Talk:Misandry/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

You forgot about Poland!

"However, in virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support comparable to misogyny, the hatred of women."

Retirement Age Disparity Contrary to claims that misandry lacks institutional or systemic support, there are notable examples suggesting otherwise. One such example is the differential retirement age policy in Poland. Under current legislation, women can retire at the age of 60, while men must wait until the age of 65, despite similar life expectancy at retirement and increasing gender parity in the labor force. This discrepancy systemically privileges women in terms of access to public pension systems, while placing a greater burden on men to remain economically active for a longer period. The political party that attempted to equalize the retirement age lost power as a result, and its successors—strong opponents of the reform—swiftly reversed the changes, while every subsequent election sees parties pledging not to raise the retirement age for women, catering to the female electorate.

This example of legally sanctioned inequality demonstrates that gender-based bias against men can be systemic and institutionalized, particularly when the state allocates benefits or obligations solely based on sex.

1. Chłoń-Domińczak, A. (2019). Gender differences in pension outcomes in Poland. In: OECD, Pensions at a Glance 2019: OECD and G20 Indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b6d3dcfc-en
2. Kotowska, I. E., & Sztanderska, U. (2012). Gender and the labour market in Poland. In: Fodor, É. et al. (Eds.), Gender and Labour Markets in Post-Socialist Europe. Palgrave Macmillan.
3. World Bank (2017). Gender Disparities in Endowments, Access to Economic Opportunities, and Agency. Washington, DC: The World Bank Group. Chapter on Eastern Europe and retirement age inequalities.

46.174.224.42 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Mandatory Military Qualification for Men Only All Polish men aged 18–24 are legally required to undergo military qualification, while women are only subject to it under special conditions (e.g., medical training). This institutionalizes unequal obligations based on gender and contradicts the principle of equal civic duty.

Legal basis: Article 57, Act on the Defense of the Fatherland (Ustawa o obronie Ojczyzny), 2022. Source: Polish Ministry of National Defence: https://www.gov.pl/web/obrona-narodowa

Gender Bias in Domestic Violence Services Although anti-violence laws in Poland are gender-neutral, public support systems (shelters, legal aid, psychological help) are overwhelmingly focused on women. Men who are victims of domestic abuse face significant barriers to accessing help, including lack of shelters and institutional acknowledgment.

Programs: “Blue Line” (Niebieska Linia) and local OIKs (family crisis centers) rarely provide services tailored to male victims. Reports: Ombudsman of Poland, annual reports on access to public services for male victims (e.g., 2021 report on equal treatment).

Parental Leave Access: Legal Rights vs. Social Barriers Although men legally have equal rights to parental and paternity leave, very few fathers in Poland take advantage of these provisions. Structural disincentives, such as employer discrimination and lack of state-sponsored incentives for fathers, result in a de facto gender imbalance in care responsibilities.

Legal framework: Labour Code (Kodeks pracy), Articles 182¹ and 182³. Empirical data: EU Commission (2022). Gender Equality Index – Poland. Scholarly commentary: Kotowska, I.E. (2020). Gender gaps in care responsibilities and the labour market in Central Europe.

Family Court Bias in Child Custody Cases Although family law in Poland is formally gender-neutral, in practice mothers are awarded sole custody in over 90% of divorce cases. Fathers are often granted limited visitation rights, even when they actively seek shared custody. This reflects an institutional bias rooted in stereotypes about parenting roles.

Legal framework: Polish Family and Guardianship Code (Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy), Articles 56–58. Empirical data: Reports from the Polish Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman show systematic preference for maternal custody. Academic reference: Słowik, P. (2021). Walka o dziecko: Ojcowie w polskich sądach rodzinnych. [in: Tygodnik Powszechny].

There are thousands of cases in Poland where men are systematically discriminated against based solely on their gender. This bias manifests itself in numerous areas: internships and subsidies preferentially targeting women, educational programs and scholarships with gender quotas, lower physical standards for women in professions such as law enforcement or the military, and even workplace benefits like meal programs or ergonomic allowances that are adjusted based on caloric expenditure—often to the disadvantage of men. These are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of small, institutionalized inequalities that cumulatively disadvantage boys and men across multiple stages of life.

Meanwhile, women benefit from a wide array of systemic supports, including dedicated associations, legal aid foundations, mentorship networks, and targeted policy initiatives. In contrast, men not only lack comparable institutional resources, but are often met with mockery or social stigma when they attempt to seek help—a dynamic that effectively discourages them from doing so. As a result, many men suffer in silence, unsupported by the very structures designed to promote equality.

