Talk:Misandry

Template:Vital article

Anti-Black misandry

Can you write a section about anti-Black misandry? Lots of scholars write about this phenomenon.--Reprarina (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you cite texts by these scholars? Dimadick (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

So that we can look at the literature, find the best related sources and summarize them.... or at least that's what I might do with some sources. Talpedia (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if Anti-Black misandry is even a thing. that seems more like an issue of racism to me. but, you could have a point. 2189 is out of order (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Some writers have discussed anti-Black misandry as part of the topic, but I agree with you that it seems more like racism than sexism. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

T. Hasan Johnson, identifies as the Black masculinist, obviously argues that anti-Black misandry is the misandry. There are also such sources as Curry T. J. Killing boogeymen: Phallicism and the misandric mischaracterizations of Black males in theory // Res Philosophica. — 2018. I can see that works about anti-Black misandry are quotated and not really critisezed yet, so they are RS. It is about gender because police officers kill Black men much more ofthen than they kill Black women. Reprarina (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Do police officers rape black women more often than black men or not? Killing is not the only way to abuse someone. Dimadick (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you can ask Nataniel Bryan, T. J. Curry, and T. Hasan Johnson. Of course if they use the term anti-Black misandry, they distinguish racism in general and anti-Black misandry, the misandric form of racism, which includes police officer's prejudice aganst Black men, not against Black women. WP:NOTAFORUM. I don't know whether their works criticized or not. I haven't see the critique. But I can say they are quotated. So they can be RSs. Even if they are criticized, their works is no less impornant than Nathanson and Young's one to be presented in the article. Reprarina (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Restoring "many times larger in scope"

I reverted the revert: [[1]]

These claims just aren't in the source. By all means if we can find a source that supports this (WP:VERIFIABLE) we can add this, but otherwise this is all WP:OR and it seems silly to have a discussion about something that is obviously not verified by the source. Talpedia (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The statement is a summary of the topic. It's not contained in only one source. Binksternet (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess I would prefer that the claim was specifically cited because it is quite specific. It sort of says "we've measured this". Looking at the end of the article there are other sources by Kimmel and Gilmore. We / I should probably look at those and try to insert material quantifying scope such that we can assess the summary based on the material in the article or add more sources. Talpedia (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Every objective scholar says that misandry is puffed up as larger by anti-feminist activists, but is actually much smaller in scope than misogyny. Scholars Alice E. Marwick and Robyn Caplan explain how the idea of misandry was promoted by anti-feminists in the "manosphere" and is in fact another aspect of misogyny: "We pay particular attention to how this vocabulary reinforces a misogynistic ontology which paints feminism as a man-hating movement which victimizes men and boys." The anti-feminist noise about misandry is a recent and much smaller aspect of misogyny. Professor Marc Ouelette writes that misandry is much smaller: "Despite contrary claims, misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalised and legislated antipathy of misogyny." He is saying that misogyny is systemic, that it has existed for an extremely long time, that it has deeply infiltrated human culture, institutions and laws. Misandry has nothing of this scale. Ouellette could hardly be more clear. Michael S. Kimmel agrees, confirming that misogyny is widespread and institutionalised while people who claim the same for misandry are "truly ridiculous". David D. Gilmore writes that the term misandry "has little currency"—that it is not widely used and has no power. Gilmore says that misogyny is much more powerful, that it "targets women no matter what they believe or do" whereas misandry only targets the blustering male poseurs, the "culture of machismo". Misandry does not target males for being male, but misogyny does target females for being female. See page 12 of Misogyny ISBN 978-0812217704. Nobody has "measured" the difference but they have described it fully. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

"misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalised and legislated antipathy of misogyny" Probably true, though misandrist arguments do appear in fiction. Or as TVTropes phrases it: "Men Are the Expendable Gender". Dimadick (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Haha, quoting another wiki FTW. Men are expendable because... see Male_expendability#Overview where Cynthia Daniels explains basic biology in the first paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

What do I think about this?. There is clearly a feminist literature that critique the concept on misandry in terms of its effects (false equivalence), the motivations of its proponents, etc. This clearly belongs in the article. The question to me is really if this is "philosophical critique of the the concept from feminists" or "hard facts about the concept" and whether we should be stating it in using wikipedia's voice (We have WP:VOICE to help us come to a decision on this).

I wouldn't necessarily call these authors objective scholars of misandry. I might call them academics scholars of misogyny, female experience, or internet ideologies and academic rigor is perhaps the best you are going to get on many topics in the humanities. They just don't seem like scholars of misandry though. If they were I would expect answers to the question of "does misandry occur and in what form?" not paragraphs upon paragraphs comparing it to misogyny, theorizing about the damaging effect of the concept of misandry, and tracking the conversation about the topic on the internet like it is a disease. The psychological constructs in the article seem like closest we get to objective research of misandry itself. It seems clear to me that *some* misandry exists, even if it is limited to the rare abuse of a male child by his female relatives.

It strikes me that the concept might be being strangled before anyone can work out if it exists, and this makes me nervous about turning philosophical critique into fact. To compare misandry to misogyny would open the door to misandry maybe existing, so there is no real comparison to avoid giving any credence to the concept. This is of course speculation on my part.

