Talk:Sexism

EU's controversial "Science: it's a girl thing" video

I uploaded it to the Wikimedia commons. If someone has a place in the article that they feel this would be appropriate, please feel free to put it there.

Link to video: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Science_-_it%27s_a_girl_thing.ogg

Sample of some of the commentary in the media: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/martha-gill/2012/06/science-its-girl-thing-says-eu-commission-holding-lipstick-and-bunsen-burn http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9349923/Science-girl-thing-video-branded-offensive.html

Cheers! Earthpig (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that was uploaded without permission. I think you are right in including it, but just use those links to articles discussing the video as opposed to the video or campaign itself. Wikipedia documents other events and popular opinions rather than making value judgements itself. Even if a hilariously obvious case such as this.

Here's another link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/22/is-science-its-a-girl-thing-sexist_n_1618343.html

--Carbon Rodney 10:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Article is not neutral

This article makes it sound like sexism harms women far more than men. A balanced and neutral (and accurate) article would point out that enforced gender roles hurt both men and women in different, but equal ways. This is not popularly acknowledged but is logical: evolutionary psychology makes women protected but limits their freedom; it makes men freer but less valued than the possessor of a uterus. This is because in low population circumstances each uterus equals one pregancy at a time, but half as many men can do very nearly as good a job. Hence the need for "protective custody" for women and "risky freedom" for men. When one sincerely tries, as many disadvantages can be found for men as for women, just different ones. Often a single instance of sexism hurts both: sexism by the US military endangers men but limits women. It is therefore essential that this article have as much anti-misandry input from mens rights advocates as it has anti-misogyny input from feminists. Letting feminists alone write an article on sexism is going to result in an article biased toward female victimhood and male vilification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.166.124 (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality applies to the article, not to sources or editors. Primary dictionaries generally define sexism as being mainly anti-female and so this article, to be neutral, has to be about discrimination primarily against females. Content on genderal discrimination against males is entitled to much less weight in this article but may belong in an article on misandry or gender relations. Military examples are often cited to show misandrous sexism but in human life taken as a whole the military is a significant but minor part. The objection to sexism is partly that there's no "need for 'protective custody' for women" and no need to limit "'risky freedom'" only to men.

Claims grounded in evolutionary psychology if they are grounded on genderal differences being definitively genetic are sexist and therefore challengeable if unsourced. It's one thing to say that genetics is probably the cause; it's another to remove culture entirely. Cultural conventions could have been established early in humanity's existence and could have been carried down to today. That's consistent with the book Human Universals, although relied upon by Stephen Pinker. Thus, content based on genetics-only claims need sourcing.

Nick Levinson (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)