Category talk:Feminist devil's dictionary: Difference between revisions
(New page: I question the purpose of including the word "devil" in the name of the category. If we go by patriarchal standards, feminists are devils already, and if we ''don't'', why do we need to su...) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I question the purpose of including the word "devil" in the name of the category. If we go by patriarchal standards, feminists are devils already, and if we ''don't'', why do we need to subvert it by using this religious vocabulary? To mark it an an opposition to the male canon? It's not very subversive when it's an homage to a male author in the first place! And it might cause confusion, by implying feminist angels. If we're going to use a religious term at all, something like "apostates to the patriarchy" might make more sense. Although that's probably too long, so "feminist" should suffice! --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 22:00, 26 February 2007 (PST) | I question the purpose of including the word "devil" in the name of the category. If we go by patriarchal standards, feminists are devils already, and if we ''don't'', why do we need to subvert it by using this religious vocabulary? To mark it an an opposition to the male canon? It's not very subversive when it's an homage to a male author in the first place! And it might cause confusion, by implying feminist angels. If we're going to use a religious term at all, something like "apostates to the patriarchy" might make more sense. Although that's probably too long, so "feminist" should suffice! --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 22:00, 26 February 2007 (PST) | ||
...Hell(!), "dictionary", "lexicon" or "glossary" would all be sufficient names for a category regrouping word definitions within the encyclopedia. --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 22:48, 26 February 2007 (PST) | |||
Revision as of 22:48, 26 February 2007
I question the purpose of including the word "devil" in the name of the category. If we go by patriarchal standards, feminists are devils already, and if we don't, why do we need to subvert it by using this religious vocabulary? To mark it an an opposition to the male canon? It's not very subversive when it's an homage to a male author in the first place! And it might cause confusion, by implying feminist angels. If we're going to use a religious term at all, something like "apostates to the patriarchy" might make more sense. Although that's probably too long, so "feminist" should suffice! --Ide Cyan 22:00, 26 February 2007 (PST)
...Hell(!), "dictionary", "lexicon" or "glossary" would all be sufficient names for a category regrouping word definitions within the encyclopedia. --Ide Cyan 22:48, 26 February 2007 (PST)