Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:12, 16 July 2012

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Discrimination This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on April 21st, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Archives
2006: 1|2|3 2007: 4|5 2009: 6

Misandry received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about misandry. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about misandry at the Reference desk.

Miso-

How is it that both the first sentence and the second sentence of the article explain that "miso" is Greek for "hate" (I'm paraphrasing). This should be mentioned at most once in the intro, then maybe later in an etymology section. Setitup (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I am removing the second sentence. Roger6r (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Misandrosy

I've seen this as an alternative rendering of this word. Is it worth adding a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.73.60 (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Equal rights

Hi, I made the first two paragraphs of this page more comparable to the female version (misogyny), since Misplaced Pages articles are not supposed to be in favor of one sex over the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.37.222 (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This article keeps getting edited to be asymmetrical with the Misogyny article. Either the the misogyny article needs to remove the use of "mistrust" in the definition, or it should be added here. 69.165.254.47 (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to keep this article symmetrical with the Misogyny article. We are, on the other hand, under an obligation to keep this article factually correct. The definition of mysandry does not mention mistrust of men or boys, so this language should be deleted. I don't want engage in an edit war, so I will not immediately revert the insertion of the "mistrust" language, but I encourage other editors to do so. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Bias

The language and sources used in this article feel somewhat anti-feminist. It's a string of examples of people "identifying" misandry in feminism, and I think it reflects rather poorly as a result. People often take wikipedia at face value, so thhis kind of language is dangerous. The last thing we need to do is reinforce public bias against feminism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.206.124 (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet you're happy to reinforce public bias in favour of feminism, judging by what is allowed and what you dismiss from the 'feminist' wiki pages. You remove legitimate references to instances where feminists have systematically demanded preferential treatment of women at the expense of men & children, you repeatedly ignore legitimate instances where feminism promotes misandry, you repeatedly put positive spins on feminist articles. So much for no bias! You clearly want feminism to be wrongly viewed as a positive movement, whereas in reality all it has done is demand preferential treatment for women which is NOT 'equality'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.80.23 (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC) i agree with 86.145.80.23 we should not care about how wikipedia effects socioty we should just state the facts and let people make their own decisions about the ussuesIrishfrisian (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This article has a history of POV problems and antifeminist soapboxing. If you have well-sourced information about other sorts of misandry, it might be good to add. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no public bias against feminism. On the other hand, there is a real public bias against men Wwmargera (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing improvements of the article's content, not for sharing our opinions and discussing the topic generally. Feel free to contribute sourced and cited information to improve this article, or discuss specific issues you have with the existing content. Thanks. -Andrew c  14:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I may not have made this clear, but I was replying to the post by 174.112.206.124. That user specifically implied that there was a public bias against feminism. If I was sharing my opinions and discussing the topic generally, then so was that user. Wwmargera (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Co-indidence. What is left of this crippled article is a result of a whole range of 'soapboxing'. The only way to 'improve' the article is to find the right variety of 'well-sourced' information that says the right things. And people that take wikipedia at face value deserve whatever they get... Jgda (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your continued grievance regarding Misplaced Pages was probably not in doubt. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

'Talk pages are for discussing improvements of the article's content, not for sharing our opinions and discussing the topic generally. Feel free to contribute sourced and cited information to improve this article, or discuss specific issues you have with the existing content. Thanks.'Jgda (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wwmargera: while 174.112.206.124 (talk) expressed an agenda, they were clearly commenting about the article. Debates on whether "public bias" exists against either men or feminists belong elsewhere. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. Discussions on bias matter to the article, because those most likely to contribute to Misplaced Pages articles are those who have an agenda. Especially where those articles are controversial in any way. And disinterested (that is, rational) groups lack the motivation of such ideologues (who push their views on articles day after day, year after year). Speaking of bias, has anyone looked at the differences between the opening paragraphs of the misandry article and misogynist articles?JoeB 18:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfbbrown (talk • contribs)

