From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This sentence needs to be reworded...[edit]

The sentence, "Sexism can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women and girls," should be reworded. I think it should be changed back to how it was was about a month ago: "Sexism can affect anyone, but it is particularly documented as affecting women and girls." There are possibly better ways we can reword this sentence besides the one I suggested. Hopefully a consensus can be reached. There has been a lot of edit warring over this and it needs to stop. Bowling is life (talk) 04:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Huh, I did not notice it had been changed back, when did that happen? There was a lengthy debate about this a while back and iirc "particularly documented" won out. Personally, I accepted that but was never happy with it, as it seems to soft-pedal what most rs actually say (which is hard to distill from 100s of sources, obviously, but as far as I can see it basically boils down to the idea that that sexism can affect men, but predominantly affects women). It's not like many rs support the idea that there's somehow a whole mass of "undocumented" sexism against men out there: it is "primarily documented" against women because it "primarily effects" them. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
As seen with this edit, Kaldari changed it. I responded by stating that "particularly documented" was not a WP:ALLEGED violation, but I agreed with Kaldari about being straightforward on the sexism matter per the sources. The sentence keeps being messed with whether "particularly documented" is there or not...because some men cannot accept the fact that sexism is overwhelmingly directed at girls and women, and that this has always been the case (not just historically). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Are we seriously arguing about this? The sentence cites 12 sources, many of which are textbooks or other encyclopedias. The sources all state the fact plainly that sexism primarily affects women and girls. Per the NPOV policy, "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." Nothing in this article seriously contests the fact that sexism primarily affects women. Frankly, I'm amazed that we have to debate this. Kaldari (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Thus, should it not say "historically affecting women" or similar? Some of those sources either completely disregard discrimination against males, or are extremely similar in wording. Dddthedarktalk 12:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
No, because it's not just a historical matter. Obviously. If you want to claim that sexism is now mostly or equally directed toward boys and men, then provide reliable sources stating that. Even if you did, though, it would still stand that the vast majority of reliable sources state otherwise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

There are many sources that highlight sexism against both sexes. There is sexism against Both, from sentences like "man up" or "a woman's place is in the kitchen". Ask anyone who is alive and they will have moments they can speak about where they have been treated based off what they are. Don't need sources for this to be true. The point is sexism exisists and we are all equally at risk from it. This needs wording so it expresses this. Make new pages for both sexes if anyone wants to discuss examples of sexism against both sides but this shouldn't be done on this page. The idea it primarily affects women is in itself, a sexist statement. Crippsy1988 (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

If there are "many sources" making such claims, then you can bring some of them the next time you edit here. Until then; No. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Ironically sexist sexism article[edit]

Article is mostly about sexism towards women when it should be equal to men and woman — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT. Kaldari (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I know, I'm so sick of women catcalling me and then getting violent when I don't respond. And that glass ceiling that's keeping me from advancing at my job... Men never get promoted past middle management. And the huge lack of men in STEM fields just breaks my heart.
Uhh, does anyone have a towel? I think I spilled sarcasm all over the floor... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I am tempted to delete this comment. I get it that this is an attempt at humor. Nevertheless, if it turns out that there is indeed sexism affecting men with severe consequences, as many people claim, this comment will appear to ridicule the victims. RobertVazan (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
And per WP:Talk, it would be wise to reconsider deleting someone else's comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
On the other hand, WP:WEIGHT in this article would be a good candidate for WP:IAR since the preponderance of sources is due to feminist activism and associated funding/prestige rather than pure scientific interest. RobertVazan (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Lol. -sche (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Care to explain what do you find funny? RobertVazan (talk) 07:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I read this article a while ago and I also felt like it is biased. Perhaps some examples and suggestions for additions could help move things along? Let's start with the elephant in the room: child custody. Then perhaps go over father's rights and men's rights and include whatever is relevant here. The article also appears to celebrate the fact that boys increasingly lag behind girls in education. Last time I read the article, I saw several such gems peppered all over the article. I know that many of these issues are disputed. If that's the case, just include sources whatever they say. The point is that readers of this article likely heard about the issues and they come here to learn more only to find an article that is suspiciously silent about certain topics. I am not an expert in the field and I don't have editing permission anyway, so I wouldn't try to add anything. Perhaps someone could include stub content covering these issues, so that others can extend it over time. RobertVazan (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)'

Perhaps some of the sources of this talk would be of use? Luredreier (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Is the page really never going to be reworded?[edit]

