Talk:Misandry/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Too adversarial

A significant problem that I see with this page is that it is too adversarial, concentrating on opinions at both extremes; that misadry is a figment of men's imagination or that misandry is endemic and will case the end of civilisation. I would say that we currently hacve a reasonable balance of these views.

There are some more balanced views expressed here, in which unfair discrimination is seen a a general negative, both for those discriminated against and for the discriminators but it would be good to have more of the middle ground. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. The consensus of the sources used so far present misandry as a by product of patriarchal oppression, women's hostility towards men due to their subordination to men. I intended to put the Andrea Dworkin's stuff back in if no one objects to that as no reason was given to why it was taken out. I think what the article needs is a typology of the different causes or kinds misandry (interpersonal, ideological, cultural or institutional - something long those lines) and more exploration of what authors who argue for the importance of understanding misadnry have actually said. I.E. what specifically do Nathanson and Young (2001) argue in regards to the content of cultural misandry? Maybe something on the ironic use of misandry (which I know Nathanson and Young would regards as trivializing an important issue and a problem in and off itself). The biggest problem is that editors keep cutting material instead of making it better. --Marguerite Duras In France (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not disagree with anything that you say. I saw no readon to remove Andrea Dworkin's work. The problem that I noted above may not be with the article as it is now but with edits where people remove stuff that they do not agree with. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, seeing as you don't disagree with the material from Andrea Dworkin and no one has come forward to justify its removal I'm going to re-insert it. Marguerite Duras In France (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

lede citations?

It seems, to me, that the lede would benefit from more reference citations. --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:Edit conflict: The lead currently has two citations; it was like that before you posted this section that had different wording. And whether or not the lead should have citations is a case-by-case matter, per WP:CITELEAD. Flyer22 (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the lead a while back as a summary of the article. The references should all be in the body of the article and are not required in the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hart et. al (2013) in Feminism and Misandry

User:Marguerite Duras In France added a study (Hart et. al (2013)) in support of the Anderson et. al (2009) study under Feminism and Misandry, but the study only mentions Feminism 5 times in 3 places (A reference and Cite to Anderson (2009) and a reference to Glick & Fiske (1996)). The Hart (13) study does weakly reinforce the Anderson (09) study and I find User:Marguerite Duras In France's wording problematic, but I see how someone may take problem with this under Wikipedia:NOR as Hart (13) doesn't actually discuss Misandry and Feminism but Attachment Hostile and Benevolent Sexism. If no one takes action in removing the Hart (13) study I'll re-edit it at some point. Derry Adama (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There is research suggesting that women hold traditional beliefs about gender are more likely to have hostile feelings (or hostile sexism) towards men which runs counter to the idea that feminism is misandric. I can't remember if the Hart study says that explicitly. But I can see what you mean by Original Research, what I've done there is a Synthesis of published material. --Marguerite Duras In France (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This pdf refers to several studies that agree, User:Marguerite Duras In France. http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/5173/pwq2009.pdf Ongepotchket (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

List of misandrist slurs and tropes

I was hoping to find here a list (or a link to same) of misandrist slurs and tropes, such as "mansplain", "the menz", "man child", "creepy old man", etc. Can someone other than me compile such a list and add it? 24.57.218.21 (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

If you're the one who wants that content added to the article, why do you want someone else to do it? Just bear in mind that Wikipedia does not use original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to have a section on misandric (or is it misandrous) language. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources for this go for it, but I'd honestly be surprised if you could, a lot of them are far from cut and dry too. HalfHat 02:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

General content

As I was scanning over this article, I noted, curiously, the article is written in a way that, perhaps inadvertently?, discredits the subject. In fact, the article reads like a series of quotes, whose authors are meticulously identified for their political or ideological leanings. Is this the intention? Perhaps the sensitive and controversial nature of the subject, and the paucity of literature on the same, militate against coherence. RedRabbit (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Yes. And yes, though there is a range of other structural and ideological elements militating the crap out of it. Jgda (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to point out the same thing. I don't know if it was inadvertent though. A lot of space is given to editorial commentary against the idea. I would go as far as to say that this article is biased. JC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.196.131 (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Same here. The article goes out of its way to paint misandry as some kind of sham movement to discredit feminism, which is all about equality. There is a quote in the article about 'how woman had so bad for so long, it is understandable if they hate men', when in reality misandry exists in society and both men and women exhibit it. Feminists might exhibit it more but normal men exhibit it more than normal women. I wonder if one will get away by quoting those conservative women, who were clapping when bikini wearers were getting beaten in 1920s and 30s, that misogyny is understandable since women hate men?--117.199.190.234 (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The answer is for you to improve the article by adding good quality, well-sourced material to it and by removing anything that is unencyclopedic or not supported by a reliable source. Remember, you are free to edit the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

outdated source?

