Talk:Misandry/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"Word that means"

Umm... there seems to be some disagreement about this. I'm not quite sure what the issues are here. Normally there is an argument to avoid "word that means" on the ground that "wikipedia isn't a dictionary" and just plain brevity. Is this some sort of argument that misandry doesn't exist - this would seem like a rather extreme argument - but sources welcome! Talpedia (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Misandry is not just a word, it is a phenomenon, etc. Such a sentence is not encyclopedic.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Umm, I think we might have a bit of an edit war :/, which I don't want to be accused of participating in. So let's try to get some consensus! Does anyone support the use of "word that means". The "this word refers" phrasing is dealt wit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Use_of_%22refers_to%22 Talpedia (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"Misandry" is a abstract thing, so we can't define it as something that happens in real life. It's only a word. 176.60.73.20 (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Ther's not really an argument to be had here. WP:ISAWORDFOR is pretty clear. This article is not about the word misandry; it's about misandry, the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men or boys in general. --Equivamp - talk 14:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a problem. "Misandry" exists only as a word.176.60.67.42 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it does. The article discusses the concept of misandry, not just the word itself. Hydrogenation (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You have to be able to distinguish between an article about a word and an article about a concept, whether it is real or not (or whether you believe it's real or not). Compare eg the article Afterlife, which does not begin "is a word for", because it is not an article about the word Afterlife. Equivamp - talk 21:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Unbalanced

As it stands this article is quite unbalanced. Much of it appears to be about misandry from a feminist perspective, rather than about misandry per se. The overall thrust seems to be a feminist perspective that misandry doesn't really exist and is used by men to react to 'just' criticism of their behaviour towards women. In particular, the sections on "Misandry and feminism" and "Criticism of the concept" take around half the article space, but almost all of the lede is uncited text about misandry and feminism as well. The article needs to be expanded for better balance or divided and a new one created called Misandry and feminism into which the bulk of this should go. Bermicourt (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the weight is reasonably accurate, given how intertwined feminism and misandry are in reliable source coverage. As a casual example, the full first page of my news search for 'misandry' used the term in relation to feminism or feminists. Those accusing others of misandry are usually accusing feminists as a group or individual feminists by name. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

If that's so, then there are still two separate topics. A normal-sized topic covering the definition and usage of misandry itself, etymology, history, etc. And a much bigger topic on the contemporary "misandry and feminism" debate which is quite recent, is currently in vogue and deserves separate treatment. The two should not be conflated such that misandry is only seen through one, quite recent, lens and then only from one perspective. The thrust of the article is "misandry means this but, unlike misogeny, doesn't really exist because it's only used to criticise feminism." That seems to be WP:RECENTISM and WP:BIAS. Bermicourt (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, this all just feels like WP:NOTFORUM stuff to me. Whether the article is balanced or not is largely irrelvant unless you are proposing removing material or adding material. People probably won't just magically find and add balancing material for you: they might be more likely if you find some sources. If you find some literature that provides balance, then we can add it. Talpedia (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Misandry entry

I have never read a less-balanced Wikipedia entry. The author's dismissive treatment of the notion that misandry pervades modern feminist thought is shocking. The palpable misandry within not only great swaths of contemporary feminism, but also much of academia, the arts, news media, and popular culture, can only be so summarily discounted by someone who is either obtuse (which the author, clearly, is not) or who is willfully ignoring the obvious. Where are your editors? 69.73.47.224 (talk) 06:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia tends to follow sources and summarizes consensus for good or ill, or in the absence of consensus it follow what has been written. If you can provide some good sources that address misandry from a non-feminisit perspective we could add these. I haven't had that much success so far when looking into this. Talpedia (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

In psychology...

This section omits the problem that the accusation of general misogyny faces in the outcomes of the Implicit Association Test [1]. Results uphold the concept of misandry as a recurring and general phenomenon. Although they do not use the word, implicit bias against men, culture wide, is by definition misandry (even when it occurs outside discussions of feminism).

The IAT is generally taken to measure bias against a group, and to measure the relative degree of unconscious contribution to the privilege of a group. White in-group preference and a lack of Black in-group preference is taken to be an indicator of antipathy toward Black people and the prevalence of racism, likewise for other groups. But it finds [2][ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8226295_Gender_Differences_in_Automatic_In-Group_Bias_Why_Do_Women_Like_Women_More_Than_Men_Like_Men][3] that men do not have a strong in-group preference, and that women do have a strong in-group preference.

The academic reaction has been to simply ignore this: to continue to use the IAT to measure bias, but to not follow up on the fact that it does not give the expected results for gender, or to explain it away and not consider it relevant. This is making an anti-male assumption, the same way that finding racism unexpectedly and making excuses or refusing to report it is promoting racism.OberJuan (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss personal views on the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any sources addressing this, preferably that mention misandry explicitly since wikipedia tends to follow sources quite closely? Talpedia (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Unsupported. Your link to the Purdue news item doesn't pertain to misandry. The Rudman paper concludes that "women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's", which isn't anything like misandry. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

If so, then the IAT for race does not measure anti-Black racism, the IAT for sexuality does not measure homophobia, etc. But that is how they are treated in the literature. A strong in-group preference in one group especially when paired with a much lesser or nonexistent in-group preference in comparable groups implies preference toward that group is common in the population. I fail to see how this is not a measure of anti-male sentiment, if those other uses of the exact same test are taken as evidence of anti-Black and anti-gay sentiment. Meanwhile, the contention of many kinds of feminism is that men have a strong in-group bias. Outright. They purport to track it and explain many effects with it. And, since measures contradict that, it is calumny. Patriarchy cannot have a nonexistent fact as one of its causes. OberJuan (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether this article is defined as "sexism affecting men" or "hatred of men". I am aware that misogyny is often extended to include all harms and constraints of women, including those motivated by hate. I am not sure if misandry is used so broadly. I agree that "sexism affecting men" is clearly a topic for wikipedia the question is whether it belongs on Sexism or perhaps Reverse sexism (I'm not sure I like the nomenclenture here - but we would need to have a look at some sources to see if it is a good name). We might like to link to the Reverse sexism early on in the page, though it would be good to find some literature discussing the concept of sexism towards men and misandry together.

