Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cailil (talk | contribs) at 13:57, 8 March 2009 ({{notforum}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Discrimination This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on April 21st, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Archives
2006: 1|2|3 2007: 4|5

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

This page is not a forum for general discussion about misandry. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about misandry at the Reference desk.

microsoft spell check add

I've added that one since the majority of computer users of the world use this program for some decade already and somehow this word didn't get there? I think this is a solid enough statement to have it present.

I'm also wondering if anyone is up to starting feminist censorship article. I think it should have been there ages ago, but have no time at the moment to start one from scrap. Lost Angel 14:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing. Incidentally, Spell checker#Functionality will give you a more likely reason for excluding an uncommon word than "censorship". "Feminist censorship" as an explanation for anything here should be sourced; presumptions of such may be considered original research.

Do notice I put the two things in separate paragraphs. It is for a good reason. I am not making any censorship claims in the article itself, that's a different point that I am inviting people to discuss if they think there is enough material for it.Lost Angel 05:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Also (and this is a small concern about which I'll prattle overlong), even tho it's reasonable to assume almost everyone reading Misplaced Pages uses computers, be careful not to assume a norm where everyone "gets" computers. We all know someone whose eyes would glaze over at a computer-related reference even as obvious as this one. Then there's the sort of technophobes who are predisposed to freak over things like the "NYC in Wingdings".

I'm over-critiquing cos I just had my coffee. Thanks again. Good add. / edgarde 15:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This strikes me as original research. Jordansc 20:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It is factual if you have a PC with the product installed.Lost Angel 05:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly do not. So this is a phenomenon you have seen, but I have not. That makes this original research. It needs to be documented in a secondary source. Hence the {{fact}} tag. / edgarde 05:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

you may get a trial version of the product and see for yourself - it is out there like a book in the library - that you have not gone there and read the book doesn't inavalidat it http://www.microsoft.com/products/info/default.aspx?view=22&pcid=9d273393-92c9-4807-be9c-515a0d152415 Lost Angel 07:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Great for some people, but I'm on dialup. And using Linux. I could really use a secondary source. So could people sufficiently non-technical that they can't do their own trail install, or people who simply wouldn't bother to do all this experimentation to verify a statement made in a Misplaced Pages article.

• you not being literate enough or well enough equipped to go to the library and read he book doesn't disqualify the book.Lost Angel 10:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides, how could they then judge the results? What do they know about how often a word is missing from a computer vocabulary? Does it happen all the time? Has it never happened before? Is there something this result probably means? Primary sources don't give any perspective. / edgarde 07:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• nobody is asked to judge results or discuss how and when that happens - factually a software used by the majority of the computer-users doesn't contain this word in its spell check (would be interesting to see if it has ever been there in the first place). There should not be any "perspective" on it - wikipedia is not for POV. Stop trolling.Lost Angel 10:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a valid predictor for a word being uncommon, so interpreting it as such an example might be WP:OR. It certainly would be OR if the implication were this somehow demonstrates a larger phenom (which I'm not seeing implied in the current text, but don't look forward to edit warring when the IPs have their say). I Googled up a couple sites, but they were self-published (contrary to WP:RS), and made a conspiracy theory out of the thing.

I wouldn't contest a removal, but we could use a really concise demonstration (or source) that this subject isn't common. A concise map of the ideological spaces where this is a hot topic might be even better (if harder to keep concise and NPOV). / edgarde 20:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm not saying in the article why this word is missing - that's my pov. But it is, which is a fact, which points to how the word is not used/not considered worthy of being there. Lost Angel 05:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be an edit war going on regarding the fact tag. One person thinks that citing a spell check doesn't meet our standards of a reliable source and another person disagrees. Why don't we leave the fact tag in the article until we can reach a consensus on this matter. The obvious solution would be to find a source that uncontroversially stands up to wikipedia standards. Alternatively, we could discuss the merits of using spell check as a source. But until we can all work together and agree, we should let the fact tag stand. Also, every try to discuss this matter civilly. If you disagree with someone, there is no need to insult or ridicule them. Thanks.-Andrew c 15:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference to spellcheck is not made as a reference to some idea, the source itself is verifiable - it is in open access. It is used as a factual evidence of lesser use of word misandry since it is not in a dictionary embedded into a program used by millions for over a decade. No claims beyond that are made that would require factual verification. Furthermore, German spellcheck has this word included.

To your second point - there is no ridiculing of a person - since I don't even know the person. If the claims are ridiculous - they speak for themselves. As to accusation of insult - the phrase regarding literacy does not allow for literal application, since the user obviously is literate, it however serves as an illustration of the situation by analogy. "You" is used as a synonym to "one" as in "you can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs".Lost Angel 15:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the fact tag because this dispute has not been settled yet. And reading through, I have decided that there is original synthesis. There is a sentence that says that misandry isn't discussed very often, and that statement is supported by the word being absent from two spell checkers. This implies that "if a word is missing from spell check, it must not be discussed very often". We do not have a source for that claim, hence the fact tag. Misplaced Pages is not included in firefox or Word's spell checker, but can we draw the conclusion that wikipedia not discussed very often?-Andrew c 16:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If a word is missing, it means someone made a choice to exclude it or didn't know it to begin with, or considered it unimportant genuinely. In each case either the claim that it is underused (spell check guys probably have a clue about language, maybe...) is right or the claim of it being censored out is right (in which case it is less used because it is censored).

Plus and that's the nice of it - it is less used by people, who make spell check software for millions of people. And an earlier sentence claims exactly this - lesser use comparing to misogyny. I suggest you pull the tag off. And do reply to the edit on my talkpage reaction, if you will.Lost Angel 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sources

We can all probably check spellcheck but what we do with our observations is an interpretation or a POV. If I note that George Bush didn't mention, say, health care or Hurricane Katrina or dogs in his last speech, we can all go back to a transcript or recording of the speech --- but whether or not the absence of dogs in his speech is remarkable is another matter. If you're the first person to note that Bush has consistently failed to mention dogs, then it's original research. It might be true, it might be significant, it might be bleedingly obvious, but the experts haven't commented on it yet. As has already been pointed out, there are multiple interpretations of why spell check might not include misandry -- and since no sources have weighed in on the issue, there's no way to resolve the import of misandry's absence without resorting to our own POV's. And since no sources have mentioned it, it might not be important at all. If you can find a source that even mentions this absence, by all means include it. Jordansc 17:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is less used by spell check software makers comparing to misogyny.Lost Angel 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That's part of what makes this a tough call. There are several sources for this information, but they seem mostly self-published, and not reliable by Misplaced Pages standards. And while the observation that the Word 2007 vocabulary lacks this term might be simple enough to let slide, these sources tend to really go to town with interpretation. / edgarde 18:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a simpler way to explain it - we use words to discuss things - when word is not there - we can't discuss it, only the related concept put in another words. Here we have a case of a word not being there.Lost Angel 19:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

added the "or used" to comply with npov of the following passage.Lost Angel 18:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

While still raising a little bit of uncomfort with me, I could live with the something like the following: The term misandry is not commonly use. For example, some software spell check vocabularies do not recognize the word. And we'd need a citation that cites the software itself. I'm pretty sure our citing sources guidelines discuss how to do this, or if not a current edition MLA or Chicago style book would. How does this work for others as a compromise?-Andrew c 18:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about the word (and its usage) is tangential, trivial for the lead section, and basicly belongs on Wiktionary (where a lot of definition cruft from this article was relocated). Lots of unusual words become Misplaced Pages topics, and it's not very interesting.

What is interesting (and stated) is that the subject of misandry isn't often discussed. However, as is correctly pointed out above, the MS-Office vocabulary may not be a good way to demonstrate this, which is why it presents an original research problem. / edgarde 18:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Word has to be known to be used, it has to be there to be discussed, people should know it. Editors should know it - now firefox's, msoffice's, gmail's vocabularies do not include the word, so these textual niches in linguistic sense have this discussion part either sanitized out -> censorship -> less discussion, or they're there because they're not known -> less discussion. No matter how you look at it. I opt for someone to put "or used" back!Lost Angel 19:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If I note a bug in the software - one that anyone can see if they do X, X, and X - and I'm the first person to see this, it is original research. It's informative but it's not wikipedia material. I don't see how the absence of a word in spell check is fundamentally different. It's something that anyone can observe, but the methodology and interpretation are still questionable.

The same thing is true of a book: if I discover that X author fails to mention Y when talking about Z, it would still be my discovery and not something that just magically presented itself in the text. Or if I unearth a hidden code or explain an allusion or what have you. It might seem that the evidence is just waiting in the text to be uncovered but, really, the reader or software user brings his or her own biases, agendas, perceptions, etc, to the text and creates his or her own meaning out of it. That is to say, the fact that Misandry isn't present in spell check is only significant if we're (a) looking for it and (b) think it is. The same thing can be said of George Bush not mentioning Hurricane Katrina. To observe that Bush failed to mention Katrina in a given speech isn't just looking at something self-evident in the text, it's making political point Unless someone comes up with sources that discuss Misandry's absence, all we can do is pit our own opinions of its significance against each other. Did I miss someone providing sources? 24.164.77.105 19:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But we aren't talking about author X talking about Z and not mentioning Y. We're talking about authors X including commonly used words for a language Z which has not included X. If the topic is language, and the article is an expression of language, then its lack of inclusion is notable, as opposed to a speech by a politician that, of course, can never include every topic in the known world. Is there an article on this website about straw man arguments? Jgda 07:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My point is not that these examples are exactly the same thing but that observing an absence in a text or a piece of software can, in fact, be a POV statement. Noting that misandry is absent from Microsoft Spellcheck implies that it should be there - just as pointing out that Bush failed to mention Katrina in a particular speech implies that it should be there. These statements about spellcheck are clearly being made to support an agenda: that is, that the idea that misandry is actively excluded from discourse. That's what this is about, not whether or not a spellcheck includes "misandry," and the lack of sources to support or deny this claim makes it unfit for Misplaced Pages. Jordansc 18:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(reply to parent by Andrew c) If we're going to note the commonness of the word itself, it should be considered in a lower section, not the lead. I don't think such is merited, but I'd settle for it in a section.

