Talk:Reverse sexism/Archive 1

Old talk
I cannot believe that Anthony just reverted my draft for a new article, that had been posted explicitly for VfD voters to take a look at, to stub format. I would appreciate an explanation. I have re-reverted it. Bishonen 18:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * If you want to post things for people to look at use the talk page, not the article page. anthony (see warning) 00:04, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sexism as a practice is negative discrimination against individuals or groups based on their sexual identity, and sexism as an attitude is the belief that one sex is superior to the other. Defining sexism is not appropriate for this article, and certainly not in the first sentence.

Reverse sexism might be expected to refer to the opposite: a refusal to discriminate between people on the basis of sexual identity, and a belief that the sexes are equal. It might be expected to mean a type of cheeseburger. This sentence is meaningless.

The word is however rarely used in this sense. According to whom? According to a half-hearted study using google? This is original research.

"Reverse sexism" is a term strongly charged with gender politics, and many people have a submerged or open agenda when they use it. POV. Original research.

These are some of the main ways different groups of speakers use the term: One half-hearted google "study" proves nothing. POV. Original research.

''1.As a good thing. This sense relies on a feminist assumption that sexism, however the dictionary defines it, always in practice means negative discrimination against women, the historically non-dominant gender.'' That or that sexism is not necessarily a bad thing. POV. Original research.

To these speakers reverse sexism means favoring of women, and they recommend it as a piece of justice, for instance in hiring policies, in view of existing gender imbalances. Now you're speaking for a bunch of people you don't even know. POV. Orginal research. Probably not even true.

''2. As a bad thing. This sense relies on an anti-feminist assumption that the historic imbalance in favor of men has in our day been redressed or even reversed. These speakers agree with group 1 that sexism means discrimination against women, but they go on to argue that discrimination against women is in our culture being replaced by discrimination against men, i. e. by "reverse" sexism. Like group 1, they use reverse sexism to mean favoring of women/disfavoring of men, but they consider the practice of it to be bad and unjust.'' Ditto.

''3. Self-consciously, "in quotation marks". A Google search in September 2004 suggests that the term is used very commonly with qualifications like "so-called reverse sexism", and in attacks on its logic and value. These arguments condemn as illogical the way speakers of groups 1 and 2 refer to a kind of sexism as reverse sexism, and a common slogan here is "Reverse sexism is sexism!" These speakers may share historical and gender assumptions with either group 1 or group 2 or fall somewhere in between, but more commonly they tend to side with 1.'' Wikipedia is not a place for you to publish the results of your google search studies.

Because of the paradoxical character of the term and the strong emotions involved, there are also many speakers who fail to fit into this simple scheme. How do you know the cause? POV. Original research.

anthony (see warning) 00:04, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VFD discussion
Discussion copied from Votes for deletion/Reverse sexism:

To begin with, the term "reverse sexism" is self-contradictory - "sexism", by definition, works both ways and therefore cannot be reversed - which is why it is only used colloquially by people who aren't thinking. I'm not aware of companies using this term to describe their policies, but if they do, it is incorrect. What this article is actually attempting to discuss is Positive discrimination, but the author seems to have a few bees in his bonnet that are affecting his ability to write from a NPOV. Deb 17:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, I apologise for that last comment, but I still don't think the article is valid. Deb 17:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Reverse discrimination, and while we're at it, give that article some seriously needed cleanup/NPOV. KeithTyler 17:49, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to sexism. The term "reverse sexism" deserves perhaps a sentence or two in *that* article. And for that matter redirect reverse discrimination also to either discrimination or affirmative action. Aris Katsaris 17:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I just rewrote reverse discrimination. The term itself deserves an NPOV treatment to explain its existence. So I disagree with Aris' redirect suggestion for it. :) - KeithTyler 18:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and copy edit some more. The rewrite by bishonen and others makes this useful. Geogre 02:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Reverse discrimination is the best idea I've seen. The last sentence of KeithTyler's rewrite is, essentially, a definition of "reverse discrimination by sex," so the redirect makes sense to me.  If we were rewriting, though, we'd have to be perfectly clear: gender is social, and sex is biological.  They are not synonymns in a post-feminist age. Geogre 19:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I've no understanding at all of what "gender is social and sex is biological" means. On my part I refer to the "gender" of animals as well. Aris Katsaris 21:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * George, that line went over my head too. Regardless, redirect to reverse discrimination. Rossami 22:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The article in gender can say it more clearly than I, but: gender is the social counterpart to a creature's physical sex. -Sean Curtin 23:54, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think I can say it succinctly: masculine and feminine are gender, while male and female are sex.  We construct what it is "to be a man" or "to be a woman" socially (gender), but male and female are biological.  This is pretty much since the 1950's in feminist critiques.  Since this article is about any form of "sexism" it really needs to observe the distinction. Geogre 02:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Well IMO, to "be a man" is to be an adult male human being and to "be a woman" is to be an adult female human being, and I think I generally dismiss any other definition as a stereotype to be combatted (for example e.g. that only straight men are "real men" or that "real women" must be housewives and produce children). Is it only English that bizzarely differentiates between the meanings of "gender" and "sex"? Because my own native language (Greek) certainly doesn't. Aris Katsaris 04:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * There really is more to it than that, but discussing it here isn't really that appropriate on a VfD page. If you're interested, read gender identity/gender role which cover things pretty well. Dysprosia 05:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * As a further sidenote I don't think that "masculine and feminine are genders" works much either -- we may say that a scent is "masculine" but I believe we don't tend to say that "the scent has a masculine gender". Aris Katsaris 04:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. It's not your English.  English speakers can't even decide what the difference is, and its been changing a lot recently, mainly for political purposes.  See the usage note in the American Heritage Dictionary .  "This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels." anthony (see warning) 11:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to reverse discrimination. -Sean Curtin 23:54, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being a self-contradictory term is not grounds for deletion. Possibly make it a disambig page pointing to sexism and reverse discrimination. anthony (see warning) 14:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Anthony, I'm glad you brought the discussion back to the article, which seemed rather to be getting left behind by the discussion. I agree with Deb that the term "reverse sexism" is illogical, but then the original article, the text that was put up for deletion, explains that it's illogical — what's wrong with that? The present stub by Anthony, on the other hand, which reads in its entirety "Reverse sexism is a term which is sometimes used to refer to reverse discrimination in the form of sexism" I find difficult to understand. Sorry, Anthony, I realize that may be me, not you. (But also, how is it a disambiguation page?) I think the original ought to be reinstated, after cleanup. I'll try to do some tomorrow unless somebody beats me to it. Cleanup may still leave it in need of being merged with reverse discrimination, though, since the term "reverse sexism" is awfully marginal for a separate article. My sampling of the Google hits, which aren't numerous for a phrase so easily coined, suggest that the word is mostly only used in discussions about whether it should be used. :-) There are many self-referential arguments about the term being illogical, few unselfconscious uses of it to refer to a phenomenon in the real world. Sorry, I'm going a long way about giving a neutral vote. More specific input from Deb about her reasons might change my mind. Bishonen 01:02, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I think calling the term illogical is POV. It's certainly original research, unless you can point to a reference which says that the term is illogical.  