByDeadcopy</i>''']]</font><sup><font color="Black">[[User talk:MurderByDeadcopy|<i>"bang!"</i>]]</font></sup> 19:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::: Or the simple fact that statistically girls do better than boys all across the globe on average, but if you only look at top performers, situation is reversed. Men also tend to more easily take risks than women. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.119.35.87|84.119.35.87]] ([[User talk:84.119.35.87#top|talk]]) 12:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
Latest revision as of 19:15, 17 November 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Women-are-wonderful effect article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
WAW sarcasm?
[edit]Shoud there be at least a paragraph of the most used context of WAW-effect today? For those of you who live without a connection to teen world, then be informed, that this effect (women are wonderful) and especially its acronym (WAW) has become almost global sarcastic expression when "double standards" are implemented in favor of or due to women. It's also often given as the explanation to a question of why e.g. by replying "because waw".
At least I wasn't able to get any meaningfull references in Google, but that's because it lives in Discord, WhatsApp, Telegram etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.213.133 (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed)109.175.105.166 (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@109.175.105.166 I hereby ask you to strike through your personal attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility). If you don't expect a report at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.Wallby (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
- I found out about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:RPA and applied it here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallby (talk • contribs) 10:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Criticism section - unnecessary padding and illusion of more flaws through circular reasoning
[edit]Parts about "Some authors have claimed the "Women are wonderful" effect is applicable when women follow traditional gender roles" and "Several scholars have argued that the "women are wonderful" effect might be better phrased as "women are wonderful when" effect" - are quite literally about the same proposed effect, but edited in such a way to create an illusion of a greater number of flaws.
From the second cited source:
"Thus, a way of synthesizing these lines of research is to dub it "the women are wonderful when" effect - when they are not in power.
That is, women are wonderful provided they are communal and stick to traditional female roles (Eagly & Diekman, this volume)."
Meanwhile, the OTHER source cited is the same source cited in the previous paragraph AS A REFUTATION of such an effect.
I.e. The entire criticism section is about a single point, disguised as multiple points, being both supported AND refuted by citing a singular source for both points of view. 109.175.105.166 (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Logically wrong statement
[edit]"... found that the effect decreased the higher a country's measure of gender equality. This effect seemed to be due to men being viewed less negatively the more egalitarian a country was rather than women being viewed more positively."
For this statement to make sense, 'more' at the end would need to be changed into 'less' (or otherwise would need to be rephrased). I looked at the abstract of the source, and this is indeed how the authors meant it (obviously). So I changed it. --Felix Tritschler (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
- Start-Class Gender studies articles
- Mid-importance Gender studies articles
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- Start-Class Discrimination articles
- Low-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- Start-Class Women's History articles
- Mid-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles
- Start-Class Men's Issues articles
- Unknown-importance Men's Issues articles
- WikiProject Men's Issues articles
- Start-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles