Talk:Misandry

​

Opening paragraphs

Thread retitled from "The opening paragraphs don't actually describe misandry".

Whether misandry is a big or tiny problem the article, being an article about misandry, should describe that problem! Instead only the very first line does that. The next few paragraphs are just weird and just seem to make the subjective point that misandry isn't a real problem. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to tell you whether you should care about something or not! That is not their purpose. Ironically you could say that the article itself is misandrist Dlesos (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

While I don't agree that the article is unduly biased against its subject, I think you raise a good point here. There is a pronounced lack of concrete description in the lead, which I think results in more than a little mystification. While we're trying to reflect what reliable sources say, we're also trying to explain abstract concepts to a general audience, and there should be more description of what we're actually talking about up front, so that it makes more sense when we talk about it. Remsense ‥ 论 18:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The notion that misandry is a problem is itself a contentious opinion. Wikipedia articles are meant to reflect the predominant views among reliable sources. The majority of reliable sources tend to focus on how the topic is used by MRAs as a false equivalence to misogyny. If you find that weird then your problem is with the published sources, not Wikipedia.

Wikipedia articles aren't meant to tell you whether you should care about something or not is a bizarre statement. Should Effects of climate change not have a section on the impacts to human society? That might lead to somebody thinking they should care about the issue...which is bad, apparently. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't really think that's the core of what they're saying, or at least that's not how I saw it. Remsense ‥ 论 01:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think even they knew what they were saying. Anyway, if someone wants to expand the introduction with more details from reliable sources, that's fine with me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I get working the beat on articles like these is endlessly frustrating, but the rest of us seemed to understand the idea here and the good faith behind it pretty clearly. Remsense ‥ 论 02:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not doubting anyone's good faith, but saying the article itself is misandrist is a pretty tired refrain stemming from a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia should present the main views of reliable sources, that is true, but that does not mean to speak of them as an unquestionable fact. Pol revision (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I think starting with a solid definition and then describing some of the purported manifestations is a reasonable way to start. I'm not sure how much more concrete it could get. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty much the extent of what I was thinking. Remsense ‥ 论 01:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel like it should be the definition and what it is.If we just say what is is with no opinion It will be good 2601:204:F101:B990:65D1:150D:752D:1798 (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That is the same as a dictionary entry. Wikipedia is more than just a dictionary. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

How is this not biased. “Many scholars criticize MRAs for promoting a false equivalence between misandry and misogyny,“ 2601:204:F101:B990:65D1:150D:752D:1798 (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Something isn't biased just because someone doesn't like it. If reliable sources focus on a given facet of a topic (e.g. criticism of MRAs), then so do we. That's the entire basis of WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It says Wikipedia:Citation needed next to the message who are the scholar‘s you are talking about? 2601:204:F101:B990:65D1:150D:752D:1798 (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The ones referenced in the cited sources. Click on the little numbers. MrOllie (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Nonjudgmental language, opinion vs. fact

Thread retitled from "The opening violates content policies of Wikipedia".

Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.

1 The language in the article clearly is judgemental and disparages the subject and sympathize with feminists that it is a myth that some feminists can be misandrists by using words like "false", "myth", "criticize" "claiming" immediately after 2 paragraphs in the opening of the article while at the same time presenting the opinions of unnamed 40 people as facts.

2 - instead of referring to the opinions of the authors in another section, their opinions are referred to immediately after 2 paragraphs in the opening of the article, there are 3 paragraphs critical of the term misandry compared to 2 paragraphs explaining what is misandry, clearly the article is using feminist tone that is why it denied that some feminists can be misandrists, it like saying it is a myth that some Asian people can be racist.

3 - Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil.

The article mentions the opinions of the 40 authors as facts that all people who disagrees with these facts are promoting myths instead of mentioning their opinions in neutral way not as facts that everyone should take it all as gospel.

The tone of the article when referring to the 40 authors should be edited. POTDL (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Accurately reflecting the cited sources as in this case is not a policy violation. On the other hand, looking for false 'neutrality' (by which you seem to really mean WP:FALSEBALANCE) would be a violation of policy. MrOllie (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

disparages the subject and sympathize with feminists that it is a myth that some feminists can be misandrists by using words like "false", "myth", "criticize" "claiming" there are no forbidden words in the lead or elsewhere in articles. Context matters, and in context the article lead provide attribution and is neutral. I see no opinions presented as facts in the lead. VQuakr (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning misogyny in the article opening of misandry is a proof that the article disparages misandry and sympathize with misogyny more, and words like false and myth clearly present opinions like facts, I asked Chat GPT about the article opening, Chat GPT is extremely liberal and feminist chatbot yet it agreed with me.

Yes, the opening you provided can be seen as violating Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and using nonjudgmental language. Let's break it down:

Misandry Definition: The definition of "misandry" in the first sentence is neutral, as it presents an objective and widely accepted definition of the term: "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men or boys."

MRAs and Masculinist Groups' Views: The second paragraph presents the views of men's rights activists (MRAs) and masculinist groups. However, the statement that "misandry lacks institutional and systemic support comparable to misogyny" introduces an editorialized comparison that may not reflect all viewpoints or available evidence. By asserting this as a fact, rather than attributing it to specific viewpoints or sources, the sentence risks violating Wikipedia's policy against presenting opinions as facts.

Manosphere Forums: The third paragraph discusses claims made on manosphere forums but does not sufficiently attribute the views expressed to the individuals making the claims. While it says that these users "have claimed that misandry is widespread," the tone and phrasing could be clearer in presenting these as opinions rather than potentially implying that such views are without merit.

Scholarly Criticism of MRAs: The fourth paragraph introduces scholarly criticism of MRAs, and it is mostly neutral. However, the use of the term "false equivalence" and phrases like "antifeminist backlash" are strong terms that, while attributed to scholars, could appear judgmental. The final sentence, which refers to the "misandry myth," is especially strong and could be seen as violating the neutral point of view policy by implying that misandry is not a real or valid concern. While the use of "so-called" or "alleged" would help convey this as a viewpoint rather than a fact, stronger attribution would also help.

Areas for Improvement:

Attribution: Some claims, especially the comparison between misandry and misogyny, should be more clearly attributed to scholars or experts. Without this, it presents opinions as facts, which goes against Wikipedia's neutrality standards.

Avoid Judging the Validity of Views: Phrases like "false equivalence" or "misandry myth," while attributed to scholars, could be viewed as dismissive of opposing perspectives and should be framed more cautiously to avoid editorial bias.

For a more neutral version, Wikipedia might say something like:

"Men's rights activists (MRAs) and other masculinist groups have characterized modern laws concerning divorce, domestic violence, conscription, circumcision (sometimes referred to as male genital mutilation by critics), and treatment of male rape victims as examples of institutional misandry. However, some scholars argue that misandry does not have the same systemic or institutional backing as misogyny."

This revision ensures that both viewpoints are presented, and readers can interpret the content without the article leaning toward one side

If anyone want a screenshot I will send it. --POTDL (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Kindly do not waste our time with ChatGPT generated nonsense, it will not help your arguments - it can only do the opposite. MrOllie (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Chat GPT is definetely not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Reprarina (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality on Wikipedia does not mean reflect[ing] all viewpoints, but fairly representing all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. From the very start, ChatGPT is distorting the actual policy. By prompting it with a question about nonjudgmental language, you've gotten a response that ignores due and undue weight.

ChatGPT also contradicts itself. It says viewpoints should be clearly attributed to scholars or experts, but when views are attributed to scholars, that's too dismissive of opposing perspectives, because it implies that misandry is not a real or valid concern. I wonder what ChatGPT would say about Bigfoot.

