Talk:Sexism/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Disparate Impacts

Stop edit warring this section. You can't logically use a US study to argue under-representation constitutes discrimination, and then delete the reference to the US legal doctrine that expressly rejects the under-representation argument as evidence of discrimination. The page on the legal doctrine directly includes the citation to the most recent legal case rejecting this argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneworks333 (talk • contribs)

This needs to be sourced and the last sentence seems to be a coatrack or synthesis (if the source does not mention the study). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The source with a direct link to the most recent legal case on the doctrine is directly linked in the disparate impact article. Stop edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneworks333 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Please learn how to sign your posts. And what secondary source (i.e., not legal rulings) are you using? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact#Controversy expressly discusses the issue of under-representation being rejected as the basis for discrimination in EEOC v Freeman. The court case text is not a secondary source -- it is a primary source and is directly linked there. --Stoneworks333 —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Stoneworks333: And that's the issue. We shouldn't be using primary sources. "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not doing any analysis... the court did. And we should always be linking to primary sources where available, not biased secondary sources. --Stoneworks333 —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Now we have opinion mixed in with original research, all trying to use a primary source. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Stoneworks333: If you don't provide a good reason why we should retain your primary sourced original research I will be removing it again. If you restore it, I will ask other uninvolved editors to look into this dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, I'm not doing any original research or original analysis. The court case that I directly linked to does the analysis. The incredible majority of this sexism article discusses US studies which consider under-representation alone as evidence of discrimination. I directly cited and linked the most recent major US court case that expressly rejects this. If you remove this, you will be reported for political edit-warring, intentionally and maliciously removing a cited, directly linked, and on-point legal case that is the leading authority on this issue. --Stoneworks333 —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Stoneworks333: Feel free to report me. You don't understand or are unwilling to follow our guidelines on primary sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

And the source goes to "Page not found", by the way. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Best practice is to leave controversial edits out while discussing them. This edit looks like WP:SYNTH and probably WP:UNDUE as well. It reads like an attempt to argue against the oft-cited pervasiveness of sexism in modern society, which is an WP:NPOV problem, on top of the rest of that. For the record, the academic consensus is that sexism still exists and that gender disparities in various professions and positions is symptomatic of this. For this content to be verifiable, due and neutral, it would need to be cited to at least two (using two as a rule of thumb to satisfy the "multiple" clause in policy) expert sources, who both explicitly make the claims put forth in the content. That is not the case. I would also note that both of you are at WP:3RR, and that NeilN is far more likely to be given slack on this, as he's reverting content that quite plainly violates a number of policies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Point: WP:3RR - "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." I did wait for more than a day for a response. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, I misread the timestamps. Thank you for the correction. I've struck part of the above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This article expressly suggests that discrimination by sex is rampant based on lack of representation alone. Disparate impacts is the legal doctrine that covers exactly this... whether lack of proportional representation constitutes discrimination... and yet this argument was expressly rejected by a federal appeals court judge years ago, not overturned, not distinguished by any other courts, and has been cited by numerous courts since as the authority on the matter, and 93 citations as tracked by google scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10&q=%22eeoc+v.+freeman%22&btnG= Since when is the leading case by a federal appeals court judge not expertly and authoritative? Never in the history of wikipedia has legal opinions by federal appeals court judges been deemed not authoritative. Seriously, this is absurd. Also, link has been updated to a cached version of the case. --Stoneworks333 —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Stoneworks333: Simple question: Do you intend to follow our sourcing guidelines or not? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I literally cited the court's direct and concise statement on this issue, linked here to the 93 Google scholar citations about the case, and you. This is blatant political censorship. --Stoneworks333 —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. WP:SYNTHNOT might be helpful, as well. You are arguing that the article suggests something... Well, the article summarizes factual, verifiable information from reliable sources. So if that suggests something to you, then it's because that something it suggests is either certainly true, or your understanding of the article is flawed in some fundamental way. In this case, it is the latter, because the article consistently suggests that disparity evinces discrimination, and yet you are concluding that it is suggesting that disparity proves discrimination.

You then say that this court decision expressly rejects the conclusion this article suggests, and that is only true due to your misunderstanding. The court document rejects the argument that disparity alone proves discrimination. It does not reject the notion that disparity can evince discrimination. In fact, it implicitly accepts that fact, which should not be at all surprising, since disparity is the logical outcome of discrimination. The text you wrote is -by your own admission here- what we call a WP:POVPUSH. Wikipedia is not the place to do that.

Finally, let me offer you some advice on how to get along here. Every single editor I've ever met who's ever claimed "censorship" of one form or another when met with resistance in making a POV shifting edit has failed to gain traction. Every. Single. One. No exceptions. The vast (and I do mean vast) majority of them have ended up getting themselves blocked from editing, because they got too upset to work productively here over their feelings of being silenced. So here's my advice: Don't get upset. Don't cry "censorship", or ascribe motivations to other editors beyond any motivations they ascribe to themselves. You know what they say about assumptions, so don't make assumptions about others. Just remain calm, present your case, and if you can't convince anyone, move on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

If I may add to what ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants said, (in my understanding) the problem, Stoneworks, is that you added your personal interpretation of that primary source. As Wikipedia's policy on original research states, "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." It's your opinion that this court statement means what you're saying and is relevant enough to merit two paragraphs including a blockquote in the article — but to actually include it in the article, Wikipedia needs reliable secondary sources reporting on the relevance of the ruling to discussions of sexism (for example: books or studies about sexism discussing how the ruling affects the existence/discussions of sexism), to help determine what the significance and signification of the court statement is and how much weight it is appropriate to give it. -sche (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I added 3 other additional sources talking about how the case expressly rejected the EEOC's argument, and the court even awarded almost $1m in attorneys' fees -- that's how one-sided the case was. You asked for additional sources, I gave them, stop reverting or you'll be reported for vandalism. --Stoneworks333 —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

So, this source. "On February 20, 2015, in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Freeman,1 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the employer in a case involving a challenge to the employer's use of criminal background and credit history checks in the hiring process. The EEOC had alleged that the criminal checks had a disparate impact on African American and male applicants, and that the credit checks had a disparate impact on African American job applicants." Where's the analysis on sexism? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

you literally just cited it... " the criminal checks had a disparate impact on African American and male applicants" ... are you saying one cannot be sexist against males? --Stoneworks333 —Preceding undated comment added 15:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The key point is criminal checks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This source. Analysis of sexism? Nope. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

FTA you just cited "The EEOC alleged that Freeman’s use of background checks had a disparate impact on African-American, Hispanic, and male job applicants." I also cited the court language, again referenced by a secondary source, about how the EEOC wanted to use underrepresentation data alone, was rebuked by the court for this argument, and ordered to pay almost $1m in attorneys' fees. You're just vandalizing at this point. --Stoneworks333 —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

See WP:OR. And WP:NOTVAND while you're at it. Find sources that explicitly cover sexism with some depth or else you're not going to have much luck here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Re background checks, please read the disparate impact article. It has nothing to do with background checks, and everything to do with policies which are not facially discriminatory, but have a discriminatory effect. The disparate impact article specifically cites a case where applicants were required carry a 100lb pack up stairs. This was unlawfully discriminatory against females in roles that had nothing to do with carrying weight (desk jobs at fire departments), but in positions where applicants would be expected to carry heavy weights up stairs (e.g. with firefighting), this policy was not discriminatory. --Stoneworks333 —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Re explicitly covering sexism, you've now cited two different quotes that expressly say the case was about unlawful discrimination based on sex. How more explicit does one need to get? --Stoneworks333 —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not think the source says what you want it to say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You literally cited the exact words. Twice. Opening a case. This is ridiculous. --Stoneworks333 —Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, the key point is background checks disadvantaging certain groups (not only males). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

sexism v. gender discrimination

Sexism is an ideology while gender discrimination is an action and/or set of practices. But the first sentence conflates the two concepts. Does anyone object if I help edit the lead to clarify this point?AnaSoc (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

AnaSoc, I reverted per the various sources given in the WP:CITEBUNDLE and per the past debates about how to define the lead sentence and followup sentence. We at least need to consider the sources in the CITEBUNDLE and should see if others watching this article have anything to state about your changes. Sexism is not simply about believing one sex or gender is superior to another; so I don't think we should go with your lead sentence. I'm also not sure why you added "one sex is superior to other sexes" rather than "one sex is superior to another sex" or "one sex is superior to the other sex." Your wording implies multiple sexes, which leaves one to wonder what sexes, other than male and female, you are referring to. Intersex people are not usually considered a third, distinct sex, and they usually present as/identify as a man or as a woman. I did re-add your source, but for the "and may include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another" piece in the lead. I also separated the "gender discrimination" aspect, since I've been wondering about us equating the terms sexism and gender discrimination, but these two things are not easily distinguished. I'm not sure if the "Beyond Comparison: Sex and Discrimination" source I moved up (via WP:REFNAME duplication) from the "Gender (identity) discrimination" section actually supports "based on their gender identity" piece and mentions third gender and genderqueer aspects, but I did add this "Clinical Aspects of Sexual Harassment and Gender Discrimination: Psychological Consequences and Treatment Interventions" source; and as you can see, it gives different definitions of gender discrimination and mostly attributes it to workplace inequality. I'm seeing sources mostly talking about gender discrimination in terms of workplace inequality and legal matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to defining sexism by superiority, a similar issue has led to editors having trouble defining racism at the Racism article, since racism is not solely about believing that one race is superior. There are racists who will state that they aren't racist because they don't believe that their race is superior. Similarly, there are sexists who will state that they don't believe that their sex is superior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the conversation. The discipline of sociology defines sexism as an ideology. I cited a mainstream sociology text, which is a reliable source. I respectfully request that you reverse your revert. I disagree with you that sexism and gender discrimination are not easily distinguished and again refer to the discipline of sociology for the different definitions of sexism and discrimination. I agree with you on using "another sex" instead of "other sexes," and appreciate the suggestion. AnaSoc (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

AnaSoc, per the abundance of reliable sources supporting the first and second sentences in the article and other reliable sources that were assessed and agreed upon before, and that the vast majority of them don't use "ideology" or begin by stating "one sex is superior to the other," and per what I stated above about how to define those first two sentences having been extensively discussed in the past, I won't be reverting my edit. And again, I used two sources to separate the "gender discrimination" aspect. Furthermore, as you can see by looking at/reading the reliable sources used to support the first two sentences, the sources define sexism as prejudice or discrimination based on people's sex or gender, which is the same way you defined gender discrimination; so, because of that, I do wonder why you think the terms are easily distinguished. Only one of the sources listed in the aforementioned "assessed" link begins by stating "sexism is the ideology." Regardless, with the exception of "the manifestation," the way you defined gender discrimination in the lead is the same way that reliable sources define sexism. So you distinguishing the two in the way that you did in the lead is problematic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

___

Sociological descriptions of sexism

This article is part of the WikiProject Sociology and is rated C-class, High-importance. Currently, the article lacks important sociological content, especially references from current sociological sources such as sociology textbooks. As a C-class article, it is assessed as being useful only to casual readers. Let's work to improve its sociological content.

Current sociology textbooks define sexism as an ideology or set of beliefs that assert one sex is superior to another. Here are some examples: "Sexism: The ideology that claims one sex is superior to the other." "Sexism: System of beliefs that asserts the inferiority of one sex and justifies gender-based inequality." "Sexism: the belief that one sex is innately superior to the other." "Sexism: The ideology that one sex is superior to the other."

Currently, mainstream sociology also notes that sexism, like other ideological systems of oppression, e.g. racism, operates both at the individual level and the institutional level. and This article should also describe that as a key facet of understanding sexism sociologically.AnaSoc (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

AnaSoc, I reverted again per what I stated in the #sexism v. gender discrimination section above. I'm not going to repeat myself. Do not simply keep reverting to your preferred version or WP:Edit war. If you want to go to WP:Dispute resolution such as a WP:RfC (since article talk page discussion does not appear to be working), we can do that. But no edit warring. WP:Consensus can change, but current WP:Consensus is not for your version. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why you think your sources and opinion trump the sources currently present in the article and the opinions of editors who have thoroughly debated the lead, but that's not how Wikipedia works. You don't get to remove the WP:Hidden note that's been there for years and is there for good reason and just insert your version despite valid challenges to your version. I did restore this bit to the "Etymology and definitions" section, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Struck through part of my post above since I see that you didn't remove the hidden note. I also re-added this ideology bit to the "Etymology and definitions" section without the WP:Editorializing (in other words, without "mainstream sociology defines") and without WP:Citation overkill. The wording "sexism may defined as an ideology based on the belief that one sex is superior to another" is more accurate since, per the sources I've already pointed to, sexism is not always or solely defined that way (even among sociology sources). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the conversation. I respectfully request that Flyer22 Reborn stop reverting edits before other editors have the opportunity to review them. Flyer22 Reborn says that "current WP:Consensus is not for your version," but Flyer22 Reborn did not allow sufficient time for others to weigh in. Wikipedia policy [2] describes consensus as "an ongoing process." Consensus is not a fixed state.

The previous consensus--the version preferred by Flyer22 Reborn--does not include sufficient sociological content. This article has been identified as part of the WikiProject Sociology, and is rated as C-class, High importance. To improve the article for the WikiProject Sociology, and to improve it with the objective of achieving a higher class, sociological content must be added. Yet when sociological content was added, Flyer22 Reborn reverted it less than two hours later.

Sociologists differentiate between the effects or results of sexism, e.g. discrimination, prejudice, and stereotyping--and the ideology of sexism itself. I cited several contemporary, mainstream sociology textbooks to make this point. In the section above, I quoted each of these and included the page numbers for the quotations.

I do not object to WP:Dispute resolution, but would prefer to further discuss on this talk page so there is evidence of my good faith and also with the hope that a compromise can be reached.AnaSoc (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@AnaSoc: No reader pays attention to article class or importance and few editors care unless we're talking about WP:FA or WP:GA. Why in the world are you adding five cites for a straightforward definition? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I provided five citations to document that mainstream sociology defines sexism as an ideology. I'm fine with just one, as the consensus within contemporary sociology is that sexism is an ideology. I disagree with your claim that "No reader pays attention to article class or importance." Many editors do.AnaSoc (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

AnaSoc, "ideology" is one aspect of the topic, yes. And it's supported by some of the sources in the bundle list in the lead. I don't have an issue with changing "and may include the belief that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another" to "and may include the ideology that one sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another." But "belief" is clearer language. There is no need to state "ideology" in the lead. Per above and below, I mainly object to you prioritizing the "superiority" definition. It is unnecessarily restrictive. Men can be sexist toward women without thinking that their sex is superior, and women can be sexist toward men without thinking that their sex is superior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

AnaSoc, you stated that you "respectfully request that [I] stop reverting edits before other editors have the opportunity to review them." Well, I respectfully request that you stop adding your version of the lead sentence and making other significant changes to the lead...until other editors have the opportunity to review them. You did not allow sufficient time for others to weigh in. The WP:ONUS (read that policy) is on you. I already noted that WP:Consensus is not a fixed state, but I also noted that the current consensus has not changed. It is up to you to convince us to go with your wording for the lead sentence or other aspects of the lead. It is not up to us to convince you to not go with your wording for the lead sentence. I've made my case, including by pointing to reliable sources, for not going with your lead sentence. Sexism is not solely about believing that one sex is superior to the other, just like racism is not solely about believing that one race is superior to another. The current consensus lead sentence is broader when it comes to the definition of sexism, and it's supported by numerous reliable sources -- sources I pointed to above. That sexism can also mean the belief that one sex is superior to the other is already covered in the lead, and it is now mentioned in the "Etymology and definitions" section; that is my compromise. As for WikiProjects, you can see that this article is within the scope of more than one WikiProject. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps an even better way to improve the article would be to write a new subsection about social scientific definitions of sexism, parallel to the way that the article on racism includes a section on social/behavioral science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Social_and_behavioral_science. This would also open up the possibility of social psychological explanations of sexism, which would also improve the article.AnaSoc (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine with you proposing the material here first so that we can discuss how to incorporate it. You clearly use your sandbox. Drafting a section in your sandbox to show what you mean and then linking to it here on the talk page for review is the way to go. Just keep in mind that sexism is not solely relevant to sociology. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Please visit my sandbox to see what you think. I propose that this be a subsection under Etymology and definitions. Perhaps the content in the third paragraph currently in that section could be reworked to eliminate duplication. The proposed section would improve the article by noting that there are a variety of disciplinary approaches to the definition of sexism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AnaSoc/sandbox Thanks in advance for constructive comments.AnaSoc (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

AnaSoc, the issues with this proposal are the following: Unnecessary subheadings and WP:Synthesis. The subheadings are not needed for that little bit of material. I state this not only per my personal preference, but also because MOS:Paragraphs is clear that subheadings usually are not needed for a little bit of material. The content can simply fit under the "Etymology and definitions" section without the subheadings. The more worrying aspect of your proposal is the WP:Synthesis. Read WP:Synthesis for what I mean. Your proposal states that "Dictionaries define sexism as prejudice, discrimination, or stereotyping on the basis of sex." You put this under the heading "Popular usage." But the sources don't call this "popular usage." Furthermore, the wording you used makes it seem as though only dictionary sources define sexism that way, when the sources I pointed you to in the #sexism v. gender discrimination section above show that this isn't true. There are also dictionary sources that use the "superior to" definition. More WP:Synthesis is the "Contemporary sociologists define sexism as an ideology based on the belief that one sex is inherently superior to another." sentence. Neither of the sources state that "contemporary sociologists define sexism as [...]." It's true that sociologists at times define sexism that way, but sociologists also simply state "prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender." And don't forget that a dictionary of sociology entails sociologists' viewpoints as well. A better version of the "Etymology and definitions" section would be the following (and I'm leaving out the etymology stuff since it's already there...although it needs better sourcing since finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com and CreateSpace are not WP:Reliable sources):