I read through the page today and noticed there are many specific sentences which, for one, suggest sexism is only affecting men, and for two, are sexist in themselves against men. It really needs to be changed but I am aware most things will quickly changed back by others. Can we please solve this? Wikipedia is meant to be a place consisting of no opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiefortress (talkcontribs) 19:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"[S]exism is only affecting men"? Where? But regardless, you need to provide sources, if editing the WP:LEAD, you need to show it's not accurately reflecting the body of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia reflects what scholarship has to say about a subject. Editors' opinions should not be present in the article, but that doesn't mean that the consensus view of scholars shouldn't be represented. If there are reliable sources that you would like to introduce to support a change, we can certainly discuss it. GirthSummit (blether) 19:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I went through the archives recently (after posting a comment here, naively thinking the article is just unfinished) and there seems to be a shift from initial WP:RELIABLE argument towards WP:WEIGHT, because reliable sources indeed can be found, for example, 9:1 ratio in child custody and 3:2 in university students from official statistics in many countries. You could explain these statistics away, but such interpretation needs to be documented to disqualify the default assumption of sexism. It's not enough to discuss the topic on the talk page. People who read the article bring in that default assumption of sexism and they need to see counter-evidence if there is any. RobertVazan (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
PS, discussion of discrimination of men doesn't need to be that long if you can cover it by linking to other articles on Wikipedia. That should also satisfy people with WP:WEIGHT objections. The links in See also don't do it enough justice though. RobertVazan (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Cookiefortress, why is it so difficult for you and a few others to understand WP:Due weight? There is no proof whatsoever that sexism affects men and women equally. The literature is clear that sexism primarily affects girls and women. It's also WP:Common sense. No, we do not falsely balance articles. Wikipedia includes opinions of WP:Reliable sources with WP:Due weight. What sentences in the article suggest that sexism only affects men? The article is pretty clear in its focus on girls and women, which is why you made two different edits that were reverted, as seen here and here. No one has an issue with covering boys and men in the article. Editors do have an issue with trying to give false balance to boys and men in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
The real issue here is that this is an opinion, which by all means shouldn't be on Wikipedia. The whole point of this site is to present facts. If the most reliable site on the world said "Pigs can fly and the sky is green," this would not be true, would it? No. So how is this any different? Most of the sources for the sentence "Sexism can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women and girls." are from dictionaries and encyclopedias. To say that sexism typically is affecting women is an opinion, no matter who or what source says it. If I said that racism primarily affects white people, this would be an opinion, as another maybe believe it affects people of color more. How do you not understand this concept? And yes, this article is VERY clear on its focus on girls and women, and that in itself is sexist, considering it is in an article meaning to be for both sexes. I cannot find many things in this article which are actually leaning towards sexism being aimed at men, as it makes no attempt to do anything to show that men are affected by it too. Girth Summit and EvergreenFir made what is essentially the exact same point. So, to sum things up, you are all telling me despite something being an opinion, it belongs here on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiefortress (talkcontribs)
Common sense (at least where I live) is that women are favored for child custody. People just differ in whether they think it's right or wrong. The argument here is more about WP:RELIABLE and WP:WEIGHT. RobertVazan (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Cookiefortress If the most reliable source in the world said that the sky is green and pigs can fly, it wouldn't be the most reliable source in the world any more - it would very quickly cop a load of very serious criticism, lose all credibility, and we would not use it. Nevertheless, you are right in a sense - it is our job to reflect what reliable sources say, regardless of whether or not we agree with them, and even if we think they are flat-out wrong. If there is serious disagreement between reliable sources, then we may need to discuss both sides of the argument in our article. You seem convinced that this extensively-sourced assertion is wrong, but you have not brought any reliable sources to support any change to it. I don't follow your reasoning in saying that this is just an opinion, but until you bring some serious scholarly sources that cast doubt on the assertion, there isn't much more to discuss. By the way, I'm not sure whether or not you've read WP:NPOV, but it's pretty useful in areas like this, so I'd recommend it if you haven't. GirthSummit (blether) 15:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Cookiefortress, you can see a number of reliable sources at Talk:Sexism/Archive 7#Is sexism typically defined as discrimination against women?. Whether it's dictionaries, encyclopedias, other books, or reviews, the literature is clear. It's not opinion. It's fact. It's funny that you argued, "If I said that racism primarily affects white people, this would be an opinion, as another maybe believe it affects people of color more." Not only would that be an opinion, it would be point-blank false, as even common sense should tell anyone. Stating that racism primarily affects white people is similar to stating that sexism primarily affects men. We know racism does not primarily affect white people, and we have an abundance of reliable sources being clear on that. We know that sexism doesn't primarily affect men, or even equally affect men, and we have an abundance of reliable sources being clear on that. You can disagree with the literature as much as you want to, but your disagreement does not turn the facts into opinions.
