Talk:Sexism/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Dangerous working environment

The source provided for this section says nothing about sexism. I think this is a clear cut case of synthesis, --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Response: Neither do most of the sources. On this site there are dozens of sources implying that sexism is the cause of the pay gap. I add one that cleary states that men are more likely to suffer from working exidents even after correcting for frequenzy of occupation and thats sythesis. Like I already state lower on this page, if sexism is only against women, define it so! 129.13.216.111 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:POINTy. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Response: I don't disrupt WP to prove a point. I plainly wanted to add a fact from a reliably source about sexism against men. If this page is not neutral, please call it sexism against women! Then we can have a second one sexism against men. If the term is supposed to be neutral, it has to reflext both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.216.111 (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing in your source mentioning sexism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Response: No it does not, but neither does e.g. source 68 http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/40937574.pdf. It also only states the fact of the wage gap. Look, I see your point, this is not meant to be neutral, but this page serves to promote a political idea. I was surprised, that this site was so biased, but if every fact is deleted if it's on the wrong side, thats no wonder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.216.111 (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

First page: "But some groups still lag behind: Women are 20% less likely to be in work than men, while ethnic minorities face a much longer job search than other people" and "Past reforms have helped level the playing field, but more needs to be done, including the enforcement of existing anti-discrimination laws and the introduction of policies that encourage non-discriminatory hiring" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

More: "For example, while female employment rates have expanded considerably and the gender employment and wage gaps have narrowed virtually everywhere, women still have 20% less chance to have a job than men, on average, and they are paid 17% less than their male counterparts. Evidence presented in this edition of the Employment Outlook suggests that about 8% of the variation in gender employment gaps and 30% of the variation in gender wage gaps across OECD countries can be explained by discriminatory practices in the labour market." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Response:

"Part of the gender difference in relation to accidents at work may be attributed to the fact that there were more men than women employed in the labour force — although after adjusting for this, the rates recorded for men remained consistently higher than those for women in each of the EU Member States in 2011."

"Another reason why the incidence of accidents is considerably higher for men is linked to the economic activities where they more frequently work."

Men are more affected, and it is explained by a gender role. What more proof can you ask for?129.13.216.111 (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

An explicit link to discriminatory practices. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Your sources do not show that either, they also only state a fact. Not any action that is explicitly directed at women. There are studies which also show that occupation choice explains part of the wage gap. Those also do not proof the inexistence of sexism. 129.13.216.111 (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

"Your sources..." - which ones are you referring to? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The source is explicitly stating there's a link between gender wage gaps and discriminatory practices. You need a source that states there's a link between higher accident rates and discriminatory practices. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Response: The ones given above by NeilN. They also only point out a fact, no ACTIVE practice. I also only pointed out a fact. More men DIE! Their occupations are more dangerous! If thats not sexism, than neither is a wage gap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.216.111 (talk • contribs)

The point is that the fact that more men die (which is what Eurostat says) does not necessarily imply that their occupations are more dangerous (which is the point you're trying to make) which, even if true, does not necessarily mean that more men work dangerous jobs because of sexism (which is required to be in the article). Therefore it counts as synthesis. The difference with the gender wage gap case is that there the sources first show that there is a gender pay gap and then links it to sexism. I think this is fine, since it is not a priori obvious that there is a gender wage gap, so one can link a source that shows that there is one, and then another source that shows that the wage gap exists because of sexism. See e.g. source #77. This second source is missing in your edit. To add the idea that more men die because they work more dangerous jobs because of sexism, there needs to be a source that explicitly makes this claim. Banedon (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The article does state that men tend to work in more dangerous environment. However, it is formulated neutral and does not call it discrimitation or sexism. By not accepting this article you are implying that men choose deliberatly more dangerous working environments without any social pressure. Lucentcalendar (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There are a variety of reasons why men could work in more dangerous environments - physical strength, nepotism, etc. Not accepting this source means it does not mention discrimination - nothing more. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