Several editors on this talk page have suggested this word is kept secret from the world, only recently unveiled by heroic truth tellers. I sure knew the term before I came here, and people I know recognize it. Even if they didn't, expressions like "hatred of" or "prejudice against" would fill in for most people. I don't think the presence or absense in computer or human vocabularies is any more significant than that of (clicking Random article a couple times here) Stattoo or Planctus. / edgarde 20:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference is not an original research in the sense that the word is absent there - fact. How to interpret it is subject to research, but it can be placed for the fact it is and for the relevance of how often the word is used.

Whether your friends knew the word before is absolutely irrelevant to this case.

When referring to actions of others that you label "heroic" - quote them, don't invent things, even if that might appear as a brilliant sarcasm to oneself.

If a word is absent from some vocabulary it signals lesser use of the word and discussion of something is not possible without the use of the word - something you've removed. Which pretty much illustrates how removing a word removes relevant arguments from discussion. I'm referring to "or used", which I hope will be brought back - currently you did 2 edits I don't agree on both unrv'd mind you at least one should be brought back. "or used" is factual.

There is research on how removing words and changing them silences certain debate and even human thinking and behaviour - look up politically correct speech, how it would supposingly reduce hatred if people won't have words to name this hatred with.

Someone else would take over, I herewith renounce editing wikipedia altogether.Lost Angel 21:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm too late. Noooooooooooooooo! RedRabbit1983 16:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Strangeness

I just hit upon this article and had a brief browse over it. Several things struck me as strange.

• Intimate misandry by women solely consists of the views of Judith Levine. Shouldn't this be a reason for it to be retitled Levine's views of misandry?
• The first sentence is very odd for a beginning: Judith Levine alternatively focuses on private manifestations of misandry in her 1992 book.
• The rest is like a book review. What is more important: her book or the subject at hand?
• Men as a class are considered irreformable, all men are considered rapists, and marriage, rape and prostitution are seen as the same—Is this serious?
• There doesn't seem to be much in the way of definition in the section that is supposed to be about just that.

The article doesn't get any better after that. RedRabbit1983 16:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

'tis passing strange. The problem, as it has always been, is in the controversial nature of the topic for wikipedians generally. The article has been shaped by a kind of reverse-Darwinian intellectual catabolis that has required almost every sentence be justified to maintain the NPOV required. The amusing part is that, every now and then, someone pops up and pretty much says what you have said (you can scan the archives if you're really bored). If the result is crap, then 'tis crap-by-consensus... Jgda 23:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't perfect but it's loads better than what it used to be. I'd rather it be an idiosyncratic & narrow but well-sourced article than an expansive collection of quote-mined material copy-pasted without examination from unsourced partisan web sites and mixed in with some OR'ed editorial opinion. The article might not represent your personal conception of misandry but its present state better conforms to Misplaced Pages standards. And, if you'll notice, all of the well-sourced material remains. N+Y even have their own article now. Jordansc 02:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are (of course) guilty of exactly what you claim to be against, but unlikely to ever realise it: you refer to only one isolated section of the previous article. And what a grand victory it was. 'Long battle'? Don't get too carried away... It was deleted and it was gone. The quote you mention below was perfectly representative, but had important applied apologetics mashed into it, therefore, I agree: it now conforms to Misplaced Pages standards, as opposed to being particularly useful to anyone. I mean, have you people actually read an encyclopedia entry lately? A real one? No problem: but you must live with the result. The material, as RedRabbit (and others before...) has noticed, is so freakin' well sourced now as to be pretty much all source (sauce?) and no meat (meet?). Fortunately, despite your long battle, it's very unimportant. Jgda 08:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Loads better"? How much shitter can it get? It is a copy-pasted book review, the kind that doesn't even make it into student magazines. It would better conform to standards if it were reduced to a stub, for it would have less worthless material. Jdga, I'm not bored enough to browse the articles. RedRabbit1983 11:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Copy-pasted" from what? I'm also not sure how it's a "book review," it's more of a summary of Levine's views on misandry - something entirely appropriate for the Misandry article. It's not great (why Levine?) but I don't think it's the shittiest thing I can imagine. If it's terrible to you, improve it.

The old version of the article had a lengthy section directly lifted - uncited - from a random web site. The section turned out to contain blatantly biased mispresentations of quotes. For example, one quote originally said that most men discriminate against women in some way and listed a range of things men have done, ranging from paying women less than men to crimes like brutal rape. But when the web site presented the quote, it deleted a few key sentences (i.e., all of the more common and less severe discriminatory practices like unequal wages) making the new quote say something to the effect of "most men rape women." And so on. That's how "shitty" the page could get. It was a long battle to get it removed and we still get people trying to reinsert chunks of this quote collection. Jordansc 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that I may have inadvertently given a false impression. The article is a summary in the vein of book review, since what is discussing is in fact books. I wouldn't say it is "the shittiest thing" that I've seen; the standard of shoddiness is much too low. And I doubt that the reward would pay off the work required to make the article stable and well-written. RedRabbit1983 16:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples of feminist misandry

I removed a section that was recently added that was simply a collection of quotations, with the header "Examples of feminist misandry". This section had the same problems that the former mythology section (look at page history back in december, or talk archives) and the literature section at misogyny had. We are doing original research by in essence 'quote mining' these books and saying that they demonstrate misandry. We'd, at the very least, need another source to make that claim to avoid original research.-Andrew c  04:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

If you don't understand why a section is in an article, or the placement of a quote, maybe you could ask on a talk page? Jgda 09:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Levine summary piece could be expanded, and then attacked for its expansion, but I think it gives enough general information for a short article so that people can go away and find out more if they desire. It's certainly not 'incoherent babbling' whether people agree with it or not. Go to the source material and find out. It's a common error and one I have been guilty of myself. As for its appearance elsewhere on the web, with Google I could only find it on wikipedia related sites. Where has it been lifted from unedited? Jgda 01:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Caution

As I research this topic, I am discovering wide support from prominent feminists for Nathanson and Young. Such support is a particularly "good rap" for feminism, willingness to hear criticism, acceptance of responsibility, repugnance at hypocrisy. Young, of course, is a feminist herself, setting precisely this example.

Misandry doesn't "disprove" feminism, if anything it is based on feminist research and skills in identifying and eliminating sexism.

However, the issues are complex, the final word hasn't been said, and maybe it never will be. It is also clear emotions are high in public response to publications expressing any opinion either way.

At the current moment, misandry has a special meaning in publications, just as terrorism does. The words are loaded with all sorts of current issues.

In situations like this, Wiki needs to be cautious.

Andrew c's comments above are a good guide for this page. Reproducing N&Y's research by locating misandrous quotes in feminist works is extremely easy to do, there are a lot of them. Women expressing anger at rape didn't pull any punches. However, because there is published material on this topic, Wiki does not need to do such primary research. There are complexities to the nature of the current public debate that non-professionals can overlook. Wiki policy is against editors doing original research, because we can get it wrong and disappoint readers (not to mention angering them).

But the caution I'm stopping to post about just now is to do with what I'm finding in published media. A growing number of prominent women within feminist circles, and with broad public credibility are supporting Nathanson and Young. It's no surprise, Katie Roiphe and Christina Hoff Summers (both feminists) published similar stuff more than a decade ago.

So the caution is this. If anyone thinks Nathanson and Young are outside the mainstream, that is not what the literature says even now, and this is only likely to grow. Who cares whether they are right or wrong, that's not our question. Significant commentators are publishing regarding what they see as a specific trend, of which N&Y are relative late-comers. It's actually good PR for third wave feminism — critical reflection on the past is often viewed as maturity.

If we stick to the rules of Wiki and reproduce published debate without fear or favour, we will serve readers and do justice to professional researchers, some of whom will be wrong, but that's their responsibility, not ours. Alastair Haines 23:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Worth mentioning?

Is this worth mentioning in the article, that most obscene or profane words have a male background? Such as the following: bullshit, bastard, son of a bitch, dick, dickhead, john, jackass, cocksucker (often said between males) and prick. These words all have a male reference. Ohmega4K 01:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, without a source, it isn't worth mentioning. We cannot publish original research here on wikipedia. -Andrew c  04:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Great point. Did you forget bitch, heifer, cunt and pussy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.161.24 (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A little research can go a long way

Just doing some grinding, thorough web trawling for citations of Nathanson and Young finally paid an interesting dividend. The Association of American University Presses offer what they consider the best of their annual publications to the American Library Association for selection of a short list of "the best of the best". This short list is not actually so short. However, although Spreading Misandry was published in 2001, it seems to have now been accepted into the mainstream in a very public review process. It was listed this year as one of "the best of the best" from the University Presses. It's unlikely to ever make the New York Times bestsellers, but it clearly has cred with those who stock the reference shelves of public libraries. Just thought this was pretty classic Wiki gold-standard evidence of notability, so I'm documenting it here for us. Alastair Haines 07:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thick and fast they came at last and more and more and more ... Apparantly, Nathanson & Young were given government and private funding to research this subject. See Nathanson bio at MarriageInstitute (Canada). I wonder what Her Majesty thinks of this spending of government monies... Alastair Haines 09:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum

Editors are reminded this page is for discussing edits to the article Misandry, per Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. Please take private conversation to User talk pages. Please take soapbox posts to your blog. Thanks. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Much of the article reads like a forum. It seems as though someone took the opportunity to lay out his (or perhaps her) personal point of view. This article is far from neutral, and gives undue weight to fringe authors and commentators. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You think that's something, you should check the archives. The word misandry has in recent years become vernacular in certain socio-political movements not too separate from those that use the term feminazi, hence the article slant. Nathanson and Young seem to have kicked this off. Also, this article has a history of being used as the Oh yeah? answer page for the Misogyny article. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We need to get some historical text to put in here, as well as Greek etymology of the word.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Recentism" is a large part of what's wrong with this article.

