Talk:Misandry

Misandry received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article, is just a pure example of misandry. Denying it . Deleting it ? WE will see But, deny even the right to speak . T Not searching sources , not nothing . Even, the "males", are one of the less power people in today civilized world, and women, specially "white women", the feminist ones, the most "powerful group" , protected, etc . Of course, "fathers no rights", " tom cruise pay even before marry and have a son", and so, and so many evidences, are just proofs, that women are very protected, and men don't have tons of rights . NO ONE CAN SEE IT ?

TIP . IN SOME OTHER COUNTRIES, IS EVEN WORST . IN MY COUNTRY, PORTUGAL, PEDOPHILIA BY LAW, ONLY APLLIES TO MEN . IMAGINE !!!! SUCH A VICTORY TO FEMINISTS, HUM,,, ' SUCH A HORROR, TO SOME KIDS I KNOW , AND MEN THAT SUFFER A LOT ... NOT ME, I ONLY DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEE MY SON, FOR ALMOST 1 YEAR . AND IN MY COUNTRY, AND IN BRASIL, AND IN SPAIN, THERE ARE THOUNSANDS AND THOUNSANDS OF MEN, AND THEIR SONS ... such a victory, hummm , to "feminists and women interests", that even a women, cannot be accused of pedophilia , and fathers cannot see their sons, but of course, WE HAVE TO PAY ALIMONNY TO THE POOORRRR FEMINISTS - MOTHERS ? geez , something is very wrong . I will not add nothing to this article . Wikipedia members, must be ALERT, IN SUCH HORRIBLE ISSUE, CAUSE I KNOW "THE OTHER SIDE HAVE TONS OF ACTIVISTS " ..

my name ? Paulo Quintela,

I agree wholeheartedly with user Chris Capoccia!

Subjective creations that are antithetic by nature are by definition impossible to describe with NPOV. I've attempted to balance the issue out as best I could. My reasoning has lead me to believe that misogyny and misandry are the collective sum of all the frustrations of embittered and hurt people. However, that is laced with opinion so I cannot write that, for this isn't a blog space for my musings. I've attempted to present minandry from the view of those who created the term. Masculists would argue my version to be more in line with their views and modes of thinking.

This is not to say that I agree with that particular segment. I admittedly dulled the edges from the masculist agrument. It was just too painful for me to write some of that garbage down. I kept the writing dry and included the parts of their view of misandry that are less a vitriolic rant and more sober, rationalized, and streamlined an argument. (Some of you might not agree, but with fringe elements like this, everything's relative!) I know it might offend some users, but the facts remain the facts. If someone has a better idea as to how we can get closer to settling the debate, please leave behind some messages!

As far as the Sailor Moon issue is concerned, I was not responsible for the addition of that particular character. It was added before I came into the fore. However, if it does cause you that much distress, I shall bear in mind your pleas and exclude Rei Hino from the list of examples. I've never had the pleasure of viewing an episode of Sailor Moon and therefore am not in a position to make a logical argument either way. Therefore, I will take your word for it. I apologize for any distress I might have caused the anonymous user.

Thank you all for your comments. I really do appreciate them all and look forward to your leaving more!

-Hobson's Second Choice

Sources for possibly-controversial statement: Others in both feminist and masculist camps consider the "war of the sexes" arising from traditional gender roles to be a powerful source of both misogyny and misandry.: Warren Farrel's The Myth of Male Power; Susan Faludi's Stiffed.

I removed the section:

Androphobia is a fear of men, which I suppose could lead to misandry, a hatred of men. they are not exactly the same word as is implied in the entry. Please revise.

• Rei Hino

I removed this because there was only one entry and the anime character was too obscure to merit a mention in an encyclopedia.

-- removed again. There is no indication in the manga, anime or live-action versions of "Sailor Moon" that Hino Rei "hates" or even dislikes men. Her relationships with both the primary male protagionist of the series (Chiba Mamoru) and the guy who works at her shrine contradict that thesis. In the episode where she expresses her ambitions for the future, she says that she wishes to become "a singer, a songwriter, a stewardess.. and a wife to {her} beloved" which is hardly anything that a "Misandrist" would be prone to say. 68.119.239.113 28 June 2005 08:08 (UTC)

Actually the above statement refers to anime Rei only, in the manga she states that she distrusts men on several occasions. It has to do with her lack of faith in her father and her first childhood crush marrying someone else. She doesn't hate men, she just doesn't trust them, she also expresses similar sentiments in the live action series. Anime Rei on the other hand can be a bit boy-crazy. I still agree with the removal though. 157.228.118.97 13:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC) *GracieLizzie, unlogged in.[reply]

Of course a distrust of women could easily get a guy defined as a misogynist, and many men who want wives and claim to love women are considered misogynists. The misogynist label has a much stronger adhesive than its opposite number - perhaps a topic of further interest for the entry? Can the Editing Talk:Misandry (section) be a source? --Jgda 05:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent (and ongoing) reversions, I wonder whether a neutral point-of-view even exists for topics like misandry and mysogyny. The acceptable range of gender relationships in a particular culture is based largely on the culture's cultural expecations. This is a rather circular relationship. Mysandry and mysogyny are both extremes on the outside of acceptable relations, but to define either of them by specific example is a futile effort.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

---

Comparing denial of misandry with holocaust denial seems rather extreme, particularly, as the article itself notes, there are no significant studies into the topic, as opposed to holocaust research providing solid evidence accepted throughout the community. At any rate, such a comparison is both unwarranted and hardly neutral. I'm taking it out. Also, statements as to existence or denial of existence, etc. would seem to require some sort of credentials for it to have any validity at all. Unless of course this whole article has already been reduced to mere speculation...

And someone please bring this article up to academic standards. "Some hold that... etc." seems an extremely suspect statement to make, at least provide particular scholars who hold this view please.

Yes, it's a bad idea to add comparison to holocaust denial for this; misandry is very rare, and doesn't affect as many people as the holocaust did. --Pichu0102 00:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that comparing misandry to holocaust denial is a bit over the top, I don't see where Pichu0102 gets the impression that misandry is very rare. I hardly have an expansive definition of misandry (or misogyny for that matter) and yet I can find examples of both several times a week. I think mild forms of prejudice (misandry, misogyny, racism) are very common.

• Misandry effects more people than the holocaust, almost by definition. Luckily it is almost always not as serious, and i definitely agree that there is no real cause for comparison. Jdcooper 15:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No significant discussion seems to be going on here, so I've unprotected the article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason that this article should be deleted that I can see. Perhaps edited, but it does not seem to qualify for being eligible for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonesque (talk • contribs) 12:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason whatsoever to delete it, if anything, this article is too soft on the normal denigration of men and will be edited. The state of affairs in the world today requires this article much more than misogeny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.126.136.204 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss that on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misandry. And please sign your entries, whether you have a username or not, with -- ~~~~. -- AlexR 18:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No point of view, plain facts.- expertist.

Facts no POV if you dont agree, argue here.

Misandry is perhaps most evident in the mating standards prevailing around the world today, where the basis is that men are somehow not as attractive to women as women are to men. (How are these "mating standards", how is it misandry, and what are your sources?) It should be said that nearly all women (weasel words. "nearly all women"? "it should be said") believe this to a certain degree of conciousness and apply it almost invariably, (source needed for both parts of that phrase) representing perhaps the most evident and deeply rooted form of misandry. An unknown quotation (in other words, original research or non-notable opinion) in this regard reads : "The best possible concept that could be used to describe the way in wich women treat men in mating issues is , without doubt, supremacy. Without exception the woman sees herself as of superior appearance to the man and thinks she is owned obedience and special treatment. This systematic denigration of an entire gender is only ignored in the most masochistic way by the male masses." (we cannot include unsourced anonymous quotes, they are unencyclopaedic and possible original research)

That is POV, and not "plain facts". Needs far more sources to back up the controversial opinions within the passage, im reverting until these issues can be resolved. Jdcooper 09:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, point of view. Read our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. You also should provide sources for your claims, other than resorting to "anonymous" comments which can't be verified. Dysprosia 10:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous quotations are used broadly in philosophy and other teachings of the like, this is not science, this is about a social matter. That particular quotation illustrated quite well my point. As to wether it is the norm, I urge you to use some common sense. In traditional misandry I provided unarguable examples that what I say is so, again not a matter of opinion. "Unpopular" doesnt mean "not right". You can leave the NPOV sign, but leave my editions at least.

Anonymous quotations which you've made up do not reflect verifiable fact. Dysprosia 10:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"this is about a social matter" - agreed, but social matters and everything else need sources. Otherwise how do we know you haven't just made it up? How does anyone know? "That particular quotation illustrated quite well my point" - yes, but without meaning to be harsh, no one is interested in "your point" - we are interested in verifiable encyclopaedic information, which your additions were not. Please do not use wikipedia to make "your point", write a book if necessary. Anonymous quotations are not used in proper scholarly philosophy, philosophers either cite other philosophers (to a high degree of formality, as a matter of fact), or they write their own material. Philosophy is original research. Wikipedia is not. Jdcooper 10:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check the wiki entry for misogyny then. Plenty of 'weasel words' happening there, and sources for direct quotes, but precious view to back up the actual existence of it in general society. There is just an assumed degree of 'rightness' about it that makes it verge on unquestionable. I wonder why the entry hasn't been attacked yet? Okay, I don't really...

Having said that, I don't believe the piece belongs here anyway, since most people (men and women) generally approach 'mating' with a kind of supremecy, so I don't think it is essentially misandric. --Jgda 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misandry can also be found in female rap & R&B lyrics.

Can someone give some examples of this, or at least cite sources? Statements like this should always be backed up. Thanks. romarin[talk to her ] 16:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll get on to it, agreed that it needs to be sourced, but it is a very real phenomenon and there should be lots of sources around to get. Jdcooper 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are the lyrics of 'Hit'em Up Style' (sorry for the spelling...)http://www.letssingit.com/blu-cantrell-hit-em-up-style-oops-zh5xp9c.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.251.200.3 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for the responses... but there still has been no change to this line in the article, almost a month later. I believe you that such lyrics do exist, but can you show some references in the article reflecting this? romarin[talk to her ] 05:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think its necessary. Rap has enough misogynist lyrics, and 'hate' lyrics of almost every brand available, to warrant no need for inclusion in any specific hate-related phenomena. Perhaps the entry on rap just needs some sort of reference to its tendency to include hate-related discourse as a feature of its generic pattern? --Jgda 02:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the Amazons listed here? Is there something in the mythology saying that they hated men, or is it just assumed? At present nothing is said about them being misandric. Sarge Baldy 06:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Amazons there are some versions of Amazon myths which depict clearly misandric events. These include

• The Greek myth of the Amazons and Gargarean men with whom they mated, in which "the male children who were the result of these visits were either put to death or sent back to their fathers"
• The "late classical Greek story telling of the Amazons killing off all males within their society,"
• The story of "the women of Lemnos found in Jason and the Argonauts who murdered their fathers and husbands,"
• The derivative tale of "Vlasta and her henchwoman Šárka, [who] carried on war against the duke of Bohemia, and enslaved or put to death all men who fell into their hands."

