Talk:Misandry

​

Male stereotypes

Thread retitled from "Conflation between misandry and belief in male stereotypes".

Source 14 found that feminists are significantly less likely to believe in positive male stereotypes, as compared with non-feminists, stating "Feminist ideology was negatively associated with benevolence to men" and "Conceptually benevolence to men and hostility to men are not indices of positivity–negativity, but rather they measure stereotyped attitudes to men." They also cite a 2009 study which found that feminists are less likely to believe in both positive and negative male stereotypes, stating "Results showed feminists scored lower than nonfeminists on both the hostility to men and benevolence to men subscales." The researchers clarified that belief in gender stereotypes is a separate topic of study from misandry, which implies that the two topics are easily confused and that clarification is justified. However, the current article does not clarify that these are separate topics, or inform the reader that research has shown that feminists do, in fact, have different beliefs about men compared with non-feminists in addition to finding that they are not misandrist. This has resulted in a great deal of confusion among readers as shown by the many comments on this talk page and should be clarified so that the article matches up with the clarifications made in the research articles. Dekadoka (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The cited source should not be picked apart in order to emphasize components out of proportion to the overall conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, yea, I agree? A lot of people here are mixing up these two definitions so clarification is justified, which is also the conclusion that the researchers came to. Dekadoka (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to further clarify this, repeating the definition the researchers used of the term misandry in an article titled "The Misandry Myth" is not picking apart the article or overemphasizing anything. This is a core and essential part of the article which is easily misunderstood, which is why the researchers felt the need to discuss it and why we should discuss it here. Dekadoka (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

A sentence cherry picked out of a footnote about the 'Ambivalence to Men Inventory' ("Conceptually benevolence to men...") isn't something we ought to be highlighting in the Wikipedia article. They're commenting on a cited statistical measurement, not making some kind of sweeping definition. MrOllie (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

A lot of users have come on to this page discussing male stereotypes. The researchers did not include male stereotypes in their definition of misandry. The current version of the article is misleading and should be fixed to line up with the researcher's definition. Please address what I am saying. Calling clarification of an confusing definition "cherry picking" is not helpful or accurate. Sure, their choice of definition is consistent with their statistical measurements - go ahead and mention that if you think it is relevant. Dekadoka (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

To be more direct, then: Your proposal does not clarify a confusing definition, it constructs a definition out of cherry picked sentences to emphasize points that misrepresent the overall message of the cited source. Making this change would not improve the article, it would do the opposite.

And even if we were to ignore all that, it would not stop the the occasional culture warrior who shows up on this page to complain that the article does not agree with their belief systems. MrOllie (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

You are assuming bad faith, which, again, is not accurate or helpful here. I really don't understand why you are against clearly explaining how the term is defined by the researchers. This is literally how they defined the term. The sentence is not taken out of context or cherry picked, and the researchers clearly understand that this is an easy point of confusion. That is why they clarified the term. If you feel like mentioning the data could create more confusion, why not at least mention their clarification of the definition? Are you saying that leaving out the information about the belief in gender stereotypes is not misleading? If you don't think it is misleading, why did the researchers clarify what they meant? Or are you fine with the many misled users that are reading the article? If you are worried about creating a misleading view of the article, you can be sure to state in no uncertain terms that they found no correlation between feminism and misandry. Calling someone who confuses lack of belief in gender stereotypes and misandry because your article doesn't clarify the point a "culture warrior" again does not solve the issue. Even if some of these people are "culture warriors," this issue does have some nuance, which is exactly why the researchers in the cited study had a nuanced discussion about belief in gender stereotypes as it relates to misandry in their article:

"Another study also returned mixed results. Anderson et al. (2009) administered the Ambivalence to Men Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1999) to a sample of US undergraduates that included 41 feminists and 167 nonfeminists. The Ambivalence to Men Inventory includes a negatively valenced subscale, Hostility to Men (e.g., “Men act like babies when they are sick”), and a positively valenced subscale, Benevolence to Men (e.g., “Every woman needs a male partner who will cherish her”). Results showed feminists scored lower than nonfeminists on both the hostility to men and benevolence to men subscales. Since the Ambivalence to Men Inventory is by definition a scale of ambivalence toward men, low scores on both subscales are not suggestive of an overall positivity toward men, but reduced ambivalence. Further, like the Attitudes to Men Scale used in earlier work (Iazzo, 1983), the Ambivalence to Men Inventory includes specific stereotypes and ideological statements that may be accepted or rejected for reasons apart from their valence. Therefore, lower scores on hostility to men and benevolence to men indicate rejection of sexist stereotypes and ideological statements more clearly than they indicate the overall valence of attitudes to men."