"In his 1997 book The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy, sociologist Allan G. Johnson "

1997 was 18 years ago. considering society changes, is there any reason to assume this might be an outdated pov? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.248.242 (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you find a source which says that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

well there is no point in putting a source with an opposing view point in the criticism section, I was just thinking it might be more appropriate to have sources citing more recent criticism in the interest of keeping up to date on changing topics. truthfully I don't feel like putting any effort into this whatsoever it was just a passing suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.248.242 (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

an example of modern day misandry + eugenics

a woman had an abortion purely because she was pregnant with a boy: http://sourcefed.com/blogger-claims-to-have-aborted-baby-because-it-was-male/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gendalv (talk • contribs) 23:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

One single person doing that does not count as eugenics, and barely counts as misandry. Compare that, to the Misogyny prevalent throughout the world (including such things as Female infanticide), and you'll see how incredibly minuscule the "misandry problem" actually is. 167.219.0.140 (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Does not count as eugenics, but it is a clear case of misandry, by definition. It's clear that 167.219.0.140 (talk) is here to push an agenda. This article is not about Misogyny, such comparisons are irrelevant to this article. This is WP:NOTFORUM and we are not here to engage in a debate about misogyny vs misandry, so take your soapbox elsewhere. That being said, bloggers don't meet WP:RS and single cases don't meet notability guidelines for inclusion. Unless I suppose the blogger is notable enough to have their own wikipedia article, but in that case it would be more appropriate at that article than Misandry, which is supposed to be global coverage of the concept. ― Padenton|✉   16:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Is sourcefed really a WP:RS though?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That too.― Padenton|✉   18:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Poor Scholarship

Can we also point out that the writer of the article has only given us one (rather pathetic) instance of misandry in the entirety of Greek Literature. Anyone who has read about Ancient Greek culture will know that it was possibly one of the most misogynist societies ever to exist - women had absolutely no political power and very limited power over their own bodies. The author might want to read the Oresteia, in which the female figure is gruesomely murdered for her political ambitions and sexual freedom, or perhaps Hippolytus by Euripides in which the women are shown to be both deceitful and sexual corrupt. And lets not forget Iphigenia at Aulis in which Iphigenia's father assumes total control over her life and sacrifices her -ie. murders- her for political gain. There is blatant misogyny is most of Ancient Greek literature - to undermine this would be entirely historically inaccurate and anachronistic.

I would invite the author of the article to present his primary sources, rather than rehash dubious secondary sources that seem to have very little grounding or relevance. The fact this article has not already removed due to misinformation is mind-boggling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkyourself123 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, 'The encyclopedia anyone can edit'. If you think something is wrong you can correct it yourself. Do you think the section on which you have commented should be reworded or completely removed? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is not about Misogyny. This is an article about Misandry.― Padenton|✉   18:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Quote

We don't just dump a quote [2] in an article without a secondary source to give it context and relevance. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

FemWriter's last edit

Speaking of OR and SYNTH, the last edit sure fits that bill to me. Primary sources, connection out of no where etc. I already reverted it out yesterday. Would be nice to see those editors in this conversation to take a look at that edit. Arkon (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Lets not confuse discussions, the above is a single issue going back months, FemWriter's OR is a separate matter. And you're right it is original research, and so removed--Cailil ^talk 12:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Arkon (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Still synthesis

Coverage in the media has been scarce, but misandry has gotten some attention from the mainstream in The_Guardian and Salon (website). For example when airlines starting banning men from sitting next the media took notice.

Furthermore the lack of male teachers in primary schools have also been linked to misandry by several media establishments. Explaining that men tend to shun working with younger children through fears they will be accused of paedophilia.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The airlines story does have plenty of coverage. See Airline_seating_sex_discrimination_controversy. We should be able to create a short paragraph from those sources.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It might be good as an example, but not for extrapolating into general statements. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked through the sources on Airline Seating article, but we'd have to make sure what we bring over here is discussed in terms of misandry. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

In response to [3], primary sources aren't the problem here -- the synthesis lies in adding these incidents to the misandry article, because the sources don't describe them as misandry. This ought to be obvious... ekips39 (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

We cannot insist that a narrow definition of misandry is applied here, this article starts, 'Misandry can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, ...'.

The airline article starts, 'Four airlines ... have attracted criticism for controversial seating policies which discriminate against adult male passengers on the basis of their sex'. Thus, by the definition used in this article, the incident is an example of misandry. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Afraid you're missing the point. Unless the article says this is misandry then the way it's being used is against WP:NOR. As you say the article outlines discrimination not misandry. Wikipedia can't decide that this article is an example of something that it doesn't claim to be. Ekips39 makes a quite clear comment on this above--Cailil ^talk 17:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no requirement for a source to use the exact wording of a WP article. It is quite clear from this article and many sources that the term misandry is generally accepted to include sexual discrimination. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

No Martin, that is original research because it is a "new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves"--Cailil ^talk 12:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said above it is not necessary for the source to use exactly same words that we use in the article. No analysis or synthesis is required, we define misandy right here in this article to include sexual discrimination. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Arkon (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Deciding that a source is evidence of something it doesn't talk about is novel analysis. I understand the frustration with this but WP articles aint essays. Using any source in your suggested way requires interpretation of what was written. Furthermore the subject's definition here is in fact irrelevant, because if one is fitting info into the page's argument/definition then one is in fact writing an essay (WP:SYN). Once again Ekips's point above is quite correct, the argument for inclusion relies on combining a definition of misandry absent from the source with the source's report in order to reach a conclusion not found in a third party reliable source. Site policy is crystal clear on this--Cailil ^talk 11:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

