Talk:Misandry

​

Intro section

Thread retitled from Biasness.

Why is the intro section repeatedly echoing that misandry is minimal and rather focusing on misogyny instead? Isn't this biased coverage the very proof that misandry is equally present, even at Wikipedia? Most people backing current consensus are female writers and experts; do we hear to MRAs when writing the definition of misogyny? 59.184.161.9 (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the reliable sources, which in this case are peer-reviewed journal articles or other cites from academic publishers. If you know of missing citations from MRAs in those sorts of publications, by all means present them here. MrOllie (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Would this apply? https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-04384-1_5 2001:1998:3600:432:0:0:0:323 (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Is the suggestion here that female writers and experts are inherently biased against men? That seems like a biased statement in itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Not biases; proven: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-04384-1_5 2001:1998:3600:432:0:0:0:323 (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

That study does not have any statistical tests. That said, "gamma bias" is a framework (and one that somehow manages to reinvent the "for men" version of ambivalent sexism by Glick and Fisk, which did actually have psychometric tests in it). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

That chapter says, we do not suggest that gamma bias is eternal and unchangeable. Nothing about women being inherently biased against men. Gamma bias is described as a new hypothesis, which will be subjected to rigorous empirical testing in research over the coming years. In other words, not yet proven. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

7 April 2025

This is possibly one of the most biased articles on Wikipedia. Below, I will list just a few of its issues:

1) Lead section. The second paragraph opens by saying "Men's rights activists (MRAs) and other masculinist groups have characterized modern laws concerning divorce, domestic violence, conscription, circumcision (known as male genital mutilation by opponents), and treatment of male rape victims as examples of institutional misandry." But immediately afterwards it continues: "However, in virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support comparable to misogyny, the hatred of women." What does this have to do with the first part of the paragraph? The first part basically says "X, Y and Z are examples of P." The second part says "however, P lacks institutional support compared to Q". It's a complete non-sequitur. The article in this case is about P and not Q.

2) Etymology. The entire second paragraph has nothing to do with the topic of the article. Etymology section is supposed to outline the etymology of the title of the article (in this case "misandry"). It does that in the first paragraph. However, this is not the case with the second paragraph. The second paragraph introduces a completely new word ("androphobia") and uses this space to take jabs at the the oppressive male roles of patriarchy. None of that should be in the etymology section.

3) Use by the men's rights movement. Exactly the same issue. What should a section titled "Use by the Men's Rights Movement" talk about? Surely it's about how men's rights movements use the term. It does that more-or-less decently in the first paragraph. However, thing go downhill quickly in the second paragraph. The second paragraph begins by saying that according to David Gilmore, misogyny is a "near-universal phenomenon" and that there is no male equivalent. This could maybe fit into a a section titled "David Gilmore", but it has very little to do with how men's rights movements use the term.

4) Some statistics. Misogyny is a 5208 word article and the word "misandry" is only mentioned 6 times in it. Misandry is a 1952 word article and the word "misogyny" is used 29 times. These are some very skewed statistics.

5) Black-and-white thinking. My last (4th) point naturally leads itself to this one. The article implicitly assumes that misandry and misogyny are mutually incompatible. Whenever an example of misandry is presented, it is countered by downplaying it in comparison to misogyny. But why? In an article about misandry, why is it necessary to treat paragraphs about misandry as rhetorical attacks on the legitimacy of misogyny as a real thing? Both can be real phenomena, there is no reason provided to implicitly assume that if one exists, then the other one doesn't.

Proposed solutions (any one of them is better than what we currently have):

Option A) Remove text about misogyny where the only reason why it is there is the black-and-white thinking that every instance of misandry needs to be countered by downplaying it in comparison to misogyny.

Option B) Move all the text about misogyny that I mentioned above into a dedicated "criticisms" section.

Option C) Move all the text about misogyny that I mentioned above into the Misogyny article, since it is much more relevant there than here.

Option D) Create a separate article for cashing out this issue.