"In his 1997 book The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy, sociologist Allan G. Johnson stated that accusations of man-hating work to discredit feminism because people often confuse men as individuals with men as a dominant and privileged category of people. He wrote that given the "reality of women's oppression, male privilege, and men's enforcement of both, it's hardly surprising that every woman should have moments where she resents or even hates 'men'"." I am editing this section of 'Notable instances of Misandry' (which should read 'alleged instances of misandry, if it's NPOV'). firstly, this is taken out of context and presented in a prejudicial style, secondly there isn't a reliable source which claims this to be misandry which makes it original research. - i would suggest some neutral editors put this page up to be re-written and monitored rather than abandon it to the "feminism is misandry" boy's club. 86.178.212.187 (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I put that bit back in as it was cited to Temple University Press, a fine publisher. Johnson is a fine researcher. Good sources and good text. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

i didn't say the quoted text was original research, i said the THE CLAIM that it was misandry was original research and that it wasn't a NPOV.86.178.212.187 (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Malarkey. The whole passage is about misogyny and misandry, how those who feel defensive when targeted by feminists turn the argument around and accuse feminists of being man haters. The source deserves a place in the article. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Such details as to the author's life are extraneous and they impinge on the neutrality of the article.

Deletion: She was later diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and depression; some observers think she was suffering from these illnesses at the time of her writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quagquag (talk • contribs) 05:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If these emotional problems impacted her writing on this subject, why would you consider them "extraneous?" Ebikeguy (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

While the writer may have faced emotional problems, there is no guarantee that the ideas and opinions expressed were the result of the problems. Ideas that any writer expresses while for example, suffering from a fever, does not necessarily result from said malady. The inclusion of the information above makes way for such an insinuation, compelling readers into making presumptous conclusions following said insinuation thus impinging on the neutrality of the article, even more so considering that the information is the result of speculations, i.e. what "some observers think" as opposed to any source containing and citing perhaps, more reliable or published medical diagnosis -- which none of the sources provided as citation offers (e.g.: citation 13: I Shot Andy Warhol).

Paranoid schizophrenia and severe depression are both likely to impact one's world view and thus one's writing. You say there is not guarantee that such afflictions would impact an author's writing. However, the chance that such afflictions WOULD impact an author's writing are significant enough to warrant mention. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Err on the side of more not less and if you feel a need to introduce a counterpoint do it but this is another useless article because one or both groups is sensitive, Thank you. I know you care what I think, no need to thank me it was nothing. Good luck 68.43.156.24 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

General content

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

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

WP:OR is a major issue here

I removed this paragraph because it is original research. The claim that Judith Levine's writing is misandric has to be supported by a reliable and verifiable source. In the case of Valerie Solanas, the source is Alice Echol's article "Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America." Echols specifically notes Solanas' "unabashed misandry." You need a reliable source which says that Judith Levine's work was misandric. Randygeorge (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Move of Michael Flood's argument that misogyny and misandry are very different.

User Sugar-Baby-Love made this edit .

His reasoning is that he was "shifting it to an appropriate section." The problem with that is that the claim in the lead that misandry is the parallel to misogyny has remained unsourced for over a year. Michael Flood contradicts this claim. So either the Flood quote goes back in the lead or the unsourced claim that misandry is the parallel to misogyny must be removed. For now, I'm moving the Flood quote back to the lead. Randygeorge (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sick of you making huge changes of material based on nothing but your own personal bigotries.

That information belongs in the appropriate section. Not in the lead. If you want a non-sourced claim removed, then I'll do it myself (since you often play slight-of-hand by disguising one edit with another, I'll have to watch you on that). Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Earlier, more informative version of the Misandry page

The current version seems a bit attenuated, bloodless, even emasculated. The longest version in the history files is much more informative on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misandry&oldid=95173127 Enon (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I see some issues with that past version.

"The reverse of misandry is misogyny, the hatred of women." It could be argued that misogyny is far from being "the reverse" of misandry. It somewhat seems like calling rape of men by women as "reverse rape". It could be argued that those two hatreds are mutually complementary and that belief in one can lead someone right into misanthropy. Personally, I would take that view. Human beings are meant to, designed to, love one another (I mean love in the agape sense) and thus any type of hate leads to more hate.

