Talk:Sexism

"Objectification is treating a person, usually a woman, as an object"

do I really have to explain why that sentence should not be in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.248.242 (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

to further clarify, besides the obvious hypocrisy the citation leads to an article that explains that is the definition of objectification from the pov of feminism. that is in no way a neutral position. someone ought to remove this or I will do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.248.242 (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Call me a fool or simply note that I'm female, but I don't see why it should be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Call me a fool or simply note that I'm male, but I think that it is important to retain this sentence,.Carptrash (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC).

I'm not clear on the problem either. Though "objectification" as a word has meanings outside of feminism, our context here is sexism and so the subject of that sentence is the concept in feminist theory known as "objectification". It would thus make sense to talk about it from the perspective of feminism, and wouldn't be POV to do so. It looks like we cite a pretty reliable source for that, too, in the SEP. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue is you have no proof that objectification is normally of a woman. the definition in the source is only concerned with the objectification of women because it is the feminist definition. just because feminists focus on females issues doesn't mean that men aren't objectified to the same extent. you have no evidence to support the phrase in the article. and the wording used here is ironically sexist itself by making such assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.248.242 (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"... men aren't objectified to the same extent." Please find reliable sources that say this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

the article is making the claim that woman are objectified more than men. I don't need a source to disprove it. you are making the claim you need a source to prove your claim or it is unfounded speculation. this is an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.248.242 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

bottom line your citation does not support claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.248.242 (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

hello? am I talking to myself here. we need to scrap the "usually a woman" part until you can find a reference to support that statement. how can I be any more clear. an encyclopedia doesn't make assertions without evidence to support them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.248.242 (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

don't worry about it. I fixed it for you. in the future please only include facts in Wikipedia articles not unfounded speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.248.242 (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

if you would like me to reword the whole sentence to match the dictionary definition and cite that as a new source for the sentence I would be happy to do that. just let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.248.242 (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

and it keeps changing it back so one of you needs to hop on this issue asap. credibility is an issue here people we are not trying to ruin Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.248.242 (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

think I got it taken care of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 00:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The statement is sourced. Specifically with http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/ EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

read very carefully. feminsism is a movement concerned with the treatment of woman. just because the feminist view of objectification focuses on objectification of woman does not mean that woman are objectified more than men. that is how the sentence reads. this article does not support that statement. the article itself admits that objectification is difficult to even define. that's far from being conclusive or even reasonable evidence that men are not objectified just as much. you need facts to make claims like that. where is your source that shows how much more woman are objectified than men? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 01:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

to reiterate this section is about sexism. not feminism and its pov. objectification is a word with a definition that it is not necessarily meant to mean particularly towards a particular gender. I can cite a dictionary for you. the statement implies that woman are objectified more than men but the citation does not give any verifiable evidence of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 01:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about sexism. When I google sexism, these are the dictionary results I get:

• Free dictionary: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

• Dictionary.com: Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women. 2. The belief that one gender is superior to the other, especially that men are superior.

• M-W: Unfair treatment of people because of their sex; especially : unfair treatment of women.

• OED: Originally: the state or condition of belonging to the male or female sex; categorization or reference on the basis of sex (now rare); (in later use) prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

There's four dictionary definitions anybody can use for the article. Ongepotchket (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say. Reliable sources discussing objectication in the context of sexism agree that it usually applies to women. We do not base our content on dictionary definitions. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

how reliable can they be if they don't reference any real studies? show me one study that supports your claim. feminism is not a neutral pov on the topic of sexism. they focus on womans rights. the fact that feminists focus on womans rights does not support the claim that woman are objectified more than men. as I have stated the only citation for this sentence is from the pov of feminism. if that's all you can come up with then reword it to "objectification is defined by feminism as ... " because the article is not making it clear that this is just a point of view. you are presenting the feminist opinion as though it were fact and without any evidence to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 01:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Im going to stop arguing now because you people are wasting my time. do what you want with your Wikipedia article but let it be noted that in the interest of keeping the article accurate I strongly recommend that phrase Is reworded until you can find objective facts/ verifiable statistics to support your claim. either present it as a pov or provide legitimate citations if you are going keep it worded as a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 02:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Soundofyellow: Please indent your comments. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

