Talk:Misandry

"There is little doubt, of course, that some feminists are misandrists"

This source looks quite academic consensusy. I believe that it legitimizes some sources that do not contradict this statement. The sources that all feminists are misandrists are definitely fringe, but the sources that some feminists are misandrists are quite okay and we shouldn't avoid them. Reprarina (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The source also says that there is little or no difference between hostility toward men for feminists vs non-feminists, so I'm not sure if that'd be appropriate. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It's appropriate in the context that some people think that there are no misandrists at all. Reprarina (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

In that context I agree. We would just have to be careful not to label certain groups as exhibiting misandry per my previous comment. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I would be fine with briefly summarizing the source, with the context that Panamitsu mentions. It would be nice to go one-in-one out on the §In feminism section, which is already overlong, with many sources of lower quality than this new one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I've just had a brief look through the source and here are a few points that perhaps we could mention:

• There is a stereotype that feminism is motivated by misandry: "by the perception that [feminism] is motivated by antimale sentiment, or misandry"
• Some feminists are misandrists, and so are some nonfeminists. "There is little doubt, of course, that some feminists are misandrists, just assome nonfeminists are also likely to harbor negative attitudes toward men."
• Little or no difference between misandry in feminists and non-feminists
• The Stereotype accuracy hypothesis may be worth mentioning (discussed in source).
• "some feminists have claimed that misan-dry is a legitimate, even necessary aspect of the movement.Their argument is that bad feelings toward men are rationalresponses to men’s hatred and mistreatment of women andthat more positive or dispassionate responses would onlyundermine women’s motivation to bring about social change"
• Source has a few mentions of in-group and out-group dynamics.
• Has a few points about anti-misandry in Feminism, eg "Feminists have driven forward significant changes in men’sfavor (Courtenay, 2000) including the repeal of sexist drinkinglaws (Plank, 2019) and laws that define rape in terms thatexclude assaults in which men are victims"
• "people are grossly inaccurate in their understanding of feminists’ attitudes toward men."
• "A multiple regression showed that radical (β=−.24,p< .001)and cultural (β=−.18,p=.003) feminism, but not liberal(β=.06,p=.330) or women of color (β=.01,p=.910) fem-inism, were uniquely associated with less positive explicitattitudes toward men"

—Panamitsu (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Grammatical correction of a sentence in the Misandry article.

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

−

Echols also claims that, after her attempted murder, Solanas' SCUM Manifesto became more popular within radical feminism; but not all radical feminists shared her beliefs.

+

Echols also claims that, after Solanas attempted to commit murder, her SCUM Manifesto became more popular within radical feminism; but not all radical feminists shared her beliefs.

In the Article "Misandry", under "In Feminism", in the 2nd paragraph it states:

"Echols also claims that, after her attempted murder, Solanas' SCUM Manifesto became more popular within radical feminism; but not all radical feminists shared her beliefs."

This would seem to suggest that either Echols or Solanas were the victim of an attempted murder from the usage of the word "Her". However, if it is taken in context with the 1st paragraph which states:

"However, radical feminist arguments have also been misinterpreted, and individual radical feminists such as Valerie Solanas, best known for her attempted murder of Andy Warhol in 1968, have historically had a higher profile in popular culture than within feminist scholarship."

It can be inferred that the statement I am proposing to edit is referring to a Murder attempt made by Solanas. If this is the truth of that statement, then it would be better to change it in to:

"Echols also claims that, after Solanas attempted to commit murder, her SCUM Manifesto became more popular within radical feminism; but not all radical feminists shared her beliefs."

