Talk:Sexism/Archive 6

SideWays reference, seems obvious, but never referenced ...
The question "why are women smaller, weaker, slower then men" has probably been known longer than history can record. But I don't see anyone tackling the obvious answer - so I'll just put it forth: . Whether you believe humankind's origin religious (creation), natural (evolution), alien (little green wo/men twiddled existing DNA to create our species) or another possibility I've overlooked ... . Before there was "society", it seems obvious that we're only here because men could chase women, catch them and fu ... fornicate with them forcibly. Seems like I'm laying a foundation justifying stalking and rape ... but think about it - before there was society and laws, if the women were as fast, strong and as big as men, then I put it to you that the uncivilized women could have escaped being forcibly procreated upon ... and the human race would have died out due to lack of the birth of the "next" generation. . Of course, this leaves the progressive / liberal mindset in something of a quandary. At what point does chasing down your sexual desire stop being a biological imperative, absolutely required for the species to propagate and crosses over into absolutely unacceptable (legal and social) behavior? Probably as soon as the question can be formed. . But there's an underlying problem that is epitomized by the total intransigence of several / many factions in society today. Namely, if humankind was created to be a certain way (absolutely required for the species to thrive), then on what basis do societal leaders define the current mindset as correct? Best way I can think about it is like trying to legally make rabbits the equal of the elephant. Sounds good to the rabbits, but it's not based in reality. Men are biologically tuned to be sexual predators and women as sexual prey. Best as has been tried, I don't think it's right to forcibly try to pretend it can be any different. . I see this as a LARGE error in progressive thinking. I agree that anyone could and should be able to aspire to be and do different than has been done before, this is the very essence of progress. But to mandate a change from predator / prey to equals ... well, smart men will game the system from now until the end of time. And women, sheltered into thinking that this can be done ... well, it's just a more complicated game, but with all the same pieces on the exact same board. . In short, people of both sexes can be cajoled and encouraged to be "the new equal male and female", but refusing to do so must hold some sway as "I like it just the way it was and keep your new fangled ideas to yourself". . Forcing people to pretend to change their nature, when it really cannot be changed is just cause for neurosis, not progress. In "the serenity prayer", this subject must inevitably fall back into "accepting what cannot be changed". Your anger at my saying that should just about explain why we're going to be outwardly social and inwardly criminal for a very long time to come. . Possibly related, maybe only slightly is the seemingly laudable effort to "stop the objectifying of women". But it's a false paradigm at best. The problem is - from time immemorial, women have been "objects of desire" and remain so to this day. So, to stop the "objectifying of women" is akin to stopping the wettening of water - it's already that way ... ahem ... women would have to cease being objects and then a rise of an intent to re-objectifying them would call for stopping the objectifying of women. You simply cannot protect women from being the objects that a king will renounce his crown for, from being the objects that the pedophile, rapists, pornographers, Snidely Whiplashes (it's the rent or your virtue, lady or out in the street you go!), MEN (hetero) desire unto every love sonnet that they doth require. . Forget the obvious sex traffic around the world - just look at how not only pornography (once the Supreme Court allowed in the '70s, VCRs propagated in the 80's and the internet exploded to today), but the rise of the number of videos of sheer brutality towards women has not yet reached it's peak. . And lest I give the impression that it's just those ogre men who need to be tamed, I'm sure there are many women who would question the new paradigm that requires them to be both self sufficient and have the wherewithal to plan a future. Yes, any woman who wants to be so should be afforded every opportunity ... but what of those who are failing because they just don't have the drives to own their lives and their futures because ... in case you haven't noticed ... men and women are FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT. A black man, an Hispanic man, an Asian man can all claim an equality among men, because THEY ARE MEN. . Women cannot demand to be men any more than a rabbit can demand to be an elephant. Sexism has now (officially, anyway) a completely pejorative meaning ... and it will not hold, it will not stand. . We got here because men, without oversight, were darn good at stalking and raping long before there were terms for it. Not suggesting that these CRIMES be taken off the books, but short of re-engineering human DNA, every effort at forced equality ... it seems to me ... must fail. . From FEMDOM (look it up) to women in the military, there is an all out effort afoot, but without female rapists and serial killers, there's a mighty big hole in many a current supposition. . Isn't "forced equality" somehow a rape of our fine, distinct, duality species? . A place for aspirations ... but also ... a place for those without aspirations ... we all need a place where we can be what we were, are and contemplate becoming. I suspect, if you knew the odds, you'd never place the bet you think is winning in your mind's eye. . pcG PcGnome (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The talk page is for discussing changes to the article, not a forum for discussing the topic itself. Are you suggesting changes to the article? Do you have citations to support them? If not, I think we should delete this section of the talk page. (I have responded to your hypothesis on your talk page.. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you're gonna do what always happens - I think I have something to contribute and I did a good bit of searching before deciding to voice it here. I donated here today and they asked me what I thought could be done to improve things and the one thing I said was that every time I try to contribute, I get deleted / quashed and my information is a brief candle snuffed out. I will commend you for what you say here and especially for taking the time to explain on my personal talk page - usually I just get deleted with no mention of why.
