Talk:Reverse sexism/Archive 2

Requested move 17 May 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. I read this, and reread this, and reread this, and I don't think anyone in this discussion has a real idea of why this move was proposed or what it would mean. The problem largely can be traced all the way back to the nearly incoherent nomination. "The team raises big questions among both masculists and feminists" - but why? IDK. "Nathonsong and Young criticize it" - but why? IDK. Pincus distinguishes "reverse discrimination against men" and "intentional discrimination against men", but what does that have to do with "reverse sexism" vs "discrimination against men" (which is the actual thing we're supposed to be discussing)?

The second paragraph is even less understandable. I read the entire discussion three times and I can only parse out a common name argument in favor of the move and an argument that "discrimination against men" would violate NPOV. I implore the next person who proposes this move to explain clearly and cleanly why the current title is unacceptable and why the proposed one is better, using actual arguments instead of simply saying that certain people have criticized it. I also would recommend a discussion about a merge with misandry, as was proposed multiple times in the discussion. Red  Slash  20:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverse sexism → Discrimination against men – I suggest renaming this article to Discrimination against men. The reasons are:

The controversy of the term "reverse sexism". The term "reverse sexism" raises big questions among both masculists and feminists. Nathansong and Young criticize it in their book Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man. A highly respected profeminist sociologist Fred Pincus in Reverse Discrimination: Dismantling the Myth is clearly distinguishing reverse discrimination against men (only some illegal pseudo-affirmative acts) and intentional discrimination against men (pp. 121-140).

Volumetric scientific works about sexism against men called Discrimination against men, for example, the dissertation of Pasi Malmi who doesn't use plaintly the term reverse sexism. In Russian language there is a Belarusian book "Дискриминация мужчин как проблемный вопрос общественных отношений". There are no current reliable sources which analise discrimination against men in details using the term reverse sexism. Aman Siddiqui doesn't use the term reverse sexism. Wikipedia should follow scientific literature. The term is obviously out of date.

