Talk:Misogynist terrorism

Propose
I wish include terrorists acts by Boko Haram and ISIS regarding sexual violence and slavery by these terrorists groups, but I don't know if that follows the propose of the page.

This page is about misogynists motivations for terrorists acts or can include misogynists acts during other motivatins terrorism ?


 * Thank you for brining up this very good question! The focus for this article was determined by the sources I found who use the term "misogynist terrorism" or variants of the term. These were mainly counter-terrorism organizations like the ICCT and the authors Jessica Valenti and Kate Manne. These sources use the term only to describe terrorist acts that are primarily or exclusively motivated by misogyny. They do not use the word for terrorist acts motivated by religion or nationalism, even if misogyny is somewhat a part of the religious or nationalist beliefs. The acts of terror that these authors list are all in the US, Canada, and Europe.


 * The fact that Boko Haram uses sexual violence or slavery is not enough, in my opinion, to link Boko Haram to misogynist terrorism. Sexual violence is, unfortunately, a common tactic of war. However, if Boko Haram has specifically misogynist ideological commitments (aside from mere tactics) then I would agree that they have something in common with misogynist terrorists. Because they also have religious motivations I wouldn't say Boko Haram are properly misogynist terrorists, but I would agree that they have a connection worthy of mention.


 * Because of your suggestion I added Boko Haram to the "See also" section of the article. Any more direct claim that they are connected to misogynist terrorism would require a source, in my view. The same would be true of anti-abortion violence, etc.
 * Jno.skinner (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, while Boko Haram are misogynists they are not primarily motivated by a misogynist agenda. The primary motivation for their actions is Islamic extremism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoraExp (talk • contribs) 07:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

"The neutrality of this article is disputed"
An editor has added a "the neutrality of this article is disputed" banner. What is the dispute? Jno.skinner (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * what POV issues are in the article? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Greetings!
 * I strongly believe that this article is written on a Feminist POV and the article may suffer from biases unless it is neutralized, the following lines which can be possibly written by a Feminist possible are:
 * Proving manhood
 * Valenti writes that some misogynist terrorists have been motivated by a desire to live up to a stereotype that "real men" are powerful.
 * Sexual and romantic entitlement
 * Mass murderers, in some cases identifying as incels, have described being motivated by a perception of entitlement to sex or companionship with women, a desire to seek vengeance for the perception of being rejected by women, and a drive to put women "in their place". For example, in the 2014 Isla Vista attack, the perpetrator set out to "punish all females for the crime of depriving me of sex." Incel ideology has been a contributing factor to 90 fatalities and injuries since this attack, as of early 2020. Feminist writer Jessica Valenti argues that such incels should be viewed as misogynist terrorists and warns that they are being radicalized online.
 * Problems which men face in the modern world
 * These groups present masculine strength, a lack of vulnerability, a lack of emotion, and other stereotypes of masculinity as solutions to these problems
 *  ⭐️ Starkex ⭐️  📧 ✍️  11:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * You are indeed correct that those passages reflect a feminist perspective — the first two contain attributions to Jessica Valenti and the final one is attributed (in the article but not in your excerpt) to Laura Bates. These are feminist authors. So, let us note they are not "in Wikipedia's voice" but are attributed WP:INTEXT, which is standard for POV material. Jno.skinner (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Jno nailed it. Unless there are other issues, we should remove the tag. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Seeing nothing further here, I have removed the banner. Jno.skinner (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality issues
Provided clarification on usage of the term "incel". A lot more work needs to be done on this article to provide views on all sides, and not just the feminist pov, as mentioned in the previous talk page. Adenyoyo (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I encourage the editors of wikipedia to find sources talking about the mental issues that turn lonely, repressed men into killers and abusers. Social conditioning, the hatred of masculinity, bias in education etc. Adenyoyo (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I repeat, do not make any further edits until the neutrality of the edits is completely clear, and find other sources. Adenyoyo (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your edits worsened the neutrality of the article (e.g., and you can't demand that other editors not make further edits. Having now been reverted twice, it's you that should be the most cautious about future editing without affirmative consensus here. It's essential that sourced content not be removed without explanation, that newly added content be supported by a source, and that content not be added in a way that makes it seem like the pre-existing source supports the new content (see WP:HIJACK). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with . The entire article, and especially the introduction part, sounds like it was written by (or is exclusively quoting) extreme feminists. This article is not neutral in the least. Instead of discussing the actual reasons that make these people go insane (i. e. non-fulfillment of the most basic human/male needs over very long periods of time, with no realistic chance of that ever changing, leading to immense suffering and consequently severe mental issues), the article just spouts some feminist nonsense/buzzwords like "entitlement", "male supremacism", "policing of compliance to patriarchy" etc. etc. This is ridiculous and reeks of propaganda. Just throwing random buzzwords at the perpetrators of such acts does not contribute to understanding the underlying problems that lead to them. 80.108.55.24
 * The intro reflects the rest of the article, which is buttressed with references to governmental counter-terrorism agencies, including the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, as well as to organizations that study terrorism, including the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, and Southern Poverty Law Center. You are welcome to bring reliable sources and specific suggestions to challenge or add to existing text. The use of perjoratives such as "insane", "nonsense," and "random" are more likely to get your comments deleted as unconstructive soapboxing. PRRfan (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Read that sentence again, I did not use the word "insane" in a pejorative way. When it comes to politically biased, feminist buzzwords, descriptions like "random" and "nonsense" are perfectly valid, since the terms I'm criticizing are not neutral and try to paint the entire issue from a one-sided perspective. Drawing attention to these issues to hopefully get a less biased and one-sided article is not "soapboxing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.55.24 (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)