Talk:Women-are-wonderful effect/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criticism of the "Implications" section

This section is problematic for several reasons:

1) The first statement "It is important to note that a favorable bias does not necessarily result in respect." suggests the desire to downplay the implications rather than list them. Also there is no citation.

2) The statement that discrimination against women exists in the workplace is inadequately cited as the studies mentioned only refer to gender atypical occupations which researches an entirely different phenomenon. The text fails to even mention the findings of the research concerning to what extent men are discriminated against in the same manner.

3) Given that this section discusses the implications of the Women are Wonderful effect, it is surprising to say the least, that one would spend most of the time trying to point out the implications that the effect does not have. If there are none or only very few such implications, then that should simply be noted instead of trying to find counter examples.

4) The second paragraph lacks any citation. The existence of female quota directly contradicts that statement for one.

For these reasons, I believe this entire section needs to be revised and/or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.158.212 (talk) 16:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's simply the "Women are Wonderful" effect in action on the Women are wonderful article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.167.220 (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

− −

Citations needed, also quotations

I have added citations needed to some of the more unbelievable claims (that research in 2004 was the first on subconscious gender bias being the most glaring!) I have also added a section giving more background to the research context of the findings, as it felt a bit lost. I added some quotations from the relevant abstracts to add legitimacy to the entry. I'm not sure if it all saved though. 2001:630:53:B75:9007:4B44:AD3B:B8A3 (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Fen

Source/link down

Sources [2] and [3]: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199328178.001.0001/acprof-9780199328178-chapter-5

Page not found. 213.216.70.34 (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I can find that page. What I can't find is the page that has the actual info about “Women are wonderful” effect. This makes me question this whole wiki article. Why does wiki contain an article with such obvious missing data? Does wiki write an article on every silly sociology sound bite ever said? Why is this a separate article when it should obviously be included in benevolent/ambivalent/hostile sexism. And that's exactly how this article is being used - as hostility towards women by the men's rights/A voice for men/terps groups. MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 16:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The article asserts without citation that the wage gap is a myth

Should this be removed, or allowed to stand because it's in the Controversy section? Ongepotchket (talk)|

Here's a good reference from the U.S. Department of Labor:

"[...] the raw wage gap continues to be used in misleading ways to advance public policy agendas [...]

There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap" Waylonflinn (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Consad really? I would call that an exactly unbiased report. In fact, those who tend to use that report the most are stanch MRA's. This info, however, doesn't need to be in this article. While the “Women are wonderful” effect argues that it is a reason for the existence of the gender gap, there is zero need to add those particular statistics here. MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Source info

@Loodog: I was the one who read & provided that source. This was done long after that sentence that you insist on using. So could you provide a page number or some other info so I can check it out. Or at least some attempt to see what's going on here? It could just be the wording that seems off and could be better phrased. Since this isn't the first time individuals have rephrased this sentence, that's the way I'm leaning. But I'm not clear on this until I see what you're referencing. MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just taking from the abstract

“ Four experiments confirmed that women’s automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men’s and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists ”

--Louiedog (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's the wording that's giving confusing to me. To me, the way you've worded it, it's like the more times men have sex, the greater their in-group bias. Like only one time they have sex, it's not measurable, however, a 1000 times it's much more favorable to women. Actually, when I realize there are 4 studies done and only 1 with these results, none of this seems hardly notable but I suppose if the article is going to discuss one of the four experiments it ought discuss them all to remain fair/neutral. I guess since this is about in-group bias, it could be placed under it's own topic heading too! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 00:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

This article was linked to me and I couldn't help but notice all the biased statements and incorrect citations in it which I have removed.

It has become apparent to me after reviewing this article's history that almost all of this was the result of one user, MurderByDeadcopy, who has repeatedly tried to control this article for their own personal reasons.

The statements I have removed were off topic, unverifiable, or blatantly manipulative. This is not an article to discuss workplace sexism or the definitions of various types of stereotypes. If these topics are somehow relevant then please link to articles discussing those topics rather than expanding this article with several paragraphs of descriptions that are clearly only being used to bias the information.

However, when I did see, is that several citations of statements being added by MurderByDeadcopy do not in fact support those statements. An example of this is their attempt to cite the phrase "women are wonderful when" which is nowhere present in their citation. Simply searching for "wonderful" in that citation shows this as it only shows up twice and not in this context. They also make a statement regarding gender roles and cite a paper discussing gender roles but the statement is not about if gender roles exist or not. The statement is that the effect discussed in this article is tainted by only impacting women in certain roles. This statement requires its own citation, simply citing a paper discussing gender roles is not a proper citation for this information.

It is my opinion that any edits from MurderByDeadcopy should be considered biased going forward.

Somehow this user went from asking why this article should even exist and trying to get it deleted to expanding it with several paragraphs of unnecessary, off topic, and uncited information. I think this alone shows bias let alone the specific examples I mentioned above of false citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.35.134.190 (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• I still believe there is too much undue weight given to this article, but I feared too much grief from MRA's to delete/merge it. I also, had zero idea about the outcome of this article, but you appear to have definite demands regarding gender roles. I just wanted to add more than one RS to the article. The original researchers who coined the phrase, research relationships within the workplace, so much of the research is tied to info about work. If you want to delete the In-Group area, go for it. It was kept due to other editors.
  

