Talk:Sexism/Archive 5

Topic needs to transition to the end after Section 4.3
Topic drifts into far too many independent subjects worthy of their own discussion,  rape, pornography transphobia et.al. In the middle of my desire to help edit,  I needed to remember what the original  topic was, not good. Ninasnanay (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality
Tagging this to be tagged for neutrality. While sexism is usually taken to be discrimination against women, discrimination against men also does happen, e.g. in some countries national service / conscription applies only to men, corporal punishment may not apply to women criminals, social bias against men exist (if a man and woman fight, bystanders are more likely to assume the man is the aggressor), and so on. The article also conspicuously fails to address issues like: maybe women really are worse drivers than men, or maybe women get paid less than men doing the same jobs because they are weaker workers.

In a page on sexism and gender discrimination, this page is unusually loaded with discrimination against women only. In some way, this page on sexism is sexist - hence I am tagging for NPOV. Banedon (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Major dictionaries generally define sexism as against females more than males, but it does include both genders. Feel free to do the research, since the kind of content you propose will need sourcing. And some of the kind of content you propose does not show sexism, e.g., if women are paid less because they work less, that is not sexism against either gender. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As you can see from the page itself, Sexism is "defined as prejudice or discrimination based on sex; or conditions or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex", which is a gender-neutral statement. If the article is to have examples of discrimination against women, it ought also have examples of discrimination against men. If women are paid less than men because they work less, it does not show sexism, but it explains the gender wage gap - something used here as an example of sexism - in a non-sexist way. Banedon (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge
I think that merging sexism and sexualism is a very bad idea. Discrimination/prejudice agianist sex/gender is not the same as that againist sexual orientation and sexual behaviour. Sexualism is a general term for heterophobia, homophobia, biphobia and acephobia. Sexism is a general term for misandry, misogny and transphobia.-67.185.72.240 (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This article seems overly tagged.
Please discuss on the talk page where the spelling and cohesion is lacking, and the neutrality is in dispute, or remove some of the tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ongepotchket (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

EU's controversial "Science: it's a girl thing" video
I uploaded it to the Wikimedia commons. If someone has a place in the article that they feel this would be appropriate, please feel free to put it there.

Link to video: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Science_-_it%27s_a_girl_thing.ogg

Sample of some of the commentary in the media: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/martha-gill/2012/06/science-its-girl-thing-says-eu-commission-holding-lipstick-and-bunsen-burn http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9349923/Science-girl-thing-video-branded-offensive.html

Cheers! Earthpig (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears that was uploaded without permission. I think you are right in including it, but just use those links to articles discussing the video as opposed to uploading the video or campaign itself. Wikipedia documents events and popular opinions rather than making value judgements itself (even if a hilariously obvious case such as this).
 * Here's another link:
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/22/is-science-its-a-girl-thing-sexist_n_1618343.html
 * --Carbon Rodney 10:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Article is not neutral
This article makes it sound like sexism harms women far more than men. A balanced and neutral (and accurate) article would point out that enforced gender roles hurt both men and women in different, but equal ways. This is not popularly acknowledged but is logical: evolutionary psychology makes women protected but limits their freedom; it makes men freer but less valued than the possessor of a uterus. This is because in low population circumstances each uterus equals one pregancy at a time, but half as many men can do very nearly as good a job. Hence the need for "protective custody" for women and "risky freedom" for men. When one sincerely tries, as many disadvantages can be found for men as for women, just different ones. Often a single instance of sexism hurts both: sexism by the US military endangers men but limits women. It is therefore essential that this article have as much anti-misandry input from mens rights advocates as it has anti-misogyny input from feminists. Letting feminists alone write an article on sexism is going to result in an article biased toward female victimhood and male vilification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.166.124 (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutrality applies to the article, not to sources or editors. Primary dictionaries generally define sexism as being mainly anti-female and so this article, to be neutral, has to be about discrimination primarily against females. Content on genderal discrimination against males is entitled to much less weight in this article but may belong in an article on misandry or gender relations. Military examples are often cited to show misandrous sexism but in human life taken as a whole the military is a significant but minor part. The objection to sexism is partly that there's no "need for 'protective custody' for women" and no need to limit "'risky freedom'" only to men.


 * Claims grounded in evolutionary psychology if they are grounded on genderal differences being definitively genetic are sexist and therefore challengeable if unsourced. It's one thing to say that genetics is probably the cause; it's another to remove culture entirely. Cultural conventions could have been established early in humanity's existence and could have been carried down to today. That's consistent with the book Human Universals, although relied upon by Stephen Pinker. Thus, content based on genetics-only claims need sourcing.