Anyway yes. I'm getting towards WP:FORUM territory here. Discussion of feminist philosophical analysis of the concept belong in the article. I would argue that they should not be described in wikipedia's voice, rather something like "Feminist scholars argue that etc" or maybe even "scholars of gender relations" (if the scholars are more scholars of gender relation more than feminism or the female life experience). Talpedia (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

No, no, many times no. Topic scholars are the top experts, and the consensus of their studies will be presented in Wikipedia's voice. We will NEVER devalue topic scholars as "feminist scholars". The closest you will ever get to that poisonous construct is "scholars of feminism".

Of course misandry exists. The recent noise in the manosphere about misandry is an indication of misogyny in action. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

They are not topic experts. They are women's studies scholars writing about another topic and happening to mention misandry. Now it may well be that misandry has not been studied that much directly, in which case we will have to make do with scholars from a related field.

By feminist scholars, I mean academics who study social experiences of women through a feminist lens. I am quite indifferent to the political leanings of any scholar, and I am fairly flexible on the term we use. My point is that they don't seem to be people studying misandry directly, rather people studying *misogyny* or other aspects of female experience. I guess I am saying that they scholars of Women's studies rather than Men's studies or Gender studies (to the degree that Gender studies or indeed Men's studies actually studies male experiences).

By analogy, I wonder what would happen if I went to the article on medicine and wrote "Medicine is an white supremacist organization" in the first paragraph asserting that all topic scholars agree, quoting scholars of Postcolonial studies and are topic experts. Talpedia (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

What horseshit. The "feminist lens" shows your dismissal of scholarly expertise.

You are not the first person to suggest discrediting the acknowledged scholars of feminism, and you won't be the last. Such suggestions are rightfully shot down every time. We don't require our reliable sources to be unbiased—see WP:BIASEDSOURCES. With most biased sources, Wikipedia asks for attribution (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV), to show where the opinion comes from. But topic scholars writing in peer-reviewed journals are assumed to be as unbiased as possible, and do not need attribution. Their findings are usually delivered in Wikipedia's voice, especially if a scholarly consensus exists. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: every source is evaluated for reliability in context. Popular writings, for instance Angry White Men by Michael Kimmel, are accorded less weight than peer-reviewed journals. Religious scholars Nathanson and Young cannot be considered topic experts in feminist studies, but sociologists and anthropologists are, along with scholars of gender and feminism.

Misandry is part and parcel of feminist studies—it is yet another example of anti-feminism. Nobody studies misandry without putting it in context with the backlash to feminism. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

What horseshit. The "feminist lens" shows your dismissal of scholarly expertise.

That seems like a nice good faith line of argument. You and wikipedia fighting the good fight against us misogynistic feminist haters by suggesting that the maybe uncited claims about another topic on the second sentence of an article might not be WP:DUE. Misogynists everywhere I tell you.

Most of the quotes aren't in sources talking about misandry, they are long discursive pieces talking about other topics. They aren't really writing on the topic.

Regarding Nathanson and Young academics will work on different fields and they are actually writing on the topic rather than something else. I don't really think there is a consensus on this topic.

But I'd prefer to see if some better sources exist rather than having this discussion so I'll have a look Talpedia (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

it is yet another example of anti-feminism

The rhetoric of misandry is certainly prevalence in anti-feminism. I don't think it is correct to only see concept as a facet of anti-feminism and I'm not sure it would be correct to call bell hooks an antifeminist.

Nobody studies misandry without putting it in context with the backlash to feminism.

Glick and Fiske do and are cited in the piece, and some feminists seem to be concerned about attitudes towards men within feminism (e.g. bell hooks). I agree that there is a lot of discussion of misandry in the context of backlash against feminism. I wonder if there are other discussions in the context of things like therapeutic psychology or criminology. Talpedia (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Glick and Fiske studied the mechanics of gender interaction, the results of which could be carried into various gender topics to make a point. They did not study misandry itself, nor document the historiography of misandry, which is why they don't put misandry in context. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

They create a construct for hostility towards men and look at it's prevalence. This seems like studying misandry to me. I agree that they are non studying *all* of misandry just a specific part, but I think they aren't studying something else while mentioning misandry Talpedia (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hostility toward men was just one element of the Glick–Fiske study. They started out looking at Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) which was about sexism toward women by men and women. After that, they developed the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI). Both of these are tools for other researchers to use in their gender studies. Their 1999 paper concluded that the AMI was a better tool, more accurate. Glick and Fiske did not comment explicitly about misandry. You added Glick and Fiske last year, but I think the section violates WP:SYNTH because the topic of misandry is not treated in the sources. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

See [2] for the history of the source - it came from literature suggested by others and it appears that these sources do mention misandry from the quote in the discussion. I don't really think WP:SYNTH is the right policy rather WP:DUE. If you think WP:SYNTH. What do you think is implied by the presence of the section that is not consistent with other sources. Talpedia (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this material is WP:Due, but I do agree that there is room for argument here. But I think barring consensus the material stands (WP:CONSENUS). Do you not think this material is interesting to those interested in misandry? We could get some other edits to truth to build consensus Talpedia (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

on "The recent noise in the manosphere about misandry is an indication of misogyny in action." I'd like to say , or you can back up your statement with logic. either works. 2189 is out of order (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Marwick and Caplan confirm this in "Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment". Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources

A topic that seems to be coming up (including being brought up by me) is the question of sources, which of them constitute mainstream views, and which of them are on topic, and whether there is a consensus. I've made a couple of edits to add more sources, and make clear who the sources are.

I would consider the following people as addressing misandry directly (rather than in the context of some other issue).

