Talk:Sexism/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The definition in the lead does not reflect how scholars theorize sexism. It is not just individual discrimination or prejudice. I propose we update this page to properly reflect widely accepted uses of sexism by scholars, not what Merrian Websters says. MW is not a valid source of scholarly definitions. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You mean change it to the jargonistic definition used within some academic circles. Jargon is a useful short hand for use within a subculture but does not reflect a world view. Merrian Websters reflects common usage and the common understanding of the word. A section discussing the jargonistic definition is in order but not appropriate for the definition used in the lead. CSDarrow (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Last I checked, we turn to experts for definitions of concepts, not the dictionary. Let me know if they use the dictionary definition for homophobia, self-esteem, or tsunami. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to regurgitate definitions.

Yes Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a venue for giving preeminence to particular subcultural definitions of words and concepts. Both OED and Websters are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia and are unrivaled experts on the meanings of our words. CSDarrow (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say that changes to the lead would be premature if we are planning substantial changes to the body. I think this discussion should be held off untill we think we have a better article. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Subcultural definitions". Fun words, but nonsensical. The definition should reflect how the term is used in sociology and psychology (i.e., the fields that study it). EvergreenFir (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"Subcultural definitions" are not "Fun words, but nonsensical", the phrase entirely makes sense and refers to to Jargon. Wikipedia is not a niche encyclopedia for certain subject areas. A section referring to their definition is certainly in order, but our words and concepts are not defined for us entirely by sociologists and psychologists.

Wikipedia reflects a World view and is not in the business of creating one. The changing of a word's definition, or even its removal from our language, is the pastime of social engineers and hegemons. Wikipedia is neither, though sometimes I wonder.

CSDarrow (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The article on

WP:SCICON. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Entries are guided by the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, and not by the content of other pages. The word Sexism is more than just a technical term requiring professional expertise to comment on. As a concept and as a word it is an important part of our common language. This, together with its common meaning, must be reflected in the entry. To do otherwise is tantamount to changing the meanings of our words; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a tool of change. CSDarrow (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read the first pillar. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read the

Coat Tracking. CSDarrow (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Since no definition has been proposed, this argument is really more of a waste of time. I'm sure both of you will agree that Wikipedia is a collection of what reliable sources say about a subject matter. As such Merriam Webster is a reliable source, however it is not the only reliable source. And if we expand the lead, and the definition based on other reliable sources that is just an improvement to the encyclopedia. We're not here to choose what definition is the right one, we're here to record what definitions are used in reliable sources, and give them equal weight dependent on the prevalence in such sources. That is

WP:NPOV. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I can see you point, but I have a good idea where this is going. Sexism will be defined narrowly as per that in some academic circles, so allowing others to tote their particular World view. Sexism is not a technical term from a particular academic discipline, it is part of our common language. I don't care if the definition comes from a dictionary or not, just that it reflects the generally understood meaning of the word. Sections on more specific definitions are entirely in order. CSDarrow (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet the definitions I refer to are more board than the narrow definition of the dictionary. Again,

WP:SOFIXIT soon. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

If you are to edit the lead you should bring your suggestion to Talk first. CSDarrow (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That's what this is... EvergreenFir (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to contribute but it looks like I have been Shut Down, Here and Here. Best of luck. CSDarrow (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I avoid this article because of the consistent

WP:Cherry picking; it's like that because most definitions/research with regard to the term concerns the female sex, which Kevin Gorman, who stated similarly at the Sexualization article, would tell you. But I see that you are familiar with Kevin Gorman. I know that you are also quite familiar with Bbb23, Binksternet and Sonicyouth86

...all editors who object to the particular way that you interpret WP:Neutral.

WP:Neutral is quite clear that Wikipedia is not concerned with the "unequal" matters in the world and cannot do much about them without creating false balance. The

talk) 02:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

All I can say is that it's a bit of a shame that you decided to resort to passive-aggressive smear-campaigning here instead of simply talking this through. This isn't about "Righting Great Wrongs". This is about the definition of the word "sexism". Sex-ism, not an-ti-wo-man-ism, or whatever new word you may wish to create. --Apples grow on pines (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

talk) 03:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22: If you find the mainstream journals of which you speak (n.b. not to be confused with online dictionaries) that specify the definition of "sexism" as "sexism aimed at women", please be sure to forward them my way. Until that happens, I firmly believe that the lead should remain NPOV. There are enough mentions of what the factual situation in the world is already - we don't need it as part of the definition. Apples grow on pines (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