It's a disambig page because its only purpose is to point to two other pages. A redirect alone is not sufficient. anthony (see warning) 01:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Calling the term illogical is POV ... ? Of course it is. Do you think it's inappropriate to speak from a point of view on VfD? Surely we often use words here that we wouldn't consider putting into an encyclopedia article. (What's the ambiguity that you're disambiguating?) Bishonen 01:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The term as used is illogical. The "reverse" of discrimination (or of forms of discrimination, of which sexism is one) would be non-discrimination. But what the term refers to (or implies in its construction) is fundamentally as much a form of discrimination as any other. That being said... "reverse sexism" is a construction directly descending from "reverse discrimination". Since the only validity of these terms are as similarly-constructed colloquialisms, it should suffice to explain how their constructions came about only once. Ergo a redirect to reverse discrimination for any "reverse [insert type of discrminiationhere]" terms is enough to explain the existence of them all. KeithTyler 05:20, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that merging Reverse sexism with Reverse discrimination is appropriate, especially since both articles are short. But with respect, Keith, I think "Reverse sexism" is too hot a topic to merely be inserted in a "Reverse discrimination" boilerplate discussion. This because present-day opinions and comments on sexism seem to me to be much more embittered and divisive than opinions and comments (that get aired in public, anyway) on, say, racial discrimination. A separate and not too small space to thrash it out in is going to be neccessary for those editors who will converge on the article to passionately argue that women are already favored and advantaged and have it all (because that is the underlying agenda of the term "reverse sexism"), and for those who will with equal passion contradict them. Bishonen 09:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You asked what's wrong with explaining that the term is illogical. I answered.  It's wrong because it's POV. The ambiguitity is whether the person is searching for an article on sexism or reverse discrimination. anthony (see warning) 02:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I apologize for starting an argument with Anthony on VfD. VfD is not the Argument clinic, there's no profit in raking over the same ground again and again, in fact I'll shut up on this thread now, unless it be to change my vote. Anthony, if you don't know that your ball's past the baseline, please take it to my Talk page and I'll explain what "ambiguity" means. Bishonen 09:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Is this just supposed to be rude or am I misinterpreting something? What is VFD for if not for discussing what to do with the article in question? anthony (see warning) 11:06, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, I strongly object to your re-reverting the article to stub format, after I explicitly stated above that it had been put there "for people to take a look at". I can't believe you're trying to make it harder for them to do that. Whatever you think of my version, do you really think people should be prevented from seeing it? As I just said, if the outcome of the debate is to delete or redirect it, I'll be fine with that. Now I'm about to re-revert it. Please leave it there. Bishonen 18:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Anthony, for Wikipedia, and wikis generally, your idea that a new article ought to spend some time on a temp page (or spend it on the Talk page, as you say on the Talk page) is pretty unique, and I don't understand where it comes from. My draft had no special status that was different from other Wikipedia articles: they're all for people to look at. There was just a bit more of a hurry about it this time, since the discussion was about to roll off VfD. A couple of other points: firstly, you didn't mention that you were about to revert, when you posted a comment on my version above, one minute earlier. Was your intention to do so a secret? Or did the idea just come to you, sometime between 03:25 and 03:26? Secondly, reverting to your substub also meant removing the VfD template! You're not supposed to do that before the voting is over. People who happened to read the stub would no longer know the article was on VfD, which was yet another hindrance to my efforts to get people to actually read it and vote before it rolled off VfD. It's not that I have any great stake in this article — it's not a fascinating subject to me, far from it — it's just that, whatever you think of the text, I had spent some time writing it, and in the end I think very few of the people it was intended for read it. That was somewhat my own fault, for putting it up rather late, but it was your actions that clinched it. :-( Bishonen 15:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * (No,that was not supposed to be rude, and I have told Anthony I'm sorry it sounded like it.) Several voters have suggested that Reverse sexism be redirected to Reverse discrimination, and User:AndyL did thus redirect it a few hours ago. I've experimentally reverted this redirect and put in my own draft for a new version, which people can now take a look at if they like. Sorry for the way it looks, I'll wikify it some later, unless it's redirected again. I won't burst into tears or anything if the decision is to delete or redirect, but, for now, I'm changing my previous neutral vote to Keep. Bishonen 15:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * This new version is POV and original research. anthony (see warning) 03:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The new version is scholarly and analytical. Geogre 12:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It's analytical, similar to much original research, but without having any references I don't see how you could possibly call it scholarly. Scholars don't make things up, they back up their claims with primary sources. anthony (see warning) 23:55, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Anthony, wasn't there something about your not doing that any more in the agreement? Why on earth would you do something like that?  Geogre 19:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I've agreed not to revert a page more than once a day. I didn't revert more than once in a day.  Putting something up for people to see should be done on a temp page, not an article page.  The article is unacceptable with that POV original research in it. I've already discussed right here that I think the page should be a disambig page.  I saw no reason to discuss it again on the talk page. anthony (see warning) 23:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I vote to redirect it to Reverse Discrimination and include any relevent content specific to sexism there. --Nabber00 18:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * What was wrong with the original version, it didn't put any assumptions in place, nor did it try to guess what other people in the world believed about the history of gender politics. In its revised state the new author seems to believe that women have historically been the sole victims of sexual discrimination. That men and boys being taken out of their homes and sent down to the mines, or conscripted into the armies, or giveing up their places in life rafts, or putting up with assults and not complaining, or having access to their children denied, or having no say in whether a woman aborts their child is not cultural sexism. Could we revert back to the original neutral version please. :-)