 * What I suggested in my feedback is more attention to WHERE this stuff I wrote belongs. As for your statements that this is maybe widely held, but never mentioned ... how exactly would you know what everyone is thinking, but never says? There's some skill of intuitiveness that you and few others may possess ... but that's beside the point.
 * I do think this has some merit towards the main page, I'm just too ... unable to be competent at it to try (again ... sigh). I do think your reasoning that apes / humans have always been social applies to the societal laws that I was referencing. Gorillas don't have laws against the head honcho anally putting male challengers in their place. Indeed, before "laws", all (male) mammals tend to be rape-ish until something comes along to stop them. Never saw a male cat put on trial for biting the neck and disabling his interest until he's finished being "interested".
 * No, I haven't gotten to the links you provided, but do you have a better reason why women are smaller, slower, weaker (I think "hormonally challenged" fits in here somewhere, but I'm having trouble with the indisputable points already). Virtually all mammals are male predator / female prey oriented and it's as true today as it was before there were any problematic laws that are in some respects incapable of handling this built in predator / prey relationship (yes, not wholly accurate as the prey has tendencies to attach to their personal predator that no Gazelle feels towards a lion. Much of human socializing is men on the prowl for women looking to decide who may be the best predator for them to get "caught" by. Wimps don't get the girl because ... ahem ... it's a jungle out there and many a girl seeks to belong to the one, so she's not in danger of there being more than one. Probably more known (and even more disputed) is the idea that women cling to battering men because being brutalized by one is preferable to being brutalized by several or many - the biggest, meanest asshole is not gonna let anyone but him beat up on HIS lady. In a psychology class the instructor doubted that lineage is more powerful than hunger or shelter, but if the species doesn't survive, then the skills of the individual mean something for only one generation and then the species dies out.
 * I guess if you want something overarching it is that "sexism" is unlike any other "ism" because races can go their separate ways and survive, but genders cannot (there was this star trek ep and there was "cat women on the moon", but nothing plausible). The gender differences and their ramifications need to be accounted for and to lump sexism in with all the other "outmoded for a modern society must be abandoned" is far too simplistic and cannot be brushed over because you (purposely?) mistake "social mammals" for a "society with enforceable laws" that can be manipulated (yes, socially) to hide very strong underlying differences that will fracture us or drive our descendants insane until a cataclysm sends us into dark ages where the laudable progressive goals die of extreme myopia.
 * So, I think all this needs to be said and discussed and TALKed about, but if I'm the wrong messenger who can't get the message quite right with no clue where to put it ... well, it's happened half a dozen times to me before and it will discourage me for a couple of years until until something else tells my brain "you gotta say it somewhere, for if it stays only in your head, then it isn't worth the brain cells to worry yourself with".
 * So, point me in a direction, or help me find a mentor, or well, maybe it is much easier to just delete it all.
 * I thought it needed to be said.
 * I thought I said it as best as I could.
 * I thought this was the best place to say it (all things considered).
 * But I don't think like anyone I've ever known and maybe that's a clue for me to ponder.
 * In short, I could be as wrong as the day is long ...
 * I leave the next step in your presumably capable hands. You're the dedicated one, I'm just the crazy who claims to see a color nobody has mentioned before.
 * Peace and tranquility to you and yours, there is no RIGHT decision, just the one you make in the moment you make it. As long as it seems right to you at the time, I can ask no greater from you.