The final paragraph, which puts Men's rights activists on the same footing as some scholars, is the epitome of false balance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC) edited 19:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

So, no one agrees with me and instead thinks that, rather than referring to the authors' opinions in another section, their opinions should be referenced immediately after the first two paragraphs of the article's introduction, using words like "false," "myth," "criticize," and claiming? Furthermore, there are three paragraphs critical of the term misandry compared to only two paragraphs explaining what misandry means in the article’s opening, I suggest renaming the article to criticism of the term misandry since the beginning of the article criticize the term misandry more than explaining it. --POTDL (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The layout of the article comes from the way it is represented in the literature. The best literature about the topic is dismissive. The current layout is fine because it has proper WP:WEIGHT. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The article is too critical and dismissive we need a vote to rename the article "cricism of the term misandry" --POTDL (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that renaming the article "criticism of the term misandry" is the best option here, but I think POTDL is on the right track. An article on misandry should be primarily about the psychological phenomenon of misandry, not the existing back and forth between people who believe misandry is as serious a social problem as misogyny and people who don't. The problem with the supposedly expert opinion presented here is that it mostly isn't about misandry at all, it's about whether social concern over misandry is as warranted as social concern over misogyny. Interesting, but a side issue however much commotion it causes. Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, no. If misandry is largely a myth or mistaken belief of marginalized men, then we should not have text that validates the myth. The investigation of the beliefs of marginalized men can be found at the Masculism, Manosphere, Misogyny and Antifeminism articles. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

According to authors of the Misandry myth source, misandry is not a myth. They wrote directly: misandry in the broadest definition of this term clearly exists. The only thing that is a myth about misandry is that feminism is more misandrist than anti-feminism. This is also indicated by Kanner M., Anderson K. J. in the article "The myth of the man-hating feminist". This is also indicated by Peter Glick and Jessica Whitehead in their article "Hostility toward men and the perceived stability of male dominance": The more gender-traditional the nation, the more both men and women in that nation tend to endorse HM [hostility toward men]. Yes, these authors do not use the term "misandry," and hatred and hostility are not the same thing, but the core of what is wrong with MRAs, according to the sources, is not that people are not hostile toward men, but that they fighting the wrong people. By the way, I didn't understand at all in what sense the word marginalized was used in the preface. Marginalized by whom? In what source is this marginalization noted? Reprarina (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you're on very much the right path here, and I'd endorse what Goodtablemanners says above also. 2A10:BCC2:2029:63E0:E095:E80F:A482:5AFC (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The idea that misandry is exaggerated is essential to the psychological phenomenon in question. When reliable scholarly sources focus on the social aspects of something, we do too. That's what due weight means. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually the idea that concern over misandry is exaggerated is not essential to the "psychological phenomenon in question". That phenomenon is misandry not men's rights enthusiasts' exaggeration of its prevalence. Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It's essential if reliable, published sources say it is. WP:WEIGHT again. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree entirely but the problem we have here is that most of American academia doesn't agree, and the American agenda is being heavily pushed here. It is absolutely not the case that Wikipedia is necessarily a slave to academic publishing, but having looked around I notice that there is an absolute tidal wave of stuff coming out of American universities which is very politicised and seeks to push what this article pushes. For what it's worth some of it is really, really depressing from the perspective of anyone who hopes to live in a future where everyone is treated fairly, but that's what they're doing. As far as I can see a lot of it is absolutely counterfactual (that is, simply wrong, incorrect) but if the academic publishers are willing to put it out, and Wikipedia's attitude is that the academic publisher is God, it's going to be very difficult to make this article read like anything reasonable. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:5CFA:6296:E140:60DF (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

No one is saying the academic publisher is God. However, WP:V and WP:RS are very clear that mainstream scholarly sources are the most reliable. If you don't like the things mainstream scholars say, that's your problem, not Wikipedia's. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a huge strawman. No one is saying they are on the whole unreliable. They are only claiming that they are having their word treated so highly that Wikipedia will even go against actual previous consensus. BOBTHETOMATO42069 (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can change. That is in fact one of Wikipedia's core tenets. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Look at the other international foreign versions of wikipedia articles about misandry they are neutral they don't mention whether misandry is rampant or a myth, it saddens me when people think that liberal views should be treated as unquestionable truths, taken entirely as gospel and immune to bias and that only feminist perspectives are considered true and important, while discussions about men's issues are viewed as exaggerated or anti-woman, the discussion is going nowhere, someone please move the article to the new title criticism of the term misandry or criticism of masculinism or criticism of the manosphere, because the article introduction feels like it's written by an author who criticizes the term misandry and doesn't want it to rival misogyny, despite the heavy media focus on women's rights already overshadowing men's issues 40 authors can't live the lives of 4 billions of men in 195 countries and don't know their lives and their societies not to mention most of these articles are written by feminists and were published many years ago, the article clearly is criticism so why doesn't the title have the word criticism? adding the word criticism to the title would make the article less off- topic, the article was more neutral years ago but after the rise of online masculinism someone edited the article and made it about feminism and misogyny and denial of men's problems, it looks like the author is concerned about the rise of mascunlinism --POTDL (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia in any language is not a reliable source. As already stated, neutrality on Wikipedia means fairly representing the views of published, reliable sources. What you are proposing is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Reliable sources are not required to be free of bias, but feminists as a rule are not especially prejudiced against men. This discussion is descending into WP:FORUM territory now. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@POTDL, your most recent replies were rightfully deleted, but I'm going to be even more excessively blunt here: cite something concrete we can actually work from here—not merely what you would like a source to say—or stop wasting everyone else's time. Remsense ‥ 论 08:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If feminists are immune from being prejudiced against men, why is the "bear vs. man" trend so popular? Why are all the stupid and cowardly characters on TV portrayed as men? Why do male workers in female-dominated fields like nursing and elementary teaching face systemic discrimination? Why are male students hit more often and with greater force than female students for making the same mistake? Why are homeless men less likely to be housed? Why is there no discussion about the 20 jobs where women earn more than men for doing the same work? people who deny discrimination against men and misandry should speak for themselves and not on behalf of other men. When men pretend they can’t be discriminated against, it is patronizing and often stems from an internalized pride in masculine traits, such as being strong, self-reliant, immune to mistreatment and harm and can never complain or talk about their feelings, people who deny discrimination against men and misandry, someday will abandon feminism because they already abandoned the other half of human rights --POTDL (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

A better approach?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is going nowhere because of the "I did not hear that" attitude of the OP.

---

Much of the discussion here takes the form of claim and counterclaim over whether misandry exists or whether it is as bad as misogyny. This leads inevitably to a highly politicised argument which is essentially semantic and as such largely unwinnable by either side. It leads, as user Sangdeboeuf correctly suggests, to this talk page, and even the entire article, inappropriately becoming a forum.

I think what's important here is not who's right, but that this debate is quite simply offtopic. It would serve Wikipedia well to take the position that the purpose of this article is to discuss what misandry is, where it exists (and most reasonable people would probably accept prima facie that it must exist to some extent).

The purpose here is not to compare misandry to any other form of prejudice or debate the extent to which it exists. It is, ideally, as an encyclopedia, to describe the facts, ideally without people constantly trying to insert negations in the form of claims that those facts don't matter. Wikipedia articles which essentially take the form of arguments between editors of opposing points of view are very easy to detect and this is a clear example. It's up to the reader to decide whether the facts matter, not us. Anything else is to violate NPOV.

If Wikipedia needs a page on the debate (if that's the word) between men's and women's rights activists over the comparative characteristics of misogyny and misandry then that perhaps should have a page of its own. 2A10:BCC2:2029:63E0:E85C:779:9243:34C7 (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Even if we had a separate article about "the debate", we'd need to summarize it here. For whatever reason, sources about misandry tend to discuss comparison with misogyny. Since our role here is to summarize those sources, we can't ignore that aspect of this subject. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, summarize it, but don't make it the main focus of the article. The problem here is that that so many of the sources are not about misandry per se but about the comparative social effects of misogyny and misandry. Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not the main focus of the article, though, is it? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it has undue influence, certainly. The problem I'm really trying to solve here is that right now, this article has passages which I think will be widely seen as seeking to minimise real world harms caused to men, and in doing that it provides all kinds of ammunition for people we'd rather not help out. As so often the political debate here has no winners. 2A10:BCC2:2029:63E0:6661:E754:28CA:CD37 (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

We are supposed be helping everyone understand the topic. The main point of the topic is that it is misunderstood and misused by its proponents, especially with regard to how feminists view men: the false myth that feminists are man-haters. We should certainly describe the important points, but we should not emphasize the MRA arguments unduly. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, you're taking it upon yourself to decide what the main point of the topic is, which begs the very question you seem to be asking. I don't think that any of the points you raise here are either a necessary or sufficient prerequisite for the solution you seem to be proposing.