 * Largely the problems with your version are the same as the problems with the current version. It's POV, it's original research, and it's a dictionary definition. anthony (see warning) 12:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The unsigned comment above is by the original author, and my reply is addressed to him (?). I don't think it's possible to write in a neutral way about a controversial subject that people have very different opinions about. The best we can do is try for NPOV by presenting the subject from several different POV's, and by writing them all up as fairly as possible. Everybody makes assumptions when they use terms like sexism or reverse sexism. You certainly do make assumptions in your version. What I was trying to do in my version was uncover the assumptions behind several different ways of using the word, in fact trying to write from three different sets of assumptions — I numbered them — and especially to put the assumptions themselves right there on the page. That is one of the things you don't like about my version, of course. But I think it's more helpful than to claim that there can be a neutral use of "reverse sexism", without any assumptions. If anybody still looks in on this discussion, I hope they'll go look at the text for themselves, and also use the History tab to get a sense of how it's been edited, and help by editing further. I'm very grateful to the anonymous original author for editing my version, even though he (?) didn't like it, rather than simply reverting to the original. (I think the paragraph about "group 2" became self-contradictory as a result, though, and I'll try to make it clear what I mean on the Talk page). Bishonen 13:13, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Origninal Author: Bishonen could you please tell me what assumptions I made in the original document? I note that you assume I am male, and that both extreem points of view believe in a historic imbalance in favor of men (1 and 2) and that the third point of view is somewhere in between. :-) I'm not looking for a fight but am genuinely interrested in what you, or anyone else believes are my assumptions or 'bees in bonnet'.  I come from a history of hard science and make a living off my ability to 'cut through the crap' and find the core of the problem. In a purely technical sence, sexism does not imply that the sexist believes that one sex is superior than the other, but that they sould be treated differently based on assumed characteristics.  I'll give an example; I worked as a Banquets Supervisor while putting myself through Uni. I would always assign tasks to staff based on their qualities and copped a lot of flak for it, usually by other women.  We had one girl on staff who was stronger than a lot of the boys and who was very physically competent, so I assigned her to move some of the room dividers along with two boys.  She thanked me and said that she never gets to do this and is usually stuck in the kitchen cutting butters with the girls.  My boss (female) took her off this duty and put her onto butters. I got a verbal warning for putting an equally paid female on moving walls.  Here my boss is treating staff differently based on assumed differences, which sex do you think she believes is superior?  The one she has no confidence in (female) or the one she demands do harder work for the same pay (male).  The same example is war.  Who is seen as superior, the one allowed to defend their country, or the one protected from getting their limbs blown off?  It is a very emotive and passionate issue for some people, I tried in my first draft, to make it as unencombered as possible, and wish you had chosen to edit that rather than completely replace it. While I'm being technical, it's also incorrect usage of the term to say someone is discriminated against, you can only discriminate between. The whole 'against' thing is an attempt to portray somone as a victim. Every thing to do with discrimination is a double edged sword. Although I do take on board that it is a Dictionary definition, could the original be moved into reverse discrimination?
 * The article was, in your version, redundant with Reverse discrimination, and should have been turned into a redirect. Bishonen tried to saved it from that fate by 1) making it more coherent, 2) formatting it, and 3) wikifying it. Unfortunately his definition is completely different than yours.
 * And while we're at it, both your definitions are different than a survey of meanings used on the Web (do google search for "reverse sexism"). Nearly all sources on the use of the word "reverse sexism" specifically define it as favoritism towards women.
 * Your own personal definitions of words is not encyclopedic. Meanwhile, Bishonen's version is full of presumption and conjecture. I still vote to redirect to Reverse discrimination. - KeithTyler 18:09, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Anon, I hope I'll find the time later to answer your reasonable question at the beginning of your message (am very busy, though), but just one thing: I made no assumptions about your gender. Do you see the question mark in parenthesis there, when I say "him" or "he", above? It means I don't assume. Do you have some idea that I'm the same person as Deb, who does call  you "he", since you also write to me about "bees in your bonnet" — Deb's  phrase, not mine ? Please don't fire reproaches at random, but thank you for your input, it's very interesting. Bishonen 18:58, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm changing my vote to Redirect to either Reverse discrimination or Sexism. Now that I understand how much heat the general subject generates, I think it would be as well to not Balkanize it by multiplying articles. Bishonen 19:46, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality of section "Examples of reverse sexism"
The section fails to identify that most of these claims come from Men's right movement opinions (I added this attribution to the most egregious case of the case of a rape myth "she asked for it") and misses criticism of these claims. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but WP:ALLEGED is pretty clear on language like "they claim" that's intended to express doubt with the tone of the sentence. Wikipedia is neutral and should be written in a neutral tone. That tone makes it seem as if Wikipedia is taking an editorial side. If there's an attribution issue, the author can be mentioned. - Scarpy (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "they claim" because indeed they claim. If you omit "they claim", the text becomes even worse: it will seem that their claim is universal truth. Like, "women, rather than men, are the cause of sexual harassment" - oh, really?  Staszek Lem (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Made a compromise edit. - Scarpy (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

