Talk:Sexism/Archive 14

Gender discrimination
There are so many problem with this section.


 * Does anyone else get the impression reading this section that the writer isn't actually aware that the ENDA was never actually passed into law? I mean, they cite Title VII of the EDNA, when they are clearly referring to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (they even link to it).
 * They refer (incorrectly) to Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins with no context whatsoever, like they were referring to a toaster.
 * It continually conflates sex, gender, and sexual orientation, even while quoting a (what is apparently their undergraduate) textbook saying you shouldn't do just that.
 * It talks about how "discrimination against a transgendered individual is sex discrimination" in a section that is supposed to be differentiating between sex and gender discrimination.
 * The Gender is politics sub-section is almost all about suffrage (which for some reason doesn't already have it's own section), and its 100% about people who are biological female or male (sex).

I have half a mind to suggest deleting the whole thing and re-purposing the subsections on politics and transgender. The first third of the section is hardly worth saving. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Conscription
Ok, putting this out there for the third time for comment before I add it and a war breaks out. It is thoroughly sourced, and cites a range of disciplines as well as prominent political figures. If no one has any comment on this I'm going to assume consensus and add. It doesn't make sense that a constructive edit should be blocked simply because no one cares enough to comment.

As stated above, even after some good deal of work, the section is still somewhat West-centric, but I'm at the point where I'm willing to say that (like the prominent coverage of feminism in the article) this is simply because conscription has played more of a prominent role in the West and there is more scholarship on it. There is definitely still the issue of informal conscription (done at a low level of command and not officially sanctioned by a government). If you live in Syria or the Congo this is probably a big issue to you. But the standard that seems to be set forth is that we can't take something as self-evidently sexist; we have to have someone calling it sexist. Scholars don't seem to be particularly concerned about these parts of the world, and that may be a bias all its own, but that's why it isn't covered. Timothyjosephwood (talk)

Conscription
Conscription, compulsory or involuntary military service, was widely popularized during the French revolution and the ensuing Napoleonic Wars, and featured most prominently in the First and Second World Wars. The practice has widely been criticized as sexist by a range of disciplines.

Augustson has called conscription "perhaps the greatest example of sex discrimination present in the world today". According to Goldstein, beginning in the 1970s "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." 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".

Currently nine countries have laws allowing for the conscription of women: China, Eritrea, Israel, Libya, Malaysia, North Korea, Peru, Norway, and Taiwan. 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. 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. 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 both. In the United States, all men must register for conscription with the Selective Service System within 30 days of their 18th birthday. Those who fail to register may be punished by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. They may also be ineligible for federal student financial aid, federal job training and federal employment. As of 2014, transgender females who are born biologically male are required to register for selective service, but may file for a exemption in the event they are drafted. Transgender males who are born female are not required to register but may face difficulties in receiving benefits which require registration.

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 currently pending appeal 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 and due process on the basis of gender. Thus far all rulings have upheld the program although on differing grounds. Wildman called the decision in Rostker v. Goldberg "chilling to any advocate of full societal participation". In the ensuing congressional debate, Senator Mark Hatfield argued that:

"The paternalistic attitude inherent in exclusion of women from past draft registration requirements not only relieved women of the burden of military service, it also deprived them of one of the hallmarks of citizenship. Until women and men share both the rights and the obligations of citizenship, they will not be equal."

Thanks for re-posting your current/latest revision, there were a couple different copies of this on your sandbox & above, I had lost track of which one was the "current working" version. I do see a number of problems here, but probably the single biggest one is this sentence: "It has been called 'Perhaps the greatest example of sex discrimination present in the world today' and that 'no gender oppression is comparable.'" This gives undue weight to a position position that is far from widely accepted or mainstream, and may even be fringe - plus it's sourced to the national coalition of men and an online-only, open access "journal of male studies," which is edited & founded by Miles Groth. I don't think the quotes are are worthy/acceptable for inclusion in the article, and I'm extremely wary of the sources.

