Talk:Sexism/Archive 1

'See also' link to Sexism against men in India
The linked page seems extremely one-sided and primarily the work of one or two authors. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on the subject, so I don't know how to begin addressing this problem. 99.150.116.70 (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

anthropological linguistics
I removed the commentary under anthropological linguistics. It referred to theories of natural language systems by referencing the 'West' and then turned to a comparison of China's economic restructuring in the present. I am not a linguist or a historian and so the author may want to return and clarify or restate 'their' original work.

The view of the radical feminists is, in my opinion, absurd. We should remember here that sexism can go both ways. WojPob personally regards feminists as sexist to certain degree.

No, sexism cannot go "both ways". Since all modern human societies are patriarchal in structure and power, men a re the "dominant gender". Therefore they can use sexism on women. Women can "discriminate unfairly", but you cannot term it "sexism".

Many feminists are utterly sexist. Read some of the disgustingly sexist, derogatory, misandrist things that Germaine Greer for example has said about men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.8.39 (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Many men - not just misogynists, but men from all walks of life - are utterly sexist. Read some of the disgustingly sexist, derogatory, misogynist things that ... uh, EVERYONE says from Greek Mythology (Pandora) to Christianity and Islam to Shakespeare to Hemingway to etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. Please stop complaining about a handful of women who dare to challenge male supremacy.

Many women from all walks of life are utterly sexist too. Witness the apparently insatiable appetite amongst female consumers for portrayals of men in commercials as infantile, incompetent idiots / women as effortlessly superior. Greek myths and Shakespeare were written in far less enlightened times. In the modern world if a man were to write the same kind of sexist rubbish as Greer he'd be sacked and vilified before you could utter the words "utter hypocrisy". When women like Greer do it they become cultural heroes! It is possible to challenge "male supremacy" without being a female supremacist - though I somehow think that men, in the developed world at least, who are not politicians, generals, captains of industry etc (i.e. the vast majority of men) would be greatly puzzled by the notion they somehow enjoy "male supremacy". My overwhelming impression was that if anything they are 2nd class citizens

Is there any difference between the terms "sexism" and "sexual discrimination"? I'm aiming to set the latter to redirect to the former, but I'm not sure if they are exactly the same thing. --Stephen Gilbert


 * I added the redirect. I also changed the intro - the previous definition wasn't reflected in most dictionaries, and was somewhat at odds with the way I've used and seen the term used. See definitions. Martin

a view of differences between men and women AS GROUPS
There's a view expoused by evolutionary biologist Helena Cronin that men and women, as groups, are substantially different. This means that when we look at traits of the groups, such as representation in a particular occupation, we should expect to see differences. However, this does not mean that a particular person has to have masculine or feminine traits. I have the impression that this is what was meant by the third definition of sexism in the article, but it isn't really clear. Should we reword the third definition or add a fourth definition? AdamRetchless 00:04, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Negative discrimination?
Sexism is negative discrimination against people based on their assumed or presumed sexual identity.

What is the point of the qualifier "negative"? Dictionary.com simply says "Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women." anthony (see warning) 01:19, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The neologism "positive discrimination" has come to apply whenever there is a distinct preference of women over men, or of blacks over whites, or homosexuals over heterosexuals. In a way, it means "when a minority discriminates against majorities", although women can't reasonably be described as a minority. As a term it is closely related to "political correctness" and "affirmative action", in that it describes a preferred treatment of a group of people to compensate for real or imagined wrongs in the past. It does express itself in things like women's quotas (despite the fact that there are way more female elementary school teachers than male ones), or female-only libraries (is that like white-only schools?) or other such things. It's an oxymoron, really. In a land where everyone it to be considered equal, you simply cannot demand better treatment based on your sex, race or sexuality. --TheOtherStephan 16:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sexism and Homosexuality
In my opinion it is a violation of the NPOV principle to only quote D.A. Miller on why male homosexuality is less accepted than lesbianism.

