Talk:Discrimination against men

Lead sentence POV

Discrimination against men is sometimes known as second sexism, reverse sexism, or misandry gives undue weight to these concepts IMO. "Reverse sexism" and "misandry" in particular are contentious labels often used to advance a political agenda. We can certainly mention these terms in the proper context, but the lead paragraph should first establish what the topic is and why it's notable, not just list synonyms for the title. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I'll remove them from the lede. Panamitsu (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

They called it reverse sexism

Men are also have higher rates of accidents. They called this 'reverse sexism'.[1] They are who? In the source: According to the Observatory of Inequalities, men are victims of ‘reverse sexism’ and are under more pressure at work, expected to work long hours and to work full time, despite having the same entitlements as women vis-à-vis their family.--Reprarina (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Reprarina I haven't been able to figure this out either. The paragraph begins with "a French report", so I assume it is related to the report or France? Panamitsu (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Extent and Cause section

The extent and cause section of this article lacks weight and is biased. It only includes perspective and opinion that underestimates, or outright denys, discrimination against men. It does not offer any counter arguments to these opinions. It should either be expanded to include more varried opinions on the subject of discrimination against men, or it should be struck from the article. 99.231.86.121 (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple lines in there which acknowledge it in some shape or form so I'm unsure about what you're talking about. The burden is on you here to provide more reliable sources. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bigfoot article only includes perspective[s] and opinion that underestimates, or outright [denies] the existence of Bigfoot. Wikipedia is in fact biased in favor of facts stated in reliable sources, so including more [varied] opinions in this case would be false balance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with 99.231.86.121 that this section lacks weight and is biased in a manner poorly supported. The first line claiming discrimination against men sources to a textbook glossary (pg 303 of Strunk) that is itself a claim without a source or an explanation. And the claim is an example of specious reasoning. Sexism is discrimination full stop.

Ideological combatants may enjoy debating the topic of the extent to which men are discriminated against, which is a thing that is changing over time and not currently tracked with methods like the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI), which only measures sexism affecting women. But as it pertains to the specious claim that discrimination against men isn't sexism, the fallacy is that a lesser extent is equal to a different type or kind.

If the definition of sexism isn't discrimination based on sex or gender, but now includes a difficult to verify requirement for 'systemic extent', then a non-discriminatory application of that new definition must include a reliable way to measure extent as it changes over time, which means the definition of sexism must change as what is systemic changes. And given that the dictionary definition of sexism doesn't include any mention of what is or isn't adequately systemic to qualify, it may be a poor choice for an encyclopedia entry as well. If this specious claim is representative of the majority view, as is suggested by it being the first line in Extent, then it might be evidence that sexist discrimination against men is now systemic in the form of a sexist definition of sexism that only requires proof of systemic nature from one gender not now included in popular metrics like the ASI.

To be clear, the line that discrimination against men isn't sexism is a problem with NPOV, BALANCE, and WP:UNDUE. The funny part is, it's also an example of discrimination against men, supported with a short glossary entry.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/sexism/Sexism-and-feminism#ref321547

There is an example of an explanation about how the term sexism came to be defined in a discriminatory manner by what may or may not be a majority representative view. There are humorous problems with that source, like this line:

"The appropriation of the term sexism was frustrating to many feminists, who stressed the systemic nature of women’s oppression through structural and historical inequalities."

It's funny because you can't 'appropriate' a term that means gender-based discrimination unless you are genderless. And the act of corrupting a definition to exclude others is a type of appropriation. But even the chuckly imbalance of Britannica on this issue is more balanced than the article here or the wiki on Sexism.

The line should be struck from this article and Sexism needs a section on Misandry that doesn't itself get lost in a corrupted definition of what sexism is. 75.174.27.41 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to summarize published, reliable sources, not to dissect the authors' reasoning or evaluate how corrupted a definition is. In any case, the common dictionary definition of sexism refers especially to "discrimination against women". Finding WP:BALANCE means seeking out secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint, not armchair logical analyses. To show that the statement by Strunk & Locke (2019) is WP:UNDUE, one would need sources of comparable reliability that take a different view. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Your link there to a dictionary entry for sexism doesn't mention anything about discrimination needing to be sufficiently systemic to rise to the level of sexism. Neither does the entry over at dictionary.com. Are these sources not of comparable reliability to a glossary definition in a textbook? Does their existence not constitute a scholarly disagreement about the definition of sexism, taking a view not now represented in this article or in Sexism (WP:DUE if not WP:UNDUE)? Is it necessary to find sources that describe the disagreement before it becomes a BALANCE issue?

