Talk:Misandry/Archive 6
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
"There is little doubt, of course, that some feminists are misandrists"
This source looks quite academic consensusy. I believe that it legitimizes some sources that do not contradict this statement. The sources that all feminists are misandrists are definitely fringe, but the sources that some feminists are misandrists are quite okay and we shouldn't avoid them. Reprarina (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- The source also says that there is little or no difference between hostility toward men for feminists vs non-feminists, so I'm not sure if that'd be appropriate. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's appropriate in the context that some people think that there are no misandrists at all. Reprarina (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- In that context I agree. We would just have to be careful not to label certain groups as exhibiting misandry per my previous comment. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's appropriate in the context that some people think that there are no misandrists at all. Reprarina (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I would be fine with briefly summarizing the source, with the context that Panamitsu mentions. It would be nice to go one-in-one out on the §In feminism section, which is already overlong, with many sources of lower quality than this new one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- I've just had a brief look through the source and here are a few points that perhaps we could mention:
- There is a stereotype that feminism is motivated by misandry: "
by the perception that [feminism] is motivated by antimale sentiment, or misandry
" - Some feminists are misandrists, and so are some nonfeminists. "
There is little doubt, of course, that some feminists are misandrists, just assome nonfeminists are also likely to harbor negative attitudes toward men.
" - Little or no difference between misandry in feminists and non-feminists
- The Stereotype accuracy hypothesis may be worth mentioning (discussed in source).
- "
some feminists have claimed that misan-dry is a legitimate, even necessary aspect of the movement.Their argument is that bad feelings toward men are rationalresponses to men’s hatred and mistreatment of women andthat more positive or dispassionate responses would onlyundermine women’s motivation to bring about social change
" - Source has a few mentions of in-group and out-group dynamics.
- Has a few points about anti-misandry in Feminism, eg "
Feminists have driven forward significant changes in men’sfavor (Courtenay, 2000) including the repeal of sexist drinkinglaws (Plank, 2019) and laws that define rape in terms thatexclude assaults in which men are victims
" - "
people are grossly inaccurate in their understanding of feminists’ attitudes toward men.
" - "A multiple regression showed that radical (β=−.24,p< .001)and cultural (β=−.18,p=.003) feminism, but not liberal(β=.06,p=.330) or women of color (β=.01,p=.910) fem-inism, were uniquely associated with less positive explicitattitudes toward men"
- There is a stereotype that feminism is motivated by misandry: "
- —Panamitsu (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Grammatical correction of a sentence in the Misandry article.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
- Why it should be changed:
- References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):
− | Echols also claims that, after | + | Echols also claims that, after Solanas attempted to commit murder, her SCUM Manifesto became more popular within radical feminism; but not all radical feminists shared her beliefs. |
In the Article "Misandry", under "In Feminism", in the 2nd paragraph it states:
"Echols also claims that, after her attempted murder, Solanas' SCUM Manifesto became more popular within radical feminism; but not all radical feminists shared her beliefs."
This would seem to suggest that either Echols or Solanas were the victim of an attempted murder from the usage of the word "Her". However, if it is taken in context with the 1st paragraph which states:
"However, radical feminist arguments have also been misinterpreted, and individual radical feminists such as Valerie Solanas, best known for her attempted murder of Andy Warhol in 1968, have historically had a higher profile in popular culture than within feminist scholarship."
It can be inferred that the statement I am proposing to edit is referring to a Murder attempt made by Solanas. If this is the truth of that statement, then it would be better to change it in to:
"Echols also claims that, after Solanas attempted to commit murder, her SCUM Manifesto became more popular within radical feminism; but not all radical feminists shared her beliefs."
