Talk:Women-are-wonderful effect

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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

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)