If it were due to physical strength it would be sexism. Nepotism would presume again a deliberate choice, which would be the same as presuming women choose to earn less. Discrimination is an arbitrary lable. I did not commit any synthesis because I put on the site just as a fact. It could have stood there without any interpretation leaving it as an anchorpoint for further research and extention of the article by other users. If you are so interested in the quality of the article, make it right! I had to add another joke containing sexism against men for you to take out the one against women, don't you see that as a strong bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucentcalendar (talk • contribs) 07:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sexism is a form of discrimination. Having a better set of skills to do a job is not discrimination. And how do you explain your misleading edit summary? Not committing synthesis? Uh-huh. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't start a discussion on skills, we should assume that women and men are equally skilled. In the article I didn't do any sythesis, I just added the information from the statistic without any interpretation.Lucentcalendar (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Your assumption is incorrect. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Questionable references

There are references in the lead section that are unclear:

Forcible Rape Institutionalized Sexism in the Criminal Justice System| Gerald D. Robin Division of Criminal Justice, University of New Haven

Doob, Christopher B. 2013. Social Inequality and Social Stratification in US Society. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Are these books, journal articles, websites, or editorials?

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The first one is a peer reviewed academic article ([1]). The second one is a textbook ([2]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed dictionary definitions

Sexism is defined here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sexism and is referenced at the bottom of the article. Dictionary definitions in the article itself are redundant.   Bfpage |leave a message  02:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: I replied on my talk page to Bfpage about that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

New External links section

From WP:EL

• Link "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article..."
• Avoid "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."

Not sure that run of the mill newspaper articles qualify. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

rape in war

The section on rape in war got messed up, and I just fixed it.

In these diffs, Bfpage changed the following:

Rape is committed by soldiers, other combatants or civilians during armed conflict, war or military occupation, and are distinguished from in-service sexual assault and rape committed amongst troops. It also encompasses situations in which women or boys are forced into prostitution or sexual slavery by an occupying power. Sexual violence and rape during war is perpetrated to ward a large number of men, although is often under-reported. One recent example of this has been Democratic Republic of the Congo with more than 400,000 rapes reported in just one year.

to:

Sexism is manifested by the crime of rape during war committed by soldiers, combatants or civilians during armed conflict, war or military occupation. It also encompasses situations in which women or boys are forced into prostitution or sexual slavery by an occupying power. Sexual violence and rape during war is perpetrated toward large numbers of men and is often under-reported. One recent example of this has been Democratic Republic of the Congo with more than 400,000 rapes reported in just one year.

The introduction of The Observer source about male rape in war is a useful addition, but there are several problems with the edits.

I changed it to the following:

Sexism is manifested by the crime of rape targeting women civilians and soldiers, committed by soldiers, combatants or civilians during armed conflict, war or military occupation. This arises from the long tradition of women being seen as sexual booty and from the misogynistic culture of military training.

Sexual violence and rape are also committed against men during war and are often under-reported; sexism comes into play in the difficulty that the survivors have in dealing with having been raped, especially in patriarchal cultures, and in the lack of support provided to men who have been raped.

The civil wars in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the 21st century have created an epidemic of sexual violence against men and women, with more than 400,000 rapes reported in just one year.

References

I think the changes I made are clear. Bfpage's edits created a false parallel between the rape of women and the rape of men in war. That is a false equivalence. There is something to say about sexism and male rape, but it is not the same thing as can be said about sexism and female rape. I'm happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

I tagged this talk page, to let everybody know that this article may be subject to discretionary sanctions per [3]. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead section manual of style

The lead section of most articles do not contain in-line citations, although this is not a blanket rule or guideline. I don't think this article needs any citations in the lead section WP:Manual of Style/Lead section

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I would agree, but due to the nature of the article, it's often argued about. I suspect the cites in the lead are to placate people. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that citations are meant to placate people.

