Talk:Sexism/Archive 13

That darn lead (or, can we please fix this issue and stop all the debate...please)
Obviously this is a contentious issue. The talk page is overrun with people who take issue with it, and it is of such poor quality generally that we have a lead tag on the article. So, rather than debate specific sentences or words (as we have done ad nauseum). Screw the whole thing. Here is one I came up with.

It addresses concerns over bias (real or perceived). It still gives extra weight to feminism and sexism toward women. It minimizes weight given to men by sheer word count and not by explicit statement (which many have taken issue with). It also minimizes it by addressing "what men's rights activists perceive as sexism" (which is undeniable) and not necessarily as a settled agreed upon manner (which it obviously isn't). Most importantly, it actually summarizes the article, which the current lead does not. So take a look. Comment and suggestions are welcome. Keep in mind, this is an issue that has to be solved. Leaving the lead as it is indefinitely is not an option and suggestions for change have gone nowhere and resulted in zero improvement. I'm trying to find a middle ground here.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Timothyjosephwood, nowhere in your proposed lead do you point out that sexism affects girls and women significantly more than it affects boys and men. That this should be in the lead has been made abundantly clear at this talk page time and time again; this is, for example, seen at Talk:Sexism/Archive 7, where a lot of WP:Reliable sources are listed, and at Talk:Sexism/Archive 9, and currently above. I will not agree to any lead for this article that does not make it clear that sexism affects girls and women significantly more than it affects boys and men. In the section above, you mentioned that you are concerned. Well, I am concerned with the way you are trying to give men's rights arguments and sources as much validity as scholars give feminist arguments and sources. That includes you trying to get a men's rights source whitelisted. These two groups do not have the same WP:Weight whatosever. Flyer22 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not a "middle ground" as it significantly waters down the fact that historically and currently sexism mainly affects women and girls. I expect that to be mentioned in the first couple sentences per WP:WEIGHT. --Neil N  talk to me 04:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Nowhere? I list six areas where women are discriminated against (and I list them as a fact not an opinion) and I list none for men whatsoever, or even imply that they are anything more than opinions. I in no way give men's rights the same weight. I did, and explained in detail how, I intentionally gave men less weight. I don't disagree with the truth value of the current wording, I disagree with the delivery. It sounds like something a teenager would say. It's very conversational and colloquial. It is delivered in an inflammatory way, rather than in a matter-of-fact encyclopedic way.


 * I am trying to get the source white listed because it appears to be a legitimate source, and has been blacklisted because of spam abuse that doesn't appear to be on the part of the site owners. If you attack the source simply because it is a men's right source, then you are wrong. Attack the source on it's own merits. I'm not trying to establish the truth value of the claim. I'm trying to establish the truth value that people believe the claim is true. This sort of thing has gone to SCOTUS. It is hardly unmentionable. I am trying to white list the source because I am trying to meet the standard that those here have set forth, of establishing sexism in secondary sources. I have worked quite a bit on the conscription section and have not yet resubmitted it on the talk because I think it needs work.


 * It does not at all warrant reference in the first couple of sentences. It is a complicated sociological topic that warrants explanation in the abstract before it is given context in the concrete. If you don't understand sex, gender, gender roles, and gender stereotypes then you can't understand sexism. I think I've more than proven my want to improve this article for encyclopedic reasons. I'm actually kind of surprised as this response. If discussion of this article continues to be negative, deleterious and unproductive I will happily go back to editing military history. I put a great deal of that on hold to help solve problems with these articles that people are happy to tag and debate, but no one actually tries at all to solve. There are very many gender related articles that are heavily tagged but yet rated at high priority. I'm starting to suspect that it is a systemic issue. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Timothyjosephwood, as you know, I appreciate the work you did on the Gender role article. And we worked okay together when it came to formatting that lead. If you format the lead of the Sexism article to give more prominence to how sexism affects women (or girls and women), and in the WP:Lead paragraph, that will be a lead that I can support. Flyer22 (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See the wiktionary definition of sexism: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sexism


 * The completely neutral definition of sexism is discrimination on the basis of sex. I have expanded this to include gender and perceived gender in the interest of political correctness and realism. In the case of racism, to specify that it predominately affects Africans is obviously the introduction of a non neutral pov. Racism affects many races in many contexts. Whites in post-apartheid South Africa may be the victims of racism. Mexicans in the current US are DEFINITELY the victims of racism. For all we know, pangender transexuals may be much more the victim of sexism than women are. Should we make a special mention for them also? To demand that females be mentioned in a neutral definition is exactly akin to demanding that blacks be specifically mentioned in a definition of racism. At one time the Irish (whites) were discriminated against on the basis of race.


 * The article itself lends credence to the sexualiztion of the topic. Again, I don't disagree with the point, I disagree with the delivery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyjosephwood (talk • contribs) 06:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary is not a WP:Reliable source, as you likely guessed I was going to state. And Wikipedia, as is clear by WP:Neutrality, defines neutrality differently than it is defined in common discourse. To go on about sexism in the lead without making it explicitly clear in the lead that girls/women are disproportionately affected by sexism is not a good WP:Lead for the Sexism article. WP:Lead and WP:Due weight are clear about that. The sexism case is not the same as the racism case. First of all, for sexism, we are dealing with two sexes -- males and females. And usually two genders -- men and women. Sexism is usually defined in those terms. Transgender people, when the term transgender is used strictly instead of as an umbrella term, usually identify as male/boy/man or as female/girl/woman. The same goes for intersex people, who are usually initially biologically classified as male or female. The topic of sexism usually does not discuss pangender and all the other genderqueer aspects. And you don't even believe in pangender, so bringing it up now is spurious, and you are creating false balance. With racism, we are dealing with more than two aspects (meaning more than two sexes or two genders) by a large degree. If racism was usually defined as discrimination against black people, I would be all for the WP:Lead sentence or WP:Lead paragraph mentioning that matter, per WP:Due weight. And the current lead of that article should, as I've noticed before, emphasize racism against black people more than it does. But racism is not usually defined as discrimination against black people. Sexism, on the other hand, is usually particularly defined as discrimination against women, and sources usually emphasize sexism against women when speaking of sexism. That makes this a WP:Lead matter -- something that should be very clear in the lead, and early on in the lead. I am like this (giving the primary definition its appropriate WP:Due weight in the lead) about every Wikipedia article, except medical articles where the most common (lay) definition is at odds with the medical definition. So you will not be changing my mind in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It needs to be stated in the lede and in no uncertain terms that sexism affects women more so then men. The difference of occurrence and severity of sexism between men and women is not slight, it on the order of extensive to extreme. On the other hand, sexism toward men is relatively non-existent. Your proposed lede does not reflect this disparity which would be a violation of WP:DUE weight. I will not support changes to the lede that do not convey this statement. Jim1138 (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I absolutely disagree that sexism affects women significantly more women than men, especially not in the first world. I do not have any proof for that, no one does, because it is a vague term. HOWEVER, in the media topic and most research sexism is explored and reported from a feminist perspective and that needs to be in the lead. Lead journals like "Gender Roles" and others, openly state that they take a feminist perspective on all of the research they report. Finding solid work of sexism against men is extremly hard. So you will not find much of that in this article, readers should know that from the start.Lucentcalendar (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "In the first world"? If you can't find RS, please don't repeatedly bring it up. This is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Jim1138 (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think your proposal is admirable, Timothyjosephwood, and I believe it to be a significant improvement of the current lead on multiple grounds. I have some concerns about the wording, and there are some copyediting issues which should be cleaned up, but I believe the content is otherwise great. I approve of it, and think it should go through, though I'll make some subsequent edits to it thereafter to fix the problems I see in it. Either that, or I could simply provide my draft here. Whatever the case, I support it.


 * As for those of you taking issue with the lack of an explicit statement that sexism affects women more than men, I'd like to point out that in its current state, the lead fails to adequately support this claim in any degree. The body of the article details the history of sexism against women, but it fails to give an adequately comprehensive picture of sexism. In its current state, I still believe the weights are off, though I suspect this has more to do with lack of research and reliable sources documenting information for us to include than any POVs of the editors. Nevertheless, I think it's better if we simply don't state that sexism affects women more than men at this time because this claim is not adequately verified. The two measly references are already laughably poor, and the proposed lead by Timothyjosephwood above clearly gives more implicit weight to sexism against women while not stating it outright. If this claim could be rigorously verified, then perhaps it should be included, though I think the sentence would need rewording so as to not sound so inflammatory, like Timejosephwood noted.


 * Claiming that women are especially affected by sexism, and that they are moreover than men, is a bold claim requiring strong references verifying it. That is not present at this time, so it should be removed. I believe that sexism has historically affected women more, as well, but that's POV. Unless it can be verified, it should be removed like any other instance of audacious unverified claims. As a side note, I'm still waiting to continue discussing these matters. If Timothyjosephwood's proposal goes through, however, then my discussion above could probably be put to rest since a major issue I had was the POV in the lead. As a courtesy, I'll notify both of you, and, to this post since you two appear to be the more earnest dissenters here. Could either of you, or perhaps someone else reading this, provide reliable sources which verify the specific claim that sexism especially affects women? I'd like to mention to you in particular, NeilN, that although you provided three sources above in the previous discussion, I explained why two of them are problematic. You never did respond.


 * If either of you, or anyone else, could find some reliable sources to verify the claim that sexism affects men and women, but especially women, then please do provide it. I don't really mind whether the claim is included so much as whether it's backed by credible sources. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Three sources is what I found in five minutes of searching. Instead of writing that rather long opinion piece up above, did you try searching for sources yourself? More:, --Neil N  talk to me 15:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have, including my findings below. I have also been searching for some papers on Google Scholar, though I'm not finding any which I believe satisfies the necessary criteria for verifying the claim in question. I appreciate your additional sources, both I don't see how they verify that sexism especially affects women either. The first source certainly details about sexism against women, but it doesn't actually compare the respective degrees or amount of sexism men and women face, and whether one is affected more than another. It discusses exclusively about sexism against women, and one of the prevailing premises of the author's arguments is that men are typically the sexists. Without any verification for this, however, why should this be considered anything more than the opinion of the author?


