Talk:Sexism/Archive 11

Most recent edits to the article, WP:Validity and all that
Since I will not talk with Lucentcalendar about things he already knows but keeps failing to accept when it comes to sexism, and he knows not to start any more discussions on my talk page, I will note here at this talk page the problems with his latest edits to the Sexism article:

His "Modern analysis is just beginning to discover the situations in which sexism affects men." sentence is not supported by the WP:Reliable sources. More importantly, as has been stated time and time again at this talk page, that sexism especially affects girls and women should be in the lead (WP:Lead is clear about how Wikipedia leads should be formatted).

How does he know that the "false accusation of rape, lynching" parts are supported by the WP:Reliable source supporting that sentence?

His "Some claim that sexism is most often expressed toward girls and women." wording is WP:Weasel wording, and it is ridiculous since the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources on sexism are clear that sexism is most often expressed toward girls and women. And for that same reason, his "Sexism, however, equally affects men and boys" text is silly. No, sexism does not affect males as much as it affects females; that's a fact.

His "androphobia" addition? Surely fails WP:MEDRS.

And in the future, he should consider doing the partial revert himself, per WP:Burden. And WP:REVEXP is an essay, not a guideline or a policy. And in this case, I should not have to "WP:REVEXP for all parts." The reason for reverting his latest edits are clear from recent past discussions at this talk page, and to anyone who understands how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I also see that the wording was originally applied by. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * These comments violate Wikpedia policy in that they promote sexism and discrimination against men. The current article is blatantly misandrist and designed to falsely represent the status and scope of "sexism."  John Davis' edits appropriately begin to address some of the sexism that has been engineered into the original article, and, his edits appropriately correct some of the sexism.    John Davis, BA, JD, LLM (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , you are incorrect. And since you are incorrect and clearly will not learn how to appropriately edit Wikipedia, I have nothing else to state to you. Flyer22 (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @ John Davis: What the … are you doing here? Please behave in a civil manner. 1) It is impossible to push through anything on wikipedia against other editors, so don’t try! 2) You are shinning a very bad light on all other editors which try to bring a male aspects into this article, so stop that! I did not revert the deletion of your comments from yesterday because I agree with them, or because I want to help you. I did it because some editors are very rigorous on male views and lax on female views (topics). Everything that goes in or out of an article needs to be substantiated. Flyer22 now gave good reasons, so I will not do anything about it anymore. If you have good information and you are willing to be constructive, welcome, but learn how to work here. If you just want to make a mess then $§$%%&&%%!!!?&%&!.Lucentcalendar (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: In no way does this article promote sexism or discrimination against men! It promotes a simplistic world view of a very very complex topic!Lucentcalendar (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Transgender legal issues
The wording is just bad. I'm going to tweak it so I'm just giving a heads up since this is apparently a touchy article. But, I work in corrections so, yeah. Inmates are "housed". They are not "put in jail". The wording generally is very...colloquial?

Also the claim that trans in custody can't take their hormones is simply wrong, at least according to US law. The facility doesn't have to progress their reassignment, but the government is obligated to maintain the state that they are in when they are incarcerated. I'm wary of the source for this paragraph, but I can't verify because it's blocked as adult content...whiiiich makes me even more wary of it.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Concerned
About the spirit of this comment in the discussion above (may not be exactly the right place to put this):

"You will have to find reliable sources which say that this is a form of sexism (and men's rights activists are nor reliable sources)."

I think that's a claim that's dangerous. If you apply the principle that "men's rights activists" are all automatically not reliable sources you are showing a pretty blatant bias. It would be absurd to suggest that someone in the women's rights movement, or civil rights movement is automatically an unreliable source. I'm not saying that they're exactly equivalent, but you can't categorically disqualify them. If you have a men's rights activist meet all the criteria applied to other good sources...it's a good source. The same criteria you apply to judge any reliable source. The same goes for feminist authors who, drunk with post-modernity, are occasionally prone to publish obscurantist gibberish. They are not automatically reliable simply because they call themselves a feminist.

