Talk:Sexism/Archive 20

Non-notable related article
Gender empathy gap is an article that doesn't seem to meet the WP:GNG due to the lack of independent research into this proposed theory. (All in-depth coverage of this concept comes from the paper Martin Seager, Warren Farrell, and John Barry, “The Male Gender Empathy Gap: Time for Psychology to Take Action,” New Male Studies: An International Journal 5, no. 2 (2016): 6–16 (8). and other writings by Barry. I cannot find any independent sources that give significant coverage to this concept.) There is a discussion on Talk:gender empathy gap as to what to do with the article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

On the topic of 'primarily affects women and girls'
None of the sources cited in this article to justify this claim cited other studies to prove their claim. Each and every one of them offered no evidence to substantiate their claim, so they can't truly be considered 'secondary sources' as those typically consist of meta-analyses or large-scale reviews and citations of the literature on a topic. Thus, I am calling on the Wikipedia editors to either find better sources for these or remove it altogether. Gregathon (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All of those sources are high-quality WP:Scholarship sources. We only have a short quote from each one, but they obviously go into more detail (and their own sources) after that. Crossroads -talk- 06:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But none of these sources cited evidence, they just claimed that it's true. (I looked at all of them) Scholarship involves reviewing the literature and evidence on a subject, not just making assertions. From WP:Scholarship: "For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper." It also says in WP:Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." I would highly recommend either using a meta-analysis, systematic review, review of literature, or otherwise high-quality research as opposed to the sources that have been cited here. Gregathon (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We've been over this, see Archive 19. Is it possible Gregathon = Greglawl? Laurier (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Who's been over what? I looked at the archive and the person brought up something completely different than me. I'm bringing up the fact that these are not good secondary sources and didn't cite any primary sources. A secondary source is only a secondary source if it cites and synthesizes primary sources, none of the links you sent did that. Thus, this is only expert opinion and not a proper review of the literature. (Can you please address this?) If Wikipedia's best response is 'We've been over this' as opposed to actually addressing legitimate concerns then they better start giving up on being an objective organization that cites and reports facts. Gregathon (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If this fact is so uncontroversial and undeniable, how is it possible that you can't even find ONE systematic (or unsystematic) review of the literature that backs up this claim? Gregathon (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether sexism "primarily affects" women is not a quantifiable claim. Whether something qualifies as misandry or instead "benevolent misogyny" is completely subjective. It should not be stated as if it were factual. Part of gender theory is a recognition that social expectations harm people of all identities. sitbear (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. You can't quantify the levels of discrimination against either sex. The whole point of critical theory is that discrimination affects everyone, and the dynamic is much too complicated to make blanket statements such as 'sexism primarily affects women and girls' and using tertiary sources as opposed to secondary sources that review the literature properly. Gregathon (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Sexism in Cookbooks
Hi I would like to add a new section to this page about sexism in cookbooks. Kelsi Matwick's Language and gender in female celebrity chef cookbooks: cooking to show care for the family and for the self research paper talks about this topic. The author notes several salient themes that illustrate women’s relationship with cooking that a lot of the recipes included in cookbooks are recipes for him and 'easy' recipes. Other researchers in feminist sociology have found that women’s cooking is strongly influenced by their husband’s and children’s preferences. EstrellaMorente1 (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As a single WP:PRIMARY study, that source wouldn't get a section of its own, per WP:DUE. Perhaps it could go under another section with a sentence or two. Crossroads -talk- 21:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of statement regarding domestic violence against men
Would it be more appropriate to add a section regarding violence against men further down in the domestic violence section as opposed to at the top? I had already mentioned in my edit that the claim is disputed so as to not claim that it was a majority opinion. Disagreeable entity (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with the topic of sexism? Also, you may wish to familiarize yourself with recent RfCs on precisely this topic. See for instance and . The clear consensus is that the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women. Anything which implies otherwise would be WP:UNDUE here or anywhere else. Generalrelative (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Domestic violence against men is just as relevant to sexism as domestic violence against women. And no, the consensus is that the victims of domestic violence GLOBALLY are overwhelmingly women. The many studies regarding domestic violence towards men in western countries are relevant to the discussion and it would be WP:DUE to treat it as if it's not a significant minority. Disagreeable entity (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am unconvinced that either of these propositions is correct. It seems rather that you have bought into a fringe view peddled by those who actively misrepresent the state of social-scientific understanding. Did you read the RfCs? In any case, the WP:ONUS is on you to persuade others if you're seeking to include disputed content, and I am doubtful that reliable secondary sources exist which would enable you to do so. You are far from the first to attempt this. Generalrelative (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the RfC's that's why I know the consensus is with regards to global domestic violence. Even if you believe violence against men isn't as relevant the fact is the sources in my past edits describe hundreds of surveys showing parity between male and female victimization. Right now the entire domestic violence section is dedicated to women which is WP:DUE and all I'm suggesting is a single sentence at the bottom regarding this significant minority perspective. I am NOT disputing the consensus of the RfCs. Disagreeable entity (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Claims of parity between male and female victimization are absolutely fringe. Suggesting otherwise, whether in a sentence or a section, would be inappropriate and will not fly.