I do not appreciate being called a bunch of names so quit. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 10:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You have included irrelevant statements, incorrect citations, and all while saying you don't know why this article is even allowed to exist. So you're simultaneously wanting to expand this article but also eliminate it entirely? This further lays bare your bias regarding this article. The Talk page is already full of several other editors arguing with you regarding this irrelevancy. Then you go on to say "don't call me names, I quit" and then you come back shortly after to continue editing this article. I've never once called you a "name." I've called you biased as evidenced by your own actions. As I just said, how are you wanting to expand this article and also delete it entirely or merge it? All this shows is your real goal is to obfuscate the content of this article through any means necessary.

To quote the Wikipedia:Rules:

"Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is the most important rule in changing pages."

Your actions, in my opinion, clearly indicate that you are biased in your changing of this page and that you should not edit it any further. I hope I don't need to review your other edits as well because I honestly don't want to. I don't care about this article and was only linked here by someone mentioning the "women are wonderful effect" and while reading the article I saw such obvious bias I was curious and checked the Talk page and then decided to go revise the original article to remove that irrelevant wrapper that had been placed around it by you in spite of several other people here complaining about the same thing.

I'm going to let this go because I care about Wikipedia and unbiased editors. Go ahead and appeal this to someone with more authority because until a project administrator tells me to stop reverting your edits OR you actually present a valid reason to include your edits on the Talk page I will continue to remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.35.134.190 (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. Let's get a third party involved. Because I've asked you to stop calling me names and it's clear that you are not going to do that. Every single statement I've added I backed with a reliable source. And eliminated personal injector. Whenever this article gets changed by eliminating sources, that's when the biases occur. More info, not less info on any subject helps to create less bias. Pull from one or two sources and the increase of biases increases.

Like I've said before, I don't believe one example of ambivalent sexism deserves a whole article since it is just a stating of what's already here. I really would enjoy working with someone on this article, however, no one sticks around and reads the sources. It's impossible to work on any article without reading the sources. Usually someone comes along whose pro-MRA or TRP and just wants to slant the article to that bias. Yes it's a terrible thing that society pushes men into aggressive traits, however, it's also a terrible thing that society pushes women into niceness traits. No human wants to be either all the time or judged as being either. There's a whole range of traits and if certain traits are pushed upon one because of gender, resentment happens.

So which one is you? --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 16:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@73.35.134.190:, I think you need to be a lot more specific about why you find the sources for the material you removed inadequate. I have spot-checked a number of the claims and sources that you've removed (several times now), and it looks pretty clear to me that the sources do support the claims made in the article. For example, I'm very confused by your edit summary here, because it looks to me as though the sources in the article do quite clearly support that text. I agree that the reasons for including this citation are somewhat unclear - but that's a reason to remove an out-of-place reference (or, better yet, to ask and discuss here whether there's a reason for it to be there), not a reason to remove easily verifiable (and highly significant) content. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: Ok, we will start with that first edit. The citation is making a claim that the original study specifically said they excluded as a possibility.

Why is it that the original study specifically states the cited statement is invalid?

http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/15/2/203

"In addition, analysis of respondents' emotional reactions toward women and men did not yield evidence of negativity toward women at the emotional level. Nor did it appear that respondents' very positive evaluations of women masked ambivalence toward them."

This is an actual scientific study with surveys, etc. The citation is nothing more than an opinion piece which makes claims that the authors of the study already stated weren't found when they looked for it. Neither does the citation make mention of this fact.

I see someone with credentials on a subject writing an opinion in a journal on a study which already stated their opinion was considered and found invalid. They offer no studies, evidence, or anything beyond the claims made in the synopsis of Chapter 5 that is cited. Note that you can actually read Chapter 5 and you will find nothing to support their statements. Chapter 5 is about Ambivalent Sexism and particularly focuses on hostile sexism.

Never again is the concept revisited as to why hostile sexism means that the women are wonderful effect doesn't apply to all women or that women in nontraditional roles don't benefit from it. Just because women experience both negative or position sexism doesn't change that the women are wonderful effect studied opinions of women as a general group and found significant in-group bias as reported.

If the author had somehow conducted a study to show how when asked about women in nontraditional roles the in-group bias changed we would have something worthy of citation. They don't do this though, all that is offered is their opinion which was slapped down by the authors of the original study before they even penned it. No studies, no references, nothing.

I wouldn't even mind if this opinion was included but its not mentioned as a controversial view towards this study. It is presented as factual which it clearly isn't. Its a minority viewpoint which Wikipedia seems to have a desire to include but it is presented as fact.

Again the current text:

"Studies found the "Women are wonderful" works when women follow traditional gender roles such as child nurturing and stay at home housewife.[4] Several scholars have argued that the "women are wonderful" effect might be better phrased as "women are wonderful when" effect, with the "when" meaning when women are not in charge."

Which studies? There were no studies cited. Citation 4 is not a study or anything approaching a study. Oxford Scholarship is not a research journal.

Several scholars have argued that this thing the original authors of the study stated that they considered and didn't find is actually true? Ok, and what proof is there of that? Nothing except their opinion.

Also I'll add that going back months now this has been an issue. To quote this very talk page back in July.

