Talk:Second-generation gender bias

Untitled
Discussion of how this affects women's opportunities would be helpful for understanding the effects of this. Abergin13 (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2015 (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. Student editor(s): Vparsi1, Eberg18, Ehover2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article is supposed to explain "Second-generation gender bias", however it explains something more like "Second-generation gender bias against women." I'm not suggesting that the article be moved, however I don't think this article is from a neutral point of view. Also, I am aware of WP:V. If you think I'm wrong on this, I am open to discussion so please let me know. Morphdog (t - c) 16:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I expanded the article to justify and demonstrate how this article was indeed neutral but needed more substantive citations and text. I intend to remove the neutrality tag. Perhaps you already know this, but neutrality is often raised around issues of gender and race in ways that are misread by readers and editors alike. Aside: found a great article about the topic in Wikipedia here: http://reagle.org/joseph/2005/06/neutrality.html. I assert this tendency might be a rather typical error in thinking when the subject is about gender. In this case, second generation gender bias is usually not intentional. It's cultural and subtle and can be viewed as "biased" when it is the nature of the beast here. I tried to spell that out clearly in expanding the intro. Hope it clarifies things for you. If so, please share. If not, please share what's missing because the Neutrality tag is only to be used if you can tell other editors what's missing. That wasn't clear from my POV. It would help if you are not satisfied to share what needs to happen to fix the problem, if it persists after my edit. Thanks! --sheridanford (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Complete nonsense article
This article should be deleted because it is far-left feminist propaganda masquerading as facts. Yet another example of the far-left communist systemic bias plaguing Wikipedia. All of the citations are to propaganda papers written by far-left nutjobs majoring in gender pseudoscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.112.243.254 (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, look! an anonymous string of unsubstantiated insinuations and insults. While it is true that this article has some sourcing weaknesses, the references are more than enough to prove existence. Thus, I have reverted your tagging. Rebb  ing  08:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the assist in the face of being botted. sheridanford (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Difficult to read
The section on 'Workplace Discrimination' is very long and difficult to read - it should be summarised as per WP:SIZE. -ThatJosh (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's only five paragraphs, and the article as a whole is not very long at all. Maybe it would be worth splitting it up into more sections, but I don't see any need to remove content. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Ebscohost ref
A Ebscohost ref was added 5 November 2015 diff. It was subsequently changed to just a bare url diff (10 September 2016). I'm not quite sure why this was thought of as an improvement. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Tbh that authentication request citation was already mostly useless, as it doesn't say anything about the paper itself. I tried to do some detective work about the citation. The "Budden et al. (2007)" cited in one of the quotes must refer to this paper:




 * So the originally linked paper must be one of these 360: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=10886454785183137156&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en
 * I tried searching among the citations for keywords mentioned in the sentences attributed to this source such as "confidence", "bossy", "compassionate" or "leader", but I can't find any paper that includes even three of these. At this point it might be easier to just look for similar academic papers. -- kazerniel (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Values
Second-generation gender bias refers to practices that may appear neutral or non-sexist, in that they apply to everyone, but which discriminate against a gender because they reflect the values of the gender who created or developed the setting, usually a workplace. Sorry, what is the male values and female values? Are these terms generally accepted in in gender studies?Reprarina (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)