Talk:Misandry

Archives
Archive #1 Archive #2 Archive #3

This article needs to be rewritten

I would like to improve the article, but I think it would be better if I simply rewrote most of it. It's on a very important subject, but currently the article is simply a mess of NPOV violations and original research. Since I have already done a research project on the concept for school, I have the resources to rewrite the article. I have read both Spreading Misandry and Legalizing Misandry extensively, and I think I can summarize the views of Nathanson and Young more accurately than the page currently does. Also, I think I will be able to satisfy those who ask for a critique of the concept of "misandry," because I have found a couple scholarly articles that do so. Does anyone either approve or object to me rewriting most of the article, say, within the next month or so? Speak now. --SecondSight 07:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Write the article on a separate page, say User:SecondSight/Misandry, and others will review it. I think everyone here would welcome more sources than we have now. As for the critique, it is fine if it satisfies the relevant criteria; so it should not be the length of the rest of the article, for instance. Perhaps if you write the article on a separate page, and have others collaborate with you when you are ready, this revision could be done; though it is probably best you do not erase the page and replace it with your own. Let us see what the others say. Rintrah 08:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I added a lot of the 'new' sourced content from Nathanson and Young and other sources. This was hard work which I welcome review of because I did some sections 'quick and dirty' expecting people like you to come on in. I like Rintrah's suggestion to write the article on another page. I, for one would be glad to collaborate with you when you are ready. If your new article turns out to be a great new article I would be glad to back you when you ask to replace this article with yours.

(drop in editor) 128.111.95.147 02:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a separate page is really needed as long as any new information is well-cited. If anyone restores something that looks OR, I think the fair approach to take would be to drop a {{fact}} tag on the offending assertion and give them a week to find a notable reference before deleting.

ditto. I would appreciate this too. Please remember that you no doubt have a POV about misandry too if you spent that much time on the topic. We need a chance to discuss sources/citations before there is wholesale deletion here.(drop in editor) 128.111.95.147 02:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

My only warning is this is a contentious group that may challenge a lot of the rewrite. Good luck if you choose to take this on. I for one would appreciate the effort. — edgarde 09:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that this is a contentious topic but contentious topic need not always mean a contentious group. I will, for one, will fight the usual totalitarian tactics radical feminists often use to push their political agendas but I welcome people who can cleanup and revise what is unclear or unsourced here. Please state your cases and be fairminded so I can work with you. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.147 02:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to do it: that's what this place does. The more recent summaries of N&Y have been quite good though, both concise and approachable, and I was looking forward to more on the Law aspect. I don't think a different site is necessary: everything remains in the history section anyway. As for a critique section, not a bad idea, and there's plenty of templates for how this is dealt with in an apparently acceptable manner in other articles, such as misogyny. A contentious group? I dare say such a comment could gernerate some contention here... Jgda 02:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you can do whatever you like because that is what goes on all time here. However, I would appreciate if you would follow the suggestions above to do this on a separate page or failing that choose a section or two to begin with and give us a chance to see your work before you begin wholesale changes to the article. I added a lot of the content from Nathanson and Young, Kipnis, Hoff Sommers, and McElroy that I would like to see in this article in some reasonably representative form because they are prominent sources. I am planning to add more content to the 'law' section from N/Y so please weigh in here if you plan on adding that kind of content from Legalizing Misandry. I have no problem with revisions as long as you make things clearer and fairly show what are very complex and highly loaded issues. In all your work, please refrain from the kind of Orwellian totalitarian tactics so common to 'patriarchal oppression' feminists (please see Antifeminism discussions)]] so I can work with you to better this article. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.147 02:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite proposal

Good suggestions. First, I won't completely rewrite the article from scratch; parts of it, including what you have worked on, will be very helpful. I would definitely like to see Hoff Sommers, Kipnis, and McElroy mentioned. The only thing I worry about is connecting them to the concept of misandry may be original research. If you have citations (ideally with page numbers) of the quotes from them, I can go and check whether they are something we can include in the article. For an article this controversial, we need to be extremely rigorous or people will just keep tagging it. In general, I would say that if a source uses any of the terms (a) misandry, (b) male-bashing, (c) man-hating, (d) hatred/anger/scorn for men, (e) sexism against men, or (f) is discussed by a work that fits those criteria as relating to the topic, it's probably safe to include. If not, then mentioning it is probably original research. So far, most of the quotes look fine, but it's best if I can check the sources and cite page numbers. Here are some other changes I would like to make, so you will know what I have in mind:

You are right to call for extremely rigorous citations here. I also agree with and like your clear criteria for what is misandry. I used similar ones myself when I pulled in the content from Sommers, Kipnis, and McElroy. Sommers is cited in one section thanks to another editor. I should have and I will cite the rest of the content from Sommers, Kipnis and McElroy I added soon. Please show us a sample of your rewrites so we can work with you. However, this looks sound so far. I am also planning on adding a section on Intimate Misandry from My Enemy, My Love. For those who want more 'oracles' she might be another POV. Have your read her book...do you have any ideas about that?(drop in editor) 04:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• The misandric quotes section is currently original research, and lacks proper citations. I think any sane person will be able to see that the quotes are misandric, but that's just my point of view, and article need to be written from a neutral point of view. So we can't just provide quotes from people and claim they are misandric ourselves. BUT if someone else calls a certain quote misandric (e.g. Nathanson & Young), we can mention that in the article, because then it isn't you or me who is calling the quote misandric. See how this works? So I will have to take most of those quotes out, but instead I can look through N&Y for some examples of what they consider to be misandric quotes (and I recall plenty).

Most of those quotes could probably be directly cited from an online quote source. I was not the editor that put them in there. I believe that we need to keep a full range of quotes that show common forms of extreme-feminist and non-feminist misandry so please be careful not to remove quotes before discussion and please use some sort of stated criteria to decide which to keep and which to toss. Thanks (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 04:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Instead of chapter summaries of Nathanson & Young, I would like to just discuss their views in a more cohesive manner. Perhaps in the future, there can be an article specifically devoted to their work.

Please show us how before you do a complete change. Thanks (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 04:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• In the Misandry in Popular culture section, some of the possible consequences of misandry are listed. Unfortunately, most of this section is original research. Now, mentioning a possible relationship between misandry and suicide is OK, because this is a connection that N&Y make. But a lot of the section isn't based on N&Y's ideas (e.g. items like "Recounting of death in which the body count as described in terms of "X fatalities, including Y women and children," which reduces the value of the adult male lives lost" and "There is a dichotomy between how men and women are perceived as attractive — women are often depicted or discussed as being beautiful even to other women, while men are regarded as being innately less attractive"). If this stuff isn't coming from N&Y, or another source that passes a criterion like the one I mentioned above, then we can't leave it in the article. We can't can't just list bad things that happen to men and suggest that they are a consequence of misandry, even with empirical evidence that the bad thing is happening (because then we are drawing connections, which is prohibited as original research). But again, if someone else has made that connection in a verifiable source, then we can report that. Abiding by wikipedia policies can be frustrating, and can feel like you are dumbing down the subject, but in the end you end up with a much more rigorous article. --SecondSight 11:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where this section came from...would someone show us? Some of the statistics remind me of Feminism's Status of women section which is has similar problems. Clearly one cannot just say 'women earn less than men' and (COVERTLY) imply that male sexism is the cause when there are many other possible causes such as the careers women choose. I agree that this section needs to be cleaned up and rigorously sourced so the cause and effect relationship between the content and misandry is direct and clear in the content. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 04:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

support

Go for it and see what happens. I understand the level of scrutiny you are proposing for this particular article. However, as the person that originally put most of the quote section together, and added other content along the way, I can say that, since I was new to wiki, I used other sociological wiki entries as templates, particularly the most obvious: misogyny. I can only assume that the different levels of acceptability are fundamentally political. Jgda 22:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

objections

I, personally, think it's beyond repair, and should be deleted anyways. --Pichu0102 17:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

comments

Overall, great.

My main quibble — and I'm not expecting it to be addressed in this rewrite — is the quotes section doesn't represent much other than a list of cherry-picked See? Misandry! items. Example: Valerie Solanas is a crazy person who used contemporary political thought as a staging point for her ravings — her sensationalistic opinions are interesting (to sensationalists and people who want to glean meaning from her act of violence) but don't represent a trend in society any more than would Mark David Chapman's as endorsed trendily by The Meatmen.

I agree with you about the kind of person Solanas was. Unfortunately, quite respected institutions appear to feel otherwise. Jgda 22:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, many other statements in the quotes section are arguable reasonable (albeit avant-garde) attempts to develop a theoretical understanding of real world phenomena. While admittably angry, they are probably not motivated by misandry any more than certain statements by (sorry stock example coming) black revolutionary nationalists are motivated by so-called "reverse" racism. Many of these statements would require substantial context beyond what could be given in this article.

Plumbing the motivational core for theoretical positions can certianly be an interesting practice, but is the identification of misandry as the singular motivation (if that could ever be possible: I'm not sure how...) for a statement that important? A statement could still be expressing hatred without being purely motivated by hatred. Jgda 22:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

One way to move toward putting these quotes in context would be to abandon categories like In literature and In popular culture, and instead start grouping quotations by the movements they may represent. However, this would probably constitute WP:OR. A more WP:NPOV but less informative approach would be to frame these lists of quotes as collected by which researcher — I imagine many are currently taken from Nathanson and Young, for instance. edgarde 14:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

To be true to Nathonson and Young one must use a category that speaks to popular culture because that is the basis of their research. However, the Literature section seems more like a list of feminist quotes rather than general literature quotes. I don't know where it came from but I didn't see anything like it in N/Y's two books. I did see many of these ugly quotes in many feminist books however and they belong here somewhere to emphasize the extreme nature of Second Wave feminist man-hate and man-scorn. I also note that I intend to add content from My Enemy, My Love, which speak to intimate forms of misandry, a category far different than N/Y's so I believe it is essential to make distinctions between different classes of misandry.

(drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 04:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

POV Check: Literature section: Fatherhood Coalition as source?

Misandry in Literature was apparently lifted from the Fatherhood Coalition's page. The Fatherhood Coalition is a political group. Ergo, "Misandry in Literature" presents a particular view - it is not NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.77.105 (talk • contribs)

Direct quotes with no introduction is hardly POV unless those quotes are false. I suspect the real POV here is that some people hate to see such blatant misandry being reported at all. To me this section needed to be titled correctly, cited and introduced but otherwise it is essential NPOV content. Dozens of books I have read contain these one or more of these quotes and many casually mention the misandry of (for lack of better words) extreme 'Second' Wave feminists. To delete this content is to pander to the usual POV censorship one sees all over the feminism discussion page. The result in feminism is a boring and banal and fraudulent article that fails to represent feminism in all it's flavors. We deserve better here. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 04:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If it wasn't 'listed' it would be original research... (kettle's boiling...) Anyway, I have no particular love for the Fatherhood Coalition, but their verfiable published research isn't any more or less reliable than any other sex-orientated group or person that pursues research interests and that are often used as sources in sex-orientated articles. You are attacking the NPOV of the source now, not the wiki editor. Jgda 21:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say they are less reliable. At least Nathanson and Young can claim academic credentials. Fatherhood Coalition are a more partisan organisation from whom one might expect a list of quote-mined gotcha's that in-context may not reasonably represent instances of misandry, or may not represent wider trends in thought. The list needs some reference point from which the reader can guage bias.

Incidentally, the list on Fatherhood Coalition is fully entitled Feminist Hate-Speech: A Misandry Sampler - Selected Feminist Quotes. Interestingly, the FC list contains sources for most of the quotes. Whoever copied this to Wikipedia left those out. — edgarde 23:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(I know none of this matters since it's probably going to get rewritten, but it's the principle of the thing!) I teach Freshman composition and I don't know how many times I had to say during the argumentative paper sequence, "Look at your sources. Are these the kinds of sources that are going to convince someone who disagrees with you?" If the Fatherhood Coalition showed up in a student paper, I'd say it again. The Fatherhood Coalition shouldn't be used as a source in a wiki for the same reason it shouldn't be in an academic paper: it is more interested in pushing an anti-feminist point of view than presenting an accurate picture of feminist literature. That bias doesn't disappear when you put the Coalition's words in quotation marks.

The other thing I would point out to the hypothetical student is that he or she quoted X paragraphs of text from the same source. Imagine a student saying "Well, the last draft of my paper on dogs didn't have any sources, so now I'm quoting an entire page from the North American Dog Hater's Society. You said you wanted me to support my argument with sources!" It's not just that we want sources on the page: we want multiple sources from several points of view that we wouldn't feel guilty about using in an academic paper. (Don't start correcting my grammar because I mentioned that I teach Freshman comp. This is informal writing.) 02:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.118.65.208 (talk • contribs)

Hmm. I didn't find many grammatical errors: only an ambiguous "it's" — was I expected to find more? It could be made more formal and precise, but you've stated you didn't intend that style. Rintrah 04:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good advice for writing modern academic argument (the merits of this backward investagative process are certainly debateable, but not for this forum). The thing is, this is not meant to be an argument trying to persuade anyone of anything. It's trying to inform a reader about a topic. Whether you have ideological problems with this group or not, they are actively involved in the topic of this article. Jgda 00:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

They weren't presented as a proponent of one view or another. They were presented as a source of information about misandry. I've already shown that their quotes are misleading. If you want to include information about the Fatherhood Coalition, feel free, but they're not a reliable source. Jordansc 19:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it amusing that this section which is filled with blatantly misandric quotes from man-hating feminists (as opposed to femininsts who respect men) is always being attacked. These quotes are available from many independent sources because they are direct quotes from these feminists. They can easily be attributed and they are quite relevant because they show the blatant misandry of influential Second-Wave feminists (who Nathonson and Young assert are responsible for most MODERN popular misandry.) To use quotes from the "horses mouth" so to speak is about as NPOV as one can be IMO. However, I suspect some people will try to censor this politically incorrect content because it reflects badly on a particular group of extreme-establishment feminists who like to dish it out but who can't take it.(drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 04:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's all part of the game: truth (sans inverted commas) went out the window tied to the wrist of positivism. (They're not dead, just in a deep coma.) Well, at least it's somehow made N&Y look more apolitical by comparison... Jgda 00:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

POV check: Case for removal of Literature section quotes

This is unbiased? Let's look at Marilyn French's quotes. Is she talking about all men or just the men in a particular group? And who is the "he" that the pronoun refers to? I don't know, but I do know something about the quote from her book The War Against Women. The Misandry page on Wikipedia quotes Marilyn French as saying "He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women, whether mate, acquaintance, or stranger; he can rape or sexually molest his daughters, nieces, stepchildren, or the children of a woman he claims to love. The vast majority of men in the world do one or more of the above."