True gender equality cannot be achieved as long as one side is granted compassion and institutional support, while the other is expected to endure in silence, dismissed or ridiculed for expressing vulnerability. A society that ignores systemic discrimination against men undermines the very principles of fairness and justice it claims to uphold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.174.224.42 (talk • contribs)

You seem to have a lot of material that might be at home on Discrimination against men there, but you are lacking sources that attribute these differences in treatment to 'Misandry' in particular. - MrOllie (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2025

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Valerie Solanas and the SCUM Manifesto

The most widely cited example is Valerie Solanas, a radical feminist writer and activist best known for her 1967 work SCUM Manifesto (Society for Cutting Up Men). In it, Solanas calls for the eradication of the male sex, describing men as "incomplete females" and advocating for their elimination through technological and political means.

> “The male is a biological accident… the male is an incomplete female… the male is a walking abortion.” — SCUM Manifesto, Valerie Solanas

While some feminists have argued that the text is satirical or metaphorical, others—including Solanas herself at times—presented the work as serious political commentary. Solanas later shot artist Andy Warhol, further contributing to her notoriety.

Mary Daly

Another radical feminist scholar, Mary Daly, who taught theology and philosophy at Boston College, has been accused of expressing open contempt for men in her works. In her 1973 book Beyond God the Father, Daly critiques male-dominated religion, and in later interviews and writings, she referred to men as “necrophiliacs” and suggested that a world without men would be preferable.

In a 1999 interview with Salon, Daly stated:

> “If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the male population.”

Daly was later criticized for allegedly refusing to admit male students into her classes, eventually resigning from Boston College under pressure.

Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon

While Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon are often misquoted or taken out of context, critics argue that their work helped frame heterosexual intercourse as inherently oppressive. Dworkin wrote:

> “Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. All men are guilty.” — Intercourse, 1987 (Personal attack removed) 2409:40D1:202D:5B5E:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Women who hate men: a comparative analysis across extremist Reddit communities

Source discusses similarities between both misandrist and misogynist online hate groups. It concludes, based on four types of statistical analysis, that both types of group appear to be highly similar and should be treated from a gender neutral perspective.

"The performed analyses reveal that no systematic differences can be devised across the misogynistic and misandric communities. This suggests that, in addressing the phenomenon of online gendered hate speech, both male-to-female and female-to-male perspectives should be taken into account, thus recognizing equal importance to both misandry and misogyny." (emphasis in original) Dekadoka (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a primary research study and should not be cited for significant claims. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The consensus here seems to be that researchers presenting their own research should be cited if the research is relevant enough to the topic. I understand and acknowledge your point, but I think it should be applied equally to all sources if that is truly the standard. Perhaps some further clarification of the definition of "primary source" is warranted here. Dekadoka (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not outweigh WP:RS in any case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I really don't understand what is going on. On one hand you say that primary research study should not be cited for significant claims. On the other hand, you refuse to remove a significant claim supported only by a primary research study from the lead section (the one about misandry myth). DeadJoe98 (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

That's the thing, I cannot fix it, because this article is extended confirmed protected. I cannot edit it. If I could, I would've done it ages ago. DeadJoe98 (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Then you can start a request for comment on removing the source from the lead section. Other options can be found at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is really anything to discuss. The article states that it is a "research article" above the title, and the opening line is "in six studies, we examined." This implies 1) a first hand account, 2) Raw data and evidence, and 3) original research completed and presented by the authors. I could go into more detail, but it's self-evident, frankly. It meets all of the criteria for a primary source. I can start a request for comment, but it seems rather pointless given the lack of any substantial arguments in favor of keeping the source. We had one user assert previously that he believes it is not primary, but he did not explain why he holds (held?) that belief. Dekadoka (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The source doesn't go as far as that; it does not say that misandry is as important as misogyny. It says the research suggested "that gendered hate speech is not exacerbated by the perpetrators’ gender, indeed being a common factor of noxious communities." Men and women who identify as sexist use gendered hate speech. Not a surprise. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like we agree - I think you misread what I said? The source is saying that online hate groups are similar, not the societal impacts, etc. Dekadoka (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

'feminist research scientists'

Labeling the authors of a citation as 'feminist research scientists' is a not so subtle way of stating that their results are an opinion held only by feminists, that is not an accurate summary of the cited source and is not appropriate to do in Wikivoice. MrOllie (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The research scientists are feminist. I don't know why you're reading into that. Also, I think that the idea of the "misandry myth" is credited to feminists. I don't understand what's wrong with that. I don't think the concept is very popular outside feminist circles. I'm not saying that non-feminists necessarily oppose the phrase. Many people've probably never heard of misandry, let alone the misandry myth. You're reading into the simple fact that the researchers just are feminist about as badly as DeadJoe98 reads into the fact that misandry is rare in historical records. You're both reading in between the lines when I'm just saying what I'm saying, transparently, and without some sort of nefarious hidden agenda that has frequently been attributed to me (see the archives of my talk page, I get accusations like this often enough). 1101 (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