• People considering misandry directly. Consisting of:
  • Warren Farrel (a political scientist, women's studies scholar and MRA)
  • James P. Sterba (a philosopher responding to Farrel)
  • Anthony Synott (a sociologist)
  • Nathanson and Young (trained as Religious studies scholars),
  • Potentially Marc A. Ouellette (who seems to be a linguist and gender studies scholar)

There are a number of other sources that are looking at anti-feminism or feminism, which other editors argue constitute a consensus on the topic (together with Ouellette). I am interested in looking into the Ouellette source more, since from the title it sounds like it is addressing men's studues while also constrasting misandry and misogyny (a focus of many recent edits and comments) Talpedia (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

References

First thing is this: Misandry is a sub-topic of feminism, full stop. Anybody talking about misandry in the context of feminism is "addressing misandry directly".

Second thing is that the "mainstream" viewpoint here is the viewpoint expressed by topic scholars such as scholars of feminism, gender studies, sociology and anthropology. Criminal aspects may be covered by criminologists, political aspects by political scientists, etc.

There are a bunch of scholarly books that directly address misandy but have not been cited. Below I will list a few examples. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Lisa Sugiura (2021). The Incel Rebellion: The Rise of the Manosphere and the Virtual War Against Women. Emerald Group Publishing ISBN 9781839822544. "A central theme permeating the manosphere is that of misandry, where men perceive themselves to be the real victims of a world that is unfairly in favour of women... Another way that incels refute the notion of misogyny is to counteract it with misandry, something which Marwick and Caplan describe as being employed as 'a synonym for feminism and a false equivalence to misogyny'..."
• Karen Lumsden, Emily Harmer (2019). Online Othering: Exploring Digital Violence and Discrimination on the Web. Springer ISBN 9783030126339. Lumsden and Harmer quote Marwick and Caplan extensively, as well as Debbie Ging and many, many others. They position misandry as an anti-feminist backlash, part of the MRA backlash working against the advances of feminism.
• Irene Zempi, Jo Smith (2021). Misogyny as Hate Crime. Routledge ISBN 9781000430349. "Furthermore, it's not just feminists who recognise that misogyny and misandry are incomparable. As the famous saying goes, 'Men are afraid women will laugh at them; women are afraid men will kill them.' Misogyny matters."
• Douglas Kellner, Jeff Share (2019). The Critical Media Literacy Guide: Engaging Media and Transforming Education. Brill ISBN 9789004404533. "Debbie Ging (2017) suggests that growth of the manosphere has supported intense misogyny connected with online harassment, rape threats, death threats, and even the Oregon and Isla Vista mass shootings. Ging writes that the manosphere is a collection of communities linked to a philosophy derived from a scene in the movie The Matrix... Ging explains, 'The Red Pill philosophy purports to awaken men to feminism's misandry and brainwashing, and is the key concept that unites all these communities.'"
• Christa Hodapp (2017). Men's Rights, Gender, and Social Media. Rowman & Littlefield ISBN 9781498526173. Hodapp talks about the history of the MRM, how it assumed a false symmetry between women's and men's oppression, the men failing to see the much larger scope of female oppression. One of the claimed foundational oppressions of men was misandry from women, along with the notion of gynocentrism and the scorn of feminist rhetoric. Misandry appears on many pages of the book.
• Maria Mpasdeki, Zafeiris Tsiftzis (2020). Regulating Misandry: Expanding the Protection Against Online Hate Speech. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9715-5.ch039 Multiple authors talk about online harassment of men. The book includes many assessments from non-Western countries, giving a more global view.
• Kate Manne (2017). Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny. Oxford University Press ISBN 9780190605001. Manne says on page 67 that the concept of misandry relies upon the MRM establishing their notional idea that a matriarchy has replaced patriarchy. Manne dismisses this.

I mean perhaps there is no literature on misandry. And instead everything should be merged into "opposition to feminism" or "manosphere", and another men's studies or "male experience" article should literature exist.

• I agree that there is probably enough research on the manosphere to get out something resembling consensus on this topic, and consensus on the use of misandry in this area and that a bunch of this is misogynistic. I like that this literature seems to be pretty technical. I would prefer this technical literature to be the "source of consensus" but perhaps because I just have a biased toward precise claims.
• It sort of feels like you have a bunch of popular books talking about the manosphere and feminism.
• I'm pretty convinced that misandry originally grew up as an attempt to create a direct analogue of misogyny and this has happened repeatedly. Lots of people talk about this as false equivalence, and there doesn't seem to be much push back to this literature. There is a separate body of literature that addresses misandry and feels distinct and unaddresses by the literature on the manosphere.
• In general I'm nervous about the conflation of scholarly works on the concept, all men's rights groups or men's studies groups and the manosphere. Perhaps this distinction is WP:OR, but it seems odd to have a bunch of academic authors that are unaddressed by the literature of manosphere. Are we actually asserting that every one of these authors of books are part of the manosphere?
• I feel "topic scholars" is a reach and is being used to claim general consensus when it's not there. I view most topics as having multiple literatures with different degrees of overlap which try to do different things. There are topic scholars on the manosphere to be sure, and there are topic scholars on misandry within feminism maybe, and of criticism of feminism through the lens of misandry. Talpedia (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Good luck trying to delete this article and merge its contents to a related article such as antifeminism or manosphere. I doubt you would get a majority of Wikipedians to agree to that. Too many books are dedicated to misandry for that to happen.