DeadJoe98 (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is designed to match the 'bias' of the cited academic sources. We're not going to cut well-sourced material because you personally disagree with it, nor are we going to wall off the mainstream academic view into a 'criticism' section. MrOllie (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I have provided rationale that goes beyond me personally disagreeing with the material. I am also not even disagreeing with the material that I discussed above (not once did I deny the validity of any of the cited papers), I am merely disagreeing with the rationale for including certain sentences in this article in the particular way they are currently included. DeadJoe98 (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You have presented zero citations to reliable sources. This whole section does indeed amount to a recitation of your personal opinion - and we cannot and will not base an article on that. MrOllie (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you expect me to present? A study analysing this particular Wikipedia article? For any material to be included in a given Wikipedia article it needs to pass at least two criteria: 1) it needs to be well-sources and 2) it needs to be directly relevant to the place where it is mentioned. In this case, I am questioning whether a bunch of sentences meet the second criteria. DeadJoe98 (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

It's relevant if published, reliable sources treat it as relevant. The best available sources on sociological topics are generally peer-reviewed journal articles and academic monographs. Those sources tend to stress how misandry is a minor issue compared to misogyny. Due weight requires that we faithfully reflect such points of view according to their prominence in reliable sources. If you have comparable sources that present a contrary point of view, feel free to present them here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Just to verify this, as one example, I have gone through all the sources in the second paragraph of the etymology section. I don't see how any of them establish direct relevance of the second paragraph to this section as a whole. And I especially don't see how any of it justifies including jabs like "Gilmore says that misandry, the hatred of men as men, is extremely rare in historical records..." into an etymology section. DeadJoe98 (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it, and I don't think it's necessarily a jab — though I can imagine how you may feel that way. What section would you rather it be in? It seems related to the history and discussion of misandry as a word, so discussing related words might make sense. If the word is less frequently found in the historical record (a fact, not a jab at men), then it makes sense to discuss other, related, words that were also used in the past. It helps with context to discuss past words that were used instead to refer to a similar concept, right? Because there was relatively less usage of the term back then?

It's separated into a second paragraph because the first paragraph deals with the etymology more directly. I, for one, appreciated the context provided by the second paragraph, as well as the information about related (albeit obsolete) terms, which I actually had never heard of before. But are you saying it should be removed entirely? Why? You think the sourcing is poor? You say you've gone through all the sources, and I appreciate that investment of time, but I'm unsure of how to respond to the idea they're not relevant. They look like good sources to me, and the information presented looks sufficiently relevant to the history of the topic at hand to me, personally. Or, are you saying the second paragraph failed verification — that it isn't supported by the sources? 1101 (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

We have a sentence that reads: "Gilmore says that misandry, the hatred of men as men, is extremely rare in historical records, in sharp contrast to the prevalence of misogyny, which is the hatred of women as women". This sentence could be interpreted in two different and very distinct ways:

1) The usage of the word "misandry" is extremely rare in historical records.

2) The hatred of men as men is extremely rare in historical records.

If the sentence is interpreted in the first way, then it fails verification, since Gilmore hasn't provided a literary analysis necessary to establish such a conclusion. If the sentence is interpreted in the second way, then it isn't really related to etymology. It would be more fitting in the "criticism" section. DeadJoe98 (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

You are asking for a false balance to be put in place between the misandry and the misogyny pages. The sources don't support any kind of balance, let alone a false one. It's simplistic to ask for two different pages to have the same number of opposing words. The thing about misandry is that it is a backlash to feminism and fairly recent, and the way that MRAs talk about misandry reveals their misogyny. That means misogyny must be discussed in the misandry article. Misogyny is ancient, severe and terribly widespread, with very little connection to misandry. The connection that exists is unidirectional such that misandry depends entirely on feminism and misogyny, while misogyny would still exist without misandry. The two topics are very, very different, which is exactly how we present them to the reader. I don't think any changes are necessary. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The reason I brought up word count is to show that this article is biased. And I believe that I was pretty successful in doing that, since the first reply to my post basically admitted that this page is indeed biased.

