Talk:Misandry/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Misandry. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This source looks quite academic consensusy. I believe that it legitimizes some sources that do not contradict this statement. The sources that all feminists are misandrists are definitely fringe, but the sources that some feminists are misandrists are quite okay and we shouldn't avoid them. Reprarina (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The source also says that there is little or no difference between hostility toward men for feminists vs non-feminists, so I'm not sure if that'd be appropriate. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It's appropriate in the context that some people think that there are no misandrists at all. Reprarina (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

In that context I agree. We would just have to be careful not to label certain groups as exhibiting misandry per my previous comment. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I would be fine with briefly summarizing the source, with the context that Panamitsu mentions. It would be nice to go one-in-one out on the §In feminism section, which is already overlong, with many sources of lower quality than this new one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I've just had a brief look through the source and here are a few points that perhaps we could mention:

• There is a stereotype that feminism is motivated by misandry: "by the perception that [feminism] is motivated by antimale sentiment, or misandry"
• Some feminists are misandrists, and so are some nonfeminists. "There is little doubt, of course, that some feminists are misandrists, just assome nonfeminists are also likely to harbor negative attitudes toward men."
• Little or no difference between misandry in feminists and non-feminists
• The Stereotype accuracy hypothesis may be worth mentioning (discussed in source).
• "some feminists have claimed that misan-dry is a legitimate, even necessary aspect of the movement.Their argument is that bad feelings toward men are rationalresponses to men’s hatred and mistreatment of women andthat more positive or dispassionate responses would onlyundermine women’s motivation to bring about social change"
• Source has a few mentions of in-group and out-group dynamics.
• Has a few points about anti-misandry in Feminism, eg "Feminists have driven forward significant changes in men’sfavor (Courtenay, 2000) including the repeal of sexist drinkinglaws (Plank, 2019) and laws that define rape in terms thatexclude assaults in which men are victims"
• "people are grossly inaccurate in their understanding of feminists’ attitudes toward men."
• "A multiple regression showed that radical (β=−.24,p< .001)and cultural (β=−.18,p=.003) feminism, but not liberal(β=.06,p=.330) or women of color (β=.01,p=.910) fem-inism, were uniquely associated with less positive explicitattitudes toward men"

—Panamitsu (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

In the Article "Misandry", under "In Feminism", in the 2nd paragraph it states:

"Echols also claims that, after her attempted murder, Solanas' SCUM Manifesto became more popular within radical feminism; but not all radical feminists shared her beliefs."

This would seem to suggest that either Echols or Solanas were the victim of an attempted murder from the usage of the word "Her". However, if it is taken in context with the 1st paragraph which states:

"However, radical feminist arguments have also been misinterpreted, and individual radical feminists such as Valerie Solanas, best known for her attempted murder of Andy Warhol in 1968, have historically had a higher profile in popular culture than within feminist scholarship."

It can be inferred that the statement I am proposing to edit is referring to a Murder attempt made by Solanas. If this is the truth of that statement, then it would be better to change it in to:

"Echols also claims that, after Solanas attempted to commit murder, her SCUM Manifesto became more popular within radical feminism; but not all radical feminists shared her beliefs."

This is a simple grammatical correction. I hope this can help with clarity. Fantredath (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this a good change. But I'm tired and the grammar is hard. Could someone else do it? Talpedia 06:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This edit is all too complicated trying to do it - I just wanted someone else to do it! The reasons for this are complicated. Talpedia 06:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I've just made the change but I have a high propensity to switch words around in accident (it's 11pm for me), so someone please do check over my change. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Replaced her Solanas' with the. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-61496-001?doi=1

Little is known about implicit evaluations of complex, multiply categorizable social targets. Across five studies (N = 5,204), we investigated implicit evaluations of targets varying in race, gender, social class, and age. Overall, the largest and most consistent evaluative bias was pro-women/anti-men bias, followed by smaller but nonetheless consistent pro-upper-class/anti-lower-class biases. By contrast, we observed less consistent effects of targets’ race, no effects of targets’ age, and no consistent interactions between target-level categories. An integrative data analysis highlighted a number of moderating factors, but a stable pro-women/anti-men and pro-upper-class/anti-lower-class bias across demographic groups. Overall, these results suggest that implicit biases compound across multiple categories asymmetrically, with a dominant category (here, gender) largely driving evaluations, and ancillary categories (here, social class and race) exerting relatively smaller additional effects. We discuss potential implications of this work for understanding how implicit biases operate in real-world social settings.

The article generally dismisses valid concerns that several groups have expressed over the past decade or two without citing to evidence that tends to support the notion that misandry is fairly prevalent in modern society; for example, the foregoing study which found anti-male bias to be stronger than class and race bias. 24.234.86.222 (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

sorry, to be clear, the evidence is BURIED and scarcely referred to in a section entitled "psychological studies," which shrouds the probative value. I believe there should be a section entitled "Prevalence," "existence" or "empirical studies." And there should be more than just a one sentence blurb. 24.234.86.222 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the current phrasing of that study is already problematic as it lacks context and explanation. All this article has from the study has Implicit Association Tests find a reflexive distaste for men and preference for women on the part of both sexes. It raises the questions (but is not limited to): What tests, how was the study performed? Bias in which areas? Who performed this study/what journal so we can assess the quality? etc —Panamitsu (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The study by Paul Connor et al. is a primary research paper. We generally don't cite primary sources for significant claims. There could be flaws in the methodology or interpretation. Evaluating Connor's paper, James Chamberlain et al. write, a strong gender effect was found, such that positive terms were most closely associated with high class women. [...] It is impossible to tell if this finding reveals a genuine evaluative bias on the part of the participants, or is the result of the confounding effects of the gender stereotyped content of the stimuli. Connor's study was not even focused on whether one form of bias was stronger than another, but was meant to evaluate the simultaneous effects of multiple intersecting social categorizations. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a suggestion... When looking up Misandry I found quotes from this stating that Misandry is a minor issue. With men committing suicide at the highest rates in history and leaving the US to start families, it seems logical that misandry is not a minor issue. At least, it is not a minor issue today where in the past it may have been. 47.227.180.59 (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It's minor compared to misogyny which is huge and has been for thousands of years all over the world. Misandry has only been a thing for a couple of decades. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"Misandry has only been a thing for a couple of decade". According to your opinion, not according to RSs which find misandry in Shakespeare, in Jonathan Swift, in Ancient Greek pieces. Reprarina (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

What sources suggest that misandry is a cause of suicide or emigration? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is that conflating misandry and suicide is a form of synthesis which we can not do unless there are sources which do this. Sources generally do describe it as a minor issue, I have not come across many sources which don't. And as EvergreenFir mentioned, I don't think there are even any sources which list misandry as a cause of suicide, but I'm happy to have a search. It would be great if you could provide your sources! —Panamitsu (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

WHy is it necessary to qualify it as anything at all? Isn't this an informational page that's meant to provide an overview of the subject not prescribe how relevant/prevalent/percieved it is? A minor/major within what? Is there a graph that plots how 'important' a subject is within a certain discource that readers should be aware of? 203.91.244.159 (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This article published in respected feminist journal poits that:

In some instances, local organizers of Flower Demos have identified these participants as intruders. For example, Hotta, a transgender man who experienced sexual abuse, was told by a local Flower Demo organizer that he posed a threat to other female participants (Miyuki Fujisawa 2021). Similarly, transgender women were referred to as “terrorists” by an organizer in Flower Demo Ibaraki (Flowerdibaraki 2021). These instances reveal the potential for transphobia and misandry to be harnessed within the collective trauma formation, which can be used to exclude those perceived to have a “perpetrator identity.”

Perhaps a perspective from Japan should be added, since the article is supposed to be about misandry in the global, not about American men's rights activists. Reprarina (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Raladic You have reversed my edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misandry&diff=1223899083&oldid=1223898826 Tell me, where does the source state what is stated in the sentence? More precisely: where does the source say that misandry is not often found among men and among antifeminists? Reprarina (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead summarizes many and multiple findings. But yes, to make it more precise, I just expanded the sentence in the lead, since it is a summary of the entire article and the discussion of feminism and the (false) link to misandry was discussed in the article, but not mentioned in the lead. Now with the expanded sentence it is and so now the ref makes definite sense. Raladic (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Now your sentence is not grammatically correct and sounds like "feminism" (not misandry) "...is established in preferential treatment of women, and shown by discrimination against men" Reprarina (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point. And just like that, it's fixed with the help of a comma and another three words. Raladic (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Misandry has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the racialization section, link to transmisandry in the sentence "E. C. Krell, a gender researcher, uses the term racialized transmisandry describing the experience of Black transmasculine people" Skemous (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Inspired by what's just been posted at WP:NORN, if not in agreement with it, I do think there are spots where the prose in this article has a neutrality problem, and I've tagged them inline accordingly. Remsense诉 13:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I agree Diyi75 (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense It certainly needs to take the problem seriously, and ensure it speaks about it without prejudice. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this part even warranted? It doesn't contribute to the understanding of the topic at hand, and even if it did, it's phrased improperly as it's clearly an opinion. Stunfire1209 (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Stunfire1209 It's certainly an ideological take. Especially considering the fact that TV shows and games openly attack men, but wouldn't dare to go after women. I've never seen much acknowledgement for misandry, but it's certainly real. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This language is warranted because it's an accurate summary of the scholarship detailed in the article. Generalrelative (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Generalrelative I'm not personally sure what level of consensus that has, but the statement itself is certainly incorrect and is contested by a large number of studies and papers. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The statement is supported by the best quality studies and papers. Nothing of quality disproves the statement. Binksternet (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Generalrelative Does that not run the risk of being circular? It might better serve us to ask the question as to why the scholarship was referenced in the first place. Stunfire1209 (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not circular as the scholarly sources are not referencing this Wikipedia page. The answer to why the scholarship was referenced here is because scholars are the most authoritative sources on Wikipedia. If you were a cook, you wouldn't use rotten ingredients; you would want the best ingredients. Binksternet (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Those "TV shows and games" supposedly attacking men and not women are gross misrepresentations published by Nathanson and Young. Nathanson and Young are religious activists who want to roll back the advances of feminism. They are not a reliable source, despite the fact that they sell a bunch of books. Binksternet (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Even the Spanish version (which tend to have lesser standards) of this article, is much more unbiased and helpful.

The article is more focused on in criticizing MRA than on the definitions and examples of misandry as it should be, regardless of the reality of its prevalence. Pol revision (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Any suggestions based on reliable sources? Remsense诉 09:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

This is solely as criticism of the perspectives and statements of validity about misogyny being listed in the opening paragraph. Another section being added as “social presence” or “misogony comparisons” or something of the kind would be an excellent place to put the “worth” or value statements on the perspective of misandry.

if we go to the misogyny page ( just as a plain black/white example, not as a “they’re equal) we do not see statements of validity or if it’s the “same” as misandry. True why would we as they are historically and societally different in impact? But misandry is very much a real thing that occurs, it should be treated very much as a real thing that occurs. And while comparisons to misogyny should absolutely be included in the page, especially with the number of social and individuals who try to compare them , but not in the opening/about paragraph. Justacooldude (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

(Just copy-pasting my point above. Convenient!) Any suggestions based on reliable sources, or? We write articles based on what reliable sources have to say, not our own opinions. Remsense诉 00:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

"The use of this term in the manosphere provides justification for harassment of people espousing feminist ideas by online groups, citing Gamergate as an example." Who is doing the citing? This seems like a dangling participle or similar grammar error. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:8D5:5830:EFBC:55D1 (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I invite POTDL to discuss their preferred content [5][6][7][8] here rather than edit warring. Three experienced editors have so far reverted this content, citing WP:SYNTH. Generalrelative (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The opening paragraph comes across as heavily biased, particularly this:

"This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who counter that misandry is not a cultural institution, nor equivalent in scope to misogyny, which is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences.[5][3][6]

First off, this links sources to books from 2009, 2007, and even 1989. It is almost 2025 and Wikipedia's articles should reflect a modern view of the subject. These are also completely subjective claims: the opinions of a mere three people from over 15 years ago. These sources do not also list the claims and information that supports it. A mere three authors is being exaggerated as "most". It is also a complete opinion that misogyny is "far more deeply rooted in society" and that is is also "more severe in consequences", yet the phrasing of the sentence is also acting like it is a fact. I would argue the millions of men who have died in wars could be seen as having more severe consequences. And how most homeless people are men.

I attempted to correct this, changing reasonable things such as "many scholars" to "some scholars"/"certain scholars" and yet another editor is claiming I'm the one being "disingenuous", which I find ridiculous. Using "many" instead of "some"/"certain" is essentially weasel words in itself, in the form of non-measurable exaggeration without any polls conducted.

I also believe comparisons to misogyny, and how widespread misandry is, deserves their own sections. ImmersiveOne (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"The opinions of a mere three people" is not what is cited. To claim that they are mere opinions and that the "sources do not also list the claims and information that supports it" makes it seem that you did not even read them. Page 12 of citations 5 directly addresses this. The encyclopedia in citation 3 is crystal clear:

Despite contrary claims, misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalised and legislated antipathy of misogyny. Nevertheless, the notion is gaining in currency among 'masculists' and 'men's rights' groups seeking to redress supposedly discriminatory divorce, domestic violence and rape shield laws. But as Naomi Schor (1987) cautions, assuming that misandry mirrors misogyny reduces questions of gender and power to a male/female binary and ignores within-gender hierarchies. Thus, Nancy Kang (2003) recognises a misandric tendency in the dominant culture's interactions with marginalized masculinities.

That you do not like that scholars claim that these things does make them untrue or mere opinions. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

What you describe as "bias" is instead an accurate summary of expert analysis from topic scholars. These people are describing the situation neutrally, not with bias. So many topic scholars agree on this point that it would be excessive to cite them all. Citing just a few of them is enough. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I indeed did not read them because I was not aware they were online. I just did, and it still seems the actual content is being warped to put forth viewpoints not explicitly said by these writers in their dated books. We all know misandry became far rampant since 2014. Just because some people wrote, mused over and claimed things in books made over 15 years ago, it does not make necessarily make the claims in them fact either, and they can indeed still be opinion. People also can change their minds all the time, so the opinions of these authors may not still be their opinions of today.

The author of the 2009 book even uses the word "seems" and "(at least not until recently)" to indicate they are on the fence a bit and they are talking about the world from a 2009 viewpoint and context. The author of the 2007 book with the encyclopedia also does not say "misandry is not a cultural institution", but rather, feels it does not compare to the "antipathy of misogyny." So it really does feel whoever wrote that part is putting some words in the mouths of the authors, and being biased by listing three authors as being "most"/"many". And I don't see them explicitly saying they felt "misogyny is more severe in its consequences", nor do I see them using language that should make this Wikipedia article use the language "far more" instead of just "more". Nor does it mean this article should be using these three authors' claims in an objective manner as if it were fact. The actual claims of these authors should be separated from each other and detailed individually, with clarification that they are their opinions from over 15 years ago, something I am willing to do.

I also argue that it is in poor taste to even try to include this debate in the opening paragraph. It feels like reading an article about the hatred of Asian people, but then seeing two huge paragraphs about how black people have it worse. And I just learned the 2009 book is actually a reissue of a 2001 book. What makes this opening section skewed is that the first half (beginning with "in the Internet Age") is clearly talking about opinions relating to a world from 2010+, in a world where Twitter/Tumblr/Reddit/4chan made their opinions, and where hashtags such as KillAllMen were created. The second half is listing opinions from 1980s-2007, and then trying act as if people in the past are trying to debate people in the future. It is pitting against old authors against the claims of people living in a different era almost, in a manner that feels disingenuous. ImmersiveOne (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

You're missing the part where MRAs are seen trying to equate misandry with misogyny so that their arguments are seen as valid, which is why we have the comparison disproved prominently as a false equivalence. We didn't just throw that part in randomly.