Or, to put it another way, there's certainly more than enough perfectly well-established examples of men getting the worst of a situation because they're men, to fill an article like this with examples that don't engage the issues you seem concerned about.

Perhaps I can briefly appeal to your broader understanding of the realpolitik here. No matter what you or I think about this stuff, there is a risk that people will read the examples in the second paragraph of this article, all of which are very certainly true and not really subject to being argued-with. Those people will then read the negation which follows and, not unreasonably, conclude that the article is attempting to deny reality and represents a horrendous failure of NPOV. That doesn't help anyone, men or women.

You and I may disagree with that interpretation but there's no reason to leave it as it is, and every reason to change it. 2A10:BCC2:2029:63E0:E095:E80F:A482:5AFC (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Your "examples of men getting the worst of a situation because they're men" is another topic. Misandry is supposedly women hating men. The men who are getting the worst of a situation is primarily because of how the patriarchy is set up. For instance, men decided to work dangerous jobs – they are not forced by hateful women to do them. The patriarchy decided that women are better suited to raising children, which is why men suffer weaker connections with their children after separation and divorce. Men are far more likely to engage in domestic abuse which is why they are frequently profiled as the aggressor. The connection of these things to "misandry" is notional, not actual. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You say "Misandry is supposedly women hating men." Er... is it? Says who? Based on what? That's not the definition in the Merriam-Webster or the Oxford English and it isn't even the definition given in the article we're discussing.

You're still doing the same thing; you're using a definition of the term made up by you then arguing against it. You can do that as a thought experiment - carry on! - but that's a strawman, that's not how encyclopaedic writing works.

It's perfectly possible to write a completely coherent article here without engaging any of the problems you seem to be concerned about. None of the claims you are particularly germane to the topic, and some of them are really quite nasty. I mean, are you seriously supporting profiling people as a legitimate part of a criminal justice effort? Ouch. 2A10:BCC2:2029:63E0:35BA:6B1E:9906:26F6 (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe misandry is not exactly women hating men, but the term has certainly been used to scapegoat feminists. See Marwick & Caplan (2018): from its very inception, misandry was used as a synonym for feminism and as a false equivalence to misogyny. The social and historical context of the term is more relevant to an encyclopedia article than a strict dictionary definition. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Certainly Wikipedia is not a dictionary, though the dictionaries I mention are reliable sources for encyclopedic purposes. This matters, because (as I keep saying) semantic arguments over the meaning of an article's title can exert almost unlimited influence over what ends up in the article, which is what I think user Binksternet is trying to do here.

For what it's worth, I have not read the publication you cite, but I would take the title "drinking male tears" as a fairly clear statement that the author enjoys and approves of the suffering of men. I'm more or less a free-speech fundamentalist so I'm not going to complain too much, but it seems almost comically redundant to point out that the title alone makes the publication the very definition of an unreliable source. 2A10:BCC2:2029:63E0:35BA:6B1E:9906:26F6 (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I have not read the publication – in that case I think we can safely disregard your opinions about it. For the record, "Drinking male tears" is obviously a reference to the trend of "ironic misandry" that became popular about a decade ago. Per Marwick & Caplan (2018) (my bolding): the trend received enough attention that 'ironic misandry' became a subject for articles published by The Guardian, Slate, and TIME Magazine. In each piece, the authors examined the humorous appropriation of male-bashing and misandry by prominent feminists like Jessica Valenti, memes with sentiments like 'I Drink Male Tears,' and entrepreneurs on Etsy who sold embroidered hats and macramé 'misandry' crafts, slyly combining the appropriation of the term with traditional expressions of femininity (Horowitz 2013; Alanna Okun 2014). Some of these articles criticized such satire, arguing that it might alienate male allies (Sarah Begley 2014), while others celebrated the strategic re-framing of misandry as a way to further feminist beliefs (Amanda Hess 2014). This is a straightforward description of the trend, not an endorsement of it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The answer to semantic arguments is to focus on the most reliable sources that cover a topic in depth. In the case of articles about words or phrases, that means sources that go beyond dictionary definitions to examine the social or historical significance of the term.

Britannica is one such source: Proponents of men’s rights conjured the notion of misandry, or hatred of men, as they warned against a hypothesized approach of a female-dominated society. The social and historical significance here is that the term "misandry" signifies a fear of women's power to oppress men. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

By the way, patriarchy according to Britannica is also just a hypothesis and just a term that is used only by some scholars. Reprarina (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Good thing Britannica isn't the only source available on the topic of patriarchy. But we're discussing this article, not any other. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe that in this article too, a source should not be labeled as unreliable simply because it understands patriarchy the way Britannica understands it. Reprarina (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Who is doing that? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Please forgive me for querying this but I want to be as clear as possible. Is it the position of Wikipedia that any position, however reprehensible, is appropriate so long as it's suffixed with a statement to the effect "only joking?"

I think at the very least we should accept that it is reasonable to question why this talk page suggests a reference on prejudice against men (the Caplan work) titled with a direct and unequivocal expression of prejudice against men.

I mean, at the very, very least, we should expect that sort of thing to provoke undue politics. Can't we do any better? 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:2047:EEAE:1C23:E4DD (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a constructive proposal here. Don't mistake the title of a scholarly work for actual prejudice. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Why not? It's a direct and unequivocal statement expressing prejudice. I'm not sure how much more spelled-out you want it to be. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:2047:EEAE:1C23:E4DD (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

We're not going to exclude a source that meets Wikipedia's sourcing requirements because you don't like the title. MrOllie (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly the point? It doesn't meet anyone's sourcing requirements. How can it. It's a viciously unpleasant attack on people on the basis of their gender. I'm not quite sure conclusions you expect anyone to draw or why you would even seek to support it. It's perfectly possible to write a supported article without this sort of nastiness. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:5CFA:6296:E140:60DF (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's sourcing requirements can be found at WP:RS. You'll note that they don't say anything about liking or not liking the title, or 'attacks'. In fact WP:PARTISAN says the exact opposite of the argument you're making here. MrOllie (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, a title doesn't equal enorsement. Why are you still assuming otherwise. There's a book titled "Kill All Normies" that examines the rise of the alt-right in the mid-2010s from a critical perspective. Do you think the author agrees with that title? Or maybe, like this article whose title you're still angry at, it's a deliberately provocative choice that's appropriate to the subject? Going back to the article itself it acknowledges the argument that jokes like "male tears" might actually hurt the cause, which is more than I can say for some takes on this subject. Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not really the point, though, is it? The argument which many people here - including you, though correct me if I'm wrong - seem to be pushing is that the article need not be NPOV if the sources are not NPOV, which is quite simply not what the rules say. You can argue for heavily biased sources (though I wouldn't, given the choice, and I think we do have a choice) but you can't argue for a biased article on that basis, which is what's going on here. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:5CFA:6296:E140:60DF (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is making that argument. WP:NPOV means fairly representing all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a given topic. Sources need not be neutral in order to be considered reliable. Non-neutral sources are often the best sources available. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the disconnect here is that you've developed an impression that WP:NPOV = balance, when the NPOV policy itself says the opposite (at WP:FALSEBALANCE). MrOllie (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, you can dismiss anything by citing false balance (formally, your argument toward that conclusion is non-falsifiable and therefore invalid).

On the contrary, the NPOV failure here is your belief that biased sources justify a biased article, which they do not. The article must be NPOV, even if the sources aren't. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:5CFA:6296:E140:60DF (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Again what you are arguing here is flatly contradicted by the actual text of WP:NPOV. MrOllie (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly has written books with titles like Killing Kennedy, Killing Lincoln, and Killing Reagan. Does this mean he supports political assassinations? Also, you previously stated that you have not read the publication you are complaining about. If you can't do that much, then please stop wasting people's time. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The rules on NPOV state that the article must take a NPOV and if you believe otherwise you are wrong. It is one of the most core principles of Wikipedia.

To expand, you are overlooking the distinction between the point of view of the source, and the point of view of the article. The rules state that sources need not be NPOV if the opinion they put forward is described as the opinion of that source in the article. In this article that is not the case; the biased sources are being given as truth. This is against the rules (not to mention morally repugnant).

