Talk:Sexism/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about Sexism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sexism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Additional example of sexism in the media specifally

I am a student at Louisiana State University and we have been assigned to add to Wikipedia page and discuss a topic that pertains to our Women's Gender Study class. I proposing to add a section describing sexist remarks in the media made by Donald Trump to Megyn Kelly. I will discuss the history leading up to the remarks and how these comments further gender stereotypes and are harmful to the reputation of women in the media.

Alexpiersonn (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexpiersonn, I'm sure everyone welcomes your input and we're always happy to help new editors grow into seasoned wikipedians. However, looking at the article, there is already a section on politics, a section on language, and a section on media portrayals. So it's not entirely clear where this idea would fit.

I'm also not sure that devoting a good deal of attention to this particular spat between these particular people wouldn't give WP:UNDUE weight to the issue. It is certainly an example of sexism, but it's not clear that it has had a marked impact in it's own right, on the state of sexism generally. If we get ourselves in the business of listing every example that anyone has said something sexist, we're going to have a library instead of an article.

You can still give it a go, and try to justify why its not undue weight, but it might be a good idea to try it out on your sandbox first, and then bring it to the Talk before trying to do it on the live article. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Sexism as pertaining to both men and women (phrasing in article intro/summary)

In the first paragraph, it is stated that "sexism can affect any gender, but it is particularly documented as affecting women and girls." I feel that it would best to change that to a variant of "Even though sexism has been particularly documented as affecting women and girls throughout history, it can affect any gender." (Maybe even another little thing in there at the end)

The reason for doing this is that the way the sentence is currently phrased, it seems as though men have only petty issues to face. While women do have more issues that are more visible on the surface (and clearly have been the main victims in the past), society has made so much progress that the men's issues, which are more of deeper issues per se and should not be dismissed in the second sentence of the sexism article, should be seen as equally important. I'm not the best at writing things, so someone else would probably need to help with my phrasing.

173.3.27.190 (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh, let's not... It's not as if women are the only people to experience sexism. That assertion, in and of itself, is a form of sexism. You can't deny that men are pressed in certain ways.

1) Affirmative action actually makes it easier for women to get jobs than men. 2) There are more homeless shelters specifically for women (that exclude men), than there are shelters for men (that exclude women). 3) In divorces, women typically gain custody of the children. 4) There are more women-specific charitable organizations than men-specific organizations.

Schuddeboomw (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I like the rephrasing idea. If it were to be rephrased, it would shift the emphasis from women experiencing sexism, to any gender experiencing sexism. Also, the article almost completely focuses on sexism against women. So that's a problem. Piplup123 (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

