Jump to content

Talk:Reverse sexism

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

Reverse Sexism is like Reverse Racism

[edit]

Reverse racism *does* not exist. White people do not experience racism. It seems a little risky to refer to this as reverse sexism considering that implication. Picklesticks123 (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Govermental structures don't introduce laws in books which discriminate against white people. But they introduce laws in books which discriminate against men. That's why there are dissertations titled Discriminations against men but there are no dissertations titled Discrimination against white people. So these concepts are not quite analogous. Also, do you know that some scholars write works about such thing as anti-Black misandry (not just about racism)? Reprarina (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "White people do not experience racism." are you just trolling, or was that a sincere statement? Of course white people experience racism.
          • Regarding the non-admin closure: "A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations:

The non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, by having expressed an opinion in the discussion or being otherwise involved, with the exception of closing their own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep[a] when all other viewpoints expressed were for keeping as well."

Why not just contribute to the discussion rather than trying create drama? The article states "Reverse sexism has been compared by sociologists to reverse racism" in the lead. Surely, the existence of reverse racism is necessary for this line to be in the lead. Of course, the easy option would be to say that reverse racism has an entire wikipedia article devoted to that exact topic, but I'm very happy to hear other opinions. Miraculously majestic master of mayhem (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement age sexual discrimination

[edit]

The retirement age https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_age has 37 countries with laws giving multiple year earlier retirement ages for women than for men. There should be RS that that is sexism and discrimination. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:C4E0:BE5C:690A:5A33 (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, feel free to go find some. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, by the way. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least Rina Torosyan sais it's discrimination: "Однако установление разного возраста выхода на пенсию для мужчин и женщин привело к возникновению гендерной дискриминации мужчин в области пенсионного обеспечения". https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/politika-sovetskogo-gosudarstva-v-otnoshenii-muzhchin-v-sfere-pensionnogo-obespecheniya/viewer Reprarina (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This source seems to specifically be about pensions in the USSR. Doesn't seem very generalizable. And doesn't say anything about sexism per se. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to discrimination against men

[edit]

I'm not entirely sure why this article was moved to this name in the first place as there are a few sources which talk explicitly about discrimination against men instead of reverse sexism (as a whole). It seems to be WP:POV pushing as there is now no place on Wikipedia to talk about discrimination against men. This article is about the term, and so is the misandry article, instead of the old discrimination against men article describing genuine discrimination instead of how the term is used. I think that a reverse sexism section should be added to a discrimination against men article explaining the term, but again, I think it's WP:POV pushing to have no article to describe discrimination as a whole.

Or perhaps we can merge all of the articles together to avoid a WP:FORK? For that the article would have to focus on discrimination in itself and sections about each term. Panamitsu (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this seems to be what the literature often *does*. Study the nasty properties of some people who use particular terms rather than if there is some underlying concept that exists in the real world. Talpedia 12:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 August 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is consensus that the reverse sexism and discrimination against men are distinct topics. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse sexism → Discrimination against men – Currently there are no articles to discuss discrimination as a whole as this article and the misandry article talk about the terms themselves and how they are used instead of what discrimination against men looks like. I would like to put 'reverse sexism' and 'misandry' into sections on a discrimination against men page, as there is a lot of literature on those terms specifically, but it is important that we can use literature that studies discrimination against men instead of the terms used to describe it.

This article was moved from discrimination against men without consensus via a talk page as far as I am aware.

EDIT: I now OPPOSE my own request.

Panamitsu (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom.:Ortizesp (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: There is a 2022 move discussion that ended as "no consensus" at Talk:Reverse sexism/Archive 2. Dekimasuよ! 04:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's a better title. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as blatant WP:FALSEBALANCE. This is much more than a page move; the nominator is proposing to merge two existing articles into one under a new title. This article is explicitly about a controversial term for discrimination against men, not the discrimination itself. Discrimination against men was created as a redirect in 2017. There's nothing in the page history to indicate the page was moved, and nothing to stop anyone from creating a new article at that title, citing literature that studies discrimination against men. The fact that no one has yet done so is a likely sign that that there are virtually no WP:RSes to support the concept of discrimination against men for being men. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion at Talk:Misandry#Merger? suggests this move request is motivated by a desire to undo the "silencing" and "erasure" of the topic of discrimination against men, which is WP:RGW if not WP:OR. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sangdeboeuf I must add that I used my words incorrectly, which I have now learnt from my mistake. What I meant to say was that there are currently no opportunities to write about genuine discrimination (because of the nature of these articles), not that certain groups are silencing it. Panamitsu (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, anyone is free to create an article at Discrimination against men, assuming significant coverage of the topic in published, reliable sources. There is no need to change the title of any page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You specifically mentioned "WP:POV pushing of both editors and the media always 'silencing' by using hate groups" in the coverage of both "reverse sexism" and "midsandry". That sure sounds like a complaint about certain people ("editors and the media") and a dispute with the contents of articles ("using hate groups") rather than the way material is organized into different pages. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sangdeboeuf I disagree about WP:FALSEBALANCE because the title does not promote the idea that the concept is equivalent to misogyny. It is the content that does that. There is always opportunity to include criticism. Panamitsu (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving this article would create false balance by implying that authors who criticize the idea of "reverse sexism" are doing so in the context of actual discrimination against men, when there is no such discrimination described in the article (or elsewhere in the encyclopedia). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sangdeboeuf I just had a look and what happened was this page was moved to sexism against men and then was reverted, my memory failed me and I think that we should disregard my failure to fact check. Panamitsu (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As Dr. Yofi Tirosh rightly remarked, "a man discriminated because he is effeminate is discriminated because of his sex. An effeminate woman would not receive such treatment". (1). Reprarina (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is Dr. Yofi Tirosh and why should we care? The cited source is introduced as "a preliminary sketch of an argument" and has received precisely two citations on Google Scholar. Not exactly an authoritative source IMO. Straying into WP:FORUM territory here, but one can easily find scenarios in which an effeminate [sic] woman might be discriminated against in the same way (or more) than an effeminate man: in traditionally masculine environments such as the police, military, fire departments, etc. [1] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But when both feminine women and feminine men face the equal level of discimination in the fields which is considered to be fields for people with masculine psychological characteristics, it's not discrimination against women for being women.
    Yoshi Tirosh is an academic jurist. We use works of jurists in the articles about discrimination too rare. We use works of social theorists more often. And it's a pity. Reprarina (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See parallel discussion at Talk:Misandry § Merger?. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This title was a redirect to sexism for ages, as it should be. There is too much of a WP:OVERLAP for it to stand on its own, unless it is specifically about the term itself, in which case it does not need to be moved at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As noted, the article is about the terminology itself, which it does pretty well. If a separate article is needed to explain how men are discriminated against, remove the redirect and create it there. --Jayron32 14:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Proposing editor opposes the proposed move so this is in effect the same as withdrawing the request. Killuminator (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Other people have supported the request, so nominator's opposition does not withdraw the request. See WP:RMCI#Early closure. @Ortizesp and Rreagan007: Do you still support this move? It seems that Panamitsu would now prefer to publish a separate article Draft:Discrimination against men. However, @Zxcvbnm's comment suggests opposition to further splitting this subject. SilverLocust 💬 00:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I initiated in the past the same. But even if we won't translate the article about a controversial straw-manning concept, discrimination against men is definitely need its article. There are enough reliable sources for it in English (1, 2, 3, 4) and in other languages (for example, there are a lot of articles in Russian about discrimination against men in Russia written by such legal scholars as Rina Torosyan 1, Irina Chetverikova 2, David Karamanukyan 3. There are lots of evidences that discrimination against men is not a fringe concept. The fringe is the idea that feminism discriminates against men, but not the idea that discrimination against men exist. There are many sources about discrimination against men. Even if they say that it's rooted in patriarchy, they still use the term discrimination against men (for example, a feminist scholar Katarzyna Wojnicka). And it's correct. Because discrimination is not oppression of one social group by the other one, it's the act of making unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong or are perceived to belong. And if Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a man and Ukrainian goverment is male-dominant (or patriarchal), it doesn't mean that they could't perpetrate the act of discrimination against men banning men from leaving Ukraine. RSs say they do. If Vladimir Putin is a man and Russian goverment is male-dominant, it doesn't mean that they couldn't perpetrated the act of dicrimination against men through many articles of Criminal Code of Russia. RSs say they do.--Reprarina (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The term reverse sexism is more controversial in much of the academic literature than the term discrimination against men--1677venzel gottorpskij (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The terms don't refer to the same thing, so whether one is more controversial than the other is moot. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— 1677venzel gottorpskij (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reverse_sexism&oldid=1220026292"