Talk:Gender inequality in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dinocako.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2019 and 12 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tasilver, Rodumosu, Hsontag, Dylan Boilen, Soc221 belo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 November 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabbymessing.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article is biased, doesn't meet NPOV
All issues in this article present females as the disadvantaged gender. Yet there are numerous areas of life in the U.S. where males are at great disadvantage, or victim of "gender inequality" as the article is titled, yet there is no mention of any of these issues in the current article. The question:

Why is this article so biased, and why is there no NPOV for this article? 2604:2000:7FC0:1:E8D7:5FA9:D5A4:AD1 (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7fc0:1:fd92:ea42:d60d:45bf (talk • contribs)

Yes, You are right. Large part of the text is from op-eds and opinion pieces. 16AdityaG09 (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 16AdityaG09, just so we're clear, what do you think NPOV means on Wikipedia? It doesn't mean what being neutral means in common discourse. WP:NPOV is very clear about what it means. It doesn't mean treating this topic as though men and women are equally affected by gender inequality. They aren't. The literature is very clear that women are disproportionately affected by it. So, for one, we abide by WP:False balance. That stated, I support you having made this and this edit.


 * No need to WP:Ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 Frozen, I do not intend to dispute the fact that you are stating. Gender inequality is real. The problem which I might try to resolve is to remove unnecessary rhetoric. As for the content itself, this article should not assume that total gender equality is the ultimate goal, universally accepted. As you may know, there is no consensus on this agenda. The article should limit itself to stating fair and square facts. The article should clearly mention what different groups intend to do about gender equality, i.e. the feminists, the radical feminists, the moderates, and the conservatives.16AdityaG09 (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 Frozen, If I get time, my goal will be to strip this article of all rhetoric.16AdityaG09 (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what exactly you have in mind, but be sure not to strip out things you shouldn't. NPOV does not mean having no point of view, it means representing reliable sources proportionately. Please read carefully WP:NPOV first. Crossroads -talk- 16:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads, Finding someone who is not ideologically possessed either way is always a surprise these days, isn't it? 16AdityaG09 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Claiming that The Gender Gap index measures gender equality is not true
Actually it measures the well-being of women as can be read in then methodology section (although the fact is not said straight out, naturally). But the article is so biased that who cares if there is one lie more or less. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.248.20.195 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Expansions
Hello, I am a student at Rice University, and I am planning to expand this article as part of an assignment for my Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities course. My current plan of revision and expansion is written below, and any input or advice would be greatly appreciated.

I plan to add a new section on the history of gender inequality in the United States. I also plan on reworking the issues subsections. I plan to retitle politics as political participation and add information about the disparity between female political representation and population will be added. The economics section should also be expanded to contain a breakdown on the wage gap between genders as well as information on gendered poverty, and a proposed workplace and employment section will include women in the workforce and information on internalized bias in hiring. Further information on the effects of gender roles and norms on gender inequality will be added to the social life section, including the division on household labor, treatment of young children based on gendered stereotypes, and misconceptions about gender and socialization. A new section on other issues will be created to address issues that do not fit into the other existing categories, such as rape culture and sexist humor and their effects on sexual violence in the United States. A section addressing past, current, and proposed legislation affecting gender equality will be added to reorganize existing information and to contain new information on the subject.

Baileybrash (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your proposed edits sound like they will be a great contribution. Don't forget to search Wikipedia for other related articles (even some from past classes at Rice) that you can link to in your article instead of duplicating the research and time it takes to create it. Enjoy editing, and let me know if you have any questions that come up! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 1
Your article is incredibly elegant; it is very well-developed and cited. I would ensure that you are including a neutral point of view towards gender inequality, rather than one that only considers the inequality that women face. Moreover, I would expand upon a few of the strong facts that you state abruptly regarding the inequality of women versus men, in order to reveal their relevance to gender inequality instead of simply feminism. I would consider expanding upon why and how legislation was passed in order to “alleviate” gender inequality, and how the effects of these implementations are seen/not seen in labor forces/colleges of the present. How can we improve gender inequality? What are future steps towards improvement? Think about these challenging questions, and allow them to frame your work. CarolineABrigham (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review
Overall, this article was a great and informative read. My main issue stems from the phrasing of certain sentences such as "However, individuals of either gender with masculine personality traits were advantaged when applying for either masculine or feminine jobs, indicating a possibly valuing of stereotypically male traits above stereotypically female traits.[9]" It's sometimes a bit unclear in regards to who you are referring to. In addition, under your occupational segregation by gender subheading, it would be great to provide real world examples of said phenomena. Your article touched on the important aspects and perspectives on the debate about gender inequality. The main hindrance to the comprehensiveness of your article is the effect of gender equality of different ethnicities of women. Do some ethnicities experience higher instances of gender discrimination than others? Finally, your article was extremely well referenced and followed Wikipedia's criteria for being a good article. The main thing left for you to do would be to perhaps expand your content on key sections such as "education", "sex discrimination in employment" and "other issues". You could take the opportunity to talk about the affects of gender inequality/discrimination on those that identify as transsexual. Dmbonsu (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Dmbonsu

