Talk:Misandry/Archive 4

Non-existent NPOV
"The modern activism around misandry represents an antifeminist backlash of hatred against women, promoted by marginalized men. Claims of misandry, though they may point to localized instances of injustice, are collectively an extension of misogyny"

This article in its current form is not only a nuclear violation of anything remotely resembling NPOV, but the part quoted above is literally outright self-admitted bigotry ("marginalized men are misogynists") - basically implied racism, classism, hatred for male abuse victims and countless other things. How is this still up? How are you still pretending Wikipedia has anything to do with neutrality at this point?

You're disgusting and indistinguishable from the alt-right at this point. 83.85.201.57 (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * By the way, seeing the "standards" described above, I can't wait for "men can't be raped" to be defined by Wikipedia as "a valid theory as defined by some scholars" - I am sure if you cherrypick enough, you will find enough "feminist scholars" supporting it and all the sources denouncing it as gross will suddenly be "unreliable".
 * Can't wait for the condescending, narcissistic reply to this about how I haven't read enough theory or that this is the wrong place for me. 83.85.201.57 (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * :( -- Python Drink (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Drinking male tears
The final paragraph that is a big point of contention cites a study titled “drinking male tears” which is paywalled. This study only views Misandry through the lens of feminists who have already been harassed online. Obviously Misandry in this sense appears only from “marginalized” men expressing their mysogony, but given the scope of the study it is not representative of Misandry as a whole.