Miller bends over backwards to prove that even where men are obviously treated worse, it is still misogyny. In my opinion the explanation is way simpler than what Miller concocts. Recall the widespread and obviously sexist notion of "fairer sex" and "uglier sex". Based on that notion, when a woman is intimate with another woman, it is perceived as the creation of an exclusive sphere of pureness uncontaminated by the "ugliness" of males. OTOH, two men getting intimate are seen as rejects who were deemed unworthy of access to that elevated sphere. Of course some men's fantasies driven by emotional masochism do play a role in the creation and perpetuation of this thought pattern, but I would argue that feminist man-hating propaganda is the main suspect. Note there was none of the latter in ancient Greece, a society 120% patriarchal and unambiguously male-supremacist but with no problems accepting male homosexuality.

''But the section of the article is not about explanations of homophobia - it is about the relationship between homophobia and sexism. So quoting only Miller's theory does not imply that that is the only theory which seeks to explain homophobia, and so doesn't violate NPOV'' -- VoluntarySlave

Yes, the section is about relationship between sexism and homophobia, but it is also about explanations of homophobia, precisely because Miller and other quoted gender theorists explain homophobia with sexism. But there is a problem with their explanation. It is biased. They attribute homophobia solely to men's anti-female sexism, while I demonstrate that it can also be attributed to the society's anti-male sexism. Gender theorists seem to imply, and certainly they assume, that only men can be sexist. This is in itself a sexist position. Therefore it does violate NPOV to only quote gender theorists on the issue. -- Szczepan Hołyszewski

Miller bends over backwards- arf! arf! quercus robur

moving "Relation of sexism with homophobia" to Sexualism

 * I feel that this section should be moved to sexualism. (1) Sexism is about discrimination based on sex and gender while Sexualism is about discrimination based on sexual-orientation.  (2) Sexualism could further addresses the subtle differences in homophobia of male-male, homophobia of female-female, and biphobia. 3Laws 20:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

-- where did the ideas of the "fairer sex" and the "uglier sex" (not oppposing ideas, by the way) come from in the first place? As you mention ancient Greece, I'll also add that in that society the male form was considered the ideal, and that it is that fact, rather than the lack of "feminist man-hating propaganda" that contributed to the acceptance of male homosexuality. Male homosexuality was thought of as the ideal sexual act, because of the assumed superiority in mind, spirit, and form of the male. Heterosexual acts were seen as desirable only for procreation. When and why did the idea of the male form as the ideal change? Certainly well before the rise of feminist thought. It has its roots in Judeo-Christian ideology and the cementing of traditional gender roles, and male homosexuality represents within that context an emasculation, which is extremely undesirable. 65.95.25.34 07:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Australian men and women are just a sex. but to some society certain men and women are satired because they find the same sex attractive we need to stop these people from being discriminated against. afterall they are just human and in the eyes of god they are still his children who he made this way why should we be denigrate these human beings? i would like to stop sexual discrimination. i want society to look at them a human beings not aliens afterall they cant help what or who they are attracted to.124.150.67.91 (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Redheads

why is homophobia not even mentioned?
I'm not all that wikipedia savvy, so please have some patience with me. without wanting to go to deep into it - why isn't homophobia mentioned in the article? discrimination against gays, lesbians and so forth, commonly called homophobia, is discrimination based on a person's behavior in relation to a person's sex/gender.

Example: two men publicly kissing will be subject to criticism/discrimination. Their behavior - kissing - is commonly accepted, the criticism is based on their gender - both male.