I have been removing the Greek etymology per WP:DICDEF; it seems like filler information, especially if the term really dates back to ancient Greece. An etymology would be worth including if it were relevant to the subject itself. For (totally made-up) example, if the term were coined much later in history to match the ancient Greek word misogyny, the circumstances around that coinage would be interesting to include. (I would be surprised if the case were something like that.) / edg ☺ ☭ 01:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Organization by country

Are geographic distinctions really needed? I feel like Nathanson and Young sell more copies south of the border. I acknowledge that Australia has a distinct (if related) movement around these issues, and some mention of cultural trends is appropriate. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not necessary to have geographic distinctions. I'll fix--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad start, but a start

Okay, I've started to add more information to the article. It's not a great start, but instead of having conservative commentators occupy the article, I've added section about misandry in ancient Greece and in contemporary literary criticism. Someone will have to help me flesh out those sections, and make them more readable. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, we should probably combine into one paragraph the following sections as to not give undue weight to fringe commentators:

   * 3.1 Christina Hoff Sommers
   * 3.2 Wendy McElroy
   * 3.3 Waren Farrel
   * 3.4 Judith Levine
   * 3.5 Nathanson and Young
   * 3.6 Australia

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have made different choices, but I don't think this is a bad start.

As I'm an american, conservative commentators don't seem like a "fringe" to me — more like a hardened establishment. While a balanced, wide-ranging article could contain all those in one section, I think the current interest in misandry among conservatives merits more than one paragraph.

I see what you're saying and am not trying to make fun, but it gives me a laugh to see Australia lumped in with "fringe commentators". / edg ☺ ☭ 04:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

MASSIVE POV INJECTION

This page has just undergone a MASSIVE POV injection that morphed the page into a pro-feminist POV. I am reverting the destructive edits and reporting the POVer. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Thanks for the notice, but discussion would be even better. Can you explain what you object to, and how you think it can be improved? Also, could you please log in? / edg ☺ ☭ 06:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My fault. I am in a hotel right now, their cookies have my computer acting strange. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Conservative commentary section

So far I like the new organization — I think the historical approach lends itself toward creating a less POV overview, not that we are there yet. I'm going to dwell on the negatives here, but overall I think the recent changes are progress.

Section title

The section title Using "misandry" for conservative comentary is a bit small, like we're talking about word usage. How about Misandry concept in conservative commentary instead? It is interesting that the word often needs to be explained to some audiences, but I think an effort should be made to not dwell on word usage as the major subject. (Hence my dislike of etymologies, but if we have to have one, thanks for not putting that in the lede.)

Presumption of intent

First sentence:

Often the notion of "misandry" is used among conservative commentators in the United States and Canada as a way to counter to the goals of women's rights...

This may be happening, but phrasing this with an assumption of intent is POV, and since a memo from the VRWC detailing this as an intentional tactic is unlikely to be made public, such intent probably cannot be sourced. Also, the word notion seems POV, summarily dismissing the idea; how about "concept"?

Nathanson and Young

While this removed passage could be phrased better, I think it is significant, whether or not one agrees with N&Y:

Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young treat misandry as a form of prejudice and discrimination that has become institutionalized in North American society, causing real harm to men.

Also removed was the implication that this is enforced by an institutionalized, somewhat malevolent feminism. I think this is a key point in understanding N&Y. If one agrees, then this is very important development in the concept of misandry; if one disagrees, then N&Y are seen as wingnuts. (I wouldn't put that in this article tho.)

Any feedback? If not, I'll try to make these changes some time during the week. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with all your points Edgarde. Your comments on adding to the section on N&Y are spot on. Leaving out the nub of N&Y's argument would misrepresent them. And no matter how one regards their work, misrepresentation of sources (even if inadvertent) damages the article--Cailil 21:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a serious problem with the entire "Conservative Commentary" Section. There is no cite or evidence that there is a consistent movement within conservative circles to apply "Misandry" to feminists in order to "keep women down". That's what the entire section is presenting to readers to Misplaced Pages. I've heard some conservatives use the term "femi-nazi" but rarely if ever does the term "Misandry" come up. The cite that is supposed to support the feminist claim of conservative use of "misandry" leads to an excerpt from a far left book and activist group. It's not a reliable source, and it shouldn't be used here on this page. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Section title

I changed the title to "Etymology in Contemporary Culture" we should not limit the use of the word "Misandry to "Conservative Commentary" as it has other uses. Etymology refers to how words develop and are used in cultures, hence this section would be more fitting to a wikipedia article. I also removed the claim that Conservatives are using the word to keep women down as the source was not reliable, and I can find no other source to support this claim. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Can you help me understand why people think this is an article about etymology? I've commented a few times that this is a bad way to discuss any subject. It's also against Misplaced Pages policy, per WP:DICDEF and WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. I think this article should be about misandry the concept, rather than misandry the Greek-derived word still in use "in culture" today.

Also, while I agree we should not "limit" this article to contemporary conservative and antifeminist usage, that section of this article appears to be exclusively about this subject being an issue of discussion in conservatism. The heading "in Culture" seems unnecessarily vague.

Not interested in restoring the deleted comment, but I would like to change this section title to Misandry concept in contemporary conservatism. Would this be acceptable? I think this explains the trend succinctly, especially (if you don't mind my saying) with Nathanson and Young in there. Then we can get on to discussing the content of that section. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

How about Misandry concept in contemporary culture and then we work on adding additional information to the usage of the word outside of Conservativism? That way we don't limit the section to conservative use of the word, (which is quite limited) and we will expand on how the word is used throughout culture? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Contemporary culture is a really vague term, and one would be hard pressed to find discussion of misandry as a subject outside of antifeminist, conservative and men's rights circles. This really is the point of that section. If you can find such discussion, we can figure out a section for it, but for what we have now I think this section really is Misandry concept in contemporary conservatism, or something like that. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

We seem to at least agree that what this section currently describes is a discussion occurring within social conservatism. I think think we should call this what is plainly is, rather than providing a vague, unhelpful title in hope of it spreads to other audiences to match our title. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in again, but if an academic was naming that section it might go something like "Misandry in conservative discourse". The term discourse is a bit jargon loaded but it's accurate, especially if the content is limited to social conservatism.

BTW while I think the link to the link to "Female Anti-feminism for fame and profit" is questionable, per due weight, the description of Jennifer Pozner or the Center for Campus Organizing as "far left" is wrong. Far left is beyond Gorbachev, and AFAIK Pozner is more Clinton than Castro. That said the section is probably better without that particular ref--Cailil 14:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that citation wasn't useful (fun to read tho). Ghostmonkey57 removed it, and I'm endorsing that removal. Will retitle per your suggestion. What you're calling butting in I would call helping out — feel free to make suggestions.

The Misandry: From the Dictionary of Fools link is similarly not up to WP:RS. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nathanson and Young

I've also replaced the somewhat tangential description of Nathanson and Young's work with the abovementioned stuff. I deleted the paragraph attempting to debunk N&Y with book reviews since that really belongs in the Nathanson and Young article, not an overview like this one. Better to just state their position as theirs. Other stuff removed was distracting "gender" business not central to N&Y's thesis or particularly worth elaborating in an article about misandry. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes from Non-NPOV

I assume that these edits were made in good faith, but as someone who had contributed in the past to make this a neutral, readible, if semi-substantial, and mediocre article, it seems the effect of the changes render the main body as... fluff, perhaps? It had existed in a fairly stable form for about six months - indicative, in regards to such a controversial subject, of having reached a certain bloodless, but appropriate neutrality. That there is bias in this new version is indicated by all sources of discussion of misandry being rounded up into the category of "conservative". I'm not sure ANY (OK, Charlotte Hays excepted) of them would describe themselves as "conservative" (even if Christina Hoff Summers, for example, works for the American Heritage Foundation, this is not proof that she adheres to some kind of "conservative ideology"). How people describe themselves, and how they are characterized in generally accepted "objective" sources, would seem the most neutral way to decide how they would be best described ideologically. From my limited knowledge of all these writers, they would seem to me most aptly described as political mavericks, akin perhaps to Camille Paglia, who would describe herself, probably, as center-left social-libertarian, while taking the vast majority of her hits from the left, and getting most of her support from right-wing libertatians. Perhaps "Misandry in maverick commentary" would be a more appropriate title for this section. Hays could be given her own conservative section. Please advise. I would like to work on getting this article back to being both neutral and relevant.Bflesschi (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

From the "American Heritage Foundation's website:

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

The women listed in that section of the article are often quoted about misandry are magazines like the National Review, etc. Their audience is primarily conservative as well, not libertarian or left.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

How about a 'radical' section title over the old anti-N&Y quote then? Jgda (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this really needed? It seems rather WP:POINTy. If it is needed, it seems like it would be a sub-section of the section above it. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. Mavericks is a strange word to use here. And I really want to avoid the incredibly vague "in culture" if that is possible. The title used to be something like "Political views of misandry", which could be restored as Political discourse on misandry I guess. Seems like a step back. I find it strange to hear that people don't think this conversation is happening mostly within social conservatism. Every time I read someone excited about this subject, they're expressing a conservative, usually antifeminist opinion.

