Talk:Sexism/Archive 21

Sexism can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women and girls.
This is the second sentence, and doesn't seem to make sense in the context of the article. The footnote says it " refers primarily to discrimination against women and girls" and this seems a much more precise and preferable wording to me. Unless I am mistaken, sexism affects men, and causes them to discriminate against women.  ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 00:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This makes sense to me. I'd support changing the wording as L'Origine du monde suggests. Generalrelative (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree: "can affect anyone" is vague, ambiguous, and not encyclopedic language. NightHeron (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

My proposed wording is "Sexism can affect anyone, but it refers primarily to discrimination against women and girls." If you are not happy with that, please suggest an alternative.  ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 02:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood. I thought you were pointing out that saying that "sexism affects men" is ambiguous, since on the one hand the men who engage in sexism against women are affected by their behavior one way or another, but on the other hand, most people who say "well, sexism affects men, too" are trying to make a statement about so-called reverse discrimination against men. I'd suggest your wording without the first part of the sentence, i.e., simply "It refers primarily to discrimination against women and girls" or similar words. NightHeron (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 to NightHeron's suggestion here. That's what I had in mind as well. Generalrelative (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

My impression is that the current wording is a carefully crafted compromise, so I suggested a slight change to it. I suspect such a radical change would not be accepted.  ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥  ♥ Talk ♥ 09:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you link to an earlier discussion of that sentence?
 * One option would be to drop the phrase (which I wouldn't call a "radical" change) and see if anyone objects, and if so, why. Concerning "sexism can affect anyone", one could equally well say it affects everyone, at least indirectly, because it means that society is holding women back and not making full use of women's talents and capabilities. But whatever the intent is in the phrase "sexism can affect anyone", it's unclear what it really means. NightHeron (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not an acceptable change. For one thing, WP:REFERSTO applies. But also, per WP:DUE, we should not be taking the fact that sexism primarily affects women and girls to a comment about the term "sexism" being used primarily in reference to women and girls. That is a massive change in meaning. People have tried to cover up this before, as at Talk:Sexism/Archive 19, and then later on by a now-blocked sockpuppet. Then more throughout Talk:Sexism/Archive 20. I also, frankly, don't see what is confusing about "can affect anyone". It is obviously talking about being on the receiving end of sexism. That is how -isms are talked about. I suspect that the original objection to that part has to do with changing the "primarily affects" part. Crossroads -talk- 22:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, you've convinced me that it's best to stick with the stable version (a "carefully crafted compromise" in l'Origine's words) rather than get into yet another long debate about that sentence. To me the phrase "sexism can affect anyone" sounds trite, unclear, and probably incorrect (depending on how it's understood); but it's far from the worst writing that I've seen on Wikipedia. NightHeron (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Rather than looking through the article, written as usual in a patchwork manner by many people, to see whether it supports the statement, why don't we look outward at the literature, and determine the best summary of what the literature is saying?
 * The word "affect" is a terrible choice, as it hides the widespread negative aspects in which sexism very often reduces women in society while lifting men instead. To the extent that men are affected by sexism, they usually benefit with greater pay and stronger promotions in the workplace. We should be saying that sexism throughout the world primarily hurts women and benefits men. And whatever we say about it should be explicit, not dropped down into a footnote. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Witchcraft
The statement in witchcraft is not cited as sexism. Can it be removed?

Witchcraft remains illegal in several countries, including Saudi Arabia, where it is punishable by death. In 2011, a woman was beheaded in that country for "witchcraft and sorcery".[33] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:2CC5:7C11:9C33:3EE7 (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Witch
Can sentence in witch trial be removed due to no citation it being sexism for the words?

Witchcraft remains illegal in several countries, including Saudi Arabia, where it is punishable by death. In 2011, a woman was beheaded in that country for "witchcraft and sorcery".[33] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:2CC5:7C11:9C33:3EE7 (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexpiersonn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DayliseAllen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Male expendability
Notifying this talk page because it has been suggested that male suggestibility be merged into this article, and we are now discussing whether it would be due weight to include here. Please see the deletion discussion for male suggestibility, and remember to always be polite and stick to the issue at hand (namely, what should be done with the article per Wikipedia policy). --Xurizuri (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