If you are looking for more recent scholarship about this topic, you can look at "The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" which was published six months ago. The authors find that misandry is a myth used falsely by MRAs to fight against the advances of feminism. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I very well saw that. To me, I think you're missing the part where I don't see why we need to make the opening about feminism/misogyny so soon in the first place, with very biased research and manipulating the claims and opinions of authors, trying to pit people's opinions about society (as it was in the past) to modern society. It feels like it's trivializing the hardships of an entire group of people which I honestly find repulsive, in the same way it would be repulsive to talk about how black people have it worse in the opening section of an article about racism against Asians. This entire article, especially the opening, needs an overhaul to update it to 2024 standards. I'm not against discussing so-called false equivalences, but that deserves its own independent section. And about that last part you just said, misandry is obviously real and is not a "myth". Anyone who thinks misandry isn't real are, put bluntly, idiots. There are people who want all men to die, and view them as rapists/pedos/monsters/buffoons/etc, to the degree a part of society would rather take their chances in a forest with a bear than a man. There are women who openly state they want to abort their child if it is male. Is misandry equivalent to misogyny? That's another can of worms, but it does not need to be discussed in the opening which, as it is now, is obviously trying to trivialize misandry in a way that feels disgusting. It's coming off as: "You know people who oppose misandry? They are 4channers, and also, women have it worse than you. Here's a list of books made from 2007 and before, so shut up. Also you're probably antifeminist. Bye." Embarrassing. ImmersiveOne (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"needs an overhaul to update it to 2024 standards" Based on which sources? Dimadick (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Any relevant ones, honestly. But in such a way that does not make it sound like this article was written by a man-hating misandrist, because it totally feels like it is. I'm not against including sources which question misandry. But sources made before the MeToo movement should be explicitly said they are made in that era. I'm not even going to talk about how the misogyny article straight-up says "Misandry is a minor issue." Like, what. The. Hell. ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The article does not say "misandry is a minor issue". It doesn't say it straight-up, nor on the rocks. What the article feels like to you is not something we can act on by itself. We still need real sources. What relevant sources are you proposing? Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Re-read what I said. I said the misogyny article says it (in the Definitions section), not the misandry article. And I dunno, I'm not a regular Wikipedian. Maybe we can get some various opinions from a variety of different editors on this. Because right now, it feels like Wikipedia is being controlled by people who hate men, resulting in this absolute cringefest of an article. Still, I am willing to renovate the article, finding what I can (I'm not an expert when it comes to formatting sources). All I ask is people give me time and awareness. One thing I propose is we just make a criticism section, and move anything made by those who question/criticize the idea of misandry to it. The same goes for sections trying to associate misandry with anti-feminism and misogyny. Because right now, it feels like whenever points are made that misandry is real, there is a counter-point right after trying to invalidate it, or insinuate people who care about men's rights are just woman haters, as seen in the final sentence of the first paragraph of the Overview section. Yikes. ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

We discourage criticism section, you can read WP:CRITS for the relevant policies on why.

Further, we don’t write articles based on polling editors, we write articles from a neutral point of view based on reliable sourcing.

As multiple editors above have now explained, the article as it stands is written just like that.

If you would like to make changes to the article, you need to first find reliable sources that back those changes. Raladic (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah, I see, my mistake. The entire quote is this: Misandry is a minor issue, not equivalent to the widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny. That article is saying that it is monor compared to misogyny. That matches the mainstream position, which is explained with many sources in this article.

We already have a variety of editors who have worked on this page for many years, including recently. It's not really neutral or fair to go hunting around for editors who already agree with you, is it? If you want to improve the article, start with reliable sources. The one Binksternet links above is an example. Part of looking for sources must also including discarding bad sources, because there are going of be a lot of very bad sources for this. Just for starters, any sources which contradict the mainstream position are going to have WP:FRINGE issues.

Articles rarely have WP:CSECTIONs, and for several good reasons. Our goal as an encyclopedia is to summarize the mainstream position on the topic, and placing criticisms in a separate section would be a form of editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The authors find that misandry is a myth used falsely by MRAs to fight against the advances of feminism. "There is little doubt, of course, that some feminists are misandrists" - literal quote from this source. Reprarina (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

An important quote from additional source: Since both criteria are met by the belief that feminists in general harbour prejudice toward men, we dubbed this belief the misandry myth (Hopkins-Doyle et al., 2024). In so doing, we did not intend to portray the concept of misandry itself as a myth. Defined specifically as prejudice toward men, it clearly exists. [9] Reprarina (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it exists, but it exists in a much, much smaller form than MRAs would have us believe. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

If we can't prove "most"/"many" scholars agree on something, then we shouldn't claim that. Again, I've made my points that the sources already in the article are being used in a manipulative manner, and to me, the article does not feel neutral. It feels like it's trying at every opportunity to invalidate the idea of misandry, deem misogyny as being a more important issue, and associate people who want to raise awareness as being anti-feminist woman-hating 4channers. Isn't that also editorializing?

I question why the misogyny article feels the need to mention misandry is a "minor" issue in the first place in a Definitions section, a section meant to merely explain what misogyny is. If it is kept there, which I believe is unnecessary, the wording should become "An author in 2001 claimed that misandry is a minor issue compared to misogyny."

Still, seems you two are openly saying I can attempt at rewriting the article a bit, so I'll take that as permission that I can go ahead. ImmersiveOne (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles mainly summarize reliable sources. You still have not proposed any reliable sources. The article feels a certain way to you, but it doesn't feel that way to me or (apparently) the other editors involved in this discussion. So instead of going by feelings, go by what reliable sources say.

When a reliable source explains something, we summarize that explanation. We would need a specific reason to cast doubt on reliable sources, and presenting an explanation as an opinion, or emphasizing its age, are forms of editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, a lot of people dislike the Misandry article and think it's biased:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/te6yxd/reminder_wikipedia_has_a_feminist_bias/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1c5m7fg/was_reading_about_misandry_on_wikipedia_and_below/

As a preface, I do not necessarily sub to any of these Subreddits, but it goes to show even people on the left hate this article. I simply put "Wikipedia Misandry Reddit" into Google and these showed up. The thing is, a lot of people who care about men's rights don't care to become editors, or feel silenced if they attempt to neutralize this article.

Anyway, here are some things I believe should be done. For one, I would like to make it explicitly clear what the 2001 and 2007 books say, no twisting their words. I would also suggest deleting the 1989 book as a source. I can't find out what it says online, and as a 35 year old book, it is not relevant in modern discussion of misandry -- it is merely a time capsule of what someone in 1989 thought in a 1989 world.

Another concept I would like to focus on is the rise of misandry over the years, especially in the 2010s. One source is a Time article (written by a woman). As far as I know, we are allowed to mention what journalists from popular magazines such as Time say. ImmersiveOne (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to note about the subreddits, people disliking the content does not immediately mean that there is an issue with it. There could be an entire subreddit dedicated to the hatred of apples but that really means nothing. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not going to change its policies because of MRAs complaining on subreddits. It doesn't matter how much you think this article is a travesty of fairness; your opinion expressed here is counter to Wikipedia's policies. We have summarized the best thinkers on this topic, which is what we are supposed to do. We are not going to hack into the article to make it hew to MRA viewpoints. That would be like flat-earthers complaining at Talk:Flat Earth that the topic isn't friendlier to their position, after which we give in to their wishes, ignore science, and adjust the wording so that they are not as angry. (FYI, such complaints happen regularly without the article being changed at all.) Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

...I literally never asked Wikipedia to change its policies, or said we need to make this article MRA-approved. I was simply showing evidence other people, even leftists, think this article is awful. All I've asked is that we change some of the sources to make sure they are actually stating what they are stating, and ensuring that the older sources are explicitly mentioned to be from the perspective of a past era. And perhaps move some information around, as to not give so much weird focus on how misandry is related to misogyny in the opening section. And who the "best thinkers are on a topic" is completely subjective. Again, all my points remain. And the Flat Earth point is a false equivalence, I am not arguing against science. I am simply making people question these sources, and pointing out the article is saying things they are not, putting words in the authors' mouths. So back on topic, is everyone okay with the Time article, and the removal of the 1989 book because we literally don't know what it says, and none of us seem to have a copy of it? ImmersiveOne (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Even leftists?