 * Nick Levinson (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with the original comment, which is why I tagged the article for neutrality. @above, it is rather nonsensical in my opinion to say that 'primary dictionaries generally define sexism as being mainly anti-female' and then to have an article that starts with the gender-neutral statement "Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is defined as prejudice or discrimination based on sex; or conditions or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex." The article needs cleaning up for neutrality. I can give lots of examples, but haven't done the research and so don't have sources. Banedon (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. You're saying that the lead is too gender neutral? Right now it says that sexism is a gender neutral concept but is most often used in relation to discrimination against women. This has 5 sources to back it up: Merriam-Webster, the Oxford dictionary, the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language, dictionary.com, and thefreedictionary.com. So far you and the anon IP haven't cited a single source to justify your argument. If you're not going to offer any sources, the neutrality tag should be removed. Kaldari (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Right now it says that sexism is a gender neutral concept but is most often used in relation to discrimination against women" - this is the exact reason why the article is not neutral! Sexism is a gender neutral concept! All five of the cited sources mention this. Sure it may be most often used in relation to discrimination against women, but at its core it is still a gender neutral concept.Banedon (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Sexism
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sexism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "unhchr": From Honor killing:  From Adultery:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Undescriptive subtitles and lack of science.
There is a subtitle called "gender stereotypes", which however does not describe or tell anything about gender stereotypes, but rather has information on differences in sallaries and women that had problems in professional circles that are dominated by men. While all that (partially) has to do with sexism, where is the information on what the stereotypes actually are? I would like to see reference to a study that tells us what people usually think women or men are like. No such study is mentioned in the entire article. There are loose references to text books and other theorist that speculate that this and that are due to stereotypes, but the article would benefit much from an actual description of the stereotypes in addition to talking about injustices that might be partially, entirely or not at all due to stereotypes. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"...within the context of patriarchy"
The links DO say the term "sexism" is usually used when referencing discrimination/etc. directed at women...but they say NOTHING about patriarchy. Please stop adding your own POV to the page, and please stop using this article as your own personal soapbox. I check in every once in a while and will continue to remove it every time it's added back without a proper citation.
 * That term patriarchy is poorly defined by the wikipedia article, but it was inserted quite a while ago, and was part of the content I added back because it was removed by a disruptive editor. I plan on improving this article. Since you're threatening to revert edits you disagree with as "soapboxing" (a threat which you ought to rescind as it shows bad faith) it would be well appreciated for you to make an account for said edits. Discussion is needed, and making an account would also come in handy if the page is semi-protected at some point. Several citations for the article do mention patriarchy. A proper citation can be added easily enough to the lede, but I will put it on hold for now. A discussion can be had here on whether the term patriarchy as it pertains to sexism is of importance to the article. Ongepotchket (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a "disruptive editor"...I removed it the first time, on October 1, and you put it back on October 22. It's not backed up by the citations provided. The dictionary entries only say it is usually directed at women...not that it's "in the context of patriarchy" (clearly referencing the disputed hypothesis originating in feminist theory).


 * If you have a proper citation for that specific claim, then go ahead and edit it in. As I said, I'll only remove it if there isn't a proper citation for that claim.  And no, that wasn't a threat, it was a statement of fact.  But remember: it has to claim the word is 1) used most often to 2)describe discrimination against women...3) in the context of patriarchy.  If it doesn't actually hit those 3 points, I'll either remove it, or I'll change the phrasing. 74.60.172.249 (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible bias in article
«it is possible that this article could be considered biased towards women. Nearly every topic begins with something about women. Although rare, sexism against men does happen, such as in the profession of nursing, or, even though it is lees common recently, teaching. Feed back on this matter would be appreciated.

