Talk:Misandry/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

James Sterba response

“Responding, James P. Sterba argues that women may have been excluded from dangerous professions such as the military to protect male status, citing the example of Eritrean–Ethiopian War where he argues women gained status in society by virtue of fighting in the war and contrasting it with Israel where he says that women's exclusion from military national service and the military in general diminishes their status and as a result their influence in politics.[33]: 139”

This should be relocated from Overview  to Criticism. This criticism is out of place here; no other principles supporting the existence of Misandry in the Overview are followed by a contrasting viewpoint. 2600:1011:B14D:6D23:C875:40A2:D842:B925 (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a reason to fold those debates into the overall narrative, not further segregate "criticism" into its own section, which creates an unbalanced article structure. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The quoted statement is citing a published debate between Warren Farrell and Sterba. The two arguments are from the same source, so segregating them makes no sense. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand, thank you for an educational reply.

When reading the cited material it appears that Sterba’s cited response is not at all relevant to the cited Farrell statements. No where on the cited pages does Farrell mention dangerous professions, or participation in war, or conscription, or the impact of military service on political influence.

Sterba’s response may be within the same source but it is not contextually or topically relevant to the preceding summary of Farrell’s beliefs; Sterba is not responding to any of the previous Farrell statements.

Also, even disregarding Farrell, the summary of Sterba’s response is not relevant to the preceding info within the paragraph and is barely, if at all, relevant to the Overview section. The only mention of military or war or deadly professions in this article is brief, is two paragraphs previous, is about conscription not actual military service, and is not attributed to Farrell.

I’m not arguing that Sterba’s statement isn’t relevant to the article, it likely belongs somewhere but there are multiple reasons why it’s not relevant to that section. —

2600:1011:B14D:6D23:C875:40A2:D842:B925 (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Sterba is not responding to any of the previous Farrell statements

The whole point of the book is that Farrell wrote an argument, and then Sterba responded to it. Sterba is responding to Farrells section of the book in it's entirety.

not contextually topically relevant to the preceding summary of Farrell’s beliefs

Farrell says society protects women and does not hold them accountable, Sterba says this denies women status. Those seem pretty related to me?

Sterba is not responding to any of the previous Farrell statements

nearby in Sterba's section of the book Sterba writes

Farrell and Benatar maintain that the male-only draft and the combat exclusion of women is primarily a form of sexism that benefits women. But how could this be, when denying women access to combat roles denies women access to the most prestigious positions in the military and hinders their advancement both within and without the military?

so the source explicitly says it is responding to Farrell.

barely, if at all, relevant to the Overview section

what do you think the overview section is for? I think it is to give a contextualised version of prominent theorists position and this material is useful context.

It's worth noting that the misandry seem marked by a refusal to respond to any of its arguments. Farrell complains of this himself and the difficulty getting published in relevant journals. This is one of the few examples of people actually responding to misandry and not treating it more like a conspiratorial ideology to by studied so it seems pretty valuable to include this discourse rather than hide it in a criticism section. Which is better why exactly? Because this context is not relevant - why isn't it relevant

WP:CSECTION explicitly discourages criticism sections. Talpedia (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2023: "most sociologists"

The sentence: 'This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists,...' should be removed. The use of words such as 'most' should be supported by facts. Otherwise, it is a viewpoint expressed by the author designed to manipulate. A viewpoint is not a fact. Is Wikipedia supposed to be about facts? Where are the statistics and facts? There are numerous statistics and facts relating to family law, criminal law, tax law, military service, conscription, pensions etc. which show that men are and have been the subject to the most discrimination in many jurisdictions. None of this is mentioned on your page.

A comparison of the definitions of Misogyny and Misandry on Wikipedia shows a very weighted bias towards the prevalence of Misogyny over Misandry. Unsupported by proper facts, this should not be allowed. Provide the definitions and refer users to a comparison fact page, by jurisdiction and with facts and stats. Let data support the facts. There is also a problem here. In Ireland for example, there is evidence that 95pc of abuse against men is not being reported. A dedicated page, with links to proper data sources would be desirable. It might encourage more accurate reporting. 2A02:8084:D21:5180:711B:67B1:E034:4D32 (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC) military service,

Not done. The word "most" is actually not going far enough; just about every scholar who writes about these topics will tell you that misogyny is much, much worse in scope than misandry. Far worse. You are looking for a false balance in which the minor problems of men in society are made to seem equal to the huge problems of women. That's not going to happen. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

misandry is widespread, established in the preferential treatment of women, and shown by discrimination against men and misogyny is much, much worse in scope than misandry - there is no contradiction here.--Reprarina (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The word "most" can be original research. Especially by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies. I didn't see the source which says "the most of sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies say misandry isn't widespread". Reprarina (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstand. It's not our job to gather hundreds of sources to show that "most FUBARologists" say something. Rather we cite someone who says it. It's incorrect to say that we "only cite Gilmore" as if we need to connect more.

