Talk:Ambivalent sexism

NPOV
There are pervasive violations of neutral point of view in this article. They can all be summed up by this quote from the article: "For the purposes of this article, sexism toward women will be the focus, as it is most relevant to the definition and study of ambivalent sexism." Ummonk (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * See talk page on Sexism. Per WP:RSs, sexism primary refers to unequal treatment of women.  Moreover, this theory refers solely to the negative effects on women.  EvergreenFir (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Tagging with NPOV for the reason previously stated by Ummonk. The article does indeed portray a one-sided view of sexism: The very way that (much of) this article is written implies that women are in general the victims of sexism, therefore men are in general the perpetrators. This is BIAS, plain and simple.  TheBigElectron (talk), 19 April 2017
 * That is the prevailing view. See sexism. Moreover, Glock and Fiske and other scholars who address ambivalent sexism address it this way too.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can not be compared to a single study with a narrow focus. Just because there are scholars that focus mostly on women does not justify that this happens in a wikipedia article. Wallby (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

April 2014
I just thought I'd mention it, because there's no way I'm going to rewrite it, but someone ought to. There almost seems to be a real article hiding under all the term-paper-ese.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know a fair amount about this theory and scale. I'll check out your edits this weekend.  Thanks for going over it! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

General overview, one small comment
OK, I know I said I wasn't going to do anything, but obviously if I weren't OCD I wouldn't be up messing with the pedia anyway. These sentences: "Sexism, like other forms of prejudice, is a type of bias about a group of people. Sexism is founded in conceptualizations of one gender as being superior or having higher status than another gender in a particular domain, which can lead to discrimination." The first is just a tautology. The second is too simplistic to be true. What about Marxist feminist analyses, just for one instance? It's possible to theorize sexism in any number of ways other than this. Perhaps the "conceptualizations" are epiphenomenal? Is this in the source? I can't lay my hands on a copy right now, so it's impossible to tell if Glick and friends really say this, in which case I guess it can stay, or if it's just a case of a-little-learning-is-a-dangerous-thing-itis. I'm going to stop ranting now and see if anyone else cares about this kind of nonsense, which is pervasive in the article.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

For the most part
I don't believe this sentence either: For the most part, psychologists have studied hostile forms of sexism. Do Glick and Fiske actually say that? What about Charlotte Perkins Gilman, e.g.? I know she's not a psychologist, but someone must have caught on to benevolent sexism before 199x, right? What about Friedan even? It's not actually plausible that this is true.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm... I don't have any sources, but I think psychology was predominantly focused on old-fashioned sexism before the 1990s. Sure there were theorists and such saying otherwise, but in terms of metrics, it was all the hostile stuff afaik.  Someone who knows psych might be able to shed more light. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well if there's no sources why is it in the wiki? 192.182.145.135 (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Tommy

Recent additions to the lede
The recent, new version has this 'Benevolent sexism represents evaluations of gender that may appear subjectively positive (e.g., the ideas that women are incompetent so they are inferior to men and vice versa),' I don't see how incompetence can be subjectively positive. '[T]he ideas that women need to be protected by men and are not capable of themselves' makes no sense. One is not capable of oneself, it is a non sequitur. (Perhaps I am missing something). Here's the diff Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly confused by the edits too, but more so getting annoyed that the editor is hopping IPs to make them...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

"Empirical research has consistently supported the validity of Social Dominance Theory"
The citation links to a study that shows gendered wording in job ads sustains gender inequality. It doesn't show that research has consistently supported SDT. We need a secondary source to back up this claim. MarshallKe (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology of Gender
— Assignment last updated by Zisha68 (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Human Sexuality
— Assignment last updated by Zy175311460 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)