"Inconsistent with expectation (H3), correlational analyses of feminist ideology showed that it was not significantly related to explicit attitudes toward men, r_Meta = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.23, 0.29], Z = 0.20, p = .840, nor hostility to men, r(319) = .00, 95% CI [−0.11, 0.11], p = .990. Feminist ideology was negatively associated with benevolence to men, r(319) = −.36, 95% CI [−0.45, −0.26], p < .001."

"We chose not to aggregate the benevolence to men and hostility to men subscales into the composite measure of explicit attitudes to men. Conceptually benevolence to men and hostility to men are not indices of positivity–negativity, but rather they measure stereotyped attitudes to men. Consistent with this, we found no association between our composite indices of explicit attitudes to men and benevolence to men, r(320) = .09, p = .093. However, hostility to men was negatively associated with explicit attitudes to men, r(320)= −.37, p < .001."

Again, this is not a cherry picked or out of context set of sentences chosen to nefariously misrepresent the article. This is what the researchers said in the article, and what is being misunderstood by Wikipedia's readers. Maybe my suggestion about how to add this information isn't the right way to include it, but it should definitely be included in some way. Dekadoka (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I really don't understand why you are against clearly explaining how the term is defined by the researchers. That's a straw man. I do not accept the premise that that is what your proposal does. All the other questions you are asking are similarly loaded, I do not accept those premises either. MrOllie (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I am trying to speculate about why you believe the statements you are making because you have chosen not to justify them. If my speculation comes across as loaded or a straw man, I apologize but please realize you are making this conversation difficult. Cherry picking implies misrepresentation of the content of the article, which is not the same thing as accurately explaining a definition. Look, I don't want to start or engage in an argument. It's just hard to me to accept you saying that three paragraphs of discussion on this topic are a few sentences cherry picked from a footnote, or that they are commenting on a cited statistical measurement when two of those paragraphs, including the footnote, relate to them discussing their own data and why they chose not to include certain potentially related data under their definition of misandry. Dekadoka (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not implying you are misrepresenting the content of the article, I am directly stating it. You are pulling sentences that comment on aspects of a particular study the source comments on and using them out of context to attempt make points the source doesn't really support. This just becomes more apparent when the whole paragraph is read as you present it now. The current article is not misleading, and if by disagreeing with you I am making the conversation 'difficult', that's just how it goes. MrOllie (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Again, they are commenting on their own data as is explained in the sections that I quoted. Look at Table 3 section 5 of their survey, and the second and third paragraphs that I quoted. They are from different sections of the source (intro (this is the part that comments on another study), results (their own data), and footnotes(their own data)). The other study is relevant because they used it as an opportunity to elaborate on how they treated their own data, which they collected using the same "Ambivalence to Men Inventory." The researchers recognized that confusion is easy here, which is why they clarified their definition. We have seen the same confusion on this talk page. If you think including this particular piece of data is cherry picking, I can understand although I think mentioning it is informative and relevant. Having a clear definition is apolitical and benefits everyone. You don't have to include data in order to define a term clearly. A short statement such as "Misandry is distinct from lack of belief in positive male stereotypes." would significantly clarify the definition. Dekadoka (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I explained in detail how you are misunderstanding the article. You responded by repeating your misunderstandings without further elaborating. I then responded in even greater detail how to correctly interpret the article and provided detailed reasons why including additional information regarding the research would improve the article. You have not responded. This is beginning to feel like WP:SQS. I'm sure we can both think of a way to include this information without misrepresenting the article. Dekadoka (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is not 'stonewalling', and that I do not repeat myself again and again to reply to every post doesn't mean anything at all. No one owes you a response on any particular timeline (or indeed at all), see WP:SATISFY. I will note that you should not consider any silence from me to mean that I assent to your proposals - consensus doesn't belong to whomever spoke most recently. MrOllie (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Additional psychological research studies

Thread retitled from "Misandry has peer reviewed support and it is nowhere to be found in this article".

https://www.psypost.org/pro-female-and-anti-male-biases-are-more-influential-than-race-and-other-factors-in-implicit-association-tests/