→the article in the citation concludes at the end "Undoubtedly, objectification is a concept difficult to define, as Nussbaum also acknowledges, since it turns out to be ‘slippery’ and ‘multiple’ (Nussbaum 1995, 251). How to best to define objectification, if we can define it at all, and whether this notion should be restricted to describe the morally objectionable, or expanded to cover benign and/or positive aspects of the way we see and treat each other in our daily lives is an ongoing debate. Much recent feminist work has been devoted to comprehensive philosophical analyses of objectification, which will hopefully lead to more complete and coherent understandings of this notion" admitting that objectification is difficult if even possible to accurately define. admitting that the phrase "usually of a woman" is simple speculation nothing more. it was not based on any research, nor does it claim to be, it is just the premise they have chosen to work under. you cant represent speculation as facts. end of story. if you are not bias you will reword the sentence so its not unfounded speculation, or else find citation for a study that verifies your outlandish claims. how can I be any more reasonable? as Wikipedia editors its your duty to keep the information here accurate and unbiased. I feel you all are abusing your authority here. just as feminism is not a neutral pov because it admittedly has a political agenda and focuses on womens issues over mens, you all seem to be willfully ignoring reason to push some sort of agenda. do whats right and keep the article factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 04:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is just antifeminist posturing in the guise of NPOV. Because scholarship is feminist does not make it unreliable. Scholarship does not need to be neutral either, nor do sources. Our language on WP does, however. And it accurately reflects the sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Asking to be treated equally is POV and biased? Try Goggling sexism "usually a woman" Seems to be lots out there. I don't understand your concerns. Jim1138 (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

— speculation =/= fact and should not be presented as such. you have not cited research that supports your claim. your cited article says everything from monogamous marriage is the only thing that's not objectification to objectification can be a good thing and blah blah blah. I doubt any of you have even read it. NO WHERE DOES IT SHOW ANY OBJECTIVE DATA SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIM. and that is all I have to say. "asking to be treated equally is POV and biased?" no but it has no place on Wikipedia. what is bias is assuming that a premise is true and citing another article that also assumes it to be true but does not offer any evidence (verifiable or otherwise) that the premise is true. Im not suggesting that an article about sexism should not use citations from feminist documents, but to allow a political campaign with its own agenda decide the definition of our words for us based on its own agenda is not neutral pov. I dont see how you all cant rap your head around the fact that you need citation that supports your claim otherwise it is just speculation. just because most people agree with your pov doesn't make it true, you still need the facts before you go making claims. at this point I am completely over this. I have said my piece and now I will leave it in your hands, hopefully you all will make the right choice. good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 07:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't need data. We need reliable sources and we have those. We don't interpret or synthesize data. We are a tertiary source that reports on secondary sources that report on primary sources. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

""your secondary source never claimed that their claim was based on findings of any primary source. there was never any study conducted on the matter. all you have is a quote from feminism on their own pov which you have presented as a fact.

"One of the key policies of Wikipedia is that all article content has to be verifiable. This means that a reliable source must be able to support the material. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation of a source that directly supports the material."

this article violates the rules with information that is not verifiable. end of story. obviously its not within my power to do anything about it so why you are even still humoring me I don't know. you have obviously already made up your mind to let your bias continue influencing the article so have at it.

oh yeah one more thing I found a "source" claiming that men are really the ones who are objectified by society. don't get me wrong its still speculation with no data to back it up but the same goes for your citation. funny thing is its from mens rights webpage which for some reason is on Wikipedia black list. hmm verrrrrry interesting... Soundofyellow (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Soundofyellow: Please read WP:RS. This is the standard for citations. The citation here fulfills that requirement. The information is verifiable. Multiple editors have stated so. This discussion is getting WP:TENDENTIOUS. Jim1138 (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion"

