Talk:Reverse sexism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Aalverso.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2018 and 20 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aleslie plu, CaitlinMarie59.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Simplicity

Sexism is a gender neutral term and the core sexism article should concern sexism against women as well as sexism against men. Reverse sexism article should be part of the core sexism article. Wikipedia team, what are the page views on sexism versus reverse sexism?

NPOV includes keeping both sides on equal footing and not putting one side in a much less likely to be read place.

Neutrality of section "Examples of reverse sexism"

The section fails to identify that most of these claims come from Men's right movement opinions (I added this attribution to the most egregious case of the case of a rape myth "she asked for it") and misses criticism of these claims. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: That's fine, but WP:ALLEGED is pretty clear on language like "they claim" that's intended to express doubt with the tone of the sentence. Wikipedia is neutral and should be written in a neutral tone. That tone makes it seem as if Wikipedia is taking an editorial side. If there's an attribution issue, the author can be mentioned. - Scarpy (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Scarpy: "they claim" because indeed they claim. If you omit "they claim", the text becomes even worse: it will seem that their claim is universal truth. Like, "women, rather than men, are the cause of sexual harassment" - oh, really? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Made a compromise edit. - Scarpy (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

First, why is this article overwhelmed by alleged examples of the phenomenon it describes? The article consisted of 1,098 bytes of "readable prose" before the section was added; afterwards, it consisted of 5,193 bytes.

Second, the section title should include the word "alleged". None of these has been proven to be an example of reverse sexism, which may or may not exist. (Is it a fact that "men are discriminated against in custody battles in the United States"?) Compare the certainty of this article with the more even-handed approach at reverse racism, which it cites as a parallel in its second sentence.

Finally, after they're pruned back significantly, every one of these alleged examples should be worded neutrally, which requires a healthy dose of editorial skepticism. See WP:V and the parenthetical in the preceding paragraph. The election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency may or may not be an example of white supremacy, but his election to the presidency is widely regarded as a fact. The same cannot be said of the "examples" cited here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

FWIW per WP:BRD I've removed the content pending consensus emerging to restore. But I think the article as a whole is a more relevant topic for discussion (see below). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge/redirect?

Where should this be merged/redirected? It's effectively about a term or the ideological motivation behind the term rather than the concept, which is just sexism (as our article on that subject defines it, it includes men and women, albeit in different ways/extents). We also already have a subject on reverse discrimination, which doesn't cover this well and, to the extent it's encyclopedic, it could probably be covered there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I support redirecting and merging to reverse discrimination, but would be fine with sexism as a target too. This article is very poorly written & sourced as it stands, it either needs to be vastly improved or redirected. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Having worked on it a bit: it's even worse than I thought. Half the sources cited didn't even mention "reverse sexism" at all, others are misrepresented or mention the topic only in passing. I cleaned it up a bit but what we are left with is still barely serviceable as a stub. If it's to be kept someone needs to find better sources and put some work into expanding it (and by "someone" I mean someone who knows what they're doing, not someone who is going to google "reverse sexism" and jam in every passing mention that they can find, misrepresenting and badly garbling the message of the sources along the way). For the record though I still think this would be best left as a redirect to a subsection of either reverse discrimination or sexism. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand the idea that reverse sexism and reverse discrimination might stand better as one article were are intertwined but I also feel that having such an article would be extremely long because the two put together create a very broad, expansive category of thought. CaitlinMarie59 (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarity on sources

Notice of intention to understand MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)'s perspective on clarification of study content within Wikipedia. Notably that the use of the term reverse sexism does appear in the reverted study, but is not the focus. Thus confused about the nature of the reversion, which removes the information as to context, but not the information itself. Mrspaceowl (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

I want to explain some of my recent edits. (The proceeding statement unsigned comment was made by user MShabazz, but from context this would not be immediately clear).

Rewriting convoluted sentences

I can't think of any reason why we would say

Reverse sexism was described by readers of mainstream news websites, reacting to campaigns for the removal of men's magazines such as Loaded, Nuts and Zoo, as causing masculinity to be ‘under threat’, ‘attacked’, ‘victimised’ or ‘demonised’ by successful corporate feminists and their perceived agendas.

when we could use plain English and say

Readers of mainstream news websites reacted to campaigns for the removal of men's magazines such as Loaded, Nuts and Zoo, by describing reverse sexism as causing masculinity to be "under threat", "attacked", "victimized" or "demonized" by feminists and their perceived agendas.— MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

problem here is this necessitates that the responses were directly regarding the subject at hand and not an outpouring of related speech *prompted* by the subject, which the study specifically notes it often was. While I have no problem personally with sentences containing multiple subclauses I have no objection to removing some as long as the sense of the original is retained, which the proposed edit does not. Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Readers' comments aren't a reliable source. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The study makes very clear the context these appear within and they are part of a highly credible and scolarly study from University of London, which is the cited source. We are not talking about a handful of individual comments here, but a wide-ranging study using readers' comments on various mainstream news sites as a bellweather of opinion on the topic. If you do not consider qualitative data over a wide-range of persons considered and assessed by top-flight academics unless this data is collected itself from people you believe to be credible you would have to remove a vast swathe of Wikipedia's most important study citations. Many thousands at least, and across a number of Wikipedia's best articles. A position that is not tenable. Furthermore, you would, in a sense, be invalidating one of the most central methodologies by which sociologists assess society within academic tradition and practice. Mrspaceowl (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The confusion resulted from a piss-poor sentence. Did the readers discuss "reverse sexism" at all? Or the authors of the study? Or is that a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of what the source says? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Please consider the nature of your language and what reaction it is likely to cause before making statements of this kind. Particularly is it likely to foster an atmosphere of mutual understanding or to forment dischord? To the subject at hand: have you read the study in full? It most certainly does discuss the topic of reverse sexism. That much is beyond doubt. Mrspaceowl (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did read the source. It mentions the subject of "reverse sexism" but never suggests that it was mentioned in readers' comments. That makes it impermissible original research to say, as you did, that readers' comments described reverse sexism in one way or another. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing original research

If a source says A, B, and C, you can add a sentence that the source says A, B, and C. It's original research to gripe that the author of the source clearly knows nothing because he attended the wrong college, or because she practices the wrong religion, or because the article was published by wrong publisher. If any of those things are relevant and meaningful, cite a reliable source that makes that argument. Otherwise, keep it to yourself. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The point at issue is not that the study text makes this statement, but that it is stated in the introduction and is not procedurally tested for. The statement is still valid and no aspersions were cast on the validity of the study which in any case to my mind seemed procedurally sound within the context of its assumptions. Nor indeed were any statements made that could even imply a 'wrong' college, publisher or religion or anything similar so it is strange you should critise the edit on this basis as it seems almost wholy unrelated.

The context, that the statement was an expression made at the start of the study, is important to note, as is understanding that no attempt was made to methodically verify the claim within the study. There is nothing wrong with that: it didn't fall within the study's scope to do so. Stating that the study does not seek to interrogate the claim *because* it was not within its scope to do so is not a gripe, but rather a critical method of avoiding what appears to have become a common point of misunderstanding.

Put simply, the text under interogation is merely telling the reader what the study is and in what context it made the statement.

On the basis of your feedback, however, I believe it can be in the interests of Wikipedia's values to reword the statement so a similar misunderstanding is not reached by a lay person who does not have a complete understanding of the research process. Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Too bad. It's not your role to caveat what reliable sources say by describing what you think are their shortcomings. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

As I said the description was not of shortcomings. No suggestion was made whatsoever as to any negative opinions on the study, but only as regard to the statement's context within the study. Your reply is in no way an accurate summation of the original change. The basis for reversion is founded on a false representation. Mrspaceowl (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's your way of saying that reverse sexism wasn't the subject of the study, so it doesn't need to be taken as seriously as other sources. Why does it matter if we quote the introduction, the first paragraph, the tenth paragraph, or the summary at the end? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Because the preamble to an academic study is where the conductors of the study make statements of methodology and assumption. All academic studies make some assumptions as to the conditions in which the study takes place, that much is unavoidable. However, the purpose of this section is not to *prove* such claims, but rather state that they were necessary assumptions in order to give context and structure to the proceeding research. The issue in stating an assumption made at the beginning of study as if it were a finding is that a casual reading is likely to assume that the evidential basis for the claim roots from the study itself, when in this case it does not. Mrspaceowl (talk) 06:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Tagging original research

In general, tall people are more successful than short people. They make more money, and they live longer lives. I can cite study after study that demonstrates the disparity. That doesn't mean I can cite those studies as evidence of a conspiracy against short people unless the sources discuss the possibility of such a conspiracy.

Likewise, female models may work more often and get paid more than male models. That doesn't make it an example of reverse sexism unless the source says it is.— MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I checked the unsourced claims made, then found evidence that substantiated the claims. Where claims were substantially or marginally at odds with the credible sources found I changed the material to correspond with the credible sources. In your objection to the improvement you now appear to be suggesting that to qualify for inclusion a source must directly state causation and not only prove correlation. This does not seem a strong enough argument for *removal*, particularly as the statement made did not overtly state this correlation. I appreciate you have made no such request, but I am stating this for the record. However, it is felt that were a particular text to draw a causation from this rather striking differential, that it would improve the article still further to include it. I noticed a few additional texts while I was researching which made additional claims around male vs female modelling which could potentially be added to the wiki as well. I will look to add sources for these to improve the quality of the article, as well as anything I can find that directly states a causal link. I note that requiring every page of Wikipedia to include only reference material that specifically uses the article name would be unworkable so I will assume this is not what you are saying. Mrspaceowl (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The argument for removal is that these are examples thought up by some Wikipedia, not examples cited by reliable sources. Please read WP;No original research. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

These examples were backed up by credible sources and were not original research, as they simply restated the findings of the credible sources, and did not in any way engage in research of their own. There is nothing within WP;No original research which would in any way back up your removal of the section of this Wikipedia article that you removed. Mrspaceowl (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

If the sources didn't identify them as instances or examples of reverse sexism, it's original research for you to write that they are. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Mrspaceowl, you need to stop WP:Edit warring. Objections to your edits have been made; so you should take the time to discuss. If some other form of WP:Dispute resolution is needed, go with that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

My concern here is with misrepresentation and antagonistic language used by MShabazz which as you rightly point out are probably more appropriate for dispute resolution at this juncture. Of additional concern, however, is why this comment is addressed to Mrspaceowl and not to MShabazz. I also worry that content which facilitates misreprentation of credibly sourced material is left in place during any dispute resolution process, and that significant amounts of credibly sourced content has been made unavailable to Wikipedia users. Furthermore, while I am certain made with the best of intentions, I am concerned that the statement "you need to stop" aimed at a single new Wikipedian such as myself, might to a younger or less mature person be taken as a personal slight and hence cause unnecessary conflict or could be seen to imply a one-sided wrong-doing which could thus be seen as prejudicial to any dispute resolution process. However, these caveats being noted I will take your advice and take this dispute to resolution in good faith and with the hopes of a timely and appropriate resolution. Mrspaceowl (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The only misrepresentation is on your part, Mrspaceowl. It's impermissible original research to add your own "examples" of reverse sexism, just as it would be to add your own analysis of science experiments or history. If you can't cite reliable sources that describe the phenomena as reverse sexism, we can't include them in the encyclopedia article as examples of reverse sexism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You have been consistantly rude, have not engaged in real debate but only removed content and again appear to be misrepresenting someone else's edits I improved as if they were my own. You are also guilty of a staggering literalism and reductivism regarding use of terms. This after I spent very considerable time explaining to you the rationale for edits. Tbh it seems like you're not interested in the truth but only in being the one that 'won'. I just don't care enough about this one article to continue being treated in this way. Good bye. Mrspaceowl (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Time to make the call

Just saying that this article is a subject to edit wars. Whatever you decide to do about it is your call. 83.9.230.135 (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Seriously

I think making this a distinct article, specially with the current name makes it seem like only men are capable of doing sexist things and that reverse sexism isn't just sexism. — anonymous editor without signature

absolutely, the term reverse sexism is sexist in itself. --Sevku (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there are scientific consensus that sexism towards men and boys is reverse. So, I didn't see the term in the dissertation of Pasi Malmi. Some sorces call it reverse, other sorces silent. But it's only an illusion of the scientific consensus.--Reprarina (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Reference #18 Removal as Unreliable or Self Published Source

Vote that reference #18 be removed or or link to the original essay as it is based on a Melissa A. Fabello essay "Why Reverse Oppression Simply Cannot Exist" as stated in the Prerna Singh post.

18. Singh, Prerna (1 October 2018). "This Notion Called Reverse Sexism Cannot And Does Not Exist". Feminism In India.[self-published source?]

Article title is a bit of a problem...

I- LITERALLY

DO WE NOT SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE TITLE?

Seriously this should just redirect to sexism...

If it's just about the term itself, the examples section should not exist. --TRC 05:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Opinions should be described as such even when made by academics

Both references 16 and 17 are opinion pieces without any statical data to back the opinions made. WP:RS guidelines that they be opinions and not statements. Hence “stated” -> “opinion” for clearing up ambiguity of what the person stated.

From WP:RS

If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:8F1:499:B3B2:51C3 (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC) 

Yeah you changed Steve Bearman, Neill Korobov and Avril Thorne stated to Steve Bearman, Neill Korobov and Avril Thorne voiced opnions. That was already attributed. You just changed neutrally toned language to tendentious. Generalrelative (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no such thing as reverse sexism, it is just sexism

I think anybody who doesnt agree with me on that has alterior motives to spin a narrative where sexism is a women only problem. This article should redirect, period. 83.253.78.110 (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2022

Reverse sexism → Discrimination against men – I suggest renaming this article to Discrimination against men. The reasons are:

The controversy of the term "reverse sexism". The term "reverse sexism" raises big questions among both masculists and feminists. Nathansong and Young criticize it in their book Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man. A highly respected profeminist sociologist Fred Pincus in Reverse Discrimination: Dismantling the Myth is clearly distinguishing reverse discrimination against men (only some illegal pseudo-affirmative acts) and intentional discrimination against men (pp. 121-140).

Volumetric scientific works about sexism against men called Discrimination against men, for example, the dissertation of Pasi Malmi who doesn't use plaintly the term reverse sexism. In Russian language there is a Belarusian book "Дискриминация мужчин как проблемный вопрос общественных отношений". There are no current reliable sources which analise discrimination against men in details using the term reverse sexism. Aman Siddiqui doesn't use the term reverse sexism. Wikipedia should follow scientific literature. The term is obviously out of date.

So, I think that the arcticle needs to be renamed to Discrimination against men.--Reprarina (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support The use of the term reverse sexism, like the article on reverse racism, seems designed to delegitimise the concept. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  Reliable sources have delegitimise[d] the concept. Our article should reflect this. That's basic NPOV; WP doesn't give equal validity to every concept out there. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Of course reliable scources have delegitimise[d] the concept of reverse sexism and the idea that affirmative actions is reverse sexism or reverse discrimination. They haven't deligitimised the idea that such things as male-only military conscription or Russian laws is not the direct discrimination against men. Usually they use the term (direct) discrimination against men, not the term (neither direct nor reverse) sexism against men.Reprarina (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  To repeat, the subject of this article is specifically the concept of "reverse sexism". Anyone is free to create a separate article for (direct) Discrimination against men. "Direct" and "reverse" are not antonyms. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support I don't usually care about these kinds of articles, but saying it's "reverse sexism" when it's against men seems incredibly sexist to me. Super Ψ Dro 13:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  Users' personal feelings don't matter. Non-neutral titles that reflect common usage are perfectly fine. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The term "reverse sexism" has a very controversial academic value, in the discussions of feminists and masculists, it is initially used as a strawman. Renaming the same article to "Discrimination against men" will better correspond to the WP:NPV.--1677venzel gottorpskij (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC) — 1677venzel gottorpskij (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  "Reverse sexism" has more than 940 hits on Google Scholar, including in the American Journal of Bioethics, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Media Psychology, and other respected publications. How feminists and masculists use the term is beside the point. The article can describe any relevant controversies without engaging in false balance. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes but it's not the mainstream term for discrimination against men.Reprarina (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Once again, "discrimination against men" is not the subject of the article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support It's still just "sexism", there is nothing "reverse" about it. However, it is a moot point as this article should likely be merged into misandry as a WP:OVERLAP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  There is nothing "reverse" about it ... Source? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Fred Pilcus. He sais that some cases of individual illegal discrimination against men are not the reverse discrimination but intentional one.Reprarina (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Merge into misandry as WP:OVERLAP, I have ceased to believe this article should be kept around. Misandry is the only sensible name for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Such an article title would suggest in wikivoice that discrimination against men is a significant issue in society, which is not what RS say. We follow mainstream sources. It's odd that there are two move/merge discussions going on at once, neither of which is justified. If we really want to move or merge, why not start a third discussion about merging into Politics of resentment? There's a real movement of Incel and other male grievance advocates who claim that males being subordinated to females is a real problem in the world. NightHeron (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  There is already an article named Misandry. And there is no problem with existence of the arcticle named this way, is it? Discrimination against men is not obviously reverse according to RS e.g. Reverse Discrimination: Dismantling the Myth written by absolutely non-masculinist scholar Fred Pincus. I advise you to read pp. 121-140. The articles about such things as conscription or about some Russians laws in books don't use the term reverse sexism. We can write a correct preamble. Also, the word reverse and today's preamble cause associations that women is the discriminator of men. It is also not what RS say. Reprarina (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  Also, if we tell about such things as a Russian law in books according to which the female criminal as Irina Gaidamachuk who killed 17 people was sentenced to 20 years in prison... I don't think that article named Reverse sexism is suitable for this. The article should represent a worldwide view of the subject. Reprarina (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  Laws are made by politicians, not scholars or researchers. Totally WP:UNDUE. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Russian scholars analize these laws and say that it is discrimination against men. And they don't use the term reverse sexism analizing them. Because it's not reverse (it's not from women towards men).Reprarina (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  In the case of whites alleging race discrimination and men allegin sex discrimination, it is important to differentiate between affirmative action-realated cases and those that have nothing to do with affirmative action-related cases and those that have nothing to do with affirmative action. In the affirmative action cases, there are a few instances in which whites are hurt by illegal interpretations of what is required; I have reffered to these cases as 'reverse discrimination'.... There are also a series of cases where whites or males say that they have been discriminated against but affirmative action is not involved. When the courts have upheld their allegations, I have called this 'intentional discrimination'. (c) Reverse Discrimination: Dismantling the Myth pp. 137. Reprarina (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  Men allegin[g] sex discrimination ... males say that they have been discriminated against ... Note the bolded words. Pincus is not contrasting reverse sexism with discrimination against men at all; he is making a case that discrimination against men, which has been labeled "reverse discrimination" by conservatives, is a myth. In the concluding chapter he answers with a "resounding 'no'" the question "Is reverse discrimination one of the serious problems that white men face?". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  You can read in archive org the full of book. Pinkus sais about cases which was recognized by the court as discrimination, and he sais that some of them (which is not about affirmative actions) are not the cases of reverse but intentional discrimination.Reprarina (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Then they aren't the subject of this article. See comments below. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC) edited 15:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  How, exactly, does not denying that men are ever discriminated against in the slightest degree consitute "false balance"?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  It's false balance because there is no systemic discrimination against men, as your own source (Pincus) shows; see above quote. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not only systemic but also individual discrimination against men is encyclopedically significant if RS talk about it. Anyway, Fred Pinkus sais that not all cases of discrimination against men is reverse discrimination. What do you think about it? Reprarina (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Once again, I think you misunderstand the source. On pp. 86-87, Pincus contrasts reduced opportunites, reverse discrimination, and intentional discrimination. These are different concepts, not different names for the same thing. If individual or intentional Discrimination against men is encyclopedically relevant, feel free to create a separate article about it. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. NightHeron has stated it perfectly clearly. There is already a strong consensus among editors that parity in this context would constitute WP:FALSEBALANCE. See for example this RfC. I would support merging into Politics of resentment, but certainly not Sexism, which primarily affects women and girls. Generalrelative (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The topic's common name is reverse sexism. --Jayron32 17:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not really. Reprarina (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'll be damned. You're right. I stand corrected. I think that the two terms are close enough in frequency of use that, per WP:UCN, other considerations may apply, and some of NightHeron and Generalrelative's concerns are valid. However, I'm changing my vote from oppose to officially Neutral, as I need to weigh the difference in usage frequency against those other considerations. I think that part of the problem is that we haven't really defined what the scope of this article is, it's relationship to other articles of similar concepts like misandry, and incel and the like. There's probably room for differentiating them in a way that doesn't violate WP:POVFORK, but I'm not sure where that lies. I may end up changing my vote away from neutral one way or the other later. But this needs some thinking. --Jayron32 18:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support. "Reverse Sexism" is a loaded political term intended to delegitimise sexism affecting men. However, I would prefer to merge the article into sexism and create a separate discrimination against men article. I oppose the move to make it part of an incel page. There is no academic support for this, and incels are not part of the spesific men's movement concerned with sexism against men to my knowledge. I also question the logic of saying that "because sexism against men is not the majority, it should be ignored". As I said on the Sexism merger page, this is like saying that female suicide victims should be ignored because they are not the majority. I find it very questionable logic. If there are few examples of Sexism against men, the section on this will limit itself through lack of examples. if it is not, then the academics are wrong about this and should be disregarded. WP:Undue rules should be quite happy with this. I don't feel like Sexism should be a competition. I have a list of citations for sexism against men, and I'm happy to add them. Male Expendibility is one form it takes, and that is already accepted by Wikipedia as a valid and cited phenomena. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC) — TiggyTheTerrible (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Wikipedia has many articles on loaded political terms. Far from being used to delegitimise sexism against men, the term "reverse sexism" was invented to create a false equivalence with sexism against women. See Bearman et al., 2009: "A key feature of sexism, as with oppression against any group, is that there is an institutionalized power differential between the oppressor group (men in the case of sexism) and the oppressed group (in sexism, women) ... Though oversimplified, this formula corrects the often mistaken belief that prejudice by itself is oppressive, giving rise to misinformed notions such as 'reverse racism' and 'reverse sexism.'" In any case, sexism against men is a separate topic; there's no reason to rename this article because the concept of, say, male expendability exists. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support merge per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. Otherwise, support move as ngrams suggests it is the WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • This assumes that all of the terms are referring to the same thing, which is very much not established. We can move all sorts of things if we just assume they're being used for the same subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Titles are not required to be "neutral", and I'm not seeing any evidence that "reverse sexism" and "discrimination against men" refer to the same thing. I suspect the situation is similar to Reverse racism/Anti-white discrimination. If there are sufficient sources for an article on discrimination against men, then anyone is free to create such an article. The relative frequency of the terms proves nothing without knowing the context in which they are used. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I suspect the situation is similar to Reverse racism/Anti-white discrimination. No. Because RS about anti-white discrimination doesn't exist but there are dissertations and books of scholars about discrimination against men. We don't need vulgarise the intersectionality. The difference is obvious. Moreover, one should not be Euro-chauvinist and racist. Because there are RS in Russian language about discrimination against men in Russians laws in books, there are RS of Black scholars about such thing as anti-Black misandry. For a reason unknown to me the English Wikipedia doesn't refer to them. --Reprarina (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

    @Reprarina If you could send me some of those sources in English I would be quite interested in reading about them if they are reliable. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

    Whether anything here is Euro-chauvinist and racist is beside the point. WP is for summarizing reliable sources, not what users think is obvious, which is just another name for WP:OR. The fact that a few sources of unknown reliability (including Malmi's dissertation and Discrimination against men as a problematic issue of public relations in Russian) use the term "discrimination against men" proves nothing. It's simple cherry-picking. Who is Aman Siddiqui and why should we care? Where exactly are the RS of Black scholars about ... anti-Black misandry? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

    Whether the term raises big questions among both masculists and feminists has no bearing on this article. We go by published sources that are reliable for this specific topic. The book Sanctifying Misandry only mentions "reverse sexism" once, in a parenthetical aside about how feminists (supposedly) rarely acknowledge sexism on the part of women. The source is not about discrimination or reverse sexism, but rather is a critique of the modern goddess movement (co-authored by religious scholar Katherine K. Young, who to my knowledge is not a recognized expert on this topic).

    Pincus's distinguishing between reverse discrimination against men and intentional discrimination against men is largely irrelevant. His book is about the concept of reverse discrimination as it relates to affirmative action, and in his conclusion he makes clear that "Whites and males ... have little experience with discrimination, relative to the experiences of people of color and women." His statement on page 139, "Is reverse discrimination one of the serious problems that white men face? The answer is a resounding "no.'" is congruent with the academic sources on "reverse sexism" that we cite. Nothing in this source justifies renaming the article IMO. The nominator's proposal relies on cherry-picked sources that do not even support their argument. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

    It's relevant. Because many people think that all cases of discrimination against men is the cases of reverse discrimination. And the first sentence of the article is supporting it now.Reprarina (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

    What many people think has no bearing on how we write articles per WP:V. Once again, "reverse discrimination", like "reverse racism" is simply an epithet that conservatives use to attack affirmative action. Please go read the sources. If you want to create an article about Discrimination against men, go right ahead. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

    Then the first sentence of the article should say about it. Because reverse sexism is not a term for sexism towards men. It's not the term for male only conscription, it's not the term for individual intentional discrimination against men, it's not the term for banning men from leaving Ukraine or for Articles 57 and 59 of Criminal Code of Russia. Reprarina (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

    WP:SOFIXIT. None of those topics are relevant to the title of this article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I've notified WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject Politics, and WikiProject Gender studies of this discussion. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:FALSEBALANCE. SangdXurWan (talk). I have really red hair. 05:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  'Reverse sexism' is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Because the mainstream position in gender studies is reverse sexism doesn't exist, the mainstream position in juridical literature is calling this issue discrimination against men. The sexism against men exists and it's reverse is not the maistream position in modern scientific literature. Am I wrong? Reprarina (talk) 07:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Reprarina @SangdXurWan Gender studies is described in the literature as the academic arm of an activist movement concerned with women's issues. They are not equipped to evaluate sexism against men, and nor do they. The field concerned with this is called Men's Studies, and they contend that sexism against men is prevalent and generally unacknowledged. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Sangdeboeuf I'm quoting the book "Professing Feminism." regarding the position of gender studies on activism. gender studies has never addressed men's issues, except to dismiss them, so I would really be the one asking for a citation showing that the subject as a whole has ever tried to address any of them in any form. Also, I'm not sure why reverse sexism would be spesificlly part of anti-Feminism as I've only heard it used by Feminists. It seems like a term aimed at anti-Feminism more than anything. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Professing Feminism is described by its own publisher as "controversial". Not a great source for determining due weight IMO. What's your source for Men's Studies ... contend that sexism against men is prevalent and generally unacknowledged, and what does this have to do with the topic of reverse sexism as described in the article? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  @@Sangdeboeuf Professing Feminism is written by a group of gender studies professors & quotes the phrase as common knowledge because it's all throughout the literature. if you Google it you get dozens of articles saying that gender studies is the academic arm of activist feminism. [For example https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11199-007-9227-z] .

  Second: I think it is the people here who oppose who need to prove that reverse sexism is different to normal sexism. As the current Sexism against men article apparently redirects here, I think it's obvious what Wikipedia is saying. Which is plainly biased. Why would one gender get to monopolise the sexism page if there wasn't some form of sexism going on? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  Noretta Koertge is a philosopher of science, not a gender-studies professor. Daphne Patai seems to have left women's studies behind when she began to critique feminism. Your link doesn't support you claims either; it's a study of activism among college students enrolled in gender studies programs. All of which is irrelevant; this is not the place to debate whether gender studies is a legitimate academic field, and accusations of sexism among WP users are uncalled-for. There's currently no page titled Sexism against men, but if you want to create a separate article there or at Discrimination against men, go right ahead. Common knowledge is often wrong, and I've already quoted several reliable sources that establish "reverse sexism" as a form of backlash against feminism. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  According to a heavily cited 2010 paper in Sex Roles that commented on the Stake 2007 study, the latter "show[ed] the importance of developing an awareness of social and political problems as a spur to greater involvement". In other words, people who learn about sexism in school are more likely to join a movement opposing sexism. Big shocker! Nothing to do with whether gender studies as a whole produces reliable scholarship. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  The mainstream position in juridical literature is calling this issue discrimination against men – please cite a source for this. I believe you are conflating two different topics, i.e. sex discrimination against men (real or imagined), and the concept of "reverse sexism" that is part of a backlash against feminism (see e.g. Renfrow & Howard, 2013). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  The Discrimination against men is now a redirect to Reverse sexism. Reverse sexism in this arcticle defined as is a (correct?) term for sexism directed towards men and boys. And there are nothing in this article that reverse sexism is a controversial term from the antifeminist conception. Reprarina (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Why do you say it is a correct term? Look at the sources (my bolding): "Some even go on to rebut claims of 'reverse sexism,' mirroring responses to current complaints against race preferential affirmative action policies as 'reverse racism'" (Garcia, 1997); "There has also been some backlash, with members of majority categories sometimes asserting a reverse sexism (toward men), reverse racism (toward Whites), and/or reverse ethnocentrism (toward, say, Anglos)" (Renfrow & Howard, 2013). Calling "reverse sexism" an assumption or assertion certainly doesn't suggest it is a correct term. Both of these sources compare "reverse sexism" with "reverse racism", and the term "backlash" implies controversy. Our article even states: The concept of reverse sexism has been characterized as a response to feminism. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am not saying that this is the correct term. On the contrary, I find it incorrect. And I think it's necessary to write about it in definition: Reverse sexism is a controversial[1][2][3] term for sexism towards men and boys. Reprarina (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Any controversy over the term is because the concept itself is a controversial, or as Pincus would say, a "myth". Dismantling the Myth is after all the subtitle of his book. That isn't a reason to rename the article any more than we would rename Bigfoot "Pacific Northwest Ape[1][2][3]". (I can type fake reference numbers too, see?) --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Pincus doesn't say that the existence of reverse discrimination is a myth completely. He says that only affirmative actions+illegal acts = reverse discrimination, and it's very rare. Also he sais that a part of discrimination against men (illegal cases of individual discrimination) is not reverse. He say that men and whites really can be victims of illegal individual discrimination. So, the first sentence of the article needs to be corrected. Reprarina (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'm afraid you have it backwards. Pincus's entire book is about the concept of reverse discrimination; the rare cases of individual discrimination against men are discussed in the context of conservative attacks on affirmative action, under the rubric of reverse discrimination. He concludes by saying that reverse discrimination is not in fact "one of the serious problems that white men face", that males "have little experience with discrimination" relative to women, and that male victims "have the same legal redress as minorities and women do". Where does he say that illegal cases of individual discrimination ... is not reverse, and what does not reverse even mean? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Intentional is not reverse.Reprarina (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  This is incoherent. I can intentionally drive a car in reverse. On pp. 86-87, Pincus contrasts reduced opportunites, reverse discrimination, and intentional discrimination, but he is making these distinctions solely for the sake of clarity in the book. They do not reflect what these terms mean in the real world, and have no bearing on the concept of reverse sexism. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  "he is making these distinctions solely for the sake of clarity in the book" I don't think so.Reprarina (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  Fine. Then it should be easy to provide RSes that explicitly say "intentional discrimination" is not "reverse discrimination". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Showiecz (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• oppose - to look at the current lead, the move seems sensible, but reverse sexism isn't the same as discrimination again men/boys. It's a reactionary term like reverse racism, connoting opposition to feminism rather than serious discourse about discrimination against men. It's a perspective, not a phenomenon. If anyone thinks we need an article on discrimination against men, they can create it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support: I agree with the first several supports that the current name, as well as some of the writing, seems hellbent on delegitimizing the concept because white Americans and men have systemic power, but that doesn't rule out individual sexism/racism. I'm going to start the move request on reverse racism to parallel this. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Note to closer: While the "support" !votes look like they will remain in the majority, I would ask whoever closes the discussion to give greater weight to arguments based in policy and reliable sources than a simple head count. There are evidently two opposing "common-sense" views at play, and neither side seems likely to sway the other. Thank you. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I've tagged a couple SPAs (although I would not blame Tiggy, who seems focused on men's issues, but has made several hundred edits to various articles on men's issues, if they want to remove the tag). It seems like the support arguments simply take for granted the lead of this article, which says without any support from reliable sourcing, that reverse sexism = discrimination against men. See the new section below. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Going through some sources

I was a little suspicious of the assumption in this article that there were so many sources about "reverse sexism" that define it as "discrimination against men" (as opposed to a complaint about feminism, equality, etc.). Starting from the first reference, Neely's "Feminist modes of Shakespearean criticism" -- I've scanned the paper, and do not see any real discussion of "reverse sexism". Can the person who added that highlight exactly what (and what page) I should be looking for? (perhaps it was due to there being no "find" feature in the version I'm looking at). The next reliable source cited is The Independent which mentions it only as "the MRA claim that “reverse sexism” exists". In other words, it's a claim by men's rights advocates about the pervasive effects of feminism and moves towards equality, and not necessarily a phenomenon in the world (which the simple definition "discrimination against men" could be, of course, as it implies no scale).

...Yet these two sources are being held up as the basis for the scope of this article!

Moving on, we get to actually relevant content, like this stance assumes that the historic imbalance in favor of men in the contemporary era is no longer applicable -- it is a stance, not a phenomenon.

So the lead is a couple dubious lines characterizing it as "discrimination against men" before switching to describing it as a "stance" and a "response to feminism"... yet people are supporting a move to call this "discrimination against men".

The history section, then, basically duplicates elements of men's rights movement and men's liberation movement.

I'm increasingly of the mind that not only should this not be renamed, but it should be merged into Men's rights movement. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a bad outcome. In addition to being a "stance", reverse sexism is called a "misinformed notion" by Bearman et al. If this article ends up being renamed "Discrimination against men", someone is going to have to find reliable sources that actually discuss sexism/discrimination against men as a reality, not a myth. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Reverse Sexism is like Reverse Racism

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)

• 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)