Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 13:04, 23 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Misandry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Feminism Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Gender studies Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance 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 [REDACTED] Discrimination Low‑importance [REDACTED] 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Men's Issues Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles 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.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: Marwick, Alice E.; Caplan, Robyn (26 March 2018). "Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment". Feminist Media Studies. 18 (4): 543–559. doi:10.1080/14680777.2018.1450568. ISSN 1468-0777. S2CID 149246142 – via The Misplaced Pages Library. Ringrose, Jessica; Lawrence, Emilie (2018). "Remixing misandry, manspreading, and dick pics: networked feminist humour on Tumblr" (PDF). Feminist Media Studies. 18 (4): 686–704. doi:10.1080/14680777.2018.1450351. ISSN 1471-5902 – via ResearchGate.

​

Feminism and misandry

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

Look, I get that it's the official policy of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's policy on original research. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 without good reason" or "unfriendly feelings directed against " 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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: “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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)

First, my comments concern the quality of the article and are thus well suited for a Misplaced Pages talk page.

Then, your statement "There's nothing at WP:NPOV" = 'Misplaced Pages: Neutral point of view' "that says reliable sources have to be neutral." a) is obviously paradoxical, and b), because it is sadly exactly what happens on Misplaced Pages (sources deemed reliable by Misplaced Pages are not neutral, neither politically nor regarding gender), that even goes beyond confirming my argument from above (that self-evaluations of a pool of biased sources that claim neutrality are irrelevant): You even imply and thus admit that these sources, on average, are not neutral!

It is preposterous that this is not considered a huge problem here and so I stop further supporting Misplaced Pages financially. I have also copied the whole page to put it into a time capsule. --Felix Tritschler (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood what WP:NPOV means. It means Misplaced Pages reflects the POV of the mainstream sources. Note in particular that WP:FALSEBALANCE, (which you appear to be seeking here) is expressly not what is done on Misplaced Pages. The sources are not 'neutral' on lots of topics - one often cited example is Modern flat Earth beliefs. You'll note that that article isn't balanced either. In other words, if academia is biased, so is Misplaced Pages, and editors here are fine with that. MrOllie (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You repeated what Sangdeboeuf already wrote. So instead of repeating myself, I refer to my other reply (see above). Further, WP:NPOV literally contains the word "neutral" and this is meant so (just that in practice it isn't) and in WP:FALSEBALANCE there's nothing countering it. What's written there is that obvious nonsense (my wording) like flatearth-theories are not worth being represented in articles as valid alternativ theories etc. - These have no meaningful data to support them (!) and aren't even on the spectrum from left-wing to conservative/right-wing or female to male interests - On the other hand, misandry and e.g. counterpositions to the current "Man or bear" Misplaced Pages article and related topics have a lots of solid data to support them, e.g. domestic violence against men, which occurs with ~50% of the frequency of DV against women, the latter of which is btw cited as an example for misogyny in the respective article here. --Felix Tritschler (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

You do have to read the whole policy page, not just assume you know what it means based on the title. MrOllie (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I am pretty sure that I now read everything relevant in this regard and have to say that there was nothing new to me (since I skimmed over these pages completely already before, as far as I could see). So I'd have to ask you what specifically you meant that I did not understand. Thanks. --Felix Tritschler (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The parts explained above. NPOV means that the sources are reflected. When they are critical, so too will be the Misplaced Pages article. If you are correct that the reliable sources are very biased at the moment as you wrote above, that means the article will lean very strongly in one direction, just as we lean very strongly against things like Homeopathy. See WP:GOODBIAS. MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I already considered that (e.g. flatearth theories, see above) - and with neutral, I meant politically neutral and regarding genders, and this is actually how I understood Misplaced Pages's neutrality. It's obvious to me that pseudoscience, i.e. homeopathy, flatearth theories, preastronautic, wokeism etc. isn't even part of a question regarding neutrality. They are obviously non-scientific, alone because they all lack vital principles of the scientific method, most importantly they are not falsifiable, the latter being one of the, if not the most important trait of science.