 * And wouldn't you know it, I have this one nagging general question. Every time, there's just one guy (NEVER a gal) who deep sixes me, is there just you? Or are there dozens and you just drew the short straw? Or probably the first to jump in is given the reigns that your dedication affords you while your cohorts look on, invisible to all.
 * pcG
 * p.s. sorry, no citations - so just say "original research" and I'll go away quietly.
 * 70.36.138.18 (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In short, I could be as wrong as the day is long ...
 * I leave the next step in your presumably capable hands. You're the dedicated one, I'm just the crazy who claims to see a color nobody has mentioned before.
 * Peace and tranquility to you and yours, there is no RIGHT decision, just the one you make in the moment you make it. As long as it seems right to you at the time, I can ask no greater from you.
 * And wouldn't you know it, I have this one nagging general question. Every time, there's just one guy (NEVER a gal) who deep sixes me, is there just you? Or are there dozens and you just drew the short straw? Or probably the first to jump in is given the reigns that your dedication affords you while your cohorts look on, invisible to all.
 * pcG
 * p.s. sorry, no citations - so just say "original research" and I'll go away quietly.
 * 70.36.138.18 (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * pcG
 * p.s. sorry, no citations - so just say "original research" and I'll go away quietly.
 * 70.36.138.18 (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * p.s. sorry, no citations - so just say "original research" and I'll go away quietly.
 * 70.36.138.18 (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 70.36.138.18 (talk) 06:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sexism in criminal justice
Added RfC. Not sure why the RfC tag was removed a few hours after it was posted.2A02:2F0A:505F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1A87 (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The criminal sentencing subsection is based on discrimination against men. I recall the opposite: that in the U.S. mules and other low-level participants in illegal drug sales could not get plea bargains but gang leaders could because the gang leaders could report to law enforcement the identities of gang members when the low-level participants didn't have that information. The gang leaders were almost always men while the low-level participants were split between both genders, thus women could average longer sentences for less significant illegality. I don't have a source and I read about this probably a couple of decades ago. If anyone has a source, please edit. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The section has to be removed. This has been discussed before. There are several problems with the section:


 * it deals only with the US giving WP:UNDUE to one single country.
 * there is no academic consensus (or anything remotely close to it) that women are given lower sentences (there are numerous factors taken into account when sentencing)
 * even if there was an academic consensus that women are given lower sentences you would still have to find another consensus that this is due to sexism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:500F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A332 (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If the sources are bad (one's dead but should be checked at the domain or failing that at archive.org and the other may be unreliable but may link to a reliable source that can be checked) then they have to be deleted or replaced or the content deleted. The solution to a single-nation focus is to add content for other nations, as we should, not to delete. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC) (Corrected re sources: 16:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC))
 * I put in "criminal sentencing gender gap" into Bing and wrote some of what I found into the text. I also removed the "self-published source" section from the www.glennsacks.com reference, since at the end of that article it says it's been published before in Pasadena Star-News & Affiliated Papers (7/5/01), i.e. it's not actually a self-published source. I haven't seen Pasadena Star-News & Affiliated Papers (7/5/01) directly however; if anyone has feel free to cite it directly.Banedon (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Glenn Sacks was just repeating another source, so I replaced the citation with a citation to the original source. Kaldari (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Should we expand upon this section to include studies showing the growth rate of the female prison population is nearly double the male prison population's growth rate, which has held true every year since 1985? I am unsure if it would be too US-centric. Ongepotchket (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That section is already completely US-centric. It probably needs a if no one has data from other countries. I would favor holding off on adding more US info in the meantime, but would like to hear others' opinions. Kaldari (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The information should be added regardless of being U.S.-centric (Wikipedia is constantly being improved), but adding the tag is also a good idea. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tagged, with a link to this topic/section. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see how the growth rates of prison population is relevant to the section. Since sexism in sentencing causes changes in prison population, trends in that statistic seem more like the symptom than the disease, so to speak. Banedon (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the section. It is unsourced, biased and not relevant globally. Please note that at a global level there are numerous laws that target mainly women (adultery, fornication, laws about public dressing/conduct). Also, women tend to get harsher punishments for financial crime.2A02:2F0A:502F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DC4E (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Laws that target mainly women aren't relevant to the gender gap in criminal sentencing. The laws themselves and the sentences actually meted out for offenses aren't the same. Also if you have sources that women tend to get harsher punishments for financial crime, cite them so they can be written into the article. I'm reverting your edit on the grounds that you're the only person who's posted in this section who thinks the section should be removed (as opposed to improved). Banedon (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In many countries the laws against adultery and fornication are gender neutral and have the same punishments for both women and men, but in practice they are enforced mainly against women, and women get harsher punishments when convicted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:504F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DCA8 (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to talk about the defense of provocation used successfully mainly by men in "crimes of passion", but mostly failing when women kill abusive partners. This has already been discussed.23:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:503F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1B2F (talk)