You said "It sort of feels like you have a bunch of popular books talking about the manosphere and feminism" but the listed books are largely textbooks and scholarly compilations written by university professors. Marwick and Caplan are quoted frequently as defining the topic, along with Ging. These topic scholars set the tone for the topic, and represent the current consensus in scholarly circles. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure that it'd actually happen, I'm just sort of aware that you have two literatures. One about misandry itself, one about misandry as a component of manosphere ideologies.

Let me have a read through some of the other books you linked. Sometimes university professors sort of "dip into" a little popular science with lower scholarly standards on the side. Some of the books I looked at before were "expansive and loosely argued" rather than "careful and scholarly". I remember reading some of Ging's papers that were pretty good though.

I guess I feel that the consensus is surrounding the manosphere and internet discussion rather than misnandry itself, and I would agree that there is something beginning to resemble a consensus there. It sort of feels like the manosphere scholars have all decided to ignore the scholarly literature on misandry and go hang out on internet forums. I sort of wish they would be like "Young is wrong because X" rather than "Young's philosophies can bandied around on r/absoulteevil".

It is rather odd having a literature more concerned with something not existing than the thing itself! Talpedia (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The reason there are "two literatures" is that some writers are MRM activists whipping up the readership. The others are scholars of gender studies, sociology, etc., who are analyzing the topic within its context. So from the stance of WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, the scholars are summarized to define the topic, while the activists are cited as examples. Binksternet (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd view it more as a "metaliterature" and a "literature". Both liteatures have gender, sociology scholars etc. There clearly are some rather extreme and prejudices views on the manosphere, and they will likeley quote from the "literture" - I'm not sure there is evidence that the aims of the "literature" is to whip up internet forums. I can't help but feel that the "metaliterature" avoids addressing the "literature" directly, rather addressing the warped mirror of the manosphere, and the effects of the concept because this is more interesting for the authors and their readers, and addressing the "literature" would give credence to a concept that they feel should be completely dismissed. Talpedia (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Luckily, we have Ging, Marwick and Caplan to define the topic, solving the confusion you are running into. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure they do though! Just talk about nasty people on the internet and talk about misandry as not being the same as misogyny and how the concept might interact with feminism! Interesting topics no doubt, that could form useful parts of the article. But let me have a read. Talpedia (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I really don't understand why Nathanson and Young and North America is in the preamble. It's not like the article should be framed according to rules. Nathanson and Young are not mainstream, so we shouldn't mention them in the preamble. We can make an article about their theory about pervasive feminist misandry, but it's not need in the arcticle about misandry.Reprarina (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed - intro

Hi there. I’ve just noticed an unsourced statement:

“ counterpart of misogyny, since misogyny is many times more prevalent in scope and more severe in its consequences.”

Claims like this require a source!

Have a nice day :) 49.179.18.33 (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. It appears they have failed to cite anything regarding that statement, or logically back it up. I don't know wether or not a citation needed tag should be placed there. "since misogyny is many times more prevalent in scope and more severe in its consequences." should have a citation. while I tend to agree misogyny is bigger than misandry, the statement, "and more severe in consequences" appears to downplay misandry, but sexism is bad either way. I would be cautious about removing the "more severe in consequences" part, but a citation is needed 2189 is out of order (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I've taken it out a couple of times and it's been added back in. The argument is that it is a summary of the text. Perhaps the Gilmore paragraph in the section on criticism is the closest thing to a source for this. Maybe the sentence could be tightened up with a few sources from the criticism section. Talpedia (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The sentence is a reasonable paraphrase of Gilmore, I have removed the citation needed tag. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm suspicious cos I'd expect at least a little rewording. I might have a look through and add some page numbers. Did we happen to have some handy? Talpedia (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Michael Kimmel writes in Angry White Men about Gilmore's misogyny–misandry comparison that "there is no parallel of misandry at all; it's a false equivalence." (Page 134.) Kimmel says in his own words that misogyny is so widespread that it is institutionalized in human culture with a "repressive apparatus", as opposed to misandry which has no such apparatus, despite the claims of Nathanson and Young. Kimmel says it is "truly ridiculous" to propose that misandry is large enough in scope to have been institutionalized in human culture. (Pages 133–134.) Kimmel says that it is easy to "demonstrate empirically" how MRAs are "wrong" in their claims that misandry is a big problem. (Page 135.) In his 1989 book Misogyny, Misandry, and Misanthropy, R. Howard Bloch describes how misogyny is so pervasive, so deeply rooted in human culture that tracing its history is very difficult. The scope of misogyny is very, very large. (Pages 1–2.) Bloch portrays misandry as minor. Marwick and Caplan in their 2018 piece "Drinking male tears" describe the arc of the word 'misandry': "Using critical discourse analysis, we examine the term misandry, which originates in the manosphere; trace its infiltration into more mainstream circles; and analyze its ideological and community-building functions. We pay particular attention to how this vocabulary reinforces a misogynistic ontology which paints feminism as a man-hating movement which victimizes men and boys." Marwick and Caplan show that misandry is a false claim of MRAs who propose that feminism has invaded society and become institutionalized, that "feminism has brought about systemic discrimination against men". Hopton and Langer wrote in 2021 that misandry in its modern form comes from misogynistic activists from the manosphere, for the purpose of reinstating male privilege and power. They say that the concept of misandry has "leaked" into the material world from online discussions of MRAs, describing a small but toxic presence. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

even if misandry is miniscule, it is still there. misandry exists, even in small proportions. while you have proven the term misandry has been hijacked by the insane nuts over in the manosphere, Misogyny is only more severe in consequences due to its size. otherwise, they are both just as bad, and both promote unjustified hate in one way or another 2189 is out of order (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Arguing that misandry doesn't exist in a piece titled 'Drinking male tears' does seem quite amusing, doesn't it? 78.55.70.183 (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Non-existent NPOV