I do not see any examples of this article misrepresenting the cited sources here.

Reddit posts are not reliable and the existence of people who dislike this page was never in doubt anyway. Reddit posts don't prove anything that needs proving.

As for the Time source, what are you suggesting we do with this opinion piece from 2014? Per that source "When feminists joke that they are misandrists, they are riffing off the misguided popular notion that they are man-haters. They mean to satirize the women who say they are not feminists because they love men. It’s an inside, inside joke." and later "What feminists really hate is the patriarchy—the web of institutions that systemically oppress women. And to tear it down, we need as many allies as we can get. Telling half the population that we hate them, even in jest, is not the way to do that."[10]

Nothing about this contradicts the current lead of this article. The author of that opinion is saying that "misandry" is being used as a joke, but it's not a joke she finds to be funny most of the time. I don't think this opinion is useful to this article. Grayfell (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

These are the issues I have:

• "denied by most" - no source for "most", only 3 examples (also, trying to make people from 1989-2007 debate modern misandry which is a false equivalence)
• 2001 book only says there does not "seem" to be a modern equivalent for misandry in 2001.
  • "Male-hating among women has no popular name because it has never (at least not until recently) achieved apotheosis as a social fact, that is, it has never been reified into public culturally recognized and approved institutions complete with their own theatrical repertory and constituent mythology and magic."
    • does not mention misogyny is "far more deeply rooted in society and more severe in its consequences."
    • does not mention misandry is "not equivalent in scope to misogyny"
    • could be interpreted that the author is arguing society simply does not recognize misandry as an "approved" societal culturally-approved institutionalized idea, instead of trying to argue it's not a real cultural phenomenon which the Wikipedia article is implying. This is supported by the usage of "social fact".
    • could be seen in the context of an institution that must have "their own theatrical repertory and constituent mythology and magic", whatever this means.

• 2007 book says "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalised and legislated antipathy of misogyny"
  • admittedly, the author feels misandry lacks the weight of misogyny.
  • does not explicitly mention misogyny is "far more" (biased language) "severe in its consequences"

In any case, these old books really should be moved to a section detailing people's thoughts of misandry throughout the years, rather than something that is trying be shoved upon modern day misandry, as a rejection of modern day men's right advocates as the current article is trying to make it seem. 2024 is not 2007.

As for the Time article, the author mentions the word misandry became more entrenched into society around that time, so it could be pointed out that feminists used it, too. Right now, the article tries to make it seem only people in the "manosphere" use the term. ImmersiveOne (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Reading comprehension would help sort out how the "systemic, transhistoric, institutionalised and legislated antipathy of misogyny" might be summarized as something which is "far more severe". The lay reader benefits from scholarly prose reworded into lay prose. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the precise issue I have with how this article is disingenuously and manipulatively written. As you admit, it "might be" summarized that way. Yes, I concur everyday readers benefit from simplicity, but ultimately, the previous editors were exploiting that ambiguity, using it to their full biased advantage with their own interpretations of what these authors meant. I do not want any room for ambiguity for this joke of an article which I would love to have a field day with. Multiple field days. ImmersiveOne (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Your not going to get very far by accusing other editors of being "disingenuous" simply for attempting to summarize reliable sources in plain language.

Resist the temptation to work backwards by viewing sources with the assumption that they support your understanding of the topic. The current article does need some work, but it's mostly a fair summary of a broad range of sources, which is exactly what we want from an article.

Regarding the Time opinion, the article already mentions that "feminists use it, too". The article already has an entire lengthy section called "#In feminism" which includes a photo of exactly the kind of embroidered 'male tears' design the Time article author was talking about. Grayfell (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Binksternet, it feels like you're almost holding the article hostage because you're completely unsatisfied with literally every single change I proposed, even though I feel I made some valid points which you did not always address. And it seems you're unsatisfied with even the most basic things, such as changing "Overview" to "Examples", trying to ensure information is in their more relevant sections, and adding a hyperlink to sexism. I thought my latest version was decent enough. Why do you feel we should act as if opinions from old scholars made between the 1980s and 2007 are relevant in a post-2014 world, and act as if someone in 1989 is trying to argue against the ideas of Redditors which didn't even exist until 2005? And why do you seem to condone redundant information? You can see the article literally says "to counter feminist accusations of misogyny" twice, right? ImmersiveOne (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Why do you feel like you have free rein to change the article along the lines you've been suggesting when everyone here has expressed opposition to your proposals? There is no consensus here for the changes you want.

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is a summary of ideas found in the article body. Some redundancy is expected.

Your recent changes included changing the sentence "This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who counter that misandry is not a cultural institution, nor equivalent in scope to misogyny, which is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences" even though nobody here supported your whitewashed version. Despite knowing full well that your proposed wording did not enjoy any support from the community, you went ahead and changed it anyway; this is classic WP:Tendentious editing.

You also composed new wording "MRAs invoke the idea of misandry in warning against what they see as the advance of a female-dominated society" which is a bald misrepresentation of the source. Your wording is strong in support of MRAs, but the source greatly weakens the MRA stance with the word "conjure", meaning that the MRAs are inventing a problem that doesn't exist. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I said earlier: "Still, seems you two are openly saying I can attempt at rewriting the article a bit, so I'll take that as permission that I can go ahead." And I said I would like to have a field day with it. And some time passed. And Grayfell gave editing advice. So yeah, I interpreted that as permission I was allowed to attempt to start some edits.

"to counter feminist accusations of misogyny" is said in both Background and Overview, not the lead. So yeah, it's redundant.

I changed that sentence in the lead because it is using weasel words, exaggeration, and putting forth subjective opinions of people as fact. No matter how you try to frame it, the idea that misogyny has worse consequences than misandry will always be a subjective opinion, especially in our world where men take the brunt of war deaths, homelessness, workplace fatalities, forced cosmetic surgery as infants, homicides and suicides. It didn't seem there was that much opposition to my ideas as you feel there was.

I did not compose the claim "MRAs invoke the idea of misandry in warning against what they see as the advance of a female-dominated society", I merely moved it from Overview to the lead. So it's funny that you claim it's misrepresenting the source, because you're actually criticizing the article as it originally was before I ever edited it. Why don't you change the wording right now if you feel it's inaccurate? ImmersiveOne (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I absolutely was not giving you encouragement to whitewash the article. I was trying to explain the issues with your approach. I do not have the ability to give you permission any more than any other editor. The way to get 'permission' would be to change consensus. Calling other editors liars by saying they are being "disingenuous" is the wrong way to do that. Multiple editors have tried to explain why the article is the way it is, but it appears you're basically ignoring what we're saying. Attributing every injustice faced by men and boys to misandry is counterproductive and unsupportable. Sources are saying that misandry is not exactly the same as misogyny for a lot of reasons. They are not saying that men don't face serious issues or that "war deaths, homelessness, workplace fatalities" etc should be ignored or trivialized. That is just an MRA talking point. Grayfell (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The current wording on the article is disingenuous. It not need be a personal attack against the authors, but the poor quality of the article, especially that section, is a hill I'm willing to die on, and even take it up with dispute resolution. It is biased, putting forth an opinion as fact, and using a 1989 source none of us can access right now. Saying "misogyny [...] is more severe in its consequences" (which I did not even see the authors explicitly say), as if it is a cold hard fact, is straight-up unprofessional. The same goes for that horrid "misandry is a minor issue" on the other article. At the very least, it should be modified to "Some scholars claim misogyny is more severe in its consequences". It is the same logic why wikis would use the phrase "Lisa argues that apples are tastier than oranges" instead of "apples are tastier than oranges" as if it were a fact. ImmersiveOne (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we get it. Calling the article biased over and over is not persuasive. "Disingenuous" is not an objective fact, ironically. The article summarizes multiple sources. Weaselishly undermining these summaries as claims would worsen the article for multiple reasons. As for the age of sources, the only halfway usable source you have presented was both old and also did not support the changes you have been trying to make. If you have newer sources, present them here for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

You say you get it, but you also claim turning that part from a statement to a claim is "worse", and it seems you're trying to hold onto the idea that this article is "accurately" summarizing its sources, one of which we don't have access to. Like, what am I going to do with that? I need to know exactly what you and Binksternet are willing to compromise with -- if you two are willing at all. I was just curious who's been editing this article, and it turns out Binksternet has basically been patrolling this article since 2011, undoing tons of revisions by others. I don't care to analyze his work, but sheesh, that's a lot of dedication.