 * I've said so many times: give your sources so they can be written into the article. If you give no sources, of course nothing gets changed as per WP:OR.Banedon (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I requested a comment on this section.2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1B2B (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * At least two of the sources in the section talk about gender discrimination in criminal sentencing. However some of them also only seem to talk about the gap in criminal sentencing, and do not delve into why.  Using these wources violate WP:OR and should be removed.  If there are other sources that can be added to support the content that these sources supported, and not violate WP:OR then we should add them, otherwise the content should be removed, and the section cleaned up.  Overall my opinion is that the section should stay, but needs to be cleaned up.  I'd like to note though that this comment does not apply only to this section, from looking at content and sources much of this article appears to be a coatrack. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources exist stating or describing many of the phenomena in the article as sexist, genderally discriminatory, or feminist (or possibly masculist) issues. That connection should be sourced to avoid challenges. Feminist scholarship would have some of it, although it would take time to dig some of it up. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please explain why you think it is WP:OR. The definition given is that original research is "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". Are you claiming that the sources are not reliable or not published? Or do you think the section is original synthesis because the sources don't explicitly claim sexism, even though one of the sources explicitly writes "unlike race and ethnic discrimination, however, the evidence is more consistent that part of this gap is due to different treatment of offenders based on their gender", and another one says "[the researcher] believes that there is pretty good reason to suspect that disparate treatment may be one of the causes of this gap"? If it's this latter reason, I must say I think you have some extraordinary standards for WP:OR, in which case I don't get why you're angling to remove this section instead of e.g. the sections on War Rape and Sexual Slavery, among others. In fact reading through the article you have added statements, such as "Consequences of child marriage include restricted education and employment prospects, increased risk of domestic violence, child sexual abuse, pregnancy and birth complications, social isolation", which don't mention sexism at all. Why isn't this WP:OR? Banedon (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming this comment is directed at me, though you seem to have missed my point. I stated there are multiple sections in this article which violate WP:OR, the sentence specifically is the last sentence of the first paragraph, I'll copy it here for reference:  "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."  In this particular section the Huffington Post article cited doesn't claim sexism is the cause, the article mostly describes that there is a gap, and gives a statement in the opening that your gender might affect this.  Not does affect this, but might.  --Kyohyi (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It wasn't directed at you but OK ... the Huffington Post article is a citation for "Women are more likely to avoid charges entirely, and to avoid imprisonment if convicted". This statement is directly supported by the Huffington Post article. Again I don't see why you think it is OR, unless you are saying that "Women are more likely ... if convicted" isn't directly related to the topic of the article. Furthermore the statement isn't the thrust of the section (that sexism causes a criminal sentencing gap). It merely states that there is a gap, giving a citation for the existence of the gap, and the rest of the section develops it. Looking elsewhere in the article, there's a section on the gender wage gap, and there are paragraphs there that simply describe the gender wage gap without mentioning sexism. If you claim the Huffington Post article is OR, are you also claiming that lines like "In the United States, the female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77 in 2009; female full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers earned 77 percent as much as male FTYR workers" are OR? Furthermore, the Huffington Post citation is one of two. You could remove the Huffington Post citation and the second citation would still support the "Women are more likely ... if convicted" line. I don't see your point. Banedon (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe I was the only one above who mentioned OR, that's why I thought it was towards me. Anyway to continue the main discussion your example "Women are more likely ... if convicted" doesn't say anything about gender discrimination or sexism.  It presents an outcome discrepancy between the genders, but it doesn't delve into the "why" aspect, which is what sexism is.  If the cited source does not deal with the subject of sexism or gender discrimination then using the source, even in a sub section, is original research since it does not make the link to sexism.  Regarding your example of Wage Gap, that section probably suffers from the same problem, and to be honest I think this problem is happening in most sub sections of the article.  