Talk:Sexism/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Helen Fisher book "Anatomy of Love"

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

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

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

Using a thesis as a source?

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

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

Also, if the source is to stay, it needs a page number where this is stated. --Susan118 (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree - this is not a notable source, and I think that the section is placing undue weight on this thesis. I removed it a couple of times, but stopped due to 3RR. It would be great if the anonymous editor who keeps putting it back would join the discussion here. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
You are too easily dismissing this thesis - have you read it? It's available online. At the very least it provides an analysis which must be included in order to maintain neutrality. There is a section for domestic violence against women, why should a referenced section on domestic violence against men be deleted? --Carbon Rodney 01:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, I question the reliability of theses in general. I did search Wikipedia for info on this, and it seems there has been discussion on the topic, but no real consensus. The fact that she is a law professor does make it seem as if her arguments might hold more weight than if it was a student thesis. However, I still think citing this one person's (minority?) opinion is not enough. And at the very least, a page number where this idea is mentioned needs to be cited, as it is over 60 pages.
Maintaining neutrality does not mean that because there is a section on domestic violence against women, there has to be one for domestic violence against men. And it does not mean that each section has to be the same length, or have just as many references. Maintaining neutrality means presenting all of the facts without pushing any particular viewpoint, and also without giving undue weight to radical minority viewpoints. At any rate, no one is proposing eliminating all mention of domestic violence against men, as I know statistics on that are cited elsewhere in the article, and that is not in question. --Susan118 (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Google video

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

Title IX and male sexism

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

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

Sexism and language

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

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

Canvasing alert

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

Paragraph Sexism against men

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

Put it back, since Separatist Feminism represents Feminism as a whole.

Introductory Paragraph

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

Discrimination vs Sexism

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

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

Section on Marginalization

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

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

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

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

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

Really really bad page

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

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

The rest of this page is little better and should be completely rewritten. Tomtac (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

sexism in the military

I feel like this article lacks discussion of sexism in the military. It talks about women not having to participate in the selective service system but not about how they are not allowed to take part in combat roles. It talks briefly about rape, but not about the female soldiers who are sexually assaulted over seas. I would like to contribute. Any thoughts? Kaitlyn confer (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good topic to add to the article. The first step would be to collect some reliable sources that could be quoted or cited for the topic. Once you have those it's just a matter of summarizing the sources. Let me know if you need any help. Kaldari (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The feminist say that all males in the military are potential rapist which is of course a big fat lie that all men are like that.

Sex discrimination lawsuits?

This article has a section on discrimination, but doesn't link to anything about discrimation lawsuits except the one link I added, to Shyamala Rajender v. University of Minnesota. (That's a stubby article and could use some work.) Does no list of important sex discrimination lawsuits exist within Wikipedia? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

sexism is currently only defined as being the oppression of women

If sexism is currently only defined as being the oppression of women, or the history of oppression of women, then this needs to be in the article. All edits that give examples of sexism vrs men or the current state of sexism have been systematically removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.55.166 (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there are any reputable (funded!) studies out that actually look into sexism versus males. The main points that I think exist in sexism versus males are:

  • Men are supposed to want sex -- and be ready for sex -- all the time. [1] Are accused of being perverted, sexual predator [2] On this line, men are discriminated against jobs such as elementary school teacher, jobs with small kids. This also leads into men not being viewed as being able to be caring or nurturing in society
  • Fear of being not strong, not being a burly man man. If you are not strong, you are called gay, or a pussy - basically feminine. (By the way most enforcers of male sexism is from other men)
  • Not being in touch with emotions, are not supposed to be in touch with, and if they are they are... not men
  • Supposed to be aggressive, callous

I know that women experience the majority of sexism, but leaving out men altogether seems like the article is in missing something. Perhaps someone can find more reliable sources for the above. 67.243.55.166 (talk)

It’s biased because all feminist only fight for supremacy and not equality that is why all men are subjugated against like all women.

New material added by 67.243.55.166

Recently 67.243.55.166 added two new paragraphs:

  • The first one discusses how female college enrollment in the United States currently exceeds male enrollment. As there is nothing else in the article about enrollment rates, it is not obvious how this relates to sexism. If there was info about how female rates have historically been lower than male enrollment rates, at least it would have some context and would show some relation to the concept of sexism. As it stands, it is just a rebuttal to a non-existent argument. What's more, it further exacerbates this article's U.S.-centric focus.
  • The second paragraph discusses how women in New York City and certain other large American cities who fall between the ages of 21 and 30 and work full-time earn more than men. While this section at least has some context, it only relates to a very small segment of the world's population and thus is arguably in violation of the WP:WEIGHT policy. In addition, it also fails to explain how this statistic relates to sexism, if only to show that occupational sexism doesn't exist in every city of the world (although that would probably constitute original synthesis without a secondary source).

