Talk:Sexism: Difference between revisions

Anti-sexism section?

This is a pointless section - especially considering that feminism is essentially defined as 'anti-sexism'. -Mog 08/1/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.5.72.107 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If your govt passed a law tomorrow saying that women had to give up 2 years of their life to serve without choice in the military but this law didn't apply to men - would this be sexism against women? Yes? Thought so. So when exactly the same thing happens to men - as it does in many European countries - is this an example of sexism? Think carefully before answering.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.8.39 (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, 18 countries have NO defense forces at all. 86 countries have no enforced conscription like the US, Spain, New Zealand, Italy, Canada, and Australia. Even in countries with obligatory military service the time is limited and can be "replaced" with another activity. In Germany, for instance, you can replace military service with one year or six months of "Zivildienst", meaning paid work, basically. Countries that have unlimited compulsory military service are "developing countries" that constantly participate in one war or another like North Korea, Vietnam, Congo and Syria where women are treated worse than dogs, anyway. Sending those women to war would hardly qualify as "equality". Or maybe this is your definition of equality, who knows? In Israel men AND women are forced to serve, so women have to serve in the military and bear children and men just serve in the military period. Fair? Also, women do everything a man does (work, pay taxes, provide for the family etc.) + bearing children and bringing them up. So a woman = man + bearing children. So what does a man do in a country without enforced conscription? If we follow your warped logic, that would mean that we force men to bear children as a compensation! Next time think carefully before you speak of "sexism against men"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.200.127 (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why all the country information, no one suggested military service takes place in every country.

"women do everything a man does (work, pay taxes, provide for the family etc.) + bearing children and bringing them up" - Not true, men contribute to childrearing too. Plus people who work part time or stay at home to bring up children are far more likely to be women than men. However you're missing the whole point: having children is a choice, having to do military service or "Zivildienst" is a state-enforced loss of liberty that when it applies, applies far more to men than women.

"So what does a man do in a country without enforced conscription?" - that made me smile. In the UK men have to work 5 years longer than women before they are entitled to a state pension, they also get to die around 5 years earlier, partially caused by the fact they overwhelmingly do the most dangerous jobs in society (coal miner, frontline soldier, construction worker etc etc.), partially caused by government spending on specifically female health issues being around 8 times greater than on equivalent male health issues, they are far less likely to get custody of their children in the event of divorce which means - as no judge will make a child homeless - men usually end up losing the family home, a fact which no doubt contributes to men being around 10 times more likely to be homeless than women, in a court of law - as even official Home Office statistics recognise - men are 2 to 3 times more likely to be imprisoned for the same offence than women with a comparable criminal history, they have to endure endless media portrayals (advertising being the worst offender) of men as infantile, incompetent idiots and of female sexism as being about female empowerment. Oh and if they actually have the cheek to complain about this they are often labelled as misogynists! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.8.39 (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For so long as women can wear pants, and men can't wear skirts, there is sexism against men. Why does sexism against women exclude sexism against men? Can't there be both? Because I'm pretty sure there is. Especially after encountering add campaigns like the "90% of rapes are committed by men" campaign. And yes, there is still sexisim against women too. 15:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

'See also' link to Sexism against men in India

The linked page seems extremely one-sided and primarily the work of one or two authors. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on the subject, so I don't know how to begin addressing this problem. 99.150.116.70 (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

anthropological linguistics

I removed the commentary under anthropological linguistics. It referred to theories of natural language systems by referencing the 'West' and then turned to a comparison of China's economic restructuring in the present. I am not a linguist or a historian and so the author may want to return and clarify or restate 'their' original work.

The view of the radical feminists is, in my opinion, absurd. We should remember here that sexism can go both ways. WojPob personally regards feminists as sexist to certain degree.

No, sexism cannot go "both ways". Since all modern human societies are patriarchal in structure and power, men a re the "dominant gender". Therefore they can use sexism on women. Women can "discriminate unfairly", but you cannot term it "sexism".

Many feminists are utterly sexist. Read some of the disgustingly sexist, derogatory, misandrist things that Germaine Greer for example has said about men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.8.39 (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Many men - not just misogynists, but men from all walks of life - are utterly sexist. Read some of the disgustingly sexist, derogatory, misogynist things that ... uh, EVERYONE says from Greek Mythology (Pandora) to Christianity and Islam to Shakespeare to Hemingway to etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. Please stop complaining about a handful of women who dare to challenge male supremacy.

Many women from all walks of life are utterly sexist too. Witness the apparently insatiable appetite amongst female consumers for portrayals of men in commercials as infantile, incompetent idiots / women as effortlessly superior. Greek myths and Shakespeare were written in far less enlightened times. In the modern world if a man were to write the same kind of sexist rubbish as Greer he'd be sacked and vilified before you could utter the words "utter hypocrisy". When women like Greer do it they become cultural heroes! It is possible to challenge "male supremacy" without being a female supremacist - though I somehow think that men, in the developed world at least, who are not politicians, generals, captains of industry etc (i.e. the vast majority of men) would be greatly puzzled by the notion they somehow enjoy "male supremacy". My overwhelming impression was that if anything they are 2nd class citizens

---

Is there any difference between the terms "sexism" and "sexual discrimination"? I'm aiming to set the latter to redirect to the former, but I'm not sure if they are exactly the same thing. --Stephen Gilbert

I added the redirect. I also changed the intro - the previous definition wasn't reflected in most dictionaries, and was somewhat at odds with the way I've used and seen the term used. See definitions. Martin

NPOV ISSUES

---

The language section states some opinions as facts:

"Language plays a part in sexism" There is no agreement as to whether or not any commonly availible langues cause sexism or are caused by sexism.

See Against the theory of sexist language

"it is disputed whether certain language causes sexism or sexism causes certain language"

This is ambiguously worded. It's not clear whether the author is saying the dispute is over whether one is true or the other is true, or over whether or not either are true at all.

Blackcats 20:10 UTC, 8 Feb 2005

---

okxj7

a view of differences between men and women AS GROUPS

There's a view expoused by evolutionary biologist Helena Cronin [1] that men and women, as groups, are substantially different. This means that when we look at traits of the groups, such as representation in a particular occupation, we should expect to see differences. However, this does not mean that a particular person has to have masculine or feminine traits. I have the impression that this is what was meant by the third definition of sexism in the article, but it isn't really clear. Should we reword the third definition or add a fourth definition? AdamRetchless 00:04, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cultural perception

Typical Asian and Middle Eastern cultures believe sexism (as viewed by Westerners) is an acceptable practice, although this is in the process of changing. Asians are Westernising and their societies increasingly treat women with more respect, giving the women the same liberty to as they give men, and discarding practices that may have been deemed inappropriate by the West. I'm thinking, that because such cultures may be "perceived" as sexism, perhaps it deserves a standing section in the article. If we add the section, the article will be more complete.

I agree.

Negative discrimination?

Sexism is negative discrimination against people based on their assumed or presumed sexual identity.

What is the point of the qualifier "negative"? Dictionary.com simply says "Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women." anthony (see warning) 01:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The neologism "positive discrimination" has come to apply whenever there is a distinct preference of women over men, or of blacks over whites, or homosexuals over heterosexuals. In a way, it means "when a minority discriminates against majorities", although women can't reasonably be described as a minority. As a term it is closely related to "political correctness" and "affirmative action", in that it describes a preferred treatment of a group of people to compensate for real or imagined wrongs in the past. It does express itself in things like women's quotas (despite the fact that there are way more female elementary school teachers than male ones), or female-only libraries (is that like white-only schools?) or other such things. It's an oxymoron, really. In a land where everyone it to be considered equal, you simply cannot demand better treatment based on your sex, race or sexuality. --TheOtherStephan 16:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sexism and Homosexuality

In my opinion it is a violation of the NPOV principle to only quote D.A. Miller on why male homosexuality is less accepted than lesbianism.

