Talk:Misandry/Archive 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion: She was later diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and depression; some observers think she was suffering from these illnesses at the time of her writing.^[1][2][3] References:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quagquag (talk • contribs) 05:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

User Sugar-Baby-Love made this edit .

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

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

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

The claim that "misandry, the sexist counterpart of misogyny" is made by Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young on page 6 of their book Spreading Misandry, published by an academic press. --Marguerite Duras In France (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC) And, on the same page, "like misogyny, misandry is culturally propagated hatred".

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

I see some issues with that past version.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the past quarter century, we exposed biases against other races and called it racism, and we exposed biases against women and called it sexism. Biases against men we call humor.

—Warren Farrell, Women Can't Hear What Men Don't Say

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

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

IMO, I don't think the remark is itself misandrist but actually serves to expose misandry.--Atlantima (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's with the sudden influx of vandals over the last few days? Is there anything we can do to stop it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.120.192 (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably not, as my user page and edits have been linked to men's right's forum, and both feminists and men's right's advocates feel the need to change articles to better suit their viewpoints.Countered (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I find it ironic that you complain about people editing to put a slant on articles. Also, the subreddit "AntiSRS" is not a MR forum. For anyone wondering what I'm talking about, Countered is a known user from Reddit who participates in a group of very radical social justice warriors known as "SRS", his profile was linked to the subreddit "AntiSRS" showing his vandalism to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.157.15 (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Undid revision 506633298

"For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" Wikipedia:VerifiabilityCountered (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The article, "Why Some People Have Issues With Men: Misandry", was written by Anthony Synnott, Ph.D., a professor of sociology at Concordia University in Montreal. He is a topic expert and a scholar. We attribute him, so all the bases are covered. The paragraph is okay. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The criticism of the term section, should, as currently written, be removed. It's essentially a summary of claims made in a non-notable book by a non-notable author (neither have Wikipedia pages), and does not provide any substantial context to view the criticism in. One could liken it to including the contents of an arbitrarily chosen book or journal article, and rehashing it without improving the article in some way. As the author is largely unknown and does not have a Wikipedia page himself, and the book is not notable (there has been no public debate about it; I doubt most people have even heard of this book), so there's no way for readers to know how mainstream are the vies presented. Both sources cited in the section are different pages of the same book--it is no way a broad perspective of the discussion on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.157.241 (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Either the title of this section is wrong or the content is wrong, perhaps both . The term Misandry is already well understood and explained in etymological and historical terms with a clear intent to signify the hatred against men . But the content of this section focuses in the opinion of some authors that a term for the hatred against men doesn't exist and that is not significant or event relevant at all . The quote of the second paragraph is quite dramatic as it states that since misandry is not a social fact then the term doesn't exist . But as far as i know, in order for a term to define something, it doesn't need to be a social fact or a cultural norm . In fact , it can be a rare occurrence if not theoretical . The first paragraph contradicts the second paragraph and itself by justifying that the resentment and hate against men by every woman is hardly surprising given the oppression against women by men, while at the same time stating that it is just a reactionary term against feminism to discredit it . It also defines "men" as some kind of overloaded term for patriarchy . I find too many contradictions and poor quality in the content . It seems that the real intent of this section is to present some criticism about the social and cultural significance and relevance of misandry as a phenomenon rather than the term itself . I suggest the deletion of this section or at least to revamp it to some decent level of quality Alsamuef (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried to reword some of it, and I made each book its own paragraph for readability. I vote for deletion of this section entirely - A Canadian Toker (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I am wondering what the relevancy or importance of stating when it was defined is. Not all words on wikipedia have a timeline of definition attached to them. It seems like an attempt to undercut the word itself by stating it was made up recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.113.247 (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to "undercut" the word by saying it is recent. Facts are facts, and many people discussing misandry observe that it is a new word. That's what makes it important for us to relay this fact to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right, facts are facts, and the fact of the matter is, Misandry has been around since the early 1800s, where it came from the German word Misandrie, Source: http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/search/label/Misandry%20-%20The%20Word — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumblebritches57 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It's like Christians citing Christian sources to define things that aren't Christian. Misandry is NOT a hatred of patriarchy. That doesn't even make sense. This is Feminist propaganda and any sane person reading this knows it. Citing a Feminist source to support a propaganda based Feminist "definition" of Misandry is beyond the pale when it comes to what Wikipedia is or should be for. We don't go just adding definitions, and changing the meaning of words when it suits our agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.153.226 (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't like the scholarly sources, but that's what they say. The topic is defined by scholars, not by ranting. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet... I don't think you should be moderating this page. You clearly have an agenda here. You have a very decided interest in making sure the word means something you want it to. I believe *you* are impartial based on what I've read above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.153.226 (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am impartial. I do not intend to satisfy your wish to see me leave this page. I have no agenda except to keep this topic securely moored to scholarly sources. If you don't like the sources, get a PhD and write a book with your point of view. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Pardon, NOT impartial. I believe you have an agenda, and you're using wikipedia to push that agenda. This is your own particular propaganda mouthpiece. I'll do what I can to draw attention to your activities here. Someone with authority has to be able to step in and recognize you for what you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.153.226 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact, show me where the citations state "Misandry means the hatred of patriarchy". Because I'm not seeing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.153.226 (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You removed three books from the article, good ones from respectable publishers:

• Gilmore, David D. (2011). Misogyny: The Male Malady. University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 12. ISBN 0812200322.
• Johnson, Alan G. (2005). The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy (2, revised ed.). Temple University Press. p. 107. ISBN 1592133843.
• Synnott, Anthony (2009). Re-Thinking Men: Heroes, Villains and Victims. Ashgate Publishing. p. 262. ISBN 1409491951.
• Here is what Gilmore says: [the word] "misandry, which literally does imply hatred of males (Greek, andros), has little currency... But such neologisms as viriphobia and misandry refer, not to the hatred of men as men, but to the hatred of men's traditional male role, the obnoxious manly pose, a culture of machismo; that is, to an adopted sexual ideology or an affectation. They are therefore different from the intensely ad feminam aspect of misogyny that targets women no matter what they believe or do, whatever their sexual orientation, or however they comport themselves."
• Here is what Johnson says: "Calling feminists man haters and male bashers protects patriarchy and male privilege by turning what otherwise would be criticism of patriarchy into questions about feminists' personalities and motives... The accusation of man hating and male bashing also shifts attention away from women and onto men in a sympathetic way that reinforces patriarchal male centeredness while putting women on the defensive for criticizing it. In the process, it portrays men as victims of a gender prejudice that on the surface seems comparable to the sexism directed at women. Like many such false parallels, this ignores the fact that antifemale and antimale prejudices have different social bases and produce very different consequences. Resentment and hatred of women are grounded in a misogynist culture that devalues femaleness itself as part of male privilege and female oppression. For women, however, mainstream patriarchal culture offers no comparable antimale ideology, and so their resentment is based more on experience as a subordinate group and men's part in it... There's a big difference, however, between hating a dominant group in an oppressive system like patriarchy and hating the individuals who belong to it." Johnson also says on page 267: "It is notable that although a word for the hatred of maleness exists—misandry—it wasn't included in most dictionaries until very recently. The closest the English language comes to the hatred of males is misanthropy which actually refers to the hatred of people in general. Once again, patriarchal culture identifies males as the standard of humanity while women are marginalized."
• Synnett talks about the timeline of the rise of the second wave of feminism, the 1960s, saying that "Society was re-defined as patriarchy, male dominance and male-oppression—and misandry began to raise its ugly head, as we have seen, evoking two responses: men's movements and male identity confusion." On page 135 Synnett lists characteristics of what he calls the "Misandric Model" which includes the entry "Reversed values to patriarchy: female moral supremacism".

