Talk:Female Chauvinist Pigs
|WikiProject Books||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Feminism||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on October 11, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.|
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)
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.
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)
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 was thereafter increasingly confirmed by a pragmatic alliance between neo-liberalism and the commodification of sexuality." - Who is Marcuse, what is all this about? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- 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)