Talk:Sexism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 98: Line 98:


:::I don't actually know enough about the subject matter and have not reviewed the pertinent material, so I'll let other editors respond to your argument. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 00:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
:::I don't actually know enough about the subject matter and have not reviewed the pertinent material, so I'll let other editors respond to your argument. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 00:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
::::As [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexism&diff=922568363&oldid=922524284 inappropriate as this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexism&diff=922569070&oldid=922568363 this edit] were, I'll respond. Your statement in the latter diff that, "{{tq|No academics who are members of, or otherwise aligned with Men's Rights Advocates, activists or organisations can be considered reliable as they have a vested interest in the rights and well being of men.}}" suggests you significantly misunderstand [[WP:RS]], [[WP:POV]], and [[WP:DUE]]. Regardless of what ''we'' as editors think of MRA folks, we cannot dismiss them outright as "unreliable". We can call them [[WP:FRINGE]] though. Having a "vested interest in the rights and well being of men" does not make a person an MRA or anti-feminist or non-reliable as a source.
::::Regarding #1, Will Storr is a respected journalist with ''[[The Guardian]]''. His writing would appear to satisfy [[WP:RS]]. What this portion does violate, however, is [[WP:NOR]]. The article cited does not mention sexism. That material better belongs in [[Rape by gender]] and [[Violence against men]].
::::Regarding #2, I am not sure what the three words "blame and punishment" are about. But for the second part, as with #1, none of the sources call this "sexism". However, they do call it "gender bias", which, based on the rather reductive definition of "sexism" being used in this article, would qualify it for inclusion in my article.
::::Regarding #3, the opinion that this qualifies as sexism is attributed to the sources' authors and is not said in Wikivoice. As these authors are academics and not [[WP:FRINGE]], it seems appropriate to include them here.
::::In all of these cases, I find myself agreeing with [https://www.jstor.org/stable/23559076?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents Digby], [https://www.amazon.com/Gender-Knot-Unraveling-Patriarchal-Legacy/dp/1439911843 Johnson], [https://www.amazon.com/Dude-Youre-Fag-Masculinity-Sexuality/dp/0520271483 Pascoe], and others that the gender-related violence men experience is primarily at the hands of other men and not the same as the gender-based violence men subject women to. Rather, it is a splashback and/or an enforcement of hierarchical masculinities and hegemonic masculinity. I would not personally call it sexism ''per se'', but rather the product of violent patriarchy.
::::That said, my POV on this cannot override what other reliable sources say. And some of them argue that men do experience sexism. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 17:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:21, 23 October 2019

Template:Vital article

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexpiersonn (article contribs).

Informative, and yet biased

The article feels very "cherry-picked" and has a biased tone. This begins in the very 2nd sentence. I find this a little surprising.

To clarify, I can see this article was clearly written by minds of a very specific persuasion. I am not surprised that this article exists online. However, I AM surprised it exists HERE with this title, on Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a non-biased form of information for anyone who seeks it. If I were to take this article seriously, I'd modify it by adding additional information to shine light on what "sexism" really is, and how damaging it is for everyone. This can easily be accomplished WITHOUT removing the focus on women and girls.

Most of the article covers a good amount of topics fairly well, from a female perspective. However, as it is now, the article mentions just a few male sexism topics in the span of a few sentences: military drafting, male war rape, and gender bias in courtroom sentencing. That's it! That's such a half-hearted attempt, and such a tiny slice of the picture. This gives the article a biased feel, because many male sexism issues are well-documented and not up for debate regarding their serious nature. They are easy to support with factual sources - and yet, they are not mentioned. I see nothing about legal rape definition, male rape victim/domestic violence resources and double standards, men's lack of reproductive rights, fathers' rights issues (custody, divorce) in the courtroom, resources for single parents, male genital mutilation, employer paid-time-off policies, and MANY other things could easily be mentioned as serious forms of sexism. In fact, I am rather blown away that many of these blatantly sexist issues are not even mentioned in a single sentence. Legal rape definition and treatment of male rape victims doesn't make the cut, yet "Sexist Jokes" has its own heading and paragraph?!

I am aware that many of these topics have their own Wiki pages. But this is information contained in a general page about what "sexism" is, so that is irrelevant. If the intent here is to educate about sexism as a general problem that affects everyone, then this article does not work as well as it could. You should consider making additions. There are plenty of sexist issues that uniquely affect men.

My intent with this edit suggestion is not to undermine the importance of highlighting sexism against women and girls. It doesn't need to be "us vs. them" thing. But I am highlighting the fact that there is a lot missing here when it comes to that "other" gender. With the current title, this should be a general, informative article, which is what Wikipedia is SUPPOSED to be all about. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZCasavant (talkcontribs) 02:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I know that women have more problems that men, so we don't need false balance, but here it's almost no male problems. We don't need as much space as for women to these issues, but more space that what's written here. It won't be false balance, because women problems will still be more important here. 37.167.38.112 (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bias arguments

I'm seeing a lot of arguments in this talk page about bias, and who sexism primarily applies to.