Andrew9623 (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Been mentioned several times, check the archives. 22:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This still does not resolve the issue though. If anyone is willing to edit this for me it would be greatly appreciated. Andrew9623 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Studies?
This article could be made better with the mention of sociological studies on sexism. Currently there are a lot of opinions of feminists and political activists, which are important and nice, but the reader would probably like to know descriptive facts also. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

stereotypes
I think the section on stereotypes needs some work. First, it does not cite good sources, mostly primary sources. Second, it does not present any studies or views according to which some of the claims could be explained by alternative explanations. For example, it claims in places that differences in math performance are entirely a result of negative stereotyping, while at the same time the page Sex and psychology states that cognitive psychologists have found real differences in some skills related to mathematics between the sexes.88.114.154.216 (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Lack of male sexism examples
This article appears to have a disproportionate number of examples of female sexual discrimination to male examples... In fact it seems like it has been almost entirely cleansed of any examples of discrimination against men. The term sexism is not synonymous only with discrimination against females. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.139.28 (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion archives, you can see that his point has been brought up numerous times. However, still nobody has added any sources on the issue. It's not that there aren't any though. There is, for example, a lot of literature on child custody issues after divorce, where in almost all industrialized nations women have significantly better possibilities than men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.200.63 (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that this article's being in the feminism portal harms the neutrality. Unsupported pro-feminist claims are made without citation. "Most rape victims are women" is not only irrelevant, it is not supported with any study. Furthermore, there is no consensus, as far as I am aware, that this is true; although women are the predominant victims of stranger rape, date rape is almost equal in the gender of its perpetrators, and men suffer more from institutional rape. AlanPickett (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Expand the historical section to earlier examples of sexism and discuss how sexism changed over time
Dear editorial colleagues, I would like to propose new or expanded historical sections to the following Wikipedia pages: Sexism, Racism, Ageism and Classism (Class discrimination), with specific focuses on when was the first recorded case of each and how have these concepts changed over time to contemporary times in different cultures. I am more than happy to work on a first draft (with original sources of course) for your consideration, a have some degree of knowledge in these areas. However, I am unwilling to put the time and effort into such an endeavor if any of my esteemed editorial colleagues here do not consider this to be necessary and/or welcome. 66.14.164.195 (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Peter
 * I don't have any knowledge on the history of racism, but I can help with the other three65.50.222.210 (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Fretzer

are high heels sexism?
Can they be considered sexism? Or should this mention be in some other Wikipedia article? If some one has stated that they believe them to be a form of sexism, then at least it should be mentioned that many don't88.114.154.216 (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The article of footwear itself? I don't think so. If women were forced or coerced into wearing high heels, I suppose... But wearing high heels is a personal choice that women make because they think it makes them more attractive. (I personally don't think they do, but my opinion is irrelevant.) --AlanPickett (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "If women were forced or coerced into wearing high heels, I suppose..." Women are being coerced into wearing high heels - at many social events they are socially mandatory. Not to talk about the whole industry's aggressive advertising; and it's not only women but young girls too experience an enormous social pressure.2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A071 (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Women are definitely not coerced. Coercion relies on threats or violence. I doubt that an invitation to a party would read "Wear high heels or else." And socially mandatory? Is it not socially mandatory for men to wear suits and ties (which are often uncomfortable) to events of a higher decorum? Also, the women's fashion industry is not the only industry to advertise aggressively. Women have free will in the modern world, so I feel that their choice to wear high heels is no more than a trade off: a loss in comfort in exchange for a gain in formality and perceived attractiveness. AlanPickett (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Recommending Deletion for NPOV
"Partly as a result of many gender stereotypes, women are more likely to be raped than men." This statement is irrelevant, not cited, and factually dubious. Furthermore, it feels very WP:SOAP to me. I'm suggesting deletion. As a courtesy, I've brought it to the talk page first. 22:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanPickett (talk • contribs)

terrible article
Fully 80% of this article could be deleted for NPOV. Almost all of it is examples of "sexism against women" and many of the "citations" are from feminist bias resources. I would clean it up but:

1) apparently deleting "sourced material" without discussion is a no-no

2) This article would mostly disappear

Matty1487 (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Transgender
Every statement of transgender really needs to be removed and locked out. Transgender is not a gender, there are only two genders in homosapiens, that is a fact and irrefutable. The only form of near transgender is a Hermaphrodite, and yet they two are a single gender, there are only XX and XY, there is no other genders, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pusalieth (talk • contribs) 20:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There are only two forms of biological sex. Gender is different and more complex. Most of us are cisgender, meaning our gender conforms to our biological sex. That isn't always the case though. So, since genderism is undistinguished from sexism, transgender discrimination should remain. AlanPickett (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggested changes for neutrality and factuality
I had made some changes in the article that I thought would improve its neutrality, but they were rolled back. The article seems to constantly refer to feminist ideaology; weasel words and unsupported dubious claims are used throughout the article. At any rate, I believe this article to be biased. I would suggest the following changes to restore neutrality and factual accuracy:

1. Add an anti-male discrimination section, as the majority of the article pertains only to anti-female discrimination. Anti-male discrimination has become a serious topic of discussion in both the men's rights movement and in feminism. This section should include discrimination against men in the legal system (child custody, divorce, alimony, domestic violence), discrimination against men due to affirmative action, the purported prevalence of false rape accusations against men, circumcision, male stereotypes in popular media (especially t.v.), discrimination against men in adoption, and the stereotype of the male abuser and female victim. 2. Avoid presenting feminist philosophy as absolute fact. This thwarts neutrality and spoils the factuality of the article. "Partly as a result of many gender stereotypes, women are more likely to be raped than men" This is a social theory of the feminist movement, not a fact supported by research and consensus, nor common knowledge. It should not be presented as a fact. Also, such a major claim should have citation. 3. Acknowledge counter-arguments. Example: The thesis that a gender-based wage gap exists due to discrimination is a theory, not a fact. A number of studies find that the gender wage gap is caused by men's being more willing to sacrifice personal happiness for monetary gain than women. It would be deceptive not to mention these studies.

My only wish is to restore the neutrality and factuality of this article. To avoid having my minor neutrality edits rolled back again, I have brought this to the talk page first. AlanPickett (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Support this proposal in principal, but that is not a commentary on your specific edits, which I do not have time to review at the moment. ►  Belch fire - TALK 00:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I also agree with all of your points. Especially important is to present more differing opinions and back causal claims with real evince. Currently the article makes it seem as though parenting leads to people adapting specific gender roles, which then explains all gender inequalities related to labour and careers. This simply cannot be true, rather there are various distinct reasons for the many different inequalities...88.114.154.216 (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I too agree with your points. The article at the moment is not neutral. Off the top of my head, a couple of anti-male discrimination that could be added are corporal punishment (where it is practiced, typically only men above a certain age are caned) and national service (in some countries, men are required to serve, but not women). The current article touches on it but could still draw some material e.g. from this page. Banedon (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This article will not be neutral untill it is acknowledged that expectations / roles for genders are not the sole cause of inequalities between the sexes in things such as salary.88.114.154.216 (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't had time recently to carry out many of the proposed changes, but I intend to do so some time in the indefinite future. Feel free to go ahead, but be careful; (the following is not a personal attack) the article's being in the feminist portal has promoted a certain (perhaps unintentional) ideological skew on this article, in my opinion. Edits will not go unchallenged. To reiterate, I do not intend to soapbox, only to clear up the neutrality issues. AlanPickett (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have moved the section on selective service in the US to the "examples" section under military service. It seems better suited there. I've also deleted the part about frontline combat. Since men are physically stronger than women (something that is not in dispute), there are non-sexist reasons to prefer men in the front lines than women. Therefore I don't think it's an example of sexism and have removed it.


 * I'm also of opinion that the Misogyny section should be removed. It sounds more like violent hatred than sexism. Nonetheless I've left it there, pending others' opinions. Banedon (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed 'Women and children first' section and 'Wife selling' section
I've removed these 2 recently-created sections per WP:UNDUE. Neither of them are commonly cited forms of sexism. This article should concentrate on the forms of sexism that are commonly discussed in the relevant literature, not list every conceivable form of sexism known to man. Kaldari (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. They are both fit the definition of sexism and therefore both should be included. It is not ours to judge whether or not they are "commonly cited" either. You need only search for "women and children + sexist" on Google for example to see thousands of results. What's more, take a look at this Google result:


 * "One recent writer has pointed, for instance, to the 'sexism' of expressions like 'innocent women and children' in reports of war or terrorist actions.1 He notes that ..." - Feminism and linguistic theory, Deborah Cameron, Page 100, as cited by Google.