These are, however, tangential details to the core definition of an "ancient legendary nation of female warriors." Most versions of the myth described on the page are dominated by the storytelling convention of role-reversal: strong, independent, and self-reliant women. The convention itself is dependant upon the role of women within the real-world setting in which the myths originated - in classical Greek society, women were expected to be passive and dependent on males.

I'll attempt to clarify that section and give it some relevance to the rest of the article. I do think it merits inclusion, especially given the different perceptions and usages created by the many modern depictions of Amazons. Tofof 05:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some sources and tidied up some of the prose, but the original research into this topic is still in its infancy when compared to the juggernaut of misogyny/feminism. Solanas is such a strident example of where current research is at with the topic - far more so than David Sim's inclusion in the misogyny entry (he never advocated cutting-up-women, even in jest) - that it needs to be there.

Many of the statments made, particularly in the examples of misandry in popular culture, are backed up by the Nathanson and Young texts cited in the bibliography, which is a common and acceptable academic methodology. The much more virulent requirement for the sourcing of this topic is a decent example of just how entrenched covert misandry is, as opposed to the well-accepted and self-apparant truth of misogyny/patriarchy.

Some of those 'weasel words' are a result of the fear of appraoching this topic with a NPOV - it is a self defense of sorts. I agree that they should be zapped - better to be labelled a backlash-fuelled reactionary than a weasel any day - for a man at least.

--Jgda 05:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gender-neutral language rules against using 'man' in place of 'mankind': that's been tidied up pretty much everwhere it has ever occured in history - except in places where it is obviously pejorative, such as used alongside the word 'evil'. The following joke makes the gender specifity of the statement even more obvious. Thus, I believe the tone was NPOV, and has now been switched to 'weasel wording'. --Jgda 22:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put new comments at the bottom of talk pages, not at the top. To assert that gender-neutral language has been used in the instance I clarified, provide some sources to back your claim up. Otherwise you can't assert as such without any evidence. Dysprosia 22:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the procedural advice - noted. I don't know if you've noticed but the gender-neutral language entry in wikipedia lists the use of 'man' meaning 'mankind' as a feature of inherent sexism in our language. The example for a pop culture comparison of the use of gender-neutral language was given in the text: the Star Trek change. The only places such things appear to survive are in literature: no-one has yet suggested changing Hamlet to 'what a piece of work is a person' for example... Remakes of both narratives were made (Star Trek and The Shadow) and in the former - where the man-meaning-mankind was positive (about boldness, initiative etc) - the change was made. In the latter, where the man-meaning-mankind was negative (lurking evil), the change was not deemed necessary. The source was also given in the text (with a page reference), for both the comparison and the little misandric joke about the latter - making the specific gender interpretation obvious. I don't actually have a problem personally with 'the misandric joke' (like most men) other than it being not particularly funny, but I don't have a problem with jokes that some people find misogynist (except when they're not particularly funny). From a NPOV though, using the general tools of gender politics, it would certainly fall into the category. --Jgda 02:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This must be an example of one of those funny little editorial wars Peter was warning me about on the radical feminism talk page. So how many google hits constitutes an emerging body of work? How many more references do I need to chase up to warrant inclusion? I realise I am dealing with a massively larger burden of citation here than other more established areas of sociology, but what are the numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgda (talk • contribs) 10:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Massively larger burden indeed. To say that the work of Louisa Faris is obscure is putting it mildy – not a single publication to her credit, a sweeping Google search for mentions of her reveals 5 hits on 3 sites, one of which is this Wikipedia article. I'm sorry, that does not constitute "an emerging body of work" by any stretch of the imagination. Even I can claim 15 non-Wikipedia hits about my own graduate work, and I'm not making claims of notability. The Wikipedia policy on "undue weight" sums this up pretty well.

I strongly recommend that you also read the Wikipedia policies on original research, verifiability, and notability, as well as "What Wikipedia is Not", particularly the part about "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". You are not being held to a standard or burden any lesser or greater than any other Wikipedia contributor. Peter G Werner 21:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend you find another soap box (since you moved hear after arguing with me on another talk page radical feminism). I have read the material you quote and am confident it fits in with the article. The 'body of work' is referring to the topic of the article, not Louisa Faris personally. This is just an example of ongoing work in the field, while the bibliography contains examples of published work. I have made a slight edit to make this more obvious. --Jgda 02:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quoting a non-published work that barely anybody has heard of and you're using it as a prime example of this "emerging body of work". This is patently ridiculous to trumpet such a clearly non-notable work as encyclopedic. I'm reverting the Louisa Faris part; you need to find some better examples – preferably something that's actually been published. Peter G Werner 03:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. No worries mate. As above: the bibliography contains examples of published work, it was just an example of ongoing work in the field to show that it is still in the process of emerging, but I can live with that.

Fascinating. --Jgda 03:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good – that's abot the extent of my interest in this article. I started off working on articles on sex-positive feminism and Ellen Willis and I'm drifting further and further from those topics to ones that concern me less, really. Cheers. Peter G Werner 04:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the orginal entry to be more encyclopedic, and removed the nazi quote - which could have been as much anti-nazi as anti-masculine.

I would be happy to dicsuss the inclusion of links here on the Talk section with whoever wishes to challange their existence. --Jgda 00:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the links to feminism and lesbian feminism in the See also section are inappropriate. Only target subjects which are closely linked with the source subject should be linked; for one, equating or closely associating feminism with misandry is akin to associating Islam as a whole with terrorism -- no doubt some elements of feminism (or Islam) could be arguably said to be misandrist (or terrorist), it is hardly not true of each movement as a whole.

