Talk:Sexism/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Minorities and Domestic Violence

This section seems to consist of mostly original research with barely any relation to sexism (or even gender). It has no citations and doesn't seem to contribute anything substantial to the article. Would anyone object if I remove it? Kaldari (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No objection might as well start the tidying up now. Zimbazumba (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Women of Professions

I currently added some information about women's wages in 1833 and in 2007. Also, the types of jobs that are considered "appropriate" for women. If you have any suggestions or sources/websites about how much women get paid now please help better that piece of information. (Ariana17 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

NPOV ISSUES

The language section states some opinions as facts:

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

See Against the theory of sexist language

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

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

Blackcats 20:10 UTC, 8 Feb 2005

okxj7

There's a ridiculously large amount of PSA literature out there about bullying and sexist bullying. Let's cite some of that stuff.

HypatiaX (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sexualty is not the same as sexism

Sexual expression should be under its own article or on a page about human sexuality. Sexual expression and sexism can dovetail, but this section doesn't neutrally address the issue.

Much of this section which is applicable to sexism is more appropriately placed under other subsections of this article. For instance, there is evidence that prostitution is a gender-stereotyped profession. There is also evidence that prostitution is a form of gender-specific violence. There is not evidence that "radical feminists" think it is a form of sexism.

HypatiaX (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Worldview

I've made a lot of edits that I think improve this article's status as a worldview.

HypatiaX (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem with the headings

I can't figure out whether the title area is right or the main body of the article. The title area shows "Domestic Violence against Men" as a subsection, yet the main body shows "Domestic Violence against Men" as its own section. Which is correct? IdiotsOpposite (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed this in other articles, too. I think Wikipedia just doesn't have a smaller font for heading titles. Roger6r (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

is it a worldview yet?

How can the worldview warning get removed or at least reviewed?

HypatiaX (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Much closer! Still too heavy on the pseudo-scientific implications of sexism. Roger6r (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Misogyny and misandry

I've removed misogyny and misandry from the lead. These are better explained in 'Generalization and Partition' and don't need to be in the lead. Feedback? Roger6r (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Glass Ceiling is occupational gender discrimination

Re-organizing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger6r (talk • contribs) 02:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of one sentence

The deleted sentence is:

Unmarried women without children may earn 15 to 20 percent more than males in the same situation, depending upon geographical location in the USA.[1][2]

I decided to delete the sentence per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. The sentence gives undue weight to the idea that women outearn men by looking at a specific subgroup of women (young, childless, single women) in specific metropolitan areas. Without these restriction in place, Census and BLS data show that women make less than men

in all states [3];
in all industries [4] and in 104 of the 108 occupations [5][6] for which sufficient data was available to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2009;
in all age groups [7].

I saw two possibilities: Either I include this whole section from the article Male-female income disparity in the United States to put the two sources in perspective or I delete them. I decided to do the latter.

Another reason for my decision is that at least one source clearly states that the reason why young, childless and single women in specific metropolitan areas make more than their male counterparts is because of women's educational advantage: "53 percent of women in their 20s working in New York were college graduates, compared with only 38 percent of men of that age."[8] So the part of the sentence that says "more than males in the same situation" is nonsense. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

Concerning these parts:

One hypothesis is that women are less likely to negotiate raises.[37] David R. Hekman Research done at Cornell University and elsewhere indicates that mothers are 44 percent less likely to be hired than women with otherwise identical resumes, experience and qualifications, and, if employed, are offered on average $USD 11,000 a year less than women without children.[38] Exactly the opposite form of discrimination is indicated for men; those without children earn, on average, $7,500 less than men with children.[39]

Is this article the right place to get into all the causes of the gender pay gap? If we mention the Babcock and Laschever study that women negotiate less, then we'd have to mention the Gerhart & Rynes study that found no such thing and the study by Babcock and Riley that found that women are penalized if they negotiate... And if we mention Hekman at el. then we'd have to get into other audit studies about gender discrimination (Goldin & Rouse, Neumark etc.)... and if we mention some causes of the gender pay gap why not mention all? And so on.