"This section is a mess. What is "the original study"? "

Even back then, in different sections, old copy, yadda yadda, there is this "study" or "studies" being used to present the idea that the women are wonderful effect isn't real because women in nontraditional roles get no benefit from it.

There is NO STUDY. There is nothing to back up any of these views that are being injected into this article.

It is very clear by this entire Talk page that certain people are biased and attempting to manipulate this page to try to make it sound like the women are wonderful effect isn't real while offering absolutely nothing to back these claims up. Repeatedly the text is written in a way to make it sound like this is definitely factual. Its definitely true that women in nontraditional roles don't experience this benefit they state repeatedly. Yet where are the studies? What makes this anything more than opinion?

I'm curious, at what point does the overwhelming number of people on the Talk page claiming bias cause you to actually act on it? Again, there are NO STUDIES. If there are please cite them and until then this entire claim needs to be removed from this article because it is incredibly misleading and the citations being used are "sciency" while offering nothing of actual substance. They are equivalent to a blog post being retained by something resembling an academic journal which specifically states it is a content aggregator and not an academic peer reviewed journal.

On top of all this the view that is constantly trying to be injected here was already claimed to not have been found in the original study by the original authors. None of these citations or statements ever mention this or explain why or how they are contesting the claims in the original study that they already controlled for the idea that people would be masking conflicting ideals regarding women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

What is OR?

"material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist."

What is a reliable source?

Peer-reviewed journals

Books published by university presses University-level textbooks Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses

Mainstream newspapers

What are you not allowed to do when using a source?

"reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research"

The source citation does not directly or explicitly support the statement. It simply repeats it and reading Chapter 5 confirms it does not support it in any sense.

Citing a source which states the same thing again but offers no actual support of the statement and is behind a pay wall so no one can easily verify what is really said in support of the statement being made.. is original research.

Would anyone like to show where in Chapter 5 the statements we are needing support for are actually supported in any way other than simply being repeated? Support is not repetition while you move between irrelevant topics.

I may have missed it, its entirely possible. Which actual study was done to support the statement "the women are wonderful effect does not apply to women in nontraditional gender roles" and where is it mentioned in Chapter 5?

We can see inside Chapter 5 here at least partially.

http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Misogyny-Anti-Feminism-Post-Feminist-Era/dp/019932817X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454659272&sr=8-1&keywords=modern+misogyny#reader_019932817X

Is this what a source is on Wikipedia? Having to dredge through Look Inside on Amazon to try to find the supporting information to verify it?

Anyway here is what I find...

First, an assertion that all men and women hold ambivalent attitudes towards women. Nothing supports this claim and there is that same terminology the original study says they didn't find.

Then the author claims "studys" find that women are held higher in society. They then claim that "when we scratch the surface" we'll find out that only applies to women in traditional gender roles.

Now the author says the chapter will be about examining attitudes towards nontraditional women. Wait, hold on a minute. I thought we were going to find out that the women are wonderful effect only applies to women in traditional gender roles? Except now we're only going to examine attitudes towards nontraditional women. Attitudes towards nontraditional women are not representative of the women are wonderful effect not applying for them. Does +10 and -5 equal 0? No. It equals 5. Nothing being said ever supports the claim that this effect isn't still relevant to all women.

Some definitions of hostile/benevolent sexism.

Another repeated claim that "people tend to feel hostile sexism towards women who violate traditional gender roles and benevolent sexism towards conventional women. Nothing supports this statement, its just repetition again.

Unsupported claim that "benevolent sexism can result in the women are wonderful effect (true) in that traditional women are considered to be appealing due to their gentleness, blah blah blah. (unsupported statement)" Again, repeating this line does not make it true. That is three times now that the author repeats this claim while offering nothing to support it.

So far this article in repetition of that statement regarding WAW only applying to traditional gender roles intermixed with other information regarding sexism and studies on hostile/benevolent sexism occurance betwenn genders and so on. Nothing that actually relates to the repeated statement regarding WAW for traditional gender roles only.

More text on benevolent/hostile sexism, blah blah blah. Nothing supporting the claim. Chapter cuts, pages missing, more and more information on examples of sexism both benevolent or hostile.

Like I said, nothing ever supports the statement being cited. The statement is merely repeated several times and setup to be explained with no actual explaination. Each time it is brought up it is treated as factual and then the topic changes to studying nontraditional women.

The WAW effect never claimed women don't face sexism. This citation does not support the statement we need supported, it merely repeats it often.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.35.134.190 (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, there's a lot to respond to here, but to start:

• The study you cited at the beginning of your comment is not one of the studies cited for the content that you removed, and it's also 26 years old. The scholarship has moved on/advanced considerably since then - just because you think that one (now very old) source doesn't support what the article says doesn't invalidate the newer, eminently reliable sources that are cited in the article.
• The source you call an "opinion piece" is an peer reviewed, academic monograph published by Oxford University Press, and written by a professor of Psychology at the University of Houston. It's undoubtedly a reliable source, and emphatically not an "opinion piece."
• Your suggestion that there are "no studies" supporting the content is neither here nor there - wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not on your own evaluation of which sources have weight. I spent all of 2 minutes in my university's library catalogue and found multiple, reliable academic sources that support the content.