Now, let's look at the original quote from the Fatherhood Coalition page: "As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE. Marilyn French (her emphasis)" Wait a second: where did those ellipses come from? It looks like someone on wikipedia took them out! Let's replace those ellipses with what Marilyn French originally said on first full paragraph on page 182 of The War Against Women:

"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate women, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. Beyond that, it is not necessary to beat up a woman to beat her down. A man can simply refuse to hire women in well-paid jobs, extract as much or more for women but pay them less, or treat women disrespectfully at work or at home. He can fail to support a child he has engendered, demand the woman he lives with wait on him like a servant. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women, whether mate, acquaintance or stranger; he can rape or sexually molest his daughters, nieces, stephchildren, or the children of a woman he claims to love. The vast majority of men in the world do one or more of the above." End paragraph.

That's funny. The quote, as read on wikipedia, makes it look like Marilyn French is saying that "the vast majority of men in the world rape women." Yet the quote, when put back in context, makes it look like Marilyn French is saying something like "the vast majority of men don't hire women for the same jobs as men, don't pay women the same wages as men, disrespect women, fail to support their children, make her do housework for them, or rape women." Now, that sounds a lot more reasonable. She doesn't even say "all men" -- just the majority of men -- and she emphasizes that oppression doesn't mean violent oppression like rape. Isn't it odd how completely different the passage sounds when we actually have context? And isn't it odd how any reader who looks at this page would naturally assume that the full paragraph was the unit of thought, that you need the entire paragraph to see what Marilyn French is actually saying? Any unbiased reader, I mean.

Case closed. I'm deleting this section.06:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)~— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.118.65.208 (talk • contribs)

Sarcasm, huh? Well, the context changes very little, unbiased reader. Oh, just the majority? That's fine then. I wonder what else can be said about the majority of other groupings and not get a 'hatred' or '...ism' stamp? Try the accusation on for size. Only a very simple reader reads over an ellipsis without caution. Jgda 00:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that the final sentence refers to things in the ellipses ("one or more of the above"), why were these taken out? It isn't a matter of brevity: the full quote is only a few lines longer.

The ellipses change the quotes drastically, from an accusation that most men commit rape to an accusation that most men oppress women in some form or another. The claim about rape is patently absurd but the claim about other forms of oppression is debatable. Isn't it true that, globally, women tend to make less than men and typically do more housework? Is any criticism of men equal to hatred of men? Where does this quote even use the word "hate"?

Even the simple reader can't tell that something is missing from the quotes as they were presented and as they are presented now on Wikipedia. There are no ellipses. She or he can only see that Marilyn French apparently believes that most men commit one or more sort of rape. The readers of Wikipedia should be presented these quotes in good faith- they shouldn't have to go find the book to figure out if the mined quotes accurately reflect the author's intentions.

Do you want another quote? There's a quote from Marilyn French's novel, The Woman's Room. Of course, we're never told that it's a quote from a novel and - as everyone knows - we can't assume that the narrator and the author agree. Or perhaps we should all go find quotes from Anthony Burgess or Vladimir Nabokov to accuse them of supporting "ultraviolence" and pedophilia, respectively? Or would you argue that the "simple reader" can just somehow magically intuit that The Woman's Room is a work of fiction rather than feminist theory?

Okay, let's have another quote:

"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, 'hate in love,' for the men women share their lives with--husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, coworkers." Judith Levine, My Enemy, My love

This seems like pretty damning stuff... until we look at some of the surrounding text. She's describing an experience years ago, reading a "crazy missive" from Women Against Sex. She finds herself "unsettled" and "at first rejected the thing out of hand" (Levine 2). She is "repelled by their portrayal of the all-powerful Enemy, grotesque as an agitprop puppet" (Levine 3). Then she finds herself recalling her early days as a feminist (in what she calls feminism's "vastly oversimplified" and "wild childhood" (Levine 2)). She recalls "unacknowledged feelings," and "part of [herself]" (emphasis mine) begins to feel sympathy with these ideas. That's when the quote happens. But then turn from page 3 where we find this quote to page 4 where Judith Levine says that "Man-hating is an emotional problem inasmuch as it creates pain and hostility between women and men. But it is not an individual neurosis ala 'Women Who Hate Men and the Men Who...' Man-hating is a collective, cultural problem-- or to refrain from diagnosing it at all, a cultural phenomenon--and men, as the object of man-hating, are part of it too."

So let's break that down. In the original quote, it reads as if Levine is wholeheartedly endorsing man-hating. In context, however there is an entire narrative of reading this misandrous document, rejecting it as "grotesque," and then finding "part" of herself somehow intrigued. Immediately afterwards she calls misandry a "problem" and says that it "creates pain and hostility between women and men" (Levine 4). The Levine narrative, with context, emphasizes the ambiguity and attraction\repulsion she feels about misandry and then talks about it as a problem. She even discusses loving men as well as feeling these feelings of misandry (Levine 4). The quote, however, leads us to believe that Levine just hates men.

Granted, Levine is still talking about man hating, but not in the same way we are led to believe.

So I've proven that the Fatherhood Coalition has changed the meaning of one Marilyn French quote, failed to tell us that another quote from Marilyn French is actually from a work of fiction, and failed to provide important context for the Judith Levine quote. Every quote I've looked at from this site has had some sort of problem with it. The Fatherhood Coalition's status as a reliable source was already questionable because, as Wikipedia policy states "the websites and publications of political parties and religious groups (or websites of their critics or opponents) should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source." Given that, this additional information should be enough to discount it.

Beyond the Fatherhood Coalition's reliability, there's also the issue of NPOV in this particular section. The Fatherhood Coalition has a particular bias and there are conflicting views on whether or not these authors are misandrous. Even when it's "straight from the horse's mouth," there is still a matter of interpretation. I would argue that the Fatherhood Coalition's view on these authors is being given "undue weight or asserted as being the truth" and is therefore in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Jordansc 02:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course you've actually proven nothing, and you're guilty of exactly what you are fumed about, but I don't expect you to work that out, despite the Black Adder quote below... I've had enough of actually editing the article a while back, but still find it interesting (and sometimes downright funny) to see the pseudo-research (almost an oxymoron these days, I admit) in action. Good luck! Jgda 03:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Judith Levine quote is appropriate and kinda cool so I threw it in under Responses to misandry. Hopefully someone will write a transition. This could theoretically go into a new Literature quote farm, but really quotes should be used sparingly, if at all. This isn't Wikiquote.

I know in advance some IP user will call me a Bolshevik castrati for this. Whatever. — edgarde 07:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a strong case has been made for deleting this set of quotes as biased. Since a re-write is underway, let's not revert-war over this.

Uhm, lots of IP editors here. I really wish people contributing so much would register accounts. — edgarde 16:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why would we set ourselves up for the usual totalitarian tactics used to slander people personally rather than discuss issues. The Feminism discussion page is loaded with totalitarian tactics. When I see all this personal slander stop I might be willing to register.

(drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 23:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I'm two of those IP addresses (switched computers when I came home for winter break). I wrote the Marilyn French bit. Jordansc 16:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many overtly and covertly misandric quotes from NPOV sources that show 'oppression'-feminist kinds of misandry. Do all you editors who are so against showing these kinds of misandric quotes have constructive NPOV criteria for their inclusion or are you just trying to censor all quotes that reflect badly on these extreme types of feminists? I have cause to suspect that usual totalitarian tactics here to silence POV that 'oppression'-feminists hate while allowing POV's that 'oppression'-feminists love. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of 'oppression'-feminist literature knows that these misandric statements are common. Many other nicer feminists have made the connections as well. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 23:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Quit your bickering ;) and POV Checks

Hey people, I'm working on a rewrite of this page which should be ready within the next few days. I'm aware of the problems with it, and I will try to address them. Until then, there is really no point in bickering over this article, because so much of it will get changed. Instead, you all could help me by finding verifiable sources on misandry (both pro and con) that I can work into the article. I could especially use citations for the quotes by McElroy and Kipnis. --SecondSight 23:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful here. You are one editor among many so please bring good changes and please spare us lectures about "bickering". "Bickering" is a fact of life on such loaded articles and although it can be tedious it often leads to better articles. I welcome whatever is changed (by you or whoever else) as long as there is no attempt to water down, or dissemble potent passages to push a POV. I will try to pull in citations for the McElroy and Kipnis content (I added) by the end of the week. I appreciate your review here. It always helps to have other eyes on things because we all have blind spots.(drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 03:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note the smiley emoticon after the word "bickering." I was being facetious. As for changes, I will tell you right now that certain sections will have to be removed or heavily rewritten. Some may perceive this as watering the article down, but I think bringing the article in line with wikipedia policy will make it a lot more credible. --SecondSight 20:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that...I am a bit illiterate with emoticons...it is also harder to discern humor on line. I have no problem with you cleaning up certain sections but it is one you to explain how your changes bring things in line with wikipedia before you water down, rewrite or eliminate sections. I have no problem with your professionalism here, I believe what you are trying to do will help but please refrain from telling us what will have to be done as if you are some kind of NPOV authority on wikipedia or on misandry. Many articles related to feminism have been made so banal, boring, and blatantly biased as to be absurd. I hope we see something more like sexism rather than say feminism when WE ALL 'finish' this article. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 20:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Humor is wasted on the dramatic. With oppressed men suffering the Orwellian totalitarian tactics of radical feminists and truth (sans inverted commas) tied to the wrist of positivism, some of us are just too busy freedom-fighting to bother with emoticons and frivolity. Or verifiability. — edgarde 00:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Humor is also wasted on Orwellians which is why one is foolish to use humor with fascist feminists...although who knows where you are coming from here so I intend no personal reaction to your personal reaction. Please spare us these sarcastic personally slandering innuendos and just stick to the facts so we can work to build a good NPOV article. All people, both women and men suffer from the Orwellian totaliatarian tactics of 'oppression'-feminists...I have never read more banal, boring , ugly, and blatantly biased 'research' as that from the 'oppression'-feminist dominated humanities disciplines. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 20:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Heehee. "Just stick to the facts so we can work to build a good NPOV article..." and then he proceeds to slam feminists.

Blackadder: "Baldrick, have you no idea what irony is?"

Baldrick: "Yes, it's like goldy and bronzy only it's made out of iron."Jordansc 20:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me be clear here. There are many kinds of NON-ORWELLIAN feminists...see Chessler's The Death of Feminism 2006...and there many kinds of Orwellian 'oppression'-feminists. I detest the latter but I like the former so spare me slander please. When I edit here, I can separate the many different feminist ideologies. Can you?

Do you have no idea what a distinction is? I separate misandric feminists from other feminists. I also separate where possible people from their tactics but that is a bit difficult sometimes. I find it sad and amusing that so many editors would rather indulge in personal slander than go read the sources. Many many independent sources have weighed in on the ORWELLIAN tactics among an academic and misandric 'sisterhood' of 'patriarchal oppression' female-superiority feminists. I expect better from editors here. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 22:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't plunk things in the middle of my responses. Whether or not you are slamming some feminists or all feminists or a single Feminist is unimportant. You're presenting a very partisan point of view while simultaneously railing about being NPOV. Your accusations of "Fascism," "Totalitarianism," "Orwellian tactics," and the like are distressing. Perhaps you should restrain yourself a little? We're not here to argue about Feminism. Jordansc 22:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...my mistake...I didn't see it. However please spare me your accusations about a 'very partisan pov'. It is quite important to make distinctions between overtly or covertly misandric femininists and OTHER non-misandric feminists in a misandry article! These so-called accusations of 'fascism', totalitarianism, and Orwellian tactics have been made by Nathonson and Young, many feminists and non-feminists about 'oppression' feminists. Therefore, I have every reason to be concerned that the same tactics used in academia/mass media circles will be used against 'free speech' editors here by misandric 'oppression'-feminists who represent a minority of both women and feminists according to Hoff-Sommers, Paglia and Chessler to name a few. To me 'going back to the USSR' is good reason to be shed some restraint. I suggest that what should 'distress' you is how a few 'oppression' feminists have been able to rape the language, punish whistleblowers and silence dissidents in a free speech nation. The feminism article itself is a terribly predictable example of the boring, banal, and blatantly biased result of such totalitarian tactics. I expect better here. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 23:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Revise or Delete Misandry in Western Culture

There are a number of problems with the Misandry in Western Culture section, problems which have already been noted by Second Sight and drop in editor. The section seems to be both original research and outside of NPOV. Unless someone can (a) source all these claims and (b) present other perspectives on the claims, we need to just delete the section outright. There's no reason to keep these sections up indefinitely in the hopes that someone is going to fix them. Jordansc 20:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Misandric Issues

There exists assertion of a POV as fact a general neglect of male issues and elements of opression (in fact, as in the case of mysogyny, an important party of the misandric phenomena has more to do with omission than explication), such as the facts that who says these facts are related to misandry? Does everyone agree with that?:

• Depression affects more than 6 million men in America alone[1], but the figures may be even higher due to the social stigmas attached to reporting it.