The effect you are talking about is described here in the Women-are-wonderful effect. I agree that it is annoying (possibe highly so) that feminist literature can at time be rather indifferent to the facts - and generate theories directly at odds with them. I would note that this problem applies generally to ideology, social science, and any problem involving self-interest and many possible causal factors.

Again, while this effect can cause sexism, I'm not sure whether it will cause hatred (assuming this article is discussing hatred rather that prejudice).

As ever more sources is a good thing. My experience is that editors have a habit of listening to sources in a way that they won't listen to arguments (even if you know precisely where to find sources backing them up and are just saving time) and can avoid people starting to quote quote policies at you! Talpedia (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Cleaning up inconsistencies between the Misandry and Misogyny ledes

The content of the lede of the misandry page is dedicated to debunking the concept of misandry, and the lede of the misogyny page is dedicated to the well, exploration of the concept that the page is about. I would like to propose that we write a lede that centers more on the concept of misandry to go with this article. User:Firefangledfeathers argued in their reverts that examples of misandry are not common, but to me the sources I provided seem to indicate otherwise. Would like to reach a consensus on why we are treating these articles completely differently, and to what degree it makes sense to avoid writing about misandry in the lede about misandry.

Here is the text I propose if we're going parallel to misogyny, though I think "examples that have been proposed" could work better. Sources included:

Examples of misandry include popular culture portrayals of men as absent, insensitive, or abusive, as well as a legal process that discriminates against men in divorce proceedings, and domestic violence or rape cases where the victim is a man. Other proposed examples include men's shorter lifespans, higher suicide rates, requirement to participate in a military draft, and lack of tax benefits afforded to widowers compared to widows. In a 2016 Washington Post article, Cathy Young wrote that terms using "man" as a derogatory prefix, such as mansplaining, manspreading, and manterrupting, are part of a "current cycle of misandry".

Kuralesache (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

References

The same user also reverted my edit adding a statement to the misogyny paging calling it an "asymmetrical counterpart" to misandry, and then reverted an edit where I removed that same statement from the misandry page. It's very difficult not to see this as a double standard and to wonder at the motivation. I believe a good justification is deserved for why we want that information only to be available on one page. If the information is notable, it should be somewhere, and the word "counterpart" makes it difficult to understand how it could not be reflexive. Kuralesache (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC) edited 23:12

I would also like to consider whether we would like to say both are a form of sexism, or neither, or why again you would treat these articles completely differently. I hope that the idea that sexism against men is a form of sexism isn't controversial, but of course I don't expect that to be the case. Kuralesache (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Nobody who studies these issues agrees with you. Misandry and misogyny are not now and have never been equivalent. Most of the world practices casual misogyny, by now deeply rooted in nearly every culture's traditions. On the other hand, misandry is a minor issue and much more recent. Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, agrees with what? I said I would like to considered which of the 3 things we should choose, I didn't say which one I chose. Kuralesache (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Your proposed "parallel" between misandry and misogyny is wrong. Nothing remotely like that is going to happen on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Nothing remotely like which one or two of the three options? Kuralesache (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in the way of equivalence, "mirroring", "parallel", or any sort of attempt to make the misandry and misogyny articles track each other. They are extremely different issues. Binksternet (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Misogyny and misandry are clearly analogous. It is legitimate to make editorial decisions however people see fit including taking inspritation from any article they like - though the argument "this article should be like that article" is a bad argument. Your argument has no weight and you being obstructive and telling people to do things that they are perfectly within their rights to do. It is clearly legitimate to attempt to make the misogny and misandry articles track one another if these changes improve the article and are in line with the principles of wikipedia. I think it's a bit silly, but it's equally silly to try to ensure that every single statement in an article says "but misogyngy is worse" at the end of it, lest the reader forget about the topic. Talpedia (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This way WP:FORUM lies! I'm not sure the topic of whether misandry and misogyny are equivalent is particularly relevant here (other than if we are talking about the content of the particular section). Talpedia (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

There is not particular reason that we should use the same article structure as Misogyny for misandry. Rather we should be applying WP:Due to the topic in the literature. It does feel like having too much of the lede dedicated to "misogyny is different from misandry" is wrong. It just feels a bit like who said it was. Talpedia (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to copy the structure as a goal in itself, but the glaring differences betray that purposes of the ledes are opposite, where the article on misogyny is mostly information about what misogyny is, and the lede on misandry centers immediately on feminism and a false equivalency between misandry and misogyny. I think mirroring the kind of information about each phenomenon would at least be somewhere to start. Could you give your opinion on the text I suggested above, to add to the lede? Kuralesache (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that that it might be a bit heavy for the lede. I've introduced it into the overview section, with a weasely "claimed" since everything to do with gender issues can be quite fuzzy (experiments are hard) and this is more so with misandry where there is even less research. I do think a couple of examples in the lead might be useful.