If none of the above, is it possibly a WP:IMPARTIAL issue due to not include other definitions of sexism while including a definition that is respected but biased?

Also, didn't claim it was Wikipedia's job to dissect authors' reasoning or evaluate corruption of definitions. I had fun with that part of it, but I assure you I have no intention of expecting the practice to be widely adopted here. Your very brief armchair analysis of your own dictionary definition, by contrast, is neither very funny nor on-topic with respect to my claim about a potential BALANCE issue. It might be best to leave the armchair analysis to those that do it better. 65.129.143.18 (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

In case this is not in shared view and for clarity, the phrase "especially: discrimination against women", appearing in the webster's definition, does not exclude discrimination against men from the definition as Strunk and Locke do in their glossary entry. 65.129.143.18 (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a discussion forum, so armchair logical analyses are unwelcome in any case. The statement by Strunk & Locke is not in Wikipedia's voice; it's attributed directly to the authors, so there's no impartiality problem.

A dictionary is not comparable to an academic monograph. Dictionaries define words as they are used by the public at large; an encyclopedia like Wikipedia exists to summarize existing knowledge about a topic with reference to expert sources from maistream academic publishers.

Strunk & Locke are not the only authors to describe sexism as a system of oppression; a quick search on Google scholar turned up the following: Sexism is more than gender bias, gender prejudice, and gender discrimination. [...] Sexism is governmental, institutional, and organizational policies, laws, and rules that benefit boys and men. It is about the system granting social power and control to men (boys) over women (girls) and undermining the power and safety of women or girls (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Jewkes et al., 2015).  —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The impartiality problem, as I understand it, lies in the presentation of a controversial definition of sexism that excludes discrimination against men without including the opposing view or noting that the definition of sexism is disputed. It is the only line in Extent making a claim about the definition of sexism. By not presenting the other viewpoint, this line is engaging in the dispute about the definition of sexism. Given that we are discussing how to improve this article, your claim about what is unwelcome appears to be off-topic as well as a bit hostile, as your claim that there's no problem appears to be the result of a poor grasp of the WP:IMPARTIAL standard.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-is-sexism#what-sexism-is

"Sexism is prejudice and discrimination against people based on their sex or gender."

"Worldwide, sexism affects women and girls most often."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7951888/

"The belief that men are now the disadvantaged gender has gained traction, sparking debates both in popular culture and academia"

"Taken together, these data suggest that there is an increasing number of men and women who believe that “the tables have turned”–that is, that the target of sexism has shifted from women to men, and that anti-male discrimination is now a pervasive social issue."

It's not just the dictionaries. Patiently points back to WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:DUE/UNDUE. 75.174.42.108 (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

https://eige.europa.eu/publications-resources/toolkits-guides/sexism-at-work-handbook/part-1-understand/what-sexism?language_content_entity=en

See the definition of sexism there, and note that it links sexism to power in a way the other sources do not, constituting yet another respected, mainstream academic viewpoint about the definition not presented in this article. 75.174.42.108 (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Medical News Today is not an academic source. The European Institute for Gender Equality is political body, not an academic one. In any case, both these descriptions of sexism contradict your assertion that Sexism is discrimination full stop.

The article in PLOS One actually calls the growing belief in anti-male discrimination "a particularly subtle form of anti-female sexism". What an "increasing number of men and women" believe is not the issue here. WP:DUE means summarizing significant viewpoints according to their prevalence in reliable sources, not [their] prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid the word 'contradict' likely doesn't mean what you think it means. Both MNT and EIGA define sexism in a manner that does not exclude discrimination against men. This is consistent with the assertion that sexism is discrimination full stop. A contradictory definition might be one dependent on being sufficiently systemic, a new reason to exclude men from the definition, or perhaps introducing a new type of gender discrimination that doesn't rise to the level of sexism for some reason. In any case, the debate about the definition of sexism seems more than a little off-topic for Extent in Discrimination Against Men. I patiently point back to WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:DUE/UNDUE that the line should be struck if we don't care to expand the section with all well-represented viewpoints on the definition of sexism instead of just Strunk and Locke.

Your quote from PLOS One is taken out of context and preceded by a dishonest reading of the quote in its context. Their BSS(BS) is defined as "the perception that anti-male discrimination is pervasive, that it now exceeds anti-female discrimination, and that it is caused by women’s societal advancement". Your quote in its proper context refers to the BSS, which is distinct from the growing reality of anti-male discrimination, which is sexism according to the authors of that article:

"Sexism has been defined as discriminatory and prejudicial attitudes, beliefs and practices directed against a person based on their sex and/or gender"

Their source for this definition is the APA Dictionary of Psychology

Are you going to claim this definition also 'contradicts' the assertion that sexism is discrimination full stop? Perhaps you'd like to take another quote out of context at this juncture to mischaracterize the conclusion of a scholarly work? 75.174.42.108 (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sexism has its own article. A generalized description of sexism is not necessarily relevant here. What we are interested in is sources that evaluate anti-male discrimination in the context of sexism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The PLOS One article does not say anti-male discrimination matches the definition of sexism according to the APA. It's up to those wishing to include a description of the growing reality of anti-male discrimination to present reliable sources supporting their claim. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

"The article in PLOS One actually calls the growing belief in anti-male discrimination "a particularly subtle form of anti-female sexism"". The belief in growing anti-male discrimination, not the growing belief in anti-male discrimination. The source admits that there is discrimination against men. This is the first, and the second - the article Discrimination against men is not about the US. There are plenty of legal systems which don't protect men from discrimination like Title VII and US landmark courts' desicions do. About definition of sexism - prejudice plus power is also more popular in US sources than in the world. Reprarina (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Reprarina Which legal systems don't protect men from discrimination as you mention? I think this article is lacking information about that so it would be a good addition if sources exist. —Panamitsu (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Russian and Indian. For example, Kirsten K. Davis in Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law writes that "However, where the United States has prohibited "unreasonable" discrimination against men even where a legislative purpose is to remedy past discrimination against women, Indian courts, under their affirmative action provision, will permit "the State to discriminate in favor of women against men."" It is necessary to carefully report facts about affirmative actions, without presenting the US experience as international. For example, in Pincus's works, affirmative action does not usually lead to discrimination against men, but he analyzes the situation based on US experience and US law. Reprarina (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If we use that source I think it should go into the affirmative action section since it's specifically about affirmative action rather than discrimination against men in general. Agree? —Panamitsu (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Reprarina (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It's both a growing belief in anti-male discrimination and a belief in growing anti-male discrimination. That's what it means when you say a belief has gained traction and there are an increasing number of people who believe it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Belief in existence ≠ Belief in increasing. Reprarina (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say they were equivalent. I said both are true in this case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Reprarina (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, but this dispute seems overly nitpicky, so I'm willing to drop it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The PLOS One paper mentions contexts where men may actually be discriminated against, such as female-dominated professions or traditionally feminine roles. This passing remark is evidently meant to contrast this limited and uncertain possibility of anti-male discrimination with the belief that it is ubiquitous as well as a result of the advancement of women's rights. The paper says the latter belief is a new manifestation of anti-female sexism and serves to uphold men’s higher social status. In short, this source does not support any strong claims about the existence of anti-male discrimination. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

One of the authors of the source is Francesca Manzi who clearly writes in her article "Cultural norms that continue to proscribe traditionally feminine behavior for men may also play a role in why discrimination against men is often not labeled as such." There is a clear scientific consensus: there is discrimination against men. The authors of the source also think so. Reprarina (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

One author ≠ "authors", a single scholarly source ≠ "scientific consensus". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

There are quite a sufficient number of highly and positively cited articles by scholars to state the scientific consensus that discrimination against men exists. Reprarina (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

"About definition of sexism - prejudice plus power is also more popular in US sources than in the world." -Reprarina

We have strong agreement here. This is why the first line of Extent is a problem. By mentioning only one definition of sexism, the wiki article has entered a debate about the definition of sexism. The easy fix is to strike the line. The harder one is to present the other popular, well-sourced definition(s). (WP:UNDUE and WP:IMPARTIAL)

"Sexism has its own article. A generalized description of sexism is not necessarily relevant here." -Sangdeboeuf

Strong agreement here as well. This is why the easy solution is also probably best for staying on topic in Discrimination Against Men, unless the aim is to show that discrimination against men in the US extends to the disputed definition of sexism in the US. But I agree with Reprarina that a US-centric take might be best avoided for BALANCE.

"The PLOS One article does not say anti-male discrimination matches the definition of sexism according to the APA." -Sangdebeouf

That's some spiffy mental gymnastics in the form of armchair analysis. It's also off-topic both with respect to the PLOS One article and this discussion. If such contributions are considered constructive, I'd counter that PLOS One doesn't say that anti-male discrimination doesn't match the definition of sexism according to the APA, which doesn't exclude discrimination against men in its own words. 65.129.156.77 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Question

Why did you remove my transgender related things? You know the old saying, transitioning from male to female gets you a "get out of the patriarchy free card". 216.145.66.224 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Because it was not supported by a source. I don't think it was even appropriate for the paragraph even if it was sourced. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)