• A much higher percentage of male teenagers commit suicide than female teenagers. says who?

Men constitute approximately 80% of suicides.[2] White males commit most suicides (an extreme act of powerlessness) compared to all other groups, yet the "white male" is also usually portrayed as being in the clear and unambiguous position of privilege and power in most feminist discourse.Says who? There's plenty of discussion of class, etc., intersectionality in contemporary feminist thought. This is an unsourced and POV'ed strawman argument.

• Men make up more than 90% of the prison population in the United States.[3]Misandric discourse denies a connection between offending and a condition of disenfranchisment and frustration what misandric discourse? This is a "some people say..."

• The majority of alcoholics[4], drug addicts, and homeless persons are men.

Men have lower levels of university attendance, do increasingly worse in high schools and middle schools than women, and are far more frequently diagnosed as supposedly being afflicted with learning disorders such as ADHD.Says who?

• Men, on average, have a significantly lower life expectancy than women. Says who?

• Popular culture often depicts men as sex-crazed, and overbearing, an extreme exaggeration of most men's natural interest in sexuality and evolutionary ability Evolutionary? In popular culture? to act aggressively. Says who?
• Depictions of genuinely gentle, nonviolent men as "sissies", unattractive to women Says who? Isn't this a function of heteronormativity rather than misandry?
• Depictions in sitcoms, advertising, and other television shows in which men (especially fathers) are shown as bumbling and inept. And women are never presented in an unfair light? Are we sure that these men are bumbling and inept because they're men?
• Recounting of death in which the body count as described in terms of "X fatalities, including Y women and children," which reduces the value of the adult male lives lost. Is that so? When did this happen and says who?
• Numerous cultural double-binds, such as:
• Men and women are expected to be equal, but men are often expected to be the sole monetary contributors towards expenses (for example, buying expensive jewelry, paying for meals, etc.). Says who?
• Men are told to be increasingly accepting of women who do not fit their expectations of attractiveness, while simultaneously being told (by advertising, print media, etc.) to make themselves increasingly attractive to women.And women are never asked to look attractive to men anymore.
• Men are expected to be masculine, aggressive defenders of women, but also to act feminine and embrace typically female traits.Says who
• Men are taught from a very young age that women are to be kept "on a pedestal" and revered, but the same cannot be said about women to men. Says who?
• The increasingly popular cultural focus on the importance of having an above-average penis size, while simultaneously depicting focus on breast size, waist-to-hip ratio, and other attributes of female sexuality as sexist. Says who?

There is a dichotomy between how men and women are perceived as attractive — women are often depicted or discussed as being beautiful even to other women, while men are regarded as being innately less attractive. Says who? There are an awful lot of passive voices here to get around the fact that the author doesn't have a particular source in mind.

• Sexual oppression of men, often leading to desperate destructive and/or autodestructive acts, is still rarely discussed, while the sexual repression of women has finally been recognized in the last several decades. What are you talking about? Oppression and repression aren't the same thing. And, again, says who?
• Men are expected to repress their sexuality, and are taught that admiring women's bodies is wrong. Who teaches them this?
• Workplaces will often taken the word of women over men when considering sexual harassment claims, even if no evidence supports the women's grievance. Evidence? Sources?
• Rape of men by women is often considered 'desirable' by judges. There is a huge double standard in criminal sentences for rape, abuse and other sex crimes that women commit against men versus those that men commit against women. I'd like to hear from these judges
• When considering crimes of equal magnitude, men will often be dealt harsher sentences than women. Sources?
• Advertising and other media frequently depict men in painful or humiliating circumstances (e.g., being hit in the testicles, threatened with castration, sexually harassed, deliberately denied sexual interactions for control or amusement, raped, verbally assaulted, etc.) as being acceptable or even humorous. Says who?

Here's an alternative argument. Most of what you describe is a function of male chauvinism. Women are expected to be 'on a pedestal,' expected to depend on men, expected to receive less harsh punishments, etc, because they're considered weak. Sexists think that women have to be protected. I don't imagine many of the supposedly misandrous feminists would agree with any of these points. Find me a man-hating feminist who thinks men should pay their bills. These might be men's issues, but are they caused by misandry or feminism? Doubtful. My point here is not that this particular argument should be included in the misandry page, but that misandry isn't the only plausible explanation for all these facts. Therefore these claism aren't NP OV. Jordansc 22:57, 25 December

• Rape of men by women is often considered 'desirable' by judges. There is a huge double standard in criminal sentences for rape, abuse and other sex crimes that women commit against men versus those that men commit against women. I'd like to hear from these judges

Here you go girl! Can you hear another POV with all that rage against men. That said you are right to ask that we have sources to associate reverse sexism with misandry because there are other things going on here as well.

GOOGLE Results 1 - 10 of about 880,000 for female sex offenders double standards. (0.12 seconds)

Female Sex Offenders: Double Standard?, Many Say They Don't Get ...Critics say they don't get treated as harshly as male offenders, and aren't viewed by the public with as much scorn, reports Susan Koeppen, who spoke with ...

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/15/earlyshow/main1715421.shtml - 76k - Cached - Similar pages

Are teachers who sleep with boys getting off? - By William Saletan ...Sex offenses by women aren't increasing. Female offenders are going to jail. ... By ignoring this difference, we're replacing the old double standard with a ...

www.slate.com/id/2134158/ - 65k - Cached - Similar pages

Female Sex Offenders: Double Standard? Many Say They Don't Get ...Female Sex Offenders: Double Standard? Many Say They Don't Get Treated As Harshly As Men. CBS News, HAMMONTON, N.J., USA, June 15, 2006 Are all sex ...

www.canadiancrc.com/articles/CBS_Female_Sex_Offenders_Double_Standard_15JUN06.htm - 46k - Cached - Similar pages

Abuse cases face double standard - USA Today - 11FEB05 Debra ...The number of female sex offenders is "significantly smaller" than male ... while men typically serve some time in prison..." Talk about a double standard. ...

www.canadiancrc.com/articles/USA_Today_Abuse_cases_face_double_standard_11FEB05.htm - 43k - Cached - Similar pages

[ More results from www.canadiancrc.com ]

Reason Magazine - Double StandardTo many men's rights advocates, this double standard reflects an egregious ... have sex with underage boys are punished less severely than male offenders, ...

www.reason.com/news/show/31929.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

Should Women Sex Offenders be treated Differently than Men ...A Double Standard for Sex Offenders? Monday, October 27, 2003 ... the Kentucky Department of Corrections (search) began studying female sex offenders a few ...

boards.crimelibrary.com/archive/index.php/t-267411.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Mary Kay Letourneau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[1] Seduced in the Classroom; [2] Double Standard: The Bias Against Male ... [3] Female Sexual Offenders; [4] Inside the Mind of a Female Sex Offender ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kay_Letourneau - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.254.114 (talk • contribs) , which is probably "(drop in editor)", 2006-12-30T00:44:59 (UTC)

It's pretty fucking obnoxious that you assume that (a) I'm a "girl," and (b) that I have rage against men. Jordansc 03:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Just the links would've sufficed — cut & paste flooding makes the discussion hard to read — and it only answers one or two out of twenty-three questions (ignoring altogether the big question of how that list demonstrates misandry), but it's a step up from this editor's usual unsourced flames. If he wants to call someone a girl, I'd say let him have his bottle. / edgarde 05:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Revise or Delete Misandry in Law

Is the draft for men motivated by hatred of men? It's not for us to say. Who has made this argument and who disagrees with them? Again, the section appears to be both original research and not NPOV. Jordansc 20:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The draft is for law that legalizes misandry as shown in Nathansons and Youngs huge and exhaustively researched book with that title. I suggest you glance at their book and read the discussions above. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 23:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Where was the source? I didn't see any in the section. And where was a balancing opinion? Jordansc 23:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The source is Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men; Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal, 2006; ISBN 0-7735-2862-8. This source is recent so I have no idea whether others have weighed in yet with other POV's. (drop in editor) 23:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite in progress

Hi everyone, I am working on the rewrite, and I posted what I have so far on User:SecondSight/Misandry to give you all an idea of where it is going. Keep in mind that it is nowhere near complete. I have ideas for some of the future sections, but those are not necessarily a complete list of the sections the article should have. --SecondSight 02:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this work! I'm afraid I was pretty much defeated by the article when I dipped a toe in a couple of weeks ago.

I like the attempt to rewrite cleanup here but please make sure you include all the key points about misandry...(that are sourced) in the original article somehow. Selective rewriting becomes POV when it misses key themes in say Nathanson and Youngs assertions. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 21:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

One criticism: I'm not nuts about phrases like "Various authors argue" or "Many authors argue." This is a common ploy used on Wikipedia to dodge the requirement for sources or to make a single POV source seem like consensus.

Ditto we need to show these authors somehow. This is too highly loaded an article to make general statements unless you show your sources or unless you quote a source. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 21:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Christina Hoff Summers coined the "equity feminist" vs. "gender feminist" distinction, so it's odd that you mention this only in regard to Wendy McElroy.

I suggest you read McElroy's Sexual Correctness. She uses 'gender' feminist against other feminist ideologies that have nothing directly to do with Hoff Sommer's 'equity' ideology.

(drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 21:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, one source you may want to look at is Susan Faludi's Stiffed, which is about sexism against men--although I don't think she uses the word "misandry."

The best of luck!

DanB†DanD 03:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So far it's a balanced-looking presentation of an unbalanced set of facts. I mean that in a good way. The treatment of misandry as a concept rather than a given fact helps a lot. So far I like the way you're handling feminism, with which the old article is pretty rough. The "Some critics"/"Various authors" approach is sub-optimal, but a decent workaround for the time being. The new sectional organization (so far) looks practical. I'm admiring your writing skills. — edgarde 03:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree here. Many independent sources both feminist and non-feminist have been quite 'rough' on 'oppression'-feminists who are openly misandric. Nathanson and Young go further and make a case that "fascist", "ideological" forms of feminism are the causes of modern misandry in popular culture contexts. To censor such so-called 'rough' content is blatant POV that is all to common on the feminism discussion page. I insist on some sort of NPOV balance in this rewrite that shows all these POV's.

Even in your own dissent, you at least recognize a diversity of positions within feminisim re misandry. The current article vilifies feminists pretty broadly (which is what I mean by "rough"), at least in a few places. P.S. Who the hell are you? All I can tell is that you're not me. Can you please sign your comments? — edgarde 01:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The feminism section really needs expansion, but you probably knew that. Not everyone agrees that Feminism caused misandry (Judith Levine, for example).

Also, I find it odd that this sentence is in the basic information: "Misandry is the subject of Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture[1] and Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Again Men[2] by Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young." Can we drop it down to the body? I know it's nitpicky for a draft. Jordansc 19:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed but Levine focuses on INTIMATE forms of misandry rather than IDEOLOGICAL forms of misandry so we need to show LEVINE here rather than making absurd circular causeal (they said, she said) arguments that are out of context with respect to the kinds of misandry being shown. SecondSight do you have plans on including Levine in your rewrite? (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 21:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I might be wrong about Levine, but whatev. The idea that feminism caused misandry is still controversial and therefore more than one POV needs to be included. PS: Quit breaking up my comments with your responses. It makes attribution confusing. Jordansc 23:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not about right and wrong...its about some sort of reasonable cause and effect discussion. Shout outs are absurd when we are trying to attribute causeality. I added several other POV's other than Nathanson and Young...including Kipnis, Hoff-Sommers, and McElroy...I could add Paglia, Fillion, and others. If you have 'oppression'-feminist or other sources thatdeconstruct N/Y's assertions or who show how blatantly misandric feminist statements or ideologies are somehow NOT misandric please by all means bring them in but please spare us the usual slanderous circular cat-fight type of 'reasoning' I see 'oppression'-feminists use against their more moderate feminists 'sisters'...in say BitchFest. As for not breaking your comments I will be glad to comply...I am new here. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 00:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. About the "various authors" or "numerous authors" thing, note that afterwards I do go on to list various/numerous authors who say those things. As far as I understand, the "some people say X" kind of format is problematic when it is used as a substitute for citing sources, whereas I am trying to use it as a summary of sources. But if various or numerous people can suggest an alternative wording that is more graceful, I would certainly be open to it. As for Stiffed I am actually reading it now; so far my impression is that while Faludi talks about some problems men face, she doesn't conceptualize them as "misandry" or even as "sexism against men," so I am afraid citing her would be original research, but maybe I am not far enough into the book yet (if anyone can point me to parts of Stiffed where she either discusses sexism against men or "male-bashing," then I think we could use her). Also, the misandry and feminism section is barely started. I would like to mention Christina Hoff Sommers, but I probably won't be able to until I get my hands on her book and find her quote in context. I will probably work on it some more tomorrow; once it is far enough along, I will transfer it to this page. --SecondSight 08:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just got an idea myself for replacing "various authors." Instead, I can say "critics of misandry." At least then the view isn't presented as so universal. --SecondSight 08:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I almost prefer various authors to critics of misandry. "Critics of misandry" implies that anyone who disagrees with the point is either indifferent or pro-misandry. Jordansc 19:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. "Critics of misandry" sounds more specific, but is more weasley. — edgarde 01:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

POV check: Rewrite User:SecondSight/Misandry and general concerns

Before I consider a replacement of this article with this editors rewrite I have a number of POV concerns. While I agree that there is much that needs to be cleaned up or brought into line with wiki policies in this article, I have specific concerns that such concerns might be used as a ploy to push unsourced POV or to delete potent sourced POV so that the material is less 'controversial' to what some sources here call 'fascist' feminists. I have addressed specific concerns to the rewrite editor SecondSight on his? rewrites discussion page. My general concerns are listed below.