In fact that's what I meant when I said this article suffers from Coatrack issues. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's very natural that in an article dealing with criminal sentencing gap sources should be cited to show that there is a criminal sentencing gap in the first place. Similar things apply to the gender wage gap, the relation between gender and longevity, an athelete's race and his / her performance in the 100m sprint, etc. First it needs to be shown that these things exist (since they are not a priori true), and then the reasons behind them can be investigated. I do not think it is OR. Don't have anything else to say on this. Banedon (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Why was the RfC tag removed a few hours after it was posted?! I readded it.2A02:2F0A:505F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1A87 (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * About this section: is there an academic consensus that, at a global level, women get shorter sentences for the same crime (all variables adjusted) AND that this is due to sexism? Does any major international organization hold this view? In regard to the section on Child Marriage that was mentioned here, there are strong sources for it which state clearly that child marriage is a form of discrimination against women: most child spouses are female, and the practice is the result of discriminatory views on women and their roles in society/the family. UNICEF states: "Marrying girls under 18 years old is rooted in gender discrimination (...)"; and the other sources from the section also support this. Nothing of this kind exists in the Criminal Sentencing section.2A02:2F0A:505F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1A87 (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes something of this kind exists and it is already in the Criminal Sentencing section. Read the sources. One of the sources is by the United States Sentencing Commission. The others are academic and presumably peer-reviewed papers published by the University of Michigan Law School. This is the most reliable kind of source, arguably even more reliable than "major international organizations" holding X view. As for academic consensus, the academic paper cites references to many earlier papers in the literature that all find an unexplained gender gap in sentencing. If there is evidence to the contrary - and I have repeatedly asked you for it, but you've not given any sources - I have not seen them. It is not possible to prove sexism with this kind of data, but the size of the disparity + the data gives good reason to believe that sexism is responsible for at least part of it. Again, see the sources. I quote: "Given the size of the apparent gender gap and the richness of the dataset (which allowed many alternative explanations to be explored), however, [the researcher] believes that there is "pretty good reason to suspect that disparate treatment may be one of the causes of this gap.""


 * I'll say this again: you seem to have some extraordinary standards for WP:OR. If this section is sufficiently OR to warrant outright removal, why aren't you also removing the sections on sexual slavery (one source, no mention of sexism), or the gender wage gap (similar to criminal sentencing, it is not possible to prove that discrimination is behind the gender wage gap)? Banedon (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I am responding the the RFC. Judging from the sources, this section does appear warranted. Citations are primarily based on US, but this is not a reason to remove it. Contributors have a responsibilit to find non-US sources that speak on this topic. If gender discrimination in criminal justice only occurs in the US, this should certainly be noted. The sub article could be cleaned up a bit. I would suggest replacing the Huntington post article with the sources that it cites, one being the following : http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsonnenf (talk • contribs) 20:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Exactly what is the question here?  Are we supposed to be discussing whether to keep the section? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * RFC Comment: Good question, indeed what is the question here. I think this can be seen as a general call for help with this subject. My suggestion would be to gather some additional sources, I bet there exist academic meta-analyses of this very question that involve not only the US, but the UK, French, German etc. criminal-justice systems. This could uncover whether there is an academic consensus on the matter, and even if not results of such analyses can be summarized in the section. --Dailycare (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well the RFC arose because of a disagreement over what to do with the section. There has been some discussion on it with one viewpoint being that the section should be removed because it "deals only with the US, poorly sourced, WP:OR, misleading, biased". So the question is, should the section be removed, or improved? Banedon (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * RfC comment: Keep, expand, and check that all content is sourced and not OR. I prefer that citations be placed with each sentence and not just after a group of sentences because of the risk of a challenge about a sentence being unsourced or original research, but the section as it stands now may not be unsourced at all and may not have any OR. Much and I guess probably most of Wikipedia is U.S.-centric where the information is nationally sensitive (how a computer program works may not be nationally sensitive but how popular it is may be) but the solution (as I discussed above) is not to delete the section but to add to it on other nations. It is also possible that what happened is that information showing discrimination against men was included; sexism is usually defined as 'discrimination because of gender against either gender although mostly against women', so that anti-male discrimination may be reported in this section, and so can anti-female discrimination. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC) (Corrected re definition: 16:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC))
 * Dailycare wrote:
 * "My suggestion would be to gather some additional sources, I bet there exist academic meta-analyses of this very question that involve not only the US, but the UK, French, German etc. criminal-justice systems".