That would be inconsistent with what the vast majority of WP:RS say about the subject. We follow the sources, and the sources make it abundantly clear that sexism primarily affects women. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. And as seen at Talk:Sexism/Archive 7#Is sexism typically defined as discrimination against women? and at Talk:Sexism/Archive 13, we've already thoroughly been over this. What editors should be focusing on is expanding the lead so that it better summarizes the article as a whole and therefore better complies with WP:Lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As a woman, I too think that this needs to be more gender neutral and would support rephrasing the lead to either gender experiencing sexism as other editors have suggested. Why is this statement even included in the first place?Charlotte135 (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Contrary to this being settled, there was another discussion in September 2015, "Sexism can affect any gender" looking through the archives, and the consensus there seemed to be for changing this statement too. Perhaps eliminating this statement altogether may be another option? It seems unnecessary and controversial.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at this again, it does appear that what the majority of WP:RS say about the subject is that sexism mostly affects women, and as such should probably remain, if the statement itself remains in the article.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Why the statement is there is clear to anyone who understands how Wikipedia is supposed to work. As you very well know, the fact that sexism affects females to a much greater degree than males is prevalent in the literature on sexism. It's why the article is mostly about women; it's not like editors cherry-picked sources specifically or mostly talking about women. The literature on sexism is literally mostly about women. The lead is meant to summarize this aspect, per WP:Lead. The lead is also meant to adhere to WP:Due weight, and that means including the fact that sexism primarily affects girls and women. It is not meant to stray from controversy either. Each time, the consensus has been for retaining this aspect in the lead, and that consensus has included male and female editors. The main editors who have had a problem with that aspect being in the lead are men's rights editors and those who think like them. And before you assert that I am simply trying to discredit those editors and/or don't know that they are men's rights editors, it is not simply my claim. They are men's rights editors, as various others know. And the "Sexism can affect any gender" discussion you are referring to was a tiny discussion started by an IP who had an issue with the idea that men can be victims of sexism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Your comment "The main editors who have had a problem with that aspect being in the lead are men's rights editors and those who think like them." is interesting and misleading. What exactly do you mean Flyer22? I invite anyone to carefully look through the 17 archived pages of discussion of this article over the years, since its creation, as I have now done. My reading is that many good editors have challenged aspects of this article on grounds of neutrality mostly. Why be so offensive to all of these editors Flyer22reborn? I'm a feminist and proud of it. However there are many types of feminism. So what? Why constantly bring in this absurd mens rights argument to smear any editor who sees valid problems with this article? Isn't that discriminatory in of itself? I also see the many valid points and logical policy based arguments that many good editors have made throughout all of those archived talk pages Flyer22reborn. However that being said. I reiterate my earlier commenbt that "....it does appear that what the majority of WP:RS say about the subject is that sexism mostly affects women, and as such should probably remain"Charlotte135 (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Such a predictable and inaccurate comment from you, just like the fact that you showed up at this article and started with "I too think that this needs to be more gender neutral" mess is predictable. Why you thought it was a good idea to show up at this article is beyond me, but it is your mistake. Do stop watching my talk page, my contributions, and seeking out interaction with me unless unnecessary. Any claim that you are not here because of me and your skewed beliefs about gender topics will not believed by me. This is my last reply to you in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No-one is following you, Flyer22. Stop trying to entrap me. However you seem to be following every edit I make, for some reason and trying to restrict the articles I can edit. This is not about you. Stop attacking mine and other editor's valid comments. Anyone objective and neutral who reads what I said here and the 17 archived discussion pages of other edits about this article can see what I'm saying.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This has got to be somewhere respectable on the list of most suggested/debated changes on WP. Also Flyer didn't follow you here. When the dinosaurs roamed the earth, Flyer was debating the lead to this article on the talk. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sexism against men in politics

I added material noting that sexism can also work against men in politics (though admittedly it more often works the other way). Madeline Albright stated in the context of supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy that "There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other." It seems to me a clear case of calling for women to all support a female candidate over a male. My edit was then reverted with a note that it was "not supported by the source". I do not understand how the source does not support the claim. Before any edit warring begins, I look to others for others for insight on whether the source supports the claim. I am not asking if people like the claim or the quote, but asking if the quotation supports the claim. Pete unseth (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Does the source mention sexism against men? Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The article does not mention the word "sexism." It doesn't even imply that it was an example of sexism or any type of discrimination against men, which is why I reverted the edit as WP:OR. PermStrump(talk) 22:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Good revert, the addition was indeed OR. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree that it was original research in that case. Kaldari (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I also know words. TimothyJosephWood 01:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

When I wrote my opening entry on this topic, I thought that a source that provided evidence supporting a claim was adequate. Others have since complained that the cited source did not explicitly use the term "sexism". That is true. But neither do many of the other sources cited as evidence of sexism, e.g. footnotes 302 & 303. Others find that this is a case of Original Research, but I thought citing the New York Times would count as citing a reliable source. Pete unseth (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem seems to be WP:SYNTH, part of WP:OR. I'll try to explain. It can be counter intuitive, especially to someone used to writing college essays and the like.

Say you have two sources:

Source A - "Sexism is any discrimination on the basis of biological sex."
Source B - "Women are routinely charged higher insurance rates on the basis of their sex."

You cannot go on to say that insurance rates are sexist, because that would be combining (or synthesizing) the two sources to reach a conclusion. That counts as original research. What you have to do is find reliable secondary sources that draw the same (sometimes obvious) conclusion.

