Talk:Virago

Discussion

Was there an orginal woman named Virago from whom this word originates? The first sentence of the article makes it seem so. If this isn't the case, I think it should be made clear that this article is about a word and not a woman128.135.230.219 (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

/Temp page

I moved the page to Talk:Virago/Classical anthropology, where it's less in the way. It can be edited there, if need be. Thanks, -Will Beback 11:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As a logical consequence of the Asian fetish article, the anthropological virago as a masculine woman will be re-established soon.80.138.172.139 13:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, that article content was delted as a result of an AfD. -Will Beback 16:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As we all know, evidence is the highest authority on all matters, not consensus. Virago will be re-established as soon as possible as it is necessary to inform people about the racially on average very masculine Western women compared to the Mongolids (e.g. Martin-Saller-Knußmann manual).80.138.193.152 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The universal history of virago comes back to you.From the Babylonians to the Jewish trash comic industry and its virago icon "Wonder Woman", "the subconscious, elaborately disguised desire of (gayish ;addition by author) males to be mastered by a woman who loves them". As 20th century's leftism and feminism have essentially Jewish key players (cf. Kevin MacDonald and www.jwa.org), of course "Wonder Woman" fighting against the Nazis (Remake 2007 (!)) is effective,too, in weakenening male European society. As a curiosity , the Christian legend of the collaboration between the "Red Jews" and the "amazons" has foreseen this unholy collaboration of a hostile elite and Europid manlike viragos.God bless them.80.138.193.152 22:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not restore the material which was deleted by the decision of the community. If it is necessary to inform the world of your findings then please find another venue. -Will Beback 23:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Boasian (pseudo-scientist ?) assistance Prof. Steve Rubenstein and his helpers try to block real science

Prof. Rubenstein and his helpers deny the correctness of the following statements (which I would like to re-edit) obviously due to political reasons explained in Kevin B. MacDonald's "The Culture of Critique"(2002), where the Jewish proneness to Boasian racial egalitarianism is explained:

"Additionally,the about 40 human races differ significantly in "hardness". Every race as a whole has a more male or a more female character and thus a higher or lower percentage of viragos. E.g.women from Indonesia and the Phillippines (Nesid race) are both physically and psychically much more softer on average than women of the Nordid, Dinarid or Osteuropid race.The Western women's rights movement is primarily a result of the male character of the European women. Because the Jewish Boasianism controls the West serving Jewish group interests (cf. MacDonald, "Culture of Critique",2002), only Chinese anthropology has been maintaining the race concept and a serious anthropology until 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.192.222 (talk • contribs)

The immediately previous comment was made by a user known as the Asian fetish vandal (see also here, who routinely vandalizes this and other pages with racist and anti-Semitic tracts. -- Gnetwerker 00:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Elements of this definition seem to be missing

Webster's dictionary page defines 'Virago' as (in this order).

1: a loud overbearing woman : termagant 2: a woman of great stature, strength, and courage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.56.10 (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. As the brother of three women, the son of another strong and strongly-opinioned woman, and the friend of many, I certainly applaud all efforts to level playing-fields, but this article seems to blatantly rewrite the history of usage, along with the definitions, of "virago." I can certainly cite many examples of its use which are uncomplimentary, disparaging, etc. From what I can see, this is the rule, rather than the exception. I believe that women have a right, even a duty, to reclaim and repurpose a word in a more positive fashion, but this is not the forum for invention or re-invention. We have a mandate to publish what is, and what historically has been, rather than what we would wish. Rags (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

[directly from enWiktionary!]

1. A woman given to undue belligerence or ill manner at the slightest provocation; a shrew, a termagant.
   • {{quote-book|year=1918|author={{w|W. B. Maxwell}}|chapter=22 |title=[http://openlibrary.org/works/OL1097634W The Mirror and the Lamp] |passage=Not unnaturally, “Auntie” took this communication in bad part. Thus outraged, she showed herself to be a bold as well as a furious '''virago'''. Next day she found her way to their lodgings and tried to recover her ward by the hair of the head.}}
2. A woman who is scolding, domineering, or highly opinionated; a fishwife, a nag.
3. A woman who is rough, loud, and aggressive.

We must stick to creating an encyclopedia. I do not advocate the deletion of any of the information here provided, and I certainly do not subscribe to the views expressed concerning racial disparity, etc. But we must tell the whole story, and not just the part that we prefer. Rags (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The exists in the world overbearing, aggressive women, who are not heroic. I would not imagine this word having any resonance with a warrior woman such as Joan of Arc. This is some kind of attempt to erase categories. Some women can be 'rough, loud, aggressive' and it doesn't mean that men are disempowering women when we use a word to describe that behavior when heroism is not present. This current definition is like rewriting 'bully' as 'hero'. 87.116.178.111 (talk) 06:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

POV problems

This entire article, in particular the lede, seems to present a tone overwhelmingly enveloped in, and giving WP:UNDUE weight to, certain feminist perspectives that are irreverent to the expected definition of the term in relation to its usage both historical and contemporary. I suggest a revision that presents its definition a la termagant and its synonyms and a separate section for critique and "taking back" the term in a tone that certain audiences would perceive as "positive" (which this article seems to assume the latter is).--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 16:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)