That's all I'll say for now - might want to read WP:TLDR before responding, that was an awful long post you wrote - it often pays to be clear and concise (not to mention civil and polite) on talk page discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying, btw, that the article is perfect or anything. It clearly needs work, and for the record I think a merge with the article on ambivalent sexism does merit serious consideration - but the focus should be on improving, rather than removing content. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix:

You misunderstand. The study I'm citing is the study that found the Women Are Wonderful effect. It specifically states that the claims being made about it not applying to nontraditional women were not found when they did the original study. You don't find it questionable that the study this article is on states that the unfounded claims being made were not found? Before those claims were even made? The authors considered the prospect before anyone proposed it about the study and concluded it was not found.

What supports your claim that this is peer reviewed? Wikipedia does say that a reliable source is anything written by a credentialed person. This is a secondary source but does not actually discuss or support the statement being cited. The source is also not cited anywhere else indicating its acceptance. Everything I read on the reliable source page says this is not a reliable source for that statement.

If you have so many other sources what are they and which of them is actually based on anything other than the opinions of the authors? Of course I can find lots of repetition of this claim but none of them offer any support in the form of actual research along the lines of the study this article is supposed to be about. Repetition is not support. Having a degree in Psychology does not qualify you to make baseless statements. This source does not "directly support" the statement being made.

Answer me this, how is this statement directly supported by this citation?

" Studies found the "Women are wonderful" works when women follow traditional gender roles such as child nurturing and stay at home housewife.[4]"

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199328178.001.0001/acprof-9780199328178-chapter-5

Where are the studies? The book being cited is not a study of this. Its a study of modern misogyny which briefly mentions the claim being cited in the synopsis of one chapter.

You say " but the focus should be on improving, rather than removing content." That is not true because Wikipedia states the most important rule is a neutral view. The content being added is not being done to improve the article, its being done to bias it and no reliable source that directly supports the statements is being provided.

Also...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion

"The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

Lets try to reach consensus on this article. I'm going to edit it again.

Also, the reason this article should not be merged is because it is in reference to a specific societal phenomenon as verified by a study. This phenomenon was given the name "women are wonderful effect" and it is not simply an example of benevolent sexism. This is best evidenced by the lack of other named phenomenons.

For example, is there a name for holding a door open for women? This is an example of ambivalent sexism because its a specific act or object of sexism. This article is about a scientific study and the phenomenon it identified and named. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.35.134.190 (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

One other thing I want to add. This Talk page has about 11 different users who have been complaining about the same things, bringing up the same points about original research, etc, etc since 2012. That is 4 years now and 11 different users who have tried to remove "verifiable information" that 1 user (MurderByCopy) has determined must be included.

Again...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion

"The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

We are currently at 11 to 1. Why is this rule regarding onus being on the person trying to include disputed content not being followed?

Consensus is not being reached here. MurderByCopy is simply reverting and otherwise blocking any attempts to remove this controversial and weakly supported content.

This article is NOT about women facing sexism. Repeatedly the attempt is being made to add content that makes an unsupported claim "women in nontraditional roles experience no women are wonderful effect" by providing citations of the fact that women face sexism. This is manipulation. Interweaving an unsupported statement with citations that claim to support it but do not such thing is manipulative and has no place in this article.

I can agree the viewpoint deserves to be represented. It does not deserve to be 3/4 of this entire article and it also needs to come with the statement that the original study already considered and rejected this later criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.35.134.190 (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• First off I haven't been on Wikipedia since 2012. Second, the article only had one source when I began adding more sources. And third, I was happy to work with anyone on the talk page about this article but they just didn't stick around. None of them were blocked nor banned. They simply weren't interested in reading the material or collaborating on the article. Stop with your continual misrepresenting and lying about me.

I've done nothing to stop you, but from what I can see, your only focus is in eliminating sources and info. Less info explores less possibilities which defaults to more bias. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 05:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

No, my focus is on eliminating irrelevant text and unsupported statements/citations. How do you feel about the current version of the page? I have tried to leave the issues you wanted mentioned in the article but also expressed how they do not support the statements being made. For example, you can not say "studies have shown women in nontraditional roles don't benefit from WAW" and then use a citation that says " diminished pro-female implicit attitudes and that they still exhibited an in-group bias that favoured women." That is misleading and the citation does not support the statement. A better statement would have been "Studies have shown women in nontraditional roles experience a diminished WAW effect" and had the article been written this way and the Talk page not been full of assertions of bias I wouldn't have said you were being biased. I'm not here to ruin your day but I'm also not going to let clear inaccuracies slip by that I've noticed. Please review the current version of the page, modify it as you see fit, and we can continue to do this until we reach consensus. If your statements are relevant and supported when needing support I will not interfere. 73.35.134.190 (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, let's see, you've cut the sources in half and added a controversy section to put everything you disliked about the subject in, thus invoking greater bias and less neutrality. Plus, adding a 4.5% statistic that I can't find. And you revert all changes even those with reliable sources. Basically not much. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 11:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Why are you not working towards consensus? Like I said, change what you think needs changing and we can work through it. I removed things originally which I've now left included. If you think more needs to be there go ahead and edit the article and we'll talk about it.

As for your specific criticisms. What do you mean cut the sources in half? You mean the paragraphs of definitions of types of sexism and other irrelevant text that should be linked to elsewhere?

