Talk:Misandry

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)

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)

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)

The article in Feminist Media Studies journal

This article published in respected feminist journal poits that:

In some instances, local organizers of Flower Demos have identified these participants as intruders. For example, Hotta, a transgender man who experienced sexual abuse, was told by a local Flower Demo organizer that he posed a threat to other female participants (Miyuki Fujisawa 2021). Similarly, transgender women were referred to as “terrorists” by an organizer in Flower Demo Ibaraki (Flowerdibaraki 2021). These instances reveal the potential for transphobia and misandry to be harnessed within the collective trauma formation, which can be used to exclude those perceived to have a “perpetrator identity.”

Perhaps a perspective from Japan should be added, since the article is supposed to be about misandry in the global, not about American men's rights activists. Reprarina (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs

The opening paragraph comes across as heavily biased, particularly this:

"This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who counter that misandry is not a cultural institution, nor equivalent in scope to misogyny, which is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences.[5][3][6]

First off, this links sources to books from 2009, 2007, and even 1989. It is almost 2025 and Wikipedia's articles should reflect a modern view of the subject. These are also completely subjective claims: the opinions of a mere three people from over 15 years ago. These sources do not also list the claims and information that supports it. A mere three authors is being exaggerated as "most". It is also a complete opinion that misogyny is "far more deeply rooted in society" and that is is also "more severe in consequences", yet the phrasing of the sentence is also acting like it is a fact. I would argue the millions of men who have died in wars could be seen as having more severe consequences. And how most homeless people are men.

I attempted to correct this, changing reasonable things such as "many scholars" to "some scholars"/"certain scholars" and yet another editor is claiming I'm the one being "disingenuous", which I find ridiculous. Using "many" instead of "some"/"certain" is essentially weasel words in itself, in the form of non-measurable exaggeration without any polls conducted.

I also believe comparisons to misogyny, and how widespread misandry is, deserves their own sections. ImmersiveOne (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"The opinions of a mere three people" is not what is cited. To claim that they are mere opinions and that the "sources do not also list the claims and information that supports it" makes it seem that you did not even read them. Page 12 of citations 5 directly addresses this. The encyclopedia in citation 3 is crystal clear:

Despite contrary claims, misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalised and legislated antipathy of misogyny. Nevertheless, the notion is gaining in currency among 'masculists' and 'men's rights' groups seeking to redress supposedly discriminatory divorce, domestic violence and rape shield laws. But as Naomi Schor (1987) cautions, assuming that misandry mirrors misogyny reduces questions of gender and power to a male/female binary and ignores within-gender hierarchies. Thus, Nancy Kang (2003) recognises a misandric tendency in the dominant culture's interactions with marginalized masculinities.

That you do not like that scholars claim that these things does make them untrue or mere opinions. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

What you describe as "bias" is instead an accurate summary of expert analysis from topic scholars. These people are describing the situation neutrally, not with bias. So many topic scholars agree on this point that it would be excessive to cite them all. Citing just a few of them is enough. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I indeed did not read them because I was not aware they were online. I just did, and it still seems the actual content is being warped to put forth viewpoints not explicitly said by these writers in their dated books. We all know misandry became far rampant since 2014. Just because some people wrote, mused over and claimed things in books made over 15 years ago, it does not make necessarily make the claims in them fact either, and they can indeed still be opinion. People also can change their minds all the time, so the opinions of these authors may not still be their opinions of today.

The author of the 2009 book even uses the word "seems" and "(at least not until recently)" to indicate they are on the fence a bit and they are talking about the world from a 2009 viewpoint and context. The author of the 2007 book with the encyclopedia also does not say "misandry is not a cultural institution", but rather, feels it does not compare to the "antipathy of misogyny." So it really does feel whoever wrote that part is putting some words in the mouths of the authors, and being biased by listing three authors as being "most"/"many". And I don't see them explicitly saying they felt "misogyny is more severe in its consequences", nor do I see them using language that should make this Wikipedia article use the language "far more" instead of just "more". Nor does it mean this article should be using these three authors' claims in an objective manner as if it were fact. The actual claims of these authors should be separated from each other and detailed individually, with clarification that they are their opinions from over 15 years ago, something I am willing to do.