First, why is this article overwhelmed by alleged examples of the phenomenon it describes? The article consisted of 1,098 bytes of "readable prose" before the section was added; afterwards, it consisted of 5,193 bytes.

Second, the section title should include the word "alleged". None of these has been proven to be an example of reverse sexism, which may or may not exist. (Is it a fact that "men are discriminated against in custody battles in the United States"?) Compare the certainty of this article with the more even-handed approach at reverse racism, which it cites as a parallel in its second sentence.

Finally, after they're pruned back significantly, every one of these alleged examples should be worded neutrally, which requires a healthy dose of editorial skepticism. See WP:V and the parenthetical in the preceding paragraph. The election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency may or may not be an example of white supremacy, but his election to the presidency is widely regarded as a fact. The same cannot be said of the "examples" cited here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * FWIW per WP:BRD I've removed the content pending consensus emerging to restore. But I think the article as a whole is a more relevant topic for discussion (see below). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect?
Where should this be merged/redirected? It's effectively about a term or the ideological motivation behind the term rather than the concept, which is just sexism (as our article on that subject defines it, it includes men and women, albeit in different ways/extents). We also already have a subject on reverse discrimination, which doesn't cover this well and, to the extent it's encyclopedic, it could probably be covered there. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I support redirecting and merging to reverse discrimination, but would be fine with sexism as a target too. This article is very poorly written & sourced as it stands, it either needs to be vastly improved or redirected. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Having worked on it a bit: it's even worse than I thought. Half the sources cited didn't even mention "reverse sexism" at all, others are misrepresented or mention the topic only in passing. I cleaned it up a bit but what we are left with is still barely serviceable as a stub. If it's to be kept someone needs to find better sources and put some work into expanding it (and by "someone" I mean someone who knows what they're doing, not someone who is going to google "reverse sexism" and jam in every passing mention that they can find, misrepresenting and badly garbling the message of the sources along the way). For the record though I still think this would be best left as a redirect to a subsection of either reverse discrimination or sexism. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand the idea that reverse sexism and reverse discrimination might stand better as one article were are intertwined but I also feel that having such an article would be extremely long because the two put together create a very broad, expansive category of thought. CaitlinMarie59 (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarity on sources
Notice of intention to understand MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)'s perspective on clarification of study content within Wikipedia. Notably that the use of the term reverse sexism does appear in the reverted study, but is not the focus. Thus confused about the nature of the reversion, which removes the information as to context, but not the information itself. Mrspaceowl (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
I want to explain some of my recent edits. (The proceeding statement unsigned comment was made by user MShabazz, but from context this would not be immediately clear).