Overall, the largest and most consistent evaluative bias was pro-women/anti-men bias, followed by smaller but nonetheless consistent pro-upper-class/anti-lower-class biases. By contrast, we observed less consistent effects of targets’ race, no effects of targets’ age, and no consistent interactions between target-level categorieshttps://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-61496-001?doi=1 78.189.89.66 (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The psychological studies heading could use some expansion. I think it's fair to say that most users coming to this page are trying to find information about psychological bias against men, but the current article mainly discusses feminism and psychological bias against women. While I agree that misogyny is a serious and non-equivalent problem, this page is about misandry and should therefore include information related to "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men or boys." In that light, the following should also be included:

Moral Chivalry: Gender and Harm Sensitivity Predict Costly Altruism

This study found that significant cognitive biases exist against men in certain circumstances. For example, 88% of participants said they would rather push a man off of a bridge. (see figure 1)

Workplace bullying and mental health problems in balanced and gender-dominated workplaces

"The results showed an increased risk of bullying and an increase in mental health problems as an outcome for men when in a gender minority, however, there were no corresponding risks for women."

Qualitative systematic review: The lived experiences of males in the nursing profession on gender discrimination encounters

A review including 23 previous studies examining the experiences of men in nursing: "Findings of this study showed that males are being stereotyped and discriminated, resulting in challenges faced solely because of their gender."

Note the finding that the discrimination is at least partially the result of stereotyping, which is a type of prejudice against men.

Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women Like Women More Than Men Like Men?

"Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists."

Predictors of attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women in 23 countries.

"Results show that (1) gay men are disliked more than lesbian women across all countries; (2) after adjusting for endorsement of traditional gender norms, the relationship between participant gender and sexual prejudice is inconsistent across Western countries, but men (vs. women) in non-Western countries consistently report more negative attitudes toward gay men; and (3) a significant association between gender norm endorsement and sexual prejudice across countries, but it was absent or reversed in China, India, and South Korea."

Comparison of Hate Crime Rates Across Protected and Unprotected Groups – An Update

Gay men are much more likely to be targeted by violent hate crimes than than lesbian women, African Americans, or Jews.

"This revelation is especially troubling given prior research has shown that sexual orientation-motivated hate crimes tend to be more violent. Among the research findings, 26 in 100,000 gay men reported being victims of hate-motivated crimes against persons, compared to 10 in 100,000 lesbians, 5 in 100,000 African Americans, and 5 in 100,000 Jewish Americans."

There are also many research papers suggesting that higher male scores on standardized vs unstandardized tests are a result of prejudice against boys in schools. Although this is a current research topic, the current question essentially boils down to whether or not the bias is at the level of individual teachers or is systemic in the structure of the schools (ie, rewarding female behaviors more than male behaviors, etc). Some researchers have strongly suggested that this discrimination is the result of stereotyping boys. For citations, you could use any (or all) of the following: 1 2 3 4 5 This is a big research topic so I could probably dig up some additional sources if needed. Dekadoka (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

More WP:SYN problems. None of these citations even mention the term 'Misandry'. MrOllie (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you claiming that prejudice against men is not misandry? If so please justify your claim, or explain what these papers deal with other than prejudice against men. Dekadoka (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm claiming that if you want to write anything about Misandry, you need citations that directly support the additions, which at a minimum means they use the word. This was explained to you in the earlier talk sections. WP:OR is a core policy and we must follow it. MrOllie (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Prejudice against men and boys is the same thing as misandry, and you are just as incorrect now as you were in earlier discussions as I explained to you. Please justify your claim that misandry is not the same thing as prejudice against men. Your personal opinion is not an explanation or justification. WP:OR implies making conclusions which were not made by the cited studies. I am directly and accurately summarizing the conclusions of the cited studies. If you think I am not, please justify your statement. Dekadoka (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Prejudice against men and boys is the same thing as misandry says you, but on Wikipedia we follow citations. I'm not going to engage you in a debate about definitions here, as that is counter to the purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (see WP:NOTFORUM), I'm just going to insist on sources that directly relate to the topic of this article. MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article states that misandry means "hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against men and boys." I struggle to understand how this is even a topic of discussion. I'm not asking for a debate, I'm asking for any reason other than "I said so." Dekadoka (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Again, see WP:SYN. You're very focused on whether or not things meet a particular definition, but that is expressly not how Wikipedia is written. MrOllie (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NOTSYNTH. Particularly under the heading "SYNTH is not presumed." SYNTH implies combining multiple sources to reach a conclusion not supported by the sources individually. I am saying that multiple, different conclusions supported by individual sources should be included. There is no combination necessary, although some combination could take place if explicitly stated by the sources. In order to make a claim of WP:SYNTH, you need to understand the source material and explain how an incorrect conclusion by combining sources is not explicitly stated by the sources. This also has nothing to do with justifying your claim that prejudice against men is not misandry. These sources do explicitly and individually state than men experience prejudice. Dekadoka (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Combining a 'definition' with a source is exactly the sort of combination SYNTH is talking about. Justifying your claim that prejudice against men is not misandry. - Kindly stop trying to put words in my mouth. MrOllie (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

"you need citations that directly support the additions, which at a minimum means they use the word."