First, the idea that that sexism can affect men, but predominantly affects women. Is sexist itself, and by existing here, is direct, documented evidence for sexism against men. This is a very common example, by the way.

This page needs some significant adjustment to meet community standards on bias. And I would support and encurage an immediate edit to remove any bias, at least in the primary definition.

Sexism has a specific meaning independent of sex, and it needs to be non-bias to be credible. Sections on how that bias appears in places like this could be written. You can also add sections on how sexism manifests for each sex. But the description of what sexism is *must not be bias*.

It is disturbing to see a societal trend to define sexism using sexist language. Think about what that really means. brill (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal views do not override reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bias sources and, dictionaries as sources

I have observed that *most* of the sources cited were published by people with a clear existing bias, or conflict of interest.

I also notice that the sources cited are often identical dictionary definitions, and the dictionary definitions themselves are sexist. I am not sure when they changed to the wording they currently have, but I don't believe it was always so. The problem is that dictionaries themselves use other dictionaries as sources.

We know from experience, having seen it happen several times in the last 20 years, that a single original source opinion, true or not, can get picked up and republished many times, until it becomes a systemic fact.

So two questions: - Is there an easy way to check the chain of sources, to where a source originated? - How should we address the credibility of the opinions published, where clear conflict, or bias, is evident?

After all, in other areas, we work hard not too allow people with clear bias, to define the meaning of something. So why are we doing it here? brill (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary sources are not the only sources in the article that are clear that sexism is something that primarily affects girls and women. The literature as a whole is overwhelmingly clear about this. And I don't know what you mean about biased sources, but see what WP:BIASEDSOURCES state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of misinformation

EL C I request for the following misinformation to be removed from the respective categories.

War rape (1 item)

Sexual violence and rape are also committed against men during war and are often under-reported. Sexism plays a significant part in the difficulty that the survivors face coping with their victimization, especially in patriarchal cultures, and in the lack of support provided to men who have been raped.[250]

Education (2 items)

, blame and punishment

Writer Gerry Garibaldi has argued that the educational system has become "feminized", allowing girls more of a chance at success with a more "girl-friendly" environment in the classroom;[300] this is seen to hinder boys by punishing "masculine" behavior and diagnosing boys with behavioral disorders.[301] A recent study by the OECD in over 60 countries found that teachers give boys lower grades for the same work. The researchers attribute this to stereotypical ideas about boys and recommend teachers to be aware of this gender bias.[302]

Conscription (1 item)

In his book The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys (2012), philosopher David Benatar states that "[t]he prevailing assumption is that where conscription is necessary, it is only men who should be conscripted and, similarly, that only males should be forced into combat". This, he believes, "is a sexist assumption".[316]:102 Anthropologist Ayse Gül Altinay has commented that "given equal suffrage rights, there is no other citizenship practice that differentiates as radically between men and women as compulsory male conscription".[322]:34 78.144.186.199 (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are the grounds for the proposed removal of these multiple passages of sourced content besides the aforementioned, unexplained "misinformation"? El_C 23:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are not examples of sexism. EvergreenFir may have some links to numerous studies that assert as much, I wouldn't know where to begin searching, but I know that part of critical gender theory is the study of sexism. 78.144.186.199 (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually know enough about the subject matter and have not reviewed the pertinent material, so I'll let other editors respond to your argument. El_C 00:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As inappropriate as this and this edit were, I'll respond. Your statement in the latter diff that, "No academics who are members of, or otherwise aligned with Men's Rights Advocates, activists or organisations can be considered reliable as they have a vested interest in the rights and well being of men." suggests you significantly misunderstand WP:RS, WP:POV, and WP:DUE. Regardless of what we as editors think of MRA folks, we cannot dismiss them outright as "unreliable". We can call them WP:FRINGE though. Having a "vested interest in the rights and well being of men" does not make a person an MRA or anti-feminist or non-reliable as a source.
Regarding #1, Will Storr is a respected journalist with The Guardian. His writing would appear to satisfy WP:RS. What this portion does violate, however, is WP:NOR. The article cited does not mention sexism. That material better belongs in Rape by gender and Violence against men.
Regarding #2, I am not sure what the three words "blame and punishment" are about. But for the second part, as with #1, none of the sources call this "sexism". However, they do call it "gender bias", which, based on the rather reductive definition of "sexism" being used in this article, would qualify it for inclusion in my article.
Regarding #3, the opinion that this qualifies as sexism is attributed to the sources' authors and is not said in Wikivoice. As these authors are academics and not WP:FRINGE, it seems appropriate to include them here.
In all of these cases, I find myself agreeing with Digby, Johnson, Pascoe, and others that the gender-related violence men experience is primarily at the hands of other men and not the same as the gender-based violence men subject women to. Rather, it is a splashback and/or an enforcement of hierarchical masculinities and hegemonic masculinity. I would not personally call it sexism per se, but rather the product of violent patriarchy.
That said, my POV on this cannot override what other reliable sources say. And some of them argue that men do experience sexism. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]