Gilmore says

The first question we must ask in addressing these others must be: "Is there a clear-cut female equivalent to misogyny?" Do women return the favor by hating men and inventing magical dangers? The answer seems to be a resounding no. Male-hating ... has never (at least not until recently) achieved apotheosis as a social fact, that is, it has never been reified into public...
...
But such neologisms as viriphobia and misandry refer, not to the hatred of men as men, but to the hatred of men's traditional male role, the obnoxious manly pose, a culture of machismo; that is, to an adopted sexual ideology or an affectation. They are therefore different from the intensely ad feminam aspect of misogyny that targets women no matter what they believe or do, whatever their sexual orientation, or however they comport themselves. Moreover, such antimale terms have little application in cultural anthropology for one other important reason: there are virtually no existing examples of culturally constituted antimale complexes in traditional cultures that can be designated by such terms.

EvergreenFir (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure most of cultural anthropoligists use the words misogyny and misandry the way Gilmore use it. He say misogyny as male malady but scholars also say about internalized misogyny (when both subjects and objects are females) because they use the mainstream definition of misogyny - hatred of women. Not men's hatred of women, and not the systemic oppression of women by men, but hatred of women. Women return the favor by hating men and inventing magical dangers is not about the maisntream definition of misandry. Until the reliable linguists publish dictionaries with such definitions as misandrist is a person who hates men (not woman), misandry is the hatred of men (not oppression), the most reliable sources are those sources who rely on these definitions. Not the sources as "we will say misogyny instead of institualized misogyny => misandry isn't istitutionalised => misandry doesn't exist". Reprarina (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Your concern was about the most FUBARologists, not the definition. The Gilmore source supports the most part. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

On the internatinal level? Reprarina (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The book Misogyny: The Male Malady doesn't seem to me superpopular during anthropologists on the internatinal level. Yes, there is this book, it's not the fringe book, but nothing more. There are lots of works which are also reliable but have some inconsistencies with this work. Reprarina (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The topic is primarily American, much less international. You didn't address EvergreenFir's argument, which stands. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The main topic of Misogyny: The Male Malady is obviously international. The level of reliableness of this book shouldn't be underestimated or overestimated.

Are you sure misandry isn't the international topic? It's the French feminist wrote the book "I hate men", not the American one. I can say the Finnish sociologist Pasi Malmi says nothing similar to "there is no misandry in Finland". He is reliable for Olga Savinskaya, the Russian sociologyst. And she also says nothing similar to "there is no misandry in Russia" using Malmi's model. (She also mentions Gilmore positively but prefers to use Malmi's model to check the existance of misandry in Russia). It's not the topic is American, Engish Wikipedia just haven't enough people with knowledge of non-English languages.

When Gimore writes "Do women return the favor by hating men and inventing magical dangers?", it's the contradiction with the term internalized misogyny which exist in RSs.

So we can see lots of scholars who use the term internalized misogyny but they don't quote Gilmore's book about misogyny! I don't see that Gilmore is perfectly reliable in his defining misogyny and misandry. In fact, he rather deviates from the mainstream (although less than Nathanson and Young). The mainstream studies around misogyny take the internalization into account. For Gilmore, it's the male malady.--Reprarina (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This is deviating very far from the question at hand: is it appropriate to say "most"? Please keep discussion to discrete things and not the concept as a whole. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you think about this critical review on Gilmore's book? (written by Kimberly Hart) Hart argues that his work on misogyny is itself misogynistic; women are passive and voiceless, victims of the violence and hatred being directed at them and the subtext is clear: they are also the source of the problem... He argues that women do not have a ‘popular’ term for describing their hatred of men, which might cause the reader to raise an eyebrow. He insists that female expressions of hatred must be ‘institutionalized’ to be recognized. She also criticizes Gilmore for supporting gender essentialism: The weaknesses stem from Gilmore’s refusal to consider gender as a social and cultural construction, not as an essential, unchanging ‘fact’. I'm not sure his book Misogyny: The Male Malady is perfectly reliable for the article Misogyny, and all the more for the article Misandry. Reprarina (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

What makes Kimberly Hart so much of an expert that she can fatally puncture Gilmore? Hart is a scholar of Turkish feminism. She's opining outside of her field. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah Gilmore positions himself as a researcher of the world gender trouble, Hart positions herself as a reseacher of Turkish gender trouble, so Gilmore is reliable for the thesis about non-exsisting something in the world, and Hart's critical review on the Gilmore's book can't be reliable. I got how it works. Reprarina (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Gilmore re-defines misogyny from the dictionary and still the most reliable definition hatred of women to an unreasonable fear or hatred of women that takes on some palpable form in any given society. That's the problem. There is no evidence that his definitions of the terms misogyny and misandry are supported by the scientific consensus. So we can use Gilmore, but we should consider and report that the Gimore's definitions are not the WP:MAINSTREAM.--Reprarina (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Allan G. Johnson in his book The Gender Knot: Unraveling our Patriarchal Legacy re-defines the term sexism the same way, using the prejudice plus power model. It's not the international academic mainstream. Lots of dictionaries on many languages include anti-male prejudices and discrimination against men in the definition of the word sexism, still. Reprarina (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll also add that I find it notable that the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology (Scott & Marshall, 2009; 978-0-19-953300-8) has an entry on misogyny but not misandry. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Then misandry has the less notability than misogyny. However, misandry is still, in its definitions in the RSs, the hatred of men, not oppression. Just like misanthropy is not the oppression of humans by dwarfs and elves but the hatred of human being. Reprarina (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the equivalants of some of the senses misogyny are called "Benevolent sexism" or "ambivalence towards men" within social sciences might be a factor here as well. Talpedia (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Pluckrose: No relevant experience