The section of quotes that demonstrate misandry in feminism needs to be put into context and discussed as well, with balanced argument. Otherwise the section is poorer for it, it becomes simply a disparate selection of quotes plucked out of some books trying to make an argument, which of course it cannot. Dysprosia 01:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that including such entries in a 'see also' section means an automatic accusation of total immersion in the topic. There is certainly a 'close link' - according to current misandry scholarship - between these two. The references were included because feminism, as a movement, is pointed out as being a root cause of the type of institutional misandry that we have in society now by many of the texts included in the bibliography. The wiki lesbian feminism entry refers (apologetically of course) to misandry, so even if it is referring to it as a gentle refutation, then I think it is still appropriate to be included in a 'see also'.

As for further discussion of the quoted material, I'd be happy to work on that in the near future providing at least the same degree of balanced argument using the misogyny entry as a template.--Jgda 05:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism at its most basic nature does not argue for misandry -- there may be some strands of feminism which propose misandrous ideas, but again, this does not mean that feminism as a whole is misandrous. One can also make an argument to appeal to NPOV: if it is only by argument or point of view that feminism may be misandrous, then adding a link in the see also section is taking a point of view, contrary to policy. What would benefit the article far greater would be a discussion of feminism and misandry which does describe those viewpoints within those substrands of feminism which propose misandrous ideas, which avoids both problems of "universal accusation" and neutrality problems.

As far as the lesbian feminism article goes, I have not seen a reference to misandry (albeit on cursory examination); as far as I understand that the only relevant statement the article makes is that lesbian feminism is a rejection of masculinity, which is hardly a misandrous point of view.

See also links are not for tenuous relationships, nor should they implicitly make statements which need large amounts of qualification and discussion. Dysprosia 05:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Separatism is a key lesbian feminist strategy, and perhaps its most controversial one. At its most extreme, male genocide has been put forward as a strategy for achieving women's emancipation. This is certainly a small and isolated view but nevertheless there was a specific flourish of scholarship and literature dealing with whether men are really necessary.' This was the piece from lesbian feminism I was referring to. The relationships between the two 'isms' and misandry are certainly not tenuous according to the research quoted: they are root causes. Having said that, I'm happy for them to be left out of the 'see also' list if it's being interpreted as a 'universal accusation' (as a modern white man, I'm probably a little desensitized to the harm of 'universal accusation'...) and hope to address the specifics of the issues ASAP. --Jgda 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of the new points added, I'm not convinced that these two subjects as explored warrant to be considered misandrous. As far as abortion goes, whether or not we agree with the decision and/or the ability to do the act, I don't believe it is hatred toward men that is the driving factor behind the point being made. Likewise with the point on sport team inclusion. Some feminists could argue that boys not being permitted in girl competition is actually misgoynist - since it is making male physical superiority an issue. --Jgda 10:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can the person who put in the section about state and federal laws please at least name the country? I'd prefer it if you could also name some of these states and laws as well - but if you can't, then we'll have to remove that section.

I think that the points are all good - but without even a sniff of verifiability they are invalid.

Perhaps the inclusion of this section should be discussed, particularly the connection between misandry (the topic of this article, after all) as a motivation for circumcision. The connections seem a little tenuous to me. A large portion of circumcised western males appear to not have a problem with the practice, and the motivations appear to not be associated with hatred. There is a Circumcision entry in wikipedia, so only the genuine scholarship particular to misandry as a motivation for the practice - if any - should be included here. Jgda 07:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Circumcision is an example of cultural-level misandry (not individual misandry). Within the context of North American society, circumcision is an importantant illustration of the double standard that exists. According to an anti-circumcision website I read, in Canada, if you take your female child out of the country to be circumcised, you can be criminally charged upon returning to Canada (we should find the exact statue before we claim this in the article). Whereas if you want your male circumcised, you can do it at the hospital down the road, and until recently, the provice would pay for it. (anonymous from Canada)

-I do believe circumcision is a clear example of misandry especially when we look at the double standards between female genital mutilation and male genital mutilation. FGM has been loudly denounced by a wide array of international organisations including the UN and Amnesty, however, whenever it comes to MGM, which is just as harmful and painful, and severely traumatising to a child, what do we hear? Nothing. I can hear a pin drop. FGM has been illegalised in the US, while there is no protection for boys from this harmful and mutilative practice. Both MGM and FGM are the cutting into and removal of genital body parts from helpless and unconsenting children who have been coerced or forced into this, for no valid ethical medical rationale. They both decrease sexual function (actually, in many MGM cases, nearly eliminate sexual pleasure) and steal pleasure and joy from the victims for life. They both cause pain and suffering.

I do believe that MGM is both a cultural and individual level misandry. I do believe that many people do feel, it is more acceptable to injure and subject male children to pain than it is to do so to female children. The same people would knowingly have their boys sytematically strapped down to medieval restraining devices and have their genitals ripped apart while he shrieks in agony, often knowing that it is medically unnecessary, would never consider doing the same to their girls. I am afraid there is a tendancy to people to feel more sympathy for girls who are suffering than for boys. This basically implies less respect for the feelings, comfort and emotions of boys and men, for their bodies and their right to bodily integrity, that they deserve fewer rights than females, and perhaps, even implying that since they deserve fewer basic human rights, and that human rights are less applied to them in this case than they are for girls, that they are seen as less human. Human rights apply equally to everyone, and everyone has a right to a whole body and not have parts removed without a bona fide, essential and absolutely necessary reason to do so to treat a present and current medical condition, where there are no lesser alternatives.