If you really want that in there too go ahead and add it and we'll work to make it more concise. My only issue with it is that this article doesn't need 3/4 of the text to be about other definitions of sexism.

Your reliable sources were not reliable and I just edited the article to explain why. The wording you used was not the same as the citation. It was close but close doesn't count in literature. Like I said, I removed those originally, then I reviewed the rules and included them but changed the text to actually reflect what the citations say. The 4.5 statistic has been in the sources here since before I touched anything and it is clearly cited. Go to this link and search the page for 4.5.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cDbKmkdoBRMJ:rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

" Thus, we can claim with confidence that even when men are responding automatically, their in-group bias is surprisingly frail and that women’s in-group bias is particularly strong at the im- plicit level (i.e., stronger than men’s by a factor of 4.5). "

The reason I added a controversy section is that none of the other sections apply. I didn't make those sections, complain to Fyddlestix for rolling the article back so far that all these categories came back. That text you want included does not belong in the first 2 sentences of this article that define the subject matter in a basic sense. If you want a new category feel free to name it something else. Maybe rename "Empirical support" to "Studies involving WAW." The title "empirical support" would not include contradictory studies.

73.35.134.190 (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

In response to your last edit you can not used those tags without specifying your issues in the Talk page. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Requires_attention

"When using this template, you MUST create a section on the article's talk page detailing your issues about the article and what other editors could do to help, as this template links to the article's talk page."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template%3AWeasel

"After familiarizing yourself with this topic, the following can be used to note an article with excessive weasel words"

"Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. "

What do you think is a weasel word that doesn't accurately represent the opinions of the source? The terminology you were using originally is wrong and I have cited in the citations you chose to use why you were wrong and what was actually said. Please feel free to dispute anything, the citations are very clear that your claim was incorrect as worded.

If you really feel I won't work with you, even though you aren't trying, then please use the template tags properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.35.134.190 (talk) 02:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes

Are you willing to talk about these issues and work through them or do we need to involve a third party? I have asked you for clarification on what you meant by "cut the sources in half"? What is wrong with my proposal that you rename Empirical support to "Studies involving WAW" and condense them into one section, removing Controversy? I provided a direct link and how to find the 4.5 statistic. I will not revert edits made in an attempt to reach Conensus. I will continue to revert edits made that, in my opinion, aren't following Wikipedia rules or don't belong in this article. I will do that because as was already established earlier:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion

"The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

I am not the only one disputing this content. Like I said, there are 11 unique users on this Talk page alleging bias, irrelevant information, misleading statements, and so on. You are the only person who is here arguing for this inclusion so the onus is on you to reach consensus here. Yet it feels like I'm the only one trying to move towards conensus so we can all move on. 73.35.134.190 (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

MurderByCopy I offer you my sincere apologies for accusing you of bias. I was not acting in good faith and was not familiar with this principal of Wikipedia. However, I moved past that after my first post on this Talk page days ago, I hope you can too. If you would work towards consensus and modify the article to include what you want instead of modifying it to accuse it of being wrong in all kinds of ways while offering no substantial explanation we could likely wrap this up.

Moving Towards Consensus

Between the revision copy selected by Fyddlestyx and my revised copy all of the same information is included with the exception of text below.

I believe there are 3 unaddressed issues.

1. Does the top of the page need to include information about "women are wonderful when" or does it belong elsewhere?

I think it belongs elsewhere because the top of the page should be a brief description of the page topic. Expanding it to discuss "women are wonderful when" is a critique of the effect or a revision and does not belong in a summary definition.

2. Should there be a controversy section?

I don't care either way, feel free to modify the sections or placement of text. However, as stated above, I do not think anything beyond a brief description belongs at the top of the page before the table of contents.

3. The text that I removed between revisions. Would you please explain what part of this text you feel needs to be included in this article?

In contemporary research, attitudes toward women appear to be more positive than those toward men. While this research on competence judgments has not shown a pervasive tendency to devalue a women's traditional gendered work, it has demonstrated prejudice against those women in masculine domains (e.g. male-dominated jobs, male-stereotypic behavior). This targeted form of prejudice towards women is derived primarily from the ascription that women's traits include "nice", "nurturant", "communal characteristics", which the public attributes to individuals that qualify for domestic role aka those low-status, low-paying female-dominated jobs. These findings confirm women's experiences of gender discrimination and the backlash against women into traditionally masculine arenas, especially with women's efforts to gain access to high-status, high-paying male-dominated jobs, which are thought to require characteristics stereotypically ascribed to men. While, superficially, the "women are wonderful" effect may be viewed as beneficial, this stereotype is not a descriptive one, but a highly prescriptive stereotype. A descriptive gender stereotype reflects beliefs about the way men and women are perceived to be, whereas a prescriptive gender stereotype delineates how men and women ought to behave according to their individual gender. Because of this stereotype about female communality, people not only believe that women are nicer than men, it becomes a requirement for women to be nicer or else be penalized for violating the prescriptive social norms. One study shows that women are judged more harshly in business roles, "especially when she worked in an industry incongruent with her gender role and that men are more likely than women to endorse traditional gender roles. Research indicates men showing greater resistance to a women’s leadership than women,<ref name="googleusercontent.com"/> and that men are more likely than women to endorse traditional gender roles.