also in the rules. the more rules you people throw at me the more I see how many of them you are breaking. did you even read the article in the citation? you say it verifies your claim, please explain then so we can end this conversation. all I see is opinion being presented as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 08:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This has been repeatedly discussed. WP:ICANTHEARYOU is quite apparent. Please read WP:RS and the above comments by multiple editors and on User talk:EvergreenFir. Jim1138 (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have read everyones comments although I am quite sure they have not read mine in their entirety. I have read the rules. oppinions are not to be stated as facts even if they come from a reliable source and significant minority views are to be addressed as well. so bearing that in mind another source with an alternate opinion should be just as valid as the article you have cited. you seem pretty knowledgeable so maybe you can fill me in on why I cant cite a link to an article on a mens rights movement website namely avoiceformen.com it seems it is black listed on Wikipedia. obviously an alternative view from the mens rights movement on the matter is worth noting right? after all the topic is sexism not feminism. both movements are equally involved in the topic. I believe the rules do state that significant view points should be represented even if they are the minority opinion. Soundofyellow (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your problem is only with presenting objectification as primarily affecting women or with presenting objectification and sexism as primarily affecting women, but, regarding the topic of sexism, the terms objectification and sexism are often tied together and are at times used interchangeably. And they focus on girls and women far more than they focus on boys and men. There are plenty of scholarly sources supporting that: Talk:Sexism/Archive 7#Is sexism typically defined as discrimination against women?. Those sources are not all strictly "feminist sources." Then again, it depends on how one defines feminism, which is a broad term. Various WP:Reliable sources, the vast majority of them, state that objectification and sexism primarily affect girls and women. This is where WP:Due weight comes in. It is a fact, based on a variety of studies, that objectification and sexism primarily affect girls and women. As discussions above the aforementioned "Is sexism typically defined as discrimination against women?" section show, I am so tired of male editors removing any mention of this fact from the lead. This recent edit, which I responded to, was clearly (clear to me anyway) made to remove any mention of sexism affecting women more. It's time to put an end to this nonsense. I will soon (in a day or so) be making it explicitly clear in the lead that sexism affects girls and women more, if no one beats me to it first. And judging by comments in this thread, I will have support to do so. Also, SlimVirgin, in case you are ever willing to help out with this article, it can certainly do with your help. Flyer22 (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flyer, thanks for the ping. I'm not sure I'll have the time or mental energy to start editing it, but I can put it on my watchlist. Ha, no mention of women in the lead! Of course not. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, SlimVirgin. Flyer22 (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/14/gender-studies-male-blaming-bias

"Texts highlight misogyny but never misandry, its anti-male equivalent – despite research finding that women verbalize four times more misandry than men do misogyny" Soundofyellow (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

no it makes a claim based on supposed research. yours does not even pretend to be anything beyond speculation. if anything this one should be used and the other disregarded. your double standard is ridiculous. its fact from your pov but only opinion from the opposite pov. preposterous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 20:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Easy way around this would be to cite the reliable sources this unreliable source is based on. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

what makes the article in the existing citation more of a reliable source than one I just presented? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 21:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

One is a very well known and well respected reference work used throughout Wikipedia, published by Stanford University. The other is an opinion piece. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

its published by standford but it is also opinion. the title of the article is "feminist perspectives on objectification". we can reliably assume that these are in fact the feminist perspectives, but how you can infer from that, that the feminist perspective can be stated as an absolute fact. there are significant povs that differ from this one and it should be noted that the phrase "usually woman" is simply speculation from the feminist pov. Stanford did not do any studies concluding that that statement was factual they are simply summarizing a pov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 21:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

correct me if I am wrong but I believe the rules of Wikipedia do in fact state that opinions are not be phrased as facts in wikipedias voice. you can use pov from a reliable source but the pov must be noted as the pov of that particular author or group.

we could rewrite the sentence to atleast make it clear that objectification primarily concerns woman from a feminist pov. not acting like this is a universally recognized truth, when there are clearly other povs on the matter. Soundofyellow (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

also the guardian is a legitimate news site and can be considered a reliable source. never minding the fact that they are basing their claim on some sort of objective evidence (whereas your citation doesnt even pretend to base its speculation on anything at all) but in the case like this we are discussing povs anyway so it shouldn't matter if it is "an opinion piece" the point is represents a significant minority pov and therefore by wiki rules should be given some weight in the matter. what you all have done is taken one pov represented it as fact, and ignored that all other povs exist. if the pov was covered by a mainstream reputable news article it is a legitimate pov that legitimately contests the pov that you are trying to pass off as fact. im not saying woman are not objectified more, they may well be, but your citation doesn't provide any evidence of that it offers it as a pov, which is contested by the pov in my article. you have to atleast make note of the other pov even if one carries more weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This is getting annoying. The article you linked is in the Guardian's opinion section. It cannot be used as a reliable source. Period. You refuse to listen about Wikipedia policies. We use reliable sources, not "the truth" or "unbiased" sources. Please stop littering the talk page with walls. Honestly if this continues, I'm going to file an ANI... this get beyond IDHT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 00:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