I kind of liked where it was going here, but then I would since that was after I made the 4 or so changes described in the previous section. The only one I didn't discuss in advance was deleting the N&Y reviews, which seemed unneeded after only 2-3 sentences on N&Y. I thought this version was moving toward NPOV from the changes preceding it. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hays, Hoff Sommers (who has been funded by conservative organizations (see Antifeminism and Family Terrorism: A Critical Feminist Perspective by By Rhonda Hammer(Rowman & Littlefield, 2002) isbn: 9780742510506, pp.72-75) and McElroy (who writes for the intellectual conservative) are conservatives or at least right wing; Farrell's work has been used by conservative men's groups in the UK (that doesn't make him a conservative but it makes his work part of conservative discourse see Sexual Politics: An Introduction By Richard Dunphy, (Edinburgh University Press, 2000), isbn:9780748612475, pp. 143-146); the only one in the section who probably does not belong is Judy Lavine.

I agree with Edgarde calling them "mavericks" is strange also it would be questionable from a policy perspective (WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPOV). Bflesschi, if you can show, in a reliable source, where Hoff Sommers and or McElroy are described as something other than right wing intellectuals then the title should be altered.

Also why the "radical" over the criticism of N&Y? Lewis Horne's argument is not radical, nor is her approach. What sourcing is there for describing that as radical?--Cailil 18:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to categorize writers for their political stances doesn't seem necessary to me. It is fraught with difficulty, because a writer's confessional position, and others' opinions of his political stance may not agree -- for example Camille Paglia. Buying into this goes beyond the topic of the article -- the subject is misandry, and writers' views can surely be presented as contributions to that discussion, rather than speculating about the ideological framework from which they speak.

As a reader, I don't care if Einstein was a freemason (I'm making this up), I care about the logic of each theory of relativity. I know misandry interacts more closely with various social ideologies, but I think we need to approach things as though writers approach the topic objectively. Surely most would claim to be doing so!

An exception would be where misandry is being attributed to feminist writers by critics and a response is offered by writers claiming to be feminists. Plenty of this exists already. Some feminists say, "fair cop!" There have been (and remain) extremes within a very broad and unregulated movement. Others say, "backlash!" If people disagree with feminism they will attempt to discredit it, exaggerating any apparent weaknesses.

Here's a thought though. Sylvia Plath's Daddy gave me a puzzling insight into one woman's mind, that Judith Levine seems to echo. Plath said, "Every woman adores a fascist ... the brute, brute heart of a brute like you." Love and hate are not such distant emotions. My Enemy my Love seems to articulate some similar thoughts in less ambiguous prose form. Women can love and indulge scandalous treatment from men and even incite the most deplorable behaviour (Lady McBeth), yet they can also malign the most noble. These things exist in even the most ancient literature.

The most apposite treatment of misandry in 2008 would, however, seem to be discussion of feminism and legislation. What has been published recently, with wide circulation (and consequent peer review and commentary) regarding systematic misandry in feminism and related legislative "reform"?

If casting a spokesman on the topic as a "feminist" or "conservative" is intended as a weasle, more fool the contributor. Unless a writer is specifically speaking as a feminist on the issue, I'd say we waive the labeling. Feminists are quite diverse, with many views on the subject. The response of feminists to accusations of misandry in feminism needs a clear place. Specifying some kind of "source" for those who make the accusations is much less important -- unless we are adopting a POV of feminist advocacy, that wishes to portray the criticism as held by a biased, disreputable or fringe minority.

Let's do the work of establishing the reliability and notability of sources, and ascertain the bounds of WP:UNDUE for this article on the talk page, without "showing our working" to the reader, other than by the conventional method of citation.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that this article was unhelpfully dominated by Nathanson and Young before, but now marginalizes their opus magnum on the subject. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your make good points Alastair. And in case I was unclear above, I'm not attempting to advocate a POV here, nor do I think anyone else is. The reasoning behind a section on "Misandry in conservative commentary" or "Misandry in conservative discourse" would be to discuss the way it is used rather than the people using it. I made reference above to how Farrell's ideas are seen as a "functional basis for antifeminism" by conservative men's rights groups in the UK (from Richard Dunphy's book).

You are right that categorizing authors is divisive and definitely tangential to the page. But the section was about "conservative commentary" for a reason. We could all decide to change the section's focus and if so I would suggest "Misandry in North American discourse" (I don't see any Europeans or Aussies on the list) - what does anyone else think?--Cailil 23:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

North American would be good with the list we have now. I think the trend extends to Australia even tho we haven't mentioned anyone by name. But I do think this issue is a trend distinctly within social conservatism. I don't see it on the radar of other writers. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Alastair, while I agree that there is quite a bit of undue weight given to certain people in this article, I have to disagree with you about putting things into political context. If we are going to continue to include Sommers, Farrell et al, we simply need to give the reader context. The use of the word "misandry" to discuss social policy is inherently political. It's clear through the references that "misandry" is used as a way to counter feminist discussion in both North American and Europe. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources for misandry being discussed as a subject in Europe? (I must say it bothers me when this article is considered to be about mere word usage.) / edg ☺ ☭ 01:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Edg, IronAngelAlice's contentions are utterly without merit. The notion that the term "misandry" is only used to "counter feminist discussion" is demonstrably false. For example, Alice Echols, http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/swms/people/faculty1003222.html, labeled the work of Valerie Solanas as misandronistic.

• DIRECT QUOTE: "Solanas’s SCUM Manifesto which she wrote in 1967, was one of the earliest, wittiest, and most eccentric expressions of second-wave feminism. Solanas’s unabashed misandry–especially her belief in men’s biological inferiority–her endorsement of relationships between ‘independent women,’ and her dismissal of sex as ‘the refuge of the mindless’ contravened the sort of radical feminism which prevailed in most women’s groups across the country."(See:Echols, A. (1989). Daring to Be Bad; Radical Feminism in America 1967-1975. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.)

I could come up with a hundred more examples, but it would be pointless. I am showing what I alluded to earlier in that the term misandry is NOT simply a term used by conservatives to "counter and oppress women" instead it has a demonstrable and academic usage. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I never suggested the word was only used by conservatives. Again, I'm not interested in the word being used, especially to identify misandry (as this article already does in the Literature section). I'm asking about misandry being discussed as a subject, particular as a political concern.

I realise you are new here, but this Discussion page could use a version of Godwin's Law for Solanas. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that the Solanas reference is important, as it demonstrates academic use of the term misandry. It's important that we not give the impression to readers of wikipedia that the term is only used in a political manner to "counter feminist discussion" remember that readers of wikipedia might come to the site never knowing what the term meant. It is important to include all uses of the word. BTW: Echols is not the only person the identify Solanas as misandronistic. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

IronAngelAlice, while I think you are right that the term is politically loaded it would be Original Research to assert this in the article without sources. Do you know of a source that discusses what you are talking about?

Edgarde, you're right this section could tend towards WP:NOT#DICT territory if it only discussed usage. (That's probably my fault for my above wording.) IMHO for it to be a proper encyclopedia section that does not violate WP:NOR, we need to describe, what these people call misandry and where they say it exists/comes from.

AFAIK right now nobody in mainstream academic circles on this side of the Atlantic is using the term. The only time I hear anyone talking about gynocentrism is when visiting American Professors talk about criticism of Eavan Boland. This type of language is, as yet, very specific in that only a certain group is using it - I agree with Edgarde that they are "social conservatives". However using using the heading "North America" might better contextualize the section. Mainstream conservatives in the UK, France, Germany, Poland, Ireland or Italy don't use the term, yet. If its a phenomenon located in a specific region (ie USA, Canada, Australia) then shouldn't the article show that?--Cailil 02:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Antifeminism#Antifeminism_among_.22Libertarian_Feminists.22
--IronAngelAlice (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be the Pozner article discussed above and removed by Ghostmonkey. Repeating that discussion might not be helpful. Perhaps you should take the Pozner article to the reliable sources noticeboard for a wider view on whether it's reliable or not--Cailil 03:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's curious that the Pozner article was removed. The references for Sommers, et al are pretty much from the same kids of sources (popular books) though from a different political side.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You could take them all to WP:RS/N and see what the wider community thinks--Cailil 03:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, alright, but this is getting to be too much work.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I supported removing that source. Cailil's suggestion to run it past the reliable sources noticeboard is a very good one. / edg ☺ ☭

I've taken it to WP:RS/N myself. The more I think about it though, the more it seems like syntheis to include it here. So as far as I'm concerned if it comes back as reliable it still should not be used here--Cailil 16:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Prof Alice Echols

Prof Alice Echols and her quotes about SCUM Manifesto seems to be given undue weight. What do you all think?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly why you think this is the case? The reference was added to demonstrate that the term misandry is not used only as a political term to "counter feminist discussion", it has a place and use in academia. The reference is from a recognized expert in the field of gender studies. Echols is not the only one who refers to the SCUM Manifesto as misandronistic. Why should the reference be deleted? I think that a quote from a professor in academia, who is identified as a feminist herself on the radical feminism wikipedia page, is important to the use of the term. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

1. There are lots and lots of professors in academia. I'm not sure why Alic Echols is chosen among others, and why she would represent "academic misandry."
2. I agree that SCUM Manifesto is mostly misandrous. However, we need to put this in context: Valerie Solanas was a schizophrenic.
--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice Echols is identified as a feminist on another wikipedia page. She is a member of the Department of Gender Studies. She has published quite a bit in the field of Gender Studies, she is as good a reference as any. Secondly, I am not suggesting that she represents academic misandry at all. Instead, I added the section to demonstrate that the word is used in an academic context. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I think instances the word being used, especially to identify misandry (as this article already does in the Literature section), is not of interest in this article. I think this article should be about the discussion of misandry as a subject. I suppose no one agrees with me on this. I also think the heading Academic use of the term misandry is extremely WP:DICDEF and pointless.

