Talk:Sexism/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Is the page really never going to be reworded?

I read through the page today and noticed there are many specific sentences which, for one, suggest sexism is only affecting men, and for two, are sexist in themselves against men. It really needs to be changed but I am aware most things will quickly changed back by others. Can we please solve this? Wikipedia is meant to be a place consisting of no opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiefortress (talk • contribs) 19:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"[S]exism is only affecting men"? Where? But regardless, you need to provide sources, if editing the WP:LEAD, you need to show it's not accurately reflecting the body of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what scholarship has to say about a subject. Editors' opinions should not be present in the article, but that doesn't mean that the consensus view of scholars shouldn't be represented. If there are reliable sources that you would like to introduce to support a change, we can certainly discuss it. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I went through the archives recently (after posting a comment here, naively thinking the article is just unfinished) and there seems to be a shift from initial WP:RELIABLE argument towards WP:WEIGHT, because reliable sources indeed can be found, for example, 9:1 ratio in child custody and 3:2 in university students from official statistics in many countries. You could explain these statistics away, but such interpretation needs to be documented to disqualify the default assumption of sexism. It's not enough to discuss the topic on the talk page. People who read the article bring in that default assumption of sexism and they need to see counter-evidence if there is any. RobertVazan (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

PS, discussion of discrimination of men doesn't need to be that long if you can cover it by linking to other articles on Wikipedia. That should also satisfy people with WP:WEIGHT objections. The links in See also don't do it enough justice though. RobertVazan (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Cookiefortress, why is it so difficult for you and a few others to understand WP:Due weight? There is no proof whatsoever that sexism affects men and women equally. The literature is clear that sexism primarily affects girls and women. It's also WP:Common sense. No, we do not falsely balance articles. Wikipedia includes opinions of WP:Reliable sources with WP:Due weight. What sentences in the article suggest that sexism only affects men? The article is pretty clear in its focus on girls and women, which is why you made two different edits that were reverted, as seen here and here. No one has an issue with covering boys and men in the article. Editors do have an issue with trying to give false balance to boys and men in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The real issue here is that this is an opinion, which by all means shouldn't be on Wikipedia. The whole point of this site is to present facts. If the most reliable site on the world said "Pigs can fly and the sky is green," this would not be true, would it? No. So how is this any different? Most of the sources for the sentence "Sexism can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women and girls." are from dictionaries and encyclopedias. To say that sexism typically is affecting women is an opinion, no matter who or what source says it. If I said that racism primarily affects white people, this would be an opinion, as another maybe believe it affects people of color more. How do you not understand this concept? And yes, this article is VERY clear on its focus on girls and women, and that in itself is sexist, considering it is in an article meaning to be for both sexes. I cannot find many things in this article which are actually leaning towards sexism being aimed at men, as it makes no attempt to do anything to show that men are affected by it too. Girth Summit and EvergreenFir made what is essentially the exact same point. So, to sum things up, you are all telling me despite something being an opinion, it belongs here on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiefortress (talk • contribs)

Common sense (at least where I live) is that women are favored for child custody. People just differ in whether they think it's right or wrong. The argument here is more about WP:RELIABLE and WP:WEIGHT. RobertVazan (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Cookiefortress If the most reliable source in the world said that the sky is green and pigs can fly, it wouldn't be the most reliable source in the world any more - it would very quickly cop a load of very serious criticism, lose all credibility, and we would not use it. Nevertheless, you are right in a sense - it is our job to reflect what reliable sources say, regardless of whether or not we agree with them, and even if we think they are flat-out wrong. If there is serious disagreement between reliable sources, then we may need to discuss both sides of the argument in our article. You seem convinced that this extensively-sourced assertion is wrong, but you have not brought any reliable sources to support any change to it. I don't follow your reasoning in saying that this is just an opinion, but until you bring some serious scholarly sources that cast doubt on the assertion, there isn't much more to discuss. By the way, I'm not sure whether or not you've read WP:NPOV, but it's pretty useful in areas like this, so I'd recommend it if you haven't. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Cookiefortress, you can see a number of reliable sources at Talk:Sexism/Archive 7#Is sexism typically defined as discrimination against women?. Whether it's dictionaries, encyclopedias, other books, or reviews, the literature is clear. It's not opinion. It's fact. It's funny that you argued, "If I said that racism primarily affects white people, this would be an opinion, as another maybe believe it affects people of color more." Not only would that be an opinion, it would be point-blank false, as even common sense should tell anyone. Stating that racism primarily affects white people is similar to stating that sexism primarily affects men. We know racism does not primarily affect white people, and we have an abundance of reliable sources being clear on that. We know that sexism doesn't primarily affect men, or even equally affect men, and we have an abundance of reliable sources being clear on that. You can disagree with the literature as much as you want to, but your disagreement does not turn the facts into opinions.

RobertVazan, what reliable sources state that the child custody aspects are sexism? Men's rights sources? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is routinely sourced by product websites or even left unsourced until there is a better source that provides counter-evidence. I guess official government statistics pass as a reliable source.

Okay, so you are now asking for some source that interprets these statistics as sexism. I say such source is unnecessary, because sexism is the default assumption when there is a big difference in outcomes depending on gender, which makes the interpretation trivial. Such default assumption of sexism is common practice. The raw wage difference, for example, is taken as a proof of sexism until it is explained by something else (e.g. overtime, travel) and even then the remaining unexplained difference is still a proof of sexism.

If you really want to avoid original research, you can quote some prominent men's rights activist as interpreting the statistics as sexism. Similarly, you only need one quote to substantiate the claim that the interpretation is contested. If you do this, you have a stub section that can be later expanded with evidence on both sides. The article wouldn't be silent about the issue anymore and that's an improvement from my point of view.