This is usually fairly easy to do if the conclusion is truly an obvious one. On the other hand, if you can't find secondary sources who reach that conclusion, it can be a strong indicator that it is a WP:FRINGE theory, and shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia article. If you have any other questions feel free to reply here or on my talk page. TimothyJosephWood 15:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

At 15:18, editor Timothyjosephwood reverted my edit because I had forgotten to insert the reference, saying "Undid revision 714726501 by Pete unseth (talk) On the right track, but still WP:OR without a citation for the Guardian article. Should be easy to fix though". So, I inserted that. Seems like I was meeting the standard required. Then editor Fyddlestix reverted me saying "Please get consensus before reinsert in this". I had met the specific objection posted. Not sure how many people I need to agree before my post will be allowed to stand. I have cited a source providing the quotation and also a source that labeled it sexism. I am editing within the policies of Wikipedia as far as I can understand them. It is being said by some that editing Wikipedia takes place in an environment that is increasingly hostile, with too many reverts. I hope we prove them wrong. I will gladly edit within policies and assume good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete unseth (talk • contribs)

You haven't met the objection at all - the sources you added don't support the text you inserted. Nowhere do the sources say, or even imply, that "sexism by women can also work against men in politics." Fyddlestix (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry you're feeling frustrated. I don't have time to look into the sources right now, but I will try to do so later today to get a better idea what exactly Fyddle took issue with. If my revert was just a mistake re: forgetting to include the source you had, then I apologize.

Keep in mind though that this is one of a few highly controversial articles on Wikipedia, and is often the target of vandalism and biased editing (see WP:NPOV). Because of that, it's almost always a good idea to post a proposed change here on the talk first. (Think of it like making changes to abortion.)

Even editors that have worked on this article extensively are likely to discuss suggestions on talk before they make changes to the live article. So don't take it personally. It can be normal to get frustrated the first time you stumble on a really contentious article and feel like you get blasted for editing in WP:GOODFAITH. TimothyJosephWood 17:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I will be grateful to know what the Wikipedia editing policies are for highly controversial articles. As for WP:NPOV, I am trying to assume good faith. Pete unseth (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The policies are all the same, but they're more consistently applied and more stringently so on contentious articles. On contentious articles you can pretty much guarantee that 100% of your edits are going to be vetted almost immediately by multiple people, many or most of whom are highly seasoned editors. On more obscure articles, many edits might go unreviewed for a long time, and then they might be looked at by newer editors who are not as familiar with WP policies and guidelines.

Overall it's a good thing, not only because it makes the articles better, but it can make you a better editor too. It's frustrating AF, but it can be really helpful to see what WP policy looks like when it is applied 100% by editors that have been at this sometimes for 10+ years. TimothyJosephWood 18:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Pete unseth, both of the sources you linked say Steinem and Albright's comments were sexist towards women. The Times article even talks about the backlash they received after making those comments, meaning it negatively impacted Clinton's image. Both articles say that many young women prefer Bernie over Clinton. Neither article talks about sexism towards men and neither one suggests that Bernie lost any support because of Steinem and Albright's comments, quite the contrary. PermStrump(talk) 19:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The last edit above seems to have read something quite differently than I. Albright declared a doom on women who supported Sanders. I'm not sure how that is not sexism toward a man. Imagine the uproar if Sanders had pronounced a doom on men who supported Clinton. Wouldn't that would have been loudly denounced as sexism?

Farewell to this page. Happy editing!Pete unseth (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you've missed the point. I 100% agree that it is sexism against men. But that doesn't matter. The issue is that the source doesn't call it sexism against men. Yes, the media would explode if someone said "there is a special place in hell for men who don't vote for Bernie", but that doesn't matter. You have to actually find a source that says this. TimothyJosephWood 23:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent additions

The recent edits, which i have twice reverted, have a couple of problems. First off, there is a note there asking people to take stuff to talk. I have no idea what 'historically leaned' means. I don't think changing 'typically' to 'primarily' is helpful. Finally, the Roets paper is a primary source, and I don't think that we ought to be adding primary sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

[1] historically leaned is better than particularly and it is academically more correct. Primarily is from the common interest generated in the hidden text and expanding the hidden text is for keeping neutrality and any future disputes. basically it changes nothing but strengthens it with dyad importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.22.215 (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what 'historically leaned' means, could you explain it please? I'm also unsure as to what you mean by 'strengthens it with dyad importance'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