I welcome better writing here. However, I will continue to insist that WE ALL include all well-sourced POV's here with some sort of NPOV balance. I am no fool...I know that some editors hate controversial content...but that is no excuse for censorship or other totalitarian tactics here. We need to show all POV's here and make sure they are well sourced. I insist that before, we replace this article with any rewrite we attain some sort of NPOV balance in the rewrite.

• We cannot pander to 'oppression' (as opposed to many other kinds of feminism) feminist POV by censoring all content that shows 'oppression'-feminist misandry. I insist that the views of Nathanson and Young, Hoff Sommers and many other independent authors both feminists and non-feminist who show forms of feminst-inspired misandry be included here with NPOV balance.

• I see a sustained effort in this discussion page to delete sourced content that shows ideological causes of misandry especially with respect to some kinds of explicitly and implicitly misandric feminist ideology.

• I see a possible attempt here to whitewash, delete, or water down potentially controversial POV's from well-sourced authors on misandry. I believe we need to state the sources viewpoints and refrain from weasel-worded statements like 'many authors' unless we include several prominent authors and reference the others.

• I see an attempts above to eliminate highly controversial but easily sourced quotes that show explicit forms of misandry from prominent feminists and others in the Literature section. While that section needs an introduction, the quotes are easy to source from NPOV on-line sources. To delete Literature altogether is the usual totalitarian tactic used in other feminism-related articles to pander to POV.

• Mysogyny shows many forms of women-hate from the genuine to the absurd and from the serious to the silly. Therefore, I believe we need to include all forms/flavors of misandry here. I am concerned that we do not use rewriting as an excuse to unfairly limit the scope of misandry in this article. We have a good definition so we need to show all forms of man-hate here.

(drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 21:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Language like "fascist," "totalitarian," and "insist" does not help your case at all.

It's not appropriate for a Wikipedia editor to judge any statement as misandrist by their own lights, however obvious the judgment may seem. If notable sources have described other notable writers as misandrists, that 3rd-party judgment may be cited.

DanB†DanD 21:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I ask that you READ the sources on this article before you lecture me about 'helping my case'. The terms "fascist", "ideological" and "totalitarian" come directly from sources on this article's list. I have good cause include these terms here and I will continue to "insist" that we all use non-fascist, non-ideological, and non-totalitarian tactics here to stay within wiki guidelines. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 22:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Misogyny is not a good standard to hold ourselves to. If you think Misogyny makes absurd claims, go change it.Jordansc 03:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Be glad to! (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 23:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh do not feed the trolls, dude. — edgarde 01:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How sweet. Now you call me a 'troll'. Who the hell are you!? (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 23:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It looks like this is a pattern of behavior for drop in editor. S\he's posting on like half a dozen feminist-related pages. Over on female chauvinism s\he's calling them KGB agents. Good times. Jordansc 03:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You make my case for me here. Personal slander is the tactic of choice for totalitarians. So are KGB style character assasinations. Could you actually stick to the issues here rather than indulging in ugly Girl-power games? (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 23:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Stick to the issues, so we can get another non sequitur response about "oppression-feminism" and George Orwell? I've written plenty about the issue, but it doesn't seem to get read. Jordansc 03:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, one thing we can agree on! I will go there in good time. My point was that misogyny was a complete (although flawed) article. Misandry needs to be no less complete. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 23:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as the quotes in Literature, you still haven't rebutted my evidence against them. Go back and do that or let it rest. Jordansc 23:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at your evidence but you can expect some of these quotes to reaappear here because they are all over 'oppression'-feminist literature and because they are explicity misandric. I had nothing to do with that section but it amuses me to see how hard people fight to silence blatantly misandric quotes from prominent and influential 'oppression'-feminists. Could you have POV here to pander to too!? (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 23:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously can we all take a break?

There is a rewrite, coming to an article near you. I am trying to fix most of the major concerns of the editors here in the rewrite, so most of the discussion above will be rendered moot. --SecondSight 00:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Support! DanB†DanD 02:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I sound rude, but find your rewrite (so far) to be an unconscionable whitewash. The majority of opposing statements on this page show just how deep social brainwashing is on this issue. Kudos to the author(s) of the page as it is. I'll be sad to see it go, but majority rules here, and the majority has demonstrated its will to publish information that suits to comfort, condone, and perpetuate self dictated desirable behavior... objectivity be damned. Loopy8 03:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Although you're not pleased with the way the discussion has progressed, I'm glad that it inspired you to register this new account and choose the Misandry talk page for this, your first edit to an English Wikipedia article. DanB†DanD 03:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Assume good faith". It is a mantra crucial to constructive work and cooperation. It is best not to assume a huge conspiracy (like brainwashing) because:

1. it's probably wrong;
2. it puts others off, and weakens your argument;
3. unless you believe it, stating it is rude; and
4. it distracts everyone from any valid points you might have.

Clear arguments will serve you better than decrying something's general state. Rintrah 05:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Loopy8, would be more specific on what you consider to be lacking from the rewrite? And keep in mind that it isn't anywhere near finished. --SecondSight 06:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A Plea for Respect

Someone is repeatedly deleting the section on the "crimes of omission", that is the underreported, neglected aspects of men's suffering and social oppression. The indifference to the opression and suffering of men is a prime example of misanry, of our inability to challenge culturally constructed gender roles.

Why was "Misandry in law" removed? It seemed well referenced and sufficiently NPOV and non-OR. Does it have a new page? 90.192.153.129 21:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Misandry in Law section presented the draft, etc, as misandrous. That's a POV. Jordansc 22:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The court case against the draft asserted that the draft is sexist, but sexism is not the same as misandry. Unless you can find a reputable third-party source that says the draft is motivated by hatred of men, not just by sexist assumptions about men's and women's differing abilities, the article will have to be cut. Perhaps you can find another article where the material will be more on topic (such as a general article about legal opposition to the draft). DanB†DanD 06:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Misandry in Law section was a horrible example of original research, was not written from a neutral point of view, and did not have verifiable sources. I realize that a lot of editors on this article are very passionate on the subject of misandry. I am too, unlike Jordansc, egarde, and DanD. However, as far as wikipedia policy goes, those three editors are pretty much correct. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for activism for any cause, including just causes like opposition to misandry. But anyway, I think my rewrite will make everyone at least somewhat happy. I still do not understand why people are fighting over this page when they know that a rewrite is coming. --SecondSight 08:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Because as we can see from the discussion on your rewrite's discussion page some are far from ready to take a rewrite as a fait accompli. If you replace this page with a rewrite it has to be complete, well-sourced and non-POV. So far the rewrite is merely a good beginning and already I see possible totalitarian tactics being considered such as trying to sidestep content that reflects badly on man-hating 'oppression'-feminists...so please spare us the arrogance that we should 'know' anything because you do not yet have carte blanche backing for this replacement. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 20:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Harmful edits

Jordansc, you have repeatedly performed highly questionable edits, removing large, pertinent sections of this article because you disagree with them and believe they are biased or inaccurate. Chopping out huge sections of encyclopedic articles is not the appropriate way to deal with sections you believe are biased, and I would not be surprised if your edits are malicious instead of being based in a good faith attempt to improve the Wikipedia. Do not remove the sections again. If you believe they are biased or invalid, state all of your specific qualms here, and after a consensus has been reached, then you or someone else should edit them. For the time being, it is unacceptable for you, only one editor here, to assume complete control over this article when there are many other people who are interested in expanding and improving it instead of chopping it down. We all (should) want the Wikipedia to contain the highest quality of articles, but the way to go is careful revisions, agreed upon by the majority of editors, not wholesale article destruction. --HarmonicFeather 04:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no particular reason to actively edit the existing article, as good work is now being done on a complete new draft to replace this one.

However, when large stretches of an article are POV original research, it is perfectly reasonable to cut them in bulk. "Chopping it down" is one good way to improve an article when existing text is worse than nothing. DanB</font>†DanD 06:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of specific edits is generally more productive than discussion of specific editors. However, Jordansc's edits are conspicuously well-justified, explained both in their Edit summaries and on this Talk page, one at quite some length.

I'd ask if there were a specific edit HarmonicFeather found "harmful", but as a rewrite is coming in, it's, you know, not worth mulling over. This little respite might a good time for some of us to review the rules for Wikipedia editors. — edgarde 07:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What's on the page isn't canon. A single person can put up an entire section; a single person can delete it. If you think the Western Culture and Law sections deserve to be on the page, then we can hash it out in the talk. I've already posted about Western Culture twice and, so far, I haven't received any responses. If you can give some sources and somehow prove this is NPOV, fine, but in the mean time, I think we should take the contested sections down. But, yeah, all of this might be moot when the rewrite comes in.

PS. In Re: "I would not be surprised if your edits are malicious instead of being based in a good faith attempt to improve the Wikipedia." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Jordansc 08:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What I've seen of Jordansc's edits are well in line with wikipedia policy. In fact, those sections were such bad examples of original research that anyone who knows about this page has been negligent in not removing them sooner. --SecondSight 08:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A number of sections were cut and then reverted, much as is happening now. DanB†DanD 17:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess a few editors consider this a good place to itemize various perceived injustices against men. Without arguing the validity of these complaints, I'm reverting the restore of Misandry in Western Culture section for reasons already discussed on this page — these do not support the concept of misandry, and calling them such constitutes original research. Please do not revert/restore unless substantial verification of their relevance can be provided.

Note that for these items to be restored, they have to be demonstrated as relevant to the concept of misandry. No one is disputing that these things may be unfair, or that a military draft may discriminate against men. — edgarde 18:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

See also: WP:NOT § SOAP

I'm also gonging "Crimes of Omission", which is again a list of perceived injustices not relevant to the article topic. Please don't restore this. The article is being rebooted — let's start again there. Please give a read to Wikipedia Simplified Ruleset if you haven't already. — edgarde 18:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Although there is disagreement here, I hope an adversarial tone to the editing can be avoided. I thought I would mention that I have rescued the deleted paragraph about Rostker v. Goldberg and added it to the article Conscription in the United States under "legality," and also added a mention under "gender issues" on the general Conscription page. DanB†DanD 22:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the salvage on Conscription. I think the work you saved was HarmonicFeather's.

I hope I can remember in the future to look for opportunities like that one. — edgarde 01:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm not at all new to the Wikipedia, and I am well aware of the rules and policies of the Wikipedia, even "assume good faith." You might note that the policy is not "assume good faith no matter what," since we have no problem dealing with vandals here, for example. I assume good faith for most edits, but when I seriously question another editor, I reserve the right to bring that up. I also understand that anyone can add, modify, or remove as much as they want from any article. That doesn't mean that they always should, however, even if they believe they are correct.

Second, I am not interested in petty squabbling or bickering. Childish pedantic fights are probably the best way to waste time and the least productive way to make progress towards making substantive changes and bettering the Wikipedia in general, which is what we are all supposed to be striving towards. However, I will not hesitate to call out harmful edits when I see them, either.

After some consideration, I think I see one main problem: the disputed sections (which appear to have been restored and deleted several times even after I last grandfathered them in) discuss issues of social dilemmas towards men, and inequality and sexism against men, but they don't constitute misandry per-se. For example, the fact that there is a social stigma against men reporting domestic violence, or that television commercials often attempt to turn violence against men into humor, are examples of inequality and sexism, but not necessarily of misandry (although this does not preclude the possibility). I think the sections should be rolled into an article such as sexism, but I want to hear other editors' comments first.

Question: is the revision-in-progress a "closed project," or can anyone contribute to it? I don't step in other people's user pages unless given permission, but if you don't mind others helping, I would be happy to help expand, rewrite, add citations, etc. I'm glad to see this article getting so much attention in general, since it's a new issue that is not often discussed. (Aside: one could make an interesting argument about the fact that the Wikipedia discusses female body shape but not male body shape, another issue relevant to men's studies.)

P.S.: Yes, the "conscription" paragraph was mine. Thanks for noting my work. --HarmonicFeather 16:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Progress on rewrite

Check out User:SecondSight/Misandry to see progress on the rewrite. I have mostly finished the Misandry and Feminism section. Thanks to edgarde, the only person who has been helping me. It might become necessary to break off part of the article into an article either on Nathanson and Young, or on ideological feminism. --SecondSight 01:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's getting better, but it still leans so heavily on Nathanson and Young. Not only is that an NPOV issue, but we also have to ask: are they the authoritative source on this issue? I admit, I haven't read their work (does anyone have a citation for anything they've published in an academic journal?) but it looks like they aren't even writing in their field. One wrote a religious take on Wizard of Oz and the other studies histories of religion. And critical response to their book seems a bit tepid, just based on a random sampling of reviews on EbscoHost. Jordansc 20:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh! Sorry not to be helping. I thought this was your own project and didn't think you'd want people mucking about in your userspace. Glad to have a go at it if that's okay with you.

It's true that N&Y still dominate a bit, but you've made a ton of progress in finding other sources. It still looks odd to have the sentence about their books in the intro -- the fact that there this couple has written books about it is not definitionally important to the concept, and the opening paragraph is for basic definition. Seems especially out of place since the article now has perspectives in addition to theirs.