However, I am not saying that all discussions of misogyny are completely unrelated to this article (that's why I am partial to a dedicated "criticism" section). My biggest point is that in the current state of this article, there are multiple places where sentences about misogyny aren't directly relevant to the section where they are mentioned. DeadJoe98 (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that one article featuring another's name more often necessarily implies — let alone proves — it is "biased"; counting words is a fairly shallow analysis, and actually reading the article presents an alternate explanation for the ostensible discrepancy: that misogyny is a more well-known topic, and more supported by evidence.

Thus, misandry exists as an inversion of or often in comparison to misogyny. Misandry has been a relatively more common term since before the twentieth century, and is probably also an older term. So it makes sense that an article trying to discuss a concept readers are less familiar with to reach for one readers know better.

See: [1]

1101 (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The two reasons that you present (more well-known topic and more evidence) could maybe explain why the article about misogyny is larger than the article about misandry. But that's not really what I objected to. I don't necessarily think that these articles should be of the same length. A big problem lies in the fact that some sentences are not really relevant to the places where they are mentioned. Another problem that I have not mentioned yet is the way sentences are presented. For example, take the lead section. It says: "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the 'misandry myth' by 40 topic experts". To verify this statement, I randomly selected one of the alleged topic experts: Victoria Cock. I was not able to find much information that would be able to reliably establish that she is a expert in a topic that's directly relevant to this article. DeadJoe98 (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done: revisions 1284552870 and 1284552362 (my edits) — Cock seems to work in the field. At least, she is an author of that paper and seems to have attended this ISPP conference.[2] Anyway, Psychology of Women Quarterly is a "scientific, peer-reviewed journal that publishes empirical research".

Or are you proposing moving it back to a feminist criticism section, as it was many edits ago?

Researchers should be accurate, since it's a research paper; so, to avoid the pedantic argument over roughly equivalent words, I changed the wording to "feminist research scientists affiliated with universities in ten countries". I counted Norway, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand, China, India, South Korea, Japan, and the UK. It does look like all of the listed authors are affiliated with universities or institutes of technology, except for Tipandjan, listed as affiliated with the International Centre for Psychological Counseling and Social Research in India, but each of the individual countries I previously listed is associated with at least one university, even India (University of Calcutta), so I think the statement should now be easy to verify without having to litigate the definition of any words you contest like expert.

 — 1101 (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, in an ideal world, I would love to see all these criticisms moved to a dedicated "criticism" section, and away from sections where they don't really belong (like "etymology"). If we are to create that section, here are the changes I would make:

1) Move the entire second paragraph of the "etymology" section to the "criticism" section.

2) Move this part of the "history" section to the "criticism" section: "Marwick and Caplan argue that usage of the term misandry in the internet age is an outgrowth of misogyny and antifeminism.^{[further explanation needed]} The term is commonly used in the manosphere, such as on men's rights discussion forums on websites such as 4chan and Reddit, to counter feminist accusations of misogyny. The critique and parody of the concept of misandry by feminist bloggers has been reported on in periodicals such as The Guardian, Slate and Time."

3) Move the entire second paragraph of the "Use by the Men's Rights Movement" section to the "criticism" section. DeadJoe98 (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

It appears this talk page is the only thing you've ever edited on this account? Is this your main account?

[P.S. Regardless, I think that a new section might be too big a change for me to make for you unilaterally, given the edit history of the page showing similar edits being reverted in the past. It will be necessary for a larger discussion to take place about your proposal before a decision on it can be made.]