I think we need to be careful to check statements like that and consider what that says about our pov. There is a good chunk of feminism that came about simply because activist point out perfectly "acceptable" behavior and said "that's totally sexist". I mean, I don't personally agree that use of "guys" to refer to mixed gender groups is really sexist in any meaningful way, but its in the article because there are (some) people out there who do, even though it is by no means a generally accepted thing to anyone outside the circles of gender activists. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"Especially women"
This statement is entirely subjective, has no place in an unbiased article, and it's also unnecessary. It doesn't matter whether sexism affects either gender more, and it's actually sexist to outright state something so bold. It makes the sexism that the male gender faces seem less important, and it's incredibly biased. Wikipedia is not a place to post opinions as facts, and I'm honestly shocked that it's still on this article because, generally, opinions are removed very quickly on large articles like this one. I Am A Sandwich (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the sources? --Neil N  talk to me 02:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand your concerns, and I have raised them as well above, but there is good reason why this is specified as such. I don't like the sentence either, and I could think of some more neutral ones, but the current consensus is to keep that one. If you can find citations or sources which helps support that sentence, or conflicts with it, then be my guest to present them here or in my post above. From my understanding, women have been especially affected by sexism throughout history, so the sentence is true from a historical perspective. In some regions, such as the Middle East, sexism and sex-based discrimination is still a way of life, so it is still true in contemporary society. Although I believe it's true that men also face sexism, there isn't as much research on it, and certainly not enough to show that males have been equally subjected to or affected by sexism. If you believe this sentence is erroneous, then I recommend finding evidence which indicates as much. I do believe the two dictionary citations for it are weak, though, so please do find better sources if you can. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Undue Weight in Favor of Sexism Against Women
Throughout the article, I noticed that the sexism described, explored, and examined therein almost completely refers to women, even on areas where the sexism can apply to both. The only section which somewhat addresses men more than women has a globalization dispute. The article also states that women are "especially affected" by sexism and are the primary victims of it. Is there any particular reason why this is stated? Any evidence for this, aside from dictionary definitions which only define common usage and not actual frequency of sexism as a form of discrimination, or even the accuracy of said common usage?

More importantly, is there any reason why I shouldn't call WP:NPOV and mark this article as giving WP:UNDUE weight to sexism against women? And no, I'm not advocating for a false balance.

–Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Nøkkenbuer for a long time, and still in many definitions Sexism is about sexism against women. This weighting reflects the level at which sexism against men is discussed in third party reliable sources since the term has been first used. It would in fact violate NPOV to do as you describe (specifically WP:DUE)-- Cailil  talk 13:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the dictionary definitions as third-party reliable sources (TPRS), I do not consider these to be adequate TPRS to justify the claim that women are the targets of sexism more than men. The dictionaries represent how "sexism" is used as a term with respect to common parlance; it makes no comment, nor does it elucidate, on sexism as a form of discrimination and how accurate these weights are with respect to their usage. If there are more third-party reliable sources verifying these claims, then perhaps I missed them. If the weights are due, then I'd like evidence for that. Apologies if this evidence is already within the article; I did not see it. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Nøkkenbuer, it seems you are advocating for a false balance. --Neil N  talk to me 13:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm requesting evidence to show that it isn't a false balance, in particular evidence which proves or verifies that women are more often affected by and the targets of sexism. Moreover, I'm requesting evidence to indicates that the representation of sexism against men is adequately supported in this article. For example, the amount of coverage sexism against men have in this article seems to be very minor and only briefly covers the issue, as if it's just one step up from a WP:FRINGE matter. Unless there is credible and reliable evidence indicating that sexism against women is so disproportionate to the sexism against men that it justifies the weights of each within this article, I don't see why these weights should remain in their current state. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources:, , --Neil N  talk to me 14:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At the expense of brevity, I'll try my best to analyze the sources you've provided. Let's assume that where I state "contemporary society" I mean contemporary societies collectively, or contemporary Western society.