You should probably at least revert the article to a version which didn't say that that the authors were feminists, but which removed the misleading "topic experts" as per our discussion on the top page. That one should be completely uncontroversial and if MrOllie keeps reverting it, it will be used as evidence for his abuse of power. DeadJoe98 (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The researcher in particular which I randomly selected has nothing to suggest that they are a topic expert. Just getting published is not enough to be considered a topic expert, otherwise, all sorts of fringe "experts" will be considered topic experts. DeadJoe98 (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's less precise. I think that it makes sense to credit the misandry myth to feminist researchers. I don't understand MrOllie's apparent belief that crediting feminist ideas to feminists is bad. I've never heard a non­feminist discuss the "misandry myth". That doesn't mean I oppose the notion. It just means I want to credit it to the source. To state that something has a feminist origin isn't some sly insult. At the same time, it's a bit pedantic to hone in on one psychology graduate. The three main co­authors, Hopkins-Doyle, Petterson, and Sutton all appear to be experts in social psychology. So you don't really contest that there are topic experts do you, just the statement of number? It seems a bit pedantic and contrived, and I can see why other editors may not appreciate your apparent focus on Victoria Cock's credentials (she's a psychology graduate, but not a lecturer or post­grad like the three main authors). 1101 (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that I am being particularly pedantic. There is a huge difference between saying that there are 40 topic experts and saying that there are 3 or 10 topic experts. If the number that is provided is incorrect and/or questionable, then why mention it at all? The sentence could be paraphrased to completely avoid any mentions of numbers. I am completely fine with that option as well. DeadJoe98 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not accept your premise that this is a 'feminist idea'. MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the view that the misandry myth is a feminist idea. It is a defense of feminism put forth by researchers who openly defend feminism and attack critics of feminism in their research article. It additionally is recent (Nov 2023) primary research (the researchers present their own experiment). This falls far short of established academic consensus, and matches criteria used to exclude other primary sources that have been suggested. Dekadoka (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

None of that makes it a feminist idea, or the authors feminist research scientists. As Talib1101 stated, the primary authors are researchers in the field of social psychology. Whether they are feminists or not is beside the point unless a reliable source specifically comments on it.

That said, "The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" is indeed a primary research paper whose conclusions should not be cited in the lead section. It's misleading to call it a meta-analysis because the studies analyzed were all conducted by the same authors and published together as one.

It's also misleading (not to mention original research) to assign the paper's conclusions to 40 topic experts. The paper has three joint first authors: Aífe Hopkins-Doyle, Aino L. Petterson, and Robbie M. Sutton. Many of the co-authors appear to have been mainly limited to translating survey materials into other languages. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

"That said, "The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" is indeed a primary research paper whose conclusions should not be cited in the lead section. [...] It's also misleading (not to mention original research) to assign the paper's conclusions to 40 topic experts. The paper has three joint first authors: Aífe Hopkins-Doyle, Aino L. Petterson, and Robbie M. Sutton. Many of the co-authors appear to have been mainly limited to translating survey materials into other languages."

@Sangdeboeuf Based on the evidence that you yourself provided, it seems like a logical course of action would be to remove that statement from the lead section of the article. DeadJoe98 (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf, unfortunately, my account is not extended confirmed, so I cannot make this change. Could you do it for me, please? DeadJoe98 (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Since this material has been discussed before, I'd prefer to wait for others' input before removing it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The paper was co-written by 40 scholars. All of them participated in review and editing. The fact that three of them are listed as "joint first authors" does not erase the 37 others that hammered out a consensus text to bring the paper to publication. It represents the findings of 40 scholars. Don't try to diminish it. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are supporting the idea that these "40 topic experts" have expertise relating to the statement "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is widespread." If they have expertise on this topic, it stands to reason that they would, for example, publish papers on related subjects. This seemed easy enough to find out, so I tallied up the papers from each author and made a list:

Only one article published (20 authors): Hopkins-Doyle, Aife; Petterson, Aino L; Zibell, Hannah; Binti Abdul Rahim, Sharmaine; Blake, Jemima; Cherrie-Rees, Kimberley; Beadle, Ami; Cock, Victoria; Greer, Hazel; Jankowska, Antonina; Macdonald, Kaitlin; Scott English, Alexander; Wai Lan YEUNG, Victoria; Boonroungrut, Chinun; Iida, Junko; Jogdand, Yashpal; Lee, Hyejoo J; One, Kim; Sharma, Suryodaya; Tipandjan, Arun

Two articles published, only one mentions feminism/misandry: Leach, Stefan; Bosco, Cristina; Chien, Chin-Lung; Cui, Lixian; Fuji, Kei

Three articles published, only one mentions feminism/misandry: Asano, Ryosuke; Beattie, Peter; Chaudhuri, Anindita; Murayama, Aya

Four articles published, only one mentions feminism/misandry: Hitokoto, Hidefumi; Jiang, Ding-Yu; Moon, Chanki

Six articles published, only one mentions feminism/misandry: Mifune, Nobuhiro; Sato, Kosuke

Seven articles published, only one mentions feminism/misandry: Chobthamkit, Phatthanakit; Choi, Hoon-Seok