Also, there are many mechanisms by which sexism works and I didn't want to imply a particular mechanism. It could be all in the traditional view of family roles rather than in biased courts. That would still count as sexism though.

Sorry for the long comment. Shorter one would just beg for misinterpretation. RobertVazan (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"The raw wage difference, for example, is taken as" evidence of or relevant to sexism by reliable secondary sources, which are what we can cite, in a way proportional to their prominence among all the reliable sources of information on the topic. You personally taking statistics as evidence of sexism is original research. As for citing some other MRA: "Articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" (WP:DUE). -sche (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I hope that "some other MRA" wasn't meant to imply that I am an activist. No need to get personal or question motivation of editors. This article describes everyday experience. It naturally attracts comments from random editors who see a disconnect between the article and everyday reality. FAQ would help avoid repeated discussions.

I am myself mostly interested in how could a Wikipedia article arrive at this state after years of editing. My conclusions so far:

- Covering discrimination of men requires sources. Fair enough.

- Official statistics for differences in outcomes are rejected. Their interpretation as sexism requires sources. Fair enough. Everything below deals with sourcing of this interpretation.

- Common sense knowledge is not accepted as a trivial source. Why?

- Default assumption of sexism is rejected despite being common practice. Someone in position of authority must make that logical step.

- Men's rights representatives are rejected as such an authority. Why? It's a political statement. Who else to quote?

- Activists (men's rights) are deemed a tiny minority. But are they? And what sources are they being weighted against?

- The WP:WEIGHT argument is often made on the highest possible level, specifically that sexism affects mostly women. But sources for every individual statement should be weighted separately.

- The only option seems to be to find formal research. It probably exists, but it is out of reach for non-experts.

- If such research is found, there's a WP:WEIGHT argument against it. WP:WEIGHT is designed to fight off creationists and the like. It doesn't work when there is a large overlap between scientists and activists (feminists in this case).

I think Wikipedia policies aren't wrong. They are just used wrong here. An invisible wall surrounds the article. An independent expert specializing on discrimination of men is needed to drill a hole through that wall. That's way above my paygrade. RobertVazan (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The 'invisible wall' you're referring to would normally be described as 'the academic consensus', which is that sexism primarily (but not exclusively) affects women and girls. Since that is the academic consensus, according to numerous sources cited to support the assertion in the article, we present that front and centre in our lead. You cannot overturn that consensus by finding the odd voice here or there who disagrees with it - scholars working in the field must overturn it in peer-reviewed published work. Once that has been done, we will change our article - but not before. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

See the point about WP:WEIGHT being used on the highest possible level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertVazan (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

No one is using any weight arguments against you, because you've brought no sources to discuss. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I did: the raw data from government statistics and its (trivial) interpretation from MRAs. And in case of child custody, also by common sense. Please, don't make it personal. RobertVazan (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't: you alluded to the existence of such statistics, and the possible interpretations, but I can't see any specific publications or URLs in your posts above. I don't understand how you think I am personalising this. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

By "personal", I meant the "using any weight arguments against you" rather than against the proposed changes. On second thought, it might be just a concise, conversational style of writing.

I can find specific URLs if the general idea of including statistics plus MRA quotes / common sense is acceptable. I thought people here reject the whole idea and I therefore didn't bother with references. RobertVazan (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that I am not trying to personalise this, it is appreciated.

If you propose a specific change, and bring relevant reliable sources, I am sure that people will engage with you seriously. We wouldn't include synthesis, original research, or even common sense, of course. You will need to be clear about what you want to include, and what you want to support it with, in order to have a conversation about what weight we should give it. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

This sentence needs to be reworded...

The sentence, "Sexism can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women and girls," should be reworded. I think it should be changed back to how it was was about a month ago: "Sexism can affect anyone, but it is particularly documented as affecting women and girls." There are possibly better ways we can reword this sentence besides the one I suggested. Hopefully a consensus can be reached. There has been a lot of edit warring over this and it needs to stop. Bowling is life (talk) 04:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Huh, I did not notice it had been changed back, when did that happen? There was a lengthy debate about this a while back and iirc "particularly documented" won out. Personally, I accepted that but was never happy with it, as it seems to soft-pedal what most rs actually say (which is hard to distill from 100s of sources, obviously, but as far as I can see it basically boils down to the idea that that sexism can affect men, but predominantly affects women). It's not like many rs support the idea that there's somehow a whole mass of "undocumented" sexism against men out there: it is "primarily documented" against women because it "primarily effects" them. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

As seen with this edit, Kaldari changed it. I responded by stating that "particularly documented" was not a WP:ALLEGED violation, but I agreed with Kaldari about being straightforward on the sexism matter per the sources. The sentence keeps being messed with whether "particularly documented" is there or not...because some men cannot accept the fact that sexism is overwhelmingly directed at girls and women, and that this has always been the case (not just historically). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Are we seriously arguing about this? The sentence cites 12 sources, many of which are textbooks or other encyclopedias. The sources all state the fact plainly that sexism primarily affects women and girls. Per the NPOV policy, "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." Nothing in this article seriously contests the fact that sexism primarily affects women. Frankly, I'm amazed that we have to debate this. Kaldari (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thus, should it not say "historically affecting women" or similar? Some of those sources either completely disregard discrimination against males, or are extremely similar in wording. Dddthedark^talk 12:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, because it's not just a historical matter. Obviously. If you want to claim that sexism is now mostly or equally directed toward boys and men, then provide reliable sources stating that. Even if you did, though, it would still stand that the vast majority of reliable sources state otherwise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