1101 (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I have been reading through various Wikipedia articles for one of my projects and I stumbled upon this one. I decided to start this discussion in the talk page, because its structure and choice of words/sentences appeared to be heavily biased to me, much more so than other articles on similarly controversial topics. DeadJoe98 (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, we're not going to wall off the mainstream view in a criticism section. Proponents of all manner of minority viewpoints would like us to do that on various articles that they consider to be 'the most biased articles on Wikipedia' (examples include Climate change, Homeopathy, etc) but Wikipedia is not written that way because we don't do false balance here. MrOllie (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I have given extensive reasoning for my ideas, and an editor who was initially inclined to disagree with me was able to engage in constructive dialogue with me and even implement some of my proposals. Last time I checked, the extent of your engagement with me was asking for sources and then refusing to elaborate. This is really just a "nuh uh" from you. Also, you are using very authoritative language here ("We're not going to cut well-sourced material...", "we cannot and will not base an article on that", "we're not going to wall off the mainstream view"). Who exactly gave you the sole authority for deciding what will and will not be implemented? DeadJoe98 (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has explicit polices on this stuff (for example WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:CRITS, and so on), which we have to follow. That is what gives the authority (not to me, the whole Wikipedia community) to reject proposals that plainly contradict those policies. MrOllie (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but just citing policies isn't enough. I don't believe that my proposals promote false balance. In fact, I am not proposing to add even a single sentence to the article. All I am doing is suggesting for sentences to be removed from sections where their presence is inappropriate due to relevance concerns. When it comes to WP:CRITS, it explicitly says: "Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply" The topic of misandry is very much a political/philosophical topic from my perspective. DeadJoe98 (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, you aren't even particularly pretending to be neutral. You didn't like the revision about feminist scholars, so you decided to revert it to the revision by Sangdebeouf, instead of the previous version by Talib1101, which didn't contain the word "feminist", but also removed the misleading "topic experts". This is such a blatant abuse of power. DeadJoe98 (talk) 13:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I still feel like your contention that "topic experts" is misleading is arguably overstated. Feminist research scientists are considered experts on the topic of any issue issues relating to gender in society, unless I misunderstand the academic division of labor. Or maybe it's that not every research scientist is an expert, only the "top" research scientists. And how am I to judge that, citation metrics? I agree that the term is vague and probably depends on how you define topic experts. Which is why I'd hoped to bypass the pointless litigation of a vague phrase with a more precise phrase whose meaning is unambiguous enough to be beyond questioning (or so I'd thought). I do think the reason given for reverting my edits is odd, but also you're throwing a brick in a glass house here, which isn't exactly helping our case. You seem mainly concerned by calling into question the credentials of feminist researchers, not to mention pained by the idea that misandry is historically marginal. It's no wonder this kind of behavior, which appears as possibly the result of some sort of motivated reasoning, could cause other editors to react as if you're editing with an agenda, and then proceed to try to counter any actions (like my edits) as associated with your comments. I don't normally get reverted, but I'm probably being reverted right now specifically because the stuff you're saying raises the suspicion of other editors. Then, if I do anything in your name, (such as referring to this talk page discussion in my edit summary), I'm probably assumed to be on your side (despite frequently contradicting you). Not to mention you seem to be an account dedicated to a specific subject, which always raises suspicions, especially since you're honing in on some specific things past editors have been reverted for changing (see the second page of the edit history). 1101 (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

"Feminist research scientists are considered experts on the topic of any issue issues relating to gender in society"

Victoria Cock's credentials (as far as I can tell) mostly lie in the topic of "Medicine and Public Health" and "Drug & Alcohol". In addition to not having anything to suggest that she is a topic expert, she also doesn't even seem to specialize in the field in question. DeadJoe98 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the lead section appears to contradict itself without elaborating. That may be confusing to a reader. 1101 (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I think I see your point about the etymology section now. The sources are all from the 21st century. What does a new term coined by an anthropologist in 2001 have to do with the etymology of a much older word? It might leave the reader wondering how the ideas are connected. 1101 (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Yep, that's one of the points I was making. DeadJoe98 (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it was different when you made the comment but the second paragraph isn't just David Gilmore. And the second paragraph appears to me to be on-topic and connected to the first. The section seems to do a reasonable job of informing the reader as to how it's used by men's rights activists, and then go on to explain how that use is characterized by feminists and anthropologists. That seems fair enough, and lets the readers consider the perspectives of both sides, if that's the kind of balance you're aiming for. 1101 (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

'feminist research scientists'

Labeling the authors of a citation as 'feminist research scientists' is a not so subtle way of stating that their results are an opinion held only by feminists, that is not an accurate summary of the cited source and is not appropriate to do in Wikivoice. MrOllie (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The research scientists are feminist. I don't know why you're reading into that. Also, I think that the idea of the "misandry myth" is credited to feminists. I don't understand what's wrong with that. I don't think the concept is very popular outside feminist circles. I'm not saying that non-feminists necessarily oppose the phrase. Many people've probably never heard of misandry, let alone the misandry myth. You're reading into the simple fact that the researchers just are feminist about as badly as DeadJoe98 reads into the fact that misandry is rare in historical records. You're both reading in between the lines when I'm just saying what I'm saying, transparently, and without some sort of nefarious hidden agenda that has frequently been attributed to me (see the archives of my talk page, I get accusations like this often enough). 1101 (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