I think what's mostly going on here is that in most places on planet Earth, "misandry" needs nothing more than a redirect to "discrimination against men." I am forming the impression that in a very narrowly-defined part of American academia, it has taken on a very different meaning which will not be understood by most English-speaking people, and which has absolutely no claim on primacy in terms of what this article should be about. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:5CFA:6296:E140:60DF (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You seem to be confusing the literal meaning of the term "misandry" with the topic of this article, which includes the social and historical context of how the term is used. Which opinions are being misrepresented as "truth" in the article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you at least read the source that you seem to have such a sticking point against? Ignore the title, pretend it doesn't exist, that title is not why the article uses it a source. Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not confusing the literal meaning of the term (and title of this article) with the content of this article.

I am pointing out that one does not reflect the other, which it should and must, and which you seem to accept it doesn't.

The literal meaning of the term should and must be the ONLY thing the article should be about. Anything else is a bait-and-switch (and it doesn't help that it so clearly being done for nakedly political ends).

This realisation is often the solution to articles just like this one where the title is effectively being syntactically gerrymandered in order to facilitate the inclusion and exclusion of any material at an editor's discretion. This is not an article on misandry, it's an article on, say, "views on discrimination against men among American social science professors." That title might be supportable at least based on its content. I think you'd struggle on notability because it is not anything like a mainstream view, but I would have no argument with it.

What you can't do is title the article "misandry," which demands nothing more than a redirect to "discrimination against men," then allow the article to become a violently POV diatribe which essentially seeks to dismiss the very concept of discrimination against men by applying the principles of the Narcissist's Prayer. That's what you have right now and it's not proper. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:2D57:E4E2:E527:E9FE (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The literal meaning of the term should and must be the ONLY thing the article should be about. WP:NOT#DICT says otherwise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it says otherwise. In any case, nothing is said there about the fact that an article called X should not be about X first and foremost, and only secondarily about the use of the term X in the propaganda of some movements. Reprarina (talk) 06:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What's happened here is that some people have got on a massive political hobby horse about a fringe use of this term which will not be recognised by the vast majority of the people who will read this article, to the extent that it approaches WP:PATENT.

Most of the people who read this article, including me, initially, will not even be aware of the existence of the political arguments that attend all this, and will simply read the article and perceive a denial of reality. This is not their fault, this is the article's fault.

That political argument might warrant one very brief paragraph in this article, accurately describing it as (at best) a fringe and heavily contested political ideology. Currently the article describes it as fact. I would suggest a new article on the subject (I did suggest that) but on reflection I doubt it would fulfil the notability requirement.

Regardless, this is certainly not what either the letter or the spirit of the rules say should happen. It's a direct and blatant violation of NPOV which is being maintained using entirely circular semantic arguments over the article's title (this is not a new problem and is widely used on wikipedia because it allows anyone to include or exclude any source for any reason.)

In the end this is currently an title which should probably just redirect to "discrimination against men." Right now it is little more than a politicised diatribe which is neither accurate, encyclopaedic, or within the rules. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:195:9FD2:F2FB:C81B (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Your assumption that everyone who reads this article just has the same opinion as you seems incredibly pompous, and doesn't make for a good argument. The fact you're surprised and annoyed that an english-speaking article about a topic relevant to the social sciences uses english-speaking articles written by social science professors says more about how you view the topic than the article itself. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Please don't make this about me or your opinion of me; it's against the rules. My approach here is largely apolitical; I won't pretend I'm not completely appalled by what's going on.

Anyway, my argument stands. Right now, this is an article which purports to be about discrimination against men, but which is actually an attempt to deny the existence of discrimination against men. Any argument to the contrary is a simple denial of reality, patent nonsense, semantic in nature and relies on (to put it very, very mildly) a contested political ideology which blatantly fails NPOV.

The fact that the result is wholly misleading is a byproduct of that but the facts remain. This article contains statements which can trivially be proven to be incorrect statements of fact, and no reading of any rule can justify that. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:195:9FD2:F2FB:C81B (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

As others have been pointing out, if you are looking for an article that 'purports to be about discrimination against men' you should be at discrimination against men. We're not going to change this article because you don't understand the difference between that topic and this one. MrOllie (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The term "misandry" is essentially synonymous with "discrimination against men" and that fact has always been at the very core of my objection. Any other definition arises from a contested political ideology. I fully understand the arguments presented by that ideology and regardless of whether I agree with them or not, they fail NPOV and thus so does your argument.

If you want to write an article about niche political ideologies around gender, fine, but this article is not the place for it.

All my points stand. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:195:9FD2:F2FB:C81B (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The term "misandry" is essentially synonymous with "discrimination against men"

No, it is not. Discrimination is an action, Misandry is a mental state. The causes of 'discrimination against men' are varied and not reducible to simple hate for men. Also, topics of an article cannot 'fail NPOV', nor can arguments on a talk page. NPOV does not mean what you seem to think it means. MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Most of the people who read this article [...] will not even be aware of the existence of the political arguments that attend all this. An encyclopedia (like Wikipedia) exists to inform people of things they might not already know. Not to confirm their existing beliefs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't about beliefs, it's about facts, and you can't inform anyone of a fact if you assign that fact semantics which pertain to another situation, which is what this article currently does.

I'll say it again: this article is at best mistitled; it does not inform anyone about misandry. It informs people about a niche ideology around misandry, which is a large and important difference which should be made clear. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:195:9FD2:F2FB:C81B (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:WORDISSUBJECT: articles on words and phrases should include the social or historical significance of the term. If reliable, published sources focus on use of the term as a tool of men's rights movement/manosphere propaganda, then so do we. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Not all sources. For example, sources mentioning misandry in arts do not focus on this. Reprarina (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The article is called Misandry, not Misandry (word). Marwick and Сaplan's article, by the way, is much better suited to the latter. Reprarina (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Please read the actual source first, the title is not an endorsement of that view. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Misandry is supposedly women hating men. No, misandry is people hating men. Misogyny is people hating women. Misanthropy is people hating humans. Gilmore is probably the only scholar here who uses the term misogyny only to mean what comes from men. And accordingly, uses the term misandry as something that could hypothetically only come from women. Academic mainstream literature opposes the idea that there are any traits which are always male or always female. It is gender essentialism. Mainstream academic literature has a different definition of misogyny and clearly includes female internalized misogyny in the concept of misogyny. Reprarina (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

No separate article is indicated. The notion of "misandry" in human society includes all the aspects. We should tell the reader that marginalized men think misandry is important, and that scholars who study the topic think the men's right groups are wrong about that aspect of it. Of course we include the misandry/misogyny comparison in this article because it is a central part of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

What source says that MRAs are "marginalized"? You often repeat this word, I still don’t understand in what meaning you use it and from what source it is taken. Reprarina (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

All the sources. Happy men who are successful with women and life in general are not the ones crying "misandry". The sources talk about men who are not successful competing against other men for money and status, the same men who are pushed aside by women seeking more successful men as partners. MRAs are angry at the way the world has treated them. Successful men are not angry like that. Since the under-performing men cannot make headway against the patriarchy, they turn to attack women. Marwick and Caplan wrote that "The contemporary MRM is therefore a reaction to a perceived diminishing social status of cisgender white men" which is in stark contrast to the actual elevated status enjoyed by the majority of cisgender white men. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, that is, yes, Marwick and Сaplan wrote not that the discourse is conducted by marginalized men, but something from which you drew such a conclusion. Reprarina (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The Routledge International Handbook of Online Deviance: "Despite incels’ claims to the contrary, they are not marginalized or silenced individuals." [1]. Not only does it not confirm, but it directly contradicts your statement. Reprarina (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The first appearance in this article of the word "marginalized" came 11 years ago from an editor summarizing the arguments of Warren Farrell.[2] Since then, the word has been supported by a growing number of cites, for instance five in May 2022.[3] Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

There are links to the sentence, but there is no word "marginalization" is not in the sources in such context. Cited authors in gender studies Bethany M. Coston and Michael Kimmel write even more radically opposite: a curious characteristic of these new legions of angry white men: although they maintain most of the power and control in the world, they still feel like victims. Yet another reason to remove the phrase marginalized men from the preamble. I suggest that Marwick and Caplan are also writing more about the perception of being marginalized than about actual marginalization. Reprarina (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The word "marginalization" is a summary of concepts such as weakness in the jobs marketplace, underemployment, difficulty finding a female mate, status differential compared to more successful men, etc. These concepts are discussed in many sources. Your Kimmel example is about angry white men which is not quite this topic. Kimmel goes on to discuss how the misandry crowd is failing to reproduce relative to male "economic elites", and how the misandry crowd is composed of "humiliated" men with some seeking "payback". Those are the folks who spout notions of misandry. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Kimmel's works make the idea quite clearly that the ranks of MRAs (at least in the US) are filled primarily by men who are less marginalized than many other men. Reprarina (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The word "marginalized" is too strong to be artificially extracted from a text where it is not used directly. I'm not sure that those men who beg on the street have even heard the word "misandry". Reprarina (talk) 10:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

That's kind of what I mean. What you're saying is entirely dependent, as I say, on a semantic argument over the definition of the word. If you define misandry as that which has been disagreed with by people, then yes, it is something people have disagreed with. It's a circular argument and obviously so. I don't think it's plausible to take the position that we should object to the entire concept, especially given it clearly exists in at least some circumstances.