I also argue that it is in poor taste to even try to include this debate in the opening paragraph. It feels like reading an article about the hatred of Asian people, but then seeing two huge paragraphs about how black people have it worse. And I just learned the 2009 book is actually a reissue of a 2001 book. What makes this opening section skewed is that the first half (beginning with "in the Internet Age") is clearly talking about opinions relating to a world from 2010+, in a world where Twitter/Tumblr/Reddit/4chan made their opinions, and where hashtags such as KillAllMen were created. The second half is listing opinions from 1980s-2007, and then trying act as if people in the past are trying to debate people in the future. It is pitting against old authors against the claims of people living in a different era almost, in a manner that feels disingenuous. ImmersiveOne (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

You're missing the part where MRAs are seen trying to equate misandry with misogyny so that their arguments are seen as valid, which is why we have the comparison disproved prominently as a false equivalence. We didn't just throw that part in randomly.

If you are looking for more recent scholarship about this topic, you can look at "The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" which was published six months ago. The authors find that misandry is a myth used falsely by MRAs to fight against the advances of feminism. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I very well saw that. To me, I think you're missing the part where I don't see why we need to make the opening about feminism/misogyny so soon in the first place, with very biased research and manipulating the claims and opinions of authors, trying to pit people's opinions about society (as it was in the past) to modern society. It feels like it's trivializing the hardships of an entire group of people which I honestly find repulsive, in the same way it would be repulsive to talk about how black people have it worse in the opening section of an article about racism against Asians. This entire article, especially the opening, needs an overhaul to update it to 2024 standards. I'm not against discussing so-called false equivalences, but that deserves its own independent section. And about that last part you just said, misandry is obviously real and is not a "myth". Anyone who thinks misandry isn't real are, put bluntly, idiots. There are people who want all men to die, and view them as rapists/pedos/monsters/buffoons/etc, to the degree a part of society would rather take their chances in a forest with a bear than a man. There are women who openly state they want to abort their child if it is male. Is misandry equivalent to misogyny? That's another can of worms, but it does not need to be discussed in the opening which, as it is now, is obviously trying to trivialize misandry in a way that feels disgusting. It's coming off as: "You know people who oppose misandry? They are 4channers, and also, women have it worse than you. Here's a list of books made from 2007 and before, so shut up. Also you're probably antifeminist. Bye." Embarrassing. ImmersiveOne (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"needs an overhaul to update it to 2024 standards" Based on which sources? Dimadick (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Any relevant ones, honestly. But in such a way that does not make it sound like this article was written by a man-hating misandrist, because it totally feels like it is. I'm not against including sources which question misandry. But sources made before the MeToo movement should be explicitly said they are made in that era. I'm not even going to talk about how the misogyny article straight-up says "Misandry is a minor issue." Like, what. The. Hell. ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The article does not say "misandry is a minor issue". It doesn't say it straight-up, nor on the rocks. What the article feels like to you is not something we can act on by itself. We still need real sources. What relevant sources are you proposing? Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Re-read what I said. I said the misogyny article says it (in the Definitions section), not the misandry article. And I dunno, I'm not a regular Wikipedian. Maybe we can get some various opinions from a variety of different editors on this. Because right now, it feels like Wikipedia is being controlled by people who hate men, resulting in this absolute cringefest of an article. Still, I am willing to renovate the article, finding what I can (I'm not an expert when it comes to formatting sources). All I ask is people give me time and awareness. One thing I propose is we just make a criticism section, and move anything made by those who question/criticize the idea of misandry to it. The same goes for sections trying to associate misandry with anti-feminism and misogyny. Because right now, it feels like whenever points are made that misandry is real, there is a counter-point right after trying to invalidate it, or insinuate people who care about men's rights are just woman haters, as seen in the final sentence of the first paragraph of the Overview section. Yikes. ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

We discourage criticism section, you can read WP:CRITS for the relevant policies on why.

Further, we don’t write articles based on polling editors, we write articles from a neutral point of view based on reliable sourcing.

As multiple editors above have now explained, the article as it stands is written just like that.

If you would like to make changes to the article, you need to first find reliable sources that back those changes. Raladic (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah, I see, my mistake. The entire quote is this: Misandry is a minor issue, not equivalent to the widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny. That article is saying that it is monor compared to misogyny. That matches the mainstream position, which is explained with many sources in this article.

We already have a variety of editors who have worked on this page for many years, including recently. It's not really neutral or fair to go hunting around for editors who already agree with you, is it? If you want to improve the article, start with reliable sources. The one Binksternet links above is an example. Part of looking for sources must also including discarding bad sources, because there are going of be a lot of very bad sources for this. Just for starters, any sources which contradict the mainstream position are going to have WP:FRINGE issues.