Alternate proposal

Sexism may be defined as an ideology based on the belief that one sex is superior to another. It is discrimination, prejudice, or stereotyping on the basis of gender, and is most often expressed toward girls and women. It has been characterized as the "hatred of women" and "entrenched prejudice against women". Sexism, however, can affect men too in forms of legalized rape and sexual harassment of men by women and unequal maintenance and property rights in countries like India. Sociology has examined sexism as manifesting at both the individual and the institutional level. According to Schaefer, sexism is perpetuated by all major social institutions. Sociologists describe parallels among other ideological systems of oppression such as racism, which also operates at both the individual and institutional level. Early female sociologists Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Ida B. Wells, and Harriet Martineau described systems of gender inequality, but did not use the term sexism, which was coined later. Sociologists who adopted the functionalist paradigm, e.g. Talcott Parsons, understood gender inequality as the natural outcome of a dimorphic model of gender. Psychologists Mary Crawford and Rhoda Unger define sexism as a form of prejudice held by individuals that encompasses "negative attitudes and values about women as a group." Peter Glick and Susan Fiske coined the term ambivalent sexism to describe how stereotypes about women can be both positive and negative, and that individuals compartmentalize the stereotypes they hold into hostile sexism or benevolent sexism. Feminist author bell hooks defines sexism as a system of oppression that results in disadvantages for women. Feminist philosopher Marilyn Frye defines sexism as an "attitudinal-conceptual-cognitive-orientational complex" of male supremacy, male chauvinism, and misogyny.

You can see that my version dedicates a general paragraph to the topic, then goes into sociological views, then psychological views, and then feminists views. It doesn't pigeonhole -- artificially assign -- any one definition to a certain discipline. We can't assign any one definition to a certain discipline without WP:Reliable sources explicitly stating that "this is how the term is popularly defined, this is how the term is defined within sociology [and so on]." Can you be okay with my proposal? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, most of this works well for me. I wrote "contemporary sociologists" to differentiate between historical and contemporary ideas. The Blackwell reference is nearly two decades old, and sociologists have expanded their analysis of sexism as an ideology since that time. Sociology as a discipline has moved from a "sexism is natural" position in the 1950s-1970s, to sexism is a pattern of prejudice and discrimination in the 1980s-1990s to sexism is an ideological system (2000-now). But I won't quibble over that today, knowing that future improvements can always be made to the article. Thanks for your work. AnaSoc (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Would you insert the edited section, Flyer22 Reborn? As a newcomer, I'm still a bit nervous about editing such a large section. Of course, there may be others who want to comment before the section is moved over. Thanks.AnaSoc (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I incorporated the alternate version a little before your most recent comment. Thanks for taking the time to discuss. We did give other editors enough time to weigh in, and they can still do so. As for ideology, I'm saying that sexism is not solely defined that way, even today, whether among sociologists or otherwise. Also, no need to ping me to this page since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.AnaSoc (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

___

References

Ancient world

I just removed a sentence from the 'Ancient World' section in History, regarding Anglo Saxon society. First off, that's not the ancient world, it's early mediaeval - very odd to lump it together with ancient Egypt, Confucian China and pre-agricultural societies; also, it was a gross exaggeration - Anglo Saxon society did afford women property rights and some agency, but they were not afforded equal status to men.Girth Summit (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I reverted because the Anglo-Saxon era is considered ancient by many sources, such as this BBC Online source. We could change the heading from "Ancient world" to "Ancient history," but our own Ancient history Wikipedia article currently states, "Ancient history is the aggregate of past events from the beginning of recorded human history and extending as far as the Early Middle Ages or the Postclassical Era." And "ancient world" redirects to that article. If you are thinking of changing that article's description in this regard, keep in mind that we go by WP:Reliable sources and WP:Due weight. As for "very odd to lump it together with ancient Egypt, Confucian China and pre-agricultural societies," I don't find it odd to cover ancient history in one section about ancient history. As for "a gross exaggeration," the text states "were commonly afforded equal status," it doesn't state "afforded equal status to men"...as in "completely on the same footing as men." You could tweak that text, with reliable sources, so that it specifies. I don't see that it needs complete removal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