I'm not going to bother editing until you two are blatant on exactly where you're willing to yield. Should I make a sandbox, and edit it there? Or should I start a dispute resolution? Because I would rather do neither, but I feel like I have no choice. I still believe the last version I edited is superior, though. I'm not going to add any more sources or information until we take care of what is already on the article with what it has now. This "MiSoGyNY iS mOrE sEveRe iN iTs CoNsEqUeNcEs" and "MiSaNdRy iS a MiNoR IsSuE" trash needs to go, though. -_-;; ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It's clear that you don't have the slightest interest in learning about misogyny, or you would already know that misandry stands as a thousand times less severe in its consequences. Women have been killed, beaten, enslaved, maimed, subjugated and more for thousands of years because of misogyny. Less successful men have only recently been complaining about their position in society—a position that was claimed by men in the first place. Men chose to go to war without bringing the women into battle. Men chose to work dangerous jobs. Men chose to cut off the foreskins of male babies as a sign of religious faith. The fact that men frequently lose out to women in divorce disputes about who gets primary parenthood is because of the paternalistic setup of families in the first place, with men assigning women the role of hands-on parent. Topic scholars discuss these facts, and we summarize these facts for the reader. Your wish to change this article into something MRAs would be happy about is not going to happen. MRAs are never going to be happy anyway. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems you're not even willing to pragmatically discuss the article anymore, you're just at the point of "it's not going to happen" now. And now you're just throwing subjective anecdotes at me, like misogyny is "1000 times worse". Guess what? Men have also been killed, beaten, enslaved for years, basically forced into wars. They were, at the end of the day, still the ones being sacrificed. I would argue actually suffering the horrific consequences (death, disease, PTSD, trench foot, drowning in the Titanic, etc) is worse than (supposedly) not having the freedom to make that choice. It's sad you trivialize that sacrifice as a "choice", because if no one fought in World War 2, for example, who knows what terrifying Nazi alternate reality we would be living in. And you're basically ignoring the idea of forced conscription. I watched a video of a Ukraine man trying to run from police officers trying to force him into conscription. Guess he's drowning in his male privilege, huh?

I'll humor you, though, let's say you're right about the past. Well, guess what? It's 2024, and we are to write this article in the lens of 2024. If you want to act like Henry living in a homeless tent on the streets of Detroit is less oppressed than Jessica being a Twitch/Instagram/Onlyfans e-girl with tons of simps donating her money, you're free to think that. It hasn't been the 1930s for a loooong time, just saying.

(Personal attack removed) In any case, I need a break, these past 2 days have been agonizing. But since you're so headstrong about this article, I'm going to be taking this up with Wikipedia dispute resolution later. ImmersiveOne (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum for debating whether men or women have it worse in society. Reliable sources do not have to be recent or freely accessible. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I was just replying to Binksternet since he brought it up. Whether or not misandry/misogyny has more severe consequences/is more deeply rooted in 2024 society is a topic of its town. At the end of the day, the article is using the personal viewpoints/opinions of 3 authors between the 1980s-2007 and treating them as fact, as if their word is gold, and as if they're the arbiters of truth. Society has changed a lot since 2007. It should be changed to "these authors in the past felt this way about misogyny", instead of trying to push their dated 17+ year old opinions onto a modern viewpoint of the world, and a modern view of misogyny/misandry. I do not believe misandry is a "minor issue" in 2024 as the misogyny article insinuates (which uses a single source: the author of a book published in 2001). It's time we add more historical context. People can undermine my edits as "whitewashing", but in my eyes, I was undoing this blatant editorializing. You can see the same thing on the "sexism" article when it says "Sexism can affect anyone, but primarily affects women and girls" and then uses sources between 1999-2010. Whether or not sexism affects men/women more in 2024 society is another debate. And I do not care to use Binksternet's suggestion (the 2023 study which ridiculously calls misandry a "myth") as a source. There's enough proof misandry is real, as seen in Shoe0nHead's two “Men Deserve To Be Lonely!” videos showing the massive amount of misandry out there in which people call men "subhuman". ImmersiveOne (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The 2023 study by Hopkins-Doyle et al. does not say misandry itself is a myth, only the idea that feminists harbor negative attitudes towards men. Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources such as those cited in the article, not users' personal beliefs or experiences. To show that the sources are dated would require more recent sources of comparable reliability presenting a different view. A self-published commentary video on YouTube is reliable as a source for the creators' opinions only; basing article contents on those opinions would give them undue weight. Whether the phrase most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies is supported by the current sources or whether those views need to be attributed to specific authors are separate issues. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Just because an article is using "reliable sources", it does not mean it's immune from being biased or trying to push an agenda/narrative, especially by modifying their feelings into facts, as is the case here. And I obviously wasn't suggesting we use a YouTube video as a source, just making a point misandry is real. I would like to put the "NPOV language" template on the top of the article for now. ImmersiveOne (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

To my knowledge the article does not say that misandry is not real, only that it is less pervasive than MRAs claim it to be. So far no one has shown that sources are being misrepresented in the article, or that better sources exist. Failing either of those things, I do not think a cleanup template is warranted at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

...I did not say that article was saying that, I was just tying up a loose end from my conversation with Binksternet. And as I said, I didn't see those books use the exaggerated language "far more" or say that misogyny is "more severe in its consequences." Anyway, I think Template:NPOV language is warranted here, so I want to do that later. The point of it is just to mention there's a dispute going on, thus it would be serving its purpose. You can live with it. ImmersiveOne (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

If you have an idea for making the lead section more neutral (not just removing the text you don't like), go ahead and suggest a different wording. The point of cleanup tags is to draw attention to ongoing efforts to improve the article, not for warning readers about any dispute going on. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Fine, here is a version which I believe is far superior, using the original as a basis:

It's not perfect, and I do not have sources yet of course. But I think it would be a decent start, and is far better than the "misogyny is more widespread, has worse consequences, now accept that fact" version. ImmersiveOne (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

There are reliability problems here. Where is the scientific research from the men's rights movement that shows that they believed there was relatively little misandry before 2017 and a lot more after 2017? Reprarina (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

That’s not how Wikipedia works. We don’t first form an opinion and write something and then try to find and WP:CHERRYPICK sources for that.

Instead we work from the sources first and summarize what the reliable sources say as the body of the article.

Then this forms the basis for the WP:LEAD which summarizes what the article discusses from the reliable sources.

The article as it is written is based on the WP:CONSENSUS of many editors based on those reliable sources.

You still have not come up with any sources other than referring to Reddit in this entire talk page discussion. Raladic (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

...I literally never attempted to use Reddit as a source, I only linked it earlier to show people on Reddit dislike this article. Anyway, I'm just giving a hypothetical lead of what I think a more neutral version in an ideal world would resemble.... because I was just asked to give an idea of one. And it feels you've almost put me in a Catch-22. My ultimate goal is to make the article more neutral, so in order to do that, I need to find sources. But if I try to find sources in order to do that, I'll get accused of cherry picking. So am I not allowed to find sources on topics like body shaming, statistics, etc, now, or what? Where do you suggest I look for reliable sources on the topic of misandry? ImmersiveOne (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably the most reliable sources about real misandry there are in Black Male Studies - Tommy J. Curry, T. Hasan Johnson, Nathaniel Bryan. The existence of racialized misandry is also recognized in International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities, so it's not a fringe discipline. I understand that you would like to see sources about hatred of all men, but I assure you that these sources are also good enough to prevent radical misandry deniers from looking so authoritative. Reprarina (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment, but buying 50 dollar textbooks and getting them shipped to me is just out of the question. How about online easily accessible and readable context? Also, is anyone going to throw a hissyfit if I merely change that one biased part of the article to this?