How is that POV pushing?
I added information from a valid source published by a university that adds nuance to the page. In what way is this POV? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The fact that males were prosecuted for witchcraft was deceptively framed in your addition as though it contradicted what was stated before it, i.e. by using "However" and the unencyclopedic phrase "it is often overlooked". But nothing that was stated previously is contradicted by what you wrote. So why add it at all? Generalrelative (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Partly nuance. Partly because the source in question is very clear to point out that male witches are often overlooked, and because the article gives the false impression that female witches were always the majority - when, actually, male witches were killed in large numbers. Indeed, as I said, there are countries where male witches were the majority. Is there are version of the sentence you would find acceptable? Tiggy The Terrible (talk)
 * In fact, you could make a very strong case that I'm making the page less POV by adding it. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * These reasons are not based in policy. You state you could make a very strong case that I'm making the page less POV by adding it but this just shows you have either not read or not comprehended WP:NPOV. Further, you've been warned numerous times about WP:SYNTH and do not appear to have comprehended that policy either. If the source you're seeking to add does not discuss the relevant content specifically and explicitly in terms of "sexism" then it does not belong in the article Sexism. Generalrelative (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I'm free to cite academic works regarding witches in a section about witches. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The description of the book in the link states outright that it's the first book to make those claims, and it's going against the majority of scholarship in the area. So as usual you're cherry-picking a fringe source to support your POV and attack the mainstream view that's described in the article. NightHeron (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * statistics showing that three countries had mostly male witches is neither POV nor an attack on the mainstream. It's nuance. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You must be so blinded by your strident POV that you can't even see that the authors are priding themselves in attacking the mainstream view on witches. It's clearly your personal opinion that information in a fringe source about some historical mistreatment of men belongs in an article on sexism. You still don't seem to understand WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE. NightHeron (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely not free to cite a source that does not discuss sexism in an article about sexism. I am finished responding to you on the matter. Generalrelative (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not one to talk about personal POV, and the book is not original research on my part. It's also not fringe to say that several countries had mostly male witches. Here is another source on that very topic. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * From the beginning of that book: The European Witch-Hunt seeks to explain why thousands of people, MOSTLY LOWER-CLASS WOMEN, were deliberately tortured and killed in the name of religion and morality during three centuries of intermittent witch-hunting throughout Europe and North America. (emphasis added) Your so-called "another source" undermines your POV, does not support it. NightHeron (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you've just proven you haven't read what I said OR my source. Literally all I said was 'However in three countries most of the witches are male'. How does a source saying that in Normandy 73% and Estonia 60% of witches were male disprove my point? I don't get it. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're cherry-picking information from the book to "prove" the opposite conclusion from what the author says at the beginning of the book. NightHeron (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

One Sided page
Hello. While I realise that the academic consensus seems to say that women are the most discriminated against, it seems sexist to mot mention men's issues on the page at all. I feel that there are several issues that could perhaps be mentioned. For example, circumcision is a form of genital mutilation. Genocides specifically target men. Men are typically ignored when it comes to being victims of rape or domestic violence, etc. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Those issues are largely addressed elsewhere (e.g., Circumcision controversies). I agree with your sentiment but what we need is for RS to say that those examples are sexism against men and boys.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I could probably find something if you give me a bit. By the way, could I have your opinion on my last edit? It was instantly removed by GeneralRelitive as POV, but it is an academic source and that is what it says. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ”Genocides specifically target men”. What?! Freddie Orrell (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Difference between "gender bias" and "sexism"
Currently "gender bias" redirects here but this is inconsistent with other articles on Wikipedia, including Gender bias in medical diagnosis and Gender bias on Wikipedia. There seems to be an overwhelming consensus that "sexism" and "gender bias" are not the same thing. If "gender bias" is different than "sexism", we should have two separate articles rather than grouping them together in "sexism". Sexism could also be renamed Gender bias. What are your thoughts? Desertambition (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on the difference between "sexism" and "gender bias"
What is the difference between sexism and gender bias? When should a Wikipedia article use one over the other?

Articles are not WP:CONSISTENT in deciding what word to use.

Sexism - (Gender bias redirects here)

Sexism in the technology industry

Sexism and video games

Sexism in academia - (Gender bias in academia redirects here)

Gender discrimination in the medical profession - (Sexism in Medicine redirects here)

Gender bias in medical diagnosis

Gender discrimination in the medical profession - (Sexism in medical education redirects here)

Gender bias on Wikipedia - (Sexism on Wikipedia redirects here)