 * Rewriting convoluted sentences

I can't think of any reason why we would say
 * Reverse sexism was described by readers of mainstream news websites, reacting to campaigns for the removal of men's magazines such as Loaded, Nuts and Zoo, as causing masculinity to be ‘under threat’, ‘attacked’, ‘victimised’ or ‘demonised’ by successful corporate feminists and their perceived agendas.

when we could use plain English and say
 * Readers of mainstream news websites reacted to campaigns for the removal of men's magazines such as Loaded, Nuts and Zoo, by describing reverse sexism as causing masculinity to be "under threat", "attacked", "victimized" or "demonized" by feminists and their perceived agendas.— MShabazz Talk/Stalk 22:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * problem here is this necessitates that the responses were directly regarding the subject at hand and not an outpouring of related speech *prompted* by the subject, which the study specifically notes it often was. While I have no problem personally with sentences containing multiple subclauses I have no objection to removing some as long as the sense of the original is retained, which the proposed edit does not. Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Readers' comments aren't a reliable source. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The study makes very clear the context these appear within and they are part of a highly credible and scolarly study from University of London, which is the cited source. We are not talking about a handful of individual comments here, but a wide-ranging study using readers' comments on various mainstream news sites as a bellweather of opinion on the topic. If you do not consider qualitative data over a wide-range of persons considered and assessed by top-flight academics unless this data is collected itself from people you believe to be credible you would have to remove a vast swathe of Wikipedia's most important study citations. Many thousands at least, and across a number of Wikipedia's best articles. A position that is not tenable. Furthermore, you would, in a sense, be invalidating one of the most central methodologies by which sociologists assess society within academic tradition and practice. Mrspaceowl (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The confusion resulted from a piss-poor sentence. Did the readers discuss "reverse sexism" at all? Or the authors of the study? Or is that a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of what the source says? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Please consider the nature of your language and what reaction it is likely to cause before making statements of this kind. Particularly is it likely to foster an atmosphere of mutual understanding or to forment dischord? To the subject at hand: have you read the study in full? It most certainly does discuss the topic of reverse sexism. That much is beyond doubt. Mrspaceowl (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did read the source. It mentions the subject of "reverse sexism" but never suggests that it was mentioned in readers' comments. That makes it impermissible original research to say, as you did, that readers' comments described reverse sexism in one way or another. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Removing original research

If a source says A, B, and C, you can add a sentence that the source says A, B, and C. It's original research to gripe that the author of the source clearly knows nothing because he attended the wrong college, or because she practices the wrong religion, or because the article was published by wrong publisher. If any of those things are relevant and meaningful, cite a reliable source that makes that argument. Otherwise, keep it to yourself. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 22:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The point at issue is not that the study text makes this statement, but that it is stated in the introduction and is not procedurally tested for. The statement is still valid and no aspersions were cast on the validity of the study which in any case to my mind seemed procedurally sound within the context of its assumptions. Nor indeed were any statements made that could even imply a 'wrong' college, publisher or religion or anything similar so it is strange you should critise the edit on this basis as it seems almost wholy unrelated.
 * The context, that the statement was an expression made at the start of the study, is important to note, as is understanding that no attempt was made to methodically verify the claim within the study. There is nothing wrong with that: it didn't fall within the study's scope to do so. Stating that the study does not seek to interrogate the claim *because* it was not within its scope to do so is not a gripe, but rather a critical method of avoiding what appears to have become a common point of misunderstanding.


