Talk:Sexism/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

Types of sexisim

Problem: Multiple types of sexist discrimination exists: Institutional sexism, where laws and regulations favor one sex over an other. Societal sexism, where men are expected to act one way, women are expected to act another, and they are abused, mistreated, discouraged, or simply not belived by society in general when they do not behave according to their gender mandate ('sissies' and 'tomboys'). Individual Sexism: Where a person hates all men/hates all women and insults/attacks/treats them poorly. This is not including issues with transsexuals nor sexual orientation. Note that these categories probably exist for most discrimination.

Someone please find real names of these (And appropriate sources). Once found, recommend this article be wiped and rewritten from scratch to be less wordy and informative. Individual issues can be split into separate pages. 50.83.153.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

solo directionary

Why does this page speak from the perspective from women being suppressed by men?

It reads very subjective - where women have been "enslaved by men" and been victimized - while females always have been cornerstones in societies. And honored, released from hard work. This is very bias and only from one perspective; what about male oppression, male stereotyping ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.113.129 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC) |}

New assessment. Problem is not lack of information on anti-male sexism. Problem is too much small detail on too many things. Small details can be offloaded. Adding more small details about more types of anti-male sexism would defeat purpose of cleaning article to be more understandable. Anti-male and anti-female sexisim should, maybe, be separate articles subordinate to overview? Anti-female one would be longer, more research on it is in existence. 50.83.153.97 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

O.K I see how to fix this

Less is more. Let's split Gender Stereotypes, Professional Discrimination, Objectification, History of Sexisim, and Examples into separate articles. Possibly split off In Language too. That will make this article A. shorter, and will B. offload most of the controversy into other, less important, pages. This article should include. A. the meaning of the word. B. The history of the term. It may be appropriate to include the gender discrimination section, the anti-sexism section and possibly the In Language section. This should end controversy on this page, and make it look 'clean' and less cluttered. Clean is good, cluttered is bad. Edit warring and controversy is also bad and should be offloaded into less frequently accessed pages when possible. 50.83.153.97 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Doing this (your edit, not Jim1138's) is not productive, IP; I see no justification for splitting this article. For one, see WP:Content fork. For two, see what is stated at Talk:Sexism/Archive 7, especially the sources section (starting with "Is sexism typically defined as discrimination against women?"), for why this article so heavily focuses on women.
Also, it's best that you stop making a new section for each new paragraph you start about this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Was attempting to split into separate article. Discovered IP can no longer make new pages. Has been 2-3+ years since last edited Wikipedia. Tend to stumble across jumbled controversial pages, get dragged into controversy for about ten minutes, then realize point of Wikipedia is to leave controversy behind, wipe most of page, and offload controversy into separate articles so that articles look clean and jumbled. Last time this was done by me was Xeno's Paradox article. 50.83.153.97 (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Justification for splitting obvious; article is cluttered, jumbled mess. Too much detail on a general subject. Wikipedia:Article size Wikipedia:Forking isn't as harmful as we think Article needs to be shorter. More concise. Important articles should be short and concise. Details should be hidden behind links. This makes Wikipedia prettier. 50.83.153.97 (talk)
Per WP:Content fork, we should strive to keep aspects of a topic in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles...unless necessary. Yes, read WP:Size and give me a valid reason from there as to why this article should be split into no telling how many articles. Supposedly "mak[ing] Wikipedia prettier" is not one of those valid reasons. If you look at this article more closely, you will see that some of the topics in it already have their own Wikipedia articles and that we have simply presented a summary here...per WP:Summary style. Don't let the many unnecessary subheadings fool you into thinking that this article is longer than it actually is. We should not be cutting important aspects to make "Wikipedia prettier," and we should not be cutting what you call controversial topics so that they can be "hidden." There is no valid reason to make this article's topics less easy for readers to find. Wikipedia articles should address all significant aspects of a topic in summary style so that the article is comprehensive, similar to what WP:Lead states, not artificially make the article short and severely lacking in comprehensiveness. Cutting away big portions of this article will not do a thing to take away from the fact that the vast majority of sources on the topic of sexism primarily or only address it with regard to girls and women. If important Wikipedia articles should be short and concise, you would not see the Religion article being as long as it is or the Atheism article being as long as it is. Or even the Barack Obama article being as long as it is. And those latter two are WP:Featured articles. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