This is a simple grammatical correction. I hope this can help with clarity. Fantredath (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this a good change. But I'm tired and the grammar is hard. Could someone else do it? Talpedia 06:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This edit is all too complicated trying to do it - I just wanted someone else to do it! The reasons for this are complicated. Talpedia 06:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I've just made the change but I have a high propensity to switch words around in accident (it's 11pm for me), so someone please do check over my change. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Replaced her Solanas' with the. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

A minor issue

Just a suggestion... When looking up Misandry I found quotes from this stating that Misandry is a minor issue. With men committing suicide at the highest rates in history and leaving the US to start families, it seems logical that misandry is not a minor issue. At least, it is not a minor issue today where in the past it may have been. 47.227.180.59 (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It's minor compared to misogyny which is huge and has been for thousands of years all over the world. Misandry has only been a thing for a couple of decades. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"Misandry has only been a thing for a couple of decade". According to your opinion, not according to RSs which find misandry in Shakespeare, in Jonathan Swift, in Ancient Greek pieces. Reprarina (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

What sources suggest that misandry is a cause of suicide or emigration? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is that conflating misandry and suicide is a form of synthesis which we can not do unless there are sources which do this. Sources generally do describe it as a minor issue, I have not come across many sources which don't. And as EvergreenFir mentioned, I don't think there are even any sources which list misandry as a cause of suicide, but I'm happy to have a search. It would be great if you could provide your sources! —Panamitsu (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

WHy is it necessary to qualify it as anything at all? Isn't this an informational page that's meant to provide an overview of the subject not prescribe how relevant/prevalent/percieved it is? A minor/major within what? Is there a graph that plots how 'important' a subject is within a certain discource that readers should be aware of? 203.91.244.159 (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Big study finding evidence of widespread anti-male bias

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-61496-001?doi=1

Little is known about implicit evaluations of complex, multiply categorizable social targets. Across five studies (N = 5,204), we investigated implicit evaluations of targets varying in race, gender, social class, and age. Overall, the largest and most consistent evaluative bias was pro-women/anti-men bias, followed by smaller but nonetheless consistent pro-upper-class/anti-lower-class biases. By contrast, we observed less consistent effects of targets’ race, no effects of targets’ age, and no consistent interactions between target-level categories. An integrative data analysis highlighted a number of moderating factors, but a stable pro-women/anti-men and pro-upper-class/anti-lower-class bias across demographic groups. Overall, these results suggest that implicit biases compound across multiple categories asymmetrically, with a dominant category (here, gender) largely driving evaluations, and ancillary categories (here, social class and race) exerting relatively smaller additional effects. We discuss potential implications of this work for understanding how implicit biases operate in real-world social settings.

The article generally dismisses valid concerns that several groups have expressed over the past decade or two without citing to evidence that tends to support the notion that misandry is fairly prevalent in modern society; for example, the foregoing study which found anti-male bias to be stronger than class and race bias. 24.234.86.222 (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

sorry, to be clear, the evidence is BURIED and scarcely referred to in a section entitled "psychological studies," which shrouds the probative value. I believe there should be a section entitled "Prevalence," "existence" or "empirical studies." And there should be more than just a one sentence blurb. 24.234.86.222 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the current phrasing of that study is already problematic as it lacks context and explanation. All this article has from the study has Implicit Association Tests find a reflexive distaste for men and preference for women on the part of both sexes. It raises the questions (but is not limited to): What tests, how was the study performed? Bias in which areas? Who performed this study/what journal so we can assess the quality? etc —Panamitsu (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The study by Paul Connor et al. is a primary research paper. We generally don't cite primary sources for significant claims. There could be flaws in the methodology or interpretation. Evaluating Connor's paper, James Chamberlain et al. write, a strong gender effect was found, such that positive terms were most closely associated with high class women. [...] It is impossible to tell if this finding reveals a genuine evaluative bias on the part of the participants, or is the result of the confounding effects of the gender stereotyped content of the stimuli. Connor's study was not even focused on whether one form of bias was stronger than another, but was meant to evaluate the simultaneous effects of multiple intersecting social categorizations. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