You're doing very much the same thing with the word "marginalised," which is really just begging the question. You seem to be pushing the idea that this subject is only relevant to a certain group by defining the subject as that which the group is interested in.

That sort of prejudgement is the very essence of an NPOV violation. 2A10:BCC2:2029:63E0:6661:E754:28CA:CD37 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

You revealed yourself as an activist when you said, "this article has passages which I think will be widely seen as seeking to minimise real world harms caused to men, and in doing that it provides all kinds of ammunition for people we'd rather not help out." You are trying to use Wikipedia to "right great wrongs", but that by itself is a violation of policy. Wikipedia is meant to summarize the best sources on a topic, and this article fits that plan. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Am I? Based on what? I'm just sitting here looking at an article which has pretty obviously been overtaken by some fairly extreme and unpleasant political views and doing what I can to sort it out, but if you're going to insist on making it about me, then the conversation is pointless. It's quite feasible to write a decent article here without it having to engage any of this politics, which arises from a very small niche of beliefs in any case. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:5CFA:6296:E140:60DF (talk) 11:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means fairly representing all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic. If the most reliable sources describe misandry primarily as a false equivalence to misogyny, then so do we. What most reasonable people might think is irrelevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This article goes further than this. It should specify that none of the sources say it doesn't exist at all. From the current wording, it is very heavily implied that many of these scholars probably think misandry does not exist. If nothing else, some language needs to be cleaned up to adhere to NPOV. BOBTHETOMATO42069 (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Since the article does not 'very heavily' imply that, there is no POV problem to be corrected. Even if one were to accept such a statement would be desirable for the article (and to be clear I do not), It would be WP:OR to point out things that sources don't say. MrOllie (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, Bob is absolutely right, and the desperate attempts we're seeing here to defend what's basically deliberate and highly prejudicial political unpleasantness is really offputting. There is no need for the article to have the problem Bob suggests it does. It doesn't need to be written the way it is; you can have a subheading on the opposition to use of the term if you like.

Either way, regardless what the article implies, it certainly states the opinion of the sources as fact, makes obviously counterfactual statements, is self-contradictory, and does not address its own topic. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:195:9FD2:F2FB:C81B (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The sources we have also don't say that the moon is made of green cheese. We cannot add text to the article based on what's not in a source. And we're not going to add a subheading for the opposition's claims, that is exactly what WP:FALSEBALANCE is about preventing. You seem to have come with some pre-conceived notions of what the topic of the article should be, and are complaining that the article doesn't meet your expectations. But that's fine, all we're worried about here is matching the sourcing, not your expectations. MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Feminism and misandry

Thread retitled from "Feminism and Misandry are not the same thing".

Look, I get that it's the official policy of Wikipedia to support feminism and characterize any criticism of it as completely unfounded and based on hate, etc. This is literally repeated over ten times in the article for some reason, as if it wasn't made clear enough in the opening paragraph. That being said, it is self evident that there are people out there with prejudice and dislike towards men, just like every other race and gender. This is even admitted by the article, although of course it's in the context of claiming that fewer feminists are misandrists. The entire article about misandry contains zero discussion about misandrists other than to paradoxically claim that there are less misandrists among feminists while also claiming that misandry does not exist? The "psychological study" presented consists essentially of asking a group of feminists if they have negative feelings towards men and reporting their answer. Can we really think of no reasons that individuals who are part of a political activist group would avoid damaging their own movement by associating it with politically unpalatable ideas or be in denial about their own prejudice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekadoka (talk • contribs)

The official policy of Wikipedia is to base it on the most reliable academic sources. In the reality of 2024, the most reliable academic sources harshly criticize antifeminism, and encourage feminism. It was different once upon a time, and it may be different sometime in the future, but today Wikipedia will write as the most reliable academic sources write as of 2024. There are more than one source that suggests that antifeminists are more hostile to men than feminists. This is also indicated by Peter Glick and Jessica Whitehead in their article "Hostility toward men and the perceived stability of male dominance". Antifeminists, generally speaking, very often show hostility and even hatred towards those men who do not conform to the ideals of hegemonic masculinity, don't they? In general, one could create an article Hostility towards men based on psychological literature, which is not quite the same as hatred of men, but at least it is something that has been studied as a verified thing by serious psychologists, such as Peter Glick and Jessica Whitehead. Please don't forget to sign your messages. --Reprarina (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I apologize for the frustrated tone of my initial comment. I agree with you that Wikipedia should aspire to represent the content of quality academic sources, and that generally these sources are highly critical of antifeminism. That being said, I think an article about misandry should at least attempt to discuss misandrists. Instead what we get is a denial that misandry even exists, a claim that if it does exist it does minimal or no harm because it is not identical to misogyny, and finally a poorly supported claim that there is no link whatsoever with feminism. The term's alleged links with feminism and use to support antifeminism certainly deserve a section in the article but making almost the entire article about these things leaves out important information. Misandry exists and causes harm independent of any false equivalence to misogyny. There are harmful and false male stereotypes which have been examined academically. For example:

1. "All men are fundamentally driven by sex." A recent meta analysis of 211 studies found that while men do have a higher average libido than women, male and female libidos follow a bell curve and the average is quite close. One in three women has a higher libido than the average man. This stereotype may partially arise from the greater tendency of high libido men to interact with large numbers of women.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/202212/do-men-really-have-stronger-sex-drives-than-women

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fbul0000366

2. Empathy Gap. Research has shown that both men and women have more empathy for women. What effects does this have on human behavior?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15491274/

Perhaps there is a link with men receiving 63% longer prison sentences for the same crimes?

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1164&context=law_econ_current

Or with male students in school receiving lower grades for the same work?

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01425692.2022.2122942

3. "Men are (insert small group of men who do bad thing)s." Lack of recognition male vs female variability and its effects on the extremes of the bell curves. Although men and women are quite similar on average, men have greater variability in the areas of cognition, physical attributes, and personality.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22329560/ (lots of studies could be cited here)

Some discussion of this is warranted. This data suggests that most of the individuals found at the extremes of human behavior, good and bad, are likely to be men. Hence, it is inaccurate to represent men using only the bad side of the curve. A more accurate view would characterize men as simply being more variable in good and bad ways. — Dekadoka (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

These citations don't appear to mention the term 'Misandry' at all. Have a look at Wikipedia's policy on original research. Wikipedia cannot make a logicial leap to label the examples you cite here as 'Misandry' - we can only make points which are directly supported by citations. Discussion of this could well be warranted, but we do not have citations here that would allow it to be done in a way which meets Wikipedia's policy requirements. MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article: "Misandry is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men or boys."

Prejudice: "a. : a favoring or dislike of something without good reason. b. : unfriendly feelings directed against an individual, a group, or a race" - Merriam-Webster

"To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented." - Original research policy

Examples on the topic of antimale prejudice and the false stereotypes surrounding it aren't welcome in a discussion on misandry because they don't include the term misandry? Feels a bit like a Catch-22, no?