I've reworked the lede a little so that it spells things out a little more clearly.

An issue with the literature on misandry is that i) a lot of it was phrased in terms of criticism of the feminism movement initially and ii) feminism was and perhaps still is "where it's at" for gender research. So I think some discussion of feminism has a place in the lede. Talpedia (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"Mirroring" the two topics is also wrong, and isn't going to happen. Misogyny should be explained as thousands of years of beating down women as part of patriarchy, while misandry should be described as a much more recent backlash to feminism, far less important. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I think we should follow the literature. Some scholars would agree with you, some would not and we should reflect that. Research is still young in this topic and it is controversial Talpedia (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Can we just get rid of the reference to misogyny then? If they're not counterparts they're not counterparts and we can get rid of the connection, idk where the word "counterpart" came from but none of us seem to like it Kuralesache (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

My God, have you never read anything about this topic? Just about every writer mentions misogyny when they are talking about misandry. Please check yourself into a library. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's hard when you keep using insults instead of trying to contribute, but I think you're saying you want to get rid of the word "counterpart" but not the word "misogyny"? I'd be happy to make that edit for you if you aren't sure how to phrase it. Kuralesache (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Nathanson and Young

@Binksternet and Kuralesache: pinging editors involved in a dispute over the Nathanson and Young section. I'm inclined to agree with Kuralesache that the info on the marriage equality court case it out of scope here. Yes, the source mentions both the court case and criticism of the pair's works on misandry, but I don't think the passing mention of misandry at the bottom of the article is a strong enough connection to justify our current article text. I searched for other sources that mention Nathanson and Young's involvement in the court case and was unable to find any that tied the judge's finding to their views on misandry. Kuralesache, there's a decent cadre of editors who watch this page, and I encourage you to hold off on enacting the removal until others have chimed in or a week or so passes. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The article is clear that Young and Nathanson are religious scholars elsewhere. And the quality of Young and Nathanson as expert witnesses in a criminal case does not seem particularly related to their views on misandry. All feels a bit smeary. Talpedia (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking once in the source in the last paragraph with

"However, from an academic’s [standpoint], Nathanson, Young, and Somerville are considered controversial within Canada. Young and Nathanson have been criticized for their methodology in their writings on misandry"

. It does not seem to be the case that the authors of the piece really equate the expertise of the authors as expert witnesses with their research.

I've posted on all the wikiprojects related to page. Since this is a new addition, Binksternet has not replied for a couple of days and there is a lack of consensus I'm going to go ahead and revert the addition (See WP:NOCON). However, I would prefer to discuss this than just revert. Talpedia (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying "asymmetrical counterpart" in lede

@Binksternet:. Okay I've got two issues with the lede as it stands:

• "asymmetrical counterpart" is kinda unclear. It wasn't in the initial commit (diff) and another editor agreed that it unclear. The word asymmetric/al is not in the first source (searched) and the phrase "asymmetrical counterpart" is not in the second source (though it does talk about asymmetrical power relation).

How about

misandry is analogous to misandry, but the two are considered "asymmetric" since they act differently

. (WP:PLAINENGLISH)

• The validity of these perceptions and of the concept has been criticized as promoting a false equivalence between misandry and misogyny

  you can't criticize the validity of a concept by arguing that it promotes a false equivalence. Either it's valid or not, regardless of promoting a false equivalence - unless somehow the truth of statement in contingent on it not promoting something untrue. It could be that the beliefs are the *result* of false equivalence, but I'm not sure this is what the source says. Talpedia (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Talpedia I agree. this article is nakedly hostile and dismissive - to the point that it is actually shared by anti Feminists as an example of outright misandry due to its unpleasant tone. I don't want to make it a competition, and I don't know why this article wants it to be one. Considering the fact that - at this exact moment - teenage boys and Ukrainian men fleeing the war are being stopped, stripped from their families, and sent back shows that misandrist attitudes are real and extremely dangerous to male wellbeing. This has been pointed out by commenters in the news. The examples given in this article also debunk the idea that it's not important. Honestly, saying misandry is not as important is itself misandry. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Misandry is far less important than misogyny because men are already the dominant sex in by far the majority of the world. A very few bad things happening to a very few men is far less important than constant and persistent bad things happening to almost every woman. The scale of the two issues is extremely lopsided.

Your assertion is unsupported, that anti-feminists share this article as a bad example. If we had a reliable source talking about this, we could relay it to the reader. In any case, people who argue for the importance of misandry are people who are flogging a reactionary socio-political goal—a return to the past. They see hostility in every kind of feminism, not just this relatively neutral and accurate article about misandry.

Black men in the US fought for many years to have the right to fight in the military. Why did they do that? Glory is one reason; I'm sure there are others. And white men fought back to keep them out, to reserve the glory for themselves. A notional argument about misandry related to majority or exclusively male service in the military would have to address the fact that a great many men exist who want to serve, fight society for the privilege to serve, and actually serve. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@@Binksternet What you're doing here is referred to as the Apex Fallacy. Even if a few men being in charge meant that all men had power, which it does not because men aren't a monolith, that would not invalidate the problem of misandry if those men favour women over other men. Which they do. I found this link to this wiki page being shared by anti Feminists. Lastly, what does so-called glory have to do with 18 year old boys and dads being stripped away from their families and sent to die at the border of Ukraine? How does fighting for a chance to consent in one country mean that a man or boy in another country should put up and shut up when he is forced to fight against his will? If we apply that logic to sex, you would not like the conclusion. Also, why are you leaving out women who fought against black rights? The KKK had an entire female wing. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Fortunately we can ignore such issues and confine our interest to WP:Due and whether we are accurately representing source!. The reasons for ensuring an accurate and representative summarization of sources are many: to be of use to readers, to avoid continuous editing, to avoid accusations of bias (as Tiggy says) and the conspiritorial thinking that can come along with it; to place views that might otherwise be more extreme in context. For the sake of not appearing to be hiding my opinions, I think that gender issues can subtle and play out differently in different settings such that this article has utility. I see that questions about how the concepts of misandry and misogyny compare might have a place in this article, both because this is represented in some literature, and from a linguistic perspective. But I think the concept is interesting separate from these comparisons - whether a larger problem or not, misandry is discussed in literature. Talpedia (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