I'm inclined to agree that a single magazine opinion piece by Pluckrose without much citation is not WP:DUE, but I'm also nervous about these "expertise" type arguments that are popping up here. Pluckrose is a history scholar who has published, I believe on the topic of ideologies surrounding gender. That feels like it should be enough, and I'm not sure about a sort of "purity checking" where only scholars who worked in women's studies are allowed to write on the topic - I assume we can all see the issue with that.

By all means we should focus on deep scholarly work that has some measure of "academic sway" in preference to magazine articles from notable persons, but we need to be careful not to fall into "expertyism" Talpedia 01:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Helen Pluckrose has a degree in early modern studies, but to my knowledge has never published a legitimate paper in a peer-reviewed academic journal. She co-authored a polemic (not published by a mainstream academic publisher) against something called "applied postmodernism" after submitting hoax papers to various journals, but that appears to be the extent of her experience with academia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting - doing a search on google scholar you appear correct. Still I'd like to focus on literature rather than individuals. In this case I agree that the literature is not WP:DUE.Talpedia 12:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps in the future it would save everyone time to do the publication search before claiming someone is a history scholar. Just a thought. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't care a jot for this instance of wasting your time. And it is only your time I have wasted there is no "us", just you and I will decide for myself what I think is worth posting about. You'll also note in the above conversation there is an awful lot of "this is not a real scholar", "this person studied the wrong degree", "this person is not an anthropologist" regarding fairly legitimate people, which makes me highly suspicious of the discourse, additionally it took me, perhaps 20 minutes of reading to validate this claim. Did it take you 20 minutes write the message? Talpedia 00:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

No one is questioning anyone's legitimacy as a person. But scholars publishing their opinions in non-academic sources needn't be given any weight outside their field of expertise. I wouldn't cite Freeman Dyson on climatology, for instance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

But scholars publishing their opinions in non-academic sources needn't be given any weight outside their field of expertise

I agree, unless they are publish a *lot* and other people are reading and responding in academic sources. What I see in this article is sort of... academy ignoring misandry apart from in order to analyse correlated political views and then the actual research into what might be considered misandry ("ambivalence towards men" or "gender differences in in-group bias") happening in other unrelated parts of the literature. Talpedia 08:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Merger from reverse sexism article

The article on reverse sexism is essentially a WP:POVFORK. Most of the content is a duplicate of what has already said, where this article seems to have the worst WP:NPOV as it talks more about criticism of the people who use the concept more than what the concept actually is in itself.

I think we should focus on the general discrimination/prejudice/sexism against men rather than the word "misandry" which means we'd have to de-emphasize on the men's rights and talk more about the sociologists, anthropologists etc who use the terms sexism against men or reverse sexism. Panamitsu (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

You alone pulled the trigger on this unwarranted merger without any community discussion. The topic of reverse sexism was redirected to reverse discrimination back in 2004, in the only community discussion about it. If you want to get rid of the reverse sexism article again, you must initiate a community discussion. Reverting.

Finally, none of the cited sources in your merge-dump is about misandry, which is a giant problem. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse sexism from 2004. Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Just piping up to thank Binksternet for their words and actions here. 100% support. Noting also the odd synchronicity with these edits as well. Is there off-Wiki canvassing going on here? Generalrelative (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative What I'm confused about is why the sexism against men page was merged into the reverse sexism page, I can't find the discussion myself. Could you link it? At this point we have 3 pages on the same topic. Panamitsu (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Found it, new to Wikipedia. Panamitsu (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

MRAs and masculists speak about sexism towards men and boys using the term sexism without adjectives. They don't say reverse sexism and don't mean sexism towards men and boys is reverse. There are some sources which put this term in their mouths, but it's always looks like "MRAs argue men face reverse sexism" without any quotating. Also, there are feminist sources which recognize that sexism towards males isn't reverse. For example, Julia Serano argues that men face non-revese sexism.--Reprarina (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Most anthropologists

Most anthropologists is really shouldn't be written. I see only Gilmore in the article. And in the RSs.--Reprarina (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This should not be a new discussion topic. You've already been informed in the above discussion that Gilmore supports a larger statement about the issue. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