This is not the case for Misandry, as part of sociology - there's no principle of 'untouchability' like in wokeism, where they say that any criticism is to be disregarded because it comes from a privileged position. - So how do you justify mingling Misandry with the pseudosciences you mentioned? It's got nothing to do with each other - the problem is that academia at the moment is heavily biased politically and so no publications that follow a liberal and feminist narrative are passing the peer-review process. But there is no political influence at work when papers on e.g. preastronautic fail to pass the peer-review-process in important journals.

Isn't it obvious that it's dangerous if certain topics are censored, alone due to political reasons?

--Felix Tritschler (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

If academia is heavily biased politically then so too will be Misplaced Pages. There is no mechanism to determine the 'type' of bias. We follow the bias of the reliable sources, full stop. That is what you are not understanding. You're trying to get Misplaced Pages to work in a way that is counter to how it is designed. All manner of scientific disagreements have some political dimension - for example COVID vaccinations have become a highly politicized issue. But Misplaced Pages is still going to follow what medical sources say, even if one side of the political argument doesn't like that. The same applies here. If that is 'dangerous' we'll just have to live with it. MrOllie (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I can only repeat that I really do understand that and I actually support the false balance policy (e.g. an article on global warming should mainly represent the results of academic research (i.e. that it's meanwhile exceedingly likely that it's anthropogenic), as well as e.g. an article on Jesus (historical vs. religious etc). I don't even see a bias here, since there are facts (found by prestigious academic researchers) that support these views. - But e.g. in the "Man or bear" article, which btw has no peer-reviewed sources, it's a fact that the article is using 'lying with statistics' (ignoring the amount of time exposed to a bear vs. a man) and in this case there's no prestigious academic researcher required to see that: It's right there in the article! And an editor even pointed exactly that out, but it led to no corrections.

I really thought that something as obviously wrong wouldn't need a peer-reviewed source to correct that point. But oh well, I give up ... --Felix Tritschler (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

MrOllie is using homeopathy as an example to show that Misplaced Pages does not give equal validity to all points of view on a topic, as you are evidently proposing we do with misandry. Misplaced Pages does not aspire to be politically neutral, which is another term for false balance. Misplaced Pages follows published, reliable sources. Go read WP:NPOV again. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Felix Tritschler: no one cares if you donate to Misplaced Pages. Your attempt to extort us is even more reason to disregard your comments. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

How did I attempt to extort anyone? I refuse to tolerate such an unsubstantiated allegation. I won't further financially support this organisation for obvious reasons, that's all - also, this is no reason to disregard my comments. --Felix Tritschler (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

This talk seems to have devolved to name calling by it's end, but there is a key issue in my eyes here. The combative language used, comparing it to misogyny, and attacking Mens rights activists is not in keeping with Misplaced Pages's standards, for example in the introduction of the abortion page it mentions opposition but does not give such a strong opinion as this page. The small section on heterophobia does not compare it to homophobia as this article compares it to misogyny. I read through the intros to several atricles on the contentious topic list and none of them take a stance as much as this article, I believe it goes against WP:NPOV, more than happy to discuss further. Uglyjumpers (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means fairly representing the predominant views of reliable sources. If published, reliable sources focus on MRAs setting up a false equivalence between misandry and misogyny, then so do we. No one is being "attacked" by simply stating these facts in a balanced fashion. The existence of other pages on other controversial topics has no bearing on how we write about this one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response, Misplaced Pages:OCON speaks more to content over tone to my understanding, so it would make sense to use other articles as a base for what tone should be used with controversial topics. I believe that the intro is not in keeping with Misplaced Pages:IMPARTIAL, the writer of the article has a clear point of view in this case. I am in no way suggesting that what is written is untrue. Please try to remain civil, I can see by your previous replies in this thread that has been difficult for you Uglyjumpers (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion carefully. WP:IMPARTIAL does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. When the sources overwhelmingly support one position, so will the Misplaced Pages article. If Misplaced Pages didn't do that, articles like Homeopathy or Vaccine misinformation would be very different. MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Why are feminists considered a reliable source on the question of whether or not feminists are misandrist, and why does the article avoid noting the the sources cited are overwhelmingly self-identified feminists? Dekadoka (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The reliable sources are scholars such as anthropologists, experts of gender studies, sociologists, and so on. The papers they published are well-researched and peer-reviewed. Their work cannot be dismissed as being from "feminists". They are the highest quality sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Cigarette companies are experts on cigarettes, why not cite them on the question of whether or not cigarettes cause cancer? Because they have a strong incentive to give us the wrong answers. Feminists have a strong incentive to say that they are not misandrists because saying so would lead to less support for their movement. Source 14, "The Misandry Myth" (the 40+ topic experts in paragraph 3 of the intro), was clearly written by feminist authors based both on the tone of the article and other work done by the authors. Not only that, but their work was based on surveying non-expert feminists (edited to clarify that both feminists and non-feminists were surveyed) on the question of whether or not they are misandrists. The survey consisted of questioned like the following: "Are you a feminist?" and "How warm/favorable or cold/unfavorable do you feel towards men in general." The feminist authors of the article then use the responses from non-expert feminists (edited to clarify that both feminists and non-feminists were surveyed) to coin the term "the misandry myth."

