Talk:Amatonormativity

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

This page was proposed for deletion by Crossroads (talk · contribs) on 8 July 2020.

Discrimination

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

There has got to be an academic work associated with this doesn’t there? The article says it was coined by a philosophy professor at ASU, I would sure think she’s published SOMETHING on this other than two op-eds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.163.3 (talk) 06:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this is a rather terrible article[edit]

A good example of why I find cause to despise people who use Wikipedia for partisan promotion. It was pasted here five months ago, and the founder hasn't returned since to do any work such as editing for basic grammar or even logic.

For instance, it never actually gets around to defining the neologism. Here:

Amatonormativity is, essentially, “the assumption that a central, exclusive, amorous relationship is normal for humans, in that it is a universally shared goal, and that such a relationship is normative, in the sense that it should be aimed at in preference to other relationship types,” according to Elizabeth Brake. That is to say, it’s the relationship escalator everyone tends to ride: fall in love, move in together, get married, have kids, and forsake all (or at least most or many) others. 2016: "5 Ways Amatonormativity Sets Harmful Relationship Norms For Us All"

The Brake quote is of course awful and will be improved by paraphrasing, but it at least indicates what she's trying to say.

More fundamentally, I contend that three popular-press articles is far insufficient support for something that starts by waving the coiner's credentials around. Has Brake not published something? Really, it's a larded-up dictionary entry, and not much even at that.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to get around to sending this article to WP:AfD per WP:Notability. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She's published a book, Minimizing Marriage – Marriage, Morality, and the Law. It seems that the term "amatonormativity" has become very popular in asexual and aromantic circles (i.e. among people who don't experience romantic and/or sexual attraction, and who are thus heavily disadvantaged in cultures that focus on romantic and sexual relationships to the detriment of other relationship types) but has only caught on to a relatively limited extent in the mainstream and doesn't yet have an entry in many of the main dictionaries, but it does have an article in the LGBTA Wiki. Tws45 (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, there really is an article for everything, isn't there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.67.24 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

philosophy?[edit]

Is she really a professor of philosophy? or a professor of psychology? This 'article' reads like a Cosmo bit of self-pitying projection. --142.163.194.73 (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

idk 78.42.13.31 (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latin[edit]

This word isn't really formed according to the Latin-language rules for compounding. The first "o" is from Greek, not Latin, among other things. It would have been better to ask advice from a knowledgeable person, rather than just guessing... AnonMoos (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

The term "amatonormativity" can be seen as similar to heteronormativity, compulsory heterosexuality, or compulsory sexuality. Those terms are much more common, but there isn't a common word similar to those terms that specifies romantic attraction & relationships. Amatonormativity is that word. While it isn't common knowledge now, it is increasing in usage. I believe this concept is notable and that it would be a mistake to delete the article. Terms related to the LGBTQ+ community are dismissed by some people as unnecessary or too niche. (For example, decades ago, the term "transgender" was very uncommon, but now it is very much mainstream). But who are we to police people's identities?

I am in the process of researching scholarly articles and sources relating to amatonormativity. I agree that this article is lacking in that respect, and it would benefit from being more fleshed out and having more reputable sources. I please ask everyone to reconsider deleting this article. I predict the term amatonormativity will become more common and mainstream in discussion of LGBTQ+ issues in the future.

I'll get off of my soapbox now. Feel free to respond with your thoughts. A. E. Katz (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I predict the term amatonormativity will become more common and mainstream in discussion of LGBTQ+ issues in the future." that is a worthwhile goal but also, Wikipedia:CRYSTAL Tdmurlock (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]