In my opinion this entire section of text, that is almost as long as the entire article without it, could be summarized as "Women still experience sexism in spite of the WAW effect and nontraditional gender roles can diminish the effect." All of the other text is really irrelevant. Do we really need a description of descriptive or prescriptive stereotypes? Why can't this be linked to elsewhere if someone wants the definition?

Any information about nontraditional roles is repetitive and already included in the article. This text is also incorrect for the sources used which as I already included in the article do not state this. A simple example I gave awhile ago is that 10 - 5 = 5, it doesn't equal 0. This is also supported in the citations. The WAW effect is applicable to all women but some studies have shown that women in nontraditional roles experience a diminished effect but one that is still benevolent. Text like "the women are wonderful effect may be viewed as beneficial, this stereotype is not a descriptive one, but a highly prescriptive stereotype" simply isn't supported by the citations claims that the effect is only diminished by things such as nontraditional roles. If the statement was true these citations would show that the effect was no longer present for a woman in a nontraditional role. 73.35.134.190 (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • After you treated me like dirt, you now want to pretend you tried to work with me stop hiding the facts! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 05:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I've known from the start this that 73.35.134.190 has multiple biases. They continue to be POV- pushers and are now attempting to hide that fact by hiding info. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 05:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You are not trying to seek a consensus at all. You basically just reverted everything I changed.

Why did you add a disputed tag to the 4.5 statistic? Did I not provide a direct link to a study already in the article which states this and tell you how to find it? How is that disputed instead of a citation as I had made it? Such a chance might make a reader think the statistic has no reliable source but it does.

Why did you remove everything I corrected about certain claims? Do you dispute that my corrections are valid?

Lets use one single example to make this simple. You tried to get this text back into the article:

It has been shown the "Women are wonderful" effect is works when women follow traditional gender roles such as child nurturing and stay at home housewife.

This is the source for that:

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199328178.001.0001/acprof-9780199328178-chapter-5

However, as I tried to include this statement is controversial and I expanded on this by saying:

The original study by Eagly, Mladinic & Otto (1991) mentions this possibility and states "Nor did it appear that respondents' very positive evaluations of women masked ambivalence toward them" in the abstract. Other authors have cited studies indicating that the women are wonderful effect is still applicable even when women are in nontraditional gender roles.

This is the source for that:

http://books.google.com/books?id=i13H6d1rgLMC&pg=PA163

To quote the source:

For example, when Harvard University undergraduate men believed that a future interaction would place them in a subordinate role with a female supervisor, they showed less pro-female implicit attitudes compared with men who believed they would play the role of supervisor.

The statement you are continually trying to get into the article claims that it "works when women follow traditional gender roles." You offered a citation to support this.

I'm offering a citation which states that in a situation where men were faced with a nontraditional woman they STILL showed pro-female implicit attitudes, they were only diminished.

Therefore I had included both the statement you wanted but modifying it to say that only some studies have claimed this rather than stating it a fact. I read Chapter 5 and it does not directly support the statement being made. Thats fine but you can't present that information as if it is being directly supported and you can't remove my comments about other studies that do not agree with this point.

Thats why I had called it controversy when I made the other section because it is a controversial statement even without expanding any of the existing citations in this article and only referring back to these same citations. I didn't have to go digging around, the very sources already mentioned here provided contradictions to the statements and citations you're fighting to have included.

Please review this page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

Note the "seek a compromise" part. I did this by leaving the statements you wanted in the article but merely making them more specific to the studies cited while also offering contradictory studies. I did this by saying feel free to remove the controversy section and moving the text elsewhere.

In response you've just removed my compromises and are demanding all the text you want be included while removing anything I added or slightly changed in order to compromise with you.

At this point I will be sticking to the policy I have repeatedly linked here while trying to seek the actual Wikipedia rules on this matter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion

"The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

Your content is clearly disputed given the number of people on this Talk page asking for it to be removed. My patience for your refusal to achieve consensus is wearing thin. You want it all your way while refusing to acknowledge any of the factual inaccuracies with cited support that I have pointed out.

Is this the third time you've tried to remove the 4.5 figure or claimed its disputed? Why do you dispute this?

The 4.5 statistic has been in the sources here since before I touched anything and it is clearly cited. Go to this link and search the page for 4.5.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cDbKmkdoBRMJ:rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

" Thus, we can claim with confidence that even when men are responding automatically, their in-group bias is surprisingly frail and that women’s in-group bias is particularly strong at the im- plicit level (i.e., stronger than men’s by a factor of 4.5). "

YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS IF YOU WANT THIS TO MOVE FORWARD! Either that or stop touching reliably sourced information or removing evidence that statements you want included aren't as supported as you'd like readers to believe. If you don't like the 4.5 figure that is cited then find another study to refute it, include it in the article, and modify the text to make it clear that the answer is not clear just as I did with your citations. 73.35.134.190 (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• You are not trying to seek a consensus at all. You basically just reverted everything I changed. 73.35.134.190 I believe this is what you've been doing ever since you showed up. Articles are not WP:OWN on Wikipedia.--MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 08:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Introductory Paragraph

The introductory paragraph contained jumbled and grammatically incorrect statements. It is also claimed things and used citations that did not support the claim.

As has been pointed out in various places on this Talk page the text is plagued by poorly cited statements that are not actually supported by the citations. The introduction includes statements like this as well as very poor grammar or nonsensical statements.

