Talk:Female Chauvinist Pigs

This article was nominated for deletion on October 11, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Feminism Low‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Could this article be more neutrally cast?

It reads a little like it's been written by people who particularly don't agree with Levy's positions. For example, the quote about Cake is not a particularly revealing, nor is calling them 'Lipstick feminists' - does Levy actually use this term? Specialknives (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

added a tiny edit by referencing Cake

hope this is fine. Just randomly going around adding edits other pages so i can get a feel for wikipedia.

cheers, --ToasterCoster (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link to "Cake" doesn't add to the clarity of that sentence. Is she using "cake" to mean a reference to "have your cake and eat it too"? In any case, I think the link should be demoted to plaintext. Bipedalpedia (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree. The link doesn't make any sense at all. I can't even find a link to the referenced group on the disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.3.54 (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article name change?

Wondering if the article name should be changed to Raunch Culture, with the book title as the redirect (rather than vice versa, as now), as the term RC seems to be gaining general acceptance, at least in Australia, US & UK Jacobisq (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe two articles? AnnisStead (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very Poorly Written

Can someone, for instance, translate the following sentence into English? "Marcuse's intuition of the increased role of sexuality in advanced industrialism[5] was thereafter increasingly confirmed by a pragmatic alliance between neo-liberalism and the commodification of sexuality." - Who is Marcuse, what is all this about? 173.217.202.38 (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcuse is, apparently, the author of One-Dimensional Man. The editor appears to be saying that Marcuse predicted the 'increased role of sexuality in advanced industrialism' because of an increase in agreement between (I don't see how this is an alliance) neo-liberals (which wikipedia defines as those who believe in free market economics) and the commodification (a made-up word, which is superfluous since 'commercialisation' [perhaps with a modifier] is perfectly adequate) of sexuality. Yes, the article is appallingly written, but then so may be the book about which it is written. Tweet7 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tweet7. It was pompous indeed. Zezen (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A hyperlink with an incorrect destination URL

The sole entry now -- (as of the "02:03, 2 December 2021" revision) -- in the "External links" section, is displayed as: (call this "[DT1]") :

Jess Moore, 'Raunch culture, sex and sexuality'

but it links to (call this "[U1]") :

https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46337

which is apparently not -- at this time -- the correct internet address (or, 'URL'); ... since, (apart from the "domain name" ['www.greenleft.org.au'] part of the 'href' field value), it -- and the web page that it now points to -- both seem to be completely unrelated to anything in the display text.

Perhaps at one time in the past, there was some internet address for this hyperlink, that was formatted like [U1] (ending with "slash node slash 5-digit number"), and it worked OK then ... to point to the content now found at (call this "[U2]") :

https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/raunch-culture-sex-and-sexuality

However, ... it might not have [ever] been the one currently being linked to (see "[U1]"), and the URL "[U2]" does work OK, and it points to a web page that seems to fit very well with the display text [DT1].

While, on the other hand, the URL "[U1]" now leads to some web page about "Australia — world's biggest climate vandal" [?!] which does not seem consistent with the display text [DT1] at all.

In my opinion the display text [DT1] is probably correct, but the "destination" URL of the hyperlink is wrong (and ... even if [U1] was ever correct [at some time in the past?] ... that was then and this is now) so ... IMHO the "destination" URL of the hyperlink should now be changed to point to [U2] instead.

Any comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]