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Bfpage, what proof do you have that "[t]he lead section of most articles do not contain in-line citations"? What you stated may be the case for Wikipedia articles in general, mostly because the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are unsourced or poorly sourced. But when it comes to controversial articles, such as the Circumcision article or Gun politics in the United States article, having citations in the lead is usually the better option. WP:CITELEAD is also clear about that while noting that citations in the lead is case-by-case matter. The Sexism article is most assuredly a controversial article, as the many WP:Edit wars and debates that have taken place at this article/talk page prove. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not certain what you mean by 'proof' that lead sections do not generally contain in-line citations. I am actually much more familiar with Lepidoptera articles where the project has had standards whereby we don't include in-line citations in the lead sections of the articles. So that is my experience. I'm not sure at this point why the controversial nature of the article should affect the manual of style. I frankly don't even consider the article controversial. It reads like a magazine article. And the references are horrible. I certainly don't have any intentions of inserting my opinions on the topic which at this time are not even fully formed. As you can see from the majority of my edits I'm trying to streamline the article and make it more readable. The controversial nature to me at this time is irrelevant as I edit. Since I'm a sensitive person, and I really don't intend to evaluate or criticize others' opinions on the topic, perhaps you could give me some friendly advice or warnings on the types of things that I should avoid to reduce the possibility of my offending the other editors who work on this article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What I mean by "proof" is that you made a claim as though it is a fact, and I wanted to know how you came to that conclusion. As is clear by WP:CITELEAD, which is an aspect of WP:Lead, "the controversial nature of the article [is not affecting] the manual of style." Including citations in the lead is as much a WP:Manual of Style standard practice as not including them in the lead, and is very much expected of controversial articles. I fail to see how you don't consider the Sexism article a controversial article, unless you are not familiar with the topic. The vast majority of things that have to do with feminism are controversial, which is why this article/talk page has been rife with WP:Edit warring and debating, including the debating above this section on this talk page. It's also why Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation exists. If you do not understand why it's very much expected of controversial Wikipedia articles to have citations in the lead, then I chalk it up to you not being involved with many controversial Wikipedia articles. I, on the other hand, am involved with many controversial Wikipedia articles, including WP:BLPs; and I am speaking from experience when I state that sourcing the lead of a controversial Wikipedia article is usually what is best. I don't know how many times I have tackled a case where an editor, especially a WP:Newbie or otherwise significantly less experienced editor, felt that the lead of a controversial Wikipedia article needed to be tagged for WP:Verifiability because that WP:Newbie or otherwise significantly less experienced editor did not know that the material is sourced lower in the article or didn't believe the material, but it's a lot of times. Other cases are a matter of WP:Disruptive editing, like not accepting WP:Due weight. Like WP:Lead states, many people don't even read past the lead; one or more Wikipedia studies have shown that the significant majority of people don't read past the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! Wow, you seem quite...umm...intent. That's okay, this must be what is meant when I read of other editors being involved in heated discussions on article talk pages. It's probably okay if you fail to see how I don't consider the sexism article a controversial article. I'm approaching it simply as an encyclopedia article that needs to be edited for brevity and clarity, with good references, good layout, wikilinks, good grammar, good prose, fair treatment of all sides of the issues and other boring editing things like alphabetizing the bibliography. I am also checking for broken links in the references. So what I just described is not really that controversial. I suppose that means I won't be engaging in any conversations having to do with the controversial nature of the topic. I'm not looking for any fights. Since I'm a sensitive person, and I really don't intend to evaluate or criticize others' opinions on the topic, perhaps you could give me some friendly advice or warnings on the types of things that I should avoid to reduce the possibility of my offending the other editors who work on this article. I do have to admit though, I'm not exactly impressed with the fact that you are involved with many controversial Wikipedia articles because it seems irrelevant to what I'm trying to accomplish in the article. You may consider me a newbie if you wish, I'm humble enough to accept that title. I guess I'm speaking from experience when I state that citing/sourcing the lead of an article is usually redundant at best and distracting at the worst. Since the article doesn't seem to be controversial to me, I'm probably the best person to evaluate the fair treatment of the topic, don't you think?

Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Please be assured that I intend to Be polite, and assume that I am welcomed here. You can be assume good faith on my part. I avoid personal attacks on anyone. You and I really don't have disputes but if we do I am certainly open to resolution.   Bfpage |leave a message  01:12, 20 February 2015‎ (UTC)

I made my case on this matter, and I have very little else, if anything else, to state to you on it. I will add, however, that any "fair treatment of all sides of the issues" you have in mind for any Wikipedia article should comply with the WP:Due weight policy. As for experience, if one is going to speak about something being standard on Wikipedia, then they should be expected to show how they know that to be the case. Our levels of experience with this site directly play into that. And, no, your WP:Newbieness, in addition to you somehow not knowing that sexism is a controversial topic (which therefore makes the Sexism article a controversial article), is exactly why I don't think you are "the best person to evaluate the fair treatment of the topic." Flyer22 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with sexism being an non-controversial topic, but I agree that this article should deliver a non-controversial coverage of the topic. I don't think that "due weight" should be a problem if this would be written in the style of a scientific review. Readers should get an introduction about what the term means, learn about different types of sexism (men-women, men-men, women-men, women-women), ongoing research about sexism (major journals, major researchers), antecedents of sexism, and consequences of sexism. Currently the article consists 70% of disputable examples, examples should have a far lower weight. Probably the article could be much shorter because many of the topics in the article actually already have their own articles. @Flyer22, although you have the wikipedia writing skills, I don't think that you should have a leading role in this article. I had a look at your pages and you have a very strong opinion about this. As do I, I get far to agitated by this topic. I am working as a researcher, and I have published peer-review articles, so I think I can contribute in terms of structure and writing. But I should also not get any final word on whats in the article. If Bfpage has the attitude to make this a non-controversial article, that would be perfect. Lucentcalendar (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "my pages," but my very strong opinion on this Sexism article is that editors adhere to WP:Due weight and stop trying to give invalid weight to males on this matter. I'm following policy, as my comments on this topic clearly show. Your posts as an IP and now as Lucentcalendar show that you are not. I'm not interested in discussing this topic with you, given the arguments you have made at this talk page. You continue to fail to get the point. And Bfpage can't "make this a non-controversial article." Flyer22 (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You are acting as if there is an objective measure for due weight. I have not heared about one. What you percieve as invalid weight, I percieve as due weight, but that is not the point. And again, I would want to see this a well structured article, with a typology, research part, antecedents, and consequences. Currently it is just a collection of annectodes about sexism against women. That is undue weight to suggestive examples and undue weight to the research that is being done on that topic. About your linkgs to the WP pages, I am sorry, but comparing sexism against men to the moon landing hoax is just not OK. If you are already on that page read the part on "Impartial tone" Lucentcalendar (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 is extremely good at making sure article content actually matches what sources say. Something that is needed here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is "comparing sexism against men to the moon landing hoax" by linking to a policy page that happens to give that as an example of invalidly putting matters on equal terms. Sexism against females and sexism against males are unequal terms. And you know it. And as for Bfpage, I am not a fan of his copyediting, and I advise people to keep a lookout for him inappropriately cutting material and/or changing wording to text that is different than the sources support. I am also not a fan of him following me around. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The article currently is strictly focussed on sexism of men against women. You act as if other types of sexism are inexistant. Why aren't studies like this one (below) part of this article? It compares sexism against women and men. It concludes that there is sexism against men as well as women, however, there are differences in type, frequency, and how people feel about it. Thats the direction this wp article should have too.Lucentcalendar (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Janet K. Swim, Lauri L. Hyers, Laurie L. Cohen, Melissa J. Ferguson: Everyday Sexism: Evidence for Its Incidence, Nature, and Psychological Impact From Three Daily Diary Studies

So propose some text and specific sourcing? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Text suggestion: A study of Swim et al. (2001) showed in a student sample that female and male student face everyday sexism. However, there were significant differences in frequency, type of sexism, and impact on psychological well-being, with an overall lower effect on male participants.

