Talk:maidenless

RFV discussion: March–April 2023
Rfv-sense "Unattractive; unappealing; unworthy of love" Ioaxxere (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this fails, but I have no objection to a single Internet slang sense. Ioaxxere (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * - Only the nominated sense ("unattractive; unappealing; unworthy of love") failed to pass RfV here. More due to the difficulty in targeting searches to find instances of that specific sense than its unattestability, I would say. The other two senses that you removed were added subsequent to this nomination by me and both have a year's worth of cites (just barely). One might argue that these are simply permutations of existing senses. I think they're distinct - thus why I added them. But that would be a matter for another RfV to consider. Please remember to check the edit history and citations page before closing. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * it seems kind of pointless to add more unverifiable senses in the middle of an ongoing RFV. But if you insist, I'll create another one for your new senses... Ioaxxere (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The two new senses aren't unverifiable. They both have a full year's worth of cites (to the day, in one case). When I've initiated RfVs in the past I've tried to keep track of changes to the entry. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect others to check for changes before making a determination in an RfV/RfD. This happened before with . WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

RFV discussion: April–May 2023
Rfv-senses: Rationale: I don't see these as distinct senses, since single/no bitches/etc. are generally used as catch-all insults.
 * 1) in a manner attributed to an unhappily single man; incel-like.
 * 2) Generally rude, obnoxious, or deplorable.

(and I guess I need to make explicit: this RFV applies to all current and future senses added without attestation except for sense 3)

Ioaxxere (talk) 03:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Nobody would accuse people who don't tip their bartenders, or a woman making anti-trans comments, of "single behaviour" or "no bitches behaviour", surely...
 * Also this seems like an RFD matter. It is true that the terms are supported only by Twitter evidence which needs to be voted on, but it seems like that isn't the concern. This, that and the other (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Sense 3 is distinct from sense 4 because singledom doesn't necessarily make one "pathetic, angry, or bitter" or "incel-like." Lots of people are single by choice and are perfectly content with that state of affairs, while some unhappily single people experience more inwardly-turned feelings such as sadness, loneliness, despair, etc. Sense 4 is comparable to . Antipathy towards women and/or a sense of aggrieved entitlement are baked into its usage. So it can technically apply to a partnered man who exhihits either of those two characteristics. Sense 5 is distinct from sense 4 because it's possible to deem someone "rude, obnoxious, or deplorable" without deeming them "incel-like." The quotations for sense 5 aren't attributing incel-like or misogynistic aggrievement to the people mentioned. Sometimes it's necessary to have multiple precise senses rather than trying to fit everything under one catch-all definition and creating unintended connotations in the process. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And sense 5 is distinct from sense 2 because sense 2 is gendered in a way that sense 5 isn't. Sense 2 implies coarseness that runs counter to the softness and refinement society expects of a "proper" woman. Sense 5 just implies gender-non-specific rudeness or obnoxiousness. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My point was that I don't normally RFV online-only senses, but in this case I feel like Twitter alone doesn't warrant these kinds of fine-toothed distinctions (like the equivalent of ). Therefore, I'll let the RFV process go along as usual and remove the senses that way.
 * However: in response to, how would you feel about this reorganization?
 * (sense 1 unchanged)
 * (sense 2 unchanged)
 * Single; lacking a girlfriend.
 * Pathetic, deplorable, or toxic in a manner characteristic of an unhappily single man; incel-like.
 * Essentially, just divide the quotations by the clear line of derogatory vs non-derogatory rather than trying to list every facet of the insult "maidenless". Ioaxxere (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Shortening sense 3 is a good call. But I don't think removing sense 5 would be an improvement. Most of the citations under that sense wouldn't fit neatly under the other senses. The three featured cites involve not tipping a bartender, JKR's anti-trans Twitter commentary, and someone threatening to boycott a game developer. None of those are examples of "unmaidenly" or "incel-like" behaviour. They are behaviour considered rude, obnoxious, or contemptible in a more generalized way. (To be clear, the person threatening to boycott a developer wasn't a Gamergater, but someone who felt the developer was favouring XBox and PC players over PlayStation players). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that senses 4 and 5 have so much overlap that I don't really see how you sorted the quotations.
 * Criticizing someone for starting an OnlyFans is truly maidenless behavior.—Is the behaviour "pathetic, angry, or bitter" or "rude, obnoxious, or deplorable"? Seems like it could be either one.
 * Saying your favourite writer is Hemingway is absolutely maidenless behaviour—Again not at all clear.
 * Lol imagine simping for nazis, total maidenless behavior, your mother wishes she'd let you run down her leg.—This was sorted under sense 4, but it seems like "deplorable" would be a closer synonym here.
 * Hating on and harrassing game company staff is never okay. In fact, it's what I would call maidenless behaviour.—This was sorted under sense 5. But wouldn't hating on people be more aptly called "angry and bitter"?
 * My point is that definitions can only be considered distinct if you can easily identify which one a given quotation corresponds to, and this doesn't seem to be possible here. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is that definitions can only be considered distinct if you can easily identify which one a given quotation corresponds to, and this doesn't seem to be possible here. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Sense 4 includes male aggrieved entitlement and antipathy toward women. That's what "incel-like" is intended to convey in a succinct manner. 1. Demeaning and harassing women with OnlyFans accounts is a thing that incel types do for obvious reasons. 2. Hemingway is widely considered to have been a man's man. He's drawn criticism for his treatment of women in both his personal life and his writing. There was some "what favourite author would you consider a red flag on a first date?" discourse on Twitter a couple of years back and Hemingway's name came up a lot. 3. This was in response to someone citing an tweet as evidence that "trans activists" are a bigger threat to women than "Nazis." Basically, there's conservative types like  who frame their opposition to trans rights as a defence of women's rights, while often opposing or dismissing issues central to feminism such as abortion rights, pay equity, #MeToo, etc. I interpreted the quoted tweet as a brutal condemnation of that mentality. 4. It's not specifically misogynistic anger or bitterness, just general entitled gamer anger or bitterness. Analysising cites one-by-one like this is kind of tedious. All that's required for the attestation of any sense are three clear cites. That requirement has been met in both cases. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding you, you're saying that the difference between senses 4 and 5 is whether it involves misogyny. The thing is, everything either is or isn't misogynistic, so no precision is lost by combining the senses and omitting mention of this aspect entirely. Is splitting the definition along this line is any less arbitrary than splitting it, say, by the speaker's eye colour? The fact that you sorted the senses using obscure context clues (like Twitter's opinion on Hemingway) rather than differences in actual usage convinces me that the split is artificial.