More than ten articles published, possibly some indirect connections but no direct mention of feminism/misandry in title other than "Misandry Myth": Bernardo, Allan B I; Du, Hongfei; Ishii, Keiko; Park, Joonha; Suh, Eunkook M

Published at least one other article relating to the topic (2 authors): Na, Jinkyung (16 articles total, 2 directly relating feminism/misandry); Sutton, Robbie M (21 articles total, around 5 relating to feminism but only one discussing the possible connection with misandry)

In summary, only 2 authors out of the 40 have published other work on feminism, and none of them have published any other papers relating to causes of misandry or links to feminism. Additionally, and more importantly, this is a recent primary source which cannot reflect the academic consensus due to being the only source that has empirically examined this question. It is bad practice to place a primary source front and center on a controversial article. Dekadoka (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

What universe are you examining here? The paper is a survey of other papers. It's not primary, and the authors are all scholars. Whatever you have planned to sink this source is not going to happen. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Please address the points that have been brought up. Demonstrate that all 40 authors are topic experts, and explain why you believe a group of researchers publishing the results of their own experiments is not a primary source. Multiple users have brought up concerns about this source, and restating your opinion without elaboration does not move the discussion forward. Dekadoka (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The "points" you brought up are not relevant. You're trying to pick apart a reliable source because you don't like it. "Multiple users" are not forming a consensus; instead they are complaining about an extremely strong source because it emphatically dashes their view. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll add assuming bad faith in addition to simply repeating opinions without justification. You are engaging in WP:STONEWALLING. Please stop. Dekadoka (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Assuming good faith doesn't mean that we need to ignore it when people tells us what their motivations are up front. Disagreeing with your attempts to discredit a perfectly reliable source is not stonewalling. MrOllie (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

going off what mrollie said, this sounds like weaponizing wiki policy to do battleground editting.

at the end of the day, citing research as a bunch of “feminist research scientists” probably is undue wording and doesn’t really belong on here Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Disagreeing without justification is stonewalling. If the source is perfectly credible, as you say, that should be something that is easy to justify. Instead, multiple points have been brought up suggesting that is not the case. It's a primary source, and all evidence suggests that most of the authors are not topic experts.

Claiming that someone feeling that an article is biased is the same thing as wanting to disrupt or vandalize Wikipedia is questionable at best. That was my first edit on the site, and I have since admitted I was wrong on several points and significantly shifted my point of view. Additionally, four separate users have raised concerns here. Dekadoka (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

That you personally disagree does not mean you may dismiss others as not providing justification. No one is required to WP:SATISFY your demands to Demonstrate that all 40 authors are topic experts, and refusing to waste time on such is not stonewalling either. MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

That's not an accurate representation of what I and others have said in this discussion. Are you suggesting there is a consensus currently? Dekadoka (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a direct quote. MrOllie (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Just checking before starting an RFC, are you disagreeing with the main contention here that this is a primary source and should therefore be excluded? Dekadoka (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. MrOllie (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your points here. Dekadoka (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

it will be used as evidence for his abuse of power. Used as evidence where exactly? This isn't a court proceeding. MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, if this discussion goes nowhere and you keep reverting edits without adequately engaging with my criticisms on the talk section, I am planning on contacting Wikipedia staff (or whatever mechanism there is for preventing abuse of power) and see how we can proceed. DeadJoe98 (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

You should go ahead and do that right now, because I am certainly not going to try to debate anything with you on this talk page while you're making empty threats. MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

If you don't wish to engage with the talk page, then that's absolutely your right. DeadJoe98 (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

These people have PhDs in relevant fields. They are topic experts. Labeling them "feminists" is accusing them of bias, reducing their careful analysis and reasoned conclusions to mere opinion. The peer review process is exacting—these researchers hold each other to very high standards of neutrality and verifiability. Opinion has nothing to do with it. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

The peer review process is exacting. This is not a fact. Reprarina (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Academic peer review is not a perfect system. Academics are human beings, after all. (This is also true in the "hard" sciences, which the grievance peddlers behind the grievance studies affair curiously failed to investigate.) But replacing scholarly consensus with editorializing by random Wikipedia users is not the answer. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This line is shouldn't be in introduction itself

"The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the "misandry myth" by 40 topic experts"

Isn't this line biased and proving the point of the MRAs — that they don't have a voice and aren't given equal treatment? And who is to decide those 40 "experts are experts indeed? Just getting published is not enough to be considered a topic expert, especially when you work for an organization designated for women's betterment, aka the opposite gender's.103.185.242.203 (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

No one has been able to justify the claim that all 40 authors are topic experts. Perhaps the main and secondary author could be considered experts since they have published other papers that are roughly in this area (relating to feminism, not possible empirical links between feminism and misandry). Even the paper itself states that previous studies had mixed results and low sample sizes, which hardly seems like universal agreement among "topic experts" on the question of empirically proving that there is no link. Dekadoka (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll also point out that you are now the 5th user who has recently pointed out problems with that sentence in the article. Dekadoka (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing how many people are behind the various IP comments on this page, and consensus is not a head count anyways. Instead of repeating the same arguments, maybe formal dispute resolution is the way to go. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