As it stands now, these paragraphs don't add anything useful to the article. They basically just comes across as stats you can cite to "disprove" sexism. There are no secondary sources explaining how these stats relate to sexism or might be part of some public discourse. Unless this material is revised significantly—to provide context relating to sexism, to add more than just an American perspective, and to add some secondary sources—I think the material should be removed for now. Kaldari (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

1 This does seem a bit out of place with the remaining article. Perhaps statistics citing the limited number of college women graduating prior to 1991 would be appropriate.
2 Have done the changes asked for 67.243.55.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC).
Thanks, it's nice to have some non-US stats for a change. Kaldari (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Anti-sexism section?

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Feminism is not "anti-sexism." It's "anti-sexism-against-women." 71.234.119.12 (talk) 09:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

After researching feminism over the Internet for four years, I have concluded that all forms of feminism are no more anti-sexists then the Saudi Arabian government. Like the Arabian laws they are all only in favour of there own gender, while subjugating the other.

Neutral

This article seems to be sexist in itself as sexism is just like everything is in the world is dynamic, this article seems to be just the normal generic popular cultural look on the world. Clean it up, theres sexism in both sexes which in small part is just the natural dynamics of life and sexual identity and wikipedia should strive to be neutral on the subject. 71.33.26.204 (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It was but the feminist didn't want it to be neutral they changed it to state that only males are sexist and all males are sexist.

Removal of paragraph

I have a removed a paragraph from the section 'Gender wage gap'. It stated:

In the UK, which is one of the worst situation having country about women's rights sexism against women is often common. For example according National Statistics Comity( NSC) women are still earning less for the same job in the UK. in some jobs, especially private sector or, high government structures women even earn 30-35% less then men, for the same job and the same amount of time. 1 in 5 job interview refuse of women, are considered refuses as just because the gender of the females. UK government trying to stop the sexism in the country, which have a long traditional history in the country. The government decided to create new ministry, called Minister for Women and Equality, which is not really affective over the situation

I have removed it for the following reasons:

  • It cites the so called 'National Statistics Comity' but this organisation does not exist in the UK.
  • Claims that the UK has one of the worst gender gaps in the world - not cited
  • Clearly not NPOV - attacks the UK Government again with no references.
  • Very poor grammar

--APHST (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Confusing "Mandatory military service" statement

"Men in Singapore are required to serve 3 years of mandatory military service after the age of 18. It has recently been reduced to 2.5 years."

As I'm not really familiar with Singaporean military, I don't know whether this reduction is a recent change that has yet to go into action or if it is the current policy.

If it is current, I believe it should just say "Men in Singapore are required to serve 2.5 years of mandatory military service after the age of 18."

If it has yet to go into action, I think a better phrasing might be "Men in Singapore are currently required to serve 3 years of mandatory military service after the age of 18. However, the required period of service is in the process of being reduced to 2.5 years."

Such an explanation, however, seems a bit irrelevant and off the topic of sexism.

Pisces312 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant Sections

This Wiki page is about Sexism, the sections on Domestic violence, Minorities and Domestic Violence and Rape have at best a very tenuous relevance to the subject matter of the page. They seem to me to be more agenda driven than an attempt to illuminate the concept of Sexism. Pancur (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Only the "Minorities and Domestic Violence" section is questionable—it's completely uncited and too conversational. The others are founded in statistics and documentation showing widespread sexism. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Domestic Violence

Having now being made aware of this page I have the following to say.

Domestic violence has little to do with sexism unless it can be demonstrated that a significant number of people are beating their partners because of their gender and not because of other reasons. Same sex partners have a greater rate of domestic violence than heterosexual partners. On Wiki Domestic Violence the word sexism occurs once in this sentence:-

'A study by Adkins found that measures of sexism were not significantly associated with IPV.'
Adkins, Katie (2010). A Contextual Family Therapy Theory Explanation For Intimate Partner Violence. Doctoral Dissertation: Ohio State University.

The entries on DV on this page are agenda driven coatracking and should be removed. Zimbazumba (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Comparing one wiki article to another isn't always a good argument for changing the one you are pointing to. Perhaps it's an argument for changing the other one, or both.
Instead, one looks outside Wikipedia, at the best sources:
These are but a few of the search results. It is demonstrable that the mainstream view of sexism is that it is one of the major factors in domestic violence, along with poverty, substance abuse and other psychological/sociological factors. Your stance is a minority viewpoint, and its significance must be weighed carefully when considering the tone of the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well those 'references' were a sight for sore eyes. If anything they demonstrated that sexism as a cause for DV is the unsubstantiated opinion of some who carry little weight, and at very best a fringe view. The PhD I mentioned clearly carries significantly more weight.