"This viewpoint is denied by various sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who believe that misandry is not a cultural institution equivalent in scope to misogyny."

This is where most of my frustration lies, and I think this is a better version. It no longer presents their 17+ year old beliefs as the ultimate facts. The "which is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences" part is the worst section of the article in my opinion. ImmersiveOne (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

"Throw a hissyfit"... Really? If you preemptively belittle anyone who objects to your proposed changed, despite the many, many paragraphs people have written explaining in tedious detail the problems with your proposals, it makes it it appear that you're not even reading what we are saying. Or maybe you know what the answer is going to be. Like, is this just a big troll? Is this all so you can go back to those subreddits you don't "necessarily sub" to with evidence of how "biased" Wikipedia editors are? If you refuse to take this seriously, why should we take what you are saying seriously? Have some self respect.

Anyway, sources do not have to be online or convenient to be reliable, and exclusively relying on convenient sources is a bad thing (see FUTON bias). Likewise, you do not get to set the cutoff date for how old is too old for sources. To put it another way, sources do not have to be new enough to satisfy you, personally, in order to be reliable. Further, the lead is intended to be a summary of the topic, and undermining the lead in order to cast doubt on the mainstream in the way you are proposing would be a WP:FRINGE violation. Grayfell (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've formatted the above text to make the changes easier to see. I don't anticipate the new version gaining consensus, especially without support from published, reliable sources. Grayfell and Raladic are correct; instead of working backward from an existing opinion, we first find the most reliable sources on a topic and then summarize them for the reader. That's what I meant when I asked for a suggested re-wording.

The lead section exists to summarize the article (and its sources) as a whole, not to introduce new content. Just at a glance, I can tell that the proposed version is heavily biased in favor of men's rights movement talking points. That is not neutral at all.

Per WP:RS, the most reliable sources are usually academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks. Sources being obscure or difficult to access is not our problem. You can ask WP:HELPDESK for general research advice and WP:RX for access to specific sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That would have been 100% better to read than the (how it sounded to me) feminist version that I did read. I think you are doing an awesome job with the back and forth, and are wording everything in a more sophisticated way than I would be able to. I really appreciate reading my thoughts, but in your words.

I think that is the big problem with wiki is that the definition of things can be skewed, changed, and forged to embrace a certain viewpoint. When someone looks this up, they shouldn't be hit with "Extremists believe that feminists hate men, but really, men hate women much more and you shouldn't worry about such things" 2603:6081:106:9507:2C95:7BF4:77C2:204A (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Grayfell, I never said sources have to be online or convenient to be reliable... I literally just said it would be better if I had more accessible online sources, so I could at least verify what they're trying to say. I don't have a copy of a 1989 book lugging around in my house to verify if its words are being twisted. Still, masquerading peoples' beliefs about society in their dated books as cold hard indisputable facts like "misogyny is far more deeply rooted in society, misogyny is more severe in its consequences, misandry is a minor issue, etc" is simply wrong. What the article has now is WP: ORIGINAL RESEARCH since I didn't see the sources actually say those two latter things, and even if they did, it does not mean we should list their beliefs in an objective manner. So, Grayfell, do you object to the wording proposal I mentioned in my previous comment (not the large rewrite, but the smaller part which I said frustrates me)? Because if you do, I'm going to have to take this to dispute resolution. I'm so exhausted by this conversation, that if you're willing to compromise with that, I'll just accept that as good enough and move on with my life. ImmersiveOne (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of a 1989 book lugging around in my house – well there's your problem. Until you can actually demonstrate that the sources say something different from how they are summarized in the article, this dispute is pointless. No one is obligated to refute your objections if you're not willing to put in a little effort to verify the sources yourself. Have you heard of public libraries? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

No need for that last question. Yes, I've heard of public libraries. You could've phrased that like "you could try going to your local library." Anyway, I think this is a copy of the 1989 book online. And I think everything in ― 7 ― (beginning with "Pisan, for instance") means it's from page seven. And I see literally nothing supporting the claims made on the article, so yeah, it seems it's more original research presented as fact.

Per WP:ASSERT, we are not allowed to assert opinions as fact, and an opinion there is considered ("a matter which is subject to serious dispute"), so we must list the language in the context of [This author] claims [this]. Whether "most" scholars agree on a topic, whether or not misandry is a cultural institution, whether or not misandry is equivalent in scope to misogyny, whether or not misogyny is "far more" deeply rooted in society than misandry, and whether or not misogyny has more severe consequences than misandry, are all highly debated topics. Opinions. Subjective. It should be case closed right here based on Wikipedia's own policies. No matter how much people like Binksternet (who proclaims misogyny is 1000 times worse than misandry) may prefer to think otherwise that it is not up for questioning, it is. ImmersiveOne (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with getting rid of the phrase most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies. Apart from that, there is no serious dispute among actual published experts on the topic. See Ouellette (2007) p. 442: Despite contrary claims, misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalised and legislated antipathy of misogyny. No comparable sources have been put forward rebutting this statement. Equating the works of serious scholars with what unnamed MRAs believe is the epitome of WP:FALSEBALANCE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH and WP:ASSERT, this should still be modified to this:

(before) This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who counter that misandry is not a cultural institution, nor equivalent in scope to misogyny, which is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences.[5][3][6]

(after) Various sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies state that misandry is not as culturally legislated in society as misogyny is.[5][3]

Also, the 1989 source must go because it's irrelevant here, as it's just someone musing over questions such as "Is misogyny a matter of the portrayal of women or a more specific discourse? If a question of how women are portrayed, does one such portrayal suffice?" Any objections? If not, I'm going to move forward with this change in a couple days. ImmersiveOne (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The proposed wording is weasel wording in support of the fringe perspective which ignores the article's many sources. This has already been explained. This is a "highly debated topic" in the same way evolution is highly debated. It is contrary to our goal as an encyclopedia to simplistic reduce this to two equivalent sides.

I still do not see any valid reason to remove the 1989 source. Calling it irrelevant while ignoring the context is unpersuasive. The source supports the underlying claim perfectly well, and we should not insult the reader's intelligence by demanding such a simplistic and hyper-literal interpretations of a complicated and useful academic source. Grayfell (talk) 05:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure what culturally legislated is supposed to mean, but there's no reason to water down the main point that misandry is not equivalent in scope to misogyny. The most obvious original research is in the phrase most sociologists etc. I propose this change instead:

−

In the Internet Age, users posting on manosphere internet forums such as 4chan and subreddits addressing men's rights activism have claimed that misandry is widespread, established in preferential treatment of women, and shown by discrimination against men. This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who counter that misandry is not a cultural institution, nor equivalent in scope to misogyny, which is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences.

+

In the Internet Age, users posting on manosphere internet forums such as 4chan and subreddits addressing men's rights activism have claimed that misandry is widespread, established in preferential treatment of women, and shown by discrimination against men. However, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support in any society comparable to misogyny.

Besides the Ouellette (2007) quote given above, the relevant quotation from Gilmore (2001) is found on pages 12–13: 'Is there a clear-cut female equivalent to misogyny?' [...] The answer seems to be a resounding no. Male-hating among women has no popular name because it has never (at least not until recently) achieved apotheosis as a social fact, that is, it has never been reified into public culturally recognized and approved institutions [...] There are virtually no existing examples of culturally constituted antimale complexes in traditional cultures [...] As a cultural institution, misogyny therefore seems to stand alone as a gender-based phobia, unreciprocated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

About my proposal, Wikipedia's policy is that the text must be backed up by the sources. As in, the sources linked right beside it, not the compiled sources of the whole article. For example, it does not matter if a single sentence, made using source 1, ignores a mainstream perspective put forth by sources 2 to 100. That sentence must only be made in the perspective and context of source 1, if source 1 is the only source linked. In our conversation, source 1 basically boils down to "misandry is not recognized as a cultural institution like misogyny is". Source 2 boils down to "misandry lacks the systemic weight of misogyny". Source 3 boils down to... someone musing over misogyny randomly.