Articles rarely have WP:CSECTIONs, and for several good reasons. Our goal as an encyclopedia is to summarize the mainstream position on the topic, and placing criticisms in a separate section would be a form of editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If we can't prove "most"/"many" scholars agree on something, then we shouldn't claim that. Again, I've made my points that the sources already in the article are being used in a manipulative manner, and to me, the article does not feel neutral. It feels like it's trying at every opportunity to invalidate the idea of misandry, deem misogyny as being a more important issue, and associate people who want to raise awareness as being anti-feminist woman-hating 4channers. Isn't that also editorializing?

I question why the misogyny article feels the need to mention misandry is a "minor" issue in the first place in a Definitions section, a section meant to merely explain what misogyny is. If it is kept there, which I believe is unnecessary, the wording should become "An author in 2001 claimed that misandry is a minor issue compared to misogyny."

Still, seems you two are openly saying I can attempt at rewriting the article a bit, so I'll take that as permission that I can go ahead. ImmersiveOne (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles mainly summarize reliable sources. You still have not proposed any reliable sources. The article feels a certain way to you, but it doesn't feel that way to me or (apparently) the other editors involved in this discussion. So instead of going by feelings, go by what reliable sources say.

When a reliable source explains something, we summarize that explanation. We would need a specific reason to cast doubt on reliable sources, and presenting an explanation as an opinion, or emphasizing its age, are forms of editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, a lot of people dislike the Misandry article and think it's biased:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/te6yxd/reminder_wikipedia_has_a_feminist_bias/

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1c5m7fg/was_reading_about_misandry_on_wikipedia_and_below/

As a preface, I do not necessarily sub to any of these Subreddits, but it goes to show even people on the left hate this article. I simply put "Wikipedia Misandry Reddit" into Google and these showed up. The thing is, a lot of people who care about men's rights don't care to become editors, or feel silenced if they attempt to neutralize this article.

Anyway, here are some things I believe should be done. For one, I would like to make it explicitly clear what the 2001 and 2007 books say, no twisting their words. I would also suggest deleting the 1989 book as a source. I can't find out what it says online, and as a 35 year old book, it is not relevant in modern discussion of misandry -- it is merely a time capsule of what someone in 1989 thought in a 1989 world.

Another concept I would like to focus on is the rise of misandry over the years, especially in the 2010s. One source is a Time article (written by a woman). As far as I know, we are allowed to mention what journalists from popular magazines such as Time say. ImmersiveOne (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to note about the subreddits, people disliking the content does not immediately mean that there is an issue with it. There could be an entire subreddit dedicated to the hatred of apples but that really means nothing. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not going to change its policies because of MRAs complaining on subreddits. It doesn't matter how much you think this article is a travesty of fairness; your opinion expressed here is counter to Wikipedia's policies. We have summarized the best thinkers on this topic, which is what we are supposed to do. We are not going to hack into the article to make it hew to MRA viewpoints. That would be like flat-earthers complaining at Talk:Flat Earth that the topic isn't friendlier to their position, after which we give in to their wishes, ignore science, and adjust the wording so that they are not as angry. (FYI, such complaints happen regularly without the article being changed at all.) Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

...I literally never asked Wikipedia to change its policies, or said we need to make this article MRA-approved. I was simply showing evidence other people, even leftists, think this article is awful. All I've asked is that we change some of the sources to make sure they are actually stating what they are stating, and ensuring that the older sources are explicitly mentioned to be from the perspective of a past era. And perhaps move some information around, as to not give so much weird focus on how misandry is related to misogyny in the opening section. And who the "best thinkers are on a topic" is completely subjective. Again, all my points remain. And the Flat Earth point is a false equivalence, I am not arguing against science. I am simply making people question these sources, and pointing out the article is saying things they are not, putting words in the authors' mouths. So back on topic, is everyone okay with the Time article, and the removal of the 1989 book because we literally don't know what it says, and none of us seem to have a copy of it? ImmersiveOne (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Even leftists?

I do not see any examples of this article misrepresenting the cited sources here.

Reddit posts are not reliable and the existence of people who dislike this page was never in doubt anyway. Reddit posts don't prove anything that needs proving.