Miller bends over backwards to prove that even where men are obviously treated worse, it is still misogyny. In my opinion the explanation is way simpler than what Miller concocts. Recall the widespread and obviously sexist notion of "fairer sex" and "uglier sex". Based on that notion, when a woman is intimate with another woman, it is perceived as the creation of an exclusive sphere of pureness uncontaminated by the "ugliness" of males. OTOH, two men getting intimate are seen as rejects who were deemed unworthy of access to that elevated sphere. Of course some men's fantasies driven by emotional masochism do play a role in the creation and perpetuation of this thought pattern, but I would argue that feminist man-hating propaganda is the main suspect. Note there was none of the latter in ancient Greece, a society 120% patriarchal and unambiguously male-supremacist but with no problems accepting male homosexuality.

But the section of the article is not about explanations of homophobia - it is about the relationship between homophobia and sexism. So quoting only Miller's theory does not imply that that is the only theory which seeks to explain homophobia, and so doesn't violate NPOV -- VoluntarySlave

Yes, the section is about relationship between sexism and homophobia, but it is also about explanations of homophobia, precisely because Miller and other quoted gender theorists explain homophobia with sexism. But there is a problem with their explanation. It is biased. They attribute homophobia solely to men's anti-female sexism, while I demonstrate that it can also be attributed to the society's anti-male sexism. Gender theorists seem to imply, and certainly they assume, that only men can be sexist. This is in itself a sexist position. Therefore it does violate NPOV to only quote gender theorists on the issue. -- Szczepan Hołyszewski

Miller bends over backwards- arf! arf! quercus robur

moving "Relation of sexism with homophobia" to Sexualism

I feel that this section should be moved to sexualism. (1) Sexism is about discrimination based on sex and gender while Sexualism is about discrimination based on sexual-orientation. (2) Sexualism could further addresses the subtle differences in homophobia of male-male, homophobia of female-female, and biphobia. 3Laws 20:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

---

where did the ideas of the "fairer sex" and the "uglier sex" (not oppposing ideas, by the way) come from in the first place? As you mention ancient Greece, I'll also add that in that society the male form was considered the ideal, and that it is that fact, rather than the lack of "feminist man-hating propaganda" that contributed to the acceptance of male homosexuality. Male homosexuality was thought of as the ideal sexual act, because of the assumed superiority in mind, spirit, and form of the male. Heterosexual acts were seen as desirable only for procreation. When and why did the idea of the male form as the ideal change? Certainly well before the rise of feminist thought. It has its roots in Judeo-Christian ideology and the cementing of traditional gender roles, and male homosexuality represents within that context an emasculation, which is extremely undesirable. 65.95.25.34 07:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Australian men and women are just a sex. but to some society certain men and women are satired because they find the same sex attractive we need to stop these people from being discriminated against. afterall they are just human and in the eyes of god they are still his children who he made this way why should we be denigrate these human beings? i would like to stop sexual discrimination. i want society to look at them a human beings not aliens afterall they cant help what or who they are attracted to.124.150.67.91 (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Redheads

why is homophobia not even mentioned?

I'm not all that wikipedia savvy, so please have some patience with me. without wanting to go to deep into it - why isn't homophobia mentioned in the article? discrimination against gays, lesbians and so forth, commonly called homophobia, is discrimination based on a person's behavior in relation to a person's sex/gender.

Example: two men publicly kissing will be subject to criticism/discrimination. Their behavior - kissing - is commonly accepted, the criticism is based on their gender - both male.

I'm not saying, that this should be in any way elaborate in the article, but I'd say there should be at least a "see also" link to homophobia, shouldn't there? I'll let this rest a week and then add the link. Please comment. Dr hagedorn (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think if there are notable reliable sources claiming homophobia to be a form of sexism, they should be included. Much closer to direct sexism (by the broad definition we use here), are homosexuality and heterosexuality, since those tendencies are direct discrimination based on gender (rather than a dislike of others who have such a discriminatory preference). Example: a homosexual or heterosexual person meets another person who wishes to have a sexual relationship. The first person decides not to have a sexual relationship, based on the gender of the second person. That behaviour -- not wanting a sexual relationship -- is commonly accepted, but the reason behind it is solely based on the other person's gender (sexism). Dr hagedorn, do you believe we should also link to homosexuality and heterosexuality as forms of sexism? Blackworm (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources linking homophobia with sexism, then by all means put them in. Asarelah (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think at the very least, the term heterosexism should appear in the article. I mean, it is hetero"sexism" after all. A woman who sends a woman a drink or sings a karaoke love song addressed to a woman in a straight bar may be belittled or censured in the same way as a woman applying to work on a construction crew or applying to a mathematics program. All of them are based on her stepping outside her prescribed gender role. The question is, should heterosexism be under its own heading or mentioned as part of an already existing heading?

Lack of citations.

There are some provocative claims, like at least the one about sexual intercourse being for men's fun alone. --Thomi 11:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the whole article has a very OR feel about it. Can anybody improve it, or think of anybody who can? --Guinnog 22:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologize for the multiple rollbacks - I'm getting used to VandalProof and hit extra buttons inadvertently. -- Mike Straw 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity in article name

Sexism also means another belief stating that being sexy means being superior, which is not mentioned in this article. --Deryck C. 05:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is covered in forcing a limited notion of feminity onto females. "Being sexy means being superior" is one such limited notion of feminity. It does worth mentioning somewhere in the body of the article. 3Laws 18:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Poor writing

Has anyone else noticed that certain portions of the article look to have been written by someone with a somewhat limited understanding of English verb conjugations? I have come across the word "has" used in place of "have" and other subsequent problems in conjugation directly related to those mistakes in the article. It really doesn't make much sense as other information on the page seems fine, and it is odd that someone could write so much else correctly, but just have a problem with those few very common verbs. I also can't see why anyone would vandalize an article by just slightly altering a few words. I did fix a few of these errors, but I would like to propose that someone look into correcting any more of these mistakes. Blinutne 03:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my mistakes. I changed two more. 3Laws 09:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please edit on new portions

Reverted edits by Kirbytime (talk) to last version by Lulujannings; Sexism and sexual intercourse has been edited to Sexism#Sexual_intercourse, Sexiam and pornography has been edited to Sexism#Pornography, Relation of sexism with homophobia has been edited to Homophobia#Sexist_beliefs; please don't mix portions of old article with new and directly edit on the new portions. 3Laws 09:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. When I saw the article, it ended right when it said this: "It has been argued that language plays a par". That's it, no references, no external links, nothing. I used the history of the article to recycle what was originally there. And when you reverted me here[2], you reverted it back to the "It has been argued that language plays a par" stage. And then you reverted yourself and reinserted what I recycled. I'm not entirely sure what you're telling me now. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 06:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted paragraph

I deleted the following paragraph from the Pornography section of the article:

While women are affected and have sexism because of pornography, men also get sexism. Men in the porn industy are treated like objects. Now men, in general are treated like objects. Especially in the porn industry.

While i agree with what appears to be the gist of the statement (that men are also subject to sexism and objectification), the paragraph is poorly written to the point of being nonsensical. It also offers no sources. ~ lav-chan @ 02:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

POV and balance check: Added related forms of sexism

Content edited:

Sexism can refer to subtly different beliefs or attitudes:

• The belief that one sex is superior to or more valuable than the other;
• The belief that one gender is superior to or more valuable than the other;
• Female chauvinism or male chauvinism
• The attitude of misogyny (hatred of females) or misandry (hatred of males); as well as
• The attitude of imposing a limited and/or false notion of masculinity (gender) on males (sex) and a limited and/or false notion of femininity (gender) on females (sex).

I added the content so that ALL forms of sexism are accounted for here. In misandry please note Nathanson and Young make a host of well-explained assertions that "ideological" feminism is reverse sexist based on blatantly biased, gynocentric and misandric usages of the term 'gender'. Therefore I added 'gender' as a form of sexism here.

