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)

March edits

I changed many of the edits of March, 2012, to the lede and generally.

Some rephrasings change meanings. I restored "are judged" to "can be understood or judged". Sexism is not "defined as prejudice or discrimination based on ... behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles" without sex; therefore, I restored the prior wording. I restored "necessarily" in several places, because it's needed. The difference between "women and men’s perceptions" and "women’s and men’s perceptions" is that the former treats both genders as having the same perceptions; they don't; so I restored the latter. The difference between "children read" and "children were read" is one of agency, regarding the study being discussed, so I restored the latter. "To the extent that females are defined as deferential and emotional, they" is more limited than "[f]emales are defined as deferential and emotional and they", so I restored the former. I restored the content of the blockquote. If any of these restorations contradict sourcing, please post that information. While it was correct to edit "else is as unnecessary", it should have been to "else as unnecessary", so I did so. "Research of the factors" implies research by the factors, so I restored "[r]esearch into the factors". Two conditions were reduced to one condition and a subsidiary clause; for clarity and consistency with the conclusion, I restoried to two conditions. "[S]eem" has to agree in number with "fact", so I restored "seems". An edit made adjacent wording syntactically wrong, so I deleted an excess "during".

I restored a sentence to the lede, deleted for lack of sourcing, because the sourcing is in the body and the lede, being a summary of the body, isn't supposed to show sourcing.

Terms that are core to an article and are in the lede should be boldfaced, so I restored the boldfacing.

Links were broken or needed piping. Two links, by being rewritten to plural and abbreviated forms, were made into redlinks and I restored them but also kept the new forms. Another was made into a redlink, by a change of dash, and I restored it. Another was made into a redlink as part of giving a fuller identification of an organization; I reworded the passage. Two links worked with their new spellings but did so by sending visitors to redirects, so I piped to prevent that.

The article said that swear words would not be enumerated and that was taken out, but it's probably a good idea to retain it for the sake of editors, so I restored the principle of nonlisting as a comment visible to editors but not to most readers.

Besides that, for content predating the above-cited edits, I edited "men" to the genitive or possessive, "system bias" to "systemic bias", to fix a bare nonlinking URL, and "and" to "with" and, minor, I deleted a spurious line break and two spaces.

Nick Levinson (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the section on gender-neutral pronouns: "...males may comprehend he/she in a manner similar to he, he usually is placed before the dash and she after. This is usually done because the word she already contains the word he so it is positioned after the dash. It also has nothing to do with stereotypical gender roles." Couldn't it be as easily stated that because "he" is contained in "she," that "she" should come first because it's more comprehensive? The last sentence is cited but an assertion like "has NOTHING to do with gender roles" seems to be a fact with no basis. It's very possible that since we the phrase "he/she" originated from when women WERE second class. Radarbacon (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)