Talk:Sexism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

History of Sexism against Females

"The history of sexism began thousands of years ago. Women were relegated to the background, to doing domestic cares and household chores. Before the influential years, Christianity was affected by ancient dualistic beliefs originating in Persia[citation needed]. According to these dualistic beliefs, spirit was good and matter was evil. (This is doubtful, as we have no evidence that Persian dualism regarded matter as evil[citation needed]). Eventually, this matter that was considered evil became identified with women[citation needed]. Touching this matter, according to the Gnostics, was defiling, and this became known as the defiling contact with women[citation needed]. Genesis and Aristotle had implied this idea as well[citation needed]. Women were seen as being created by the evil Demiurge, as matter was seen as being created by the evil Auhra-Mazda[citation needed]. The idea of women being evil was symbolized in many ways: for example, paradise or the garden (shal) was originally known as the garden-womb of the Goddess Mari (Shalimar) but it then became known as shell, “the pit,” which is an unpleasant hell or underworld[citation needed]. This womb-garden transformed into the womb-tomb; the idea of the womb being good became bad and “the pit” and its carrier became bad as well. This idea made women’s sensualness evolve into a paradigm of evil[citation needed]. Tertullian, a theologian who converted to Christianity and his writings influenced early Christianity, had said that woman were “the devil’s gate.” This idea of women eventually symbolized incompleteness and women were then known as the imperfect male, as it is identified in Christian tradition[citation needed]. The following passage from Otto Weininger’s Sex and Character reveals how women were seen in the past:

Women have no existence and no essence: they are not, they are nothing. Mankind occurs as male or female, as something or nothing. Woman has no share in ontological reality, no relation to the thing-in-itself, which, in the deepest interpretation, is the absolute, is God. Man, in his highest form, the genius, has such a relation, and for him the absolute is either the conception of the higher worth of existence, in which case he is a philosopher; or it is the wonderful fairyland of dreams, the kingdom of absolute beauty, and then he is an artist. But both views mean the same. Women has no relation to the idea, she neither affirms nor denies it; she is neither moral nor anti-moral; mathematically speaking she has no sign; she is purposeless, neither good nor bad, neither angel nor devil, never egotistical (and therefore has often been said to be altruistic); she is as non-moral as she is non-logical. But all existence is moral and logical existence. So woman has no existence. (Weininger 286, 220)"

I believe the above section, quoted from the article, needs to be removed. First of all, it has no citations of source; It seems to be pure speculation. An idea this specific had to come from somewhere: If it were compiled from reference works, experts on the subject, or one notable person in particular, the sources should be readily available; but perhaps the lack of sourcing is due to an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia by the editor. It states that Mazda was viewed as an evil God by the Persians, but in actuality he was the personification of everything spiritual and divine. I think the quote by Tertullian has been taken out of context. I want some feedback before I remove it. Opinions? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally I agree that this should be removed. However the piece that beings "The following passage from Otto Weininger’s Sex and Character reveals how women were seen in the past" is actually sourced - just improperly cited. But it has another problem - that quoted text should be summarized and explained briefly rather than just thrown in.

In short go ahead and remove it all - but if the Weininger bit should be summarized and put back into the article with a proper {{cite}}--Cailil ^talk 16:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the context of the quote is in question here. It is unclear whither the author is stating his beliefs, the beliefs of another person, or a theory he devised. A theory wouldn't merit the same kind of citation it enjoyed before its removal. The whole paragraph was worded as a truth, and yet I doubt there is any significant evidence that any of it occurred. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's likely, based on a quick review of reviews of that book, that the beliefs are Weininger's own. The problem arises when we claim that his words reveals how women were seen in the past. That is original research. One man's view in 1903 is not evidence supporting that claim, which implies that the view was common or universal. I'm not sure how the quote could be summarized and made relevant to this section without drawing on a source that specifically relates it to commonly held values of the time. For that reason, I support your edit removing the unsourced material including the Weininger quote. Blackworm (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah if they're Weininger's views then it is absolutely OR by synthesis and has to stay out. There are books that actually describe the history of this form of sexism, so one like The Mad Woman in the Attic or La Donna e Mobile: Constructing the irrational woman could be summarized rather than constructing OR with the Weininger text or another one--Cailil ^talk 18:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sexism against males (Main article: Fathers' rights movement)

Why does the Sexism against males section have a pointer to "Main article": Fathers' rights movement? This is misleading - sexism against males goes far beyond one major area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.226.49 (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It might make sense under "see also" but it's certainly not a main article for sexism against men. Blackworm (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've performed that edit (and others). Blackworm (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Many edits, and self-imposed limits to the scope of edits.