We do not copy sources exactly so everything in WP requires some degree of interpretation. If the policy you cite was interpreted as strictly as you suggest, most of WP would have to go. I understand the policy on WP:SYN and agree with it but this article is clearly and obviously about the subject of this article and should stay. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Cailil, do you assert that every source we use in this article must contain the word misandry'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

'See also'

Links to other articles cannot be classified as OR. Which ones are here should follow policy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Policy says: 'The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Evaluation (WITA)

Evaluation:

What works in this wiki article is the clear definition and origins of the word “misandry.” It also states what the word is in another language such as greek. It’s fairly factual in its evidence, giving a few statistics and naming scholars who have written books on the subject. It gives an example of how one specific misandrist behaves and how it relates to the radical feminist movement. Accurately it tells the possibility of how the majority of misandrists think and feel towards men. What also is given are the examples in famous literature which are specifically mentioned, such as "Great Expectations," and the Vagina Monologues. I can not find what needs improvement or what doesn’t work. based on my look through the page it contains a bit more than thirty sources to inform about the topic. None of the text is opinionated and is rather informative of the subject.

I haven’t learned how wiki edit/discussions/changes work yet, so until I do, I’ll just add this observation here and hope that someone who knows what they are doing will see it and make the correction. Misogyny appears as “Part of the series on Discrimination” on its Article page and Misandry appears as “Part of the series on Masculism” on its Article page. These listings are inconsistent. Either Misogyny should be “Part the series on Feminism” or Misandry should be “Part of the series on Discrimination”.

I agree with your last comment but I have noticed that this article is “Part of the series on Discrimination”, just scroll down a bit.

Can I suggest that you sign your posts by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Or you can just click the button at the bottom of the page that says 'Sign your posts on talk pages'. This will cause the system to put your name (or IP address) and the time and date at the end. This helps us know who has written what? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Misandry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.pons.com/translate/german-english/M%C3%A4nnerha%C3%9F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120302081135/http://www.aei.org/files/2008/11/19/20090108_ContemporaryFeminism.pdf to http://www.aei.org/files/2008/11/19/20090108_ContemporaryFeminism.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I saw a conflicting, or part that just didn't seem right, in that the article begins by stating that misandry is parallel to misogyny, but then goes on to state the arguments for this being both true and untrue. I would recommend changing the beginning of the article to clarify that the idea of the two being parallel is contested. Starting off by stating the two as parallel could cause confusion for the reader when reading on. -Bmwoodwo (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Repetition, and Mislabeled "Criticism of Term"

"Criticism of the use of the term" is a poor header because the term is not at issue and neither is it's use, it's the use of the CONCEPT denoted by the term and a very specific use case: as a distraction or (arguably) false relative to misogyny. The term itself is endorsed and utilized by the authors in the darn section... whose arguments can be summarized in sum and substance:

That the topic of misandry has been raised as a distraction from and critique of feminism and that is harmful because it serves as a distraction from the more important discussion of women's issues. Also, misandry has been presented as a false symmetry to misogyny, but it isn't because misogyny is more extensive, historically oppressive, etc.. Finally misandry may be a misnomer for what is either A) a justifiable response to male oppression or B) a critique not of men, but of masculinity.

The section would benefit greatly from clarification like the above, but I feel that would seem like vandalism because it would delete so MANY excess useless words and lack of objectivity, because it would pigeonhole the use case into a very exact specificity, else broaden the criticism beyond the scope of any supporting argument that's offered.

Yeah not quite sure. But certain I'd stumble upon some PC shibboleth and sound like a jerk if I tried to clean it up further than just removing unnecessary repetition of the same citation and un-tangling of contorted grammar.

I leave further improvvement to my betters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.113.6 (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Plain "criticism" implies criticism of misandry (whose existence, including in some feminists, I don't think anyone denies, just not in a form truly analogous to misogyny, so indeed it is used as a red herring by falsely implying a symmetry), not of the use of the (application of the) term. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I would rename the section to something not starting with "criticism." Maybe "asymmetry with misogyny" or something like that. In general criticism sections should be avoided anyway. "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias." see WP:NOCRIT. - Scarpy (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Use of the term "asymmetry with misogyny" as a header however seems to imply an endorsement of such a viewpoint, contrary to WP:NPOV, particularly considering the lack of opposing viewpoints (by those who view it as equal to or worse than misogyny) within the section itself.-Czar Choi (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. It would be best to add opposing view-points, if they can be found (I'd be surprised if they couldn't be found), and to rename the section to "Comparison with Misogyny"; and to do the same on Misogyny as they're clearly interrelated terms/usages (even if not equal in depth and effect, depending on debate as documented). JSharp 21:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't this paragraph be moved to "Public Attitudes"?