And just so we're clear, the source (which is a source I added) states, "We know a good deal more about women in Anglo-Saxon England than we do about those who lived in Roman Britain. It has been argued that Anglo-Saxon women were more nearly the equals of their husbands and brothers than were women who lived just before or after, since society under both the Roman and the Normans was more military in organization and thus more completely dominated by men. To some extent the Christian church also emancipated women from a patriarchal spirit." And as seen by various other reliable sources, including some in the Women in Anglo-Saxon society article, it isn't the only source stating this. We could change "commonly afforded equal status" to "afforded near equal status" per sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing Flyer22. You are right about the early mediaeval period being considered ancient by some, but don't you think that it's a bit odd to sandwich a solitary sentence about the Anglo-Saxon period in England between sentences about Ancient Egyptian and pre-agricultural societies? It's an outlier in that paragraph by thousands of years. At the very least, the sentence needs moving; I'd suggest putting it into another paragraph, perhaps with some discussion about Roman and Norman law to put it into context.

I also don't think that the statement is truly reflecting the source. The quote you gave says that women were 'more nearly the equals' - that's a comparative statement, saying that they were closer to equality than Romano-British or Norman women; it's not an absolute statement though, we can't go from that to 'afforded near-equal status'. A sentence along the lines of 'closer to equality than Romano-British or Norman women' would be much better; again though, that would need some more sentences to put it into context.Girth Summit (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Girth Summit, the whole section is one whole paragraph. What would be odd to me is moving the Anglo-Saxon material to its own paragraph so that it stands out (or stands out even more, from your viewpoint), or is just tagged on in way that it doesn't flow with the other text. It makes more sense to me to talk about "equal status" aspects first and then go into "non-equal status" aspects, or vice versa. Not jump back and forth. As for "near equal status," I proposed it because some sources state it. But I'm open to you rearranging and changing the text in a way that flows well and sticks to what sources state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I take your point about jumping from 'equal status' issues to 'non-equal status' ones. However, I'll say again that the source referenced does not state that they had equal or near-equal status, - it says 'more nearly equals' than women who lived 'just before or after'. It's a direct comparison to Romano-British and Norman women, who definitely had an even more unequal status, but that's as far as it goes. If we are to use this source, any statement needs to be framed in that way - we can't say that, from a modern perspective, their position was nearly equal to that of men.

Personally, I think the flow would be better if the sentence was omitted altogether. It starts out discussing some positive things about the conditions for women in ancient Egypt, then goes on to explain that there isn't any evidence that status was equal in earlier pre-Agricultural societies. Sticking a sentence in between about a period of time when things temporarily improved for women in Britain thousands of years later doesn't seem to add anything useful.Girth Summit (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

We can use different sources and different wording. That is what I've been stating. And, per WP:Due weight, I'd rather use wording that sources generally use for the matter. I'm against striking the text altogether since I don't see the problem you see with the text being there and since it's noting the equal, or near equal status, of women in a time that is considered ancient (or close to ancient anyway). A mention of it should be there as much as the other mentions, especially since, like the source notes, it seems that "Anglo-Saxon women were more nearly the equals of their husbands and brothers than were women who lived just before or after." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources are clear that Anglo-Saxon women are a rare case in history of women having had about the same status as men when it comes to equality. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The sentence as it is currently worded suggests that AS women were equals of men (or near-equals in your proposed rewording); the source you have quoted only says that they were closer to equality than Norman or Romano-British women. Given how totally unequal Roman and Norman societies are, that is not saying very much - it does not support the existing sentence. If there is an alternative source saying the same thing, can you point me at it?