 * At this point, seeing as you are a WP:SPA dedicated to pushing this POV, I'm going to WP:DENY recognition unless I see that your arguments have merit. My lack of response should not be construed as tacit consent for your views. Generalrelative (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that it wasn't fringe, however fringe theories still deserve proportional representation under WP:DUE which in this case could be one sentence in the whole section. Disagreeable entity (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You wrote in your edit that there is a growing amount of evidence for "symmetry" in domestic violence, thereby claiming in wikivoice that it's not fringe. I'm glad you've come around to realizing that the "symmetry" theory is fringe. NightHeron (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You said that "fringe theories still deserve proportional representation", but that is expressly forbidden by the core policy of WP:Neutral point of view. Bullet 3 here, says:"• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Remember that WP:DUE is a proportional measure, so what is entirely Undue in World War II might be okay in Battle of Tunisia. What is meant by an "ancillary article" is that if you write another article whose topic (i.e., article title) is much tinier in scope by its nature, then it's possible you can place your fringe theory there. For example: if you want to talk about the (crackpot theory) of the relation of Hungarian to Sumerian, you can't do that at Hungarian language (because it's UNDUE), but you can at Alternative theories of Hungarian language origins, because by the definition of its title, the crackpot theory is not UNDUE among a laundry list of other theories that have miniscule followings. But the basic take-away here, is that your fringe theory deserves zero representation in this article, because this is a general article. You could add it to the article, Fringe views on the distribution of violence, though.  Make sense? Mathglot (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Probably better suited to the main article on DV. But my recommendation is that if you want to see this type of content added, then you need to spend a few days combing high quality books and academic articles to make the case that this is recognized in reliable secondary sources. It's possible. I was the one that added the section on conscription to this article some five or six years ago. But you need to do your research.  G M G  talk  14:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Reason for removal of section addressing lack of research into sexism against men?
The note claimed that deleting the text about sexism primarily affecting women and girls would require discussing it here but I never deleted it, rather simply added more info after it. Anyways since it's a problem I am addressing it now. Am I allowed to add in a section discussing the lack of research into sexism against men? Disagreeable entity (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To argue against women being the primary victims of sexism is either WP:SYNTH or WP:FRINGE, depending on whether the source actually makes that claim. Crossroads -talk- 07:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well it's definitely not WP:SYNTH since my citation was one page from one source. Also I never really argued against women being the primary victims I simply stated that this conclusion was reached in part due to the lack of research into sexism against men. Disagreeable entity (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit blatantly violated WP:NPOV because it endorsed the anti-feminist notion of symmetry (saying there is a growing amount of evidence) in wikivoice. The sentence lacked context, because the overwhelming evidence against the so-called symmetry isn't given. For example, the US Department of Justice reported that 84% of spousal abuse victims were women. And the second author cited for the added sentence, Murray Straus, has said that "although women may assault their partners at approximately the same rate as men, because of the greater physical, financial, and emotional injury suffered by women, they are the predominant victims." There's a separate article on domestic violence against men that avoids endorsing the anti-feminist POV about "symmetry" in wikivoice. NightHeron (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources I cited showed clear evidence of symmetry, the first source stated that 200 surveys including 2 national surveys have come to this conclusion and the second source still supported the notion of symmetry but simply said the consequences for women are more severe hence they are the predominant victims. There is clear context here so I'm not sure what you're talking about and we know there are conflicting stats but the Dept. of Justice's stats have been known to be flawed since they rely on police data where men are less likely to report, as opposed to a survey. Refusal to allow this significant minority position on the page is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Disagreeable entity (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point that opponents of the fringy theory of "symmetry" in domestic violence are making, and why they consider "symmetry" in this context to be a misogynist term. On average, women are victimized by much more serious violence than men are. Police do report homicides carefully, and victims of spousal homicide are overwhelmingly women. NightHeron (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What's your point? This page is about domestic violence in general not restrictive to serious incidents. "Symmetry" is not a misogynistic term that is ludicrous. Disagreeable entity (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If a woman throws a plate of spaghetti at her husband and he shoots her in the head, that's not "symmetry". To call it symmetry or tit-for-tat would require a rather strong anti-woman POV, wouldn't you say? NightHeron (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is symmetry. And no it's not anti-woman. We talk about severe domestic violence but what about the fact that women are most likely to instigate initially? Regardless symmetry applies to domestic violence incidents in general not the severity of said incidents. Disagreeable entity (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "women are most likely to instigate" -- Is that just your personal opinion, or do you have WP:RS for that claim?
 * By the way, if you think that the scenario I described is an example of "symmetry" because in that case she "instigated" (and so he shot and killed her in self-defense, I suppose), you're just digging yourself in deeper. Saying such things does not indicate absence of an anti-woman POV. NightHeron (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Being anti-woman has nothing to do with my beliefs on symmetry in domestic violence. I can tell I won't change your mind so I may avoid the word symmetry if I decide to edit later.
 * And yes the idea that women instigate more has been well-studied.
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3058822/ Disagreeable entity (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That study says nothing about who instigates. It's about unmarried couples and the relationship between violence and breaking up. NightHeron (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, wrong link. I had several open when I was looking. Table 2.
