Talk:Sexism/Archive 12

Introduction
Reading the introduction ending with the following sentence:

Extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape and other forms of sexual violence.

Seems to me to be very obviously agenda driven. There is a source given but of course it remains a rather inflammatory thing; many who simply hold traditional or old-fashioned views that would be called "sexist" would deny vehemently that they are on some sort of scale including criminal violence, indeed they would say the opposite.

It strikes me a better wording would be to say something along the lines of "It has been claimed that extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape and other forms of sexual violence." - since it is just that, an opinion. As it currently is written it sounds like an uncontested fact.

I can imagine many edits on this page are pretty controversial so I thought I would see if anyone else more experienced wants to tackle adjusting the wording to make it neutral.

Marksimmons506 (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It says "extreme" for a reason. And this is in line with literature about sexual violence. We don't need to add WP:ALLEGED to the sentence. The "may" is enough to make it a qualified statement.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response though I tend to disagree - surely "may" in a sentence like that just implies the possibility, as in "it doesn't always lead to x but it may" whereas my point was more general, the fact being asserted is a particular idea, and an extreme one at that, that would be controversial. A great many people, indeed I would suspect almost everyone without an agenda, would disagree entirely with the idea being put forward; the idea that a certain political opinion or prejudice, i.e. "sexism", is something that leads to rape and violence - it is a rather bizarre assertion.

Now I'm not saying whether it is true or not but it is obviously not a neutral way of phrasing it as it isn't clear that it is being added as a possibility, it reads like it is just a fact. I mean it's not a fact there is a connection, it is only a fact that somebody says it. Which doesn't strike me as very balanced for an introduction - perhaps it would deserve discussion with various shades of opinion in a different section such as "studies of "sexism" in criminology" or something like that. Would it be ok to have an extremely (and it's hard to get more extreme than connection with rape) negative link made in the introduction to "liberalism" or "conservatism"? I think that would be self-evidently lacking neutrality. At the least perhaps we need to add a source to give the alternative point of view, though proving a negative is obviously tricky. Marksimmons506 (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A neutral point of view doesn't imply equal time fore all view points. wp:reliable sources (RS) is what dictates content. RS strongly suggests that sexism is an extreme problem. The lede is appropriately worded. Jim1138 (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I can see where you're coming from but it it still so obviously agenda-driven as to fall well below encyclopaedic standards. Even if one has a source for something to present just one side and especially in the introduction seems odd to me; it certainly would never be published as such in a traditional encyclopaedia. The most cursory study of either psychology and criminology would tell you that such assertions of causation are always problematic and to be treated with caution - if it said that "extreme sexism" (which of course could just be a very traditional point of view if we take the definition of "sexism" offered in this page) was reflected in the opinions of some of those who commit rape and violent crime that would be one thing, to say "foster" though implies a direct link. This is always difficult to prove in psychology since it's not a hard science. I am not saying the source doesn't merit being included, discussed, obviously it's one point of view. But to include it in the introduction and with no qualifying statements along the lines of "It has been argued that...." isn't very neutral at all.

Obviously here we're dealing with what's verifiable rather than what's "true" but we have to start with some common sense and then try to work things from there. To assert that those who might be very traditional in their views of women are connected with those who rape is so extreme and inflammatory that to include it without counter arguments or qualification just isn't up to encyclopaedic standards. There are very senior and respectable people in the UK who make similar assertions about some Muslims for example but to include it, unqualified, in the introduction (e.g. "Extreme Islam may foster rape and violence") would be absurd.

This is especially so given the first sentence of the page:

"Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender."

To make such a bland definition and then in the same paragraph draw a link to rape is not neutral - many people who are simply more traditional or conservative would be caught in the first definition. To assert that they, if they just take their views further, foster rape and violence is not neutral. It will obviously appeal to those with an axe to grind but surely we should be aiming for more here. I think adding "It has been argued that..." would achieve neutrality and a fairer representation of where academia is at. Psychologists and criminologists would come up with an almost unlimited number of different explanations for rape and violence that stand apart from the views the perpetrator might have about women in society. Again I'm not suggesting the argument shouldn't be put forward, it needs to be qualified though. Marksimmons506 (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's is, per RS, what it is to be a women. Unequal pay, unequal treatment, rape, violence. It's all there in the sources. This is, given the RS, the neutral point of view. Using "common sense" and ignoring RS would be wp:or and would not be NPOV. Jim1138 (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I fall squarely on the "we need more men's issues in gender articles" side of the debate generally, but I have to disagree on this point. Imagine a similar statement regarding race: "Extreme racism can lead to harassment, discrimination and murder". Yes, murder is extreme, but we have LOTS of evidence for it's truth value. There is actually a town near me named "Lynchville", if that is any indication.


