Talk:Internalized sexism

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. Peer reviewers: Dfrankl7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:03, 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 September 2018 and 20 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Contehrose.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): C.pal.freeman, Elsiekloeppel, Kaiahm, MHulley, Annbanans.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of studies on male internalised sexism
Comment: Note that this article currently only refers to internalized sexism in relation to women. In theory, I suppose that there's no reason why men cannot be regarded as exhibiting internalized sexism towards themselves -- for instance believing, as is common, that they need to be "tough" and "manly" at all times, and that it is not appropriate for them to show or feel tender feelings or upset, or any other aspect of what they consider to be weakness, regardless of their true feelings, might be an example of this. But I can't find this regarded as such anywhere in the literature. -- The Anome (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * no. Poetries (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of studies dealing with male internalised sexism, more particularly you suggest male misandry(?). The studies I have seen thus far seem to explicitly avoid studying male misandry being themselves more concerned with male and female misogyny, as is currently the tradition. In my experience the reasons given for this seem to be part of a general fear within academia that such studies will not be allowed, or will be ghettoised. I do certainly feel that the article could benefit from their inclusion but alas at present the gatekeepers of the field don't seem to be broadly interested in the topic, which I think might be the barrier here. Particularly, most of the will among those with academic power is to see this from a feminist only perspective. I personally think we should be seeing it from both but we do have a responsibility to represent the body of research as it currently stands, not as we would like it to be. Mrspaceowl (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly  LΞVIXIUS  &#128172; 18:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ...for instance believing, as is common, that they need to be "tough" and "manly" at all times, and that it is not appropriate for them to show or feel tender feelings or upset, or any other aspect of what they consider to be weakness – this is what's known as toxic masculinity or precarious manhood. We already cover both subjects. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * But that should still be an example of internalized sexism against men. Whether it's covered in separate articles or not isn't the issue here.  LΞVIXIUS  &#128172; 18:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Then feel free to present reliable sources that call it internalized sexism instead of something else. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This source describes men's self-mockery based on hegemonic masculinity as men's internalized sexism. Reprarina (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This source describes men's self-mockery based on hegemonic masculinity as men's internalized sexism. Reprarina (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Reverted to previous edition
After a recent edit the article became about Internalized Misogyny only, making a multi-gendered issue into a single-gendered issue. If the previous editor has a problem with that, they can create a page for "Internalized Misogyny" instead of biasing this one. _EDIT_ Just created an account, because I was going to add pages for Internalized Misogyny and Internalized Misandry myself. However, the sources for the original article were subpar (A Wordpress Blog is NOT a definitive source) and as such I will request the pages to be created by someone with more time for doing so in depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFantasticSchmoozle (talk • contribs) 03:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sally's Edit
You give a good overview of internalized sexism (I've noted the two comments above about including internalized sexism for men or more discussion of those in the LGBT sphere, so I won't suggest edits about that!) It would be cool to see more examples of the "Television and Cinema" examples of internalized sexism - any specific shows that have been criticized for this - for ex. two and a half men? More specific examples (and citations fro those) would be great because you have a lot of good content. It would also be interesting to include a section which discusses the fighting back against internalized sexism, this could feature celebrities, ad campaigns, tv shows, etc that promote equality amongst the sexes or empower women or those most effected by internalized sexism, ex. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Hollaback, Dove beauty campaigns <- although it's funny to note they also own the Axe products. Also can you elaborate more on the symptoms and results of internalized sexism if it goes untreated? This is a really interesting topic, good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svs658 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

ValkanasV's Response
Thank you for the feedback! While we are hesitant to put a section on "symptoms and results" because this is not necessarily a clinical disorder, we do like the idea of adding a section on responses to internalized sexism or how to resolve the issues that exist. We have begun the section but there are limited sources on the topic so we would value any additional input from other users! Valkanasv (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Grace's Comments
While this article has several awesome points, it is written with a biased nature and is primarily focused on internalized sexism towards women. Men can be sexist towards other men who do not conform to gender norms. Balancing the perspectives will make the article more applicable and give it a broader scope.