I'm not saying, that this should be in any way elaborate in the article, but I'd say there should be at least a "see also" link to homophobia, shouldn't there? I'll let this rest a week and then add the link. Please comment. Dr hagedorn (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think if there are notable reliable sources claiming homophobia to be a form of sexism, they should be included. Much closer to direct sexism (by the broad definition we use here), are homosexuality and heterosexuality, since those tendencies are direct discrimination based on gender (rather than a dislike of others who have such a discriminatory preference).  Example: a homosexual or heterosexual person meets another person who wishes to have a sexual relationship.  The first person decides not to have a sexual relationship, based on the gender of the second person.  That behaviour -- not wanting a sexual relationship -- is commonly accepted, but the reason behind it is solely based on the other person's gender (sexism).  Dr hagedorn, do you believe we should also link to homosexuality and heterosexuality as forms of sexism?  Blackworm (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable sources linking homophobia with sexism, then by all means put them in. Asarelah (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think at the very least, the term heterosexism should appear in the article. I mean, it is hetero"sexism" after all.  A woman who sends a woman a drink or sings a karaoke love song addressed to a woman in a straight bar may be belittled or censured in the same way as a woman applying to work on a construction crew or applying to a mathematics program.  All of them are based on her stepping outside her prescribed gender role.  The question is, should heterosexism be under its own heading or mentioned as part of an already existing heading?

Lack of citations.
There are some provocative claims, like at least the one about sexual intercourse being for men's fun alone. --Thomi 11:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the whole article has a very OR feel about it. Can anybody improve it, or think of anybody who can? --Guinnog 22:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
I apologize for the multiple rollbacks - I'm getting used to VandalProof and hit extra buttons inadvertently. -- Mike Straw 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguity in article name
Sexism also means another belief stating that being sexy means being superior, which is not mentioned in this article. -- D e  ryc  k C.  05:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that is covered in forcing a limited notion of feminity onto females. "Being sexy means being superior" is one such limited notion of feminity.  It does worth mentioning somewhere in the body of the article.  3Laws 18:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Poor writing
Has anyone else noticed that certain portions of the article look to have been written by someone with a somewhat limited understanding of English verb conjugations? I have come across the word "has" used in place of "have" and other subsequent problems in conjugation directly related to those mistakes in the article. It really doesn't make much sense as other information on the page seems fine, and it is odd that someone could write so much else correctly, but just have a problem with those few very common verbs. I also can't see why anyone would vandalize an article by just slightly altering a few words. I did fix a few of these errors, but I would like to propose that someone look into correcting any more of these mistakes. Blinutne 03:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out my mistakes. I changed two more.  3Laws 09:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please edit on new portions
Reverted edits by Kirbytime (talk) to last version by Lulujannings; Sexism and sexual intercourse has been edited to Sexism, Sexiam and pornography has been edited to Sexism, Relation of sexism with homophobia has been edited to Homophobia; please don't mix portions of old article with new and directly edit on the new portions. 3Laws 09:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. When I saw the article, it ended right when it said this: "It has been argued that language plays a par". That's it, no references, no external links, nothing. I used the history of the article to recycle what was originally there. And when you reverted me here, you reverted it back to the "It has been argued that language plays a par" stage. And then you reverted yourself and reinserted what I recycled. I'm not entirely sure what you're telling me now. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  06:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

deleted paragraph
I deleted the following paragraph from the Pornography section of the article:

''While women are affected and have sexism because of pornography, men also get sexism. Men in the porn industy are treated like objects. Now men, in general are treated like objects. Especially in the porn industry.''

While i agree with what appears to be the gist of the statement (that men are also subject to sexism and objectification), the paragraph is poorly written to the point of being nonsensical. It also offers no sources. ~ lav-chan @ 02:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

POV and balance check: Added related forms of sexism
Content edited:


 * Sexism can refer to subtly different beliefs or attitudes:


 * The belief that one sex is superior to or more valuable than the other;
 * The belief that one gender is superior to or more valuable than the other;
 * Female chauvinism or male chauvinism
 * The attitude of misogyny (hatred of females) or misandry (hatred of males); as well as
 * The attitude of imposing a limited and/or false notion of masculinity (gender) on males (sex) and a limited and/or false notion of femininity (gender) on females (sex).