 * Put simply, the text under interogation is merely telling the reader what the study is and in what context it made the statement.


 * On the basis of your feedback, however, I believe it can be in the interests of Wikipedia's values to reword the statement so a similar misunderstanding is not reached by a lay person who does not have a complete understanding of the research process. Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Too bad. It's not your role to caveat what reliable sources say by describing what you think are their shortcomings. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As I said the description was not of shortcomings. No suggestion was made whatsoever as to any negative opinions on the study, but only as regard to the statement's context within the study. Your reply is in no way an accurate summation of the original change. The basis for reversion is founded on a false representation. Mrspaceowl (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is. It's your way of saying that reverse sexism wasn't the subject of the study, so it doesn't need to be taken as seriously as other sources. Why does it matter if we quote the introduction, the first paragraph, the tenth paragraph, or the summary at the end? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Because the preamble to an academic study is where the conductors of the study make statements of methodology and assumption. All academic studies make some assumptions as to the conditions in which the study takes place, that much is unavoidable. However, the purpose of this section is not to *prove* such claims, but rather state that they were necessary assumptions in order to give context and structure to the proceeding research. The issue in stating an assumption made at the beginning of study as if it were a finding is that a casual reading is likely to assume that the evidential basis for the claim roots from the study itself, when in this case it does not. Mrspaceowl (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Tagging original research

In general, tall people are more successful than short people. They make more money, and they live longer lives. I can cite study after study that demonstrates the disparity. That doesn't mean I can cite those studies as evidence of a conspiracy against short people unless the sources discuss the possibility of such a conspiracy.

Likewise, female models may work more often and get paid more than male models. That doesn't make it an example of reverse sexism unless the source says it is.— MShabazz Talk/Stalk 22:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I checked the unsourced claims made, then found evidence that substantiated the claims. Where claims were substantially or marginally at odds with the credible sources found I changed the material to correspond with the credible sources. In your objection to the improvement you now appear to be suggesting that to qualify for inclusion a source must directly state causation and not only prove correlation. This does not seem a strong enough argument for *removal*, particularly as the statement made did not overtly state this correlation. I appreciate you have made no such request, but I am stating this for the record. However, it is felt that were a particular text to draw a causation from this rather striking differential, that it would improve the article still further to include it. I noticed a few additional texts while I was researching which made additional claims around male vs female modelling which could potentially be added to the wiki as well. I will look to add sources for these to improve the quality of the article, as well as anything I can find that directly states a causal link. I note that requiring every page of Wikipedia to include only reference material that specifically uses the article name would be unworkable so I will assume this is not what you are saying. Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The argument for removal is that these are examples thought up by some Wikipedia, not examples cited by reliable sources. Please read WP;No original research. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * These examples were backed up by credible sources and were not original research, as they simply restated the findings of the credible sources, and did not in any way engage in research of their own. There is nothing within WP;No original research which would in any way back up your removal of the section of this Wikipedia article that you removed. Mrspaceowl (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * If the sources didn't identify them as instances or examples of reverse sexism, it's original research for you to write that they are. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Mrspaceowl, you need to stop WP:Edit warring. Objections to your edits have been made; so you should take the time to discuss. If some other form of WP:Dispute resolution is needed, go with that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * My concern here is with misrepresentation and antagonistic language used by MShabazz which as you rightly point out are probably more appropriate for dispute resolution at this juncture. Of additional concern, however, is why this comment is addressed to Mrspaceowl and not to MShabazz. I also worry that content which facilitates misreprentation of credibly sourced material is left in place during any dispute resolution process, and that significant amounts of credibly sourced content has been made unavailable to Wikipedia users. Furthermore, while I am certain made with the best of intentions, I am concerned that the statement "you need to stop" aimed at a single new Wikipedian such as myself, might to a younger or less mature person be taken as a personal slight and hence cause unnecessary conflict or could be seen to imply a one-sided wrong-doing which could thus be seen as prejudicial to any dispute resolution process. However, these caveats being noted I will take your advice and take this dispute to resolution in good faith and with the hopes of a timely and appropriate resolution. Mrspaceowl (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The only misrepresentation is on your part, Mrspaceowl. It's impermissible original research to add your own "examples" of reverse sexism, just as it would be to add your own analysis of science experiments or history. If you can't cite reliable sources that describe the phenomena as reverse sexism, we can't include them in the encyclopedia article as examples of reverse sexism. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You have been consistantly rude, have not engaged in real debate but only removed content and again appear to be misrepresenting someone else's edits I improved as if they were my own. You are also guilty of a staggering literalism and reductivism regarding use of terms. This after I spent very considerable time explaining to you the rationale for edits. Tbh it seems like you're not interested in the truth but only in being the one that 'won'. I just don't care enough about this one article to continue being treated in this way. Good bye. Mrspaceowl (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Time to make the call
Just saying that this article is a subject to edit wars. Whatever you decide to do about it is your call. 83.9.230.135 (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Simplicity
Sexism is a gender neutral term and the core sexism article should concern sexism against women as well as sexism against men. Reverse sexism article should be part of the core sexism article. Wikipedia team, what are the page views on sexism versus reverse sexism?