"been informed" eh? I quite like to read sources myself and come to a conclusion, should we not offer Reprarina the same opportunity to read the literature for themself and come to an informed understanding such that they can test the nuances of our understandings (in a way that is relevant to improving wikipedia of course)? Do we think sociologists and anthropologists are the same people. Also does Gilmore specifically support "most anthropologists"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talpedia (talk • contribs) 11:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "most anthropologists", it really should be "most scholars", because the scholars who write about misandry study a variety of related subjects including sociology, criminology, gender studies, etc. Many of the authors cite and agree with groundbreaking work by Ging or Marwick and Caplan. A mainstream consensus exists. A summary of the best sources gives us "most scholars". Binksternet (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Interesting what scholars in men's health issues say about the topic... Reprarina (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Lower protection

(Redacted)

Allow people to edit with sources so the true meaning of the word can be known rather than people who are opponents outright blocking the access.

I ask, would this be okay if people denied misogyny, alluded to anyone claiming it exists as whining, and blocked the voice of those who felt marginalized? Or would we rightfully allow that voice, with factual sources, to edit the article without calling it vandalism? RandallInc (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Try posting at WP:RFPP. The answer will be "no", though EvergreenFir (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure I see the point redacting. Deleting entirely WP:FORUM'y content with no content relevant to editing - fine, removing some content but not other gives the impression of WP:POV. I'm sure we can put up with with a little baseless criticism can we not? Talpedia 19:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:TALKNO, talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not venting [users'] feelings about it. Readers wishing to use the talk page in the future should not have to wade through a bunch of invective to reach an actual, productive discussion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but there is fuzzy threshold between venting feelings and critique that might be accurate. I would argue that it is entirely accurate to say that the article explores the type of people who use the term rather than the actually incidence of the concept. It's just this bias exists in the literature as well so is WP:DUE. Talpedia 21:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2023

Please Change - Misandry (/mɪsˈændri/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men or boys.[1][2]

to

Misandry (/mɪsˈændri/) is the dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e. the male sex). 49.180.220.185 (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Minor changes, not an improvement. I don't see any sources saying "ingrained". Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

About "marginalized masculinities"

Please don't mix the concept of marginalized masculinities in general when all the chapter about racialization is about racialized misandry. Also, I would be glad if you avoid such controversial term as "masculinities" in the context of men who are not always masculine (also, some women are masculine).

As R. A. Hoskin points it out, using such terms as "subordinated masculinities", for example, can be an example of femmephobia. While female masculinity is termed as such (e.g., Halberstam, 1998), male femininity is often termed subordinated masculinities instead of male femininity (e.g., Connell, 1987). This double standard in terminology highlights a mechanism by which femininity is regulated and, more precisely, distanced from men and masculinity (e.g., hegemonic masculinity’s repudiation of femininity; Kimmel, 1997; Pascoe, 2007). [1]

Just like white men, not all Black men are masculine. Some of them are androgynous or feminine. We shouldn't ignore femme theory and mix men with masculinity. Reprarina (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Merger?

I'd like to mention a discussion I started at Talk:Reverse sexism about either merging the articles together or moving Reverse sexism to Discrimination against men.

My reasoning is that these two articles describe how the terms are used instead of discrimination as a whole. It seems quite a lot like erasure to not have a page on the entire Wikipedia to reasonably write about discrimination without the WP:POV pushing of both editors and the media always "silencing" by using hate groups (manosphere, etc) to connect with the terms.

Now, what I propose is to have an article about discrimination as a whole and then use sections for the specific terms and how they're used (misandry, reverse sexism etc). Edit: I oppose this change now and agree with keeping the articles seperate. I have been writing Discrimination against men instead. Panamitsu (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is going to happen. The distinction between "misandry" and measures of gendered experiences of men in the literature. In fact people don't even call sexism that affects men "sexism" they call if "ambivalence towards men", there just doesn't seem to be a linked up literature on the topic. I think the best hope is that we ensure that the pages are well linked together (WP:WEB) Talpedia 11:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Talpedia So what happens with the discrimination against men page as misandry and reverse sexism are terms used? There are quite a number of uses of these terms describing discrimination as a whole, but I'm not too sure how to approach writing about these examples with the current state of Wikipedia. Panamitsu (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I would say that Reverse sexism gets renamed to discrimination against men and gutted. I don't think misandry gets used that much in discussion of men in society, so we can probably just have a couple of sentences discussing the term and linking here, and the top of this page links to discrimination against men. But maybe we even want an article along the lines of "male social world". Talpedia 10:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Talpedia I agree with your first point, but I'm too sure about the one about creating an article about the "male social world". Could you elaborate on what this would be? Is there an equivalent article for women? Although this discussion may be starting to go out of scope for this talk page.