Also, in the “Modes of Internalization: Early Childhood Inculturation” I would change the words, “females” and “males” to young boys and girls. Female and male is a sex classification that can refer to any mammal or insect. It’s nit-picky, but word choice matters here.

Also, this could be because I’m super into video games and the whole GamerGate shindig is happening currently, but there is a whole body of literature out there about young children decoding gender norms from videogames (which is much more interactive), and how constant exposure to sexualized and victimized representations of women instill these gender expectations onto both young boys and girls that becomes ingrained and internalized with long-term exposure. Might be something to look into.

Sources look great as well as the article thus far. Graciehope (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree on the biased thing: "Internalized sexism is when women enact sexist actions and attitudes towards themselves and other women." That is definition of "Internalized Misogyny" not "Internalized Sexism"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.222.186 (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest looking at Tracy Dietz' "An Examination of Violence and Gender Role Portrayals in Video Games: Implications for Gender Socialization and Aggressive Behavior." Basically she writes that young boys and girls rely upon expectations about both masculinity and femininity to interpret interactions and develop expectations for themselves and for others around them. And that these expectations in turn become roles. And because “roles are used to define the self, they become a point of reference for organizing and classifying the world and ultimately, as a basis for action…Thus, the roles internalized by the child, including gender, become for the child, and later for the adult, a basis for other roles and for action. [This] gender role that is internalized…has a significant impact upon the perspective of that individual and the additional roles she or he assumes in later life.” Because video gaming is a highly gendered practice, young boths have more exposure to gaming early on. In Kristen Lucas and John Sherry's "Sex Differences in Video Games Play," we see that video games are linked with acquisition of computer literacy, improvement of cognitive and attention skills, development of a positive attitude toward technology, and entry into jobs in high-tech fields. Therefore we see internalized sexism impacting young boys and girls from an earlier stage that may contribute to a lack of women in STEM fields a well. Just some thoughts. Graciehope (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Deonte' comments
I really appreciated this article because it was written in a perspective that I normally do not consider. My only real criticisms are that there are not enough examples in the "Television and Cinema" section, so maybe you guys should add something to it or take it out completely. In the "Early Childhood Inculturation section" I would have like to see you guys utilize a different angle in which how do single mother's with young boys enact Internalized misogyny. That is the only real criticism I have of this section because you state that only boys can learn from men and girls and learn this from both men and women. Other than that, great job of attempting to write an article with these unique rules!Deontegib 13 (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Deontegib_13

International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities
the reference paragraph actually reads, "despite contrary claims, misandry lacks the systemic...antipathy of misogyny...Naomi Schor (1987) cautions, assuming that misandry mirrors misogyny decides questions of gender and power to a male/female binary and ignores within-gender hierarchies...Bell Hooks cautions in Black Looks (1992) that there has never been a time when african-american men have no been represented fantastically and stereotypically. these are exemplified by the sumultaneous attraction-repulsion of popular depictions of the eroticised and hyper masculine african-american of entertainment and of professional sports."