I suggest we remove or rewrite the paragraph who’s only only source is the drinking male tears study. 174.86.34.106 (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's remove the most well-researched, definitive and authoritative study from the article, because one person doesn't like it. Binksternet (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This response doesn’t address my concerns with the source. You wielding this piece of research as if it is the gold card of everything with respect to misogyny and misandry is why this whole talk page has exploded and the article is locked. The article you are citing only looks at misandry through a feminist lens, and only once a feminist has already experienced misogyny online from proclaimed misandry victims. That’s by definition going to be seen as misogyny disguised by misandrist motivations or whatever the hell the biased research said. Your conclusion that you have drawn from the article is incorrect, and I suggest we remove it. It offers no actual substance and only serves as a divisive statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.86.34.106 (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Many of the studies on the discursive use of the term misandry in the manosphere do have quite good methdologies. I'm personally reasonable convinced from these sources that the concept of misandry has been used reactively in response to the concept of misogyny. Of course, that tells us nothing about how much misdandry actually exists and how it functions. Unfortunately we are in primary source, philosophy and ideological theory are when it comes to the study of misandry which makes things a little difficult. In other areas we might find a nice review that would contextualize this study. I'm not quite sure the research is biased, so much as only studying the use of the concept amongst anti-feminists. Perhaps the language could be clear and we could add more sources Talpedia (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I dismissed your concerns with the source because the "feminist lens" term is a manosphere dismissal, a non-neutral viewpoint not shared by Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, a peer-reviewed scholarly paper, written by an expert in the field, is just about the highest authority for defining the topic. The authors of the piece in question, Caplan and Marwick, are topic scholars, and the piece was peer-reviewed and published in a scholarly journal. Its conclusions are definitive. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * ”feminist lens” is not manosphere dismissal. I make no claims that feminist do not receive hatred from people that claim to be victims of misandry. But Drinking Male Tears is not a neutral-viewpoint source, it is not the definitive research on the topic and is heavily biased to only view certain interactions described in the previous sentence. This isn’t dismissive of any issues that misogyny comes with, but rather a critique of the research’s limited scope and why the conclusions to the research as stated in the article are incorrect. You have made no actual effort to properly support why this piece of research should be the one true source to draw the conclusions of the paragraph in question, and as such I suggest we remove the offending paragraph or at least rewrite it to reflect the limited scope of the study174.86.34.106 (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd take all of this with a pinch of salt. The problem we are dealing with here is a lack of scholarly work on the topic. It's definitive in the sense that other scholars haven't written about it from a different viewpoint as far as we know. Talpedia (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I sure some day Drinking male tears will be the criticized and become fringe, but not today. Today we should keep this scource because of WP:MAINSTREAM and Why Wikipedia cannot claim the Earth is not flat.--Reprarina (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A slightly more diplomatic answer :D. Unfortunately much of the material necessary for a nuanced understanding of a number of topics is behind paywalls, so wikipedia allows people to cite them. There are ways for people outside of academia to access them cheaply. Wikipedia for good or ill tends to follows literature and there is a reasonable amount of literature on the rhetorical, ideological and political use the concept of misandry and rather less that actually looks at its prevalence, effects, or how it functions. We do, however, cite a range of viewpoints here and should material be published on misandry more interested in its prevalence than rhetorical use it can be included here. If you can find any academic sources on the prevalence or form of misandry I would be interested in them. Talpedia (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem with "Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment" is this scource ignores lots of non-antifeminist reliable works about anti-Black misandry (Black Male Studies). It's the big discipline. Not fringe and not even seriously criticized. We should keep the scource "Drinking male tears" but we shouldn't overrestimate it. "The modern activism around misandry represents an antifeminist backlash" it's the opinion of Marwick, Alice E.; Caplan, Robyn, it's not the fact. The article still need to be globalized. First of all, the works about anti-Black misandry are reliable and good for this article. The Man-Not, Toward a BlackBoyCrit Pedagogy (Tommy J. Curry and Nathaniel Bryan) it's only for beginning. And I don't think this article should be about (white) men's rights activism in North America. It shouldn't be a critical review on Nathanson and Young's books. The problem with their books is not the phrase "misandry exists". In fact, the mainstream linguistic point of view is still misandry is a hatred of men, and it's not about oppression. So, the article shouldn't be the article about fringe theory about systemic oppression of white cishet gender-conforming men in the modern western world, but about such things as man-hating and anti-Black misandry.Reprarina (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Anti-Black male "misandry" is racism more than it is sexism. The topic deserves its own article rather than being shoehorned into this one. Regarding misandry of the colorblind variety, Marwick and Caplan didn't publish their opinions, they published the conclusions of their research. If they provide a definition of misandry (and they do), that's a definition we must address. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Anti-Black misandry is not nonmisandrous racism against Black males. According to RS and common sense.Reprarina (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The topic deserves its own article rather than being shoehorned into this one. Maybe, but it can be also said about using of the word by antifeminists. The mainstream linguistic point of view that misandry is the hatred of men, and the first sentence of the article is Misandry (/mɪˈsændri/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men. So the article should be about people who hate men, not about the antifeminist fringe theory.Reprarina (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fringe, eh? Nope. Those who you consider "fringe" are scholars defining the field. The scholarly consensus remains that misandry is an extension of misogyny, that misandry is a backlash to feminism, that misandry is vanishingly small in scale compared to misogyny. Misandry itself is the fringe of misogyny. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe you didn't understand me. I say - antifeminist fringe theory. Intersectional theory is not fringe, of course. (But it's not as mainstream as general theory of relativity). that misandry is a backlash to feminism - the word misandry? the word misandry is using since 19th century and not by anti-feminists and mean hatred of men. Linguists who write dictionaries define misandry as hatred of men. They are also in mainstream. And it's using now as a part of the term Anti-Black misandry in Black Male Studies. Because racism against Black males, according to T. J. Curry, is misandrous and absolutely not non-misandrous. It also a part of scientific mainstream, that racism against Black Males is misandrous. "is vanishingly small in scale compared to misogyny" it's not the main theme of the arcticle Misandry.Reprarina (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The word "misandry" was hardly ever used for centuries. It was in the 1961 dictionary but not in mainstream parlance... The New York Times said as much in 1985. That's why the word's literal meaning does not take up the majority of this article. The word is used today as leverage against the advances of feminism. Binksternet (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The word pedophilia is also used more often for child sexual abuse. But it's different things and different articles. Transphobic people use the word homophobia, grooming etc. against the advances of trans rights movement. RSs about misandry (man-hating/part of anti-Black misandry) not from fringe scholars exist.Reprarina (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This "fringe scholars" shit doesn't fly. Binksternet (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It should. Fringe theories.-Reprarina (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe you understand me not very good because of my not very good English. I mean, there is fringe theories and not-fringe theories. The theory that there is systemic oppression of men by women is fringe, of course. But the theory that racism against men is misandrous, that it's linked with such prejudices as "Black men are probably dangerous offenders", "Black males can't be raped" is a part of scientific mainstream.Reprarina (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have seen a few of the scholarly articles about racism against Black men, comparing that experience to misandry, so I know it is a valid topic, part of the scholarship related to misandry. But this article focuses primarily on sexism, not racism. This article should mention peripheral concerns so that the reader can click to see them. The racism of Black male misandry is a peripheral concern, and if there is an article written about it, the reader can click on it. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I still think it would be nice to write a few sentences. We can write the main article Anti-Black misandry and the small chapter in this article.Reprarina (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet another argument for anti-Black misandry in this article: racialized misandry is mentioned in this source (p. 443). So, it's the theme for this article.Reprarina (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of all NPOV sections of the intro
Bink is the only person on this talk page steel-manning the terrible tone of the intro to this article. No effort has been made to effectively defend these points besides Bink, and even those have been done unsuccessfully. As such it seems this page has reached a relative consensus on how to treat the intro. 174.86.34.106 (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * what?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Nathanson and Young in the preamble
Dear users, do you think that they are really so important to be in the preamble? Their books are not a part of scientific mainstream. Reprarina (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thoughts. I don't think there is a scientific mainstream on this topic; most of this lies within the humanities, though I think some of the textual analysis might stretch into the scientific and there is a little adjacent psychology in the article. I suspect this psychological (and social psychology) research *could* become a scientific mainstream, but there's not much there at the moment.
 * Nathanson and Young are working academics in the humanities like other scholars and I'm not really sure there is a mainstream here. Just different sociological theories and critique.
 * I'm hopeful that mens studies as opposed to womens studies might be able to provide something more like a consensus and synthesis on the topic, the issue with some of the "feminist" literature is that it's not addressing experiences of men, more the political opposition to particular conceptualizations of womenhood. Talpedia (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If they're good for the preamble, we can also give lots of refernces to their books in the article. But I think it would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Their books are very criticized. I think from the masculist camp Pasi Malmi and Tommy J. Curry are better. And I don't think we should write about North America in the preamble. Global project Reprarina (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I think I need to think through the concept of WP:DUE from the humanities perspective to have a good opinion. Things that mean something not be due from my perspective are