I'll create a move request for the reverse sexism page tomorrow. Panamitsu (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you are looking for equivalence between the sexes where it doesn't exist. Misandry and misogyny are hugely different topics. Whatever merge request you make I will vote against. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the aim is related to equating discrimination against men and women, but rather discussing unique aspects of "male" social interactions. At the moment a reader interested in the topic might find this article, which does not really address the social reality of being male. Talpedia 16:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

On "male social world", I'm probably imposing my thinking a bit. But I sort of view many gendered related topics as to do with working working out the details of how being male actually plays out in society, so that your interventions (individual and societal) actually work. As an example, there seem to be a strong desire on the part of men in certain commmunities for maintaining agency, such that inteventions that don't respect won't work. I don't really see understanding discrimation, understanding "gendered interactions", understanding the social and increasing individual agency as distinct things. Perhaps this is too strong an interpretation for wikipedia, but when I write about gendered effects on wikipedia my motive is partly to allow for effective interventions. I guess something like Feminist existentialism or Women's studies might address the topic through a female lens: how does one find meaning and purpose within the constraints of being female. Should we rearrane of wikipedia along this line? No - but I think it's a good thing to have in your mind when you are writing about these topics - how must interventions be altered to be effective for someone who happens to be male or female. All a little forum'y but I guess it's relevant because it addresses the sort of things one might write about rather trying to discuss what misandry means and whether it exists. Talpedia 16:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Just add a social interaction section to the male article.

The problem with a merge is that it assumes misandry is a discrimination. Of course, most scholars tell us that misandry is a backlash to feminism. Discrimination that is experienced by males is largely a result of the male-dominated world. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that might be a good starting point, or expanding men's studies. I think sometimes edits here are motivated by a desire to accurately discuss gendered social effects.

I agree that scholars of discourse tell us that the concept of misandry is often as part of argumentation on gendered issues in response to feminist arguments. As to whether it may actually exist is a different question. I suspect we would stray in WP:FORUM territory is we were to try to discuss all the reasons why discrimination against men take place, but I agree that structure of society will be a factor and men are overrepresented in decision making positions (as to whether male interests are is a different matter). Talpedia 16:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Binksternet I think you're right. We should keep the two separate because misandry is a term that is often incorrectly used, and is described as a backlash against feminism etc, but discrimination as a whole certainly does exist, which has been studied.

I'm not too sure where you're getting the idea from that I think they're equivalent, though, but it does make a good point about how discrimination against men and misandry should be kept separate. Panamitsu (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why discrimination with men should be kept separate from misandry when same thing is seen as misogyny in case of women. I guess majority of conservatives and significant portion of even liberal men would disagree on this notion. Polarbear678 (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

There is limited literature of misandry, and the literature that does not exist does not equate "hatred on men" with "discrimination" against women in the same that occurs with the vague use of "misogyny" where everything is misogyny. The term is just less used in that way and there is less of a literature, and far less of an ideology surrounding "hatred" = "discrimination". Talpedia 19:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

But also besides the "resist symmetry" argument (which I'm sure other people would be quite willing to expand on as "false equivalence"). Having a look at the Misogyny article it seems to confine itself to "hatred" mentioning that the meaning at times extends to include discrimination but not discrimination itself. Talpedia 19:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what is published in reliable sources, not users' personal beliefs, whether or not they are liberal or conservative. The use of misogyny to refer to discrimination is specifically a product of early 21st-century feminism: during the so-called fourth-wave of feminism that began in the early 21st century, misogyny became almost interchangeable with sexism and could be used to indicate biases against women in addition to acts of violence or hatred that target women. Thus, misogyny acquired multiple meanings that occupy different levels of intensity (Encyclopædia Britannica). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Discrimination that is experienced by males is largely a result of the male-dominated world.

Discrimination that is experienced by females is largely a result of the male-dominated world.

Symmetry? Symmetry. Reprarina (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You're expecting equivalence when there is none between the topics misandry and misogyny. They are completely different beasts. One has several thousand years of history while the other is an aspect of the backlash against second-wave feminism. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like “misogyny is an aspect of the backlash against conservatism”. Reprarina (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You're inventing things. Stick to sources, please. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

In the article? Of course. In the talk page, the persistent "the authors of the mainstream sources are right" is violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. Users are not obligated to be agree with mainstream sources in gender studies, they only should avoid to popularise counter-sources in the article until the counter-sources promote fringe theories. But to be personally agree with the mainstream sources users are not obligated at all. P.S. Dictionaries which define misandry as simple hatred of men, unfortunately for Marwick and Caplan, are still is the part of the linguistic mainstream. Reprarina (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the linguistic mainstream is not what we are talking about when we say "mainstream sources". We go by sources that are about the concept of misandry, not just the word. Nor do we seek out counter-sources [sic], which sounds like a form of false balance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Linguistic mainstream is what we are talking about when we say "mainstream sources", especially in this case in which Marwick and Caplan is a counter-source for dictionaries which define misandry as hatred of men. Because it literally criticizes using the contemprorary dictionary definition of the word. Marwick and Caplan are not linguists, so they are not perfectly reliable for a claim "misandry is not just a synonym for man-hating". Dictionaries matter. We should take into account that Allan G. Johnson, David T. Wellman and others didn't convinced authors of dictionaries to change the definition of the word sexism. Are they reliable? Yes. Should we overestimate their reliableness? No.