Well, I suppose in that case I should inform you that the current article contains errors. For example, citation 53(page 46) discusses advocates of female biological superiority and the establishment of a supreme female race ("Übermensch Womon") per Hitler's Mein Kampf by the elimination of men. The term misandry is not mentioned so, of course, this is completely unrelated to the topic of the article as per WP:SYNTH.

Likewise, citation 40 and citation 56 merely use the tenuously and fallaciously related word "man-hater" instead of the word "misandrist," and therefore including them is clearly against the policy of Wikipedia. Citation 57 only discusses such unrelated concepts as "anti-male sentiment." Finally, in perhaps the most puzzling case, Citations 38 and 39 discuss only "Hostility towards Men," without any mention of misandry. Perhaps the previous editor had the concept of being hostile towards men confused with misandry? Dekadoka (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

It is true that some sources use the word man-hating instead of misandry, but their dictionary and contextual synonymy in this case is verifiable. If an article is about hatred of women, then it is about misogyny, even if the word is not directly mentioned (which may well be the case if, for example, the article is old). At least when secondary sources confirm this. Reprarina (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on source 14's discussion about the Ambivalence to Men Inventory which was used in source 38, 39, and 40 under the psychological research studies section? Source 14 found that feminist have equal hostility towards men, but less benevolence towards men, unlike the previous studies which are currently cited. They found "Feminist ideology was negatively associated with benevolence to men" and "Conceptually benevolence to men and hostility to men are not indices of positivity–negativity, but rather they measure stereotyped attitudes to men."

If we are going to include the findings from source 39 and 40, shouldn't we also include the same inventory being used in source 14? Dekadoka (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the WP:SYNTH problems mentioned above, these all seem to be primary research studies, making their conclusions WP:UNDUE. For academic research, review articles and scholarly monographs are vastly preferred to novel studies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The cited article on prejudice against male nurses is a review which explicitly states that they experience "stereotyping and discrimination." I agree that primary sources are not preferred. Currently, many primary sources are cited in the article, and as far as I can tell, none of them conflict with the sources I have cited so I am not sure how WP:UNDUE applies here. Are there other sources finding empirical data that men do not experience prejudice that I'm missing? Dekadoka (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

That's not how WP:UNDUE works. Due and undue weight is determined by whether a source represents a majority or minority viewpoint in comparison to similar reliable sources, not the contents of a given Wikipedia article. (See also Appeal to ignorance.) Given the controversial nature of the topic, any primary research studies not backed up by secondary and/or tertiary sources should be removed per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense actually, and I agree. Thank you for the detailed and well reasoned response. At the moment, it looks like only the research about male nurses meets that standard, and perhaps the research on the grading bias in schools will reach it soon since many studies saying similar things are being published. I do think excluding research discussing prejudice resulting in discrimination due to not directly mentioning "misandry" fails the common sense test. Playing devils advocate, however, there is a link to a discussion of these issues in the discrimination against men article. In that light, I suppose it is mainly just a question of how best to sort the information, and the status quo doesn't violate any policies. Dekadoka (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The common sense test tells us that the hatred of men or boys is not the same as simple sexism shown as grading bias or unconscious preference for women or girls. Hatred is a strong word, and this page must address the strong topic behind it. Let's not try and stretch the meaning to fit political ends. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there a clear consensus that misandry must involve a conscious hatred of men? The article also describes it as "prejudice," which I believe doesn't have to be conscious. I've seen it defined as a "hatred of men" by some articles, but I don't think a distinction on conscious intent was ever made.

For clarity's sake, I'm not trying to relate this to any argument. Sneaz (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Additional academic sources

Feminist Media Studies is currently cited for source 8 and 9. Source 8 ("Drinking male tears") is a primary research paper, and source 9 ("Special issue on online misogyny") is a secondary source which cites one primary research paper (Marwick and Caplan) on the point for which it is cited.