Obviously a great many people (smart people) would disagree with me, but a lot would agree. So that ironclad statement can't be made.

Although misandry is discussed less frequently than misogyny and is less understood, there is increasing research into and discussion about the topic... Nathanson and Young made an interesting scholarly treatment of the subject, but those two figures are far from being the last word on the subject. There are other scholars who take the approach that misandry is small potatoes compared to misogyny, such as Michael Flood. I believe that he's already quoted as such in either this article or another one somewhere on Misplaced Pages. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Since it's really not much of a stretch to call much of Flood's work misandric he's hardly an NPOV source for defining misandry.--Cybermud (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the way in which your using the term "NPOV". It's, after all, 100% A-OK to cite ideas from people with strong opinions in articles. "NPOV" means that sources are balanced to present a total, full, and complete presentation of a subject. So if someone thinks that Christians are by definition anti-women (which I consider to be pure BS) that is included alongside someone who thinks that Christianity is inherently supportive of equality. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, my comment was really incomplete, I'll chalk it up to being lazy after making it so many times in relation to Flood. He's not NPOV himself, but he does represent an extreme POV, one that I would even call radical feminist. As such he shouldn't be cited without also including mainstream/countervailing views alongside him. He's as much, if not more, activist than he is academic. Citing Flood in the absence of such counterpoints is what is NPOV, particularly when he, or his cohort Michael Kimmel are cited as experts on masculinities giving the impression that they are providing a masculinist perspective on issues of interest to feminists when they are really just parroting the feminist perspective. It's the Fox News version of Fair and Balanced. Give the feminist viewpoint and then allow Flood and Kimmel to give the masculine counterpoint.--Cybermud (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The previous version is incomparably superior to the current one. (No, I don't want to waste time qualifying this, read it yourself.) This article is an illustration of how wikipedia articles simply oscilate in quality (and the reason why I would never waste my time trying to make changes to an article, only to have my efforts negated by worthless ideologues). JoeB 18:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Statistic issue

Unless I'm wrong this number appears to be quite off. "Once on death row, women are 50% less likely to be executed compared to men (since 1970, 1099 men executed compared to 11 women)." 1099/11 is 99.91. That should be "women are 9991% less likely to be executed," right? Ergzay (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the numbers are correct but the statements aren't contradictory, if we assume the amount of women sentenced to death row is considerably smaller than the amount of men sentenced to death row (which is likely to be true because of cultural bias and gender differences in aggression etc). So yes, your calculations are in part correct (women may actually be vastly less likely to be executed at least in the USA) but you forget that they must be sentenced first - every sentenced woman (according to the statement) has "only" 50% advantage. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I'll give an example. 10 women and 1000 men are given the death sentence and each is placed in a death row. After a given amount of time, 400 men and 2 women have been executed (the rest have their sentences commuted and they go live in Ponyland, whatever). This gives a 40% death ratio to men and 20% ratio to women (and a 50% difference) while the ratio of the executed men vs women is 400 vs 2 - 0,005 women executed for each male. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Misandry and Feminism

This section was representative of feminism. This section shows a notable instance of misandry. Roger6r (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination against men

This section contains a lot of unrelated material relating to the controversial concept of femininity. I have been removing it.

This section contains a lot of bias that borders on original research. The facts can be presented in a more neutral way. Roger6r (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This section contains material not of relevance, or of unknown relevance, to the (unstated) thesis that there is misandry in the criminal justice system of the United States. I have removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.239.238 (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The material is relevant and referenced. It shows differences in treatment between men and women. I have restored it. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It's listed under the subheading Presumption of Male Guilt in Criminal Law under Discrimination against men. The cited facts should be evidence that there is such a presumption. They are not. They are evidence that the justice system treats men and women differently, but there is no evidence that this difference is due to presumption of guilt—there could be other causes, and none of the stated facts speaks to that issue. (For instance, it may be that wrongful convictions of men have more to do with race than gender. Who can say?) Since you think the material is relevant to (presumably) discrimination, I have changed the subhead accordingly. However, I am not convinced that this data is relevant, since there is no citation to anyone actually claiming that these facts are because of discrimination. If you, the editor of the page, are making that judgment, then you're doing original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.239.238 (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Warren Ferrill's quote

Warren Ferrill's quote is an example of Misandry but is not presented as such. Its current use seems only to be offensive. I am removing it.