This seems like the best solution though I recommend the few edits that continue to revert all changes on this page be excluded; (Personal attack removed). 2001:1998:3600:432:0:0:0:523 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Oops...editors, not edits. 2001:1998:3600:432:0:0:0:523 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed; the few editors that constantly undo what anyone else does shouldn’t be allowed to continue having such undue influence over this article. 2600:100A:B10F:F2E0:EC1C:6AFC:63B4:A741 (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Nationality of "Topic Experts"

It's worthy of note that the majority of these "topic experts" are members of national universities in the UK, an education system known for a strong left-wing bias. 192.182.47.216 (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't reverse sexism and misandry be merged?

They're the same 81.77.89.214 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

No. Reverse sexism is a controversial term related primarily to affirmative actions, not about real hatred of men. Reprarina (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

SCOTUS has decided there is no such this as "reverse sexist"; there is only sexism.

Since this article is about misandry and the sexism discussed is anti-male, it should be regarded as misandry.

I believe that's what the initial post was implying. 2001:1998:3600:432:0:0:0:523 (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I don’t know which SCOTUS decision you are talking about. Second, SCOTUS decisions do not determine Wikipedia policy. Third, reverse sexism is an article about term reverse sexism.--Reprarina (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Wiki cannot inform wiki, so the fact that there is a reverse sexism article is immaterial.

I would guess the person you’re replying to meant Ames V Ohio since Justice Jackson stated there is no “reverse” sexism or racism in her brief. 2600:100A:B10F:F2E0:9139:F47A:3FA:1789 (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

SCOTUS are not scientists EvergreenFir (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Which “scientists” define if the there is a legal concept of racism?

There is not a legal concept of reverse racism in the US. 174.210.2.122 (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I think we've gone off topic. This is a discussion page about working on an article about misandry, not about the term reverse racism or whether there is reverse racism in the US. Reprarina (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The question stands. Since there is no concept of reverse sexism in the US it should be removed from the article.

I can be changed to sexism or misandry, though sexism seems like a better fit. 2600:100A:B106:DAD1:BDE9:EEA:967C:1DE9 (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

This article is not called Misandry in the United States. This article is called Misandry. And even if it were the article Misandry in the United States, the reliable source for it would not be a court decision, but an academic study. Reprarina (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Using the term reverse-sexism is misandristic because it implies men are the harmer and women are harmed, by default.

The fact that the language isn't even correct makes it pointless to discuss further. 2001:1998:3600:432:0:0:0:803 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if we see more misandry like this from people most-invested in trans discussions because of their internalized misandry.

I think we can all agree that Nazi's shouldn't write holocaust histories; I think we should be extra critical of anti-men groups in just the same way. 2001:1998:3600:432:0:0:0:803 (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t like this implication but there is definitely some brigading going on by the few people that gatekeep this article.

The fact that three or four accounts decide amongst themselves to undo all others’ changes makes this a very skewed article.

Who can be brought in to address these concerns? 2600:100A:B10F:670C:9CE9:B343:47A5:2AFD (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia rejects Nazi sources not on ideological grounds, but on the fact that they are onbjectively WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia accept feminist sources not on ideological grounds, but on the fact that they are onbjectively WP:MAINSTREAM. Reprarina (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Using the term reverse-sexism is misandristic because it implies men are the harmer and women are harmed, by default. Where is the term reverse sexism used in the article?--Reprarina (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You have tried to inject this article with language like this multiple times and argued against more accurate language being added.

You are here trying to make this as hateful an article towards men as possible why others of us just want an accurate wiki entry. 2001:1998:3600:432:0:0:0:123 (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I did not try to introduce the term reverse sexism in the article. Reprarina (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality regarding "Male Tears"

How is this page not bordering on original research or violating neutrality? I'm all for the argument that overblowing the concept of misandry has been used in recent years to downplay feminism. But why can't that just be an argument within the article rather than be the whole focus? This article feels like it barely focuses on the history of misandry with figures like Valerie Solanas and just always tries to make a counter-argument to every example of misandry throughout history. Yeah ok if it's not that widespread of a thing and just a small phenomena great. But why not just clarify that whilst also telling a very informative history on misandry and figures who genuinely have tried to eradicate men or were oppressive towards men just due to their sex? Aradicus77 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually on re-reading it feels someone might have actually fixed this article? Nevermind then, this used to be one of the worst pages on Wikipedia, things read way more decently now, but still don't see the point of juxtaposing for example the story of Valerie Solanas with a random image of someone parodying misandry "male tears". Andy Warhol was queer and an important influential figure in art, and the fact that Valerie shortened his life just because he was a man is a tragedy. Aradicus77 (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that confirm that the reason for the assassination attempt on Andy Warhol was misandry? Reprarina (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

SCUM Manifesto

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/13505068211028896

https://manchesterhistorian.com/2022/valerie-solanas-a-socialist-utopia-through-radical-feminism-by-hannah-mccormick-hill/ "hence misandry is central to its premise"

"the misandrist SCUM manifesto" https://theculturesift.com/who-was-valerie-solanas-part-one/

“Feminism’s Classic Precursor or Lingering Nightmare? – the Strange Career of Valerie Solanas and her SCUM Manifesto,” in: Conformity and Resistance in America, edited by Jacek Gutorow and Tomasz Lebiecki, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007, pp. 335–346.