I added the content so that ALL forms of sexism are accounted for here. In misandry please note Nathanson and Young make a host of well-explained assertions that "ideological" feminism is reverse sexist based on blatantly biased, gynocentric and misandric usages of the term 'gender'. Therefore I added 'gender' as a form of sexism here.

I added "'false' notion" because many authors have shown that extreme ideological 'constructs' of 'gender' (as being ALL nurture and no nature) are patently false despite their wide usage by 'oppression'-feminists otherwise. I would be glad to include references here but for some reason there is no references section on this article. For one of many independent authors' statements about these 'gender' falsehoods I refer other editors to Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men; Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal, 2006; ISBN 0-7735-2862-8 (drop in editor) 128.111.95.147 02:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Examples of Sexism
What about some concrete examples of sexism. Much of the article seems a little abstract.

I'm thinking of cases were say woman scientists or authors are compared only with other women scientists/authors, not with scientists, or authors as a whole; where visitors to a lab will list all the men with PhDs as Dr Surname, and all the women with PhDs as Firstname Surname. Where men just don't give as much credit to something a women says compared to something a man says; the scientist at a talk by Ben Barres who turned to his neighbour and said ' that Ben Barres is so much better than his sister' when in fact the 'sister' was Ben before his transsexual operation. Perhaps something on the line of a 'spotters guide to sexism around you'. Of course something like this needs lots of reference which I don't have on me. ChristineD 01:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest a glance at misandry and Nathanson and Youngs books on reverse-sexist forms of man-hate for many examples of one form of sexism. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 00:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Reverse-sexism is a misnomer. Being a sexist is not about offending women, its about offending any person just because of their sex. You can be a man and be sexist against men, becuase it is a discourse - way of thinking and speaking.  ChristineD while I have seen such instances of that kind of sexism, any references to sexist beavious must be sourced and cited for WP:V materials.  If you have some sources like this add them--Cailil 20:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge
Sexual discrimination already redirects here, so it seems sensible for sex discrimination to do likewise. Suggest merge. MisfitToys 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merged as a Law section. Sex Discrimination was short anyway.  If more paragraphs are added for each country and this article becomes to long in the future, then we can always split it.  3Laws 03:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Question
Could someone comment on the impact of the continued use of "mankind" to mean "humankind" and its impact on sexist views (and clarity: eg. "Mankind means mankind, unless it means mankind") - and the rationale for continuing its use over humankind. Also, the impact of a "father" view of god, rather than a "father and mother" view of god, not its history etc., but just in terms of how that might impact current sexist thinking. Just thought these might relate to the sexism entry and interested to see if anyone thought they were relevant enough items to include.Optim2007 11:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Redundant sentence
Sexism can refer to subtly different beliefs or attitudes:
 * The belief that one sex is superior to or more valuable than the other;
 * The belief that one gender is superior to or more valuable than the other;

It's the same exact sentence. Going to remove the first line, since gender is the proper term. 70.118.94.61 00:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to half-disagree with you here. Though there's a lot of contentious argument over the exact distinction, "sex" and "gender" are not equivalent terms.  That's the half-disagreement.  The half-agreement is that there was no need for the two to be entered as separate sentences on separate lines; "The belief that one sex or gender is superior to or more valuable than the other;" would do quite nicely.  --7Kim 23:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)  Done.  --7Kim 23:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on acronym ...
It's all one to me whether we use LGBT, GLBT, LGBTIQ, GLBTIQ, or LGBTIQQGQSAAPKP, but I do believe we should strike a consensus on one and agree to stick with it throughout the article. Throughout Wikipedia and indeed throughout the larger community, LGBT seems to prevail, but there are other arguments to be made. --7Kim 23:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination WikiProject
Looking for people to join a proposed Discrimination WikiProject for discrimination articles: WikiProject_Council/Proposals - Keith D. Tyler &para; 21:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