There are two additional papers from Feminist Media Studies which I think should be included:

“By women for women” communicating gender discourse in r/FemaleDatingStrategy

"This research offers insights into how r/FemaleDatingStrategy’s (FDS) utilizes themes of misandry and gender essentialism to indoctrinate members under the guise of community. Situated within the broader “femosphere,” which encompasses online communities predominantly occupied by women, FDS serves as a platform for discourse on gender issues and challenges to traditional norms. Through themes of misandry and gender essentialism, FDS aims to indoctrinate members under the guise of community support. The precarious nature of this online space is evident, as subreddits like FDS are frequently banned by Reddit in its efforts to combat hate speech. Formed in 2019, r/FemaleDatingStrategy presents itself as a female-only space for discussing dating and sharing past experiences. This essay offers initial findings from a feminist critical discourse analysis of the “required reading” pages on FDS." (emphasis added)

The reactionary turn in popular feminism

"Reactionary feminism appears to have certain similarities with leftist, intersectional feminism; it has a strong critique of liberal feminism, and explicitly centres issues such as misogyny, the devaluation of women’s work, gendered economic inequality, and the politics of care. However, I argue that while it purports to oppose misogyny and the manosphere, it mirrors many of its regressive logics, and is characterised by an aggressive sense of fatalism, bio-essentialism, and a deep animosity towards liberationist feminism and any form of social hope."

"However, what I wish to focus on here, as a related but distinct phenomenon, are those communities which have emerged ostensibly in reaction against the manosphere, and which claim to be “feminist.” They centre “women’s interests,” criticise misogyny and sexism, and are explicitly misandrist, making frequent claims of female supremacy. I term this the femosphere - the diverse ecology of women’s online communities that have arisen since 2018, primarily through Reddit, in defensive reaction against the manosphere, and which can be understood as a gender-flipped version or mirroring of the manosphere." (emphasis added)

TL;DR: These papers find that certain online communities, particularly FDS, are explicitly misandrist. In particular, the second source points out the misandrist communities present themselves as feminist. Note that the second source does not use the term misandrist in the sense of directly hating men, but rather in terms of belief in female supremacy (prejudice). Dekadoka (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Marwick & Caplan (2018) is not a primary research paper. The authors use critical discourse analysis to analyze primary source texts, making it a secondary source for the claims for which it is cited. In general we should avoid citing conclusions of primary research papers. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, understood. The first source I cited states that it presents "a feminist critical discourse analysis." Likewise, the second source I cited follows a similar formula, including a much wider analysis of both the academic and online sources. Therefore, these are secondary sources and should be included since they are directly on topic. In particular, my sources are similar to the ones currently cited but also more recent.

Marwick and Caplan (2018):

"We used critical discourse analysis (CDA) to study uses of the term misandry across internet spaces and ideologically diverse communities ... To track how misandry was used in blogs, discussion forums, and social media from 1996 to the present, we used Google Trends, the Internet Archives’ WayBack Machine, and MediaCloud, attending to time periods when use of the term increased significantly. Once we had identified these “peaks,” we targeted queries by year to find sites and uses of the term with the most reach, and then examined granular search results to identify relevant instances."

To be clear, they did conduct a literature review of academic sources, but their critical discourse analysis focused on online use of the term misandry prior to 2018. Likewise, my sources also conducted literature reviews (quite extensively in the case of Kay 2024), but their analysis also included online sources. Melton (2025) specifically focused on critical discourse analysis of online sources (FDS). Note also that both of my sources discuss this change in discourse occurring after the year 2018 (Kay 2024) or the year 2019 (Melton 2025). Therefore, my sources do not conflict with Marwick and Caplan (2018).

Kay (2024):

"I term this the femosphere - the diverse ecology of women’s online communities that have arisen since 2018, primarily through Reddit, in defensive reaction against the manosphere, and which can be understood as a gender-flipped version or mirroring of the manosphere."

Melton (2025):

"Formed in 2019, r/FemaleDatingStrategy presents itself as a female-only space for discussing dating and sharing past experiences."

There has been a shift in online discourse since Marwick & Caplan (2018), and the same peer reviewed journal has published similar articles which present additional relevant information. Dekadoka (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and make another extended-confirmed-protected edit request? As far as I can tell, all previous concerns that have been brought up are satisfied since these are peer reviewed secondary sources directly using the term "misandry." As you mentioned earlier, this does appear to be a controversial topic so I don't mind waiting a while to see if any other issues pop up. Dekadoka (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I would not interpret silence as consent, no. MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

You are correct that silence is not consent. Likewise, silence is also not an objection. I went to great effort to find new sources that match the criteria you and others have specified. Therefore, I am not assuming that you continue to object unless you elaborate further. See Wikipedia:Bring me a rock and Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. Dekadoka (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