All make mention of misandry, there's even way more sources, but this should be enough for now. SCUM manifesto is undeniably a misandrist work, and Solanas shortened the life of an influential innocent queer man, Andy Warhol. The juxtaposition of "male tears" makes no sense in that section. Put that somewhere else where you are critiquing the co-option of misandry by the manosphere. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, the complication regarding misandry is ensuring that the idea of hating men does not appear to be a greater issue than misogyny. I agree. Misogyny is systematic, generational, and tied to oppressive hierarchies. However, people have been misandrist in the past; figures like Valerie Solanas openly identified as misandrists—she famously expressed hatred toward men and even said she wanted to kill them (and then did so!).

Maybe it’s a controversial topic because people don’t want to frame misandry as an ideology, so it doesn’t overshadow the serious issue of misogyny. That’s fair. If you consider Solanas and similar examples as anomalies, that can be agreed upon—misandry doesn’t take the same systemic form as misogyny. But to deny that what Solanas did was misandry, or to fail to acknowledge the life she took with appropriate neutrality in this article—especially by juxtaposing it with an unrelated image from 40 years later complaining about a completely separate cultural issue (the manosphere and 21st century anti-feminist movements)—doesn’t sit right. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK – just because misandry is central to the premise of SCUM Manifesto doesn't mean that SCUM Manifesto or Valerie Solanas are central to the concept of misandry. Wikipedia is also not the place to seek justice for the victims of historical tragedies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

"Just because the figure that is important to the history of misandry was a misandrist, doesn't mean they belong on the article about the history of misandry". Yeah... That makes total sense man. Aradicus77 (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

On top of that you're gonna ignore all the academic sources I posted? And the more that exist that describe Solanas as a misandrist, or at least her work being misandrist? The only thing I'm saying is that the male tears thing being in the same section as Andy Warhol's attempted assassination makes no sense. You ignored everything I said and made weird strawman arguments. Aradicus77 (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The figure [Solanas] that is important to the history of misandry – citation, please. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

And I didn't ignore your sources, only one of which (European Journal of Women's Studies) is from a mainstream academic publisher. The other three are a student newspaper, a group blog, and a predatory publisher with limited editorial oversight. I certainly don't see any basis for giving any more WP:WEIGHT to Solanas in this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

She and her actions are worth noting as an example of misandristic behavior being minimized. This directly supports the MRA sections of the article, another reason for inclusion.

Articles necessary for the inclusion have been provided by Aradicus77. 75.132.97.138 (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

An example of misandristic behavior being minimized – firstly, this is an opinion. secondly, Wikipedia articles are not exhaustive list of examples. Thirdly, I haven't seen a reliable source that directly supports this claim. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I suggest we initiate a dispute resolution.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Requesting other editors' help for content disputes 75.132.97.138 (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

National Post

Thread retitled from Proposal of the inclusion of an important article on the topic.

https://nationalpost.com/full-comment/cathy-young-when-radical-feminists-treat-men-badly-its-bad-for-feminism Lannion74 (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

undue op ed. we really don't need this here. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a syndicated column originally appearing in the Washington Post's online magazine for "fresh takes" and "personal essays", not a traditional news article. I tagged the citation in 2023 and finally removed it last January because opinion commentary by non-experts is not reliable for factual information and "fresh takes" should not be unduly weighted. Why do we care what libertarian political commentator Cathy Young thinks about this topic or any other? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

So we care only what feminists commentators thinks about it? Understood, thanks for confirming. Lannion74 (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

No, we care what reliable sources such as peer-reviewed journals, academic encyclopedias, and monographs by relevant subject-matter experts say about the topic. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Johnson; "institutional support"; Cathy Young

"Given the reality of women's oppression, male privilege, and men's enforcement of both, it's hardly surprising that every woman should have moments where she resents or even hates 'men.'"