 * The literature has moved on, perspectives have been addressed and merged into other framings without real attempts to distinguish the new case. (this can be dealt with by finding reviews or papers critiquing old papers)
 * Stuff being out of date and no one really looking at it. (this can be dealt with by finding newer sources on the topic)
 * Distinct literatures that ignore the critiques raised by other literatures and just keep on going. (this is a sign of pseudoscience)
 * As I've muttered about here, my concern is that you have two literatures that ignore one another, so I'm not sure WP:FALSEBALANCE exaxctly apply.
 * What we could do is is summarize the masculinist perspectives in the lead and then move the other stuff down into the articles.
 * I think if we switch from "author said X" to "X is said by some authors such a A, B, C" then some of the problems with undue weight to particular sources might go away. Talpedia (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I don' t really think any authors have an issue with a more globalist perspective including those perspectives that may be unique to particular subpopulations. It's just people are doing things other than find sources. I'd be in favour of just throwing in globalist and racial perspectives in it's own section and as we add content the article will grow more structure (people can draw out commonalities and hopefully find comparative sources for these). Talpedia (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Nathanson and Young are responsible for a bunch of the mess we're in now, with misandry badly misrepresented by them as a commonplace occurrence. The two authors publish idiotic stuff regularly about misandry, creating a "cottage industry" on the topic, according to Michael Kimmel, who says their badly researched works are "utterly tendentious". Nathanson and Young are major figures in misandry because of their prominence, not because of their authority or expertise. Many scholars have commented negatively about them, which is why they are in the lead section. Note that Nathanson and Young are taking two giant steps away from scholarship with their book series on misandry: the first step is that they are scholars in religious studies but misandry is not part of that field, and the second step is that they are publishing popular books rather than peer-reviewed scholarly studies. Kimmel rightly laughs at their nonsense, as does journalism and communication professor Michael Dorland of Carleton University, sociologist Dorothy E. Chunn of Simon Fraser University, education professor Jon G. Bradley of McGill University, Gender and Women's Studies professor Jonathan A. Allan of Brandon University, and sociologist Terrell F. Carver of the University of Bristol. On the other hand, sociologist Anthony Synnott is a fan of Nathanson and Young. In the 2007 Iowa court case Varnum v. Brien, Nathanson and Young both testified against same-sex marriage, but the judges rejected their claim to be experts on the topic, saying they had an "absence of expertise in sociology, child development, psychology, or psychiatry." Despite their lack of knowledge about the topic, these two are important parts of the topic because of how much crap they have published. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think extending Voir dire procedures to assess standards of scholarship is a bit of a stretch. I'm not sure you can extrapolate from "quality of researcher" to "quality of paper", and I'm not really sure that a courts opinion matters, isn't influenced by something specific to the case, or would apply to other cases.
 * I agree that I would much prefer sources from journals to those in books, since arguments are often required to be clearer and flights of polemic fancy are kept to a minimum. Many scholars who critique misandry publish in book form with a similar polemic bent.
 * Academics do publish outside their area of training or PhD research. Wittgenstein trained as an engineer, then had his unpublished work converted into a PhD in cambridge. Hilbert trained as a mathematician but then did a bunch of work on physics. It feels like a bit of a reach.
 * But yeah, I'd sort of prefer to dodge the issue about whether the two are to be considered reliable by finding other sources that contextualize their position without just being all "the concept of misandry is used by internet trolls and distracts from feminism and summons an invalid comparison to misogyny" and more "a thorough social analysis shows that misandry tends to operate at an individual rather than structural level if misandry is intrepreted narrowly. Interestingly..." Talpedia (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice comparison to Wittgenstein, who is widely held in high esteem for his mastery of structured thought. On the other hand, the scientific method eludes Young and Nathanson: "The views espoused by these individuals appear to be largely personal and not based on observations supported by scientific methodology or based on empirical research in any sense.” I seriously doubt that these two will be remembered for very long. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm only comparing to Wittgenstein in the loosest sense that academics move fields. He's also well known so useful as a shared data point. I agree that Young and Nathanson are unscientific, but then I think large parts of gender studies are because society is big and complex so the methods of humanities get used. Talpedia (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with Kimmel is he hasn't legal education, he's a sociologyst, so he's not as reliable as possible in such things what is and what is not the discrimination (e.g. against men) in the world from a legal point of view... The same problem with many other scholars.Reprarina (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sociologist. And he's not a lawyer but he's an authority on the topic overall. I wouldn't cite him for legal theory, but his work does mention sociolegal history.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed - intro
Hi there. I’ve just noticed an unsourced statement:

“ counterpart of misogyny, since misogyny is many times more prevalent in scope and more severe in its consequences.”

Claims like this require a source!

Have a nice day :) 49.179.18.33 (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It appears they have failed to cite anything regarding that statement, or logically back it up. I don't know wether or not a citation needed tag should be placed there. "since misogyny is many times more prevalent in scope and more severe in its consequences." should have a citation. while I tend to agree misogyny is bigger than misandry, the statement, "and more severe in consequences" appears to downplay misandry, but sexism is bad either way. I would be cautious about removing the "more severe in consequences" part, but a citation is needed 2189 is out of order (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've taken it out a couple of times and it's been added back in. The argument is that it is a summary of the text. Perhaps the Gilmore paragraph in the section on criticism is the closest thing to a source for this. Maybe the sentence could be tightened up with a few sources from the criticism section. Talpedia (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The sentence is a reasonable paraphrase of Gilmore, I have removed the citation needed tag. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm suspicious cos I'd expect at least a little rewording. I might have a look through and add some page numbers. Did we happen to have some handy? Talpedia (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Michael Kimmel writes in Angry White Men about Gilmore's misogyny–misandry comparison that "there is no parallel of misandry at all; it's a false equivalence." (Page 134.) Kimmel says in his own words that misogyny is so widespread that it is institutionalized in human culture with a "repressive apparatus", as opposed to misandry which has no such apparatus, despite the claims of Nathanson and Young. Kimmel says it is "truly ridiculous" to propose that misandry is large enough in scope to have been institutionalized in human culture. (Pages 133–134.) Kimmel says that it is easy to "demonstrate empirically" how MRAs are "wrong" in their claims that misandry is a big problem. (Page 135.) In his 1989 book Misogyny, Misandry, and Misanthropy, R. Howard Bloch describes how misogyny is so pervasive, so deeply rooted in human culture that tracing its history is very difficult. The scope of misogyny is very, very large. (Pages 1–2.) Bloch portrays misandry as minor. Marwick and Caplan in their 2018 piece "Drinking male tears" describe the arc of the word 'misandry': "Using critical discourse analysis, we examine the term misandry, which originates in the manosphere; trace its infiltration into more mainstream circles; and analyze its ideological and community-building functions. We pay particular attention to how this vocabulary reinforces a misogynistic ontology which paints feminism as a man-hating movement which victimizes men and boys." Marwick and Caplan show that misandry is a false claim of MRAs who propose that feminism has invaded society and become institutionalized, that "feminism has brought about systemic discrimination against men". Hopton and Langer wrote in 2021 that misandry in its modern form comes from misogynistic activists from the manosphere, for the purpose of reinstating male privilege and power. They say that the concept of misandry has "leaked" into the material world from online discussions of MRAs, describing a small but toxic presence. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * even if misandry is miniscule, it is still there. misandry exists, even in small proportions. while you have proven the term misandry has been hijacked by the insane nuts over in the manosphere, Misogyny is only more severe in consequences due to its size. otherwise, they are both just as bad, and both promote unjustified hate in one way or another 2189 is out of order (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Arguing that misandry doesn't exist in a piece titled 'Drinking male tears' does seem quite amusing, doesn't it? 78.55.70.183 (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Add the Psychological impact
There should be information about the "Psychological impact" which is currently overlooked in this article. The article about Misogyny has several headings that should be added here to expand information about the topic. Such as "Misandrist ideas among prominent Western thinkers", and "Online misandry". -Artanisen (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Add list of modern examples of misandry
There should be a list of (modern) examples of misandry in western media and entertainment (and non-western cultures). One of the most severe examples in recent years is the "kill all men" which is western-created misandry. -Artanisen (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your source doesn't think patriarchy exists. Ha! Binksternet (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

4 September 2022
not the first or only wikipedia by a long shot that clearly shows a bias in how certain (feminist) claims are dragged along for a statement of fact

which clearly seems a violation of the good faith principle pertaining to the neutral point of view it's beyond me how antagonistic motives sources like: "Feminist Media Studies" get to play with semantics to suggest blame or responsibility to another party. parts like:

"This populist viewpoint is denied by sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies who counter that misandry is not at all established as a cultural institution, nor is it equivalent to misogyny which is many times more prevalent in scope, far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences."

"denied" tries a bit too hard to suggest to people the sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies are the ones in the position to verify this, when a denial isn't necessarily factually truthful and this one hasn't been proven to be true, that is circular logic, as well as shifting the burden of proof, they are making the claim, not populists.

populism has absolutely nothing to do with this whatsoever. shoehorning that in, just attempts to draw a divide between the scholars and populists for seemingly no reason at all, there is no correlation here (i can guess the reason though), to lull the people into the idea they speak from more authority than they actually do on this, again, statement of opinion.

"nor is it equivalent to misogyny which is many times more prevalent in scope, far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences."

this part is borderline trying to be a statement of fact... long-winded, and i believe it even intends to suggest to the reader the the claims are truthful by just bombarding them with premises. this sentence just feels a bit like it's trying to hoodwink people.

and trying to justify it by virtue of having a lot of claims..., a premise/statement is not a verification/confirmation of its truthfulness, neither are 20.... in fact, the more premises, the less likely they are to be all true, textbook conjunction fallacy type of stuff i'd suggest we put a "which they believe" in between the long end, just to break it up for the reader a bit better and avoid the misunderstanding.

