Talk:Sexism/Archive 16

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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

Fashion

Today, in most countries, it is considered inappropriate for boys to wear dresses and skirts, but this, again, is a modern worldview. From the mid-16th century until the late 19th or early 20th century, young boys in the Western world were unbreeched and wore gowns or dresses until an age that varied between two and eight.

Does this strike anyone else as WP:COATRACKING? It doesn't appear, on the face of it, as having very much to do with prejudice or discrimination. It's just kindof "Fun Fact! Today I learned that little boys used to wear dresses! Now you know!" Timothyjosephwood (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Moreover, not directly tied to sexism (though easily could be). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"Girls" is demeaning?

Timothyjosephwood, regarding this, why are you of the opinion that "girls" is demeaning? "Girls" obviously is not the same thing as "women," and when sources are talking about girls instead of women, we should use "girls" unless it's some type of female teenager matter (like teenage pregnancy) where "women" fits better in certain instances. Flyer22 (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice that the same section talks about boys. I don't see you removing "boys" as demeaning. Flyer22 (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The instance where I use "women" is talking about females generally, and goes on to talk about college statistics. Females in college are not "girls". The instance that uses the word boys is specifically concerning a study of grade-school children. I thought the same thing, changed boys to men, then to males...and then just cancelled my edit. Males in grade school are properly boys. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Human females in general would include girls and women. Let's look at the sentence in question as it previously was; it stated, "Girls' educational opportunities and outcomes have greatly improved in the West." The sentence is likely referring to girls, as in little children (and maybe high school girls), not legal adults. But given that the text after that talks about women, I understand your reason for removing "girls," even though it's common for sources to state "college girls" in addition to "college women." It might be that the person who added the "girls" text wanted to address girls and women, but ended up only addressing women. As we know, boys are mentioned in that section; where is the comparison to girls? Why compare aspects concerning boys to aspects concerning women? Flyer22 (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that boys and girls are compared in the "World literacy" and "Writer Gerry Garibaldi" paragraphs of that section. Flyer22 (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, don't ask me; I didn't write the stuff. I'm just here for some nice easy editing after a long day of arguing over Panama and Korea. Someone somewhere decided those studies were appropriate for that section.

Girls and boys typically refer to young females and males. Men and women typically refer to adults. Colloquially, the terms can be used as euphemisms for immaturity/subordination, or maturity. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Youth is often relative, but I know what you mean. I know how the terms girl and boy are usually used, which is why I started this discussion to get clarification on why you stated "girls" is demeaning. I know now that you object to women being called "girls," even though it is common for them to be called that; in my experience (including my examination of sources over the years), it's more common that they are called girls than men are called boys. And college men and women are often called "college boys" or "college girls." I suspected that you objected to women being called "girls," but I wanted to be sure on that. Flyer22 (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Total OR, but I suspect that in men there may be racial undertones that prevent it from being used more often. In the American South slaves were ubiquitously referred to as "boy" regardless of their age to denote racial inferiority. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

One of the best sources I've found thus far on WP

Source 152 prior to edit at 08:54, 27 May 2015. Very insightful:

"An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie". tandfonline.com. Retrieved 6 April 2015.

Timothyjosephwood (talk) 08:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Education section - rewording or removing; and undue weight to one study

The section reads "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.[278]"

This is very misleading because it implies that teachers automatically discriminate against boys simply because they are boys and the teachers have poor views on boys. In fact the reason cited is because teachers, when grading, take into account not just the academic ability itself, but also the general behavior of children, such as showing interest in the classroom and being obedient.

Qoutes from the article:

"Researchers suggest girls are better behaved in class and this influences how teachers perceive their work."

"From a young age, boys are less likely to raise their hand in class to ask to speak, they are worse at waiting their turn to speak or engage in an activity, they are less likely to listen and pay attention before starting a project," says the study. And as they get older, boys are more likely to "start withdrawing in class and becoming disengaged".

And the article doesn't mention sexism directly. This study is presented here on this page as supporting the view that boys are discriminated against by the school system, but the source doesn't conclude this - in fact the source says the contrary, that this does not help girls and might even hurt them in the long run.

Source says "Is it a good thing? Maybe in the short run, you get a better school certificate," said the OECD's education director, Andreas Schleicher. "In the long run, the world is going to penalise you because the labour market doesn't pay you for your school marks, it pays you for what you can do."