So, I think that the arcticle needs to be renamed to Discrimination against men.--Reprarina (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The use of the term reverse sexism, like the article on reverse racism, seems designed to delegitimise the concept. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources have delegitimise[d] the concept. Our article should reflect this. That's basic NPOV; WP doesn't give equal validity to every concept out there. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course reliable scources have delegitimise[d] the concept of reverse sexism and the idea that affirmative actions is reverse sexism or reverse discrimination. They haven't deligitimised the idea that such things as male-only military conscription or Russian laws is not the direct discrimination against men. Usually they use the term (direct) discrimination against men, not the term (neither direct nor reverse) sexism against men.Reprarina (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To repeat, the subject of this article is specifically the concept of "reverse sexism". Anyone is free to create a separate article for (direct) discrimination against men. "Direct" and "reverse" are not antonyms. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I don't usually care about these kinds of articles, but saying it's "reverse sexism" when it's against men seems incredibly sexist to me. Super   Ψ   Dro  13:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Users' personal feelings don't matter. Non-neutral titles that reflect common usage are perfectly fine. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The term "reverse sexism" has a very controversial academic value, in the discussions of feminists and masculists, it is initially used as a strawman. Renaming the same article to "Discrimination against men" will better correspond to the WP:NPV.--1677venzel gottorpskij (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC) — 1677venzel gottorpskij (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "Reverse sexism" has more than 940 hits on Google Scholar, including in the American Journal of Bioethics, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Media Psychology, and other respected publications. How feminists and masculists use the term is beside the point. The article can describe any relevant controversies without engaging in false balance. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes but it's not the mainstream term for discrimination against men.Reprarina (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, "discrimination against men" is not the subject of the article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's still just "sexism", there is nothing "reverse" about it. However, it is a moot point as this article should likely be merged into misandry as a WP:OVERLAP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "reverse" about it ... Source? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fred Pilcus. He sais that some cases of individual illegal discrimination against men are not the reverse discrimination but intentional one.Reprarina (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge into misandry as WP:OVERLAP, I have ceased to believe this article should be kept around. Misandry is the only sensible name for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Such an article title would suggest in wikivoice that discrimination against men is a significant issue in society, which is not what RS say. We follow mainstream sources. It's odd that there are two move/merge discussions going on at once, neither of which is justified. If we really want to move or merge, why not start a third discussion about merging into Politics of resentment? There's a real movement of Incel and other male grievance advocates who claim that males being subordinated to females is a real problem in the world. NightHeron (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is already an article named Misandry. And there is no problem with existence of the arcticle named this way, is it? Discrimination against men is not obviously reverse according to RS e.g. Reverse Discrimination: Dismantling the Myth written by absolutely non-masculinist scholar Fred Pincus. I advise you to read pp. 121-140. The articles about such things as conscription or about some Russians laws in books don't use the term reverse sexism. We can write a correct preamble. Also, the word reverse and today's preamble cause associations that women is the discriminator of men. It is also not what RS say. Reprarina (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, if we tell about such things as a Russian law in books according to which the female criminal as Irina Gaidamachuk who killed 17 people was sentenced to 20 years in prison... I don't think that article named Reverse sexism is suitable for this. The article should represent a worldwide view of the subject. Reprarina (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Laws are made by politicians, not scholars or researchers. Totally WP:UNDUE. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Russian scholars analize these laws and say that it is discrimination against men. And they don't use the term reverse sexism analizing them. Because it's not reverse (it's not from women towards men).Reprarina (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In the case of whites alleging race discrimination and men allegin sex discrimination, it is important to differentiate between affirmative action-realated cases and those that have nothing to do with affirmative action-related cases and those that have nothing to do with affirmative action. In the affirmative action cases, there are a few instances in which whites are hurt by illegal interpretations of what is required; I have reffered to these cases as 'reverse discrimination'.... There are also a series of cases where whites or males say that they have been discriminated against but affirmative action is not involved. When the courts have upheld their allegations, I have called this 'intentional discrimination'. (c) Reverse Discrimination: Dismantling the Myth pp. 137. Reprarina (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Men sex discrimination ... males that they have been discriminated against ... Note the bolded words. Pincus is not contrasting  with  at all; he is making a case that discrimination against men, which has been labeled "reverse discrimination" by conservatives, is a myth. In the concluding chapter he answers with a "resounding 'no the question "Is reverse discrimination one of the serious problems that white men face?". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You can read in archive org the full of book. Pinkus sais about cases which was recognized by the court as discrimination, and he sais that some of them (which is not about affirmative actions) are not the cases of reverse but intentional discrimination.Reprarina (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See comments below. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC) edited 15:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How, exactly, does not denying that men are ever discriminated against in the slightest degree consitute "false balance"?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's false balance because there is no discrimination against men, as your own source (Pincus) shows; see above quote. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not only systemic but also individual discrimination against men is encyclopedically significant if RS talk about it. Anyway, Fred Pinkus sais that not all cases of discrimination against men is reverse discrimination. What do you think about it? Reprarina (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, I think you misunderstand the source. On pp. 86-87, Pincus contrasts reduced opportunites, reverse discrimination, and intentional discrimination. These are different concepts, not different names for the same thing. If individual or intentional discrimination against men is encyclopedically relevant, feel free to create a separate article about it. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. NightHeron has stated it perfectly clearly. There is already a strong consensus among editors that parity in this context would constitute WP:FALSEBALANCE. See for example this RfC. I would support merging into Politics of resentment, but certainly not Sexism, which primarily affects women and girls. Generalrelative (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: I like the suggestion of merging this article into Misandry. These do indeed seem to be the same topic, and misandry is the more natural / precise / concise term (see WP:CRITERIA). Generalrelative (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The topic's common name is reverse sexism. -- Jayron 32 17:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really. Reprarina (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll be damned. You're right.  I stand corrected.  I think that the two terms are close enough in frequency of use that, per WP:UCN, other considerations may apply, and some of NightHeron and Generalrelative's concerns are valid.  However, I'm changing my vote from oppose to officially Neutral, as I need to weigh the difference in usage frequency against those other considerations.  