All these alleged causes of the gender pay gap are described in more detail and with much more accuracy in the following sections of the article Male-female income disparity in the United States:

Negotiating salaries
Motherhood penalty and fatherhood premium
and the Hekman et al. study is mentioned in the section Bias favoring men --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Patriarchy

If no one objects, I'd like to remove "within the context of patriarchy" from the first paragraph as it's not supported by any citation, and it presents said "patriarchy" as if its existence were not questionable (it is). The statement would then read as follows: "The term sexism is most often used in relation with discrimination against women,[1][2][3][4][5] but can apply to both sexes." 50.11.152.67 (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I received no response so I put through the edit I had proposed. 50.11.152.67 (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Cultural perception

Typical Asian and Middle Eastern cultures believe sexism (as viewed by Westerners) is an acceptable practice, although this is in the process of changing. Asians are Westernising and their societies increasingly treat women with more respect, giving the women the same liberty to as they give men, and discarding practices that may have been deemed inappropriate by the West. I'm thinking, that because such cultures may be "perceived" as sexism, perhaps it deserves a standing section in the article. If we add the section, the article will be more complete. (Topic/section added by Clockword (talk | contribs), Aug. 25, 2006, 9:31a (likely not UTC) (likely 1:31p UTC), and edited, including subject/title, by Clockword (talk | contribs), Aug. 25, 2006, 9:32a (likely not UTC) (likely 1:32p UTC). Both noticed (using talk history) by Nick Levinson (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC).)

I agree. (This comment was added by a user at IP User:85.176.200.127 (talk | contribs) Feb. 19, 2010, 8:57a (likely not UTC) (likely 12:57p UTC). Noticed (using talk history) by Nick Levinson (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC).)

I agree,too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.200.86.195 (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite a study

For example, Fiske and colleagues surveyed nine diverse samples, from different regions of the United States, and found that members of these samples, regardless of age, consistently rated the category "men" higher than the category "women" on a multidimensional scale of competence.^[1]

It was funny reading this "study", until I googled, seems this woman is a professor and widely quoted. Formulating a hypothesis based on perceived prejudice, devising each new questionnaire based on the previous results, to better fit your hypothesis, not asking people what they think but asking how "American society" thinks, using students from your own field, when some of your prejudice doesn't match theirs, revise the test to get rid of that anomaly, coming up with explanations for every discrepancy after the facts.

Participants were instructed to make the ratings, using 5-point scales (1 ϭ not at all to 5 ϭ extremely), on the basis of how the groups are viewed by American society. They read, “We are not interested in your personal beliefs, but in how you think they are viewed by others.” As in all our studies, this instruction was intended to reduce social desirability concerns and to tap perceived cultural stereotypes. Students received written feedback, and nonstudents received oral feedback.

Fifty-five University of Massachusetts undergraduates (50 women, 5 men; mean age ϭ 19.8), recruited from lower level psychology courses, completed the questionnaire for extra credit.

"The 5 predictions of particular emotions as targeting particular clusters indeed emerged as predicted; of the remaining 15 predicted to be low, 14 emerged as predicted. The sole anomaly (pity for the poor) is not surprising, in hindsight."

Hindsight is always twenty-twenty, they say, but I'd make an exception in her case.

"The idea that these social structural variables determine the quality of relations with out-groups is not new, but our approach shows how status and competition together create different forms of prejudice. Although it is impossible to predict the paths of individual snowflakes in a blizzard, we may at least be able to understand why and in what direction the wind will blow."

Yes, she confirmed that psychology students and some other groups share her ideas on prejudice. I'm sure she'll get better results with each new study being published. And these people tell us how prejudiced and sexist SOCIETY is?