So now you are going to act like only dictionaries apply the term sexism especially to women and that scholarly sources don't? If you truly believe that and it's not just you being disingenuous, then you clearly are not familiar with the preponderance of sources on the topic of sexism. It most certainly is not only feminist literature that makes it quite clear that the term sexism is especially applied to girls and women, and I most certainly did not refer to that matter as only a dictionary matter; I also stated "the vast majority of scholarly sources." Again, this article shows exactly what I am talking about -- the lead that is not WP:Lead-compliant in this regard and what this topic mostly focuses on (by far). You are also mistaken if you think that all we need are mainstream journals to document that matter. No, mainstream books and other scholarly works suffice just fine, like this article shows. Your definition of WP:Neutral is in stark contrast to Wikipedia's definition of it, and is also a WP:Lead violation, as I've already made quite clear above. Many at the WP:Neutral talk page would also make that quite clear.

talk) 21:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

"You are also mistaken if you think that all we need are mainstream journals to document that matter." - the "mainstream journals" comment came from you, not me. I'm holding you up to your own words and... that's somehow a mistake. It's difficult to take you seriously when you can't remain consistent with your own train of thought. Apples grow on pines (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The "mainstream journals" comment comes from the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS essay that I cited in addition to stating that "the prevalent definition of sexism in almost all dictionaries and the vast majority of scholarly sources ... focuses far more on girls/women than on boys/men"; so I have been consistent. Holding me to something that is plainly evident, even by the abundance of WP:Reliable sources in the Wikipedia Sexism article, is a flawed approach, as flawed as your assertion that my argument on this matter has not been consistent.

talk) 20:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, so we're supposed to follow an essay that explicitly tells us to use mainstream journals, except we should ignore the bit where mainstream journals need to be used, and that's somehow consistent. As I said, if you ever find these, please forward them my way. I'd be genuinely happy to learn if the definition of the word changes (since it'll necessitate creating a new gender-neutral term), but until that happens I view this matter as settled. Apples grow on pines (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No, we're supposed to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including its WP:Neutral policy. Essays are just added advice. Not surprising that you focused on the essay aspect of my post instead of actual policy. You obviously cannot follow the WP:Neutral policy correctly or at least not consistently. As for your consistency argument, it makes no sense, much like your interpretation of WP:Neutral...which explicitly tells you that the majority view/what is covered in the majority of sources gets more WP:Due weight than the minority view/what is covered in the minority of sources (that applies to the lead as well), among other things that you have tried to sidestep. The only thing settled on this matter is your need to violate WP:Neutral and WP:Lead. It remains that sexism is covered with regard to girls and women far more than it is covered with regard to boys and men. It remains that the WP:Lead does not appropriately summarize this article, in part because it does not even address the fact that sexism is a topic that especially concerns girls and women. Let's see how long you get away with the WP:Neutral and WP:Lead violations at this article; it'll be interesting.

talk) 16:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that's why five citations were placed in the lede. I now regret removing them. Ongepotchket (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No,

talk) 03:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Not a smear campaign at all. What's next, telling me to check my privilege? Apples grow on pines (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Nah.

talk) 21:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

My other, and perhaps major, concern, is the amount of Coat Tracking and Soap Boxing. The source of this is the assumption that a gender experiencing a relative disadvantage is because of Sexism. Before a topic can be added to this page a connection between it and Sexism has to be established, with the entry being of appropriate weight. CSDarrow (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I've read some articles on here in my time but this one is the most unbalanced, anti-male propaganda article I've ever read. Not only is the article written by feminists with an anti male agenda. Any ounce of male discrimination or articles gets removed in an instant. The article on male victims of domestic violence, circumcision, sexism against men in the media and male trafficing. Any gender neutral term is changed to 'women' for the victim and 'male' as the instigator. If the mods can't sort this article out, I 'll be forced to report it.85.210.184.205 (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems that you need to read my initial post in the

talk) 00:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Flyer22 hit the nail on the head. This isn't the oppression Olympics. Also, I've yet to read any RS that says circumcision of boys is part of structural inequality disadvantaging men. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Earp talks about a "notorious 'double standard' regarding male versus female genital cutting that prevails in Anglophone societies" here. If you'd like more refs #20-22 in that paper are quite relevant too. Hope that helps.Apples grow on pines (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Also please note that misandry and anti-male sexism are addressed several times in the article and the article does acknowledge that sexism does occur against the male gender. I would also like to point out that if anyone has a right to complain about being underrepresented in comparison to the amount of sexism they face I would probably point to the transgender community but you didn't even think to address that did you 85.210.184.205. And if you want to go through the article and add more gender neutral language feel free unless it is a quote or goes against a specific source no one can stop you.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