DanB†DanD 21:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course the article leans heavily on Nathanson and Young. They literally wrote the book on this subject (two long and incredibly detailed books). It is not the place of wikipedia to decide whether they are "authoritative" or not, or to provide a book review, but simply to summarize their views of misandry (and it's unsurprising to me that a lot of the reviews of their books are negative; people trying to uncover misogyny in the past received similar reactions). Criticism of their views will be included in the article when I get to the "Controversy" section. If you read their books, their use of literary analysis and religious studies will make sense. About help: what would help me the most is minor stuff like copy editing (like Dan has provided), or more sources (though I am continuing to find more myself). As for mentioning N&Y's books at the beginning of the article, I did this because their works have "misandry" in the title and thus establish notability of the subject. I can see if I can integrate those sentences somewhere else. --SecondSight 22:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Misandry in Western Culture

Omitting the elements of oppression and neglect men face - the hate of indifference - is the most important aspect of social misandry. It is impossible to adequately address the issue of misandry without explicitly addressing its major aspects.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.39.13 (talk • contribs) 2006-12-27T01:32:06 (UTC) Who do we know in Croatia?

Lists of reasons it sucks to be male do not document misandry. Please don't re-introduce this information in a form that does not address the problems explained on this page under Harmful edits, A Plea for Respect, and especially Misandric Issues.

Please give special attention to the section in Misandric Issues that begins Here's an alternative argument. — edgarde 02:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all quite reasonable, but doublethink at its best (or worst, depending on your POV or NPOV or...) Oh, and please don't write 'whatever' or 'dude' or I will fall off my chair... Jgda 03:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Can we talk specifics? "Misandric Issues" claims that there is a "general neglect of male issues and elements of oppression," and then lists a higher number of male suicides as one of these issues \ elements of opppression. The article is already problematic just from a readability standpoint: is it trying to suggest that male suicide is caused by misandric oppression or is this just another fact of male life that's being ignored by someone (everyone? popular culture? psychiatrists? academic feminists?) because of misandry? It's hard to tell because, as it has been noted, the section reads like a big long list of complaints. So I'll try to treat both interpretations.

If we assume that the section means that male suicide is caused by misandric oppression, then it has failed to source this and include the other POV's on gender and suicide, which are included in the suicide article:

Gender and suicide: In the Western world, males die much more often than females by suicide, while females attempt suicide more often. Some medical professionals believe this is due to the fact that males are more likely to end their life through violent means (guns, knives, hanging, drowning, etc.), while women primarily overdose on medications or use other ineffective methods. Others ascribe the difference to inherent differences in male/female psychology, with men having more of an operational mindset and women being more aware of social nuance. [6] Greater social stigma against male depression and a lack of social networks of support and help with depression is often identified as a key reason for men's disproportionately higher level of suicides, since "suicide as a cry for help" is not seen as an equally viable option by men.

If we assume that the article means that men's suicides are being ignored because of misandry, then we have to ask: is that true? As evidenced by the wiki article, there's been some research done on the disproportionate number of male suicides. And there's no evidence that men in the Western world don't have the same access to psychiatric resources as women. I guess it's not for us to say, but my point is that the article needs sources to back these claims up and it needs to provide a better, more balanced discussion of misandry and suicide. As it is, the misandric issues section presents the relationship between misandry and male suicide as a given, without explaining what that relationship is or presenting evidence of it through sources or giving several perspectives on this issue. The problems outweigh any benefits this section might have. It should be scrapped or cannibalized and heavily rewritten. Jordansc 17:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, far too many problems. No worries: scrap, rewrite or cannibalize (try not to choke on bones...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:don't_choke_on_bones). The only things I've bothered reverting in the recent past has been those funny little signs people sometimes slap on the article - in good faith I naturally assume. Once the re-write is done and every sentence is dripping with source we can get back to the business of discrediting the sources themselves. It's just so funny, along with the irony, Baldric, of arguing about credible sources for the preparation of an article for an online publication that itself is not a credible source... Jgda 21:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said. The irony of credible NPOV sources is indeed inescapable here. After all, if we listened to the absurd logic of wiki's NPOV policy anyone who still believed the earth was flat would be given equal space with the round-earthers. This makes editing tedious and allows the usual politically correct totalitarian tacticians to rule here. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 22:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Giving the flat-earth idea equal weight to the round-earth one would be breaching undue weight policy. Even though wikipedia policy is not perfect, it is worth following. Harbouring a truth versus wikipedia policy (or cabal of editors following policy) view is not helpful. You are also overusing "politically correct" and "totalitarian", which if used consistently as hyperbole, are weakened and ultimately become meaningless. Rintrah 22:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like wikipedia and its policies, why are you here? Jordansc 00:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

On what basis do we decide undue weight...could one actually use evidence or is this all a "popular consensus" gang bang business. After all, Gallileo was exonerated some four hundred years AFTER his Inquisition by the Catholics. The term "gender", so-called rape 'realities' and other 'oppression' feminist falsehoods have become so common to be accepted as fact...in a very covert, cunning, and ugly rape of the culture. (I just love to see how 'oppression' feminists gang bang on wiki articles with no reasonable basis.) I am aware of the strengths and weaknesses of WIKI policy and so far I choose to contribute but I imagine much better policies to spare us wasteful warfare. I harbor no truths on wiki policy other than those outlined in the policy.

And then right here on this page I have edgarde calling me a "troll". Go figure. That said, I thank you for calling me on possible overuse of terms. Please be careful what you assume about my truths. I welcome your comments but I am no huge fan of our boy Jimmy Wales (who funded Wikipedia with his online porno business earnings) despite the fact that I have to give him a lot of credit for starting something revolutionary. As a system Wikipedia needs a lot more work IMO. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 00:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And then right here on this page I have edgarde calling me a "troll"

I fully agree. the (drop in editor) is by no means a troll. If anything, he's a kook

Gene S. Poole 02:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How NICE? Is this good faith or is this the usual Girl-power game that I calling here. Could you stick the issues and spare me the name-calling? It amuses me that people seem to always have to label other people so they can make their world simpler. Could it be that I am merely a person is able to use my OWN head in a groupie world? Could you just discuss the well-sourced ideas I offer rather than joining the ugly cheap shots here? (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 01:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. / edgarde 06:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish you were NICE enough to stand RESPECTED! (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 01:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Great, another 'shut up' term to bandy about: 'troll' does suffer from overuse by some users, so at least it's another option. 'Hey now, you're a Barnstar...' Jgda 21:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, note the distinction between the two. A troll is someone who posts to get attention, disrupting the normal flow for the sheer pleasure of it (therefore trolling for posts, the theoretical origin of the term); whereas a kook is "Anyone who posts uniquely strange, preferably incomprehensible articles, or who manifests a persistent, extreme, and somewhat bizarre obsession, might be a net.kook." The last bit in particular, about manifesting a persistent extreme obsession, fits in with our drop-in editor. At the very least, he'd be a kook before he'd be a troll, because so far it's a better fit. Then again, I'm a little obsessed with pointing out the difference, so maybe I'm a kook too (or something)

Also: should the rest of that thought be "get your game on, go play"?

Point of order: References to Smash Mouth are not only irrelevant; they're annoying. Rintrah 15:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool down, drop in editor. If you think everything under discussion as actions of "gang [banging]", cries of "rape", or "[exoneration]", you have no hope of rational thought. Wikipedia is not a compendium of published polemics.

I shall address your points:

On what basis do we decide undue weight[?]

On the basis of relevance, importance, and objectivity. The flat-earth theory is almost entirely irrelevant and unimportant, and it is certainly not objective.

is this all a "popular consensus" gang bang business[?]

No. Consensus is not "gang [banging]", and one clear policy of wikipedia is, "wikipedia is not a democracy". We all have the same power: anyone can modify text and click "Save page".

After all, Gallileo was exonerated some four hundred years AFTER his Inquisition by the Catholics.

This statement is in media res: there is no context. It is thus a red herring.

The term "gender", so-called rape 'realities' and other 'oppression' feminist falsehoods have become so common to be accepted as fact

Really? Quote your source (preferrably not Nathanson and Young). I am quite sure if I go to my local supermarket, the checkout girl will not speak of some great "opression" or a "rape reality".
The term "gender" has become a euphemism for "[biological] sex", mostly stripped of its connotations in feminism; so it is not charged with the politics ascribed to it by feminism. Most of the time, it is just a lazy term for "sex", or a prudish avoidal of the latter's connotations.

...in a very covert, cunning, and ugly rape of the culture.

This has no substance and is all rhetoric. You are vague about how culture is "raped", and don't advance any arguments for your case.

(I just love to see how 'oppression' feminists gang bang on wiki articles with no reasonable basis.)

You are not addressing my contention, but wandering into your own world. You use such highly charged language at the expense of clarity. If you describe specifically what you mean by "gang banging" (don't elaborate literally on this concept), you would start to advance an argument instead of invective.

I am aware of the strengths and weaknesses of WIKI policy and so far I choose to contribute but I imagine much better policies to spare us wasteful warfare. I harbor no truths on wiki policy other than those outlined in the policy.

The policy question should be taken up elsewhere.
Your last sentence confuses me — what are you saying?

As for a group of editors all I can say is spare me...I see how all dissenters on feminism are buried in cowshit, I see a reverse sexist, and blatantly biased "feminist" template to correct 'gender' bias and I see totalitarian double speak in many feminist related articles. I also read feminist whistleblowers, dissenters and others who show how totalitarian 'oppression' feminists have become.

Don't you see? You are now depicting yourself as a victim while simultaneously decrying "victim" feminism. You are using the same irrational rhetoric you vehemently rail against. Instead of using an image, like "buried in cowshit", you could express a clear idea, yet you have refrained. If you turned all your vague imputations against feminists into clear arguments, you might actually get somewhere in this debate. As it stands, you have preferred to spew insults at those you don't like. You have to reduce your dependence on blanket epithets like "totalitarian" and "double speak". This is not Soviet Russia; you do not need such epithets.

And then right here on this page I have edgarde calling me a "troll".

Then keep a cool head. Make your arguments ad rem instead of ad hominem (I advise others to do the same). Most of all, you should desire your argument to succeed, not your persona.

Please be careful what you assume about my truths.

I do not presume to know your world-view. But you are more likely to persuade people if you first do not assume everything you say is inevitably correct, as evidenced above.

I welcome your comments but I am no huge fan of our boy Jimmy Wales (who funded Wikipedia with his online porno business earnings) despite the fact that I have to give him a lot of credit for starting something revolutionary.

Yes, I do know about Jimmy Wales' "porno business earnings", but this is not the matter under discussion. Jimmy did not single-handedly write wiki-policy. We should follow wiki-policy because it is decent overall, albeit not perfect. Although Wikipedia is a "revolutionary" resource, we should not treat an article as a place to start a revolution. (You probably already know this, but I am stating this for clarity).

As a system Wikipedia needs a lot more work IMO.

True, but this is also another matter. Rintrah 05:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoth the dropper: "(I just love to see how 'oppression' feminists gang bang on wiki articles with no reasonable basis.)"

Preferably really oiled up. If only Bruce Seven were alive to film it. / edgarde 06:33, 30 December 2006 (UT

Jordanscs logic seems sound to me here...we do need to connect these relationships well with sources that show that MISANDRY causes these issues. However, I see the usual 'oppression'-feminist reverse-sexist double-standards with respect to these assertions on wiki. Why is no one correcting articles like feminism where 'oppression'-feminists make all kinds of similar claims with no need to connect THEIR causes and effects? The "fascist"-feminist propagranda machine is rarely willing to use the same standards of reasonable discourse. I ask that all editors be fair here. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 22:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. I didn't write the feminism article. If you have a problem with the feminism article, take it up with them. Jordansc 23:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I will in time. For now, I am just asking that you temper some of that righteous rage and try to be fair-minded with your (sound) reasoning as we go forward...(see NPOV responses to your call for judges above.) Most of my rage is related to my disgust with the personal slander, double-speak and double standards that seem so common from 'oppression'-feminists as opposed to more reasonable feminists. Will you be as clean here when a reasonable relationship IS established between feminism and misandry (such as Gloria Steinheim's famous misandric and now hyprocritical because she married a man) quote..."a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle") or will you call me a 'troll' like edgarde did and/or use ridiculous reasoning to push your POV against all reason? (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 01:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

drop in editor, this article is about misandry, not feminism. It is not worth bring up feminism and then railing against it unless it is relevant to the discussion. Do not invite hostility. If someone bites, don't just bite back. Establish everything by argument (avoiding issues external to the discussion) and you will state your case best. If the subject is controversial, like this one, always keep the discussion on topic. Rintrah 05:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your point of view here. I tend to get a little hot under the collar when I am being personally slandered. However, your points are well taken. I will refrain from biting back and keep the discussion internal from now on. I will call the predictable shots as they happen because no one gets to make this personal. I ask that you weigh in as well whenever people take personal shots against ANY other editor so this discussion stays somewhat clean. One thing I wish wiki had was some sort of referee system to eliminite the blatantly foul personal cheap shots because this wastes a lot of time here. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 01:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A recurring theme I'm seeing is "oh yeah well look at what that feminist wrote in Misogyny" — as far as I can tell, some editors come here specificly in reaction to things they've read on feminism related articles, as if they want Misandry to be a bulletin board where they're free to post responses. The revenge motivation may be so compelling they're not noticing (or caring) that it hurts this article.

Just hypothesizing. / edgarde 06:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You sure waste a lot of time calling me a "troll"...(how nice!) thesising about who I am, trying to slander me personally and trying to (what a joke!) read my motives sight unseen. Those ugly tactics are what all of the feminist/nonfeminist authors critical of common forms of "fascist", "gender" or "ideological" feminisms seem to take issue with. I thought wiki had good faith policies and I expect you to refrain from personal slander as I have refrained from doing that to you. No doubt I could accuse you of using 'double-speak', go back and dredge up all your other edits and slander you personally as well but I see no need to fight with you as another editor. I do see a huge need to fight well-sourced 'propaganda pushing' issues however as they relate to feminism-related articles...no PERSONAL accusation here! I separate YOU personally from your ISSUES and I insist on no less consideration back.

