Talk:Women-are-wonderful effect
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: 365 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article is polluted by feminism
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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.108.56 (talk) 09:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Seconded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:449:C000:F979:8DBC:9F73:93D0:A1 (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thirded. 2605:6000:1706:8681:DD73:64D4:CC44:ECD5 (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2019 (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? --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. --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". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- You seem to be confusing me with the IP that started this thread. --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. --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. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 14:37, 27 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. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- You seem to be confusing me with the IP that started this thread. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 09:20, 19 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". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:55, 19 July 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. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Criticism of the Controversy section
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. AfungusAmongus (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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. Red Slash 19:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The source for "Other authors have cited studies indicating that the women-are-wonderful effect is still applicable even when women are in nontraditional gender roles." says the opposite. That "The mere thought of being subservient to a woman was sufficient to downgrade the positive attitudes that men typically have for women." That statement should be removed. Sewblon (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Injection of female victimhood
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. 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.
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??? MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 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.
JRockets☯ talk 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.[1] 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. MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 05:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding this reference: "Bad but Bold: Ambivalent Attitudes Toward Men Predict Gender Inequality in 16 Nations" [1]. 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[2] suggests a simpler explanation: The victim assumption is unmerited. Women are the high-status group. 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[3]
- 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! MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.119.35.87 (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
References
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)
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...
- Stub-Class Gender studies articles
- Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- Stub-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
- Stub-Class Men's Issues articles
- Unknown-importance Men's Issues articles
- WikiProject Men's Issues articles