You should probably at least revert the article to a version which didn't say that that the authors were feminists, but which removed the misleading "topic experts" as per our discussion on the top page. That one should be completely uncontroversial and if MrOllie keeps reverting it, it will be used as evidence for his abuse of power. DeadJoe98 (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The researcher in particular which I randomly selected has nothing to suggest that they are a topic expert. Just getting published is not enough to be considered a topic expert, otherwise, all sorts of fringe "experts" will be considered topic experts. DeadJoe98 (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's less precise. I think that it makes sense to credit the misandry myth to feminist researchers. I don't understand MrOllie's apparent belief that crediting feminist ideas to feminists is bad. I've never heard a non­feminist discuss the "misandry myth". That doesn't mean I oppose the notion. It just means I want to credit it to the source. To state that something has a feminist origin isn't some sly insult. At the same time, it's a bit pedantic to hone in on one psychology graduate. The three main co­authors, Hopkins-Doyle, Petterson, and Sutton all appear to be experts in social psychology. So you don't really contest that there are topic experts do you, just the statement of number? It seems a bit pedantic and contrived, and I can see why other editors may not appreciate your apparent focus on Victoria Cock's credentials (she's a psychology graduate, but not a lecturer or post­grad like the three main authors). 1101 (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that I am being particularly pedantic. There is a huge difference between saying that there are 40 topic experts and saying that there are 3 or 10 topic experts. If the number that is provided is incorrect and/or questionable, then why mention it at all? The sentence could be paraphrased to completely avoid any mentions of numbers. I am completely fine with that option as well. DeadJoe98 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not accept your premise that this is a 'feminist idea'. MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the view that the misandry myth is a feminist idea. It is a defense of feminism put forth by researchers who openly defend feminism and attack critics of feminism in their research article. It additionally is recent (Nov 2023) primary research (the researchers present their own experiment). This falls far short of established academic consensus, and matches criteria used to exclude other primary sources that have been suggested. Dekadoka (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

None of that makes it a feminist idea, or the authors feminist research scientists. As Talib1101 stated, the primary authors are researchers in the field of social psychology. Whether they are feminists or not is beside the point unless a reliable source specifically comments on it.

That said, "The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" is indeed a primary research paper whose conclusions should not be cited in the lead section. It's misleading to call it a meta-analysis because the studies analyzed were all conducted by the same authors and published together as one.

It's also misleading (not to mention original research) to assign the paper's conclusions to 40 topic experts. The paper has three joint first authors: Aífe Hopkins-Doyle, Aino L. Petterson, and Robbie M. Sutton. Many of the co-authors appear to have been mainly limited to translating survey materials into other languages. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

"That said, "The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" is indeed a primary research paper whose conclusions should not be cited in the lead section. [...] It's also misleading (not to mention original research) to assign the paper's conclusions to 40 topic experts. The paper has three joint first authors: Aífe Hopkins-Doyle, Aino L. Petterson, and Robbie M. Sutton. Many of the co-authors appear to have been mainly limited to translating survey materials into other languages."

@Sangdeboeuf Based on the evidence that you yourself provided, it seems like a logical course of action would be to remove that statement from the lead section of the article. DeadJoe98 (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf, unfortunately, my account is not extended confirmed, so I cannot make this change. Could you do it for me, please? DeadJoe98 (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Since this material has been discussed before, I'd prefer to wait for others' input before removing it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The paper was co-written by 40 scholars. All of them participated in review and editing. The fact that three of them are listed as "joint first authors" does not erase the 37 others that hammered out a consensus text to bring the paper to publication. It represents the findings of 40 scholars. Don't try to diminish it. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are supporting the idea that these "40 topic experts" have expertise relating to the statement "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is widespread." If they have expertise on this topic, it stands to reason that they would, for example, publish papers on related subjects. This seemed easy enough to find out, so I tallied up the papers from each author and made a list:

Only one article published (20 authors): Hopkins-Doyle, Aife; Petterson, Aino L; Zibell, Hannah; Binti Abdul Rahim, Sharmaine; Blake, Jemima; Cherrie-Rees, Kimberley; Beadle, Ami; Cock, Victoria; Greer, Hazel; Jankowska, Antonina; Macdonald, Kaitlin; Scott English, Alexander; Wai Lan YEUNG, Victoria; Boonroungrut, Chinun; Iida, Junko; Jogdand, Yashpal; Lee, Hyejoo J; One, Kim; Sharma, Suryodaya; Tipandjan, Arun

Two articles published, only one mentions feminism/misandry: Leach, Stefan; Bosco, Cristina; Chien, Chin-Lung; Cui, Lixian; Fuji, Kei

Three articles published, only one mentions feminism/misandry: Asano, Ryosuke; Beattie, Peter; Chaudhuri, Anindita; Murayama, Aya

Four articles published, only one mentions feminism/misandry: Hitokoto, Hidefumi; Jiang, Ding-Yu; Moon, Chanki

Six articles published, only one mentions feminism/misandry: Mifune, Nobuhiro; Sato, Kosuke

Seven articles published, only one mentions feminism/misandry: Chobthamkit, Phatthanakit; Choi, Hoon-Seok

More than ten articles published, possibly some indirect connections but no direct mention of feminism/misandry in title other than "Misandry Myth": Bernardo, Allan B I; Du, Hongfei; Ishii, Keiko; Park, Joonha; Suh, Eunkook M

Published at least one other article relating to the topic (2 authors): Na, Jinkyung (16 articles total, 2 directly relating feminism/misandry); Sutton, Robbie M (21 articles total, around 5 relating to feminism but only one discussing the possible connection with misandry)

In summary, only 2 authors out of the 40 have published other work on feminism, and none of them have published any other papers relating to causes of misandry or links to feminism. Additionally, and more importantly, this is a recent primary source which cannot reflect the academic consensus due to being the only source that has empirically examined this question. It is bad practice to place a primary source front and center on a controversial article. Dekadoka (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

What universe are you examining here? The paper is a survey of other papers. It's not primary, and the authors are all scholars. Whatever you have planned to sink this source is not going to happen. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Please address the points that have been brought up. Demonstrate that all 40 authors are topic experts, and explain why you believe a group of researchers publishing the results of their own experiments is not a primary source. Multiple users have brought up concerns about this source, and restating your opinion without elaboration does not move the discussion forward. Dekadoka (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The "points" you brought up are not relevant. You're trying to pick apart a reliable source because you don't like it. "Multiple users" are not forming a consensus; instead they are complaining about an extremely strong source because it emphatically dashes their view. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll add assuming bad faith in addition to simply repeating opinions without justification. You are engaging in WP:STONEWALLING. Please stop. Dekadoka (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Assuming good faith doesn't mean that we need to ignore it when people tells us what their motivations are up front. Disagreeing with your attempts to discredit a perfectly reliable source is not stonewalling. MrOllie (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

going off what mrollie said, this sounds like weaponizing wiki policy to do battleground editting.

at the end of the day, citing research as a bunch of “feminist research scientists” probably is undue wording and doesn’t really belong on here Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Disagreeing without justification is stonewalling. If the source is perfectly credible, as you say, that should be something that is easy to justify. Instead, multiple points have been brought up suggesting that is not the case. It's a primary source, and all evidence suggests that most of the authors are not topic experts.

