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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Gender studies Mid‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Men's Issues

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles 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.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WAW sarcasm?

Shoud there be at least a paragraph of the most used context of WAW-effect today? For those of you who live without a connection to teen world, then be informed, that this effect (women are wonderful) and especially its acronym (WAW) has become almost global sarcastic expression when "double standards" are implemented in favor of or due to women. It's also often given as the explanation to a question of why e.g. by replying "because waw".

At least I wasn't able to get any meaningfull references in Google, but that's because it lives in Discord, WhatsApp, Telegram etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.213.133 (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)109.175.105.166 (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@109.175.105.166 I hereby ask you to strike through your personal attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility). If you don't expect a report at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Wallby (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found out about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:RPA and applied it here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallby (talk • contribs) 10:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Parts about "Some authors have claimed the "Women are wonderful" effect is applicable when women follow traditional gender roles" and "Several scholars have argued that the "women are wonderful" effect might be better phrased as "women are wonderful when" effect" - are quite literally about the same proposed effect, but edited in such a way to create an illusion of a greater number of flaws.
From the second cited source:
"Thus, a way of synthesizing these lines of research is to dub it "the women are wonderful when" effect - when they are not in power. That is, women are wonderful provided they are communal and stick to traditional female roles (Eagly & Diekman, this volume)."

Meanwhile, the OTHER source cited is the same source cited in the previous paragraph AS A REFUTATION of such an effect.
I.e. The entire criticism section is about a single point, disguised as multiple points, being both supported AND refuted by citing a singular source for both points of view. 109.175.105.166 (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logically wrong statement

"... found that the effect decreased the higher a country's measure of gender equality. This effect seemed to be due to men being viewed less negatively the more egalitarian a country was rather than women being viewed more positively."

For this statement to make sense, 'more' at the end would need to be changed into 'less' (or otherwise would need to be rephrased). I looked at the abstract of the source, and this is indeed how the authors meant it (obviously). So I changed it. --Felix Tritschler (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]