I saw that the "sexism against females" section had shrunken dramatically, making the "sexism against males" section seem large by comparison. It left an impression of undue weight, when really both sections seemed to need a lot of potential WP:OR trimming. As much as editing uncited articles is painful, I felt moved to dive in. Please review my contributions and edit as necessary.

I focussed on reducing "sexism against males" by removing a bunch of apparently unsourced material, inlining a couple of raw URL cites, creating a References section, and trying to restore at least some flow to the ideas despite the difficulty in doing so when the material is uncited. I made some other edits, among them finding a source to support a statement that was deleted. A lot of work appears to remain. I stayed away from editing much of "sexism against females" because I believe I've done enough for a while, want to give time for comment, and do not wish to disrupt. I also feel more intimidated editing that section for some perhaps unexplained reason. Perhaps I'm compelled not to trust my neutrality as much on it, but then again I also don't want to assume I'm biased. I don't feel biased. I'll leave it up to editors here to evaluate whether I should give it a try. Blackworm (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sexism against males - removed section - I'm confused

Hi Blackworm - I see you've removed this section

Sexism against males may take the form of institutional sexism where, for example as in most European countries, men have to do military service when this, or an equivalent, is not required from women or where, as in the UK, men are several more times likely to be imprisoned than women with a comparable criminal history. Historically too institutional sexism against men has often also been a reality - for example until 1967 in the UK, male homosexuality, unlike lesbianism, was a criminal offence. From this perspective men are more likely to be discriminated against by other men in the form of policy makers or judges in a court of law.

Given this is all highly relevant to the topic of sexism against males I'm not sure why you haven't just added "citation needed". Could you let me know why as I'd like to see that info back - though fair enough it needs citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to see that info back, why not come up with sources supporting the statements? I try to follow Jimmy Wales' statement reproduced in WP:V, which states, There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. Blackworm (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wales's statement sounds fine but needs to be applied consistently. Probably most of the following should be deleted on that basis:

"The term 'sexism', in common usage, is viewed by many to imply sexism against females, perhaps because this is the most commonly identified form of sexism. The view that men are superior to women is one form of sexism. This form is often called male chauvinism, chauvinism in a broader sense referring to any extreme and unreasonable partisanship that is accompanied by malice and hatred towards a rival group. A similar term is gynophobia, which refers to fears of females or feminity.

Historically, in many patriarchal societies, females have been and are viewed as the "weaker sex". Women's lower status can be seen in cases in which females were not even recognized as persons under the law of the land. The feminist movement promotes women's rights to end sexism against females by addressing issues such as equality under the law, political representation of females, access to education and employment, female victims of domestic violence, self-ownership of the female body, and the impact of pornography on women. While feminists broadly agree on the aims and goals of feminism, they may disagree on specific issues (for instance, pornography or abortion), tactics, or priorities."

I can see how this needs a citation: "as in the UK, men are several more times likely to be imprisoned than women with a comparable criminal history"

But what about this: "most European countries, men have to do military service when this, or an equivalent, is not required from women or where" How can this be referenced? You want me to give a reference to specific sections of national laws of countries that have national service? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk) 11:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How about this, as a starting source: "CONSCRIPTION to military service is a system whereby the state requires all men (and in a few cases women) to serve a period in the armed forces."[1] I'd like suggest that instead of starting with a statement and seeking out sources that support it, start with a source, then summarize it. One summary of the above could be: In some states, military service is required of all men in the form of conscription, but women are required to serve in the armed forces in few cases. See how all that flows neutrally and verifiably from the quoted source?

You're right that there are other examples of WP:OR. I chose to delete that one to address a problem of undue weight. You are welcome to delete any and all original research, as I understand it. I would only suggest that perhaps you may wish to do so slowly and give some time for editors to find sources for the deleted statements. Blackworm (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Glasgow University study

"Eight percent (of women at Glasgow University) admitted injuring their partners, the highest rate in the study, which involved 36 universities."