 * This also applies to the second source, with the exception that it clearly defines sexism as discrimination against women solely because they are women—a very narrow definition which is incompatible with the definitions of virtually all other reputable sources, as well as with the content of this article. If I find any sources myself, I'll be sure to provide them. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been doing some research,, and here are the only source I could find which may be relevant to the matter of sexism especially affecting women: (click the preview and read the abstract). As you can see, it's not much. Moreover, it doesn't sufficiently support such a bold and broad claim. The closest claim it could probably support would be something like:Of course, the sentence would probably have to be better worded, but I think you get what I mean. Anyway, the claim that "sexism affects both men and women, but especially women" is vague and unsubstantiated by the "references", which do not elucidate on this nor provide any adequate verification that it is at all true. At least with a sentence like the one above (coupled with the sources I've provided), there is evidence to show that some research suggests that sexism affects women more than men under certain circumstances. What do you think? It's not much, but that's all I could find.


 * As an aside, here are other sources I encountered during my research which may be worthwhile to include somewhere in the article:
 * Perceived discrimination (i.e. sexism) tends to cause women to increase their identification with women as a group, whereas perceived discrimination does not cause men to increase their identification with men as a group. In other words, perceived discrimination or sexism tends to cause women to seek solidarity among other women whereas men tend to not.
 * Modern sexist views appear less offensive than "old-fashioned sexist views", so modern sexist views tend to go unnoticed or unchallenged as a result. In other words, modern sexism is less overt and offensive than older forms of sexism, but nevertheless undermines one's views and inject prejudice into their perceptions of others. Since it is not as pronounced or objectionable in contemporary society, however, modern sexist views are not challenged.
 * Although intimate partner violence (IPV) is caused by both men and women, IPV by women tend to be in response to IPV by their male partners, whereas IPV by men tend to be initiatory. (At least, when it comes to Hispanic cases.) In other words, when it comes to IPV, both sexes are guilty, but apparently men tend to initiate it. This is found in a study of predominantly Hispanic participants.
 * Watching movies which depict violence against women in a positive light influence male viewers to be more accepting of violence against women, whereas female viewers tend to become more avid against it. In other words, positive depictions of violence against women in movies tend to polarize male and female views on violence against women, with males becoming more accepting of it and females becoming less accepting of it.
 * Only the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI), which measures both hostile sexism toward men and benevolent sexism toward men (similar to the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, or ASI), "successfully distinguished between subjectively positive and subjectively negative beliefs about men." In other words, an inventory to complement the ASI has been created to measure both hostile and benevolent sexism against men.


 * I don't know if these sources will be useful to anyone, but I thought they may be interesting to note. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, I believe the sources I have found are acceptable and support the current wording or some form of it and there's no need to change to the significantly weaker, "Sexism affects both men and women; however, some research suggests that sexism tends to negatively impact women more than men." --Neil N  talk to me 18:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not? I have already explained above why I think the sources you've provided are not adequate. Do you have a response to my reasoning above, or any specific reason why you believe my argument(s) does not adequately invalidate the sources? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * After doing some searching, I found this archived post, which is relevant to this issue. The problem with citing any of the encyclopedias is that they typically detail how sexism as a term is typically used and in what contexts. Similar to dictionary definitions, it only describes usage; however, it does not actually verify that sexism especially affects women. If we are to assume that, we would be mistaking word usage as a reliable source proving the current state of affairs. All these encyclopedias and dictionaries do is define how sexism is commonly used. That alone is not sufficient reason to believe that sexism actually affects women "especially". Also, assuming we were to use these as reliable sources in this context, note that not all the sources agree. Numerous sources, including other dictionaries and encyclopedias not listed therein, do not comment on whether sexism as a term applies more to women than men. In fact, most of them don't. The lack of this specification could be reason to assume that they do not agree with this specification.


 * As for the cited papers, these are far more substantial. I have some concerns that the sources are biased or agenda-driven, but these can be disregarded because I don't have any evidence for this. The problem with using these papers, then, is that unless they specifically detail that their research concludes that sexism "especially" affects women, or that women are affected by sexism to a far greater degree than men, then I wouldn't consider them adequate sources verifying this claim. They are certainly valuable sources which could be used to support this article in the body, but they are not conducive to the lead and certainly not adequate to support the claim that sexism especially affects women. Moreover, I suspect that these papers are research which intended to investigate sexism against women in particular. Thus, although the research is valuable for confirming that sexism against women occurs in significant ways, it fails to actually verify anything regarding the amount of sexism women face in proportion to the amount of sexism men face. For this reason, these papers shouldn't be used either. If I have misjudged any of them, however, feel free to let me know.


 * If anyone has any other sources, please do provide them. Again, to clarify, I don't care whether the claim that sexism especially affects females (as compared to males) is included in the lead. What matters to me is whether it's verified. I have my own opinions on the matter (and they're pretty similar to the claim, too), but that's not what Wikipedia is about. Unless it could be substantiated with reliable sources, we shouldn't include it. At this time, the claim in question is not. I invite anyone and everyone to ensure that it is. If not, I seriously think there is more than enough reason for its omission. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

And this has quickly devolved into the same bickering over minutiae that has consumed pages upon pages of this talk. Apparently there is in fact a reason the lead has sat unimproved for two years. For god's sake, this is high importance in six projects. But obviously bickering side rails any honest attempt at improvement by someone with no political motive. It's not like I have a degree in gender studies (oh wait, I do). So do what you want with the lead. I'm going back for military maneuver articles where I was before. Best of luck. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Timothyjosephwood, I do not doubt your honest attempts but your suggestions need varying degrees of work. Your proposed edit for conscription was firmly out in left field. This one is much better, but needs some tweaking. --Neil N  talk to me 15:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not spending any more time on it. It needs inclusion (re: literally tens of millions of dead conscripted men), but it's just going to hit the same wall of bias. If someone wants to take it off my sandbox and work on it they are welcome to. They can put up with the droning debate. It's a waste of my time. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not a waste of time. This section was part of the article until it was taken out by a feminist with rather weak reasons. I think it should go back in.Lucentcalendar (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the Conscription text proposed up above. What are you referring to? Diff if you have one, please. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timothyjosephwood/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyjosephwood (talk • contribs) 16:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Was that part of the article (what Lucentcalendar was referring too)? Again, too much coatracking in the sandbox version. This is not the place for general criticisms of conscription. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah. This is the kind of thing that I'm not putting up with. Three paragraphs on fashion is perfectly adequate. Forty million casualties in WW1 is coat racking. There are tens of millions of women who were only alive to experience the sexism of fashion because their brothers, fathers and sons were fodder, because and only because they had a penis. The lack of historical context. Jesus. I understand feminists are prolific. I'm not saying the section is perfect or even complete, but am I the only person here that has read a book on war? Am I the only person here that sees something wrong with Napoleon proudly saying he "spends 30,000 lives a month" because "troops are made to be killed"?


 * I have no use for your criticism. If it needs fixed then fix it. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Might want to have a look at WP:NOTSOAPBOX. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yup. I'm familiar. It's only a handful of the most devastating world changing events in human history. Totally not relevant. Definitely a soap box. Got it. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologize for that, but it was inevitable. There are numerous users who are earnest in their belief that the lead should specify (or omit) certain information. Until these users either change their opinions, or give up, or until a proposal which satisfies their concerns is made, these debates will continue. For what it's worth, I tried resolving it above, but to no avail. People simply stopped responding to me. Keep in mind that I support your proposal, and I consider it to be an improvement even though it is not ideal. The problem now is trying to finally resolve the persistent issues which follow any attempt at changing the lead. It's up to all parties to make this change, though. If not, edit warring is likely. I'm sorry that you are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs, . I am, too. I hope that through your efforts, and perhaps through mine as well, some change can be made with which (almost) everyone can be satisfied. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
Note: As has been repeatedly made clear at this talk page, the debate questioning the fact that sexism especially affects women is silly, since the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources on the topic of sexism make it explicitly clear that sexism especially affects women. Not only did I point to Talk:Sexism/Archive 7, where a lot of WP:Reliable sources are listed verifying this matter, NeilN has provided WP:Reliable sources above verifying this matter. There are no WP:Reliable sources whatsoever that verify that men are especially affected by sexism or are affected by sexism to the same degree as women. Editors, especially men's right editors, who repeatedly challenge the WP:Due weight because they want to create false balance and use a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT rationale are being disruptive. This Template:POV that Timothyjosephwood added is misplaced; read what that template states. It is about following the WP:Neutrality policy, which means following the WP:Due weight policy. Unless it can be reliably verified that men are especially affected by sexism or are affected by sexism to the same degree as women, I will remove that tag. Nowhere did I object to Timothyjosephwood's lead as a whole; I objected to his need to somewhat obscure the fact that sexism is especially a female matter.