The twice biased nature of the source should mentioned in the article instead of presenting it to the reader as an established fact. Dekadoka (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

We care about whether the work in question is published in high quality outlets, like reputable peer-reviewed journals. Launching attacks on 'feminists' is not going to help your case. MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not attacking feminists and have no bone to pick with them, although of course I am against misandry as I am sure you are as well. This is a set of surveys that were statistically analyzed and published in an academic journal. When you start a sentence with "the false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists," you imply that the answers on this questionnaire are definitive proof of the zero-correlation hypothesis. There are many reasons why survey data can be unreliable, including bias on the part those being surveyed and those writing the questions. It should at least be mentioned that this is survey data. I feel that most readers will certainly not view survey data as definitive proof in this case, and not mentioning the nature of the source degrades the quality of the article. Dekadoka (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

As has been explained previously, asking groups of women and men including two nationally representative samples to report their feminist identity and explicit attitudes toward men  is not the same as asking a group of feminists if they have negative feelings towards men. That is indeed an oversimplification, and a mischaracterization to boot. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how I implied that only feminists were surveyed. If that was the case, why would the first question be "Are you a feminist?" I did try to capture the core issue, which is that the survey was constructed in such a way that bias could easily influence the results. It is from a respectable academic source, but it does not conclusively provide the final word on the issue which is implied by the statement "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists." The fact that their statement is based on survey data should at least be mentioned. Dekadoka (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

In that case you may want to strike your comment that Hopkins-Doyle et al. (2023) was based on surveying non-expert feminists since it evidently implies something you didn't mean to. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC) edited 03:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The survey in question was thoroughly peer-reviewed by many other scholars who would easily detect bias. Someone on the internet named Dekadoka is not going to contradict their findings just by expressing doubt. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Apparently a random, non-expert[REDACTED] editor is going to decide that a single study based on a survey is definitive proof on this issue, to the point where the nature of the study doesn't even need to be mentioned. The study was substantially less biased, since it included an extensive section on future research that needs to be conducted, stating "A limitation of the present work is that it relies, for the most part, on self-reported attitudes. This leaves open the possibility that feminists denied their prejudice toward men for strategic reasons." This is essentially my objection. Dekadoka (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Following the sources is what we're supposed to do. What we're not supposed to do is read the paper, say clearly written by feminist authors based both on the tone of the article and then press to label the authors as feminists with a WP:OR label. Your objections are not actionable, not while following Misplaced Pages's content policies. MrOllie (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the 40+ topic experts stating the following:

"A limitation of the present work is that it relies, for the most part, on self-reported attitudes. This leaves open the possibility that feminists denied their prejudice toward men for strategic reasons."

and

"Further research is needed to examine whether, how, and when these performative dynamics play out in the laboratory and in everyday life."

In comparison with the current[REDACTED] article conclusively stating that the idea of misandry being commonplace among feminists is false: "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the "misandry myth" by 40 topic experts." This seems to overstep the limitations of the research, no? Why not at least mention that the study is based on self reported survey data?