talk) 16:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we disagree about your interpretation of policies, which is certainly your own view. We are reading the same words and trying our best to follow them, and yet we reach different conclusions - that is a matter of views. So far I've gone quite far with my interpretation of neutrality, despite your attempts to be as unpleasant as possible about it - mostly because you're arguing by assertion and not trying to provide much in the way of backing your claims up. That's okay, it makes my job easier. It's just a shame that it stops us from having an intellectually honest discussion. As for harassment: fair enough, perhaps I'm reading your intentions wrong. From my point of view, the tone you've been using when describing my edit, as well as the immediate jump to a conclusion that it's "interesting" that someone else is confronting you (which, to me, carries the implication that the two of us are the same person) are ad hominem attacks. It does appear to me like you're targetting me personally, which is why I dubbed it as harassment. It's a shame that your resolution of this problem is "I don't care, go report me", but that's your decision. If you don't want to be civil, I'll just avoid you - no real harm done to either of us. Thank you for the clarification on the link deletion. I'll restore it now. Apples grow on pines (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, my user page reflects my experiences with the community. You are part of the community, and your interactions with me will reflect my views on it. I'm not sure why you find my user page's mention of this notable. I intentionally made it impersonal - a courtesy apparently unknown to you. Apples grow on pines (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no "[my] interpretation of the policies." I have clearly cited the policy, and pointed to the specific parts (the sub-policies) that you ignore and fail to adhere to, especially WP:Due weight and its aspects. In the Lead discussion above, I stated, "Your definition of WP:Neutral is in stark contrast to Wikipedia's definition of it, and is also a WP:Lead violation, as I've already made quite clear above. Many at the WP:Neutral talk page would also make that quite clear." It seems that you indeed need those many people at

WP:Burden

is on you in this regard. What proof do you have that sexism applies equally to men and women, that it applies equally to boys and girls? Pulling out a few sources to support your claim won't cut it. Even pulling out many won't, since Wikipedia gives WP:Due weight to what the preponderance of sources state. And what do those preponderance of sources state on this topic? That sexism is an especial concern for girls and women, far more than it is for boys and men. This has been a fact throughout history and it is still a fact today. Like I stated in the Lead section above, "If you truly believe [that sexism does not especially concern girls and women], and it's not just you being disingenuous, then you clearly are not familiar with the preponderance of sources on the topic of sexism."

You speak of "intellectually honest discussion"; if you were truly interested in having such a discussion with regard to this matter, you would not be keeping up the pretenses -- acting as though sexism does not concern human females far more than it concerns human males. I don't feel the need to debate policy, not usually; I usually simply follow policy. So as far as I'm concerned, this discussion is quite an "intellectually honest discussion" on my part. As for your accusations with regard my civility toward you, misapplication of the WP:Neutral policy is one of things that I do not tolerate. I am tired of seeing editors failing to adhere to its WP:Due weight aspect and therefore misapplying what is "neutral." Those who engage in

talk) 19:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

First things first, I'd like to address your comment on me "keeping up the pretenses" - I looked back through my comments here, and I'd like to apologise for the impression I may have made. It is absolutely not my intention to claim that sexism does not apply to women to a greater extent than it does to men in the modern world. I am interested in talking this through in an intellectually honest fashion. I will try to change my tone of speech to reflect this.

Appealing to

report[s] what people have said about it rather than what is so". Sexism against women is more thoroughly documented, and therefore deserves more coverage on Wikipedia. However, this does not mean we should state that sexism against women is more of an issue than sexism against men - that, in my view - would be engaging in the debate, not describing it. Apples grow on pines (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If this article were up for