"Religious studies professors Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young made similar comparisons in their 2001 three-book series Beyond the Fall of Man,[11] which refers to misandry as a "form of prejudice and discrimination that has become institutionalized in North American society", writing, "The same problem that long prevented mutual respect between Jews and Christians, the teaching of contempt, now prevents mutual respect between men and women."[12]"

The above section is in "Male Disposability" but has nothing to do with the disposability of men. It's about groupthink... So I would think it belongs under "Public Attitudes" instead. Does anyone disagree? --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"Eh? How is that not covered in the very first sentence?"

Flyer22 Reborn - You removed my addition with the explanation of "Eh? How is that not covered in the very first sentence?" - it isn't covered in the very first sentence because the very first sentence does not contain the applicable, sourced, legitimate terms: "bitterness, distrust, doubt, pessimism, sarcasm, misanthropy". Do I need to explain this further or should I re-add these? Trying to follow the rules here and prevent "edit warring", although I certainly don't think it is justifiable to remove someone else's additions with the explanation given "Eh? How is that not covered in the very first sentence?" Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn: "Well, I meant that the last sentence is redundant. But I don't see why "bitterness, distrust, doubt, pessimism, sarcasm, misanthropy" needs to be there either." The terms I added 'need to be there' because they are not included and are verified, applicable, sourced, legitimate terms... should I re-add them, or do you have a legitimate reason that they should be excluded? Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

See the essay wp:Dictionaries as sources about why dictionary definitions should be avoided. Please focus on content and not people wp:NPA. Jim1138 (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jim1138 My source was not a dictionary definition. Should I re-add the terms that were removed, or is there any legitimate reason that they should be excluded? Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You used Thesaurus.com. Let's not quibble. And no, that content should not be replaced as it is a primary source. Please format your talk per help:talk pages. Jim1138 (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Chimchongchiggedydo, you should leave here and don't come back until you have read some of the better articles and books about the topic. It's clear that you are reaching; you need a better foundation of knowledge before you can tackle this topic. The best book to start with is R. Howard Bloch and Frances Ferguson's Misogyny, Misandry, and Misanthropy, which describes a wide spread of gender hatred on both sides. It's a balanced look at the topic, with careful explanations. After that, you can pick up any of the Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson books listed in "Further reading", which are more likely to appeal to your worldview, but they explain their position with some clarity. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jim1138 Binksternet, you don't know that I have and have not read, or what my 'foundation of knowledge' is. You aren't privy to this information, let alone authorized to pass judgement on it. You don't know what is 'likely to appeal to my worldview' or not, because you don't know my worldview. Your animosity, disrespect and degradations are not appropriate and your opinions of me are not relevant. @Jim1138 I am trying to "focus on content and not people", how do you consider @Binksternet's antagonistic and degrading statements acceptable??? What do you mean "that content should not be replaced as it is a primary source"? Are you saying the terms I added were from a primary source, or the current content is a primary source and should not be replaced? Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Don't cite thesaurus.com. It's that simple. It's just an online dictionary, and cannot stand up against the best dictionary of English (the OED), a very decent American-English dictionary (Merriam-Webster), and an article from a well-regarded magazine (Psychology Today). That you want all those extra words in there is great, but is not, apparently, supported by other editors. Can we move along? Please stop edit warring. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Drmies. It would have been nice of someone to say that from the start, instead of repeatedly degrading and insulting me. I was not trying to add the terms because 'I want all those extra words in there', I was attempting to add the terms because I believe them to be accurate. To clarify: if the source was appropriate (I understand that thesaurus.com is not), the addition of terms shouldn't hinge on being supported by other editors, correct? If not, wouldn't adding or removing terms based on the personal support of editors violate the neutral point of view policy? Thanks. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Sure. It may be that the other editors thought you knew this or should know this--I don't know. Your last question--well, if it goes for them, it goes for you as well. But in general, all these decisions, if they're controversial, will boil down to editorial consensus. What you also need to understand, I think, is that these topics have been hotly debated for years on Wikipedia, and we've seen many edits from problematic editors, so I'd ask you to take that into consideration when other (experienced) editors seem short on patience. That's not an excuse, but it's an explanation. In fact, Binksternet has been working on these kinds of articles for years. Binksternet, do you think this falls under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate, or maybe AP2? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
      • No, the talk page comments, edit summaries, and article changes have not crossed into AP2 or GG. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

claims in the "asymmetry with misogyny" section - secondary/tertiary sources and/or alternative opinions in anthropology/sociology

In my attempt to augment the section above diverse primary resources and ideally secondary and tertiary analysis, I've been attempting to find reputable primary sources presenting the argument counter to section title's claim and secondary/tertiary sources analysing those arguments. Unforunately, I've been unable to do so. Is anyone aware of more diverse primary/secondary/teriary sources within the wider academic context? In following citations in the given primary references, I've only been able to find primary sources so far which take section title's claim at face value and as axiomatic. I suspect this may be simply a case of lacking jargon knowledge and/or usage of proper search terms. - JSharp (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Terms? Edit Warring? New to Wikipedia, please help!