By the way, if you want an excellent example of women having massive power, how about how they shot down the anti misandry law in the UK? Or how they shot down equal rape laws in India? https://archive.ph/5bP77 Did that count as misandry? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be prosecuting the case yourself, rather than trying to identify the best sources and summarize them. If the source doesn't mention misandry, then you are violating WP:SYNTH or even WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is potential issue, though there might be another page on wikipedia for this material and it might be legitimate for this article to link to that article. For examples "gendered effects of X" articles. WP:Synth can be an issue but I would argue the issue is more WP:Due. I'm probably a little looser on "this material is relevant but not directly related" than other people - mostly because of my experience elsewhere dealing with things that I consider to be WP:Fringe but have their own pseudoscientific literature (Victim mentality comes to mind), but it cane be good to strongly separate it to avoid WP:Synth. Talpedia (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't need a source to say that that section belongs under the feminist heading. However I do have many sources from Male Studies papers that could quite happily go there instead. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Reversion of edits

@Binksternet:, the text wasn't deleted - it was simply moved to the feminism section, where it belongs. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It must stay in the lead section per WP:LEAD. We must have a summary of article body text. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Binksternet, but we need to come up with a text that expands on the concept of misandry - the details of the relationship to feminism is a side topic covered in the relevant section. I've removed the text so we don't have it twice, let's use this thread to come up with ideas for what information it makes sense to include in the lede. Kuralesache (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree we need a Leed, but I don't think feminism should have any real say In it. It would be like if we went on the misogyny page and said that the leed had to be dominated by what a bunch of men had to say, and they don't think it's important. it doesn't make sense. of course they're going to downplay it. They are a political activist movement with strong motives to make sure that only their issues are said to be important. Just like every other political movement. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Your viewpoint has been expressed and rejected many times on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is based mainly on WP:SECONDARY sources, and the best quality sources are topic scholars. We don't eliminate sources based on whether we think the source is a feminist; see WP:BIASED. So high quality sources will continue to support this article, regardless of your disdain. Binksternet (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Feminist academics are notoriously bad. I recommend the book "Professing Feminism". it's kind of an eye opener. However I have not tried to remove those sources. Only to counterbalance them with with others. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

If you want WP to amend its sourcing guidelines to reject an entire field within academia, you'll have to do better than name-dropping a 25-year-old book and saying "Thing Bad", I'm afraid. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

We don't eliminate sources based on whether we think the source is a feminist

, no but if we are say writing on economic topic, we probably address the ecomonics sources before the gender studies scholars and relegate the feminist critiques to a section at the end (together with anarchist, and psychoanalytical, and marxist, and colonial studies critiqueso ). I would note the issue is not whether the author themself feminist, more whether the source they are producing is a philosophical critique about the epistemology of a subject. By analogy Yes psychiatry can be a means of social control, yes there have been many prominent scholars who have explored the social aspects of the definition of disease, but how prominent should anti-psychiatry be in the lead of psychiatry....

This is complicated by the fact that there is limited research on misandry so in many ways it is a philosophical topic Talpedia (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Asymmetry with misogyny

I personally believe that misandry is asymmetric with misogyny because men have historically held all the power in society. However, it is controversial even within feminism, it is not a clear-cut fact that it is asymmetric. The claim is sourced but I believe that is insufficient, I can easily find many sources for controversial or even false claims. I think the article should further clarify with actual statistics (like "the majority/vast majority/consensus of scholars hold that it is asymmetric with misogyny"). If that is not possible, then the line should be removed. --78.18.27.245 (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think that "asymmetric" might be too vague a word to belong here at all. It's obviously asymmetric, since women and men aren't opposites or counterparts in any clear way, but I don't think that's what the author intended, and it's not well conveyed to the reader. Kuralesache (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@78.18.27.245 I'd be interested to hear about why you think that a tiny minority of men holding power means that misandry isn't a big deal. Especially when you consider that male leaders tend to favour women. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

“We've all been trained to see misogyny so well that we frequently see it when it isn't even there... and we're so inured and desensitized to misandry that we sometimes don't notice it even when it's applied with a sledgehammer” (Karen Straughan) 90.181.185.34 (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Gamma bias

Considering misandry, this is also important I guess: https://www.centreformalepsychology.com/male-psychology-magazine-listings/can-we-discuss-gender-issues-rationally-yes-if-we-can-stop-gamma-bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.181.185.34 (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

"many times larger in scope" than misogyny and "topic scholars"

I cannot find the claim that misogyny is "many times large in scope" in the source used to cite it, nor does the source seem suitable for such a claim which is empirical. Here is the section from the source.