NPOV includes keeping both sides on equal footing and not putting one side in a much less likely to be read place. Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:E95D:1C95:D6CE:E032 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Reference #18 Removal as Unreliable or Self Published Source
Vote that reference #18 be removed or or link to the original essay as it is based on a Melissa A. Fabello essay "Why Reverse Oppression Simply Cannot Exist" as stated in the Prerna Singh post.

18. Singh, Prerna (1 October 2018). "This Notion Called Reverse Sexism Cannot And Does Not Exist". Feminism In India.[self-published source?] Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:DD4E:F33E:E91C:91B4 (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Seriously
I think making this a distinct article, specially with the current name makes it seem like only men are capable of doing sexist things and that reverse sexism isn't just sexism. — anonymous editor without signature


 * absolutely, the term reverse sexism is sexist in itself. --Sevku (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are scientific consensus that sexism towards men and boys is reverse. So, I didn't see the term in the dissertation of Pasi Malmi. Some sorces call it reverse, other sorces silent. But it's only an illusion of the scientific consensus.--Reprarina (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Article title is a bit of a problem...
I- LITERALLY

DO WE NOT SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE TITLE?

Seriously this should just redirect to sexism...

If it's just about the term itself, the examples section should not exist. --TRC 05:20, 26 September 2021 (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: Aalverso.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:06, 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): Aleslie plu, CaitlinMarie59.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Opinions should be described as such even when made by academics
Both references 16 and 17 are opinion pieces without any statical data to back the opinions made. WP:RS guidelines that they be opinions and not statements. Hence “stated” -> “opinion” for clearing up ambiguity of what the person stated.

From WP:RS If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:8F1:499:B3B2:51C3 (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah you changed Steve Bearman, Neill Korobov and Avril Thorne stated to Steve Bearman, Neill Korobov and Avril Thorne voiced opnions. That was already attributed . You just changed neutrally toned language to tendentious. Generalrelative (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no such thing as reverse sexism, it is just sexism
I think anybody who doesnt agree with me on that has alterior motives to spin a narrative where sexism is a women only problem. This article should redirect, period. 83.253.78.110 (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The article clearly reviews the problem from a decidedly western perspective, and in that context I think it makes sense to call it "reverse sexism", because that is the term that that is functioning in western societies, for example in USA.
 * The western perspective itself is biased, but that is somewhat understandable given that vast majority of the literature on the subject treats it from the perspective of western liberalism. 185.252.183.159 (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)