A thorough reading of these passages resulted in the summary first sentence of this article: "Misandry is the hatred or dislike of men, the hatred of maleness, especially the hatred of patriarchy—the dominant role of men in society." Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

But the word doesn't MEAN THAT. Out of the above only *one person* actually defines misandry as the hatred of "patriarchy". Even the wiktionary definition disagrees with this, as does any other dictionary based source. One person with a degree writing a book doesn't define words for an entire culture. Unless you're telling me that *every other definition of misandry is wrong*? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Cappadocia (talk • contribs) 19:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The scholars say that misandry is not aimed at individual men but aimed at men as an oppressor group, as a culturally dominant group, the definition of patriarchy. Scholars define the topic, as I've said before. The only problem with the wiktionary definition is that these sources have not yet been brought to the page. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Is Wiktionary a reliable source? I think not.--Charles (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The assertion that Misandry is the hatred of Patriarchy appears to be WP:SYNTH of the second source Johnson. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Scholars do NOT define the topic, Reliable Sources do. There is difference. CSDarrow (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to add an idea, here's a conception of misandry from a non-feminist perspective: "where males and stereotypical male behaviour are blamed for the ills of society" Wilson NJ Parmenter TR Stancliffe RJ Shuttleworth RP Parker D (2010). "A Masculine Perspective of Gendered Topics in the Research Literature on Males and Females with Intellectual Disability". 35 (1): 1-8. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |name= ignored (help) Ashleyleia (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Binksternet should not be moderating this page. Clear feminist bias, and that's coming from someone who considers himself to be a feminist in a lot of ways. (Snuffie18 (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC))

I'll 2nd that. Memills (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Why then has he never edited the articles Women's rights, Women's history, or Misogyny, has made only two edits ever to Feminist history, and makes only an average of 2.5 edits per year to Feminism? This is looking more like a personal attack by you to to discredit him, especially when looking at Snuffie18's clear WP:SPA and WP:RGW activity. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The sentences on the origin of the word Misandry are weak and largely inaccurate

• Hall's Ref # 5 only refers to 1 dictionary, and is technically wrong. (see below)
• Johnson Ref #6 does not support the statement.
• Ref #7 is basically a blog and is unreliable, it has no citations.

The word Misandry can be traced back to at least 1871, when was used in a book review in the Spectator magazine. It appeared in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) in 1952, and other niche dictionaries well prior to that. There is a very thorough, and heavily cited page here , that discusses the origins of the word Misandry.

CSDarrow (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the page accordingly. CSDarrow (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have also removed Johnson's statement in Criticism of Misandry section

"Johnson said that the word misandry did not appear in dictionaries until recently"

As it is clearly untrue, 1952 for Websters and 1976 for OED is not recently, and the word appears well before that for more specialized dictionaries. His opinion on this matter is ill informed, uncited and as such of little worth.

CSDarrow (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Misandry has actually been around since the early 1800s, where it came from the German word Misandrie, Source: http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/search/label/Misandry%20-%20The%20Word

Bumblebritches57 (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of a word is defined by its usage and not by the opinions of few isolated scholars from a particular school of thought. Dictionaries like the OED and Merriam-Webster are the unrivaled experts on this matter. They employ scores of scholarly lexicographers using the most modern techniques to determine the meaning of our words. I feel their opinion should be per-eminent in the definition here. The definition from the OED, which reflects Webster's, is

dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e. the male sex).

The definition section should be changed accordingly to

Misandry (pron.: /maɪ.'sæn.dri/ or /mɪ.ˈsæn.dri/) is the dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e. the male sex). ^[1][2]

The references at present are inadequate and the ones I am now providing are by any meter superior. If someone come up with better ones then fair enough.

CSDarrow (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Since I hear no dissension I will change the entry accordingly CSDarrow (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. Dictionaries define a topic in brevity but encyclopedias expand on the meaning. The scholars who were previously cited are not fringe scholars or "isolated". They are well within their areas of expertise. Binksternet (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You are claiming these scholars who are not lexicographers, and coincidentally are from the same school of thought, would have a better grasp of the meanings of our words than the OED and Websters? I strongly disagree. There may be better citations than OED & Websters but the ones you have presented aren't them. Words are defined by their usage, I can't see how these 'scholars' you have presented would have either the resources or expertise to evaluate this. Unless you are claiming these people should be allowed to define our words for us.

The references are clearly inadequate and frankly the definition you have presented is synthesis, they barely make a meaningful attempt to define the word. The 'definitions' seem to be for within the context of the discussions and provide no citations.

CSDarrow (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

We are not talking about Wiktionary here; this is Wikipedia and our 'definitions' are more expansive, engaging more popular usage and scholarly thought. We have no requirement for our cited scholars to be in the "same school of thought". Here are the scholars you seem to have a problem with: David D. Gilmore is an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania who wrote the book Misogyny. Allan G. Johnson is a Wesleyan sociologist and author who wrote The Gender Knot. Anthony Synnott is a sociologist and anthropologist at Concordia University who wrote Re-Thinking Men. None of these guys are out of their topic; none are slouches. I summarized their positions by writing, "Misandry is the hatred or dislike of men, the hatred of maleness; it typically does not refer to a hatred of individuals but of men as a group or class." This is standard encyclopedic summary, not synthesis. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

So let's compare the definitions we are putting forward to the reader:

• Misandry is the hatred or dislike of men, the hatred of maleness; it typically does not refer to a hatred of individuals but of men as a group or class.
• Misandry is the dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e. the male sex).

What exactly is the concern? Which elements do you think are wrong, if any? Personally, I don't think either is wrong. Why cannot we combine the Oxford and scholar definitions to bring both to the reader? Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

From a personal perspective I have no problem with the actual wording of your definition. However what you have presented is clearly a synthesis from a partisan set of references, a synthesis I don't think they entirely support. In fact the Gilmore reference defines Misandry as the hatred of the "male role model, etc.." and the Johnson reference is at best a passing comment on the definition, ie "Hatred of Maleness". The cited texts are more a discussion of the non-existence of Misandry or its justification.

I am not entirely happy with the references I have provided. However they are considerable improvement on what was there before, which imo were inadequate. I am willing to work on a comprise but I am having problems seeing these 3 references as being part of a starting point.

CSDarrow (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to 97.90.153.202: The OED and Miriam-Websters are specifically mentioned as being acceptable a sources for Wikipedia here Dictionaries as Sources. The public online versions of these dictionaries are a subset of them, and as such acceptable. I will hunt out the actual references. Also the 'personally run blogs' are not opinion, they are a long list of facts supported by citations. Wikipedia ultimately has no rules and clearly these page are informative in an objective manner.

Also

• Review of novel “Blanche Seymour” The Spectator, London, Apr.1, 1871, p.359
• Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) 1952.

Are reliable sources, you should not remove reliably sourced material. Go to your Library or use inter library loans to verify them.