it is an expression used in the cited material. dyad (it also used in psychology, right are you http://ww2.algomau.ca/academics/programs/psychology/faculty/dave-brodbeck/ or someone other using this account) importance is the inclusive statement in the hidden text.117.241.22.215 (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck:is there any clear reasoning why your stalking on my other edits, if it requires to be talked out we can, that's only what i can offer what is that you dont get from Ambivalent edit.117.241.22.215 (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is me (you should know that psychology is a very broad science and personality and social stuff is way outside of my area), I looked at the other edit, often do with new editors. I am looking at the Roets article, nowhere can I find 'historically leaned' Can you tell me what page it is on? 'Strengthen it with dyad importance' is hard to parse, though yes I know what a dyad is. Oh, please read WP:BRD. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Check keyword: historic, ctrl+f, ctrl+c, ctrl+v that might help.117.241.22.215 (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I cannot find that in this article, yeah I have searched. Please point it out to me, I must be missing it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck:I am leaving the edit but keeping the expanded hidden text wouldn't hurt, i guess. A quick search on here shows valid and identifiable "historically" reference:https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=historic%2Bwomen%2Bsexism#tbm=bks&q=historically%2Bwomen%2Bsexism but i am leaving it, But i would like know about the edit reverted in the other article.117.241.22.215 (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck: If it aint too much can we have a learning discussion now and then. Are there any wiki-articles you have started. Rubber hand illusion is it for real, whats your take on neuroplasticity based on evidence.117.241.22.215 (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

feel free to email me, use the 'email this user' link on my talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

did you find the historically mentioned along with sexism, its in the above given link under "The Sociology of Sports: An Introduction, 2d ed. - Page 245" I didn't see email this user link maybe its viewable only by registered users. I would talk to you through your talk page,how to know whether you are active or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.241.22.215 (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The first paragraph seems off...

I saw the note that tells me to mention it in the talk page, so I will. It seems unnecessary to me, so I think it should be removed, but if there's a better idea, I'm all ears. CatGrass (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mention that I was specifically talking about the sentence that claims sexism is worse for women. CatGrass (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources used in the article are unambiguous that sexism affects women more than men (at least in patriarchal societies). Do you have any reliable sources to support removing the statement? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

So, sexism IS worse for women, in a patriarchy. I am shocked and surprised. Is there a patriarchal society other than Shariah Law? To answer your question: I think that due to the fact that we don't live in a patriarchy, it is irrelevant, as sexism would most likely affect men more in a matriarchy. If removing the sentence is too much to ask, then how about editing it so it shows that sexism for women is worse in a patriarchy, as the sentence seem broad. CatGrass (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the article focuses almost completely on women, wich is sexist by definition. And most of the sources assert that is worse for women or doesn't affect men at all. That's incorrect, as sexism is formed by 'sex' (gender) and 'ism' (an idea) CatGrass (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

As seen at Talk:Sexism/Archive 7#This article IS sexist, Talk:Sexism/Archive 7#Is sexism typically defined as discrimination against women?, Talk:Sexism/Archive 11#"Especially women", Talk:Sexism/Archive 13#That darn lead (or, can we please fix this issue and stop all the debate...please), Talk:Sexism/Archive 16#"Understood to mean against women" does not mean "Primarily affects women", this has been discussed times over.

Sexism mainly affects (as in is mostly carried out against) girls and women. Because of that, the literature on sexism is mostly about girls and women. That we are adhering to the literature is not sexist. You know, WP:Due weight and all that. If someone else is willing to debate you on your views, then this discussion will continue. But I'm sure that most of us at this article are tired of repeating ourselves about the prevalence of sexism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Genital mutilation

I have undone this IP edit, a reversion of my own edit with the summary: "...there's a section for male circumcision in the men's rights article."

Simply put, the Sexism and Men's rights articles are not diametrically opposed yin/yangs. At best this was removal of sourced content. At worst it is WP:NPOV. I suggest seeking consensus on talk before making substantial changes to this article. TimothyJosephWood 18:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course, the men's rights article is simply an example of wikipedia allowing sexist articles. It is a movement focused on improving the quality of life of one sex in particular. Perhaps there should be a section in the sexism article specifically for movements that perpetuate sexism?

The foreskin has no function and is vestigial. There aren't even nerve endings in the foreskin, so it's impossible to feel anything through it, unlike female genital mutilation, which seriously harms a girl, it can cause severe bleeding, cysts, infertility and increases the likelihood of newborn death. It is a violation of women's basic human rights.

