Talk:Racism in the romance fiction industry
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Depictions of Black women in romance novels
editMoving this here because it feels like synth, but I feel like it could go into the article if we can find sources specifically discussing romance novels rather than fictional representations of Black women:
Historically
editStereotypes
editNote: I'm seeing these references as supporting depictions in fiction generally, but not in romance novels in particular? Mammy in Gone with the Wind is one, but that's a novel which many romance experts exclude from the genre. The Jezebel and Sapphire sources don't mention novels at all, much less romance novels. The welfare queen stereotype doesn't mention fiction at all. This may be synth? —valereee (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Depictions of Black women in romance novels have frequently fit into one of four stereotypical categories.[citation needed] The Mammy is the loyal caretaker and is perceived as overweight, unattractive, and not capable of speaking properly.[1] The Jezebel is a sexual woman who is viewed as evil, attractive, and enticing[2]. The Sapphire is an aggressive, fierce, cunning women who is seen as emasculating, intimidating, and loud.[3] Lastly, the Welfare Mother is a single parent perceived as lazy and reliant on government funding.[4]
Do we have sources giving examples of these stereotypes in romance novels? —valereee (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ "The Mammy Caricature - Anti-black Imagery - Jim Crow Museum - Ferris State University". www.ferris.edu. Retrieved 2021-11-21.
- ^ "The Jezebel Stereotype - Anti-black Imagery - Jim Crow Museum - Ferris State University". www.ferris.edu. Retrieved 2021-11-21.
- ^ "The Sapphire Caricature - Anti-black Imagery - Jim Crow Museum - Ferris State University". www.ferris.edu. Retrieved 2021-11-21.
- ^ "The true story behind the 'welfare queen' stereotype". PBS NewsHour. 2019-06-01. Retrieved 2021-11-21.
Nice work
editI had no idea this subject was so interesting. Thanks for writing it up! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Clayoquot! I hope the original creators and @Mkibona will think it gets at what they were trying to do. I kind of feel like it doesn't, especially the removal of the stuff in the above section, and I'd like to get at those things if we can. I feel like that is a thing we could write about in fiction but I'm not finding coverage in sources dealing with romance novels. —valereee (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Capitalisation of ethnoracial labels
editThe Manual of Style about capitalisation does not take a stance on whether ethnoracial labels should be capitalised or not. Either are fine, but articles should be consistent in what variety of English they use. 90.251.81.219 (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- The variety of English is talking about British English vs. American English vs. Indian English, etc. The article is consistent in that it uses Black/white, which is not disallowed. Consistency within the article means it's always Black or black, always White or white, not mixed (except within quotes). —valereee (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- But national varieties are not the only manner in which written English varies. It looks jarringly inconsistent. And bear in mind that some people may interpret capitalisation as something like a mark of respect. So unless it reflects an established practice in reliable sources (such as capitalising Asian but not colour-based labels), they ought to be treated consistently. 90.251.81.219 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- There's been discussion, and it's basically been left up to the article creator/consensus at specific article. In some articles -- specifically, those about racism itself -- I feel it's important. —valereee (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- But national varieties are not the only manner in which written English varies. It looks jarringly inconsistent. And bear in mind that some people may interpret capitalisation as something like a mark of respect. So unless it reflects an established practice in reliable sources (such as capitalising Asian but not colour-based labels), they ought to be treated consistently. 90.251.81.219 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
broken ref
editI restored an earlier version because Special:Diff/1063961777 broke a ref in a way I couldn't figure out how to fix. —valereee (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)