FGM and MGM

It's apparently totally okay to downplay the significance of Male Genital Mutilation on an article about sexism. To rewrite the section to make MGM sound like some walk in the park while FGM is some evil thing that must be stopped is just rediculous, both are horrible practises. It's disgustingly ironic on a page about sexism that there are people who would downplay MGM. Right now I'm making edits and adding sources to the MGM section. L32007 (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

L32007, you are referring to these edits that EvergreenFir and I made to the section you added: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Well, those edits are very much appropriate. You call it downplaying the material; I call it sticking to what the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources state about the topic, per WP:Due weight. We go by WP:Verifiability at this site. And by and large, circumcision, as in male circumcision, is allowed, has far wider acceptance, is stated to have health benefits, etc., and is hardly ever referred to as mutilation in WP:Reliable sources. The only sources you can find it referred to as mutilation are masculinist sources, anti-circumcision sources, other sources that are WP:Fringe/close to WP:Fringe or unreliable. It's the exact opposite for female genital mutilation. With men, they lose the foreskin, but they usually still have a well functioning penis and are usually still quite capable of feeling sexual stimulation and satisfaction (note that I stated "usually"); by contrast, cutting away the female genitalia is far more severe because it significantly decreases sexual pleasure for the female, causes all sorts of health problems, and, as such, has many mainstream health organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), advocating against it, which this WHO source shows. The arguments you are making here have been made many times at Talk:Circumcision and Talk:Female genital mutilation, to no avail. Just ask Jmh649 (Doc James) and Zad68 (both from the Circumcision and Female genital mutilation articles) or Jim1138 and Johnuniq (both from the Female genital mutilation article). Flyer22 (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
@L32007 Sure, some males are maimed and some die. But the trauma, pain, and death that women who have had FGM, especially type III, doesn't begin to compare. Comparing male circumcision to FGM type III is like comparing a hangnail to an amputation. Male circumcision complications are probably offset by somewhat reduced HIV transmission CDC and the fact that many women prefer circumcised partners abcnews. Of course, this is hotly denied by MRAs. Jim1138 (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but infibulation is nothing like male circumcision. Regardless, the section used unsourced, POV terms that I removed. Quiet frankly, I'd change it all the "genital cutting", but "FGM" is the WP:COMMONNAME. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
"Comparing male circumcision to FGM type III is like comparing a hangnail to an amputation." No, it's like comparing an amputation to an amputation (as they are both amputations). There's no reason to overstate your case to the point of absurdity. Yes, FGM is far, far more serious as far as medical complications, especially Type III. However, they are both unnecessary non-consensual sexual mutilations primarily designed to reduce sexual pleasure, especially masturbation. Yes, we need to stick to the reliable sources and reflect the weight of the existing literature, which basically means emphasizing FGM and mostly ignoring male circumcision. Arguing that male circumcision is like a hangnail, however, is just as POV as the MRM arguments that it is equivalent to FGM. Kaldari (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
@Kaldari An amputation is an amputation? Foreskin, finger, toe, arm, leg all equivalent? The article should definitely reflect this. Jim1138 (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
It is possible to compare two things of the same type that are not equivalent. For example, I can compare murder to genocide without claiming they are equivalent. Or I can compare FGM type I with FGM type III and not claim they are equivalent. No one in this discussion has claimed that male circumcision and female circumcision are equivalent. That is a straw man argument. Kaldari (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
To state 'MGM' is downplayed over FGM, etc., is suggesting the two are at least somewhat equivalent. I don't see any RS supporting this. Nor do I see any RS supporting that circumcision is sexist. Without support, the male circumcision section should be removed. Jim1138 (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Kaldari (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
But are there reliable sources that state that male circumcision is a form of sexism? I would like to note that this is the page about sexism, not about male circumcision, and the general ethics of this practice (and there are many of them - probably most notable being the issue of consent of the child) should not be discussed here. Also note that male circumcision is a practice that is advocated by the WHO: [7] [8] (I'm not trying to make an argument for the acceptability of male circumcision; I'm just pointing out that the mainstream view on male circumcision is far from it being a form of sexism).2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A277 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
There seemed to be some scholars claiming it's sexism (iirc when I edited it a couple days ago). But just because the WHO doesn't mean it's not sexist (or problematic at that...) EvergreenFir (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
We just go by what sources say. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Kaldari, I'm sure that circumcision, as in male circumcision, is not "primarily designed to reduce sexual pleasure, especially masturbation." The "we're doing this to reduce sexual pleasure" factor is far more common with regard to female genital mutilation. Either way, the most common reason for circumcision and female genital mutilation these days is tradition/custom; the WHO source I listed above supports that with regard to female genital mutilation. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
But, yes, for female genital mutilation, "custom/tradition" is often tied up with reducing female sexual pleasure. Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Responding to the ping here-- Flyer22 is correct, whatever the historical justifications might have been, the WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary sources don't support them any longer. The Denniston source used was inappropriate because it's the self-published proceedings of an anti-circumcision conference, see the copyright page of the book. Somerville is another one. Please use independent, academic sources that don't have an axe to grind; if primary sources of activism are to be used, they need to be attributed. I have removed the inappropriate sources and copyedited, following WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Not saying that a discussion of this issue isn't appropriate here but independent academic secondary sources need to be used. Zad68 05:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
That's a good edit. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Article mentions nothing about lack of women in government