My experience thus far is that when providing reliable sources demonstrating areas of descrimination affecting males, various shifting rationale has been given by administrators and other entrenched Wikipedians for non-inclusion: often borderline nonsensical and frequently misrepresenting points at issue and edits made. This has happened with the tacit agreement of agents of the status-quo. Sources that have included academic studies and mainstream news outlets have been removed. What appears to be emerging is not just an academic or media consensus, though I accept anti-male gender descrimination is certainly less discussed within the corporate owned media and to a lesser extent within academia -- it being noted that academia is always in a sense institutionally connected to business interests, though at a slightly greater remove, and with marginally more autonomy. Rather, and this may be reflexive or deliberately engineered, there is a concerted effort by those atop the Wikipedia power structures to collaborate to filter this already one-sided message still further, regardless of the contrary beliefs of many editors, as evidenced by the number of similar changes that are consistantly removed. My personal feeling is that what is emerging is a Patriachal co-oping of an oppression message or set of oppression messages by a small but privilaged elite, in a similar manner to the co-opting of the Christian message by the Roman state after it failed to silence it by every means at its disposal. That is, a small number of power-brokers, mostly but not exclusively males themselves, are attempting to control the narrative so that males as a group are targeted and not specific areas of Patriachal power. As such, it serves the Patriachy's purpose to forment dischord regarding gender on sites like this, to distract attention from the small proportion of that group who hold disproportionate structural power. In particular, silencing of those within male underclasses is the real 'reverse sexism' as is the continued conspiracy among elite power-groups to supress attempts by these underclasses to concieve of a sense of the nature of their oppression. Particularly, Patriachy seeks to divide women's and men's movements by blinding them to the fact that it deliberately incites both male on female and female on male sexism to serve its Patriarchal agendas. It is thus in this group's interests to position one gender as oppressed and yet allow this oppression voice within its tightly controlled structures, and to call the other group not oppressed, and allow it speech only in designated ghetto areas, further fostering that gender's sense of their own oppression, which they will then often channel at those whose oppression has been co-opted by the oppressor. Mrspaceowl (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to appear rude, but seriously, what are you talking about? I did a quick check of the history of both the article and this talkpage going back to the start of 2017, and you have not made any edits to either in that time - it's not clear what your experience thus far is in this area. If you have a particular change or source you want to discuss, please be specific so we know what you are referring to; this talkpage is a place to discuss improvements to this article, it isn't a soapbox for discussion of vaguely-defined conspiracies amongst 'corporate owned media' or 'agents of the status-quo'. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not unanticipated that the response would be to object to this viewpoint having an area of official discussion with any reasonable reach. However, were you to check my user history you will find edits on a related topic. This is the latest, but not the only instance. I understand that you are reflexively keen to disallow all debate that the power structures and heirachy do not allow for, and had of course anticipated this a likely reaction from agent smiths. I would also urge you to look into the details of the disagreement fully, including reading the disputed sources, as you will find the terms rather different from what it was made to appear to be on the surface. Mrspaceowl (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Erm… you think that it's the duty of other editors to (a) review your entire contribution history, (b) read through all the discussions you've ever been involved in, (c) decide for ourselves what's relevant to the comment you made above, (d) read all the sources associated to any such discussions, and (e) then reply to your comment? No, that's not how talk pages work. You want to suggest an improvement to this page? Great, please do so, we can discuss it. You want to discuss a particular source, and what we can use it for? Fine, go ahead, please provide a reference. Asking you to explain what you are talking about is not an attempt to 'disallow all debate', I'm just asking you to come to the point. Again - this is not the place to discuss your ideas about patriarchal conspiracies (although I quite like the idea of being an agent smith - do I get a black suit and a pair of cool shades?); it's for discussing improvements to this article. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion noted, Morpheus... ;) ;) ;). Mrspaceowl (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Mrspaceowl is a new account, but I don't think its operator is a new Wikipedia editor. I replied to Mrspaceowl at Talk:Reverse sexism, about his edit warring with MShabazz. I expected to see him at the Sexism article sooner than later, and here he is. It is worth noting that he is making the same "moving the goal posts" complaint as RobertVazan, as if there is only one reason to oppose their arguments. WP:Due weight has always been the main reason, with additional rules given as further explanations. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

There are many sources that highlight sexism against both sexes. There is sexism against Both, from sentences like "man up" or "a woman's place is in the kitchen". Ask anyone who is alive and they will have moments they can speak about where they have been treated based off what they are. Don't need sources for this to be true. The point is sexism exisists and we are all equally at risk from it. This needs wording so it expresses this. Make new pages for both sexes if anyone wants to discuss examples of sexism against both sides but this shouldn't be done on this page. The idea it primarily affects women is in itself, a sexist statement. Crippsy1988 (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

If there are "many sources" making such claims, then you can bring some of them the next time you edit here. Until then; No. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Informative, and yet biased

The article feels very "cherry-picked" and has a biased tone. This begins in the very 2nd sentence. I find this a little surprising.

To clarify, I can see this article was clearly written by minds of a very specific persuasion. I am not surprised that this article exists online. However, I AM surprised it exists HERE with this title, on Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a non-biased form of information for anyone who seeks it. If I were to take this article seriously, I'd modify it by adding additional information to shine light on what "sexism" really is, and how damaging it is for everyone. This can easily be accomplished WITHOUT removing the focus on women and girls.

Most of the article covers a good amount of topics fairly well, from a female perspective. However, as it is now, the article mentions just a few male sexism topics in the span of a few sentences: military drafting, male war rape, and gender bias in courtroom sentencing. That's it! That's such a half-hearted attempt, and such a tiny slice of the picture. This gives the article a biased feel, because many male sexism issues are well-documented and not up for debate regarding their serious nature. They are easy to support with factual sources - and yet, they are not mentioned. I see nothing about legal rape definition, male rape victim/domestic violence resources and double standards, men's lack of reproductive rights, fathers' rights issues (custody, divorce) in the courtroom, resources for single parents, male genital mutilation, employer paid-time-off policies, and MANY other things could easily be mentioned as serious forms of sexism. In fact, I am rather blown away that many of these blatantly sexist issues are not even mentioned in a single sentence. Legal rape definition and treatment of male rape victims doesn't make the cut, yet "Sexist Jokes" has its own heading and paragraph?!