"Overall, the support for the hypotheses is substantial, as predicted for many of the included groups. Nonetheless, the exceptions are informative. Although cross-culturally a gender subgroup of sexy women appeared reliably (Fiske, 1998), this group did not emerge as incompetent but warm in these Massachusetts samples. Although we had brainless bimbo in mind, some of our respondents may have been thinking villainous vamp. "

I guess the study did tell us something about sexism after all. DS Belgium (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting; at least one of your points is valid and often debated regarding psy studies generally (the use of college psy students as study subjects) and at least one other of your points is refutable in substance. But if the study is reportable in Wikipedia, which doesn't depend on whether we agree with it or its methodology, then generally it stays, and analysis about the study's conclusions and how they were reached is not about improving the article, which is what the talk page is for. However, if you know of a contrary study, it, too, may be reportable in Wikipedia. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent Duplication?: Webster's Dictionary

The version of this article found here, at the introduction of our Occupational Sexism section is almost identical to this external source found here, on Webster's expanded definition of sexism. You can see here, when the table was added that the article has evolved over time, so copyvio on our part is unlikely. This is noteworthy because the sections I reference above, as written today, are similar enough to appear to be a copyvio. Please investigate this content and tag appropriately. And if I might editorialize here, the article as of 2008 seems to be more well-written than the one today... Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Partition

removed masculism and replaced it with feminism/men's rights because the meaning of masculism is controversial and debated. academically masculism doesn't necessarily mean anti-discrimination, that's an opinion rather than an NPOV. look on the masculism page and see the definitions from verified sources. 86.166.180.74 (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

undid a revision to the partition. feminism means equality for all genders. according to all impartial, reliable sources. "feminist movement: the movement aimed at equal rights for women" - http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=feminism logically, you can't have equal rights for women unless men are equal as well. therefore it covers all genders. 86.144.20.54 (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

On my talk page you told me that the reason for this edit was that, strictly by definition, feminism campaigns for equal rights for both genders (I make a note that you rejected a method based on practice, which you said would be too subjective). You were however not open to the idea of placing other ideologies, such as egalitarianism, in the partition. My main thought today is that while you say feminism campagins for both genders, it is clear that this is not the standard for the "anti-discrimination" section: For example, LGBT groups do not have it in their interests to fight against heterosexism. It seems this makes feminism the oddball: we should simply say "women's rights", "men's rights", LGBTIQ and LGBT. According to your statements and the general precedent of the partition, this seems to be the most fitting solution. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 18:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

meaning, false, and unrelated

Since the definition keeps acquiring and losing the word "false", perhaps that editing should be discussed. I don't have a strong view one way or the other. One argument: The definition also includes the word "unrelated", so that the word "false" may be redundant. But is there perhaps a case in which unrelated applies without implying falsity, so that false has to be added to the definition? Nick Levinson (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Placing the term "false" is an opinion about the article. Removing it removes the bias that's given to the article (which this article is flagged for, or at least was). Either way, I see no practical reason why this word needs to remain. Sarstan (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

i think the word "false" should remain as it's a biological claim that's untrue and dogmatic. 86.161.201.68 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to leave the word "false". "unrelated" explains it well, if a situation was possible where it was unrealted, but not false, it would still be sexism. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I was the person who originally added the word "false". I did this because I was trying to find out if there's a general consensus that the belief mentioned in the opening sentence is inherently false. It seems as if there isn't a general consensus on this and that the opening sentence is confusing to readers. I base this on these observations:

- Based on what I've read on this talk page, I'm assuming that Nick Levinson thinks that the belief is inherently false but isn't sure.

- Based on what I've read on this talk page, I'm assuming that Sarstan thinks that the belief is not inherently false.

- Based on what I've read on this talk page, I'm assuming that 86.161.201.68 thinks that the belief is inherently false.

- Based on what I've read on this talk page, I'm assuming that WotherspoonSmith thinks that the belief is not inherently false.