I added "'false' notion" because many authors have shown that extreme ideological 'constructs' of 'gender' (as being ALL nurture and no nature) are patently false despite their wide usage by 'oppression'-feminists otherwise. I would be glad to include references here but for some reason there is no references section on this article. For one of many independent authors' statements about these 'gender' falsehoods I refer other editors to Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men; Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal, 2006; ISBN 0-7735-2862-8 (drop in editor) 128.111.95.147 02:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Examples of Sexism

What about some concrete examples of sexism. Much of the article seems a little abstract.

I'm thinking of cases were say woman scientists or authors are compared only with other women scientists/authors, not with scientists, or authors as a whole; where visitors to a lab will list all the men with PhDs as Dr Surname, and all the women with PhDs as Firstname Surname. Where men just don't give as much credit to something a women says compared to something a man says; the scientist at a talk by Ben Barres who turned to his neighbour and said ' that Ben Barres is so much better than his sister' when in fact the 'sister' was Ben before his transsexual operation. Perhaps something on the line of a 'spotters guide to sexism around you'. Of course something like this needs lots of reference which I don't have on me. ChristineD 01:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a glance at misandry and Nathanson and Youngs books on reverse-sexist forms of man-hate for many examples of one form of sexism. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 00:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverse-sexism is a misnomer. Being a sexist is not about offending women, its about offending any person just because of their sex. You can be a man and be sexist against men, becuase it is a discourse - way of thinking and speaking. ChristineD while I have seen such instances of that kind of sexism, any references to sexist beavious must be sourced and cited for WP:V materials. If you have some sources like this add them--Cailil 20:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Sexual discrimination already redirects here, so it seems sensible for sex discrimination to do likewise. Suggest merge. MisfitToys 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Merged as a Law section. Sex Discrimination was short anyway. If more paragraphs are added for each country and this article becomes to long in the future, then we can always split it. 3Laws 03:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Could someone comment on the impact of the continued use of "mankind" to mean "humankind" and its impact on sexist views (and clarity: eg. "Mankind means mankind, unless it means mankind") - and the rationale for continuing its use over humankind. Also, the impact of a "father" view of god, rather than a "father and mother" view of god, not its history etc., but just in terms of how that might impact current sexist thinking. Just thought these might relate to the sexism entry and interested to see if anyone thought they were relevant enough items to include.Optim2007 11:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Redundant sentence

Sexism can refer to subtly different beliefs or attitudes:

• The belief that one sex is superior to or more valuable than the other;
• The belief that one gender is superior to or more valuable than the other;

It's the same exact sentence. Going to remove the first line, since gender is the proper term. 70.118.94.61 00:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to half-disagree with you here. Though there's a lot of contentious argument over the exact distinction, "sex" and "gender" are not equivalent terms. That's the half-disagreement. The half-agreement is that there was no need for the two to be entered as separate sentences on separate lines; "The belief that one sex or gender is superior to or more valuable than the other;" would do quite nicely. --7Kim 23:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Done. --7Kim 23:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on acronym ...

It's all one to me whether we use LGBT, GLBT, LGBTIQ, GLBTIQ, or LGBTIQQGQSAAPKP, but I do believe we should strike a consensus on one and agree to stick with it throughout the article. Throughout Wikipedia and indeed throughout the larger community, LGBT seems to prevail, but there are other arguments to be made. --7Kim 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination WikiProject

Looking for people to join a proposed Discrimination WikiProject for discrimination articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Discrimination - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

More information about misandry than misogyny

Am I the only one who finds it odd that there is more information on the sexism page about misandry than misogyny? --70.173.47.6 07:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some editors are so concerned that "feminists" or "anti-male editors" will try to ruin wikipedia that they go overboard in requiring "equal treatment"; we end up with what is clearly a disproportionate emphasis on misandry etc. IMO it is best to keep working on the article, acknowledging both theoretical symmetries and historical/political realities. --lquilter 15:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That certainly isn't the case now. though I think there is a case for it. In Western culture misandry is very much the discrimination that dare not speak its name. Where I wonder are the Ministers for Men, the Men's Studies courses, the TV documentaries about misandry (which is rampant in the English speaking world), the healthcare programmes for men, Men's drop in centres etc etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.18.155 (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it is clear there is much more information on sexism against women than sexism against men in this article. This is clearly seen by the fact the "sexism against females" section is about three to four times the size of the "sexist against males" section. Some, like Lquilter and the anon user, apparently would like to see this imbalance greaten, reflecting their view that sexism against males is a tiny fraction of sexism. Whether they call themselves "feminists" or "anti-male editors" or not, the fact remains that sexism against men is a taboo subject many would like to suppress. Blackworm (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Balanced coverage is proportional to the extent of the issues. If you have evidence that, for example, men are economically disadvantaged in western societies, or that men are under-represented in the professions or in political office, then you might have some basis for your claim that the two forms of sexism need equal coverage.

May I suggest that you start by a few sourced lists to back up your claims? How about a few simple points for starters such a list of countries which have denied women the vote in elections, compared with a list of countries which have denied men the vote? A comparison of men and women in board-level positions in major businesses, to demonstrate how woefully men's careers are undermined by sexism?

Go find the evidence in reliable sources, and I for one will support its inclusion. But unless you actually have some evidence, your campaign is looking disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My claim was that some editors regard sexism against men as a tiny fraction of sexism. By your post, you make clear you are one of those editors. I don't see how I would need to "back up" my claim; you have proven it for me. As for sexism against males being taboo, how can one find sources if no one is willing to discuss it (i.e., it's taboo)? Despite this difficulty, sources abound.

If you're seeking examples of sexism against males, I think I can give you what I regard as one of the most egregious ones. The World Health Organization is engaged in a massive campaign to stop what it calls Female Genital Mutilation, which it defines as, "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons."[3]. It objects to all these procedures because, it says, FGM as defined above "is in direct violation of young girls’ rights, has both short-term and long-term adverse health consequences, and is an unnecessary procedure."

So, remember the lesson WHO tells us: any removal of tissue from external female genitalia is an injury, and in addition, any other injury is also labeled FGM, and all FGM violates the rights of girls. These views, from the most prominent international authority on health matters and human rights (i.e., the United Nations, of which the WHO is a specialized agency) are widely taken as true and self-evident in our culture, and likely among the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors.

The UN/WHO is also currently engaged in a massive campaign to promote and expand male circumcision, which is a specific form of the partial removal of the external male genitalia, usually performed for cultural, religious, or other non-therapeutic reasons. This has resulted in at least one state-sponsored campaign for removing these parts of male genitalia -- a campaign in Rwanda which the BBC called "nominally voluntary" in its report, stating that "correspondents say many in the armed forces will regard [circumcision] as an order." Men and boys in Rwanda are being ordered to have parts of their genitals cut off. No international human rights group has objected to this. No one speaks of it. It isn't covered in Wikipedia, anywhere. At all.

Now, of course, the paragraph above about FGM is well covered in Wikipedia. The second is covered to the extent that Wikipedia makes clear in every circumcision-related article that the WHO and others state that male circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV (and has supposed benefits to women's health, e.g. the transmission of HPV leading to cervical cancer). Opinions contrary to that view, while noted in sources, are suppressed when attempts are made to edit articles referencing those sources. On the question of rights, there are a few sentences out of the dozens of pages of text on circumcision on WP that discuss "body integrity" but no mention is made of "rights" when it comes to male circumcision. Any attempt to cast circumcision as a human rights issue, exactly as done in sources, is modified or suppressed.