Sexism in American political elections

Desertambition (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Gender bias is (one of) the products of sexism; that is, they are not two different things that can be compared one to the other, but the one causes the other. Gender bias is a tangible consequence of sexism, which is intangible (but has tangible effects, gender bias being a specific one of them.). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6136:D2CD:D164:1BED (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Expanding on that, I don't see that any of those articles are inappropriately named; also, as gender bias is an aspect and a product of sexism, I don't think it warrants its own article on the concept alone. The specific articles that have "gender bias" in the title seem to generally be about, and should be about, things that can be empirically measured. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6136:D2CD:D164:1BED (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This has to be decided on a case-by-case basis based on the sourcing, the topic, and the context. I don't think it's something that can be reasonably decided by a single centralized RFC.  Also, this fails WP:RFCBEFORE in the sense that there hasn't really been enough discussion to produce options people can weigh in on anyway - RFCs aren't really for "come up with a whole-cloth solution to this broad sweeping problem", it's more for "choose between multiple solutions that have been identified in previous discussions", ie. you should start by proposing your own guidelines and getting feedback on them to form a list of options, then hold an RFC if it turns out to be difficult to reach a consensus.  Finally, an RFC held on this page probably can't bind content on other pages per WP:CONLOCAL, so such an RFC would have to be held elsewhere (eg. on the talk page for an MOS page where the relevant guideline might be written.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. I'll post any questions on relevant WikiProject pages and summarize what other editors have argued. Closing the rfc. Desertambition (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Good example systemic prison and concentration camp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbians_in_Nazi_Germany And the homosexuals in Nazi Germany state that tens of thousands of men were sent to prison, concentration camps or executed for homosexuality while lesbians were not systematically targeted or punished. The homosexual in Nazi Germany Wikipedia page is linked to in the see also part of the lesbian page. RS are included on each page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:1939:B0D6:36D4:F25 (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * In the absence of RS that explicitly attribute this to sexism, that doesn't belong in this article, per WP:OR. NightHeron (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * selecting a set of examples to include and a set to exclude is WP:OR even if each example meets RS.


 * Suggest a shorter main sexism topic, a sexism against women topic and a sexism against men topic for workability. Three pages rather than one long page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:D0F:9BF6:8EA2:DDBE (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Links to misogyny and misandry
I propose that the lede has links to misogyny and misandry, since those are two very closely related topics. I propose something like: "Misogyny refers to sexism against women, while misandry refers to sexism against men." This was reverted, the explanation said that sexism is not equivalent to misogyny and misandry but that seems to be exactly what the terms refer to, to me. Kuralesache (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I propose also that we add a link to Misandry in the See Also section, since there is already a link to Misogyny. Kuralesache (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable source that refers to misandry as a form of sexism? Note that dictionary.com gives "sexism" as part of its definition of misogyny, but not in its definition of misandry. dictionary.com also has the following explanation: Misandry (meaning “hatred of men”) was originally considered the converse of its counterpart, misogyny (“hatred of women”). This is no longer the case. While misandry has retained its original meaning, misogyny has broadened in meaning to cover an additional sense involving sexism (see the word story at misogyny). NightHeron (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Spreading Misandry by Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young extensively makes the argument that misandry is sexism, but I think I'm coming to see that "sexism against men" more strictly refers to systemic discrimination, while "misandry" refers to attitudes, generally. Which probably meshes with what dictionary.com is saying. Does it make sense to just add a reference to misogyny to the lede, given that? I made an attempt but it sounded awkward. Kuralesache (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nathanson and Young are not reliable sources. They are religion scholars at McGill University, so anything they write about religion would be in their field of expertise, but when they write popular books about sexism, they are out of their element. They have no expertise in researching sociology, which doesn't stop them from performing their own flawed research and writing about it. Through their books, they are aiming to achieve a conservative result; they want to stop the advances of feminism. They are trying to protect the patriarchy from change. Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree Nathanson and Young are religion scholars and outside the academics with expertise to cover sexism. Jennifer Hornsby too should be removed as unreliable since general Philosophy is her expertise and lacks expertise to comment on sexism as from her CV and published work https://www.bbk.ac.uk/our-staff/profile/8008368/jennifer-hornsby#publications.  This would remove "https://www.bbk.ac.uk/our-staff/profile/8008368/jennifer-hornsby#publications" from the references list as an unreliable author with expertise outside of the field.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:B4E7:4EDD:C5F4:9431 (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you say Kate Mann is a valid source on gender studies subjects or anthropology? She's the first citation in misogyny on a claim that has nothing to do with philosophy. Kuralesache (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * , you have no working knowledge of these topics, or you would never have called them "closely related". They are extremely different issues, with totally different histories, and and enormous disparity in extent. Misogyny is prevalent in almost all human society, whereas misandry is a minor blip. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The way in which discrimination against men and discrimination against women are related is in that they are both discrimination against somebody because of their sex or gender. Otherwise yes, they have a great deal of differences. Kuralesache (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Propose serious of degree in talk page
Good faith talk should not end with ruler measuring between sexism types.