I am aware that many of these topics have their own Wiki pages. But this is information contained in a general page about what "sexism" is, so that is irrelevant. If the intent here is to educate about sexism as a general problem that affects everyone, then this article does not work as well as it could. You should consider making additions. There are plenty of sexist issues that uniquely affect men.

My intent with this edit suggestion is not to undermine the importance of highlighting sexism against women and girls. It doesn't need to be "us vs. them" thing. But I am highlighting the fact that there is a lot missing here when it comes to that "other" gender. With the current title, this should be a general, informative article, which is what Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to be all about. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZCasavant (talk • contribs) 02:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I know that women have more problems that men, so we don't need false balance, but here it's almost no male problems. We don't need as much space as for women to these issues, but more space that what's written here. It won't be false balance, because women problems will still be more important here. 37.167.38.112 (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Bias arguments

I'm seeing a lot of arguments in this talk page about bias, and who sexism primarily applies to.

First, the idea that that sexism can affect men, but predominantly affects women. Is sexist itself, and by existing here, is direct, documented evidence for sexism against men. This is a very common example, by the way.

This page needs some significant adjustment to meet community standards on bias. And I would support and encurage an immediate edit to remove any bias, at least in the primary definition.

Sexism has a specific meaning independent of sex, and it needs to be non-bias to be credible. Sections on how that bias appears in places like this could be written. You can also add sections on how sexism manifests for each sex. But the description of what sexism is *must not be bias*.

It is disturbing to see a societal trend to define sexism using sexist language. Think about what that really means. brill (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Your personal views do not override reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Bias sources and, dictionaries as sources

I have observed that *most* of the sources cited were published by people with a clear existing bias, or conflict of interest.

I also notice that the sources cited are often identical dictionary definitions, and the dictionary definitions themselves are sexist. I am not sure when they changed to the wording they currently have, but I don't believe it was always so. The problem is that dictionaries themselves use other dictionaries as sources.

We know from experience, having seen it happen several times in the last 20 years, that a single original source opinion, true or not, can get picked up and republished many times, until it becomes a systemic fact.

So two questions: - Is there an easy way to check the chain of sources, to where a source originated? - How should we address the credibility of the opinions published, where clear conflict, or bias, is evident?

After all, in other areas, we work hard not too allow people with clear bias, to define the meaning of something. So why are we doing it here? brill (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Dictionary sources are not the only sources in the article that are clear that sexism is something that primarily affects girls and women. The literature as a whole is overwhelmingly clear about this. And I don't know what you mean about biased sources, but see what WP:BIASEDSOURCES state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

This article seems slightly to moderately biased

The article states that sexism predominantly affects females. While this may be true, there is little to no information about discrimination against males. Sexism works both ways. It says so in the beginning of the article. And yet, most of the article is biased towards females, which is sexist in it of itself. I feel as this article should be updated to include the issues regarding discrimination against males.

[I am not saying that either gender should gain more attention over the other] The Triple 6 Timer (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

We want to be balanced but we don’t want WP:FALSEBALANCE. If the sources focus more on sexism against women, and I believe they do, then that’s where our focus should be. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

"and I believe they do" - that is the issue with bias, summed up in a 4 words! The sources used in this article focus on women, thus the entire talk page suggesting the article is biased. The obvious conclusion, wikipedia once again being edited by those with an agenda/POV.2A00:23C6:9D01:C800:6DEE:BBDB:474C:51D3 (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of misinformation

EL C I request for the following misinformation to be removed from the respective categories.

War rape (1 item)

Sexual violence and rape are also committed against men during war and are often under-reported. Sexism plays a significant part in the difficulty that the survivors face coping with their victimization, especially in patriarchal cultures, and in the lack of support provided to men who have been raped.[250]

Education (2 items)

, blame and punishment

Writer Gerry Garibaldi has argued that the educational system has become "feminized", allowing girls more of a chance at success with a more "girl-friendly" environment in the classroom;[300] this is seen to hinder boys by punishing "masculine" behavior and diagnosing boys with behavioral disorders.[301] A recent study by the OECD in over 60 countries found that teachers give boys lower grades for the same work. The researchers attribute this to stereotypical ideas about boys and recommend teachers to be aware of this gender bias.[302]

Conscription (1 item)

In his book The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys (2012), philosopher David Benatar states that "[t]he prevailing assumption is that where conscription is necessary, it is only men who should be conscripted and, similarly, that only males should be forced into combat". This, he believes, "is a sexist assumption".[316]:102 Anthropologist Ayse Gül Altinay has commented that "given equal suffrage rights, there is no other citizenship practice that differentiates as radically between men and women as compulsory male conscription".[322]:34 78.144.186.199 (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

What are the grounds for the proposed removal of these multiple passages of sourced content besides the aforementioned, unexplained "misinformation"? El_C 23:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

They are not examples of sexism. EvergreenFir may have some links to numerous studies that assert as much, I wouldn't know where to begin searching, but I know that part of critical gender theory is the study of sexism. 78.144.186.199 (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't actually know enough about the subject matter and have not reviewed the pertinent material, so I'll let other editors respond to your argument. El_C 00:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

As inappropriate as this and this edit were, I'll respond. Your statement in the latter diff that, "No academics who are members of, or otherwise aligned with Men's Rights Advocates, activists or organisations can be considered reliable as they have a vested interest in the rights and well being of men." suggests you significantly misunderstand WP:RS, WP:POV, and WP:DUE. Regardless of what we as editors think of MRA folks, we cannot dismiss them outright as "unreliable". We can call them WP:FRINGE though. Having a "vested interest in the rights and well being of men" does not make a person an MRA or anti-feminist or non-reliable as a source.