I also object to the fact that as written, this section of the article uncritically accepts Benatar & others' assertion that conscription is a form of "sexism against men." If the article is going to discuss that theory, it also needs to discuss the critiques of that position that people like Kenneth Clatterbaugh have made. (Clatterbaugh, for those who are unfamiliar with this debate, argues that conscription is a form of "discrimination for collective advantage" - that while some individual men suffer, conscription is actually to most men's advantage, and that "men have everything to gain and little to lose by playing the game.") Given the amount of criticism that Benatar's book has received, it would violate NPOV and be undue for the article to mention/discuss/cite his work without giving at least equal (and I would argue greater) attention & weight to his critics.

As with the "live" version of the article - sourcing is also a problem here. Some of the sources (what is the Pike & Hurricane?) do not appear to be peer-reviewed and may not be reliable, others look - at least at first glance - to have been misleadingly or inaccurately cited. Militarizing Men, for example, is cited for an assertion that conscription has been criticized as "sexist" - but no page number is given and according to the google books version, the words "sexism" or "sexist" don't appear in the work at all. I'd need more time to wade through all the sources carefully - for now just registering the fact that I do see some issues here that need resolving. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the delay in giving my feedback. The quotes in the second paragraph need to be attributed. The Selective service section should be merged with conscription, cutting the first three sentences and adding a new one reading something like, "The Selective Service System in the United States requires all men to register for potential military conscription." --Neil N  talk to me 20:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time to address these critiques, not working a position today that lets me lay on the computer all day. So I'll try to hit the high points and do more substantive work when I get home.

Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No page number is given for Militarizing Men because, well, the whole piece is about issues related to gender and military service. The citation can be removed without damage.
 * People like Benatar are relied upon because he's one of the major writers addressing the issue. He is also relied upon because he is a moral philosopher and not part of the men's rights movement. (EDIT) Look at articles he is cited in], there are definitely some critics, but the vast majority seem to be simply citing him as a scholarly source and not citing to dispute his claims.
 * There are a number of things in the section intentionally included to protect against WP:FRINGE. The sources come from a variety of fields. This includes some "masculism" writers simply because they are part of a group advancing this idea. I don't see it as any different from taking feminist sources at face value. But, (this is important) the section doesn't collapse if the "masculism" (what a weird word) sources are omitted. For good measure, notable political figures and court cases are included (this has gone to the supreme courts of multiple nations). A men's rights writer may not be mainstream, but when taken in concert with the Swiss Sec. of Defense, a US Senator, etc. they can be seen as part of a larger view that there is substantial inequality. Men's rights whatever are the loudest voice, and it would be disingenuous to discount that they are out there, but they are not alone.
 * I would be more than happy to include critiques. You seem to know more about it than me (really I'm just here because I'm a military history nut), and I would be happy to look into something if you want to put it together.
 * I don't know what you are referring to unsourced quotes. Which ones?
 * For the quotes, see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. --Neil N  talk to me 23:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I have no problem with Benatar's POV being included I just want to make sure it's not given undue weight and that the perspective of his critics is also included. (28 citations in google scholar, btw, is really not that many). Also, I wasn't saying that the entire draft was fringe-y, just some of the quotes in the second paragraph. The NCFM quote is particularly hyperbolic if you ask me, and I would be opposed to its inclusion even if it's properly attributed. If consensus is against me there I'll deal, providing that that perspective is balanced against that of more mainstream scholars like Clatterbaugh. Readers should not be leaving with the (incorrect, and undue) impression that conscription is an unproblematic, straightforward example of "sexism against men," or the "worst ever" example of sexism in general - which is what those sources are trying to imply.
 * I'm still having some issues with verifying some of the citations: for example, I can't even find the article that's referenced in footnote 11 (Augustsson), even though that's supposedly an open-access journal - can you link/direct me to the actual article somewhere? Fyddlestix (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On Augustsson just google the full APA citation in scholar. It's the first hit. For some reason it's in word format and not pdf. It is admittedly an article in Men's Studies, hardly going to be a completely agenda free zone. But again, feminists are agenda driven too. I don't know that I can authoritatively agree that Clatterbaugh is mainstream and Benatar isn't. I hadn't heard of either of them until heading into this project. But contemporary philosophy is not really my thing. All the philosophy books collecting dust on my shelf are the classic enlightenment philosophers, with the exception of Daniel Dennett and Bertrand Russel. And I only have Russel because I'm (still) trying to publish a paper on positivism. (Four years isn't too long to try to publish a paper right? Please someone tell me this is ok. Jesus I'm wasting my life.) Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, while we're trading sources, do you have a way around the paywall for Clatterbaugh? I haven't had access to a lot of things since leaving grad school. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * People take years and years to publish things sometimes, fuggedaboutit! I found Augustsson, thanks - I'm not sure it's useable as a source: the url it comes from is this one, which lists the paper as "submitted," but the paper does not actually appear on the New Male Studies site. I could be wrong, but I think we might be looking at a paper that was submitted for publication but not accepted (or published) here. And don't worry, I think both Clatterbaugh and Benetar are "mainstream" (both have published & been peer reviewed extensively).  I've probably been sounding a bit too harsh on the "balance" issue here, sorry about that - what I've been trying to suggest is that I think there are better sources out there that we could use in the second paragraph; we could quote Benetar directly instead of the NCFM, for example, and note Clatterbaugh's critique. We could use someone like Linda Gordon to get the feminist argument for conscripting women across. If we stick to these kinds of "high level" sources, and put them in conversation with each other through attributed quotes, that's the best way to keep the discussion balanced and give everyone due weight. I will try to cough up some more specific source/quote suggestions over the next couple of days. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem I have with your proposal is that it contains some information which is not necessary and could be removed, as well as numerous citations which mention nothing about conscription or the statements they are claimed to support. I apologize for the delay, but I've been looking over the work very intently and I've noticed a number of flaws which has led me to continue my work on my own separate sandbox. If I were to edit yours, I'd be deleting numerous citations and entire paragraphs, and I would be rewording a lot of stuff. Instead of shaping your work into something completely different, I've continued my work on my own proposal, which is based off your research. I've also taken the liberty of filling out the citations properly, and checking every one for whether they support the claims. I've deleted a number of yours as a result.You can see my work here. Keep in mind that I haven't added all your work in, so I am still reviewing the subsection you added; it's a work in progress, after all. Feel free to compare it with yours. I'm currently working on verifying the Swiss legal document, along with the other German sources, by discussing the matter with some Germans I know who speak English and German fluently, in order to ensure its contents support the claims in the proposal. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 08:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've finally completed my edits, and I think it's ready to propose. You can see the finished product here. What do you think, ? I know you wanted me to edit on your sandbox, but like I said above, there was too much I think needed changing. Thoughts? I synthesized your current version of information with mine. If you'd like to see the direct changes, simply copy and paste the source data of my sandbox onto the appropriate location in yours. Then, you can see what changes I made. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 10:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can support it. Might want to post it below. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok so I've made some edits. I removed the Militarizing Men citation. Could we keep the one quote and lose the NCFM quote in the second paragraph? Is that a satisfactory compromise if its attributed or is the quote a total no go? (EDIT: As I was. I will look into the possibility that this is a submitted paper. I need to spend time with my wife. I've been working opposite her and we haven't seen each other an awfully lot.) I mean, the people who see this as an issue seem to see it as a pretty darn big issue. I still haven't had a chance to read Clatterbaugh. And it may be true that men today benefit in some way. But personally, my mindset is totally clouded by the two great wars, which are kindof my private fascination. Conscription in WWI was what started this whole thing. I completely agree that this is WP:SYNTH, but in attrition warfare, there is very little to be gained by conscription that doesn't consist of shrapnel.

Do you have access to Kerber? I guess I can always order it on Kindle. But if you already have it you can pull quotes without me wasting the money. Quoting Benetar directly is probably a good idea, since he seems to have made the most waves about the issue.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

American gender stereotypes
I am repurposing the paragraph on weight and moving it to the section on occupational sexism. I am deleting the rest of the section. There is already a much more lengthy, more well-written, and generally better sources section on the topic. Furthermore, the section as it stands now isn't really at all about "American gender stereotypes", but is basically a section on occupational discrimination. If someone wants they can try to bring back parts of the section and repurpose them into the section on occupational disc., but as it stands I think the section should be deleted, unless someone wants to actually write a section on the supposed topic, and has some reason why the US should get special mention, when no other country does.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)