Surely the average or range would be more helpful than the highest. If 20 of the other places had only 1% then quoting the 8% is pretty misleading. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Misleading how? The secondary source cited was commenting specifically on this university, and we take care to repeat their claim that it was the highest rate of the survey. If we didn't, your point would be stronger. I don't have a source for the entire study, but if you do find it, we could present the overall findings as well as this particular case, addressing your concerns. Blackworm (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I managed to find this report. If you have Athens access you could download it from here. I take Olaf's point that quoting the highest stat at nothing else is undue but that's an effect of quoting a BBC website news report rather than the document itself. Will have a read and post a summary up here in the morning--Cailil ^talk 22:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's actually shorter than I thought so here's a quick summary.

This report by Emily M. Douglas and Murray A Straus tests the hypothesis that

the more prevalent the use of corporal punishment by parents in a social setting, the higher is the prevalence of assault and injury of a dating partner.

And the report finds that

typical of other studies is the finding that, at more than three quarters of the sites in this study, a larger proportion of female then male students physically assaulted dating partners (Archer 2000). The median rate of partner assault was 21 percent higher for females than for males

It then goes on to qualify by stating that over two thirds of the sample were female - they attempted to reduce the potential problems due to this by breaking down stats by gender.

In their closing they address the connection between corporal punishment and intimate partner violence, explaining that the decrease in its prevalence in the USA saying:

The decrease in partner violence is in part due to the feminist-led effort to end wife-beating by raising public awareness, changes in police and judicial procedures, and establishing refuges for female victims. The decrease in CP is in part due to the expansion of parent education into all types of media that reach ever larger sectors of the population. Important as have been the feminist effort to end wife-beating and the efforts of developmental psychologists and parent educators to improve parenting, both have serious weakness which need to be addressed

However they do go on to quote from a study on the conflict tactics scale by John Archer (see below) that points out the feminist effort's

refusal to take into account the overwhelming evidence from more than a hundred studies that have found that women assault their partners at about the same rate as men and that women initiate domestic violence as often as men.

Their final statement recommends a number of policy implementations its last words are:

One place to start could be based on the results of this study, which show that almost half of the students did not reject the idea that there are circumstances when it is appropriate for a husband to slap his wife, and more than three quarters did not reject that idea that there are circumstances when it is appropriate for a wife to slap her husband.

At a first glance this report would be far more relevant to Domestic violence and Corporal punishment - actually it has to be because the report is not about sexism. The BBC news story is quoting out of context (as journalists are allowed to do - but we aren't). They didn't mention that 82.1% of men agreed to the same question (approving of a wife slapping a husband) in Glasgow or that in Fribourg, Germany 89.3 of men and 88.2 of women. In fact the BBC report gets the part about Glasgow being the highest at 8% wrong - London, Ontario is the highest at 23.5% (I'll remember to avoid women from that town).

I can see how somebody would say "this is sexism" but we can't do that - at least not with this report. If one searches it there are no occurrences of the term "sexism". In order for it to show sexist attitudes the study has to be interpreted. In an essay one could show this but in the encyclopedia one can't. Since the report isn't about sexism and the BBC report is out of context and (partially) inaccurate we need to look elsewhere.

This study is a great find for Domestic violence and Corporal punishment but it would be OR to use it to demonstrate sexist attittudes here. A possible place to look is the Archer study on the Assessment of the Reliability of the Conflict Tactics Scales which they quote. The full ref for that is Archer, J. (1999). Assessment of the reliability of the conflict tactics scales: a meta-analytic review . Journal of Interpersonal Violence 14, 1263-1289 [2]. I think it's been quoted from in Domestic violence or Men's rights--Cailil ^talk 23:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose by a strict reading of WP:NOR, unless sexism is mentioned specifically it would have to go. Then again, most of this article would go if we held it to that standard. Also, since sexism is more rarely used to describe sexism against males, that seems to be a case of systemic bias. Should we counter it? Blackworm (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think in fairness to Hoff Sommers her arguments are the most notable in regard to sexism against men and the one line about her ideas is less than due weight so I would say expand that. I'd also expand the Nathanson & Young a bit. The whole Glen Sacks oeuvre has been left out as well so that could be added (ie Boys_Are_Stupid_Throw_Rocks_at_Them). There is work done in this area it just reads to found becuase right now what we've got in that section is a loose connection between studies (which are given no weight) and news items that need interpretation to be used as evidence of sexism. The whole article needs work but why not start here--Cailil ^talk 07:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made a quick edit to address what I'm talking about. I do think the health care issue should be here but we need proper sourcing. Similarly with the female male violence - perhaps the Archer study. Also I'm aware that the Hoff Sommers arguments need a lot more expansion than I've given just now--Cailil ^talk 08:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In answer to "why not start here," I would suggest it more appropriate to start with the overwhelming amount of unsourced material, or material that is sourced but misinterpreted (seems very common here). But I agree with you in general. Again, if material that needs interpretation to be used as evidence of sexism is to be removed, most of this article is to be removed. On the other hand, the definition of "sexism" used here is so broad that most of this material could be reasonably seen as only making descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.(WP:NOR). I assume it is in the spirit of the latter directive as well as common sense that this material was seen fit to include here. Blackworm (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