More information about misandry than misogyny
Am I the only one who finds it odd that there is more information on the sexism page about misandry than misogyny? --70.173.47.6 07:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, some editors are so concerned that "feminists" or "anti-male editors" will try to ruin wikipedia that they go overboard in requiring "equal treatment"; we end up with what is clearly a disproportionate emphasis on misandry etc. IMO it is best to keep working on the article, acknowledging both theoretical symmetries and historical/political realities. --lquilter 15:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That certainly isn't the case now. though I think there is a case for it. In Western culture misandry is very much the discrimination that dare not speak its name. Where I wonder are the Ministers for Men, the Men's Studies courses, the TV documentaries about misandry (which is rampant in the English speaking world), the healthcare programmes for men, Men's drop in centres etc etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.18.155 (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it is clear there is much more information on sexism against women than sexism against men in this article. This is clearly seen by the fact the "sexism against females" section is about three to four times the size of the "sexist against males" section.  Some, like Lquilter and the anon user, apparently would like to see this imbalance greaten, reflecting their view that sexism against males is a tiny fraction of sexism.  Whether they call themselves "feminists" or "anti-male editors" or not, the fact remains that sexism against men is a taboo subject many would like to suppress.  Blackworm (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Balanced coverage is proportional to the extent of the issues. If you have evidence that, for example, men are economically disadvantaged in western societies, or that men are under-represented in the professions or in political office, then you might have some basis for your claim that the two forms of sexism need equal coverage.
 * May I suggest that you start by a few sourced lists to back up your claims? How about a few simple points for starters such a list of countries which have denied women the vote in elections, compared with a list of countries which have denied men the vote? A comparison of men and women in board-level positions in major businesses, to demonstrate how woefully men's careers are undermined by sexism?
 * Go find the evidence in reliable sources, and I for one will support its inclusion. But unless you actually have some evidence, your campaign is looking disruptive. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My claim was that some editors regard sexism against men as a tiny fraction of sexism. By your post, you make clear you are one of those editors.  I don't see how I would need to "back up" my claim; you have proven it for me.  As for sexism against males being taboo, how can one find sources if no one is willing to discuss it (i.e., it's taboo)?  Despite this difficulty, sources abound.


 * If you're seeking examples of sexism against males, I think I can give you what I regard as one of the most egregious ones. The World Health Organization is engaged in a massive campaign to stop what it calls Female Genital Mutilation, which it defines as, "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons.".  It objects to all these procedures because, it says, FGM as defined above "is in direct violation of young girls’ rights, has both short-term and long-term adverse health consequences, and is an unnecessary procedure."


 * So, remember the lesson WHO tells us: any removal of tissue from external female genitalia is an injury, and in addition, any other injury is also labeled FGM, and all FGM violates the rights of girls. These views, from the most prominent international authority on health matters and human rights (i.e., the United Nations, of which the WHO is a specialized agency) are widely taken as true and self-evident in our culture, and likely among the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors.


 * The UN/WHO is also currently engaged in a massive campaign to promote and expand male circumcision, which is a specific form of the partial removal of the external male genitalia, usually performed for cultural, religious, or other non-therapeutic reasons. This has resulted in at least one state-sponsored campaign for removing these parts of male genitalia -- a campaign in Rwanda which the BBC called "nominally voluntary" in its report, stating that "correspondents say many in the armed forces will regard [circumcision] as an order."   Men and boys in Rwanda are being ordered to have parts of their genitals cut off.  No international human rights group has objected to this.  No one speaks of it.  It isn't covered in Wikipedia, anywhere.  At all.


 * Now, of course, the paragraph above about FGM is well covered in Wikipedia. The second is covered to the extent that Wikipedia makes clear in every circumcision-related article that the WHO and others state that male circumcision reduces the risk of contracting HIV (and has supposed benefits to women's health, e.g. the transmission of HPV leading to cervical cancer).  Opinions contrary to that view, while noted in sources, are suppressed when attempts are made to edit articles referencing those sources.  On the question of rights, there are a few sentences out of the dozens of pages of text on circumcision on WP that discuss "body integrity" but no mention is made of "rights" when it comes to male circumcision.   Any attempt to cast circumcision as a human rights issue, exactly as done in sources, is modified or suppressed.