   In the past quarter century, we exposed biases against other races and called it racism, and we exposed biases against women and called it sexism. Biases against men we call humor.
   —Warren Farrell, Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say

Roger6r (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Warren Ferrill may be notable but his remark is misandrist. It should be treated as such. Without a neutral presentation of the quote, it is offensive. Roger6r (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wendy McElroy

Wendy McElroy is notable and her views have been misrepresented in this article. I am moving her material to its own section and linking to her main article. Wendy McElroy is against misandry and this was not evident. Roger6r (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"As an Attack Against Feminism"

While I think this section is biased as written, blanking the section is not the answer. The new language is referenced and appears to make valid points. Rewriting the section to restore NPOV language is encouraged, as is the insertion of referenced counterpoints. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree the section can be expanded with other, well-referenced viewpoints. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Section "Gender Differences in the American Judicial System"

I look at the three sources and I can't find support for claims made or the connection to misandry.

For example, this Bureau of Statistics source does not mention homicide conviction rates, victimization and offending rates, yes, but no conviction rates. More importantly, the BSL does not say anything about discrimination or misandry.

The other source, Clarkprosecutor.org, does say that approximately 99% of death row inmates are men, but I can't find where it says anything about the likelihood of conviction by gender. And again, the source does not draw the connection to discrimination, let alone misandry.

The third source, Axisoflogic.com, says "since federal reinstitution of the death penalty in 1976 there have been 131 death row exonerations nationwide of which Butler is the only woman." This doesn't support the claim that men are twice as likely to be wrongfully convicted ceteris paribus. Simple math: As significantly more men commit capital crimes, and consequently, as more men get convicted of capital crimes, it's only logical that more men get wrongfully convicted. Right? The point is that the source doesn't say anything about discrimination or misandry.

A classic case of WP:OR. I'll remove the paragraph. Fee free to reinsert with proper sources, i.e., sources that show that differences in outcomes between women and men are due to misandry. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Airline Discrimination

The poster has provided a link from an RS that clearly shows discrimination. To my way of thinking, the question we must decide is whether such discrimination is related to misandry. I think that it is, because a prejudicial discrimination against men, in the absence of evidence that supports such discriminatory practices, suggests that it is an emotional, rather than a rational, policy. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No source shows a relation to misandry. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Relation can be inferred per WP:DUCK. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"A poster provided a link from an RS (The Daily Telegraph) which clearly shows discrimination" Discrimination based on sex is sexism, not misandry, and this should be pretty obvious. More importantly, the sources does not link any of this to misandry. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, WP:DUCK "The "Duck test" is meant to be used for internal processes within Misplaced Pages (...) The duck test does not apply to article content, and does not trump or even stand aside policies". The policy in question is OR. Your conclusion that the airline discrimination case is an example of misandry is not echoed in the source, and therefore OR. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Methinks this might be a good subject for an RfC, especially since it has implications beyond this article. Anyone object to my setting one up? Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I can write up a "For Inclusion" argument. Would you be up for writing up the argument for the "Against Inclusion" stance? I can set up a preliminary page in my sandbox, which we can post once we have all the arguments organized. I probably cannot get this organized until tomorrow. Ebikeguy (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I will be out of circulation for four days. To start the RfC, just ask the question regarding whether the controversial airline seating practice should be included in the article about misandry. Leave the arguments for underneath that basic question. I'll add my own argument when I get the chance. Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Have a great Thanksgiving (if you are a USA-type person, I did not check). Ebikeguy (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