Perhaps the most prolific writers in the male studies canon are Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, a researcher and a professor, respectively, in religious studies at McGill University, coauthors of a series of books on “misandry”—the hatred of men and boys. Misandry, they argue, is a most pernicious ideology that is “being generated by feminists,” a pervasive cultural trope that has infected every aspect of cultural life in North America.

Misandry is, of course, intended as a parallel to misogyny, the widespread fear and loathing of women, the institutional denigration and discrimination of that hatred, and the recourse to violence to enforce it. Misogyny assumes a set of attitudes, yes, but also the political ability to institutionalize and legitimate it and the repressive apparatus to enforce it. Claiming some sort of equivalent parallel is, of course, utterly tendentious, but Nathanson and Young have made a cottage industry out of trying. Over a decade, they’ve coauthored four large tomes (made much larger by padding them with everything from reviews to e-mails about the books). It is one thing—silly and untrue, to be sure—to argue that feminists hate men or that feminism presents a sustained and consistent ideological rant against men, the definition of that facile neologism. But it is truly ridiculous to argue that feminists have managed to infiltrate America’s political and cultural capitals to such an extent that they now have the political capacity to institutionalize misandry. But wait! Like a TV infomercial, there’s more! In Nathanson’s and Young’s fevered imaginations, it’s not feminist activists who have managed to pull off this coup without anyone noticing. It turns out that it was actually the handiwork of a few academic feminist film critics, who seem to have been both so well positioned and so powerful that they poisoned the cultural well and turned Hollywood against both men and masculinity. This tiny academic feminist cabal—I think it’s probably only Pauline Kael—has so successfully infected popular media that it is men who are the object of contempt, scorn, and derision. Based on astonishingly selective, simplistic, and shallow readings of several films from the 1990s, one of their books claims that we have witnessed, in the space of a decade, “gynocentrism’s” complete triumph and the insinuation of misandrous ideas into mainstream American culture, so that now all its products tell us that “there is nothing about men as such that is good or even acceptable.”38 To Nathanson and Young, misandry has insinuated itself so insidiously that we’ve barely been aware of the how the process works. Misandry, they argue, proceeds from benign laughter to contemptuous sneering to bypassing men altogether in a far more pleasant “gurls club” (Fried Green Tomatoes, The Color Purple, Thelma and Louise). And the attitudes of the films proceed from blaming men (Handmaid’s Tale, Mr. and Mrs. Bridge) to dehumanizing them (Beauty and the Beast) and ultimately demonizing men (Wolf, Sleeping with the Enemy), declaring men, themselves, to be devils incarnate.

This is, of course, appallingly bad history. Yet their analysis is instructive, I think, because it exposes the various misreadings that form the recipe of the male studies enterprise: a heaping dose of dramatic misreading of texts, with no foundational understanding of how texts are actually experienced by consumers, and more than a pinch of conspiratorial hysteria. These cultural products actually don’t make fun of men at all; they make fun of patriarchy—and the inflated sense of entitlement, the arrogant bluster, and the silly prerogatives than any illegitimate form of power would confer on the powerful.

One scholar, David Gilmore, is quoted as holding this view. It is unclear if he is a topic scholar, though he has a book entitled misogyny.

I will edit the sentence accordingly. Talpedia (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Empty space sections

I think this was a side effect of messing with images in the visual editor. (the extra title was effect of me thinking about summarizing another source, changing my mind, adding a picture, and then getting bored and distracted by fixing layout). Talpedia (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2022

Stating that Misogyny is more "prevelent" than Misandry is downplaying a serious issue relating to ALL MEN, and is toxic and hurtful towards ALL MEN. That statement should be removed and just state the DEFINITION of the term. 104.157.2.136 (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This isn't just a dictionary, and that's how sources describe it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

This entry should be deleted

I suggest that this entire page should be deleted as being unnecessary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the entire content of the page is simply a highly biased and emotional discussion that does not belong here. If you do a simple search for the definition of "misandry", every dictionary has the same simple definition - the strong dislike of men. That's a perfectly good definition. The very existence of the page is a biased political statement, implying that the dictionary definition is somehow insufficient. The entry is simply an extended opinion piece. It provides no actual information. The page has its own agenda, to vilify those seen as "incels" or "anti-feminists". It's not appropriate here.

On a side note, unrelated to this discussion, I will give some personal opinion and note a glaring mistake so many here seem to be making - the false dichotomy between "feminist" and "anti-feminist". These are highly complex and nuanced issues that can't be put into black and white, either/or categories. The assumption seems to be that anything written or said about gender that is not specifically feminist is therefore automatically "anti-feminist". This ignores the simple fact that one can, in good faith, support feminism in general but still have perfectly reasonable and rational disagreements with some parts of feminist theory without being "anti-feminist". There simply is no allowance made for men to participate in the discussion without immediately being smeared as "incels" or "misogynists".

In any case, the discussion of gender terms and issues can become highly emotional. There are plenty of places on the internet to discuss them. Wikipedia is not one of them. It's perfectly fine to discuss this and other terms, but not here. And if they must be discussed here, it should be a far more neutral discussion than this highly biased and poorly-cited entry. I say "poorly cited" because the sources given are not neutral or dispassionate - they are nearly 100% opinion with no actual research. They are all pushing an agenda. Just because some academic wrote some book or paper does not automatically make it either true or a good source. Wikipedia is not a gender blog, and that's all this entry is.

I started to edit the entry down to remve all the bias, but I soon realized that the only way to be unbiased in either direction would have been to simply give the dictionary defiition.

Let's delete this entry. Its very existence implies a political assumption and position. It's not an appropriate Wikipedia entry. It has an agenda. The supporting citations are uhscinetific and highly biased. Finsternis (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I expect your proposed deletion would be shot down immediately.