 * There is no evidence of any editors in projects such as WikiProject: Gender Studies and WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias that are interested in this subject, or in expanding any subject where men appear to be having their rights violated. That is because these groups of editors explicitly state bias in favour of men as the one thing that must be opposed.  As you know, BrownHairedGirl, weeks ago I objected here to the fact that all articles in WikiProject: Gender Studies' todo list which discuss topics of women or women's rights are labeled "expand," and all articles discussing topics of men or men's rights are labeled "review."  This embarrassing display of sexism has not since been corrected, even though two editors agreed with me that it was better to merge all the articles into one list.  The point is, where there is sexism against men, there is complete disinterest.  You can point to things where women are or have been disadvantaged, I can point to things in my own culture like genital mutilation, higher education (many more females than males), suicide (committed by four times as many males), homelessness (ten times more males), disparity in reproductive choice, disparity in child custody, disparity in punishment for the same crimes, disparity in the presumption of innocence, disparity in violent crime victimization, the relative perceived worth of men's lives in comparison to women and children's, anti-male sexism in popular media, and so on.  Sources can be found for this stuff, but it is drowned out by masses of editors who see every statement of sexism against men as a suspicious attack on their worldview, and by the huge amounts of feminist material spanning decades these editors reference and include in Wikipedia.  There isn't a lot of material on taboo subjects, especially material that adheres to Wikipedia's standards, namely that it must be published in book form (i.e. there is a market for the information) or in a peer-reviewed journal (i.e. that there are people willing to self-label as "experts" on the topic).  Men don't have a market, nor experts (e.g. "Gender Studies scholars" not interested in men except to point out supposed privilege).  No one wants to buy books telling them men are discriminated against, even if there's proof.  No one wants to think it possible.  It's a taboo among women who have been told their whole lives that they are the ones with an uphill climb, and a taboo among men who have been told that they have it easy and are "whiners" if they complain.  The ones interested in objectivity or a middle ground are drowned out.


 * And yes, seeking objectivity or neutrality does seem disruptive when bias is the norm. I can understand that.  Blackworm (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "There is no evidence of any editors in projects such as WikiProject: Gender Studies and WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias that are interested in this subject, or in expanding any subject where men appear to be having their rights violated." Um, not exactly. Oh and by the way wikipedia is not a soapbox or a forum and your assumptions about all of the editors involved in two wikiprojects as being involved in some sort of deliberate bias against men's rights is assuming bad faith-- Cailil   talk 00:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant evidence regarding the subject of genital mutilation, not "masculinities."  I had never heard the word "masculinities" before people from WP:GS introduced me to it, and it seems to be a euphemism for masculism; it's a new, bizarre term that obfuscates parallels to feminism, and is seemingly embraced by feminists but restricts its scope to men getting in touch with their feelings, rather than demanding their rights.  Am I off the mark?