I absolutely agree that sources are clear that AS women were a lot more fairly treated than in many other early societies; they do perhaps therefore deserve a mention, but it needs to be contextualised. AS women could own property and even inherit, but they could only have leadership roles in society in the rarest of circumstances (and could never have any role of leadership within the church). Their lot was remarkable for the time, but it would not look like equality or near-equality from an objective modern perspective, which is what we are saying by presenting this as a bald fact in Wikipedia's voice.Girth Summit (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Girth Summit, again, I have stated that the current sentence can be worded to more closely align with the source. As for "near equals," I am specifically referring to academic sources that state this, including those seen in the Women in Anglo-Saxon society article I pointed to above. Have you looked at those sources? I have no problem with providing more sources here on the talk page, but it is also easy to simply reword the text and align it more closely with the source, or quote the source directly. Given your interpretation that the source means "closer to equality than Norman or Romano-British women," it would be better to quote it directly since the lead of the Women in Anglo-Saxon society article currently cites a scholar stating that Anglo-Saxon women were "near equal companions to the males in their lives, such as husbands and brothers, much more than in any other era before modern time." And that is what I think the source in the Sexism article means by "than were women who lived just before or after." I'll look at more sources on the matter, and get back to you on this. After we look over more sources, we can discuss how we want to cover the material in this article. We shouldn't get carried away with it, though. It only needs a brief mention in this article unless we are to expand the other examples too. The main articles are for in the in-depth detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22, I did indeed read the source that is referenced for this section. The crux of the matter is in the word more - the source says that there were "more nearly the equals... ...than were the women who lived just before or after" (my emphasis). It's a statement comparing them to women living immediately before and after them. I would be very happy to read other sources that would support the statement as it stands; if you make a suggestion I'll read it. I'd also be happy with a reword, using the current source, that goes along with what the source says. I'll wait for your suggestions on sources before drafting anything; I agree that we should not go overboard with this, it shouldn't be more than a sentence or two long.Girth Summit (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Girth Summit, oh, I wasn't asking if you'd read that source. I asked if you'd checked out/read the sources in the Women in Anglo-Saxon society article, such as the first quoted one in the lead of that article. Anyway, it appears we have a plan. Just give me a day or two to look over sources and present them here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 - apologies, I misread you. No, I haven't read Fell or Stenton - the online versions are behind paywalls. My partner is an academic so I'll ask her to download them using her credentials, but I'll wait for you to suggest any others so I can get them all in one go.Girth Summit (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I was going to list different sources stating Anglo-Saxon women had near equal status to men during their era, but this 2003 "The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective" source, from Boydell Press, page 130, which takes the time to cite Fell with regard to the supporting the "near equal companions to the males in their lives, such as husbands and brothers, much more than in any other era before modern time" quote, states that there is some disagreement and that "there appears to be evidence to support both sides of the debate, although to varying degrees." Maybe we should note something about Anglo-Saxon women commonly being considered to have near equal status to men during their era, but that there is some disagreement on that topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• With this section under discussion, I think it's worth asking why a lecture by Peter Stearns would be considered unreliable. Do either of you agree with whomever marked it as such? I don't, but I'm curious as to the reasons.

Also, I found it striking that there was no mention of Viking-age Norse society in this section. The television show Vikings kicked off a series of pop-history articles about treatment of women in that society. I can dig up sources a plenty if needed.

Feel free to finish the current discussion before responding to this. I don't want to "pile on" as it were. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn. Thanks for that - looks like an interesting read. I'll try to review it fully shortly (Google is only allowing me to see the first page of the section on gender just now), but it does appear that the equality/near-equality thing is a little controversial - I wonder whether we would do better by following the format of the previous section, which details some of the rights and privileges afforded to women in ancient Egyptian society. We could say that women in Anglo-Saxon society were afforded wide-ranging property rights and given access to divorce, but then qualify that by pointing out that they were only rarely allowed to assume leadership roles, and were almost completely excluded from church hierarchy. I don't think that in a single sentence we can really do justice to the equality debate, and I don't think that we need to touch on it in this section. I'd be happy to draft a sentence if you like?

@ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants I don't know why the Peter Stearns lecture is flagged as unreliable. I guess it seems a little bit tricky to get at: a transcript of the lecture would be easier to check than a CD. Also, since it's a lecture by an individual academic, it probably won't have been through any process of peer review, and it probably won't cite its sources - I imagine it's the musings of one person, albeit a distinguished an knowledgeable person. A monograph would probably be a better source, and while I'm not expert on pre-agricultural societies, I'd be surprised if one couldn't be found to say more or less the same thing, if this is an uncontroversial claim. I wouldn't have tagged it myself though.

Regarding the question of discussing Norse society, the reason the Anglo-Saxons are being mentioned here is because the first part of this paragraph seeks to outline a couple of times in ancient history that were relatively 'un-sexist'. All the sources agree that Anglo-Saxon laws give women a remarkable level of rights and privileges for the time (Flyer22 and I aren't in disagreement about that - just about whether they should be described as having 'near equality' with men). While Norse and Anglo-Saxon societies were very similar in many respects, as far as I am aware we don't think that women had a similar level of legal protection in Norse societies. It would be interesting to see what your sources have to say however.Girth Summit (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I've been following the discussion here, thus far, and you two seem to be making progress, so I don't want to butt in and ruin things by giving my own thoughts. I will be fine with whatever you two decide wrt Anglo-Saxon women.

Regarding the unreliable cite, I have always seen lectures as somewhere between actual scholarly publications and expert self-published sources (which are generally considered reliable).