All we need is eyes, not an RfC, to see that the source does not link this incident to misandry. What some editors also need is a dictionary to understand that discrimination against men is not the same as misandry. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, an RfC would be an attempt to evade WP:OR which states that editors are not to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sonicyouth, your condescending tone is not helpful, and your comments verge on violating WP:PERSONAL. I stand by my previous statement that prejudicial discrimination relies on preconceived emotional positions toward the group of victims. As such, tying prejudicial discrimination against men to misandry is not OR. I will proceed with the RfC when I have time. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You may believe whatever you want, as long as you do not confuse your opinion with reliable secondary sources. The source does not make the connection to misandry, meaning that your conclusions about the "airline discrimination" incident are original research. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have put the a refference in the "See also" section from the Sexism article, regarding the Airline sex discrimination policy controversy. Perene (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Can Prejudicial Discrimination Against Men be Linked to Misandry?

Recently, there has been debate regarding the policy of various airlines which prohibit single men from sitting next to unaccompanied children, see airline sex discrimination policy controversy for details. Some feel that such prejudicial discrimination is, at its root, tied to misandry because it comes about due to an innate distrust of all men as a group. Such policies are an emotional response against a group of victims, men in this case, and as such many feel that they qualify as a misandrious action.

Other editors state that, because there is no direct, stated connection between these policies and misandry in the citations used as support, drawing such a connection would be OR.

I encourage involved editors to expand upon this introduction. Comments and opinions from uninvolved editors would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Statements by involved editors

• Not unless reliable secondary sources explicitly link cases of discrimination to misandry. Per WP:OR, if editors start to use their gut feeling as an inclusion criterion and imply conclusions not explicitly and directly stated by the source, then editors will argue that all cases of disparities between women and men are evidence of misandry. It has happened before, see for example the recently removed section "Gender Differences in the American Judicial System" which was a classic example of V and OR problems. Moreover, "prejudicial discrimination" based on sex is sexism, not misandry. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• If a specific group of people were automatically beaten on sight, we would call such action a "Hate Crime" and associate it with whatever hate-behavior was appropriate. If the group being victimized was all women, we would call link behavior to "Misogyny." If the group in question were a specific racial group, we would link it to racial hatred. How is this different? Why is the emotionally-based victimization of men in the case of airline discrimination different, at its core, from beating men on sight for no reason other than their gender? Ebikeguy (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

  It does not matter what we would call this and that. You are arguing that we should disregard sources, and go with our guts to create lovely original research. The past has shown that some editors believe that the fact that more men commit crimes, and consequently, more men get convicted than women is an example of misandry . Perhaps the next editor will argue that disparities in feet size are an example of misandry.

  User:Qwyrxian and other users who watch Misogyny make sure that only the material gets added that has been described as misogynistic by reliable secondary sources. To add just two examples, Here and here, Qwyrxian explains that sexism is not the same as misogyny and removes the content per WP:OR. But even if something or someone has been described as misogynistic by many reliable sources, it does not mean that it will be added to the article. Bride burning would be one example.--Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, and it lies at the core of why I created this RfC in the first place. However, there is a very real difference between a corporate policy that specifically victimizes innocent men (or women, or Asians, or Zoroastrians, etc.) and statistics that show that men are different from women, or any one group different from another. Statistics showing that men are convicted more than women, or showing that Japanese people are shorter than Scandinavians, etc., do not, in any way prove an emotional predisposition to these groups. Policies that codify prejudicial discriminatory behavior DO show an emotional predisposition to the victimized group, and this is the root of the argument that such policies, when applied to men, qualify as misandry. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Secondary sources needed. Reasoning: discrimination against men ≠ Misandry. Discrimination against men (hmm, no article. Is Men's rights a good catch-all link for this?) is an action that can be reasonably identified as such. Calling it "misandry" is attributing a particular motivation; this motivation may sometimes be the case, but we cannot make this connection without a secondary source.
  It may cloud the issue somewhat that "Misandry" has become a term of moral censure in cases of discrimination against men—this usage probably violates WP:NPOV and should be avoided when possible. The decision (to use the above example) to prohibit seating single men by unaccompanied children may be a well-intentioned response to a perceived problem; I might be pretty ticked off to be that bumped fellow, and I may reasonably criticize the decision as being unreasonable and harmful to me, but for me to declare it misandry would be presumptuous, and perhaps a bit invidious on my part.
  As a secondary concern, stuffing the Misandry article with incidents of discrimination against men would bury the article's main subject in WP:COATRACKING—such information is worth including here when it helps illustrate the subject of Misandry, but that doesn't mean this article should become the Online Anti-Male Sexism Noticeboard. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Secondary sources must plainly state that misandry is the root of any prejudice observed against men. Prejudice by itself does not mean that misandry was the reason; it could be worries about crime statistics in which men figure far more prominently, it could be anything else. Misandry does not equal prejudice against men. Binksternet (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Statements by uninvolved editors