I had edited this page by adding terms directly from the definition of 'misandry'. Why was this edit reverted? I am new to Wikipedia and don't understand how my edits could be interpreted as 'edit warring'; I didn't provide a source when I first edited the page, but I did provide a source in my most recent edit. "Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.", which is what I'm trying to do, but every edit I make is reverted without discussing my contribution and without any attempt to reach a consensus from the user(s) reverting my additions. I have not undone other users work, at all, let alone repeatedly. I fail to see how this constitutes edit warring, could someone please explain how I am at fault in this circumstance??? User Ethanpet113provided in their Edit summary: "Remove multiple issues, there are plenty of non primary sources."; however, my additions were NOT from a primary source, but rather the dictionary definition; as far as I am aware, dictionaries, encyclopedias and atlases are considered secondary sources. I believe the additions I made are valid and should not have be removed. The following is my addition to the page: "distrust of men, bitterness towards men, pessimism, denigration of men" Please advise me on how to continue, explain why my additions are considered invalid, and inform me how I am considered guilty of "edit warring" when I haven't removed anyone's contributions to the page. Jim1138 Flyer22 Reborn EvergreenFir Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

References

@Chimchongchiggedydo: Your edit had several problems: 1)Wikipedia only reports what other's have reported, you cannot report what is not said by the source. You at worst have misrepresented the source, at best created a novel synthesis. 2)Your citation was a bare URL that only pointed to the top of the site, not the URL of the page you actually referenced, please read How to Cite and Verifiability. I like to use the template dropdown at the top left of the editing bar to easily cite sources. My edit was unrelated to your revert, I was removing the multiple issues tag now that non primary sources were available in the references. Ethanpet113 (talk) 04:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This edit violates a few different guidelines, the most important being WP:Neutral point of view and WP:No original research. It looks to me like you are out to smear misandry rather than to help expand the topic neutrally based on your reading of reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Binksternet: How exactly does the edit violate WP:Neutral point of view? Nothing added was 'out to smear misandry', and noting I added contained any editorial bias - rejecting an edit, on the other hand, based on how it 'looks like to you', DOES violate the WP:Neutral point of view guideline as I understand it - if I am incorrect regarding this, please explain how and why your double-standard is appropriate. Claiming that I can't provide bias opinions (which I have not) while simultaneously rejecting an edit - based on your own bias opinion - seems quite hypocritical and defensive. I understand my citation was the bare URL, and if I re-add the citation I will include the direct page link containing the information added in my edit.

Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You would be well-served by reading better sources about the topic. After that, come back and discuss your suggested changes to the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Thanks for the suggestion. Please answer the questions I asked:

1. How does the edit violate WP:Neutral point of view? 2. How and why would rejecting an edit based on bias personal opinion be acceptable? 3. How do you misinterpret the addition of terms found in the dictionary definition as non-neutral, editorial bias, and original research? Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet how very cordial and respectful, interacting with you has been such a wonderful experience. Very welcoming, reasonable way to treat an inexperienced user asking for help... Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Chimchongchiggedydo: You say before that your edit isn't NPOV because it wasn't 'out to smear misandry'. That isn't the only way that an edit can violate NPOV. If you give undue weight to certain sources, or ideas that aren't unbiased, that is in and of itself violating NPOV. In this case, your edit puts forward an opinion about "female privilege," a topic that is heavily disputed here on wikipedia. On contentious articles like these, every editor should only make edits that are very well sourced in the primary and secondary texts from reliable sources. If it doesn't say exactly what you've inserted in those sources, then chances are your edit is going to be reverted.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I stated that my edit was not “out to smear misandry” (terminology used by Binkersnet) as this was not the intention of my edit. I never stated that this was the "only way that an edit can violate NPOV”. To which edit are you referring? I stopped utilizing the “female privilege” terminology many edits ago, after it was removed. My recently proposed edits include terminology that are “very well sourced in the primary and secondary texts”, and only recently was I informed that the source ‘thesaurus.com’ was not considered “reliable” - after my edits were reverted without explanation. As I’ve stated numerous times I am new to wikipedia and am attempting to follow all rules & policies; how was I supposed to know that ‘thesaurus.com’ was not considered a “reliable source”, without being given any information to discredit or invalidate the site’s reliability? I did not “give undue weight to certain sources, or ideas that aren’t unbiased”, and approached the topic from a neutral point of view, only adding information that was factual. I did not put forth my personal opinion, statements, ideas or ideologies that violate NPOV. Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You have not given any indication that you are looking at reliable sources discussing the topic. Until you shift your focus to such sources, your leverage here is weak. As I said elsewhere, you would be well-served by starting with the Ferguson/Bloch book Misogyny, Misandry, and Misanthropy ISBN 0-520-06546-8. Work on that for a bit, then check back in. Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Again, I will reiterate, since you don’t seem to understand this fact: You don't know that I have and have not read or what my 'foundation of knowledge’ is. You aren't privy to this information, let alone authorized to pass judgement on it. �

You refused to answer my previous questions and should do so before interjecting your opinion and suggestions.