 * In order for it to support your claims, Source 1 would have to argue that women are affected by sexism more than men because patriarchies are more common than matriarchies. This assumes that a patriarchy necessarily implies systemic sexism against women. The corollary of this is that matriarchies are therefore systemically sexist against men, since it assumes that a rule by one sex necessarily implies that the ruling sex discriminates against the ruled sex in a sexist manner. Although this seems like a reasonable conclusion, there is not adequate evidence cited in the book to support this theory. What I suspect Source 1 actually argues, however, is that sexism against women appeared to be more prevalent in modern/modernist societies which were patriarchal based on the research and observations he cited, and that patriarchies are far more common than matriarchies (which is technically not cited, but reasonable to assume). The author then extrapolated this conclusion onto antecedent patriarchal societies and future or current patriarchal societies by assuming that the evidence gathered at that time is sufficient to indicate that it is safe to conclude that a patriarchal society systemically discriminates against women more than it does against men in a sexist manner. In my opinion, the statements of Source 1 are valid as a theory, and certainly supported by evidence, but I wouldn't consider this source to be very strong evidence that women are more discriminated against than men, only that they were and it is expected that they still are based on the research conducted over twenty years ago (or longer). In other words, although Source 1 supports the claim that women have been discriminated against more than men in contemporary society, the research is outdated and a reassessment is due. That doesn't discredit this source, per se, but it does weaken its weight. This source alone, in my opinion, may not be sufficient enough to substantiate such a bold claim as that of women being affected by sexism more than men in contemporary society. In conjunction with other sources, it may be worthwhile to cite, but even then its outdated research is still a matter of concern.


 * Source 2 claims that women have been prevalently treated as inferior compared to men, yet it does not elaborate on this. It simply claims that, with a single citation. I'd investigate this citation further, but I cannot view it due to the Google Books preview restrictions. Unless I'm missing something, a single sentence in an entire book is not really a strong support for the claim that women are affected more by sexism than men in contemporary society.


 * Source 3 is, in my opinion, valid and I appreciate your providing it. It does not appear to be cited within the Wikipedia article, though. Why is that? That seems like a far more credible and cogent source than the two online dictionary definitions provided in the current iteration. If possible, I'd strongly recommend you add that as a citation, seeing as the current two dictionary ones are laughably weak and do not substantiate the claim that women are more affected than men by sexism in the slightest.


 * My main concern with the wiki in its current state is that the citations in the article are weak to support the claim that women are more subject to sexism than men. Even though this may be true, the current dictionary citations are ridiculously poor at illustrating this. Moreover, the fact that the article on sexism gives so much weight to sexism against women and its relationship to patriarchy causes it to provide a very biased viewpoint in favor of feminist theory, and not only because many of its sources are feminist in nature. I understand that "masculism" is nowhere near as developed as feminism, but considering how there are already disputes within feminism on whether it adequately recognizes sexism against men (and whether it may contribute to it), I find it strange that the Wikipedia article on sexism could be so negligent to the sexism men face, especially in contemporary society. This is concerning because the article fails to address sexism against men in a manner that shows that sexism against men exist. It effectively ignores sexism against men as nonexistent, excepting only a few passing mentions, which is fallacious and contradicts the research behind sexism. Despite how the introduction states that "[s]exism affects both men and women", the proceeding article almost exclusively addresses sexism against men in a way that doesn't simply imply "but especially women". The tone of this article as a whole conveys more of a "Sexism primarily affects women, though it sometimes affects men, too."


 * I'm glad to see that one book, The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys by David Benatar, is mentioned in the bibliography; however, no mining of the book for worthwhile citations or an expansion of the article appears to have occurred. If this were to take place, it could greatly improve the article, since a lot of worthwhile data is provided therein which could be used to balance the weights.