Although this isn't as much of a problem in Western countries, it is an important issue of gender discrimination in many parts of the world (according to the UN[9]). There are still dozens of countries that have no substantial female representation in government, or where women are barred outright from participating in government. I was very surprised that I couldn't find anything about this in the article. Kaldari (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A definite oversight. Most macro measures of gender equality and sexism use women's representation in government as an indicator (e.g., Gender Inequality Index). EvergreenFir (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Typical

Well of course... male users could not take the ugly facts and decided to disregard them altogether. "This article should be wiped and written from scratch", "It should be shorter and less wordy" etc. What's with this "This article may not represent the worldwide view" flag? A man, I think, thought of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.221.0.56 (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Men are not our enemies. Whites are not the enemies of ethnic minorities. Cisgender Heterosexuals are not the enemies of LGBT people. Christians are not the enemies of religious minorities. Our enemy is not men. It's sexism. And believe it or not women can be very sexist. I agree with your anger and I'm here if you need me but we need to show sexist people (men, women and others) the error of their way. Not just attack them.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of the provocation defense

Moved here from my talk page.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Hi. I see you have removed my edit at Sexism on the section on Criminal Justice about Provocation (legal). Maybe it was not well written, probably too much detail; but I do think it has to be mentioned. There is very much literature on this issue; and this legal defense being considered gendered is the reason why is has been recently abolished or restricted in some Australian states/territories and other jurisdictions. I don't think it was WP:SYN, since the sources directly address discrimination against women. I think that especially given that the text about criminal sentencing in that section - which is very problematic - is allowed to stay, at least a short mention of one paragraph on provocation should be left in.2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:50C:31E4 (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The material in question is this:

[[Provocation (legal)|Provocation]] is, in many [[common law countries]], a partial defense to [[murder]], which converts what would have been murder into [[manslaughter]]. It is meant to be applied when a person kills in the 'heat of passion' upon being 'provoked' by the behavior of the victim. This defense has been criticized as being gendered, favoring men, due to it being used disproportionately in cases of [[adultery]], and other domestic disputes when women are killed by partners. The NSW Parliamentary Research Service ''Briefing Paper No 5/2012'' on Provocation states: "The argument that provocation is gender biased is the one that has been the most prominent in academic commentary".<ref>http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/F2BA1BFEED2D87EECA257A4800001BD7/$File/briefing%20paper.provocation%20and%20self-defence.pdf</ref>

Professor Graeme Coss criticized the way the defense of provocation is used by men:<ref>http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/F2BA1BFEED2D87EECA257A4800001BD7/$File/briefing%20paper.provocation%20and%20self-defence.pdf</ref>

:"When men raise the provocation defence, it is invariably in circumstances where they allege they have been insulted, mocked, humiliated, or spurned. In intimate partner killings, the real 'loss of control' is that the men have lost control of their women. To have that control challenged is an affront to their honour."