RobertVazan, what reliable sources state that the child custody aspects are sexism? Men's rights sources? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia is routinely sourced by product websites or even left unsourced until there is a better source that provides counter-evidence. I guess official government statistics pass as a reliable source.
Okay, so you are now asking for some source that interprets these statistics as sexism. I say such source is unnecessary, because sexism is the default assumption when there is a big difference in outcomes depending on gender, which makes the interpretation trivial. Such default assumption of sexism is common practice. The raw wage difference, for example, is taken as a proof of sexism until it is explained by something else (e.g. overtime, travel) and even then the remaining unexplained difference is still a proof of sexism.
If you really want to avoid original research, you can quote some prominent men's rights activist as interpreting the statistics as sexism. Similarly, you only need one quote to substantiate the claim that the interpretation is contested. If you do this, you have a stub section that can be later expanded with evidence on both sides. The article wouldn't be silent about the issue anymore and that's an improvement from my point of view.
Also, there are many mechanisms by which sexism works and I didn't want to imply a particular mechanism. It could be all in the traditional view of family roles rather than in biased courts. That would still count as sexism though.
Sorry for the long comment. Shorter one would just beg for misinterpretation. RobertVazan (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
"The raw wage difference, for example, is taken as" evidence of or relevant to sexism by reliable secondary sources, which are what we can cite, in a way proportional to their prominence among all the reliable sources of information on the topic. You personally taking statistics as evidence of sexism is original research. As for citing some other MRA: "Articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" (WP:DUE). -sche (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I hope that "some other MRA" wasn't meant to imply that I am an activist. No need to get personal or question motivation of editors. This article describes everyday experience. It naturally attracts comments from random editors who see a disconnect between the article and everyday reality. FAQ would help avoid repeated discussions.
I am myself mostly interested in how could a Wikipedia article arrive at this state after years of editing. My conclusions so far:
- Covering discrimination of men requires sources. Fair enough.
- Official statistics for differences in outcomes are rejected. Their interpretation as sexism requires sources. Fair enough. Everything below deals with sourcing of this interpretation.
- Common sense knowledge is not accepted as a trivial source. Why?
- Default assumption of sexism is rejected despite being common practice. Someone in position of authority must make that logical step.
- Men's rights representatives are rejected as such an authority. Why? It's a political statement. Who else to quote?
- Activists (men's rights) are deemed a tiny minority. But are they? And what sources are they being weighted against?
- The WP:WEIGHT argument is often made on the highest possible level, specifically that sexism affects mostly women. But sources for every individual statement should be weighted separately.
- The only option seems to be to find formal research. It probably exists, but it is out of reach for non-experts.
- If such research is found, there's a WP:WEIGHT argument against it. WP:WEIGHT is designed to fight off creationists and the like. It doesn't work when there is a large overlap between scientists and activists (feminists in this case).
I think Wikipedia policies aren't wrong. They are just used wrong here. An invisible wall surrounds the article. An independent expert specializing on discrimination of men is needed to drill a hole through that wall. That's way above my paygrade. RobertVazan (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The 'invisible wall' you're referring to would normally be described as 'the academic consensus', which is that sexism primarily (but not exclusively) affects women and girls. Since that is the academic consensus, according to numerous sources cited to support the assertion in the article, we present that front and centre in our lead. You cannot overturn that consensus by finding the odd voice here or there who disagrees with it - scholars working in the field must overturn it in peer-reviewed published work. Once that has been done, we will change our article - but not before. GirthSummit (blether) 18:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
See the point about WP:WEIGHT being used on the highest possible level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertVazan (talkcontribs) 19:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
No one is using any weight arguments against you, because you've brought no sources to discuss. GirthSummit (blether) 08:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I did: the raw data from government statistics and its (trivial) interpretation from MRAs. And in case of child custody, also by common sense. Please, don't make it personal. RobertVazan (talk) 08:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually, you didn't: you alluded to the existence of such statistics, and the possible interpretations, but I can't see any specific publications or URLs in your posts above. I don't understand how you think I am personalising this. GirthSummit (blether) 09:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
By "personal", I meant the "using any weight arguments against you" rather than against the proposed changes. On second thought, it might be just a concise, conversational style of writing.
I can find specific URLs if the general idea of including statistics plus MRA quotes / common sense is acceptable. I thought people here reject the whole idea and I therefore didn't bother with references. RobertVazan (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for acknowledging that I am not trying to personalise this, it is appreciated.
If you propose a specific change, and bring relevant reliable sources, I am sure that people will engage with you seriously. We wouldn't include synthesis, original research, or even common sense, of course. You will need to be clear about what you want to include, and what you want to support it with, in order to have a conversation about what weight we should give it. GirthSummit (blether) 09:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)