You seem to be coming at this topic not from a position of hoping that the reader will be informed by a summary of all the literature, but from a position of wishing the reader will become more sympathetic to your personal position. You might want to look at all scholarly studies about this topic; these will open your eyes. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

And you seem to be coming at this topic not from a position of hoping the reader will be persuaded to your beliefs. I have opinions on this issue as well, but this is not the place to discuss such things, nor is the article itself. The very fact that you imply I need to "open my eyes" is by itself an indication if serious bias. I have spent a lot of time reading the Wikipedia fundamentals, and this article violates them left and right. It doesn't need editing, because saying anything at all about this word brings in opinions and bias. I think you need to be dispassionate. I ask you, why does this article need to exist? What purpose does it serve beyond what a dictionary provides? The very existence is for the sole purpose of putting political spin on the term. I'd be happy to discuss the issue with you in another forum somewhere, but Wikipedia is definitely not the place for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finsternis (talk • contribs) 16:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Asymmetry with misogyny

How is the lead section of this article not a violation of NPOV? And even if that's true despite the tone, where's your sources? Doesn't seem in good faith. Victor obini (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

See discussions above. Every topic expert agrees that misogyny is huge but misandry is small. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

This article needs restructuring. For someone looking for a encyclopaedic description of misandry, the introduction is bizarre. The first paragraph begins with an eleven word description of the topic, then launches into a much longer statement on the scope and consequences of misogyny. All that's required of the opening is that it describes misandry and its effects. Comparisons with related concepts belong in the body of the article. 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:14DF:488:E057:90A4 (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. It's critically important that topic is put into context right at the start. The modern activism around misandry is a backlash against feminism, and it is another form of misogyny. Many MRAs try to position misandry as equal and opposite to misogyny, but they are wrong. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Modern activism should not be the focus of the opening two sentences. Again, this and the feminist perspective on misandry belong in the body of the article. The lead of the article is meant for defining and describing the concept. This is an encyclopaedia, not a political critique, and the term has been in currency since the 1870s. For some perspective, I was an adult well before the advent of the internet or the anti-feminist manosphere, and the term and concept 'misandry' were certainly known.

Beginning an article with 'Misandry is the hatred of men (by the way, it's not as widespread or consequential as misogyny)' simply seems like the minimisation of hateful behaviour. An individual who perhaps is being subjected to misandry and is looking for information on the topic isn't served well by these opening sentences. I note the opening of the article 'Misogyny' isn't unnecessarily diluted with 'is the counterpart of misandry', and rightly so. 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:5913:79FC:A84:8C59 (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

You're comparing two very different topics but you want to establish a false balance between them. The reader who is looking for answers at the misandry page will find that topic scholars agree that misandry isn't equal to misogyny, despite the words of many activists. Not at all equal. Studies have found that the individual's "hateful" experience of apparent misandry isn't supported by widespread, institutionalized hate by women against men. Rather, it's a reaction to women gaining more equality than in the patriarchal past. Binksternet (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

How exactly is the lack of balance in the incidence of hatred women and the incidence of hatred of men, relevant to the very opening sentences of an article about the hatred of men? I'll be damned if I know how it's helpful in describing what misandry itself is.

When you say that it's critically important to start by stating that contemporary activism around misandry is a reaction to feminism, who is this critically important to? 2407:7000:9BC3:C800:5913:79FC:A84:8C59 (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: there is a danger of bothsidesism, there is also a danger of black and white thinking. We're giving wikivoice to a the frame that's established in the feminism/anti-feminism discourse. While that may the predominate narrative in the last 10 years or so, it's also a kind of WP:RECENTISM. I agree with 8C59 that this is weighed too much towards recent events.- Scarpy (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where you get your viewpoint. Black and white thinking isn't part of this. The "discourse" of topic scholars define the topic, and the topic is anti-feminism as studied by sociologists, anthropologists, etc. Every aspect of the modern interest in misandry is recent, so I don't know how one would avoid recentism. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Your point is a valid one. The usage of 'misandry' as cudgel by people seeking to oppose feminism is a very real thing, and belongs in Wikipedia. But I shared the concern about making it the focus of the article as it represents a narrow, recent, view of the usage of the term, and focuses on the usage of the term and not the concept the term represents. The vibe I'm getting here is: Misandry exists = more-or-less a conspiracy theorist MRA talking point, Misandry maybe exists but if it does it's negligible = scholarly feminist accurate representation of the world. The black-and-white thinking here is that there are no other relevant viewpoints. However much research exists in the last decade (+/-) representing that POV is just that--a recent take on how the term is used among a relatively small group of people almost entirely in WEIRD countries. Whereas humans have existed for tens of thousands of years and most of them have not lived in the industrialized West. The concept of MRAs is very very WEIRD and new. The concept of feminism itself is also relatively new (compared to the rest of human history).