Here are some direct examples of what I changed and why.

The original full introduction:

The "women are wonderful" effect is the gender stereotypes found in psychology and sociology which suggests that people's stereotypes of women were more positive than their stereotypes of men, although both sexes were viewed as positive. This bias is referred to as benevolent sexism and was dubbed by Eagly & Mladinic (1994) after research suggested that it is no longer politically acceptable to be derogative towards women.

How does it make sense to lead this article by saying "the WAW effect is the gender stereotypes...which suggests that people's stereotypes..."? It IS a gender stereotype or collection of stereotypes which suggests that people's stereotypes?

I changed this to "The women are wonderful effect is the phenomenon found in psychological and sociological research which suggests that people associate more positive attributes with the general social category of women compared to men." which is much more readable and actually makes sense.

Next lets look at the statement "bias is referred to as benevolent sexism and was dubbed...after research suggested that it is no longer politically acceptable to be derogative towards women."

What does the actual cited text say?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247505900_Are_People_Prejudiced_Against_Women_Some_Answers_From_Research_on_Attitudes_Gender_Stereotypes_and_Judgments_of_Competence

"Another concern is that the contemporary preference for women may re- flect an awareness on the part of the respondents that it is no longer politically acceptable to derogate women. "

This sentence occurs several sentences later and in a separate paragraph from this statement:

"Recent research thus suggests that both women and men evaluate women more positively than men-a finding that we dub the women-are-wonderful effect"

It was dubbed WAW after research suggested? No, that statement starts with "another concern" is several sentences away from where the citation states that it dubbed the term. The citation clearly states it was dubbed this after research suggests that both women and men evaluate women more positively than men.

The full text so my point can be seen clearer about how far apart these statements were in spite of someone merging them together for whatever reason:

Recent research thus suggests that both women and men evaluate women more positively than men-a finding that we dub the women-are-wonderful effect. These findings are provocative in the light of claims concerning nega- tive attitudes and stereotypes about women. However, it is indeed important to establish the generalizability of this effect to other populations of respond- ents. Although the students who participated in the experiments conducted in the United States specialized in a wide range of academic disciplines (as is typical of students enrolled in US introductory psychology courses), gener- alizability to older and less educated people has not been established, nor, with the exception of the Norwegian sample, to people outside North America. Another concern is that the contemporary preference for women may re- flect an awareness on the part of the respondents that it is no longer politically acceptable to derogate women.

This kind of subtle sourcing of information and massaging the text of this article is prolific in this article and there is currently 1 person on the Talk page defending this kind of behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.35.134.190 (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

WAW and Gender Studies (Conflicts and Context)

This section serves as a reminder on this article that the Women are Wonderful effect was considered "provocative in the light of claims concerning negative attitudes and stereotypes about women." This statement occurs in the original text of the study.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247505900_Are_People_Prejudiced_Against_Women_Some_Answers_From_Research_on_Attitudes_Gender_Stereotypes_and_Judgments_of_Competence

It is important when considering reliable sources for the statements being made in this article. This study was significant in the field of gender study and contradicted many of the claims made by researchers in the field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Context_matters

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

As Wikipedia states on context and reliable sources the level of reliability varies with the amount of people engaged in the publication. Publications that are not widely reviewed or accepted within the field should not relied upon without significant direct support contained within for statements being used in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.35.134.190 (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• “If you can't win by reason, go for volume.” ― Bill Watterson
  

--MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This user has been the sole defender of several disputed statements in this argument going back to as early as 2013. I tried to remove the irrelevant comment they added above but they claim I am "hiding info." So instead this quote will now serve as part of this section to again remind any editors about the provocative nature of this article as written in the study the article is about.

73.35.134.190 (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't think the original study carries as much weight in this debate as you seem to be assuming - it's now very old, and clearly there has been newer stuff published, which the article needs to address. One (old, probably outdated) study is not the be-all and end-all, and it's not going to end this dispute. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Importance?

− − What purpose does this article serve? Are there wikipedia articles of other various scam studies treated as if they were real? The few citations that exist seem to be of poor quality and circular. I don't understand why this article exists other than to bolster an unproven cultural hypothesis. It doesn't seem to educate or be noteworthy. 174.62.69.11 (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MurderByDeadcopy (talk • contribs)

Yes, I thought it would be a good idea to stick this back on the Talk page for complete transparency, however, I apparently am terrible at manual undos! MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 22:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• And since editors are confused about this. I am not 174.62.69.11. I've never edited as an IP and MurderByDeadcopy is my first and only account. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 18:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A global bias in favor of one gender seems important to any impartial discussion of gender issues. Neglecting to mention such an effect could be viewed as an attempt to conceal disconfirming evidence.

"In qualitative research, it is also important to rule out rival explanations for the results. This occurs through procedures such as: [...] A search for disconfirming evidence in which the researcher examines all the data for any evidence that might indicate the conclusions are wrong." Waylonflinn (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The bigger question here is, "Should one put any weight on this article considering that most psychology studies are college student biased?" I do believe this article is being given too much weight for all the wrong reasons! MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, someone's really making good use of the Omm tool (Not) .