GA review comment
Please note that WP:GAN backlog is significant, and articles can wait for a GA review for ~3 months. It is sadly too common for educational project GANs to receive reviews after everyone (students, instructors) have finished class and stopped their activity on Wikipedia. This consumes the time of a reviewer who could be working on a non-abandoned article instead. Since this is an educational project, I want to ask the involved parties (student(s), instructor(s) - pinging User:DStrassmann, User:RobinPaige) - how long will you be active, waiting for a review? In other words, when does this class end (at which time we should presumably cancel this GAN request). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This course is part of a two semester sequence in an undergraduate minor that requires six courses total, so this student will be continuing to edit Wikipedia as part of the minor for longer than the current semester. Additionally, I will be monitoring the pages of any students who submit their pages for GA review. Students are discouraged from submitting their articles for good article status unless they are prepared to continue to monitor and work on them. DStrassmann (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Expansions, Spring 2014
Hello, I am a student at Rice University, and I am planning once again to expand this article as part of an assignment for my Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities course. While my expansions last semester were primarily focused on the inequality between men and women, my proposed expansions for this semester are focused more on the inequality faced by transgender, nonbinary, and other non-gender conforming individuals. This topic is much less well understood and less attention is given to it than inequality between men and women both in the media and by the general public. This article could serve as an accessible resource that outlines the facts of the current situation and allow for the general Wikipedia-using population to form a more well-informed opinion on the subject. I plan on adding a new section on the differences in inequality faced by cisgender women and the inequality faced by transgender individuals will be added, as well as new subsections on health in relation to trans individuals. The existing subsections will be expanded to include information on inequality and discrimination towards trans people. Any input or advice would be greatly appreciated before I begin my revisions. Baileybrash (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
Bailey, I think your contribution is very well written and does an outstanding job at providing unbiased facts. A think that you should elaborate on the HIV/AIDS section, and discuss why maybe transgender individuals do report higher rates of HIV/AIDS, social implications, etc. I also think that in some areas that are heavy on statistics, a summary of the findings might come across easier for a wider audience. Awesome job!!! --Kiarasanchez12 (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Bailey, great work so far! Your extensive statistics in this article really stood out to me! While you have been incredibly comprehensive, I hope others continue to expand on your subsections. For example, for your "Legal Rights" section, I hoped to also see a broader focus on federal legislation that hold bias against the rights of transgender individuals. Still, as others have said, this is well-written! jeanygina (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts prompted by the GA review
Hi Bailey. I have to say, this is well-researched, well-written, and immaculately sourced article. For a (relatively) new contributor, you have an excellent grasp of how to instill encyclopedic tone into your writing. I do have a thought or two on how the article might be further improved with regards to structure though. Although elucidation of the social and economic issues faced by transgender persons is a useful addition to the article that you've presented well here, speaking from a purely organization perspective, I think I would restructure the subject's integration into the article a little differently. Specifically I would avoid such a starkly dichotomous division of the sections; dividing the page into two separate sections as it stands seems a little on the ungainly side, and a little bit of an artificial divide, given the shared territory regarding inequalities that influence both groups. I'd like to present two potential alternative structures: /Proposed structure and /Proposed structure 2. The first of these simply moves some sections around, it would be vastly easier to implement, might suite your timetable better and preserves the current arrangement most. The second would take the integration one-step further by merging the content that is currently in the dual independent sections on economics, work life, pay gaps, education, and other common issues and leaving only the subsections that are unique to transgendered persons within that section. Though it would constitute a more substantial restructuring and a bit more work, I'm partial to the second approach, but either of these structures in that I feel they somewhat more solidly emphasize gender inequality as something of a feature of society collectively, rather than a concept primarily of relevance to certain gender identities. After-all, these are issues that effect all segments of American society, even if some groups have markedly more reason to be aware of it than others.