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/pdf/0970941.pdf Disagreeable entity (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, but there's a problem with the way you're using this source. It's a primary source, and one of the reasons why WP:RS urges caution with using primary sources is that it's easy to cherry-pick results from primary sources to "prove" all sorts of things without taking into account the limitations of the particular study. In this case, what you're using is the source's statement that unreciprocated violence between couples was more likely to be by women than by men. However, the severity of this "violence" was generally much less than that of the men: men were more likely to inflict injury than were women. In other words, in my hypothetical scenario the man is not likely to be injured by the plate of spaghetti. This study also says that one of its limitations is that it did not ask about the severity of the injury: An important caveat to these findings is that we do not know the extent or severity of the injuries reported, only that they were reported to have occurred. The source further states that the questions asked do not capture all forms of violence that occur between relationship partners, including many of the more severe forms of partner violence on the Conflict Tactics Scale (e.g., used a knife or gun, choked, or burned). Questions about emotional, verbal, psychological, or sexual aggression were also not included. Similarly, only a single item assessed injury to victims and it focused on injury frequency and excluded injury severity and whether medical attention was needed or sought. Thus, it is unclear whether the data presented here would be similar had the violence and injury assessment been more thorough or if different forms of violence had been measured and analyzed separately. It should also be noted that this was a longitudinal study of adolescents, not of married couples or mature adults. The study initially interviewed 12- to 21-year-old middle and high school students, and then conducted follow-up interviews 6 years later. Thus, this is not a good source to support your claim; in this connection please read WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARY. NightHeron (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't use it for wikipedia I'm showing it to you since you asked.
 * "In this case, what you're using is the source's statement that unreciprocated violence between couples was more likely to be by women than by men. However, the severity of this "violence" was generally much less than that of the men"
 * We've been over this, I don't really care since this is about general domestic violence, not severe cases. Disagreeable entity (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You initiated the discussion of "who instigates" in order to make a point in defense of your edit. Then I asked if you had a source. On Wikipedia a bad source is a bad source, whether it's used to support a claim on a talk-page or an article. NightHeron (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I brought it up since you started talking about severe domestic violence and symmetry. Which you never sourced I might add. Disagreeable entity (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Disagreeable, actually NightHeron did give a source, let's be fair... His source is a hypothetical example he made up about flying spaghetti, which he thinks trumps clinical evidence... UnbiasedOne1234567 (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No, no, no. Please read my comment above more carefully. The source I quoted from was the same source used for the "reciprocity" claim. I pointed out that using that source for that statement was cherry-picking for two reasons: (1) it's a primary source, and (2) the same source also talks about the severity issue and states that men are more likely to cause injury than women. At the same time, because some men find this distinction hard to understand, just to explain it better I gave a concrete example involving spaghetti. Your claim that my own explanation was my source is just a silly caricature of my argument. NightHeron (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * You would be absolutely stupid to say that source is "cherry-picking" especially since you also cited the CDC survey below which would also be a primary source LOL. The distinction between injury prevalence is IRRELEVANT as I stated before since we are examining violence in general. God the people here are insufferable and the only reason your insane viewpoints prevail is because the admins have the same biased POVs as you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disagreeable entity (talk • contribs) (Striking t-banned user comment) Generalrelative (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Name-calling and insulting other editors (absolutely stupid...insufferable...insane) does not convince anyone of anything and can easily lead to your being blocked from editing, per WP:NPA. The point you're trying to make is wrong. According to WP:MEDORG, the CDC is a high-quality source.
 * Your refusal to acknowledge the importance of injury prevalence in domestic violence is hard to fathom.
 * BTW on Wikipedia you're supposed to sign your posts. NightHeron (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Lesbian relationships have the highest rates of domestic violence ... the idea that men are the main villains of domestic violence is just a misandrist myth ... such sexist myths have no place in an encyclopedic article UnbiasedOne1234567 (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No, wrong again. From the Wikipedia article on same-sex domestic violence (sourced to the CDC): The CDC also stated that 43.8% of lesbian women reported experiencing physical violence, stalking, or rape by their partners. However, the study notes that, out of those 43.8%, only two thirds (67.4%) were female (as lesbian women tend to be in heterosexual relationships before they come out), which would narrow the actual statistic down to 29.6%. In contrast, 35% of heterosexual women and 61.1% of bisexual women reported physical violence, stalking, or rape by their partners in the same study with 98.7% and 89.5% (respectively) of perpetrators being male. NightHeron (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I always appreciate your patience and clear communication of relevant information, but here I think you can save your breath. This SPA seems to be taking up precisely where Disagreeable entity left off after being topic banned. Whether they are one and the same I will leave to others to determine, but either way it is safe to simply ignore this type of unsupported trolling. There isn't a WP:SNOWBALL's chance in hell that their views will gain consensus here. Generalrelative (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Your point is well taken. But I guess the problem with ignoring the SPAs' comments is that an editor who's new to the topic and doesn't know the history of the R&I discussions here and elsewhere might be misled into thinking that lack of a rebuttal means that the SPA's claim is accepted or at least is reasonable, which it's not. One possible solution would be the suggestion on FTN that we both agreed with, namely, requiring at least 500 edits of anyone who wants to edit this page. Another possibility would be to try to get these SPAs blocked as trolls and socks. A third possibility would be to hat or to close these threads or archive them early. I'm not a good judge of Wikipedia procedures, so I don't know which is best; but I'd be happy to support any or all of them. NightHeron (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. I would support any of those options too, especially at R&I. It appears that this article may be a good candidate as well. Generalrelative (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