Solanas is a relevant topic in discussions of misandry. I don't think she is a political figure so much as a literary one, but wherever she belongs, she is certainly a famous example (whether she uses the word or not). / edg ☺ ☭ 04:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I could agree with moving Echol's work to another section, or mentioning Solanas in the manner in which you are suggesting. Where would it fit best?Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Your edit is much better than mine was. I think it fits that direction that you want the article to go in better as well. Good Job!Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Thanks. This should be re-written by Misplaced Pages instead of leaning on a long Echols quote. Context is needed; simply praising this a "witty" "expression" of "feminism" is a disservice to feminism, Solanas and mental illness. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that looks like a good call to me--Cailil 04:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's at least put it in some context here. Solanas was a schizophrenic.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Concise and informative. I'm with it. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Conservative discourse on misandry

The title Misandry in conservative commentary was a bit confusing since it implied conservatives are man-haters. I changed this, but am not entertaining the delusion that this won't be changed again soon.

I also deleted (per discussion here and on a User talk page) Response to conservative commentary, which had included only a long quote from a criticism of Nathanson and Young. We might at some point include a subsection of criticism and reaction to Conservative discourse on misandry (by whatever title), but as written this was too much piling on N&Y after just a 2-sentence mention. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Two problems with the section on Wendy McElroy: 1) she is under the "conservative" section. She is a libertarian, not a conservative, and does not belong under that heading. 2) her identification is as a "Fox news commentator" or such. That is a highly selective description and not what she is most known for. Oliver North is a fox news commentator also, but that is not his defining characteristic. "Fox news commentator" should be replaced with "libertarian author" or something similar. I would make these changes, but the page is locked. 98.223.227.120 (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC) p.s. why is it the section called "conservative discourse" anyway? Why not solve all the problems and just call it "Criticism of Misandry"?

Quick note

I note that a sizeable chunk of sourced material, mainly paraphrase, that I added some time ago has been removed. I'll restore it sometime. IronAlice, you may want to read Wiki policy on sourced material, since I notice it was you who removed it. I'll be very happy to discuss expanding it, or reworking it into other parts of the article, if your concerns were stylistic.

I might as well lay my cards on the table. Anti-male propositions are common in certain types of feminist literature and have been called as such in published literature of all genres from academic to popular press, and by feminists, anti-feminists and others. Whether this is called misandry or near synonyms are used is somewhat secondary. It stretches credulity to suggest these things are not common knowledge.

The vulgar term for this is man bashing here in Australia. I became aware of that term in the mid 1990s. I doubt it originated in Australia, or that it arose without documentation in various places (Google gives just under 40,000 hits, the term also appears in two Wiki articles).

But feminists are really not worth much time in this article I would think. Extreme opinions full of heat without light and those who debunk them, do not seem of encyclopedic concern.

Much more importantly, legislation, and mass media presentations of men have been accused of being misandrous. Law cannot properly be called feminist, whether arising due to feminist lobbying or not, because it is simply law. Same same for the mass media. Left or right wing governments can be attributed responsibility for law. Likewise mass media sometimes fall into political polarities.

However, it is hardly a new proposition that various laws have discrimintated against men. Tree huggers, armchair sportsmen and gun toters alike have been publishing identical comments, putting aside their political differences, since the late eighties I seem to recall.

This article must avoid two popular fallacies: 1. only feminists discriminate against men; 2. only conservatives observe errors in feminism. If anyone wishes to claim such nonsense, at least quote a source who makes the same errors. Then we can cite half a dozen counter examples. But until someone wants to claim (1) or (2) above. We can procede, whatever our personal convictions, united by the facts that: 1. discrimination against men is documented in various forms from various directions; 2. many reliable sources, including feminists themselves, have criticised almost every point of feminism at some point -- or do we believe feminism is true a priori or by divine revelation? Even were these true, they'd still not be good enough for Wiki. "Self evident propositions" and God do not count as reliable sources.

I do hope I'm not ruffling any feathers, it's not my intention. I'm simply seeking to point out some basic ground that is well known to any average reader, but is often circumnavigated in polite discourse. In this article, respect is shown by sticking to reputable published data and commentary, from left or right, feminist or anti-feminist, without fear or favour.

PS on a lighter note, a trivial datum for Cailil -- if I starting doing more work on my dissertation than on Wiki, there'll be at least one dissertation this side of the Pacific that uses the term gynocentric, curiously, about a work written more than two thousand years ago (and possibly three).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair Haines (talk • contribs) 15:55, 28 December 2007

Well said Alastair, and I look forward to being able to read your work in the future. You are right, misandry exists as man bashing in popular culture and is definitely observable in a number of authors' works as well as in certain legal frameworks (definitely in relation to family law here in Ireland and also in the UK).

Part of the problem on this talk page is how each person uses the term. And sometimes we are talking past one another - an aggravating factor in that problem is the tendency in N&Y to conflate feminism and misandrist discourse. You are absolutely right to remind everyone not go into that pitfall - which would take the article way off track. A bit of wider reading might help us all write this page without talking past each other--Cailil 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Cailil, and especially the matter of family law. It's not my issue, but when I do read about it, the urgency and depth of that matter is acutely striking. I shudder to think about the discussion needed for ongoing revisions to the divorce article. Misandry's a breeze in comparison. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

When did Critical Theorists become NPOV?

Sorry for not being able to contribute to the discussion for a couple days. A few points:

The recent edits, aside from Ghostmonkey and edg's bit re. Solanis, have the effect, whatever the intention, of trivializing this article. IronAngelAlice, I believe, took all the various contemporary writers discussed in the article and squashed them all into a section at the end now labelled "conservative". The main body of the piece then had quotes from Critical Theory-based academics injected into it to serve as its core section.

When did Critical Theorists become NPOV? Doesn't Critical Theory represent a branch of leftist-academicism? I've no problem with leftism - I like to think I fall within this camp myself, not that this is of any pertinance - but although Critical Theory has for a long time now gained quite a foothold in the academy, it's still only one branch of leftism, and one decried by center-left types like Harold Bloom and Paglia. Many thousands of academics of all political persuations don't accept their analysis or ideology and register their protest by refusing to adopt CT methods - to the great consternation of Critical Theorists. So how did this one branch of leftism become the voice of NPOV authority on Wiki? Especially considering that this school has repeatedly been accused of a misandryst-inflected POV? (Case in point: Alice Echols' simpering comment re. Valerie Solanis' "wit" in the SCUM Manifesto. Another: the incessant refrain in the 90's of "Dead White European Males" to discredit 99% of Western culture.)

Ironically, given the 2nd example above, the 1st citing of misandry in the historical record in this CT-based edit is Aeschylus. I liked this, for having just read and re-read the Greek tragedies, I'd been excited to find, esp. in Aeschylus and Euripides, examples in the beginnings of Western literature both of misogyny and misandry as archetypal forces within the human psyche. So that was nice. And then we skip 2400 years to Jules Feiffer, and his supposed misandryst and misogynist feelings re. Superman, Clark Kent, and Lois Lane (I have to admit that this piece does provide a good feel for the typical CT level of argument.) So where's the meat? Is this article now mainly about examples of the word "misandry" mentioned in CT discourse? Perhaps the 1st section of the article should be retitled "The word 'misandry' in Critical Theory-based literature", or maybe "Discussions of misandry in Critcal Theory-based leftist discourse."

All non-CT based writers on the subject, and these are those who have some contemporary relevance, are now categorized as "conservative". Examples have been given, both in the form of new edits and in this discussion of "proof" of their conservatism. I dispute the idea that working at a conservative think-tank automatically qualifies you as a conservative. Lawrence Korb, advisor to the Reagan-Bush election committee, and Assistant Secretary of Defence in the Reagan administration is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. So is he a Progressive? Warren Farrell is described as a "frequent speaker at the consrvative libertarian Cato institute". So the case is closed on him. But wait - Korb has appeared both on The News Hour and the O'Reilly Factor! And Kevin Phillips, a conservative of long standing, has appeared more than once as a friendly guest on the Progressive Bill Moyers show. These people - these purveyors of ideas - go to where they're going to get a receptive audience. Phillips has a scathing critique of Bush and Cheney from a conservative perspective, so he goes to Bill Moyers and his viewers. The critique of 2nd Wave-feminism and those strains of thought influenced by this movement as containing a strong streak of misandry is long standing. See the external link to Robert Anton Wilson's article. (Is he a conservative? Or a maverick?) Charges of misandry within feminism have had about the same kind of reception by the "official" left as decriminalization of drugs proposals by the libertarian-right have had by the "official" right. To be proven conservative, it takes more than having your discussion of a certain issue cited within conservative discourse. After all, Marx is probably discussed, on some level, in every issue of National Review. Not to accuse anybody of anything, but the idea that these writers must be proven non-conservatives by being cited as such in "reliable sources" seems a tad McCarthyite. Judith Levine apparently is pretty left except for the issue of Israel. Does her stance on that one issue render her a conservative? Let people speak for themselves. I'm happy for anybody who wants to embrace the label to be put in the category, and also for those seen as such by reliable sources (which don't include those whom Hoff Summers would call "gender feminists" since they have an obious POV in regards to this issue - any source which brandishes the term "antifeminism" in an accusatory manner, for example). How about innocent until proven guilty? I'm not esp. up on the work of Hoff Summers, but I haven't yet heard her to espouse any non-centrist views other than her championing what she calls "equity feminism" - equal rights, and equal pay for equal work. (Is that right-wing or especially conservative?)

I don't think, IronAngelAlice, that you acted in bad faith, but perhaps your frame of reference is limited to what you've learned recently in college. Please continue the work. I, and no doubt endless others, will make their contributions in the future.