Discussing sexism X should not end with a discussion ending comment that sexism Y is worse and that X should not be good faith discussed for inclusion in the sexism page.

Arguing about the types to include in a top ten most severe sexism types is in many of the discussions here. That’s not good faith in discussion.

Good faith discussion is not badgering to win a discussion on how inclusion of sexism X with provable millions of victims is somehow unworthy of sexism top inclusion because twenty thousand persons in a remote third world location are victims ov a severe form of sexism.

Good faith on both parties here in discussion is quite needed. A ‘but persons in group X have it worse’ or ‘sexism type C is so much worse’ should not end discussion and not preclude other sexism types from sexism topic inclusion.

At what point do sexism types move from practiced today and a problem today to the historical types of sexism section? Consider a drastic universally condemned example outside sexism, cannibalism in North America. It was practiced over a hundred years ago in NA by some tribes rarely and a today a near single digit per decade is reported now. Would cannibalism be included in the current problems in North America or the historical problems in North America?

What point in terms of people affected today is the threshold below which a sexism type moves from the current sexism list to thr historical sexism article section?

Good faith discussion is a worthy goal for the more contentious wiki topics like sexism. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:D592:5553:C1DE:7312 (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Your assertions don't mesh with Wikipedia practice, especially with regard to talking about the differences between X and Y. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize the literature, so if the literature compares X with Y, then that's exactly what we do. Binksternet (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Partially agree though the Literature omits sexism X while other literature includes X has been used to exclude type X from inclusion.
 * That gets to the core question of what is included and what is excluded in sexism page. Picking what academic sources that agree with your worldview and excluding academic sources disagreeing with your worldview is not good faith.
 * The ascertation is discussions are ended by not good faith choosing academic sources you agree with while excluding other academic sources, and dismissing sexism types as them being less severe than other types.
 * Good faith is having an open discussion considering academic sources which may have types of sexism not in the page. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:7D17:8B65:D013:DDFB (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Reference update
Encyclopedia Britannica sexism topic is written by Gina Masequesmay who is also referenced in the definition of sexism reference section.

The two should be combined in one co reference so that an author writing nearly identical general information articles on sexism for dictionary, encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:D0F:9BF6:8EA2:DDBE (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Can the two identical sexism definitions btpy the same author be combined into one reference?
 * No one would add two identical quotes from the same person in different newspapers to a reference list. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:3818:4172:4496:E9E1 (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Leftist tripe with no info on misandry
Great example of why Wikipedia is not the same as truth or an equitable disseminator of facts since often it rarely covers both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.93.178.149 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Please be more specific if you are going to raise issues with the article. "Leftist tripe" is not specific enough. You may be interested in the article on misandry. Desertambition (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "since often it rarely covers both sides." We never cover both sides. The policy on Due_and_undue_weight exists to prevent equating mainstream and fringe views as having equal value.:


 * "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." Dimadick (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Split sexism page
This page is too large with excessive number of topics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:15B4:535C:E351:9066 (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

RS citation needed
Citation needed for “Gender has been used as a tool for discrimination against women in the political sphere.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:15B4:535C:E351:9066 (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That statement is supported by the ten references cited in the section. NightHeron (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All but one of the sources do not explicitly call it discrimination.
 * Generalizing is OR as exampled by “ Sexism in politics can also be shown in the imbalance of lawmaking power between men and women. Lanyan Chen stated that men hold more political power than women, serving as the gatekeepers of policy making. It is possible that this leads to women's needs not being properly represented. In this sense, the inequality of lawmaking power also causes gender discrimination in politics.”
 * That blatantly generalizes to all countries when the reference only applies to China and does not explicitly call it sexism - the “Sexism in politics… “ statement is OR or SYNTh and should be removed or restated to not include “sexism” and include it’s single, not universal, narrow focus. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:7C5C:1CA4:33FC:BA30 (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I edited that paragraph in response to your concerns. Please check if it's okay now. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Need secondary reference
The ladies menu section needs a secondary reference source. Atlas obscura is not academic. A newspaper from the court case year Or academic RS can be more authoritative on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:7CBF:736C:AC12:95E6 (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

History In the ancient world is SYNTH and needs RS stating the examples cited are examples of sexism
Rewriting the ancient world history paragraph to remove SYNTH is needed. The references for it do not call it sexism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.197.56.204 (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Formal notice has been received from user:TiggyTheTerrible to merge Reverse sexism into Sexism. Please discuss the proposal below.