The sources you are providing very arguably violate the last 2 points of WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

CSDarrow (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead should be expanded to suggest an outline of the content. The "In literature" section should probably come at the end. The "Comparison . . . ", "Instances", "Wendy McElroy", and Criticism . . ." sections should be reorganized so that the various "takes" on the phenomenon are under the same general subtopic and in some order that makes sense. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've come to this article some time after the above observation was made, but I also saw a deal of confusion in the article. For instance, the reputable dictionary definition "hatred of men (specifically the male sex)" had been gratuitously enlarged to include "men and boys", possibly a case of POV. In the lead par there is an uncited reference to "how men are uniquely marginalized in what (Warren Farrell) calls their "disposability..." without any attempt to relate this to the subject. Then there appeared an imputed antithetical term of dubious relevance—"philandry" (which I have removed)—lacking recognition in either the OED or Merriam-Webster, the principle source dictionaries cited in the article. The rest of the article seems to be a shambles of citations (some being of dubious notability). I agree a cleanup is called for, and will seek to give it some attention. Bjenks (talk) 07:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have now nominated 'philandry' for deletion in both WP and Wiktionary. I will also be re-editing the present article in line with the discussion below Bjenks (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That particular section did not contribute to the article and instead sought to undermine the validity of misandry. Further, no criticism is allowed on the misogyny wikipedia page, so therefore none shall be allowed here either.ForwardObserver85 (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The criticism section on this page is in itself an example of misandry "reality of women's oppression, male privilege, and men's enforcement of both, it's hardly surprising that every woman should have moments where she resents or even hates 'men'." All it claims is that misandry in our society is somehow justified, it's an attack on men rather than neutral content (as Wikipedia should stand for). --86.81.201.94 (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a direct quote, not Wikipedia's voice. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In the article I tried to add the following text under the heading 'comparisons with other forms of predudice'

In The Myth of Male Power Farrel confronts the belief that patriarchal societies make rules to benefit men at the expense of women. Farrell cites hundreds of examples to the contrary, such as male-only draft registration not benefiting men at the expense of women; or men constituting 93% of workplace deaths; or being expected to risk sexual rejection, pay on dates, and buy women diamonds. Once married, rules made by men are more likely to lead to men losing children and their home after divorce—what he cites as another example of male disposability. Farrell contends that nothing is more telling about who has benefited from "men's rules" than life expectancy and suicide rates—and men lose in both of these categories. ^[3]

This information is very important for the subject at hand, and thoughtfully reflects on its relation to other forms of prejudice. What do others think about this edit? (Snuffie18 (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC))

Your addition is not wp:npov. It should not go in the article. Jim1138 (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What exactly iswp:npov about it? (Snuffie18 (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC))

He focuses exclusively on what supports his POV. Not an encompassing view. Jim1138 (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with his work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell. His view is very encompassing. Taking this out and leaving in f.e. Johnson, Alan G. (2005). The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy is clearly npov: WP:CIVILITY (Snuffie18 (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC))

Under the same heading you fing the following text:

'In the 2007 book International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities, Marc A. Ouellette dismissively contrasted misandry with misogyny, arguing that "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny" though acknowledging the possibility of specific "racialized" misandries.[9] Anthropologist David D. Gilmore argues that while misogyny is a "near-universal phenomenon" there is no male equivalent to misogyny. He writes: Man 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 ratified into public, culturally recognized and approved institutions (...) As a cultural institution, misogyny therefore seems to stand alone as a gender-based phobia, unreciprocated.[10]'

do these authors focus exclusively on what supports their POV? sure, but my suggested edit merely adds a POV and information, not suppressing information. (Snuffie18 (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC))

Warren Farrell is already mentioned in the 'Comparisons with other forms of prejudice' section of this article. The issue here is not so much POV as undue weight - see WP:UNDUE - almost every author mentioned in this article has a short sentence and single quote at most, and having multiple mentions on Farrell give his positions greater weight than the others represented in the article.Dialectric (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. the tekst with Farrel as a source was too long. I removed the slavery comparison, because this is less relevant, replaced it with the tekst. It is now about the same lenght as the following tekst in the same section.

Anthropologist David D. Gilmore argues that while misogyny is a "near-universal phenomenon" there is no male equivalent to misogyny. He writes: Man 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 ratified into public, culturally recognized and approved institutions (...) As a cultural institution, misogyny therefore seems to stand alone as a gender-based phobia, unreciprocated.[5] Gilmore also states that neologisms like misandry refer "not to the hatred of men as men, but to the hatred of men's traditional male role" and a "culture of machismo". Therefore, he argues, misandry is "different from the intensely ad feminam aspect of misogyny that targets women no matter what they believe or do.

(Snuffie18 (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC))

I tagged a section for having relevance problems. An extensive quote of Warren Farrell was inserted, one that is not directly related to the topic of misandry. We should examine that bit, and other paragraphs, for direct relevance to the topic. Inserting something like that is a form of WP:Synthesis, trying to connect men's rights issues to misandry, without the connection being stated in the source. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that to be included in this article, quotes should specifically discuss and use the term 'misandry'. Warren Farrell should not be mentioned in the lead. More generally, I think the whole article could be reworked to be more clear - the current section headings are not ideal, and I will add some alternative suggestions here in a day or so.Dialectric (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you the Farrel quote should not be in the header. I disagree the sources need to specificially discuss misandry. The SCUMBAG text doesn’t, yet is clearly relevant. Looking forward to see proposed section headings.

Now on the topic of Synthesis, the following course of events: I made a change to the article. Ok, first revert : the Farrel quote is unbalanced. Nothing on talk or something, just a revert.I opened a discussion in talk on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misandry&oldid=610462023 So I balance it. Now its non-neutral. Yet biksternet reverts again, not even trying to hide non npov. Nothing on talk again, just immediate revert. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misandry&oldid=610508160 Revert ... "hundreds of examples to the contrary" and other wording choices make this non-neutral. Farrell is presented as being right and correct, instead of being easily dismissed or disputed, which is the case.

So I rephrase it. But you change it more nonetheless. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misandry&oldid=610531376 reworking the Farrell bit, tagging synth and relevance problems

Reworking means changing and maiming the text completely. Off course in subtle non-npov words. All of a sudden Farrel is not a Political Scientists anymore whereas the other sources are Anthropologists and Religious studies professors. And to top it all of, all of as sudden the entire section isn’t relevant. Wow what an amazing coincidence! In the first sentence we read: Misandry is (…) the ingrained prejudice against men and/or boys. That makes it relevant how this prejudice relates to other forms of prejudice, and also how it is reflected in society. Obviously this needs proper balancing, which is clearly the case in the article. Conclusion: some serious feminist POV pushing going on here. (80.61.114.15 (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snuffie18 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You are describing people moving the goalposts on you, which is a fair complaint. On the other side of the coin, though, you never put together a neutral representation of Farrell's book, not in your second try and not in your third try. You always used wording that made it sound like Farrell is totally right, and unchallenged in his conclusions, despite the fact that other scholars have driven a truck or two through his arguments.

