"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?
Trans Siberian Anarchestra (it/they)
...case in point. XD
The Revolution Will Not Be Tropeable
Could we please have a crowner for this to decide if we should cut it or change it to something clear?
Yes. See: How Crowners Work
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Here's the crowner.
I think I did it right.
Two tips:
- It's useful to explain what the issue is in the box.
- I am sure we had more options than that.
Zzzzzzzzzz
Crowner hooked and three other options I found in the thread added.
edited 10th Jan '13 2:29:37 AM by Madrugada
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Upvoted the redefine options, but downvoted the YKTTW one since it will absolutely guarantee we never get this done.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
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
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.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
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?
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.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
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
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
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.
And that's the reason I am saying nay to YKTTW'ing this.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Are we ready to close the crowner?
Zzzzzzzzzz
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
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
Ooh, a crowner call!
I'll immediately execute the decision.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Zzzzzzzzzz
don't forget to clear as many as possible of the wicks.
...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.
I already did that. There were only 8 after all.
Also added the discussion note and cutlisted both the main and Laonic/ page.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Page is gone. Requesting lock.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Crown Description:
Matriarchy In Name Only suffers from an insufficiently clear definition and was becoming "complaining about social structures you don't like".
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