There is no evidence of any editors in projects such as WikiProject: Gender Studies and WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias that are interested in this subject, or in expanding any subject where men appear to be having their rights violated. That is because these groups of editors explicitly state bias in favour of men as the one thing that must be opposed. As you know, BrownHairedGirl, weeks ago I objected here to the fact that all articles in WikiProject: Gender Studies' todo list which discuss topics of women or women's rights are labeled "expand," and all articles discussing topics of men or men's rights are labeled "review." This embarrassing display of sexism has not since been corrected, even though two editors agreed with me that it was better to merge all the articles into one list. The point is, where there is sexism against men, there is complete disinterest. You can point to things where women are or have been disadvantaged, I can point to things in my own culture like genital mutilation, higher education (many more females than males), suicide (committed by four times as many males), homelessness (ten times more males), disparity in reproductive choice, disparity in child custody, disparity in punishment for the same crimes, disparity in the presumption of innocence, disparity in violent crime victimization, the relative perceived worth of men's lives in comparison to women and children's, anti-male sexism in popular media, and so on. Sources can be found for this stuff, but it is drowned out by masses of editors who see every statement of sexism against men as a suspicious attack on their worldview, and by the huge amounts of feminist material spanning decades these editors reference and include in Wikipedia. There isn't a lot of material on taboo subjects, especially material that adheres to Wikipedia's standards, namely that it must be published in book form (i.e. there is a market for the information) or in a peer-reviewed journal (i.e. that there are people willing to self-label as "experts" on the topic). Men don't have a market, nor experts (e.g. "Gender Studies scholars" not interested in men except to point out supposed privilege). No one wants to buy books telling them men are discriminated against, even if there's proof. No one wants to think it possible. It's a taboo among women who have been told their whole lives that they are the ones with an uphill climb, and a taboo among men who have been told that they have it easy and are "whiners" if they complain. The ones interested in objectivity or a middle ground are drowned out.

And yes, seeking objectivity or neutrality does seem disruptive when bias is the norm. I can understand that. Blackworm (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"There is no evidence of any editors in projects such as WikiProject: Gender Studies and WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias that are interested in this subject, or in expanding any subject where men appear to be having their rights violated." Um, not exactly[4][5][6]. Oh and by the way wikipedia is not a soapbox or a forum and your assumptions about all of the editors involved in two wikiprojects as being involved in some sort of deliberate bias against men's rights is assuming bad faith--Cailil ^talk 00:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant evidence regarding the subject of genital mutilation, not "masculinities." I had never heard the word "masculinities" before people from WP:GS introduced me to it, and it seems to be a euphemism for masculism; it's a new, bizarre term that obfuscates parallels to feminism, and is seemingly embraced by feminists but restricts its scope to men getting in touch with their feelings, rather than demanding their rights. Am I off the mark?

I'm not at all assuming deliberate bias -- on the contrary, I'm questioning this group's apparent claims of arguably deliberate bias (one editor here used "systematic bias," the word systematic carrying the notion of deliberation). You are the one assuming bad faith against me here, with your unequivocal assertion, completely unsupported, that I'm assuming deliberate bias in all editors here. Why would I think that? You have made these accusations against me before, and continue to, to my utter amazement. The irony of that accusation, given that I am there ([WP:CSB]) in a minority of one questioning whether that project's assumptions lead to conclusions that, in effect, may constitute failure to assume good faith of the editors in Wikipedia fitting the majority demographic, is inescapable. Blackworm (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I note the page you link to in your accusation says, Joke Alert: This page is intended as humor. It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline. I don't see how an assertion that I assumed bad faith against a large group of editors is funny or amusing. I'd appreciate it if when making such serious claims, you would cite Wikipedia policy, and not joke pages. Blackworm (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, you want policies? Let's start with WP:OR and WP:SYN. As evidence of the sexism of the WHO, you cite one report of a practice which you disapprove of ...but no evidence that the conclusions you draw from it are shared by anyone other than yourself.

You are quote entitled to your views, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to pursue your own theories, however sincerely you believe in them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which recording the existing state of knowledge in reliable sources, without original research or novel synthesis.

You have been engaged for months in a campaign of attacks on the good faith of a whole group of editors, and despite requests for evidence you have repeatedly failed to come up with evidence in reliable sources to support your position. This soapboxing, failure to assume good faith, and failure to offer evidence to support your claims is disruptive and tendentious editing. Please stop it now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I again deny your false accusations and personal attacks, and I dismiss your other claims as demonstrably false. It appears as though you are attempting to stifle discussion through intimidation. That is unacceptable. If you are that concerned about WP:OR, perhaps your time would be better spent sourcing this article, which doesn't even seem to have any inline cites, rather than reacting with open hostility to perceived WP:OR in article Talk, while personally attacking, harassing, defaming and slandering editors with whom you disagree. Blackworm (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, if I am wrong, then please prove me wrong: start providing referenced material which supports your claim without requiring a novel synthesis. Your posts here include plenty of denunciations of everyone who had worked on this article. Here's an example:

Your opening contribution included the assertion that "Whether they call themselves "feminists" or "anti-male editors" or not, the fact remains that sexism against men is a taboo subject many would like to suppress". There are two claims here:

1. that sexism against men is a taboo subject. Unless you can produce references in reliable sources which report that claim, you are soapboxing. Please stop.
2. That editors contributing to this article are "anti-male". That's a personal attack on other editors. Don't do that.

I am not attempting to "stifle discussion"; I am trying to persuade you to stop attacking the good faith of other editors, and to move away from general statements of your own views on sexism to providing references in reliable sources to support the inclusion of material which you believe would address the balance.

Please read WP:TPG:

Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal)

You are quite welcome to start providing references which would allow the inclusion of more info in sexism against males, and nobody will stop you doing that. Do you have any such references? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My statement about taboo can indeed be regarded as WP:OR, as can any off the cuff opinion. Lquilter's statement before it contains WP:OR as well, as I'm sure you'll agree. Considering the entire sexism article is was [-BW] unsourced, responding to WP:OR with WP:OR didn't seem like much of a disruption. You made it clear "this" had to stop, and I agree with that need. (A minor note: WP:SYN is a subset of WP:OR, and thus the two refer to the same policy, not "policies" as you state.) I made no statement regarding the editors here, and certainly not the suggestion that they are all "anti-male," but I apologize if that is how the statements were interpreted. It was not the intent. Thank you for your other good general advice, and for your civility. Blackworm (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

approaching sexism

While recognizing the talk page isn't about the subject, it's impossible to look at the talk here and not see the questions begged by the subject as it's presented on Wikipedia. The substantive talk (not intending to demean those with grammatical or syntactical concerns, but to differentiate from them) here largely reflects efforts to "balance" the subject: to neutralize the linguistic influence, to identify men objectified by porn, to decide whether gay men or lesbians are the more oppressed, and so on. "Balancing" necessitates diminishing one side to strengthen another; it's akin to neutrality. And, while a value in language choices, neutrality is not a value in comprehending a subject. Take a look at the entry on "racism": it starts from a series of field-specific definitions. Here, under "sexism," we have someone's generic definition sketched in at the top, but we actually start from categories (men, women, trans), dividing the topic in such a way that we are led into debates about balance and neutrality. My vote is to scrap this page and replace it with working definitions, and let the definitions lead to the explanations, variations, and real-world weighting.Realleslie (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