You keep wanting to expand the definition of misandry to include things not widely seen as misandry, which is why people here are resisting your efforts. It's not stonewalling; it's about staying on topic. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The papers cited under this heading specifically use the term "misandry." They are secondary sources from a peer reviewed journal (Feminist Media Studies) which is already cited under sources 8 and 9. Dekadoka (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Both of these seem pretty flimsy. This isn't a dictionary, so we don't attempt to catalog every usage of the term. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Please explain how it differs from the normal usage, I am genuinely confused. Are you referring to the definition used in the first sentence of the article? There is only one dictionary definition of misandry. Dekadoka (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

This definition is completely wrong, because "misandry" is an artificial term from very beginning. 178.120.9.116 (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

There is discussion in the literature relating to how feminists have been unfairly accused of being misandrist. Is this what you are referring to? The view that the term has been used unfairly does not imply that it is impossible to use the term fairly or that the dictionary defines the term incorrectly. In fact, many of the cited sources use the term consistently with the dictionary definition. The Misandry Myth, for example, used it synonymously with "disike men" and tested for misandry by asking "do you dislike men," "do you distrust men," etc. Some people said yes, and they concluded that, based on relative percentages, feminists are not more likely to be misandrist. If 40 topic experts, my other sources, and the dictionary all use the term in a certain way, I think you at least need to provide some justification and sourcing for your view of it. Incidentally, the papers I cite are specifically focused on showing how the misandry in these online communities is not feminism. Dekadoka (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, lets summarize this conversation so far.

There were concerns previously about WP:SYN relating to sources not directly mentioning misandry and the use of primary sources. I therefore found new sources in order to meet these requirements. I received the following feedback:

Sangdeboeuf: Helpfully clarified the definition of secondary sources. Did not comment on the new sources.

MrOllie: Helpfully reminded everyone that silence is not consent. Did not comment on the new sources.

Binksternet and Grayfell: Brought up a previous conversation about whether or not sources mentioning prejudice, stereotyping, etc. should be included if misandry is not mentioned directly. Did not comment on the new sources.

178.120.9.116: Suggested that the dictionary and my sources define misandry incorrectly. I provided an additional source and asked for justification and sources supporting this view.

Overall, these are peer reviewed secondary sources which explicitly discuss misandry and update existing information in the article. Reasons for exclusion should be based on Wikipedia's guidelines. Dekadoka (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

We are looking for sources about the concept, meaning we are looking for sources which use this term to describe the concept or in some way discuss the concept itself. Any example of usage of the term, by itself, is comparatively weak. We cannot possibly document every academic sources which uses this term. Since Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, we cannot compile examples of usage to determine definitions, as that would be WP:OR.

So, as I said, these sources are flimsy in this context. Grayfell (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Neither of the two sources presented are primarily about the concept of misandry itself: [1][2] This article should not become a WP:COATRACK on which to hang any and all discussion of tangentially related topics. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Grayfell: I think both conceptual discussion and examples are components of the ideal article. Not examples of every possible usage of the term, but examples of misandry occurring in the real world, especially if they are "a significant cultural phenomenon."[1] The really excellent articles on Misogyny and Racism, for example, find room to integrate many examples alongside a thorough conceptual discussion (specific discriminatory laws, groups, etc.). I am not claiming equivalence in terms of harm or systemic nature, but these serve to illustrate the benefit of having both conceptual discussion and examples.

Sangdeboeuf: Briefly, many of the academic sources can be summarized as follows:

"While misandry is real and potentially harmful, the concept has often been used by misogynists to unfairly criticize feminism. Feminists are not more likely to be misandrist, and misogyny is much worse than misandry."

Whereas the current article strongly leans towards the following:

"While misandry is real and potentially harmful, the concept has often been used by misogynists to unfairly criticize feminism. Feminists are not more likely to be misandrist, and misogyny is much worse than misandry."

I am suggesting that we don't cross out the first bit, not that we cross out the second part or make most of the article about the first bit. The article leaves the reader with a 1984-esqe impression that "Misandry is Misogyny," which is both a step further than the academic sources and the main source of frustration for many of the readers leaving comments here.

If we are going to include:

1. Theoretical speculation on the prevalence and origins of misandry. (41, 44, 45, 58, etc.)

2. Feminist critiques of misandrists who falsely associated themselves with feminism in the 1960s and 70s and examples of individual misandrist authors. (52, 53, 48, etc.)