It only occurred to me later that this article about misandry is not really the right place for your bit about Farrell. If it was appropriate I would have settled for the neutral version I trimmed down from your version. But if people agree that it is not relevant, then it should go. Counting heads, it looks like three people think it should go, and you alone think it should stay. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for conceding the goalpost moving. I just took the text from Farrells wikipage, which I saw you now also changed ;). That other scholars have driven a truck or two through his arguments is 1. your opinion and 2. represented in the text. Are you referring to:

Gilmore Man 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 ratified into public, culturally recognized and approved institutions (...) As a cultural institution, misogyny therefore seems to stand alone as a gender-based phobia, unreciprocated.[11]

not very convincing given the examples of Farrell cites many examples to the contrary, such as male-only draft registration not benefiting men at the expense of women; or men constituting 93% of workplace deaths; or being expected to risk sexual rejection, pay on dates, and buy women diamonds. why did you take away a lot of this? Because you think he isn't right? And why take away the Professor title? I would like to conclude with the irony of the situation. First of all let me be clear, I'm by no means anti-Feminist, and neither is Farrel is you read his work. Farrel's exact point is that we're in a sexist society, yet the myth prevales that the male sex has no disadvantages, only benefits. paraphrasing the greatest trick the devil pulled was making the world believe it didn't exist, the greatest trick Feminism pulled was making the world believe sexism only disadvantages women. This is very relevant for the topic of misandry. When people try to hush this up it only improves the argument. Misogyny and sexism are not the same, yet related, see also: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/273-40/14052-sexism-and-misogyny-whats-the-difference The same applies for misandry and sexism.

And I only see Dialectic agreeing upon a change of headers, making it two against one..? (Snuffie18 (talk) 05:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC))

Dialectric said that everything we put in the article should discuss misandry. The point is that we should not bring text about men's rights issues—a completely separate topic. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not a completely separate topic. re-read what I wrote here, actually giving arguments and sources. In the definition of misandry: 'ingrained prejudice against men and/or boys', so the concept of 'male disposability' is very related. Could use input from other users here. (Snuffie18 (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC))

Agree. Imho, there is a gambit being played here, and elsewhere, by Binksternet (talk) and some other folks. It is WP:GAMING the system to limit what information and sources can be used about a broad topic (such as misandry, men's rights, etc.) by deleting any sources that do not specifically use the word "misandry" (or men's rights) even if it is quite clear to anyone that the source is relevant to the topic. If Farrell says that society treats men as if they were "disposable" that is of obvious and sufficient relevance to the topic.

Compare the "relevance" issue as applied to the misogyny article. There are entire sections (e.g., Scientology) that refer to sources that do not specifically use the word "misogyny." By the same standard of "relevance" being argued by some here, much of the material in the misogyny article would need to be jettisoned.

In other words, a "double standard" WP:GAMES the system. Memills (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

And presenting Farrell's work as absolutely right, and giving it undue weight goes beyond gaming the system, it's outright POV-pushing. Also, per WP:BRD, the contested edit is removed, then discussed, and added in after discussion, not during. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Memills, you accuse me of gaming the system, but you have not shown proof, which would be me removing material that doesn't mention misandry, and also adding or restoring material that doesn't mention misandry, the difference being that one set is friendly to the MRM view, and the other set is not. I have not been doing that, so I cannot be gaming the system. You also bring up the article about Misogyny, which I have never touched.

Again, the point is that we cannot allow editors to insert other topics into this one via WP:Coatrack. Everything should be about misandry, not about the trappings of MRM issues. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The same tactic has been used on other men's issues / men's right articles. It is getting a a bit obvious and tired. Memills (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

And on those grounds, the Scientology section of the Misogyny article (although it's almost a matter of WP:NOTTHEM) does discuss misogyny via "hatred of women," the plain language form of the word. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point. Note: if a source talked about "hatred of men," but did not specifically use the word "misandry" some here would suggest that it be jettisoned. But, point being, the same standard about "relevance" is applied differently in the mirror article misogyny. There if a source referred to "hatred of women," even obliquely or via someone's interpretation of someone else's writings, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it. Policy at WP should be applied, er... equally. As it is, it seems that some articles are more equal than others... Memills (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Biksternet you have confirmed moving the goalpost on the contested piece, as have you shown clear bias on the removes information by stating you feel 'The myth of male power' is a bad argument. ian.thompson you state 'it's outright POV-pushing.' You know what's outright pov pushing? to frame critisism of Farrel as Anthropologists and professor while Farrel is just a writer. I still find it ridicoulous you take the Farrel piece out, and leave the 'Man 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 ratified into public, culturally recognized and approved institutions (...) As a cultural institution, misogyny therefore seems to stand alone as a gender-based phobia, unreciprocated.' piece in. off course that's really balanced...? Your solution is probably to move the goalpost, removing everything. There is some serious https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Information_suppression going on here, and not very subtle either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snuffie18 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I have not "confirmed moving the goalpost"; rather I acknowledged that you, from your vantage point, probably felt the goalposts were being moved. They were not actually moved—it was instead an increasingly strong reaction to increasingly strong insistence to include material that is off topic. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The difference the "hatred of women" in misogyny and the Farrell bit, though, is that Farrell is not so much discussing men as targets of bigotry as trying to disprove the rather common sense observation that men are politically and socially dominant. Using Farrell on Misandry isn't like citing a feminist on Misogyny, it's like trying to cite David Duke at Reverse Racism. There is also still the issue of due weight. His work currently receives as much weight as the combination of an encyclopedia and someone whose job is the study of human institutions (as opposed to Farrell's much more limited study of how the state works). No one can reasonably claim in good faith that that's due weight.

Then there's the glorification of Farrell as "Dr. Farrell," instead of being honest with "political scientist William Farrell." Simply giving his title whiel avoiding what his doctorate is in is dishonest. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Your assertions in your first para are your opinions, and OR.

Point is that Warren Farrell is an intellectual leader who has published several influential books highly related to the topic of misandry, he has taught at several universities, and he has been a leader of several organizations that focus on men's issues. Yes, it is "Dr. Farrell" -- and political science is a discipline highly related to, if not at the core, of the study of political movements and social discrimination. Quite sufficient "due weight." Memills (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I did say above that included quotes should specifically use the word misandry, but agree that 'man hating' or another close synonym is equally relevant to the subject. I don't see anyone arguing that Ferrell should be removed from the article, just that the language be neutral and the weight/coverage similar to the other individuals who are quoted. What constitutes neutral can be contentious, so when possible it is best to use quotes from the individual rather than summaries. If you feel that you need more than a few sentences to accurately capture his perspective, I suggest you do that on the William Farrell page, and leave something brief here with a wikilink. Dr. is a WP:HONORIFIC and like other honorifics, typically not used even in articles about prominent medical doctors.Dialectric (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It still seems OR to try to make Farrell's argument against the perception that men are politically dominant into an argument that men are being subverted and oppressed due only to their gender. Even the Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities discusses him as an author on the former topic and does not mention him at all discussing the latter.

Re due weight: Farrell deserves more weight than an encyclopedia on the topic? He deserves 36% of the entire section? He deserves to lead the paragraph? If there were only three sources, and none of them were an encyclopedia, I'd begin to consider that due weight. Because one of the sources is an encyclopedia, which has four main editors and sixteen consulting editors compiling the works of hundreds of scholars at least equally qualified as Farrell, the views in that work should receive more weight. Barring us making half the section a summary of that encyclopedia's relevant entries, we can cite authors whose views are in line with it.

Re titles: Everyone else is referred to by their field, but Farrell leads in the paragraph with a title demanding respect without noting the qualifications of said title. That is nothing but POV-pushing to give his views more credence than everyone else's.

Per WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL, the section should start off with the Encyclopedia citation (representing the largest group of academics), follow with at least a paragraph of that and/or sources in line with it, and then have a sentence or two each on views such as Nathanson's and Young's, with no vague WP:HONORIFICs or WP:CREDENTIALs (except noting their field) to avoid exalting one author's views over others. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, re titles, I'll grant you that one. Ok to drop the "Dr." by me -- the point I was making is that Farrell does have relevant credentials and background related to the topic that easily satisfy due weight.