It is also one single study, and in my view, it's given WP:UNDUE.2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:5679:48DE (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed it. You can't use one single study (WP:UNDUE) to imply something that the study doesn't even suggest (WP:OR).2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:5679:48DE (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"Understood to mean against women" does not mean "Primarily affects women"

I looked over the talk page, specifically here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sexism/Archive_7#Is_sexism_typically_defined_as_discrimination_against_women.3F as justifications for why the definition is "primarily affects women" but the verbiage used here (e.g. "understood primarily in the context of being against women") would not indicate any sort of frequency or prevalence of its manifestations; even if sexism is understood or used primarily to refer to women, this would not mean that instances of it primarily affect women, since the studies examining sexism could be what they imagine to be a more important form of sexism, or a more egregious instance, and so on. In other words, this editor is confusing a particular area of focus with frequencies of instance, and if this is the basis for the current definition ("sexism primarily affects women") the current wording should be changed. 108.95.36.94 (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Your hypotheses are original research. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Uh, what? These aren't hypotheses, so they couldn't be original research. The definition in this article concerns what actually follows from the wording used in these studies, and if you're going to use these studies as a basis to define sexism in this article, you should read them accurately. The wording in this article's definition of sexism is derived from those studies, and it interprets area of focus as statistical frequency. If you think the act of deriving a definition from studies whatsoever constitutes original research (which is what happened in the link I provided) then you seem to be against the act of defining or paraphrasing anything on wikipedia whatsoever, which is an absurd position to take. 108.95.36.94 (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The definition in the article is more or less the same one used in virtually every major, reliable, tertiary source. Wikipedia must reflect what reliable sources say, and the sources are crystal clear on this point. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not the same, and in fact reflects radically different meanings; I already linked to those sources above and explained why the definition derived from those sources was inadequate. This article's current definition uses "primarily affects women." A variety of those sources say "typically against women" to mean how the definition is *used*, but do not express any idea of frequency; others define sexism solely as discrimination against women; others do express some idea of frequency. The article's current definition reflects only a fraction of those sources. If you want the definition to reflect all of those sources, then you would change "primarily effects women" (the article's current usage) to "usually understood in the context of discrimination against women." 108.95.36.94 (talk) 00:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Most sources reflect frequency and indirectly research also reflects frequency. The underlying assumption is that men are not facing sexism, but only women do. Therefore, it is researched in the context of women, therefore, we have more instances of sexism against women to report, and therefore that wording ist correct. Your wording does not belong to the lead, it could, however, fit with the definition section.Lucentcalendar (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As seen with this edit, I changed the wording to "Although sexism is especially documented as affecting women, it can affect any gender." It's similar to suggestions seen at Talk:Sexism/Archive 13#That darn lead (or, can we please fix this issue and stop all the debate...please) and on downward. If it will help stop the type of complaint made at the beginning of this section or this one, then good. I'm fine with leaving the text as noting that sexism is especially documented as a female problem. At some point, I will add "girls" in front of "women," since it's "girls" as well...as the sources state. What's left is to further develop the lead, as noted at "Talk:Sexism/Archive 13#That darn lead (or, can we please fix this issue and stop all the debate...please)." Flyer22 (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"Girls" is currently in the lead. Flows better as "girls and women" than as "women and girls," in my opinion, though. Flyer22 (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Consolidated it to "females" in the lead. [1]—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Sexism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Caroline Bird quote (origin of term)

The entry regarding the origin of the term 'sexism' links to a quote by Caroline Bird, below

There is recognition abroad that we are in many ways a sexist country. Sexism is judging people by their sex when sex doesn’t matter. Sexism is intended to rhyme with racism. Both have used to keep the powers that be in power. Women are sexists as often as men.

But the wiki entry is missing the last sentence. Over at RationalWiki, we have the last sentence in there (mostly as a critique of the "Prejudice Plus Power" narrative). The point is that when women judge women based on being women, e.g. sneering at a girl who wants to go into engineering, it's still sexism and just as damaging as a man sneering at a female med student. So would anyone be upset if I add the last sentence in there? CorruptUser (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The full quote is "...Sexism is judging people by their sex where sex doesn't matter. Sexism is intended to rhyme with racism. Both have been used to keep the powers that be in power. Women are as sexist as often as men. Women who get good jobs do it by outsexing the sexists. They persuade the boss that a woman's intuition is needed. Or that women pay more attention to detail. They know it isn't so, but they use the sexist arguments to get around sex prejudice."