I think that part of the problem is that we haven't really defined what the scope of this article is, it's relationship to other articles of similar concepts like misandry, and incel and the like.  There's probably room for differentiating them in a way that doesn't violate WP:POVFORK, but I'm not sure where that lies.  I may end up changing my vote away from neutral one way or the other later.  But this needs some thinking.  -- Jayron 32 18:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. "Reverse Sexism" is a loaded political term intended to delegitimise sexism affecting men. However, I would prefer to merge the article into sexism and create a separate discrimination against men article. I oppose the move to make it part of an incel page. There is no academic support for this, and incels are not part of the spesific men's movement concerned with sexism against men to my knowledge. I also question the logic of saying that "because sexism against men is not the majority, it should be ignored". As I said on the Sexism merger page, this is like saying that female suicide victims should be ignored because they are not the majority. I find it very questionable logic. If there are few examples of Sexism against men, the section on this will limit itself through lack of examples. if it is not, then the academics are wrong about this and should be disregarded. WP:Undue rules should be quite happy with this. I don't feel like Sexism should be a competition. I have a list of citations for sexism against men, and I'm happy to add them. Male Expendibility is one form it takes, and that is already accepted by Wikipedia as a valid and cited phenomena. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC) — TiggyTheTerrible (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wikipedia has many articles on loaded political terms. Far from being used to delegitimise sexism against men, the term "reverse sexism" was invented to create a false equivalence with sexism against women. See : "A key feature of sexism, as with oppression against any group, is that there is an institutionalized power differential between the oppressor group (men in the case of sexism) and the oppressed group (in sexism, women) ... Though oversimplified, this formula corrects the often mistaken belief that prejudice by itself is oppressive, giving rise to misinformed notions such as 'reverse racism' and 'reverse sexism. In any case, sexism against men is a separate topic; there's no reason to rename article because the concept of, say, male expendability exists. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support merge per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. Otherwise, support move as ngrams suggests it is the WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This assumes that all of the terms are referring to the same thing, which is very much not established. We can move all sorts of things if we just assume they're being used for the same subject. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 12:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Titles are not required to be "neutral", and I'm not seeing any evidence that "reverse sexism" and "discrimination against men" refer to the same thing. I suspect the situation is similar to Reverse racism/Anti-white discrimination. If there are sufficient sources for an article on discrimination against men, then anyone is free to create such an article. The relative frequency of the terms proves nothing without knowing the context in which they are used. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect the situation is similar to Reverse racism/Anti-white discrimination. No. Because RS about anti-white discrimination doesn't exist but there are dissertations and books of scholars about discrimination against men. We don't need vulgarise the intersectionality. The difference is obvious. Moreover, one should not be Euro-chauvinist and racist. Because there are RS in Russian language about discrimination against men in Russians laws in books, there are RS of Black scholars about such thing as anti-Black misandry. For a reason unknown to me the English Wikipedia doesn't refer to them. --Reprarina (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Reprarina If you could send me some of those sources in English I would be quite interested in reading about them if they are reliable. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether anything here is Euro-chauvinist and racist is beside the point. WP is for summarizing reliable sources, not what users think is obvious, which is just another name for WP:OR. The fact that a few sources of unknown reliability (including Malmi's dissertation and Discrimination against men as a problematic issue of public relations in Russian) use the term "discrimination against men" proves nothing. It's simple cherry-picking. Who is Aman Siddiqui and why should we care? Where exactly are the RS of Black scholars about ... anti-Black misandry? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether the term raises big questions among both masculists and feminists has no bearing on this article. We go by published sources that are reliable for this specific topic. The book Sanctifying Misandry only mentions "reverse sexism" once, in a parenthetical aside about how feminists (supposedly) rarely acknowledge sexism on the part of women. The source is not about discrimination or reverse sexism, but rather is a critique of the modern goddess movement (co-authored by religious scholar Katherine K. Young, who to my knowledge is not a recognized expert on this topic).Pincus's distinguishing between reverse discrimination against men and intentional discrimination against men is largely irrelevant. His book is about the of reverse discrimination as it relates to affirmative action, and in his conclusion he makes clear that "Whites and males ... have little experience with discrimination, relative to the experiences of people of color and women."  His statement on page 139, "Is reverse discrimination one of the serious problems that white men face? The answer is a resounding "no. is congruent with the academic sources on "reverse sexism" that we cite. Nothing in this source justifies renaming the article IMO. The nominator's proposal relies on cherry-picked sources that do not even support their argument. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's relevant. Because many people think that all cases of discrimination against men is the cases of reverse discrimination. And the first sentence of the article is supporting it now.Reprarina (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What many people think has no bearing on how we write articles per WP:V. Once again, "reverse discrimination", like "reverse racism" is simply an epithet that conservatives use to attack affirmative action. Please go read the sources. If you want to create an article about discrimination against men, go right ahead. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Then the first sentence of the article should say about it. Because reverse sexism is not a term for sexism towards men. It's not the term for male only conscription, it's not the term for individual intentional discrimination against men, it's not the term for banning men from leaving Ukraine or for Articles 57 and 59 of Criminal Code of Russia. Reprarina (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. None of those topics are relevant to the title of this article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've notified, , and of this discussion. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:FALSEBALANCE. SangdXurWan (talk). I have really red hair. 05:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Reverse sexism' is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Because the mainstream position in gender studies is reverse sexism doesn't exist, the mainstream position in juridical literature is calling this issue discrimination against men. The sexism against men exists and it's reverse is not the maistream position in modern scientific literature. Am I wrong? Reprarina (talk) 07:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Reprarina @SangdXurWan Gender studies is described in the literature as the academic arm of an activist movement concerned with women's issues. They are not equipped to evaluate sexism against men, and nor do they. The field concerned with this is called Men's Studies, and they contend that sexism against men is prevalent and generally unacknowledged. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sangdeboeuf I'm quoting the book "Professing Feminism." regarding the position of gender studies on activism. gender studies has never addressed men's issues, except to dismiss them, so I would really be the one asking for a citation showing that the subject as a whole has ever tried to address any of them in any form. Also, I'm not sure why reverse sexism would be spesificlly part of anti-Feminism as I've only heard it used by Feminists. It seems like a term aimed at anti-Feminism more than anything. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Professing Feminism is described by its own publisher as "controversial". Not a great source for determining due weight IMO. What's your source for Men's Studies ... contend that sexism against men is prevalent and generally unacknowledged, and what does this have to do with the topic of reverse sexism ? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @@Sangdeboeuf Professing Feminism is written by a group of gender studies professors & quotes the phrase as common knowledge because it's all throughout the literature. if you Google it you get dozens of articles saying that gender studies is the academic arm of activist feminism. [For example https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-007-9227-z].
