Jump to content

Talk:Sexism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nayanmipun (talk | contribs) at 19:53, 19 February 2017 (→Definition of sexism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Genital mutilation

I have undone this IP edit, a reversion of my own edit with the summary: "...there's a section for male circumcision in the men's rights article."

Simply put, the Sexism and Men's rights articles are not diametrically opposed yin/yangs. At best this was removal of sourced content. At worst it is WP:NPOV. I suggest seeking consensus on talk before making substantial changes to this article. TimothyJosephWood 18:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the men's rights article is simply an example of wikipedia allowing sexist articles. It is a movement focused on improving the quality of life of one sex in particular. Perhaps there should be a section in the sexism article specifically for movements that perpetuate sexism?
The foreskin has no function and is vestigial. There aren't even nerve endings in the foreskin, so it's impossible to feel anything through it, unlike female genital mutilation, which seriously harms a girl, it can cause severe bleeding, cysts, infertility and increases the likelihood of newborn death. It is a violation of women's basic human rights.
Male circumcision on the other hand, has no negative side effects beyond mild bleeding if performed incorrectly and a blood vessel is cut. Additionally, there are proven health benefits gained from castration. If wikipedia were a place for opinions, you'd see someone openly label it a human right for these procedures to be performed. 92.24.156.184 (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @92.24.156.184: You are very wrong. Please check out the foreskin article if you're confused about nerve endings being present. Furthermore, a vestigial organ is an organ that used to have an evolutionary purpose in a common ancestor but no longer has a purpose. This is far from the true with the foreskin. Circumcision is actually quite painful as is removing any part of the body without pain relieve. Circumcision can also cause severe bleeding and even death if it's done wrong. Proven health benefits from castration...!? Are there any WP:MEDRS that say so? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; it is a place to document what reliable sources say. The content you removed appears adequately sourced. If you have a problem with the reliability of the sources, that is an appropriate discussion to have. If you disagree with the content on principle, this is not the place to have that discussion, and I would point you to any one of many appropriate online communities that serve purposes other than to build an encyclopedia.
The policy that governs article content is WP:DUE, and I find it dubious that two sourced sentences constitutes undue weight.TimothyJosephWood 22:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this or any of the female genital mutilation material, it should not be included if the sources do not tie it to sexism. Otherwise, the inclusion is WP:Synthesis. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed. I'd say there's a bit of a priori sexism refs throughout the article. I will look closer into the refs in this section specifically after I've had a few buckets of coffee. TimothyJosephWood 10:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a form of sexism in Feminist theory in which after women mention certain women's issues, men jump onto the bandwagon and claim that they have the exact same issues, or that they have it worse as a method to completely disregard what women have to go through. If the header is titled Female Genital Mutilation, it robs women of their right to be taken seriously when the last paragraph is "but men also have this problem because pee pees look different" and completely disregards FGM as a legitimate women's issue. This is just contradictory material added, just so men have the appearance of victimisation in this matter. If the header is titled Genital Mutilation, then doesn't it strike you as odd that the majority of this section is dedicated to FGM being a serious issue, while male circumcision is just something people "think" should end, without any mention of negative effects on circumcised males? If it's such an issue, then why aren't the reasons male circumcision is opposed brought up? It doesn't belong. 89.242.140.170 (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like we do have quite the WP:SYNTH issue. Not a single source actually uses the word sexism, except maybe this one, I'm not really sure, it's not in English. The first two sources do mention inequality, which can probably slide by on WP:COMMONSENSE.

The UNICEF source also mentioned equality, but the content it is used to support is probably more than needs to be in a broad article, and can probably just as well be on the main for anyone who wants to go there. The MINNPost article is similar, but I'm not sure it's WP:DUEWEIGHT here either.

I recommend removing all but the first paragraph, potentially shortening that in any way possible, link to main article and move on. TimothyJosephWood 12:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving some room for comment. If there are no objections and no one wants to pull the trigger I will probably make this edit tomorrow. TimothyJosephWood 22:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who proposed the changes, it is only right for the edit to be your work. 78.151.72.183 (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the above and some similar edits, mainly shortening in areas where the main article covers the content better, and people who are actually interested really should go there rather than reading a poor facsimile here.
Besides this, I have blanked the media section (note: not the Media portrayal section) at the bottom of the article for a couple of reasons:
  • This content was kept out for a long time IIRC, against one editor who was adamant it be included. It is still WP:UNDUE weight given to a particular spat between two particular people, and would best be included in the articles on either Megan Kelly or Donald Trump, but there is no particular reason why it should be included here, as its not particularly relevant to a broad understanding of the topic.
  • There is already a fairly sized treatment of sexism in the media and objectification more broadly, and unfortunately, even in these more specific subsections, this anecdotal content is not relevant.
  • The inclusion of this content is fairly obviously political WP:POV, to say "look how sexist this one politically topical person is." Unfortunately this is not a list of sexist people or sexist incidents; it's an article on sexism, and the actions of any individual, no matter their current favor in pop culture, is probably not going to lead to a broad understanding of sexism. TimothyJosephWood 12:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sexism Against Men?