Since Stearns has been hired (and presumably vetted) by the university specifically to give lectures and administer tests to students in the subject of history, I generally feel comfortable treating his lectures as being composed by an expert and endorsed by a university. I'm going to remove the tag (as you don't seem to vested in considering it unreliable, either), and if anyone reverts, we can discuss it.

Regarding Norse women sourcing, just from the first page of a google search, I've found:

• Women in Old Norse Society by Jenny Jochens (which I own a copy of)
• BBC - History - Viking Women
• History.com - What Was Life Like for Women in the Viking Age?

And that's leaving out anything too pop-history. Depending on how controversial this is, I could include more or less rigorous sources than the last two.

The reason I would like to have a discussion before adding anything is that I feel there's an issue of WP:WEIGHT that needs to be addressed. Right now, if we add a bit about Norse women, then the size of the paragraph could get unwieldy. If we add an extra sentence or two each about Anglo-Saxon women and Egyptian women, that would give us room to expand into multiple paragraphs and improve readability. But (and here's where the due weight issue comes in) if we do that, then we've essentially put an egalitarian spin on women in the ancient world. It seems odd to have an article about sexism with a section on the ancient world that does nothing but cite exceptions to the norm of sexism. It's as if we're pushing the view that sexism is a relatively recent invention.

To address that, of course, we would need to expands that section even more. Which I'm totally fine with (summing up all of pre-history and early history in a single paragraph seems weak, to me), but which would require some collaboration to avoid a big fight about just the right tone to strike. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Girth Summit, no problem. No need to ping me, by the way, since this article is on my watchlist. I didn't cite that source to be read past that page, though. I cited it because that page notes that there is some disagreement on the matter and because we can use it to note that as well. I'd be fine with you going with your latest proposal as long as it's sourced, but I think it still makes sense to address the "near equal" aspect since sources do.

MPants at work, I understand what you mean about it seeming "odd to have an article about sexism with a section on the ancient world that does nothing but cite exceptions to the norm of sexism." It would be better to include sources and text specifically noting sexism in relation to the ancient world, including those that cite a few exceptions to that sexism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The section does state things like "Examples of sexism in the ancient world include written laws preventing women from participating in the political process; women in ancient Rome could not vote or hold political office.", though. And I don't think that the section is stating or implying that sexism is a relatively recent invention. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

And I don't think that the section is stating or implying that sexism is a relatively recent invention. I'm not implying that it does, just that it could give that impression if all of our coverage of the ancient world was "look how relatively non-sexist these ancient societies were!" In other words, I'm noting a drawback of simply adding one more bit about an ancient society (the Norse, per my comment above) that treated women better than our great-grandparents did without also adding that most ancient societies didn't. I'll try to dig up some sourcing this weekend to expand the section more neutrally. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ironically sexist sexism article

Article is mostly about sexism towards women when it should be equal to men and woman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.70.116 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT. Kaldari (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I know, I'm so sick of women catcalling me and then getting violent when I don't respond. And that glass ceiling that's keeping me from advancing at my job... Men never get promoted past middle management. And the huge lack of men in STEM fields just breaks my heart.

Uhh, does anyone have a towel? I think I spilled sarcasm all over the floor... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I am tempted to delete this comment. I get it that this is an attempt at humor. Nevertheless, if it turns out that there is indeed sexism affecting men with severe consequences, as many people claim, this comment will appear to ridicule the victims. RobertVazan (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

And per WP:Talk, it would be wise to reconsider deleting someone else's comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, WP:WEIGHT in this article would be a good candidate for WP:IAR since the preponderance of sources is due to feminist activism and associated funding/prestige rather than pure scientific interest. RobertVazan (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Lol. -sche (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Care to explain what do you find funny? RobertVazan (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I read this article a while ago and I also felt like it is biased. Perhaps some examples and suggestions for additions could help move things along? Let's start with the elephant in the room: child custody. Then perhaps go over father's rights and men's rights and include whatever is relevant here. The article also appears to celebrate the fact that boys increasingly lag behind girls in education. Last time I read the article, I saw several such gems peppered all over the article. I know that many of these issues are disputed. If that's the case, just include sources whatever they say. The point is that readers of this article likely heard about the issues and they come here to learn more only to find an article that is suspiciously silent about certain topics. I am not an expert in the field and I don't have editing permission anyway, so I wouldn't try to add anything. Perhaps someone could include stub content covering these issues, so that others can extend it over time. RobertVazan (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)'

Perhaps some of the sources of this talk would be of use? Luredreier (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)