Research at the Deakin University, Australia, on this defense, and on debates surrounding it finds that:<ref>http://anj.sagepub.com/content/45/2/194.abstract</ref>

:"Such debates have led to its abolition in several Australian and international jurisdictions where Government and Law Commission bodies have argued that provocation has operated in a gender biased way that is no longer reflective of community values and expectations of justice. (...) This research concludes that the continued operation of provocation in NSW raises key issues surrounding the legitimisation of male violence against women, the denial and minimisation of the harm caused by lethal domestic violence, and the continued inability of the law to appropriately respond to women who kill in the context of prolonged family violence."

Which can be seen in context here. My worry is that this is too much information about too specific stuff to merit this much space in the article. I think some useful material can be gleaned from here, but that it needs to be trimmed pretty severely in order not to give it undue weight. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


I agree that it was too long; but I don't think the issue is trivial. It is a major legal issue - academic debates in regard to it have led to sweeping legal reforms in many jurisdictions. Maybe the text should be reduced to this:
"Provocation is, in many common law countries, a partial defense to murder, which converts what would have been murder into manslaughter. It is meant to be applied when a person kills in the 'heat of passion' upon being 'provoked' by the behavior of the victim. This defense has been criticized as being gendered, favoring men, due to it being used disproportionately in cases of adultery, and other domestic disputes when women are killed by partners. As a result of the defense being considered as exhibiting a strong gender bias, and being a form of legitimization of male violence against women and minimization of the harm caused by violence against women, it has been abolished or restricted in several jurisdictions".2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:50C:31E4 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I added the text above.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:5A05 (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Good work Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Edited the page

First of all, i'm in no way a part of the edit war above, but i don't see what feminism has to do with sexism. 69.251.16.147 (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read feminism. It's a movement that started because of sexism. Feminist scholarship focuses heavily on sexism. There would be no feminism without sexism. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Although I just reverted the edit and am now involved, it would be beneficial to give the exact Wikipedia policy he/she is breaking, rather than telling him to go read a page that's at least 5,000 words. It would be WP:CONSENSUS. (Although Consensus can change, I do appreciate him/her following WP:BRD and not simply reverting it back.) Tutelary (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Point taken. And yes, I also appreciate the WP:BRD and "thanked" them for their edit here. Always good to acknowledge good editing practices.  :) EvergreenFir (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Text added

I added this to the 'Domestic Violence' section; it was reverted but I added it back. Not sure why it was reverted; so I posted here, in case someone wants to revert again:

This is the text I added:

"The English law has long allowed husbands to use 'moderate chastisement' against their wives. The legal manual A New Abridgement of the Law, by Matthew Bacon, first published in 1736, and reprinted in seven editions until 1832, stated:

"The husband hath by law power and dominion over his wife and may keep her by force, within the bounds of duty, and may beat her, but not in a violent or cruel manner".(See A New Abridgement of the Law, Volume 1, ed, 1832, page 693 Chapter "Of the Power given the Husband by Law")[190] "

2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:5679:428A (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it's possible it was for formatting reasons. Either way, the editor in question who reverted your inclusion didn't give a reason for doing so --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no link to 'sexism' in the cited ref. We would need secondary sources showing this ref in the context of 'sexism' for it to be included. Arkon (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It is about the legal right of the husband to beat his wife, which is a form of violence against women. Violence against women is a form of dicrimination against women; this is recognized internationally, by the UN.