"The modern activism around misandry represents an antifeminist backlash of hatred against women, promoted by marginalized men. Claims of misandry, though they may point to localized instances of injustice, are collectively an extension of misogyny"

This article in its current form is not only a nuclear violation of anything remotely resembling NPOV, but the part quoted above is literally outright self-admitted bigotry ("marginalized men are misogynists") - basically implied racism, classism, hatred for male abuse victims and countless other things. How is this still up? How are you still pretending Wikipedia has anything to do with neutrality at this point?

You're disgusting and indistinguishable from the alt-right at this point. 83.85.201.57 (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

By the way, seeing the "standards" described above, I can't wait for "men can't be raped" to be defined by Wikipedia as "a valid theory as defined by some scholars" - I am sure if you cherrypick enough, you will find enough "feminist scholars" supporting it and all the sources denouncing it as gross will suddenly be "unreliable".

Can't wait for the condescending, narcissistic reply to this about how I haven't read enough theory or that this is the wrong place for me. 83.85.201.57 (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

:( -- Python Drink (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

World wide view

I don't like banners on articles I haved worked on because they cast doubt on the legitimacy of the things I have worked on. Obviously they might be necessary, and encourage editors. What would we need to add to this article to remove the banner about world wide perspective? Talpedia (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

A possible source I listed above is

• Maria Mpasdeki, Zafeiris Tsiftzis (2020). Regulating Misandry: Expanding the Protection Against Online Hate Speech. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9715-5.ch039 Multiple authors talk about online harassment of men. The book includes many assessments from non-Western countries, giving a more global view.

It appears to be more about the experience of people who claim misandry hate speech was directed at them. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

...But the problem remains one of very few sources. ‎Reprarina, not every topic can be global in scope. This one will definitely be limited by the shortage of sources. If we hunt for and use the few available sources, the tag should be removed, even though the article will continue to be very Western-centric. That's its nature. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I can also suggest Пяткова Е. С., Савинская О. Б. Нормативные представления о мизандрии у женщин двух поколений. Reprarina (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Drinking male tears

The final paragraph that is a big point of contention cites a study titled “drinking male tears” which is paywalled. This study only views Misandry through the lens of feminists who have already been harassed online. Obviously Misandry in this sense appears only from “marginalized” men expressing their mysogony, but given the scope of the study it is not representative of Misandry as a whole.

I suggest we remove or rewrite the paragraph who’s only only source is the drinking male tears study. 174.86.34.106 (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, let's remove the most well-researched, definitive and authoritative study from the article, because one person doesn't like it. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

This response doesn’t address my concerns with the source. You wielding this piece of research as if it is the gold card of everything with respect to misogyny and misandry is why this whole talk page has exploded and the article is locked. The article you are citing only looks at misandry through a feminist lens, and only once a feminist has already experienced misogyny online from proclaimed misandry victims. That’s by definition going to be seen as misogyny disguised by misandrist motivations or whatever the hell the biased research said. Your conclusion that you have drawn from the article is incorrect, and I suggest we remove it. It offers no actual substance and only serves as a divisive statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.86.34.106 (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Many of the studies on the discursive use of the term misandry in the manosphere do have quite good methdologies. I'm personally reasonable convinced from these sources that the concept of misandry has been used reactively in response to the concept of misogyny. Of course, that tells us nothing about how much misdandry actually exists and how it functions. Unfortunately we are in primary source, philosophy and ideological theory are when it comes to the study of misandry which makes things a little difficult. In other areas we might find a nice review that would contextualize this study. I'm not quite sure the research is biased, so much as only studying the use of the concept amongst anti-feminists. Perhaps the language could be clear and we could add more sources Talpedia (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I dismissed your concerns with the source because the "feminist lens" term is a manosphere dismissal, a non-neutral viewpoint not shared by Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, a peer-reviewed scholarly paper, written by an expert in the field, is just about the highest authority for defining the topic. The authors of the piece in question, Caplan and Marwick, are topic scholars, and the piece was peer-reviewed and published in a scholarly journal. Its conclusions are definitive. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

”feminist lens” is not manosphere dismissal. I make no claims that feminist do not receive hatred from people that claim to be victims of misandry. But Drinking Male Tears is not a neutral-viewpoint source, it is not the definitive research on the topic and is heavily biased to only view certain interactions described in the previous sentence. This isn’t dismissive of any issues that misogyny comes with, but rather a critique of the research’s limited scope and why the conclusions to the research as stated in the article are incorrect. You have made no actual effort to properly support why this piece of research should be the one true source to draw the conclusions of the paragraph in question, and as such I suggest we remove the offending paragraph or at least rewrite it to reflect the limited scope of the study174.86.34.106 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd take all of this with a pinch of salt. The problem we are dealing with here is a lack of scholarly work on the topic. It's definitive in the sense that other scholars haven't written about it from a different viewpoint as far as we know. Talpedia (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I sure some day Drinking male tears will be the criticized and become fringe, but not today. Today we should keep this scource because of WP:MAINSTREAM and Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat.--Reprarina (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