just letting you all know I have filed for dispute resolution on this matter. although I didn't list any of you by name on the request, I believe I am supposed to inform you of it since you all were involved in the discussion. hopefully the request will be taken seriously and we can get this article in accordance with NPOV policy. after the dispute is settled one way or another I will be retiring my duties as a Wikipedia editor.

for the sake of the dispute resolution I am going to summarize the issue and possible solutions briefly one last time.

A. "objectification is treating a person, usually a woman, as an object" is a pov statement, presented as a fact, and not appropriately attributed in the text to organization holding the belief. the article in the citation is clearly pov as it is about "objectification in feminist theory" which is still a reliable source and can be used, but to be in accordance with wiki guidelines pov need in text attribution to the party who hold them. so ultimately this is a npov issue as well as a verifiability issue because as the sentence reads it is a 'fact' with nothing objective to support it.

B. possible solutions imo are as follows 1. scrap the "usually a woman" part 2. rephrase the sentence itself so it is attributed to feminist theory rather than phrased as a fact. or 3. rename the section from "objectification" to "objectification in feminist theory" which is what the section is actually about any way. Soundofyellow (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I notice that if I search for 'sexism' in a dictionary, the results usually define sexism as something that is gender-neutral, but specify that it is usually discriminatory against women. For 'objectification' however the definition is gender-neutral with the "'usually discriminatory against women' part missing. So there is cause for concern.

However, it is possible to use 'objectification' in contexts that don't have to do with sexism, such as this example sentence from dictionary.com: "Our consumption without thought to consequence is objectification of nature, a symptom of our humanist superiority complex." Since this is an article on sexism, we have to look only at 'objectification' used in the context of sexism, and in this case 'objectification' pretty much always refers to objectification of women. So I do not see the sentence as NPOV, and support keeping it as it is. On another note, the Guardian article doesn't mention or discuss objectification anywhere. Even leaving aside the fact that it's obviously not as reliable as the Stanford reference, I don't see how it's relevant to the question at hand. Banedon (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"and in this case 'objectification' pretty much always refers to objectification of women"

so you say, and so the sentence seems to imply, but how is this a verifiable fact? either it is a fact, and can then be directly supported with objective data or it is a point of view, that differs with the pov held by others, in which case the phrase needs to be attributed to feminist theory in the text.

I think that the other main issue here is that the use of the phrase "objectification" in this context is really only referring to objectification in feminist theory (as the rest of the section indicates <compare to cited article>) and this should be made clear. so at the very least to clear up confusion the section should be renamed "objectification in feminist theory".

even at that I think stating "usually woman" as though it is a fact is misleading as there is no quantifiable data to back this up. but again the most important point here is that the cited article is on the topic of "feminist theory" therefore is clearly pov so the fact that it is primarily concerned with woman is simply a result of that pov and should not be expressed as an objective fact unless someone finds another source that will make that statement verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