fair suggestion: "sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, claim/suggest that misandry is not at all established as a cultural institution, nor is it equivalent to misogyny, which they believe is many times more prevalent in scope, far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.174.78.47 (talk • contribs) 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the word 'denied' implies any special knowledge or authority on a subject. See for example: Climate change denial. However, I agree that the latter half of the sentence is veering a little too close to wikivoice, stating an assertion that half of the RS disagree with as a fact. I'll take your phrasing suggestion for that part, mysterious nameless editor. (You can sign your posts with four ~ symbols like "~ ~ ~ ~" but without the spaces). Joe  (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Half of our "reliable sources" are just men's rights activists cranking up the followers. The most authoritative "half" is the scholars who study the topic and report neutrally. The result of this imbalance is that the activists are greatly reduced in weight, and the true scholars are presented in Wikivoice. I removed your recent addition because you mistakenly put Nathanson and Young in the "scholars" group when they are instead conservative religious activists against feminism. Their field of scholarship is religion, which does not include gender studies or misandry, so they are fish out of water in this topic. All of their misandry writings are an attempt to roll back feminism, not an attempt to write neutrally about something they have studied with objective rigor. Binksternet (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As ever, the issue is that they *don't* study the topic. They study the use of the term misandry within certain circles. When such scholars stay within the bounds of science they are neutral; when they step outside they often are not.
 * > Their field of scholarship is religion
 * I still think this division between "true" scholars and "activist" scholars based on the subject of someone's PhD isn't really valid. Talpedia (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nathanson and Young are not scholars of misandry because they make shit up about it. Their doctoral theses don't come into play here. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean fine. I agree they are in the philosophical / theory space rather than the "statistics / experimental" space. Do you think they actively say things that are untrue rather than implausible narratives? Talpedia (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * They have been dismissed by Kimmel who said their writings on the topic are "utterly tendentious". That means they are biased; he considers them to be pushing the cause of antifeminism. The judge panel in Varnum v. Brien (2007) said that they had absolutely no expertise in sociology. At that point, the two authors had already pumped out their first two misandry books, feeding the manosphere more ignorant crap. It's safe to say that I agree with Kimmel and the Iowa judges. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We've been back on forth on voir dire stuff before. I don't think it's reasonable to use voir dire as a standard to assess scholarly work. I should probably read Kimmel's critique. Talpedia (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Those two would have to perform scholarly work before such work could be assessed on a scholarly basis. So far, nothing of their misandry industry is remotely scholarly. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Our anonymous friend using IP 77.174.78.47 from The Hague is concerned that the word "denied" doesn't quite capture what sociologists and other scholars are saying, because "half of the RS" disagree with it. The portion of disagreement is not from scholars, so there is a false balance being forced by that assumption. Also, our IP friend tried unsuccessfully to get this article deleted at Articles for deletion/Misandry; a proposal which was very quickly shot down. To me, all of this looks like trolling. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I feel a bit like I'm repeating myself here. A number of the "pro-misandry existing" writers are scholars in the sense that they have worked in academia. Some of them are sociologists. Some of them are political scientists. I agree that the research on this topic is patchy, philosophical, political or non-existent. I agree that the work on the use of the concept of misandry for political purposes is more scientific and more published. But I would consider "misandry exists" to be a minority scholarly viewpoint. Talpedia (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "misandry is pervasive/systemic" is a minority scholarly viewpoint, "misandry is the hatred of men+people who hate men exist" is not.Reprarina (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

POV
The article is written from the assumption that misandry is a concept arising solely from alt-right antifeminism. This is simply not the case. Skrelk (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * What do reliable sources say about the topic? The bulk of sources talk about this topic as largely related to the Manosphere, antifeminism, etc.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Antifeminism is definitely described by sources as the origin of misandry claims. Much less so is your stated connection to alt-right people, a group which is defined by racism, not sexism. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I support the non-neutrality template. At least because such people as Kimmel, Marwick, and Caplan ignore works about misandrous aspect of anti-Black male racism (T. Hasan Johnson, Tommy J. Curry, Nathaniel Bryan), so they are not the ideal sources. Reliable, but not ideal. Specific hatred of Black men and boys exists, they are suffer from it and it's not the manosphere propaganda. On the contrary, it's not the popular theme in MensRights reddit, and Tommy J. Curry faces bullying from far-right activists. Also, Krell E. C. sais gender policing against Black trans men is linked with racialized transmisandry (Krell E. C. Is transmisogyny killing trans women of color? Black trans feminisms and the exigencies of white femininity // Transgender Studies Quarterly).--Reprarina (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Anti-Black male "misandry" is racism + sexism, not sexism alone. Kimmel, Marwick, Caplan, etc. "ignore" it because it is peripheral. They are writing about the purely sexism aspect. Black issues are off-topic here, worthy perhaps of a separate section discussing it, but not worthy of redefining misandry. Binksternet (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's wrong to instill that misandry is a word using primarly by angry white men when it's used also by Black scholars. Marc A. Ouellette in International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities in 2007 mentions racialized misandry, so we also should, and we have more current sources. Reprarina (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Misandry was defined as sexism alone. Multiple sources define it this way. If you want to put racialized misandry into Wikipedia, give it its own article. After you do that, we can summarize it briefly here and provide a link. But you are not shoehorning another topic into this one. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Skrelk, the article does not misrepresent the sources. Can it be expanded with more material? Certainly. Your concern was that "The article solely focuses on critiquing misandry as a concept." The article can absorb new material beyond the conceptual; such new material just needs to have good sourcing. Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it’s fair to add the disputed tag here Tannim101 (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Nathason removal from lede
I do think that including Nathanson in the lede is potentially undue, but so is only mentioning the manosphere and ignorning books and scholarships. I'm aware of the argument that the authors are in some sense an outgrowth serving manosphere groups, but I haven't really seen citations for it strong enough for us to use is to make editorial decisions... and I'm not sure how strong evidence would need to be for us to start making editorial decisions.