it is wrong to back of the bus men’s victimization of sexism
Most of the readers of the general sexism article will not read the sexism against men article.

This is the same as a 1950s city bus agency claiming fair treatment when a demographic group has less than equal consideration. “You have an article. So don’t ask questions, even though 5% of the readers won’t make it to the link at the bottom of the general purpose article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.197.56.204 (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Mention women dominated professions too
The article should mention that large professions, nursing, primary school education and dietitians are 85% female. It should be alongside mentions of primary male professions. For example the city, state and federal government programs, outreach and advertising money spent promoting Girls can code, girls in STEM.

If disproportionate number of men in major professions equates to a need to investigate and address the disproportionate percentages, then the same emphasis or lack thereof should apply to female dominated professions.

A government promoting or having staff employees to favor one gender and not having the same money spent on the other gender sexual discriminates against the lesser one. Title IX is all about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.197.56.204 (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Sexism is sexism.
"Sexism can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women and girls."

This is simply not true. There's no proof that one gender is affected worse than the other by sexism. I would suggest that this sentence is actually evidence that men are discriminated against more than women. It implies that men are less able to be victims of discrimination. The reality is more that men are less likely to be accepted as victims of anything, discrimination included. Women have monopolised victimhood, at the same time as claiming that they are strong and independent and unstoppable. Polkadotcadaver (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , please read WP:NOTAFORUM. Article talk pages are to discuss specific changes to the article, summarizing what specific reliable sources say. Your personal opinions do not belong here. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Right, the statement only reflects personal opinion, it isn't supported by ant evidence.... the evidence actually demonstrates the opposite... you dont just get to make up bs and not get called on it UnbiasedOne1234567 (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Polkadotcadaver, you're still new here. I've left you a belated "Welcome" message on your Talk page, as well as a few words about the purpose of Talk pages. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Collapsed per WP:NOTFORUM; left a message on their Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

First line proposal
Proposed new first lines: Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on one’s sex or gender. Sexism can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women and girls, and secondarily men and boys.

The only new part is the “and secondarily men and boys.” which is sexism with easy to find factual examples as forced military service by law for all fit males for a year in many West European countries, forced by law male draft registration at age 18 in the USA. Females are not required by law to register for the military draft in the USA and voluntary military service is not equivalent to forced by law draft registration for only one gender.

This is a proposal to balance the leading two lines in the article and not a discussion forum post as was mistakenly used as justification for reverting the first line proposal. This is on the talk page and a simple one line change proposal for the article with straightforward reasons why the change is relevant.

NPOV is that the head article on sexism should mention that sexism against men happens too prominently in the lead in paragraph since the likelihood of the myriad of readers will get the first paragraph and rapidly drop off from reading successive paragraphs in the article.

If the article content put men and men’s aspects of sexism against men for the top 95% of the article and had one line buried in a large paragraph at the end about sexism against women would the same lack of mention that both females and males are targets of sexism be as acceptable?

The first line sets the tone for the article. For NPOV, it should mention men as well since ‘primarily affects women and girls’ directly calls out a gender.

Current first line: Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on one's sex or gender. Sexism can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women and girls.

Suggested new first line: Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on one’s sex or gender. Sexism can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women and girls, and secondarily men and boys.

Reasoning: the article is 98% about examples of sexism against females and 2% or less sexism against males. The difficulty is that the current state of sexism is markedly different than the thousands of years of historical sexism examples. It leads the reader to the misconclusion that today sexism is as bad in modern society as it was in historical times.

Secondly, much of the population live in countries having vastly better equality than countries with more extreme examples of sexism.

We shouldn’t facilitate the bad “All Demographic X persons are criminals, just look at these egregious examples I found.” Because one can always find a few of those egregious examples which makes the “All Demographic X are criminals.” a perpetual political statement even though the statement is not factual.

This perpetualization is used to incite hatred, violence, discrimination, incarceration, and disenfranchisement against the targeted group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:d591:5f10:75de:67ec:cb9a:e906 (talk • contribs)