But, I'm sure that you will also grant that scholarly sources can be extremely biased, agenda-driven and POV-pushing. The Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities is a book that was edited by feminists (e.g., Michael Flood). It is hardly a neutral source, it is a feminist source. If it helps NPOV, I agree we should identify sources by their biases, e.g., "masculinist Warren Farrel" and " ...a book edited by feminists including Michael Flood]]." That helps clarify to the reader that this is a contentious topic, and it helps them sort out the biases of the sources. Memills (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows what's published in the reliable sources, and scholarly sources are among the most reliable. It matters little whether you think the scholarly sources are biased. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It naive to think that if a source is "scholarly" it is unbiased. There are scholarly journals about "creation science;" there are scholarly books that were sponsored by political think tanks (on both the left and right, and upside down). It is a service to the reader to identify the biases of scholarly sources and authors on contentious issues.

Per WP:bias: '...consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe...". Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.' Memills (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's see some published scholarly debates arguing against the sources that are in this article. Generalities are not going to help us move forward. Get specific. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's one for you: Does feminism discriminate against men: A debate by masculinist Warren Farrell and feminist James P. Sterba (and remember to identify the bias of the sources, per WP:bias, on contentious topics. Memills (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Was James Sterba ever in the article? 'Cuz I'm not seeing him now. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you ask to see "some published scholarly debates," 'cuz I am seeing, just above, that you did. You're welcome. Memills (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Skipping by the comments about bias in sources, the central problem that lead to this disagreement could be easily resolved if Memills or another reader of Farrell could provide a single cited quote of 1-3 sentences from Farrel that specifically uses the term 'Misandry' or 'man hating'. Tangentially related terms such as 'Biases against men' are not equivalent to hatred of men, and whether or not one believes society discriminates against men, discrimination is not inherently equivalent to hatred. Again, the Farrel article is the better place for detailed coverage of his views, and these views should be covered here only to the extent that they specifically address misandry. Dialectric (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that this article is listed under Portal:Discrimination. The mirror article misogyny states: "Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination..." Similarly, discrimination against men can be a manifestation of misandry. Memills (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought we were done with comparing misandry and misogyny, since they are defined so differently. The two topics are not at all the same, one having arisen relatively recently, the other being ages old—a response to the power of society's traditional pro-male bias.

At any rate, if you think this or that sort of discrimination can be "a manifestation of misandry" then show your sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Defined differently? Let's compare the definitions used in each of the articles:

• "Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways..."
• "Misandry is the hatred, dislike, contempt for or ingrained prejudice against men and/or boys. Misandry can be manifested in numerous ways..."

Seem pretty similar to me.

For a source for "discrimination can be "a manifestation of misandry" -- see: Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture by Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, in particular Chapter 3: Sex Discrimination Against Men. Memills (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet what is your source for saying misogyny and misandry are not at all the same? Common sense seems to contradict this statement. We need to come to some sort of compromise. I think a comparison with misogyny is an excellent guideline, i see two serious problems 1. relevance, and 2. undue weight. For 1. relevance, the question is: how is the concept of Farrels disposability relevant for the subject of misandry? Misandry is after all an idea/set of idea, which is not the same as structural violence. These two concepts are however linked. This makes the phenomenon of male disposability (mostly societal) misandry relevant (Source: Nathanson: Legalizing misandry). The same applies for misogyny, where you read f.e. Misogyny functions as an ideology or belief system that has accompanied patriarchal, or male-dominated societies for thousands of years and continues to place women in subordinate positions with limited access to power and decision making. (Michael Flood). Now on undue weight, I think Farrel should be taken out of the lead. The section 'Comparisons with other forms of prejudice' could take a bit of Farrel out, and add for example http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm. Because Farrel is amongst many scholars who write about misandry related topics, and come to conclude sexism is exercised and suffered by both sexes, be it in different ways. Also, Dr. can be replaced by Political Scientist. (Snuffie18 (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC))

The question of whether misandry and misogyny are comparable has been discussed here. For instance, see Talk:Misandry#Equal rights where Ebikeguy, myself and Maunus talked to an IP editor about how symmetry is not required between the two concepts. In another discussion, the following text was questioned:

Michael Flood argues that "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny."

Of course that quote remains in the article today, cited to Marc A. Ouellette's entry within Michael Flood's book.

We've also discussed anthropologist David D. Gilmore who says that misandry is very different from misogyny, because misandry is about hating a male-dominant attitude, or hating male oppression, whereas misogyny is about hating all women, no matter what their attitude. This makes misogyny uniquely a gender phobia. Misandry is not solely about gender. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The dictionary definitions of these terms are mirror image synonyms.

However, the causality of the genesis of each likely does differ. Since we are throwing about opinions here about the causality of misandry (in particular feminist theories. e.g., Flood), there are other theories as well, including primarily social-psychological theories (e.g., Baumeister's Is There Anything Good About Men? and Benatar's The Second Sexisim), as well as causality (such as why men are "disposable") derived from evolutionary theories (see sexual conflict, parental investment theory, and Buss & Schmitt's Sexual Strategy Theory). Memills (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet don't set up a strawmen please, like you're doing in Talk:Misandry#Equal rights. I never said misogyny and misandry should be symmetrical on Wikipedia (as a matter of fact, I don't think they should). I just rebutted your statement 'The two topics are not at all the same'. This is like saying hatred directed against muslims is 'not at all the same' as hatred directed against jews. If you disagree on something I say, please quote the exact section you disagree on, to prevent confusion and strawmen. But it's not like we're discussing if we should incorporate Gilmore or Flood's pov in the article. Both are in there, and I've not seen any objections on that. We're talking about taking Farrel out, which would be WP:CIVILITY. PS: memills, Baumeister is also argueing from a (psychological) evolutionary perspective. It is an evolutionary explanation for why sexism exist, and partially, why it is reflected in our societies the way it is. This should not me confused for a justification of sexism! 'how it is' is not the same as 'how it should be', just to be clear (Snuffie18 (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)).

Baumeister is primarily a social psychologist, and his book Is There Anything Good About Men? is pretty lightweight on evolutionary/adaptationist theory. By contrast, David Buss's work offers a far more in-depth perspective on the evolutionary reasons behind "battle of the sexes." His work indirectly provides some foundational theory for the causal genesis of both "misandry" and "misogyny." Imho, without an understanding of this ultimate causality, these two terms (like the word "patriarchy") are so broad and general that their invocation often does not provide much added information. Buss and Schmitt's "Strategic Interference Theory" provides better foundational theory about the causal basis of particular types of misogyny and misandry. Memills (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit note: once the lock is removed, we need to remove the "Dr." in front of Farrell's name per WP:CREDENTIAL. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

True. What should it be? Writer, academic, political scientist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snuffie18 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Transcluded reply from my talk page (meaning no disrespect or anything of the sort):

Danielle. I understand you have a pronounced viewpoint and may disapprove of some content and/or procedure, but I have to point out some errors in your treatment of this article in this blanket reversion.

1. You might have chosen to inform yourself about the online edition of the OED and seen that

   On 14 March 2000, the Oxford English Dictionary Online (OED Online) became available to subscribers.[58] The online database contains the entire OED2 and is updated quarterly with revisions that will be included in the OED3 (see below). The online edition is the most up-to-date version of the dictionary available.