The wiki domestic violence page is a well discussed page and my bet is that if sexism was a notable cause of DV it would be there. The DV section on this page demonstrates massive lack of balance and mostly reads like a cut and paste from the fine ladies at my local radical feminist DV shelter.

At most this section should be one or 2 sentences indicating some think sexism is a cause of DV and some don't. Though frankly it should be removed. It is clearly coatracking atm.

Zimbazumba (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dissertations are not given much weight on Wikipedia. Quoting the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources policy: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper." Quoting the college textbook Essentials of Sociology: "...women are battered far more often and far more severely than are men... battering helps men to retain their dominance over women." p. 13. If you can find other review articles, monographs, or textbooks which support your point of view, please feel free to present them. Kaldari (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

One gender indulging in DV more than another is a matter of dispute and irrelevant to whether it is caused by sexism, perhaps women are more irritating than men? You are also quoting Reliable Sources out of context, opinions of textbook writers are only of worth if they are themselves notable or reference their opinions appropriately.

Zimbazumba (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is a terrible mess, and we are all correct to be concerned about it. However, the attempt to make men into the greater victims is ridiculous and cannot be condoned. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
There's also an element of common sense here: Zimbazumba's claim that a perception of a link between sexism and domestic violence is "fringe" is absurd on its face. If there were no connection, your "fine ladies" at the "radical feminist DV shelter" should have no clients. (And this kind of language hardly indicates a neutral POV.) Sexism doesn't have to be the sole cause of domestic violence for domestic violence to be an issue that can be researched through the lens of sexism: even studies that can find no causal link nevertheless had to recognize the social perception of a link, or the topic of research couldn't have been formulated. Text books are further evidence that a link between domestic violence and sexism is widely recognized. I agree that the article needs a lot of work, but I don't see anyone challenging the statistics on who's more often the victim. By definition, if it affects one gender at a disproportionate rate, it's an issue of sexism. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The causes of domestic violence are irrelevant here. If domestic violence affects women more than men, which it does, it is an issue of sexism. And I don't see any evidence for your claim that I am quoting WP:RS out of context. Where does it say that the author of the textbook has to be notable themselves or reference their opinions appropriately? Kaldari (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not expressing an opinion about who is more the victim of DV, just that some do, in fact quite a few both ways (read a bit more broadly, 3rd para of this section will do). My point that is it is irrelevant to whether DV is caused by sexism.

Sexism is at the top of the page is defined as

"is the belief or attitude that one sex is inherently superior to, more competent than, or more valuable than the other"

A woman might beat the snot out of here husband cause he is a drunken slob who leaves the toilet seat up. Thoughts of the relative superiority, competency or value of the male sex as a whole are very possibly nowhere in her thinking or motivation.

Vast swathes of this section need to be removed and replaced by a short entry indicating that sexism causing DV is a matter of dispute. If you can't find a suitable reference then the section should simply go.

Lastly I hope the expressing of all views, regardless of how much we might disagree with them, are condoned on Wikipedia.

Zimbazumba (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your views will have weight when they are backed by reliable sources rather than notional examples. Binksternet (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


The onus is on you to prove not me disprove if there is to be an entry on this page.

Zimbazumba (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the article could include some discussion of how sexist attitudes affect (or don't affect) domestic violence. However, I certainly can't agree with you that the section on domestic violence should be entirely removed from the article. Kaldari (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's a source directly contradicting your source (also a dissertation): "Participants high in hostile sexism, paired with either low or high benevolent sexism, had significantly higher risk for offending against a family member in the upcoming year." - Ambivalent sexism as a predictor of severity of domestic violence by male offenders, Rebecca Ann Eades. Kaldari (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to such an entry so long it is balanced, supported by reliable sources and its weight is proportionate to the rest of the page. The two theses might be a start. But one gender being affected more than another, ergo we have sexism does not cut it with me atm.

Zimbazumba (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


I have not read a summary of the thesis, but it seems to suggest that sexism is an indicator not necessarily a cause of DV. Birds flying South are an indicator that the leaves are falling off the trees but not a cause.