Male circumcision on the other hand, has no negative side effects beyond mild bleeding if performed incorrectly and a blood vessel is cut. Additionally, there are proven health benefits gained from castration. If wikipedia were a place for opinions, you'd see someone openly label it a human right for these procedures to be performed. 92.24.156.184 (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@92.24.156.184: You are very wrong. Please check out the foreskin article if you're confused about nerve endings being present. Furthermore, a vestigial organ is an organ that used to have an evolutionary purpose in a common ancestor but no longer has a purpose. This is far from the true with the foreskin. Circumcision is actually quite painful as is removing any part of the body without pain relieve. Circumcision can also cause severe bleeding and even death if it's done wrong. Proven health benefits from castration...!? Are there any WP:MEDRS that say so? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; it is a place to document what reliable sources say. The content you removed appears adequately sourced. If you have a problem with the reliability of the sources, that is an appropriate discussion to have. If you disagree with the content on principle, this is not the place to have that discussion, and I would point you to any one of many appropriate online communities that serve purposes other than to build an encyclopedia.

The policy that governs article content is WP:DUE, and I find it dubious that two sourced sentences constitutes undue weight.TimothyJosephWood 22:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this or any of the female genital mutilation material, it should not be included if the sources do not tie it to sexism. Otherwise, the inclusion is WP:Synthesis. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd say there's a bit of a priori sexism refs throughout the article. I will look closer into the refs in this section specifically after I've had a few buckets of coffee. TimothyJosephWood 10:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

There is a form of sexism in Feminist theory in which after women mention certain women's issues, men jump onto the bandwagon and claim that they have the exact same issues, or that they have it worse as a method to completely disregard what women have to go through. If the header is titled Female Genital Mutilation, it robs women of their right to be taken seriously when the last paragraph is "but men also have this problem because pee pees look different" and completely disregards FGM as a legitimate women's issue. This is just contradictory material added, just so men have the appearance of victimisation in this matter. If the header is titled Genital Mutilation, then doesn't it strike you as odd that the majority of this section is dedicated to FGM being a serious issue, while male circumcision is just something people "think" should end, without any mention of negative effects on circumcised males? If it's such an issue, then why aren't the reasons male circumcision is opposed brought up? It doesn't belong. 89.242.140.170 (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

feb 20, 2017, Well yes men too have the same problems like women, does not you women jump into conclusion too that women have the same problem as men - education, jobs, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayanmipun (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

So it looks like we do have quite the WP:SYNTH issue. Not a single source actually uses the word sexism, except maybe this one, I'm not really sure, it's not in English. The first two sources do mention inequality, which can probably slide by on WP:COMMONSENSE.

The UNICEF source also mentioned equality, but the content it is used to support is probably more than needs to be in a broad article, and can probably just as well be on the main for anyone who wants to go there. The MINNPost article is similar, but I'm not sure it's WP:DUEWEIGHT here either.

I recommend removing all but the first paragraph, potentially shortening that in any way possible, link to main article and move on. TimothyJosephWood 12:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Leaving some room for comment. If there are no objections and no one wants to pull the trigger I will probably make this edit tomorrow. TimothyJosephWood 22:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

As the one who proposed the changes, it is only right for the edit to be your work. 78.151.72.183 (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I've done the above and some similar edits, mainly shortening in areas where the main article covers the content better, and people who are actually interested really should go there rather than reading a poor facsimile here.

Besides this, I have blanked the media section (note: not the Media portrayal section) at the bottom of the article for a couple of reasons:

This content was kept out for a long time IIRC, against one editor who was adamant it be included. It is still WP:UNDUE weight given to a particular spat between two particular people, and would best be included in the articles on either Megan Kelly or Donald Trump, but there is no particular reason why it should be included here, as its not particularly relevant to a broad understanding of the topic.
There is already a fairly sized treatment of sexism in the media and objectification more broadly, and unfortunately, even in these more specific subsections, this anecdotal content is not relevant.
The inclusion of this content is fairly obviously political WP:POV, to say "look how sexist this one politically topical person is." Unfortunately this is not a list of sexist people or sexist incidents; it's an article on sexism, and the actions of any individual, no matter their current favor in pop culture, is probably not going to lead to a broad understanding of sexism. TimothyJosephWood 12:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sexism Against Men?