Since 2 people think that the belief is inherently false and 2 people don't, I think that it's important to reach a general consensus on this. And for anyone else reading this, this is the question that needs to be answered:

In the opening sentence, sexism is defined as the application of the belief that there are characteristics implicit to one's gender that indirectly affect one's abilities in unrelated areas. Since the sentence is clearly labelling the abilities that are affected by gender-specific characteristics as belonging to "unrelated" areas, is the sentence already claiming that this belief is false? By the way, I don't have an opinion about this one way or the other. I just want Wikipedia's definition of sexism to be accurate and right now, the opening sentence is very confusing about exactly what it's trying to say. 174.1.105.28 (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm the original poster. The belief is false, but as the article's definition also included the word unrelated, the word false in context was arguably redundant and therefore I had no strong opinion on whether to include false or not. I'm now in favor of clarifying the definition rather than debating only whether to include or exclude the one word. At the time I thought concision might suffice but now I don't think so. Sometimes a very short passage is both sufficient and understood as sufficient, but maybe not in this case, and we should expand a bit for clarity. A consensus on a longer clear definition would probably be helpful, unless someone wants to try boldness and we'll work from there.

The concern that false is a judgment on the article (not just on sexism) should be redressed by making clear that it is sexism that embraces falsity. That way, the article is not considered false.

If we're looking for someone in the world to become pregnant and give birth, to say that a female is required is not sexist, but if we're looking for someone in the world to add up numbers, to say that a male is required is sexist. But we shouldn't write a definition just by listing examples.

(I indented all posts except the original, to ease everyone else's reading of this topic/section.)

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're sure that the belief is false, then you're right that the word false does not need to be added (since the word unrelated is already used). However, adding the word false will decrease the chance of people thinking that the belief could be true (Sarstan and WotherspoonSmith are 2 examples of people who thought it could be true). So, I recommend to you that you add the word false before the word belief but it's up to you (I'm not going to try adding it again because edits from anonymous users are more likely to be mistaken as vandalism).

Anyways, I have a question for you, Nick Levinson. Do you know where Wikipedia's definition of sexism in the opening sentence comes from, anyway? All the definitions of sexism that I've read in other sources just define sexism as discrimination based on a person's sex and don't mention anything about a specific belief.

174.1.105.28 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The source of the lede's definition appears to be a combination of four dictionaries and an encyclopedia entry for sexism, based on the five references appearing shortly after the definition. I did not check them.

I clarified falsity by adding substantially about it, rather than just a single word. However, The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary ... ([4th] ed. 1993), The American Heritage Dictionary ... (3d ed. 1992), and Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (2d ed. 2001) omit falsity, although all put sexism into the context of discrimination. While one meaning of discrimination is 'fine distinction', as in telling differences between subtle color shades or cheese flavors, in sociology or U.S. law discrimination generally is 'invidious discrimination' or 'wrongful discrimination'. For that reason, when I clarified falsity, I allowed for the small and hypothetical possibility of nonfalsity by adding "generally", despite my being unable to think of a single case where we correctly justify something because of sex but call it sexist. However, I didn't want to add something challengeable without a source. Feminist scholarship likely has such a source somewhere, if someone has the time to search for it. I'd prefer that, if it's found.

By the way, the lede still need substantial editing, because the lede should summarize the article, not simply be the definition. I didn't do that now.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. For the record, "the small and hypothetical possibility of nonfalsity... despite being unable to think of a single example" accurately reflects my view on the use of the word "false".WotherspoonSmith (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Gender Sterotyping section