the author jumps from criticizing the theoretical framework of misandry by arguing quite simply, that if misandry were to be considered a valid concept then they could no longer consider feminism a valid concept because it would ultimately reduce their entire conceptualization of the world to a dichotomous relationship between male and female (even though his arguments for misogyny already assume the position). and then goes on to consider an example where men have been historically and systematically oppressed by virtue of the representation of culturally masculine traits. it is for this reason that i have removed this reference and the sentences that it supported as the reference is ultimately confusing and fails to synthesize the opposing views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.159.215 (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Critique of Internalized Sexism
The article of Internalized Sexism has a short lead (overview). The editors ought to expand on the history of the word/theory to provide the reader with better background knowledge of the concept of Internalized Sexism. The editor(s) never reference any psychologists/researchers who may have conducted ground-breaking studies in recognizing Internalized Sexism. The sections within the article: Effects, Types – Internalized Heterosexism, Internalized Misogyny and Internalized Misandry, Modes of Internalization - Early childhood inculturation, Television/Cinema and Advertising and Combating Internalized Sexism are relevant to the topic. However, the concept of Internalized Misogyny is a systemic prolonged epidemic and the editor(s) only provide a short excerpt about the issue. After providing a short excerpt on the definition of Internalized Misogyny, the editor(s) predominately focus (over represent) on misogyny in the section Modes of Internalization. The editor(s) discuss the ways girls are raised by their mothers and the negative ways women are represented in the media and advertising. Modes of Internalization leading to Internalized Heterosexism and Internalized Misandry are discounted (under-represented) and vaguely discussed. Due to the need to educate people in changing times, the modes of Internalized Heterosexism an Internalized Misandry should be equally considered. A check of a few citations (1, 4 and 11) within the article revealed that the information is cited from neutral psychology reference sources. Throughout the article, editor(s) make reference to research studies but they do not provide the statistics/data. For instance, in the section, Internalized Misogyny, the editor(s) states, “Many research studies have been conducted to examine the correlation between internalized misogyny and negative psychological consequences in minority, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women. Certain forms of therapy have been known to limit the effects of internalized misogyny on mental health.” In this specific claim, there is no citation/reference behind the editor’s statement. In another section located in Internalized Misandry, the editor(s) provides the definition of Internalized Misandry. The editor(s) then appears to offer a biased opinion because there is no citation/reference behind the statement, “Because of this, men may form internalized feelings of hatred for aspects of their masculine performance, but not to the full degree of internalized misandry."    In the section, “Modes of Internalization,” the editor(s) discusses only four particular movies (Fatal Attraction, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty and The Little Mermaid) that portray internal misogynistic ideologies.  In advertising, the editor(s) does not “call out” any companies that portray internal misogynistic ideologies such as Carl’s Jr. restaurant ads, Victoria’s Secret and Hydroxycut to name a few.  The editor(s) should also praise companies that reject internalized misogynistic views such as Dove.      Lastly, editor(s) end the article with the section, Combating Internalized Sexism.  Once again, the editor(s) makes a statement about research studies, but he/she/they does not provide a citation, reference or data. The editor(s) states, “While a lot of research has been done on internalized sexism, further research is needed to develop concrete strategies to combat the effects of internalized sexism. Present research helps brings to light cultural practices that result in internalized sexism, therefore helping people to understand which practices need to change. For example, observations of conversation made people aware of certain conversational practices that promote internalized sexism.” The editor fails to note organizations which aim to combat Internal Sexism. One organization named Cultural Bridges to Justice conducts “workshops which encourages women to recognize and examine the harmful impact of a lifetime of sexist messages on their own self-image, as well as their attitudes toward other women. Exercises and skills are offered to affirm women, women’s skills and to challenge internalized sexism, in our own lives, for girls in our lives, and in our women’s organizations” (www.culturalbridgestojustice.org). A question to consider in regards to the section, “Internalized Misogyny” is knowing the harmful effects of misogynistic ideologies, why do women continue to hurt themselves and each other? Another question to consider is should internal misandry be considered as significant as internal misogyny? Don’t males suffering from internal misandry already have an “upper hand” given a patriarchal society? Works Cited "www.culturalbridgestojustice.org." 2011. Cultural Bridges to Justice. website. 15 September 2016. Dfrankl7 (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Emphasise research citations
Numerous citations cite low quality sources such as Psychologytoday.com or Huffingtonpost.com

This article will be strengthened by linking statements to published research literature instead.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levels_of_evidence for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.186.32 (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat lacking
Realistically I should have known better, but I came here looking for some proof that Internalised Misogyny actually exists ... as in looking for the root research which establishes it as something other than "something everyone knows". I failed to find it. Given the nature of the concept and it's importance in current theory - surely someone who has actually studied this can edit and point to the research? It can't be the first citation ... I'm looking for the peer reviewed researched here. Where did the concept come from? Who is credited with what research which confirms the theory?

Right now this article fails to establish the basis on which all of it's claims are based. And I agree ... there's a problem with bias which someone who is well acquainted with the topic should address. 203.158.32.154 (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for deletion of internalised misandry subsection
There is NO such thing as "misandry." That is a bogus word used by a woman-hating group called MRAs. The entire section on "internalized misandry" needs to be DELETED.