The UN says:[10]

"Recognizing that violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men,"

2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:5679:428A (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I say we keep it in --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
IP who still won't sign in despite having a registered Wikipedia account, your above noted text is WP:Synthesis unless explicitly connected to sexism by the source(s) you use for that text. In other words, Arkon is correct on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Took out feminism sidebar

it made it seem only women are victims of sexism, so i edited it. If anyone doesn't want that just edit it back. Itsbenja (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I very much appreciate you following WP:BRD and hope that you bring reliable sources to the table to help this discussion. Ging287 (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
And I reverted for the reasons stated in that WP:Edit summary. That sidebar does not make it seem as though "only women are victims of sexism." Neither does the rest of this article. But as has been discussed time and time again at this talk page, sexism is mostly discussed with regard to girls and women; the overwhelming majority of WP:Reliable sources show that. And that is why this article addresses girls and women far more than it addresses boys and men. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
To add, you appear to have a fundamental misundertanding of what feminism is. Feminism can and does deal with men's issues. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It does? CSDarrow (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Or you could at least say they are pro-men's issues (depending on the issue). E.g., most feminists are anti-circumcision. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
OP, it very much hurts your cause when you are attempting to edit war it in. Ging287 (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Even though feminism cares about men issues, it doesn't matter. It is irrelevant to the page, as it makes it look like only women are victim of sexism. Should we link the page to Men's issues as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.14.25 (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
IP, if you're Itsbenja and you're just mistakenly editing logged out, you should go explain at the SPI I just opened (see either talk page) and you should also revert yourself since if you're the same you've hit 5 reverts, which violates WP:3RR.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I went on your sockpuppetry page and wrote a comment, like, 20 minutes ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.177.14.25 (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
And to comment on the substantive issue, the feminism sidebar belongs here whether or not sexism is mostly about women, since it's a subject that's addressed by feminists, and therefore it's likely that a reader studying feminism will want to read about sexism and vice-versa. The navigation template facilitates that process, which is its purpose, and is not there to make any editorial point on the issues you're bringing up. This is well settled across all of Wikipedia by now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
As laylah, evergreenfir, and others have said, feminism and sexism are closely related topics. Please justify any changes before turning this into a pointless edit war. Pseudosoph (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Sidebars are navigational aids. It is reasonable to think a reader perusing this topic would also be interested in a movement it helped spark. --NeilN talk to me 23:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to dig up an old discussion, but I just wanted to point out that we do link to men's issues in several places throughout the article. Currently, there is no such thing (that I'm aware of) as a men's issues sidebar template on Wikipedia. I'm sure if one was created, no one here would mind including it. Apples grow on pines (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
That said, it could be a good idea to include both Template:Feminism and Template:Masculism, or at least include their respective portals in the portal bar at the bottom of the page. Apples grow on pines (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Origin of the Term section

Right now this section is sourced to a wordpress blog, does anyone have the books that the blog cites, so we can get accurate citations for what we're putting in the article? --Kyohyi (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

parenting father facing discrimination

I have been facing gender discrimination since the death of my spouse 6 years ago because I am raising my daughter as a single father and have come to realise there are many factors to this discrimination. Commercials have even been on TV addressing this discrimination and have asked fathers to continue being a paerent to their children(step up to the plate and do what's right for the kid's benefit!)

The divorce court system here in the Yakima, Washington Area discriminates against men and about 70% to 80% of the time, the mother always gets custody of the child(ren). But, the courts will deny that there is any discrimination at all going on! But, I do believe that we may be making some headway with men getting custody of their children in the past few years!

I've also come to relise that the term "deadbeat dad" has developed a new meaning in the past few years because of these commercials on TV. It no longer refers to the divorced father who won't pay his child support. It now refers to the married father who leaves all the work of raising the children to his wife to be doing. Some fathers won't even take the time to brush their toddlers hair or wash their face with a wash rag. Many churches still believe today that women should be barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen, raising the kids and waiting on their husband hand and foot when he comes home from work, therefore, these church people have the right to violate Constitutional Law of Equal Rights. Some churches also beleve that if the family absolutely needs the money, then it is ok for the wife to work, provided she works the traditional jobs(the oldest profession?!)that women have held(secretary, waitress, nurse, school teacher, ect.). Many churches are telling their congregation that they will abide to this way of life willingly if they want to belong to their church(in spite of Equal Rights Laws)and if they won't abide by this way of life, then they better quit going to church(blackmail at a moment of spirutual desperation?)! They think it is also ok for the father to spend time with the son, but it is the mother who is the one who should spend all of their time with the daughter to train her to be a housewife too, therefore creating the next generation of at home hostages who are stuck at home with no money to get out of the situation if they wanted to.