WP:DFTT EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"It functions to maintain patriarchy, or male domination, through ideological and material practices of individuals, collectives, and institutions that oppress women and girls on the basis of sex or gender." "'Sexism' refers to a historically and globally pervasive form of oppression against women." "sexism is an ideology or practices that maintain patriarchy or male domination." Defines sexism as "thought or practice which may permeate language and which assume's women's inferiority to men." "Sexism is any act, attitude, or institutional configuration that systematically subordinates or devalues women. Built upon the belief that men and women are constitutionally different, sexism takes these differences as indications that men are inherently superior to women, which then is used to justify the nearly universal dominance of men in social and familial relationships, as well as politics, religion, language, law, and economics." "the key test of whether something is sexist... lies in its consequences: if it supports male privilege, then it is by definition sexist. I specify 'male privilege' because in every known society where gender inequality exists, males are privileged over females." "although we speak of gender inequality, it is usually women who are disadvantaged relative to similarly situated men." "As throughout history, today women are the primary victims of sexism, prejudice directed at one sex, even in the United States."

Sexism cannot negatively affect men as according to the numerous citations quoted (above) from the article, I vote that any edits to the contrary be reported for vandalism. More than half of the citations deny the ability for males to be victims of sexism due to patriarchy. If males cannot be the victims of sexism, then no mention of males being negatively affected by sexism belongs in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.3.209 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources often disagree, and when they do, Wikipedia aims to represent that disagreement, not take a side in it. TimothyJosephWood 01:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh really? I don't see Male Circumcision anywhere on the sexism article. Wasn't it you who had removed it and made the article more, female focused? 2.97.3.209 (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Wut? TimothyJosephWood 09:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Whenever possible, we should give due weight to sexism against men (including male genital mutilation). Prcc27🎃 (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Apparently that thread was never archived because of the minimum thread count in the settings. Looking through it, it seems the main issue with the content was that none of the references actually discussed the issue in terms of sexism. TimothyJosephWood 19:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Are there RS for sexism and circumcision? How is circumcision "sexism"? Secret cabals of women circumcising infants? Jim1138 (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. But if there are indeed RS for sexism and circumcision we should include it in the article. We don't need to debate our own opinions on the matter. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there an article on male genital mutilation? Maybe, there's an article on unicorns and another on fairies so there could be. Male genital mutilation, fairies, unicorns and men experiencing sexism are all as relevant as each other in a serious article about sexism. And they're all as real as each other too. None of the sources support the existence of sexism against men. 2.97.3.209 (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

My point in bringing up male circumcision Timothyjosephwood, is that you did indeed take a side. You took the side against those on the wrong side of history. 2.97.3.209 (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you quite finished? TimothyJosephWood 19:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

May I direct you toward the discussion below? It seems to state the exact same thing I have already. 2.97.3.209 (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

feb 20, 2017, If some 1 says raping women does not harm women would you accept it? If all these discrimination against women are like the Unicorn story would you accept discrimination against women is false? And are the citations are too like the Unicorn story too saying that male are not discriminated against, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayanmipun (talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nayanmipun: We don't use "someone" as sources for our articles, we use reliable sources. Find a few of those saying "raping women does not harm women" (good luck) and then we can discuss your poor analogy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

feb 20, 2017, I am telling the logic, and I guess you are not asking others for their source, this is a talk page, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayanmipun (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Other experienced editors have not proposed any changes on this current talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Definition of sexism

The definition given in the introduction to the article does not correspond with the established dictionary definition of sexism (sources: Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster), but rather adds a caveat that sexism can only be practiced by individuals with arbitrarily determined power or privilege. This is a very recent and potentially contentious addition that risks jeopardizing the objectivity of the article by altering the definitive English language definition: "discrimination based on sex." The introduction should be objective, and any new or alternative takes on meaning belong in subsections dedicated to controversy, interpretation, or history.

An example depicting the difference between the definitive dictionary definition and that which is currently listed is: in a society where women are arbitrarily determined to be less privileged than men on average, a woman who says "kill all men" would meet the criteria for sexism in the former definition but would not meet the criteria in the latter definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredmaas (talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the longer-standing lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

feb 20, 2017, Men are and women are equally advantaged and disadvantaged historically and today, your citing of such definitions of sexism is discriminatory against men, you would not agree the same if some where it is said that women are not discriminated against, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayanmipun (talk • contribs) 19:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Nayanmipun: "Men are and women are equally advantaged and disadvantaged historically" - Sources please? Otherwise, read WP:NOTFORUM. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

feb 20, 2017, I am telling the logic, and I guess you are not asking others for their source, this is a talk page, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayanmipun (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of source available on the article to back up the claims made in it. If you would like to change the material contained in the article, you will need sources of your own. If you are simply here to talk about the topic of sexism, and not potential improvement to the article, then you are in the wrong place, because Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion. TimothyJosephWood 20:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I know of no WP:Reliable sources that state or imply that "men are and women are equally advantaged and disadvantaged historically." If there are such reliable sources, list them here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Sexism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