 * I'm not at all assuming deliberate bias -- on the contrary, I'm questioning this group's apparent claims of arguably deliberate bias (one editor here used "systematic bias," the word systematic carrying the notion of deliberation). You are the one assuming bad faith against me here, with your unequivocal assertion, completely unsupported, that I'm assuming deliberate bias in all editors here.  Why would I think that?  You have made these accusations against me before, and continue to, to my utter amazement.  The irony of that accusation, given that I am there ([WP:CSB]) in a minority of one questioning whether that project's assumptions lead to conclusions that, in effect, may constitute failure to assume good faith of the editors in Wikipedia fitting the majority demographic, is inescapable.  Blackworm (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I note the page you link to in your accusation says, Joke Alert: This page is intended as humor. It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline. I don't see how an assertion that I assumed bad faith against a large group of editors is funny or amusing.  I'd appreciate it if when making such serious claims, you would cite Wikipedia policy, and not joke pages.  Blackworm (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, you want policies? Let's start with WP:OR and WP:SYN. As evidence of the sexism of the WHO, you cite one report of a practice which you disapprove of ...but no evidence that the conclusions you draw from it are shared by anyone other than yourself.
 * You are quote entitled to your views, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to pursue your own theories, however sincerely you believe in them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which recording the existing state of knowledge in reliable sources, without original research or novel synthesis.
 * You have been engaged for months in a campaign of attacks on the good faith of a whole group of editors, and despite requests for evidence you have repeatedly failed to come up with evidence in reliable sources to support your position. This soapboxing, failure to assume good faith, and failure to offer evidence to support your claims is disruptive and tendentious editing. Please stop it now. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I again deny your false accusations and personal attacks, and I dismiss your other claims as demonstrably false. It appears as though you are attempting to stifle discussion through intimidation.  That is unacceptable.  If you are that concerned about WP:OR, perhaps your time would be better spent sourcing this article, which doesn't even seem to have any inline cites, rather than reacting with open hostility to perceived WP:OR in article Talk, while personally attacking, harassing, defaming and slandering editors with whom you disagree.  Blackworm (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Blackworm, if I am wrong, then please prove me wrong: start providing referenced material which supports your claim without requiring a novel synthesis. Your posts here include plenty of denunciations of everyone who had worked on this article. Here's an example:
 * Your opening contribution included the assertion that "Whether they call themselves "feminists" or "anti-male editors" or not, the fact remains that sexism against men is a taboo subject many would like to suppress". There are two claims here:
 * that sexism against men is a taboo subject. Unless you can produce references in reliable sources which report that claim, you are soapboxing. Please stop.
 * That editors contributing to this article are "anti-male". That's a personal attack on other editors. Don't do that.
 * I am not attempting to "stifle discussion"; I am trying to persuade you to stop attacking the good faith of other editors, and to move away from general statements of your own views on sexism to providing references in reliable sources to support the inclusion of material which you believe would address the balance.
 * Please read WP:TPG: Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal)
 * You are quite welcome to start providing references which would allow the inclusion of more info in sexism against males, and nobody will stop you doing that. Do you have any such references? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My statement about taboo can indeed be regarded as WP:OR, as can any off the cuff opinion. Lquilter's statement before it contains WP:OR as well, as I'm sure you'll agree.  Considering the entire sexism article is was [-BW] unsourced, responding to WP:OR with WP:OR didn't seem like much of a disruption.  You made it clear "this" had to stop, and I agree with that need.  (A minor note: WP:SYN is a subset of WP:OR, and thus the two refer to the same policy, not "policies" as you state.)  I made no statement regarding the editors here, and certainly not the suggestion that they are all "anti-male," but I apologize if that is how the statements were interpreted.  It was not the intent.  Thank you for your other good general advice, and for your civility.  Blackworm (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

approaching sexism
While recognizing the talk page isn't about the subject, it's impossible to look at the talk here and not see the questions begged by the subject as it's presented on Wikipedia. The substantive talk (not intending to demean those with grammatical or syntactical concerns, but to differentiate from them) here largely reflects efforts to "balance" the subject: to neutralize the linguistic influence, to identify men objectified by porn, to decide whether gay men or lesbians are the more oppressed, and so on. "Balancing" necessitates diminishing one side to strengthen another; it's akin to neutrality. And, while a value in language choices, neutrality is not a value in comprehending a subject. Take a look at the entry on "racism": it starts from a series of field-specific definitions. Here, under "sexism," we have someone's generic definition sketched in at the top, but we actually start from categories (men, women, trans), dividing the topic in such a way that we are led into debates about balance and neutrality. My vote is to scrap this page and replace it with working definitions, and let the definitions lead to the explanations, variations, and real-world weighting.Realleslie (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)