As for the Time source, what are you suggesting we do with this opinion piece from 2014? Per that source "When feminists joke that they are misandrists, they are riffing off the misguided popular notion that they are man-haters. They mean to satirize the women who say they are not feminists because they love men. It’s an inside, inside joke." and later "What feminists really hate is the patriarchy—the web of institutions that systemically oppress women. And to tear it down, we need as many allies as we can get. Telling half the population that we hate them, even in jest, is not the way to do that."[5]

Nothing about this contradicts the current lead of this article. The author of that opinion is saying that "misandry" is being used as a joke, but it's not a joke she finds to be funny most of the time. I don't think this opinion is useful to this article. Grayfell (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

These are the issues I have:

• "denied by most" - no source for "most", only 3 examples (also, trying to make people from 1989-2007 debate modern misandry which is a false equivalence)
• 2001 book only says there does not "seem" to be a modern equivalent for misandry in 2001.
  • "Male-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 reified into public culturally recognized and approved institutions complete with their own theatrical repertory and constituent mythology and magic."
    • does not mention misogyny is "far more deeply rooted in society and more severe in its consequences."
    • does not mention misandry is "not equivalent in scope to misogyny"
    • could be interpreted that the author is arguing society simply does not recognize misandry as an "approved" societal culturally-approved institutionalized idea, instead of trying to argue it's not a real cultural phenomenon which the Wikipedia article is implying. This is supported by the usage of "social fact".
    • could be seen in the context of an institution that must have "their own theatrical repertory and constituent mythology and magic", whatever this means.

• 2007 book says "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalised and legislated antipathy of misogyny"
  • admittedly, the author feels misandry lacks the weight of misogyny.
  • does not explicitly mention misogyny is "far more" (biased language) "severe in its consequences"

In any case, these old books really should be moved to a section detailing people's thoughts of misandry throughout the years, rather than something that is trying be shoved upon modern day misandry, as a rejection of modern day men's right advocates as the current article is trying to make it seem. 2024 is not 2007.

As for the Time article, the author mentions the word misandry became more entrenched into society around that time, so it could be pointed out that feminists used it, too. Right now, the article tries to make it seem only people in the "manosphere" use the term. ImmersiveOne (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Reading comprehension would help sort out how the "systemic, transhistoric, institutionalised and legislated antipathy of misogyny" might be summarized as something which is "far more severe". The lay reader benefits from scholarly prose reworded into lay prose. Binksternet (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This is the precise issue I have with how this article is disingenuously and manipulatively written. As you admit, it "might be" summarized that way. Yes, I concur everyday readers benefit from simplicity, but ultimately, the previous editors were exploiting that ambiguity, using it to their full biased advantage with their own interpretations of what these authors meant. I do not want any room for ambiguity for this joke of an article which I would love to have a field day with. Multiple field days. ImmersiveOne (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Your not going to get very far by accusing other editors of being "disingenuous" simply for attempting to summarize reliable sources in plain language.

Resist the temptation to work backwards by viewing sources with the assumption that they support your understanding of the topic. The current article does need some work, but it's mostly a fair summary of a broad range of sources, which is exactly what we want from an article.

Regarding the Time opinion, the article already mentions that "feminists use it, too". The article already has an entire lengthy section called "#In feminism" which includes a photo of exactly the kind of embroidered 'male tears' design the Time article author was talking about. Grayfell (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Binksternet, it feels like you're almost holding the article hostage because you're completely unsatisfied with literally every single change I proposed, even though I feel I made some valid points which you did not always address. And it seems you're unsatisfied with even the most basic things, such as changing "Overview" to "Examples", trying to ensure information is in their more relevant sections, and adding a hyperlink to sexism. I thought my latest version was decent enough. Why do you feel we should act as if opinions from old scholars made between the 1980s and 2007 are relevant in a post-2014 world, and act as if someone in 1989 is trying to argue against the ideas of Redditors which didn't even exist until 2005? And why do you seem to condone redundant information? You can see the article literally says "to counter feminist accusations of misogyny" twice, right? ImmersiveOne (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Why do you feel like you have free rein to change the article along the lines you've been suggesting when everyone here has expressed opposition to your proposals? There is no consensus here for the changes you want.

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is a summary of ideas found in the article body. Some redundancy is expected.

Your recent changes included changing the sentence "This viewpoint is denied by most sociologists, anthropologists and scholars of gender studies, who counter that misandry is not a cultural institution, nor equivalent in scope to misogyny, which is far more deeply rooted in society, and more severe in its consequences" even though nobody here supported your whitewashed version. Despite knowing full well that your proposed wording did not enjoy any support from the community, you went ahead and changed it anyway; this is classic WP:Tendentious editing.