 * Second: I think it is the people here who oppose who need to prove that reverse sexism is different to normal sexism. As the current Sexism against men article apparently redirects here, I think it's obvious what Wikipedia is saying. Which is plainly biased. Why would one gender get to monopolise the sexism page if there wasn't some form of sexism going on? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Noretta Koertge is a philosopher of science, not a gender-studies professor. Daphne Patai seems to have left women's studies behind when she began to critique feminism. Your link doesn't support you claims either; it's a study of activism among enrolled in gender studies programs. All of which is irrelevant; this is not the place to debate whether gender studies is a legitimate academic field, and accusations of sexism among WP users are uncalled-for. There's currently no page titled Sexism against men, but if you want to create a separate article there or at Discrimination against men, go right ahead. Common knowledge is often wrong, and I've already quoted several reliable sources that establish "reverse sexism" as a form of backlash against feminism. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * According to a heavily cited 2010 paper in Sex Roles that commented on the Stake 2007 study, the latter "show[ed] the importance of developing an awareness of social and political problems as a spur to greater involvement". In other words, people who learn about sexism in school are more likely to join a movement opposing sexism. Big shocker! Nothing to do with whether gender studies as a whole produces reliable scholarship. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The mainstream position in juridical literature is calling this issue discrimination against men – please cite a source for this. I believe you are conflating two different topics, i.e. sex discrimination against men (real or imagined), and the concept of "reverse sexism" that is part of a backlash against feminism (see e.g. ). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Discrimination against men is now a redirect to Reverse sexism. Reverse sexism in this arcticle defined as is a (correct?) term for sexism directed towards men and boys. And there are nothing in this article that reverse sexism is a controversial term from the antifeminist conception. Reprarina (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you say it is a correct term? Look at the sources (my bolding): "Some even go on to rebut claims of 'reverse sexism,' mirroring responses to current complaints against race preferential affirmative action policies as 'reverse racism ; "There has also been some, with members of majority categories sometimes asserting a reverse sexism (toward men), reverse racism (toward Whites), and/or reverse ethnocentrism (toward, say, Anglos)" . Calling "reverse sexism" an or  certainly doesn't suggest it is a correct term. Both of these sources compare "reverse sexism" with "reverse racism", and the term "backlash" implies controversy. Our article even states: The concept of reverse sexism has been characterized as a response to feminism. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that this is the correct term. On the contrary, I find it incorrect. And I think it's necessary to write about it in definition: Reverse sexism is a controversial[1][2][3] term for sexism towards men and boys. Reprarina (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Any controversy over the term is because the concept itself is a controversial, or as Pincus would say, a "myth". Dismantling the Myth is after all the subtitle of his book. That isn't a reason to rename the article any more than we would rename Bigfoot "Pacific Northwest Ape[1][2][3]". (I can type fake reference numbers too, see?) --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Pincus doesn't say that the existence of reverse discrimination is a myth completely. He says that only affirmative actions+illegal acts = reverse discrimination, and it's very rare. Also he sais that a part of discrimination against men (illegal cases of individual discrimination) is not reverse. He say that men and whites really can be victims of illegal individual discrimination. So, the first sentence of the article needs to be corrected. Reprarina (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you have it backwards. Pincus's entire book is about the concept of reverse discrimination; the rare cases of individual discrimination against men are discussed in the context of conservative attacks on affirmative action, under the rubric of . He concludes by saying that reverse discrimination is not in fact "one of the serious problems that white men face", that males "have little experience with discrimination" relative to women, and that male victims "have the same legal redress as minorities and women do". Where does he say that illegal cases of individual discrimination ... is not reverse, and what does not reverse even mean? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Intentional is not reverse.Reprarina (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is incoherent. I can drive a car . On pp. 86-87, Pincus contrasts reduced opportunites, reverse discrimination, and intentional discrimination, but he is making these distinctions solely for the sake of clarity in the book. They do not reflect what these terms mean in the real world, and have no bearing on the concept of reverse sexism. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "he is making these distinctions solely for the sake of clarity in the book" I don't think so.Reprarina (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine. Then it should be easy to provide RSes that say "intentional discrimination" is not "reverse discrimination". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Showiecz (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * oppose - to look at the current lead, the move seems sensible, but reverse sexism isn't the same as discrimination again men/boys. It's a reactionary term like reverse racism, connoting opposition to feminism rather than serious discourse about discrimination against men. It's a perspective, not a phenomenon. If anyone thinks we need an article on discrimination against men, they can create it. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: I agree with the first several supports that the current name, as well as some of the writing, seems hellbent on delegitimizing the concept because white Americans and men have systemic power, but that doesn't rule out individual sexism/racism. I'm going to start the move request on reverse racism to parallel this. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: While the "support" !votes look like they will remain in the majority, I would ask whoever closes the discussion to give greater weight to arguments based in policy and reliable sources than a simple head count. There are evidently two opposing "common-sense" views at play, and neither side seems likely to sway the other. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tagged a couple SPAs (although I would not blame Tiggy, who seems focused on men's issues, but has made several hundred edits to various articles on men's issues, if they want to remove the tag). It seems like the support arguments simply take for granted the lead of this article, which says without any support from reliable sourcing, that reverse sexism = discrimination against men. See the new section below. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - What kind of term is "reverse sexism"? Appalling. It's just sexism. Discrimination against men is a far better name. 201.47.54.10 (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC) — 201.47.54.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Going through some sources
I was a little suspicious of the assumption in this article that there were so many sources about "reverse sexism" that define it as "discrimination against men" (as opposed to a complaint about feminism, equality, etc.). Starting from the first reference, Neely's "Feminist modes of Shakespearean criticism" -- I've scanned the paper, and do not see any real discussion of "reverse sexism". Can the person who added that highlight exactly what (and what page) I should be looking for? (perhaps it was due to there being no "find" feature in the version I'm looking at). The next reliable source cited is The Independent which mentions it only as "the MRA claim that “reverse sexism” exists". In other words, it's a claim by men's rights advocates about the pervasive effects of feminism and moves towards equality, and not necessarily a phenomenon in the world (which the simple definition "discrimination against men" could be, of course, as it implies no scale).