Let's give equal weight and make sure to talk about gender stereotyping towards men. I can't count the number of times I've been made fun of for my love of Disney movies or Broadway shows. Men are supposed to love sports, beer, and violent activities, know how to use power tools, and are messy according to most media views. In reality, the need to meet these social norms can retard developmental growth and contribute to destructive social behaviors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtpasc200 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know, it just sounds like more anthropology to me. Sexism must be addressed to both genders, not just one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.250.141 (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed how bias this article is. It does make subtle efforts to include men into its text, but does not establish them enough to make the article balanced. Like there's entire sections dedicated to rape and misogyny and pornography... so women can't commit rape, be misandry, or enjoy watching pornography? The percentage of women committing rape must be so low that it's swept under the rug here and I guess ALL women oppose pornography and find it offensive. In "Education" it's also asserted that "Girls earn higher grades than boys until the end of high school."... that is complete opinion, like people have never met or known a girl who struggled through high school. I understand it is difficult to write accurate articles when the topic is based on one's own view... but more effort should be put into making it fair for each side. The sexual harassment article does a great job at demonstrating this.Valce Talk 21:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point about school marks, as in many cases there's discrimination against boys. Moral and emotional arrassment to boys happen quite a lot. Libel and slander too against boys too. This is often done by male teachers willing to patronize the girls as well as by female teachers who have an insecure, paranoid attitude to men. Nepotism and cronyism at school as well as in the working place happen a lot, often victimizing men. Denying this is sexism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.51.244 (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The article fails to cover many aspects of common discrimination against men. We can say, it's a sexist article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.51.244 (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC) It became a sexist article when the feminist deleted any sexism against men in this article in 2008 because they believe only males are sexist and all males are sexist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.247.133 (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it needs more balance, but equal weight? NO! Based on [W[:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight]], the bulk of the article SHOULD be about sexism's impact on women, as (I believe) it is a majority view that sexism restricts and negatively impacts predominantly women. Please review the cited section of NPOV, folks. --Elvey (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Equal weight for both sides! If I am reading an article about Native American history, I expect to see a section, or better yet a whole new page on how badly they subjugated the newly arrived white man. It's only fair. Ongepotchket (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So are you reinforcing my statement above that all feminist believe only males are sexist and all males are sexist? After all it is widely accepted as fact both inside and outside of feminism that all feminist believe all males are automatically chauvinist subducters and violent potential rapist from birth even if they are a self devoted celibite and are supporting women's rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.98.216 (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Worst lead sentence ever?

The whole lead paragraph is a mess, but this article desperately needs a new lead sentence. Ongepotchket (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the lede was horrible. I added the dictionary definition of sexism and removed all the OR and personal analysis, but it still needs a lot of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.158.175 (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! The old lede was painful on the eyes. Ongepotchket (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

March edits

I changed many of the edits of March, 2012, to the lede and generally.

Some rephrasings change meanings. I restored "are judged" to "can be understood or judged". Sexism is not "defined as prejudice or discrimination based on ... behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles" without sex; therefore, I restored the prior wording. I restored "necessarily" in several places, because it's needed. The difference between "women and men’s perceptions" and "women’s and men’s perceptions" is that the former treats both genders as having the same perceptions; they don't; so I restored the latter. The difference between "children read" and "children were read" is one of agency, regarding the study being discussed, so I restored the latter. "To the extent that females are defined as deferential and emotional, they" is more limited than "[f]emales are defined as deferential and emotional and they", so I restored the former. I restored the content of the blockquote. If any of these restorations contradict sourcing, please post that information. While it was correct to edit "else is as unnecessary", it should have been to "else as unnecessary", so I did so. "Research of the factors" implies research by the factors, so I restored "[r]esearch into the factors". Two conditions were reduced to one condition and a subsidiary clause; for clarity and consistency with the conclusion, I restoried to two conditions. "[S]eem" has to agree in number with "fact", so I restored "seems". An edit made adjacent wording syntactically wrong, so I deleted an excess "during".

I restored a sentence to the lede, deleted for lack of sourcing, because the sourcing is in the body and the lede, being a summary of the body, isn't supposed to show sourcing.

Terms that are core to an article and are in the lede should be boldfaced, so I restored the boldfacing.

Links were broken or needed piping. Two links, by being rewritten to plural and abbreviated forms, were made into redlinks and I restored them but also kept the new forms. Another was made into a redlink, by a change of dash, and I restored it. Another was made into a redlink as part of giving a fuller identification of an organization; I reworded the passage. Two links worked with their new spellings but did so by sending visitors to redirects, so I piped to prevent that.

The article said that swear words would not be enumerated and that was taken out, but it's probably a good idea to retain it for the sake of editors, so I restored the principle of nonlisting as a comment visible to editors but not to most readers.