Of course, we seek out counter-sources at least to check if they are still fringe. Reprarina (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NPOV. Nowhere does it say we seek out counter-sources for a given claim or source. Instead we seek the most reliable sources on a given topic and just summarize what they say proportionately and fairly. Dictionaries are only relevant sources for articles about words themselves, and then only for the most basic definitions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I would argue much of this article is about the use of the concept misandry in discourse which is quite close to what a dictionary dictionary does (though a dictionary likely confines itself to word use rather than meaning use). We are closer to the area that lexicographers work in than for most articles. Talpedia 14:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

We don't use them in the articles (WP:Fringe theories) but we can seek them out. Reprarina (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

A source like Marwick & Caplan (2018) that engages in critical discourse analysis goes far beyond a dictionary definition, which is a brief expression of just the literal meaning of a term, divorced from any broader societal context. When describing a word as an encyclopedic subject, such context is vital, which is why dictionaries are not the best sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

You're conflating simple hatred of men with discrimination against men. The former is the topic of the article Misandry. The latter does not yet have an article, although Draft:Discrimination against men exists. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course, the former is the topic of the article Misandry. But User:Binksternet prefers to consider the topic of this article Activism around misandry in manosphere and believes that the very reliable source for it is Marwick and Caplans' article which argues that misandry itself is not simple hatred of men but the word which is very similar to misogyny, which can be institutional unlike misandry, so the word misandry is totally undesirable. Not all scholars agree with them, for example, all scholars in the field of Black Male Studies just ignore this article. And all researchers of internalized misogyny just ignore David Gilmore's book about misogyny, which is considered to be reliable for this article too. Reprarina (talk) 12:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

All researchers of internalized misogyny just ignore David Gilmore's book – I really have no idea what this line of argument is driving at, but one of the top results out of 235 citations on Google Scholar for Misogyny: The Male Malady is "The Misogyny of Authoritarians in Contemporary Democracies" by Nitasha Kaul in International Studies Review, which states, Although a common and simplistic conception of misogyny is related to hatred and disgust toward women by men, misogyny can also be internalized by women. That took all of 30 seconds to find. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

And these 235 citations are not from researchers of internalized misogyny. They ignore his book and his understanding of the word misogyny. Reprarina (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

And who exactly are the researchers of internalized misogyny? This seems like a no true Scotsman fallacy. Also still unsure what if anything it has to do with this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It's unlikely for researchers of internalized misogyny to quote Gilmore positively in the context of his understanding of what misogyny is, because his understanding of misogyny as exclusively male views is contradictictive to the concept of internalized misogyny. So they don't quote him actually. In the context of this article it matters because he understands misandry the same way with misogyny in the aspect of ignoring the possibility of a man to hate men and to be misandrists because of it. Reprarina (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK Gilmore doesn't say this at all, only that there is no clear-cut female equivalent to misogyny and that misandry has never been reified into public, culturally recognized and approved institutions. [2] But unless some other RS is arguing for the existence of "internalized misandry", this argument seems like pointless original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

He says this: The first question we must ask in addressing these others must be: "Is there a clear-cut female equivalent to misogyny?" Do women return the favor by hating men and inventing magical dangers? Men's misandry is not misandry for him. Because women's misogyny is not misogyny for him either. So his book of 2010 year deviates from the contemprorary scientific mainstream. And I don't suggest we should write something originally in the texts of articles. Reprarina (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is dealt with in the article already: Gilmore also argues that misogyny is a 'near-universal phenomenon' and that there is no male equivalent to misogyny – that is, males are not the targets of societal hatred in the same way that women are. Nothing at all to do with "internalized misandry". Which sources describe this supposed scientific mainstream about men's misandry, i.e. "internalized" misandry? Where exactly does Gilmore say that women's misogyny [i.e. internalized misogyny] is not misogyny? If you're not suggesting a specific change to the article, why are you wasting everyone's time with pointless arguments about other topics? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe in the introduction, where he difined misogyny as a sexual prejudice that is symbolically exchanged (shared) among men, attaining praxis? Should we put this definition in the preamble of the article Misogyny? Or he's not that reliable? Reprarina (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If I say a tuna sandwich is something I eat for lunch, does that mean I never eat a tuna sandwich for dinner? Of course not; you can't prove a negative that way. The paragraph you're quoting actually begins, For purposes of this book, by 'misogyny' I will mean an unreasonable fear or hatred of women that takes on some palpable form in any given society. So he doesn't necessarily limit it to men only, and even if we read it that way, his definition is explicitly for the purposes of the study contained in the book, not some absolute claim about the world at large. Also, the very fact that "internalized misogyny" has a qualifying adjective in "internalized" indicates that it is a special kind of misogyny that differs in some way from the general kind practiced by men. There's nothing here to disqualify Gilmore as a reliable source; that idea is pure silliness. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Who else understand misandry as "hatred to traditional male role" except Gilmore? And if we read him further, we will read after his claim about non-existing cultural misandry: "this excludes the modern-day feminists like the redoubtable Dworkin who believe that all men are rapists and ipso facto evil". First of all, if we consider Gilmore reliable, than we probably should quote him entirely, including his claim that the there are modern-day feminists who are man-haters, and that Andrea Dworkin was one of them. Second of all... did Andrea Dworkin actually said that all men are rapists? Or it was just a slander on her? According to Catharine A. MacKinnon, "lies about her views on sexuality (that she believed intercourse was rape)... were published and republished without attempts at verification". Reprarina (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Gilmore refers to hatred of men's traditional male role, [3] not "hatred to traditional male role", which is simply incoherent. I question the ability of editors who lack basic English proficiency to critically read and evaluate sources like this. Competence is required. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Who else understand misandry as "hatred of men's traditional male role", and is he reliable for his claim about the modern-day feminists like Dworkin? Reprarina (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Reliability is always judged in the specific context in which the source is being cited. We almost never quote sources entirely, and the remarks about Dworkin, R. W. Connell, Miguel Vale de Almeida, et al. are incidental to Gilmore's main point that there are virtually no existing examples of culturally constituted antimale complexes. [4] So there's no need to mention Dworkin at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Are there RSes that specifically dispute the idea that misandry is "hatred of men's traditional male role"? If not, I don't see a problem with this properly attributed statement from a book published by a well-known university publisher. Due weight doesn't mean purging the encyclopedia of sources who make bold claims that fail to gain support by others. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC) (edited 05:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC))