Does it matter that there is no such things as womens opression and male privilege (at least in the West)? Lannion74 (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

No. That you personally disagree with the source does not matter. MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

And what if sources are inaccurate? Another example: "misandry lacks institutional and systemic support comparable to misogyny, the hatred of women." Where is "institutional and systemic support" of misogyny - what it is look like? Lannion74 (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

If the source is inaccurate I suppose you can write a letter to the publisher and see if they'll retract it. But that you personally think a source is wrong isn't anything we can act on here. This is fully explained at WP:NOR and WP:V. MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the irony:) Let me ask one last thing, why did the quotes from this crucial contribution on the topic disappear that were in the article earlier: https://nationalpost.com/full-comment/cathy-young-when-radical-feminists-treat-men-badly-its-bad-for-feminism ? Lannion74 (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You'd have to ask whomever removed them. I don't see any reference to the national post in the article history. Perhaps you were thinking of some other article. MrOllie (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

So I would like to propose this one for the improvement of the article - thanks. Lannion74 (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff of the deletion of this source? also, an oped by a journalist without academic credentials isn't as strong a source as an academic source per WP:BESTSOURCES Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I cant; I just remember that there were quotes about "current cycle of misandry" constituted by the invention by feminists of pejorative neologisms in "man-"; see the article proposed below. Lannion74 (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Allan G. Johnson was a sociologist whose book The Gender Knot was published by a major university. Cathy Young is a libertarian political commentator and activist. They are not comparable.

As to your question Where is "institutional and systemic support" of misogyny, you could try reading the sources that are cited in the article, or just refer to Talk:Misandry/Archive 6#Opening paragraphs or the archived discussion at WP:OR/N where this wording was hashed out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

LOL "no such things as womens opression and male privilege". It's time to read up on the topic. Start with Gerda Lerner's The Creation of Patriarchy from 1986. For a modern take, this article is easy to understand, written by topic scholars. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned "in the West", assuming that this topic and the corresponding sources are very limited to that area - no one talks about misandry in Afghanistan here. Lannion74 (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, same answer as before. Read some books on the topic and you'll be surprised at how wrong you are. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I am wrong in terms of feminist sources, which are ideological (however, the only acceptable ones here, as no university (or Guardian:) will publish any others). Lannion74 (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The article does not only cite feminist sources, as though we could even prove whether the authors were feminists or not. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2025

Please remove “However, in virtually all societies, misandry lacks institutional and systemic support comparable to misogyny, the hatred of women.[3][4][5]“

These sources are far too old to be valid and don’t actually provide solid support for the claim, therefore making it bias 159.196.43.13 (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done - There is no evidence that these sources have been superseded. - MrOllie (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Request for comment: "The Misandry Myth" in Psychology of Women Quarterly

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Yes, use this source; no, do not keep the current wording. Keeping this source had nearly unanimous support. There were requests for more sources to expand the article, and examples were provided. There was no specific proposal for how this source should be treated, so that question is not firmly answered by this RFC. Several aspects of this question were spontaneously commented upon by a subset of editors, so I will attempt a summary and make suggestions for a staring point for discussion.

Q: Is the phrase "40 topic experts" acceptable?

A: This actually had a clear answer: no. This is an uncited claim which is likely simply inaccurate.

Q: Should this source or its conclusions be mentioned in the lede?

A: Of the editors who gave a clear opinion, more favored inclusion than exclusion, finding the empirical data about misandry prevalence and feminism to be important. The answer to "Is the lede a good summary of the article?" depends on the contents of the body (which currently has a large section on feminism), so that answer may change as the article changes. It was suggested that adding more sources that address the empirical data about misandry prevalence and feminism would produce a more well-rounded body to summarize for the lede.

Q: Is attribution required, and if so using what wording?

A: Of those who gave a clear opinion, more editors supported removing attribution completely. The justification for this seems to be that the cited source is a literature review. But this was disputed; other editors said it should be treated like a primary source. The latter appear to be correct; reading the source myself, it is a series of studies reported by a large group of authors, not a relatively objective survey of independent research. Noting previous research on the same topic in primary research papers is typical. Often and probably in this case it is done for motivation, as in "the previous research is mixed so we did experiments to try to give a definitive answer". Whether or not the question is actually settled depends on future replication, evaluation of the experiments as correctly performed, etc. This is done most credibly in a literature review by someone who has not done any of the primary research, because their job is to label individual studies as reliable or unreliable.

The phrasing "A 2023 study" was proposed and got some support, so that is a good option to start with. That wording implies this paper is a single "study" with several experiments, but the authors describing this as a series of six "studies", so it may be worth discussing the exact phrasing if this one paper is called out. It is possible for the article either instead or at the same time have a no-attribution summary of academic consensus supported by multiple sources or a different source that actually is a literature review, which is what I think the no-attribution advocates were looking for.

Q: Should the phrase "misandry myth" or the word "myth" be mentioned?

A: There was support for this, though there seems to have been some resolvable objections and talking past each other due to lack of clarity about the specific "myth" being referred to. In further discussion and in article text, it should be clarified whether the myth is e.g. that misandry exists at all, that misandry exists to the degree certain commentators are complaining about it, that misandry is more prominent among women or feminists, or something else. It should also be clear which commentators are applying that label, and editors were interested in the article saying whether a given claim is supported by scientific evidence.