The reason it has to be deleted is because the basically non-word "misandry" is not a counterpart to "misogyny," which is not a word I like anyway but prefer sexism. Misogyny is the reason women are oppressed as a group. Misogyny is institutionalized woman-hatred. There is NO counterpart with women "hating men" ("misandry") because women are not the dominant political class in our society--only MEN are. Men are not an oppressed class, period. Women are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.40.212 (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree personally that there is no such thing as misandry. But misandry is clearly a word in the dictionary. It just is. Get over it. You don't have any citations, and are arguing from a political perspective, your opinion doesn't matter unless you can prove that what you are saying is fact. ShimonChai (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm resisting the urge to delete all of the above comments as while they are unsigned and do not seem initially to be aimed at facilitating debate, they do bring up an interesting topic. That is: if we as a collective believe that evidence would support the non-existance of misandry, which seems to be the consensus, could we devise studies using, for example, co-conversation and grounded theory method to study interactions with either male or female participants and code for categories agreed between researchers to show that these never or rarely occur? Or would there be a better methodology for study likely to arrive at the right conclusions? That's assuming there are academics here with the ability to carry out such research. Though it might also be possible to reach out to academics within the correct fields, to convince them of the usefulness of this kind of study in combating misunderstandings about the nature and importance of anti-masculinity in discourse. Mrspaceowl (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I am a man, and OPs request makes me feel as if men are terrible humans that have made the world a terrible place. Am I experiencing internalized hatred for my own gender BECAUSE of man's dominance of societal standards?

This article needs help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1101:C904:C843:96D7:848A:54AF (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Rename Internalised Hetrosexism Section
Addressing your defense of the "Misandry thing", sexism towards men is not possible. Although gender norms and expectations may negatively affect men, these effects cannot be classified as sexism. Much like racism, sexism is the enactment of prejudice from a position of power. Without power, it is not sexism. Because women do not hold power within society and institutions, they cannot be sexist towards men. Additionally, historically and currently, men do not face the same consequences that women face when they are prejudice towards the opposite gender. While men have not/do not face harmful or dangerous backlash foe being sexist, women are called things like "feminazis" when they try to advocate from themselves. In a similar parallel to white guilt, misandry is the manifestation of men playing the victim in a society that actually targets women. These are all reasons what the Misandry portion should be deleted from this Wikipedia page. Whilst the section in itself is good, would replacing Heterosexism with the more common term Homophobia in all cases be better? I myself was initially confused by the use of the word. Dddthedarktalk 13:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Gender neutral vs. internalized sexism in women
An IP is continually changing the lead to be gender neutral and defining this subject as applying to both sexes. It appears to me that this subject is mostly covered in sources as women internalizing sexist atmosphere, and is not applied towards men.--Chuka Chief (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC) banned sock

Requesting some help
Hi,

Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Marianismo material
Bataromatic, regarding this and this? The reason I moved that material is because it's not about toxic femininity. So it should not be in the "Toxic femininity" section. Not unless sources specifically tie it to toxic femininity. This is per WP:Synthesis. Read WP:Synthesis to see what I mean. In fact, per WP:Synthesis, if the sources are not clear that they are about internalized sexism, the material shouldn't be in the article. Your "Similar ideas can be seen in the criticism of marianismo" wording is WP:Editorializing. That is why I cut that to "Marianismo is a term developed by Evelyn Stevens in a 1973 essay as a direct response to the male word machismo." And the reason I moved the marianismo material to the "Toxic masculinity, machismo, and hypermasculinity" section is because it begins by stating, "Marianismo is a term developed by Evelyn Stevens in a 1973 essay as a direct response to the male word machismo." So, to me, it seems to fit fine in that section. If you don't think that it does, which appears to be the case, then how about just letting it be its own subsection, like it is with this edit I just made? But regarding that placement, if sources do not state that it's a type of internalized sexism, it should not be under "Types" as a subsection. Just make it a sole section, although it shouldn't be in the article at all if it's not clearly about internalized sexism.

No need to WP:Ping me when you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I put it in the "Toxic Feminity" section because it is directly about the same identifiers that are described by the paragraph preceding it when describing what the reference uniquely described as "toxic feminity". It makes absolutely no sense for it to be in a paragraph about why men feel internal sexism because it about internal sexism for women. I'm not going to keep this going, because it's a fairly ridiculous argument to have. But where you have moved it is nonsensical context wise. Also, machismo and marianismo are not the same thing. One applys to feminine stereotype, the other male stereotype. - Bataromatic (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of you having put it there, it should not be there per what I stated above. The only way it should be there is if sources explicitly tie it to toxic femininity.