History of Sexism against Females

"The history of sexism began thousands of years ago. Women were relegated to the background, to doing domestic cares and household chores. Before the influential years, Christianity was affected by ancient dualistic beliefs originating in Persia[citation needed]. According to these dualistic beliefs, spirit was good and matter was evil. (This is doubtful, as we have no evidence that Persian dualism regarded matter as evil[citation needed]). Eventually, this matter that was considered evil became identified with women[citation needed]. Touching this matter, according to the Gnostics, was defiling, and this became known as the defiling contact with women[citation needed]. Genesis and Aristotle had implied this idea as well[citation needed]. Women were seen as being created by the evil Demiurge, as matter was seen as being created by the evil Auhra-Mazda[citation needed]. The idea of women being evil was symbolized in many ways: for example, paradise or the garden (shal) was originally known as the garden-womb of the Goddess Mari (Shalimar) but it then became known as shell, “the pit,” which is an unpleasant hell or underworld[citation needed]. This womb-garden transformed into the womb-tomb; the idea of the womb being good became bad and “the pit” and its carrier became bad as well. This idea made women’s sensualness evolve into a paradigm of evil[citation needed]. Tertullian, a theologian who converted to Christianity and his writings influenced early Christianity, had said that woman were “the devil’s gate.” This idea of women eventually symbolized incompleteness and women were then known as the imperfect male, as it is identified in Christian tradition[citation needed]. The following passage from Otto Weininger’s Sex and Character reveals how women were seen in the past:

Women have no existence and no essence: they are not, they are nothing. Mankind occurs as male or female, as something or nothing. Woman has no share in ontological reality, no relation to the thing-in-itself, which, in the deepest interpretation, is the absolute, is God. Man, in his highest form, the genius, has such a relation, and for him the absolute is either the conception of the higher worth of existence, in which case he is a philosopher; or it is the wonderful fairyland of dreams, the kingdom of absolute beauty, and then he is an artist. But both views mean the same. Women has no relation to the idea, she neither affirms nor denies it; she is neither moral nor anti-moral; mathematically speaking she has no sign; she is purposeless, neither good nor bad, neither angel nor devil, never egotistical (and therefore has often been said to be altruistic); she is as non-moral as she is non-logical. But all existence is moral and logical existence. So woman has no existence. (Weininger 286, 220)"

I believe the above section, quoted from the article, needs to be removed. First of all, it has no citations of source; It seems to be pure speculation. An idea this specific had to come from somewhere: If it were compiled from reference works, experts on the subject, or one notable person in particular, the sources should be readily available; but perhaps the lack of sourcing is due to an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia by the editor. It states that Mazda was viewed as an evil God by the Persians, but in actuality he was the personification of everything spiritual and divine. I think the quote by Tertullian has been taken out of context. I want some feedback before I remove it. Opinions? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally I agree that this should be removed. However the piece that beings "The following passage from Otto Weininger’s Sex and Character reveals how women were seen in the past" is actually sourced - just improperly cited. But it has another problem - that quoted text should be summarized and explained briefly rather than just thrown in.

In short go ahead and remove it all - but if the Weininger bit should be summarized and put back into the article with a proper {{cite}}--Cailil ^talk 16:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the context of the quote is in question here. It is unclear whither the author is stating his beliefs, the beliefs of another person, or a theory he devised. A theory wouldn't merit the same kind of citation it enjoyed before its removal. The whole paragraph was worded as a truth, and yet I doubt there is any significant evidence that any of it occurred. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's likely, based on a quick review of reviews of that book, that the beliefs are Weininger's own. The problem arises when we claim that his words reveals how women were seen in the past. That is original research. One man's view in 1903 is not evidence supporting that claim, which implies that the view was common or universal. I'm not sure how the quote could be summarized and made relevant to this section without drawing on a source that specifically relates it to commonly held values of the time. For that reason, I support your edit removing the unsourced material including the Weininger quote. Blackworm (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah if they're Weininger's views then it is absolutely OR by synthesis and has to stay out. There are books that actually describe the history of this form of sexism, so one like The Mad Woman in the Attic or La Donna e Mobile: Constructing the irrational woman could be summarized rather than constructing OR with the Weininger text or another one--Cailil ^talk 18:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sexism against males (Main article: Fathers' rights movement)

Why does the Sexism against males section have a pointer to "Main article": Fathers' rights movement? This is misleading - sexism against males goes far beyond one major area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.226.49 (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It might make sense under "see also" but it's certainly not a main article for sexism against men. Blackworm (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've performed that edit (and others). Blackworm (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Many edits, and self-imposed limits to the scope of edits.

I saw that the "sexism against females" section had shrunken dramatically, making the "sexism against males" section seem large by comparison. It left an impression of undue weight, when really both sections seemed to need a lot of potential WP:OR trimming. As much as editing uncited articles is painful, I felt moved to dive in. Please review my contributions and edit as necessary.

I focussed on reducing "sexism against males" by removing a bunch of apparently unsourced material, inlining a couple of raw URL cites, creating a References section, and trying to restore at least some flow to the ideas despite the difficulty in doing so when the material is uncited. I made some other edits, among them finding a source to support a statement that was deleted. A lot of work appears to remain. I stayed away from editing much of "sexism against females" because I believe I've done enough for a while, want to give time for comment, and do not wish to disrupt. I also feel more intimidated editing that section for some perhaps unexplained reason. Perhaps I'm compelled not to trust my neutrality as much on it, but then again I also don't want to assume I'm biased. I don't feel biased. I'll leave it up to editors here to evaluate whether I should give it a try. Blackworm (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sexism against males - removed section - I'm confused

Hi Blackworm - I see you've removed this section

Sexism against males may take the form of institutional sexism where, for example as in most European countries, men have to do military service when this, or an equivalent, is not required from women or where, as in the UK, men are several more times likely to be imprisoned than women with a comparable criminal history. Historically too institutional sexism against men has often also been a reality - for example until 1967 in the UK, male homosexuality, unlike lesbianism, was a criminal offence. From this perspective men are more likely to be discriminated against by other men in the form of policy makers or judges in a court of law.

Given this is all highly relevant to the topic of sexism against males I'm not sure why you haven't just added "citation needed". Could you let me know why as I'd like to see that info back - though fair enough it needs citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to see that info back, why not come up with sources supporting the statements? I try to follow Jimmy Wales' statement reproduced in WP:V, which states, There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. Blackworm (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wales's statement sounds fine but needs to be applied consistently. Probably most of the following should be deleted on that basis:

"The term 'sexism', in common usage, is viewed by many to imply sexism against females, perhaps because this is the most commonly identified form of sexism. The view that men are superior to women is one form of sexism. This form is often called male chauvinism, chauvinism in a broader sense referring to any extreme and unreasonable partisanship that is accompanied by malice and hatred towards a rival group. A similar term is gynophobia, which refers to fears of females or feminity.

Historically, in many patriarchal societies, females have been and are viewed as the "weaker sex". Women's lower status can be seen in cases in which females were not even recognized as persons under the law of the land. The feminist movement promotes women's rights to end sexism against females by addressing issues such as equality under the law, political representation of females, access to education and employment, female victims of domestic violence, self-ownership of the female body, and the impact of pornography on women. While feminists broadly agree on the aims and goals of feminism, they may disagree on specific issues (for instance, pornography or abortion), tactics, or priorities."

I can see how this needs a citation: "as in the UK, men are several more times likely to be imprisoned than women with a comparable criminal history"

But what about this: "most European countries, men have to do military service when this, or an equivalent, is not required from women or where" How can this be referenced? You want me to give a reference to specific sections of national laws of countries that have national service? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How about this, as a starting source: "CONSCRIPTION to military service is a system whereby the state requires all men (and in a few cases women) to serve a period in the armed forces."[7] I'd like suggest that instead of starting with a statement and seeking out sources that support it, start with a source, then summarize it. One summary of the above could be: In some states, military service is required of all men in the form of conscription, but women are required to serve in the armed forces in few cases. See how all that flows neutrally and verifiably from the quoted source?

You're right that there are other examples of WP:OR. I chose to delete that one to address a problem of undue weight. You are welcome to delete any and all original research, as I understand it. I would only suggest that perhaps you may wish to do so slowly and give some time for editors to find sources for the deleted statements. Blackworm (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Glasgow University study

"Eight percent (of women at Glasgow University) admitted injuring their partners, the highest rate in the study, which involved 36 universities."

