Talk:Misandry/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"There is little doubt, of course, that some feminists are misandrists"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grammatical correction of a sentence in the Misandry article.

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

−

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

+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big study finding evidence of widespread anti-male bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

A minor issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

11 February 2024

Discussion is going nowhere. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
according to this article no one hate men and all women do not hate men does that mean that all man hating women that I met in real life are paid by antifeminists to pretend they hate men? misandry is not only about institutions and systems it is also about feelings, sourced article does not mean it is correct a lot of sources are biased --Ernne (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC) The article does not say that it does not exist "Biassed" sources is not a reason for removing them. If you've got any sources that say otherwise please list them. —Panamitsu (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources, not users' personal beliefs, opinions, or experiences. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Men are not immune from systematic discrimination and sexism in institutions [1] [2] [3] [4] --Ernne (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC) The first two links are poor sources. The book by Nathanson and Young is only good for showing their opinion—they are not expert scholars on this topic, despite all the books they publish. Rather, they are religious activists trying to roll back the advances of feminism. Reddit discussions cannot be used here per WP:SPS. The scholarly article by Léa Védie says that the accusation of misandry is used by men against feminists, to minimize them and force them back into patriarchal norms. So it doesn't support your idea. The newspaper opinion piece by Victoria Smith does not help your cause, either. She says that misandry is not equal to misogyny—misandry is too small in comparison. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Léa Védie and Victoria Smith are also not expert scholars on this topic too their articles are only good for showing their opinion they don't know what it is like to be men you should watch videos about the book Self-Made Man: My Year Disguised as a Man by journalist Norah Vincent she said a lot of women hated her because they thought she was cis man --Ernne (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC) https://pechmanlaw.com/are-white-males-victims-of-reverse-discrimination-in-employment/ https://www.newsweek.com/biden-administration-unwilling-oppose-discrimination-against-men-opinion-1762731 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6564767/Men-face-discrimination-women.html https://www.resumebuilder.com/1-in-6-hiring-managers-have-been-told-to-stop-hiring-white-men/ --Ernne (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC) The Daily Mail is an unreliable source per WP:DAILYMAIL. —Panamitsu (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Léa Védie and Victoria Smith are not expert scholars on this topic ... they don't know what it is like to be men – reliable sources are not required to have intimate personal experience of a topic. Nonetheless, if they're not experts, then why did you suggest them as sources? WP:NEWSWEEK is generally unreliable post-2013. The other websites fall under WP:SELFPUBLISHED, also not reliable. Self-Made Man: My Year Disguised as a Man is a primary source recounting the author's personal experiences. Secondary and tertiary sources are generally preferred instead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) You didn't read pechmanlaw and resumebuilder ? I suggested Victoria even though she is feminist because her article say misandry could be recognized soon -- I said what you quoted in green because Binksternet said Nathanson and Young is only good for showing their opinion—they are not expert scholars on this topic so I repeated what he said to mean no one can name well known experts on the topic of misandry Ernne (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC) https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/ex-nyt-editor-jill-abramson-may-have-been-fired-for-hiring-too-many-women-114052300790_1.html --Ernne (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC) That churnalism article merely recycles claims from the deprecated WP:NYPOST. I already stated that the other two websites are unreliable per WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Wikipedia doesn't need to note every time misandry is mentioned in the news, and the proposal to make it a hate crime in the UK was ultimately rejected anyway. The article already cites numerous reputable, scholarly sources on the topic of misandry. Just because the authors are not known to you does not mean they are not considered experts in their field. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC) I'll say what you said just because the authors Nathanson and Young are not known to Binksternet does not mean they are not considered experts in their field https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/gender-stereotypes-cause-recruiters-to-discriminate https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/workplace/half-of-men-in-corporate-australia-are-fatigued-by-gender-equality-20211124-p59bmw if we think men can't be discriminated against just because they are not women then we failed to support gender equality the world is not the utopia of men --Ernne (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC) The first link here is to a university press release about a primary research study, which is a primary source. Despite the headline, "Gender stereotypes lead recruiters to discriminate against men", we read: the research also showed that men received around 50% more call-backs than women for male-dominated jobs, confirming the widely evidenced gender bias in the recruitment process against women for roles that have been traditionally dominated by men. Hardly a slam dunk for misandry in the workplace. The second article is describing a public opinion survey, not a scientific research paper: Half of men working in white-collar professions are tired of the gender equality discussion in the workplace and believe reverse discrimination is occurring. Neither article is specifically about the concept of misandry. Nathanson's and Young's works such as Legalizing Misandry (2005) were not published by any respected, mainstream academic press, and their conclusions have been heavily criticized by scholars, as detailed in the article already. To my knowledge no one here has claimed that men can't be discriminated against just because they are not women, but in any case Wikipedia is not the place to right perceived wrongs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC) edited 14:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC) https://dailytitan.com/opinion/misandry-is-as-socially-dangerous-as-misogyny/article_3b09a32a-1ca6-54f7-b158-033a02470c12.html --Ernne (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Newspaper opinion pieces are also primary sources. The Daily Titan is hardly an authoritative source on anything besides the goings-on at CSUF. It's unclear what you hope to achieve by spamming the talk page with links like these, but you may want to read the reliable sources guideline first, especially under WP:NEWSORG: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact ... The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint ... Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)