It seems to me that much non-original research needs to be done to find the many writers on this topic of all political stripes who have proffered their opinions over the last 35 years. Ones on the left are scarce - you have to have the bull-like qualities of a Paglia to not get shouted down.63.197.77.92 (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That's my long post above. Sorry - I was under the impression I was logged in. Whoops!

P.S. for IronAngelAlice: what does "social policy" have to do with an article on misandry, or Summers and Farrell for that matter?Bflesschi (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)(signed Bflesschi if this computer isn't working)

The Solanas section is not supposed to be the key to the article, but this article should be an overview of various aspects of the subject matter, and SCUM Manifesto is if nothing else a notable example of the beastie. (And the section practically wrote itself.) The Echols quote is kept as a secondary source; it's not the last word, and maybe something better could be found, but as the subject has its own article I'd prefer to note it as concisely as possible and move on.

The Literature section is at best the seed of something that might be nice in the future. I can imagine its current content coming out as better examples go in (or a more narrative treatment can be written), but to prevent this becoming a list of unorganized examples, I'd recommend not permitting Literature additions without academic-quality secondary source analysis. (I would have to defer to someone knowledgeable in this area, as I am illiterate and just banging this keyboard at random.)

A previous editor considers these "critical theorists" to be "commentators". There seems to be no agreement in how to organize them. The current Mr. X say "this", Professor Y says "that" format lacks both context and readability.

I'll try to read the rest of your comment tomorrow. (Sorry!) / edg ☺ ☭ 07:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bflesschi, you misunderstand NPOV. A source does not have to be neutral - they need to be reliable, and generally speaking mainstream. The articles we write need to be neutral, in that they should include opposing and/or multiple mainstream points of view. Critical theory happens to be the current mainstream of academia - and no it does not represent "reds under the bed" when the term was coined in Sociology that might have been a relevant point but nearly 70 years later critical theory exists in multiple hues - but that discussion is irrelevant and way off topic.

If you object to the inclusion of mainstream scholarly work then you will have a problem on Misplaced Pages. This encyclopedia exists to record the reliably sourced mainstream views on subjects - not the emerging, or most recent on a subject.

Edgarde is correct in the above post and I second their remarks about the Solanas & literature sections. There are a number of books on Misandry (written by people other than N&Y) which have not been mentioned becuase they probably haven't been read by anyone here. If this article is to develop properly people need to record the research that currently exists.

I believe (and not saying this should be included or not included here) that IronAgeAlice is pointing out that books like Legalizing Misandry accuse feminism of influencing social policy into becoming misandrist-Cailil 15:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"I don't think, IronAngelAlice, that you acted in bad faith, but perhaps your frame of reference is limited to what you've learned recently in college." -Bflesschi

Now, that's uncalled for. My undergraduate education was completed 10 years ago, and I'm well beyond post-graduate. What I tried to do with this article is note context, which is entirely appropriate.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, IronAngelAlice. I had no intention to offend. Most of your posts, however, are full of Critical Theory buzzwords, and I was unsure whether you were aware that other strains of thought exist outside the small world of CT in the academy, and you came across a bit like an enthusiastic (admirable quality!) new recruit.

Cailil, I must disagree with you re. both the NPOV and supposed "mainstream" and "reliable" qualities of CT. CT, a movement influenced by the Neo-Marxian Frankfurt School, entered its later phaze roughly 35 or so years ago, when it made common cause, in the US, with the then rapidly developing movement of radical feminism. In the US, where this marriage, as it were, occurred, neither radical feminism or Marxism (at least not since Eugene Debs - great man - won over 900,000 votes for president in 1920) have ever been considered "mainstream" or "reliable". (To my consternation in the case of Marx, whom, since he is an important figure for me, helps to put me comfortably out of the mainstream.) Of course, I realize there exists a world of opinion outside the US, some of which I'm up on, some not, so perhaps this could be discussed, but US opinion, since the current movement was largely founded here, seems highly pertinent. Check out the Wiki page on CT. I have yet to find there any mention of CT influences or movements (other than psychoanalysis and literary criticism, which CT has ahistorically laid claim to) which wouldn't, in the US, be seen as at least tangentially related to the radical left. Since CT seized large amounts of territory within certain areas of the academy, a push resisted by many, not all of whom were or are on the right, CT has remained forceful, but highly controversial (both force and controversy part-and-parcel of what might be called their Bolsheviki tactics). To reiterate a point I made earlier, both CT and the associated movement of radical feminism have been repeatedly accused of misandry, therefore making the main body of the piece from CT sources, at the least, seems a little strange, or ill-conceived. So, again - "mainstream"? "reliable"? NPOV? Don't think so.

Really, my whole underlying point is that perhaps we should strive to see outside the "context" provided by the dualistic bubble of Critical Theory vs. conservatism. The article, as it existed in fairly stable form for about six months, discussed opinions from recent writers from a variety of ideological bents (some of them to the right, as is natural for a case in which the alleged form of discrimination is purported to come, in recent years, from the left), the confluence of which seemed to suggest that it might be possible that misandry exists as a social force, that is, a form of discrimination, which this page "is part of a series on". Two of the three CT pieces currently on the page - the first two - are about an alleged act of "prejudice" against would-be rapists from a work 2400 years old, which takes place hundreds of years before it was written. The other piece is about Jules Fieffer, and his supposed misandry - a form of discrimination, right? - against himself(!). Isn't this kind of silly in an article about discrimination? It strikes me as self-evidently the case, but I'm not mainstream, so maybe I shouldn't be sure about this. I'm sure I, and other previous editors welcome newcomers to the page, but shouldn't new edits be relevant to the issue of misandry as an actual form of discrimination? (On the other hand, I would agree that discussion of The Suppliants merits a place in this article as an example of ancient expression of misandrist sentiment.)

The edits which came out today - sorry, I don't know who made them - seem mostly excellent, and largely remedy the issue of all previous subjects of discussion being unfairly tarred with the same ideological brush. However, IronAngelAlice, it still seems incumbent upon you to come up with the goods on Hoff Summers as a conservative, other than that she believes in equal rights and equal pay for equal work across sex lines (oh, and that she works at a conservative think tank - I work at a modern art museum, but I don't find much to like in contemporary art). If you can find examples of conservative thinking in her printed work or recorded statements, I'll happily concede the point.

Sorry for another long post, and injection of personal material. The recent major edits have brought up a panoply of issues which need airing, and the personal stuff seemed apropos to my point that this isn't a simplistic dualistic debate.71.198.132.30 (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Your friendly Menshivik,Bflesschi (I'm having trouble staying signed in.)

Bflesschi, I have explained to you that you misunderstand NPOV above. You also seem to misunderstand our policies on reliable sources. Please re-read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for you to air your views that critical theory is agenda driven or unreliable. Your contention that it is radically leftist circulates around the fact that the in the 1930s Frankfurt school was based on marxist ideas, but the fact is theory now (70 odd years later) exists in multiple ideological forms. We don't perform McCarthyist red-hunts on WP - we record the mainstream academic and reliable sources on subjects and critical theory happens to be the mainstream of academia. Please be aware that if you continue to disregard wikipedia's policies on soapboxing (ie WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:SOAP) it will be considered tendentious. I already told you that that discussion is off-topic. Wikireason provides a forum for airing personal views and debating them. Misplaced Pages talk-space however is not for that. I realize you are a relatively new user and acting in good faith but Misplaced Pages's articles and talk-pages have defined parameters for what they can include. Original and fringe opinions don't fall within those parameters for either main or talk space (see WP:TALK - How to use article talk pages - Stay objective)--Cailil 15:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Also the discussion of is or who is not conservative is becoming off-topic and unhelpful. There are a number of scholarly works that describe Hoff Sommers as conservative and deal with how her work is part of conservative discourse:

1. 'Elizabeth Dole and Conservative Feminist Politics' by Kathy Rudy in Genders 30 1999. Genders is one of the few peer-review academic journals hosted online
2. Adventures in conservative Feminism' by Angela D. Dillard in Society, Volume 42, Number 3 / March, 2005, pp. 25-27
3. 'Class, Gender, and Public Education: A Material History of the Academy' by Melissa M. Mowry in Genders 29 1999.
4. 'Glossing over' feminism?: a general semantics critique.' by Katherine Liepe-Levinson & Martin H. Levinson in A Review of General Semantics, v52 n4 p440-54 Winter 1995-1996 This one deals specifically with how Hoff Sommers's work is used in conservative discourse
5. 'Forum on Feminism and the Media: Afterword' by Leola A. Johnson in Signs, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Spring, 1995), pp. 711-719 Also provides and interesting discussion of Hoff Sommers

Any further discussion about Christina Hoff Sommers should be discussed on that article's talk page - not here. The same goes for other authors. This page is about the subject of Misandry - let's stay on topic and objective.