It shouldn’t matter if my “leverage here is weak” or not, as long as I adhere to wiki policies and follow guidelines. I am not required to give "any indication that (I am) looking at reliable sources discussing the topic”, and you have not provided any information to substantiate the reliability of the sources you suggest.

This is supposed to be a collaborative effort, not a battle, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making more disrespectful comments. You may feel good degrading and talking down to others, but doing so is not warranted and only causes negativity while displaying your lack of maturity.

I still have not received an answer to this question as well: How was I supposed to know that ‘thesaurus.com’ was not considered a “reliable source”, without being given any information to discredit or invalidate the site’s reliability? Chimchongchiggedydo (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Articles reflect reliable sources, not personal familiarity or expertise. For that reason, it absolutely does matter if you are looking at reliable sources discussing the topic. Please review WP:RS. Thesaurus.com or other similar definition websites are not necessarily reliable in this context, nor does it establish due weight for this specific perspective. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.

Wikipedia is built on consensus. If others say your edits undue or non-neutral, these edits will need more discussion if they are to be included. Instead of adding information you personally know to be true, and then looking for sources which support this prior position, look at what reliable sources are saying and summarize. Grayfell (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I am seeing an edit war which is dangerous for our society and it's education.
Shoudn't neuralgic topics like this article be worked out by a group of scientists presenting both (or multiple) viewpoints and we're good here? thelieisajoke 14:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Addition of other examples of the tendency described by hooks besides Daly

I am thinking specifically of Julie Bindel, who has said that all men ought to be put in camps, as well as Sally Miller Gearhart, who has similarly remarkable opinions about the male sex (relevant quotes in their respective articles). Additionally, (unless I misread something) Dworkin doesn't actually refer to Solanas in her essay in Heresies, but the page makes it seem as if that is the case, which is slightly misleading. The discussion of Dworkin's essay should remain, as it is a relevant source, but the mention of Solanas in the context of it should be removed and more direct sources discussing Solanas added. (the Manifesto itself furnishes plenty of sensational quotes, but it's a primary source.) Unfortunately, the page is semi-protected, so I cannot do any of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.208.132 (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"Asymmetry with misogyny" very suspect

This is a loaded phrase. Seems like it is only there to dismiss men's issues of discrimination as irrelevant or automatically dominated by the concept of misogyny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1940:9550:A593:8C81:94F6:AAA5 (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It is a subsection within the Views section, i.e., the name of the header itself is not loaded-ly implying an objective asymmetry between misogyny and misandry any more than 2.1 is implying the objective presence of misandry within the feminist movements. It is simply a title describing or categorizing the collection of views documented below it. If you can find reliable secondary sources about the opinions of scholars/activists/pundits/theorists/etc. on the symmetry between misandry and misogyny, that could be a subsection as well. However, I don't think such a symmetry is a very common view, even among MRAs/masculinists (who usually hold the beliefs that either misandry is manifested in a different way or through different channels, that misandry is actually even worse than misogyny, that they are near equal but one is under-reported or unfairly elided, or that they are merely natural impulses for evopsych or sex-economics reasons or whatever else). In any case, I think virtually nobody denies that historically, misogyny has been more common than misandry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.208.132 (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

"Misandry" page removal from Masculinism portal or renaming "Masculinism Perspective on Misandry"

For similar reasons to the talk page on Misogyny, I think this page should be removed from the portal or renamed to be a perspective and then have a neutral page on Misandry as well.

I'm not sure I've even heard people call themselves "Masculinist" so I don't really understand why it has a portal. It sounds made up.

Here is what was said on the Misogyny page:

"Misogyny" page removal from feminism portal or renaming "Feminist Perspective on Misogyny"

The Feminism sidebar page was added in November of 2018. Misogyny is not a topic exclusive to feminism and to put the sidebar on the page is to tell the reader that and editors that this page is run from that specific ideology. It encourages editions from that perspective - which makes sense when you put something like "Fajr" in the Muslim portal/series but doesn't make sense here. Misogyny is an English language word that has its first know usage in 1656 according to Webster's dictionary.

When you look into Feminist History as many members of the feminist movement would purport, you see examples dating back further than that. However, this is a historical view, not a history of feminism itself as an organized movement. So the history I mentioned is feminism's take on history, decided long after the fact - not the normal way of analyzing history as would be done by historians living at the time and then handed off to the next historians. Unless I'm missing something, this feminist historical take didn't really start happening even by the time of Seneca Hall. Its a new perspective on history developing after first wave feminism at the very least and this is not arguing that having that perspective isn't allowed. But to say that the word misogyny is part of that history and under that umbrella is 1. a stretch and 2. a huge disservice to those who wish to discuss the topic and don't see it from that perspective. Further, the perspective from only a feminist angle is causing serious issues in society today by controlling the word and thus controlling the debate. When you control the definitions of the debate, you shield yourself from any criticism. But that isn't the worst part because this is about what other's read when they research, look into, and discuss a topic that aren't feminists and when someone else controls the definitions of words, they control what others say and write about the topic. If you control that, you control what listeners to those researchers and common people having the discussion think based on controlling what they see and here and say.