Also, do not WP:Ping me to this talk page; it's on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

On a side note: We should not be analyzing sources the way that Nøkkenbuer has analyzed the sources above; in other words, we should not discard WP:Reliable sources because we personally believe that they are unsatisfactory. WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources are clear about how we are supposed to judge the reliability of sources, and that we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state. And on the topic of encyclopedias? Encyclopedias generally do not simply go on word usage; so that's another reason why the argument that the encyclopedia sources in Archive 7 are unusable for noting that sexism especially affects women is a bad rationale. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There are issues with conscription being used as an example of sexism. War is typically very hard on the civilian population. Per PRIO report The authors therefore concluded that wars negatively affected women more than men when taking into account the entire conflict cycle. World War II casualties has (millions) 22-30 military, 19-30 direct action against civilians, 19-25 civilian famine and disease, 38-55 total civilian deaths, 60-85 total deaths. Then, there are comfort women (which excludes all other organized sexual slavery and rape) The “Comfort Women” Issue and the Asian Women’s Fund estimates 20,000 - 200,000 sexual slaves. PRIO The use of conscription would seem to be to some degree cherry picking of data. Jim1138 (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I altered your section break heading by moving it a little higher to keep my comments together. Flyer22 (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ten million conscripted men in WW2 in the US alone is not cherry picking. See http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-students/ww2-history/america-goes-to-war.html 200k sex workers by the standards of modern warfare and human suffering is cute. You don't see a quarter million sex worker killed in a bad week, that leads into a bad six to ten months. The neutrality of this article has been challenged repeatedly. The tag is an accurate representation of the talk. If you remove it you are being plainly dishonest. It is obviously disputed. The fact that you think others disputations are unfounded does not make them less relevant. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Discarding all of the horrors of war to focus on conscription is cherry picking. No war, no deaths of the conscripted, no "sexism". BTW: The 200k was only one instance of many, a point interestingly ignored as were the civilian (...negatively affected women more than men) casualties. Cherry picking? Jim1138 (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , what do you think about a section which describes the affects of sexism in war, wherein the section details the affects of sexism against men by conscription and forced combat; as well as sufficient information detailing the affects of sexism against women at home, abroad, and through sex slavery (which I'm not sure is necessarily sexism per se, but if shown to be sexism then it should definitely be included)? Would that be better? A section detailing the affects of sexism against all sexes during war? I don't have any opinion on this matter, but I would like it to be resolved. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The article has been challenged by people who don't have a clue about the topic and MRA types who believe in magical misandry. The actual scholarship on the topic overwhelmingly supports the statement that sexism is primarily and disproportionately against women. Can we not do this whole WP:SYNTH thing where people toss links around trying to make a WP:POINT about something? This article is about sexism, not conscription. This is not a forum to discuss your opinion on the topic. Find some good quality secondary sources (like textbooks for example) that say sexism affects men equally and then there will be a discussion to have.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The scholarship does not overwhelmingly support that sexism is against women. The scholarship research and media reporting IS overwhelmingly about sexism against women. Frequency does not constitute quality. In the natural sciences one study which disproves a theory is enough, in social sciences it is a bit harder, but still we cannot go by research frequency.Lucentcalendar (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * References to support this? Jim1138 (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am searching, but I have not found a comprehensive literature review on sexism studies yet. Here I can offer you an example. A recent study found on both an experimental and empirical base that women are 2:1 more likely to be hired for a professorship. However, this is not framed as a gender bias and therefore sexism against men, but as a huge success for women. You can also look at the mission statement of Gender ans Society and Sex Roles, two prominent research outlets for sexism studies. Both explicitly state that they take a feminist perspective.Lucentcalendar (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See my (work in progress) sandbox. See my above criticism of blanket disregard of "MRA types", whatever that means. See the fact that 200k deaths is cute in modern warfare. See the quarter million dead at Verdun and then we can talk. If you want sources for equality of sexism, I would refer you to any book on modern warfare. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:COATRACK - which you've been doing from your first few posts on this talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coatrack#What_is_not_a_coatrack Timothyjosephwood (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for linking to that. 1) No general sources provided saying conscription is a main example of sexism and 2) Plenty of irrelevant detail provided. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would refer you to any book on modern warfare. Please provide one that specifically links war deaths to sexism. Otherwise WP:SYNTH.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really think someone who denies that misandry or sexism against men exists (which has scholarly consensus) and who writes off any and all individuals seeking to add war-related sexism into this article as "MRA types" should be considered to have an informed opinion on the topic of either sexism or war-related subjects. You've clearly exhibited your egregious bias here, and I question whether any further input by you isn't inherently POV. I don't have any comment on the matter of Timothyjosephwood's attempts at adding conscription to this article, but I do believe your "rationale" for dismissing his work is pitiful. Please refrain from personal attacks and keep to the topic. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. The Second Sexism by moral philosopher David Benatar. See Rostker v. Goldberg. See Gender Equality Duty in Scotland which covers men equally with women. This is not hard to find. I don't know why people are pretending it doesn't exist. Do a books.google search for "conscription and gender". Timothyjosephwood (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, why don't you go ahead and apply your proposed lead without removing the "but especially women" part, so that we at least get somewhere with improving the lead? Then, after that, we can continue to discuss how best to word the "but especially women" part; for example, whether we agree to state that "consistent research indicates that sexism disproportionately affects women," or something similar. Flyer22 (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Negative. The lead as written is NPOV. The fact that this phrase in particular has been singled out is a POV problem that people here have been arguing here for so long that they have an emotional attachment to it. The fact that the POV tag was taken down when obviously there is ongoing debate, dozens of debates, and dozens of dozens of edits regarding POV are evidence that a few editors are reigning over this article and calling consensus while debate is ongoing. This is a problem. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I think your proposed lead is an improvement, but it doesn't need to be weighed down by this persistent problem over one particular sentence. Perhaps you could include it in your proposed lead just to ensure that the lead is improved to some degree? I really hate doing that, since the sentence in question should be removed for now while it's challenged because there is no consensus, but any attempt at doing so leads to edit warring by unfriendly parties. The matter of that pesky sentence can be addressed later or (hopefully) below. Yes, it is a problem and I find it abhorrent, but don't let your improvements get shot down and go to waste because of it. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Negative. The lead is NPOV as it is written. To insert this bias doesn't solve the problem. We will continue to get multiple edits every other day on this phrase and debate will continue. The fact that this is a sticking point is mind boggling. We need to get over our personal emotions regarding this lead and act like adults.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, you have still not addressed my analyses. You have dismissed them as simply my own personal views, despite how this is obviously not the case. You are treating this matter, and my responses, very flippantly, and I'd appreciate it if you would actually address my points rather than accuse me of what you believe me to be doing (which is false). The point of my analyses, in case you missed it, is that even though they are reliable sources, they do not adequately support the claim that sexism "especially" affects women. I say this is because the sources do not actually contrast the experiences of sexism that men and women face, nor do they actually address the matter of sexism against both sexes.


 * Virtually all sources given thus far were about studying sexism against women in particular, meaning that they do not adequately compare the sexism men and women face, nor do they reach a conclusion which could be used to support the claim. Many of the sources also define sexism in ways most sources do not, or in ways which are incompatible with how we define sexism in our article. Unless the source actually compares the amount or degree of sexism each sex faces, and moreover concludes that women are affected more by sexism, the source is not valid to support the claim that sexism "especially" affects women. The source may be reliable and even useful elsewhere in the article, but it does not support the claim that women are affected by sexism significantly more than men.


 * I don't care if you agree with me, or I agree with you, so long as we reach consensus. Unless you actually address my concerns, I'll just assume your dissent is because you don't like it. If you would like for me to elaborate, expand the box below. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously, we are not going to reach consensus. Please wp:drop the stick. Not reaching consensus is not an uncommon occurrence. When this happens, per WP:CONSENSUS: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.. So, the article stays the way it is. I am open to Flyer's suggestion of  wp:boldly adding his lede, so long at the "but especially women" (or equivalent) phrase is included. Please see 's excellent research below, btw. Jim1138 (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, which is sad because dropping the stick is probably the last thing which needs to be done right now. I feel like this lack of consensus is contrived, though, and that we could be doing a far better job at reaching some common agreement. If we don't, and no matter how much we may hate for it to be revisited or brought back up, someone will revive it and we'll be back to the same contention. I understand the common guidelines with WP:CONSENSUS, but there actually isn't consensus here. At this point, I feel like keeping it in is more of a bias masked valid rationale for retaining the current lead. As for the research below, I've already presented my reasons for why I consider it invalid. Feel free to point out my errors there. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, which is sad because dropping the stick is probably the last thing which needs to be done right now. I feel like this lack of consensus is contrived, though, and that we could be doing a far better job at reaching some common agreement. If we don't, and no matter how much we may hate for it to be revisited or brought back up, someone will revive it and we'll be back to the same contention. I understand the common guidelines with WP:CONSENSUS, but there actually isn't consensus here. At this point, I feel like keeping it in is more of a bias masked valid rationale for retaining the current lead. As for the research below, I've already presented my reasons for why I consider it invalid. Feel free to point out my errors there. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Reading is good
Regarding Jim's comment above on the PRIO report, from the same report: Iraq War 82% male deaths p. 11, total war in 1990 211k female deaths vs 290k male p. 11, "Severe conflicts increased male mortality both in the short and long term, whereas the effects for women accrued rather in the long term" p. 13, "Spiegel and Salama (2000) found that men were 8.9 times more likely to die from war-related trauma than women, which coincides with men being systematically targeted." p. 14, from p. 15: "compared sex-specific rates within the age strata and found that men and women aged 0–14 years had a similar mortality rate from war-related trauma, whereas men of military age (15–49 years) and men 50 years and older were 10.8 (2.7–42·2) and 9.6 (2.4–37.6) times more likely to die of war-related trauma than were women in their respective age-groups.”

Continuing, "all report much higher rates of violent deaths amongst men than women during the wartime." p. 21, "This contrasts with Murray et al’s study (2002) with WHO war related data from 2000, where they found the total number of deaths to be about 310 000 and only about a quarter of those were women (suggesting a male to female ratio of 3)." pp. 21-22,

Also, PRIO doen't make the conclusion Jim claims (cherry picking?), Plümper and Neumayer 2006 cited in the paper do. But, from the very first line of their abstract: "Most combatants in armed conflict are men, so naturally men are the major direct victims of military operations." They are also the only study cited in this paper that concludes that women are more victimized than men. Every. Single. Other. Study. in the paper concludes the opposite.