Another way of putting it is that we're talking about different things. There's the (1) recent rhetorical weaponization of 'misandry' to counter feminism and/or misogyny (2) misandry as it historically and currently exists. I suppose I'm saying we should recognize this and focus the article (2) primarily and (1) should be framed as an auxiliary point. - Scarpy (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Restoring "many times larger in scope"

I reverted the revert: [[4]]

These claims just aren't in the source. By all means if we can find a source that supports this (WP:VERIFIABLE) we can add this, but otherwise this is all WP:OR and it seems silly to have a discussion about something that is obviously not verified by the source. Talpedia (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The statement is a summary of the topic. It's not contained in only one source. Binksternet (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess I would prefer that the claim was specifically cited because it is quite specific. It sort of says "we've measured this". Looking at the end of the article there are other sources by Kimmel and Gilmore. We / I should probably look at those and try to insert material quantifying scope such that we can assess the summary based on the material in the article or add more sources. Talpedia (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Every objective scholar says that misandry is puffed up as larger by anti-feminist activists, but is actually much smaller in scope than misogyny. Scholars Alice E. Marwick and Robyn Caplan explain how the idea of misandry was promoted by anti-feminists in the "manosphere" and is in fact another aspect of misogyny: "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." The anti-feminist noise about misandry is a recent and much smaller aspect of misogyny. Professor Marc Ouelette writes that misandry is much smaller: "Despite contrary claims, misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalised and legislated antipathy of misogyny." He is saying that misogyny is systemic, that it has existed for an extremely long time, that it has deeply infiltrated human culture, institutions and laws. Misandry has nothing of this scale. Ouellette could hardly be more clear. Michael S. Kimmel agrees, confirming that misogyny is widespread and institutionalised while people who claim the same for misandry are "truly ridiculous". David D. Gilmore writes that the term misandry "has little currency"—that it is not widely used and has no power. Gilmore says that misogyny is much more powerful, that it "targets women no matter what they believe or do" whereas misandry only targets the blustering male poseurs, the "culture of machismo". Misandry does not target males for being male, but misogyny does target females for being female. See page 12 of Misogyny ISBN 978-0812217704. Nobody has "measured" the difference but they have described it fully. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

"misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalised and legislated antipathy of misogyny" Probably true, though misandrist arguments do appear in fiction. Or as TVTropes phrases it: "Men Are the Expendable Gender". Dimadick (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Haha, quoting another wiki FTW. Men are expendable because... see Male_expendability#Overview where Cynthia Daniels explains basic biology in the first paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

What do I think about this?. There is clearly a feminist literature that critique the concept on misandry in terms of its effects (false equivalence), the motivations of its proponents, etc. This clearly belongs in the article. The question to me is really if this is "philosophical critique of the the concept from feminists" or "hard facts about the concept" and whether we should be stating it in using wikipedia's voice (We have WP:VOICE to help us come to a decision on this).

I wouldn't necessarily call these authors objective scholars of misandry. I might call them academics scholars of misogyny, female experience, or internet ideologies and academic rigor is perhaps the best you are going to get on many topics in the humanities. They just don't seem like scholars of misandry though. If they were I would expect answers to the question of "does misandry occur and in what form?" not paragraphs upon paragraphs comparing it to misogyny, theorizing about the damaging effect of the concept of misandry, and tracking the conversation about the topic on the internet like it is a disease. The psychological constructs in the article seem like closest we get to objective research of misandry itself. It seems clear to me that *some* misandry exists, even if it is limited to the rare abuse of a male child by his female relatives.

It strikes me that the concept might be being strangled before anyone can work out if it exists, and this makes me nervous about turning philosophical critique into fact. To compare misandry to misogyny would open the door to misandry maybe existing, so there is no real comparison to avoid giving any credence to the concept. This is of course speculation on my part.

Anyway yes. I'm getting towards WP:FORUM territory here. Discussion of feminist philosophical analysis of the concept belong in the article. I would argue that they should not be described in wikipedia's voice, rather something like "Feminist scholars argue that etc" or maybe even "scholars of gender relations" (if the scholars are more scholars of gender relation more than feminism or the female life experience). Talpedia (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

No, no, many times no. Topic scholars are the top experts, and the consensus of their studies will be presented in Wikipedia's voice. We will NEVER devalue topic scholars as "feminist scholars". The closest you will ever get to that poisonous construct is "scholars of feminism".

Of course misandry exists. The recent noise in the manosphere about misandry is an indication of misogyny in action. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

They are not topic experts. They are women's studies scholars writing about another topic and happening to mention misandry. Now it may well be that misandry has not been studied that much directly, in which case we will have to make do with scholars from a related field.

By feminist scholars, I mean academics who study social experiences of women through a feminist lens. I am quite indifferent to the political leanings of any scholar, and I am fairly flexible on the term we use. My point is that they don't seem to be people studying misandry directly, rather people studying *misogyny* or other aspects of female experience. I guess I am saying that they scholars of Women's studies rather than Men's studies or Gender studies (to the degree that Gender studies or indeed Men's studies actually studies male experiences).

By analogy, I wonder what would happen if I went to the article on medicine and wrote "Medicine is an white supremacist organization" in the first paragraph asserting that all topic scholars agree, quoting scholars of Postcolonial studies and are topic experts. Talpedia (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

What horseshit. The "feminist lens" shows your dismissal of scholarly expertise.

You are not the first person to suggest discrediting the acknowledged scholars of feminism, and you won't be the last. Such suggestions are rightfully shot down every time. We don't require our reliable sources to be unbiased—see WP:BIASEDSOURCES. With most biased sources, Wikipedia asks for attribution (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV), to show where the opinion comes from. But topic scholars writing in peer-reviewed journals are assumed to be as unbiased as possible, and do not need attribution. Their findings are usually delivered in Wikipedia's voice, especially if a scholarly consensus exists. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: every source is evaluated for reliability in context. Popular writings, for instance Angry White Men by Michael Kimmel, are accorded less weight than peer-reviewed journals. Religious scholars Nathanson and Young cannot be considered topic experts in feminist studies, but sociologists and anthropologists are, along with scholars of gender and feminism.