I read all three sources. I do not see why the 1989 needs to remain, because all it basically does, I argue, is mention misogyny exists. The first two sources already cover that. If it remains, Grayfell, you would have to make a more compelling argument as to why it should be kept and how it supports the underlying claim "perfectly well". To me, it is just an author asking rhetorical questions, and does not support Sangdeboeuf's revision below which I rather like. It has nothing to do with comparing misogyny to misandry (which is the point of the Wikipedia statement). I fail to see how someone musing over questions like "Is it still misogyny if men are also so depicted? Is it misandry?" supports that misandry is not as entrenched as misogyny.

I think Sangdeboeuf's revision is a step in the right direction and I'm willing to go with it. However, that "in any society" feels like more original research and should be deleted, my prime reason is that the original text did not say that. Additionally, who are we to speak on the behalf of 195 countries? And all societies throughout time? The authors of those books primarily made them from a Western perspective.

(before) However, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support in any society comparable to misogyny.

(after) Misandry lacks institutional and systemic support comparable to misogyny.

Everyone satisfied with this revision? I guess I have to. Also, I believe this (after) revision should be a start of a new paragraph. Again, as I said before, these old authors are not debating MRAs on online forums beyond their time. It seems we're finally getting somewhere, at least.

Ideally, I would prefer this:

(after) Certain scholars claim misandry lacks institutional and systemic support comparable to misogyny.

I doubt a consensus at this point in time, (Personal attack removed) would agree to it. ImmersiveOne (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I meant "I doubt going with this consensus (as in the above wording proposal)". I made an error while typing out my text and it made it seem way worse than I meant, whoops. I never meant to say other people are so headstrong, we can't come to a consensus. It's why if you read my original text, it doesn't make sense if you read it out loud grammatically. ImmersiveOne (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It's clear you are pushing your viewpoint by misinterpreting cited authors, and ignoring unused-but-available sources such as 2023's "The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men". A scholarly consensus exists on this topic, but you cannot admit it. That's why I don't engage your tendentious arguments here. They are founded on falsehood. Binksternet (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I accidentally made a typo, which made me say something I didn't mean, which I just clarified above. ImmersiveOne (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Original research is original research. I ultimately propose this:

Misandry lacks institutional and systemic support equivalent to misogyny.

I think it makes sense, since the sources did not necessarily say we can't compare it, only that misandry/misogyny are not equal. Thoughts? ImmersiveOne (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Misandry as you know it is a myth: See the 2023 comprehensive study which says "We term the focal stereotype the misandry myth in light of the evidence that it is false and widespread..." Which means we are not going to whitewash the comparison between misandry and misogyny to give more credence to misandry. It's not gonna happen. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Original research is original research. You call what I'm doing whitewashing, but I call what you're doing exaggeration. We should not put words in the mouths of the authors, in this case, the people who wrote the 2001 and 2007 books. The text cited did not use phrases like "most" (which Sangdeboeuf acknowledges), it did not say misandry "is not a cultural institition" (the comparison to misogyny must be factored in both books), and it did not explicitly say one has more consequences. Nor are they time-traveling into the future to debate 4channers, and whatever their claims are, to say "misandry is not widespread". As a result, we must use alternate phrasing. You can say "it's not gonna happen" over and over again, but to me, it's coming off as WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. ImmersiveOne (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The phrase in any society is supported by Gilmore on p. 12: There are virtually no existing examples of culturally constituted antimale complexes in traditional cultures. The context for these statements is an inquiry into misogyny as it occurs and has occurred in cultures around the world (p. 8). So we can infer that when Gilmore says Male-hating among women [...] has never been reified into public culturally recognized and approved institutions (i.e. "cultural institution[s]"), he does not just mean in the West.

Ouellette on p. 442 mentions MRAs in the very next sentence after the one I quoted: Nevertheless, the notion is gaining in currency among 'masculists' and 'men's rights' groups seeking to redress supposedly discriminatory divorce, domestic violence, and rape shield laws. 4chan was started in 2003 and this source was published in 2007; no time travel is needed. Nonetheless, we can easily change the sentence order to put misandry lacks institutional and systemic support in the same paragraph as Men's rights activists (MRAs) and other masculinist groups etc. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"so we can infer"

This is my issue with it, it's inferencing. Jumping to a conclusion. Original research, in a way. And it's a very bold claim to say "in any society" when we're dealing with the entire world. In addition, the book was clearly written in 2001. We're talking about 190+ countries as they were in the year 2001, and 195 countries in the year 2024. It is far, far too dated to even consider bothering, and I feel people in the future would pick it apart and scrutinize it, like we're already doing now.

4chan definitely became more alt-right and masculist around 2015+, especially with the rise of the Trump/Qanon era, so it's a false equivalence here. It's a site that mainly focused on anime and Japanese culture in 2007, then increasingly became more political, so I'd say it's irrelevant. And just in case anyone is curious, I do not come from 4chan, I have many issues with that community. Just because I care about issues relating to men, it does not mean I'm one of them. It's why I dislike the article seemingly trying to associate MRAs with 4channers, especially when the article begins. There's some crossover, sure, but mutual exclusivity and all.

Anyway, I made an insensitive comment for using the word "evil", and I left an apology for it in case you didn't see it. But remember, you're not infallible to making a bit of rudeness to me, like when you asked me if I knew what a "public library" was. With the hyperlink as if I've never heard of what a library is in my entire life. That was patronizing and I would appreciate an apology for that. And I appreciate you're actually trying to work with me here. Please assume more good faith from me. I want a better world for both men and women. You can edit the article first if you want and I can analyze your changes. ImmersiveOne (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

How very generous of you. As for making inferences, some assumptions are inevitable. All I am doing here is summarizing exactly what the sources say. However, I'm fine with changing in any society to in virtually all societies to better reflect the source by Gilmore (2001). The best sources available on the topic happen to be mostly from the 2000s–2010s. I see no reason to second-guess these sources unless more recent, better sources turn up to contradict them. People will pick apart and scrutinize anything they don't like. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I would really like to draw your attention to the fact that the article is about hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men or boys. And Gilmore's definition of misandry is not simply hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men or boys. And Gilmore's definition of misogyny isn't just hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Few people use his definitions. Without specifying what he means by misogyny and misandry, citing his work may be misunderstood as if he were saying “nobody hates men.” Reprarina (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, the source "The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" does not say that misandry is a myth. The term "misandry myth" is used in the article specifically to refer to the belief that feminists in general are misandrists. The source does not claim that misandrists do not exist. You continue to ignore the phrase "some feminists are misandrists" in the source. Reprarina (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

So... I guess I'm not going to get an apology for that public library comment...? Oh well.

And I politely completely disagree with you that you're accurately summarizing it. You just said you were making an inference. And I find the whole claim way too damn broad. How about "In many/most societies" instead? I don't care if you go with many or most, but I find "all" completely unacceptable.

In many societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support equivalent to misogyny.

In most societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support equivalent to misogyny.

Can we please just go with one and call it a day? We've been at this for four days. ImmersiveOne (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, in this entire discussion, which has now spun multiple days, you have still not produced any reliable source that backs the edit you would like to make.

We cannot make changes just because someone doesn't like what the reliable sources say - you need to actually provide reliable sources that support the changes you are proposing. Without it, any of your suggestions are just personal opinion. Raladic (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

My goal now is to neutralize the part which says "This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who counter that misandry is not a cultural institution, nor equivalent in scope to misogyny, which is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences." I don't need a RS just for that, because as I've been saying, the RS already present are saying things they are not, as a form of original research. Especially the 1989 book as a source which has basically nothing to do with the actual claims made in the text. Sangdeboeuf and I are working together on that now. ImmersiveOne (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I thought of another possibility for you to consider:

In cultures around the world, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support equivalent to misogyny.