By the reference to the unsourced - I take it you mean the 'Sexism and sexual expression' and the first part (with the table) in 'Generalization and partition' - if so then I agree. All of that looks like OR to me and should probably be removed. I certainly think the sexism against transsexes can be sourced but I would agree with a removal of all other unsourced immediately. On the matter of the OR in the 'Sexism against males' that I removed, I would say that the way the Glasgow violence piece and the health piece were being used was definite OR. If you want to query that bring it to the NOR noticeboard - they'll correct me if I'm wrong in the matter--Cailil ^talk 15:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The "wage gap" and whether it indicates sexism

I think there's much more that is questionable. For instance, the "wage gap" stuff. It seems that by your standards, citing a difference in income between men and women full-time year-round workers in itself is not necessarily evidence of sexism. We need to cite people's labeling of it as evidence of sexism (or denying such a label) in there. As for the stuff you removed, I'm willing to accept it, but I wonder if you'd be willing to accept that articles quoting people as calling for "more X for women, because men are given more X than women" (as it the health spending case) are similarly irrelevant to sexism. In that vein, the entire part in "sexism against females" discussing how feminists address issues seems to be OR -- why are any of the issues discussed relevant to sexism? Blackworm (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) As far as I'm concerned everything is up for discussion here. But I'm unclear about what you meanin the 'Occupational sexism' section. Would you mind identifying the sources that you think are being synthesized?
From here I'd really only question ref 14 - the equal pay website from WP:RS and WP:DUE - the other refs are about the gender based wage gap. The problem with the Douglas and Straus report was that it was not about sexist practices its info had to be interpreted to show sexism.
What is sourced in 'sexism against females' seems reasonable to me - it needs attribution but it is recording what some research done on sexism / misogyny is saying. Considering the volume of research in this area it is a surprisingly short section though--Cailil ^talk 19:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe for the moment that no direct relation to sexism has been established for any of the three sources in that paragraph (i.e. [13] Blau, [14] NCPE and [15] Wall). Being "about the gender wage gap" does not imply that it's about sexism; that requires an interpretation. Thus, under WP:NOR I would delete the entire paragraph.