A slightly more diplomatic answer :D. Unfortunately much of the material necessary for a nuanced understanding of a number of topics is behind paywalls, so wikipedia allows people to cite them. There are ways for people outside of academia to access them cheaply. Wikipedia for good or ill tends to follows literature and there is a reasonable amount of literature on the rhetorical, ideological and political use the concept of misandry and rather less that actually looks at its prevalence, effects, or how it functions. We do, however, cite a range of viewpoints here and should material be published on misandry more interested in its prevalence than rhetorical use it can be included here. If you can find any academic sources on the prevalence or form of misandry I would be interested in them. Talpedia (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem with "Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment" is this scource ignores lots of non-antifeminist reliable works about anti-Black misandry (Black Male Studies). It's the big discipline. Not fringe and not even seriously criticized. We should keep the scource "Drinking male tears" but we shouldn't overrestimate it. "The modern activism around misandry represents an antifeminist backlash" it's the opinion of Marwick, Alice E.; Caplan, Robyn, it's not the fact. The article still need to be globalized. First of all, the works about anti-Black misandry are reliable and good for this article. The Man-Not, Toward a BlackBoyCrit Pedagogy (Tommy J. Curry and Nathaniel Bryan) it's only for beginning. And I don't think this article should be about (white) men's rights activism in North America. It shouldn't be a critical review on Nathanson and Young's books. The problem with their books is not the phrase "misandry exists". In fact, the mainstream linguistic point of view is still misandry is a hatred of men, and it's not about oppression. So, the article shouldn't be the article about fringe theory about systemic oppression of white cishet gender-conforming men in the modern western world, but about such things as man-hating and anti-Black misandry.Reprarina (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Black male "misandry" is racism more than it is sexism. The topic deserves its own article rather than being shoehorned into this one. Regarding misandry of the colorblind variety, Marwick and Caplan didn't publish their opinions, they published the conclusions of their research. If they provide a definition of misandry (and they do), that's a definition we must address. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Black misandry is not nonmisandrous racism against Black males. According to RS and common sense.Reprarina (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The topic deserves its own article rather than being shoehorned into this one. Maybe, but it can be also said about using of the word by antifeminists. The mainstream linguistic point of view that misandry is the hatred of men, and the first sentence of the article is Misandry (/mɪˈsændri/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men. So the article should be about people who hate men, not about the antifeminist fringe theory.Reprarina (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Fringe, eh? Nope. Those who you consider "fringe" are scholars defining the field. The scholarly consensus remains that misandry is an extension of misogyny, that misandry is a backlash to feminism, that misandry is vanishingly small in scale compared to misogyny. Misandry itself is the fringe of misogyny. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't understand me. I say - antifeminist fringe theory. Intersectional theory is not fringe, of course. (But it's not as mainstream as general theory of relativity). that misandry is a backlash to feminism - the word misandry? the word misandry is using since 19th century and not by anti-feminists and mean hatred of men. Linguists who write dictionaries define misandry as hatred of men. They are also in mainstream. And it's using now as a part of the term Anti-Black misandry in Black Male Studies. Because racism against Black males, according to T. J. Curry, is misandrous and absolutely not non-misandrous. It also a part of scientific mainstream, that racism against Black Males is misandrous. "is vanishingly small in scale compared to misogyny" it's not the main theme of the arcticle Misandry.Reprarina (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The word "misandry" was hardly ever used for centuries. It was in the 1961 dictionary but not in mainstream parlance... The New York Times said as much in 1985. That's why the word's literal meaning does not take up the majority of this article. The word is used today as leverage against the advances of feminism. Binksternet (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The word pedophilia is also used more often for child sexual abuse. But it's different things and different articles. Transphobic people use the word homophobia, grooming etc. against the advances of trans rights movement. RSs about misandry (man-hating/part of anti-Black misandry) not from fringe scholars exist.Reprarina (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

This "fringe scholars" shit doesn't fly. Binksternet (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It should. Wikipedia:Fringe theories.-Reprarina (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you understand me not very good because of my not very good English. I mean, there is fringe theories and not-fringe theories. The theory that there is systemic oppression of men by women is fringe, of course. But the theory that racism against men is misandrous, that it's linked with such prejudices as "Black men are probably dangerous offenders", "Black males can't be raped" is a part of scientific mainstream.Reprarina (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I have seen a few of the scholarly articles about racism against Black men, comparing that experience to misandry, so I know it is a valid topic, part of the scholarship related to misandry. But this article focuses primarily on sexism, not racism. This article should mention peripheral concerns so that the reader can click to see them. The racism of Black male misandry is a peripheral concern, and if there is an article written about it, the reader can click on it. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I still think it would be nice to write a few sentences. We can write the main article Anti-Black misandry and the small chapter in this article.Reprarina (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yet another argument for anti-Black misandry in this article: racialized misandry is mentioned in this source (p. 443). So, it's the theme for this article.Reprarina (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Nathanson and Young in the preamble

Dear users, do you think that they are really so important to be in the preamble? Their books are not a part of scientific mainstream. Reprarina (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts. I don't think there is a scientific mainstream on this topic; most of this lies within the humanities, though I think some of the textual analysis might stretch into the scientific and there is a little adjacent psychology in the article. I suspect this psychological (and social psychology) research *could* become a scientific mainstream, but there's not much there at the moment.