That's pretty much lifted from the text. ImmersiveOne (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You are not removing the sentence in question, which is a perfectly useful summary of the scholarly literature: "This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who counter that misandry is not a cultural institution, nor equivalent in scope to misogyny, which is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences." The MRA viewpoint is entirely wrong and misguided, so much so that in 2023 a group of authors called it the "misandry myth". We are definitely not twisting this article up to make it friendlier to the MRA viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Bink, I examined all three sources. You need to find reliable sources which actually says all these things, or else it is original research:

(*) Most sociologists/anthropologists/scholars of gender studies: (yes, you will need to find a source which explicitly says "most", otherwise it is weasel words)

(*) Most of [the group of people above] claim misandry is not widespread

(*) Misandry is not a cultural institution

(*) Misogyny is "far more" deeply rooted in society (yes, you will need to find a RS which explicitly uses an extreme that can be summarized as "far more" or we will have to change it to simply "more"

(*) Misogyny is more severe in its consequences

If you're going to claim "it's a perfectly useful summary of the scholarly literature", you're going to need to be the one to find RS in order to prove that. Yes, you. But as far as I could tell, the three sources I combed through did not say those above phrases or give the information required to proclaim them. At least not in the linked pages this article is referencing. I also argue source 3, the 1989 book, has absolutely nothing to do with backing up the above claims made.

At most, the first two sources say something like: "In cultures around the world, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support equivalent to misogyny." This is what me and Sangdeboeuf have found out, after actually analyzing and boiling down the material to what the references actually say. I'll even throw you a bone, and admit you can put "Misogyny is more rooted in society". But you are not allowed to use the points made without an RS. That's how Wikipedia works. I don't need to find RS to disprove you. The onus is on you to find RS which supports the points.

And even then, I argue all these books are outdated as they are talking about the world from 17 years ago. The paragraph on the article now is acting like people from 2001 and 2007 are debating the viewpoints of modern misandry, which is misleading. In the past 10 years, misandry has intensified enormously.

Your one study is not enough proof, and your study isn't even really relevant to this conversation. Your study is merely saying "feminists don't harbor that much misandry compared to non-feminists and men". That's not the point of the above conversation, nor does it prove the points you need to prove made in asterixes (*). We aren't talking about feminist stereotypes here. You either face this and do your research, or I take this up with dispute resolution for original research, and I'll give them an entire summary of this. ImmersiveOne (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It appears you didn't actually read the study. Not only is it not "not relevant" to this conversation. It very much is and is of high quality as it is a meta-analysis and in it's concluding remarks, notes that the spread of Misandry as a widespread phenomenon is basically a myth: The present findings reveal that feminists’ attitudes toward men are broadly positive and broadly similar to other people's attitudes toward men.....In so doing, the present findings disconfirm a trope that deters women from feminism, and which is widely used to delegitimize it. This trope, which we have called the misandry myth, is deserving of the name insofar as a myth is defined as a false but widespread belief.

It appears no matter how we try to explain it, you repeatedly ignore it and keep push your opinion as you just did here In the past 10 years, misandry has intensified enormously. - again without any sources.

I recommend to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Raladic (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, it does not support the above claims in (*). It's talking about misandry in the context of feminist stereotypes and how feminists feel about misandry. Even if feminists don't harbor more hate of men compared to men and non-feminists (which is merely what the study is about), it does not prove... literally every (*) point. The women-are-wonderful effect proves most people have a bias against men. ImmersiveOne (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The source is in a specific context, and uses that context to explain the myth. This is pretty common. If you only read a source for ways it can support your prior assumptions you're going to have a bad time.

If you have a reliable source which explains how the women-are-wonderful effect (which is a form of benevolent sexism towards women) is an example of misandry, please propose it. Grayfell (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the myth that feminists dislike men more than non-feminists. It's not saying misandry is an actual myth. Even if it is twisted that way, it's only one study. Misandry is defined as prejudice against boys/men, and findings showing people inherently like women more (and men less) can be considered prejudice. It's just common sense. Maybe another time I can find sources, but I don't want to get sidetracked. Bink is the one who needs to go RS hunting to support the (*) claims, not me. ImmersiveOne (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That is precisely what it is saying, that the phenomenon of widespread misandry is a myth. It explained this in the context of feminism since that is the context that is most commonly accused of harboring the views that the misandry stereotype as a term claims to have and has found that these views are actually not based in science. This meta-analysis looked at 6 underlying studies and was co-authored by over 40 scientist.

So, this study adds further to strengthen the wording of the lead that misandry is not actually widespread and maybe goes even further by calling the belief a myth. I have added the study to the article. Raladic (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That is precisely what it is saying, that the phenomenon of widespread misandry is a myth. The myth is that feminists are more misandrous than non-feminists and the source focuses on it. Actually... in the source there is a glimpse of the idea that if you classify average men as man-haters, then it turns out that there is not so little misandry: We found that feminist women's attitudes toward men were no more negative than men's. Thus, the label “man-hater” is at least as accurate if attached to men themselves. Reprarina (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The common claim is that misandry is a widespread phenomenon and more specifically that it is inherent to feminism. We even discuss this in the opening sentence on the Misandry#In feminism section - Opponents of feminism often argue that feminism is misandristic…. This meta analysis has found that to be patently false and has basically found that it is no different to the rest of the population.

Since that is a cornerstone claim of MRA’s on misandry itself, it aids to refute the claim of widespread misandry. Raladic (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it won't work that way. “Misandry is inherent in feminism” and “Misandry is a widespread phenomenon” are two different statements, one does not follow from the other, and refuting one does not refute the other. Reprarina (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You have repeatedly brought up the women-are-wonderful effect. It is not currently in the article. If you want to introduce it to the article, you will need to find a reliable source which explains how it relates to misandry. The burden is on you to change consensus, and that starts with reliable sources. Your understanding of the article's current sources is at odds with the existing consensus. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, no. I don't need to do anything else currently. My take is that Bink, who has already been blocked 11 times in the past on Wikipedia, is engaging in original research via the lead. Bink either agrees to go RS hunting, attempts to explain how sources 1/2/3 support the (*) points in asterixes, or I take it up with dispute resolution due to him engaging in original research, due to statements and conclusions being made that are not explicitly said in sources 1 (2001 book), 2 (2007 book) and 3 (1989 book). We don't go around throwing heated claims like "misogyny has worse consequences in society than misandry" without it being flat out said in published material. His one study isn't enough to maintain the lingo of the lead. ImmersiveOne (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Here you continue your refusal to comprehend how multiple sources can be summarized in language that is clear and focused and strong, without quoting directly from any source. We don't have to stick with quotes in order to arrive at a comprehensive summary of the best sources. See Wikipedia:Summary style for more information. Binksternet (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeeeah, no. Nice try. To me, you're just using this "summarizing in better language" as a cover for yourself, as an excuse to exaggerate and insert things not originally said in the sources. Taking this to dispute resolution. Take care everyone. ImmersiveOne (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead section does not have to have every single article cited individually, as it otherwise would typically have to have ever single source that is discussed in the article there. It is a summary of the entire articles content, which has 59 sources. The policy at WP:LEADCITE explains this further. It recommends that sometimes inline sources can be useful, but on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus, they are not required if the current consensus of editors is that the lead accurately summarizes the article content, such as is the case here as you've had multiple editors explain that the lead content is accurate by the current consensus of all sources of the article. Raladic (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Following the discussion at WP:OR/N, which seems to have settled on the statement In virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support equivalent to misogyny, I've added similar wording to the lead paragraph (replacing "equivalent" with "comparable" as in my earlier proposal) and removed the part about most sociologists etc. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentence could be shifted from the opening paragraph to the second or third as it doesn't describe the topic of the article, hence reads very strangely. Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

>For example, radical feminist Andrea Dworkin criticized the biological determinist

It is cherry-picking to mention only this, while Dworking was actually renowned for her misandrism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin#Criticism

Londondare (talk) Londondare (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

A Wikilink is not a reliable source, but in any case the page you linked to doesn't actually say anything like [Dworkin] was actually renowned for her [misandry]. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)