Proposer's rationale: Reverse sexism is just sexism according to the dictionary and to the definition of reverse sexism (i.e. sexism, against males). The sexism page should be open to sexism against males being given equal footing, otherwise I would have to question what's going on there. Lack of parity gives - at least - the impression of sexism. Felix QW (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. The idea of sexism against males being given equal footing to sexism against women is a blatant violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE, since the vast majority of RS make it abundantly clear that sexism primarily affects women. We follow the mainstream sources. NightHeron (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. NightHeron has stated it perfectly clearly. There is already a strong consensus among editors that "parity" in this context would constitute WP:FALSEBALANCE. See for example this RfC. Generalrelative (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Support. Despite having a long list of complaints, male issues are totally excluded from the sexism page. For example - in the justice system, systemic opposition to male victims of domestic violence, abuse, and rape, is well documented. Men are stereotyped as abusers by handbooks used by the police and courts, as well as the laws, so they rarely receive justice. Added to that: men are unfairly targeted by selective service requirements, being drafted, and have no way to give up responsibility for an unwanted child. Young boys are routinely subjected to legal sexual assault via circumcision, despite the same being illegal for girls. And so on. Since the literature that is cited on the page doesn't address men's issues in any way, it can't be said to be a valid weighing of the evidence. And regardless - to say sexism against men should be excluded on the basis that it is less common doesn't counter my argument that reverse sexism is just sexism. Or that the term seems political. The majority of sexism victims being women would not be a good reason to ignore men. The vast majority of suicides are male (70-80%) but we don't strip mentions of female suicide from the page. To do so would be very clearly a product of bias - but this is exactly what is happening on the sexism page. I also note that the sexism page doesn't seem to give a percentage figure for how much sexism women and men suffer, so I can't honestly say it is a fact in any case. We can know how many suicides are men, so why not how much sexism is against men? All in all, I believe that the page is set out is a good example of sexism. if there were no sexism on the page it would be easy to add men's issues to a section on the page. If there really aren't many men's issues caused by sexism, as is claimed, then the section would be small and would not dominate the contents. However, the fact that men's issues are excluded from the page speaks volumes. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

merge
as tiggy the tiger said, Despite having a long list of complaints, male issues are totally excluded from the sexism page. For example - in the justice system, systemic opposition to male victims of domestic violence, abuse, and rape, is well documented. Men are stereotyped as abusers by handbooks used by the police and courts, as well as the laws, so they rarely receive justice. Added to that: men are unfairly targeted by selective service requirements, being drafted, and have no way to give up responsibility for an unwanted child. Young boys are routinely subjected to legal sexual assault via circumcision, despite the same being illegal for girls. And so on. Since the literature that is cited on the page doesn't address men's issues in any way, it can't be said to be a valid weighing of the evidence. And regardless - to say sexism against men should be excluded on the basis that it is less common doesn't counter my argument that reverse sexism is just sexism. Or that the term seems political. The majority of sexism victims being women would not be a good reason to ignore men. The vast majority of suicides are male (70-80%) but we don't strip mentions of female suicide from the page. To do so would be very clearly a product of bias - but this is exactly what is happening on the sexism page. I also note that the sexism page doesn't seem to give a percentage figure for how much sexism women and men suffer, so I can't honestly say it is a fact in any case. We can know how many suicides are men, so why not how much sexism is against men? All in all, I believe that the page is set out is a good example of sexism. if there were no sexism on the page it would be easy to add men's issues to a section on the page. If there really aren't many men's issues caused by sexism, as is claimed, then the section would be small and would not dominate the contents. However, the fact that men's issues are excluded from the page speaks volumes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.134.221 (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * And as others have said above, this is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Otherwise we would need high-quality sources that treat sexism against women and sexism against men equally. That's how WP determines article contents: going by reliable sources, not complaints. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose the merge - false Balance. Maybe make it a separate article and see if it survives AfD. Also, Sexism is an inadequate title for what women have endured over the centuries. Instead of redirecting Oppression of women to Sexism, make it the main title (by country).  Atsme 💬 📧 12:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per WP:NPOV, WP:RS. and WP:FALSEBALANCE. This is the third time in rapid succession that this merger has been proposed, once on the Reverse sexism talk-page and twice here. Repeating a proposal that in recent discussions failed to get a consensus is disruptive. NightHeron (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Reverse sexism is not sexism against men, it's the incorrect term for sexism against men (criticized in many RSs concept; but not all RSs use prejudice plus power re-definition of sexism) / anti-male prejudice / discrimination against men / affirmative actions. It should be an article about the incorrect (according to RSs) term. Not about discrimination against men. RSs about discrimination against men usually don't use the term reverse sexism. We can write the article Discrimination against men based on sources such as the dissertation of Pasi Malmi (it's quotated but not critisized) and the works of Russian scholars who research Russian laws. So, Oppose.--Reprarina (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Need RS on higher education section.
Higher education bit can include more degrees in stem including biology, chemistry, pre medical, veterinary, math, with a gender breakdown between them. Limiting to only physics, engineering and computer science is excluding nearly all science degrees. The same for faculty in those degrees as well. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:28E7:F5D3:4B4D:61EC (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

References cleanup and expansion
Several references are missing publication dates, mainly the books. Other references are listed twice.

