Talk:Occupational sexism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nahomy.ynfante87. Peer reviewers: Foxypolymath, Trinarojas1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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: Adaughte.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Expand scope
This article focus a bit too much on wage discrimination. There are plenty other forms of occupational sexism that I think should be expanded on. Great thanks. 199.17.28.74 (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

1.) This article made great points in stating troubles that women face during their employment, but it seemed like they were more opinions rather than facts. 2.) I checked a lot of the citations, and discovered that majority of the articles were over two decades old. The statistics need to be updated to current day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsha151 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Lead
Couple of things. There's a link to this page from Sarah Palin. The text reads "gender discrimination". Would that not be another synonym for the lead? If not a better title for the page. Sex, meaning both gender and sexual relations, is more easily conflated or confused. Secondly, I get the feeling from "While sex is generally used to mean both males and females, in the occupational realm, sex discrimination normally refers to oppressive practices executed by men against women.[citation needed]" that someone is trying to say that sexual harassment happens more often to females; obviously true, but is it truly the topic under discussion, and I just offer that up as a possibility to be considered. What is quite certain is that it ends up saying something which quite obviously isn't true, ie that there should be a standard for this terminology which is quite obviously not gender specific, that it be gender specific. So, it would seem to me, that the article should either state the issue as purely an issue of sexual harassment statistics, or not state it at all, because it doesnt belong, whatever, I don't have an issue with that either way, but don't restate it as an issue of how the word sex discrimination should be applied. Yes? Anarchangel (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal advertisement of Tiina Likki
Under the "Stereotypes" subsection of the "Social role theory effects on women" section of the article, there are two sentences that mention a person named Tiina Likki. These two sentences seem to be inappropriately focusing on Tiina Likki, rather than the results of her studies, and the second sentence ("Likki has been committed to improving gender inequality in the labor market; she continues to use her knowledge of sexism within occupations to make others aware of these underlying issues.") contributes nothing to the section at all, except what seems to be a positive comment about Likki herself, almost as an advertisement of her activities. I believe these two sentences should be amended to remove everything except for the results that Likki presented in the source, and especially to remove anything that is purely about Tiina Likki herself. Krolp (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Cause/effect relationship between social role theory and occupational sexism
In the first section of the article, "Social role theory", it is explained that social role theory may explain one of many reasons for why occupational sexism exists. In the "History" subsection of the second section of the article, "Social role theory effects on women", it is then written that occupational sexism is caused by social role theory itself, as well as stereotypes. These two sentences contradict each other in terms of certainty, as the "History" subsection elevates social role theory from possibly explaining an aspect of occupational sexism to certainly explaining an aspect of occupational sexism. As well, it seems to misattribute the cause; instead of social role theory explaining a cause of occupational sexism, social role theory itself is to be blamed for occupational sexism, which seems inherently ridiculous. I recommend that these two sections be edited to remain consistent with each other, and that the cause is attributed accurately to whatever the cause is, not the theory that describes the causes. Krolp (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

EU 2006 General Equal Treatment Act.
European Union member states are all covered under the 2006 General Equal Treatment Act, and a mass of other additional legislation more specific in relation to occupational sexism. There is no EU nation where discrimination based on gender is legal, not even in Hungary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.173.122 (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Gender equality paradox in more gender equal vs less gender equal countries
Gender self selection into different occupations is an important cause of gender ratios in the occupations. Scientists found that more gender equal countries have a more unbalanced gender ratio n STEM than less gender equal countries “life-quality pressures in less gender-equal countries promote girls’ and women’s engagement with STEM subjects.”

It is the gender equality paradox that low gender equality countries have more balanced gender ratios in STEM occupations than more gender equal countries.

Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29, 581-593.

“The underrepresentation of girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields is a continual concern for social scientists and policymakers. Using an international database on adolescent achievement in science, mathematics, and reading (N = 472,242), we showed that girls performed similarly to or better than boys in science in two of every three countries, and in nearly all countries, more girls appeared capable of college-level STEM study than had enrolled. Paradoxically, the sex differences in the magnitude of relative academic strengths and pursuit of STEM degrees rose with increases in national gender equality. The gap between boys’ science achievement and girls’ reading achievement relative to their mean academic performance was near universal. These sex differences in academic strengths and attitudes toward science correlated with the STEM graduation gap. A mediation analysis suggested that life-quality pressures in less gender-equal countries promote girls’ and women’s engagement with STEM subjects.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:F84D:C7D2:B9F4:75B1 (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)