Circumcision does cause severe psychological and emotional harm to many men, including from the initial event and as well from the rediscovery when they are older that a part of their body has been destroyed from them, a part of their birthright and their life, which they will never be able to know, to enjoy or appreciate. It takes away a persons right to make this choice for themselves, and since after all, it is their own body, they should have the right to make all decisions regarding unnecessary amputations of body parts.

Circumcision can cause men severe psychological distress, agony and depression. The sense of loss can be great, since a bulk of ones sensitivity and the most sensitive part of their body, has been removed. A large part of their life pleasure experience has been stolen and deprived from them for life.

How do I know this? Because I am a victim, and it has caused me great physical and psychological harm and loss. It stole from me one of my most sacred and precious posessions, a part of my body, and it deprived me of my right to make my own choices on such spurious and unethical incursions onto basic human rights. I was attacked and assaulted, and my most basic human rights and dignity were violated in a terrible and awful way.

Perhaps the circumcision section in this page should simply include the examples of misandry and the research information on the human rights, physical and emotional effects of MGM on the human being should be placed elsewhere. I think a revised version of the circumcision reference should be added back to this page, since it is an obvious double standard when compared to the illegalisation of FGM.

Millueradfa 18:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do as well, think that some parents know, that circumcision damages, and that circumcision is painful, and that it is medically unnecessary, but they do it anyway. It is a disrespect for a persons body, and I do think it is in many cases rooted in a dislike of men that some have, and for the natural male body. I have heard people tell me that they will mutilate their child simply because they dont like how his whole, intact penis looks. This is an important aspect, since people who are driven to mutilate their childrens bodies for personal preference have a dislike, even hatred, of their childs whole intact body. The thought of parents performing cosmetic surgery on healthy body parts because they dont like how it looks, to suit their own preferences and fancies, is truly abbhorrent.

Millueradfa 18:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this notion, which I am not sure it is true or not, that most males circumcised tend to have no problem with it, i would like to say that this does not mean that circumcision is acceptable, just because *some* do not have a problem with it. Some will find this practice to be abhorrent and will not want it done to themselves. Since some will not have a problem with it, but many others will not like it, it should be the persons whose body it is to make the decision for themselves, since they will know which way they want. I believe the only person who should be able to make this choice is the persons whose body it is. Only they will truly know the value of the foreskin to themselves, and can make an accurate decision as to whether they should keep it. There are many, a large number, who feel very hurt by this practice, and who feel it should not have been done without their permission and they should have been allowed to make the choice when they were of an older, competant age to do so.

As well, many of these people who mutilated as infants, should consider that a large part of the skin surface of their penis was removed, in what could be called a penile reduction surgery. Less skin means fewer nerve endings, and few nerve endings means less sensitivity on an organ that is the primary erogenous zone of the male body. This is a logical conclusion. Studies show that the foreskin is the primary erogenous zone, specifically the ridged bands, are more heavily innervated than other parts of the penis. The shaft skin is relatively sparsely innervated and the glans has very little innervation. Many men do report sensing a loss and a sort of sensory deprivation, and are aware they are missing something important.Circumcision is certianly not natural or normal, since it is the removal and interference with a body part that is usually normal and healthy, and does not need to be fixed by amputation for conditions that dont even exist, or which are not severe. It cannot be assumed that foreskin has no value. the value of body parts is not only in providing support for the upkeep of the body, but also sensory and pleasure as well. All parts of the body should be considered to have value, and especially since removal is permenant and irreversible, and that a person must be allowed to make their own choices about this whenever possible, we should avoid amputation of body parts of children unless absolutely necessary to protect the childs life.

Children as well, since their ethics and morals may be still highly influencable and they tend to be more suggestable, and may be less able to do their own analysis and conclusion and do research regarding the issue, may be more easily loaded with others ideas which they may be less inclined to independantly critically consider the issue, I think that they can too easily influenced and ideas of others imprinted on them about this without them doing a thought analysis of it and thinking for themselves. This is another reason why it should be deferred to a time when the person is an adult, so they are less easily coerced and manipulated by others. I think in many cases children may be more easily manipulated into something that is against their interests, but is what someone else wants.

Millueradfa 23:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many believe that misandry is also readily apparent in the culture in general, if examined with the appropriate amount of critical inquiry. - weasel.

This article is very badly written. Rintrah 12:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --HarmonicFeather 16:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some feminist literature contains elements which could be interpreted as misandrous and as being circular logic.

Some feminist literature may have punctuation errors as well. How is the subject of "circular logic" in feminist literature relevant to the subject of Misandry? I'm deleting the highlighted part for the 2nd time. Please discuss before restoring this. – edgarde 23:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think whoever included it perhaps meant that the fact that these kind of circular arguments are accepted and tolerated because of misandry. Personally I'm happy for the link not to be there: those with eyes will see it anyway. Jgda 03:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misandry is usually, but not exclusively, associated with women. In particular, many radical feminists express misandry in their beliefs and publications. Although misandry is discussed less frequently than misogyny, and so is also less understood, there is increasing research into and discussion about the topic. Although the research is comparatively new, a growing body of work is emerging in current cultural theory.

This seems to be three bullet points merged into a paragraph. The last three sentences lack examples.