Misandry is part and parcel of feminist studies—it is yet another example of anti-feminism. Nobody studies misandry without putting it in context with the backlash to feminism. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

What horseshit. The "feminist lens" shows your dismissal of scholarly expertise.

That seems like a nice good faith line of argument. You and wikipedia fighting the good fight against us misogynistic feminist haters by suggesting that the maybe uncited claims about another topic on the second sentence of an article might not be WP:DUE. Misogynists everywhere I tell you.

Most of the quotes aren't in sources talking about misandry, they are long discursive pieces talking about other topics. They aren't really writing on the topic.

Regarding Nathanson and Young academics will work on different fields and they are actually writing on the topic rather than something else. I don't really think there is a consensus on this topic.

But I'd prefer to see if some better sources exist rather than having this discussion so I'll have a look Talpedia (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

it is yet another example of anti-feminism

The rhetoric of misandry is certainly prevalence in anti-feminism. I don't think it is correct to only see concept as a facet of anti-feminism and I'm not sure it would be correct to call bell hooks an antifeminist.

Nobody studies misandry without putting it in context with the backlash to feminism.

Glick and Fiske do and are cited in the piece, and some feminists seem to be concerned about attitudes towards men within feminism (e.g. bell hooks). I agree that there is a lot of discussion of misandry in the context of backlash against feminism. I wonder if there are other discussions in the context of things like therapeutic psychology or criminology. Talpedia (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Glick and Fiske studied the mechanics of gender interaction, the results of which could be carried into various gender topics to make a point. They did not study misandry itself, nor document the historiography of misandry, which is why they don't put misandry in context. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

They create a construct for hostility towards men and look at it's prevalence. This seems like studying misandry to me. I agree that they are non studying *all* of misandry just a specific part, but I think they aren't studying something else while mentioning misandry Talpedia (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Hostility toward men was just one element of the Glick–Fiske study. They started out looking at Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) which was about sexism toward women by men and women. After that, they developed the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI). Both of these are tools for other researchers to use in their gender studies. Their 1999 paper concluded that the AMI was a better tool, more accurate. Glick and Fiske did not comment explicitly about misandry. You added Glick and Fiske last year, but I think the section violates WP:SYNTH because the topic of misandry is not treated in the sources. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

See [5] for the history of the source - it came from literature suggested by others and it appears that these sources do mention misandry from the quote in the discussion. I don't really think WP:SYNTH is the right policy rather WP:DUE. If you think WP:SYNTH. What do you think is implied by the presence of the section that is not consistent with other sources. Talpedia (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this material is WP:Due, but I do agree that there is room for argument here. But I think barring consensus the material stands (WP:CONSENUS). Do you not think this material is interesting to those interested in misandry? We could get some other edits to truth to build consensus Talpedia (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

on "The recent noise in the manosphere about misandry is an indication of misogyny in action." I'd like to say , or you can back up your statement with logic. either works. 2189 is out of order (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Marwick and Caplan confirm this in "Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment". Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Black misandry

Can you write a section about anti-Black misandry? Lots of scholars write about this phenomenon.--Reprarina (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you cite texts by these scholars? Dimadick (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

So that we can look at the literature, find the best related sources and summarize them.... or at least that's what I might do with some sources. Talpedia (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if Anti-Black misandry is even a thing. that seems more like an issue of racism to me. but, you could have a point. 2189 is out of order (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Some writers have discussed anti-Black misandry as part of the topic, but I agree with you that it seems more like racism than sexism. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

T. Hasan Johnson, identifies as the Black masculinist, obviously argues that anti-Black misandry is the misandry. There are also such sources as Curry T. J. Killing boogeymen: Phallicism and the misandric mischaracterizations of Black males in theory // Res Philosophica. — 2018. I can see that works about anti-Black misandry are quotated and not really critisezed yet, so they are RS. It is about gender because police officers kill Black men much more ofthen than they kill Black women. Reprarina (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Do police officers rape black women more often than black men or not? Killing is not the only way to abuse someone. Dimadick (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you can ask Nataniel Bryan, T. J. Curry, and T. Hasan Johnson. Of course if they use the term anti-Black misandry, they distinguish racism in general and anti-Black misandry, the misandric form of racism, which includes police officer's prejudice aganst Black men, not against Black women. WP:NOTAFORUM. I don't know whether their works criticized or not. I haven't see the critique. But I can say they are quotated. So they can be RSs. Even if they are criticized, their works is no less impornant than Nathanson and Young's one to be presented in the article. Reprarina (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

World wide view

I don't like banners on articles I haved worked on because they cast doubt on the legitimacy of the things I have worked on. Obviously they might be necessary, and encourage editors. What would we need to add to this article to remove the banner about world wide perspective? Talpedia (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

A possible source I listed above is

• Maria Mpasdeki, Zafeiris Tsiftzis (2020). Regulating Misandry: Expanding the Protection Against Online Hate Speech. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-9715-5.ch039 Multiple authors talk about online harassment of men. The book includes many assessments from non-Western countries, giving a more global view.

It appears to be more about the experience of people who claim misandry hate speech was directed at them. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

...But the problem remains one of very few sources. ‎Reprarina, not every topic can be global in scope. This one will definitely be limited by the shortage of sources. If we hunt for and use the few available sources, the tag should be removed, even though the article will continue to be very Western-centric. That's its nature. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I can also suggest Пяткова Е. С., Савинская О. Б. Нормативные представления о мизандрии у женщин двух поколений. Reprarina (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)