11 February 2024

Discussion is going nowhere. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
according to this article no one hate men and all women do not hate men does that mean that all man hating women that I met in real life are paid by antifeminists to pretend they hate men? misandry is not only about institutions and systems it is also about feelings, sourced article does not mean it is correct a lot of sources are biased --Ernne (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC) The article does not say that it does not exist "Biassed" sources is not a reason for removing them. If you've got any sources that say otherwise please list them. —Panamitsu (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources, not users' personal beliefs, opinions, or experiences. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Men are not immune from systematic discrimination and sexism in institutions [1] [2] [3] [4] --Ernne (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC) The first two links are poor sources. The book by Nathanson and Young is only good for showing their opinion—they are not expert scholars on this topic, despite all the books they publish. Rather, they are religious activists trying to roll back the advances of feminism. Reddit discussions cannot be used here per WP:SPS. The scholarly article by Léa Védie says that the accusation of misandry is used by men against feminists, to minimize them and force them back into patriarchal norms. So it doesn't support your idea. The newspaper opinion piece by Victoria Smith does not help your cause, either. She says that misandry is not equal to misogyny—misandry is too small in comparison. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Léa Védie and Victoria Smith are also not expert scholars on this topic too their articles are only good for showing their opinion they don't know what it is like to be men you should watch videos about the book Self-Made Man: My Year Disguised as a Man by journalist Norah Vincent she said a lot of women hated her because they thought she was cis man --Ernne (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC) https://pechmanlaw.com/are-white-males-victims-of-reverse-discrimination-in-employment/ https://www.newsweek.com/biden-administration-unwilling-oppose-discrimination-against-men-opinion-1762731 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6564767/Men-face-discrimination-women.html https://www.resumebuilder.com/1-in-6-hiring-managers-have-been-told-to-stop-hiring-white-men/ --Ernne (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC) The Daily Mail is an unreliable source per WP:DAILYMAIL. —Panamitsu (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Léa Védie and Victoria Smith are not expert scholars on this topic ... they don't know what it is like to be men – reliable sources are not required to have intimate personal experience of a topic. Nonetheless, if they're not experts, then why did you suggest them as sources? WP:NEWSWEEK is generally unreliable post-2013. The other websites fall under WP:SELFPUBLISHED, also not reliable. Self-Made Man: My Year Disguised as a Man is a primary source recounting the author's personal experiences. Secondary and tertiary sources are generally preferred instead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) You didn't read pechmanlaw and resumebuilder ? I suggested Victoria even though she is feminist because her article say misandry could be recognized soon -- I said what you quoted in green because Binksternet said Nathanson and Young is only good for showing their opinion—they are not expert scholars on this topic so I repeated what he said to mean no one can name well known experts on the topic of misandry Ernne (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC) https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/ex-nyt-editor-jill-abramson-may-have-been-fired-for-hiring-too-many-women-114052300790_1.html --Ernne (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC) That churnalism article merely recycles claims from the deprecated WP:NYPOST. I already stated that the other two websites are unreliable per WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Wikipedia doesn't need to note every time misandry is mentioned in the news, and the proposal to make it a hate crime in the UK was ultimately rejected anyway. The article already cites numerous reputable, scholarly sources on the topic of misandry. Just because the authors are not known to you does not mean they are not considered experts in their field. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC) I'll say what you said just because the authors Nathanson and Young are not known to Binksternet does not mean they are not considered experts in their field https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/gender-stereotypes-cause-recruiters-to-discriminate https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/workplace/half-of-men-in-corporate-australia-are-fatigued-by-gender-equality-20211124-p59bmw if we think men can't be discriminated against just because they are not women then we failed to support gender equality the world is not the utopia of men --Ernne (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC) The first link here is to a university press release about a primary research study, which is a primary source. Despite the headline, "Gender stereotypes lead recruiters to discriminate against men", we read: the research also showed that men received around 50% more call-backs than women for male-dominated jobs, confirming the widely evidenced gender bias in the recruitment process against women for roles that have been traditionally dominated by men. Hardly a slam dunk for misandry in the workplace. The second article is describing a public opinion survey, not a scientific research paper: Half of men working in white-collar professions are tired of the gender equality discussion in the workplace and believe reverse discrimination is occurring. Neither article is specifically about the concept of misandry. Nathanson's and Young's works such as Legalizing Misandry (2005) were not published by any respected, mainstream academic press, and their conclusions have been heavily criticized by scholars, as detailed in the article already. To my knowledge no one here has claimed that men can't be discriminated against just because they are not women, but in any case Wikipedia is not the place to right perceived wrongs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC) edited 14:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC) https://dailytitan.com/opinion/misandry-is-as-socially-dangerous-as-misogyny/article_3b09a32a-1ca6-54f7-b158-033a02470c12.html --Ernne (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Newspaper opinion pieces are also primary sources. The Daily Titan is hardly an authoritative source on anything besides the goings-on at CSUF. It's unclear what you hope to achieve by spamming the talk page with links like these, but you may want to read the reliable sources guideline first, especially under WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact ... The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint ... Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The article in Feminist Media Studies journal