 * No. This is a clear and obvious attempt to skew the POV of the article, based on nothing but your own insistence and thought process. We will not weaken the language of the article to suggest that women aren't the victims of sexism by an almost overwhelming margin unless and until we have a preponderance of reliable sources directly saying as much. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  03:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Please. The article should acknowledge in the most read part on top that sexism does affect large numbers of men by law in EU/USA since all males have to either register for the draft at 18, mandatory enlist or test out of forced by law military service in several EU countries. Sexism by easy to find laws affecting 50% of the population at age 18 is sexism on a systematic and large scale. In including that fact does not weaken the article.  The law applies to all of the aged 18 males and that is an overwhelming margin of the 50% male age 18 population.  Adding this “, secondly men and boys” would not easily convey that sexism affects males.   Laws in effect today as examples of sexism against males satisfy the ‘preponderance’ of reliable sources criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:d591:5f10:791a:36d1:be1:1b5f (talk • contribs)
 * You still haven't got a single source saying that "sexism affects large numbers of men by law in EU/USA since all males have to register for the draft", so the answer is still no. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Besides the absence of reliable sources, another issue is WP:UNDUE. At present the article has just a 2-sentence section on war rape (but there's also a separate article Wartime sexual violence). Compared to war rape, which is a form of male brutality against women on a huge scale, the requirement that men register for the draft is pretty insignificant, especially since in most countries the vast majority of soldiers (or all soldiers) are volunteers, not conscripts. So to "balance" the brief coverage the article gives to war rape with a reference to male draft registration would be an extreme case of WP:FALSEBALANCE. NightHeron (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources of sexism against males in compulsory military service conscription.
 * All of these are from existing Wikipedia articles
 * Meets the preponderance criteria of government enforced laws sexist against males
 * The larger countries comprise more than 500 million persons: USA 330 million, Russia 146 million, Ukraine 41 million. From Wikipedia
 * 1) Austria: Quote from Wikipedia article: All males who have reached the age of eighteen and are found fit have to serve a six months compulsory military service, followed by an eight-year reserve obligation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria#Military
 * 2) Denmark: Quote from Wikipedia article: Conscription in Denmark (Danish: Værnepligt) is mandatory for all physically fit men over the age of 18, according to the Constitution of Denmark, §81[1] and the Danish Law of Conscription, §2.[2] The service lasts between 4 and 12 months.[3] Women may participate, but are not obligated to conscription. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Denmark
 * 3) Estonia: Quote from Wikipedia article: The current national military service is compulsory for healthy men between ages of 18 and 28, with conscripts serving 8 or 11-month tours of duty, depending on their education and position provided by the Defence Forces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia#Military
 * 4) Finland: Quote from Wikipedia artlcle: A universal male conscription is in place, under which all male Finnish nationals above 18 years of age serve for 6 to 12 months of armed service or 12 months of civilian (non-armed) service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#Military
 * 5) Greece: Quote from Wikipedia article: Since 1914, Greece (or the Hellenic Republic) has mandatory military service (conscription) of 12 months in the Army in the Navy and the Air Force for men between the age of 19 to 45. Citizens discharged from active service are normally placed in the Reserve and are subject to periodic recall of 1–10 days at irregular intervals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Greece
 * 6) Switzerland: Quote from Wikipedia article: Switzerland has mandatory military service (German: Militärdienst; French: service militaire; Italian: servizio militare) in the Swiss Army for all able-bodied male citizens, who are conscripted when they reach the age of majority. Military service is not mandatory for females. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Switzerland
 * 7) USA: Quote from Wikipedia article: On July 2, 1980, President Jimmy Carter issued Presidential Proclamation 4771 and re-instated the requirement that young men register with the Selective Service System.[84] At that time it was required that all males, born on or after January 1, 1960, register with the Selective Service System. Those who were now in this category were male U.S. citizens and male immigrant non-citizens between the ages of 18 and 25; they were required to register within 30 days of their 18th birthday even if they were not actually eligible to join the military. Registration is a requirement for employment by the federal government and some state governments, as well as for receiving various state benefits such as driver's licenses.[90] Refusing to register can also cause a loss of eligibility for federal financial aid for college.[91] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#Post-1980_draft_registration
 * 8) Algeria: Quote from Wikipedia article: Service in the military is compulsory for men aged 19–30, for a total of 12 months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algeria#Military
 * 9) Brazil: Quote from Wikipedia article: In Brazil, conscription is mandatory for every male who has turned 18 years old. It normally lasts for twelve months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Brazil
 * 10) Cuba: Quote from Wikipedia article: Military age 17-28 years of age for compulsory military service. Conscription 2-year service obligation for males. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Revolutionary_Armed_Forces
 * 11) Cyprus: Quote from Wikipedia article: Military service in the Cypriot National Guard is mandatory for all male citizens of the Republic of Cyprus, as well as any male non-citizens born of a parent of Greek Cypriot descent, lasting from the January 1 of the year in which they turn 18 years of age to December 31, of the year in which they turn 50.[1] All male residents of Cyprus who are of military age (16 and over) are required to obtain an exit visa from the Ministry of Defense. The Republic of Cyprus has an active military draft. Conscripts enlisting as of the 2016 winter draft have to serve a term of 14 months,[2] and military service continues as a reservist after the end of the term. Reservists are called up several times a year, for 1 or 2 days at a time, each year until the age of 50, at which point they can choose to voluntarily continue their military service.[1]The Cyprus Army enlists both Cypriot citizens and those who don’t hold a Cypriot citizenship but have ‘Cypriot origins’ This is not in accordance with international law since only citizenship can be attached to civic duties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Cyprus
 * 12) Egypt: Quote from Wikipedia article: Conscription is compulsory in Egypt for males of ages between 19 and 34. Conscription has been in force in Egypt in some form or the other since the 1840s. The present conscription system is based on the National Conscription Law of 1948, which was further amended in 1955, 1957, 1969, and 1988. The service obligation is between 12 and 36 months,[1] depending on their educational backgrounds, culture, drop-outs, etc.[2] followed by a 9-year reserve obligation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Egypt
 * 13) Iran: Quote from Wikipedia article: Iranian constitution obliges all men of 18 years old and higher to serve in military or police bases. They cannot leave the country or be employed without completion of the service period.[289] The period varies from 18 to 24 months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Military
 * 14) North Korea: Quote from Wikipedia article: Conscription in North Korea occurs despite ambiguity concerning its legal status. Men are universally conscripted while women undergo selective conscription. Conscription takes place at age 14;[1] service starts at 17 and ends at 30. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_North_Korea
 * 15) South Korea: Quote from Wikipedia article: mandatory 20 to 38 years of age for male, wartime conscription 18–40 years of age. Conscription	18–22 months depending on the branch (From 2020). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Korea_Armed_Forces
 * 16) Kuwait: Quote from Wikipedia article: Conscription One year mandatory service for men aged 18-35 years[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait_Military_Forces
 * 17) Taiwan: Quote from Wikipedia article: Conscription remains universal for qualified males reaching age eighteen, but as a part of the reduction effort many are given the opportunity to fulfill their draft requirement through alternative service and are redirected to government agencies or arms related industries. Conscription periods are planned to decrease from 14 months to 12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#Military
 * 18) Russia: Quote from Wikipedia article: Conscription in Russia (Russian: всеобщая воинская обязанность, romanized: vseobshchaya voinskaya obyazannost, translated as "universal military obligation" or "liability for military service") is a 12-month draft, which is mandatory for all male citizens age 18–27, with a number of exceptions. The mandatory term of service was reduced from two years to one year in 2007 and 2008.[1][2] Avoiding the draft is a felony under Russian criminal code and is punishable by up to 2 years of imprisonment.[3]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Russia
 * 19) Singapore: Quote from Wikipedia article: Singapore has conscription for all able-bodied males at age 18, except those with a criminal record or who can prove that their loss would bring hardship to their families. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore#Military
 * 20) Syria: Quote from Wikipedia article: The military is a conscripted force; males serve in the military upon reaching the age of 18.[148] The obligatory military service period is being decreased over time, in 2005 from two and a half years to two years, in 2008 to 21 months and in 2011 to year and a half. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria
 * 21) Thailand: Quote from Wikipedia article: Conscription was introduced in Thailand in 1905.[23] According to the Constitution of the Kingdom, serving in the armed forces is a national duty of all Thai citizens.[24] In practice, only males over the age of 21 who have not gone through reserve training are subject to conscription. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Thai_Armed_Forces
 * 22) Turkey: Quote from Wikipedia article: In Turkey, compulsory military service applies to all male citizens from twenty to forty-one years of age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Turkey
 * 23) United Arab Emiarates: Quote from Wikipedia article: Conscription in the United Arab Emirates, more commonly known as the National Service (Arabic: الخدمة الوطنية‎), is a mandatory national military service for all Emirati males aged between 18 and 30 for the duration of 16 months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates

Regarding War Rape versus other types of sexism: Multiple examples of sexism exist in the article, and each could be ranked versus War Rape. The article does not assign a ranking scale to each example of sexism. Claiming that one form of sexism outranks another is entirely subjective and that sexism type X is more severe than sexism type Y therefore sexism type X gets more prominence in the main sexism article falls under the same WP:UNDUE and [[WP:FALSEBALANCE] used to demote the proposed change. For example, War Rape ranking versus menus for females and different menus for males.

The article puts sexism against males deep at the article's end where it is unlikely to be read by more than a small fraction of Sexism article readers.


 * The article has a 9-sentence subsection on male conscription in the same section ("Examples") where it has a 2-sentence subsection on war rape. Neither topic is mentioned in the lead. If there's anything wrong with the focus in the article, it's that more is said about conscription than about war rape, even though war rape is far worse. A strong case can be made that the subsection on male conscription should be shorter, especially since there's a separate article on Conscription and sexism.
 * Please drop the stick. NightHeron (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've spot checked several of those, and not one refers to it as sexism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The forced military service by law examples are sexism by definition as affecting one gender the same as legal prohibition of female voting. The Wikipedia articles on conscription do not need to contain statements that it is sexist for the male only forced military service to be sexist against males. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:d591:5f10:75de:67ec:cb9a:e906 (talk • contribs)
 * No, they aren't. Gendered != sexist, and even if they were, "by definition" sexist, we still couldn't use them the way you want because they still don't call it sexist themselves. I'm going to give you some advice now:
 * Instead of insisting that the article is wrong and you are right, why don't you actually read through the sources used by the article and try to come to an understanding of what's being discussed? In the meantime, if you won't stop posting walls of text to push your POV on the article, we'll just start closing discussions you start.
 * P.S. you should sign your edits by typing four tildes (~) at the end, like this: ~ . Your continued refusal to do so, despite being instructed to do so by the note at the top of the page every time you click the edit button, is disruptive and not helping you make your case. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestions. Rereading the article and relevant sources gains some insight.
 * "Feminists[1][2][3][4][5] and opponents of discrimination against men[6][7]:102 have criticized military conscription, or compulsory military service, as sexist." from Conscription Is Sexism second paragraph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_and_sexism
 * "Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on one's sex or gender." - First paragraph of Sexism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism.
 * "It involves restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to members of another group.[4]." It refers to discrimination in the Discrimination article first paragraph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination


 * A civilian group having freedoms and opportunities forcibly denied to the active military group is discrimination (e.g, freedom to hold a job you want to hold).
 * Male only conscription is discrimination against males via removal of opportunities versus females.
 * Such discrimination is recognized by cited sources as discrimination against men.


 * Modifying my suggestion to be: The main Sexism article should mention in the lead-in that sexism also affects males. How mentioned can be determined.
 * No part of this suggestion is to remove any of the existing Sexism examples from the article.
 * Four tilde and signing comments noted and I will get that done in 24 hours.