Example 1: Stereotyping men as overly sexually driven is incorrect. The reason this is a topic of research is because the stereotype exists. It should be self evident that false stereotypes are potentially harmful. Here is another article that challenges it even more directly:

https://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare

"Not only is the idea that men have higher sex drives an oversimplified notion, but it’s really just not true"

Example 2: Conclusion/Topic from source 1: Men and women have less empathy for men than women. (see title and last sentence of abstract) Dislike, unfriendly feelings, see above definition of prejudice. If someone has access to the full articles and relevant statistical knowledge, they could also pull the percentage of people surveyed who reported negative feelings towards men references under "psychological research" and in the final paragraph of the current article.

Conclusion/Topic from source 2: "This study finds dramatic unexplained gender gaps in federal criminal cases. Conditional on arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge observables, men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do. Women are also significantly likelier to avoid charges and convictions, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted. There are large unexplained gaps across the sentence distribution, and across a

wide variety of specifications, subsamples, and estimation strategies."

Conclusion/Topic from source 3: "Results show that, when comparing students who have identical subject-specific competence, teachers are more likely to give higher grades to girls. Furthermore, they demonstrate for the first time that this grading premium favouring girls is systemic, as teacher and classroom characteristics play a negligible role in reducing it."

Can we agree that all three of these relate to "favoring or disliking [men] without good reason" or "unfriendly feelings directed against [men]" and hence are at least debatably examples of prejudice which is an example of misandry?

Example 3: I agree that referencing the variability hypothesis itself is not directly related and directly supportive, so I think this one would need a better reference. Perhaps a better direction for this would look at individual examples, such as social conditioning factors which lead to male criminal behavior, and the strong correlation between fatherlessness and violent crime? Dekadoka (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You're wasting your time, here. WP:OR is a core policy on Wikipedia. That these examples are misandry in your opinion or fit a definition is completely irrelevant if you cannot bring sources that make points directly. MrOllie (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Nowhere does the article, let alone the lead section of the article, deny that misandry even exists. The study called "The Misandry Myth" asked adults of both sexes to "report their feminist identity and explicit attitudes toward men". That's not the same as asking a group of feminists if they have negative feelings towards men.

Wikipedia already has articles on sex differences in humans that would be more relevant to this discussion, including human sexuality, sex differences in crime, and sex differences in psychology.

The first sentence of the article needs to be changed to rely less on dictionary definitions; whatever society's attitudes towards men might be, "misandry" is mainly an MRA talking point used to attack feminists. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the term has unfortunately been contaminated by it's association with antifeminists. This is perhaps why academic articles discussing prejudice and negative perceptions of men don't use the term except in the context of defending feminism. But I suppose if WP:OR requires the exact term to be mentioned in order for an academic article to meet the directly related/directly supportive criteria for relevant information, this information cannot be included under Wikipedia's policies. Makes sense. On the other hand, do we consider the phenomena of prejudice against men worth discussing at all, and, if so, where can it be mentioned in a neutral fashion without the comparison to misogyny or linking it to feminism? I feel that there is still relevant academic information that should be presented even if we keep in mind that misogyny is more harmful/systemic/etc.

@Sangdeboeuf The article states that the term was invented by antifeminists for the purpose of criticizing feminism, which implies that it does not describe a real phenomena independent of criticism of feminism. My mistake if I misinterpreted, but this does not appear to be clarified anywhere in the article.

"The Misandry Myth" Just read the questions on the survey if you don't believe me. Question 1: "Are you a feminist?" Question 10: "How warm/favorable or cold/unfavorable do you feel towards men in general." Question 11: [do you] “like men,” “dislike men,” “trust men,” “distrust men." There were other questions on the survey so I perhaps I oversimplified, but I think my point stands. Dekadoka (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no reason in principle to consider this source unreliable. It does not contradict other sources. It has not been harshly criticized in the academic community. Moreover, it does not avoid calling misandry misandry, but directly uses the word misandrist in relation to some feminists. It is in the interests of those who are for men's rights, and not for the demonization of feminism, to insist on increasing the weight of this source in the article rather than decreasing it. Reprarina (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I shall oppose. The first sentence of the article is quite correct, misandry is the hatred of men, and the article should be primarily about man-hating. And we should not write the article as if MRAs came up with some word instead of using one that already exists in non-MRAs-written dictionaries. In addition, the article should include studies of racialized hatred of black men, since the most general source in the article, namely Ouellette, mentions racialized misandry in his article. And racialized misandry is far from being portrayed in Black male studies as something falsely equivalent, non-systemic, etc. By the way, the Misandry myth article doesn't directly mention MRAs at all. Reprarina (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Misandry was an obscure word before it was commandeered by MRAs as a tool against feminism. The meaning the MRAs applied to it is the meaning that stuck: feminists who supposedly hate men. Sources focus primarily on women as notional man-haters, much more than man-hating men, despite the original word allowing for any gender to hate men.

Again, racialized misandry against black men is best saved for another topic page. Otherwise this page will be stretched to mean two different things. It should be mentioned briefly with a link to the other page. The primary meaning of misandry is the one that represents a backlash to feminism. Binksternet (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, racialized misandry is a closer topic for the article than weaponization of misandry. We have Antisemitism and Weaponization of antisemitism. We can quite easily find sources for both Misandry and Weaponization of misandry. We can even find sources for Misogyny and Weaponization of misogyny, because, I say this quite responsibly, there are sources that some feminists call misogyny something that, according to the sources, is not misogyny. Reprarina (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That would very likely be viewed as a Content fork (see WP:CFORK). The Wikipedia community really, really does not like such forks. MrOllie (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

In what world is "misandry" the same as "racialized misandry"? Nonsense. The misandry topic is primarily devoid of race as a factor. When race is introduced, it becomes a different topic. It's the same as Feminism versus White feminism, Black feminism and Multiracial feminist theory. The root term is about gender rights, not race-related. The weaponization of the word misandry by MRAs is this page's main topic. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Misandry myth article already say that some feminists have claimed that misandry is a legitimate, even necessary aspect of the movement. It is naive to think that there are not and will not be sources on this aspect. The section on misandry in art is certainly not about MRAs, but for some reason we didn’t write a word in the preamble regarding this aspect. Reprarina (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

In other words, "there must be sources". So go find them and cite them, assuming they're reliable. Otherwise this discussion is pointless. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

And yes, the authors of the Misandry myth article quite calmly cited Robin Morgan as an example. Morgan never wrote that misandry is legitimate, using the word misandry. She wrote that man-hating is an honorable and viable political act. However, the authors have calmly turned man-hating into misandry. And we should. Because these are synonymous words. Reprarina (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

What I don't quite understand here is why the article titled "discrimination against men" is not facing anything like the political opposition we see here, considering that this very article (correctly) describes misandry and discrimination against men as synonymous.

There's a lot of WP:GAME going on here. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:5CFA:6296:E140:60DF (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Oddball question—if this isn't the article to include these facts on, which one is? I'm not saying the converse of WP:V (i.e. the negation of WP:ONUS, that every verifiable fact must fit in somewhere) is true—but it does seem like there should be some place where information like this is naturally fit in. Remsense ‥ 论 04:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

If one were so inclined, these would be discussed at places like Sex differences in social capital, Sex differences in education, or Sex differences in psychology. MrOllie (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