"It functions to maintain patriarchy, or male domination, through ideological and material practices of individuals, collectives, and institutions that oppress women and girls on the basis of sex or gender." "'Sexism' refers to a historically and globally pervasive form of oppression against women." "sexism is an ideology or practices that maintain patriarchy or male domination." Defines sexism as "thought or practice which may permeate language and which assume's women's inferiority to men." "Sexism is any act, attitude, or institutional configuration that systematically subordinates or devalues women. Built upon the belief that men and women are constitutionally different, sexism takes these differences as indications that men are inherently superior to women, which then is used to justify the nearly universal dominance of men in social and familial relationships, as well as politics, religion, language, law, and economics." "the key test of whether something is sexist... lies in its consequences: if it supports male privilege, then it is by definition sexist. I specify 'male privilege' because in every known society where gender inequality exists, males are privileged over females." "although we speak of gender inequality, it is usually women who are disadvantaged relative to similarly situated men." "As throughout history, today women are the primary victims of sexism, prejudice directed at one sex, even in the United States."

Sexism cannot negatively affect men as according to the numerous citations quoted (above) from the article, I vote that any edits to the contrary be reported for vandalism. More than half of the citations deny the ability for males to be victims of sexism due to patriarchy. If males cannot be the victims of sexism, then no mention of males being negatively affected by sexism belongs in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.3.209 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources often disagree, and when they do, Wikipedia aims to represent that disagreement, not take a side in it. TimothyJosephWood 01:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? I don't see Male Circumcision anywhere on the sexism article. Wasn't it you who had removed it and made the article more, female focused? 2.97.3.209 (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wut? TimothyJosephWood 09:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever possible, we should give due weight to sexism against men (including male genital mutilation). Prcc27🎃 (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. Apparently that thread was never archived because of the minimum thread count in the settings. Looking through it, it seems the main issue with the content was that none of the references actually discussed the issue in terms of sexism. TimothyJosephWood 19:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are there RS for sexism and circumcision? How is circumcision "sexism"? Secret cabals of women circumcising infants? Jim1138 (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. But if there are indeed RS for sexism and circumcision we should include it in the article. We don't need to debate our own opinions on the matter. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article on male genital mutilation? Maybe, there's an article on unicorns and another on fairies so there could be. Male genital mutilation, fairies, unicorns and men experiencing sexism are all as relevant as each other in a serious article about sexism. And they're all as real as each other too. None of the sources support the existence of sexism against men. 2.97.3.209 (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point in bringing up male circumcision Timothyjosephwood, is that you did indeed take a side. You took the side against those on the wrong side of history. 2.97.3.209 (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you quite finished? TimothyJosephWood 19:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I direct you toward the discussion below? It seems to state the exact same thing I have already. 2.97.3.209 (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

feb 20, 2017, If some 1 says raping women does not harm women would you accept it? If all these discrimination against women are like the Unicorn story would you accept discrimination against women is false? And are the citations are too like the Unicorn story too saying that male are not discriminated against, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayanmipun (talk • contribs) 19:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of sexism

The definition given in the introduction to the article does not correspond with the established dictionary definition of sexism (sources: Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster), but rather adds a caveat that sexism can only be practiced by individuals with arbitrarily determined power or privilege. This is a very recent and potentially contentious addition that risks jeopardizing the objectivity of the article by altering the definitive English language definition: "discrimination based on sex." The introduction should be objective, and any new or alternative takes on meaning belong in subsections dedicated to controversy, interpretation, or history.

An example depicting the difference between the definitive dictionary definition and that which is currently listed is: in a society where women are arbitrarily determined to be less privileged than men on average, a woman who says "kill all men" would meet the criteria for sexism in the former definition but would not meet the criteria in the latter definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredmaas (talk • contribs) 05:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the longer-standing lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

feb 20, 2017, Men are and women are equally advantaged and disadvantaged historically and today, your citing of such definitions of sexism is discriminatory against men, you would not agree the same if some where it is said that women are not discriminated against,

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexism&oldid=766363590"