Surely we should also include:

1. Empirical observations on the prevalence and origins of misandry as "a significant cultural phenomenon."[1]

2. Feminist critiques of misandrist online communities involving large numbers of people who falsely associate themselves with feminism in the 2020s. Dekadoka (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Your source calls the "femosphere" a significant cultural phenomenon, not misandry. This is improper synthesis. Spare us the overwrought comparisons to Newspeak. Wikipedia is not the place to right perceived wrongs in society. If you have a reliable, published source for the explicit claim that misandry is real and potentially harmful, feel free to present it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Good catch about the "femosphere." I misunderstood the source, my bad. (edit: see correction below, original source explicitly linked the femosphere and misandry)

I think we have both read a lot of sources at this point. If you need me to point out particular instances where they acknowledge that misandry exists, or you need the sources to explicitly state that misandry is "potentially harmful," I think we unfortunately have irreconcilable confirmation biases. While I respect your point of view and I appreciate your time, I don't think we have anything to gain by continuing the discussion. Dekadoka (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you need a source to explicitly state the thing you want the article to say. Anything less is original research. That's one of the core policies of Wikipedia, which you can't weasel out of by accusing others of "confirmation bias". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, it is a universal human trait, so it hardly seems like an accusation from my point of view. If it is an accusation, I am equally accusing myself, and I'm probably guilty.

I just think these sources should be included. It's fine with me if you want to include them in whatever manner you wish. In my brain, hating people and the possibility of harmful, hateful behavior are the same thing (no research needed), but that does not need to be written in the article. The new sources appear to be of equal or greater value than many included in the "Modern Literature" and "In Feminism" sections as in the specific examples I referenced earlier. If we are concerned with WP:COATRACK, perhaps we could swap out two less related, less empirical, or less recent sources? Is there anything specific that would persuade you to include these sources?

Incidentally, the sentence about racialized misandry in the "Modern Literature" section should probably be moved to the "Racialization" section. Dekadoka (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I've had some difficulty following this sprawling discussion, but I think both of you have made some good points.

Hey, I noticed you're discussing two primary sources (research papers) published in Feminist Media Studies that explicitly use the word misandry or misandrist. I have some sources that might potentially be helpful to you as well

First, since you seem to be relying primarily on primary sources, I thought to present a secondary source. "Welcome to the femosphere, the latest dark, toxic corner of the internet… for women". Unfortunately, it doesn't explicitly use the word misandry or misandrist, but it does say things like

• "It has a six-point ideology for members to subscribe to, which includes ideas such as: men should always pursue women, women should seek financial contributions from men, and the majority of men have no value."
• "‘Femcel’ influencers urge their followers to give up on gender equality and use men for financial gain – in the name of feminism"

So its advantage is being a secondary source but its disadvantage is it doesn't explicitly discuss misandry, simply toxicity, femcels, and the "femosphere". The point I'm getting to is that I don't disagree with you on the topic at hand, but rather, much like femcels or the "femosphere", the sourcing isn't clearly at the point we can give these concepts their own article. But I do agree that the misandry article seems strange in that its on a concept with apparently no examples given of it. However, your other sources did make the connection between femcels, the "femosphere", and the concept of misandry. So maybe you could synthesize the sources here? I'm not sure what does or doesn't qualify as "improper synthesis".

Here's yet another primary source that mentions misandry, but only briefly [3] "They categorise femcels as a ‘manosphere analog’, because they correspond to the incel community (as does, for example, ‘Female Dating Strategy’ which has been understood as women’s equivalent of male pick-up artistry). Balci et al. identify the following subreddits as ‘femcel’ groups: r/Trufemcels; r/AskTruFemcels; r/Vindicta; r/PinkpillFeminism, and r/TheGlowUp. These different femcel groups saw significant user activity until most of them were banned in 2020 and 2021 by Reddit – for promoting hate (the precise reasons for the bans have not been made available, but are reported as being due to transphobia, misandry and racism). The largest of these subreddits, r/Trufemcels, then migrated to a new platform called ‘thepinkpill.co’ in February 2021, but never recovered its user-base and at the time of writing is defunct, meaning that ‘traditional’ femcels no longer have an obvious or substantial ‘home’. However, this does not mean that the energies, ideas and self-identifications propelling femceldom have entirely dissipated."

Here's a primary source one of whose references mentions misandry (the reference is to hyperbae, which, unfortunately, may not meet reliability standards).