How can anyone take this article seriously if it is so poorly written? Rintrah 07:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's very poorly written right now. However, it's far more constructive to fix stylistic problems, add citations, etc. than to just complain that it's imperfect. --HarmonicFeather 07:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a small attempt at it. I just expressed frustration because I do not feel like researching sources, though I doubt there is a vast volume of literature to use. Rintrah 08:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article does suffer from constant revision and tampering due to the controversial nature of its topic - people tend to not want to take it seriously - not to mention the constant adding of 'citations needed' which may one day turn the article into one giant list of citations far beyond any other wiki article I have ever seen. The 'weasel wordings' are an example of this: writers tend to want to soften the blow, and if they don't other writers tend to 'weasel' the wording for them. If you look through the history, you'd see it in action. You can't expect Tom Wolfe under these conditions, and even if he cleaned up the entry himself, after a few days his version would be likewise corrupted. For a controversial topic with many enemies, the article stands up well. Many of the changes you have made here don't make any notable difference whatsoever: 'will openly hate' to 'hates'; 'fall into' to 'conform to'; 'can be seen as' to 'are percieved'; 'due to' to 'stemming from'. I have no problem with these minor stylistic shifts, but to claim they are part of some serious malady is to overstate. Jgda 03:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good defence of the article. However, I did not overstate, and the phrases I revised were not the source of my frustration. But since you say this article is seen as a pariah by many, I can understand the bad state of the article, and see my criticism did not account for those frequent corruptions. To guard against those corrupting revisions, perhaps editors should not tolerate the undue softening and weaseling of the content, and debate the merits on the talk page. Unless this article is marked for deletion, the subject should be explicated without other editors obfuscating and corrupting it. You are probably right: there is most likely more turmoil ahead. Rintrah 09:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the degree to which the article is tampered with, is there any way we could go about getting it semi-protected? I notice that many of the revisions that try to destroy the article are from anonymous IP addresses. --HarmonicFeather 21:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's not nearly enough anonymous tampering to get semi-protection. Just revert nonsense as it is added. I've taken to adding editor's comments[1] (<!-- comment -->) ) on my 2nd revert, and it seems to be preventing the things I comment on. I don't know if such comments are considered in good form. They should probably be deleted after a few weeks if the issue is just one person's junk edit. – edgarde 06:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It continues: 'Some feminist literature contains elements which are misandrous' (followed by examples) keeps getting bumped back to the much more weaselish 'could be interpreted as' - something almost any positive statement could be reduced to when philosophical push comes to theoretical shove. And a weaselish 'Some' gets slapped in before a radical feminism statement - as if by not having 'some' in front of it people would assume it means 'all'? Jgda 23:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "which are" is obviously not NPOV, as saying so presumes Wikipedia is taking a point of view. If you can find sources which do interpret these statements as misandrous, then you can put them in, as you are saying that the source found the statement misandrous. Saying "some" means exactly that; you can't assure the reader that every single element of feminist literature contains misandrous statements -- that's not even verifiable, even if it were true. Dysprosia 04:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the misogyny article is equally weaselish with its 'what could be called'. Point taken. We'll all play the NPOV game and pretend together. Although I still don't see why not saying 'some' = 'all'. If it was written 'All...' I would agree that it should be removed. Jgda 02:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I'm being evasive about this, read the policy. I am not pretending anything, it is a direct application of mandatory NPOV policy; Wikipedia cannot assert anything, it can only report on what others say. Dysprosia 02:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems silly: by themselves, most statements are clearly misandrous; all that remains to be settled is whether they quoted in context. We do not say Hitler's speeches were not anti-Semitic. For the NPOV issue there needs to be a significant conflict, and thus arguments against that sentence be presented. The quotes are not misandrous if they are intended to be humourous (though in bad taste), used merely for shock value, or attributed to a fictious character who does not represent the author. If the equivalent stamtements about females were made, they would be condemned overwhelmingly as misogynous. Rintrah 03:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the latter half of your comment, you are somewhat making my point. Quotes taken out of context cannot demonstrate a point unless they are considered in context, hence you cannot say they definitively are intended to be misandrous statements. Taking a point of view on this violates NPOV policy because no context or argument is given -- the reader is simply given a judgement on these quotations on Wikipedia's behalf. If however you find evidence (from the same work quoted or elsewhere) that demonstrates that the quote is intended to be misandrous, then that is the evidence you need.

For example, consider the Cooper quote; Cooper does not appear to be an author of hardcore radical feminist literature. We do not know from which book the quotation comes, it may be that the quote is from one of her works of fiction, or may be intended in a humorous tone, like you say. I am not excusing Cooper or condoning the quotations, but we don't know how these quotes are intended. For some of these cases, like Solanas, evidence of misandrous intent is easy to ascertain (simply compare with the SCUM Manifesto). But an actual argument needs to be made in order to propose that the quotes demonstrate misandrous intent -- otherwise we simply cannot claim that they are. Dysprosia 05:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We seem mostly to agree on principle. So, I think, there needs to be a clear, inconvertible argument on the talk page — from a well reasoned perspective — to validate the sentence and examples. An emotive counterargument, however, does not constitute a valid defence. For ascertaining their validity, the sources need identification and their context should be explicated. The central question is, do these have misandrous intent? and not whether the authors themselves are misandrous.

I have read another feminist literature to know misandry exists, and its kin: endorsement of the idea men are inferior. It mostly inhabits radical feminist thinking.

I agree with the others the sentence is ugly, in its current form. It seems extraneous and hardly better than "these may or may not be misandrous". Surely it could be altered to something else without conveying an inappropriate tone.