...Yet these two sources are being held up as the basis for the scope of this article!

Moving on, we get to actually relevant content, like this stance assumes that the historic imbalance in favor of men in the contemporary era is no longer applicable -- it is a stance, not a phenomenon.

So the lead is a couple dubious lines characterizing it as "discrimination against men" before switching to describing it as a "stance" and a "response to feminism"... yet people are supporting a move to call this "discrimination against men".

The history section, then, basically duplicates elements of men's rights movement and men's liberation movement.

I'm increasingly of the mind that not only should this not be renamed, but it should be merged into Men's rights movement. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 12:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think that would be a bad outcome. In addition to being a "stance", reverse sexism is called a "misinformed notion" by If this article ends up being renamed "Discrimination against men", someone is going to have to find reliable sources that actually discuss sexism/discrimination against men as a reality, not a myth. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Discrimination against men according to RS is not a myth, at least the individual one. We have the quoted but not criticized dissertation of Pasi Malmi titled Discrimination against men. We have articles of Russian scholars about Russian laws in books (because laws in books in US is much more gender-neutral). We have an article of Francesca Manzi. We have Pincus who say that reverse DAM is not a seriouse problem (in US and Europe, not in the world) but he doesn't say it doesn't exist at all, on the countrary he say that individual DAM exists. Malmi argues that not only individual but structural DAM exists, but he say that not women but male role, hegemonic masculinity, industrial capitalism are the discrimininators. The views of Nathanson and Young that DAM is institutionalized (in US?) are seriously critisised, and their books are not very reliable. But as the existing opinion, we can also use them.Reprarina (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Who are Pasi Malmi and Francesca Manzi and why should we treat their statements as WP:DUE? I've responded to your other points regarding Russian scholars, Pincus, and Nathanson and Young above. A better place to start would be the sources by Ku and Masequesmay that I at the top of the talk page. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Neely source seems to have been, who appears to be no longer active. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merging into Reverse discrimination, which was discussed in 2017 above, would also be OK by me. The two pages together total less than 3,200 words, which is well within WP:LENGTH guidelines. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.