In the end, what you're saying here is largely correct. Even a cursory examination reveals that the academic consensus holds prejudice against men, as generally understood, as an essentially invalid or non-existent concept, and that discussion of it represents a morally reprehensible attempt to divert attention from the much more severe problems faced by women. Certainly that is more or less what this article currently represents, although I still think it could be better written. If that's the goal, this article should be written in much the same way that, say, the article on the flat earth is written, to make it abundantly clear that Wikipedia's position - correctly reflecting the academic consensus - is that it is describing something that is culturally pseudoscientific. At that level, there is a question over whether this article should exist at all, although, as I say, there's one on flat earth. 188.74.98.182 (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I assume you are aware that peer-reviewed research, i.e. the reliable sources that Wikipedia takes up the cause to use predominantly, are very biased at the moment? There is a massive amount of data indicating that misandry, which btw is not the same as anti-feminism, is a real problem, but in the peer-reviewed literature, papers evaluating such data in an unbiased way is very hard to find or not at all. I was in academia and I would go so far as to describe the situation as censorship. So my question is: Isn't an encyclopedia supposed to be politically neutral? --Felix Tritschler (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which is about fairly representing significant views that have been published by reliable sources. We are not going to discard that policy based on one Wikipedia user's personal experience. Nor do we publish original research, no matter how many internet randos claim to have been censored by academia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand this at all. The thing is that this policy relies on the assumption that the gross of sources sanctioned by academia is politically, and e.g. regarding genders, neutral. Assume for a moment this is not the case - then of course any such source asserting that the gross of other such sources is neutral, isn't worth anything, right? But I see that it doesn't make sense to discuss this any further - Just one more thing: I'd like to send greetings to future readers of this (in case these comment pages are preserved long enough), who live in a time in which they look back at 2024, shaking their heads about how ridiculously obviously things went wrong and way too far in a direction that was initially justified and good, just the same way we from 2024 shake our heads looking back at the times before e.g. women had the right to vote (in which btw of course all sources the public opinion was influenced by, was deemed neutral and totally fine, by opinions from these same authorities). Good bye. --Felix Tritschler (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing at WP:NPOV that says reliable sources have to be neutral. Your complaint has been noted and disregarded; this page is not a WP:FORUM to gripe about academia or any other topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Systemic misandry

I added sources about systemic misandry but someone keeps deleting them

https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/soc4.13145#:~:text=As%20well%20as,nurture%20as%20women.

Male teachers face misandristic gender prejudice and gender stereotyping.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1233654.pdf

it says "boys were more exposed to corporal punishment than girls in public secondary schools

“girls are beaten with less force than boys” (Archambault, 2009)"

male nurses faced gender discrimination in multiple facets.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38133995/#:~:text=Discussion%3A%20The%20synthesised%20findings%20showed%20that%20male%20nurses%20faced%20gender%20discrimination%20in%20multiple%20facets.%20These%20caused%20them%20to%20have%20difficulty%20in%20carrying%20out%20their%20nursing%20duties%2C%20missing%20out%20of%20clinical%20opportunities%20and%20causing%20them%20multiple%20social%20and%20mental%20stressors.

Women earn money more than men in 34 jobs https://www.businessinsider.com/gender-pay-gap-where-women-earn-more-2018-4

Young women are out-earning young men in several U.S cities https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/28/young-women-are-out-earning-young-men-in-several-u-s-cities/

‘Boys Are Stupid; Girls Are Awesome’ – Most TV Shows & Movies Today

https://intellectualtakeout.org/2016/10/boys-are-stupid-girls-are-awesome-most-tv-shows-movies-today.

--POTDL (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you comment on the specific reasons already given to you explaining why they were removed? It's odd you kept readding them but kept missing what the person removing them was saying. Remsense ‥ 论 09:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Misandry ≠ Discrimination against men. At least according to academic sources. Reprarina (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Business Insider actually says, in the majority of jobs, women earn less money than their male counterparts. Hardly a sign of widespread or systemic discrimination against men. In general this looks like an exercise in original research based on cherry-picked examples. The sources also vary widely in quality; Intellectual Takeout, for instance, is the website of a paleoconservative think tank, neither mainstream nor reliable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

You focused on one paragraph and left the whole article and the other source that says there are USA cities where women outearn men If lesbians are treated better than gay men in most countries that doesn't mean lesbians can't face discrimination, --POTDL (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you comment on the specific reasons already given to you explaining why your additions were removed? Remsense ‥ 论 17:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The very first line of the other source says, Women in the United States continue to earn less than men, on average. The cities where (only young) women earn more than men are 22 of 250 U.S. metropolitan areas. That's less than 9%. Once again, if there is discrimination against men, it's neither widespread nor systemic according to these sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe that there is no reason to write articles with titles like Misandry and Discrimination against men in an Americentric manner. It is often forgotten that in the US many discriminatory laws against men were repealed through the efforts of Ruth Bader Ginsburg (see Moritz v. Commissioner, Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, Orr v. Orr), but it was in the US, not in the world. It is not that every other country had its own Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Therefore, any sources concerning affairs in the USA are written about the US and must be marked as concerning specifically the US. Reprarina (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this entire article stinks to high heaven of the American cultural zeitgeist, if I'm honest. The whole English language Wikipedia does, inevitably, given the relative population sizes, but this is a really powerful example. 188.74.98.182 (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Here I completely agree, the article is very Americentric. I think it can be fixed. Reprarina (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Farrell and Sterba discussion paragraph

1 User:Mathglot Can you explain, what makes this paragraph relevant? I don't see anything in it about hatred towards men. Reprarina (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Reprarina. Yes, I will, though not right away though as I am way behind on numerous things. I'll get back to it eventually; if I haven't in a copla weeks, please ping me again, and thanks for your work on the article! Mathglot (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONUS says the disputed text should stay out until consensus confirms its inclusion.

I don't see the paragraph as discussing misandry. Instead, it is about reverse sexism and discrimination against men. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't it be? Misandry is a term fundamentally meaning discrimination against men. You seem to be taking the position that "onus" means "what User:Binksternet wants." 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:1015:15D3:451:DF54 (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOR. MrOllie (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Does that even address the point? This whole thing has turned into a semantic argument about the meaning of the article title which is being used as a fulcrum to entirely control its content, which is an entirely synthetic approach to the subject in the first place. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:2047:EEAE:1C23:E4DD (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think a term fundamentally means, or what you think would or would not meet your definition. It only matters if the sources identify something as misandry. That's how Wikipedia is written - and yes, compliance with our content policies are 'used as a fulcrum to entirely control its content' - as they are supposed to be. MrOllie (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Your entire argument rests, again, on your interpretation of the word, which is no more valid than mine or anyone else's. By defining the subject of this article as something which is essentially nonexistent, you can exclude any source which states otherwise as unreliable. Your argument boils down to a simple claim that (for instance) red balloons don't exist, therefore any source which refers to red balloons is inherently unreliable. It's completely circular, can be used to justify any change to any article for any reason or none, and is certainly not what the rules are intended to provoke. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:5CFA:6296:E140:60DF (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not at all what I am saying. My "entire argument" rests on the fact that the cited sources don't use the word. MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

And if I were to look up sources which did, which I could trivially do (and in fact have done, in order to make this statement with absolute confidence)?

I presume I could edit them into the piece (be bold!), but I'm hesitant to do so on the assumption that those edits would be vandalised by you or people of your line of thinking, on the basis that those sources are politically unacceptable to you.

I'm honestly trying for an entirely apolitical approach here, but under the circumstances it's becoming very difficult to take the discourse seriously. I have said it before and I'll say it again: we're talking, here, about an article about prejudice against a specific group in which the recommended sources are proudly and outspokenly prejudiced against that group. No reasonable interpretation of the rules can justify this. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:5CFA:6296:E140:60DF (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This talk section is about a specific paragraph which cited specific sources, which did not use the word. I'm not really interested in debating hypotheticals about other wording or sources. MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you're not interested in the debate, there'll be no problem with my inserting the new material, will there?

Serious question. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:5CFA:6296:E140:60DF (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea, since you have not specified what the sources or proposed content actually would be. At any rate, it is not what this particular talk section is about. If you don't have anything to say about Farrell and Sterba specifically, this is the wrong place for it. MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

No, misandry and discrimination against men are too different topics. Legal scholars who have studied the phenomenon of discrimination against men generally do not use the term "misandry" and do not write about the fact that it is based on hatred of men. One of the most authoritative works on discrimination against men in the United States in recent years: Men and boys experience discrimination every day at work and at school because they fail to look or behave like real men. Society encourages, coerces, and explicitly commands boys and men to “be a man” and “man up.” Boso, L. A. (2015). Real Men. U. Haw. L. Rev., 37, 107. So maybe people who discriminate against men do hate actual diverse human males who exist, who are not really reducible to heterosexual, cisgender, hegemonically masculine men, but they don't hate the socially constructed image of "man" that exists in binary gender cultures. On the contrary, they love this "man" and think that he should rule the world. It's complicated, yes. What MRAs understand it that discrimination against men exist. (But feminists also understand it). What MRAs often do not understand is that hostility towards masculinity is not the basis of this discrimination. Here we also need to understand that many academic researchers such as Julia Serano include hatred of femininity in the concept of misogyny, i.e. they do not reduce the concept of misogyny to hatred of human females. See [4] "misogyny means the denigration and hatred of women and characteristics associated with the feminine". And if you read the MRAs subreddits, some of them also include hatred of masculinity in the definition of misandry and even believe that criticizing toxic masculinity is also misandry. I'm not saying anything here about how I think myself, but Wikipedia is written from academic sources, and we have to take into account the complex nuances that are present in academic thought. Reprarina (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's a huge forum post full of political diatribe, but I think I've said all I need to in a couple of responses above.