I propose the following change: "A study based on self-reported survey data found no link between misandry and feminism, leading researchers to call the idea "The Misandry Myth." Dekadoka (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

My thoughts are that the quotes you present here in no way contradict the use of this source in the article, and that I see no policy-based reason to water down the statement of fact as your proposed change seeks to do. We get it, you disagree with the source. But that's not a reason to change the article. MrOllie (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that this is far from the first and not the only study that shows that feminists are not more misandrists than non-feminists and anti-feminists. This is also shown by such works as Glick P., Whitehead J. Hostility toward men and the perceived stability of male dominance, and the study of Melinda Kanner and Kristin J. Anderson. The Misandry myth study is actually just a new experiment that confirms an old, well-established hypothesis: feminism is no more misandrist than non-feminism. Where are the experiments that refute this hypothesis? Moreover, if Gilmore, Marwick and Caplan have rather philosophical reasonings about how and what should be called, then here is a specifically scientific analysis. Reprarina (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Would like to add that I'm in no way a misogynist, I think some people might have gotten politics in the way of my point, I'm just talking about tone Uglyjumpers (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

References

1. Hopkins-Doyle, Aife; et al. (2023). "The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists' Attitudes Toward Men". Psychology of Women Quarterly. 48 (1): 8–37. doi:10.1177/03616843231202708. ISSN 1471-6402.

Edit request on 2025-01-09 (UT)

I'd like to request a minor edit to a passage under "Psychological Studies" to adjust the punctuation slightly, for clarity, as below:

Hostility toward Men was split into three factors: Resentment of Paternalism, the belief men supported male power; Compensatory Gender Differentiation, the belief that men were supported by women; and Heterosexual Hostility, which looked at beliefs that men were likely to engage in hostile actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianTung (talk • contribs) 08:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Since it's a list with embedded commas, I agree with this presentation. —C.Fred (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It is questionable how relevant this section is to the article. The source does not use the word misandry or hatred of men. The source does use hostility toward men, which can hardly be identified with the much stronger word misandry based on the available sources. Reprarina (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Tone of opener

The tone of the second paragraph seems a lot more combative than what is to be expected of a Misplaced Pages article in my eyes, I'm in no way an expert in the area but I would like to hear others opinions on this Uglyjumpers (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Luckily, there has been a lot of discussion over the tone and word choice in the lead. Check the archives. Remsense ‥ 论 14:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

ah sorry my mistake, the mobile app is all but useless for talk pages Uglyjumpers (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Not a mistake! Trust me, I know the mobile issues—and should be more sensitive nonetheless. I'm just intending to point you to where you can get insight to why it's written how it is. Remsense ‥ 论 15:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree to some extent, since the topic itself is not limited to MRAs advocating that feminism has established institutional misandry. Even the article itself devotes a lot of space to other aspects, such as racialization and misandry in literature. Therefore, I am in favor of the preface at least briefly mentioning other aspects. Reprarina (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Men's rights activism

The following discussion 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.

I feel like the article would find improvement in specifying that men's rights activism can come in the forms of feminism and anti-feminism... or that MRA discusses other topics as well. With how often it is brought up in the article, it almost gives the impression that the core focus of Men's Rights Activism is on misandry, but it can also be on patriarchy.

I recognize that MRA is broad, and some activists of the movement definitely do believe that violation of men's rights comes primarily from misandric institutions, (and the sentiment should definitely be mentioned in the article since it is of high relevance, and was the original sentimenet of MRAs) but it is nonetheless not the only sentiment shared by its activists. I feel that the way the article is written currently implies that focus on misandry is a inherent aspect of MRA... which it's not (anymore), and Misplaced Pages's article on MRA also makes that clear.

Maybe certain sections should be rephrased to specify this/leave an indication that this is only one perspective of the movement? Sneaz (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

In practice, is the MRA that broad, though? As that article explains, the Men's rights movement is a subset of the men's movement, which is distinct from the Men's liberation movement, Pro-feminism, etc. As the article Men's movement explains: the men's movement is made up of several movements that have differing and often antithetical goals.