Unfortunately, this article is prone to more tampering than misogyny — the concept thereof is more culturally acknowledged. Rintrah

Any argument that needs to be made must be made directly to the reader, so hence it would need to be placed in the article. What would benefit the article in my opinion would be a discussion (making these arguments that we are discussing now) about misogyny in these elements of feminist literature in paragraphs, not a simple description of a few choice quotes. Dysprosia 11:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is reasonable. It would improve the overall quality of the article. However, it shall not be I who does this. Rintrah 13:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if the quotations were contextualised. Rintrah 13:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

… How is that misandry? Indeed it is a man’s issue, but how is it active misandry?

A" much higher percentage of male teenagers commit suicide than female teenagers.

Men constitute approximately 80% of suicides.

The majority of alcoholics, 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. Men, on average, have a lower life expectancy than women."

… Why? How is this misandry? Are there studies showing that it is linked to so much?

This just looks like statistical men's issues being chalked up to misandry without anything to support it on the page.NeoApsara 19:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These issues are listed only as examples of facts that are neglected in public discourse generally Jgda 22:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting into irrelevent debate, what is there to show it is an example of, or a symptom of, misandry?NeoApsara 05:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two texts cited in the opening sentence, plus at least four of the other books cited in the bibliography. Jgda 12:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section says they are examples of misandry, but does not rationally demonstrate they stem from a hatred of men. They could, of course, be construed that way. The other examples are more consistent with misandry, but there is no argument to compel one to accept they are. I agree with Jdga, they are matters of neglect, but there needs to be something stronger to tie them with the rest of the article. Prejudice against men and misandry are not necessarily the same thing.

The texts that make these connections are cited, however. I have in the past removed material myself (check history and above discussions) that I believed did not fall within the current reseach exhibited by the work I have perused. Jgda 12:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do the texts sufficiently prove these are examples of misandry, or are they signs of it? It is somewhat confusing, and perhaps not stated clearly enough; for instance, neglect of male depression is given as an example of misandry, but whose neglect? General neglect, as suggested in the article? But if general neglect of depression were an example of misandry, it would follow that those who generally neglect it harbour misandry in some form. And this is not valid unless the connection is presupposed. Do the cited texts prove the presupposition? For it is difficult to believe that the general populace who neglect male depression are some kind of misandrists or feel some kind misandry. Rintrah 14:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cited text, which is quite vauge, comes from people (conservatives Kathy Young and Paul Nathason) who wrote a book about misandry in culture. It does not prove the presupposition that those who follow, or the issues themselves, are misandrysists. It argues that they present evidence "ideological feminism" is what lead to these issues. It being misandry by virtue of it being caused by, as they argue evidence suggests, feminism (odd, as most of those issues pre-date the recent waves of feminism). There is nothing that proves this is due to misandry; it is more politically driven ... which nothing wrong with that in of itself, but again it doesn't show it is due to misandry. If anything, maybe there should just be a link to the men's movement because the issues cited are redundant anyway.NeoApsara 16:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But what you mean by redundant? Extraneous to the article or irrelevant? If I understand your argument, you are saying, according to the paper, the issues indicate "ideological feminism", and it is presupposed this stems from misandry. Prima facie, these issues have no connection to misandry, so an argument must validate it for it to be encyclopedic. I should also suppose the issues pre-dated feminism.

Do you have evidence the research is politically driven, or assumes the axioms of the men's movement? Rintrah 10:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By redunadant I mean they are already issues listed in the branches of the men's movement. If anything there should be a mention of them and their book and a link to Men Rights with a sentence saying these people (Cathy Young is one of the writers; she has an entry here in Wiki albeit a poorly written one) believe this stuff is due to misandry, etc., etc. I also mean instead of showing the people responsible or who perpetuate the issues stated are misandrysists, it is more due to their general beliefs. "Political" is just a word I used for lack of a better one. But the bottom line is that, no, they do not show it is due to misandry. Just much arguing against a term they coined "ideological feminism" and saying that is responsible for it, plus more arguments about family courts, sexual harassment laws, etc.. Of course I am just trying to help and much is much characterization of it all and somebody else may disagree; but, again, the bottom line is that it does not prove any of this is due to misandry.NeoApsara 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll check the response in a few days (I am pretty sure there will be one). I want to know which is the correct interpretation of the text, and whether the argument is valid (if there is an argument in it for misandry). Rintrah 17:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My characterization is due to my disagreeing with their opinions because we differ politically. Like I said, however, whether one agrees with them or not, they do not demonstrate these issue stem from misandry. If you believe feminism = misandry and all these issues are due to feminism then you may agree with their opinion. But they demonstrate neither that feminism = misandry nor that feminism/misandry caused these issues. Ergo, it doesn't deserve such notability in the article.NeoApsara 17:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an example of misandry, read the article on womyn, then read the etymology of woman. Rintrah 06:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything I've ever read that has had the word womyn seriously included has shown signs of misandry. Jgda 12:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. Fortunately few women brandish it. In my experience, most women are sane. So I won't judge others by the few who regard men most vitriolically. Rintrah 14:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this also a very strong case of Misandry? I was thinking about it when I read this: 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. It also strikes me as a phenomenom that is mainly Anglo-American and if this French film is also going into this direction, then basically because of (pop)cultural "Americanisation" (yes, even in France). Fulcher 22:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the media were certainly not depicting these events 'as being acceptable or even humorous' even if the individuals photographed with the men in question apparantly considered it both. They were certainly being attacked in a way particularly targetting their conception of manhood, but hatred of them specifically as men doesn't appear to be motivation for the acts. An argument could be made for why men in particular are targetted for such treatment at AG - would the acts have been possible or the outcry have been much worse if the vicitms were women - but published research would need to be the basis for such an addition to the entry. The humour associated with a good old testicle thumping (something I'm not immune to myself) or even full-on mutliation - particularly with its obvious masculine symbolism - is certainly an area that would benefit from misandry-related research. A woman seems at least equally sensitive in the groin region - I've seen several accidental strikes to the region on both sexes (both become quite incapacitated) and there has never been any laughs for female victims. Is it a function of Achilles complex? Is it sexism and we should try to laugh at women in groin-related agony so as to not treat them as the softer, protected sex? Jgda 00:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought the whole idea to create such a humilating scenario in this prison was like a echo of all this you have mentioned before. That it's fun to treat men like that. I really think it's mainly an American problem. Fulcher 12:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Abu Graib incidents occurred because the soldiers wanted to humiliate the prisoners, not out of a hatred of men, that is, misandry, but because they were considered enemies by those who perpetrated the acts. Those who encouraged and condoned their behaviour also held similar sentiments. There is not even a weak connection to misandry. The humiliation often targetted their sense of manhood as individuals, but did not stem from a hatred of men.