Gilmore's point is "there are virtually no existing examples of culturally constituted antimale complexes in traditional cultures", not "there are virtually no existing examples of culturally constituted antimale complexes". Let's not make him less conservative in the text of the article than he actually is. Reprarina (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to be an article which don't ignore Gilmore and researchers of internalized misogyny. Reprarina (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

??? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Which don't ignore neither Gilmore nor researchers of internalized misogyny. But it's not the article from a researcher of internalized misogyny. Reprarina (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Who would be an example of a researcher of internalized misogyny and why should we care? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Marwick & Caplan (2018) do not say that misandry itself is anything in particular, only that the term/concept has been used as a false equivalence to misogyny. The focus of their paper is the widely-used MRA term, which is a central tenet of MRA discourse. One cannot infer anything about simple hatred of men from this source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@binksternet You said "most scholars tell us that misandry is a backlash to feminism". Saying misandry is a backlash to feminism is kind of justifying misandry. I think those scholars are why gender or women' studies have gained infamous and biased reputation among majority of men and conservatives. There are definitely some scholars that have criticised or opposed these kind of opinions and some are even labelled as misogynists or conspiracy theorists for it. That's why I guess some scholars don't oppose it. Significant portion of people would disagree that society is male dominated Polarbear678 (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Polarbear678 What I believe is that Binksternet means that the term misandry is a backlash, specifically how the term is used. A large portion of literature talks about how MRAs use the term–such as creating false equivalence–rather than what misandry actually is and examples of it. I do think that "backlash against feminism" is ridiculous, but there are a lot of scholars who say it, so we have to use it. Panamitsu (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it is best to merge misandry and discrimination with men draft/reverse sexism page as this article doesn't cover discrimination aspect as present in misogyny page. But even if they are not merged at least we should specify it as form of sexism against men in top portion of article like it is already specified in misogyny page. At this moment the page looks incomplete.--Polarbear678 (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

More sources describe misandry as an outgrowth of sexism against women, because the most complaints of misandry come from underdog men fighting against the advances of feminism. In that sense, claims of misandry come from those who wish to retain traditional misogyny. Misandry is reactionary. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources you are describing are mainstream media, feminist studies, gender studies, women' studies, feminist or leftist blogs and websites or academia. There are many sources that present different view but they are not reliable according to wikipedia standards. I guess most claims of misandry come from men who are disadvantaged due to female or feminist quotas or biased laws etc or from people that can sense misandry. It doesn't matter much that who is claiming existence of misandry. What matters more is if that claim has truth or not and that claim is true. I don't think talking about misandristic side of radical feminism is wishing misogyny, Calling misandry just reactionary/backlash is kind of noramalizing it Polarbear678 (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Which published, reliable sources (other than dictionaries) explicitly describe misandry as a form of sexism against men? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

What would be a published, reliable source for you? Anthony Synott in "Re-Thinking Men: Heroes, Villains and Victims" writes that misandry is a form of anti-male sexism. T. Hasan Johnson in "Solutions For Anti-Black Misandry, Flat Blackness, and Black Male Death" writes that Black men "grapple with anti-Black misandry, a form of racialized sexism often confused with racism due to academic and popular media influences". Reprarina (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

A significant portion of people think flying saucers are real. We specifically use sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, no matter how popular or unpopular they are with the public at large. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If you want to create an article at Discrimination against men, go ahead. That's assuming significant coverage of the topic in published, reliable sources. Please also note that Wikipedia is not the place to right perceived wrongs ("erasure", "silencing", etc.) If reliable sources don't cover a topic, neither do we. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf Thank you for educating me about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Panamitsu (talk) 06:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Feminism & "male tears"

Thread retitled from "Biased article".