There is a lack of recent references in the Sexism page when textbooks (Introduction to Psychology) and newspaper articles are excluded. Can a concerted effort be made to include academic sources newer than 2013 so the Sexism topic is not frozen to what it was ten years ago? 2600:1700:D591:5F10:A0AF:9519:3F35:5893 (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2022
Remove the section which states "but it primarily affects women and girls" which is in the first line. This is factually incorrect and is harmfvul. 94.175.137.100 (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. It's well-sourced and consensus has been for its existence  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160A
— Assignment last updated by Trina hamdard (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Friesian.com
Please remove this text:


 * Other opposed critiques of sexism in language maintain that language is descriptive, rather than prescriptive, and attempts to control it can be fruitless.

Friesian.com has been determined to be an unreliable source. See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_391. If this criticism is significant enough to be mentioned here, other, better sources will mention it, and if not, it doesn't belong here. 67.170.60.136 (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

More on sexist viewpoints & culture
valuing girls and women only based on virginity or celibacy

Incels

hating feminists

denying abortion rights

2603:7000:6401:7C26:5C13:855:C9B1:C21D (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2023
Change from :

In this speech she said in part: "There is recognition abroad that we are in many ways a sexist country. Sexism is judging people by their sex when sex doesn't matter. Sexism is intended to rhyme with racism."[citation needed]

To:

In this speech she said in part: "There is recognition abroad that we are in many ways a sexist country. Sexism is judging people by their sex when sex doesn't matter. Sexism is intended to rhyme with racism." CitationCreator2023 (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Lightoil (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggest splitting the content into separate pages
All content and sources are female focused, and while stating sexism occurs in both sexes, I feel separate pages for "sexism against women" and "sexism against men" provides the same information while reducing creating potential bias in readers.

I visited to learn about sexism.I left learning about female sexism, while the majority of sexism may be experienced by females, it comes across disingenuous with a broad title but a particular focus. Or recommend renaming the page to be representing of the focus. 2601:281:C400:59:E076:A6E7:49BD:32D9 (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this is actually a really important point. Often the way we talk about sexism is itself sexist. We don't want to diminish awareness for any one group of people, but we also want to ensure that we are as nonpartisan in these articles as possible. Bpappin (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the concept of "discrimination against women" in China needs to be emphasized for a specific time
Since 2002, Chinese mainland banned the practice of checking the sex of the fetus. Every year in Chinese mainland, there were a large number of "fake marriages" against men, with the aim of robbing the man of his money and demanding large sums of money, which is usually the life savings of the man's family. Deliberate abortions and drowning of female babies died out decades ago, but "fraudulent marriages" against men occur every year in China. I think it is necessary to continue the "infant drowning" and "abortion" mentioned earlier. "Baby girl drowning" mainly occurred during the Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China, and after the establishment of the People's Republic of China, there were only three years of famine when there were large-scale infant drowning, but this was not for baby girls. As for malicious abortion, it existed in the years 1960-1990, and in later years, reproductive rights basically belonged to women. Because of the influence of traditional Chinese culture, most women usually prefer boys after giving birth, while fathers mainly have a better relationship with their daughters. In China, daughters are called "father's little padded jackets". Although women will prefer their boys after giving birth, many young men and women in China are now opposed to each other, influenced by some perceptions. Let me summarize my words: a few decades ago, there were indeed cases of mass abortion and drowning of female babies in China. Today, China is basically the country with the highest status for women, and no other country requires men to give women years of savings like China, and after a short marriage, women can legally own the money (Chinese law specifically protects women, so it is common for women to squeeze money from men through marriage fraud in China). 李双能 (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