Either would also address another, very minor but still noteworthy issue - the use of the term cisgender in a main section header. Cisgender is a fairly academic term not broadly used outside of the social sciences, gender-equality advocacy, the transgender community and a handful of other contexts. The average Wikipedia editor might know it, and we can appreciate its clinical appeal, but as this very article points out, 30% of Americans don't even know what transgender means and it is a vastly more culturally disseminated term. Even the broad database that Wikipedia uses for spellchecking is failing to recognize the word even as I type this. I believe I can see your reasoning -- presumably you felt it was the best way to maintain parity between the discussion on transgendered persons and that on the disparities between men and women in general; that is, using the terms cisgender and transgender is a way to divide the structure of the article without relying on terms that you feel might imply a qualitative assessment as to what constitutes a "true" women. That's a completely understandable concern, but on Wikipedia we are meant to be using the most common-use and simple language which we can get away with; mind you it's not a major issue, as you define the term in the lead and it's not exactly an incredibly complex concept to get across its broadest sense, but if we can remove that ambiguity for the reader through an organizational change, and that change has other advantages, and still maintain the afore-mentioned parity, it might be worth doing. Anyway, I thought I would mention it to you as the one thing that stood out to me as I first looked at the article in a glance as a little unencyclopedic. For the record, I see the use of cisgender in the article in general as useful; it's only the application in a primary section header that I mean to examine with the above.

These are both relatively minor points, and this is your baby at present, so I'd just as soon leave any changes with regard to either to your discretion, but the suggestions are there, if you have any use for them. Snow (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Question
Why do all issues in the article show females as the disadvantaged gender? There are many areas of life in the U.S. where males are at a great disadvantage (or victim of "gender inequality" as the article is titled).

Why is this article so biased; why is there no NPOV for this article?

.

2604:2000:7FC0:1:E8D7:5FA9:D5A4:AD1 (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Article is biased and fails to backup with facts and statistics a lot of statements made
For example the article says that women face "inequality" because there are more men than women in the government, how is this an issue? More men than women go into politics to start with, just like more women than men go into fashion for example or nursing etc. How is this an issue? The article also exemplifies that there are less women in the workforce, but fails to show how this is an issue in any way. More men choose to work and men choose to work more hours, how is this an issue? As for the male inequalities section there are ignored numerous issues. The sentencing gap - men receive longer sentences for the exact crimes women do, men being discriminated by the court bias in alimony as men make up 96% who pay alimony, child support where men make up the vast majority who have to pay child support, child custody - men receive child custody only 6%of times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.102.116.151 (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gender inequality in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120823144158/http://treaties.un.org:80/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-8&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-8&chapter=4&lang=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017025521/http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/levels_of_office/documents/elective.pdf to http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/levels_of_office/documents/elective.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407204726/http://transequality.org/PDFs/NTDSReportonHealth_final.pdf to http://transequality.org/PDFs/NTDSReportonHealth_final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gender inequality in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150415015849/https://www.sss.gov/FSbenefits.htm to https://www.sss.gov/FSbenefits.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140327074634/http://www.avp.org/storage/documents/ncavp_2012_hvreport_final.pdf to http://www.avp.org/storage/documents/ncavp_2012_hvreport_final.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-8&chapter=4&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation
-Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Everything listed within the article is relevant and in depth to the current topic. Highlighted topics such as political involvement, home lifestyles, social structures and education are such of the many topics discussed that revolve around both men and women in the United States. I was never distracted throughout the article, in fact the opposite, I was intrigued throughout the reading and considered the article informative and relevant towards today's society.

-Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is fairly neutral and provides both sides of the spectrum depicting the struggles that both men and women face in the United States social structure currently. Supported by facts and well thought out arguments, this article tackles a variety of topics that make it a very interesting read and allow its readers to retain new found information that is consistent with the statistics the article provides.

-Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? The viewpoints represented are diverse and authentic. The opinions and supporting facts listed are not overdone nor overstated due to the significance of the topic.

-Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? The information depicted throughout the article is accurate and relatively current in correlation to today's society. This article discuses a significant amount of differentiating topics that makes it hard for me to declare that anything is missing from this discussion. The depth and clarity provided allow the reader to be engage throughout and provides a clear understanding of gender inequality throughout the country.

Michael PotestioMpotestio955 (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender Welfare and Poverty
— Assignment last updated by Shakaigaku Obasan (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing 10 Dean
— Assignment last updated by Corgi47 (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)