23:54, 18 November 2018‎ Proscribe talk contribs‎ 52,129 bytes +106‎ tweaks to refs thank

10:34, 22 November 2018‎ Naturista2018 talk contribs‎ 52,150 bytes +21‎ thank

GhostsOfGironde (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

And here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Misogyny

GhostsOfGironde (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Terrible article - censored and unbalanced.

This article has obviously been defaced by feminist chauvinists. Reference 15, for example links to a blog claiming the word doesn't exist. ( So misogyny doesn't as well then?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samtonin (talk • contribs) 11:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

This is really poor. Where is there a mention of Karen Straughan, or other prominent MRAs? You seem to have no problem scattering the names of prominent feminists about. Dreadful article, revealing something very wrong at the heart of Wikipedia.

(86.159.126.199 (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC))

Why would we give WP:Undue weight to men's rights activists? They are mentioned in this section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is far from neutral and this is indeed a problem. The article lists several examples of "Misandry within feminism", just cites a bunch of authors who claim there is misandry in the feminist movement but there is no real opposing view, and there is no real quantification, there are just vague terms like "certain forms of feminism present misandristic view of gender" but it is unclear to the reader if this is a common issue or just very seldom. The section is so lengthy that the reader must assume there is plenty of misandry in the feminist movement. I doubt it. Then some sources are interpreted in a questionable way. It says for example: "Valerie Solanas displayed an extreme level of misandry compared to other radical feminists of the time" which is not what the source is saying. The source is saying, her views "contravened the sort of radical feminism ...", so her misandrist view is an exception, not the rule. This is what the source is telling but you made it about a story where all radical feminists are misandrist and Solanas is just "more extreme" that others. I would recommend the following source: [4] --TheRandomIP (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sociology doesn't really have consensus and tends to be controverisla on a lot of topics, so you are going to tend to just have the viewpoints of authors, but I agree quantification would be a valuable addition. I suspect it is unclear in the *literature* if misandry is common in the feminist movement, and so this uncertainity exists in the article. I guess we could argue about WP:DUE, the section is quite long - but this is an article on misandry rather than feminism. If the source isn't accurately summarized we should correct it. I don't really have time at the moment to dig into it, but if you did, quotations showing why the source is misrepresented and a preferred wording would be useful.

I might have a look at the source at the weekend. Authors directly addressing the critisms might be good, because there can be a tendency for the two sides of an argument to construct parodies of another position.

As ever, well-sourced relevant edits adding information to a piece tend to be a good thing, and can be the best way to deal with an article that appears wrong. Talpedia (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The issue already starts with the word itself. The word "Misandry" is often just seen as a defamation of feminism, because it is seen as being coined by antifeminists. Thus, feminist authors will refuse to actually use this word. So instead if you search for "feminism" and "misandry" what you will find is only those authors criticizing feminism, you will never find defense. You will already have a high selection bias just by the fact that your concept is called different words by different persons. One would need to search a bit broader with terms like "man hating" etc. Some feminist defense can be found for example here: [5] where also studies are included claiming that feminists have a rather neutral attitude towards men instead of "hating" them. I will not do any contributions to this article, as a non native speaker, I don't feel confident enough. I just wanted to let you know that this article has a problem. --TheRandomIP (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Your source u is a good psychological source (though with a little spin), I'm adding details to it now. It will likely form the first paragraph of the feminism section. Talpedia (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course it has a spin, but many of the authors already mentioned in the text as well. That's why there should be a proper balance of pro and contra arguments. Thanks for adding it to the article. --TheRandomIP (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There have also been some questionable sources which I removed. --TheRandomIP (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that one of those sources isn't WP:DUE, and agree the blogs aren't a good source when there are better quality sources - particularly given that there is a book by the author of the blog post. I might assess if I think the removed material is WP:DUE and if it is dig it up in his book (as you suggest). Slow reply, sorting out some admin today! On spin, yep I definitely agree that the sources here have and angle, it's more that it is both quantitative and spun (the claim than antifeminism led to hostility towards men was a little suspicious to me). I might actually dig up the papers it cited for a little extra context Talpedia (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, I really appreciate this. Probably what you mentioned was a misunderstanding. I was just talking about the word itself. Not "antifeminism led to hostility towards men" but instead something like "antifeminism created the term (or more accurately popularised the already existing but widely unknown term) misandry to propagate the (false) belief there is hostility towards men" is what feminists would argue. Like this (feminist) study by Alice Marwick claimed: [6]

There's no rush. I just want to make sure all relevant viewpoints are covered eventually, it is just important to realize one can easily fall into a trap if one does a google search for "misandry" to only find (slightly) biased sources. --TheRandomIP (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The quote from the source was