I've tried introducting a sentence from the overview instead. I would be hapy to mention the manosphere first as I agree that it is perhaps a more common use of the term - though common and important aren't quite the same - but not with the "In the Internet Age" because this is to imply the scholarship just stopped. Talpedia (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yep. I removed it for the reasons stated - although I don't think it (or likely, any, pro or con single author/team) belongs in the lede in that way; it seemed jarring as was, a reference/appraisal dominating what should be an introduction. I haven't really considered it beyond that. Conan The Librarian (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's probably better to have summaries of literature in the lead if there is enough consensus and general literature for us to make them. Talpedia (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

10 December 2022
This article is not about feminism. As it reads now most if not all the content has to do with feminism. It reeks of bias 67.238.99.187 (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly you haven't read the literature about it. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

23 October 2022
In the Internet Age, users posting on manosphere internet forums such 4chan and subreddits addressing men's rights activism (MRAs), claim that misandry is widespread, established in the preferential treatment of women, and shown by discrimination against men. This populist viewpoint is denied by sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies who counter that misandry is not at all established as a cultural institution, nor is it equivalent to misogyny which is many times more prevalent in scope, far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences. Scholars criticize MRAs for promoting a false equivalence between misandry and misogyny. The modern activism around misandry represents an antifeminist backlash, promoted by marginalized men. 24.93.163.170 (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The article stating misandry is anti feminist is a poor source, it states misandry as a term originated in the internet manosphere, but the term is from the 1870s. This bit of the intro needs rewriting as it is based on a poor source. Tannim101 (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean . The source is Feminist Media Studies, a refereed journal published by a major academic publisher. The cited paper states on page 548, . I'm not seeing any contradiction. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

31 December 2022
I see a hornet's nest is swarming this subject, stirred up almost entirely by feuding apparent men's rights advocates and apparent feminists. So to intrude on the argument with a purely objective observation, this article is about as unencyclopedic as I've seen on Wikipedia. If we can't get something up that doesn't say, in effect, that misandry doesn't exist, and then elaborate on that statement by implying that men have it coming, then we should delete the whole thing. (And perhaps instead add a brief paragraph on the topic to the bottom of the Misogyny page.)