I am not here to attack you personally as an editor...I am here to fight for free speech against certain kinds of "fascist"-feminists (no personal accusation unless you see a fit here) who want to deny dissidents their free speech rights while they claim the right to scream the most outrageous dribble about their censored sisters and brothers. I expect you to respect me as an editor and stick to the issues rather than doing exactly what I am calling attention to about "fascist"-feminists here..that is being viciously personal rather than respectfully professional. I used feminism only as a 'seminal' example of the kind of boring, banal and blatantly biased content that feminism-related articles often appear to share. I have many books on feminism and I rarely see all sides presented on wiki. In my experience, editing articles related to feminism (which has been called a psuedo-religion by some feminist dissidents)is harder than editing articles related to religion. The result of "fascist"-feminist or fundamentalist religious indoctrination is pretty predictable...that is boring, banal, and blatantly biased falsehoods predominate in the content. That is is my main beef here...I like articles that make sense and that state ALL sides cleanly, and clearly without 'academic' or other covert, cunning, and ugly obtusifications. I insist on good, balanced, free speech editing here on this feminism-related article. However, rintrah is right...so I will be quite careful to focus on misandry from now on. (drop in editor)

To all the editors like rintrah who offered me reasonable and constructive feedback above...thank you. I was tired and a bit bored and said some irrelevant and pointless things I regret. I intend to stay much tighter from now on.

To all the editors who indulged in the usual personal slander all I can say is please! This PERSONAL slander indicates YOUR personal poison and is out of line with wiki good faith policies. To call me a 'victim' amuses me...I have good cause to be outraged by what feminists Hoff-Sommers, Phyllis Chesler, Kate Fillion, Karen Lerhman, Camille Paglia, Catherine Young and a host of other non feminists see as the hijack and prostitution of academia and other influential channels by an unrepresentative minority of radical feminists who use falsehood, fraud, and other pseudo-religious flim-flams to push their propaganda. This article is obviously a place where those ideologues have, do and will try to censor 'unfriendly' content because this article's content flies in the face of most "fascist"-feminist ideologies. I hope all editors who have good faith here will read some of these sources and support potent, balanced, and NPOV content here despite the blatant biases I see on most OTHER feminist-related articles (please the see Women's studies discussion page about 'unfriendly' yet well-sourced content). I have no problem with people who take issue with my POV but I detest Girl-power (Relational aggression) games to silence 'unfriendly' content...using the all too common totalitarian tactics as shown by those editors who try to personally slander me here. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 02:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Coinage?

"Misandry" is not in my 1971 OED. Is it in the more recent edition? This page says it was "apparently" first used in the 1930s, while this man (who mentions Wikipedia and the "Word Maven column) believes it is much more recent. Any clues, gang? DanB†DanD 22:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The OED online says: [< MISO- + ancient Greek -, man (see ANDRO-) + -Y3, after MISOGYNY n. Cf. Greek , in scholia (medieval Greek or earlier) on Euripides Andromache 228.]

The hatred of males; hatred of men as a sex.

1909 Cent. Dict. Suppl. s.v., Misandry...Man-hatred; a bad opinion of man, as being unfair or oppressive toward women. 1946 Scrutiny 13. 249 She..could do no better than what she very sensibly does do: follow masculine example, and answer to their affected misogyny with the affectation of misandry. 1960 B. KAYE Upper Nankin St. xii. 232 Such women are common in..Kwangtung Province, where there is a tradition of misandry. 1994 N.Y. Times 25 July IV. 2 Her book is..another feminist sally into misandry. Jordansc 00:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the news articles listed on the misandry article. At least one of them discusses the history of the term in depth. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 20:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

POV Check: Rewrite? User:SecondSight/Misandry

I believe that editor SecondSight is doing much to improve the article with his (potential) rewrite. However, he seems to be assuming that ANY rewrite he completes is automatically a candidate for replacing the original article...and says that we all 'know' that as a fact...which is assuming a bit much...please see sections above and discussions on his rewrite discussion page. I for one, will be glad to see his rewrite replace this article when he(?) addresses the following POV, balance and completeness concerns:

• A well-sourced balanced, and relevant article that shows all forms, flavors and degrees of misandry on this article. That includes popular and private (as shown in Levines book) and other forms of man-hate, a reasonable summary of all the flavors of man-hate, and all the varying degrees of misandry from trivial to serious. I would hope to see a section on intimate forms of misandry because Levine wrote a powerful (although blatantly biased reverse-sexist) take on intimate familial, and psychological types/sources of misandry. I would expect Nathanson and Young to 'dominate' the content here because they are by far the most exhaustive researchers on modern misandry SO FAR...but Levine is another good researcher who needs to be included here too. The original article puts N/Y and the whole topic in context as a 'new' area of both research and discussion...so I see no need to get all hot and bothered about balance before we have other sources for balance....I for one would love to see N/Y's so-called misandric "fascist"-feminists explain how nice and respectful of men their form of feminism is...but so far no I see no sources for THAT POV!. What I will take issue with are the usual fascist-feminist to censor topics critical of the so-called Sisterhood or hide well-sourced POV's that are critical of well-known forms of 'oppression'-feminist misandry from any editor who offers a rewrite...no offense to SecondSight.

• A complete explanation of the possible causes of man-hatred, scorn or contempt. N/Y assert "fascist"-feminist ideological warfare, Levine asserts father-abandonment and other causes and I (no expert) suspect some men have cause to hate men because men often murder other men for women quite thoughtlessly (for instance, General George Patton was fond of writing home to his wife-'mother' about his great and glorious war 'games')....but I have no sources for this possible cause.

• Full and well-sourced explanations of what Nathanson and Young, Hoff-Sommers and others call "gender", "facist", or "ideological" feminist inspired misandry. NO cute totalitarian tactics to try hide the foundations of 'oppression'-feminist inspired-man-hatred on other pages. Some well-sourced quotes from influential feminist misandrists be included here in context to show common forms of feminist misandry.

• A well-sourced section on Misandry in Law because Nathanson and Young's second book 'Legalizing Misandry is a huge exhaustively researched take on the topic.

• A survey of other independent authors who weigh in with potent POV's on misandry as SecondSight appears to be willing to include in his rewrite as shown.

(drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 21:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A new (refreshing? I dunno) Point of view...(from rewrite discussion page)

I stumbled across the original Misandry article while trying to explain to my wife that she was acting like an female misogynist (all tongue in cheek, rest assured), and read the discussion page in great detail, finally arriving here to see what the new version will look like.

I do realize it is a work in progress, but just to put in my own $.02, I found the original article to be a great deal more informative than this rewrite...by the end of what was written I had no idea what had been said, and was no closer to understanding misandry than when I set out, which would seem to me the purpose of an encyclopedic article. I'm not condemning this article as worse, or stating the original to be better, I am however pointing out that several very informative bits seem to be missing and I hope they will exist in relatively similar form on the rewrite. As an example, Types of misandry/Types of misandrists both were (to myself, at least) helpful in qualifying the definition beyond the general concepts expressed on this rewrite. I understand that the article needs to cite multiple sources and needs to cite sources, period, while retaining a NPOV; I simply hope that the rewrite in its final form will be more explanatory than it is now...let's try to keep the K.I.S.S. principle in mind here, and make sure any idiot can understand the definition, instead of only people who have read the source material.

Thanks, I have no idea what I'm talking about... 03:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time offer your 'reality-based' feedback on the readability of this article and on the rewrite. You remind me, that in the midst of all this ugly warfare about POV we are ALL here to serve you the Wikipedia reader...with clean, clear, NPOV content that makes sense to you...someone less familiar about the topic. I hope you will continue to offer constructive criticisms of the article as we go forward...and I hope your will refrain from 'kook' or other name calling as well. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 00:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Now now, if you'll recall I never called you a kook. I suggested that, if anything, you were more of a kook than a troll. And then I proceeded to clarify why you weren't a troll. You show none of the characteristics. Kook, as well, is another term from Usenet to describe someone, so it was fitting in that way as well. I never actually stated you were a kook, you must have inferred it ;)

How's that for weasel words? Gene S. Poole 23:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretty good! I took 'kook' as inferred about me from your discussion with edgarde. Names rarely bother me (except as an indication of POSSIBLE future ugliness)...because I have a fairly good idea who I am and who I want to be here. All I ask is that we ALL try to stick to the issues and refrain from personal cheapshots. Anyone can blast away at any content as long as they use some sort of reasoning/sources/NPOV but I see no need to call you or anyone else any kind of name even when one occurs to me. I just ask reciprocal consideration is all. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 01:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, absolutely. I wholeheartedly apologize for the appalling implied ad hominem attack, beg your forgiveness, throw myself upon your mercy, and furthermore, I love you. Now I'm promoting wikilove, and stuff. Gene S. Poole 03:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Spare us all the queer sarcasm. Are you an adult (married and all) or are you a baby? If wikipedia is to be at all credible some sort of professionalism is needed here. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 20:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't exactly called for. I'm not queer, though I am sarcastic, I'm not a baby, and even were I not an adult, wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, right? As far as my marital status, that's neither here nor there. As you said, some professionalism would be appreciated, and I'm looking at you, Potsie

Gene S. Poole 00:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Dudes. This arguing has total bad vibes; the vibrations emanating from it are scaring me, man. I'm totally trippin' out! We need to live in harmony, and not, like, attack each other's realities and spiritual ethers. Let's all smoke a peace pipe together. Oh man, this green medicine is burning my throat. *cough* *cough* Rintrah 15:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What a joke

This is one of the dumbest article on wikipedia. And wikipedia are fulls of fools who write shit like this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.149.150.215 (talk • contribs) 2006-12-31T20:17:05 (UTC)

Right. You might actually do better making specific criticisms, since it's difficult for us to fix this on the basis that it's just "the dumbest article on wikipedia". You might also be right that "wikipedia are fulls of fools who write shit like this", but if you just vent inarticulate criticism, you risk looking like a greater fool. Rintrah 03:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Rintrah, supporting some random commenter with such an overtly biased (to put it politely) so called view does not lend well to your NPOV creditbility. You speedily acknowledge the above rather assinine statement as "right", yet you proceed to point out how they should make a particular criticism, so then how do you know that it's right? Just thought I'd point out that contradiction. 24.137.100.126

You did catch me in contradiction; however, I was practising the nuanced art called sarcasm, which heavily involves irony. Also note, when intoned in a particular way, "right" does not denote affirmation.

Should I answer your question? I don't know whether it's worth defending my straw man, who is already withering from your indignation.

To put "it" politely is actually "biased", not "overtly" so. An intensifying adjective clearly, blatantly, obviously does not lend to politeness—see my point? ;-)

And "asinine" only has one "s". Rintrah 08:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Intimate and Law sections

I added two new sections with content from Judith Levine and Nathanson and Young, tried to cleanup the second intro paragraph a little to show the context of misandry, and made sure other credible sources on misandry were referred to. I ask that you refrain from reverting these until I have had time to finish them. Since SecondSight and his sidekick (edgarde) are busy on the rewrite, I plan to use these sections merely to show what needs to be included in the final article in some form...if this article is to be balanced, complete and NPOV. Please offer any suggestions or criticisms you see fit but please spare us any attempts to delete well-sourced content just because it may be controversial to some. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.47 01:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think much of the material is worth keeping, but the way it's presented is a little OR. It seems to be your judgment that Levine provides an "intimate" contrast to the "public" focus of N&Y. I think the info should be presented with less commentary when it's integrated into the new article.

(also, just my personal POV here, but...Levine bases a theory of gender relations on "penis envy"? In 2006? Seriously?)

DanB†DanD 03:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No offense but did you, by chance, actually read Levine's book!? I am getting tired of opinions from people who have no need to read the sources. Levine's book deals directly with intimate forms of private (emotional, sexual, psychological) misandry rather the public (ideological/political/legal/societal/scholarly) forms that Nathanson and Young's books deal with. As for the 'contrast' statement, I just used that as way to make the transition so that the article is somewhat readable and flows and nothing more. If you are going to question the 'commentary', I suggest you read the book...you will find that I tried to stay as close as possible to Levine's content in a quick 'boilerplate' summary just to please people like you. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 04:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was the encyclopedia that | anyone could edit? Jordansc 05:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, no. As a person who hasn't read the book but is interested in the subject, I am in the primary target audience for your summary! Poorly-informed chumps like me need to be able to clearly distinguish Levine's ideas from your presentation of them. DanB†DanD 20:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Needed: knowledgeable non-ideological editors to assist with NPOV

"At the Univ of Michigan, where Catherine MacKinnon inspires censorship, the students simply removed a videotape they regarded as offensive from an exhibit by the artist Carol Jacobson. Jacobsen then demanded that they either censor the whole thing or replace the tape. After meeting with MacKinnon and her fellow anti-porn crusader Andrea Dworkin, the students went into another room and then 'independently' asked Jacobsen to take down the entire exhibit. MacKinnon is adamant about the need for feminist monitoring of art and makes no bones about her own insight and expertise into what cannot pass muster: 'What you need is people who see through literature like Andrea Dworkin, who see through law like me, to see through art and create the uncompromised women's visual vocabulary'. Commenting on the 'deafening silence' of the Michigan faculty, Carol Vance suggested that 'no one wanted to cross Catherine MacKinnon.'"

"With gender monitors in a position of influence, the more creative writers and artists are shunted aside. The effect on novices and the unrecognized is especially serious. How many works are unpublished (or unwritten) out of fear of offending the feminist sensibilities of funders, curators, and other gender wardens inside and outside the academy? How many paintings are unexhibited (or unpainted), how many lyrics unrecorded (or unsung)? Artists need courage, but ideological intimidation deeply affects and inhibits creativity."