 * The section should not deal only with Western countries, it should also contain info about developing nations.2A02:2F0A:502F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DC6C (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree it should also not only deal with misandry and misogyny and should address Transphobia. I've added a little about transphobia in the Criminal Justice system however I think it needs to be expanded.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree there is no reason to restrict to Western countries, I mentioned the countries I did since I assume they're among the ones concerning which the mentioned meta-analyses are most readily available. If sources on Japan, for example, are found they're absolutely interesting in this regard. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Education Project
I dropped in the notice for the education project that has been changing this article a lot in the last day or two. This is more of a notice to people who have this article on their watchlist, but I've noticed some OR, and MOS issues with the recent additions. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm hoping to edit this the article after this week.  Might need to add some Main Article links in sections too... this is getting really long to the point of WP:SPINOFF.  EvergreenFir (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, many of the sections need to be trimmed and condensed. Also, the article still lacks any information about sexism in sports, which is a significant topic. Kaldari (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Soap Boxing.
This page is arguably one of the worse pages on Wikipedia and commonly quoted in outside discussions as an example of all that is wrong with Wikipedia. The whole page is one big soap box from start to finish that is seemingly immune from any rational editing. It violates every principle that under pins Wikipedia and its title is ironically self descriptive. Wikipedia is on the decline and this page is the poster child of why. CSDarrow (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please show examples of what is soapboxing. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It might be easier if you gave me some examples on the page that aren't soap boxing. CSDarrow (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Instead of complaining, you could press the edit button at the top of the page and fix what you think is wrong with the page. Banedon (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Banedon, believe me I have MANY times. I see you are relatively new here. CSDarrow (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * While I don't necesarily believe the correct term is soapboxing, but I do believe a substantial amount of the article is WP: Coatrack, and it could use cleaning. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed WP: Coatrack is possibly a better term. Though both terms imo have an area of overlap and one persons cotrack might be anothers soapbox. The main point though is that this page is simply awful and has been for years, people who've been around this area of Wikipedia for a while know why. CSDarrow (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In an attempt to move forward, and to answer EvergreenFir's question. I think the objectification section, and parts of the wage gap section are not well linked to the subject title. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What course of action do you suggest? Both of those have their own articles, so maybe a main and a brief overview of the topic?  I don't think they need to be removed altogether, but trimming and making sure they relate to the article directly would be useful. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I suggest pretty much what you're talking about. A few months ago I was going to do something similar, and I started by taking it to my sandbox.  However I don't have time to the bulk work, so I scrapped the project.  If you've got time and desire to work on this article, I'm willing to offer suggestions, and areas I think are weak.  But I don't have much time for the real leg work to fixing this article.  --Kyohyi (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If any meaningful headway is to made here, firstly an encyclopedic and non agenda driven definition is required. Secondly, a gender experiencing a disadvantage does not automatically infer sexism, a connection to sexism must be demonstrated. Else this page will remain the embarrassment it is.CSDarrow (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Gender Discrimination
Please leave a comment below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavenportM (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I think it's a very reliable piece of work, well done Marguerite. I just have some proposals: Maybe it would be good to move the gender discrimination section to top of article, and further distinguish why gender discrimination is different from sexism. Additionally, maybe the section could be made less U.S. centric by adding examples from other countries. Hana


 * Unless other context is given, Sexism and Gender Discrimination are synonyms. A section with extra context is in order. CSDarrow (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Sexist jokes
Please leave comments below.