I don't think the phenomena you're discussing are unreal or unreliable. I also think that they're relevant and somewhat well-sourced, just not necessarily by Wikipedia's standards (yet). It's true we don't want to give undue emphasis to something that doesn't make the news, other encyclopedias, or other secondary and tertiary sources. Wikipedia, by nature, somewhat lags behind the cutting edge, and we're unfortunately limited by what we can find sources for, usually multiple secondary sources, such as multiple news articles. Two research articles from the same journal doesn't really cut it, which is why I'm trying to help you in offering more sources. Hopefully we will eventually be able to source this concept, which I think is fascinating and does need at least some illustrative examples for the reader. The research papers on this subject aren't something I dispute, but we might have to wait until a reputable news organization references them explicitly in relation to the concept of misandry before adding them to the misandry article. That said, hopefully these additional sources will help move us in that direction while we wait for more sources on this potentially contentious topic.

The truth of the matter may be this: femcels, the "femosphere", and misandry may well be real phenomena worth researching and discussing. But they may be simply too marginal (as of now) to make the news or the pages of an online encyclopedia. So you're not wrong to have an interest in the subject, rather this may not be the proper venue at this time. However, when we find a secondary source explicitly making the connection between misandry, femcels, and the "femosphere", we certainly should use it to supplement the non-explicit secondary source of that Guardian article and multiple explicit primary sources in order to add a paragraph about it to the misandry article, and/or even to split Femcel (a redirect to a subsection of Incel) off into its own article that goes more in depth into the phenomenon. Maybe we'll even have an article on the "femosphere" some day (or maybe not—since "femcels no longer have an obvious or substantial ‘home’" it's possible the community will lose steam before it manages to make the news in relation to misandry.)

TL;DR: I don't disagree with you, but the sourcing just doesn't seem to be quite there yet to the point we can add it to Wikipedia (based on my understanding of Wikipedia's sourcing policy, which may be incorrect) . However, it seems tantalizingly close, and if the BBC, AP, Reuters, Washington Post, PBS, NPR, or New York Times directly mentions "misandry" or "misandrists" in relation to "femcels" or the "femosphere", then, by all means, work it into the article as a paragraph or section.

TL;DR: This topic is both controversial and niche. Therefore, it's my understanding that we need multiple credible secondary sources in order to meet Wikipedia's standards. It may be inappropriate to add content to an article based solely on a handful of primary sources. The best thing to do is wait for the news to catch up with "femcels" and the "femosphere" before adding them to misandry. Wikipedia doesn't cover cutting-edge academic research from every journal, including niche and contentious topics.

1101 (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head here. We had some discussion about these being considered secondary sources, since the authors critically analyzed a collection of webpages (primary sources?). However, I don't think this satisfies the intent of the guideline. They are published very recently and discuss new findings (Melton 2025) and new ideas (Kay 2024). If this information is worthy of inclusion, we should see additional and higher quality sources accumulate in the future. Dekadoka (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I did find the quote about the "femosphere" being misandristic:

"However, what I wish to focus on here, as a related but distinct phenomenon, are those communities which have emerged ostensibly in reaction against the manosphere, and which claim to be “feminist.” They centre “women’s interests,” criticise misogyny and sexism, and are explicitly misandrist, making frequent claims of female supremacy. I term this the femosphere - the diverse ecology of women’s online communities that have arisen since 2018, primarily through Reddit, in defensive reaction against the manosphere, and which can be understood as a gender-flipped version or mirroring of the manosphere."

2nd part: "While some of the communities began to appear from 2014 onwards (such as WGTOW), it was from 2018 that the femosphere began to emerge as a significant cultural phenomenon."

It does seem to be a pretty straightforward case of "online misandrist communities" = "femosphere" = "significant cultural phenomenon." I can see how this might technically be viewed as synthesis, but I also think this was the definitely the authors intent here. Or at least I don't see any other possible interpretation. This is kind of a nit pick though, I think the quality and relevance of the sources matters most here. Dekadoka (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I also noticed that you stated the following: 'The article leaves the reader with a 1984-esqe impression that "Misandry is Misogyny,"'. (emphasis mine)

I would like to point out that the phrase doesn't appear in the article or in this discussion until you brought it up. That said, I think the sourcing on this topic does seem to indicate an association between misandry and misogyny (which makes sense, given both seem to be rooted in sexism and toxicity). For example, that Guardian article I mentioned is quoted saying "‘Femcel’ influencers urge their followers to give up on gender equality and use men for financial gain – in the name of feminism". (emphasis mine) 1101 (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The Guardian article on "femcels" and the so-called "femosphere" doesn't say anything about "misandry", "prejudice", or "hatred" of men. It does draw an explicit parallel with the manosphere, and might be worth a mention in that article. But it seems WP:UNDUE for this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)