Talk:Sexism

Gender Sterotyping section

Let's give equal weight and make sure to talk about gender stereotyping towards men. I can't count the number of times I've been made fun of for my love of Disney movies or Broadway shows. Men are supposed to love sports, beer, and violent activities, know how to use power tools, and are messy according to most media views. In reality, the need to meet these social norms can retard developmental growth and contribute to destructive social behaviors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtpasc200 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know, it just sounds like more anthropology to me. Sexism must be addressed to both genders, not just one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.250.141 (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed how bias this article is. It does make subtle efforts to include men into its text, but does not establish them enough to make the article balanced. Like there's entire sections dedicated to rape and misogyny and pornography... so women can't commit rape, be misandry, or enjoy watching pornography? The percentage of women committing rape must be so low that it's swept under the rug here and I guess ALL women oppose pornography and find it offensive. In "Education" it's also asserted that "Girls earn higher grades than boys until the end of high school."... that is complete opinion, like people have never met or known a girl who struggled through high school. I understand it is difficult to write accurate articles when the topic is based on one's own view... but more effort should be put into making it fair for each side. The sexual harassment article does a great job at demonstrating this.Valce Talk 21:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point about school marks, as in many cases there's discrimination against boys. Moral and emotional arrassment to boys happen quite a lot. Libel and slander too against boys too. This is often done by male teachers willing to patronize the girls as well as by female teachers who have an insecure, paranoid attitude to men. Nepotism and cronyism at school as well as in the working place happen a lot, often victimizing men. Denying this is sexism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.51.244 (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The article fails to cover many aspects of common discrimination against men. We can say, it's a sexist article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.28.51.244 (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC) It became a sexist article when the feminist deleted any sexism against men in this article in 2008 because they believe only males are sexist and all males are sexist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.247.133 (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it needs more balance, but equal weight? NO! Based on [W[:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight]], the bulk of the article SHOULD be about sexism's impact on women, as (I believe) it is a majority view that sexism restricts and negatively impacts predominantly women. Please review the cited section of NPOV, folks. --Elvey (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Equal weight for both sides! If I am reading an article about Native American history, I expect to see a section, or better yet a whole new page on how badly they subjugated the newly arrived white man. It's only fair. Ongepotchket (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So are you reinforcing my statement above that all feminist believe only males are sexist and all males are sexist? After all it is widely accepted as fact both inside and outside of feminism that all feminist believe all males are automatically chauvinist subordinators and violent potential rapist from birth even if they are a self devoted celibite and are supporting women's rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.98.216 (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Worst lead sentence ever?

The whole lead paragraph is a mess, but this article desperately needs a new lead sentence. Ongepotchket (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the lede was horrible. I added the dictionary definition of sexism and removed all the OR and personal analysis, but it still needs a lot of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.158.175 (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! The old lede was painful on the eyes. Ongepotchket (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Tags

The lead/lede is a near-exact copy of the Definition section; such duplication is unencyclopedic. (As I see Nick noted, above, "the lede should summarize the article, not simply be the definition." Also, the way the terms one's, adversely and affects are used in the definition are not appropriate and/or grammatically correct. We shouldn't be making up a highly novel definition, but rather relying more on extant definitions, as the current article definition is severely flawed and obviously novel. - e.g. based on the article definition, it's sexist to believe that all women are less able to reach items on a high shelf than men, and it's not sexist to believe that some women are less able to reach items on a high shelf than men. I think this shows that the article definition is flawed. Reading this (talk) page suggests there's some content in older versions of this page (ca. 2008) that merits restoration. I haven't looked. There are several leaps of logic -

• This sentence is not cohesive WRT the one before: "Based on the results of this study, almost 10 percent of female authors get their papers published when their gender is hidden." (Compared to what?)
• The article equates sexism and gender discrimination. Are they the same thing? Is it sexist to require that women but not men cover their breasts in public? Is it gender discrimination? I would bet that there is broad consensus on the latter, but no the former.
• The second sentence does not follow from the first "In addition, women frequently earn significantly lower wages than their male counterparts who perform the same job.[32] In the United States, for example, women earn an average of 23.5% less than men.[33]" - Women tend to perform different jobs, etc ... so the "for example" should probably be removed

--Elvey (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)