im sorry if im not articulating myself well. bottom line is facts need to be verifiable, and pov needs to be attributed to the source not stated in wikipedias voice. so either we need to clearly attribute the pov in the text or we need to find a source that directly verifies the claim. so we are on the same page here when I read the sentence "objectification is treating a person, usually a woman, as an object" in my mind that means that woman are objectified more than men, not that the term is just generally associated with woman. either way this needs to be cleared up. but if we are going to assert that woman are the victims of objectification more than men are we need something that directly supports that claim. it doesn't matter if its a commonly held belief- without the objective data, it is pov and should be weighed against other povs not presented as fact. even though this pov may carry more weight there are published documents that show alternate povs, the guardian article being one of them (granted sexism and objectification are not synonymous- but even the currently cited article admits that objectification is difficult if even possible to define) and another source I had was from a mens rights website which for whatever reason has been blacklisted from Wikipedia. but obviously any pov from the mens rights movement should carry as much weight as pov from the feminist movement. but at any rate I really don't think another actual source is to contradict the current one is truly necessary. the statement is pov. all we have to do to make the article neutral is simply explain this objectification from the pov of feminist theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian article doesn't deal with objectification at all. It deals with sexism against men and misandry, but not objectification. And if the Men's Right website is blacklisted, then it can't be reliable. If you have a reliable source that states that men are also objectified in the context of sexism, link it. Otherwise, I'm going to agree with EvergreenFir that this is WP:IDHT. Banedon (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The section header doesn't imply that men are not objectified, "usually a woman" implies men are too. Just not nearly as often. I don't see any need to change it. Unless an RS states that men are objectified nearly as much as or more than women. Jim1138 (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200910/the-beefcaking-america — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-05-13/columns/girls-love-gay-male-porn/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 03:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~farmboy/dis.html

there you go those three are all already being used as citations on Wikipedia as well in the sexual objectification article. Soundofyellow (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

also when weighing these povs remember standford never claimed that woman are quantitatively objectified more than men. that article was simply a summary of feminist theory. there is a pretty big difference between theory and fact. if you need more sources for the opposing pov just head over to the sexual objectification page on Wikipedia, theres a couple more citations that are probably relevant as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 04:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What are we talking about here? "Usually a woman" implies that men are sometimes objectified. I don't see anything in those links that suggests otherwise. Gay men make up what 5-10% of the population?

The statement in the section header is supported by RS. I and a number of others agree with this. Unless you have an RS stating that men are objectified nearly as much as or more than women, the statement should remain. I don't see anything in your sources that support this. You also have quite a bias against feminists. Jim1138 (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think the three sources are sufficient to improve the sentence. I don't think the sentence as it is is wrong in any way, but it can be better given these three sources. I'm going to boldly edit it in. Banedon (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

if you read the final article I posted there you will see it indicates male objectification is on the rise. as well as indicating that woman objectify men in different ways. this is a significant alternate view point and should be given some weight in the discussion.

"you also have quite a bias against feminists"

because I want the article to be worded neutrally and recognize the difference between pov and objective facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 05:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Most editors here agree. The line is RS. See WP:TEDIOUS#One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources You still haven't supported your claim that men are significantly objectified so that the statement: "Objectification is treating a person, usually a woman, as an object" should be modified. Please, either support your claim with RS (which you have not done) or stop posting here: WP:REHASH.

Would you please format your talk per wp:talk pages#Indentation? And please sign your posts with four tildes? "~~~~"? Jim1138 (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Soundofyellow: As the thread gets longer, it becomes more and more unreadable because of the formatting. Please remember to indent your replies and try not to skip two blank lines between paragraphs. To indent, just add one or more colons to the beginning of each line (one more than the person before you used). No need to respond to this, though -- I don't mean to go off-topic; I just imagine I'm not the only one whose eyes glaze over when everything is left aligned. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

good god. okay, reason has obviously failed here. I give up. you win. as a parting wish I request that the discussion here be left undeleted for an indefinite period of time (especially considering this is the only topic on the talk page atm), so if the consensus of editors ever starts caring about the wiki guidelines, or starts to wonder why we need to pretend theories are facts they wont have to start the whole conversation from scratch. over and out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofyellow (talk • contribs) 07:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Section break

I would tend to agree that "objectification of men by women" is probably on the increase. Is it really significant enough to be notable? In my observations (OR), I rarely see it. Objectification of men by men or women by women doesn't seem to be covered here either. Would that even be considered "sexism"? Jim1138 (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

How about this article as a starting point. http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/nov/13/naked-men-daytime-tv-objectified Lucentcalendar (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Article in NY Times about gender bias

Check out this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Dangerous working environment