As it stands, the Misandry article isn't about misandry, or much of anything that I can identify. Laodah 05:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * What do reliable sources say? In the academic world, there is no "misandry" in the sense of a parallel to misogyny.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There's things like Benevolent sexism / Ambivalent sexism and Ambivalence towards men with a subfactor (hostility towards men) (all of which have been worked on by Glick). You also have Gender empathy gap and Women-are-wonderful effect. I was wondering a while back if it'd be good to have an article along the lines of "Gendered experience of men", perhaps Men's studies sort of deals with this and whether it'd be WP:DUE to link to this. These things don't seem to be called "misandry" in the same way that "misogyny" gets (outside of a few of the more "Gender studies" types authors like Synnott, Farrell, Nathanson and Young (all of whom are academics - though I think they have published their work in book rather than paper form). Talpedia (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Being an academic doesn't mean someone's every word is encyclopedic; see Freeman Dyson for example. Nathanson & Young are religious scholars, not sociologists, psychologists, or political scientists. Their views on misandry should carry little weight on their own. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an old argument so we don't necessarily want to rehash it. Farrell was trained as a political scientist, Synnott as a sociologist, its not uncommon to train in one field and work in another. I would agree that there is a poverty of literature... but also feel like no one is actually engaging with the literature - just writing opinion pieces and studying what people fflame post reddit as though they were bugs.
 * I don't really feel that there is such a large amount of literature to render these views irrelevant. We just "report the controversy". Talpedia (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Any controversy should be supported by secondary and tertiary sources describing it from a disinterested viewpoint. It doesn't matter whether Farrell trained as a scientist or circus performer; the standard for relevant scholarship is vetting by the scholarly community. To my knowledge none of the arguments for misandry as an institution have this. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Giving a subsection each to the views of Farrell, Synnott, and Nathanson & Young, while lumping together the work of Allan G. Johnson, Michael Kimmel, and others under "criticism" is one way that the article gives undue weight to the pro-misandry camp. These sections should be reorganized with a more neutral structure. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Likewise, Helen Pluckrose's polemics don't belong in the overview section. I've removed the citation to Areo Magazine, which is in effect a self-published source for Pluckrose. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * :shrug: I mean it's your credential argument (albeit one that's being inserted into the article with this "religious scholar" stuff). I think secondary sources would be a good thing. But if all you have is people asserting grand narratives past one another what are you to do.
 * I agree the criticism section should probably be put next to the overview section to give it due weight, since there has been a lot of criticism of the concept and they feel like common topics. I would prefer to view this as criticism not being given due weight rather than pro-misandry camp being given undue weight... mostly because there isn't really a feminist position other than "it's not as bad as misogyny / can't exist because misogyny exists / or that is a narrative used by radical groups" all widely held opinions that belong in the article but at the same time critical rather than definitional. It gets a bit odd if the topic of an article is considered WP:UNDUE. Talpedia (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When I say Nathanson & Young are religious scholars, I mean they don't publish in sociological/psychological/political science journals, and their books are mostly ignored by scholars in those fields. If all we have are people asserting grand narratives, then we should leave those assertions out. Grand narratives are a dime a dozen, and Wikipedia is not a compendium of every extraordinary claim. I think you are confusing the topic of an article with the view that the topic categorically exists; we can write about flat Earth beliefs, for example, without giving those beliefs undue credence. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article actually says that misandry exists, just that some people think it does.
 * I don't really think there is a field that deals with misandry, people just seem to be pretending there is. There is a field doing ethnography on groups and the manosphere, and we are trying to use this to pretend there is a consensus on a related topics.
 * The thing is that humanities only really do narratives with different levels of grandness and different forms and levels of critique. Some stray into the empirically absurd. Some become implausible due to the critique. This isn't like flat earth, it's more like "ecosocialism".
 * There's a notability question for sure. Do you think misandry is not a notable concept? Talpedia (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't really think there is a field that deals with misandry - Black Male Studies deals with (racialized) misandry. There are also works about misandrous trops in the literature etc.-Reprarina (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted. Talpedia (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Misandry shall not be described as 'term used by MRAs' because not only MRAs use this term. Wikipedia is the global international encyclopedia. We can't ignore Black Male Studies, racialized transmisandry, misandry in Russia for the sake of local conjuncture (like in North America and Europe, among cisgender White people it's the term used by MRAs and ridiculed by radical and intersectional feminists). The word 'misogyny', in fact, also means not only institutionalized misogyny. This word include institutionalized misogyny, but also can mean individual woman-hating.--Reprarina (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Of cource we can't ignore Alice E. Marwick, Robyn Caplan, Michael Kimmel, Adam G. Johnson, David D. Gilmore, may be we can ignore Nathanson and Young (they are really criticized by many researchers), but we shouldn't ignore lots of scholars who say that misandry absolutely can be real and seriouse at least when it's racialized or linked with other signs (Tommy J. Curry, Nathaniel Bryan, T. Hasan Johnson, E. C. Crell, W. A. Smith). These scholars are not seriously criticized. Despite it has been several years since the release of their works.--Reprarina (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

androphobia
I don't feel like searching right now, but I imagine we might be able to find a good source for the use of androphobia if the term was actually used since it's just a clain about words.Talpedia (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)