A vandal has been working to remove any reference of sexist discrimination against males and to make women appear worse off by manipulating certain numbers. They appear to be a bully going after "acceptable targets". 78.151.77.26 (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Examples? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Numbers in employment and earnings gaps had been switched to make women appear worse off, I believe that error has been rectified. While references to male targets in Language, Media portrayals, Sexist jokes, Domestic Violence, Female genital mutilation, Sexual assault and treatment of victims, War rape, Legal justice and regulations and Conscription, have been removed or skewed so that there's an anti-male slant, or women are replaced as the victims, where males should be referenced. If the content on this article is inaccurate and reads as a hit piece against all men everywhere, then that distracts against issues women face by inviting rapists and misogynists to whine about that one time a male was discriminated against because it was a male. So an illusion of balance must be maintained to prevent further vandalism. 78.151.77.26 (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sexism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Conscription

Nobody seems to be able to make up their minds on this, either it is sexist not to conscript women, so the inclusion of males should be removed for accuracy. Or men can experience sexism, unicorns are real and I am the supreme emperor of Earth.

I suggest the removal of all references to any opposition to males being provided the privilege of being sent to their death. 78.144.190.226 (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

No. TimothyJosephWood 16:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Care to provide an explanation as to, why? "No" is not good enough a reason not to. 78.144.190.226 (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That your deeply held beliefs are challenged by the sourced content in the article is duly noted. Unfortunately your opinion does not constitute a reliable source, and consensus for this long standing content was established years ago. TimothyJosephWood 17:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Sexism/Archive 15. TimothyJosephWood 17:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

So it's okay to violate WP:NPOV as long it's about some made up MRA project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.77.26 (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sexism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Elias source

The following source may be useful to editors of this article:

Elias, Steven M. (2010). "Sexism". In Weiner, I.B.; Craighead, W.E. (eds.). The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 1564–66. ISBN 978-0-47-017023-6. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

I came across a possible flaw in neutrality with a personal observation that was made. "It is possible that this leads to women's needs not being properly represented." I am not clear whether this was an observation by the author of this page, or rather the author of said source. Either way, I believe this sentence should be reformatted or omitted to clear any confusion. Frontegasauce (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sexism in politics

This is an important subject -- more than HALF of all people are women, and when prominent politicians [describe women as eye candy in national news, as if their visual appeal was their most important characteristic, overriding their value in the political sphere, it needs to stay in this article. The whole issue of shame is irrelevant; the comment was factual, highly notable, and relevant in the political sphere. Leaving it out is WP:POV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Putting it in is a WP:BLP violation, and is a complete non starter. Even if it was well sourced, there are surely thousands of prominent people who are obviously sexists, or have said obviously sexist things on a public stage, and there is fundamentally no reason to pick one seemingly at random and put them up for public shaming on articles otherwise unrelated to them. Content about this particular person and their particular views belong on the article for which they are the subject. GMG ^talk 10:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. BLP is for protecting innocent people from spurious claims to defame them. But in this instance, it is a prominent politician making remarks publicly in which the politician, himself, described his own comment as sexist, with the comment being well-referenced and notable in the national news media such as in CNN and the Washington Post and Newsweek. It belongs in the article. The argument that thousands of other people are making sexist comments in the news, therefore it is okay that we should not even mention any of them, is totally incorrect. Real sexism lies buried beneath the surface, in private discussions, in muffled tones, and only occasionally does it emerge from its normal goo, and when it does, the sexism needs to be exposed. Walker said it; said his comment was sexist; he belongs in this article on sexism.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