I'm prepared to leave the sexism against females section alone until we resolve this issue. Blackworm (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ref 15 is marginal it is about "gender discrimination" which is synonymous with sexism but a better source could be found I'm sure. Ref 13 - teh Blau & Kahn - on first read through seems fine to me? Did you get to read the whole thing?--Cailil ^talk 00:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The stuff quoted from ref 15 does not mention "gender discrimination." I also would appreciate if you explained how the material sourced from ref 13 is related to sexism -- whether the source itself discusses sexism at some point is irrelevant; the question is, how are the statements we include in this article that are attributed to the source directly related to sexism? I shouldn't need to read the article to figure this out; either the statement is related to sexism, or it isn't. As it stands, it isn't. Blackworm (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Blackworm ref 15 mentions (but only mentions) gender discrimination twice under the heading 'Eliminate the Gender Wage Gap?'. About the Blau and Kahn - the article is about gender discrimination shown through the wage gap - you should be able to see some hint of this from the 2nd paragraph of the preview page - full text goes into it with a lot more depth. I'm not being facetious Blackworm but I don't understand how one can know that the article is not relevant without having read it. As far as I can see, after reading it, its fine as regards site policy and its use here. Ref 15 could do with being replaced though--Cailil ^talk 09:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The question is not whether the "article is relevant" by discussing sexism, but whether the material in this WP article summarized from the source is directly related to sexism. For example, if the source also discussed racism, that wouldn't mean that the material we include here about the gender wage gap would be relevant to the racism article. What we can use is the material from the source that specifically discusses sexism -- we can summarize and attribute it here. What we do summarize and attribute from the source right now, has no apparent direct link to sexism. Blackworm (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that's a wording issue then. That can be easily rectified by reading the sourcing and rewording the passage. But bare in mind that that section is a summary of occupational sexism - it's not a perfect summary there's more to gender discrimination in the worksplace than wage gaps but the info needs to pertinent to both. But that should be easily fixed - I'll see what I can do about it later if you can't a hold of the source. If you have any issues with the 'sexism against females' section please raise them but we should probably open a new thread for that--Cailil ^talk 12:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found a good article that deals with what gender wage discrimination and the debates about the wage gap in the USA: 'Gender Wage Discrimination Bias? A Meta-Regression Analysis' by T.D. Stanley and Stephen B. Jarrell in The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 33, No. 4 (Autumn, 1998)[3]--Cailil ^talk 12:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, I suppose everything in Wikipedia is ultimately a wording issue. You say "there's more to gender discrimination in the workplace than wage gaps," but this is making an assumption and skipping the question: how is (or isn't) the wage gap gender discrimination? The source you bring seems likely to have an answer to this, and its conclusions on that specific question definitely would be relevant. Let's present and attribute those conclusions, instead of the long paragraph with the three sources we have now. Blackworm (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In short Blackworm gender based wage discrimination is just that - getting paid differently (usually less ala discrimination) becuase of one's gender or sex. Getting treated differently (discrimination) becuase of one's gender or sex is sexism. This is a really quick description of why they are linked. But wage discrimination as a form of occupational sexism could be sourced to something like Holland and Chisholm's work about girl's and their choice of jobs - I'll give the proper cite when I find it (might be in my office so might have to wait till Monday)- there would be many other sources for this ie Wendy Wolf's stuff from the 1980s (again I don't have this to hand)-Cailil ^talk 21:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent.) I understand that some point to a difference in average pay between male and female full time year round workers as evidence of gender based discrimination. Some others question this link. Right now, we only present material indicating a difference, not indicating views on whether this difference is based on discrimination. You seem to understand this point, so I ask, do you have any remaining objection to my deletion of the entire paragraph as currently irrelevant to sexism? When you present sources linking the wage gap to sexism (or challenging this link), we can include them. Blackworm (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think all of it needed to be excised but we can reintroduce anything that is relevant when the context is established. It will be a while before I have the energy and available time to any writing - so could you put a {{Rewriting}} or {{sect-expand}} tag (which ever you feel is appropriate) in that section so passers-by understand that it's being worked on--Cailil ^talk 13:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel either is needed, so I won't be tagging the section. I believe it more important to similarly remove other material that only implies sexism, and doesn't actually discuss it. Blackworm (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy disputed

Added a Factual Accuracy disputed tag to the final section. The section states that evolution causes males to be more intelligent than females, and cites The Red Queen without a page number. I've read The Red Queen and it makes no such statement that I could find. Whoever added this section needs to get other references (reputable ones) or give a page reference in the Red Queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valhalla08 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Section removed based on these serious concerns. Its been a long time since I read red Queen but as I remember it was Ridley's hypothesis that sexual selection encourages species to better adapt - and that human intelligence is used to attract mates. I don't remember anything about gender differences in inteligence and I can't find anything mention that either. So I removed it as {{dubious}} - unless or until someone can substantiate that claim--Cailil ^talk 12:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Does Ridley make the claim that males are more competitive? That was my concern with the section. JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd need to check that JC but I don't have the book to hand. I'm not sure that even if he did that it would belong in a section entitled "Support for sexism views" - if Ridley did say that it would belong in the Biology of gender article--Cailil ^talk 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Too Male-Centric