Surely the average or range would be more helpful than the highest. If 20 of the other places had only 1% then quoting the 8% is pretty misleading. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Misleading how? The secondary source cited was commenting specifically on this university, and we take care to repeat their claim that it was the highest rate of the survey. If we didn't, your point would be stronger. I don't have a source for the entire study, but if you do find it, we could present the overall findings as well as this particular case, addressing your concerns. Blackworm (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I managed to find this report. If you have Athens access you could download it from here. I take Olaf's point that quoting the highest stat at nothing else is undue but that's an effect of quoting a BBC website news report rather than the document itself. Will have a read and post a summary up here in the morning--Cailil ^talk 22:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's actually shorter than I thought so here's a quick summary.

This report by Emily M. Douglas and Murray A Straus tests the hypothesis that

the more prevalent the use of corporal punishment by parents in a social setting, the higher is the prevalence of assault and injury of a dating partner.

And the report finds that

typical of other studies is the finding that, at more than three quarters of the sites in this study, a larger proportion of female then male students physically assaulted dating partners (Archer 2000). The median rate of partner assault was 21 percent higher for females than for males

It then goes on to qualify by stating that over two thirds of the sample were female - they attempted to reduce the potential problems due to this by breaking down stats by gender.

In their closing they address the connection between corporal punishment and intimate partner violence, explaining that the decrease in its prevalence in the USA saying:

The decrease in partner violence is in part due to the feminist-led effort to end wife-beating by raising public awareness, changes in police and judicial procedures, and establishing refuges for female victims. The decrease in CP is in part due to the expansion of parent education into all types of media that reach ever larger sectors of the population. Important as have been the feminist effort to end wife-beating and the efforts of developmental psychologists and parent educators to improve parenting, both have serious weakness which need to be addressed

However they do go on to quote from a study on the conflict tactics scale by John Archer (see below) that points out the feminist effort's

refusal to take into account the overwhelming evidence from more than a hundred studies that have found that women assault their partners at about the same rate as men and that women initiate domestic violence as often as men.

Their final statement recommends a number of policy implementations its last words are:

One place to start could be based on the results of this study, which show that almost half of the students did not reject the idea that there are circumstances when it is appropriate for a husband to slap his wife, and more than three quarters did not reject that idea that there are circumstances when it is appropriate for a wife to slap her husband.

At a first glance this report would be far more relevant to Domestic violence and Corporal punishment - actually it has to be because the report is not about sexism. The BBC news story is quoting out of context (as journalists are allowed to do - but we aren't). They didn't mention that 82.1% of men agreed to the same question (approving of a wife slapping a husband) in Glasgow or that in Fribourg, Germany 89.3 of men and 88.2 of women. In fact the BBC report gets the part about Glasgow being the highest at 8% wrong - London, Ontario is the highest at 23.5% (I'll remember to avoid women from that town).

I can see how somebody would say "this is sexism" but we can't do that - at least not with this report. If one searches it there are no occurrences of the term "sexism". In order for it to show sexist attitudes the study has to be interpreted. In an essay one could show this but in the encyclopedia one can't. Since the report isn't about sexism and the BBC report is out of context and (partially) inaccurate we need to look elsewhere.

This study is a great find for Domestic violence and Corporal punishment but it would be OR to use it to demonstrate sexist attittudes here. A possible place to look is the Archer study on the Assessment of the Reliability of the Conflict Tactics Scales which they quote. The full ref for that is Archer, J. (1999). Assessment of the reliability of the conflict tactics scales: a meta-analytic review . Journal of Interpersonal Violence 14, 1263-1289 [8]. I think it's been quoted from in Domestic violence or Men's rights--Cailil ^talk 23:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose by a strict reading of WP:NOR, unless sexism is mentioned specifically it would have to go. Then again, most of this article would go if we held it to that standard. Also, since sexism is more rarely used to describe sexism against males, that seems to be a case of systemic bias. Should we counter it? Blackworm (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think in fairness to Hoff Sommers her arguments are the most notable in regard to sexism against men and the one line about her ideas is less than due weight so I would say expand that. I'd also expand the Nathanson & Young a bit. The whole Glen Sacks oeuvre has been left out as well so that could be added (ie Boys_Are_Stupid_Throw_Rocks_at_Them). There is work done in this area it just reads to found becuase right now what we've got in that section is a loose connection between studies (which are given no weight) and news items that need interpretation to be used as evidence of sexism. The whole article needs work but why not start here--Cailil ^talk 07:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made a quick edit to address what I'm talking about. I do think the health care issue should be here but we need proper sourcing. Similarly with the female male violence - perhaps the Archer study. Also I'm aware that the Hoff Sommers arguments need a lot more expansion than I've given just now--Cailil ^talk 08:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In answer to "why not start here," I would suggest it more appropriate to start with the overwhelming amount of unsourced material, or material that is sourced but misinterpreted (seems very common here). But I agree with you in general. Again, if material that needs interpretation to be used as evidence of sexism is to be removed, most of this article is to be removed. On the other hand, the definition of "sexism" used here is so broad that most of this material could be reasonably seen as only making descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.(WP:NOR). I assume it is in the spirit of the latter directive as well as common sense that this material was seen fit to include here. Blackworm (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

By the reference to the unsourced - I take it you mean the 'Sexism and sexual expression' and the first part (with the table) in 'Generalization and partition' - if so then I agree. All of that looks like OR to me and should probably be removed. I certainly think the sexism against transsexes can be sourced but I would agree with a removal of all other unsourced immediately. On the matter of the OR in the 'Sexism against males' that I removed, I would say that the way the Glasgow violence piece and the health piece were being used was definite OR. If you want to query that bring it to the NOR noticeboard - they'll correct me if I'm wrong in the matter--Cailil ^talk 15:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The "wage gap" and whether it indicates sexism

I think there's much more that is questionable. For instance, the "wage gap" stuff. It seems that by your standards, citing a difference in income between men and women full-time year-round workers in itself is not necessarily evidence of sexism. We need to cite people's labeling of it as evidence of sexism (or denying such a label) in there. As for the stuff you removed, I'm willing to accept it, but I wonder if you'd be willing to accept that articles quoting people as calling for "more X for women, because men are given more X than women" (as it the health spending case) are similarly irrelevant to sexism. In that vein, the entire part in "sexism against females" discussing how feminists address issues seems to be OR -- why are any of the issues discussed relevant to sexism? Blackworm (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) As far as I'm concerned everything is up for discussion here. But I'm unclear about what you meanin the 'Occupational sexism' section. Would you mind identifying the sources that you think are being synthesized?
From here I'd really only question ref 14 - the equal pay website from WP:RS and WP:DUE - the other refs are about the gender based wage gap. The problem with the Douglas and Straus report was that it was not about sexist practices its info had to be interpreted to show sexism.
What is sourced in 'sexism against females' seems reasonable to me - it needs attribution but it is recording what some research done on sexism / misogyny is saying. Considering the volume of research in this area it is a surprisingly short section though--Cailil ^talk 19:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe for the moment that no direct relation to sexism has been established for any of the three sources in that paragraph (i.e. [13] Blau, [14] NCPE and [15] Wall). Being "about the gender wage gap" does not imply that it's about sexism; that requires an interpretation. Thus, under WP:NOR I would delete the entire paragraph.