It is worth noting that there were many more gender similarities than differences across nations—women and men in the sixteen nations tended to have similar attitudes toward women and men. In terms of addressing the myth of feminists and man-haters, the Glick et al. (2004) study on attitudes toward men suggests that man-hating is linked more to antifeminism and gender inequality, than it is to feminismand gender equality

so there's sort of an equation of feminism with gender equality and antifeminism with gender inequality, so that antifeminism can be seen as a (somewhat indirect) cause of misandry. It feels like quite a big reach from the data in [7] Talpedia (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, digging into the metrics themselves I'm a bit less impressed [8] the measures of hostility define hostility in such a way that believing that gender roles exists in your society is to believe that men are hostile. Thus it's completely unsurprising that removal of gender roles will remove the belief that gender roles exist - obviously this is OR and I kind of doubt this critique will exist in mostly feminist literature - although maybe they will manage to "science themselve out" of bad measures. I was hoping for a "purer" measure of hostility. I think the material should still be included though. Talpedia (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

We are getting closer, but still there is this large chapter called "Misandry within feminism" where only a one-sided narrative is present from some authors with a very clear spin. We need some more viewpoints, probably as you suggested earlier from someone directly responding to the authors.

There is for example one response to Anthony Synnott by Roman Kuhar, saying e.g.: "the reader cannot help feeling that the book does continue the war of the sexes. ... Re-thinking Men: Heroes, Villains and Victims does rethink men, but whether it re-thinks men in a manner in which men have not been thought of in feminist theory, is another question. Feminists should therefore read this book—if only to disagree with it." [9]

Then Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young have gotten quite harsh review by feminist author Michael Kimmel in his book "Angry White Man" where I unfortunately don't have the book at hand.

Wendy McElroy and Cathy Young are representing quite an outside position. -TheRandomIP (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the links I agree that if there are direct criticisms of the works in a prominent source we should include them. So we should add summaries of the responses and references to them to the relevant sections. Talpedia (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I read [10]. I'm not convinced that it really containers meaningful criticism (it's mostly a summary of the book and what the reviewer agrees with apart from that paragraph which is a little vague) Talpedia (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, the reviewer still disagrees with the picture Anthony Synnott is drawing of feminism, which might be relevant to mention, and this is exactly the book which is cited in the article.

Meanwhile, I found the passage from Michael Kimmel on Google Books, if you can access it: [11] It says (about Nathanson and Young) e.g. "It is one thing - silly and untrue, to be sure - to argue that feminists hate men or that feminism presents a substantiated and consistent ideological rant against men, the definition of that facile neologism. But it is truly ridiculous to argue that feminists have managed to infiltrate America's political and cultural capitals to such an extent that they now have the political capacity to institutionalize misandry" That's not the end, there are multiple pages dedicated to their work. Kimmel might be a bit polemic here, but he presents a counter opinion that should be worth mentioning. --TheRandomIP (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added some references to this - it is noteworthy. The book mostly just says "this is wrong" without explainng why Talpedia (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I like how you try to highlight the arguments the authors make instead of just highlighting their disagreement. Indeed, Roman Kuhar doesn't say much about the reason he disagrees with Anthony Synnott, which might be due to space limits in the journal. A better review might be this one: [12]

Another thing, I would suggest to remove the part starting with "Although hooks doesn't name individual separatist theorists, Mary Daly's utopian vision ..." because I think this is WP:OR, citing a feminist directly and not a secondary source. --TheRandomIP (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I tried to contribute a small passage myself, I hope there are no mistakes. --TheRandomIP (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll do a quick proof-read. I think you're using the perfact "has said" more like Germans do (I've studied a little German). In English, the perfect is used less, often if something has *just* happened or has become always ture (though I don't really know the rules explicitly). Also you missed a couple of capitalisations of proper nouns. Talpedia (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, what you corrected is actually from a text I just moved. This might tell us something about the origin of the original author :-) The only thing I (purposely) changed in this section is the capitalisations, because, for some reason, "bell hooks" is written exactly like this: bell hooks, this lower case is part of her pen name.

I'm inclined to remove the tag, since it is much more balanced now. The "Individualist feminists" section might need some context about why individualist feminist claim such things (rejection of second wave feminism altogether), but might be a minor issue.

Some other sections might need a critical look as well, like "Overview", but that's another story. --TheRandomIP (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

bell hooks - whoops. I've added a comment so busybodies like me won't change it again :D. Talpedia (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021

Please remove reference to "Psyhology today" from defenitive sentence. I think it's not the reliable source for this. 178.121.107.149 (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Psychology Today "articles" are really blog posts, yes, so I agree it shouldn't be trusted off-handedly. But the specific article is written by a subject matter expert, it's similar to The Conversation, so I think it's fine to use given how we treat The Conversation. If you think it induces citation overkill in the lead, probably one of the two dictionary sources would be the first to go IMO. Volteer1 (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I imagine the material overlaps with this book on the topic, so we could maybe find a citation there is we wanted to kill off that source on the grounds of "use the best sources". An argument against this is that blog posts are easily accessible, unlike books. Talpedia (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.60.73.20 (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)