mic_none

Talk:Heteropatriarchy Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heteropatriarchy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Afabarca89, Memarti8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vin0beats.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rachelmckell.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recreation of this article[edit]

DaddyCell (talk · contribs), I really don't see why this article is needed. The material in it is, or can be, covered in other articles. There is nothing in it that can't be covered in the Heterosexuality and/or Patriarchy articles. Furthermore, I do not see that the term is WP:Notable. Also see WP:NEO. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One more thing: The cishomonormativity red link you have in the article indicates that you are considering creating that article. If you do, I will send it to WP:AfD. For why, I again refer you WP:NEO. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article[edit]

Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs), thanks for your opinion. I fully see the importance of this article, as it is independent from those which you propose. Of course they are related, but it incorporates new stances from both and other articles, so in case of merging them it would loose its own context. I know it is a short one, but there is a lot of theory and activism going on around this concept. For sure someone will expand it in the near future.

It is the same problem with the section homonormativity, which looses part of its meaning by being inside the article heteronormativity. Anyhow, I'm thinking of creating just a redirection from cishomonormativity to that section, and maybe in the future someone can expand it as well and create a propper article. DaddyCell (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DaddyCell, WP:Notability and redundancy are my concerns. I do not see that the term heteropatriarchy is notable. Wikipedia does not create articles for non-notable terms and then wait for them to become notable. And it's usually not for neologisms. So, when I get a good chance, I will nominate this article for deletion. As for activism, read WP:Activism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Flyer22 Reborn, thanks again. What I see is that is just your opinion, I guess requirements can also have different interpretations. My opinion is that this article is perfectly notable, and of course is not redundant as it relates different topics to refer to a new reality. It is a neologism, but it has been used at least since the 1980s, in academic and generalistic articles, as well as in activism. I am not doing activism through it. What I said is that is increasingly used, so maybe, as Wikipedia is not an individual project, someone will expand it, as it has the potential for it. Hope your next comments will be, at least, a bit more constructive instead of solving everything with deletion ;).DaddyCell (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DaddyCell, it's Wikipedia rules. And following them appropriately is constructive. You are using Wikipedia to promote neologisms. In a few moments, I will be nominating this article and the Homonationalism article you created. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taken to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heteropatriarchy (2nd nomination). Perhaps heteropatriarchy is WP:Notable, but I don't see that it needs to be a standalone article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heteropatriarchy is not a neologism. It is a key term in feminist, LGBT and queer studies. It is not reducible to patriarchy (societies privileging men are not necessarily also homophobic, for example; same is true for matriarchy). In my experience, articles related to feminist and LGBT issues are subjected to deletion and this kind of questioning far more than are articles grounded in other fields. Students, in particular, encountering this word in their research need to have a decent overview of the term and its history. If anything, this page could use more elaboration. Judyholliday (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Judyholliday: I imagine you'll be better served if you take this comment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heteropatriarchy (2nd nomination). -- Irn (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Judyholliday, given how neologism is defined, I'm not understanding how you don't think that "heteropatriarchy" is a neologism. If "a relatively new or isolated term" applies, newness is not the only aspect. Furthermore, when one is talking about what is new in the literature, "new" can refer to things that that only came to be 20 or 30 years ago. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD result[edit]

Sandstein, why do you feel that this was a "no consensus" matter? At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heteropatriarchy (2nd nomination), I see consensus for deleting or merging, with more of an emphasis on merging. I see no consensus for keeping. WP:Consensus is about the weight of the arguments, not votes. I don't see how the arguments for keeping were strong, especially compared to the delete and merge rationales. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, there's no consensus for keeping, but also none for either merging or deleting. But you're right that in aggregate it amounts to a consensus for "not keep as is", which, given that we don't have consensus to delete, probably amounts to a consensus for merging (to an extent to be determined by consensus) as the next best thing.  Sandstein  06:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sandstein, my view is that there was consensus for merging. That's pretty much what I was trying to state with my initial response to you above. So what is the next step now? WP:Deletion review? I'm not sure that I should just go ahead and merge the content to some other article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I am concerned, you can go ahead and merge; however, as always, the extent to which a merger is appropriate is subject to editorial consensus.  Sandstein  05:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Effect of heteropatriarchy on minorities[edit]

You should add the effect of heteropatriarchy on minorities in that gender and sexual minorities are disadvantaged by the dominant group's privilege. Tie in how heteropatriarchy is related to misogyny and androcentrism. Other general suggestions: remove "from the feminist vision." It isn't necessary, and if you think about it, it sounds unintentionally biased as if it's saying "Well, this is what feminists believe it is/is happening." Instead just say what it is not this is what these people say this is. Two questions relevant to the article: What are some early and recent examples of heteropatriarchy? Is heteropatriarchy strictly discriminatory to gender and sexuality minorities, or can it also be discriminatory to racial and ethnic minorities? --Mmoore122 (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heteropatriarchy as a result of colonialism[edit]

There should be a section on the historical implementation of heteropatriarchy. This hierarchical system is often the result of colonialism, and is reinforced by other social systems such as religion. For example, the United States utilizes a heteropatriarchal system to uphold gender and class privilege and this framework is supported by Christianity, a dominant religion in the U.S. This chapter is a useful citation- Smith, Andrea. "Heteropatriarchy and the three pillars of white supremacy: Rethinking women of color organizing." Transformations: Feminist Pathways to Global Change 264 (2015). There should also be a section on the effects of heteropatriarchy, a section on heteropatriarchy from an intersectional context. Memarti8 (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need to elaborate more[edit]

Not sure why this information can't be covered by patriarchy since the assumption of patriarchy is that it is dominated by heterosexual men so there should be no need to emphasize heterosexuality. I can understand what you are trying to get at but there needs to more information including how it affects other marginalized sexualities.

Afabarca89 (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heteropatriarchy vs. just Patriarchy[edit]

A common argument on here seems to be that this topic can be covered by Patriarchy pages. I think it is important to note this- patriarchy is a broad and common term that showcases the power of 'men' in society.It conjures up the idea that the 49% of men control the rest of the population. To be oppressed by a group that is represented by almost half of society does not seem all that ludicrous. However, since we know heterosexuality excludes the many other gender identities from power, the group that heteropatriarchy covers is much smaller and exemplifies the absurdity of a small privileged elite through the name.

Also, hetero-sexism as a practice uses the damaging constructions of gender to create the hierarchical system necessary for patriarchy to occur as an economic process. Without the socialized identities of men and women cultivated in a sexist way, subordinating women- it would be difficult for patriarchy to occur. Memarti8 (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article leaves out cisgender females' privilege over (out) transgender and (out)nonbinary gender orientations (based on sex and gender normativity...and not on folks in the closet or passing as strait or gender normative). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.112.10 (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category[edit]

I tried to identify the field in the first sentence but feminist theory may not be ideal. The article is also in Category:LGBT feminism, which itself has subcategories Category:Lesbian feminism, Category:Queer feminism and Category:Transfeminism. —PaleoNeonate – 11:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original research[edit]

I noticed the original research tag and it may well be true. On the other hand, multiple sources used really are about heteropatriarchy, not only sexual orientation or patriarchy alone. —PaleoNeonate – 11:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm looking at the sources now. Which multiple sources? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quotes from some titles: "Unpacking Hetero-Patriarchy", "La persistencia del heteropatriarcado", "Decolonizing Feminism: Challenging Connections between Settler Colonialism and Heteropatriarchy". This of course doesn't mean that those are ideal sources, I've not evaluated them, admitedly. —PaleoNeonate – 08:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]