Besides that, for content predating the above-cited edits, I edited "men" to the genitive or possessive, "system bias" to "systemic bias", to fix a bare nonlinking URL, and "and" to "with" and, minor, I deleted a spurious line break and two spaces.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Gender-neutral pronouns

(I moved the following into its own section. The text it discusses is not one I worked on, but the issue is interesting. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC))

In regards to the section on gender-neutral pronouns: "...males may comprehend he/she in a manner similar to he, he usually is placed before the dash and she after. This is usually done because the word she already contains the word he so it is positioned after the dash. It also has nothing to do with stereotypical gender roles." Couldn't it be as easily stated that because "he" is contained in "she," that "she" should come first because it's more comprehensive? The last sentence is cited but an assertion like "has NOTHING to do with gender roles" seems to be a fact with no basis. It's very possible that since we the phrase "he/she" originated from when women WERE second class. Radarbacon (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

sexism in Afghanistan

It's frequently the case that religions treat women as inferior to men - women have been denied leadership roles, they are told to be submissive, and religious doctrines are used to control them both in society and the family. Here you will find recent news and information about the relationship between women and religion, the ways religion can be repressive to women, and how some women are fighting back.Under the Taliban, women in Afghanistan were denied most basic civil rights and most of the social privileges accorded to men - including the ability to drive. Today, Afghan women are allowed to drive and many are trying to learn. Men, however, are not all happy about this development and condemn it as satanic.

The BBC reports:

“It was shameful and embarrassing,” he replied. “Her character is no better than that of an animal.” The he speaking here is a driving teacher — someone teaching women how to drive.

[W]omen are often told to “sit up like a man” by their male instructors as they navigate the precarious back-roads of Kabul, and to “stop driving like a woman.” Evidently, many of the instructors are ex-Taliban. It’s disturbing to think that these are the most sympathetic men — they must be, because they are doing the teaching. If these men are sympathetic, what are the hostile men all saying?

I watched as Roya walked towards the test car. A long line of men had gathered by the side of the road. As she walked slowly along the line, her head bowed down, she heard the whispers of invective and abuse.

She refused to tell me exactly what they had said, but I later found out she had been called a “prostitute”, a “bitch” and an “un-Islamic whore.” She failed the test. “We have freedom now,” she said. “But we are not free to enjoy it.” Muslim men in Afghanistan are afraid of women being free to move about at will. Why? Perhaps they are afraid that if women are free to move and do things, then women won’t always do what they are told — and if they are treated badly, they might leave their men entirely. This suggests extreme feelings of inadequacy; given how poorly Muslim men in Afghanistan have behaved in the past, though, perhaps such feelings are justified.

The Taliban ("the Seekers") was originally organized in September, 1994, in Kandahar, a southern province of Afghanistan. The principle members were all graduates of Pakistani Islamic schools (madrassas) which were controlled by the fundamentalist organization Jamiat-e-Ulema.

Comprised primarily of Pashtuns, just one of the many ethnic groups which live in Afghanistan, the Taliban was controlled from the beginning by mullah Mohammad Omar. Their primary goal was the creation of an Islamic revolution within Afghanistan to overthrow the Russian-backed government and replace it with an Islamic theocracy. Their form of theocracy was even more strict than what could be found in Iran. They applied the Sharia is the harshest ways possible and created a "Department for Promoting Virtue and Preventing Vice" for enforcement. this is the definition for the taliban''''--86.174.220.177 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)--86.174.220.177 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)--86.174.220.177 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)--86.174.220.177 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)--86.174.220.177 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

^ Fiske, Susan T., Amy J. C. Cuddy, Peter Glick, Jun Xu (2002). A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow From Perceived Status and Competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 6, p. 892.

[1] Fiske, Susan T., Amy J. C. Cuddy, Peter Glick, Jun Xu (2002). A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype Content: Competence and Warmth Respectively Follow From Perceived Status and Competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 6, p. 892.

[1]