The source provided for this section says nothing about sexism. I think this is a clear cut case of synthesis, --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Response: Neither do most of the sources. On this site there are dozens of sources implying that sexism is the cause of the pay gap. I add one that cleary states that men are more likely to suffer from working exidents even after correcting for frequenzy of occupation and thats sythesis. Like I already state lower on this page, if sexism is only against women, define it so! 129.13.216.111 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:POINTy. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Response: I don't disrupt WP to prove a point. I plainly wanted to add a fact from a reliably source about sexism against men. If this page is not neutral, please call it sexism against women! Then we can have a second one sexism against men. If the term is supposed to be neutral, it has to reflext both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.216.111 (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing in your source mentioning sexism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Response: No it does not, but neither does e.g. source 68 http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/40937574.pdf. It also only states the fact of the wage gap. Look, I see your point, this is not meant to be neutral, but this page serves to promote a political idea. I was surprised, that this site was so biased, but if every fact is deleted if it's on the wrong side, thats no wonder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.216.111 (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

First page: "But some groups still lag behind: Women are 20% less likely to be in work than men, while ethnic minorities face a much longer job search than other people" and "Past reforms have helped level the playing field, but more needs to be done, including the enforcement of existing anti-discrimination laws and the introduction of policies that encourage non-discriminatory hiring" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

More: "For example, while female employment rates have expanded considerably and the gender employment and wage gaps have narrowed virtually everywhere, women still have 20% less chance to have a job than men, on average, and they are paid 17% less than their male counterparts. Evidence presented in this edition of the Employment Outlook suggests that about 8% of the variation in gender employment gaps and 30% of the variation in gender wage gaps across OECD countries can be explained by discriminatory practices in the labour market." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Response:

"Part of the gender difference in relation to accidents at work may be attributed to the fact that there were more men than women employed in the labour force — although after adjusting for this, the rates recorded for men remained consistently higher than those for women in each of the EU Member States in 2011."

"Another reason why the incidence of accidents is considerably higher for men is linked to the economic activities where they more frequently work."

Men are more affected, and it is explained by a gender role. What more proof can you ask for?129.13.216.111 (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

An explicit link to discriminatory practices. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Your sources do not show that either, they also only state a fact. Not any action that is explicitly directed at women. There are studies which also show that occupation choice explains part of the wage gap. Those also do not proof the inexistence of sexism. 129.13.216.111 (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Your sources..." - which ones are you referring to? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The source is explicitly stating there's a link between gender wage gaps and discriminatory practices. You need a source that states there's a link between higher accident rates and discriminatory practices. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Response: The ones given above by NeilN. They also only point out a fact, no ACTIVE practice. I also only pointed out a fact. More men DIE! Their occupations are more dangerous! If thats not sexism, than neither is a wage gap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.216.111 (talk • contribs)

The point is that the fact that more men die (which is what Eurostat says) does not necessarily imply that their occupations are more dangerous (which is the point you're trying to make) which, even if true, does not necessarily mean that more men work dangerous jobs because of sexism (which is required to be in the article). Therefore it counts as synthesis. The difference with the gender wage gap case is that there the sources first show that there is a gender pay gap and then links it to sexism. I think this is fine, since it is not a priori obvious that there is a gender wage gap, so one can link a source that shows that there is one, and then another source that shows that the wage gap exists because of sexism. See e.g. source #77. This second source is missing in your edit. To add the idea that more men die because they work more dangerous jobs because of sexism, there needs to be a source that explicitly makes this claim. Banedon (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The article does state that men tend to work in more dangerous environment. However, it is formulated neutral and does not call it discrimitation or sexism. By not accepting this article you are implying that men choose deliberatly more dangerous working environments without any social pressure. Lucentcalendar (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There are a variety of reasons why men could work in more dangerous environments - physical strength, nepotism, etc. Not accepting this source means it does not mention discrimination - nothing more. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If it were due to physical strength it would be sexism. Nepotism would presume again a deliberate choice, which would be the same as presuming women choose to earn less. Discrimination is an arbitrary lable. I did not commit any synthesis because I put on the site just as a fact. It could have stood there without any interpretation leaving it as an anchorpoint for further research and extention of the article by other users. If you are so interested in the quality of the article, make it right! I had to add another joke containing sexism against men for you to take out the one against women, don't you see that as a strong bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucentcalendar (talk • contribs) 07:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sexism is a form of discrimination. Having a better set of skills to do a job is not discrimination. And how do you explain your misleading edit summary? Not committing synthesis? Uh-huh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't start a discussion on skills, we should assume that women and men are equally skilled. In the article I didn't do any sythesis, I just added the information from the statistic without any interpretation.Lucentcalendar (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality of this page

"Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender."

thats the first line of this article. However, the whole article is only about sexism against women. Not ONE section about sexism against men. I tried to add a small section about sexism in dangerous working environments which was found in a study by the EU. Everytime I add it, it gets deleted again. If this page is only about sexism against women, OK, thats fine but than make sure you define it as such! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.216.111 (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

This reflects the reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Response: I don't understand what "relaible source" means in this case. This is the 4-5 time I did something on wikipedia, but for sure this will be the last time. You want to have a political page, fine, have it, just don't claim any objectivity. I know now why I advise my students not to use wikipedia for their thesis work. There is plenty of work of e.g. Warren Farrell or Roy Baumeister (Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men) which point out plenty of sexism against men. If thats not wanted on this page, then it is a political one promoting a one sided view.129.13.216.111 (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If you click the blue letters "reliable source", it will take you to the page explaining what a reliable source is. Also go read WP:UNDUE EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Response: My source is reliable, it doesn't get any better than eurostat. It just collides with the world view of a member of the wikipedia feminist project.129.13.216.111 (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

{rolling eyes) No, it collides with WP:SYNTH. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Response: It does not! I am stating a fact that is relevant to this article, nothing more and nothing less. EvergreenFir posts a link to "Due and undue weight" implying that sexism against men is a minority oppinion like the earth being flat! That's is outrageous! I am giving up. You want to have a political, one sided article have it. Just be aware that you are using a common good for your personal political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.216.111 (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is not only about women, and it should not only be about women. The Misandry section, for example, which is supposed to be about boys and men, should be expanded per WP:Summary style; so should the Misogyny section. That stated, the article is predominantly about women per WP:Due weight, which is why you did good with this edit, IP; that edit is also supported by the Merriam-Webster source that is beside that sentence. As noted in the #"Objectification is treating a person, usually a woman, as an object" section above, I've been meaning to add a "mostly against women" aspect to the lead. I've gotten sidetracked in doing so, though, mostly because I was not going to add the matter as simply as you added it; I intended, and still intend, for the lead to better reflect the entire article, per WP:Lead. Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Response: This article is 99% about women and in my eyes meant to be political. E.g. why is there a huge section on female genital mutilation and none on male genital mutilation aka circumcision? A practice that is often less harmful but also causing fatalities, which is legal sometimes even explicitly like in Germany (see BGB §1631d). Why is the domestic violance part only about women? I guess people tried changing it and were demotivated just like me. By authors promoting their political opinion 129.13.216.111 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If you can find a source like the WHO saying something like, "FGM is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women." for circumcision then we can discuss that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a collection of facts or opinions? Both girls and boys equally die of a practice directed at their sexuality. I really don't care what the WHO thinks about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.216.111 (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles contain both facts and analysis from expert sources. "Both girls and boys equally die..." - source please? We don't care that you don't care. We care about adding significant (and properly sourced!) viewpoints to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Souce? Check the circumcition site on wikipedia. In the USA 1 in 500.000 infants die, and thats probably one of the best rates. I checked the WHOs opinion. They promote male genital mutilation as a way to reduce HIV, is that sexism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.216.111 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You said equally die - did you not mean the death rates are equal? And why are you asking my opinion? It matters little. Again, find proper sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Response: I meant that in both cases we may end up with a dead child for sexist reasons. Death rates are for sure higher for girls, but due to the far higher prevailance in absolute terms boys may have the lead. More important, this should not be about degree, but about principal, mutilating genitalia is wrong, no matter what gender. I am asking you, because you act as the guardian of this page. In my eyes trying to convice men to minimaly reduce HIV contraction rates by mutilating their genitalia in a risky environment is highly sexist. However, I am not willing to further investigate that and write it up if you will just revert that, because it goes against your political opinion. I find it highly ironic that thanks to people like you the page on sexism is highly sexist. There is research about sexism against men (by women as well as by other men, please don't forget the latter!) as mentioned above. I understand that the public discussion is 99% about sexism against women. But this should be a collection of facts about people being treated differently due to their gender, not a reflexion of media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.2.103 (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's much easier to say, "you're biased!" then actually doing the work of adding properly sourced content to the page. Here is a list of all my edits to the article. Please feel free to point out which ones reflect my political(?) opinion rather than making sure content follows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:GAMING — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.216.111 (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Women and children first