The Topic Sexism Against Men has so much more citations and is much longer than the one against women, when any educated person knows it's much less of a problem (if still a big problem). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.91.129 (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it has more citations would seem to indicate otherwise. Men are subject to sexism as much as women are, it's just that sexism against men is not pointed out very often in popular culture. Wrad (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, from a historical and sociological standpoint, it could be argued that women have been subjected to sexism far more than man through laws and social restrictions. That isn't to say that men aren't subjected to sexism (because obviously sexism against them exists) but the fact remains that women have suffered more from sexism, historically speaking. We can't ignore history.Ahlymel (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That is one opinion, but it isn't really appropriate for us to judge who has suffered more. All we can do is cite what others have said on the topic of sexism. I invite you to bring more reliable sources and summarize them for the sexism against women section if you feel it needs expansion, and that the sources bring new information we don't already discuss. Note, however, that most of the article outside the sexism against men/women sections deals with sexism against women, and thus we already give the latter much, much more weight, in contrast to the apparent concerns of the anonymous IP editor above. Blackworm (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I was talking more along the lines of institutionalized sexism, at least in the U.S. (for it's the only country I can speak on behalf). Obviously, there have been more laws restricting the rights of minority women than say, white men. I'd gladly link sites where such information is offered but unfortunately I don't have the time. I hope somebody links some sites though in the mean time.Ahlymel (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a dozen more citations and some new sub-sections to the Sexism against women section. I defy Wrad or anyone else to find as much info about "female chauvinism." Also, I or someone needs to correct the Sexism against men section, which really seriously misrepresents the work of, for example, Susan Brownmillar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardiana (talk • contribs) 02:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Women earning more than men?

I suggest deleting a recent change - someone cites the National Review as evidence that women working part-time earn more than men working part-time. The National Review article cites the Department of Labor, so I think in the interests of scholarship and neutrality the citation in Wikipedia should be to the DOL as well. Further, this whole statement really may belong in the "Sexism Against Men" section. Finally, it should also be pointed out that the wage gap discussion re: women includes a claimed gap even among women and men of the same experience and education level; this issue of experience and education should also be brought up for the claimed male part-timer wage gap. I am currently trying to re-locate a reference that discussed how much more likely male part-timers are to have only a high school diploma, as opposed to female part-timers who usually have college degree.Ricardiana (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It belongs in that section because the paragraph doesn't document a disparity in wages with respect to the sex of candidates - rather it specifically mentions (or did mention) women earning less than men. In this case, the evidence and statements not only belong but are required in order to present both sides of the argument and maintain a neutral point of view. And I agree, citing directly from DoL is better. --Carbon Rodney 19:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article as a whole will be neutral with this move; and I do think that this should be mentioned in the "Sexism against men" section, precisely to be even-handed, because, let's face it, right now that section doesn't have much going on. Maybe it should be in both? But without being repetitive.... Ricardiana (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Independently citing a reference claiming that male part-time workers are less formally educated than female part-time workers would constitute original research, specifically the synthesis of sources, if juxtaposed with a separate reference discussing the relative incomes of male and female part time workers. Please do not do that. Blackworm (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I see; I wasn't aware, so thank you for letting me know. Maybe I can find a source that does the synthesis, but if not, the issue will have to drop. Ricardiana (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I just went and deleted that statement, as I hadn't checked here first. But I'm not very inclined to go back and revert it, either. It seemed to me the article was deliberately misinterpreted to suggest sexism against men. It's an interesting article, but maybe it can be used in some other way.--Susan118 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Rape

Regarding the following paragraph that was added today (minus a line I removed which was blatant POV):

"Statistics are widely disseminated purporting that 1 in 4 women are brutally raped in the United States. Campaigns such as Take Back The Night give the impression that rape is a very real possibility for women when walking down the street at night.[citation needed] It is well known that the majority of men are not capable of violent rape as an erection is unobtainable by most all men by attacking and hurting a woman.[citation needed] Normal and healthy male biology does not find this sexually arousing.[citation needed]The majority of rape cases take place in the home, are under the influence of alcohol and or drugs by one or both parties, is by someone the person is close to, and is non violent or forceful."

I realize people want to "balance" this article by insisting that men suffer from sexism, but this whole paragraph is ridiculous. Diminishing the crime of rape is not the way to go about creating balance. If no sources are added, it will end up deleted. --Susan118 (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned here that men can also be raped (by women). The exclusion is quite ironic, considering the title of the article.--Studiodan (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is important!--Studiodan (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)