This is a simple grammatical correction. I hope this can help with clarity. Fantredath (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think this a good change. But I'm tired and the grammar is hard. Could someone else do it? Talpedia 06:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- This edit is all too complicated trying to do it - I just wanted someone else to do it! The reasons for this are complicated. Talpedia 06:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've just made the change but I have a high propensity to switch words around in accident (it's 11pm for me), so someone please do check over my change. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Done Replaced
her Solanas'
withthe
. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- I've just made the change but I have a high propensity to switch words around in accident (it's 11pm for me), so someone please do check over my change. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- This edit is all too complicated trying to do it - I just wanted someone else to do it! The reasons for this are complicated. Talpedia 06:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
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 evaluatethe simultaneous effects of multiple intersecting social categorizations
. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:00, 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
A minor issue
Just a suggestion... When looking up Misandry I found quotes from this stating that Misandry is a minor issue. With men committing suicide at the highest rates in history and leaving the US to start families, it seems logical that misandry is not a minor issue. At least, it is not a minor issue today where in the past it may have been. 47.227.180.59 (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's minor compared to misogyny which is huge and has been for thousands of years all over the world. Misandry has only been a thing for a couple of decades. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- "Misandry has only been a thing for a couple of decade". According to your opinion, not according to RSs which find misandry in Shakespeare, in Jonathan Swift, in Ancient Greek pieces. Reprarina (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- What sources suggest that misandry is a cause of suicide or emigration? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- The problem here is that conflating misandry and suicide is a form of synthesis which we can not do unless there are sources which do this. Sources generally do describe it as a minor issue, I have not come across many sources which don't. And as EvergreenFir mentioned, I don't think there are even any sources which list misandry as a cause of suicide, but I'm happy to have a search. It would be great if you could provide your sources! —Panamitsu (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- WHy is it necessary to qualify it as anything at all? Isn't this an informational page that's meant to provide an overview of the subject not prescribe how relevant/prevalent/percieved it is? A minor/major within what? Is there a graph that plots how 'important' a subject is within a certain discource that readers should be aware of? 203.91.244.159 (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
11 February 2024
Discussion is going nowhere. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Men are not immune from systematic discrimination and sexism in institutions [1] [2] [3] [4] --Ernne (talk) 14:40, 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.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)
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)
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 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)
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)
|
18 May 2024
Claiming misogyny exists, but misandry doesn't is interesting. Diyi75 (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
|
22 May 2024
It is not a false idea that misandry is prevalence among feminism, this article is falsely stating that as if objective fact. 2601:581:4500:A680:3D53:2DF9:DC5C:5691 (talk) 11:44, 22 May 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)
What the source Misandry myth say
User:Raladic You have reversed my edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misandry&diff=1223899083&oldid=1223898826 Tell me, where does the source state what is stated in the sentence? More precisely: where does the source say that misandry is not often found among men and among antifeminists? Reprarina (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- The lead summarizes many and multiple findings. But yes, to make it more precise, I just expanded the sentence in the lead, since it is a summary of the entire article and the discussion of feminism and the (false) link to misandry was discussed in the article, but not mentioned in the lead. Now with the expanded sentence it is and so now the ref makes definite sense. Raladic (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Now your sentence is not grammatically correct and sounds like "feminism" (not misandry) "...is established in preferential treatment of women, and shown by discrimination against men" Reprarina (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Good point. And just like that, it's fixed with the help of a comma and another three words. Raladic (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Now your sentence is not grammatically correct and sounds like "feminism" (not misandry) "...is established in preferential treatment of women, and shown by discrimination against men" Reprarina (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2024
This edit request to Misandry has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the racialization section, link to transmisandry in the sentence "E. C. Krell, a gender researcher, uses the term racialized transmisandry describing the experience of Black transmasculine people" Skemous (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Done Jamedeus (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Piecemeal POV issues.
Inspired by what's just been posted at WP:NORN, if not in agreement with it, I do think there are spots where the prose in this article has a neutrality problem, and I've tagged them inline accordingly. Remsense诉 13:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense I agree Diyi75 (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Remsense It certainly needs to take the problem seriously, and ensure it speaks about it without prejudice. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
"which is both far more deeply rooted in society and more severe in its consequences."
Is this part even warranted? It doesn't contribute to the understanding of the topic at hand, and even if it did, it's phrased improperly as it's clearly an opinion. Stunfire1209 (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Stunfire1209 It's certainly an ideological take. Especially considering the fact that TV shows and games openly attack men, but wouldn't dare to go after women. I've never seen much acknowledgement for misandry, but it's certainly real. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- This language is warranted because it's an accurate summary of the scholarship detailed in the article. Generalrelative (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalrelative I'm not personally sure what level of consensus that has, but the statement itself is certainly incorrect and is contested by a large number of studies and papers. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- The statement is supported by the best quality studies and papers. Nothing of quality disproves the statement. Binksternet (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalrelative Does that not run the risk of being circular? It might better serve us to ask the question as to why the scholarship was referenced in the first place. Stunfire1209 (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is not circular as the scholarly sources are not referencing this Wikipedia page. The answer to why the scholarship was referenced here is because scholars are the most authoritative sources on Wikipedia. If you were a cook, you wouldn't use rotten ingredients; you would want the best ingredients. Binksternet (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalrelative I'm not personally sure what level of consensus that has, but the statement itself is certainly incorrect and is contested by a large number of studies and papers. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Those "TV shows and games" supposedly attacking men and not women are gross misrepresentations published by Nathanson and Young. Nathanson and Young are religious activists who want to roll back the advances of feminism. They are not a reliable source, despite the fact that they sell a bunch of books. Binksternet (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- This language is warranted because it's an accurate summary of the scholarship detailed in the article. Generalrelative (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)