Nathanson and Young are working academics in the humanities like other scholars and I'm not really sure there is a mainstream here. Just different sociological theories and critique.

I'm hopeful that mens studies as opposed to womens studies might be able to provide something more like a consensus and synthesis on the topic, the issue with some of the "feminist" literature is that it's not addressing experiences of men, more the political opposition to particular conceptualizations of womenhood. Talpedia (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

If they're good for the preamble, we can also give lots of refernces to their books in the article. But I think it would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Their books are very criticized. I think from the masculist camp Pasi Malmi and Tommy J. Curry are better. And I don't think we should write about North America in the preamble. Wikipedia:Global project Reprarina (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hmm... I think I need to think through the concept of WP:DUE from the humanities perspective to have a good opinion. Things that mean something not be due from my perspective are

• The literature has moved on, perspectives have been addressed and merged into other framings without real attempts to distinguish the new case. (this can be dealt with by finding reviews or papers critiquing old papers)
• Stuff being out of date and no one really looking at it. (this can be dealt with by finding newer sources on the topic)
• Distinct literatures that ignore the critiques raised by other literatures and just keep on going. (this is a sign of pseudoscience)

As I've muttered about here, my concern is that you have two literatures that ignore one another, so I'm not sure WP:FALSEBALANCE exaxctly apply.

What we could do is is summarize the masculinist perspectives in the lead and then move the other stuff down into the articles.

I think if we switch from "author said X" to "X is said by some authors such a A, B, C" then some of the problems with undue weight to particular sources might go away. Talpedia (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I don' t really think any authors have an issue with a more globalist perspective including those perspectives that may be unique to particular subpopulations. It's just people are doing things other than find sources. I'd be in favour of just throwing in globalist and racial perspectives in it's own section and as we add content the article will grow more structure (people can draw out commonalities and hopefully find comparative sources for these). Talpedia (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Nathanson and Young are responsible for a bunch of the mess we're in now, with misandry badly misrepresented by them as a commonplace occurrence. The two authors publish idiotic stuff regularly about misandry, creating a "cottage industry" on the topic, according to Michael Kimmel, who says their badly researched works are "utterly tendentious". Nathanson and Young are major figures in misandry because of their prominence, not because of their authority or expertise. Many scholars have commented negatively about them, which is why they are in the lead section. Note that Nathanson and Young are taking two giant steps away from scholarship with their book series on misandry: the first step is that they are scholars in religious studies but misandry is not part of that field, and the second step is that they are publishing popular books rather than peer-reviewed scholarly studies. Kimmel rightly laughs at their nonsense, as does journalism and communication professor Michael Dorland of Carleton University,[3] sociologist Dorothy E. Chunn of Simon Fraser University,[4] education professor Jon G. Bradley of McGill University,[5] Gender and Women's Studies professor Jonathan A. Allan of Brandon University,[6] and sociologist Terrell F. Carver of the University of Bristol.[7] On the other hand, sociologist Anthony Synnott is a fan of Nathanson and Young. In the 2007 Iowa court case Varnum v. Brien, Nathanson and Young both testified against same-sex marriage, but the judges rejected their claim to be experts on the topic, saying they had an "absence of expertise in sociology, child development, psychology, or psychiatry."[8] Despite their lack of knowledge about the topic, these two are important parts of the topic because of how much crap they have published. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I think extending Voir dire procedures to assess standards of scholarship is a bit of a stretch. I'm not sure you can extrapolate from "quality of researcher" to "quality of paper", and I'm not really sure that a courts opinion matters, isn't influenced by something specific to the case, or would apply to other cases.

I agree that I would much prefer sources from journals to those in books, since arguments are often required to be clearer and flights of polemic fancy are kept to a minimum. Many scholars who critique misandry publish in book form with a similar polemic bent.

Academics do publish outside their area of training or PhD research. Wittgenstein trained as an engineer, then had his unpublished work converted into a PhD in cambridge. Hilbert trained as a mathematician but then did a bunch of work on physics. It feels like a bit of a reach.

But yeah, I'd sort of prefer to dodge the issue about whether the two are to be considered reliable by finding other sources that contextualize their position without just being all "the concept of misandry is used by internet trolls and distracts from feminism and summons an invalid comparison to misogyny" and more "a thorough social analysis shows that misandry tends to operate at an individual rather than structural level if misandry is intrepreted narrowly. Interestingly..." Talpedia (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Nice comparison to Wittgenstein, who is widely held in high esteem for his mastery of structured thought. On the other hand, the scientific method eludes Young and Nathanson: "The views espoused by these individuals appear to be largely personal and not based on observations supported by scientific methodology or based on empirical research in any sense.”[9] I seriously doubt that these two will be remembered for very long. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm only comparing to Wittgenstein in the loosest sense that academics move fields. He's also well known so useful as a shared data point. I agree that Young and Nathanson are unscientific, but then I think large parts of gender studies are because society is big and complex so the methods of humanities get used. Talpedia (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem with Kimmel is he hasn't legal education, he's a sociologyst, so he's not as reliable as possible in such things what is and what is not the discrimination (e.g. against men) in the world from a legal point of view... The same problem with many other scholars.Reprarina (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Sociologist. And he's not a lawyer but he's an authority on the topic overall. I wouldn't cite him for legal theory, but his work does mention sociolegal history. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of all NPOV sections of the intro