Regarding #1, Will Storr is a respected journalist with The Guardian. His writing would appear to satisfy WP:RS. What this portion does violate, however, is WP:NOR. The article cited does not mention sexism. That material better belongs in Rape by gender and Violence against men.

Regarding #2, I am not sure what the three words "blame and punishment" are about. But for the second part, as with #1, none of the sources call this "sexism". However, they do call it "gender bias", which, based on the rather reductive definition of "sexism" being used in this article, would qualify it for inclusion in my article.

Regarding #3, the opinion that this qualifies as sexism is attributed to the sources' authors and is not said in Wikivoice. As these authors are academics and not WP:FRINGE, it seems appropriate to include them here.

In all of these cases, I find myself agreeing with Digby, Johnson, Pascoe, and others that the gender-related violence men experience is primarily at the hands of other men and not the same as the gender-based violence men subject women to. Rather, it is a splashback and/or an enforcement of hierarchical masculinities and hegemonic masculinity. I would not personally call it sexism per se, but rather the product of violent patriarchy.

That said, my POV on this cannot override what other reliable sources say. And some of them argue that men do experience sexism. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The information that was requested to be removed is written solely to support the rights and well being of men. This itself is a bias that breaches WP:POV, this non-neutral point of view is also a direct breach of WP:DUE. This is not an attack on men or you, this is an attempt to streamline the article by removing excessive unnecessary material. 78.144.184.30 (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

"written solely to support the rights and well being of men" - similar argument for all data written solely to support the rights of women. Should we delete the whole page given that logic?2A00:23C6:9D01:C800:6DEE:BBDB:474C:51D3 (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

You're looking at it the wrong way. Think of this as just one of several times EvergreenFir has been used as a tool to vandalise a wikipedia article. EvergreenFir, challenge for you. Find three articles by Feminists that assert that men can be the victims of sexism. For each remaining category that insists they can be the victims of sexism. Do that and this user will cease insisting you vandalise this particular article. You ignored the parameters of the previous request for sources. 88.106.238.116 (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Anti-sex

Why should anti-sex redirect here? Is the word anti-sex used to refer to anti-sexism in English? --Yoramus (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Consensus

@El C: Is “typically against women” something the definition of the word should include in the introductory paragraph? That seems specific given this seems to be the general article. I am seeing that Reverse sexism exists, referring to Sexism against men; if this article is to focus primarily on sexism against women, shouldn't be called Sexism against women? And Reverse sexism be called Sexism against men? That seems more reasonable, and accurate to the definition provided. Otherwise, Reverse sexism should be merged with Sexism. Vokafone (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That is the prevailing consensus. If you wish to change it, then persuade participants here to subscribe to your view. El_C 20:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No. That is not how WP:RS define it. Please see the talk page archives for discussions on this. The most detailed listing of RS is found at Talk:Sexism/Archive_7#Is_sexism_typically_defined_as_discrimination_against_women?. Also see Talk:Sexism/Archive_13#That_darn_lead_(or,_can_we_please_fix_this_issue_and_stop_all_the_debate...please). EvergreenFir (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Taken from Reverse Sexism. "According to Victoria Smith and Prerna Singh, misogyny and misandry are not equal. A traditionally oppressed group, like women, can be victims of sexism. Men, on the other hand, are traditionally the oppressors; therefore, they can not suffer from sexism." According to these legitimate sources, men are incapable of experiencing any form of discrimination. There's no legitimate need to include either of the two following examples.

Education ″Writer Gerry Garibaldi has argued that the educational system has become "feminized", allowing girls more of a chance at success with a more "girl-friendly" environment in the classroom;[299] this is seen to hinder boys by punishing "masculine" behavior and diagnosing boys with behavioral disorders.[300] A recent study by the OECD in over 60 countries found that teachers give boys lower grades for the same work. The researchers attribute this to stereotypical ideas about boys and recommend teachers to be aware of this gender bias.[301] One study found that students give female professors worse evaluation scores than male professors, even though the students appear to do as well under female professors as male professors.[302]″

Conscription ″In his book The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys (2012), philosopher David Benatar states that "[t]he prevailing assumption is that where conscription is necessary, it is only men who should be conscripted and, similarly, that only males should be forced into combat". This, he believes, "is a sexist assumption".[316]:102 Anthropologist Ayse Gül Altinay has commented that "given equal suffrage rights, there is no other citizenship practice that differentiates as radically between men and women as compulsory male conscription".[322]:34

Currently, only nine countries conscript women into their armed forces: China, Eritrea, Israel, Libya, Malaysia, North Korea, Norway, Peru, and Taiwan.[323][324] Other countries—such as Finland, Turkey, and Singapore—still use a system of conscription which requires military service from only men, although women are permitted to serve voluntarily.″

Ping is partially correct. Any example of a male being treated negatively should be listed under a "reverse problem" article that clearly states that negative actions toward males aren't something to be viewed as being wrong. If males were people there would be some representation in this article. 88.106.238.116 (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam

Hi,

I came across this promising Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam (relating to women's rights) and myself supported the same editorially too. IMO since topic potential is vast many Reliable sources on Google scholar seem to be available hence the article needs more editorial hands for some more update and expansion along with appropriate references.