I'm prepared to leave the sexism against females section alone until we resolve this issue. Blackworm (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ref 15 is marginal it is about "gender discrimination" which is synonymous with sexism but a better source could be found I'm sure. Ref 13 - teh Blau & Kahn - on first read through seems fine to me? Did you get to read the whole thing?--Cailil ^talk 00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The stuff quoted from ref 15 does not mention "gender discrimination." I also would appreciate if you explained how the material sourced from ref 13 is related to sexism -- whether the source itself discusses sexism at some point is irrelevant; the question is, how are the statements we include in this article that are attributed to the source directly related to sexism? I shouldn't need to read the article to figure this out; either the statement is related to sexism, or it isn't. As it stands, it isn't. Blackworm (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Blackworm ref 15 mentions (but only mentions) gender discrimination twice under the heading 'Eliminate the Gender Wage Gap?'. About the Blau and Kahn - the article is about gender discrimination shown through the wage gap - you should be able to see some hint of this from the 2nd paragraph of the preview page - full text goes into it with a lot more depth. I'm not being facetious Blackworm but I don't understand how one can know that the article is not relevant without having read it. As far as I can see, after reading it, its fine as regards site policy and its use here. Ref 15 could do with being replaced though--Cailil ^talk 09:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The question is not whether the "article is relevant" by discussing sexism, but whether the material in this WP article summarized from the source is directly related to sexism. For example, if the source also discussed racism, that wouldn't mean that the material we include here about the gender wage gap would be relevant to the racism article. What we can use is the material from the source that specifically discusses sexism -- we can summarize and attribute it here. What we do summarize and attribute from the source right now, has no apparent direct link to sexism. Blackworm (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that's a wording issue then. That can be easily rectified by reading the sourcing and rewording the passage. But bare in mind that that section is a summary of occupational sexism - it's not a perfect summary there's more to gender discrimination in the worksplace than wage gaps but the info needs to pertinent to both. But that should be easily fixed - I'll see what I can do about it later if you can't a hold of the source. If you have any issues with the 'sexism against females' section please raise them but we should probably open a new thread for that--Cailil ^talk 12:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found a good article that deals with what gender wage discrimination and the debates about the wage gap in the USA: 'Gender Wage Discrimination Bias? A Meta-Regression Analysis' by T.D. Stanley and Stephen B. Jarrell in The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Autumn, 1998)[9]--Cailil ^talk 12:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, I suppose everything in Wikipedia is ultimately a wording issue. You say "there's more to gender discrimination in the workplace than wage gaps," but this is making an assumption and skipping the question: how is (or isn't) the wage gap gender discrimination? The source you bring seems likely to have an answer to this, and its conclusions on that specific question definitely would be relevant. Let's present and attribute those conclusions, instead of the long paragraph with the three sources we have now. Blackworm (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In short Blackworm gender based wage discrimination is just that - getting paid differently (usually less ala discrimination) becuase of one's gender or sex. Getting treated differently (discrimination) becuase of one's gender or sex is sexism. This is a really quick description of why they are linked. But wage discrimination as a form of occupational sexism could be sourced to something like Holland and Chisholm's work about girl's and their choice of jobs - I'll give the proper cite when I find it (might be in my office so might have to wait till Monday)- there would be many other sources for this ie Wendy Wolf's stuff from the 1980s (again I don't have this to hand)-Cailil ^talk 21:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent.) I understand that some point to a difference in average pay between male and female full time year round workers as evidence of gender based discrimination. Some others question this link. Right now, we only present material indicating a difference, not indicating views on whether this difference is based on discrimination. You seem to understand this point, so I ask, do you have any remaining objection to my deletion of the entire paragraph as currently irrelevant to sexism? When you present sources linking the wage gap to sexism (or challenging this link), we can include them. Blackworm (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think all of it needed to be excised but we can reintroduce anything that is relevant when the context is established. It will be a while before I have the energy and available time to any writing - so could you put a {{Rewriting}} or {{sect-expand}} tag (which ever you feel is appropriate) in that section so passers-by understand that it's being worked on--Cailil ^talk 13:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel either is needed, so I won't be tagging the section. I believe it more important to similarly remove other material that only implies sexism, and doesn't actually discuss it. Blackworm (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy disputed

Added a Factual Accuracy disputed tag to the final section. The section states that evolution causes males to be more intelligent than females, and cites The Red Queen without a page number. I've read The Red Queen and it makes no such statement that I could find. Whoever added this section needs to get other references (reputable ones) or give a page reference in the Red Queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valhalla08 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Section removed based on these serious concerns. Its been a long time since I read red Queen but as I remember it was Ridley's hypothesis that sexual selection encourages species to better adapt - and that human intelligence is used to attract mates. I don't remember anything about gender differences in inteligence and I can't find anything mention that either. So I removed it as {{dubious}} - unless or until someone can substantiate that claim--Cailil ^talk 12:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Does Ridley make the claim that males are more competitive? That was my concern with the section. JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd need to check that JC but I don't have the book to hand. I'm not sure that even if he did that it would belong in a section entitled "Support for sexism views" - if Ridley did say that it would belong in the Biology of gender article--Cailil ^talk 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Too Male-Centric

The Topic Sexism Against Men has so much more citations and is much longer than the one against women, when any educated person knows it's much less of a problem (if still a big problem). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.91.129 (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it has more citations would seem to indicate otherwise. Men are subject to sexism as much as women are, it's just that sexism against men is not pointed out very often in popular culture. Wrad (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from a historical and sociological standpoint, it could be argued that women have been subjected to sexism far more than man through laws and social restrictions. That isn't to say that men aren't subjected to sexism (because obviously sexism against them exists) but the fact remains that women have suffered more from sexism, historically speaking. We can't ignore history.Ahlymel (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That is one opinion, but it isn't really appropriate for us to judge who has suffered more. All we can do is cite what others have said on the topic of sexism. I invite you to bring more reliable sources and summarize them for the sexism against women section if you feel it needs expansion, and that the sources bring new information we don't already discuss. Note, however, that most of the article outside the sexism against men/women sections deals with sexism against women, and thus we already give the latter much, much more weight, in contrast to the apparent concerns of the anonymous IP editor above. Blackworm (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I was talking more along the lines of institutionalized sexism, at least in the U.S. (for it's the only country I can speak on behalf). Obviously, there have been more laws restricting the rights of minority women than say, white men. I'd gladly link sites where such information is offered but unfortunately I don't have the time. I hope somebody links some sites though in the mean time.Ahlymel (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a dozen more citations and some new sub-sections to the Sexism against women section. I defy Wrad or anyone else to find as much info about "female chauvinism." Also, I or someone needs to correct the Sexism against men section, which really seriously misrepresents the work of, for example, Susan Brownmillar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardiana (talk • contribs) 02:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Women earning more than men?

I suggest deleting a recent change - someone cites the National Review as evidence that women working part-time earn more than men working part-time. The National Review article cites the Department of Labor, so I think in the interests of scholarship and neutrality the citation in Wikipedia should be to the DOL as well. Further, this whole statement really may belong in the "Sexism Against Men" section. Finally, it should also be pointed out that the wage gap discussion re: women includes a claimed gap even among women and men of the same experience and education level; this issue of experience and education should also be brought up for the claimed male part-timer wage gap. I am currently trying to re-locate a reference that discussed how much more likely male part-timers are to have only a high school diploma, as opposed to female part-timers who usually have college degree.Ricardiana (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It belongs in that section because the paragraph doesn't document a disparity in wages with respect to the sex of candidates - rather it specifically mentions (or did mention) women earning less than men. In this case, the evidence and statements not only belong but are required in order to present both sides of the argument and maintain a neutral point of view. And I agree, citing directly from DoL is better. --Carbon Rodney 19:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article as a whole will be neutral with this move; and I do think that this should be mentioned in the "Sexism against men" section, precisely to be even-handed, because, let's face it, right now that section doesn't have much going on. Maybe it should be in both? But without being repetitive.... Ricardiana (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Independently citing a reference claiming that male part-time workers are less formally educated than female part-time workers would constitute original research, specifically the synthesis of sources, if juxtaposed with a separate reference discussing the relative incomes of male and female part time workers. Please do not do that. Blackworm (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I see; I wasn't aware, so thank you for letting me know. Maybe I can find a source that does the synthesis, but if not, the issue will have to drop. Ricardiana (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just went and deleted that statement, as I hadn't checked here first. But I'm not very inclined to go back and revert it, either. It seemed to me the article was deliberately misinterpreted to suggest sexism against men. It's an interesting article, but maybe it can be used in some other way.--Susan118 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Rape

Regarding the following paragraph that was added today (minus a line I removed which was blatant POV):

"Statistics are widely disseminated purporting that 1 in 4 women are brutally raped in the United States. Campaigns such as Take Back The Night give the impression that rape is a very real possibility for women when walking down the street at night.[citation needed] It is well known that the majority of men are not capable of violent rape as an erection is unobtainable by most all men by attacking and hurting a woman.[citation needed] Normal and healthy male biology does not find this sexually arousing.[citation needed]The majority of rape cases take place in the home, are under the influence of alcohol and or drugs by one or both parties, is by someone the person is close to, and is non violent or forceful."

