- Third try. 2 of the 4 sources on top of this page clearly shed doubt on the misogyny part. The other 2 are offline books. So why put that opinion in an encyclopedia portrayed as truth? Even the sources mentioned are 50/50 at best. Frankbel (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- The article contains more than 4 sources, so it is unclear what you're talking about. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with citing 'offline books'. MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- The 4 mentioned on top of this page linked to mysogyny. I can only read the online sources at this moment, and as said, both of them shed doubt on the mysoginistic part. So unless the 2 offline sources have really hard evidence MGTOW is not just anti last-wave feminism, but is also mysoginistic, I feel the latter should be scrapped. Or at least heavely nuanced. Frankbel (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- The 4 underneath, from Johanssen Jacob on, are hardly credible sources. Just opinions by a few that want to make $ on a trend. Authority bias Frankbel (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- Those are sources someone has added for possible expansion of the article, they are not the ones that currently support the article. You need to look at what is actually cited in the article. And at any rate, Wikipedia follows what the cited reliable sources say. Just labeling them 'opinions' will not lead to a change in the article. MrOllie (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- If they aren't credible sources, then they don't
shed doubt on anything. Besides what MrOllie said about these not being the actual sources cited in the article, this complaint seems to be based on only two of the four proposed references in the {{Refideas}} template having the word misogyny in their titles. Just...no. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
- True. They don't shed doubt. They only make the position of "MGTOW is Misogynistic" an even bigger farce. The 'en' version is the 'only' Wiki that made that claim.
- After reading the sources I'm about to start a new 'Talk' subcategory below. MGTOW is more than focussing on women or feminism. Doesn't matter what a small minority on Reddit or 4Chan make it look to be. There is even a link made to terrorism? Sure it wasn't Heavy Metal in reverse or GTA that pushed him? Frankbel (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no reason to start a second thread on the same topic. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- Normally not. But the title will/would be 'Split it up'. Maybe MGTOW is (seen as) mysoginistic in the US, but I know it isn't in most of Europe. For instance here in Belgium many MGTOW'ers have different reasons than in the US. Main reason will be more scepticism towards the EU. Since we don't have to pay 50% after divorce on everything (even witout a 'contract').
- Recent research in The Netherlands showed 50% of people between 18 and 30 want to move abroad. Main reason is high housing cost. Then why would you date? Frankbel (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- If reliable sources were say something like 'In the US it is a misogynist movement but in Belgium it isn't', we would of course cover it, but I am aware of no such sourcing.
- WP:OR about people wanting to move abroad is of course completely off topic here. MrOllie (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- It's not off-topic. Because MGTOW is and was more than 'not dating, getting married or having children'. 60% of Reddit posts were about that, but even the sources mention it was "a small minority of vocal men coping with loosing everything". So the so called reliable sources never took the efford to look further than 1 or 2 dubious websites. Frankbel (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- This talk page is for discussing specific, actionable changes to the article based on reliable sourcing. It is not a place for discussing the topic in general or a place to relate your perception of reddit posts to other statistics. See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOR, as well as the notices at the top of this page. This area is under contentious topics procedures, so keep the talk page on topic. MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- I was reading this earlier and wanted to reiterate about WP:NOTFORUM. (Dawg walking got in the way).
- @Frankbel, this is also original research, see WP:NOR. You need to provide reliable references for what you want to improve in the article.
- As for the Europe, British press have covered the manosphere in general and MGTOW extensively over the years. , (Poland), , TV show and so on. Knitsey (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- Also, this might be of interest. Knitsey (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- While British media like The Guardian, GQ, and BBC have published critical takes on MGTOW, these are editorial or feature pieces, not neutral or academic analyses. Per WP:LABEL, controversial descriptors like “misogynistic” require attribution. These articles can be used to cite criticism, but not to justify presenting “misogynistic” in Wikipedia’s voice. Academic sources like Lin (2017) and even Górska et al. (2022), both mentioned in the article, demonstrate that the label is ideologically contested, not universal. Frankbel (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- My comment was to refute you assertion that Maybe MGTOW is (seen as) mysoginistic in the US, but I know it isn't in most of Europe. Those were just a few examples of how MGTOW is viewed. Knitsey (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- True. MGTOW calls last waves of feminism toxic and slaps back. That is mysoginistic and we'll add it to the articles lead. Feminist separatism? Let's add misandry in the 'See also' section.
- These articles may reflect general social sentiment (and mine), but it cannot support encyclopedic classification of MGTOW, especially not in the lead sentence. Reliable academic or journalistic sources directly analyzing MGTOW must be used instead.
- You use Górska et al, a source also used to accept the labem mysoginist in the article lead, a feminist theoretical paper, not a neutral sociological or anthropological study. :
- ● It applies a non-standard definition of misogyny (from Kate Manne), which includes any behavior that challenges feminist orthodoxy; in Manne’s framework, even men’s refusal to participate in traditional heterosexual relationships — if perceived as rejecting “moral goods” like admiration or emotional labor from women — qualifies as misogynistic. This
- exposes the circular reasoning behind their labeling: If men disengage entirely, that too becomes misogyny.