Bink is the only person on this talk page steel-manning the terrible tone of the intro to this article. No effort has been made to effectively defend these points besides Bink, and even those have been done unsuccessfully. As such it seems this page has reached a relative consensus on how to treat the intro. 174.86.34.106 (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

what? EvergreenFir (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

objectionable neutrality

not the first or only wikipedia by a long shot that clearly shows a bias in how certain (feminist) claims are dragged along for a statement of fact

which clearly seems a violation of the good faith principle pertaining to the neutral point of view it's beyond me how antagonistic motives sources like: "Feminist Media Studies" get to play with semantics to suggest blame or responsibility to another party. parts like:

 "This populist viewpoint is denied by sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies who counter that misandry is not at all established as a cultural institution, nor is it equivalent to misogyny which is many times more prevalent in scope, far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences."

"denied" tries a bit too hard to suggest to people the sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies are the ones in the position to verify this, when a denial isn't necessarily factually truthful and this one hasn't been proven to be true, that is circular logic, as well as shifting the burden of proof, they are making the claim, not populists.

populism has absolutely nothing to do with this whatsoever. shoehorning that in, just attempts to draw a divide between the scholars and populists for seemingly no reason at all, there is no correlation here (i can guess the reason though), to lull the people into the idea they speak from more authority than they actually do on this, again, statement of opinion.

 "nor is it equivalent to misogyny which is many times more prevalent in scope, far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences."

this part is borderline trying to be a statement of fact... long-winded, and i believe it even intends to suggest to the reader the the claims are truthful by just bombarding them with premises. this sentence just feels a bit like it's trying to hoodwink people.

and trying to justify it by virtue of having a lot of claims..., a premise/statement is not a verification/confirmation of its truthfulness, neither are 20.... in fact, the more premises, the less likely they are to be all true, textbook conjunction fallacy type of stuff i'd suggest we put a "which they believe" in between the long end, just to break it up for the reader a bit better and avoid the misunderstanding.

fair suggestion:

 "sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, claim/suggest that misandry is not at all established as a cultural institution, nor is it equivalent to misogyny, which they believe is many times more prevalent in scope, far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.174.78.47 (talk • contribs) 

I don't think that the word 'denied' implies any special knowledge or authority on a subject. See for example: Climate change denial. However, I agree that the latter half of the sentence is veering a little too close to wikivoice, stating an assertion that half of the RS disagree with as a fact. I'll take your phrasing suggestion for that part, mysterious nameless editor. (You can sign your posts with four ~ symbols like "~ ~ ~ ~" but without the spaces). Joe (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Half of our "reliable sources" are just men's rights activists cranking up the followers. The most authoritative "half" is the scholars who study the topic and report neutrally. The result of this imbalance is that the activists are greatly reduced in weight, and the true scholars are presented in Wikivoice. I removed your recent addition because you mistakenly put Nathanson and Young in the "scholars" group when they are instead conservative religious activists against feminism. Their field of scholarship is religion, which does not include gender studies or misandry, so they are fish out of water in this topic. All of their misandry writings are an attempt to roll back feminism, not an attempt to write neutrally about something they have studied with objective rigor. Binksternet (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

As ever, the issue is that they *don't* study the topic. They study the use of the term misandry within certain circles. When such scholars stay within the bounds of science they are neutral; when they step outside they often are not.

> Their field of scholarship is religion

I still think this division between "true" scholars and "activist" scholars based on the subject of someone's PhD isn't really valid. Talpedia (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Nathanson and Young are not scholars of misandry because they make shit up about it. Their doctoral theses don't come into play here. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean fine. I agree they are in the philosophical / theory space rather than the "statistics / experimental" space. Do you think they actively say things that are untrue rather than implausible narratives? Talpedia (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

They have been dismissed by Kimmel who said their writings on the topic are "utterly tendentious". That means they are biased; he considers them to be pushing the cause of antifeminism. The judge panel in Varnum v. Brien (2007) said that they had absolutely no expertise in sociology. At that point, the two authors had already pumped out their first two misandry books, feeding the manosphere more ignorant crap. It's safe to say that I agree with Kimmel and the Iowa judges. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

We've been back on forth on voir dire stuff before. I don't think it's reasonable to use voir dire as a standard to assess scholarly work. I should probably read Kimmel's critique. Talpedia (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Those two would have to perform scholarly work before such work could be assessed on a scholarly basis. So far, nothing of their misandry industry is remotely scholarly. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Our anonymous friend using IP 77.174.78.47 from The Hague is concerned that the word "denied" doesn't quite capture what sociologists and other scholars are saying, because "half of the RS" disagree with it. The portion of disagreement is not from scholars, so there is a false balance being forced by that assumption. Also, our IP friend tried unsuccessfully to get this article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misandry; a proposal which was very quickly shot down. To me, all of this looks like trolling. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. I feel a bit like I'm repeating myself here. A number of the "pro-misandry existing" writers are scholars in the sense that they have worked in academia. Some of them are sociologists. Some of them are political scientists. I agree that the research on this topic is patchy, philosophical, political or non-existent. I agree that the work on the use of the concept of misandry for political purposes is more scientific and more published. But I would consider "misandry exists" to be a minority scholarly viewpoint. Talpedia (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

POV

The article is written from the assumption that misandry is a concept arising solely from alt-right antifeminism. This is simply not the case. Skrelk (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)