I'm not sure what you think the extra sentence adds to be honest - nothing in the first part implies that only men can be sexist, it's a very general definition. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

She doesn't imply it at all. But these days, with "prejudice plus power", it's useful to prove that no, the definition is NOT "prejudice plus power". I suppose it doesn't matter too much. CorruptUser (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

edits by ip 50.152.41.187

I reverted those edits (from section Coverture and other marriage regulations). The ip Special:Contributions/50.152.41.187 does not seem to have even a bare minimum understanding of law: common law coverture is one thing; and the legal discrimination under the Napoleonic code is another thing; and the legal discrimination under other civil law systems is another. And marital power persisted in many countries well into the 20th century (in France until 1938 and in Netherlands until 1958). The abolition of marital power did not end all legal discrimination against married women (eg, in France wives got the legal right to work and own bank accounts without husband's consent only in the 1960s), just like the late 19th century coverture cases did not end all legal discrimination in the US or England (eg in the US the last head and master law - these laws were common until the 1970s - was finally struck down only in 1981 in Kirchberg v. Feenstra). 2A02:2F01:507F:FFFF:0:0:5679:C2F9 (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"Sexism can affect any gender"

I disagree with this statement. Sure, men can be victims of prejudice, but victims of sexism? No. The oppressor cannot be oppressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.202.114 (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"The oppressor cannot be oppressed" is a political position, not an objective observation. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It's one of those pseudomarxist truisms that are just too simplistic to ever be true. It's a big world and you can find an example of almost anything if you look hard enough. The person in the street rails against the inevitable oppression of the bourgeoisie. The person in the library calmly points to examples like Nicholas II, whose whole family was murdered by the proletariat. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

"power, and gender itself, do not always fall predictably along male and female lines." The Return of the Sex Wars. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Objectification in social media

I am considering adding a section to Sexism#Objectification, or business, entitled Social media which would use the current controversy about a LinkedIn comment, see http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/sep/10/barrister-career-suicide-exposing-lawyers-sexist-remark and related articles. "...I returned home from work and logged onto my Linkedin account to find a sexist message from a senior partner of a law firm sitting in my inbox. The contents of the message focused on my physical appearance rather than my professional legal skills as a barrister in family law." http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ive-been-called-a-feminazi-for-calling-out-a-sexist-man-on-linkedin--but-i-spoke-out-for-all-women-10494300.html This is a standard which people need to be aware of. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend care in not turning the article, anymore than it already is, into a prose list of examples of sexism. It's a compelling story, but it is an anecdote, and if you put in every compelling example of a time a particular person was discriminated against, the article is going to turn into a book. Rather, the article should focus on sexism as it affects the average person. That is, if you pick a person at random, are they likely to experience sexism and what form is that likely to take?

To say "this particular person was passed over for the job on the board of GE, and it was because of her sex as she was clearly more qualified than the male who got the job", says something about a particular person and a particular circumstance. However, to say "In the United States, women account for 47 percent of the overall labor force, and yet they make up only 6 percent of corporate CEOs and top executives." says a great deal more and more meaningfully about the barriers that the average woman faces. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TJW here, this article is already a bit too much of a laundry-list of examples. We can't possibly include every instance/example that is out there, and something that's "in the news" we should be particularly wary of. What this article really needs is a much better sourced and more complete discussion of sexism in general - definitions, theories, and really large-scale, important examples. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If you pick women at random and compliment them on looking good in an image, charges of misogyny seldom arise. However, there seems to be a feminist position that in professional and business matters such behavior is wholly out of bounds and subject to enforceable sanctions. This information, from some reliable source needs to be included, not as specific examples, but a position taken. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I need to look at the sources we are using for Sexism#Objectification and see if this is not included. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, not to split hairs, but she was called a feminazi by the Daily Mail, which is a little like being called a jerk by an eight year old.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

From the Stanford article: a reference which defines "reduction to appearance: the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look" as objectification.^[1]

References

^ Rae Langton (February 15, 2009). Sexual Solipsism: Philosophical Essays on Pornography and Objectification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 228–229. ISBN 978-0199551453. reduction to appearance: the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look {{cite book}}: |format= requires |url= (help)

Don't forget about the article Sexual objectification. Kaldari (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I have added what amounts to a footnote. This whole section needs to be copied over to Sexual objectification and extensively edited. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it adds anything to the article to introduce "sexual objectification" as a separate term. Is there another type of objectification we would be talking about in an article on sexism?

"Objectification is treating a person, usually a woman, as an object, particularly a sexual object."
"Sexual objectification is where a person is viewed primarily in terms of sexual appeal or as a source of sexual gratification."

Seems to me that this is just saying the same thing twice. If we want to use a different definition other than the one currently included, that's fine. But there is no reason to restate the same thing with slightly different wording simply because we can find a source for it. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Objectification as a concept is ascribed to Kant and has a general meaning, dealing with a person as a thing to be used, an object, as opposed to as a person, a subject. In the case of the Magdalene laundries in Ireland, objectification took the form, mostly, of slave labor, but is well within sexism. As is human trafficking, which is not always for sex work. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Fred Bauder...I...I don't think your really got the point...at all. This is an article on sexism with a section on objectification. Thus there is no meaningful distinction within this article on objectification per se and sexual objectification. There is no reason to offer two definitions of what is the same thing within the context of this article. It is understood that the section is on objectification as it relates to sexism. All you've done with your edit is offer a superfluous second definition of the same thing. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read the Stanford article "Feminist Perspectives on Objectification" which might clarify the point somewhat.^[1] User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

References

^ "Feminist Perspectives on Objectification". stanford.edu.

I'm going to go ahead and ping Fyddlestix here, because I'm starting to suspect a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It's also possible that I misunderstand and we're talking across purposes. The issue is that you are providing two definitions of the same thing. The definition that existed prior to your edit was sexism-centric already. That definition was not a Kantian overview of what objectification is in the philosophical sense to be juxtaposed to a specific sexist sense. It is essentially the same definition you have offered with slightly different wording. I'm going to revert the edit until others can weigh in. Then we can modify or reinstate it. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The feminist dispute is whether objectification is inherent due to male domination or situational. I'll try to see if I can discern competing definitions, but keep in mind that there is no universally accepted definition, even among feminists. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

We are not here to debate the larger feminist dialectical landscape; we are here to create an encyclopedia article.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem with that is that one of our sources, the Stanford article "Feminist Perspectives on Objectification,"^[1] for the most part, is about that feminist debate over the nature of objectification. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

References

^ "Feminist Perspectives on Objectification". stanford.edu.

Timothyjosephwood, the objectification of women is not related only to sexuality (is not only sexual objectification). Sarah ^(talk) 22:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sarah, it is objectification on the basis of sex. It is ipso facto sexual objectification. As the section stands, the only parts that don't deal with sexual objectification probably need to be moved or removed because they don't deal with objectification at all. Portraying women in the media as housewives, or conversely, as the "Tiffany's-encrusted doyennes of Laguna Beach" is stereotyping, not objectification. These should probably be moved to the section on stereotyping. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, Please see Objectification. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Fred Bauder, ok? This makes me like the section even less, per WP:TOOMUCH, and possibly WP:COATRACK. We've basically copy/pasted the entire article on objectification into this section, in a section that is too long for the article, in an article that is too long for the subject. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point. From above, "This whole section needs to be copied over to Sexual objectification and extensively edited." User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Another source

Trump has provided another instance, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/09/17/what-donald-trump-doesnt-understand-about-calling-women-beautiful/ which mentions the LinkedIn example. User:Fred Bauder Talk 05:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. Unfortunately, the expert who had agreed to review had to decline later on. Our first call for community review was already 6 months ago and since then the article has changed quite a lot. We have identified another expert to help review the article. We would like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before October 31, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! --Anthere (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Question: How can the definition be correct? SEXISM cannot be "prejudice". It can only be "discrimination". Prejudice is an internal thought. Sexism is externally detectable (visible, spoken, acted). I noticed there is no footnote, no reference for the definition. I find this very alarming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.81.173.106 (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

[Langdon228–229-1] Rae Langton (February 15, 2009). Sexual Solipsism: Philosophical Essays on Pornography and Objectification. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 228–229. ISBN 978-0199551453. reduction to appearance: the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look {{cite book}}: |format= requires |url= (help)

[Stanfordfeminism-objectification-2] "Feminist Perspectives on Objectification". stanford.edu.

[Stanfordfeminism-objectification-3] "Feminist Perspectives on Objectification". stanford.edu.

[1]

[1]

[1]