From what I have read, reliable sources recognize this and treat the MRA specifically as primarily a backlash against feminism. Any discussion of patriarchy within the MRA is at best performative and shallow, but more often it is dismissive and, well, misogynistic. From reliable, independent sources, the concept of misandry is an inherent aspect of the MRA, narrowly defined. Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

agreed. not a sociologist here but from my lay perspective i havent seen any discussion of MRA as anything more than a backlash and weaponization of the rights of men against feminism. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I likely phrased my original text a bit incorrectly/incoherently but I'm not sure it matters how broad MRA is. If there is a discrepency between MRA's description in one article to another, it should be - in my opinion - adressed. And currently, this article seems ignorant(?) of other perspectives of MRA/pushes the idea that this is the only, inherent property of MRA, as opposed to the men's rights movement one. That article also specifies that the criticism on MRA falls towards specific sections of it, and I think that does a good job of resolving the issue of different perspectives in the movement.

I don't think it's my place to talk about how focused MRA is on misandry or how misogynistic/anti-feminist it is. But I do feel there is a dissonance between this article's understanding of the movement and that one's. I am honestly more lenient to think that the "men's rights movement" has a more accurate description, since I assume its editors have spent a significant amount of time reading literature on the subject, and it matches my own understanding of the term. If it is determined it's inaccurate, then it should be changed, and this article should remain as it is. But rejecting other perspectives of a movement simply because they're not common/strong enough seems... unfitting.

If there can be activists of the men's rights movement who are not focused on misandric instutions, then that implies that's not a core experience of the movement and such does not oppose it, in which case we should be using a definition that encompasses all perspectives, no? Sneaz (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages follows the reliable sources on any given topic. It is important to note that Misplaced Pages does not use itself as a source, nor does it combine sources to arrive at or try to fit definitions (See WP:SYNTHESIS). One consequence of this is that Misplaced Pages articles are sometimes inconsistent with each other because the sources in different topic areas might be using slightly different definitions. There's really nothing that can be done about that. MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I see. I still think that the original quotes from sources the article uses when talking about MRA are less general then it makes it seem. But thanks nonetheless for the link, will do some reading. Sneaz (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Concur with MrOllie that different pages are likely to describe the same topic in slightly different ways depending on how the sources for each page cover a given topic. That said, Men's rights movement § Ideology presents the MRM largely as a backlash to feminism: The men's rights movement generally incorporates points of view that reject feminist and profeminist ideas. MRAs believe that men are victims of feminism and "feminizing" influences in society Men's rights activists argue that society has historically benefited women and femininity at the expense of men, an idea termed gynocentrism. MRAs believe that patriarchy is a feminist myth and that feminism creates unfair advantages for women They argue that men are not only oppressed, but also degraded and vilified; this idea of misandry or hatred of men is commonly used by MRAs to dispute feminist accusations of misogyny. I'm not seeing any dissonance here at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about the beginning of the article, which only describes the movement as dedicated to (exclusively) men's issues. Anti-feminism is not described as an inherent part of the movement. If it was, there would not be any need to writing a separate paragraph that states that it is often perceived as such academically. I also never said that the article does not describe the movement as largely anti-feminist, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. My understanding of the description of the movement provided by the article is "movement dedicated to men's issues", not "movement dedicated to men's issues in regards to feminism and misandry", which is the sense I got from this article. The former leaves room for far more perspectives than the latter, which is why I started this thread. Notably, the paragraph you quote uses the word "generally", and I think it is implied that the rest of it is quoting examples of those "general" sentiments. If it's not, and if rejection of feminism is a requirement for men's rights movement's ideology, then maybe the beginning of the article itself should be changed.

I mentioned before why I don't think it matters much how general the sentiment is, if it does not encompass the *entire* movement. You may argue I am being overly pedantic, but I don't think it's fair to say that there's no dissonance "at all". Still, I fully agree with MrOllie's point. Sneaz (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No one is saying antifeminism is a requirement for anything. And a Misplaced Pages article is not a reliable source any case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not being coherent enough, but my point was that the current tone of this article gave me the impression that a focus on misandric institutions is an inherent aspect of MRM. No, it does not directly state so, but the phrasing does not leave much room for other perspectives of the MRAs, contrary to the MRM article's description.