talk) 22:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see your point, but I'm not quite there yet. I do understand what WP:NPOV means. I understood it before I made the edit, too. I'm well aware that objectivity does not exist, and as such we focus on what reliable sources say. However, looking through the Google Scholar and Google Books results you've linked to, I do not see the supposedly evident preponderance of the view you describe. Most sources focus on sexism as a general issue, without singling out any one sex, then there is a large amount of works on the discrimination against women, and then ones about discrimination against men. You are correct in saying that there are more sources that focus on women - that's why I didn't try adding anything about men and giving it undue weight. Most sources, however, appear not to address a specific gender at all (or address both). I could not find back up for your claims in the sources you've provided. Of course, I did not read through the hundreds of thousands of works these searches yield, so it could be that I was just very "lucky" in the subset of resources I've seen, but if the situation is as clear as you say, I would expect to see that reflected in the first few pages of the results. The only category of sources in which the preponderance is as clear as you describe it is dictionaries - but those would only serve as a good source for a "Usage of the term" section in the article (which would be fair to have: colloquially, the word does often refer to female-oriented sexism, specifically). Take example from the Racism article - it does not attempt to describe which ethnicities are most often discriminated against, and yet it manages to give due weight to most instances of racism that I'm aware of. Is that article also non-WP:NPOV/WP:LEAD-compliant? If not, what makes it different? Apples grow on pines (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

As is obvious, I took a long break from this discussion and now I'm back. So... With regard to the Google Books and Google Scholar results I've linked to, I do see that the sources discuss sexism mostly relating to women; the fact that some of them discuss sexism in general does not negate the fact that those same sources either acknowledge that sexism is mostly a female matter or mostly focus on it. Some of them are, in fact, debating and/or trying to analyze whether or not men receive sexism or are affected by it to the same degree (that women are) when they do receive it, which clearly means that sexism being focused on women is the prevalent matter. The same goes for when looking through the simple Google search. The same goes for the preponderance of sources in this article, which, again, is not a matter of WP:Cherry picking. I am not 100% sure how you are reading these sources, but it would be good if you could get full access to several of them and see what they discuss past mentions of sexism in a general sense. Every book and journal I have read on sexism, and I've read many on the topic (with most of these being non-feminism books, mind you, and half being newer works), have either acknowledged that sexism is mostly a female matter (with one or more chapters discussing just that) and/or have mostly focused on sexism with regard to women. It's not about whether or not the sources were objective; it's about about there being far more to state on sexism with regard to women than with regard to men. Right now, it appears that you are implying that females are affected by sexism only by a slight margin more than males are, or only somewhat more than males are, or that sources generally treat the matter like that; this is the type of pretense thing I referred to earlier.

As for the Racism article, that is a completely different matter, so much so and with so much more tension than sexism, that it is like comparing apples and oranges. It wouldn't surprise me if it didn't "attempt to describe which ethnicities are most often discriminated against" in the lead. But it actually does, at least in a historical context; its fourth paragraph currently states: "'In history, racism was a driving force behind the

conquest of the Americas and colonization of Africa, Asia and Australia." So, yes, I would state that its lead is WP:Neutral and WP:Lead compliant. Either way, that is a topic that is clearly more complicated with regard to stating what "race" has received more racism, though the vast majority of people would be inclined (I presume) to state that black people

have received the most racism. For sexism, it is not complicated to state which sex has received, and still receives, sexism the most; it is also a matter that is almost always thoroughly the focus in sources on the topic of sexism.

To try to get one more person involved in this discussion who very much understands WP:Neutral/WP:Due weight and what a WP:Lead-compliant lead is, I invite

talk) 14:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a lovely introduction

Flyer22 which I hope that I can at least in part live up to. I'll give the article and this talk page section a read through, see what a trawl through some citation indexes might indicate and get back to you over the next couple of days. FiachraByrne (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

See below [1] for analysis of tertiary sources and most cited articles on the topic of sexism. As to whether a source-based analysis indicates that sexism is typically defined as directed predominantly at women, I think the results are pretty clear but you can make your own determination. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Is a proposed edit being discussed? There is no reason to establish whether this "article IS sexist" as an abstract exercise—if someone believes wording needs to be improved, that is what should be discussed. It is standard for an article to reflect what reliable sources say, with

This article will mostly due to its subject be mostly about Women. However if one does feel that sources about Men and other gender groups (such as Transgender or Intersex people) are not being represented the only thing they need is reliable sources. Instead of complaining that the house is burning down why not get some water and stop the fire. In this case water is reliable sources and the burning is the so-called bias towards only women. Find more sources and the article shall grow. Its really that simple-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no proposed edit here either. About ready to hat/hab the entire section as being

WP:NOTFORUM. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, since this discussion is about improving this article, it is not a WP:FORUM discussion. As shown above, this discussion is currently about whether or not the lead should mention that sexism especially effects girls and women, which would be an appropriate summary of a core aspect of this topic/article. So

talk) 14:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Most cited papers (Web of Knowledge) Search topic: "sexism"

Refs