This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sexism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about sexism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about sexism at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WikiVoice, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed! |
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies/Gender and International Affairs (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
WP:NOTFORUM —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Historical gender discrimination has deep roots, influenced by a complex interplay of factors such as societal norms, cultural traditions, and economic structures. One significant aspect contributing to discrimination is the historical assignment of roles based on perceived gender differences, where physical strength played a pivotal role. In many ancient civilizations, the division of labor was often established along gender lines. Men, perceived as stronger, were assigned tasks that required physical prowess, such as hunting, agriculture, and heavy lifting. This distinction laid the foundation for a societal hierarchy, reinforcing the notion of men as dominant figures. This historical context framed expectations around gender roles, shaping cultural norms that persisted through generations. The Agricultural Revolution further solidified gender roles, with men predominantly engaging in farming and women managing household duties. This division of labor not only reflected perceived strengths but also established a patriarchal structure where men held economic and decision-making power. The Industrial Revolution marked a pivotal moment in history, transforming work dynamics and amplifying gender disparities. Factories and industries created separate spheres for men and women. Men were often assigned to labor-intensive tasks in factories, while women were confined to roles deemed more suitable for their perceived gentleness, such as textile work. This separation reinforced gendered expectations and limited opportunities for women in the professional sphere. While women entered the workforce during the Industrial Revolution, they faced persistent wage gaps and limited career advancements. Discriminatory practices persisted, reflecting deeply ingrained biases from centuries past. The prevailing notion of women as primary caregivers and men as primary breadwinners continued to influence hiring decisions and workplace dynamics. Historically, real incidents and narratives highlight the struggles faced by women. Suffrage movements in the late 19th and early 20th centuries sought to challenge these norms, advocating for women's rights and opportunities. Despite progress, gender discrimination remains entrenched in workplaces globally. Efforts to address these disparities gained momentum in the 20th century, with movements advocating for equal pay, gender-neutral hiring practices, and the dismantling of traditional gender roles. While strides have been made, challenges persist, illustrating the enduring impact of historical gender discrimination on contemporary societies. Recognizing these historical roots is crucial for fostering lasting change, promoting gender equality, and creating inclusive workplaces for future generations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:7D58:2E00:845:E003:86F0:BC60 (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC) |
I've removed parts of the conscription section which reference rape and sexual assault. This is because the sources do not describe it as "sexism". This was undone by Helpfulwikieditoryay saying you erased context with zero explanation of why you didn't want that piece to be explained, and deleted the most important part of the whole paragraph.
As said before, my reasoning was that the sources do not describe "sexism". They do describe sexist attitudes and ridicule toward women in the military, but not that sexual assault is sexism. Furthermore, the text in question contains the phrase Women in the military are more likely to be raped by a male fellow soldier than killed by the enemy
which has nothing to do with sexism. US military death is uncommon.
Another change I made that went reverted was that I changed the image to be male soldiers, as the majority of the conscription section is about men in the military. We currently do not have any images with men in it, so I don't think it hurts to have one.—Panamitsu (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
extra sources on specifically sexism. Of those two sources, the first connects sexual assault of women in the military to sexism quite substantively and explicitly. I have no opinion on the image, but the text is well supported. Generalrelative (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
It really seems like the sexism page needs a section on misandry. Discrimination against men is a form of sexism with subtexts racial, cultural, but especially modern and Western, and yet it only appears on the sexism page in the context of military conscription, while the word misandry doesn't appear once in a massive article on sexism that uses the term misogyny multiple times and right at the start to define. Is it maybe very possible that this is an example of the previously elusive 'societal system of institutional power' mentioned on the Reverse Sexism page, in that Wikipedia has itself become a societal system of institutional power with respect to general knowledge, that mostly fails to recognize the ways that men are now discriminated against in a definitional gatekeeping exercise that aims to keep the definition of sexual prejudice as a term that marginalizes nearly to erasure the fear and prejudice against men, while prioritizing and elevating the sexual prejudice experienced by non-males?
Maybe the new section could link over to the Misandry page and its unselfconscious dismissal of the issue outside of the 'manosphere', which is itself a derogatory-sounding term for spaces where people express concern about this issue online, to explain that it is a classic form of discrimination justification to categorically deny that significant discrimination is taking place. In this case, practice of supporting by denying is compounded by a hypocritical criticism about false equivalence. It is not necessary that the issues of misogyny and misandry be equivalent in terms of modern or historical prevalence, degree of institutional backing, acuity of lived experience or any other degree-vs-type comparison argument to be able to recognize that sexism is real and can target men in multiple ways that are more socially and culturally relevant than anything that they can be accountable to in terms of personal behavior, which is the definition of discrimination based on gender. To try to insist that all such talk in the manosphere is simply antifeminist backlash from marginalized men is at once marginalizing and sexist, and the fact that wiki has settled on that with respect to the topic, could be taken as proof of significant institutional backing for a not insignificant cultural problem, which is the tendency to support misandry by refusing to recognize its prevalence while denying a credible voice to those who have felt targeted by it. 75.174.37.93 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Sexism can affect anyone, but primarily affects women and girls(emphasis added by me), which does not exlude men. As for the rest of your paragraph I don't quite understand it so it would help if you provide a source for the things you've said such as "
It would certainly improve balance and proportion to mention that sexism can now include misandry, including attempts to deny that misandry and androphobia are real and sexist." —Panamitsu (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)