the sexism needs to be exposed I completely agree. And you should absolutely do that on your blog, or in an opinion piece in your local newspaper. Those are appropriate place to work to right great wrongs. Wikipedia is not. GMG ^talk 11:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You saying "I completely agree" -- nope, you disagree. You're trying to cover it up. And this is not just a subject for personal essays or blogs but it is a subject of national debate.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not covered up at all. The proper place to cover it is on the main article for Mark Walker (North Carolina politician), which is where readers who are interested in this person should go to read about their political and social views. It may be topical now, but Wikipedia is not news, and is not beholden to the 24 hour news cycle. It may be relevant to North Carolina, or US politics, but Wikipedia is a global project. There is no substantive argument that a teenager from Bangalore interested in sexism needs to understand who this fairly mid level national politician is in order to have an encyclopedic understanding of sexism. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to prefer this particular person over Genghis Khan, Friedrich Nietzsche, or Napoléon Bonaparte, all of whom were probably among the most sexist notable people to have ever lived, and all of whom easily have more global lasting significance then this guy probably ever will. GMG ^talk 12:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm the kind of feminist who will threaten physical violence when someone won't stop making misogynistic comments in front of me, and I still agree that this is a BLP vio. It's okay to mention those comments in the article on this politician, provided there's been enough coverage of it to establish due weight. But adding them here with a photo of him that's completely unrelated to those remarks is a pretty blatant attempt at public shaming. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- How about adding the information without the photo? There are plenty of reliable sources with the word sexism in the source's title.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure... As soon as you can show that this particular incident of sexism is so much more prominent than every other incident of sexism that has ever occurred as to make it worthy of inclusion where they are not.

I'm not being sarcastic: If there is a ur-example of sexism out there, we can absolutely include that. But I strongly doubt that there is. Sexism is way too rampant and common for there to be such an incident. Hell, just last week I was reading about a serial killer who was torturing women to death because he believed women were evil, and that's not covered here. Do you know why? Because even that, as unbelievably despicable and outrageous as it is, is not uncommon.

Finally, accusing GMG of "trying to cover up" an incident of sexism is an extraordinarily bad faith thing to say, and I suggest you retract it. An admin who comes here (even a very liberal, female and feminist admin) would not look kindly upon those accusations, seeing as how they're not backed up by a single shred of evidence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Well maybe the term edit warring may be more applicable with this revert following this revert without a consensus achieved here on this talk page. And removing examples of sexism in politics which are well-referenced and notable on the dubious grounds that it has to pass some test for being a super-sexist comment, is borderline ridiculous.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You can call it borderline ridiculous all you want, but I'll tell you this for free: your edit could get you blocked from editing for BLP violations. My argument in response would never get me so much as warned. I'll tell you one more thing: This article is certainly not list of incidences of sexual harassment in US politics. This article exists to document sexism as a phenomenon, not particular instances of it.

Oh what the hell, I'll tell you one final thing: Multiple reverts to remove BLP violations are explicitly exempted from our rules against edit warring. So you calling it edit warring isn't any better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

More nonsense with your spurious "BLP violations" claim. Read the BLP regarding public figures. It says "In the case of public figures ... BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Who said the sexist comment? Mark Walker did. How did he describe his own comment? As a sexist remark. Multiple media sources agree that it was a sexist comment. It belongs in the article on sexism.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

"nonsense"? Really? I'll tell you what, let's ask the community if it's okay to shame a politician like you've done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I really don't know how I can stress this more, but this guy isn't special. Get over it. There are sexists in every flavor, and at every station. GMG ^talk 21:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Methinks the politician did an excellent job of shaming himself.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If you're trying to convince me that you have an immutable POV and you can't listen to reasonable criticisms, you're doing a damn fine job, I have to say. Read what the community is telling you at BLPN; it's the same thing GMG and I have told you here. "When one man calls you a dog, ignore him. But when a second a third man call you a dog, best check for fleas."

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

23:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The definition of sexism.is becoming sexist

It is extremely troubling to me, that the definition of sexism, is becoming explicitly sexist.

It's not just here that I am seeing this happen, but I'd like to start a discussion about removing sexism, from the description of what sexism is. brill (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Brillpappin (brill), check the archives of this talk page for past discussions about this. It has been discussed extensively. Also look at the sources. Sexism is primarily directed at girls and women; the literature is clear about this (and what has been called "The Harvey Weinstein effect" has recently brought it to the media forefront, although that effect is more so about sexual harassment). And it's not sexist to state so. That sexism is primarily directed at girls and women is not even included in the first sentence of the Sexism article; it's included in the second sentence. And, per WP:LEAD, it should be in the lead. It's not something we are going to exclude from the lead, especially when the article is overwhelmingly about girls and women because the literature on sexism is overwhelmingly about girls and women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sexism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sexism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)