Kuralesache (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
Binksternet (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
:::: 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 [[User:Talpedia|Talpedia]] ([[User talk:Talpedia|talk]]) 09:24, 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 [[User:Talpedia|Talpedia]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Kuralesache|Kuralesache]] ([[User talk:Kuralesache|talk]]) 17:35, 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 [[User:Kuralesache|Kuralesache]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 18:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|Binksternet}}. Okay I've got two issues with the lede as it stands: |
{{ping|Binksternet}}. Okay I've got two issues with the lede as it stands: |
Revision as of 18:25, 7 March 2022
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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)
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)
- 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)
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.[1] 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".[2]
Kuralesache (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Ouellette, Marc (2007). "Misandry". In Flood, Michael; et al. (eds.). International Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities. Abingdon, UK; New York, N.Y.: Routledge. pp. 442–3. ISBN 978-0-415-33343-6.
- ^ Young, Cathy (30 June 2016). "Feminists treat men badly. It's bad for feminism". The Washington Post.
Whatever the reasons for the current cycle of misandry — yes, that's a word, derided but also adopted for ironic use by many feminists — its existence is quite real. Consider, for example, the number of neologisms that use "man" as a derogatory prefix and that have entered everyday media language: "mansplaining," "manspreading" and "manterrupting."
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)
- 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)
- Nothing remotely like which one or two of the three options? Kuralesache (talk) 01:20, 7 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
@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
. (WP:PLAINENGLISH)misandry is analogous to misandry, but the two are considered "asymmetric" since they act differently
- How about
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)The validity of these perceptions and of the concept has been criticized as promoting a false equivalence between misandry and misogyny