Would that be OK with you? I will not change anything on the article anymore without your and the others consent. Lucentcalendar (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you expand to give more detail to the reader? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure I can and would like to, but it is my principal not to work for the trashbin, therefore, I will not write more until I get a preliminary OK. If you want to be very critical about sources. Have a look at the new section I created on this talk page. Lucentcalendar (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well the current text is light on actual information. However, there were significant differences in frequency, (what were they?) type of sexism, (what were the types?) and impact on psychological well-being, (what were the impacts?)... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Problematic interpretation of source and dead links

• "Fiske found that members of these samples, regardless of age, consistently rated the category of "men" higher than the category of "women" on a multidimensional scale of competence.[32]"
  • Please re-check and delete this sentence. In no way does the source substantiate that claim. It even states that "business women" were rated as hyper-competent. Lucentcalendar (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see how the sentence was derived from the source so I've removed it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Women do not receive equal pay for equal work, and are less likely to be promoted.[43]"
  • Please re-check and delete, the study is about the decline of the pay gap and with panel data from 1968-1989 and does not support this very strong statement any longer. Lucentcalendar (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape and other forms of sexual violence.[6]"
  • Source should be recondisdered since it is from 1977, or the year should be part of the text. Lucentcalendar (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• In 1833, women working in factories earned one-quarter of what men earned; in 2007, women's median annual paychecks were $0.78 for every $1.00 earned by men. A study showed that women comprised 87% of workers in the child-care industry, and 86 percent of the health-aide industry.[4]
• Fathers earn $7,500 more, on average, than men without children do.[95]
  • The link to this citations is dead, and it can't be identified without the link. What should you do in such a case? Lucentcalendar (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sexist language in most instances promotes male superiority.[50]
  • The source is non-scientific manual on language and only gives examples, not reference to such a general quote.Lucentcalendar (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• leading to greater female board membership and then further increases in female executives”.[102]
  • This source is used a few times, but it is just a flyer. Is that an OK source? Lucentcalendar (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• http://ressourcesfeministes.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/mackinnon-prostitution-and-civil-rights.pdf
  • dead link Lucentcalendar (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• "European Women's Lobby  : Prostitution in Europe : 60 Years of Reluctance". womenslobby.eu
  • dead link Lucentcalendar (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Girls earn higher grades than boys until the end of high school; in some districts, girls achieve higher marks despite similar (or lower) scores than boys on standardised tests.[214]
  • dead link Lucentcalendar (talk) 17:33, 22 February 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/scholar. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated person 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! --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Military Service

In an, as always, completely unbiased attempt to create a well-balanced article, Evergreenfir deleted the section on military service. I don't have the time and nerve for edit warring, therefore I copied it here so that it does not get lost and people can either put it in again or improve it.Lucentcalendar (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

See also: Military service and Israeli military

Military service has been considered a gender-specific duty. Some countries, such as Israel, require military service regardless of gender. Others (such as Finland, Turkey and Singapore) still use a system of conscription which only requires military service for men, although women are permitted to serve voluntarily.

In the United States, all men must register with the Selective Service System within 30 days of their 18th birthday. The system does not require women to register, leading to criticism that it discriminates against men by forcing them into a dangerous role based on sex.

References

You will have to find reliable sources which say that this is a form of sexism (and men's rights activists are nor reliable sources). Is the official position of the UN or other important international body that "military service of men is a form of sexism against men"? Or is there a strong collection of academic writings by important, recognized scholars that state this? Unless you can provide such sources the section can't stay. Note that most other subsections at the Examples section have such sources (ie. the UN, the World Health Organization, UNICEF).2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DCA5 (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying that this section was good, I am saying that it is shameless to delete it as a whole and not to improve it. Go through the example, maybe 20% have decent sources, the rest are feminist coatracks, copied together from their main articles. I wish those would recieve the same rigour.Lucentcalendar (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lucentcalendar: Stop making personal attacks. The section was crap. I'm not opposed to its existence, but the sources and content did not belong in the article in their current state. Find some RS, write up a paragraph, and discuss it on the talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me remind you that you started the personal attacks while I was still being friendly! I do not have to be a better person to you, than you are to me.Lucentcalendar (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Back up your accusations with diffs. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: I moved here this new text that was suggested by User:Lucentcalendar here on talk:

"Chantal Galladé, former president of the Swiss Defence Committee calls the obligatory military service a discrimination against both men and women, cementing the stereotypical gender roles of men and women. Norway is the first country to introduce obligatory military service for women as an act of gender equality

References

PS: This is new text you are suggesting, please do not make it appear as it was in the original section that was removed; this is highly misleading and unacceptable. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DCA5 (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, that is a valid point, I did not think that through!Lucentcalendar (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Clean up and article organization

I went through the article and copy-edited, removed WP:COATRACKing and some WP:SYNTH, and made some grammar/wording changes. That said, there's still some WP:SYNTH going on. And I'm sure we could stand to add some other topics. I'd like to see the "Female Genital Mutilation" section converted to a "Genital cutting" section since there's arguments that all genital cutting is rooted in sexism. As it stands, I think the sections have a good amount of due weight and the main, most notable, topics are covered.

The main issue is that we need to make it clear that topics mentioned are linked to sexism by reliable sources. Gender differences alone are insufficient.

I see someone tagged the article as needed organization. Personally I think it's okay as is, but if someone has other suggestions, I'm all ears. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Only one suggestion, renaming the article to Sexism against women. That's what you have made it into, so name it as it accordingly. Deleting the whole section about military service, which is clearly "discrimination based on sex", is plainly shameless. But really, go ahead, enjoy your POV rampage.Lucentcalendar (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The WP:WEIGHT policy requires that our content is in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Most of what is written about sexism in published, reliable sources is about sexism against women. We have no obligation to list every instance of discrimination based on sex, as that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Kaldari (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I agree 100%. Military service is a male privilege and sexism affects only women. This article does not belong into an encyclopedia but into the bible of feminism! You are right! This article should never be 50:50, women are more affected and women topics receive more attention. But neither should it be 99.9:0.01. It is easy to manipulate Wikipedia by turning a blind eye on the gray areas with facts supporting your view, and being rigorous with facts opposing your view. Further up you will find a list I made of problematic sources. After finding the note function for the text, I added more comments into the text. I did not delete anything, because I thought I was the wrong person to do that. Did any of the before mentioned bunch react on these obvious quality problems? No! Because it was to their disadvantage. I am sorry, but I really find it hard to keep my temper if people play such obvious false games and hide behind rules which they interprete to their advantage.Lucentcalendar (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC) This is not the original text I posted, it has been modified by other users in this discussion.Lucentcalendar (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Evergreenfir I don't think that you have a right to censor me.Lucentcalendar (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Go read WP:REFACTOR. I have the "right" to remove the whole comment, but was polite and just collapsed it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: Kaldari refactored the comment, and warned Lucentcalendar on his talk page. Personally, I prefer to keep personal attacks made against me in public display so that I can easily point to them without searching in the edit history and/or asking a WP:Administrator who has WP:Revision deleted or WP:Oversighted the material to corroborate what was there. And I prefer Template:Redacted to indicate that the comment was altered. But I understand EvergreenFir's feelings on this matter. It's time to re-collapse this section Lucentcalendar's "18:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)" comment or Lucentcalendar's "18:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)" comment all the way down to this comment by me. Flyer22 (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)