So don't lecture me about cherry picking when you cite a claim that the author's didn't make, in a paper you obviously didn't read. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that; I used the wrong template. I cleaned it up, and deleted the section. If you'd like to re-add the section, you can, though I'd recommend it as a subsection (three equal signs on each side of the header, === Example ===). ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The sad thing is that this is about the level of scholarship I have come to expect from gender related articles. This is the reason I have put so much work into this article as well as gender roles, and both articles still need substantial improvement. Everyone is so committed to the standard feminist narrative that no one stops to consider that these are complex sociological issues, and that the feminist narrative has an agenda, exactly the same as the men's rights narrative. It is important that we document these, but we have to document them from the outside as what they are, political/social movements that are agenda driven (akin to Marxism), and not purely academic enterprises (akin to psychology or sociology). You can't act like the feminist narrative is gospel at the same time time that you can't pretend the men's movement doesn't exist. It is beyond me why this needs explained to a group of people who are editors. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Given your proposed Conscription edits, I think it is clear who is editing with an agenda. And you can't use Wikipedia articles to fix what you think is wrong with coverage of a topic. Do you deny a significant majority of coverage is on how sexism affects women? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * To hell with the conscription edits. They are completely muddling a discussion that is completely not about them. They have nothing to do with the lead. I think the topic is important. I think the section needs a ton of work before it is included or discussed further for inclusion. But it has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. We are discussing the lead, which has been recognized as wanting for more than a year, and is much more important than the inclusion of yet another "example" among so many.


 * I absolutely agree that the majority of coverage is about women. I absolutely agree that the majority of scholarship is about women. I absolutely agree that the majority of the article is about women. I absolutely have an agenda: to ensure that the article covers this topic from an academic perspective grounded in sociological scholarship, and approaches the issue from a NPOV.


 * The proposed lead gives special attention to women as it is written. But to include "especially women" is not only bad writing, it is biased. This should be more than evident by the number of times it has been removed and then undone. It is not factually wrong; it is unnecessarily inflammatory. If the article is well written, you shouldn't need to point out "especially women". Because of the content the fact that it affects women should be self evident. The reader should go "holy crap, there's a lot of things women face that I've never considered". Racism shouldn't have to point out that it affects black people more than white people. The reader should go "holy crap, there's a lot of things that black people face that I've never considered. I don't worry that someone watches me when I walk into a store because they think I'm going to steal. I don't know what it's like to know that my last name doesn't have a legacy, but was given to me by someone who literally owned my great great grandfather and grandmother". If you have to point it out then we're not doing our job. The reader should read "discrimination in the workplace, the objectification of women, dangers to their health and safety, differing treatment by the criminal justice system, and disparities in education" and go "whoa, I know Greg makes sexist jokes at work, but dangers to health a safety??? That sounds nasty. I better go down in the article and see what's up with all that."


 * If you simply present the evidence, and you do it well, the reader should draw the conclusion without you having to point it out. To say "especially women" is a value judgement. It is a correct one, but the value judgement should be reached by the reader given the presentation of the facts, not made by the writer out of the insecurity of "this is totally about women, but I really want to make sure that they get it. I better tell them in case they're too stupid to figure it out for themselves." Timothyjosephwood (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is essentially my view on this matter as well. I do not deny that historically, women have been victims of sexism, discrimination, oppression, and objectification to a far greater degree than men had ever experienced. That's pretty obvious to anyone who reads history and what people said about women during their times. In contemporary society, this probably still holds true, albeit to a lesser degree thanks to the feminist movement and increased social liberalization among subsequent generations of citizens. The problem I have with the sentence is that it is unverified and even if it were, it's not particularly necessary so long as we present the article in a neutral and comprehensive manner. The information will speak for itself and the reader will draw the conclusions for themselves.


 * I would like to note, however, that although I am opposed to the claim in its current state, I am not completely against revising it to be less inflammatory and bold, so as to reflect current evidence on the matter. I have provided a replacement sentence above (though it could be better) and even provided a valid citation to support it, one which specifically compares the sexism both males and females face and concludes that, according to the very diary entries of its participants, women are affected by perceived sexism more than men. If we must state it in the lead, then we could do a far better job at it. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Some Tertiary Sources
OK so I've been silently following this debate for a while now, and it seems to me that we're reaching a point of diminishing returns here (tempers starting to flare, patience running out, etc). I think perhaps it might be helpful to step back and look at what some tertiary sources say about this. Note that I'm not saying that these are sources that should be used in the article, merely that they might be useful in establishing the weight of some of the sources and arguments made above: These are just a few of hundreds of results that I brought up in 20 minutes of searching my uni library's online reference resources. I could post many many more, but I don't see the point: there is a clear consensus, not just among "feminists" but among academics and publishers in general, that sexism overwhelmingly affects women. The reliable sources on this are clear, and I really don't see how/why anyone can argue otherwise. By noting that sexism predominantly affects women, this article is just being consistent with other tertiary sources, and with the vast body of secondary literature that those sources summarize. In fact, I'd say it's pretty obvious that failure to mention this fact would be a violation of NPOV, rather than the other way around. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia Britannica. (Online, current version). First sentence defines sexism as "prejudice or discrimination based on sex or gender, especially against women and girls."
 * The Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology (2006). States clearly that "The term is most generally used to describe the ways in which women have been depicted in derogatory and demeaning ways by a particular culture, the mass media (see mass media and communications), or particular social institutions."
 * The Collins Dictionary of Sociology (2000). Clearly defines sexism as "any devaluation or denigration of women or men, but particularly women, which is embodied in institutions and social relationships, e.g. the sexist use of language, such as the male personal pronoun, ‘he’, to refer to men and women"
 * Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Ed, 2008). Clearly defines sexism as "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."
 * The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology (2000) goes even further, directly stating that: "in every known society where gender inequality exists, males are privileged over females."
 * The Encyclopedia of Political Science (SAGE, 2013). First sentence: "Sexism is discrimination, domination, and oppression based on sex. Both men and women can experience sexism, but sexism against women is more pervasive. The word sexism is commonly associated with assumptions about female physical and psychological inferiority and weakness, and male superiority and strength."
 * The Encyclopedia of Gender and Society (SAGE, 2009). First sentence: "Sexism usually refers to prejudice or discrimination based on sex or gender, especially against women and girls."
 * The Oxford Dictionary of English (3rd Ed, 2010). Defines it as: "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."
 * The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (McMillan, 2008). States clearly that "Sexism against women pervades all areas of their lives, public and private, legal and economic, educational and social, religious and psychological, and gender relations in particular."  This source does note that "Some scholars find that at the beginning of the twenty-first century, sexism ceased to be an exclusively female problem and sexist attitudes against men are on the rise," but the article clearly acknowledges that sexism against women has long been the norm, and that it at least was an "exclusively female problem" until recently.
 * The Oxford Dictionary of Sociology (3rd Ed, 2009). States very clearly that "Normally, sex discrimination operates against women and in favor of men (as, for example, in the case of access to privileged occupational positions), however the obverse is not entirely unknown."
 * The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (2009). Defines sexism as "the practice of domination of women."
 * The Encyclopedia of Race & Racism (McMillan, 2008). Defines sexism as "Sexism consists of a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices that assume that women are naturally inferior to men in a variety of ways and that use this alleged natural inferiority to promote, protect, and enforce male privilege and deny women full participation in society."
 * The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought (2007). First sentence: "Either sex may be the object of sexist attitudes (in sense 2.); however, it is commonly held that, in developed societies, women have been the usual victims."
 * This is excellent. Thank you. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , I appreciate your work (I really do!) and I'm glad that you've brought this matter up again. I've already addressed why I believe tertiary sources don't meaningfully change the discussion, so it's worth quoting (expand to see quotes):




 * In any case, those two quotes by me are likewise relevant to the sources you've provided, but I notice that your sources offer something new to this exchange, so I'll address them as well. What you have noted is that dictionaries and encyclopedias commonly define sexism as being predominantly against women. They do not comment on how sexism affects women, nor whether this affect is significantly more than the affect it has on men. Again, most of these sources detail the usage of sexism as a term, but fails to actually provide information about how it affects men and women, respectively. Additionally, they fail to conclude that sexism affects one sex more than the other.


 * Some of the sources you have provided to indeed state, in rather explicit terms, that women are "usually" the "victims" of sexism, or that women are the usual targets of sexism. There are two problems with these:
 * These sources are tertiary. Although they are valuable sources, and reliable sources, they do not detail why they conclude what they conclude. Are we to rely on their authority alone? Do these tertiary sources provide citations or sources to verify their claims, or are we to simply assume that because they said it, it must be true? What we need are academic sources, not sources from fellow encyclopedias. If we rely on the latter, how exactly is this any different from simply transplanting one encyclopedia's claim onto another? We are an encyclopedia in our own right, not an imitation of another. We need sources to verify our claims, not other encyclopedias for us to mimic.
 * These sources still do not verify that sexism affects women especially, which I presume to mean significantly more than men. These sources detail that sexism is "prejudice or discrimination ... especially against women and girls", or that sexism "normally ... operates against women and in favor of men", or that "sexism against women is more pervasive [than sexism against men]". They fail to actually comment on whether it affects women more than men, though. You may consider this a mere semantic issue, or even that I am exploiting the ambiguity of "affect" to mean psychological affect, but if that is the case, then doesn't that damn the sentence anyway? It's obvious that this sentence poorly conveys what it means, and that it needs to be reworded to be more specific and less ambiguous. This, in turn, could cure its inflammatory nature.
 * As you can see, there are numerous issues with justifying the sentence that "sexism affects both men and women, but especially women". In my opinion, unless we either reword the sentence, soften its boldness, or alter its meaning, there is no justification for retaining the sentence in its current iteration. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) No, we rarely ask reliable sources to list their sources. 2) Not numerous issues, just one editor who will not accept plain English. As other editor have stated, you are free to propose alternate wording, but that wording needs to retain the emphasis on women. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that, but when that reliable source is tertiary, it runs into problems. Encyclopedias are built on primary and (predominantly) secondary sources, not tertiary sources which document the primary and secondary sources. WP:PSTS doesn't specify any guidelines for tertiary sources like it does for primary sources, but I'd like to think that what is true for primary sources is true for tertiary sources: just as you don't synthesize information or provide your own analysis or interpretation of primary sources, so you shouldn't rely on tertiary sources to verify a challenged or contentious claim. Tertiary sources are weak and fail to adequately verify a claim because their claims themselves would need to have secondary sources to support them. Otherwise, we're relying on their authority alone, and that's never good. When a claim is challenged, and the only support for it is tertiary, we must go back to secondary sources. When these secondary sources are absent or inadequate, we should change the contended claim to comply with the available secondary sources, if applicable, or remove the claim altogether.
 * Like Timothyjosephwood noted above, the entire article retains emphasis on women. The article clearly gives stronger weight to sexism against women, as does the lead in both its current iteration and in Timothyjosephwood's proposal. Therefore, it's a null point to argue that the claim needs to be retained in order to retain emphasis on women. This single claim isn't what allots the emphasis; it's removal is inconsequential to the weights. Like I've already proposed above, if we must retain this claim in some form, it needs to be softened to comply with current verification from secondary sources. For example:What's wrong with that? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Some research"? I can probably accept just "research" but not the watering down qualifier. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. I only added that qualifier because I could only find one source, so I was concerned that perhaps I had overlooked other, potentially conflicting, research. The removal of "some" make the cited research more authoritative, which is a concern since it wasn't a significant study; however, if others approve of this and we can reach consensus on it, at least it would be an improvement over the current claim and "sources". At least, in my opinion. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I noted this above, but it bears re-iterating: I didn't raise the tertiary sources because I think they should be used as sources/references in the article - rather, I was trying to respond to 's comments above, which seemed to be suggesting that the "especially women" line was a biased one. My point was simply that this is the commonly held, dominant view. I'm not suggesting that we should use tertiary sources to document that fact, merely that the "especially women" part seems to be consistent with the majority of existing scholarship. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but even if we don't cite them in the article, these tertiary sources will still serve as the formative rationale for retaining the current wording. I find that problematic because I don't consider tertiary sources to be valid when dealing with contended or challenged content. Moreover, I disagree that the sources indicate that sexism affects women more than men. It overwhelmingly verifies that tertiary consensus is that women are predominantly the victims of sexism, and that sexism is typically against women, but it doesn't verify that sexism affects women more than men. That's the entire foundation of my argument: the claim is false because the verb here is affects, which is not only vague but often carries psychological connotations. Even if we reworded the sentence, such as (for example) Sexism affects both men and women; however, sexism is understood as usually being against women, then this issue would probably dissipate. Like I said above, I agree that women are usually the victims of sexism, but affects is not victim of. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Subtle sexism: Current practice and prospects for change. NVE Benokraitis: "Here, the author helps to document the range of "just below the surface" discriminatory behavior, that many women (and some men) experience on a daily basis."