Claiming that someone feeling that an article is biased is the same thing as wanting to disrupt or vandalize Wikipedia is questionable at best. That was my first edit on the site, and I have since admitted I was wrong on several points and significantly shifted my point of view. Additionally, four separate users have raised concerns here. Dekadoka (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

That you personally disagree does not mean you may dismiss others as not providing justification. No one is required to WP:SATISFY your demands to Demonstrate that all 40 authors are topic experts, and refusing to waste time on such is not stonewalling either. MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

That's not an accurate representation of what I and others have said in this discussion. Are you suggesting there is a consensus currently? Dekadoka (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a direct quote. MrOllie (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your points here. Dekadoka (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

it will be used as evidence for his abuse of power. Used as evidence where exactly? This isn't a court proceeding. MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, if this discussion goes nowhere and you keep reverting edits without adequately engaging with my criticisms on the talk section, I am planning on contacting Wikipedia staff (or whatever mechanism there is for preventing abuse of power) and see how we can proceed. DeadJoe98 (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

You should go ahead and do that right now, because I am certainly not going to try to debate anything with you on this talk page while you're making empty threats. MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

If you don't wish to engage with the talk page, then that's absolutely your right. DeadJoe98 (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

These people have PhDs in relevant fields. They are topic experts. Labeling them "feminists" is accusing them of bias, reducing their careful analysis and reasoned conclusions to mere opinion. The peer review process is exacting—these researchers hold each other to very high standards of neutrality and verifiability. Opinion has nothing to do with it. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The peer review process is exacting. This is not a fact. Reprarina (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Academic peer review is not a perfect system. Academics are human beings, after all. (This is also true in the "hard" sciences, which the grievance peddlers behind the grievance studies affair curiously failed to investigate.) But replacing scholarly consensus with editorializing by random Wikipedia users is not the answer. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Links in citation templates

User:Sangdeboeuf You appear to be in a pointless edit war at Misandry. You have repeatedly eliminated the wiki links I added to the article. This is the article before and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misandry&oldid=1285492102 after your reversion. You are up against WP:3RR. Your edits are disruptive and inexplicable. Saying my edits are "disruptive" doesn't make it so. Stop it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

There was one line that needed fixing and I removed it. If I put that in, it was inadvertent, and I apologize for that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

As I explained in my initial edit summary, indiscriminate Wikilinks within citation templates don't help readers verify the cited material, which is the sole purpose of citing sources. Linking to the names of publishers, newspapers, etc. also clutters up citations without helping readers understand this article; see MOS:OVERLINK. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

These are not indiscriminate. They simply identify the sources. WP:Own would apply. Your personal preference is not policy. We can await consensus.

As you have previously been reminded, WP:3RR is applicable to you. We can await consensus. And you can be blocked from editing.

And you can be blocked from editing for WP:Edit warring.

Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The sources have already been identified. Adding a Wikilink does not help with that. It merely adds clutter and confusion. For instance, the citation to Gilmore (2001) does not contain a link to the source text because it is not free to read online. This might prompt an inexperienced reader to click on the name of the publisher hoping to find the source material. However, University of Pennsylvania Press has little to no information relevant to the topic of misandry. Even for experienced users, such links are merely distracting. We should await consensus before adding them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Primary Academic Source - Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men

There are many government laws and regulations which academics quantify as misandry against men in this academic book.

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men PAUL NATHANSON KATHERINE K. YOUNG Copyright Date: 2006 Published by: McGill-Queen's University Press

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt80hj2 99.33.187.191 (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The problem with the book is the same problem with every book written by Nathanson and Young: their scholarship is in religion, which does not qualify them to comment on this topic. They are activists against the advances of feminism, making up facts to fit their theories, and ignoring contradictory evidence. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

"making up facts to fit their theories" Most religious scholars seem to follow this practice anyway. Dimadick (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Nathanson's and Young's arguments have been described as "tendentious", "ridiculous", "appallingly bad", and "selective, simplistic, and shallow" by sociologist Michael Kimmel among other topic experts. Clearly not mainstream scholarship. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Nathanson and Young were actually mentioned in Ouellette, Marc (2007). "Misandry", the most secondary source related to this topic. But they were mentioned critically. So, they should be mentioned in some way in the article, but not as a reliable source. In 2025, however, they are no longer mentioned so often in the context of propagandists of the idea of pervasive misandry. Internet resources are mentioned much more often. Reprarina (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Back in 2022 we had a small section on Nathanson and Young containing two paragraphs. The first paragraph said they were religion scholars who had been judged to have no expertise on the topic of sociology. (Judged by the Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum v. Brien.) The second paragraph described how they had been lambasted in print by Kimmel. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

References