Pl. do join to update and expansion, your help will be most welcome.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Not NPoV

There is a debate as to whether sexism is discrimination based on gender or systemic/structural discrimination, which only men can effect against women. The article tries to account for both points of view, but lapses into NPoV stating one side of the argument as fact. 2.110.96.126 (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Check the archives. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Primarily affects women

Let's see what happens if I kick a hornets nest then...

The second sentence of the article reads, "Sexism can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women and girls.[1]", however the citation only refers to the meaning of the sexism, rather than the prevalence. I believe this was due to the sentence being changed without regard for the footnote.

I suggest that either:

• The sentence be changed to "Sexism primarily refers to discrimination or prejuduce affecting women, though can refer more broadly to any discrimination based on sex."
• Or a citation that that shows that sexism priarily affects women is provided in the footnote (rather than the term merely primarily refering to discrimination against women).

I have searched the archives for the topic, and found various comments saying that the weight of reliable evidence shows that sexism mainly affects women, which is wonderful! We will easily be able to find a citation for the claim then.

I was distinctly tempted to at a "better citation needed" template here :P. We'll see if anyone replies here.

--Talpedia (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

We're not playing the WP:Undue game, which you should know since you state that you read the archives. Various reliable sources in the article and elsewhere are clear that sexism mainly affects women (and girls). They explicitly state it. No reliable sources state that sexism mainly affects men (and boys), or equally affects them. And we are not doing "refers to", as if this article is about the word; see WP:ISAWORDFOR and WP:Refers. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The reference you point to is more than one reference. It is a WP:CITEBUNDLE setup that includes 12 citations. And multiple citations in that bundle go over more than just the definition of sexism, but also the fact that women (and girls) are usually the targets of sexism. They do address prevalence. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Awesome, find me a single source amongs the 12 sourceds that is not to do with the definition of the term. Perhaps it should be the first source in the list, rather than a dictionary. --Talpedia (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You must have missed where I stated, "And multiple citations in that bundle go over more than just the definition of sexism, but also the fact that women (and girls) are usually the targets of sexism. They do address prevalence." Either that, or you are ignoring it. Either way, I'm telling you right now that we aren't doing this -- playing this silly game. If, on this matter, you want to go down the WP:Tendentious editing road, then be prepared to be taken to WP:ANI. Simple. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope. I'm challenging that claim. Point me at a single source amongst the bundle that looks at prevalence. Really simple. This isn't a silly game. Well I guess it is a game in the sense that I've found the second sentence on a major article where the soures clearly do not match the sentence while looking at a related article that I was interested in, and I'm seeing if it's actually possible to fix this. Anyway, I'm just looking doing a grep of the history now to show that the sentence was changed underneath the citation. Umm, I might suggest not threatening people and assuming bad faith? You don't really get to decide what we do and don't do - truth does and hopefully this truth is reflected in editor consensus --Talpedia (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Addressing your point about WP:Refers. I don't think this applies because the sentence is a statement of fact rather than a statement about the meaning of words. If we were talking about "Sexism is discrimiation or prejudice against women due to their gender [1]. Sexism can also be discriminator or prejudice against anyone." then WP:Refers would apply. The article is not about a word, but the citations for this sentence are. --Talpedia (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Going through the sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 are statements about the meaning of a word and have no factual content. 7 is a statement about the consensus of a field, however a dictionary probably isn't a good source for this claim, it is also a historic rather than a current quote. 9 is a direct statement about prevalence, so might be able to support the claim, as might be 12. --Talpedia (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Right, I've extracted the entire history of the article in a way that can be search on my computer, so I can understand what is going on. I can provide a git history upoon request. The reference with name Sexism (that is used in the lead) was originally added by and old version of you five years ago when you took a citation from the then "Etymology and definitions" section and used it as a reference https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexism&diff=next&oldid=647975285 attached to the sentence "Most sexism is expressed toward women.", the original citation at this point was attached to "Sexism is especially defined as discrimination, prejudice, or stereotyping against women, on the basis of their sex".

This reference has been used to cite various statements as the "[especially against women]" claim has been removed and added These statements include "Sexism is most often expressed toward girls and women.", in revision 648079099. "Sexism is historically associated with discrimination against females in particular".

The citation bundle was added by Fyddlestix in 664655780 and the three citations Sexism, Sexism2 were merged together by you in 666138274 and applied to the sentence "Sexism affects both men and women, but primarily women". This had twelve citations (which I assume are the sames as the one's now present). I wish they'd used academic papers rather than dictionaries for this task. --Talpedia (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, probably not worth spending more time chasing this. But I'd be nice if first 8 references weren't from dictionaries and if some of the citations came from review papers rather than encyclopedias! I've had problems myself trying to summarize the views of a field, I was trying to cite the claim. I'm pretty suspicious that claims like the one made here simply do not have any research covering them because they are so broad and literature concerns itself with specifics. I'm quite sure you'd be able to find citations for more specific claims about the rate of sexism.. --Talpedia (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:TERTIARY sources are sometimes useful for providing a broad summary of complex subjects with lots of sources, which is how they are being used here. I don't think there's a problem with them here. If you're happy to leave it as is, then all is well. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't really like the citation bundle as it stands. The dictionary definitions sort of detract from the claim, and encourage the response I had ("why are you making factual claims using dictionaries"). I'd prefer it if the two factual citations (9 and 12) came first, and then maybe the claims about etymology where separated. So like "Sexism prodominantly affects women [9], [12]. Tthe definiton of the word that is often constrainted to women. [Other sources]." I might even arguing for fewer dictionary citations, but I guess if they are split like this and in a citation box volume doesn't matter.