 * Also, "three clear cites" is definitely not the requirement for attestation—as of next month, the senses are failing due to be cited only from Twitter. Nevertheless I would like to get input from others first. Ioaxxere (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't obscure. There are probably dozens of books examining Hemingway's ideas about masculinity and women. There's at least one journal article about the 2020 "red flag" discourse on Booktwt that I mentioned. Granted, this isn't context that is immediately familiar to everyone, but then not everyone gets Elden Ring references without explanation either. Anyway, I'm done. This will be my last edit. I don't really care what's done at this point. Editing an Elden Ring-related entry was supposed to be a fun distraction, not having to wade into a discussion of more insidious cultural manifestations of misogyny. There's a reason women rarely choose to reveal their genders in certain online spaces like wikis, including finding out someone has compared my wiki-participation to "the tragic tale of the abused wife who comes back." WordyAndNerdy (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * As I write this, leaving aside the ephemeral nature of most of the uses, I see three senses:
 * Sense 1, literally without a maiden. The first half of sense 3 "Single; lacking a girlfriend" should be merged into the this sense.
 * Sense 2, a woman who doesn't act like a maiden should.
 * The second half of sense 3, "characteristic of someone who is single" and all of senses 4 and 5. It's Twitter slang for "rude, obnoxious, unjustly angry".  There is no profit in trying to distinguish "guy who needs to get laid" from "woman I disagree with".
 * Briefly explain the rapid sense development in the etymology section. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

RFV Failed Ioaxxere (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)