Talk:Sexism

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>

, (new)

Workplace sexism studies

The debate about discrimination against women in the workplace is more complex than most people seem to realise. There are various methodologies for testing this, including: hiring surveys where CVs are sent out with different names; surveys in which people are asked to subjectively rank the suitability of candidates; real-world statistics of salary and career progression. Ample evidence also shows significant differences across different jobs. There's a discussion of methodologies here[1] and for comparison here's one on racial bias[2].

Studies by Christine Wennerås and Agnes Wold and by Moss-Racusin (behind the Jennifer and John study and other studies) have found evidence of anti-female bias in science.[3][4] In contrast Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci at Cornell found that female candidates were preferred for STEM positions.[5][6] This has been criticised for not reflecting real-world hiring practices (it was based on asking people to judge a career summary, which isn't a usual way to choose people for a job). Similar studies in other industries have found a pro-female biases: Booth and Leigh found strong pro-female bias in traditionally female jobs (such as secretarial work) and a slight pro-female bias in sales (seen as mixed-gender).[7] Men may be discriminated against more for having worked part time than women are (across a range of jobs).[8] Other research finds that bias against women in scientific academia is larger for higher-level jobs.[9]

There is a lot of research being conducted in the area of workplace discrimination (for informal surveys see e.g. [10][11][12]) so it's inexcusable to be acting like there's no evidence. The problem if anything is that there's too much evidence. Sorry I don't have time to go into more depth. --Gospatric (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

"so it's inexcusable to be acting like there's no evidence." <- I think nobody here is acting like there's no evidence. I think the discussion is more about how much such evidences explain the gender gap. Please, if you can, add all the studies you have cited to the page. --McLaghing (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This year's nobel prize for economy showed that a lot (most? all?) of the gender pay gap, at least for higher-paying jobs in a first world country, is due to the consequences of pregnancy and parenting. Which in a sense isn't the employer discriminating against women (even though you could still argue they are nevertheless wrong in placing such an undue premium on assiduity), but it's still a bad asymmetry. Even when it comes to freaking woman-exclusive baby-making every unavoidable externality ought to be accounted for (at least unless you are an antinatalist that doesn't place any socially positive value on the burden and the privilege to give birth I guess, but I don't think it's something conservatives would like to entertain). But I don't believe we are even to the point where primary caretaking expectations don't exist, or at least that they are situational as opposed to perfectly across gender lines. --Mirh (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Common conservative views

This section is at worst totally unnecessary and at best useful but embeds a lot of obvious bias and assumptions with few referenced datapoints. The question is whether to remove it entirely, or to rework it to hold more nuance and balance it with an equally nuanced section on common liberal views. Einlanzer (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Sexist discriminations against men - Balance fallacy?

The section "Sexual discrimination against men" (which comes first) has ten points. The section "Sexual discrimination against women" also has ten points and is about the same size.

Which sort of looks like we are implying that both sexes suffer equally from sexism.

I'm sure that that is not what we want to suggest.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is enough to accuse the page of balance fallacy. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

If you take the number of points as indicative of such a measure....but why would you do that? It doesn't change the fact that we live in a male dominated society when looking purely at those who make up the majority of positions of socioeconomic power. Women are more often "subjects" to the rule of men then vice versa, but sexism still hurts everyone. I would agree with the implicit premise that women suffer more on the whole from sexism when compared to men but I don't think the number of examples we list under each sub-header really implies the opposite one way or another. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC).

I see where you are coming from, but is it even a race to begin with really? I could only imagine a chud as having this perspective, and in this sense the balancing may actually help to convince them to stop being a bratty MRA.
The only important thing should be to underline that we aren't talking about "different sexisms", but that once you put some particular constraints on women an equal and opposite one is necessarily created for men (hell, even innocent niceties are enough to create nefarious standards). --Mirh (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Now that I have actually taken seminars in Feminist Ethics during my time in grad school, I feel more equipped to address this.

Part of the issue is making sense of sexism as a form of oppression, and when doing such we are necessarily talking about systems of social dominance. It doesn’t really make sense to talk about men being dominated as a social group when no social group exists that collectively holds political will over them.

This doesn’t entail that men cannot be treated unfairly, or that sexism as a personal prejudice is not something men can experience — but keep in mind that the sociocultural double-standards that men experience negatively are often those to which they impose upon themselves as a group, or they are framed in terms of the stigmatized as particularly un-manly. “You throw like girl”, “you’re a fairy, and not a real man”, or “be a man and toughen up”.

Women are often subject to the standards of sexism in the form of a hatred directed to them as women. They are a bitch, or a slut. The social stigma is not often framed in terms of them acting unwomanly, but as exhibiting themselves as being an inferior type of woman, or personifying the worst qualities of womanhood.

The way sexism is characteristically expressed in the standards that men are subject to that are harmful, are oriented towards toxic ideals of masculinity. They are seen as being less of a man for not conforming to these ideals. The problem is that they are not acting superiorly, like a man, who is by default superior.

Women are by the cultural default classed as inferior, there isn’t the parallel of “not being a true woman” (unless cis-sexism is at play). The bitch, the slut, the whore, the prude, or the nag are all still considered women — unlike how, the pansy, the fairy, or the wimp are not “real” men. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any logical "necessity", and I don't know where you have been living that tomboys haven't been shamed forever for not liking dresses or playing in the dirt (and god forbid you started to want to build muscle).
Then sure it's ultimately a matter of hierarchies and oppression, and by the gods fuck those concern trolls disingenuously wondering why nobody talks about "male homicides" or "workplace fatalities", but that doesn't take away from those cases where discrimination is in fact eventually happening? Maybe you could argue that if a stereotypical incel gets mocked for crying or is bullied in nursing school it's just karma and reaping what one sows.. but be it as it may, nobody stated this assumption and presumption of innocence is always the rule of thumb.
I'm not sure what you studied (even though the name already is pretty sus) but the underlying TLDR that I got seems to be this adversarial worldview of men versus women, which is utterly shitty. It reeks of some kind of essentialism. --Mirh (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

There was no mention of logical necessity, I don't know if analyzing things in terms of logical necessity is particularly useful when dealing with cultural associations and social heuristics. We are more so in the realm of synthetic than the analytic, so to speak. I grew up with a "tomboy" and my sister was praised for it, and was nowhere near as shamed for it as the male-presenting gay friend who wore a dress for a skit in school. Looking at how our culture responds to someone like Tilda Swinton, compared to the cultural panic in response to Harry Styles in a dress, suggests there is no real equivalency here. This sort of thing is even a factor in Julia Serano's analysis of trans-misogyny. The idea that someone would rather live as a woman than a man, and even go out of their way to physically alter their body to do so when AMAB is taken as inherently irrational or suspect. Transgender men are not treated with nearly as much animosity, the choice to rather live as a man is taken as defaultly "rational". In fact, when trans-men are subject to transphobia, the idea that preferring to live as a man in response to misogyny is taken as "reasonable", though that is very likely not why trans-men transition. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

You used the word necessarily... I only added "logically" to underline more my puzzling.
Then I'll totally grant that tomboys (or homo-females) still get WAY less flak then tomgirls (or homo-males). But still, what you said wasn't just a difference in intensity, but “unladylikeness” not even being much of a real thing.
I don't know why you bring up trans people in this (after having previously put it aside) as if the scare wasn't about genetics making you a pig. Yes, of the superior default is "man", but what has that to do with.. uhm, the framing of sexism? I don't believe anybody here was calling into question whether one gender has it worse or not. --Mirh (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The name of laws in sexual assault cases

I removed the section about women not being able to get a sentence for life in UK and India because it is possible in both countries, it’s just not called „rape“. What kind of implications it has to call it something else than rape should perhaps be discussed but it’s important to not perpetuate the idea that there is no legal grounds against female sex offenders in these countries.

In UK it falls under the section „Causing sexual activity without consent ( penetrative) (section4(4))(indictable – max life)“ (https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences).

In India this would be Section 377 „unnatural offences“ (https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688&orderno=434#:~:text=India%20Code%3A%20Section%20Details&text=Whoever%20voluntarily%20has%20carnal%20intercourse,Explanation.) Nataratata (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nataratata Am restoring the part about India. While the UK does indeed have laws prohibiting female-on-male rape, India's laws surrounding unnatural offences as they have been interpreted by the courts do not prohibit it. The phrase "against the order of nature" that defines the offence is currently held to mean all forms of sex except heterosexual vaginal intercourse (https://blog.ipleaders.in/unnatural-sexual-offence/#Types_of_unnatural_sexual_offences), thus creating a loophole for women who commit sexual violence against men. Gay Centrist (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Karen

This seems to be an American phenomenon - 'obnoxious customer, coworker, HOA person etc acting while female' - rather than merely being 'an obnoxious person.' Anna Livia (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Anna Livia It looks like the karen slur originated in the US, but as recently as three years ago it was being used internationally, as documented by the BBC. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Not seen in the media I normally use.

The term is definitely an example of sexism though - denying the potential validity of the complainer's point of view or authority *just because she is a woman*. Anna Livia (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a stereotype associated with racism. The Guardian also describes the cultural circumstances of how it went viral.[13] Here there is a kind of counterpoint on sexism. However, a sexist meme against something sexist is still sexist, of course.

“We as a culture have adopted this stance that white women are more virtuous and not complicit in upholding racism in particular,” said Apryl Williams, a professor of communication and media at the University of Michigan. “They just sort of go along with it, but they’re not conscious actors. The Karen meme says, no, they are conscious actors. These are deliberate actions. They are complicit. And I think that’s why it strikes a nerve with people.”

The BBC article mentions that "Ken" is sometimes used for a male Karen, but not that popular. Actually, "male Karen" can nowadays often be seen on the web, over time "Karen" became a more generalized idea like that. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)