Like, I'm suspicious that that factual claim is broad enough to be meaningless - you can just keep expanding the field and adding the factors, whereas the meta claim ("most of instance of sexism identified by research apply prodominently to women") and specific claims are more plausible, but I doubt that's an argument I'm going to win. --Talpedia (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Per what I stated above, this is my last reply to you on this matter in this section: The provided sources, and various others that are not in the article, for "primarily affects women and girls" obviously consist of more than just dictionary sources. And a dictionary of an academic field carries more weight than an ordinary dictionary. There is nothing to dispute regarding the current lead wording. Whether we use "primarily affects women and girls", "mostly directed at women", etc., it's all the same. And we are allowed to put the matter in our own words. In fact, per WP:LIMITED, putting it in our own words when we can is ideal. As for assuming good faith, I can't assume good faith when an editor is challenging the fact that women (and girls) are the main victims of sexism. Your above arguments are tendentious. Plain and simple. You are doing the same thing that others, including men's rights editors, have done by trying to challenge such an obvious fact, including suggestions to water it down by essentially saying, "Oh, sexism is just defined that way, but that doesn't mean that women actually face substantially more sexism than men do." If it weren't for editors being silly in this way, the bundle wouldn't be there.

You mentioned that Wikipedia goes by truth. Go ahead and read the WP:Truth essay. We go by the literature with WP:Due weight. And the literature on sexism couldn't be clearer that sexism mainly affects women (and girls).

You mentioned Fyddlestix, who added that entire bundle. In addition to what Fyddlestix added, the sources seen at Talk:Sexism/Archive 7#Is sexism typically defined as discrimination against women? are more than adequate for defining what sexism is and stating in Wikipedia's voice that sexism primarily affects women (and girls). And we do define topics in our Wikipedia articles. Like WP:Lead sentence states, "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." It also states, "Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like '[Subject] refers to...' or '...is a word for...' – the article is about the subject, not a term for the subject." Your "WP:ISAWORDFOR and WP:Refers don't apply" argument makes no sense. The "but it is particularly documented as affecting women and girls" was changed per what is seen at Talk:Sexism/Archive 19#This sentence needs to be reworded....

Simply put, I see nothing to debate on this matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC) Tweaked posted. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Having reviewed the sources, you are in my estimation correct. Two of the sources are non-dictionary sources that may suppoort the claim. I incorrectly assumed, after perhaps only looking at the first 8 sources that all of the sources were dictionary sources. I think these two sources should appear earlier in the list and the dictionary source should be separted, and clarified to be about the meaning of the word rather than the factual or maybe philosophical claim that sexism mainly affcts women.

Hmm, I don't really understand your perspective. I don't understand why you don't seem to see the difference between factual claims and linguistics claims that I see. I don't see why you seem to be hostile to even the rearrangment or clarification of references, which would help the reader find the relevant material. And I don't understand why you aren't concerned that a reader would see the use of dictionaries as poor sourcing.

This is not the first sentence in the lead. The sentence isn't a definition of terms, but rather a statement of fact. The Manual of style states that the lead section must include citations. I think this addresses with the WP:Refers argument. Silly or not statements likely to be challenged must be verifiable (WP:Verifiability) and the verifiability of this claim is impaired by citations that are irrelevant to claim, so if would seem that the article would be improved by separating claims about the definition of a word from those about the term itself. On a pragmatic level good and relevant sourcing of claims that might be challenged increase the likelihood that someone will read a source and have their opinion updated.

Like, what I see happening in the talk so far is people come along, make potentially quite specific comments, that elsewhere would result in improved sourcing or a change or a tweak, just because it's easier to improve things than have an argument, and it probably improves things, and then they get pulled into a general discussion by accusations of bad faith, tendentious editting, intent, claims about the general verifiability, etc, and then they get pulled off topic.

--Talpedia (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Your counting of the sources is off when you say "Two of the sources are non-dictionary sources". There is only 1 general dictionary, but 3 dictionaries of an academic field (which are clearly describing how those fields use the term and what they consider sexism to be), 4 encyclopedias, and 4 other secondary or tertiary academic works. This is the most well-sourced statement I have ever seen on Wikipedia. And I believe that readers can see beyond the brief first dictionary source, and anyway it does support the definition we use here. Re-ordering the sources can be an endless debate and really serves no purpose. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)j45

Ah yep, you're right, some of the definitions of sexism do come from sources other than dictionaries. I believe I am correct that 10 of the 12 for the factual claim are to do with the definition of the term sexism rather than statement being supported by the citation bundle. The definition of what a field considers the term to be is irrelvant to the claim. Is this actually the most well-souced statement you've seen on wikipedia? I think a statement with a single cochrane review is better source than a statement with 12 sources, 10 or which are irrelevant for the claim cited (perhaps see WP:Bombardment) The purpose of splitting the sources is distinguishing those that support the claim, from those that are to do with the definition of the term sexism. To be clear, this is not a citation for the definition used here: it is a citation for the sentence "Sexism can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women and girls." It's like we have a "A [1]; [1] note A and B; citation 1 for B, citation 2 for B, citatation 3 for B, citatation 4 for B, citation 5 for B, citation 6 for B.... citation 9 for A.... citation 12 for A", yes B is very well sourced, however it does rather distract from the A tho.