2. You have reverted to (inadequate) citations which are in the form of bare links. It would be more helpful to expand those links to a more intelligible form, as I did in the citations which you trashed.
3. Citations you restored fail to justify the wording "[hatred of] men and/or boys. You may choose to assume that boys are included in the male sex, but it would be more correct to limit the wording to that actually verified by the citation(s). In fact, the root andros specifically means MEN, not boys, as is explained in the section "Origin(s)" notwithstanding your irresponsible reversion of my improvements to that section.
4. The "blog" which I appended to External links, and which you chose to revert would admittedly not have been a valid reliable source if used as a citation, but cannot be objected to as an external link, especially since it is well written and painstakingly based on reliable, third-party, published sources. I might add that Wikipedia's MoS does NOT have a blanket ban on blogs. True, blog references should not normally be used in biographies of living persons, but that stringent standard does not apply to this article.
5. What are you going to do about the typos I corrected here and which you have restored to their incorrect state? ...And the valid wikilink which I inserted here which is now absent?
6. Since you have restored the uncited term "philandry" to the lead paragraph, it might be appropriate for you to provide some verification for that.
7. You may have noted on the talk page that I intend to take a part in cleaning up this very unsatisfactory article. I am a normally a gentle and restrained person, but will not hesitate to be assertive when necessary. I also believe in handling substantial disagreements on talk pages.

Instead of anticipating my own thoroughgoing return to the article, you may decide to revisit your own over-hasty edits. I prefer not to participate in any form of edit-warring, preferring civilised discussion. However, I consider Wikipedia too important to be either neglected or depreciated by anyone, and I hope you and I can both approach this article in the same spirit. Regards, Bjenks (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

First, I would appreciate it that you try not to imply that I have a POV problem (which is the impression I got from linking me to NPOV policy), I do have a point of view. Every single contributor on this wiki, no matter how unbiased they attempt to be, have a POV. There is no getting away from that. There is a problem when a POV begins to disrupt their editing with the systematic biases and the beliefs that they have, however. I will now respond to your points.

1 The online edition is the most up-to-date version of the dictionary available conveniently does not have a citation added to it, and we can't use circular referencing...using a Wikipedia reference for another article, or for a claim of up-to-date. Additionally, why are we only using one dictionary reference to demonstrate a definition? Shouldn't it be decided on the whole of all the reliable sources of dictionary entries and not just Oxford in itself? There seems to be a conflict due to it being behind a paywall (which does not negate its use of course) and the public version of the same dictionary supporting the original definition.

You said it--they all have similar definitions. I simply refute your opinion that the ODO is not up to date. (And it is freely accessible to subscribing-library cardholders). Bjenks (talk)

I never said it was not up to date. However, in the article you linked, the phrase for it being 'up to date with the most recent definitions' does not have a citation behind it. Wikipedia text is unreliable for statements of facts, which is why we require citations. (ironically) Tutelary (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary: "I do not approve of you radically changing the definition using older versions of dictionaries" Bjenks (talk)

2 That's not so much the thing about it, bare urls can easily be transformed into full fledged citations with reflinks which is why the community gave such a stir when one of the labs stopped supporting it.

My point is that you reverted my carefully constructed ref links back to bare urls. Bjenks (talk)

Understood. Tutelary (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

3 That's a given, isn't it? There's no shortage of dictionary entries which describe it as hatred of men, and the 'boys' are a subset of 'men' just in younger form. We don't need a source to state that the sky is blue (though it would be nice), it should be a given. Men and boys, women and girls, they're just natural, and it's not original research to state that.

Since 'boys' are not covered in the citation, they should not appear in the cited content. Boys are NOT men in the present context. If you wish, add separately cited content to include your 'subset' view. Bjenks (talk)

OK, but do you disagree that men doesn't encompass boys? Just like women encompasses girls as well? That's the point I'm trying to make here. Tutelary (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree, in this context. IMHO, it is clearly possible to hate men without hating male children, and vice versa. Bjenks (talk)

4 External links are supposed to add something substancial to the article, and we rarely ever link to blogs unless that person is an expert in that topic or something similar. See WP:ELNO's #11, which says to normally exclude blogs in that context.Bjenks (talk)

Please look at the lead par of WP:ELNO "...acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic..." Bjenks (talk)

I do not believe that a self published blog qualifies (unless that person is somehow an expert in that topic field). Tutelary (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

As a time-saving compromise, I'm conceding this issue to you. I will embark on more library research to find more reliable sources. Bjenks (talk)

5 Unfortunately, things like that get caught up in reverts, and I did not mean any ill intent by reverting such a thing. You have my blessing to restore that. I don't own the article, anywho.

You do own that over-hasty reversion. You were simply accorded a civil invitation to put it right. Bjenks (talk)

Why would you want to link A Voice for Men in this article? It would be more suited for the Misogyny article, if anything. I understand your point, though. Tutelary (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe (per Diogenes) that "if a thing exists, it may be spoken of". Bjenks (talk)

6 There are actually a few reliable sources for that, so it wasn't made up. I'll add one.

Good. Why not also restore my correction to the citation error that "misandry" appeared in 'The Spectator' in 1871. Bjenks (talk)

I don't have a problem with you doing that. Tutelary (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Since it is verifiable, your agreement is irrelevant. Bjenks (talk)

7 That's OK, as long as nobody gets attacked or anything of the sort, and the Civility is abided by. The fact that you've gone to great lengths to explain to me is the overt acceptance of collaboration--and I commend you for that. Tutelary (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This is only about the quality of Wikipedia content, about which I hope we both agree. Bjenks (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Got'cha. Tutelary (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are my main problems with the edits that you did for clarity:

• It radically changed the scope of the article using the sharp definition and requiring the 'hatred of men' when in reality, we don't need to exactly be driven by dictionaries. We can adapt the definitions as we see fit, pending consensus for that adaptation. We are even advised to ignore all rules if they make us uncomfortable in the benefit of the encylopedia.
• A Voice for Men, even if "See Also" is only meant for tangentically related to the topic and should not be listed as a Wikilink. I assumed that you wikilinked another article which was more appropriate that I did not object to (for some reason I thought you linked to Philandry, which is not the case.) A blog in which spouts MRA POVs does not belong as a wikilink.
• Linking to the blog, even if they did do a bunch of research, is not acceptable as an external link unless that person is an expert in certain things.
• One last sidenote; Third opinion could be used if either of us find the view of a stalemate in discussion. Tutelary (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Alright. Tutelary (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, the article is definitely in need of radical change in order to provide an encyclopedic treatment of the subject rather than a battleground of conflicting private opinions, definitions, and selective quotations, some of which appear irrelevant. This is in fact the subject of a discussion (above), started by Badmintonhist, to which you are welcome to contribute. If Wikipedia's tradition were to protect the status quo of ill-sourced misinformation, I would not wish to remain here. I will concede deletion of the external blog link, but not of a valid internal wikilink. On every other point, you have failed to establish valid grounds for your over-hasty blanket reversion, so I will be returning to repair that damage when time permits. Bjenks (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm gonna respond here rather than trying to insert my replies in breaks of the stuff.

• You made a bold change, and it was reverted, and now discussion is happening. BRD cycle is working. Before I go on, addressing edits as 'damage' is somewhat unwelcome as it is implying that my edits did not improve the article or were not a contribution, but malicious in implication. I am participating, we are collaborating and trying to find common ground here. I'm not your enemy.

