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)

Partition

removed masculism and replaced it with feminism/men's rights because the meaning of masculism is controversial and debated. academically masculism doesn't necessarily mean anti-discrimination, that's an opinion rather than an NPOV. look on the masculism page and see the definitions from verified sources. 86.166.180.74 (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

undid a revision to the partition. feminism means equality for all genders. according to all impartial, reliable sources. "feminist movement: the movement aimed at equal rights for women" - http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=feminism logically, you can't have equal rights for women unless men are equal as well. therefore it covers all genders. 86.144.20.54 (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

meaning, false, and unrelated

Since the definition keeps acquiring and losing the word "false", perhaps that editing should be discussed. I don't have a strong view one way or the other. One argument: The definition also includes the word "unrelated", so that the word "false" may be redundant. But is there perhaps a case in which unrelated applies without implying falsity, so that false has to be added to the definition? Nick Levinson (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Placing the term "false" is an opinion about the article. Removing it removes the bias that's given to the article (which this article is flagged for, or at least was). Either way, I see no practical reason why this word needs to remain. Sarstan (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

i think the word "false" should remain as it's a biological claim that's untrue and dogmatic. 86.161.201.68 (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to leave the word "false". "unrelated" explains it well, if a situation was possible where it was unrealted, but not false, it would still be sexism. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I was the person who originally added the word "false". I did this because I was trying to find out if there's a general consensus that the belief mentioned in the opening sentence is inherently false. It seems as if there isn't a general consensus on this and that the opening sentence is confusing to readers. I base this on these observations:

- Based on what I've read on this talk page, I'm assuming that Nick Levinson thinks that the belief is inherently false but isn't sure.

- Based on what I've read on this talk page, I'm assuming that Sarstan thinks that the belief is not inherently false.

- Based on what I've read on this talk page, I'm assuming that 86.161.201.68 thinks that the belief is inherently false.

- Based on what I've read on this talk page, I'm assuming that WotherspoonSmith thinks that the belief is not inherently false.

Since 2 people think that the belief is inherently false and 2 people don't, I think that it's important to reach a general consensus on this. And for anyone else reading this, this is the question that needs to be answered:

In the opening sentence, sexism is defined as the application of the belief that there are characteristics implicit to one's gender that indirectly affect one's abilities in unrelated areas. Since the sentence is clearly labelling the abilities that are affected by gender-specific characteristics as belonging to "unrelated" areas, is the sentence already claiming that this belief is false? By the way, I don't have an opinion about this one way or the other. I just want Wikipedia's definition of sexism to be accurate and right now, the opening sentence is very confusing about exactly what it's trying to say. 174.1.105.28 (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm the original poster. The belief is false, but as the article's definition also included the word unrelated, the word false in context was arguably redundant and therefore I had no strong opinion on whether to include false or not. I'm now in favor of clarifying the definition rather than debating only whether to include or exclude the one word. At the time I thought concision might suffice but now I don't think so. Sometimes a very short passage is both sufficient and understood as sufficient, but maybe not in this case, and we should expand a bit for clarity. A consensus on a longer clear definition would probably be helpful, unless someone wants to try boldness and we'll work from there.

The concern that false is a judgment on the article (not just on sexism) should be redressed by making clear that it is sexism that embraces falsity. That way, the article is not considered false.

If we're looking for someone in the world to become pregnant and give birth, to say that a female is required is not sexist, but if we're looking for someone in the world to add up numbers, to say that a male is required is sexist. But we shouldn't write a definition just by listing examples.

(I indented all posts except the original, to ease everyone else's reading of this topic/section.)

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're sure that the belief is false, then you're right that the word false does not need to be added (since the word unrelated is already used). However, adding the word false will decrease the chance of people thinking that the belief could be true (Sarstan and WotherspoonSmith are 2 examples of people who thought it could be true). So, I recommend to you that you add the word false before the word belief but it's up to you (I'm not going to try adding it again because edits from anonymous users are more likely to be mistaken as vandalism).

Anyways, I have a question for you, Nick Levinson. Do you know where Wikipedia's definition of sexism in the opening sentence comes from, anyway? All the definitions of sexism that I've read in other sources just define sexism as discrimination based on a person's sex and don't mention anything about a specific belief.

174.1.105.28 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The source of the lede's definition appears to be a combination of four dictionaries and an encyclopedia entry for sexism, based on the five references appearing shortly after the definition. I did not check them.

I clarified falsity by adding substantially about it, rather than just a single word. However, The New Shorter Oxford Ebglish Dictionary ... ([4th] ed. 1993), The American Heritage Dictionary ... (3d ed. 1992), and Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (2d ed. 2001) omit falsity, although all put sexism into the context of discrimination. While one meaning of discrimination is 'fine distinction', as in telling differences between subtle color shades or cheese flavors, in sociology or U.S. law discrimination generally is 'invidious discrimination' or 'wrongful discrimination'. For that reason, when I clarified falsity, I allowed for the small and hypothetical possibility of nonfalsity by adding "generally", despite my being unable to think of a single case where we correctly justify something because of sex but call it sexist. However, I didn't want to add something challengeable without a source. Feminist scholarship likely has such a source somewhere, if someone has the time to search for it. I'd prefer that, if it's found.

By the way, the lede still need substantial editing, because the lede should summarize the article, not simply be the definition. I didn't do that now.

Nick Levinson (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Feminism needs to be addressed as a hate group

All feminist of all different groups blame and hate the entire male population for women's oppression and say that they are all potential rapist and should be castrated, falsely accused of rape and raped by a fellow inmate. This is because the entire movement had been a hate group from the moment the first wave began and is now bigger and more corrupt. They encourage boys to not hit girls and in return they encourage girls to hit boys. They all believe all males are useless as fathers, husbands and sons and established them all to be expendable. No one is allowed to question false rape allegations for being "Political Incorrect" and the divorce rate is climbing since 1968 without stopping for breath and its always the man's fault even if he didn't do anything wrong. The TV networks such as Lifetime and Chat encourage women do do all of the above and they also pray on the fears of their own gender including saying that the V.A.W.A is useless and they wont help. Whenever their is something they find sexist towards their gender they only support their gender and blame the entire male gender for it and neglect the other even though men suffer similar situations a women. The main reason why girls needing role models is a bad thing is because misandric subjugation is the only one they accept and to add insult to injury if a woman beats up a man (often without cause) not only will she get away with it but also the man will be imprisoned. Any man or woman for that matter questions the actions of feminism or that men should be treated the same as women will be labelled a misogynist.

Anyone who agrees with me even in the slightest that feminism has done more harm then good throughout its history then I would like an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.247.133 (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

My unsolicited advice is twofold: A Talk page is not a forum; it's for discussing improving the article. Most or all of your statements, if they are to appear in the article, are likely to be challenged, edited, or deleted unless sources are provided. Doing the research is up to you, and comes before editing. Wikipedia has standards on which sources are reliable, verifiable, secondary, and so on. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I meant to include feminism in the article for only having love for their own gender while subjugating, stereotyping and neglecting the other as part of the history of sexism. The sources I found are almost entirely Google searches of Feminism both for it and against it but either way the sites always portray them all in a negative light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.247.133 (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)