China is a country that discriminates against men "institutionally" and "socially"
In Chinese mainland society, there is a practice of "poor children, rich daughters". Many girls enjoy better treatment from an early age, and even in school, once there is any conflict between men and women, teachers will give priority to protecting female classmates, for example, in Jiangxi Industrial Vocational and Technical College, there are girls because the boy refuses to sell toilet paper to her at a low price, and the boy protests, but finally the teacher forcibly asks the girl to apologize. A similar thing happened around me, my classmate Liao and a girl had a quarrel over trivial matters, and later the girl assigned a group of people to try to go to his residence and beat him, but Liao was not at the residence at that time, so he escaped. In the end, Liao reported the incident to the head teacher, but the class teacher asked Liao to apologize to the girl. This is a very common social phenomenon, but it is not yet common. In Chinese mainland, almost all men who marry pay huge sums of money to "compensate" the woman's family. And this phenomenon seems to exist only in China, such as Jiangxi Province, as far as I know, Jiangxi men need to pay about 200,000 yuan to get married, such a sum of money, ordinary people usually need to accumulate 3-5 years. In addition, many places also need to buy a house before marriage, and the woman's name must be added when registering (most of the time the woman will not pay a penny for the house purchased before marriage)                                                                    In Chinese mainland, more than 70 per cent of divorce proceedings were initiated by women, as divorce allowed wives to divide more than half of their property. China's marriage law favors the woman, the division of property is only secondary, and the more terrible stipulation is that as long as the child is young, it must be awarded to the woman, and the man needs to pay monthly alimony. Another reason Chinese mainland high divorce rate is that the law condones fraudulent marriages. Chinese law states that reproductive rights are vested in the woman, and that a husband who forcibly enters into a relationship without his wife's consent is considered "marital rape." Such a provision leads to a series of unfavourable consequences for men, such as fraudulent marriage.As far as I know, from 1970 to the present, there has been a large number of fraudulent marriages every year in various parts of China. The woman demanded a huge amount of money from the man before the marriage, but refused to perform all conjugal relations after the marriage, and took advantage of all the facilities of the Chinese mainland law to file for divorce. In Chinese mainland education, men have always been portrayed as evil. Chinese mainland villains in film and television dramas are mostly men, and occasionally women, but they are usually portrayed as good-hearted but unable to control themselves. Even in textbooks, there are always many stories of "discrimination against women", but never stories of "discrimination against men" because these are forbidden to add. International Working Women's Day on March 8 is known as "Queen's Day" in Chinese mainland to cater to socially advantaged women. 李双能 (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * If you have reliable sources about discrimination against men in China (which describe it as discrimination against men or sexism towards men), you can provide it. Without sources we can't write or even discuss it in Wikipedia (WP:NOTAFORUM). Reprarina (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 穷养儿富养女_百度百科 (baidu.com)
 * 彩礼_百度百科 (baidu.com)
 * 婚内强奸_百度百科 (baidu.com)
 * 骗婚（全面性教育相关的名词）_百度百科 (baidu.com)
 * 女神节_百度百科 (baidu.com)
 * All of the above are our "specialties" of China, which were quickly implemented after the Communist Party came to power, so the current population growth is negative. Because women control the media, the encyclopedia is very nuanced about it. I will prove to you that our media is controlled, such as the following entry on "sexism", which only mentions discrimination against women, does not care about men at all, and does not even mention a word at all.
 * 性别歧视_百度百科 (baidu.com)
 * 彩礼最新地图！浙江18.3万全国第一 黑龙江男方压力最高|彩礼|压力_新浪新闻 (sina.com.cn)
 * [[File:Comparison of the intensity of sentences for crimes committed by men and women of the same level in China.png|thumb]]
 * On average, every Chinese man needs to pay a year's income to his wife's family when he gets married, which is calculated based on the average income, which can be equivalent to 2 or even 3 years if you look at the income level of most people. Note! This is only a bride price and does not include the property and car that need to be given to the woman for free.
 * In addition to the above, China's criminal law is extremely biased towards women, and even if it is a crime of the same level, the punishment received by different genders varies greatly.
 * Now, can you post this on Wikipedia? It seems that China's "characteristic culture" is not widely known internationally. 李双能 (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just popping in here as well to note that Baidu Baike is not a reliable source. Remsense  聊  00:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The above Baidu Encyclopedia entries I sent out are just noun explanations, and I know that there are no such words in Western countries, and there will be problems with English literal translation
 * Unlike Western countries, the domestic media is forbidden to publish negative information about women, so these contents will not be published in our domestic media. But Weibo and Xiaohongshu demonstrate the severity of gender antagonism in China.
 * China Women's Daily's standards for women.png
 * China Women's Daily's standards for treating men.png
 * These two pictures are the official statements of China Women's Daily, do you see any differences?
 * A woman broke into a men's bathhouse to shoot and send it to the media, and China Women's Daily defended it, saying: It's just a joke.
 * Published, March 27, 2023.
 * When a boy speaks ill of a girl on the Internet, China Women's Daily reports that "joking" is not allowed as an excuse to insult a girl! With the intervention of the China Women's Daily, the man was expelled from school.
 * Released on March 21, 2023.
 * China Women's Daily is the most authoritative gender protection organization under the management of the Communist Party of China, and the speech of the organization is China's speech, representing China's position on gender protection.
 * I don't know if you have carefully read the above chart, the table counts the punishment of criminals of the same degree of crime and different genders. The picture is in my previous reply, so I won't repost it here. 李双能 (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia can only publish information attested in reliable sources. This inevitably leads to potential gaps in coverage, but that's the price we pay for having the most verifiable information possible. Remsense  留  19:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't the official statement of China Women's Daily reliable information? 李双能 (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is an important source! It should be mentioned in any article on the subject. But, it's important to represent sources in context: Primary sources, sources close to a subject, are generally to be treated more carefully. I would quote that source in this article with explicit attestation, rather than simply calling it "the country's gender policy", for example. Remsense  留  01:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Ordering of examples
Why is foot binding, which is not practiced for decades, an example listed before conscription. Conscription male only forced labor affects millions of men every year in Russia, Ukraine, South Korea and many other countries. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:CC8C:30C3:D0C5:7604 (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not listed. It's just an image. To be honest I've never heard this described as sexism before, but rather violence against women, and I don't see a source describing it that way either. —Panamitsu (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request on 10 February 2024
Gender Stereotypes