- ● The authors selectively frame male independence as hostile, while similar female actions are routinely called “empowering”; for example, when MGTOW men reject romantic relationships and pursue self-empowerment, the authors interpret this as evidence of misogynistic intent, whereas analogous behavior by women—such as choosing to remain single or prioritize personal goals—is typically celebrated in both media and academic discourse as liberation or feminist agency.
- ● Their own language (“entitlement to moral goods”) is highly ideological, not descriptive. The phrase “entitlement to moral goods” (borrowed from feminist theory) pathologizes male emotional needs—such as wanting affection or respect—as inherently oppressive, while portraying equivalent female expectations in relationships as legitimate. It exposes asymmetric moral framing.
- ● The paper claims that MGTOW discourse is framed around an “us vs. them” mentality, while feminist discourse emphasizes “we” language and collective identity. However, this interpretation is deeply reductive and selectively applied. The presence of adversarial framing in MGTOW discourse is treated as evidence of toxic separatism, yet feminist rhetoric that positions women in opposition to systemic patriarchy or 'men' broadly is framed positively as solidarity or consciousness-raising. The authors fail to consider that both movements construct identity through opposition—MGTOW against perceived gynocentrism, and feminism against patriarchy—yet only one is pathologized for doing so. Frankbel (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- That's all very interesting analysis, I'm sure, but it's your original research, so it's useless for Wikipedia. Get it peer-reviewed and published in a decent scholarly publication, and then we can even begin to talk. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- "Science is facing a “replication crisis” in which many experimental findings cannot be replicated and are likely to be false." Publication bias and the canonization of false facts - Nissen et al (2017)
- Per WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH, we must not selectively highlight framing from ideologically aligned sources to editorialize movements we dislike, especially in lead sections.
- EVEN the sources in cite note 2 shed doubt on generalising MGTOW as being mysigonistic. Finding those sources was not my original research.
- And most of the other sources don't even mention MGTOW, but focus on 'the manosphere', alt-right or others. Frankbel (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- The sources do not shed doubt on that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, you mean the Lin source that says:
Across platforms, MGTOWs consistently display pent up emotion, cynicism and resentment towards women ? Or the Gorska source that says: MGTOW does not simply voice a separatist approach towards women but promotes violence against women and feminism ? What about either of those sources makes you think the "misogynistic" label is contested? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry was responding above. Large responce about the Górska source.
- About the Lin source :
- "MGTOWs frame their disavowal of women and marriage as a rational, protective response to a hostile environment.” (p. 6)
- “The lack of hierarchy and clear goals within the movement leads to much internal debate and variation in ideology.” (multiple sections)
- “MGTOWs are defined by the most shameless members of their group and disliked by most others. I see us as a fringe minority, but I’m afraid they will define us.” (p. 7)
- “The MGTOW community is loosely organized and individualistic, without formal leadership, membership, or platform.” (p. 9)
- Shall we add to the lead on the page about the USA that it's a country of obese, murdering warmongers while we're at it? Frankbel (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- BTW : i don't need an academic paper to see that many feminists "display pent up emotion, cynicism and resentment towards men". Shall we add misandry to the feminism page? Since many men fight the patriarchy Frankbel (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- What source are you quoting? I can't find any of those lines in the Lin source. Regardless, most of those are irrelevant to the question "Is MGTOW misogynist". A group doesn't need formal leadership or membership to be misogynist. The only one of these "quotes" that could even be considered passingly germane is the one about "defined by the most shameless members" one, but given the use of a first-person pronoun, this is presumably a quote from a MGTOW member, not a conclusion drawn by the author of whatever paper you're quoting. Mandy Rice-Davies applies. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wait, your saying Johanssen is "just an opinion"? He's a scholar and researcher whose books are widely cited... You can't just dismiss sources as opinions without explaining why. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- Like many others, I'm not seeing any compelling shift in the sources on this matter, and I support the status quo. We don't discount academic sources because they're "feminist". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm searching for them. Hard to find (and much to read) since approx 80–95% of genderstudies students are leaning to the political left and 70–90% of sociology students. (Langbert et al 2016, Pew Research 2021 & Inbar & Lammers 2012).
- "Numerous biases have been described in the literature, raising concerns for the reliability and integrity of the scientific enterprise. Furthermore, multiple independent studies suggested that this ratio is increasing." [https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1618569114?utm_source=chatgpt.com Meta-assessment of bias in science - Fanelli et al (2017) Frankbel (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- utm_source=chatgpt.com never fills me with confidence in somebody's research skills - please just use Google Scholar or Wikipedia Library or, like, an actual library because those sources don't hallucinate fake studies. Furthermore "social science is just biased" is a non-starter argument on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
|