 * The "bland" definition is exactly as accurate as saying "Racism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's race or ethnicity." I think your argument only makes sense to you because it's about a topic that is still sensitive and controversial. Applying it to a noncontroversial topic shows its inanity. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would suggest moving the sentence somewhere further down into the article to a section about that topic. In WP:Lead it states that "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." I don't think that this sentence is covered by that. Why not write about stereotypes or unequal pay which are more dominant in the article. A side note, "include any prominent controversies", probably we should rather have a sentence about what makes the topic controversial.Lucentcalendar (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Why don't you offer a draft for a rewrite for the lead and we can discuss it, rather than simply pointing out things we personally disagree with. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with you. I am just stating that the sentence you are discussing is somewhat arbitrary anyways and not representative for the article. Therefore, you could shorten the discussion by moving it out of the lead.Lucentcalendar (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is not wp:concensus to remove it from the lede. Jim1138 (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither is there consensus to keep it. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. The consensus on this article is generally not very high, as seen by all the discussions.Lucentcalendar (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * At least personally, I would be much more receptive to all these arguments if someone actually proposed a well written and sourced lead. There is no way that four sentences adequately summarizes this article. I think we can probably all agree on that. But that doesn't mean we should remove half of an already inadequate lead that, as controversial as it may be, is well sourced. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Moving examples to its own article?
Has this been seriously discussed? The section is fully half of the article. I had a similar situation over at flanking maneuver, and my work on the article was only making the examples section longer, so I just snipped it and made it its own thing. Might make this article's overall structure make more sense. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Look at all the debating that has gone on at this article/talk page regarding what sexism is, and which sex/gender it affects more. The last thing we need is an Examples of sexism article. A lot of content needs to be cut from the Sexism article, per WP:Summary style or otherwise because so much detail is unnecessary, and that includes examples and unnecessary subheadings that make the article look bigger than it is when looking at the table of contents. A Wikipedia article generally should not significantly cover every detail of a topic; it should summarize aspects of a topic, ideally the most significant aspects. And, ideally, WP:Spinout articles should only be created when needed. It's too often that they are not needed, and then we have a mess of a WP:Spinout article for the sake of improving the main article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See what WP:Summary style states in its WP:AVOIDSPLIT section. Flyer22 (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Flyer22 on not creating an additional article about examples of sexism. I think most of the examples have articles of their own, so creating an example article which expands on those examples would create a competition with the original articles. I think on everything that is already explained somewhere else on wikipedia and everything that is beyond encyclopedial knowledge, this article can be short.Lucentcalendar (talk) 06:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Fine by me, but don't anybody pitch a fit if I start slicing the section up. Apparently I'm the person to do it as I seem to be the only one actually working on the article in addition to debating its minutiae. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just know that I stated nothing about "short." A short Sexism article is not a good Sexism article. I'm done discussing this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we say "bitch"?
Not to be inflammatory, but I do think in the section on language, there is an interesting gendered point to the word. That is, it is used in the case of a female to indicate someone who is mean-spirited, aggressive or offensive (traditionally masculine traits), and is used in the case of a male to indicate someone who is passive or weak (feminine traits). Timothyjosephwood (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you mean whether vulgarities are allowed to address when treating them neutrally and encyclopedically, then yes because Wikipedia is not censored. I don't think you're asking that, though; I think you're more concerned about whether it is relevant or worthwhile to add a section or subsection regarding the term "bitch". In my opinion, I don't think we should because the vulgarity only has some sexist components, though one could argue that there is not an inherent relationship between the two. In fact, I think there needs to be some work on the Bitch article, since it may be POV or not fully represent the term as general slang, or both. If we do include a (sub)section on "bitch", we should probably work on the article on the insult itself first. I'm not necessarily opposed to a (sub)section on the term, and I believe it could be a useful addition to the article, but I think there are far more important issues with the article which should take priority, such as the neutrality and respective weights of the article's content. That is just my opinion, though, and others may disagree. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 10:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll give it a go
I know a fair bit about war. I also know a fair bit about broken men fighting in wars they didn't sign up for. Let's see if this turns out any better than the last time we tried the idea out. Is something like this along the lines of something that may be acceptable?