I have had people call me a pervert for stepping up to the plate and raising my daughter, I've had someone tell me that he absolutely does not believe in Equal Rights, the effect that this movement has had upon the male population, it is the woman's job to raise the children and that men need to step back and let them and he would quit his job before working for a female supervisor. I've had the pastor of that church come right out and tell me that there would be people that would be willing to adopt my daughter(as if I would willing to give her away to complete strangers!)if I wanted to! These church members have also taken these prejudices into my daughter's school to attempt to discredit me, they have called CPS on me to lie and say that I am abusing my daughter and who knows what else they have done. I have also talked with at least 4 other single fathers who have told me that they have faced this same discrimination. Maybe it should be time for a class action lawsuit! But, I also have friends who are in law enforcement, who are doctors, veteraniarians, counsellors, lawyers and various other positions and these people have spent time with both me and my daughter and they know for a fact that there isn't any kind of abuse going on. I am a college educated Vietnam Era Veteran and my life isn't perfect, but I don't drink or use drugs. So, I just keep on trying the best that I can to continue raising my daughter up to be a liberated, self-sufficient lady and I attempt to just ignore these ignorant bigots! When I have a question or when my daughter wants to spend some time with a female, then I let her go do that with a trusted friend. I have taught her the history of women, women's suffrage and she knows how women were mistreated in the past. I am showing her by example of how a man should be treating her and how society should be treating her. When we run into someone who has discrimination toward us, then I make sure that she knows about it too and she can take it into her adult life as a learning experiance. I have also taught my daughter a few different ways for her to defend herself so she doesn't have to be a victim to someone being abusive to her! These are, in my opinion, vital things that should be taught to every female! 64.136.26.152 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Rick Wilson Selah, Washington, USA fixitman3876@yahoo.com

Article in NY Times about gender bias

Check out this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality of this page

"Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender."

