Talk:Misandry

So, if I undersand, the hundreds of more or less openly man-hating documented statements that feminists have made in the last decades, including calls to kill male unborn babies or laments that the coronavirus hasn't killed enough men, statements that they make practically every time they speak in the media or on social media, are myths, because ONE study (probably conducted by feminists) says it? Just asking. ~2025-31415-63 (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It is not ONE study. Don't forget about the research by Melinda Kanner and Kristin J. Anderson. However, in recent years, certain studies have begun to appear about misandrist phenomenon of the femosphere. The central study on this topic is the article by Kay J. B. “The reactionary turn in popular feminism” // Feminist Media Studies. So, there is a certain shift, and I think it will be reflected in this article. Reprarina (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

So TWO, ok. I was starting to think that in addition to those statements, also neologisms starting with "man-" that feminists are fond of inventing (and which C. Young refers to as the "currect cycle of misandry", which was "strangely" left out of the article), are male-friendly... Sorry for the sarcasm. (As you say, we will see.) ~2025-31407-17 (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

To be completely clear, my point is: Does that erase what I'm talking about, which is completely obvious? ~2025-31407-17 (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

What you or I think is obvious is beside the point. Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources, not the beliefs or experiences of individual users. Cathy Young is not a reliable source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

What Sangdeboeuf is pointing out here is that a lot of the journals you're talking about, where misandry is treated as something to fix, are not acceptable sources here on wiki, while sources that regard misandry as a fake issue are.

This doesn't mean the article can't be improved. For example, there is a lot of people in agreement that the article is missing context from the Misandry Myth study, which showed that misandry also manifests ad lower benevolence for men, by all people. ~2025-31680-79 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

https://zawn.substack.com/p/does-zawn-hate-men-the-myth-of-misandry

I recommand the comments too.

There are thousands of such websites. In complete undisturbedness. Imagine switching the gender. ~2025-38727-57 (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Self published WP:BLOGS are not reliable for use on Wikipedia. Katzrockso (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Please, move that second paragraph into a new “use for misogyny” subsection, it is such undue weight in its current position. Curiousperson2 (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. I'm not sure what you mean by the proposed subsection title "use for misogyny". Assuming you are referring to the second paragraph of the lead section, I don't see any issues with undue weight there. Day Creature (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thread retitled from Lacking topic: hate speech.

The only purpose of this article is apparently to prove that misandry does not exist. That does not seem like a good approach.

If you believe you lack evidence of female hate speech against men, please read: Pauline Harmange, "Moi les hommes, je les déteste", or review the commentary section of any broadsheet newspaper.

Several aspects are ignored. Topics that should be further explored in particular are:

1. Use of language and hate speech: a) while hatespeech against many groups, including women, is justly discouraged and prohibited in some countries, it is accepted practice if directed against men. Discouraged: "(all) women are ...", "(all) foreigners are..." Normal practice, including in broad-sheet newspapers "(all) men are...". b) While hate speech laws, where they exist, e.g. Germany, criminalise such general attributions if made, e.g. against ethnic groups, feminist interest groups have protested and prevented the extension to gender, because hate speech is considered and normal and necessary practice for (some) feminists. c) language analysis based e.g. on Viktor Klemperers LTI show remarkable similarities in the use of language between the third reich and feminist publications, e.g. intentional use of overgeneralisation (all men are...), misuse of natural meaning (e.g. "financial violence"), use of pathos and emotional language ("violence", "oppression", etc.), dehumanisation and deindividualisation ("without men there would be no wars, financial crises, etc.", "it is / must be mens' own fault" e.g. in the case of higher mortality, collective attribution of responsibility to "men", e.g. for individual occurences), sloganisation instead of argumentation ("patriarchy", "mental load", "passive aggressive", "mansplaining"), reduction (framing of all aspects of life through one lens, e.g. "mental load"), repetition ("patriarchy", "patriarchal" ...).

2. Discrimination E.g. the systemic discrimination of men by the law, e.g. in family law (custody, etc.), in criminal law (criminalisation of male instead of female behaviour, higher likelihood of receiving a sentence, higher sentence, etc.), the objectification of men with regard to their sexual self-determination (no legal protection against unwanted fatherhood). The pervasive male aggressor and female victim bias.

3. Utalitarian concept of men and upbringing Only few men are brought up to be board members, the traditional concept, viewing men as worker bees who may die, be injured or otherwise destroyed in the process. ~2026-99575-2 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

The article reflects what scholars have said about misandry. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

"use of pathos and emotional language" That is the typical appeal to emotion, not hate speech. Dimadick (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

coincidentally ignoring the fact that those "scholars" are all feminists and say that misandry doesn't exist? talk about being biased. ~2026-15678-85 (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:YESBIAS. If Academia is biased on a topic, Wikipedia will be as well. That's how this site is designed and we don't consider that to be a problem. MrOllie (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• The problem with that argument is that it could be used to argue that we should ignore the sources on basically everything. People could as easily say "evolution is only real according to evolutionists" or "the Shakespeare authorship question is only dismissed by historians who believe it was all written by Shakespeare, making them biased" or even "the world is round according to roundworldians! We need to cite some flat-earthers for balance!" We reflect views according to how prominent and accepted those views are among the best available sources on the subject; we don't just arbitrarily decide how we're going to weigh them ourselves. And the best available sources on sociology and gender broadly take positions, and support understandings, that you'd describe as feminist. Denying that and, what, digging up a bunch of blog-posts from the manosphere to weigh against them would be textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  He doesn't deny it, since he says so, I guess. And by "bunch handful of articles from the manosphere" you mean the 90 % of publications outside of authorized feminists scolars pubvlications, i. e. sources only accepted (following its strange biased criteria) by Wikipedia? ~2026-15430-40 (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  So more like 40 %, the remaining 50 % is misandrist stuff from the feminosphere (and 10 % is then "acceptable" material from the feminosphere that has the hallmark of "scientificity"). ~2026-15686-39 (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  Feminosphere? Scientificity? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)