 * Koppelman, A. Why discrimination against lesbians and gay men is sex discrimination. New York University Law Review. (the title speaks for itself).


 * Nathanson & Young. Spreading misandry p, 230: "The teaching of contempt for men in popular culture: We include here both forms of sexism, misandry and misogyny"


 * Pharr, S. Homophobia as a weapon of sexism: "Gay men are perceived also as a threat to male dominance and control, and the homophobia expressed against them has the same roots in sexism as does homophobia against lesbians."


 * Gough & Peace. Reconstructing gender at University: Men as victims: "Men are more explicitly presented as the victims of sexism"


 * O'Neil. Is criticism of generic masculinity, essentialism and positive-health-masculinity a problem for the psychology of men?: "Clearly, biological essentialism has been used to restrict humans and promote sexism against men, women and gay, lesbian, and transgendered people."


 * O'Neil, Good & Holmes. Fifteen years of theory and research on men's gender role conflict: New paradigms for empirical research. "The gender role conflict construct was one way to conceptualize about sexism against men."


 * Mellor, Bynon, Maller & Clearly. The perception of racism in ambiguous scenarios. "Interestingly, women were also more likely than men were to perceive sexism against men, and racism against both Blacks and Caucasians."


 * Mathy, Lehmann & Kerr. Bisexual and transgender identities in a nonclinical sample of North Americans: Suicidal intent, behavioral difficulties, and mental health treatmen. "As a possible consequence of the dual effects of heterosexism and sexism, transgender individuals and bisexual females have higher risks of mental health problems including suicide ideation and attempts than bisexual males."


 * Mathy. Transgender identity and suicidality in a non clinical sample: Sexual orientation, psychiatric history, and compulsive behavior. "All transgender individuals are confronted by sexism."


 * Griffin. Sexism, heterosexism, and transgender oppression. "Sexism, heterosexism and transgender oppression are distinct yet overlapping manifestations of oppression."

Need I go on? Or is this perhaps sufficient to establish that there is a body of scholarly work out there dealing with sexism as it affects men, women, gays, lesbians, and transgender people? If you look for instances of sexism against women you find it. If you look for instances of sexism against straight men, gay men, lesbians, and transgendered people you also find it. This is exactly my point. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps you can cherry pick all the studies you want but realize the majority of work in this area explicitly refers to sexism especially affecting women and that's what we have per WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course there's a body of scholarship that says that, I haven't seen anyone question that. But there's nothing inherently contradictory or problematic about noting that sexism "especially" or predominantly affects women, and noting that it effects other people too. It's not an either-or proposition, we're dealing with a question of weight here - and I'd submit that's exactly the kind of situation where we should look at how other tertiary sources treat the subject for guidance. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right in that regard: we should be looking to other tertiary sources for guidance. However, in doing so, we must necessarily discard the current claim and replace it with one which is less inflammatory, more accurate, and more specific. None of the other tertiary sources support the claim that "Sexism affects both men and women, but especially women". If we are going to mention anything along these lines at all, we need to use a sentence or clause similar to those used in the tertiary sources you've provided. Otherwise, the claim should be removed altogether for being inflammatory, unverified, and vague by any sources. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Seriously. How many sources do I need to produce before I'm not cherry picking simply because you disagree with the body of published scholarly literature? This is getting silly. Do we really need to do a complete meta analysis of every work that has ever used the word sexism and compare the context? You've asked for books. I've provided books. You've asked for journals. I've provided journals. At some point your personal opinion is subject to the sources. You are being obstructionist even when I have provided ample sourcing.


 * Do you honestly think gay men don't experience sexism? Have you actually ever met a gay man? Do you honestly think that straight men that don't conform to the heteronormative standard don't experience sexism? Do you honestly think that lesbians don't experience sexism above and beyond what straight women face? Do you really think the evidence suggests that women experience less sexism than trans? I think it's pretty clear that sexism "especially" affects all these groups. Ironically, this discussion on sexism seems, on the face of it, to be pretty sexist, as well as unproductive.


 * There is exactly something wrong with saying that there are sources saying reliably that sexism affects straight men, gay men, lesbians and trans and then going on to say it especially affects women. You are basically saying "yes, you are right, but that doesn't keep me from saying exactly the opposite" Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A suggestion in the middle: “Gender discrimination is any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of socially constructed gender roles and norms which prevents a person from enjoying full human rights” (Cottingham et al., 2001, p. 49). Replace Gender discrimination with sexism, but I guess that is a synonym.Lucentcalendar (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a precise synonym. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In the lead of this article those two terms, sexism and gender discrimination are presented as synonym.Lucentcalendar (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's like saying Racism in the United States is too focused on minorities because, hey, some studies show that whites experience racism too! --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it's exactly the equivalent of saying "You know, we should probably take out that part where it says 'racism affects all races but especially blacks', because...you know...there are these other folk...Jews, Native Americans, Slavs, Irish, Inuit, Japanese... Yeah, we basically committed a genocide against the Native Americans. We may or may not have erased 60 or so Japanese cities in strategic bombing in WW2 and interned Japanese Americans against their will. Sure, the blacks don't have cake walk, but the Armenians got a march to their death in the desert, and you know, the Cherokee got basically the same thing so we could settle them in arid desert, pretty much the only land that white people didn't care about. They may have sort of a problem with our saying that blacks have it worst of all."


 * And of course you reply, "But there is so much more literature out there about racism against blacks. I mean, have you read MLK Jr? The literature on the Armenians is only a minority of the work published. Clearly WP:POV and WP:LEAD dictate that the Armenians be disregarded."Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If I may interject (and I hope I'm not going too off-topic): yes, gay men can experience sexism, just as can any other human being. However, when LGBT and alternative genders are considered, the definition of sexism changes and blurs. A homosexual man can experience sexism because he is a man, and a man who identifies as male—even if he does not identify as masculine or heterosexual—is always capable of experiencing sexism by virtue of him being a man. This is because men can experience sexism. The same applies to women, even homosexual women, by virtue of being women. This is because when it comes to cissexual (but not cisgender?) individuals, sexism can be experienced because they are being discriminated against on the basis of their sex (which, for all intents and purpose, is virtually identical to gender when it comes to cissexual individuals).


 * But what of transsexual individuals? What of individuals who identify as a third sex, or intersex individuals? This makes it problematic in the first instance because sexism becomes far less clearly defined, since there is no consensus on whether sexism against transsexual individuals applies only when they are discriminated against on the basis of their assigned sex, or only on the basis of their identified gender, or both. Moreover, it's difficult to distinguish between sexism and gender discrimination (or transphobia) because from the perspective of the discriminated, it is unclear whether it is one or the other (or both). With third sex individuals, or those who identify as a sex or gender outside of the traditional gender binary, it becomes problematic because sexes or genders outside of the binary are not widely accepted by society. Sexism is likewise typically defined within the confines of a sex or gender binary, which further isolates these individuals from being victims of sexism. As for intersex individuals, it is difficult to define them as victims of sexism for similar reasons as with transsexuals—namely, that there is a lack of definition over whether sexism applies to perceived sex, or identified sex, or both; and moreover what distinguishes sexism from, for lack of a better word, intersexism.


 * For these reasons, it may be best to keep the discussion about sexism within the confines of the binary, and with respect to cissexuality. If we do not, we may have to drastically reform the current article so as to expand the current definition of sexism to include individuals who fall outside of the gender binary. (I'm not particularly opposed to this, but this is a task for another time.) We would moreover have to distinguish between sexism and transphobia within the article so as to assert that transgender people are able to experience sexism as well. At this time, the current consensus of sexism as shown above and within our own very article is that sexism only applies to cissexual males or females, i.e. individuals who fall within the binary. If we wish to include the "T" part of LGBT individuals, we'd need to redefine sexism. At least, that's my mediocre understanding of this issue. My point is that for now, we should focus on sexism against men and women, and only those who identify as males or females. If we don't, we'd be arguing along lines incompatible with tertiary consensus and incompatible with our current article.