I realize people want to "balance" this article by insisting that men suffer from sexism, but this whole paragraph is ridiculous. Diminishing the crime of rape is not the way to go about creating balance. If no sources are added, it will end up deleted. --Susan118 (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned here that men can also be raped (by women). The exclusion is quite ironic, considering the title of the article.--Studiodan (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is important!--Studiodan (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Helen Fisher book "Anatomy of Love"

Even if this section had any citations (which it does not), and did not read like an essay on someone's interpretation of the book (which it does) it seems like this paragraph pushes a minority viewpoint (that women dressing in certain ways can be sexual harrasment, and that women provoke men through their choice of clothing)which does not deserve a whole paragraph.

--Susan118 (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Am removing the paragraph regarding this book, as the reference which had been added, was simply a link to the book on Amazon.--Susan118 (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Using a thesis as a source?

"Linda Kelly states in her thesis, DISABUSING THE DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC ABUSE: HOW WOMEN BATTER MEN AND THE ROLE OF THE FEMINIST STATE in the Florida State University Law Review that domestic violence is equally the province of women.[54]"

Is this really a reliable source? Do we care what ONE law professor says? Thousands of people write theses every year, and I'll bet you can dig up one to support just about any statement. --Susan118 (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, if the source is to stay, it needs a page number where this is stated. --Susan118 (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree - this is not a notable source, and I think that the section is placing undue weight on this thesis. I removed it a couple of times, but stopped due to 3RR. It would be great if the anonymous editor who keeps putting it back would join the discussion here. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You are too easily dismissing this thesis - have you read it? It's available online. At the very least it provides an analysis which must be included in order to maintain neutrality. There is a section for domestic violence against women, why should a referenced section on domestic violence against men be deleted? --Carbon Rodney 01:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, I question the reliability of theses in general. I did search Wikipedia for info on this, and it seems there has been discussion on the topic, but no real consensus. The fact that she is a law professor does make it seem as if her arguments might hold more weight than if it was a student thesis. However, I still think citing this one person's (minority?) opinion is not enough. And at the very least, a page number where this idea is mentioned needs to be cited, as it is over 60 pages.

Maintaining neutrality does not mean that because there is a section on domestic violence against women, there has to be one for domestic violence against men. And it does not mean that each section has to be the same length, or have just as many references. Maintaining neutrality means presenting all of the facts without pushing any particular viewpoint, and also without giving undue weight to radical minority viewpoints. At any rate, no one is proposing eliminating all mention of domestic violence against men, as I know statistics on that are cited elsewhere in the article, and that is not in question. --Susan118 (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Google video

I removed the Google video, as it is a user-submitted video much like can be found on youtube, and does not appear to be a reliable source.--Susan118 (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Title IX and male sexism

I am by no means an expert on this, but wasn't the intention of Title IX that girls would have an equal chance to participate in the same sports as boys, presumably by adding opportunities for girls to participate in sports? The negative effects on boys' sports, to my understanding, was an unintended consequence as schools decided to go the less expensive route by cutting boys' sports to make it look equal. It is wrong, certainly, but is that sexism? --Susan118 (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't read anything in the sources about it being sexist (although I find the phrase "victims of gender equity" to be apt), so I'd vote for mention of it to be removed. Blackworm (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sexism and language

Currently a huge part of this article is commented out. The Sexism and language section should either be fixed or removed. Leaving it commented out indefinitely doesn't help anything. Kaldari (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

fixed that for you YayaY (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Canvasing alert

http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2009/04/wikipedia-getting-word-out-sexist.html Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph Sexism against men

I cancel this: ''See also: [[Separatist feminism]] and [[SCUM Manifesto]]'' because the link in this section is POV.--Andrea.Rho (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph

The introductory paragraph on this article seems misleading to me. The first sentence defines sexism as the belief that one gender is inherently superior to the other. Yet, I've rarely heard anyone, even the most sexist, come right out and say that one gender is superior to the other in every sphere of life. Sexism is practically always expressed as one gender being better than the other only in a specific activity, such as politics, or housekeeping, or mathematics, or caregiving. In addition, the opening paragraph doesn't deal at all with the issue of people who exist outside the either-or gender binary of male-female. I propose changing the introductory paragraph to read something like: "Sexism, a term coined in the 20th century, is the employment of gender roles as a form of discrimination or prejudice. The most common use of the term refers to portraying one gender or sex as inherently less competent or less valuable in a certain field, or in general. The belief that men are inferior in all or most fields is misandry. The belief that women are inferior in all or most fields is misogyny. In a broader sense, sexism can refer to the very act of portraying gender as limited to a binary of feminine women and masculine men, which belittles or ignores androgyny, bigender expression, genderqueer identity, and third gender status" I'll give this some time for comments and other ideas before I change it. Markwiki (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination vs Sexism

I have made several changes to the article, by adding several sourced statements and joining the sexism against men and sexism against women sections, to counter what I felt was poor structure and contributed to POV. I think the distinction between discrimination and sexism needs to be either clarified or removed, as at the moment the two sections seem to be covering the same things. I am uncomfortable making those changes unilaterally so I am looking for input and/or opinions on what should be done about those two sections, ie should one be removed, what should be in each, ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.87.202 (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I also think the article should be divided into two sections: a history section, and a current concerns section. Again, input appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.87.202 (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be tricky without limiting it to a Western point of view, i.e. what is history for some people is a current concern for others. Kaldari (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Section on Marginalization

"In 1997, the Canadian Advertising Foundation ruled that a National Ad campaign that featuring Nicole Brown Simpson's sister Denise with the slogan, "Stop violence against Women" was in fact portraying only men as aggressors, and that it was not providing a balanced message and was in fact contributing to gender stereotyping by portraying men as the more violent gender. (The murder of Nicole Simpson also included the murder of Ronald Goldman)."

While under many definitions, this is an example of marginalization, I'd posit this is not an appropriate example to impart the meaning of marginalization in relation to the broader spectrum of sexism. A more appropriate reference would be like the one referenced in the Wikipedia article on Marginalization itself (see below), as it illustrates an entrenched and systemic process that through forced exclusion creates and maintains an underclass.

"Moosa-Mitha (as cited in Brown & Strega, 2005) discusses the feminist movement as a direct reaction to the marginalization of white women in society. Women were excluded from the labor force and their work in the home was not valued. Feminists argued that men and women should equally participate in the labor force, the public and private sector, and in the home. They also focused on labor laws to increase access to employment, as well as recognize child-rearing as a valuable form of labor. Today women are still marginalized from executive positions and continue to earn less than men in upper management positions."

23:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Spaceanddeath (talk

I agree. I will remove the section, it needs to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.225.246 (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Really really bad page

This page reads like excerpts from a politic manifesto. Why does an article on sexism have sections on Rape & Domestic violence? Both of which are collections of cherry picked statistics to illustrate POV.

The section on education is so biased I am left close to speechless, with high school and university graduates being 58% female it purports our system is sexist against women!? The cherry picked 'research' it is based on has been shown to be wrong.

The rest of this page is little better and should be completely rewritten. Tomtac (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)