TV Tropes Org

Forums

Deadlock Clock: 18th Sep '12 11:59 PM
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [97]  1  2  3
4

Needs Help: Matriarchy In Name Only get usage counts

While I do agree that shedding examples where there's no claim of matriarchy is a good idea, I think there's another problem. The support has to be something more substantial than 'women dress attractively' or 'men get to fight'. It can't be based on what individuals think would or wouldn't happen in a matriarchy. The only solution I can think of is to only include examples which say 'matriarchy' on the box, but are blatantly ruled by men or egalitarian (if I'm using that word correctly).

With all that considered, I'm leaning towards cutting it. The way this is going, there won't be any examples left.

edited 3rd Jan '13 11:43:30 AM by abloke

 
"Only women can have (Insert Important Job Y Here) and writes that as an example despite the example not being a matriarchy..." Isn't that exactly what a matriarchy is?

 78 Noaqiyeum, Thu, 3rd Jan '13 4:40:32 PM from across the gulf of space Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
the it-thingy
...case in point. XD
tiinker, Tailor, hunter!!!, wwhaler
d0ct0r, L4WY3R, MUTANT, C)(I-EF
STRONGman, wEAKMAN, JoKeRmAn, Th8ef
Could we please have a crowner for this to decide if we should cut it or change it to something clear?

 80 Septimus Heap, Thu, 10th Jan '13 1:02:23 AM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
Yes. See: How Crowners Work

Here's the crowner. I think I did it right.

 82 Septimus Heap, Thu, 10th Jan '13 1:46:20 AM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
Two tips:
  • It's useful to explain what the issue is in the box.
  • I am sure we had more options than that.

 83 Madrugada, Thu, 10th Jan '13 2:29:30 AM Relationship Status: In season
With Mod Hat On
Crowner hooked and three other options I found in the thread added.

edited 10th Jan '13 2:29:37 AM by Madrugada

'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
 84 Septimus Heap, Thu, 10th Jan '13 2:30:47 AM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
Upvoted the redefine options, but downvoted the YKTTW one since it will absolutely guarantee we never get this done.

I gave the option of cutting the page a one-up. I also bumped the YKTTW option down. The only problem I can think of with the current frontrunner (redefining it to "says matriarchy, obviously isn't") is that it would need clear and inarguable guidelines, which might result in a shortage of examples.

The whole description, I think, would have to be rewritten. A lot of the examples currently on the page seem to stem from individual opinions of what should happen in a matriarchy — clothing, who gets to join the army, etc. — as opposed to what would have to.

edited 10th Jan '13 3:28:14 AM by abloke

 
 86 Madrugada, Thu, 10th Jan '13 3:39:49 AM Relationship Status: In season
Zzzzzzzzzz
By making it "defined as, or called a matriarchy within the work", we sidestep a lot of the problems of defining 'matriarchy' ourselves; the question becomes "Does the author directly say that it's supposed to be a matriarchy, or does (s)he have one of the characters say that it is?" If the answer to that is 'no', then it's not an example. We'll still have some of the problem of tropers wanting to use the page to complain about the way some author did or didn't handle it, but we at least have a criteria that's clear to use to catch and cull those.
'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
 87 johnnye, Thu, 10th Jan '13 7:42:08 AM from Brighton, UK Relationship Status: If it's you, it's okay
Theoretically the new definition is alright, but it's so restrictive that I can't see it finding many examples at all. Add to that the difficulty of getting people to supply really informative entries to YKTTW, and it just seems like too much work to be worth it.

I suppose that if someone was really willing to give the YKTTW the diligent curation it'd need, it might work, but could we cut the existing page in the meantime?
Zaldrīzes buzdari iksos daor, so Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus.
 88 Septimus Heap, Thu, 10th Jan '13 7:45:45 AM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
I can see YKTTW as an option, but only if the launch of that YKTTW isn't a prerequisite for the closure of this thread. Otherwise, it's just going to hold this thing up forever.

 89 Madrugada, Thu, 10th Jan '13 9:36:43 AM Relationship Status: In season
Zzzzzzzzzz
I'd say "Bounce it back to YKTTW" is cross-compatible with all three of the others, individually. The other three are mutually exclusive among themselves. Making cutting contingent on launch of the YKTTW would, I think, be unnecessary

edited 10th Jan '13 9:37:34 AM by Madrugada

'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
I'd say anything but cutting it would be too confusing to explain why a particular example should be included. I still don't think I've made clear how the Nobody's Princess example fits (in the first redefinition), but nobody has said that it doesn't either.

I believe whenever a TRS makes a YKTTW the YKTTW has to be finished before the TRS can be closed. I think it was lu127 who said so.

 91 Septimus Heap, Fri, 18th Jan '13 2:10:26 AM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
And that's the reason I am saying nay to YKTTW'ing this.

Are we ready to close the crowner?

 93 Madrugada, Tue, 22nd Jan '13 1:54:53 PM Relationship Status: In season
With Mod Hat On
It's been open for 12 days; "Cut" has a 5 to 1 ratio in favor, of 18 votes.

Calling the crowner with a final decision to cut, on the grounds that it is not clearly defined, and even the clearest possible definition is still subjective and will invite complaining.

edited 22nd Jan '13 1:56:28 PM by Madrugada

'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
 94 Septimus Heap, Tue, 22nd Jan '13 1:55:47 PM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
Ooh, a crowner call!

I'll immediately execute the decision.

 95 Madrugada, Tue, 22nd Jan '13 1:56:54 PM Relationship Status: In season
Zzzzzzzzzz
don't forget to clear as many as possible of the wicks.
'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
 96 Septimus Heap, Tue, 22nd Jan '13 2:01:24 PM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
I already did that. There were only 8 after all.

Also added the discussion note and cutlisted both the main and Laonic/ page.

 97 Septimus Heap, Wed, 23rd Jan '13 1:48:27 AM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
Page is gone. Requesting lock.

The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.

Page Action: Matriarchy In Name Only
10th Jan '13 1:22:44 AM
What would be the best way to fix the page?
At issue:
Matriarchy In Name Only suffers from an insufficiently clear definition and was becoming "complaining about social structures you don't like".
Total posts: 97
 1  2  3
4


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy