Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Reverse sexism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To begin with, the term "reverse sexism" is self-contradictory - "sexism", by definition, works both ways and therefore cannot be reversed - which is why it is only used colloquially by people who aren't thinking. I'm not aware of companies using this term to describe their policies, but if they do, it is incorrect. What this article is actually attempting to discuss is Positive discrimination, but the author seems to have a few bees in his bonnet that are affecting his ability to write from a NPOV. Deb 17:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I apologise for that last comment, but I still don't think the article is valid. Deb 17:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect to Reverse discrimination, and while we're at it, give that article some seriously needed cleanup/NPOV. KeithTyler 17:49, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to sexism. The term "reverse sexism" deserves perhaps a sentence or two in *that* article. And for that matter redirect reverse discrimination also to either discrimination or affirmative action. Aris Katsaris 17:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I just rewrote reverse discrimination. The term itself deserves an NPOV treatment to explain its existence. So I disagree with Aris' redirect suggestion for it. :) - KeithTyler 18:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and copy edit some more. The rewrite by bishonen and others makes this useful. Geogre 02:57, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Reverse discrimination is the best idea I've seen. The last sentence of KeithTyler's rewrite is, essentially, a definition of "reverse discrimination by sex," so the redirect makes sense to me. If we were rewriting, though, we'd have to be perfectly clear: gender is social, and sex is biological. They are not synonymns in a post-feminist age. Geogre 19:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I've no understanding at all of what "gender is social and sex is biological" means. On my part I refer to the "gender" of animals as well. Aris Katsaris 21:36, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • George, that line went over my head too. Regardless, redirect to reverse discrimination. Rossami 22:04, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • The article in gender can say it more clearly than I, but: gender is the social counterpart to a creature's physical sex. -Sean Curtin 23:54, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think I can say it succinctly: masculine and feminine are gender, while male and female are sex. We construct what it is "to be a man" or "to be a woman" socially (gender), but male and female are biological. This is pretty much since the 1950's in feminist critiques. Since this article is about any form of "sexism" it really needs to observe the distinction. Geogre 02:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Well IMO, to "be a man" is to be an adult male human being and to "be a woman" is to be an adult female human being, and I think I generally dismiss any other definition as a stereotype to be combatted (for example e.g. that only straight men are "real men" or that "real women" must be housewives and produce children). Is it only English that bizzarely differentiates between the meanings of "gender" and "sex"? Because my own native language (Greek) certainly doesn't. Aris Katsaris 04:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • There really is more to it than that, but discussing it here isn't really that appropriate on a VfD page. If you're interested, read gender identity/gender role which cover things pretty well. Dysprosia 05:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • As a further sidenote I don't think that "masculine and feminine are genders" works much either -- we may say that a scent is "masculine" but I believe we don't tend to say that "the scent has a masculine gender". Aris Katsaris 04:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Don't worry. It's not your English. English speakers can't even decide what the difference is, and its been changing a lot recently, mainly for political purposes. See the usage note in the American Heritage Dictionary [1]. "This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels." anthony (see warning) 11:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to reverse discrimination. -Sean Curtin 23:54, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Being a self-contradictory term is not grounds for deletion. Possibly make it a disambig page pointing to sexism and reverse discrimination. anthony (see warning) 14:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Anthony, I'm glad you brought the discussion back to the article, which seemed rather to be getting left behind by the discussion. I agree with Deb that the term "reverse sexism" is illogical, but then the original article, the text that was put up for deletion, explains that it's illogical — what's wrong with that? The present stub by Anthony, on the other hand, which reads in its entirety "Reverse sexism is a term which is sometimes used to refer to reverse discrimination in the form of sexism" I find difficult to understand. Sorry, Anthony, I realize that may be me, not you. (But also, how is it a disambiguation page?) I think the original ought to be reinstated, after cleanup. I'll try to do some tomorrow unless somebody beats me to it. Cleanup may still leave it in need of being merged with reverse discrimination, though, since the term "reverse sexism" is awfully marginal for a separate article. My sampling of the Google hits, which aren't numerous for a phrase so easily coined, suggest that the word is mostly only used in discussions about whether it should be used. :-) There are many self-referential arguments about the term being illogical, few unselfconscious uses of it to refer to a phenomenon in the real world. Sorry, I'm going a long way about giving a neutral vote. More specific input from Deb about her reasons might change my mind. Bishonen 01:02, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I think calling the term illogical is POV. It's certainly original research, unless you can point to a reference which says that the term is illogical. It's a disambig page because its only purpose is to point to two other pages. A redirect alone is not sufficient. anthony (see warning) 01:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Calling the term illogical is POV ... ? Of course it is. Do you think it's inappropriate to speak from a point of view on VfD? Surely we often use words here that we wouldn't consider putting into an encyclopedia article. (What's the ambiguity that you're disambiguating?) Bishonen 01:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • The term as used is illogical. The "reverse" of discrimination (or of forms of discrimination, of which sexism is one) would be non-discrimination. But what the term refers to (or implies in its construction) is fundamentally as much a form of discrimination as any other. That being said... "reverse sexism" is a construction directly descending from "reverse discrimination". Since the only validity of these terms are as similarly-constructed colloquialisms, it should suffice to explain how their constructions came about only once. Ergo a redirect to reverse discrimination for any "reverse [insert type of discrminiationhere]" terms is enough to explain the existence of them all. KeithTyler 05:20, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • I agree that merging Reverse sexism with Reverse discrimination is appropriate, especially since both articles are short. But with respect, Keith, I think "Reverse sexism" is too hot a topic to merely be inserted in a "Reverse discrimination" boilerplate discussion. This because present-day opinions and comments on sexism seem to me to be much more embittered and divisive than opinions and comments (that get aired in public, anyway) on, say, racial discrimination. A separate and not too small space to thrash it out in is going to be neccessary for those editors who will converge on the article to passionately argue that women are already favored and advantaged and have it all (because that is the underlying agenda of the term "reverse sexism"), and for those who will with equal passion contradict them. Bishonen 09:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • You asked what's wrong with explaining that the term is illogical. I answered. It's wrong because it's POV. The ambiguitity is whether the person is searching for an article on sexism or reverse discrimination. anthony (see warning) 02:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • • • I apologize for starting an argument with Anthony on VfD. VfD is not the Argument clinic, there's no profit in raking over the same ground again and again, in fact I'll shut up on this thread now, unless it be to change my vote. Anthony, if you don't know that your ball's past the baseline, please take it to my Talk page and I'll explain what "ambiguity" means. Bishonen 09:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Is this just supposed to be rude or am I misinterpreting something? What is VFD for if not for discussing what to do with the article in question? anthony (see warning) 11:06, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• (No,that was not supposed to be rude, and I have told Anthony I'm sorry it sounded like it.) Several voters have suggested that Reverse sexism be redirected to Reverse discrimination, and User:AndyL did thus redirect it a few hours ago. I've experimentally reverted this redirect and put in my own draft for a new version, which people can now take a look at if they like. Sorry for the way it looks, I'll wikify it some later, unless it's redirected again. I won't burst into tears or anything if the decision is to delete or redirect, but, for now, I'm changing my previous neutral vote to Keep. Bishonen 15:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • This new version is POV and original research. anthony (see warning) 03:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The new version is scholarly and analytical. Geogre 12:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It's analytical, similar to much original research, but without having any references I don't see how you could possibly call it scholarly. Scholars don't make things up, they back up their claims with primary sources. anthony (see warning) 23:55, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, I strongly object to your re-reverting the article to stub format, after I explicitly stated above that it had been put there "for people to take a look at". I can't believe you're trying to make it harder for them to do that. Whatever you think of my version, do you really think people should be prevented from seeing it? As I just said, if the outcome of the debate is to delete or redirect it, I'll be fine with that. Now I'm about to re-revert it. Please leave it there. Bishonen 18:01, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Anthony, wasn't there something about your not doing that any more in the agreement? Why on earth would you do something like that? Geogre 19:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I've agreed not to revert a page more than once a day. I didn't revert more than once in a day. Putting something up for people to see should be done on a temp page, not an article page. The article is unacceptable with that POV original research in it. I've already discussed right here that I think the page should be a disambig page. I saw no reason to discuss it again on the talk page. anthony (see warning) 23:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Anthony, for Wikipedia, and wikis generally, your idea that a new article ought to spend some time on a temp page (or spend it on the Talk page, as you say on the Talk page) is pretty unique, and I don't understand where it comes from. My draft had no special status that was different from other Wikipedia articles: they're all for people to look at. There was just a bit more of a hurry about it this time, since the discussion was about to roll off VfD. A couple of other points: firstly, you didn't mention that you were about to revert, when you posted a comment on my version above, one minute earlier. Was your intention to do so a secret? Or did the idea just come to you, sometime between 03:25 and 03:26? Secondly, reverting to your substub also meant removing the VfD template! You're not supposed to do that before the voting is over. People who happened to read the stub would no longer know the article was on VfD, which was yet another hindrance to my efforts to get people to actually read it and vote before it rolled off VfD. It's not that I have any great stake in this article — it's not a fascinating subject to me, far from it — it's just that, whatever you think of the text, I had spent some time writing it, and in the end I think very few of the people it was intended for read it. That was somewhat my own fault, for putting it up rather late, but it was your actions that clinched it. :-( Bishonen 15:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I vote to redirect it to Reverse Discrimination and include any relevent content specific to sexism there. --Nabber00 18:35, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• What was wrong with the original version, it didn't put any assumptions in place, nor did it try to guess what other people in the world believed about the history of gender politics. In its revised state the new author seems to believe that women have historically been the sole victims of sexual discrimination. That men and boys being taken out of their homes and sent down to the mines, or conscripted into the armies, or giveing up their places in life rafts, or putting up with assults and not complaining, or having access to their children denied, or having no say in whether a woman aborts their child is not cultural sexism. Could we revert back to the original neutral version please. :-)

• • Largely the problems with your version are the same as the problems with the current version. It's POV, it's original research, and it's a dictionary definition. anthony (see warning) 12:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • The unsigned comment above is by the original author, and my reply is addressed to him (?). I don't think it's possible to write in a neutral way about a controversial subject that people have very different opinions about. The best we can do is try for NPOV by presenting the subject from several different POV's, and by writing them all up as fairly as possible. Everybody makes assumptions when they use terms like sexism or reverse sexism. You certainly do make assumptions in your version. What I was trying to do in my version was uncover the assumptions behind several different ways of using the word, in fact trying to write from three different sets of assumptions — I numbered them — and especially to put the assumptions themselves right there on the page. That is one of the things you don't like about my version, of course. But I think it's more helpful than to claim that there can be a neutral use of "reverse sexism", without any assumptions. If anybody still looks in on this discussion, I hope they'll go look at the text for themselves, and also use the History tab to get a sense of how it's been edited, and help by editing further. I'm very grateful to the anonymous original author for editing my version, even though he (?) didn't like it, rather than simply reverting to the original. (I think the paragraph about "group 2" became self-contradictory as a result, though, and I'll try to make it clear what I mean on the Talk page). Bishonen 13:13, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Origninal Author: Bishonen could you please tell me what assumptions I made in the original document? I note that you assume I am male, and that both extreem points of view believe in a historic imbalance in favor of men (1 and 2) and that the third point of view is somewhere in between.  :-) I'm not looking for a fight but am genuinely interrested in what you, or anyone else believes are my assumptions or 'bees in bonnet'. I come from a history of hard science and make a living off my ability to 'cut through the crap' and find the core of the problem. In a purely technical sence, sexism does not imply that the sexist believes that one sex is superior than the other, but that they sould be treated differently based on assumed characteristics. I'll give an example; I worked as a Banquets Supervisor while putting myself through Uni. I would always assign tasks to staff based on their qualities and copped a lot of flak for it, usually by other women. We had one girl on staff who was stronger than a lot of the boys and who was very physically competent, so I assigned her to move some of the room dividers along with two boys. She thanked me and said that she never gets to do this and is usually stuck in the kitchen cutting butters with the girls. My boss (female) took her off this duty and put her onto butters. I got a verbal warning for putting an equally paid female on moving walls. Here my boss is treating staff differently based on assumed differences, which sex do you think she believes is superior? The one she has no confidence in (female) or the one she demands do harder work for the same pay (male). The same example is war. Who is seen as superior, the one allowed to defend their country, or the one protected from getting their limbs blown off? It is a very emotive and passionate issue for some people, I tried in my first draft, to make it as unencombered as possible, and wish you had chosen to edit that rather than completely replace it. While I'm being technical, it's also incorrect usage of the term to say someone is discriminated against, you can only discriminate between. The whole 'against' thing is an attempt to portray somone as a victim. Every thing to do with discrimination is a double edged sword. Although I do take on board that it is a Dictionary definition, could the original be moved into reverse discrimination?

The article was, in your version, redundant with Reverse discrimination, and should have been turned into a redirect. Bishonen tried to saved it from that fate by 1) making it more coherent, 2) formatting it, and 3) wikifying it. Unfortunately his definition is completely different than yours.

And while we're at it, both your definitions are different than a survey of meanings used on the Web (do google search for "reverse sexism"). Nearly all sources on the use of the word "reverse sexism" specifically define it as favoritism towards women.

Your own personal definitions of words is not encyclopedic. Meanwhile, Bishonen's version is full of presumption and conjecture. I still vote to redirect to Reverse discrimination. - KeithTyler 18:09, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

• Anon, I hope I'll find the time later to answer your reasonable question at the beginning of your message (am very busy, though), but just one thing: I made no assumptions about your gender. Do you see the question mark in parenthesis there, when I say "him" or "he", above? It means I don't assume. Do you have some idea that I'm the same person as Deb, who does call you "he", since you also write to me about "bees in your bonnet" — Deb's phrase, not mine ? Please don't fire reproaches at random, but thank you for your input, it's very interesting. Bishonen 18:58, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I'm changing my vote to Redirect to either Reverse discrimination or Sexism. Now that I understand how much heat the general subject generates, I think it would be as well to not Balkanize it by multiplying articles. Bishonen 19:46, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seeing as we've gone a week and Redirect is the consensus, redirecting Reverse sexism to Reverse discrimination. - KeithTyler 21:45, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)