Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosocialism
Homosocialism was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete the article.
neologism. 13 hits on Google. Wolfman 17:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - vaguely offensive, maybe more so if it were better written. Niceguyjoey 17:51, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, neologism, not in real use. The words "homosocial" and homosociality (not -ism) do, however, exist. I've seen them used in discussions of nineteenth-century and older literature. The context is language which, to modern readers, clearly implies affection and even erotic interest toward a member of the same sex. Those using the words homosocial and homosociality insist that it doesn't really mean that, and evince a complicated description of social relationships in older times. For example: the attitude of the narrator toward "the Virginian" in Owen Wister's novel of the same name, is sometimes said to be an example of "homosociality." It seems to be hard to prove or disprove any of this. I see a (slightly different) definition of homosociality here, where it is said to be "A term suggested by the feminist Gayle Rubin and developed by Eve Sedgwick, a theorist of gay and lesbian studies, homosocial refers to the bonds, often charged with eroticism, that connect men in ways that empower them socially. These connections frequently involve women as a 'third party' as a unit of exchange." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:21, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) P. S. And we have a pretty bad article on Homosocial, in need of cleanup. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:22, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete in this form, at least. I loathe Eve Sedgwick, and I do not like her coinage ("homosocial"). I am in a strict academic minority, though. Plenty of scholars find it useful. (I don't because I think it's an unnecessarily twitting coinage, and I far prefer the discussion terms that existed before her: social and private space. I think the definition of the space of public discourse as masculine (not male) and domestic as feminine (not female) is more useful because more abstract. I think it allows us to see these things as more fluid and, honestly, social than "homosocial" does. My biggest gripe with feminism has been the naive and knowing insistence that sex trumps the subject or that we are determined by our genitalia. At any rate, "homosocial" and "homosociality" already exist, but not "homosocialism," and this is incorrect. Geogre 18:59, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable neologism. We don't need to help spread the use of these words if they're not in widespread use. - [[User:Defunkt|Defunkt (talk)]] 19:01, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It's not the words, it's this word. Homosocial and homosociality are perfectly well-established terms, coined in the 1980s, while homosocialism is offensive nonsense. Clicking on the IP's contribs, it looks as if the anon creator of this page happened on the respectable stub Homosocial, thought up a funny joke about gay socialism on the spot, added it to Homosocial (where I have now cleaned it off) and then thought to make a separate page for it. I know it's not patent, but it's nonsense all the same, delete it.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (Talk)]] 21:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete inelegant neologism. Fire Star 23:05, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- As close to patent as nonsense gets without being patent. Delete. Shane King 23:20, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete for being a neologism, and for causing confusion with established terms. Inky 20:58, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. --Improv 21:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.