I realize now that if every Misplaced Pages article were to ensure that everytime a general sentiment of some social or political group were to be specified as merely a commonality and not a core aspect of its ideology, that would largely distract from the main topic of the article. More importantly I realize that if the original source makes it sound as such then that will be reflected in the article.

I never claimed Misplaced Pages is a reliable source. My whole argument was about retaining consistency throughout articles, which Mr. Ollie has explained is not Misplaced Pages's policy. To make it absolutely clear: I understand now that I had misunderstood the nature of Misplaced Pages.

I get the sense that you are misunderstanding my stance. Unless you interpret the current phrasing of this article as as open to different perspectives of MRAs as MRM (and it is possible my reading is incorrect), we are not disagreeing with each other over anything. My reply to your reply was solely on the topic of dissonance. I have abandoned my request after Mr. Ollie's reply. Sneaz (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it would save everyone's time to just say I have abandoned my request and leave it at that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If your intention was to find a resolution to the request, I'm not sure why you felt the need to argue there is no dissonance between the articles, since MrOllie made it clear that's irrelevant, and I mentioned agreeing to their point in my response to you. I had gotten the impression that starting that discussion was the intention of your original reply, since it offers no other points besides concurring with what MrOllie said. But I'm sorry for apparently wasting your time. Sneaz (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Peter Wright writes in his book A Brief History of The Men’s Rights Movement: From 1856 to the present that the men's rights movement had several waves. Only during one brief period was the movement friendly to feminists. I don't think it's worth a mention.

Wright shows that men were already beginning to complain about the advances of feminism in the 1850s, with meetings and written essays appearing sporadically in this vein through the 1920s. The MRM of this time was a backlash to feminism. In the 1970s, some men started the men's liberation movement, talking about men's rights in a way that would support feminism. This was completely different in focus; a different beast entirely. The anti-feminist feelings came to the fore again in the late 1970s with the MRM concerned once again about how feminism has gone too far. This backlash increased with the power of the internet, making a bigger jump in 2009 with the online forum A Voice For Men which was still anti-feminist but trying to be more modern. Only the anti-feminist parts of the MRM are relevant here. The friendly-to-feminist MLM was a brief blip, and small. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Institutional misandry

Thread retitled from "Self-contradictions in the article".

The article as it currently stands mentions in the opener:

"...and treatment of male rape victims as examples of institutional misandry. However, in virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support comparable to misogyny, the hatred of women."

Then under the "Criminal justice system"

"A number of studies have shown the possibility of the presence of institutional misandry in criminal justice system. A study conducted by Nathan E. Kruis et al. showed that implicit and explicit misandry in the criminal justice system of the United States exists in the consciousness of decision-makers and contributes to systemic discrimination against men. The study demonstrated that both male perpetrators and male victims of intimate-partner violence experience gender bias in the system."

Only one of these claims should remain in the article as they directly contradict each other. Dragonsaige (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

A large number of researchers have written about how misandry lacks institutional and systemic support comparable to misogyny. Only one has written about gender bias in the US justice system, arriving at a contrary conclusion. WP:WEIGHT is on the side of misandry not being systemic. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

How does the presence of institutional misandry in the criminal justice system contradict the absence of institutional misandry comparable to institutional misogyny in general? And even if some author, who is far from criminology, says outright "there is no institutional misandry anywhere, including the criminal justice system," this must be treated philosophically - if the author is not a criminologist, they are unreliable for this particular case. Reprarina (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The key phrase here is "comparable to misogyny". The second statement doesn't contradict this in any way. The actual quote from the Kruis et al. paper is Given findings from prior research suggesting potential institutional misandry in the criminal justice system.... "Potential" is not the same as "actual". The paper is also a primary source for the authors' findings of systemic discrimination of men involved with the justice system and shouldn't be treated as scholarly consensus. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• B-Class level-5 vital articles
• Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
• B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
• B-Class Human rights articles
• Low-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• B-Class Feminism articles
• Mid-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• B-Class Gender studies articles
• Low-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• B-Class Discrimination articles
• Low-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• B-Class Men's Issues articles
• Low-importance Men's Issues articles
• WikiProject Men's Issues articles