 * I don't have access to this book, or to whatever citation #1 refers to, so I can't read the entire section. But there's enough indication here. I am not convinced that the issue isn't being "commonly discussed". I'm leaving it as it is, but I think we should revert. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For a topic as broad as sexism, the way to assess the relative importance of different forms of sexism isn't to search Google for "blah + sexist", it is to look at authoritative works on the subject of sexism and see what weight they give to the different topics. Personally, I would start with sociology textbooks. If you look at Sociology: A Global Perspective, for example, it mostly discusses enforcement of gender stereotypes and income disparity. Jon Shepard's Sociology (another common textbook) devotes an entire chapter to gender inequality and sexism. It discusses occupational discrimination, income disparity, discrimination in sports, discrimination in education, and discrimination in politics. It doesn't mention women and children first or wife selling. Diana Kendall's Sociology in Our Times discusses gender stereotyping, income disparity, occupational discrimination, discrimination in education, discrimination in sports, patriarchy, and objectification. None of these sources mention women and children first or wife selling. FWIW, I don't think that it would necessarily be wrong to mention women and children first or wife selling in the article, but per WP:UNDUE, they don't seem to warrant entire sections of the article. Kaldari (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No information on sexism in sports
While I was doing research on what sort of topics sociology textbooks discuss in the context of sexism, I noticed that both Jon Shepard's Sociology and Diana Kendall's Sociology in Our Times prominently discuss sexism in sports. Our article, however, fails to mention this topic at all. Sex discrimination in sports was a major issue during the 70s (when Title IX was introduced) and is still a prominent issue today. We have an article on gender in youth sports that discusses a few aspects of the issue, but I think it would be good to add some information here as well. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Crime sentencing gender gap - problematic section
The whole section is biased, is WP:UNDUE an WP:OR. First, it only deals with the US. Second, it presents as fact the claim that "men get higher sentences for the same crime". Apart from the fact that is only provides a few sources (some of them being press articles) it deals with a very subjective issue. There are an immense amount of factors that are taken into account when sentencing: eg specific circumstances of the crime, the degree of cruelty, malice, violence, the emotional state of perpetrator, the relationship between victim and perpetrator, the expressed remorse, the assessing of the social danger posed by perpetrator etc. It also depends on how the offense is charged: since a specific act can be prosecuted under various laws, so it depends on the choice of law, and so on. It is an extremely subjective area and you can't draw blank conclusions like that. It also makes severely POV and unsubstantiated allegations "Another possible reason is that women are often successful at turning their violent crime into victimhood". Many accused are successful in doing this (and many more try) and there is no evidence that it works better when women do it. It also presents highly biased claims about the criminal case of Andrea Yates, things which are unacceptable comments on criminal cases and probably violations of WP:BLP. 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:9E3D (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that your objections are based on the sources cited being unreliable. One of the sources is highly academic in nature, and another (linked by the Huffington Post) is an academic paper. What more can you ask for? The other sources are cited in news organizations and presented as such. What is the problem there? Even the sentence you quote, "Another possible reason is that ... victimhood", isn't POV. Just check out the sources. I quote this directly from one of the sources linked: "Female killers, Pearson says, are often successful at turning their violent crime into victimhood by citing, among others, defenses such as Postpartum depression, Pre-Menstrual Syndrome, and Battered Wife Syndrome. According to Pearson ...". In a way that makes me guilty of plagiarism, but still. As for WP:Undue, check out the discussion above about the women and children first + wife selling section. I have nothing more to add, except point out that it looks to me that you're dismissing reliable sources. Banedon (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no academic consensus that "men get higher sentences for the same crime", as you claim. It is just one POV, by no means being accepted as valid by most of the literature, with support for it being quite minimal. Same about the POV that Postpartum depression, Pre-Menstrual Syndrome and Battered Wife Syndrome defenses give women undue advantage over men in crime trials (how about the defense of provocation that men use on a regular basis in murders over infidelity but such a defense rarely works when tried by women who are in abusive relations); or that they give women a way out of convictions for violent premeditated crimes on a regular basis (or that they cannot be valid genuine defenses in certain situations).2A02:2F0A:500F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DD66 (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Wowza - the section is problematic, I agree completely. I boldly took out the Glenn Sacks quote as WP:UNDUE, because Sacks isn't a crime/sentencing/justice system expert. I'm going to take a look at the other sources, too; I wouldn't be surprised if there is some original research/synthesis there, too. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I can hardly write "According to user 2A02:2F0A:500F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DD66, men often use the defense of provocation when charged with murders over infidelity but such a defense rarely works when tried by women who are in abusive relations ...". If you can cite some sources to show that there is no academic consensus I'll write it into the article. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Misandry a subtopic but misogyny is not?
As a solution, should misandry be removed, or should the more systemic and common issue of misogyny be added as well? (If only to lend some balance to an article which seems to be increasingly dismissive of the possibility that sexism against women even exists.) --Ongepotchket (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this article is horribly biased, much of it needs to be reorganized and rewritten; and this article should be carefully watched, since I have a feeling it's becoming the playground of MRAs. For the moment, I think "Misandry" subsection should be removed for a quick fix.23:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You could, of course, add a misogyny section. Misandry and misogyny are both textbook examples of sexism, and belong in the article. "This article is becoming the playground of MRAs?" The majority of the article is about how gender roles and social sexism discriminate against women, the article exists under the feminism portal (something which I feel threatens the neutrality of the article, given the feminist stand on gender politics and belief in the existence of a misogynistic and ubiquitous patriarchy,) and serious examples of sexism against men are given little voice. See my post on Suggested Changes for Neutrality and Factuality. AlanPickett (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Added misogyny and removed POV content attributing misandry to radical feminism. The antifeminist author duo cited may hold that viewpoint, but a lofty claim like radical feminism as a prevailing cause of hatred against men needs more reliable sources showing this to be a generally accepted consensus. Regarding your other claims, if ever there was such a movement borne from sexism and broadly against sexism, feminism is it. Hence, the Feminism portal. Ongepotchket (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do you think papers published in academic journals aren't "reliable" enough to be included? The original sentence cited four sources, all of which read like academic sources, i.e. the most reliable kind (at least - I haven't read them). I also think that if both sections are just one line long, then they should both be deleted and relegated to the "see also" section at the end. Finally, I firmly believe that sexism is a gender-neutral concept. To be neutral then it must have sections on discrimination against men AND against women. The article is hardly neglects discrimination against women at the moment, so I hardly think calling it "becoming the playground of MRAs" is warranted. Banedon (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is not about setting up a false equality between two topics that are not equal. Misogyny has a long history while misandry is a recent observation. They are not at all equal, so we do not artificially put them on equal footing. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "if ever there was such a movement borne from sexism and broadly against sexism, feminism is it" Feminism was borne of sexism, yes, but is solely a women's advocacy group. If feminism were "broadly against sexism," as you purport it to be, mainstream feminism would concern itself with serious men's issues (involuntary circumcision, paternity fraud, prison rape, discrimination in the justice system, negative male stereotypes, etc...). Not only are these issues not addressed, the movement to address men's issues (MRM/MRA) is met with violent hatred in the feminist community. "Misogyny has a long history" I don't think you understand what misogyny is. Gender roles developed because of evolutionary differences between men and women, and whenever someone stepped out of their gender role, society responded vehemently. This applies for both men and women. So, if a negative societal reaction to a woman stepping out of her antiquated gender role is misogyny, then both misogyny and misandry have a long tradition. Furthermore, If sexist jokes and high heels are cited as a serious form of sexist discrimination, but the violent hatred of men by radical feminists (Valerie Solanas, Robin Morgan, Jilly Cooper, Andrea Dworkin, Susan Brownmiller (whose work is used as a source in this article), Sheila Jeffrys, Catherine Mackinnon) then I'd say that this article, and by extension, the philosophy of the authors of this article whose portal it is under, are both seriously bigoted and logically flawed. AlanPickett (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