"But who will challenge them (gender-feminist cultural apparatchiks)? The answer to that question transcends the politics of liberalism and conservatism. Too often, those who find fault with the intolerance of feminist ideologues are tarred as right-wing reactionaries. It is true that 'the right' has tended to be more alarmed about the censoriousness of the 'liberal' left. But there are relatively few conservatives in our educational institutions and cultural temples, and it would be most unrealistic to count on them to be very effective in combatting gender feminism. Nor if we judge by the sorry record of their faintheartedness in the academic world, should we count on intellectual men to engage gender feminists in open battle. So the unpleasant but necessary task of confrontation fall to women who believe in free expression and who scorn those who would stifle it. Such women waged and won the battle for suffrage and for all the basic rights American women now enjoy. Such women are still the majority but out of a lack of awareness of the extent of the problem or a reluctance to criticize their zealous sisters, they have remained silent. The price has been great--the ideologues have made off with the women's movement."

"It would be difficult to exaggerate the extent of the difficulties we now face. The gender feminists have proved very adroit in getting financial support from governmental and private sources. They hold the keys to many bureaucratic fiefdoms, research centers, Women's studies programs, tenure committees, an para-academic organizations. It is now virtually impossible to be appointed to high administrative office in any university system without having passed muster with the gender feminists. If bills that are now before Congress pass, there will be paid gender monitors in every primary and secondary school in the country and harrassment officials in every secondary school and college. Nor will this phenomenom be restricted to schools; experts on harrassment will be needed to monitor the workplace. Needless to say, the only available 'experts' are gender feminists whose very raison d'etre is to find more and more abuse". Who Stole Feminism (The Gender Wardens page 273), 1994.

"PAGLIA:What I'm opposing is the anti-intellectualism of contemporary feminism. Feminism in it's current phase began as movement of eccentric individuals, but it has really rigidified into a kind of cult. They're like Moonies. They are really religious thinkers who usually have separated in some way from their religious background or their cultural background. They are people looking for an identity, okay? And such people are absolutely--They have not really examined their own assumptions. They're not intellectuals. So as a consequence, when you challenge them, they become very emotional, because they have no equipment for responding to you. Feminism in America today has become a series of rote, learned, jargon phrases. So if you try to critique their view of rape, let's say, they get very angry, and all they can do is parrot back to you something they've learned--a statement like (imitates droning computer voice) 'Rape is a crime of violence but not sex.' There like robots, okay? They've been programmed. Or they'll say something like 'No always means no."

"Now both these statements are stupid. They absolutely are meaningless, all right? And what I am doing is going around as an intellectual, not just as a feminist but as an intellectual, and seizing on and attacking each of these jargon phrases and exposing them.Camille Paglia, Vamps and Tramps (1994)

"Doing so gives me no pleasure, but someone must finally tell the truth about how feminists have failed in their own ideals and their mandate to think both clearly and morally. Only an insider can really do this, someone who cares deeply about feminist values and goals. I have been on the front lines for nearly forty years, and I feel called upon to explain how many feminists--who should be the first among freedom- and democracy-loving peoples have instead become herd animals and grim totalitarian thinkers. This must be said, and my goal in saying so is a hopeful one. We live at a time when women can and must make a difference in the world." Phyllus Chesler, The Death of Feminism, 2006, page 1.

Bold face emphasis mine (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 20:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Intimate, parental, and familial misandry by women

Why are elipses used to separate list items in the section "Intimate, parental, and familial misandry by women"? Are they supposed to signify omission? The standard signifier for such omission is "et cetera" ("etc.") — "and the rest". Ellipses are supposed to signify omitted text only in extracts and quotes.

The section is also vague: it lists classifications without explaning their significance, and most of it is hard to understand. It is also written in heavily loaded language; for example, "shows private manifestations of misandry", and "shows fathers, brothers and husbands as misandric targets of a (modern) form of feminism that smashed the "Family"". Rintrah 13:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is just a beginning. I will clean up the vagueness after I listen to all the issues here. I saw no sense in wasting a lot of time until other POV people had a chance to weigh in with the usual objections.

As for 'private' or 'loaded' please read my response above to Danb. This is about as unloaded as I can be and still fairly represent Levine. You will notice I 'censored' content on the ugly misandry in 60's-70's feminism with organizations like SCUM that Levine describes. I suggest you might look at your POV about Levine's writing. I have no axes to grind about Levine because no one is trying censor Levine that I know of. Levine writes about just another form of 'private' misandry that deserves to be shown here. The content about 'smashing' the 'Family' (her words!!!) was taken almost directly from her chapter on The Sisterhood and the Patriarchy.

As for ellipses, I am just a new unsophisticated editor trying to summarize a complicated book that (like Nathansons and Youngs books) is pretty badly written. The ellipses signify nothing other than that. I would be glad for suggestions on how to make this complex stuff clearer and more easily readable as long we don't sacrifice completeness or fall into cloudly obtusifications to water down the content for POV purposes. I need some education on proper form here as well so I can use your suggestions. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 21:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a POV on Levine. I really don't know much about her. But if the article says she "shows" something, it is taking a side. If the words are quoted, they need to be put in quoatation marks. Rintrah 23:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

SCUM isn't a real organization. It's just the name of Valerie Solanas' manifesto. And as far as being a new editor, someone has been writing on your IP address since March of 2006 & it's not like Rintrah's statement on ellipses is some bizarre newfangled wiki policy. Jordansc 05:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's real enough...in spirit...albeit small. Jgda 22:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed this from the intro

According to researchers Nathanson and Young (2001), "misandry in popular culture remains a dark secret" and "gender watchdogs" use a double standard that exposes the evils of misogyny but are "notably silent" about even the existence of misandry. They assert that "unlike misogyny, misandry is still generally unrecognized as a problem."

And this paragraph

Nathanson's and Young's second of three (planned) books on misandry; Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men (2006) shows how (they see) modern forms of popular misandry have become institutionalized in law, in society, and in scholarship.

I think it is inappropriate to frame the situation in Nathanson and Young's own terms. Not only are they highly polemic in their language and tone, it is unbalanced in terms of NPOV and undue weight. I have made some minor changes, and feel it reads much better now. I do not see a reason to have such a detailed diatribe in the LEAD to this article (which basically reads as a favorable book review of "Spreading Misandry" as it is.

As for the other paragraph removed, it doesn't say anything about the topic header it was under, and instead speculated on an upcoming book. This article isn't a bulletin board for all the latest Nathanson and Young news, and this information is irrelevent.--Andrew c 19:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the rewrite isn't even done and already we're getting 'back to the business of discrediting the sources themselves'. As I've said here before: the book review-like style of article here has been forced on editors due to the bizarre and undue weight of referencing being required of this particular article - particularly since the Neutrality call-to-arms. Everything is getting framed in published-authors'-on-the-topic terms because the slightest perceived slip outside of those terms gets you chopped. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the first paragraph you have chopped here. Stylistically it operates within the parameters authors are working under here. You could not present a strong position on this topic without being accused of polemics - it's built in: the accusation usually means 'I disagree', since few people make the accusation regarding an author they agree with. So whose terms do we frame it in? Yours? The second paragraph: fair enough, not particularly relevent, though this level of irrelevency would get a large proportion of wikipedia cut (perhaps not such a bad thing...) Jgda 22:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, I agree with your changes, but not (all of) your reasoning. As established above, because N & Y are the primary source, the article must rely heavily on them. Although this article should not endorse their ideas, in view of WP:NPOV, how they frame misandry is, at present, the dominant structure of the research—unless I've misunderstood what you were saying. If you can find other sources to redress undue weight, do so. What N & Y say is more important than their tone, whether it be polemic, dry academic, measured, abstract, or so on; indeed, what they say constitutes most of this article's source. Rintrah 15:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You seriously think we cannot come up with a concise summary of the author's beliefs besides quoting phrases like "dark secret" and "gender watchdogs"? What exactly is trying to be expressed in that sentence? That the authors personally believe misandry to be a serious issue in North American society, but those speaking out against misogyny generally disagree with the authors on that point. Now was that so hard to say? I didn't have to use extreme language. I apologize if I barged into the article while you were overhauling it. If I stick around I will try harder to be a team player. Thanks.--Andrew c 23:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not personally overhauling it: I've given up contributing a while back. I am working on an article on the process of wiki-ing, hence my continuing interest in the methodologies at work. Your re-wording changes meaning and misses one of the major points being raised, it's unsourced and weasel-worded (who disagrees?), as well as being tainted by POV with the buffering of 'personally'. It's ironic that the omitted point actually being raised (contrasting miosgyny with misandry) actually appears to directly reflect the response to this paragraph: just look at misogyny and see. The authors '...speaking out against misogyny' strongly are just as guilty of polemic writing. That was my point regarding it being built in, since it wasn't the actual opinion of the editor in question that was the problem, rather the source's worth to be quoted as defining the topic. Jgda 00:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Nathason and Young", "Nathason and Young", etc.

I only read a few paragraphs, but even then the style seemed repetitive, with "Nathason and Young" constantly repeating. Surely we could say what views and ideas belong to Nathason and Young more concisely, without stating their names again and again? Rintrah 14:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Another prose point: I have a problem with this sentence: "In contrast to Nathanson and Young, who focus on public forms of misandry, feminist writer Judith Levine shows private manifestations of misandry in her 1992 book:". There is no real contrast: both accept "misandry". Should this not be: "Whereas Nathason and Young focus on the public forms of misandry, feminist writer Judith Levine focuses on private manifestations of misandry..."? That is, if a transition phrase/clause is necessary.

Media Studies professor Laura Kipnis asserts that the accident of anatomy automatically confers social inferiority on women (with no mention of female-male forms of gender discrimination), that lack of a penis causes women to feel that "something's missing", and that this supposed perception of lack leads to female resentment.

This is just bizarre. Do we really want to turn this article into a kooky conjecture cauldron? Consider removing it.

Nathanson and Young noted the following types of man-hating behavior, they see as prevalent in popular culture.

Several sentences impose themselves in between this sentence and the list, each paranthetical to it. The above sentence should come just before the list.
"noted" imposes an assumption of objectivity (contra NPOV).

In Spreading Misandry, they devote a chapter to each type of misandry as follows.

Inelegant repetition.

"the hate that dares not speak it's name."

Repeated twice. This is not oratory, so we don't need such rhetorical devices.

She addresses misandry's origins "in a unique examination of the family, traces the role of man-hating in the unfolding of contemporary feminism"

This is advertising. By quoting her without qualification, the article implicitly endorses her view.

I moved criticism of Nathason and Young to its own section, entitled "Criticism", and removed "They are not without their critics", which has an emotive tone. Rintrah 14:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Archeology in SecondSight rewrite

"Feminist archaeologist Lynn Meskell criticizes what she considers to be dubious usage of archaeology to justify claims about prehistoric Goddess worshiping societies. She argues that 'many of these initial gynocentric theories of prehistory share a fundamental commonality to prior androcentric premises since they both employ 'sexist' paradigms in reconstru(ct)ing the past. Thus they do not promote credibility: rather they damage and delimit the positive attributes of gender-based research, due to their poor scholarship, ahistorical interpretations, fictional elements and reverse sexism.'[9]"

I'm not sure if this is really misandry. I don't think any instance of gynocentrism, reverse sexism or just plain bad feminist scholarship is automatically man-hating. Does someone call this misandry? Jordansc 00:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is, it is not a notable example. But I agree, the link is tenuous. Rintrah 00:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the meanings of "misandry" is sexism against men (it's used this way by Nathanson & Young and by Farrell among many others), which is sometimes called "reverse sexism." Hence, the paper is on topic for this page. Meskell is notable because her essay is published in a journal. I felt I should include her because I didn't want to leave out a POV (intra-feminist criticism of sexism against men) from the page. Still, if we can find better examples of feminists who criticize other feminists for misandry (especially if they use the term explicitly), then maybe we could use those instead. --SecondSight 01:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

But the accusations are very specific and only of intellectual interest; the prehistorical, gynocentric theories don't bear any significant consequence. I think we should choose examples more carefully. Rintrah 08:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that they claim sexism is 'one of the meanings': it is usually put that sexism is a result of misandry. It is an important point, and I realise that any kind of sexism directed at women can be equated to misogyny, so that the terms have become effectively interchangable, but, for good or ill, that hasn't happened here yet. The quote is an interesting one for me personally, but I agree that for the purpose of this article, it's not specific enough. Somebody talking about how gynocentrism is intrinsically misandrist because... would be different. Jgda 22:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Note"

I counted "note" seven times. Please read this: Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Point out, note, observe. Rintrah 01:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. I overuse "note" myself.

Do a count on the imperative use of "spare" next. / edgarde 01:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this necessary?

Misandry: From the Dictionary of Fools by Richard Leader (article critical of the use of the term)

Is this really necessary? The points covered in this article are unproven statements that don't address anything in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.165.143.201 (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I know, but I think it makes 'the enemies' of the article feel a bit better: if they read to the end and get really mad they can maybe take a hit of Richard and straighten out a little. Jgda 22:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The big reason it's present is mainly to satisfy the people critical of the term (I personally believe it's unnecessary, but my opinion doesn't really count, does it?). Personally, I'd like it removed, but I'd be willing to tolerate its presence on the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Groar! (talk • contribs) 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

It's a dumb rant by someone who can't write. I'm in favour of having an article critical of the term, but not this. Rintrah 04:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not keep this article?