Not malicious, however disagreeable that a casual, momentary reversion happened to dismiss hours of my work. I will retract the word 'damage' and substitute 'loss', if you wish. Bjenks (talk)

• A Voice For Men is a blog who is set up by an MRA and who constantly spouts those view points and ideals. In an article about Misandry, the hatred of men, and giving them coverage and more views on their article I don't think is very much appreciated. Per WP:ALSO, Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. So it's ultimately something we're going to hash out, but linking me to an article about 'If a thing exists, it should be spoken of.' is not an argument for inclusion.

I have no time for AVFM's blog or, for that matter, for their organisation. I note, however that the first paragraph of the WP article A Voice for Men links to this article. Are you arguing that the articles have no other relevance to each other? Or do you just not want anyone to read the WP content on AVFM? Bjenks (talk)

• I will cede on Philandry.
• We should overview on the side of caution of dictionary definitions. However, one dictionary definition, even as many state 'hatred of men'. The ones that do this are: , , ,, , . I do not think that Oxford presides over all those, and my original contention that it changed the scope was incorrect. The majority of the sources do dictate it as hatred of men, and the lead should reflect that. So my compromise solution; Misandry is the hatred of men for the lead the restoration of the citation on your part. The edits that I previously caught in the revert where you described the exact book where the term came from will be back. Everything else that you fixed other than: A Voice for Men link and the blog will be back; I still have contention of those, but I do not think that limiting it to the 'male sex' is good either. Also what will probably happen is that the section title of the 'prejudice' will need to be renamed. Tutelary (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I am awaiting your full response before I respond, due to the edit summary stating 'part' response. I don't want to respond to something which may not be your full thoughts. Tutelary (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and apols for being held up. I'm generally satisfied with your present summation and will not waste more time holding out for links to which you really object. I would prefer to spend time looking at a more serious level on how the article has developed, and whether it can be made more coherent and balanced as a whole. Cheers. Bjenks (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that this section is meant to catalogue instances of misandry within our culture but it seems to be only a vessel for bashing feminism as it comprises mostly of accusations of misandry, particularly within feminism or caused by feminism, rather than examples themselves. You have Solanas and Mary Daly but other than that you have:

"Bell hooks has discussed the issue of "man hating" during the early period of women's liberation as a reaction to patriarchal oppression and women who have had bad experiences with men in non-feminist social movements, but has criticized separatist strands of feminism as "reactionary" for promoting the notion that men are inherently immoral, inferior and unable to help end sexist oppression or benefit from feminism."

Accusing some feminists of being "man-haters"

"Naomi Wolf in Fire With Fire contrasted "power feminism" with "victim feminism" arguing that the latter promotes the "angelization" of women as victims that speak with a pure voice and inversely demonizes men as inherently amoral."

Accusing some feminists of being "man-haters"

"Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young argued that "ideological feminism" as opposed to "egalitarian feminism" has imposed misandry on culture."

Accusing feminists of causing societal misandry; accusation of societal misandry

"In 2002, pundit Charlotte Hays wrote "that the anti-male philosophy of radical feminism has filtered into the culture at large is incontestable; indeed, this attitude has become so pervasive that we hardly notice it any longer"."

Accusing feminists of causing misandry within society

"Sociologist Anthony Synnott argues that the reality of misandry is undeniable when one looks to cultural, academic, and media depictions of men. He states that "misandry is everywhere, culturally acceptable, even normative, largely invisible, taught directly and indirectly by men and women, blind to reality, very damaging and dangerous to men and women in different ways and de-humanizing.""

Accusing society of being misandristic without actually providing any examples which should be used in this section

"Wendy McElroy, an individualist feminist, wrote in 2001 that some feminists "have redefined the view of the movement of the opposite sex" as "a hot anger toward men seems to have turned into a cold hatred." She argued it was a misandrist position to consider men, as a class, to be irreformable or rapists."

Accusing some feminists of being "man-haters" with perhaps a more specific example as to why they are misandristic without actually providing any instances of anyone doing so (they do exist, I know that, so why weren't they provided?)

"In 2001, novelist Doris Lessing delivered a speech at Edinburgh Books Festival criticizing a "lazy and insidious" culture had taken hold within feminism that reveled in flailing men."

Accusing feminism of being misandristic

"Barbara Kay, a Canadian Journalist, has been critical of feminist Mary Koss's discussion of rape culture, describing the notion that “rape represents an extreme behavior but one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture" as "remarkably misandric"."

Accusing rape culture of being misandristic

I propose you either change the heading of this segment to be "Accusations of radical misandry" or rather "Accusations of misandry" as we really shouldn't be putting emotive labels upon things, or more specifically "Accusations of misandry within feminism" as that seems to be the focus that's been taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.15.187 (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

IP, I changed it to "Feminist Discussions of Misandry". I think that more clearly reflects the content of that section- A Canadian Toker (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It almost reads as if people are trying on purpose to create the worst possible article. I find it hard to believe that people could create something this ridiculous by accident.

• The section "'Patriarchal' and 'disposable' males" clearly does not belong here. It might be more apt to include it in the article for the Men's Right's movement. For example, soldiering is brought up within this article. However, men are not asked to become soldiers because society or people hate men. You could argue that it's sexist, but that that's only tangentially related to misandry. Likewise the part about divorce.

• The section "Criticism of the term" needs to be renamed, and completely rewritten. The first source in the leading paragraph does not even support the claim. Johnson in his book criticizes the inappropriate usage of the term, he does not criticize the term itself. That's extremely different.

• Even the middle section, "Accusations of radical misandry" I would argue does not even belong in this article. It seems completely silly to point out tiny individual examples of such a broad term in an encyclopedia -- especially such a large one. Maybe a couple EXAMPLES (rather than accusations) would suffice, but I think it would be better to remove this section entirely.

So if we removed all that, where would that leave us? This article is truly sad.66.220.250.160 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This is how WP works. Something is better than nothing. You are more than welcome to expand and improve the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

For now I've removed these sections as they don't seem to add to the quality of the article and read like original research. This isn't an article about male disposibility or radical feminism, and as such those sections do appear to be out of place. Countered (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This article has a long history of being a Wikipedia:Coatrack for men's rights advocates. Remove as needed. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have written a lead section based on what is written in the body of the article and removed the 'lead too short' tag. I hope others can expand and improve it. As per WP:Lead there are no refs in the lead;they are all in the body.

Please note that the lead should be a summary of the article. It is not a place for people to make points. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead is awful (I just popped in to check my spelling and was startled by how bad it is). I'm not a regular editor and have no relevant expertise (or even superficial general knowledge)so far as the subject matter/content is concerned so I don't feel confident enough from a knowledge perspective to judge the quality of my suggested edit to a good enough standard to edit your article. I'm going to paste my suggested "touch up" here and if it's not an improvement it won't disrupt the article (until the edit can be reverted by someone who knows better), but if it's useful it's there to cut and paste in (or scavenge parts from if some is helpful but the rest isn't).

.......

Misandry might be expressed (and potentially observed) as marginalisation of men that suggests men and boys' wellbeing is a lower priority to a society than the wellbeing of women and girls'. Men being perceived as more disposable could play a role in issues ranging from higher male suicide rates, the pervasive assignment of society's most dangerous occupational roles to the masculine gender and the consistent long term trend of lower life expectancy for men relative to women.

Misandry has been described as damaging to both men and women and in particular has been pointed to as a barrier to mutual respect between the sexes.

Despite the relatively modern addition of "misandry" to the English lexicon literary works dating as far back to Ancient Greece provide evidence to support misandry being regarded as a cross cultural social phenomenon rather than a culturally and historically particular development specific to any particular society. In addition to the works of Ancient Greeks, the phenomenon the word misandry describes has made appearances (implicit or explicit) in diverse works including contemporary graphic novels (comic books) in the prolific super hero genre, Shakespeare's body of work, The Vagina Monologues.