In Language and Rape and Misogyny
I am suggesting the two following changes in order to prune the article and improve its structure: 1. The 'In Language' section should be deleted or moved into examples. The fact that many languages in the the Indo European family use gender specific pronouns, for example, is not attributed with any consensus to sexism. 2. The 'Rape and Misogyny' section should be trimmed and moved to examples. The entire section can be colloquially summarized as "Rapists don't respect women and think it is acceptable to use them as sexual objects." AlanPickett (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Page is an embarrassment to Wikipedia
This page is simply awful and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. 90% of the sections here have nothing to do with sexism, but are perceived disadvantages one gender or another suffers. A gender experiencing a disadvantage does not automatically infer sexism, a connection to sexism must first be demonstrated. This page is dripping with agendas and coat-tracking.

I suggest vast swathes of this page be culled. Unless a clear connection to sexism can be demonstrated in a topic section, it should be removed. Judging by the contentious nature of previous discussions, I also suggest an independent Admin. be brought in to moderate.

CSDarrow (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article should focus primarily on issues that high quality reliable sources identify as constituting sexism, not simply act as a laundry list for every possible issue that someone has ever linked with sexism. If we look at some college sociology textbooks, we can get a decent idea of what this constitutes. In Sociology: A Global Perspective, for example, it mostly discusses enforcement of gender stereotypes and income disparity. Jon Shepard's Sociology (another common textbook) devotes an entire chapter to gender inequality and sexism. It discusses occupational discrimination, income disparity, discrimination in sports, discrimination in education, and discrimination in politics. Diana Kendall's Sociology in Our Times discusses gender stereotyping, income disparity, occupational discrimination, discrimination in education, discrimination in sports, patriarchy, and objectification. These would be good topics to devote more content to in the article (and hopefully scale back some of the other sections). We don't even mention discrimination in sports, for example, but we have a whole section on anthropological linguistics! Kaldari (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, the subsection "Criminal sentencing" from the section "Examples" should be deleted. It is poorly sourced, deals only with the US, there is no clear evidence that there actually is such a disparity when all factors are taken into account (malice, emotional state, specific circumstances, whether the perpetrator shows remorse, callousness of crime, whether the perpetrator cooperated with authorities etc)- no academic consensus exists that there actually is such a disparity. Even if there is, there is no evidence that it is the result of sexism.2A02:2F0A:504F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A1C1 (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree too. That the statement "Sexual objectification is a form of sexism," garners a Citation needed tag is truly embarrassing.  After reading that I will not longer be able to wear my, "I edit wikipedia" tee-shirt in public.  I'm not even sure if I can sleep in it. Carptrash (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't automatically. What if I objectify men and women equally? There is a sexist bias in how people tend to go about sexual objectification but the solution isn't to oppose all sexual objectification it's to support its equalization. I personally wouldn't mind if men were more objectified and I a man.75.133.90.126 (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Does anybody object if I remove the "Criminal sentencing" section?2A02:2F0A:502F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1A1B (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I do. There are two academic papers linked to among the references (one of the references is an academic paper; the other is linked to by one of the references). Here are two quotes from the both of them:


 * "A fairly persistent finding in the sentencing literature is that female defendants are treated more leniently than male defendants (Bickle and Peterson 1991; Daly and Bordt 1995; Spohn 2002; Steffensmeier et al. 1993); however, there are some researchers who report no differences (Kruttschnitt and Green 1984). Much of the zero-order gender gap in the likelihood of incarceration and the length of prison and jail terms is explained by gender differences in legally relevant factors such as offense severity and prior record (see Spohn 2002; Steffensmeier and Motivans 2000; Steffensmeier et al. 1993). The remaining, unexplained gender gap is often attributed to the perception by judges that women are less dangerous, less blameworthy, less likely to recidivate, and more likely to be deterred than male offenders. Female defendants receive more lenient sentences (Spohn 2002)." [Explaining the Gender Gap in Sentencing Outcomes: An Investigation of Differential Treatment in U.S. Federal Courts, Jill Kathleen Doerner]


 * And:


 * "This paper assesses gender disparities in federal criminal cases. It finds large gender gaps favoring women throughout the sentence length distribution (averaging over 60%), conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables. Female arrestees are also significantly likelier to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted." [Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases, Sonja B Starr]


 * I feel that these two quotes directly address your concerns. While there are some researchers who report no difference in the way female defendants are treated, there are considerably more (4 papers cited above) that do. Mitigating factors for legally relevant reasons are considered in both papers. A cursory glance through one of the papers indicates that the author feels a criminal sentencing gap is sufficiently well established that (s)he is justified in treating it as fact. In view of this, if you assert that there is no academic consensus then I will have to ask you to provide some proof of that statement. Finally, any perception by judges that women are less dangerous, less blameworthy, etc than male offenders looks very much like textbook sexism to me.


 * If you want to add more references including those that claim that there is no criminal sentencing gap, I'm all in favour of that. If you want to remove the section entirely though I'll have to ask for stronger reasons. Banedon (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

"In view of this, if you assert that there is no academic consensus then I will have to ask you to provide some proof of that statement"


 * No, if you assert that there is an academic consensus, you must prove that. Four papers do not, by any means, show an academic consensus, especially when other papers contradict this.

" Finally, any perception by judges that women are less dangerous, less blameworthy, etc than male offenders looks very much like textbook sexism to me."


 * This is WP:OR; you'll have to provide reliable sources for that. "Looks very much like textbook sexism to me" won't do it.