 * You stated that "where [I] have moved it is nonsensical context wise." It is its own subsection now. That is all. It was already under the "Types" heading because that is where you placed it. But, clearly, it should not be there since the sources do not call it a type of internalized sexism. It should not be under any of the headings in the article. If it's to stay, it should be a lone section...not a subsection.


 * I did not state that machismo and marianismo are the same thing. What I did relay is that the reason I moved the marianismo material to the "Toxic masculinity, machismo, and hypermasculinity" section is because the marianismo material begins by stating, "Marianismo is a term developed by Evelyn Stevens in a 1973 essay as a direct response to the male word machismo." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Fixed post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I moved it back for you. You were quite rude in your "reason for editing." This is passive aggression on your part. Is this something to do with wanting to "win" or be right? My reason for putting this in toxic feminity is because it carries similar issues as well as it would not make sense to even mention in the article where it not in that section.


 * To be honest I would haven't have moved it if not for your passive aggression in your comment. Try to be more polite, mmmkay? - Bataromatic (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Fixed post" Hilarious. Bataromatic (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your material is not about toxic femininity. It's not even about internalized sexism. So I could start a WP:RfC and get it removed from this article. "Mmmkay"? This is not about being rude or polite, or winning. It is about following the Wikipedia rules that exist for a reason. We do not add things simply because we think they are similar to the topic at hand. The material must be explicitly on-topic. WP:Synthesis is clear. You clearly have not taken the time to read the rules I've pointed you to, and you do not care. And I do not have the time or patience for it. You were the rude one with your latest post. And if this latest post of mine comes across as rude, I could not care less. My last compromise with you on this is having made the material into its own subsection. Don't accept that? Then an RfC will be next.


 * And as for finding "Fixed post" hilarious? Read Talk page guidelines. We fix our posts here at Wikipedia, and that sometimes includes relaying to others that the post was changed. Instead of "Edited", I used "Fixed post." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Then again, benevolent sexism is related to internalized sexism. Some sources identify it as a form of internalized sexism. But, to repeat, the material you added is not about toxic femininity. Your material -- the parts about ambivalent and benevolent sexism -- would fit best in the Ambivalent sexism article. One of your sources is specifically about ambivalent sexism, and two of your sources are specifically about benevolent sexism. The Ambivalent sexism article currently covers benevolent sexism in greater detail. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * More of the issue I find here is that you are rude, and this is an ongoing issue for you based on what I've read from your talk page and edit history. Yes, this is a problem. This is a community, not a battlefield. I truly don't give a shit where you put my addition or who you tattle to--just don't be nasty about your edits and passive aggression is the definition of being nasty.
 * Also, I don't care whether you care or not that I find you rude or about your patience. Just be nice to others from now on, and I won't care what you do.-Bataromatic (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Long sigh. Based on what you have read from my talk page? My talk page does not show what you claim it does. Unless dealing with WP:Socks and disruptive editors I have dealt with times before, or the few non-disruptive editors I have tempestuous relationships with here (since we do not all get along, despite whatever fairy tale you are living in), I am only rude to those who are rude to me first. And the "rude to me first" thing also applies to you. You are the one who personalized this discussion, including by referring to what's on my talk page and my contribution history, which shows a lot of interaction with disruptive editors daily. Will I be stern with disruptive editors Yes. But "stern" and "rude" are not necessarily the same thing. Telling you how we do things here and why is not being rude. I do not need a lesson from some newbie who can't be bothered to follow our policies and guidelines and then cries "you're being mean" by simply telling them what I told you before my "01:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)" post. I don't need you to tell me that this is a community or whatever. I've collaborated with people just fine on this site.