Zimbazumba (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, both studies are only showing correlation, not causation. So we probably can't say that sexist views cause domestic violence. I think many people's definition of "sexism" is broader than sexist opinions, however, especially within feminist theory. Perhaps our lead needs some revision to reflect the various definitions of sexism. Kaldari (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't read the section as it stands as asserting that sexism causes domestic violence. It presents domestic violence as something that disproportionately affects women. The question is whether domestic violence is (verifiably) a significant theme or issue in scholarly or public discourse on sexism, not whether sexism causes the abuse. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

@Kaldari I disagree, playing with the definition is a major step. To me someone who is sexist is by definition someone either consciously or subconsciously holds sexist opinions. Which is the working definition of both the theses as far as I can see. The 2nd thesis is a good find though. My first offering is

"Opinions vary as whether sexism is an indicator of domestically violent behavior.[Thesis refs]"

@Cynwolfe Whether people who discuss DV also discuss sexism or pantyhose is of little relevance to this section. The direct relevance of sexism to DV is the only interest here.

Zimbazumba (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you've read through much of the article, I'm sure you can see that the scope is much broader than just sexist opinions. The terms Oppression of women, Sexual discrimination, and Gender bias all redirect here. Either the lead should be expanded to encompass all of these ideas, or separate articles should be spun off for some of these terms. Kaldari (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not following Z's reasoning. Causation is not the only form of relation. I can write an article about the economic crisis in ancient Rome in the 80s BC and its relation to the civil wars of the period, without claiming that one was the direct cause of the other, as long as sufficient scholarship views them as related in meaningful ways. It isn't a matter of a scholar discussing sexism in one book, and domestic violence in another book: it's a matter of discussing the topics as related in context. It may be that domestic abuse is part of a set of cultural attitudes that support sexism. If you beat someone regularly because you think you're entitled to, and the society you live in condones that because of your gender, the person you beat is unlikely to feel equal, competent, or valued. Sociologists may find a correlation between pervasive sexism in a society and domestic violence, without asserting causation. They may find that socially-condoned domestic violence is — in your own words — not a cause, but an indicator of a sexist culture. Your analogy to birds and trees as signs that it's autumn is amiss; in the analogy, sexism is autumn. Just as birds flying south and leaves falling are descriptive indicators of autumn, a high tolerance for domestic violence against women, or low wages or lack of educational opportunities that disproportionately affect women, are indicators: things that sociologists or other scholars look at in determining whether a society is sexist. Again, this is not to defend any current defects in the article, only to assert why domestic violence is relevant. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

" [the articles] the scope is much broader than just sexist opinions"

That's the problem. I think Sexism is a pretty important word that should be largely discussed in isolation other things. This page should be a top level page that might link to other issues associated with it.

Zimbazumba (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

And I agree with both of you that the terminology needs to be looked at with excruciating care — Kaldari points out all the redirects. If the scholarship is talking about "gender bias" and never uses the word "sexism," that's a problem. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the issue Zimbazumba is pointing out is scholarship using the term "sexism" solely within the context of overtly "sexist opinions" or "sexist attitudes". Although that is an important context of sexism, clearly our article here (and other scholarly sources) deal with other contexts (such as sexual discrimination in the law, gender inequality in pay and employment, violence against women, patriarchal cultures, etc.). Our lead should reflect all contexts of the term that are discussed in the article and dealt with by the sources. Currently it does not. Kaldari (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There are 'big' words like Science, Animal, Religion yet their pages are not that large. They are top pages that lead to other aspects of the area. Animal, does not have an in depth discussion of every living species on the planet. It has a discussion of what an animal is in a broad sense with links, and a description of the major categories with links to them. The linked pages in turn will link to more detailed pages. It like a tree structure. It is an introductory article

Sexism is a fairly 'big' word and this is the structure I see for this page. So the DV section should be a brief discussion of major points concerning DV and sexism, together with some italicised links under the heading and in the text. It should be introductory in manner. I see the same for the other sections we have.

Atm we have a host of lengthy over detailed, poorly written, mostly agenda driven entries, from all over the map. The page is a mess.

Cynwolfe I am not suggesting that because something is not causational it should be excluded.

Zimbazumba (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you definitely have a point there. The article is not very well organized and tends to sprawl into tangential digressions in several places. This seems to be a common problem on articles about contentious topics. Kaldari (talk) 00:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


So now we gather together all the main points concerning sexism and DV with WP:RS and package then together into an introductory section with links to other areas. We keep it simple and no agendas pls. We all know there has been a lot of crap been written on this from all ends of the political spectrum so lets keep it NPOV pls. Endless stats in the body of this section imo don't count, links to them yes. Then lets move onto the next section.

Zimbazumba (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/147626/5_stupid,_unfair_and_sexist_things_expected_of_men/?page=entire
  2. ^ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073752925629440.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexism/Archive_3&oldid=1081994273"