(keep the paragraph that is currently in the article in this section)

According to Deaux and Lewis, gender stereotypes can be categorized into four components. Trait dimensions are personality traits, such as “understanding” or “decisive”. Role behaviors are roles performed in society, such as “doing household chores” or “making major decisions”. Occupations are job titles, such as “secretary” or “engineer”. Finally, physical appearance refers to one’s visual presentation. This component includes descriptions like “delicate” or “tall”. Both males and females have a set of stereotypes in each of these categories.

Trait dimensions can be further categorized into two main categories of gender stereotypes: agency and communion (Bakan 1966). Agency is associated with men. Agentic traits are those which promote success and leadership. Such traits include assertiveness, confidence, and competitiveness. Communion is associated with women. Communal traits embody connection with and care for others. Sympathy, nurture, and warmth are all examples of communion.

Although typically attributed primarily to either men or women but not both, communion and agency are not opposite trait dimensions. In fact, it is possible for social groups to be stereotyped not as high in only one and low in the other, but also as high on both dimensions or low on both dimensions. This is called the stereotype content model''. ''

References:

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 991–1004. Pbakhtina (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: It's unclear which parts of this lengthy addition is supported by which portions of either provided source. Please be more specific about the link between the proposed content and the provided sources (including specific page numbers if the source is not directly and primarily about the content it supports). Additionally, please be more clear about how these paragraphs should be incorporated into the existing subsection, e.g. whether this should all be added after the existing paragraph, before it, or that the existing paragraph should be contained somewhere within. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Conscription section
I've removed parts of the conscription section which reference rape and sexual assault. This is because the sources do not describe it as "sexism". This was undone by saying  As said before, my reasoning was that the sources do not describe "sexism". They do describe sexist attitudes and ridicule toward women in the military, but not that sexual assault is sexism. Furthermore, the text in question contains the phrase which has nothing to do with sexism. US military death is uncommon.

Another change I made that went reverted was that I changed the image to be male soldiers, as the majority of the conscription section is about men in the military. We currently do not have any images with men in it, so I don't think it hurts to have one.—Panamitsu (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It has now been a week and you have not made a response. I would appreciate it if you could explain your edits. —Panamitsu (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Helpfulwikieditoryay added this source and this source in this edit, saying extra sources on specifically sexism. Of those two sources, the first connects sexual assault of women in the military to sexism quite substantively and explicitly. I have no opinion on the image, but the text is well supported. Generalrelative (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree that the new sources adequately make the connection between sexism and sexual assault. It might be worth removing the other ones as they don't do this, but it does not matter.
 * As it has now been two weeks and you have not responded with after I reminded you, I have changed the gender of the conscription image back to males as per my previous points. If you still object, I am happy for you to revert my change, as long as you participate in this discussion. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I didn't get a notification for this until just now. I'm glad everything was sorted out about the writing portion of the article. At first I changed the image back to female soldiers because it has always been that way and I believe it was for educational purposes - to show what female soldiers look like for better understanding, because we are used to seeing male soldiers, having a photo of female soldiers would be informative in context. I don't have a problem with the photo being female or male. The majority of the section is about male soldiers, who are the majority in real life, so I see why you changed it. I don't have much opinion on the subject so I'll leave it to other editors. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)