 * I understand that these may be issues I could fix myself, but I'm not sure how or where to start. Since I lack expertise about this, I feel the least that could be done would be to bring these issues to light, or perhaps mark this article as biased in order to call attention to it and maybe lead to some change. Apologies for rambling, but I wanted to make sure I conveyed my criticisms as clearly as possible. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @Nøkkenbuer: As NeilN says above, what you are advocating for is bias not neutrality. Moreover your argument is a strawman. What is in fact required is a library of sources that talk about men's experience sexism. What exists in the mainstream of scholarly writing is mainly (but not totally) about sexism against women - this can be seen by searching any academic library for the term and looking at what the preponderance of books actually cover - even a search of google scholar and google books is enlightening in this regard. Please be advised please that this topic area on wikipedia falls under discretionary sanctions (see the big box above). Misbehaviour in relation to controversial gender topics will incur sanction-- Cailil  talk 14:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is a strawman whatsoever. I am criticizing the citations provided supporting the claim that women are "especially" affected by sexism, more so than men; and I am concerned that the weights in this article are disproportionate because they heavily favor feminist theory and moreover only address sexism against women, despite how there is conflict even within feminist theory about whether it is adequately recognizing sexism against men. This is a problem to me because I believe that sexism against women is dominating the article. Although sexism against women is certainly a major aspect of sexism and I wouldn't be surprised if it is the majority of sexism occurring in contemporary society, this article treats it as if sexism against men is virtually nonexistent. Despite the claim that "[s]exism affects both men and women", the article proceeds to treat sexism as if it is almost exclusively a women's rights issue. Seeing how I haven't done anything to even remotely qualify for discretionary sanctions, I'm not concerned in the slightest about that, though I appreciate your precautionary advice. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @Nøkkenbuer: I understand your point - the problem is that your view is not a reflection of what the majority of the sources on the subject deal with (which is Sexism against women). It's not our job to right society's wrongs it's our job to reflect what the sources say. Is there a better way to structure the article - sure. Can the article spend equal time on both issues - no because that would be a violation of WP:NPOV. You can make as many points about this as you like but they're all moot because the actuality of what the mainstream of reliable sources do is not up for debate. Wikipedia is not a forum-- Cailil  talk 13:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why not get more sources, and those which reflect a wider variety, and more balanced weight, of views? Again, I'm not advocating for equal weights, since I recognize that women are probably, if not certainly, more affected by sexism than men. What I'm criticizing is the degree to which each weight is applied, or (more specifically) the heavy bias in favor of sexism against women. Sexism against men is disproportionately represented, and I suspect this is due to a lack of source mining and attention toward it, and not simply due to a lack of sources. I am not knowledgeable nor experienced enough to do this work myself, so I'm voicing my concerns to bring it to light. I don't believe I've treated Wikipedia as a forum once, however, since I'm criticizing the weights and citations (or lack thereof) provided within the article. My personal views are not necessary for this assessment. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Cailil; @Nøkkenbuer: Wait a minute; you are making it a bti too easy for yourself. There is not ONE unanimously accepted percentage figure about what gender gets what fraction of sexism. I also have not found yet a comprehensive literature review on gender distribution in sexism research. If we had such percentage figures we could count words in the article and “share” it accordingly. However, that is not the case. We only know that the general tone of media and research is focused on women, so we need to make sure that the general tone of this article is focused on women. Regarding specific examples we can’t count words, but we can only ensure that they have a reasonable prevalence and quality sources to substantiate them. Two examples: 1) Forced military service has a large scope and is well reported on. It was in the article, but it was poorly sourced, after a rewrite it should go in again. 2) There is a general notion of men’s’ life being worth less (e.g. in articles “…also women and children dies…”; or “Abandon ship, women and children first”). However, there is no quality sources connecting that to sexism, therefore I was wrong to try to get that into the article some time ago. To wrap it up: Don’t change the tone of the article, sexism is mainly about women. If you report on specific instances of sexism, make sure that they are widely spread and good well sourced.Lucentcalendar (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the criteria for "widely spread and good well sourced"? If my addition of such information naturally changes the tone of the article due to it including content which does not reinforce the current tone, is it therefore not wise to add this information, assuming it is both "widely spread" and "good well sourced"? For example, if I satisfied the criteria for the aforementioned and authored a section about a certain form sexism takes, complete with citations from credible sources, would this be removed if it tends to speak about sexism against men more than sexism against women, even though the citations provided indicate as much? –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @Nøkkenbuer: If you want to help this article and be on the safe side, in my eyes this article is too much focused on examples. It would be really helpful to have more on research about sexism and what it means as a construct in social studies. If you could help with that, I would appreciate it.Lucentcalendar (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How would you suggest I go about accomplishing this? What research, in particular, is needed and what in specific could be useful in improving this article? –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @Nøkkenbuer: The balance in this article is an issue, however, we have a problem that nobody gives any percentage of what weight to both aspects of sexism would be OK. If you want to work on it, be advised to work as rigorous as you can. You will need to deliver at least 110% reliable and respected sources to get anything about men into this article. I don't want to openly threaten you with sanctions like [User:Cailil| believes is appropriate, but please have a look at the discussion we had just above this one. Someone tried to vandalise this and that is just not OK.Lucentcalendar (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If I come across information which could be useful to restoring a balance I believe is not currently present, I will either present them in the talk page first for discussion, or edit them in if and only if the source is (in my opinion) indisputably credible. I have no interest in vandalism, which I believe is counterproductive and childish. Vandalizing for a cause, any cause, anywhere seems counterproductive in my opinion. It's about as useful as spray-painting an anarchist symbol on a government building: you'll probably be arrested if caught and they'll simply paint over the insignia. Having said that, I have no intent on vandalizing, only improving the article where I believe is needed. I appreciate your concerns, though. I would be worried just the same if in your position. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If sexism especially affects women, how many articles that are as sexist towards women as this one is towards men have been published by any source as credible as the Independent? Fluttershypegasus (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Your question makes little sense as does your attempt at using an anonymous opinion as some kind of example. --Neil N  talk to me 17:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am starting here with my answer, because I really lost overview over the discussion:
 * @ Nøkkenbuer I meant that this article should contain more information about research on sexism and how it is defined and measured in academia. E.g. overt-covert sexism, hostile-benevolent sexism, and what scales are used to measure sexism. The article is absolutely focused on examples from news and organizations, I find that not scientific enough.
 * @ Cailil Please state what percentage of this article may be dedicated on male topics. We all agree that the focus of this article is on women and it should stay like that. But please stop giving vague comments about WP:due/ undue weight and tell us a number.Lucentcalendar (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no number though. It's a subjective decision based on general consensus as to what is "due weight".  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is of course not helpful. We have some editors on this page which think that every bit about men is too much and undue and some that think we should have more (and some crazy chaps, like the guy which got blocked last week). I would really find it a lot easier if we would just decide about a framework and percentages and then take if from there. The current method is bound to lead to edit warring and very frustrating on the long run.Lucentcalendar (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not how wikipedia works Lucentcalendar - we don't arbitrarily make structural decisions like this. All we are allowed to do is reflect how the issue is treated in the context of the mainstream view of sexism. What you need to do is read broadly on the topic of sexism, inform yourself and make a proposal based on that rather than demanding of other people to do it for you-- Cailil  talk 23:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is done like that, that is what these talk pages are for. I have seen people discussing a lot what structure the article should have. I, and others, have tried doing research, getting some relevant topics in and even if we work well, even if sources are good, people like you shoot it down with WP:due weight, if we try reasoning we get threats about being blocked. That is extremely frustrating and leads to unnecessary aggression. I rather try to understand and clarify limits before I invest a lot of work and then have to fight about it. I am not asking anyone to do work for me.Lucentcalendar (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Lucentcalendar but you're actually not hearing the point. It's clear to me that what you want to create is a divided article where one part is about sexism against men and the other about sexism against women. This is a) against the rules and b) bad writing practice. Saying any topic should be divided arbitrarily is against WP:NPOV policy because it creates segregated sections of the article based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself (see WP:STRUCTURE). The reason this policy exists is to prevent a situation where different content is added without due regard to overall structure weighting or reference to the mainstream of reliably sourced scholarly opinion. The way policy mandates writing of articles is about the topic as a whole not as a patchwork of lists and issues. That's why I say to you above the only way to include what you want is to do the research on the topic as a whole and write about sexism against men in that context (drawing on the most scholarly research) and make a concrete proposal in that way. Your current line of argument is a cul de sac, because trying to carve up a subject into POV sections is against this site's policies. Now, unless you have an actual proposal this thread has run its course-- Cailil  talk 12:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 's response here is exemplary.  13:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I expressed myself not precise enough. I did not mean to cut the article in men and women sections, but to define an overall figure of what weight is acceptable. My main concern was the "weight figure". I completely agree with you that we do not need any further fragmentation of the article. I find it already problematic that half of the article is unrelated examples which are only repetitions of their original articles. I don't have anything further to add. I will just try to take things slow not to hit to many edges.Lucentcalendar (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish I could help, Lucentcalendar, but I honestly don't know where to start. I don't have the sort of expertise or knowledge in this field to provide such reworking, nor do I have sufficient experience with Wikipedia to do so. Hopefully, things do work out, and I'm glad to read whatever is proposed and give my opinion, if needed. As for the sorts of research you're looking for, which you mentioned in a response to me above, I honestly don't have anything which could help in that regard. I wish I did, but wishing won't really help here. Sorry about that. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Citations in the lead
I hate to revive this section again, but I feel like this discussion hasn't really gone anywhere. I do believe there are some problems with the citations in the lead, however, which are worthwhile to discuss. In particular, I'm concerned that the only two citations for the sentence regarding how sexism "especially" affects women are dictionary definitions, which I've already explained above don't support the claims. Why haven't more sources been added to support this sentence, such as the source we discussed above? Nobody followed up on my discussion of those sources, and nobody addressed my concern regarding the dictionary definitions. Are these dictionary definitions really going to be the only criteria for supporting the claim that sexism especially affects women? Surely, there are better sources which support this, as compared to normative definitions of how "sexism" is used in common parlance. Unless there we could find better sources, I really think we should consider omitting that sentence from the lead, at least until more reliable sources could be found.

