Talk:Misogyny

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2023

Delete this line: Misandry is a minor issue, not equivalent to the widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny

Reason: Misandry is a widely practiced prejudice today, easily as prevalent as Misogyny. White men have become the bane, the object of scorn all across today's socialized world. It's happened in a few short years, but now is widely practiced and advertised. This article reinforces all the old stereotypes, and hasn't been updated to include the new hate-white-men phenomenon, blaming them for all the wrongs of society. This article is inherently racist and misandristic, and is further proof of the hate-white-men syndrome which plagues today's media and this wikipedia article. Gloria77g (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

she won't provide it. Just like there is no sense of dividing sexes more, adjusting such articles... They only make things worse. No POVs should ever drive wikipedia. Just facts. Women who suffered in life because they were too mean to make the man want to stay with them seek hatered here, blaming men. That is all... There is hatered the other way 'round just around the corner. In this article's authors' mindsets. 2A02:A319:40B0:2D00:60D7:1365:3045:212B (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article does not mention that David Gilmore, who is used as a reliable source to the statement, has a very narrow understanding of the term "misogyny". His definition of misogyny does not include female internalized misogyny. Meanwhile, a huge number of scholars understand misogyny far from being male malady and include women's misogyny in the concept of misogyny. That's the problem. Reprarina (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC) I probably won't change the text of the article, but instead of Gilmore's monograph I will use the International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities, which states the same thing, but is an international encyclopedic source that is clearly more reliable than one monograph with a narrow understanding of the term "misogyny" .--Reprarina (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• The suggested change goes against every scholarly source we have. Scholars who research this issue agree that women are greatly harmed by misogyny while misandry is a minor complaint associated with antifeminists. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thus you support misogyny. You see this is simple. EITHER one treats people on merit - respecting any issues of both sexes - OR one sees sexes as inherently warring parties which should NOT be treated on merit. You post, as the cited line, is a prime case of belittling someone else's issues, aka a prime case of misandry. You see, Misogyny and Misandry are two sides of the same *War of Sexes* approach to the topic. Your argument that "Ah, it is published that *only one party is waging the WAR* (false, but lets presume for a sec), THUS using a WP article as a weapon of that war courtesy of POV-pushing is justified.". Sorry. It is not.

One either considers the "War of Sexes" a fundamentally wrong concept or one supports it. You are clearly the one who wants to WIN that war, not stop it. Thus you are firstly unqualified to comment courtesy of being a party of the conflict. Secondly, you are deconstructing your own message by presenting that "The War is good as long as I get to be the one shooting". Well. News. That entitles the ones on the other site to shoot as well. And they had bigger guns historically. But well, your posistion is a nice representation why WP is becoming the swamp slowely but surely. We, the civilised people, just need to move on and let you enjoy your dark ages reborn. Enjoy! 145.224.105.244 (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You are pushing a false balance, that complaints by men and complaints by women have the same value. In this case, they don't; the women have been mashed down into a subservient role for several thousand years at least. Their problems are much more pervasive. Men have been the dominant sex for just as long; their problems are comparatively trivial. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey Binksternet. First of all, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I can see you are a very experienced Wikipedia editor, so I will respect your conclusions.

Instead of removing the sentence, how about we keep it, but add clarity to it. So instead of "Misandry is a minor issue, not equivalent to the widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny" it becomes "Misandry is a minor issue compared to the widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny". I think the second sentence provides a clearer and more direct comparison between misandry and misogyny, making it more clear for conveying the intended message. What do you think? Empathy Heart (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Part of the problem of misandry is that MRMs try to position it as equivalent to misogyny. The wording of "not equivalent" was chosen to counter that false balance explicitly. Your wording suggestion is more concise, but I would rather include the "not equivalent" bit. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that in this section every other sentence is descriptive and objective, while this is subjective and relative. The paragraph for other terms denotes usage and meaning, while this arbitrary line does nothing of the sort. Calling it a minor issue has absolutely nothing to do with the definition and use case and is nothing but a viewpoint insert. It's also not presented in an objective way like the rest of the section which provides direct quotes on scholarly opinions, citing the sources. You even say it yourself - this phrasing was chosen to counter another's narrative with your own.

Furthermore, if you're concerned about citing scholarly sources, then you should want this removed as the reference is to "A Medieval Compendium of Women's Medicine" which has nothing to do with the topic. It's absurd that this line remains. I can't for the life of me understand why you would run to its defense when asked to remove an out of place, poorly sourced, useless sentence. 2001:569:BF10:E000:6064:FC69:39FC:C0F2 (talk) 06:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. I think it is a good compromise and is accurate and factual. 2605:59C0:1AB:F500:3C2C:94C:7AAD:7EE1 (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The war metaphor is utter shite, and it's more complicated. The one-sided one is also utter shite.