--Talpedia (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

A nitpick re sexism and gender discrimination

I wouldn't say either one "encompasses" the other, rather that they overlap in significant ways. Not going to edit this, just sayin'... --Jhoughton1 (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2020‎ (UTC)

Bringing up the topic of primarily affects women and girls

This is factually incorrect; the only sources brought up were dictionary definitions and not a single study. In fact, empirical research has suggested that in the majority of countries across the world, men and boys are disadvantaged to women and girls. Greglawl (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Per the discussion immediately above this one, that analysis is incorrect. And gender inequality, which is not the same topic as sexism, which is why we have two different articles for them, is noted in various academic sources as affecting girls and women more than boys and men. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The analysis is correct. You have not provided a single empirical study or research paper which has found that sexism primarily affects women and girls. Dictionary definitions are not empirical research, they are definitions that people decide correctly apply. Unless you can provide a datapoint which proves your claim, it is still just a claim. Greglawl (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I found this research paper, which gave hundreds of studies and empirical research to suggest that women are NOT the primary victims of sexism, and might actually be less likely to be the victims of sexism. You need actual academic papers and peer-reviewed studies that say that women and girls are more likely to be the victims of sexism than men and boys. Greglawl (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of peer review, I don't think Google Docs has any. Anyway, your claim, and the erroneous talking point about "dictionary definitions", was addressed in the section above. The sources for the article's statement are rock-solid per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I never claimed that Google Docs has any. I'm saying that the paper I cited gave over a 100 peer-reviewed studies and papers. You gave absolutely none, and you don't get to make extraordinary claims without proper and adequate scientific and psychological evidence for it. Please add some empirical research that corroborates your assertion, otherwise, remove it. Greglawl (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The statement is supported by 12 excellent sources, which are WP:Secondary and tertiary sources reviewing the research from many academic fields. Those hold far more weight than some cherry-picked stuff collected by some guy on Google Docs. Also, the article states that "Sexism can affect anyone" and that it primarily affects women and girls. It's not saying men never get discriminated against. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

None of which are peer-reviewed, empirical studies. The studies that the Google Docs mentioned were all peer-reviewed and factual; you have listed NONE of those. A dictionary definition is not an excellent source, it's intellectual laziness. Why can't you provide an actual study for your claim? Greglawl (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for debating this stuff. There are other sites for that if that's what people want to do. Discussions here must center on Wikipedia article content and how to follow our policies and guidelines, such as WP:Reliable sources, WP:Due weight, and others. Crossroads -talk- 16:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Are you talking about 'reverse sexism'? That is the same thing as 'reverse racism': it does not exist. Sexism, like racism, is a problem because the dominant, more powerful group of people suppress the group that has less power. It is clear that the more powerful group is the group of white men, not black, indigenous, and other people of color. Laurier (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC) This is false equivalence. Light skinned people do have privilege in the US because they're the majority, and there's almost no way they're discriminated against. But there always was the same quantity of men than women. And even tho patriarchy existed, it discriminated against both genders, for example by the military because of stereotypes of masculinity. And anyway, any evidence (wp:reliable sources) for your claims? Cappyinator (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC) "there always was the same quantity of men than women" is not an argument to say both groups had the same amount of power. Do I have any sources for my claim women are discriminated against? Seriously? There is overwhelming evidence, overwhelming amounts of scientific research, laws, journalist research, etc. See Sexism to read more. The first sentence is: "Sexism can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women and girls." Laurier (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC) There is no 'reverse sexism,' it's just sexism. I gave you empirical studies and evidence that suggests that white females are the most privileged group in the United States. Don't assert things without backing them up with evidence. Greglawl (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Why would Women's suffrage (and Suffrage#Race) even have been needed if (white) men did not posess all the power? Laurier (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC) You're talking about the past. Men are the majority of victims of police brutality, workplace fatalities, are more likely to receive corporal punishment as a child, have more health problems and yet women receieve more healthcare funding, the majority of combat fatalities, get 63% longer sentencing for the same crime, majority of homeless (men of color mostly), drug-addicted, suicide victims, more likely to receive capital punishment for the same crime, people are more willing to sacrifice men over women, etc... All of this affects black people, too (by the way). Please don't compare the plight of black people to a historically privileged group. Women had protections that men did not before suffrage as well. Greglawl (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC) The first sentence of Sexism is: "Sexism can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women and girls." I don't know why I have to defend that statement all of a sudden. Laurier (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Greglawl and Cappyinator may be attempting to vandalize the integrity of wikipedia as an encyclopaedia, using their false claims that women as an oppressed class, are capable of exerting power over and discriminating against men, the ruling class of patriarchy. If it were possible to be sexist against men, there would be more than one example among the dozens of examples of sexism against women in the article. And of the example that exists, it's one of the privileges given to men. 88.106.238.93 (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

____

References

Single study/primary source material

Regarding this and this? Don't start adding a bunch of single/study primary source material to this article to bias it, like you have done at the Gender inequality in the United States article. That the Sexism article already includes some single/study primary source material is not a valid reason to add more and more. Secondary sources and tertiary sources are preferred. WP:Scholarship is clear. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Why are secondary sources preferred? Just because you quote a bunch of scholars that can be incredibly biased on subjects and downright wrong doesn't mean your position is correct. We need actual data, which I provide through primary source materials. If the data points towards one position and the scholars disagree, it's better to trust the data. Most scientists thought the Earth was flat in the 1600s, even when the relevant data contradicted that. Greglawl (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Secondary sources are very definitely preferred. WP:PSTS and WP:Scholarship explain why. You can personally believe whatever about the data, but Wikipedia is to summarize expert views, and not the personal views of random editors. Keep WP:RGW in mind. Also, secondary sources do not all have a single POV as I suspect you may believe them to. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." All of my sources were peer-reviewed, reliable, and most of them were meta-analyses, reviewing the current literature. In the 'Sexism' article, people were more than happy to use studies to prove that women were being oppressed. On the other hand, when an editor provides evidence of grading bias discrimination, that's when people start to get mad. Most experts would laugh at the idea of quantum mechanics in the early 1900's, and now it's the accepted view amongst all particle physicists. So, once again my sources were peer-reviewed, deemed reliable by experts, and a good majority of them were reviewing the overall literature on the matter. Amongst most experts, it is agreed that systematic reviews and empirical studies are better than arbitrary expert opinions. Greglawl (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"Sexism in the United States" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sexism in the United States. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 14#Sexism in the United States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)