This article published in respected feminist journal poits that:

In some instances, local organizers of Flower Demos have identified these participants as intruders. For example, Hotta, a transgender man who experienced sexual abuse, was told by a local Flower Demo organizer that he posed a threat to other female participants (Miyuki Fujisawa 2021). Similarly, transgender women were referred to as “terrorists” by an organizer in Flower Demo Ibaraki (Flowerdibaraki 2021). These instances reveal the potential for transphobia and misandry to be harnessed within the collective trauma formation, which can be used to exclude those perceived to have a “perpetrator identity.”

Perhaps a perspective from Japan should be added, since the article is supposed to be about misandry in the global, not about American men's rights activists. Reprarina (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph bias

The opening paragraph comes across as heavily biased, particularly this:

"This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who counter that misandry is not a cultural institution, nor equivalent in scope to misogyny, which is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences.[5][3][6]

First off, this links sources to books from 2009, 2007, and even 1989. It is almost 2025 and Wikipedia's articles should reflect a modern view of the subject. These are also completely subjective claims: the opinions of a mere three people from over 15 years ago. These sources do not also list the claims and information that supports it. A mere three authors is being exaggerated as "most". It is also a complete opinion that misogyny is "far more deeply rooted in society" and that is is also "more severe in consequences", yet the phrasing of the sentence is also acting like it is a fact. I would argue the millions of men who have died in wars could be seen as having more severe consequences. And how most homeless people are men.

I attempted to correct this, changing reasonable things such as "many scholars" to "some scholars"/"certain scholars" and yet another editor is claiming I'm the one being "disingenuous", which I find ridiculous. Using "many" instead of "some"/"certain" is essentially weasel words in itself, in the form of non-measurable exaggeration without any polls conducted.

I also believe comparisons to misogyny, and how widespread misandry is, deserves their own sections. ImmersiveOne (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"The opinions of a mere three people" is not what is cited. To claim that they are mere opinions and that the "sources do not also list the claims and information that supports it" makes it seem that you did not even read them. Page 12 of citations 5 directly addresses this. The encyclopedia in citation 3 is crystal clear:

Despite contrary claims, misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalised and legislated antipathy of misogyny. Nevertheless, the notion is gaining in currency among 'masculists' and 'men's rights' groups seeking to redress supposedly discriminatory divorce, domestic violence and rape shield laws. But as Naomi Schor (1987) cautions, assuming that misandry mirrors misogyny reduces questions of gender and power to a male/female binary and ignores within-gender hierarchies. Thus, Nancy Kang (2003) recognises a misandric tendency in the dominant culture's interactions with marginalized masculinities.

That you do not like that scholars claim that these things does make them untrue or mere opinions. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

What you describe as "bias" is instead an accurate summary of expert analysis from topic scholars. These people are describing the situation neutrally, not with bias. So many topic scholars agree on this point that it would be excessive to cite them all. Citing just a few of them is enough. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I indeed did not read them because I was not aware they were online. I just did, and it still seems the actual content is being warped to put forth viewpoints not explicitly said by these writers in their dated books. We all know misandry became far rampant since 2014. Just because some people wrote, mused over and claimed things in books made over 15 years ago, it does not make necessarily make the claims in them fact either, and they can indeed still be opinion. People also can change their minds all the time, so the opinions of these authors may not still be their opinions of today.

The author of the 2009 book even uses the word "seems" and "(at least not until recently)" to indicate they are on the fence a bit and they are talking about the world from a 2009 viewpoint and context. The author of the 2007 book with the encyclopedia also does not say "misandry is not a cultural institution", but rather, feels it does not compare to the "antipathy of misogyny." So it really does feel whoever wrote that part is putting some words in the mouths of the authors, and being biased by listing three authors as being "most"/"many". And I don't see them explicitly saying they felt "misogyny is more severe in its consequences", nor do I see them using language that should make this Wikipedia article use the language "far more" instead of just "more". Nor does it mean this article should be using these three authors' claims in an objective manner as if it were fact. The actual claims of these authors should be separated from each other and detailed individually, with clarification that they are their opinions from over 15 years ago, something I am willing to do.