Conscription

Although some countries, such as Israel, require military service regardless of gender, warfare throughout history has generally been a male dominated affair. Indeed, the integration of women into militaries, and especially into combat forces, did not begin on a large scale until late in the 20th Century. Conscription, the practice of compulsory military service, usually in a time of war, was widely popularized during the French revolution and featured most prominently in the First and Second World Wars, seeing millions of men being forced into combat in the deadliest conflicts in human history.

The practice of conscription has been criticized as being overtly sexist. As Benatar wrote:

"Some women are excluded from combat, but many more women are exempt. While some men are excluded from combat (because they fail the relevant tests), many more are pressured or forced into combat."

Resistance to conscription has taken a variety of forms. Aside from the Civil War itself, the New York City draft riots were the largest civil disturbance in US history. During World War I Canadians rioted and many fled to the United States to avoid service. Later, and somewhat ironically, Americans would flee to Canada to avoid service in the Vietnam War or employ various other means of exemption. Many burned their draft cards, an illegal act, and many were subsequently arrested. In 2014, The Israeli Defense Force discharged 43 of it's compulsory service members for circulating a letter raising moral issues surrounding civilian casualties. The IDF has stated these will be disciplined with "the utmost severity". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyjosephwood (talk • contribs) 11:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Too much coatracking, especially the text after the quote. --Neil N  talk to me 13:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Roger that. I will try to improve it. It also badly needs more examination about the overt sexism of the topic. Just a start. I just wanted to establish that there is some agreement that this is a thing, and needs to be included as long as it is well fleshed out. I need to do more reading. To me, forcing millions of men involuntarily into a meat grinder is self evidently sexist, in the way that throwing acid at someone is without needing a source to say "by the way that's sexist". But I understand that I've been binge reading on modern warfare for years, and it's normalized to the point that most people don't immediately see the prejudice.


 * Although I do think there is some point to be made that war isn't all "fuck yeah lets go kill people". It was widely seen, at the time, by men and the families they would leave behind, as a blatantly oppressive system, lets be honest, heavily classist as well as sexist. As oppressive as patriarchy may be, you never saw riots over the objectification of women. That is a realm reserved for race and war. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Have a look into the archive of this talk. The article already had a section on military service. There is a discussion in which I saved the old section after it was deleted. Over there I also added some ideas for the re-write. I just didn't have time to work on it.Lucentcalendar (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure how to access that. There doesn't seem to be an obvious link. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mistake! It has not been archived yet, it is the second section on the talk page "military service". If you ever need to get to the archive, look at the top of the page, there is "Archive" written with currently 10 parts, 10 being the most recent.Lucentcalendar (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, check this out and see if it's any better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timothyjosephwood/sandbox#Conscription

I added the bit about attritional warfare because, really, it was this new type of industrialized slaughter (only seen in modern conflicts) that made conscription a matter of literally national survival (coughOttomanscough). When suddenly you could suffer 100k casualties in a day, there's not no other way to fill the ranks. I also trimmed down the last paragraph quite a bit. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I like the version in your sandbox. I would go a bit easier on such phrases like "the deadliest conflicts in human history". On aspect that is certainly going to be critical is the link to sexism, which is not too strong yet. There have been many law suits in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (probably in other countries too) claiming that forced conscription is a form of gender discrimination. I think that should be part of it the section. I already tried collecting something on that but it is hard because the courts wiggle their way out of the discrimination question without confirming or denying it. They just state that the forced conscription is of such high national importance that it stands above questions of discrimination.Lucentcalendar (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thanks. I maybe should mellow on the hyperbole, but still, it's not hyperbole if it's true. I could probably still find a more neutral way to say the same thing. Less grandiose. I have found one SCOTUS case involving this, but I didn't include it because I didn't want the US overrepresented. It's already pretty weighted toward the West. I probably need more men's rights stuff from reputable groups that consist of more than one dude with a beer and a keyboard. I found one that looks pretty legit, A Voice for Men, but for some reason the entire site is black listed. I've requested it be white listed but I've basically gotten no where. I'm going to concentrate on the article as it is for now and come back to my section after we can fix basic foundational issues with the article as a whole, including fixing bare urls and submitting a total rewrite for the lead. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stay away from "a voice for men" I really don't see them as a good source. Once they were quoting "the onion" a satirical news site. Overall that does not seem something you want to build on. If you want some collected information go for David Benatar he wrote a book “The second sexism” where he tries to collect some information and overall tries to keep a balanced position. You may also want to look at Roy Baumeister who wrote “Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men” again trying to write something well founded and non-aggressive.Lucentcalendar (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)