 * Keep in mind that the article on sexism currently covers, for some reason, both sexism and gender discrimination. Gender discrimination, from my understanding, is discrimination against gender and not sex. Thus, if we wish to specify that transgender people sexism, we will need to specify in the lead that "gender discrimination is theoretically different from sexism" per Sexism § Gender discrimination. Either that or split it into two articles already. It's probably inevitable at this point. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Very insightful, and...maybe problematic. My view is that we are basically arguing racism vs ethnism (for lack of a better word). Ethnicity is the parlance of our time, as opposed to someone like Churchill (see History of the English Speaking People) referring to the Welsh Race or the Scottish Race, when he's basically speaking of the same thing we would call ethnicity. The key difference being that race has an element of species-ism (?) to it, while now we understand that we are all variations on the same species. Sexism is called sexism because "sex" was the parlance of the time. I think there is ample evidence that what we would call gender is actually what they were referring to. The section on gender should probably repurposed to something about trans and third gender, since when the article mentions males and females, it is actually referencing what is commonly mistaken to be the two, but actually referring to the masculine gender and the feminine gender (see for example Burger and Luckmann's comments in their forward to The Social Construction of Realty). Timothyjosephwood (talk)


 * I think NeilN could use a good visit to WP:NPOV yourself, and maybe have a gander at arguing for the opponent and morally offensive views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyjosephwood (talk • contribs) 15:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced material
Can someone please not revert my removals of unsourced sentences without providing sources (which is the reason why I objected)? I'm talking to you, EvergreenFir. And Neil, I don't appreciate you deleting my comments, I wasn't trolling, maybe I was a bit flippant, but the unsourced sentences are a problem. Scaravich105nj (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please reign in your "flippancy" and stick to commenting on content. Thanks. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you haven't voice any obvious objections, I am going to revert Evergreen's striking of my edits. Scaravich105nj (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the burden here is upon you, too. If you cannot find any sources yourself, and you are unable to provide objective and valid rationale for the removal of certain content, it's unlikely that your changes will stick. In order to avoid an edit war, I recommend discussing matters here first. You may also want to EvergreenFir as well, if you want [him/her/xyr?] to respond. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Although I personally don't approve of removing content by other users on talk pages in all but the most extreme of cases, your statement were very inappropriate. I understand that you believe the article to contain main problems. So do I and many other editors, including EvergreenFir and perhaps even NeilN (though I won't speak for him, since he hasn't stated his opinion on the article yet). That does not justify your patronizing and condescending remarks, though. Not to be rude, but your statements are very disrespectful, not to mention personal attacks—which violates Wikipedia policies and can lead to discretionary restrictions.


 * Unsourced material is a problem. I completely agree with that. I recommend searching for sources to verify the claims in this article. There are many avenues to do so, either by yourself or with other editors; Google Scholar is a good place to start, as well as Google Books. You can also apply for Highbeam and gain access to even more material, or ask some editors with access to the various paywalled scholarly sites out there. If you cannot find any sources, and you believe that the claim is false (ideally if you have conflicting secondary reliable sources to cite), then I recommend raising the matter here on the talk page. Since this is a highly controversial article, it's best to discuss before being bold. Alternatively, after you are bold and your edits have been reverted, express your concerns here and detail specific proposals you think should be added, or changes you believe should be made. Following this procedure is likely to yield the best results. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Scaravich105nj (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that sometimes playing hardball is the only way to get CN templates addressed. I've added sources to the statements.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Suggestion - Formal Mediation
A request for informal moderated discussion was made today at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and was closed due to failure to identify and notify the other editors. However, in looking over the amount of discussion here within the past month (and discussion more than a month old is being archived by a bot), it does not look as though informal mediation, which is intended to take one to three weeks, may be sufficient. I would suggest that a request could be made for formal mediation at requests for mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I also note that some of the discussion here is becoming uncivil. Civility is required (not merely requested) everywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not contributors. Bear in mind that this article is a gender-related article and that disruptive editing is subject to arbitration discretionary sanctions. (If you don't know what that is, you don't want to find out.) Be civil. If you are having difficulty being civil, maybe formal mediation can help. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Potential change
Suggested by above: "Sexism affects both men and women; however, research suggests that sexism tends to negatively impact women more than men." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would support: "Sexism affects both men and women; however, there has been a great deal more research focusing on the negative impact on women." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyjosephwood (talk • contribs) 16:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't support this. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is literally what you have said multiple times in this discussion. I am basically quoting you. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's obviously an extension of your thesis that the research is driven by the feminist agenda. Why does the reader care that there's been more research? What does the research say? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As discussed variously below, the majority of the research into sexism against straight women has shown that (By George!) there is sexism against straight women. The comparatively small to moderate amount of research into straight men, gay men, lesbians, and trans has shown that (By George!) there is sexism against them too. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, the research is obviously driven by a feminist agenda. This is not controversial. Feminist journals. Whole collegiate departments set up around feminism. I'm not saying it's a bad thing or a good thing. I went to those classes. I have a minor in it. I don't think it's a big deal to say that MLK was out to improve things for African Americans. In the same right feminists are out to improve things for women. It doesn't make them evil. It just means that you have to consider their pov when citing them as a source. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Going in the right direction, but I think the term "negatively impact" is too narrow. What about benevolent sexism which may affect also one gender more, and may be percieved by the person in question as both positive or negative.Lucentcalendar (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, in the structure of the proposed lead benev sexism would come in (and probably should) in the sentence regarding the range of expressions of sexism. Something like:

Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be very misleading for the lede to suggest that there's been "a great deal more research focusing on the negative impact on women" without addressing the primary rationale for (and finding of) all that research; that sexism affects women more, and affects them more severely, than it affects men, which is clearly what the vast majority of the literature on the subject shows. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, "the vast majority of literature on the subject" of sexism does not verify that sexism affects women more, only that women are predominantly the victims of sexism. The only research which I know does is the one I've cited above and (now) below. I understand that this may seem like a minor semantic distinction, but it's a significant one. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That there is a vast majority of research regarding women seems to be the best we can all agree upon. And I think we can all agree upon it. Research into sexism against straight males, gay males, lesbians, and trans is a new arrival. A huge body of research (undoubtedly forthcoming) on these groups may expose sexism as yet unknown of. If 90% of your research is on sexism against straight women...90% of your evidence is going to be about straight women. To say that it affect straight women more than anyone else is a value judgement. To say that the vast majority of research has been on straight women is an indisputable fact. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The concern I have about your phrasing, Timothyjosephwood, is that it could be interpreted as implying that sexism doesn't actually impact women more than men, only that there is more research on the impact of sexism against women. Although this is technically true, it's not our place to judge the amount of research in a certain field. We should consider this research when determining weights, sure, but to state it in the way you have above is to comment on the state of contemporary research on sexism. In my opinion, if we were to include any statement regarding the impact of sexism against women being greater than against men, then it should be something neutral and encyclopedic. Hence:If you could think of some way which could improve this sentence, but which does not place a value judgment or POV of its own (such as commentary on the current state of research on sexism), then feel free to propose it. My initial proposal already specified "some research" (without italics), but NeilN did not think the "some" qualifier was appropriate. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, to narrow this discussion, the majority of the body of research is not on "women"; it is on straight women. The actual impact is located in the third paragraph that lists all the discriminatory practices covered in the article. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that, and can sympathize with that, but unfortunately the article in its current iteration does not distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual women. It doesn't distinguish between cisgender and transgender, or cissexual and transsexual, either. For these reasons, the lead needs to follow suit for consistency. If you wish to change it so that these distinctions are made, you will probably need to initiate a new section discussing this. Until then, the lead must reflect the body, both in content and in terminology. Feel free to change this convention in the article, but attempting to force it through the lead first will only cause problems. Remember: the lead reflects the body; it doesn't determine the body's contents. Well, in theory, anyhow.
 * I understand that, and can sympathize with that, but unfortunately the article in its current iteration does not distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual women. It doesn't distinguish between cisgender and transgender, or cissexual and transsexual, either. For these reasons, the lead needs to follow suit for consistency. If you wish to change it so that these distinctions are made, you will probably need to initiate a new section discussing this. Until then, the lead must reflect the body, both in content and in terminology. Feel free to change this convention in the article, but attempting to force it through the lead first will only cause problems. Remember: the lead reflects the body; it doesn't determine the body's contents. Well, in theory, anyhow.


 * As for the "actual impact" being located in the third paragraph, that's great! It's more elaborate and informative than the current lead. The problem, however, is that the sentence you have introduced to replace the current, inflammatory one is itself still problematic for the reasons I explained above. Although you are, I believe, correct that this is an issue of lack of research more than it is of bias or POV (I stated this myself a while ago above), it's not our duty to comment on this. As an encyclopedia, our duty is to present the current research and report the findings of secondary sources. If you can find a secondary source, or numerous, which itself comment on the current state of research, perhaps that is something we could include either in the lead or (more likely) the body. Otherwise, it's probably best to either use a proposed replacement sentence like the one I recommended above, or to omit it altogether. Seeing as the latter option is almost certainly not going to happen due to the earnest of other editors who believe the sentence is justified, the former is the only feasible option. If you can propose an alternative, then be my guest. More options, at least in this case, is preferable. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a valid point. I will try to pull together a body of scholarship, to better represent the issue. I will try to polish extensively before coming back here. The time that has been wasted on this debate could have written ten articles. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, given it's attention in the literature, benev sexism should probably have its own section. We also really need some content discussing sexism generally. A lot of the article is really an extension of the examples section, with no broad sociological treatment.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

'''Note: Regarding Nøkkenbuer's suggested wording (which is similar to the wording I suggested in the section above; see my "07:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)" post), we should be using one or more of the sources Fyddlestix provided. Or similar sources.''' And Fyddlestix's sources are scholarly sources. We should not be using some obscure WP:Primary source, or otherwise obscure source, for Nøkkenbuer's suggested wording. I've been clear above, in the Arbitrary section break section, that Wikipedia editors are not supposed to analyze and reject sources the way that Nøkkenbuer is doing. So, yes, I will be flippant about such matters. Some of the sources that Fyddlestix listed are explicitly clear that sexism is mainly perpetrated against women, with some of the sources specifically noting that men receive significantly less sexism in comparison. Those sources are good enough for statements about sexism disproportionately affecting women or women being the main victims of sexism. Nøkkenbuer's quibbling over the term affect is silly, in my opinion. And that is why I do not want to waste time debating it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I seriously doubt that the source I provided is considered a primary source. It's obviously scholarly and scientific research conducted by trained professionals. A primary source would be, for example, the actual diaries of the participants. Remember that the distinction between primary and secondary sources is that the former is the raw data or original information, whereas the latter is an analysis of the former. I don't blame you that you consider the source "obscure", though; it took me a long while of searching to find it, and it is the only research I could find that verifies that sexism affects women more than men on a psychological level. Since the operative term, and the key verb, being used here is affect, that is what I sought to verify. If you want to use the sources above to verify a claim, you'll need to change the claim and, more importantly, not assert that sexism affects women more than men.