I'm sorry if my tone is stern, but there are defined parameters for discussion here and this article has a history of being held up by circular debates that have taken it off on tangents and away from its subject--Cailil 17:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not with the word itself, but it's emphasis as a pejoritive and, therefore, a covert way of discrediting. In the general political cosmos of wiki-users, to choose to describe somebody as 'conservative' or a 'religous studies professor', as opposed to many other potentially equally accurate and useful ways of describing them, is just such a thing. I have no problem with the descriptions myself, but lets at least not trivialise the significance of these kinds of editorial decisions, stern or not. Jgda (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jdga. We should not trivialize the significance of naming and categorizing. But, this certainly gets the root of the problems with this article. Why are Religious Studies professors given weight in this article? Do they have expertise in the psychology of misandry? Of the history of misandric thought? Why are commentators who are using the word "misandry" to counter feminism on political bases given such weight? Is there a way to better contextualize these issues? (sincere questions, not rhetorical) --IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Academics with a background in Religous Studies and whose research leads them to misandry as a sociological issue are just as capable of dealing with it with authority as an atheist such as myself. Nobody is just a Religous Studies professor, after all, and <insert academic discipline> Studies in Arts and Social Science faculties are so multi-disciplinary these days. Jgda (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I take sincere issue with that. By your logic, no one is just anything. We are all multidimensional. But, what one cannot claim is that training in Religious Studies is the same as training in the discipline of sociology - or anthropology, history, literary criticism, psychology and linguistics for that matter. Are you suggesting that by contextualizing Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young as Religous Studies professors we are presenting a non-neutral point of view? Or are you suggesting that Nathanson and Young have the same qualifications of sociologists?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry, been on holiday...) Well, not anyone. I did write 'Arts and Social Sciences' above. A professor with a purely science based background: probably not. But, for example, check out religious studies on this website to start with. It begins: 'Religious studies, or Religious education, is the academic field of multi-disciplinary, secular study of religious beliefs, behaviors, and institutions. It describes, compares, interprets, and explains religion, emphasizing systematic, historically-based, and cross-cultural perspectives. While theologians attempt to understand the subject matter of religion from within a particular religious tradition, scholars of religion study human religious behavior and belief from outside any particular religious viewpoint. Religious studies draws upon multiple disciplines and their methodologies including anthropology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and history of religion.' Jgda (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Misandry as a form of discrimination

Cailil, since Wiki is a general encyclopedia, not an academic one, it would seem that the misandry page should address its subject within the official framework of describing a form of discrimination, not from one of literary theory, which is irrelevent.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?Bflesschi (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is this considered "the official framework"? That such a thing exists may be worth noting in this article. I don't think this article is about discrimination against men, so a deep treatment of that topic will need another article, but the connection you are describing is interesting. Can you source who is making this connection?

I would say this article is a general article about misandry, and should not be limited to any one perspective on the subject. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To be very clear Bflesschi, I am not advocating that this page be used for anything other than discussion of Misandry based upon reliable third party sources as defined by this site's policy. I am not advocating the use of lit theory here except if it deals directly with the subject. I am intrigued by your mention of "official framework" - please explain what you mean by this--Cailil 02:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just referring to the seemingly official rubrik provided by the sidebar, which calls the page "part of a series of articles on discrimination". I haven't done a lot of Wiki editing, it's true (though I'm fairly familiar with encyclopedias and their editorial frameworks in general), so please fill me in as to what kind of editorial status the sidebar has, if any. Personally, I would think it would fit more into the categories of prejudice, or bigotry, because I wouldn't assert that misandrists have political or economic power with which to discriminate on any level. I believe its harm has mainly to do with emotional scarring of children of both sexes, and strife in social interaction and public discourse (much like some of the effects of misogyny). I bring up my personal ideas just to give some context to my ideas re. what category the subject fits in. — Bflesschi — continues after insertion below

'I wouldn't assert that misandrists have political or economic power with which to discriminate on any level.' That's fine, but the people that do assert this - and how - were once mentioned in the article, but these kinds of assertations are not very palatable. The politics of Discrimination (note: capital 'D') is one of the wildist and most savage ideological turf wars there is... Jgda (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Although it's clear I have a bias against Critical Theory, I believe the article should cover all relevent perspectives (including lit theory), and slant towards none. It's going to be very difficult, but I'd like to work with others towards making an article that feminists, anti-misandrists, masculinists, and even antifeminists could all live with unless particular members of these groups were particularly tamper-crazy. And of course it'll just evolve on and on...Bflesschi (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the sidebar is what's called an infobox but it has no "official" standing nor does it imply a framework for the article. It's really just there to help people navigate to subjects related to or semi-related to this one.

I'm delighted that more people who want to improve articles are coming to WP and I honestly think most of us here would love to see this page be comprehensive, neutral (ie one that "feminists, anti-misandrists, masculinists, and even antifeminists could all live with") and accurate. And as long as everyone applies themselves within policy (WP:ATT gives a brief over view of the most major ones and links to their pages) there shouldn't be too many problems - Happy new year--Cailil 12:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

'mad woman'

The problem I have with inserting the mental illness issue into the single sentence bio of Solanas is exactly the reason why it was re-inserted: in that it is blithely misleading to use it as an explanation for her misandry. There are sources in the Valerie Solanas article, but these sources are there to back up the statement that it was widely accepted that she had mental illnesses, but these claims only surfaced, from what I know, after the shooting, when such claims are reasonably common. There are also sources from current feminist writers that claim that labelling her as the 'mad woman' is a kind of traditional patriarchal marginalizing device that denigrates her place in valuable feminist thought (Amanda Third, "'Shooting from the hip': Valerie Solanas, SCUM and the apocalyptic politics of radical feminism." in Hecate' )ct 2006' http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6312068/Shooting-from-the-hip-Valerie.html) Jgda (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. She was diagnosed with schizophrenia, that's not disputable. This explains why she would hold such strange, and often incoherent views. It's pertinent to any discussion of Solanas.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the fact that such a diagnosis occured at some point after the crimes. I pretty much think she was a lunatic too. The point is, why here? Many people have had such diagnosis, before or after crimes, that would not have it mentioned in a one sentence bio. And in the Valerie Solanas article on this website we have quotes such as this: 'Ti-Grace Atkinson, the New York chapter president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), described Solanas as "the first outstanding champion of women's rights." Another member, Florynce Kennedy, represented Solanas at her trial, calling her "one of the most important spokeswomen of the feminist movement."' So instead of 'schizophrenic' we could have 'outstanding champion of women's rights' maybe? Or maybe both would be an appropriate compromise? Jgda (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems like mentioning her mental illness is poisoning the well a bit. It'd almost be like mentioning Nietzsche's mental illness every time we mention him. That said, it may not hurt to after presenting her views, say that some authors discredit her writings and the product of a mental illness (and it may not hurt to also offer other perspectives. Not sure if I can dig up the reference, but I've also heard theories that SCUM was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek). But I agree with Jgda that matter of factly mentioning her mental illness on the first mention of her is basically adding an unsourced criticism.-Andrew c  14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts to compromise, but I don't think mixing the praise quote with "schizophrenic" is helpful. As I said, it'd be better to describe her mental illness in relation to her writings more fully in a separate sentence.-Andrew c  14:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll chip in here too. The topic is misandry, not the credibility of those who express it or those who identify it.

The schizophrenia is going off topic. It could be argued to defend feminism or to criticise it. Neither point is relevant to the article.

It is another version of weasling evidence, like categorizing commentators by political views. It is irrelevant whether they are liberal or conservative, it is relevant whether they express or identify misandry.

The article needs expressions of misandry for concreteness, it needs identifications of misandry for reliability. So long as the sources are identified, the reader can evaluate the reliability of the source. With apologies to Orwell, some reliable sources are more reliable than others. NPOV means Wiki guards a threshhold of reliability (publication) while withholding comment on relative merit.

On reflection, I think it is arguably unhelpful and irrelevant to identify whether expressions or identifications of misandry are made by feminists. Delineating the bounds of feminist orthodoxy are not material to the topic, nor are criticisms of, or apologetics by, feminists material to the topic either. If Nathanson and Young are in any way unhelpful, it is because they are critics of feminism specifically, not documentors of misandry generally. In the context of discussing N&Y, some feminist apologetics would become relevant, in so far as they directly address quotable comments in N&Y attributing misandry to the movement.

Anyway, good call on dropping the reference. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Philandry

Not mentioned? Why? Philogyny is mentioned in the Misogyny article, so Philandry should be mentioned here. LuGiADude (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Usage guides belong on Wiktionary. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Manual?

This seems to read more like a howto than a description of the condition, there seem to be serious POV issues with the whole men's rights area on Misplaced Pages. 24.138.22.57 (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Jawn

You noticed? Simple reason being any sort of commentary or exposition on the topic is itself illegitmised by the very discursive practices it is critical of. Irony huh? Do not despair: this is just not the place where this topic can be adequately discussed. Jgda (talk) 07:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A step forward

Silly of me not to have thought of this before. Shakespeare The Taming of the Shrew, but more importantly Sigmund Freud, penis envy and the Electra complex enter the literature well before feminism and other recent discussion.

• Donald Vandenberg, "Caring: Feminine Ethics or Maternalistic Misandry? A Hermeneutical Critique of Nel Noddings' Phenomenology of the Moral Subject and Education", Journal of Philosophy of Education 30 (1996): 253–269.

Cites Freud's views on penis envy.

More biblio coming as I have time. Eventually I'll write it up if no one else does.

By the way, I'm no expert, Freud seems bizarre to me on this point, I just don't buy it. On the other hand, I know little boys think "girls have germs" at a stage in their development. I'm happy to ask the question, "do we ever really 'grow out' of this, or does it remain latent?" I am not, in principle, against Freud or someone else explaining that there is an analogy for this is the female psyche. I wouldn't know, 'cause I'm not a girl. ;) I'm not sure they'd let on to me if it were true either.

Reading is a wonderful thing. Peace? :) Alastair Haines (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's some Judith Butler, mentioning misandry in passing, online at google books. Why do I think this link will be followed? ;)

• Judith Butler, 'Gender Is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion', in Film Theory: Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies, 2003.
• J Komporály, 'Maternal longing as addiction: feminism revisited in Timberlake Wertenbaker's The Break of Day",

Journal of Gender Studies, 13 (2004): 129-138. Suggests sympathetically the existence of contradictions and some misandry in feminism.

• Michael J. Diamond, 'Masculinity Unraveled: The Roots of Male Gender Identity and the Shifting of Male Ego Ideals Throughout Life', Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 54 (2006): 1099-1130.