The problem here can be summed up pretty simply: the article is mis-titled. An article titled "misandry" requires nothing more than a redirect to "discrimination against men." If the content of this article is to go anywhere it should be called something like "views on discrimination against men held by American social science professors," if that's even sufficiently notable to put out. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:2D57:E4E2:E527:E9FE (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

No, the policy of Wikipedia:Article titles is to have the article title reflect what it commonly means. Misandry is commonly described as hatred of men. No "mis-titled" problem here. There's nothing to fix. Since you are so focused on describing the discrimination against men, then the Discrimination against men article is your target. Plain and simple. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

...which just becomes another semantic argument over what "hatred" means.

The article title does not currently describe the article's content, even by your argument, and that is not correct. The first line of the article contradicts your position. Look, I fully understand that you might genuinely feel you're trying to do the right thing here but the result is that the vast majority of people will rock up to this article and view it as blatantly, obviously, directly counterfactual because of this problem, and your politics or mine are utterly irrelevant to that reality. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:195:9FD2:F2FB:C81B (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The article Misanthropy is not about discrimination against humans in relation to dwarves and elves, and not even about human rights violations. These are different topics. Reprarina (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Hang on, I thought wikipedia wasn't a reliable source, and therefore non-precedential? 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:195:9FD2:F2FB:C81B (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources also do not call misanthropy discrimination against humans. Reprarina (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects the views of published, reliable sources. What the vast majority of people believe or don't believe (argumentum ad populum) is irrelevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

7 November 2024

Thread retitled from "Misunderstanding of the Sources".

many of the actual sources use far different language than is in the article. In addition, the article frames many of these authors as either stating or implying that Misandry does not exist rather than their actual consensus: that it isn't a problem on the same level as misogyny.

The article is simply violating all rules of neutrality and editorializing.

I propose we should at least move most of the first section into a criticism section, and use the simple English opening section as a basis:

"Misandry, similar to misogyny, means hating a certain gender and misandry means hating men.[1][2] It is a type of misanthropy but against males. A misandrist is a person, usually a female who hates men. They may hate men because they believe there is something wrong with them, such as being stupid, dirty, inferior or/and evil.[3] A society or a system that sets women above men is called matriarchy.[4][5]

Misandry is a form of sexism, which is based on hate. Radical feminists are usually viewed as misandric or misandrist, hypocritical and gynocentric. Misandry can include violence or discrimination against men. Many misandrists are prejudiced against men. For example, they may think that all men or boys are potential rapists.[6]"

BOBTHETOMATO42069 (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the issue at hand. Your approach is wrong.

It's not a problem of misunderstanding sources.

Hatred of males just barely exists. Only a very few people can be said to truly hate males. The idea that most feminists hate males is false. It's a myth promoted by men's rights activists who are trying to portray their perceived difficulties as somehow equivalent to thousands of years of widespread hatred of females. The difficulties that men encounter in society is its own topic: Discrimination against men. The narrative of misandry is that it is supposed to mean hatred of men, but the idea has been commandeered by men's rights activists to stand for a bunch of peripherally related stuff. That's the narrative we are describing to the reader here. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

"Radical feminists are usually viewed as misandric or misandrist, hypocritical and gynocentric." Try to fit that into Radical feminism article. I highly doubt you'll succeed. Considering that Catherine A. MacKinnon has actually written in her works that conscription of men is deeply anti-male and that sexual harassment towards men is sexism against men, I highly doubt that academic sources will call her a misandrist. Reprarina (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead section has been gone over by many different editors and is largely a faithful summary of the best sources available on the topic. Please cite some examples of sources that are being misrepresented in the article, if any.

The quoted paragraph highlights some obvious problems with the Simple English Misandry article: A misandrist is a person, usually a female who hates men? Citation please. It honestly reads like a caricature of a men's rights forum post. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The Simple article was very sloppy. I've cleaned it up a bit. The source for that specifically said "misandry is by no means restricted to women"[5] so it was just editorializing. I've also removed the line about radical feminists. I'm not going to pore over the source, which was a poorly-scanned photocopy PDF, to find if exactly what Andrea Dworkin said about this. It would at bare minimum need to be attributed to Andrea Dworkin by name, and adding enough context to make that work on that article seems like a poor use of anyone's time. Grayfell (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Bob, you're absolutely correct, but I really wouldn't waste your breath.

Various people have made it their business to police the content of this article into being essentially a political diatribe.

The approach being taken here is that various people have redefined the term "misandry" to their convenience, claiming it to mean "a political position which should be assumed not to exist." What the term actually means, in the minds of most people, is more or less synonymous with "discrimination against men," except for in an extremely narrowly-defined region of American social science academia.

This is a fairly common way to game Wikipedia articles (believe it or not, it happened to one on a professional video tape format a few years ago) and it is very powerful because it allows people to control the relevance criteria to include or exclude more or less any source they like. Despite its labyrinthine rules, Wikipedia has no guidelines on the semantic gaming of article titles that I'm aware of.

You can point out why these people are making huge mistakes all you like, but if it's got into their heads that they're fighting the good fight by pushing the article in this direction, and if you're not willing to make it your full time job to oppose them, it's more or less a waste of time. 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:195:9FD2:F2FB:C81B (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I've seen an extraordinary level pf patience here from editors attempting to explaining, repeatedly, Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and norms about how and why articles are titled the way they are, how leads are structured per sources, how Wikipedia favors reliable, independent sources and does not publish original research, and so on. Obviously Wikipedia favors academics sources, and the article does not say that misandry "does not exist", so this argument almost seems like it was designed to fail. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

What the term actually means, in the minds of most people, is more or less synonymous with "discrimination against men" Source? Reprarina (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Anything by Nathanson and Young, beyond more or less every dictionary ever published.

I mention this only in keen anticipation of how creative your dismissal is likely to be! 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:34F7:908B:BBB9:26EA (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young are religious scholars whose writings about misandry are outside their field of expertise and have been harshly critiqued by topic experts. Their views are extremely WP:UNDUE if not outright WP:FRINGE.

Once again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Dictionaries define words, while encyclopedias describe topics in terms of their social and historical significance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Quite right. They're entirely un-encyclopaedic and wildly inappropriate as a source. No reputable publication would go near them. I agree completely.

And in saying that, you are making exactly the same argument I have been making all along.

Is this starting to sink in? 2A10:BCC6:EB4:0:34F7:908B:BBB9:26EA (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Try to read not only Nathanson and Young, read also legal academic literature about Moritz v. Commissioner, Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, Orr v. Orr, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., and find a word misandry instead of discrimination against men there. Reprarina (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Feminist sources

Talk pages are not a place to gripe about the status of the article. No suggestions for improvement offered. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Many of the sources are what feminists said or claimed, and are highly opinionated, with most coming from feminists. Most of the article just goes on about how misandry is bad, with most paragraphs having one or more line about "the manosphere" or what someone claimed. The article fails to sufficiently bring up points, and any pro-MRAs or information on the points that they bring up is buried under paragraphs of "misandry is bad" (only a few sections actually bring up the discrimination that men face, and they are surrounded by the opinions of anti-MRA feminists). Not to mention the amount of quotes in article seems excessive compared to size of the article. ~With regards, I followed The Username Policy (Message Me) (What I have done on Wikipedia) 09:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia, the Wiki everyone can edit, except on subjects like this when radfems want to control the narrative. Froggy25 (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC) The questions should not be directed to Wikipedia, but to social scientists. There are a huge number of them consider Marwick and Сaplan, Allan G. Johnson, David Gilmore, Michael Kimmel to be reliable sources. They harshly criticize the few scientists who agree with MRAs. If the scientific paradigm on this issue is ever revised, the Wikipedia article will also change. If it doesn't, it will stay that way. Reprarina (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)