thats the first line of this article. However, the whole article is only about sexism against women. Not ONE section about sexism against men. I tried to add a small section about sexism in dangerous working environments which was found in a study by the EU. Everytime I add it, it gets deleted again. If this page is only about sexism against women, OK, thats fine but than make sure you define it as such! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.216.111 (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This reflects the reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Response: I don't understand what "relaible source" means in this case. This is the 4-5 time I did something on wikipedia, but for sure this will be the last time. You want to have a political page, fine, have it, just don't claim any objectivity. I know now why I advise my students not to use wikipedia for their thesis work. There is plenty of work of e.g. Warren Farrell or Roy Baumeister (Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men) which point out plenty of sexism against men. If thats not wanted on this page, then it is a political one promoting a one sided view.129.13.216.111 (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
If you click the blue letters "reliable source", it will take you to the page explaining what a reliable source is. Also go read WP:UNDUE EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Response: My source is reliable, it doesn't get any better than eurostat. It just collides with the world view of a member of the wikipedia feminist project.129.13.216.111 (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
{rolling eyes) No, it collides with WP:SYNTH. --NeilN talk to me 17:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Response: It does not! I am stating a fact that is relevant to this article, nothing more and nothing less. EvergreenFir posts a link to "Due and undue weight" implying that sexism against men is a minority oppinion like the earth being flat! That's is outrageous! I am giving up. You want to have a political, one sided article have it. Just be aware that you are using a common good for your personal political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.216.111 (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The article is not only about women, and it should not only be about women. The Misandry section, for example, which is supposed to be about boys and men, should be expanded per WP:Summary style; so should the Misogyny section. That stated, the article is predominantly about women per WP:Due weight, which is why you did good with this edit, IP; that edit is also supported by the Merriam-Webster source that is beside that sentence. As noted in the #"Objectification is treating a person, usually a woman, as an object" section above, I've been meaning to add a "mostly against women" aspect to the lead. I've gotten sidetracked in doing so, though, mostly because I was not going to add the matter as simply as you added it; I intended, and still intend, for the lead to better reflect the entire article, per WP:Lead. Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Response: This article is 99% about women and in my eyes meant to be political. E.g. why is there a huge section on female genital mutilation and none on male genital mutilation aka circumcision? A practice that is often less harmful but also causing fatalities, which is legal sometimes even explicitly like in Germany (see BGB §1631d). Why is the domestic violance part only about women? I guess people tried changing it and were demotivated just like me. By authors promoting their political opinion 129.13.216.111 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
If you can find a source like the WHO saying something like, "FGM is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women." for circumcision then we can discuss that. --NeilN talk to me 18:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Is wikipedia a collection of facts or opinions? Both girls and boys equally die of a practice directed at their sexuality. I really don't care what the WHO thinks about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.216.111 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles contain both facts and analysis from expert sources. "Both girls and boys equally die..." - source please? We don't care that you don't care. We care about adding significant (and properly sourced!) viewpoints to the article. --NeilN talk to me 18:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Souce? Check the circumcition site on wikipedia. In the USA 1 in 500.000 infants die, and thats probably one of the best rates. I checked the WHOs opinion. They promote male genital mutilation as a way to reduce HIV, is that sexism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.216.111 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
You said equally die - did you not mean the death rates are equal? And why are you asking my opinion? It matters little. Again, find proper sources. --NeilN talk to me 18:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Response: I meant that in both cases we may end up with a dead child for sexist reasons. Death rates are for sure higher for girls, but due to the far higher prevailance in absolute terms boys may have the lead. More important, this should not be about degree, but about principal, mutilating genitalia is wrong, no matter what gender. I am asking you, because you act as the guardian of this page. In my eyes trying to convice men to minimaly reduce HIV contraction rates by mutilating their genitalia in a risky environment is highly sexist. However, I am not willing to further investigate that and write it up if you will just revert that, because it goes against your political opinion. I find it highly ironic that thanks to people like you the page on sexism is highly sexist. There is research about sexism against men (by women as well as by other men, please don't forget the latter!) as mentioned above. I understand that the public discussion is 99% about sexism against women. But this should be a collection of facts about people being treated differently due to their gender, not a reflexion of media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.2.103 (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's much easier to say, "you're biased!" then actually doing the work of adding properly sourced content to the page. Here is a list of all my edits to the article. Please feel free to point out which ones reflect my political(?) opinion rather than making sure content follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --NeilN talk to me 20:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:GAMING — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.216.111 (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Improvment suggestions

I find this page has some serious issues because it is 99% focused of sexism against women. I have tried to change it, but things are just constantly reverted and some editors are really unconstructive. I don’t have the nerve for this edit wars. I believe that an encyclopedia should always be as unbiased and comprehensive as possible. If someone has it or at least more experience dealing with these editors, this inspiration may be helpful.

History section:

  • Take out Peter Stearns comment because the whole idea is too big to be substantiated by only one researcher.
  • Section about the practice of killing civilian, battle-aged men and boys as an example of sexism in the ancient world. First leads can be found on the androcide page.
  • Move part on workplace sexism from stereotypes section to the workplace section.
  • Elaborate further on the “strong man” stereotype which discriminates against men taking care of their children.
  • In occupational sexism add section about the fact that predominantly men are working in dangerous environments and therefore more likely to get injured or killed at work. I already posted a link for the fact, get some sexist interpretation on that to make editors happy.
  • Section on objectification of men. The discussion on beef cakes is above.
  • Section about men attire which is also heavily regulated by society and female dresses on men can lead to provoking violence. Please have a look on the gay rights section for further information on that topic.
  • A paragraph or two in the domestic violence section about violence against men. There is already a large article about that topic on Wikipedia.
  • Section about circumcision. It is a form of genital mutilation done mostly on young boys without their consent.
  • Section on castrates. I think sterilizing men through castration is a severe form of genital mutilation and should be part of this.
  • Section on pedophilia suspicion. Men are easily wrongly seen as pedophiles based on their sex. There is an article about airline regulations which ban men sitting next to unaccompanied children on Wikipedia which could serve as a starting point. Many more incidants about men not being allowed to work in kindergardens can be found.

Lucentcalendar (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexism/Archive_8&oldid=1074616486"