You say complaints by women have more value, witjout giving any reason.

Misandry is everywhere. The best one can do for one's agenda is making articles more neutral, not devolving into labelling people as sexist.

A lot of feminists don't understand the difference between sexism and misandry.

Misandry being an attitude, sexism being a vision of the things. 2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:2176:3ED2:5D18:CB25 (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, a significant portion of feminist writers argue that patriarchy oppresses men as well, and that feminism has to work to liberate them. It would be quite strange of them to hold this view while simultaneously minimising the severity of misandry. As such, I don't believe it's appropriate to minimise the severity of misandry in wikivoice. The article should instead reflect that this topic is controversial. Dieknon (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This aptly links to the idea of diwalisexual, the sexual attraction solely towards people of the hindu religion, most popular amongst men. There have been attacks on people expressing their diwalisexual selves.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a319:40b0:2d00:60d7:1365:3045:212b (talk) 9:33 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Islam

Thread retitled from "Your hypocrisy.".

Why are wrong information put here? In Islam, females get not half of what males get. The truth is females get half from their father's while they also receive from their husbands as well. Males are limited to what they inherit from their father. Again, your islamophobic nature is quite evident here. There are at least ten times more number of verses(misogynist)in the Bibles that you're decorating here than any other scriptures for that matter. Quote the biblical verses which says 'women to remain silent before men or else...' 'women to cover their heads or else....' Wikipedia is full of shits now. You take reference of islamophobic writers and also never include any muslim scholar to authenticate your statement on Islam and muslims.c'mon. 2409:40E7:F:C95:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't meant to sacrifice legitimacy to be for people's likings. There is no hypocrisy, as it also mentions other religions. Nobody needs a biased scholar to fact check, that's not how this works. And you're wrong.

"And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if two men are not [available], then a man and two women, so that if one of the women errs, the other can remind her." (Qur'an 2:282)

This verse quite literally says a women's word is worth half a man's. Skinking4z (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Why is the misandry page protected but this one is not?

Pretty much the title. Misogyny has been much more rampant throughout history so I would think it would be more susceptible to misinformation. BlueFlare5059 (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you requesting this page be protected? Pages are protected because of disruptive editing, not by comparison to the status of other articles. Jno.skinner (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

If there hasn't been any disruptive editing, there's no need I guess. I was just curious. BlueFlare5059 (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Further discussions

Hey everyone,

this is a statement from the article:

Misandry is a minor issue, not equivalent to the widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny.

That statement is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Misandry. You're welcome to share your thoughts on there. Thank you! Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC) Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Misandry

This topic of the current line ""Misandry is a minor issue, not equivalent to the widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny." has been discussed in Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Misandry. If I'm correct it was decided that this line isn't completely accurate, and I was told I needed to seek consensus here for what to do next. We have a couple of options:

1) Revisit the lines to include what multiple reliable sources state, with something like this: "Marc A. Ouellette argues in International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities that "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny". Anthropologist David Gilmore argues that misogyny is a "near-universal phenomenon" and that there is no male equivalent. At the same time, the Psychology of Women Quarterly in the article the Misandry Myth states that many feminists disown Misandry and advocate against it."

2) We can remove mention of Misandry in this article entirely

3) We can also do something else, like only mention that Misandry is the counterpart of Misogyny but not compare them, or something else.

What do you guys think?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep it like it is. What sort of edit attempt is this? The reliable sources are clear here. Keeping it the same wasn't one of your options, so you should withdraw this poorly formed question. Extra Jesus Hold The Satan!! (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The reason is that these reliable sources clearly state that it's not a consensus among scholars that Misandry is a minority view. Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Extra.. blocked as sock of Raxythecat Doug Weller talk 15:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

No. Your suggestion of "many feminists disown Misandry" is ridiculous, as if many feminists already owned it. The sources clearly state that misandry is small potatoes compared to misogyny. There is nothing to do here. Binksternet (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That quote is from a peer reviewed article. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

"Disown" is hyperbole, not accuracy.

The giant problem here is that the sources are saying one thing but you keep thinking they are saying something else. The sources clearly state that there is a strong consensus among scholars that misandry is very much smaller than misogyny, but your conclusion from reading the same material is "not a consensus". You can't just pick and choose parts of the source that seem to agree with your position. You must instead look at the sweeping conclusions such as "feminists’ attitudes toward men were positive in absolute terms and did not differ significantly from nonfeminists'", and that "the stereotype that feminists are man-haters is clearly used as a political weapon against the movement".[1] That means misandry isn't a big thing on its own, but the men's rights movement is puffing it up to appear larger in order to use it as a weapon against the advances of feminism. Misandry by itself is a piffle. Misandry as used by MRMs is a weaponized backlash against feminism. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)