 * You are incorrect that Wikipedia is not meant to analyze and determine which sources to include and exclude. Our job as Wikipedians, editors building an encyclopedia, is to determine which sources are reliable and verify the content of the article. When extracting information from the sources, we are to interpret the information being provided and write them in WikiVoice. If we are quoting from the source, we retain the quote's information and ensure that it fits in the context of what is being said. If we didn't analyze the sources and determine which to keep or reject, we would be forsaking source reliability and verifiability altogether, or at the very least overcite gratuitously. Instead, we determine which sources are the most reliable and accurate, ensure they verify that which they are supporting, and exclude sources which—although valid and reliable—may not be applicable to that which we are verifying, or may not be as strong a citation as another. Or would you rather us cite every single encyclopedia and dictionary to verify the definition of sexism? We don't need 20+ citations, so we analyze them and choose which are best while rejecting the rest. Similarly, we determine whether the sources used actually verify the claim being made. That's what the whole Template:Failed verification template is. In this case, the dictionary sources do not verify the claim in the article, and these encyclopedias do not verify my claim or the original claim.


 * I have already explained to the point of exhaustion why your rationale is flawed, and you still refuse to actually respond to my replies. Instead, you write them off a "quibbling" or "silly", which makes me think that you don't actually want to discuss this matter so as to reach a consensus. If you want to actually respond to my concerns, then please, for goodness' sake, refer above . Simply making the same points while skipping over all the refutations is awfully a lot like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If we're going to go anywhere, please actually read what I said. My responses may be long, but they're long because they're thorough. Seeing as you consider my serious criticisms as "quibbling", however, and you refuse to actually engage in a direct refutation of my claims, and you won't even respond to me directly (you only refer to me in the third-person), then I suppose it's safe to ignore your posts as disruptive. If you're not going to work with the team, it's safe to exclude you from it. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: Above, I stated "obscure WP:Primary source, or otherwise obscure source." And while the Sexism article is not a medical article (though it does have medical aspects in it that should comply with Identifying reliable sources (medicine)), I suggest that editors read discussions at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (including its archives) to get a better idea of what does or does not qualify as a WP:Primary source. Also, I did not state anything about "Wikipedia [not being meant] to analyze and determine which sources to include and exclude." Any significantly experienced Wikipedia editor knows what I mean regarding Nøkkenbuer's inappropriate analyses and the way he discards perfectly valid sources that can be used for statements "about sexism disproportionately affecting women or women being the main victims of sexism." And, indeed, editors have already debated him on such matters on this talk page and got tired of debating him on them; I will not fall prey to such debate. Any well-formatted, well-publicized WP:RfC (publicized via the WP:Village pump) would show editors commenting similarly on Nøkkenbuer's sourcing rationales...if we were to start such a WP:RfC about them. I refuse to debate Wikipedia editors who go by their own sourcing rules, instead of the rules made clear by WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. And I especially refuse to debate editors who inappropriately characterize my behavior as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT/disruptive and cannot see their own behavior as the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT case that it is. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And on that note: I am done responding to anything Nøkkenbuer states in this section, and possibly anything he states at this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's see if this is something that could be tolerated
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timothyjosephwood/sandbox#Military_service_and_armed_conflict Per discussion on a military section above and complete opposition to a section on conscription thus far. Also I have re-purposed the current section on war rape as it falls within the scope of the proposed section.

Identified issues with the section:


 * The parts dealing with men I'm sure will be controversial, given the tone of the discussion thus far. Note that the sources provided include anthropology, moral philosophy, politics, as well as feminism. Men's rights is included in the case of the NCFM, who are bringing substantial litigation on the issue and are worth noting for that alone given the history of litigation.


 * The section on lesbian and gays in the military is not yet done. I am going to bed and would like for this to see some air in the meantime. I haven't had time to fully flesh it out. If anyone wants to they are more than welcome. If not I can work on it tomorrow. I could easily find sources regarding "don't ask don't tell". I have zero knowledge of similar practices in other countries, other than to say that (obviously) countries where being gay is a crime are ones where you can't be out and serve.


 * The sources on transgender/transsexuals are...not the best sourced. Despite my best efforts there seems to be zero scholarly work done on this topic. It is important. They are definitely barred from service in the US. But it's news articles all the way down. Perhaps that is enough to establish honorable mention. I had considered looking for quote by Chelsea Manning, but that runs again into the next issue.


 * The whole section is very West-centric. Repeatedly the rest of the world is added as almost an afterthought. I can't help this. I live in the US. I don't have sufficient knowledge to find relevant subject matter on non-western nations. It may not exist. Please someone balance this out or it may need a global perspective tag. The one notable exception I have found is Altinay who is a scholar on the anthropology of middle eastern warfare. She seems to be a remarkably neutral non-western source, but she is not sufficient. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Does no one seriously have an opinion on this? It's still a work in progress but I've kindof paused to see what issues people address. Discussion seems to be going on in previous sections, but it's so muddled by the formatting that I'm having trouble following. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I simply have no strong opinion of it. I have some criticisms of my own, but I'm not the lead critic here. It's up to the others to offer their criticisms and for one of us to accommodate for their concerns. After the others provide their opinion, I can chime in. If you'd like for me to criticize it myself, then I'd much rather simply edit your work (either on your sandbox or mine) and express my concerns through my changes. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Feel free to edit on my sandbox. I'd like to keep everything in one place so we don't end up with the above discussion on conscription, which has apparently forked into multiple editions that are very different. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright then
Well it's been about eight pages of debate (I checked in Word). If no one can come up with anything better I'm going to go ahead and change the lead to the modified version above. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your version has no consensus and will be reverted. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you recommend should be changed so that consensus is established, or that you at least support the change? Is the only issue now the sentence about sexism especially affecting women, and/or the correct sentence to replace it with? Or are there other concerns or problems you have with it that you believe still needs addressing? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Right now, I wouldn't revert the change if the sentence in question was changed to the version you and I compromised on. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I suppose it's up to to agree to this, or for either him or someone else to propose a better alternative. On that note, if anyone else reading this wishes to provide their assent (or dissent), please do now. Consensus is what we're building here and although consensus among three is better than none, consensus among many is ideal. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I can agree as long as we attach a NPOV tag. (And actually leave it there.) Or attach a tag that the claim is disputed, because it is. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * NPOV tag is absolutely not needed. You've made your WP:POINT but the scholarship on sexism does not view it as equal, despite your personal views. I asked for some sources to support your comments, and you rattled off some books, but some quotes or links would be nice. WP:BURDEN.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No. There's no need to add the tag to appease someone whose theories aren't reflected in the article. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have provided sources, many sources. Apparently anything I offer is automatically cherry picking even when the article cited against my argument actually argues for me. (see above if you don't understand) I have provided everything under the sun. What more can I do? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Further, I am opposed to the "research suggests" line. This is not just about impacts of sexism. There's a notable mainstream body of theory that says sexism is macro in nature... which is actually lacking in the article. Half tempted to suggest we nuke half the article as it's just a list of examples at the moment, not a coherent review of sexism and theory around it.
 * Some quotes would be nice... at least to the war-sexism thing.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This whole thing is rooted in psych theory which is half the problem. But if NeilN is willing to compromise on something, I'll follow suit. I'm sick of this debate.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, anything that NeilN doesn't personally like is cherry picking and nonsense. There is no honest debate here. The war/sexism thing was shut down by NeilN and used as an example of how I am biased and unable to edit this article. So take from that what you will. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I "shut down" the conscription thing because it was a pretty obvious piece of coatracking, prefaced by your "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" comment. Pretty sure that any uninvolved, experienced editor would agree. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't shut down anything. I submitted that for comment. And you commented. Apparently you are so vehemently opposed to this idea that I am colored in your eyes for any edit I make. I have asked you before to air your grievances if you have them and you have said nothing. I have asked you before to please stop sidetracking into this conscription issue and you continue to do so. You continue to argue meaningless subjects with regard for the lead and most you have contributed is saying that you will revert any edit I make. Talk about the lead. Talk about the lead. Talk about the lead. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to re-read this section. "Shut down" was your term and I only responded when you mentioned it in connection with me. Every time I mention conscription it's in response to someone else bringing it up (mostly you). --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In your opinion, why do you believe Timothyjosephwood's proposed article addition is a case of article coatracking? I have no opinion on his proposal; I'm just trying to facilitate discussion here. It's obviously that Timothyjosephwood is earnest that his proposed text is worthwhile to include in the article, but you clearly believe that it has problems which causes it to detract from the article as a whole. I don't think this question has been asked (but I may be wrong), so I'll ask it for him: what issues, in specific, do you have with his proposal? Do you have any you can provide? Or do you believe the suggestion in its entirety is flawed and that none of it, not even the intended topic, is worthwhile to add to the article? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding this version - some of the third paragraph might be useful. The rest is about why conscription is baaaad. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean the section titled "Concription"? Or do you mean "Military Service"? In either case, do you have any particular complaints about the rest which could be addressed, or should the rest be scrapped altogether? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Conscription". And the rest should be scrapped (I've said this about a prior version, too). --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this revised edition of "Conscription"? Would you think this is better? I cut out most of the stuff which I believe is irrelevant to the material as a section on sexism. Since I did some substantial changes, I've moved it over to my sandbox, as a courtesy to Timothyjosephwood. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I will have to think about it as I still would like the focus on sexism tightened some more. Others should chime in too. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Thanks for your comments. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would cut out the last two sentences in the first paragraph but other than that, it looks okay. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think it would be appropriate to replace it with a sentence like "Historically and up until the late 20th century, only men were subject to conscription"? I could cite the following sources to support this sentence:   . If needed, I could try to find better sources. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would extend the first sentence to mention conscription. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How's this? Not exactly what you suggested, but I tried to make sure it flows properly. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't you think "countries only require men to be conscripted" in the first two sentences is a little redundant? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have completely redone the section and cut out most of what is in the original. Included are many sources from multiple disciplines, political leaders, as well as multiple court cases in and out of the US, none of which were not in the original, and none of which are included in the version being discussed. I included this below as part of a general discussion of a Military service and warfare section, but it's been days and no one seems interested. This current version I think is an indisputable improvement both in robustness and scope. The section is pasted below and is also available on my talk page.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I simply haven't commented because I hold no strong opinion on this matter. I'm simply trying to formulate an alternative in case your expanded proposal does not work, so that at least something is added on this matter. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think so because the first is meant to specify the historical account of conscription, whereas the second is meant to specify the contemporary account in relation to recent developments in the late 20th century regarding the conscription of women. Do you have a better wording to suggest? Feel free to edit it yourself, if you want. Also, we may want to move this discussion to a new section or subsection, or do something since it's becoming very indented. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