 * Furthermore, these sources deal with the US; this article deals with global issues. 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A0CF (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I also object.Many of the things in this article are questionable. But this is not one of them. If you define sexism as "Discriminating against one sex or gender," then this is definite sexism. AlanPickett (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What Should This Article Include?
After looking at this article, I agree that it is definitely an embarressment on Wikipedia, and exemplifies the hazards associated with group collaboration for entries; however, this article is not beyond repair. My suggestion is to focus upon the actual definition of sexism and offer subheadings to encompass the prevalence of sexist behavior in other cultures outside of the United States, since this article clearly favors the American perspective. Furthermore, I suggest that headings be added to include examples of instances, such as court cases and other things listed within the article as it stands that are linked to their appropriate entries, but perhaps resist the urge to discuss such examples in detail. I think this article can be reworked by going back to the basic idea of maintaining a neutral point of view. Perhaps the best plan of attack is to start by deleting much of the uncited information and opinions that cannot be supported by solid fact and see what state the article is in to decide on how to proceed. Cgayhea (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Cgayhea

I agree, and I also contest the definition of "objectification" in this article. The article on Wikipedia, and Websters, and Wiktionary, at least, define such more or less as treating as an object, not merely "a person being viewed primarily in terms of sexual appeal or as a source of sexual gratification" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism). Shrewmania (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

propose to re-add on wife sale as sexist
I just noticed a deletion of what I had added. I had hoped that other editors would add more content to the subsection, but I guess that's not about to happen, and a separate subsection is not needed. I don't see any doubt that wife selling is sexist since a source says so, it fits the standard definition, and no source disagrees (several other sources describe wife sale in terms that fit the definition of sexism and none disagree) and therefore the content is within the article's scope. The article already gives various case types and examples of sexism. I plan to integrate wife sale into an existing subsection of the History section, retitling the subsection to be somewhat more comprehensive, probably to Coverture and Other Marriage Practices. I'll wait a week for any response. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I object to adding wife-selling to this article per WP:UNDUE. Sexism is a huge topic and this article could theoretically include thousands of pages of material if we included everything that has ever been called sexist. What we decide to include and not to include should be dictated by the weight each subject is given in reliable sources about sexism. Can you point to a single source about sexism that discusses wife selling? Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Overweight is a legitimate point, since the practice is mostly past, coverture is somewhat inclusive of it, and arguably all of what's now in the article deserve the greater weight.
 * I'm unfamiliar with any policy or guideline requiring that a source must be on a certain subject. Would you please point to one? It would be very important for almost all articles. For example, articles on neighborhoods that list notable residents may be sourced to sources that are not about the neighborhood, such as a biographical book. Glancing through this article's References section suggests that most sources are not primarily about sexism even though they probably do support various parts of the article's content and if such a policy or guideline exists then most of the article would probably have to be deleted and, I would presume, so would most of Wikipedia. I didn't see such a provision in WP:RS when I looked after reading your post or in WP:UNDUE and I don't recall it anywhere (there is a provision somewhere that we're not to use trivial mentions in sources but we're not discussing a trivial mention). If there should be such a policy or guideline and if there isn't one, perhaps it should be proposed. If an essay to like effect is needed, perhaps it should be written and linked to on the WP:RS page. I would probably oppose the principle as it now stands, but that's not dispositive.
 * Given that the source's title is Veiled and Silenced: How Culture Shaped Sexist Theology, you perhaps believe that the source should have been so specifically about sexism that being about sexist theology is too wide-ranging. I would question that.
 * I withdraw my plan to re-add wife selling, because of the concern for weight. If you do know of such a policy or guideline, or even essay, that would still be helpful.
 * Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC) (Corrected link misspelling: 16:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC))
 * There is no specific policy on this, but as a practical matter, the only realistic way to determine weights for such broad topics as sexism is to look at sources devoted to that subject. Clearly we can't examine every source on the planet that merely mentions sexism and compile weights from that. It just isn't a realistic possibility. To get an idea of the topics that I think should be covered in this article due to having adequate weight, please see my previous comments at Talk:Sexism/Archive 5. Kaldari (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay here. Caveat for the general case: Sexism is responded to by feminism which, being a movement for social change, tends to prioritize current conditions, only secondarily refer to histories that more visibly influence current conditions or currently inspire change, and only tertiarially refer to other histories, that also influencing the directions pursued in academic scholarship even as it retains accuracy, and critics of a movement tend to concentrate on what the movement says and does. Thus, relying on that methodology would tend to follow activism strategy thus reducing the importance of history on points that might be debated within or outside a movement, so that generally a wider range of sourcing is needed to determine weight.
 * I had missed that February talk discussion, since the article edit summary didn't mention it (presumably because the article edit was about two days before the talk thread), and I didn't see the edit until much later anyway.
 * Nick Levinson (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point. You'll see from the post that I concentrated on general academic sources in order to avoid a feminist/activist slant, but even the textbook sources are likely to have some slant to them. Kaldari (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Would there be an objection to adding wife selling to the See Also section? Nick Levinson (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I have no objection to that. Kaldari (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)