I prefer this article to the rewrite. Most of this article is sourced, and, with effort, the article can be made neutral. If we focus on removing bias and improving the language, we can make this a worthy article. The grammar is bad, so the article needs copyediting. Perhaps material in the rewrite can be incorporated here. What does everyone else think? Rintrah 17:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Both have strengths and weaknesses. The current one provides more information, but the rewrite is not yet complete. Both of them suffer stylistically from the desperate use of textual citations - and I'm talking drowning-in-the-Arctic-Sea desperate here. I know it's probably necessary, but hell, it's ugly. It comes out as though it's a dictionary defintion followed by a bunch of stuff people said about it. The article shouldn't require so much buffering. Jgda 23:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my rewrite is nowhere near finished, as I think should be obvious from the empty sections. Progress has been slow because school just started up again. I'll work on it a bit more and then we can see what people think. I agree that the constant citations are ugly, but I don't see any way around that because otherwise people will constantly challenge it's statements. --SecondSight 01:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations guard sentences against deletion; we need them urgently to protect them from the editor's scythe. This article makes less crude use of them, so I prefer this to the rewrite. Why don't we try to improve this article and keep the other just in case? We do need to improve the tone of this article, and the prose, too. At least then, we will be reasonably happy we have a decent, stable article. Can we agree to this? Rintrah 02:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Obscurity? Evidence? Neutrality?

Levine's book is hardly obscure, and provides a source of information based specifically on the topic of the article to contrast the N&Y material. She provides her evidence in the book itself - the entire argument can hardly be replicated in the article. If you disagree with her position and the evidence she provides, fine: write your own book. This article, however, is trying to piece together information on the topic itself. The only issue with neutrality that could come into it is if you think that the editor has misrepresnted - intentionally or not - Levine's position as she presented it in the sourced material. If you believe that to be the case, then how about we discuss it here. Jgda 22:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And just while I'm on the subject of obscurity: Nancy Lewis-Horne? I did the ever-popular wikipedia-google-credibility test, and got not very much. Surely there's some more credible critics of misandry-related research out there (or does that final sentence of her book review give her the nod)? Jgda 02:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

From the book review: "Nathanson and Young attempt to make two points: first, misandry is extremely pervasive;" — as opposed to "kinda pervasive" or "a little pervasive"? lol. Rintrah 02:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There's certainly plenty of problems I can see with the review - how's the idea that gender studies is not always about women, but then the final suggestion that 'the authors would be advised to apply many of the findings and concepts of feminist researchers examining gender to an analysis of masculinity' (exactly what most of the gender-examining authors quoted have done) - but this is hardly the place for that. My personal reaction is: I like it and think it should stay, but that's probably because of my personal bias: it makes N&Y argument stronger, if anything: maybe they'll quote it in an upcoming book? My professional reaction is that it is too obscure and there has to be better qualified critques out there that would look better for a Crticism section. I've certainly read much more incredible things that would be perfectly credible sources. Jgda 03:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you suggest them? Or, better, add them? Rintrah 04:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who added the initial information from the Lewis-Horne review. This was the most scholarly/reliable source I could find on the internet. While you may not know much about the author herself, what I thought was most important was the source. Compared to the blog posts and puff pieces I found, The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology was clearly most reliable of the critical sources (i.e. [1] and [2]). If better sources can be found, then please add them by all means, but I do not think we are near the point of removing this section. It is cited and meets WP:RS. We present is in a NPOV manner, and it is verifiable as a reviewer's opinion. What more do we need?-Andrew c 16:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary of Fools is one of the most sloppy rants I've read; I don't think the reader should be expected to take it seriously. The second one is better (Battered by Beavis and Butthead). I don't like this sentence, though: "women comprise a mere 17% of all executive producers" — surely she meant "constitute"? I agree that Lewis-Horne qualifies under the criterion of schorarly source, for her work is published in an academic journal. Rintrah 02:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary.com defines comprise as: "1. to include or contain: The Soviet Union comprised several socialist republics. 2. to consist of; be composed of: The advisory board comprises six members. 3. to form or constitute: Seminars and lectures comprised the day's activities." No problem there. Jordansc 05:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The third definition is disputed, mainly because it makes the word ambiguous. Most style guides I have read advise against the disputed usage. Rintrah 08:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Both those reviews are idiotic. But that's not a reason not to mention them in the article. Readers can come to their own conclusions. --SecondSight 05:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

True. But if we want the best article we should use the best criticism, not the worst; namely, the Dictionary of Fools, which indeed is aptly named. We should show some discretion over taste, even if it means having to search harder for another source. Rintrah 14:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange symbols

What do "-" and "*" mean in Intimate, parental, and familial misandry by women? If I have to guess, the reader probably has to, too. Rintrah 02:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Misquote

Nice try, but Léo Charbonneau kinda got it wrong. Below is the paragraph from 'Legalizing Misandry' it was quoted from. It wasn't themselves they were talking about, but the media interest in the first book.

'When Spreading Misandry was published in 2001, the topic was hot enough for journalists to cover – we were interviewed for many newspapers, radio shows, and television shows – but not hot enough to be taken seriously by most of them. In some cases, it was the equivalent of a publicity stunt; the goal was to hook readers or viewers with sensationalism – prejudice against men, of all people! – not to explore a social problem with profound moral implications. Print journalists often admitted that men had been portrayed unfairly in popular culture during the 1990s but pointed out that the situation had changed.' Jgda 21:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. Charbonneau's "Their" was an ambiguous pronoun reference.-Andrew c 22:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

References

What's up with those 4 references just sitting down at the bottom of the page: References 1 "Men and Depression," National Institute for Mental Health. 2 "Suicide rates in countries throughout the world," Fathers For Life. 3 "Prison Statistics," U.S. Department of Justice, 30 June 2005. 4 "Alcoholism Statistics," Narcanon Southern California, Inc. --Andrew c 22:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know; I think someone has messed up the formatting. Each inline reference should be marked with <ref></ref> in the source, and there should be a <references/> just after the references section to make the references appear. (WP:REF) Rintrah 02:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

unnecessary editorial bias

In the sentence 'Individualist feminist Wendy McElroy believes that gender feminists have...' it is unnecessary (at best) to add such editorial distincing as '...feminists she calls...' and putting what amounts to shudder quotes around 'gender feminists.' It is obvious to the reader that Wendy's position is being summarised for the purpose of explaining a position regarding the topic of the article, so of course they're feminists she calls gender feminists. This kind of distancing is generally used for editors that have a problem with the stated case and want to reduce the statement: give it a little nudge nudge wink wink, particularly when it is pasted in after the fact. Jgda 09:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the phrasing used was awkward at best, but the intent wasn't off base. This is not a term of self-identity, nor a widespread acedemic term. It is basically a pejorative coined by Christina Hoff Sommers. I think a simple solution would be to use quotations to indicate that these are McElroy's words, not wikipedia's. It isn't a matter of us not liking the phrasing: it's a matter of this phrasing not being neutral, nor encyclopedic. So yes, I do want to reduce the statement, but not for the reason you presuppose.-Andrew c 17:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Followed your suggestion. Rintrah 17:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c is right, placing the term "gender feminist" in inverted commas is appropriate. It is a neologism (see avoid neologisms) and is not widely accepted or understood. As an epithet it would be a weasel word if it were not placed within inverted commas.--Cailil 20:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Just an idea, since this term is controversial, is there another way we could phrase the sentence without using the phrase at all?-Andrew c 22:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I had a think about alternatives but I don't think you should remove it. McElroy's claims don't make sense without it. After looking at the whole article for a while I have 2 questions about it. First, why is that section called "causes of misandry"? McElroy's comments are not about feminism causing misandry but rather a misandrist discourse in certain feminist arguments and texts. I'm not disputing that McElroy's comments should be in this article but I think they're in the wrong section. Alternatively the section could be re-entitled: Criticisms of misandrist approaches in Feminism. Second, there is a possible issue of undue weight. A lot of time is given to quoting, explictaing and unpicking Nathanson and Young (who are mentioned about 10 seperate times in the article). I know that there work may be important but there's a need for balance. Considering how recent their new book is and the dearth of critical usage of their other ones (I tried a google scholar & a Jstor search for each of their works and didn't pull any WP:RS) the empahsis on their work may be too much and be on the edge of recentism--Cailil 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Enough people appear to understand the term (both for and against) and its usage appears to be widespread enough for it not to be considered a neologism as defined by this website. It certainly becomes weasel wording (in a more traditional sense perhaps) with the shudder quotes. Neutral? Certainly not. Neutered maybe? No, not that either. This preoccupation with 'neutral phrasing' (neutrasimilitude? Now there's a neologism for you) or 'encyclopedic phrasing'; the appearance of it, as opposed to any genuine concern over the thing itelf, seems to be the ontological antithesis of the notion of encyclopedia. There are plenty of epithets on this website but, if they are controversial, many of them appear to be not controversial in the right kind of way. All this does is signpost the editor's (in this case editors') POV. I personally don't have a problem with that - people should have enough critical sensibility to acknowledge it - but I thought it ran against the grain of this particular website - in theory if not in practice. Jgda 23:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jgda, I'm unclear about your point. Are you saying that placing gender feminist in inverted commas is a POV edit by Andrew c, Rintrah and myself. If so I will advise you of WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS. If you believe there is a problem please request outside comments. If I misunderstood your comment I do apologize.--Cailil 01:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is a POV edit, but not necessarily a deliberate one. Where does that place me in the WP:AGF stakes? I am not assuming malice, if that helps. As for WP:CONSENSUS: Pandora's e-box? I'm quite sure you represent a majority position on this point on this website, and outside comments would also bear that out. I've seen it in operation on this website, where an e-call goes out to lobby for a particular move. It doesn't worry me: the credibilty of this website is not important to me. I edited, in good faith, and will not repeat the same edit if the consensus is that it should be reverted. How's that? Is that necessarily a good thing? No, but I won't put up a fight over something not worth fighting over. Jgda 03:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the issue is the use of "scare quotes" can be seen as a form of bias. I believe I have cleared up concerns from both sides by quoting a little more text from McElroy.-Andrew c 02:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I think I remember some sort of WP: rule thing once being cited regarding the overuse of direct quotation... Jgda 03:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

With everyone fighting like school girls, this article is going nowhere. Jdga, if you express your objections without getting so upset, you will find it easier to negotiate with other editors. Rintrah 07:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon, no need to pout; I'm not actually upset. And going nowhere is only bad if the alternative somewhere is better... Jgda 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel like this thing is stuck in a rut and has been so for the past two or three weeks (if not longer). Jordansc 16:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirect Female chauvinism to Misandry?

I happened to come upon female chauvinism, and was not favorably impressed with the article. Is there any reason there can't be a mention of the term "female chauvinism" in this article, and a redirect to this article from female chauvinism? Enuja 03:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The chauvinism article is short enough that I see no reason to have two spinout articles. All the content should be able to be covered in one article. On top of that, looking at the sources used, the content at the female chauvinism page is pretty redundent with this article (and the terms are close enough that I do not believe they warrant individual articles). I would propose merging both male and female chauvinism to the main chauvinism article, and making note of the term's use in this article.-Andrew c 03:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Female chauvinism and misandry are very different, however. Having an elevated view of the importance of women isn't the same as having a hatred for men. Someone could like men but still think women are superior and someone could hate men and have a neutral view of women or maybe not generalize the at all. If hating one automatically meant loving the other and vice versa then misanthropy and philanthropy would be impossible. They should stay separate. The female chauvanism article should just be rewritten, as it is extremely inaccurate. Cappuccino Joe 17:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, female chauvinism and male chauvinism have both been merged with chauvinism, so the merge tag on this article should be removed. I'm doing it now. Enuja 03:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Religion and Philosophy

In the misogyny section, there are purported examples of misogyny in religion and philosophy. Why, then, is there not a similar section on this page? To not include one would possibly be POV, as if religion and philosophy are somehow generally stacked against the "oppressed" women.

I bring this up because much of the articles on this site about sex roles and the like have a feminist POV to them, and if not they are still subjective. That is because the ones influenced by "masculism" still reek of essentially the same kind of victimology that underlies feminism. That is the one of the main points I added to the section of the misogyny page which deals with Nieztsche. It is the subject of heated debate whether or not Nietzsche actually believed in the inferiority of women; it is undeniable that he believed in the inferiority of victims. While not all anti-feminists are Nietzschians, the type of politically correct victimology inherent in feminism is characteristically left-wing and anathema to many other worldviews besides just Nieztsche's. Such subjective value judgements have no place on an online encyclopedia, and yet they appear on almost every wikipedia entry dealing with sex roles. There are not nearly enough rebuttals and criticisms of such lines of thinking.Shield2 04:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There used to be, kind of, but they are no more. The problem seems to stem from the difficulty of any source for such information being considered legitimate by the establishment, since occupying such a position almost always automatically illegitmizes the source in the eyes of the establishment. Sorry. Good night and good luck. Jgda 10:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think somethings wrong with Misogyny, go change Misogyny. We don't have to account for every other article while writing this one. And, anyway, you first have to prove that the idea of Misandry at work in religion and philosophy is widely held. Jordansc 14:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Shield2 your absolutely right Nieztsche's positions are debated and should be reflected as such in the article. I will remind you however that comments on the talk pge need to verifiable and should not be original research. Also sweeping generalizations like the ones you've made about feminism could be interpreted as not assuming good faith about other editors. I don't share your opinion about POV in "almost every wikpedia entry dealing with sex roles" but in this case your 100% correct about Nieztsche. I can't source such an argument immediately so if you can before me, please do--Cailil 12:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Isnt it amusing that the very notion of including this new antonym for mysogeny; misandry, has met with such a vociferous opposition, presumably from the very women who live and breath it's description. You've got to love Wikepedia for bringing them out of the woodwork. They should be labeled and ostracized in the same manner and degree that has been hurled upon any man with the character (dare we say "balls") to stand up for true equality for themselves, and their children in this day and age. Thank you Wikepedia for helping to bring about the changes in word and thought to put an end to this era of horrendous double standard. Bravo!66.77.124.61 02:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)