I think this section needs to be elaborated on. Specifically, providing examples of how language is sexist. Marguerite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavenportM (talk • contribs) 09:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. In fact, I would suggest moving the "sexist jokes" sub-section (which is currently under the "Objectification" section) to the "Language" section, as it seems to illustrate sexist language, more than objectification. --Florenceandree (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Transgender Discrimination
Please leave comments below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavenportM (talk • contribs) 09:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice section! is there any way that we could make it less US-centric though? For example, are there any statistics on transgender discrimination in other parts of the world? --Florenceandree (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Transphobia
I was wondering if anyone else could add more info on transgender and other gender variant discrimination. This article seems to focus on misandry and misogyny and I think that trans-discrimination is a harmful and all to common form of sexism.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC) .
 * Information about sexually reassigning intersex children or discrimination againist those outside the binary would also be useful. Any ideas-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the section on transphobia could be a subtopic for transgender discrimination. Marguerite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavenportM (talk • contribs) 16:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Pornography
This section is a bit redundant. Can we make it a little more concise?Ahartz2 (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, Ashley, thanks for pointing it out! I made some changes, let me know if there's anything else that jumps out at you! --Florenceandree (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Use Racism as a model for improvement?
Racism is B-class, Sexism is C-class. Clearly that article is doing some things better than this, so I will be looking to rewrite parts of the article to be similar to Racism. Assistance and copy-editing would be appreciated, both by me and Wikiproject Human Rights. 72Volt (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I second this (see above section "Lead"). I hope to do some work on this article now that I'm done with classes. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This page is so bad it doesn't even deserve the C-Class rating. It is presently being used a soapbox and is unbecoming of an encyclopedia.CSDarrow (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Racism is a good model for this page, especially in terms of the definitions and the links to the subsections. This page is unwieldy in terms of linking the concept of sexism to all the examples and subsections.Ahartz2 (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I also think we should use the Racism page as a model. We could adopt a similar structure. --Florenceandree (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Examples
Many of the examples do not elaborate how they relate to sexism. For example, the topic "Art" cites a statistic from the Smithsonian, without explaining what the implications are to the discourse of sexism. The examples need to be reviewed and developed further. Marguerite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavenportM (talk • contribs) 09:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, Marguerite. In addition, several of the examples focus on gender discrimination, instead of sexism (for example, see "child marriage"). This makes it confusing--Florenceandree (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC).

Perhaps we should remove the Examples section altogether? It seems that those that are redundant are covered under other sections (for example, Art and child marriage) and the rest are examples of gender-based violence rather than sexism. Are there any examples that should stay?129.194.252.43 (Ahartz2 (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)|talk]]) 18:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The criminal justice section which is discussed above is one that was found to be relevant. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Marguerite, I deleted the "Sexism in Art" example, as it is just unworthy of being on a Wikipedia page (completely irrelevant) and only made the page longer. Indeed, as some other editors mentioned, this entry is too long, and I think that additional reviewing and deleting of unnecessary examples would be beneficial to this page. --Florenceandree (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wage Gap and Glass Ceiling
Please leave a comment below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavenportM (talk • contribs) 12:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hana, this is well written and very informative. Thanks for the good work! I have just a few comments that the tokenism section could be expanded further in terms of the examples provided. In addition, the section could maybe be reconsidered as a sub heading to the objectification section. Marguerite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavenportM (talk • contribs) 12:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The Wage and Glass Ceiling entries are an utter abomination. They are some of the worst examples of Coat Tracking and Soap Boxing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Not only do they violate Undue Weight but the author seems to forget that this is the Sexism page. A connection between Sexism and the subject matter has to be established. I am unaware of any reliably sourced material that links the Wage Gap to Sexism for instance, other than speculation.  An gender experiencing a perceived disadvantage does not necessarily infer Sexism, it could be due to life style choices for instance. A connection to Sexism has to be established for the issue to belong on this page. CSDarrow (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * . For instance. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are kidding me. CSDarrow (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of other sources too. Just because you are unaware of them does not mean they don't exist. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The burden of truth is yours. CSDarrow (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Tracking of coats is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you mean "The racking of coats" and not "Tracking of coats", unless that's a saying I'm not familiar with. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Was about to ask the same thing, but they do use RFID tag sometimes to track coats... EvergreenFir (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * PS - Don't see it as coatracking as these are all aspects of structural sexism. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The coatracking comes from the detail that we give to the gaps themselves, as opposed to how the gaps are affected by sexism. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)