NPOV
Article needs NPOV review with dictionary definitions newer than 5 years cited.

The 27 country Council of Europe defined sexism on March 2019 as

Appendix to Recommendation CM/Rec(2019)1 Guidelines for preventing and combating sexism: measures for implementation Definition For the purpose of this Recommendation, sexism is: Any act, gesture, visual representation, spoken or written words, practice or behaviour based upon the idea that a person or a group of persons is inferior because of their sex, which occurs in the public or private sphere, whether online or offline, with the purpose or effect of: i.         violating the inherent dignity or rights of a person or a group of persons; or  ii. resulting in physical, sexual, psychological or socio-economic harm or suffering to a person or a group of persons; or iii. creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment; or iv. constituting a barrier to the autonomy and full realisation of human rights by a person or a group of persons; or v.         maintaining and reinforcing gender stereotypes.

Second definition from The European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), an autonomous body of the European Union:

Sexism is linked to power in that those with power are typically treated with favour and those without power are typically discriminated against. Sexism is also related to stereotypes since discriminatory actions or attitudes are frequently based on false beliefs or generalisations about gender, and on considering gender as relevant where it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:9423:AAA6:D65E:3995 (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that the article somehow violates NPOV does not address the literal dozen sources in the first cite used in the article, nor any of the half-dozen or so other sources in the lead which give an explicit definition, and is not in any way supported by either of the links you provided. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Causes for wage discrimination
The Sexism part is misleading and is based mainly on an article from a libertarian think tank. I think it would be a good move to replace it with the introductory text from Gender pay gap that better describes the reasons for the gender pay gap. --Unloosek (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Statistical bias related to child custody rates by gender of parent, after divorce
I don't see anything in the article about statistical bias related to child custody rates by the gender of the parent, after divorce, in other words, mothers are a lot more likely to get custody of the child after a divorce. From my general knowledge this is true in most of Europe, Eastern Europe and Eurasia (Russia), and in North America, at least. Arty32 (talk) 02:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources that attribute that to anti-male sexism rather than other explanations? NightHeron (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. This academic source states that statistically fathers were less likely to get child custody in the past, sections of the source propose that this is a form of gender discrimination, and the source suggests that a potential solution is to award joint custody more frequently
 * 2. Another source would be:
 * https://www.cor-law.com/blog/women-get-child-custody-90-percent-cases-isnt-gender-discrimination/
 * But I don't know if professional opinion of an expert is allowed as a source under Wikipedia policy, or if a law firm website would be considered a published source.
 * If the first source is not satisfactory, I can try looking for other sources, if they exist. Arty32 (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your second source reads like a law firm advertising for clients, and is definitely not a suitable source. The article in the St. Johns Law Review, in contrast, is a serious treatment of the subject. It mentions the viewpoint that the tendency to award custody to the mother is a form of anti-male gender bias, but attributes that to various advocates ("fathers' rights" groups). I think it would be okay to mention this, if properly attributed (as the author does) to those advocacy groups. The author herself gives a more neutral explanation, namely, that the tendency is due to traditional stereotypical thinking about the roles of both men and women, namely, that the woman is the most important parent emotionally and the man's main job is to support the family financially. Being a single parent certainly causes financial difficulties, unless the other parent is providing generous child support, and so to traditionalists it made sense to see the woman as primarily a mother without any career of any importance and the man as primarily a money-earner with a career. So the author seems to be explaining the phenomenon in terms of prejudicial thinking about both men and women. Since we can't give WP:UNDUE attention to this one source, anything you put in the article would have to be brief and would have to accurately represent the source. NightHeron (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Expand Statistics Section
Source BBC: The World Bank, the Swedish International Development Authority and the UN Population Fund loaned money to India during its suspension of civil liberties in 1970s forcibly sterilized 6.2 million with police cordoning off villages.

Quote: An astonishing 6.2 million Indian men were sterilised in just a year, which was "15 times the number of people sterilised by the Nazis", according to science journalist Mara Hvistendahl. Two thousand men died from botched operations.

This is mentioned briefly in Wikipedia "The Emergency (India)".

Can "India suspended civil liberties in 1975 and forcibly sterilized 6.2 million poor men for population control aided with loans from the Wold Bank, UN Population Fund and the Swedish International Development Authority." be included in the article? Stats and NGO names from BBC article.

Some of the coercion methods involved force, withholding employment promotions, withholding employment wages, prohibition from renewing driver licenses, suspending free medical services. "Force was not only physical in form but also indirect. The government issued circulars stating that promotion and payments to employees were in abeyance until they were sterilized or completed their assigned quota of people they convinced to undergo sterilization. People had to produce a certificate of sterilization to get their salaries or even renew their driving/ rickshaw/scooter/sales tax license. Students whose parents had not undergone a sterilization were detained. Free medical treatment in hospitals was also suspended until a sterilization certificate was shown. Those who suffered the most were people associated with lower classes. These unfortunate people were picked up from railway stations or bus stops by policemen, regardless of their age or marital status. Poor, illiterate people, jail inmates, pavement dwellers, bachelors, young married men, and hospital patients were all victims."