{{talkquote| Conscription, or 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. The practice has widely been criticized as sexist by a range of disciplines.

It has been called "Perhaps the greatest example of sex discrimination present in the world today" and that "no gender oppression is comparable". According to Goldstein, beginning in the 1970 "liberal feminists" have argued in favor of extending the draft to women, taking the position that "the best way to insure women's equal treatment with men is to render them equally vulnerable with men to the political will of the state." However, others have disagreed, contending that "by integrating into existing power structures including military forces and the war system without changing them, women merely prop up a male-dominated world instead of transforming it."

Anthropologist Altinay has commented that "given equal sufferage rights, there is no other citizenship practice that differentiates as radically between men and women as compulsory male conscription" and continues elsewhere, "any attempt to de-gender nationalism and citizenship needs to incorporate a discussion of universal male conscription". She goes on to quote feminist writer Cynthia Enloe, "there is a reason that so many states in the world have implemented military conscription laws for young men: most of those men would not join the state's military if it were left up to them to choose".

Some countries, such as Israel, require military service regardless of gender. Others (such as Finland, Turkey and Singapore) still use a system of conscription which only requires military service for men, although women are permitted to serve voluntarily. "Chantal Galladé, former president of the Swiss Defence Committee calls the obligatory military service a discrimination against both men and women, cementing the stereotypical gender roles of men and women. Norway is the first country to introduce obligatory military service for women as an act of gender equality

The gender selective draft has been challenged in Switzerland and the case was rejected by the federal supreme court on the grounds that the specific law requiring service takes precedent over the general law forbidding sex discrimination. (see lex specialis) This rejection on formal grounds has been criticized.

Selective service
In the United States, all men must register with the Selective Service System within 30 days of their 18th birthday. Men who fail to register for selective service may be punished by up to five years in prison and a fine of no more than $250,000. They may also be ineligible for federal student financial aid, federal job training and federal employment. As of 2014, transsexuals who are born biologically male are required to register for selective service, but may file for a exemption in the event they are drafted.

The selective service has been challenged in court in Rostker v. Goldberg in 1981, by Elgin v. Department of Treasury in 2012, and a lawsuit is pending in the case of National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System, all argued in small or large part on the grounds of equal protection on the basis of gender. Thus far all rulings have upheld the program although on differing grounds.}}


 * (I didn't notice your request for before, so I'll add it in now.)  What's wrong with "research suggests"? That is the most accurate and neutral way we can describe the current state of research without adding qualifiers like "some". The only research I've found that actually discusses the matter of how sexism affects men and women, and which concludes that one is affected more than the other, is the one I provided above and below. That's pretty weak research to substantiate even a claim like the one I've suggested, but at least it's enough to qualify as a "suggestion" by contemporary research. If you can find more evidence from valid sources verifying that sexism affects women more than men (and please include any sources you can find for the contrary, if you come across them), then please do provide it so that we could potentially upgrade the claim from "suggests" to "indicates". This is assuming you're referring to the proposed replacement statement I provided. If you're referring to something Timothyjosephwood proposed, then I apologize for the confusion. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind me asking: what, exactly, do you believe is disputed? The original claim was vague and its sources failed to support it; that much is true (well, to me, anyhow). Now, the claim is more specific and there is a citation to actual research which suggests that from a psychological standpoint, women are more affected by sexism than men. It may not be a particularly strong citation, especially since it's paywalled (or, at least, not available for public access) and thus unavailable for a full assessment, and the study is only a sample and thus may not accurately represent the entire population. It's at least something, though, and far better than usage notes from online dictionaries as sources. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I found a way around the paywall. Put google.com in front of it (wont let me post full and it's a direct file link so I don't have the direct url.) "url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FMelissa_Ferguson5%2Fpublication%"2F227629211_Everyday_Sexism_Evidence_for_Its_Incidence_Nature_and_Psychological_Impact_From_Three_Daily_Diary_Studies%2Flinks%2F0f31752d552464d528000000.pdf&ei=_xg8VdS4NIWbNu_HgNgM&usg=AFQjCNHkzVGX9JKn1-m0_mMQXoEAGU3Qaw


 * The first study can be disregarded because there is no comparison group. The second study has some methodological issues: very small sample size, only has two weeks of data, and of course it's undergraduates; but it does find a difference. A mean of 3.45 and median of 3.5 for women, and a mean of 2.06 and 2.35 for men (for incidences directed at women). Women reported a mean of 1.05 and a median of 1.0, and men reported a mean of 1.35 and a median of 1.00 (instances directed at men). The third study has the same methodological issues, but it finds an average of 6.11 incidents directed at women and 2.86 directed at men. However, the standard deviations are 5.52 and 3.14 for women and men respectively, so yeah, that's a problem and it shows the uncertainty in making assumptions based on such a small sample size. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which other two studies you're referring to, since I only linked one. What are these other studies? Are they detailed in the link I provided? As for your backdoor, it doesn't work. I get a 400 Bad Request error. As for the studies themselves, that's why I used the word "suggests": it's not really strong evidence, but at least it's something. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article covers three different studies by the authors, with varying methodology, but the first study only covers perceived sexist events against females among an all female population, so you can't compare between sexes. Put http://www.google.com/ before the url I posted and it should work.


 * It is very weak evidence if you want to generalize to...basically the entire human race. It is a great start and is helpful for someone who can pull together the funding for a larger study. For example, they found no effect for neuroticism on reports, so that can be omitted. They also make interesting points on whether researchers should "suggest" what things might be considered sexist or simply let them decide. But it's more on the level of a pilot study. Unfortunately, it is (apparently) being widely cited as plain fact by other papers. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, google the title of the article and the word methodology. That's how I found it.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

(100 000 colons) So what you are trying to say is that you shut down the section, not at all based on the merit of the text, or the value of the sources, but based on your own personal opinion of how I viewed the subject? Because, you know, that this is totally cool, totally unbiased and completely in line with WP standards. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "because it was a pretty obvious piece of coatracking" seems pretty clear to me. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And how exactly is that? (because apparently this is what the last two days has really been about, a proxy war over conscription) How exactly is a practice that has killed more than 100m members of a single sex coat racking in an article about sexism? If this is your issue then lets hear it and be done with it. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No proxy war, you had two different suggestions. One had text mostly unrelated to sexism and one we're working on here (how successful we'll be, I don't know). --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is also a suggestion that I have tried to disregard in the interest of improving the lead. But apparently that's a problem. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Repeating what I stated in the section above: Regarding Nøkkenbuer's suggested wording (which is similar to the wording I suggested in the  section above; see my "07:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)" post), we should be using one or more of the sources Fyddlestix provided. Or similar sources. And Fyddlestix's sources are scholarly sources. We should not be using some obscure WP:Primary source, or otherwise obscure source, for Nøkkenbuer's suggested wording. I've been clear above, in the Arbitrary section break section, that Wikipedia editors are not supposed to analyze and reject sources the way that Nøkkenbuer is doing. So, yes, I will be flippant about such matters. Some of the sources that Fyddlestix listed are explicitly clear that sexism is mainly perpetrated against women, with some of the sources specifically noting that men receive significantly less sexism in comparison. Those sources are good enough for statements about sexism disproportionately affecting women or women being the main victims of sexism. Nøkkenbuer's quibbling over the term affect is silly, in my opinion. And that is why I do not want to waste time debating it.

Timothyjosephwood, I understand why you removed this section from the talk page. But, in the future, consider that, per WP:Talk, it's usually best not to remove sections that you created once editors have replied in those sections. Flyer22 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Got it. I was frustrated. It had been a long discussion. The section should have never been created, or at the very least should have been merged. No reason for a new section heading out of my own impatience. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No need to double post. I responded to your first post of this above. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protect this article?
Regardless of our disagreements over the claim in the lead, and despite a lack of clear consensus, a lot of people (usually IPs) have been driveby removing the "but [especially/primarily] women" part. Even though there is a clear note there, these people continue to do so. Perhaps we should semi-protect this article, if only until this matter is resolved, so as to prevent further unnecessary reversions? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think admins would semi on the basis of having to revert once or twice every few days ("not enough disruption"). --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, no problem. Just a suggestion, since I noticed it pop up in my watchlist a lot. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I say we fucking semi this shit. I don't want no fucking vandals disrupting the consensus. Scaravich105nj (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Did I just find Jay and Silent Bob's Wikipedia account?Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)