I also argue that it is in poor taste to even try to include this debate in the opening paragraph. It feels like reading an article about the hatred of Asian people, but then seeing two huge paragraphs about how black people have it worse. And I just learned the 2009 book is actually a reissue of a 2001 book. What makes this opening section skewed is that the first half (beginning with "in the Internet Age") is clearly talking about opinions relating to a world from 2010+, in a world where Twitter/Tumblr/Reddit/4chan made their opinions, and where hashtags such as KillAllMen were created. The second half is listing opinions from 1980s-2007, and then trying act as if people in the past are trying to debate people in the future. It is pitting against old authors against the claims of people living in a different era almost, in a manner that feels disingenuous. ImmersiveOne (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

You're missing the part where MRAs are seen trying to equate misandry with misogyny so that their arguments are seen as valid, which is why we have the comparison disproved prominently as a false equivalence. We didn't just throw that part in randomly.

If you are looking for more recent scholarship about this topic, you can look at "The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" which was published six months ago. The authors find that misandry is a myth used falsely by MRAs to fight against the advances of feminism. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I very well saw that. To me, I think you're missing the part where I don't see why we need to make the opening about feminism/misogyny so soon in the first place, with very biased research and manipulating the claims and opinions of authors, trying to pit people's opinions about society (as it was in the past) to modern society. It feels like it's trivializing the hardships of an entire group of people which I honestly find repulsive, in the same way it would be repulsive to talk about how black people have it worse in the opening section of an article about racism against Asians. This entire article, especially the opening, needs an overhaul to update it to 2024 standards. I'm not against discussing so-called false equivalences, but that deserves its own independent section. And about that last part you just said, misandry is obviously real and is not a "myth". Anyone who thinks misandry isn't real are, put bluntly, idiots. There are people who want all men to die, and view them as rapists/pedos/monsters/buffoons/etc, to the degree a part of society would rather take their chances in a forest with a bear than a man. There are women who openly state they want to abort their child if it is male. Is misandry equivalent to misogyny? That's another can of worms, but it does not need to be discussed in the opening which, as it is now, is obviously trying to trivialize misandry in a way that feels disgusting. It's coming off as: "You know people who oppose misandry? They are 4channers, and also, women have it worse than you. Here's a list of books made from 2007 and before, so shut up. Also you're probably antifeminist. Bye." Embarrassing. ImmersiveOne (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"needs an overhaul to update it to 2024 standards" Based on which sources? Dimadick (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Any relevant ones, honestly. But in such a way that does not make it sound like this article was written by a man-hating misandrist, because it totally feels like it is. I'm not against including sources which question misandry. But sources made before the MeToo movement should be explicitly said they are made in that era. I'm not even going to talk about how the misogyny article straight-up says "Misandry is a minor issue." Like, what. The. Hell. ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The article does not say "misandry is a minor issue". It doesn't say it straight-up, nor on the rocks. What the article feels like to you is not something we can act on by itself. We still need real sources. What relevant sources are you proposing? Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Re-read what I said. I said the misogyny article says it (in the Definitions section), not the misandry article. And I dunno, I'm not a regular Wikipedian. Maybe we can get some various opinions from a variety of different editors on this. Because right now, it feels like Wikipedia is being controlled by people who hate men, resulting in this absolute cringefest of an article. Still, I am willing to renovate the article, finding what I can (I'm not an expert when it comes to formatting sources). All I ask is people give me time and awareness. One thing I propose is we just make a criticism section, and move anything made by those who question/criticize the idea of misandry to it. The same goes for sections trying to associate misandry with anti-feminism and misogyny. Because right now, it feels like whenever points are made that misandry are real, there is a counter-point right after trying to invalidate it, or insinuate people who care about men's rights are just woman haters, as seen in the final sentence of the first paragraph of the Overview section. ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)