 * Doug Weller, as someone who issues discretionary sanctions on topics such as this, can we get your assistance here since the above editor apparently does not understand? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * this page should always have been under discretionary sanctions so I've added a talk page notice. I've also given you the standard alerts for gender and post-1932 American politics, alerts I've given to myself as well. As they say, they don't imply that you've transgressed, and what I've seen of your American politics edits certainly look good. I do have a problem with your comments here and your edits however. WP:NOR says " To demonstrate that you are not adding OR(original research]], you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." In this case the key word is "directly", and as an experienced editor I don't see that your sources do that. As for the various insults etc, what I see in the edit summaries (which you call "reason for editing.") starts with your writing "do not move things around randomly without sense." and things went down hill from there. This really needs to stop and you need to listen and maybe ask questions when a more experienced editor tries to explain policy to you. -- Doug Weller talk 15:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Doug Weller, thanks for intervening/weighing in. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Reverse Sexism
It's true much [especially older] television and cinema reinforces sexual stereotyping, however the 'television and cinema' section has a gaping chasm in it in one key respect, namely the phenomenon of 'turning the tables' aka 'reverse sexism', which is a very common and popular trope nowadays. The intelligent woman suffering the idiot man. Think Deborah and Ray. Lucy and Desi. Samantha and Darren. Wilma & Fred Flintstone (The Honeymooners) et al. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Sexuality in World Civilizations I
— Assignment last updated by Carmilla613 (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've drafted some edits I would like to make to the introduction paragraph here. Please let me know if you have suggestions; otherwise, I plan to actually implement these edits next week. Carmilla613 (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your edit because it changed the language to be gender neutral, whereas the reliable sources on internalized sexism refer to it as either wholly or predominantly a phenomenon of internalized misogyny. This has been discussed above, e.g. Talk:Internalized_sexism. Generalrelative (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You're correct that existing literature only refers to internalized sexism as a woman-oriented phenomenon, however sexism itself is not specific to one gender (Sexism), so it doesn't make sense that internalized sexism would be.
 * If we take the definition of internalized sexism to only be about women, the rest of the article doesn't make sense. 'Internalized misogyny' is the exact same thing as 'internalized sexism', so this section is wholly unnecessary. Also, the 'Toxic masculinity, machismo, and hypermasculinity' section doesn't belong on this page given that definition. What are your thoughts on this? Carmilla613 (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd say that whole section is a mess. The subsection "Toxic masculinity, machismo, and hypermasculinity" appears to consist entirely of synthetic analysis, which is forbidden by our core policy against original research. Looks like the whole body of the article could use a substantive overhaul, and I thank you for drawing my attention to it.
 * Regarding sexism, I know that the second sentence in that article (Sexism can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women and girls) is the product of a thorough consensus process, so you're going to want to stick to that definition: yes it can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: I went and WP:BOLDly removed the "Toxic masculinity, machismo, and hypermasculinity" subsection as WP:SYNTH and added Toxic masculinity to the "See also" section. If anyone objects, I'd be happy to discuss. Generalrelative (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw your edit about the source I cited for the concluding sentence in the intro. Thanks for pointing that out--the author of the 'Combating internalized misogyny' section cited this source so when I was summarizing I took it from there. I'm now wondering about the validity of that whole section. Do you think that, given the source, this section is ok? Carmilla613 (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I've WP:BOLDly removed that section too. Of course if someone comes along with appropriate sources, it can be restored. Generalrelative (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have some more edits I would like to make, specifically to the 'Internalized Misogyny' section. They are available for viewing and/or feedback here. Feel free to give me constructive feedback or criticism. Carmilla613 (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I added some more edits to the 'Early childhood inculturation' and 'Combatting internalized sexism' sections. Please let me know if you have any criticisms/questions. I struggled with the combatting internalized sexism section due to a lack of research on interventions related to this topic, so I would welcome additions to this section in particular. Carmilla613 (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Music in History Intersectionality and Music
— Assignment last updated by Jewelz&#38;Ruby24 (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Toxic Feminity Forbes citation
I'm not sure why this bit was added to the article, but it does not pertain to what has been documented in the article by researchers and feminist scholars as toxic femininity. Rather, it simply has a misuse of the term by calling female bullying such. That's just toxic behavior and does not refer to internalized sexism. For those reasons I'm removing this bit. Please keep content pertinent to internalized sexism. -Opininpossum (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

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