Talk:Women-are-wonderful effect

Are the "who?"s in the Criticism section necessary?

It seems to me that the answer of "who" in reference to "authors" and "scholars" are answered in the references at the end of their respective sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4402:570:8D9F:F570:953B:9896 (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Then the statements in question should be attributed to those authors specifically. See WP:WEASEL. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

WAW sarcasm?

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)

Oh! Is that so? Well why didn't you say so right away then? Someone somewhere said something in some chat app!? By Grabthar's Hammer, what a relevance! Would you like your Nobell Prize in Memeing and Chatology with or withmore ketchup?
Am I being too sarcastic? I can never tell.109.175.105.166 (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

See also

I added Male expendability and Gender empathy gap to the See also section. Just thought they were missing. I can't quite figure out if they used to be there or not, or if they were taken out for good reason? Oathed (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Criticism section - unnecessary padding and illusion of more flaws through circular reasoning

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)