You also composed new wording "MRAs invoke the idea of misandry in warning against what they see as the advance of a female-dominated society" which is a bald misrepresentation of the source. Your wording is strong in support of MRAs, but the source greatly weakens the MRA stance with the word "conjure", meaning that the MRAs are inventing a problem that doesn't exist. Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I said earlier: "Still, seems you two are openly saying I can attempt at rewriting the article a bit, so I'll take that as permission that I can go ahead." And I said I would like to have a field day with it. And some time passed. And Grayfell gave editing advice. So yeah, I interpreted that as permission I was allowed to attempt to start some edits.

"to counter feminist accusations of misogyny" is said in both Background and Overview, not the lead. So yeah, it's redundant.

I changed that sentence in the lead because it is using weasel words, exaggeration, and putting forth subjective opinions of people as fact. No matter how you try to frame it, the idea that misogyny has worse consequences than misandry will always be a subjective opinion, especially in our world where men take the brunt of war deaths, homelessness, workplace fatalities, forced cosmetic surgery as infants, homicides and suicides. It didn't seem there was that much opposition to my ideas as you feel there was.

I did not compose the claim "MRAs invoke the idea of misandry in warning against what they see as the advance of a female-dominated society", I merely moved it from Overview to the lead. So it's funny that you claim it's misrepresenting the source, because you're actually criticizing the article as it originally was before I ever edited it. Why don't you change the wording right now if you feel it's inaccurate? ImmersiveOne (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I absolutely was not giving you encouragement to whitewash the article. I was trying to explain the issues with your approach. I do not have the ability to give you permission any more than any other editor. The way to get 'permission' would be to change consensus. Calling other editors liars by saying they are being "disingenuous" is the wrong way to do that. Multiple editors have tried to explain why the article is the way it is, but it appears you're basically ignoring what we're saying. Attributing every injustice faced by men and boys to misandry is counterproductive and unsupportable. Sources are saying that misandry is not exactly the same as misogyny for a lot of reasons. They are not saying that men don't face serious issues or that "war deaths, homelessness, workplace fatalities" etc should be ignored or trivialized. That is just an MRA talking point. Grayfell (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The current wording on the article is disingenuous. It not need be a personal attack against the authors, but the poor quality of the article, especially that section, is a hill I'm willing to die on, and even take it up with dispute resolution. It is biased, putting forth an opinion as fact, and using a 1989 source none of us can access right now. Saying "misogyny [...] is more severe in its consequences" (which I did not even see the authors explicitly say), as if it is a cold hard fact, is straight-up unprofessional. The same goes for that horrid "misandry is a minor issue" on the other article. At the very least, it should be modified to "Some scholars claim misogyny is more severe in its consequences". It is the same logic why wikis would use the phrase "Lisa argues that apples are tastier than oranges" instead of "apples are tastier than oranges" as if it were a fact. ImmersiveOne (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we get it. Calling the article biased over and over is not persuasive. "Disingenuous" is not an objective fact, ironically. The article summarizes multiple sources. Weaselishly undermining these summaries as claims would worsen the article for multiple reasons. As for the age of sources, the only halfway usable source you have presented was both old and also did not support the changes you have been trying to make. If you have newer sources, present them here for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

You say you get it, but you also claim turning that part from a statement to a claim is "worse", and it seems you're trying to hold onto the idea that this article is "accurately" summarizing its sources, one of which we don't have access to. Like, what am I going to do with that? I need to know exactly what you and Binksternet are willing to compromise with -- if you two are willing at all. I was just curious who's been editing this article, and it turns out Binksternet has basically been patrolling this article since 2011, undoing tons of revisions by others. I don't care to analyze his work, but sheesh, that's a lot of dedication.

I'm not going to bother editing until you two are blatant on exactly where you're willing to yield. Should I make a sandbox, and edit it there? Or should I start a dispute resolution? Because I would rather do neither, but I feel like I have no choice. I still believe the last version I edited is superior, though. I'm not going to add any more sources or information until we take care of what is already on the article with what it has now. This "MiSoGyNY iS mOrE sEveRe iN iTs CoNsEqUeNcEs" and "MiSaNdRy iS a MiNoR IsSuE" trash needs to go, though. -_-;; ImmersiveOne (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)