The only image in this article is one trivializing men crying (under Misandry#In feminism). If a person were to only look at the images in this article without reading any text they would only see an opinion that discredits the article.

Also Misandry#In feminism makes up over 1/3rd of the article (6237 characters out of 17960 characters). How is over 1/3rd of this article solely about feminism? 31.20.106.40 (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@31.20.106.40 What your opinion on bias is based on reliable sources. If there are inaccuracies in the article, feel free to edit them, so long as they are in policy. Panamitsu (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

How is a quote like this allowed in this article?

"Gilmore says that misandry is not the hatred of men as men; this kind of loathing is present only in misogyny which is the hatred of women as women"

Here's what I think is proof that this is not believable..

.. "Facebook bans women for posting 'men are scum' after harassment scandals"1

.. "Men are scum. You can’t say that on Facebook. Men are pigs. You can’t say that either. Men are trash. Men are garbage fires. Also banned."2

.. "Facebook has shifted a long-standing policy of so-called “race-blind” hate speech moderation [...] comments about “whites,” “men,” and “Americans” low-priority compared to those about historically marginalized groups"3 (i.e. "low-priority", thus hate speech targetting these DOES occur)

.. "KILL ALL MEN", "I BATHE IN MALE TEARS", "misogynist whiners", "I enjoy that it bothers the men who don’t get it", "The men who get annoyed by misandry jokes are in my experience universally brittle, insecure, humorless weenies with victim complexes", "many intelligent, warm, confident feminist men in my life … mostly get the joke immediately and play along. They’re not worried I actually want to milk them for their tears", "Ban Men", 4 (all of these are said to be "parodying", but wikipedia is a page that should be looking at evidence not a select group of peoples' intent, the evidence here is that these factually say hateful things if intent is not understood, saying "if you get annoyed then you are insecure" is not evidence based, it's saying "this is how you should look at this evidence, if you look at it any differently you're looking at it wrong", that is not science, that is doctrine)

1https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/05/facebook-bans-women-posting-men-are-scum-harassment-scandals-comedian-marcia-belsky-abuse

2https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/men-are-scum-inside-facebook-war-on-hate-speech

3https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/12/03/on-facebook-comments-about-whites-men-and-americans-will-face-less-moderation/

4 https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/08/ironic-misandry-why-feminists-joke-about-drinking-male-tears-and-banning-all-men.html

31.20.106.40 (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I could find handful of years-old sensationalized news articles to support just about any POV I wanted. However, Wikipedia's contents are based on published, reliable sources, not armchair logical analyses. The Gilmore quote is presented as the author's opinion, not as an empirical fact, and the source is from a mainstream academic publisher, so I consider it WP:DUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Undue weight and merge

How is it that, in an entire article, it's the single sentence that mentions an excerpt of Wendy McElroy and the issue of considering all men as inherently rapists — a belief far from being a minor, footnote idea — that is singled out as having "undue weight" where 2/3 of the article is lengthy sections aimed at discrediting the topic of the article itself and framing it through a gender determinism lense — one that exclude a priori intersectionality.

Given how that sentence is labelled as having "undue weight," may I suggest that other sections be reviewed as well to have a fair idea of what the topic is all about and presenting opposite views in a more balanced approach.

As this article should aim to explain what "misandry" means and possibly the use of the word not debating how prejudices against men don't exist, an entire article is not even warranted to do that. Wikitionary and an expanded section on Discrimination against men could be enough — currently hyperlinked in a line under "Terms". 87.3.177.2 (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

For editors wanting looking to know what content the IP is talking about: Wendy McElroy, an individualist feminist, wrote in 2001 that some feminists "have redefined the view of the movement of the opposite sex" as "a hot anger toward men [that] seems to have turned into a cold hatred". She argued it was a misandrist position to consider men, as a class, to be irreformable or rapists.(undue weight? – discuss) In a 2016 article, individualist feminist Cathy Young described a "current cycle of misandry" in feminism. This cycle, she explains, includes the use of the term "mansplaining" and other neologisms using "man" as a derogatory prefix.(undue weight? – discuss) —Panamitsu (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Institutional misandry

Men's rights activists and other masculinist groups have criticized modern laws concerning divorce, domestic violence, the draft, circumcision (known as genital mutilation by opponents), and treatment of male rape victims as examples of institutional misandry.[3][23] In the source 23: MRAs tend to deploy the arguments as evidence that men are oppressed by women and, especially, by feminists.

I see the creative reading of the source 23 here. First of all, there are only "MRAs" here, not "MRAs and other masculinist groups". Second of all, changing "oppression by women" to "institutional misandry" is a creative, original-researching reading of the source. However, it's even put in the preambule.--Reprarina (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC) ps. have changed the source to more suitable and more academic one.--Reprarina (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)