You need to look elsewhere for examples and symptoms of misandry. Rintrah 13:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like Abu Graib was more an example of mysogyny, or heterosexism. I mean, weren't the prisoners humiliated by being emasculated--by being forced into gay sex act positions? Were the soldiers not forcing a kind of femininity onto these men in order to reduce them?--Erin1983 03:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not femininity. Forcing people into gay-sex positions is not forcing femininity; it is forcing them into gay sex positions. Yes, it is a form of emasculation because they are coerced into sex positions over which they have no control. The lack of masculine identity is not necessarily a feminine identity, however, and homosexuals do not necessarily lack a masculine identity — at least, that is what I assume. They might have tried to force them to feel feminine in other ways — though I don't know because I wasn't there. But I very much doubt the torture was a form of heterosexism, even though it might have felt so to the confused prisoners. If it were, the torturers would have done it out of sexism to heterosexuals, but this is quite unlikely. They were abusing the prisoners and not heterosexuals in general, and nor were they intending to do so.

People, please, move on! The Abu Graib incidents were a form of torture and sexual torture, not misandry. Rintrah 09:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. The manhating Zeitgeist of the US was the basis of this scandal! People without misandric ideas flying around in their heads would never have called a woman to pose next to these humilated men. Just because most of the guards were men and not some radical feminists doesn't mean they aren't manipulated by misandry. Fulcher 14:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. This is simple paranoia. You need extroadinary evidence to support such a far-fetched claim. Rintrah 15:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Some feminists and masculists posit that the 'war of the sexes' arising from traditional gender roles and their breakdown are the primary source of both misogyny and misandry"--this statement could use clarification? Also, is "masculinist" or "masculist" correct?

I understand the sentence, but agree it needs elaboration. Without a citation, however, it is weaselish.

My guess is "masculist". Neither the American Heritage Dictionary nor the Macquarie Dictionary lists either word. "Masculist", however, is more euphenous. It is clearly a neologism that is not universal. Rintrah 10:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article, furthermore, lacks neutrality in perspective. Misandry is an interesting subject, but this article incorrectly reduces the topic to a rant against (a particular perception of) feminist philosophy. The collection of out-of-context quotes by feminists is odd. For instance, how is the first quote, the critique of marriage, anti-male? How do any of those quotes exhibit misandry, for that matter. It isn't explained and it isn't clear. The whole article also needs much more citation and evidence of the existence of misandry in society.--Erin1983 03:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clearly defined who are misandrists, so the reader will most likely assume radical feminists and their philosphy are identified misandrous. I agree, they are out of context. If the first quote is isolated, however, it does appear extremely anti-male; for it implies married men practice some form of symbolic rape, and men impose marriage on women. This is not a specific complaint, but a general, vitriolic admonishment of men, unless it be mitigated by context. And as such, it is not just a critique of marriage, but an emotive critique of men as well — actually, more of a denouncement. Rintrah 10:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to compile a rough take on who misandrists are from Nathanson and Young. I hope other editors have other sources because we need to know who we are talking about here. (drop in editor)

I've seen some rants: this article is not one. The 'who' is about as clearly defined as it can be. Do we need names and addresses? I have removed quotes and material that I have discovered to be out of context or inappropriate - after discussing here - and would be happy to have contextual issues for any of the quotes brought up in this forum to be analysed. If perhaps Andrea was just telling a joke after a few drinks or something, no problem: post it.Jgda 22:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can the quotes and their context be brought up in this forum for the benefit of other readers? I don't think Andrea's quotes were instances of bar talk, but it would still be useful if we saw the context. Rintrah 05:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has some serious problems; most everything past the "causes..." section is little more than harangue. The problem is that this term is rarely used without a particular idealogical slant, like 'proletariat' or 'pro-choice.' That needs to be noted in the article.... If any of the opinions expressed or implied by the content of these sections is going to remain, they need to be sourced and balanced. (Though honestly, I think deletion is more appropriate.) Clenchyfist 06:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but I would have to add that the cause section is far from balanced as well. To me the endless repetition of 'masculist' and 'feminist' misses the point. Might there be a few 'humanist' editors out there who can break these boring back and forths between two ideological camps and bring us balance without falling into the false idea that all people are either feminists or masculists. To me misandry is evil but so is mysogyny and we need to state things from a humane perspective as well as political perspectives. (drop in editor)

There are, of this edit, fifteen references to the Nathanson and Young texts in the article. The article needs to draw its arguments from varied sources, otherwise the article does not treat the subject with proper depth. A neutrality argument can also be made because of this as well. Dysprosia 08:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]