Citation 3, whose text could be found here, doesn't really talk about sexism from what I could see. Actually, searching the book yields 0 results for "sexist" and only 1 result, in a citation's title, for "sexism". Are we really interpreting the contents correctly here? The closest p. 197 actually comes to discussing any form of sexism is that the author states that "Traditional ideologies [concerning gender role] assert that men are more 'important' than women, and that it is more proper for men to to control and dominate women." Nowhere is this categorized as sexist, nor does this verify the claim in the lead that "[sexism] has been linked to stereotypes and gender roles". It comes close, sure, but it doesn't really imply that. It's an analysis on traditional vs. modern ideologies regarding gender role and the place of men and women in society. It doesn't imply this is sexist, however, nor does the author appear to comment on it; he simply reports the findings. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting things here, but citation 3 would probably be better at the end of the sentence, or removed altogether, since it doesn't support the first clause and doesn't really support the entire sentence's claims. Even though such traditional ideologies may be sexist, I don't think this particular citation supports that.

I can't read the full article cited in citation 4, whose abstract could be found here, but the abstract only implies stereotyping based on gender and gender roles. Does this article actually discuss sexism, or contains anything which supports these claims in relation to sexism? If not, wouldn't this citation be better off at Gender Role § Gender stereotypes, or down in Sexism § Gender stereotypes, or even in Implicit stereotypes § Gender stereotypes? As for citation 5, I can't even find the original work, nor do I think I could access it. In any case, this work does appear to discuss sexism and oppressive societies, but I can't actually check to see if the citation supports the claims.

Also, does anyone have the full text of citation 6, "Forcible Rape Institutionalized Sexism in the Criminal Justice System| Gerald D. Robin Division of Criminal Justice, University of New Haven"? I can't seem to find it anywhere, but the abstract gives me the impression that we're misinterpreting the source as implying that "extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape and other forms of sexual violence." From the abstract, it appears to be more concerned with "institutionalized sexism" and how rape is handled in "the criminal justice system". I don't see any evidence that it's implying that "extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape and other forms of sexual violence."

Now, I'm not an expert in any of this, so maybe I'm just misunderstanding the sources. I'm a layman trying to improve a highly sensitive and technical article, after all. I'm neither confident nor knowledgeable enough to make any changes myself at this time, nor do I have the sort of scholarly tools which would help me make a significant impact. If I did, those changes would probably be reverted anyway. Does anyone have any input about any of this? And sorry for being so wordy, but I wanted to be as specific as possible. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 07:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please remember to use this talk page for discussion on improving the article. For help, try wp:teahouse.
 * There are many mentions of harassment, rape, violence, etc. in the body which are supported by many references. A statement in the lede does not need to be cited if it is cited in the body. See WP:LEADCITE You might be able to access your cites through some libraries especially colleges and universities. Also, you can get an account HighBeam or ask someone who has such an account. Just out of curiosity, for every significant instance of sexism toward a man, how many do you think occur toward a women? I am not referring to perceived slights. Gender inequality Jim1138 (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and my discussion above, including the subsection I just added, is about improving the article's citations. I don't know where I haven't discussed about improving this article, unless you're referring to my final paragraph. I apologize if I gave that impression, since that wasn't my intention. I appreciate your link to WP:LEADCITE, though wouldn't that validate my intentions? Some of the content of the lead is controversial, challenged, or likely to be challenged. I don't think including some citations in the lead, even if they are already cited in the article, would be problematic. If anything, it'll clarify that the lead is more supported by reliable sources and evidence than it currently appears to be.I have no clue, and I am not an adequate judge of that at this time. I would assume the current evidence indicates that sexism occurs toward both sexes, but that there is far more evidence that it occurs to women and, in some cases, far more often. The current consensus among most of the people I've met who are knowledgeable about gender/sex inequality opine that sexism occurs more against women than men. I haven't seen much evidence outside of anecdotal, however, so I haven't made any solid conclusions. Since I don't have enough information to provide a substantiated opinion on this, however, I'll refrain from providing any serious opinion at all. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 08:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)