Nothing to do with feminism, single quote has mother's misandry corresponding to son's misogyny. Overall thesis modifies Freud, suggesting immature, "phallic" masculinity progresses to developing, "genital" masculinity finally reaching a mature de-gendered stage appreciating diversity and interaction rather than requiring control of boundaries. Here's a (feminist in my opinion) writer working from Freud forwards only two years ago, attributing misandry as readily as misogyny, in ordinary workings of the psyche independent of culture.

The last knocks the socks off the glib stereotypes found in urban myths regarding what is supposedly known or argued regarding gender doesn't it?

But the main point is this: if women have recently speculated that there's an instinctive misogyny in the male psyche, the men started this! Freud speculated there was an instinctive misandry in the female psyche ... a hundred years ago!

End of my daily wikt:reality check. Back to writing about ancient love poetry for a deadline. Cheers all. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting quote

If men appear to have spent more time abusing women than women men (which is what the textual evidence suggests), this is not because misandry is a more rare phenomenon than misogyny, but because for several centuries most printed books were written by men. 'If wommen hadde writen stories', Chaucer's wife of Bath points out, 'They wolde han writen of men moore wikkednesse / Than al the mark of Adam may redresse' — to which one can only add that feminist writing published during the last fifteen years or so has been doing what it can to ensure that misandry will eventually be as well represented in print as misogyny now is.

— Kenneth Knowles Ruthven, Feminist Literary Studies: An Introduction, (Cambridge University Press, 1984).

p. 86.

iFeminists

iFeminists keeps providing access to useful resources on a whole range of gender topics. After two years of merely plundering the sources they gather, I read their self-description. I disagree with them, but I admire them. Interestingly, they describe other feminists as man-hating. I wonder if this is a feminist "Reformation". I suspect that poking around iFeminists for a while one would uncover a fair bit of material to build this article back up. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Silly not to think of it before, but feminist literature is not only full of statements that could be called misandric (the Nathanson and Young argument) but misandry is not simply about criticisms of feminism.

Feminism, like the ancient Greeks, often proposes hate is based on fear. What causes fear? Sometimes the unknown and various other causes, but very often those who are perceived (or known) to hate you. Feminism proposes misogyny is based in part on the presupposition of misandry -- "if she hates me I'd better keep her under control."

Of course, Nathanson and Young simply use the same argument, reversing the genders and using evidence from 1970 to the present.

It seems to me this is extremely easy to source, quite easy to understand, and takes very few words to say. It has a nice balance to it, naturally suggesting the NPOV, and would allow readers to feel they had a simple, reliable thought to take away from the article.

We couldn't crowd the article with the many arguable examples feminists put forward as being male accusations of misandry throughout history -- Pandora and Eve for example -- especially not Eve, since this doesn't match millenia of commentary on the Bible. Personally, I think the feminists fail to prove the general case, but some of their best examples are pretty much beyond challenge.

At some point, I will attempt to search feminist literature for claims that writers believed women to "hate men". Wiki is not a dictionary. We are interested in the concept, not the word misandry. There should be no doubt "hating men" falls within the definition of the idea. This search will probably produce plenty of results without having to find references that have synonyms of hate, or stronger terms like contempt. (A study on references to envying men would be interesting, given Millet's comments on Freud).

Feminists have done most the hard work for us here. This is not a high priority research project for me. If anyone else would like to gather these sources, please go ahead. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Androphobia

There was previously an article on androphobia - which is a proper medical phobia and a different matter to misandry - but it seems to have got deleted and now its a redirect.

If no-one objects, I propose to re-introduce it as a stub in its own right. --82.69.202.14 (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to start a stub. However, two warnings.

I just checked the deletion log entry for the previous article. It was deleted for lack of any published source. I wouldn't open a stub for this topic myself, unless I could at least review one book. Even then, if people don't like what that book says, they'll simply object it's not sufficiently notable if it has no published reviews or other comments. If you find at least one journal article or book that covers this topic, please let me know. I'll see if I can help you with the article.

Second warning, neither gynophobia nor misogyny are recognised by psychiatry, medicine or law. In contemporary language they are rhetorical words associated with a particular political view. I would be very surprised indeed to find that androphobia was recognised by science, when gynophobia are misogyny are not. Having said that, though, I have known domestic animals that are afraid of men. I suppose it just hasn't been studied or named.

I love discovering I'm wrong, so best luck. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit

Unsourced text that seemed to be trying to suggest a parallel between misandry and misogyny was recently removed. I concur. Thanks to the anonymous user for this edit. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleting quote about Solanas

I added the quote from the scholar about Solanas, and am now removing it. Since the quote is about Solanas and not about misandry per se, I don't think it is necessary. I am, however, keeping the reference to the quote because the quote talks about Solanas' misandric personal philosophy.

Also, I do not think that we should equate Solanas with the entirety of radical feminism. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of radical feminists are not schizophrenic.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The quote is about Solanas' misandry, which makes the inclusion of the SCUM Manifesto appropriate for the article. However, I will concede that point in the interest of cooperation.

I am not equating Solanas with the entirety of radical feminism. Still, she claims to be a radical feminist and (some) other radical feminists also label her as a radical feminist. You can't just stick "self-described" in front of every radical feminist with whom you disagree. I disagree with plenty of people who call themselves masculists or men's rights activists, but I don't take away their right to describe themselves. If you have a source from a radical feminist rejecting Solanas, feel free to add it.

I don't see what implies that the vast majority of radical feminists are schizophrenic. Saying that someone is A and B doesn't imply that every member of group A is a member of group B (or vice-versa). Anyway, I'm not the one who added that Solanas is a schizophrenic. JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't quite remember what other sources were used regarding Solanas. I think Alice has a legitimate objection to including Solanas, unless a reliable source can be found describing the SCUM Manifesto or Solanas herself as misandrous. Sure, most people would say she was, but anger isn't necessarily hatred. I'm sure many would say Solanas was angry, some would say justly.

It takes work, but text isn't about two or three editors agreeing, it's about all passers by agreeing that the text reflect reliable sources. Does someone want to volunteer to make this objective and about sources and find a published source saying Solanas is a notable example of misandry?

Regarding rad fems and schizophrenia, I think we're all agreed, the article is about misandry, not about rad fems or Solanas, unless published sources describe them so. Solanas' mental health is irrelevant, even if sourced. I'm not too dogmatic in my thoughts on that though, 'cause some would offer it Solanas' (or rad fem) defense, as much as others would offer it to seek to discredit her (or them).

Would you accept some text regarding Solanas and SCUM as famous alleged misandry, Alice. Especially if it is expressed from the NPOV--X said Solanas' SCUM was misandrous or some have proposed the SCUM Manifesto to be the most notable misandrous publication of the 20th century or whatever? Alastair Haines (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the problem - it seems to be more a case of wanting to disassociate VS from radical feminism and place her in the 'mad woman' trope, something branded as reactionary in the Hecate article where, btw, it is written: 'in the late 1960s Solanas was considered a key inspirational figure by the United States radical feminist vanguard.' The disassociation is really strange, and something that is discussed at length in the above work. The more effective apologist method is to pitch her as an avant-garde ironist.

As for identifying misandry, you can use Alice Echols : “Solanas’s SCUM Manifesto which she wrote in 1967, was one of the earliest, wittiest, and most eccentric expressions of second-wave feminism. Solanas’s unabashed misandry–especially her belief in men’s biological inferiority–her endorsement of relationships between ‘independent women,’ and her dismissal of sex as ‘the refuge of the mindless’ contravened the sort of radical feminism which prevailed in most women’s groups across the country”

Is that enough?

Jgda (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Since this quote states SCUM Manifesto "contravened" contemporary radical feminism, it should also satisfy the concern about not representing Solanas's work as typical of radical feminists. For brevity, I'm restoring it to the footnote instead of the article body. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool - the quote is quite enough. As far as contravening goes, it was contravening the 'sort of radical feminism', i.e. providing a spearhead for a new sort of radical femnism other than the one that prevailed at the time, as opposed to being contrary to radical feminsim conceptually. Jgda (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Considering the weight of material out there, using a simple google search or an academic database like JSTOR, that describe Solanas as a feminist, let alone a radical one, the burden of proof for justifying the adding of the quotations marks and 'self-described' surely is with the adder. Where is it said that she is not one, for example? Jgda (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote is in; the quotation marks are out. Unless someone objects, I don't think this discussion needs to be further extended. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Restoring penis envy with extra material

Just leaving a note that I am not satisfied with Alice deleting and recategorising psychological material under literary theory without taking the opportunity to discuss this with other editors clearly active on the page. No offense taken, though I'd propose we think about discussing things with other interested parties before making changes to their edits. I'm happy to do it either way though, I'll just edit over the top of things myself when its my turn, if Alice would prefer that.

Anyway, it's no bother to me, because it just stimulates me to do the work I discussed in talk above, and write in some of the sources available on penis envy. Ultimately, it's important to establish the grounds for the important feminist protest that men have accused women of misandry for a very long time.

Just to clarify, Alice, you're not an anti-feminist are you? I won't persecute you for it, but you're not denying the feminist claim that men have accused women of all manner of misandrous motives and behaviours over the course of history, are you? To deny that would be to deny much of the very foundation of the theoretical framework of misogyny. Perhaps you don't believe in misogyny, which is fine, it is only a theory, I'm just curious to know. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Misandry in art & literature.

If a woman who is an author or an artist makes all of major & secondary male characters efeminately beautiful & rather dainty, all of the macho guys are complete flakes or villains, & all of her female characters are smart. tough/ & cold towards the less femme boys, does that count as misandry? If yes, then I have an interesting subject for an essay in Japanese class.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2009

Yes, if you think the author has "hatred (or contempt) of men or boys". --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys this is not a forum. Please discuss the article not the subject--Cailil 13:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• Unassessed Discrimination articles
• Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• Old requests for peer review