Is anyone going to help fix this article?Hwfr (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Merging reasons

Role congruity theory suggest the effect is better described as "the women are wonderful when" effect: when they are not in charge. That is women are wonderful provided women are communal and adhere to traditional female roles. However, because women also subscribe to prescriptive gender stereotypes, backlash against agentic women is not only exhibited by men (eg Rudman 1998) - Meaning that women are actually sexist against their own gender at a higher percentage then men. Men are much more likely to suspend adherence to gender roles when it benefits them personally. I still cannot find an actually % amount. Wish someone would drop the actual paragraph that info is in to make it easier to find!

Women's gender roles put women in a double bind. If they act competently and aggressively, they risk negative reactions for being insufficiently feminine. But if they are modest and communal, they risk being viewed as incapable of leadership. As S. T. Fiske and Stevens (1993) note, “Both of these scenarios could result in sexual discrimination. In one case, discrimination would result from not behaving like a woman should, and, in the other case, from behaving too much like a woman.” Basically women can be viewed as competent but not liked or liked but not competent. It's one or the other, but not both. See Hillary Clinton. Evidence of backlash effects exists at every stage of employment, from hiring and salary negotiations to promotion and leadership evaluations.

As I stated before, I didn't push to merge this info into another article due to the outside flack that would come about from groups such as the MRA, TRP, and MGTOW. But creating one article about one study done in the 1990's creates too much WP:UNDUE within the article unless editors are given the ability to discuss role congruity theory, ambivalent sexism, benevolent prejudice, counter-stereotypes, gender stereotypes, in-group favoritism, and stereotype fit hypothesis. So either this article ought to be a stub forcing readers to go to other articles to get a better understanding of the subject (which will probably satisfy the MRA/TRP crowd) or merged into ambivalent sexism. Or possibly role congruity theory. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This talk page alone represents the weight of the article and its deserving its own page. Also, your continued insistence that certain groups are monitoring this article are unfounded and rather ridiculous.

Oh and continuing to link to other works by Glick in an attempt to expand the number of people supporting your argument that its "women are wonderful when" doesn't add any weight. He's still only one person and as I already added to this talk page controversial subjects require definitive support for a source to be valid.

As another user commented, you already have the mentions and sources you want in the article. Your alternative view is represented in this article in a satisfactory manner. What more do you want? Users interested in learning about ambivalent sexism can click the link to that article where its mentioned in the first paragraph "above the fold" in this article.

73.35.134.190 (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Merge Discussion

It has been requested this article be merged. I disagree as its about a specific cultural wide phenomenon that applies to women. This is not so much an example of benevolent sexism or ambivalent sexism as it is an example of in group bias. This is evidenced by the fact that women showed significantly stronger in group bias than men (4.5 times) and that men didn't have the capacity for such strong in group bias. I'm stating this directly from one of the sources in this article.

I believe you are confusing this issue because you repeatedly bring up studies involving men and nontraditional women. The in group bias known as "women are wonderful effect" is primarily seen within groups of women though. Why are we confusing the issue so much by involving men's feelings towards women? That was never the significant finding of this study.

The merge request tries to minimize the findings of the study by equating the phenomenon to a simple act of benevolent sexism. For example, holding the door for a woman. There is no name for holding a door for a woman because its a specific instance and understandably less deserving of academic study on its own.

However, this phenomenon is cultural wide and does have a name. The study was undertaken by scholars who wanted empirical evidence which would determine the level of in group bias between genders. Its findings were significant in the field and went against established ideology. In fact, one of the earlier sources in this article specifically mentions this significance to the field.

There are several studies just in this article alone which considered this phenomenon worthy of further analysis and attention. I'm aware of no similar examples of specific benevolent sexist phenomenon's that were so extensively covered academically and by name. If the field of gender studies have given such attention to this phenomenon as to write several hundred or thousands of papers mentioning or studying it exclusively I think it warrants its own article. 73.35.134.190 (talk) 07:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I think the proposed merge merits serious consideration. Recent scholarship appears to support the idea that the "women are wonderful" effect is a form of benevolent (or ambivalent) sexism, which suggests that this article might (or has the potential to become) a WP:POVFORK. Some examples: [1][2][3] (this source says that the WAW effect is "also known as" benevolent sexism!)[4][5][6]. There appear to be many sources out there which suggest that benevolent/ambivalent sexism are closely interrelated, and might well need to be discussed within the same article.

I'm on the fence as to whether or not the two should be merged and would very much like to hear from some "expert" editors on this. What does seem crystal clear to me is that the IP above is either not familiar with or is turning a blind eye to much of the scholarship on this topic with their recent edits to the article and their comments on this talk page (both above and below). Fyddlestix (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should be merged at all, as ingroup preference has more in common with tribalism than it does with ambivalent sexism, as they are both centered around the discussion of ingroup preference. What seems to be obvious to me after reading over both the wiki and the discussion page, is that this topic is under attack by feminism because it isn't pandering to the feminist cause. In fact, this is a sociological truth that rubs the opposite way feminism would like us to believe. If you want this included in ambivalent sexism, mention it and put a link. Unless you are going to also merge the tribalism wiki with the racism or ambivalent racism wiki, then this wiki should remain separate from any wiki about sexism, or ambivalent sexiam. If anything, there should be more effort being put into writing a more comprehensive article about WaW, and less pandering to feminist narrative. Thisisashan (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2016 (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. 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" . 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 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

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

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)

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)

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)