• The WP:OR policy is clear on this: You must have secondary sources making the connection. We cannot make such connections ourselves, otherwise it is synthesis. Kaldari (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, the airlines might be doing what they are (were?) doing to pander to misandry, for example. Drawing the conclusion that they are misandrists or that the act is misanthropic per se, is a bigger leap than it might seem at first sight. Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC).
  
• Per WP:OR, these statements should not be included unless backed up by external reliable sources. --TorriTorri(/_contribs) 03:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with the other comments here. An airline having a policy that is discriminatory against men is not the same thing as it being misandric. To include text to this effect, we would need reliable third-party sources explicitly stating this, and even then we should attribute the opinion in the article body as per WP:ASF. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Move to Close

It is clear that editor consensus does not support insertion of material that shows prejudicial discrimination unless there is a specific, stated connection to misandry in the RS citations. As such, I would like to close this discussion with a decision that we not include such material in this article. If others agree, the we should find an uninvolved admin to close for us. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. When you look for instances of misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, antisemitism etc. you look to see if a group is being discriminated against. It should be required to state explicity the words discrimination, prejudice, sexism or misandry and refer to the sentence being towards men. Same way with misogyny but towards women.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok what I'm saying is that this same argument goes on over at the homophobia and transphobia article where people are constantly arguing that homophobia and transphobia and more rarely Islamophobia refer only to fear. However they actually refer to fear and aversion (opposition or repugnance) and usually includes discrimination. Misandry and Misogyny deal with the hatred of men and women and the discrimination that comes from it as well not just the discrimination. If we treat these articles differently it could imply sexism on the part of wikipedia. Misogyny and Misandry are not merely the hatred of these groups any more than racism, antisemitism or homophobia is the hatred of people of colors, Jews, or the LGBT community. It is hatred and discrimination.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"They do it on article X" is not sufficient reason to suspend WP:NPOV here. There appears to be a consensus on this page that verifiable discrimination against men does not by itself demonstrate misandry. Do you see the mistake in objecting on Talk:Misandry to the quality of sourcing in other articles? The article on Misandry is not a place for tu quoque responses to the Misogyny, Racism, Antisemitism, Homophobia, Islamophobia or Transphobia articles. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. (Do they say that on RfC's?) I think we're settled here. Per Rainbowofpeace. there may still be an issue with how this sort of assumption is handled in other articles—whoever wants to bring this up on the Talk pages for those articles is welcome to link this discussion. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink to Feminism Article Should be Removed

The wikilink to Feminism in the "See Also" section should be removed because there is already a wikilink to that article in the body of the article. See the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style for further explanation. Ebikeguy Ebikeguy (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Since this was a clear cut issue, I removed the wikilink, again. Please discuss the matter here if you feel that the matter should be handled differently. I also removed the wikilink to Antifeminism in the "See Also" section, because misandry and antifeminism are not related subjects. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Valerie Jean Solanas (1936-88) The Guardian
2. Bockris, Victor. Warhol: The Biography. Da Capo Press (2003) ISBN 030681272X
3. Harron and Minahan. I Shot Andy Warhol. Grove Press (1996) ISBN 0802134912

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Human rights articles
• Low-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Unassessed sociology articles
• Unknown-importance sociology articles
• Start-Class Feminism articles
• Top-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• B-Class Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• Unassessed Discrimination articles
• Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• Old requests for peer review