...........

Anyway, currently the article doesn't make sense but being clueless about the subject matter and not a regular wiki editro I think someone who knows more about wiki editing and the content matter of the article than I do should decide if my "touch up" is any actual improvement.

119.224.100.228 (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Large sections of the artyicle have recently been hacked from the article. I have no doubt that it caould be substantially improved but just removing sourced text will not do that.Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted such. There are some parts that I believe do belong in the article, but this bold edit does indeed make me take a closer look and wonder what's exactly being put here. Still, the editor should elaborate on exactly which statements and such are OR rather than remove about 11 kb of text and not explain beyond an edit summary. A 'brief mention' absolutely qualifies as a rs and is not OR. So I'm kind of curious to see their response. Tutelary (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The sections I removed have been talked about under this talk page. There has been discussion as to whether or not these sections reflect the sort of pages that wikipedia should have. This has nothing to do with the reputability of the sources, and has everything to do with the relevance of the sections. You can go on and say that you personally have no problem with how it's written, and that's your prerogative, but on the other hand I see it as a clear violation of how wikipedia article are supposed to be written. The sections I removed have absolutely nothing to do with the greater context of the page outside of a clearly biased opinionated faction that they serve. More specifically, this is not a blog for people to make random connections and accusations against the fields of study they disagree with. Furthermore, the very topics being discussed within the sections I removed appear to have absolutely no baring on the concept of misandry at all. Male desposability is a concept that is entirely divorced from the concept of misandry, and a history of criticism of feminism on a page about the hatred of men is in every sense not neutral. This is not a debate as the quality of the writing or even the relevance of the topic, or even how you personally feel it may or may not be relevance. This is a discussion of whether or not original research that has a clearly biased tone that has absolutely nothing to do with the article should be included or not. And as such, I feel it nessisary to improve the quality of this article by removing those sections in their entirety.   Countered |talk  00:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, rather than undo the hard work of others by edit warring let us come to a consensus here over whther anything needs to be removed.

The lead of misogyny says:

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.[1][2] Misogyny can be found within many mythologies of the ancient world as well as various religions. In addition, many influential Western philosophers have been described as misogynistic.[1][3]

It does not just cover the strict interpretation of the word as 'hatred of women' but a much broader interpretation of 'discrimination against women'. I see no reason why we should not do the same here. The sections that you removed are properly sourced and cover just that; ways in which societies and cultures discriminate aginst men. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That's not a sufficient reason for the page to read like someones personal blog.   Countered |talk  09:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So then again, you removed the content instead of fixing it, which should not happen. Every effort should be made to fix the content--if it truly belongs on the page, it's just in the wrong form, then it's your obligation to fix it, rather than just remove it, per WP:PRESERVE. I'm not too much for writing content or articles so I just attached a tag response, but I'll go through it myself and see if everything really lines up, whether stuff can be rephrased to better reflect sources, or the like. Tutelary (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, edit warring is not removing or editing pages, edit warring would be undoing other editors edits /before/ discussing removing their edits, which has been done twice now on this page, and not by me.   Countered |talk  09:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So let us stick to BRD then. Some editors made bold edits, these were reverted. Now we leave it and discuss.

In what way does this read like a personal blog. I agree that it is written as a collection of comments from sources rather than a piece of well written prose but it is not so different from misogyny in that respect. I am sure that it could be improved in style but I can see no good reason for deleting it.

With subjects of this nature there is unlikely to be a single generally accepted view so the article will, of necessity, give opinions from individual authors on the subject. We can only say what a balanced selection of sources say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but the tone needs to be neutral and not have so many buzzwords on it. Gimme a minute. Tutelary (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Better? Tutelary (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The bits you have rewritten seem more encyclopedic to me. I cannot see why you have remove whole paragraphs. It would be good if someone added something. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there are sections that need re-writing and things that don't fit well in the article. I don't think the section on 'male disposability' fits well in the article for instance. However I don't think deleting large chunks of information was in anyway helpful in improving the article. Wouldn't it have been better to cut out some of the slack and write and improve what needs to be improved? Why was the section on feminism and misandry removed? I found a 2009 academic study, 'are feminists 'man-haters'?' that concluded that women who identify as feminist have less hostile feelings towards men than women who don't identify as feminist. That seems to me a valid observation on a page about misandry. Marguerite Duras In France (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with the section on 'male disposability'? Misandry can take many forms, not all of them obvious. Someone above said that men fight because they want to. That is, no doubt, true of some men just as it is true that some women want to stay at home and look after babies, but a society that assumes all men want to fight is an example of discrimatory misogyny. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: You have restored some seriously dubious material twice. Let's start with the Warren Farrell Coatrack and move from there: Where in the book does Farrell mention "misandry" or anything about hatred of men? Please cite a quote and the page. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain what is wrong with this quote. It is from a published book (not self-published) and it clearly refers to misandry in its wider sense. It is not written in Wikipedia's voice but given as a published opinion on the subject. To balance this we also have a section of oposite opinions. That is all we can have; there is no 'right answer'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's quite simple, really. This article is supposed to be about misandry. Farrell doesn't mention misandry or anything about the "hatred of men and boys". He mentions other stuff, like sexism, discrimination, etc. And we have separate pages for those. @Tutelary: As the user that restored the Farrell stuff, can you cite the relevant part about misandry in the book? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot and do not support such an edit. I originally took a break from this page but the stuff I removed I made sure did not mention Misandry to remove it. The stuff that was restored violates WP:NOR. I just thought some of the stuff (15kb) was salvageable so I did my best at the time to remove all original research. Tutelary (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

But it was was you who restored the Farrell stuff that doesn't mention misandry. It's still in the article because you put it back. Since you appear to concede that the Farrell passage you restored violates WP:NOR, how about you fix it by removing the OR? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted a previous edit that removed the 'feminism and misandry' section. At present it only cites one academic study, entitled "Are Feminist Man Haters?", published in the journal Psychology of Women Quarterly found that feminist have less hostile attitudes towards men. I've only sourced one article so far but there is a research literature in social psychology that suggests that women that hold to traditional gender norms are more likely to hold animosity towards men. The article referenced discusses why it is that feminists have been labeled 'man-haters' when the empirical reserach doesn't bear this out. I'm open to improving this section but the way this article is being edited seems to me that people are uncomfortable having a page on misandry and what to deplete it of content so that the word is treated as nothing more than an empty signifer. --Marguerite Duras In France (talk) 06:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I had a bit in Radical Feminism and Misandry section,

"Andrea Dworkin criticized the biological determinist strand in radical feminism that in 1977 she found "with increasing frequency in feminist circles" which echoed the views of Valerie Solanas that males are biologically inferior to women and violence by nature requiring a gendercide to allow for the emergence of a "new Ubermensch womon".^[1]"

It was removed because Dworkin's description doesn't mention 'misandry' specifically, but it describes a group of women talking about the elimination of the male sex. How is it a stretch to say that's misandric? --Marguerite Duras In France (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I know bell hooks has chosen to write her name without inital capitals, but in English writing the first word of a sentence is always capitalised. Bell is entitled to decide how to write her name but she cannot change the rules of English writing. If you think it is important that she always has her name without capitals then change the word order of the sentence to achieve this, as is done in two examples above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Marguerite Duras In France (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)