Another shoddy use of sources. The source which the IP tries to use in this article [1] (a book of poetry) is actually sourcing a name in Women and children first. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that scholarly sources discussing the actual practice have this to say: "As a code of conduct, "women and children first" has no basis in maritime law, and according to University of Greenwich disaster evacuation expert Professor Ed Galea, in modern-day evacuations people will usually "help the most vulnerable to leave the scene first. It's not necessarily women, but is likely to be the injured, elderly and young children." Furthermore, the results of a 2012 Uppsala University study suggest that the application of "women and children first" may have, in practice, been the exception rather than the rule." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

References

As a consequence, 74% of the women and 52% of the children on board were saved, but only 20% of the men.[12] Some officers on the Titanic misinterpreted the order from Captain Smith, and tried to prevent men from boarding the lifeboats.[13][14] It was intended that women and children would board first, with any remaining free spaces for men. Because not all women and children were saved on the Titanic, the few men who survived, like White Star official J. Bruce Ismay, were initially branded as cowards.[15][page needed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.216.111 (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You cannot use one example to refute general studies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree with NeilN on this one. Don't get me wrong, I personally find the phrase 'women and children' used in most contexts aggravating. I'm particularly peeved each time a news article says something like so-and-so bomb attack killed 20 people, including women and children, as though the attack would be less distasteful if only men were killed. Yet I have not been able to find any reliable sources linking this to sexism, and as such I have not added it to the article. The edit you made to the criminal sentencing gender gap is fine, though. Banedon (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Cite Roy Baumeister on that: Book "Is there anything good about men: How cultures strive by explointing men."Lucentcalendar (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Update: You might also find good sources by searching it under the term "benevolent-sexism". I just found a German source which argues that we have to interprete that phrase as women being spared because they are weaker. So thats still sexism against women, not against men. It seems that I should abandon this idea, because it would only further disbalance this article.Lucentcalendar (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Controlling women's attire

[2] "In similar circumstances women and men equally have to face legal consequences from wrong dressing or hairstyle." How is this sexism? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It's about completing the picture from this two sources. A whole section is based on two incidents and the source is rather neutral. Maybe the whole section needs to go or needs more substantiation. Lucentcalendar (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The source also does not say anything about anything being equal. WP:SYNTH again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Improvment suggestions

I find this page has some serious issues because it is 99% focused of sexism against women. I have tried to change it, but things are just constantly reverted and some editors are really unconstructive. I don’t have the nerve for this edit wars. I believe that an encyclopedia should always be as unbiased and comprehensive as possible. If someone has it or at least more experience dealing with these editors, this inspiration may be helpful.

History section:

• Take out Peter Stearns comment because the whole idea is too big to be substantiated by only one researcher.
• Section about the practice of killing civilian, battle-aged men and boys as an example of sexism in the ancient world. First leads can be found on the androcide page.

• Move part on workplace sexism from stereotypes section to the workplace section.
• Elaborate further on the “strong man” stereotype which discriminates against men taking care of their children.
• In occupational sexism add section about the fact that predominantly men are working in dangerous environments and therefore more likely to get injured or killed at work. I already posted a link for the fact, get some sexist interpretation on that to make editors happy.
• Section on objectification of men. The discussion on beef cakes is above.
• Section about men attire which is also heavily regulated by society and female dresses on men can lead to provoking violence. Please have a look on the gay rights section for further information on that topic.
• A paragraph or two in the domestic violence section about violence against men. There is already a large article about that topic on Wikipedia.
• Section about circumcision. It is a form of genital mutilation done mostly on young boys without their consent.
• Section on castrates. I think sterilizing men through castration is a severe form of genital mutilation and should be part of this.
• Section on pedophilia suspicion. Men are easily wrongly seen as pedophiles based on their sex. There is an article about airline regulations which ban men sitting next to unaccompanied children on Wikipedia which could serve as a starting point. Many more incidants about men not being allowed to work in kindergardens can be found.

Lucentcalendar (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)