 * (response to unsigned comment) Unless you have sources that specifically attribute this policy to "sexism", this doesn't belong in this article. NightHeron (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * (response to user NightHeron) The statement you made, that this information does not belong in the article, is your opinion and your interpretation, not some universal truth, and you are not an admin. The sources specifically do refer to sexism, because the sex of the victims is stated in the source, sex-ism is defined in a dictionary as "something related to the sex or gender of a person or group of people", therefore the information should be included in the article. If you want to rephrase your same opinion with different words, I am happy to repeat my response that it is still only your opinion. Arty32 (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No, I'm afraid you've got it backwards. Just because a source mentions that the sex of victims of abuse was male, that does not mean that anti-male sexism was involved. It's your opinion that it was, but that's not in the sources.
 * What dictionary is your direct quote taken from? I'll be sure to avoid using such a lousy dictionary. According to that "definition", the fact that women and not men must endure the pain of childbirth is an example of anti-women sexism? Whose sexism? God's?
 * BTW please sign your posts. NightHeron (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement you made, that this information does not belong in the article, is your opinion and your interpretation, not some universal truth, and you are not an admin. That is not an interpretation, it is categorically not an opinion, and NightHeron's admin status is completely irrelevant.
 * It is also an interpretation I agree with, because our policy on original research say "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources," which doesn't require any interpretation.
 * Your assertion that, because the sources refer to a group's sex that this is then an example of sexism is ridiculous. By that standard, chest hair is sexist. Penises and vaginas are sexist. Breasts are sexist.
 * Your fake definition of sexism is not a real definition, and thus has no bearing on anything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was not the author of the original unsigned post about the past event in India, but after reading it I did agree with that user, so I decided to make a comment in support of it. At this point, I disagree with both User:NightHeron and User:MPants at work, however this specific past even in India is not of high interest for me, although like I said my opinion is that I support it's inclusion in the article. I also don't want to engage in what I believe is, or will become a circular argument, and I believe neither user successfully countered or defeated my arguments. I am not familiar with Wikipedia user statuses, but it seems User:MPants is considered a "Wikipedians who assist at the dispute resolution noticeboard", so thanks for assisting with this disagreement, but I still disagree with your arguments. I propose we get the opinion of OTHER people and see which side has more support, so far 2 for including (including original unsigned post by another user who is not me) and 2 against. Here is a definition of sexism from MW Dictionary: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. In my opinion, the specific past even in India, and the supporting source satisfies this definition. Arty32 (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia core policies WP:NOR and WP:V, a statement asserting that something happened in India due to sexism needs sources that say that. See also WP:SYNTH. The opinion of one or two (or fifty) editors about sexism in India is irrelevant for the question of whether or not to include something. NightHeron (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is not an issue that's amenable to discussion: this is blatantly contraindicated by two of our central tenets, and no-one has made the argument (and I cannot imagine a compelling argument) that IAR should apply.
 * There is no consensus to be developed on this. This is a core violation, and does not belong. Full stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Re:MPants at work. You make statements as if you have more authority than the average Wikipedia user.Arty32 (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the average Wikipedian, but I know for a fact I've got more than 2000 times the authority you have here. So I'd advise you to take my word for it, unless you're planning on having a very short and frustrating Wikicareer that ends with a block for POV pushing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not been making changes to this article, and this is a Talk page, and I live in Canada where there is freedom of speech (same as in the U.S.), so don't threaten me with anything.Arty32 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good advice is hardly threatening, unless you know you have no intention of taking it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia NOR has - “ For example: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is so easily verifiable that no one is likely to object to it; we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.”
 * Men forced via police or withholding of wages to get sterilized by government policy.
 * A law, policy or government action affecting bodily autonomy of persons by gender - maybe a different example like a government policy or law making abortion illegal.
 * California passing a law that women cannot drive cars on Tuesday would require all the following to be included in this page from the discussion
 * - Quote and source link reference to the law
 * - Wikipedian to evaluate the quote and quality of the reference
 * - Multiple quality sources directly stating in simple quotable lines “California law X is sexism.”
 * - Wikipedian to evaluate each sources quote and the quality of the source
 * Each of these is a way to veto inclusion in the Wikipedia article
 * Sealioning used to keep from changing the article

Once again, please sign your posts. Your claim that India's sterilization policy was due to sexism against men is not analogous to saying "Paris is the capital of France". It's far from obvious. The reason for sterilizing men rather than women could, for example, have been because (1) it's easier and cheaper, and (2) because of sexism against women (the belief that women's main function is to have children), popular resistance to sterilization of women might have been greater. I'm not claiming that (1) and (2) were necessarily the reasons, since I, like you, don't have sources that explain the reasons. NightHeron (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * “(2) because of sexism against women (the belief that women's main function is to have children), popular resistance to sterilization of women might have been greater. “
 * A government forcing surgery on men or forcing them by withholding wages into unnecessary surgery and somehow it is affecting women that haven’t been violated more than men. It’s the surgery that is the sexist part. How would it be if the government forced women to have unnecessary preemptive mastectomy surgery on 1000000 women to prevent breast cancer in 50000 of them?
 * Flip the gender groups for these types of articles and if it is sexism for one gender then it is highly sexism if the genders are reversed. If it was 6.2 million women forced or financially coerced to having unnecessary surgery for birth control, would it be sexism?

(response to unsigned post) It would depend on whether or not reliable sources described it as sexism. You haven't given any RS that describe the policy in India as sexism against men. NightHeron (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)