-- Beland (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

---

Should the source be included? (question 1) If so, should it be included in the current manner, including the statement that the authors are "40 topic experts"? (question 2)

"The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" is currently included in the final sentence of the article's intro and the final paragraph of the article itself. Some users have argued that the source is WP:PRIMARY, and that it is therefore against Wikipedia's guidelines to use it to claim empirical proof of controversial claims, such as "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the 'misandry myth' by 40 topic experts" and "feminist views of men were no different than that of non-feminists or men towards men." Other users have argued that the source is WP:SECONDARY, and that it is therefore fine to include. Additionally, some users have argued that calling the authors "40 topic experts" is not adequately supported, while other users feel that being author of an academic article is enough reason to be called a "topic expert." Dekadoka (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Survey

My point of view: No, No

1. No other sources cited, secondary or otherwise, support the claim that there is empirically no link between feminism and viewing men differently. The source itself states: "In sum, previous studies paint an unclear picture of feminists’ attitudes toward men."
2. The journal classified the source as a "Research Article," not a "Review," and the source contains a first hand description of work carried out by the authors which has not been previously published. In other words, the authors were directly involved, which matches the definition of WP:PRIMARY.
3. Using a single primary source to imply academic consensus and/or final, empirical proof of a controversial claim goes against WP:RSPRIMARY.
4. This therefore suggests that the source should be excluded, especially given the higher standards for sources used in controversial articles.
5. Wikipedia should not assume authors have credentials which they may not possess. For example, it seems likely that undergraduate assistants, translators, and experts on topics other than misandry may have been included in the 40 authors. Referring to the authors as "40 topic experts" is therefore WP:OR.

Dekadoka (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, No A meta-analysis of six studies is a decent source and fine for inclusion. I do think it's being presented wrong though. Calling them 40 topic area experts seems like something we can't prove, and in fact the correct number of authors is 43. But that is unnecessary vouching for the source that we shouldn't be doing. I think the body presents it fine. For the lead, how about "A 2023 study concluded that contrary to popular belief, feminists were not more likely to be misandrists." I don't think we need to mention the neologism unless it gains traction. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Include in article, exclude from lead, attribute appropriately. (Summoned by bot) Meaning no offense to the good faith editors who appropriately pursued this DR solution after a firm consensus was previously evasive, but this is a very obvious call. The source is plainly WP:PRIMARY; it's a bit atypical in that it is six separate studies presented under a single publication entry and generalized assumptions are drawn which are separate from the empirical results of the particular studies, but the authors of the piece are the same individuals who developed and conducted the studies (and thus are not WP:INDEPENDENT). The fact that the presentation of the overall context outside of the results of the individual studies is a little empirically wonky does not somehow transform this work into literature review, which would be a high level analysis of a longterm corpus on a given subject, typically conducted by experts not involved with the underlying research and with certain controls to avoid conflicts of interest and other biasing factors. That is clearly not what this source is.
  So any use of this source must include appropriate attribution and a contextual description of the work--ideally including a very minimalist context about the scope and methodology. The description of the authors as "40 top experts" in relevant fields is clearly unsourced and WP:UNDUE and needs to be avoided altogether. And I see no reason in particular to include the statement in the lead, as it is, at best, one extremely niche piece of the understanding of this topic, not a central salient work, nor is there evidence that the researchers' conclusions are uniformly accepted principles of relevant consensus in a relevant field as yet. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, No. (Summoned by bot) While the study does have a lot of references, they aren't analyzing any of them. Its current use in the lead seems to pass WP:PRIMARY, but "40 topic experts" needs a secondary source; "expert" isn't quite MOS:PUFFERY or MOS:LABEL inherently, but it needs to be supported (though I'd argue that there are better ways to phrase it). (Also, 40 is simply the number of authors: In the social sciences, the list of authors can include people who simply came up with the idea or only did statistical analysis. To claim "40 experts," you need sources for every single author.) Ships & Space_(Edits) 14:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, no; we should clearly indicate that the idea that misandry is common among feminists as a myth in the article voice in the lead, without attribution or as a broadly-summarize consensus of scholars rather than attributed to a single source. (Edited for clarity.) It's a good source, as a highly-cited meta-analysis by subject-matter experts, and the topic itself has enough coverage to go into more detail in the body and to be summarized in the lead; however, there's no reason to rely on just one source. We should expand on the body with additional sources, then summarize all of those in the lead rather than highlighting just one. It'd especially be worth looking at the papers that cite this one and seeing how they summarize it, then relying on that - this avoids the concerns about relying excessively on a single source in the lead. The fact that the myth that feminists are misandrist is pushed by antifeminist movements (and the fact that this myth has been clearly and repeatedly debunked by academic research) is well-cited and belongs in the lead, but it should be a broader summary rather than attributed as the opinion of just one paper. See eg. --Aquillion (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  I know it may be a bit unreasonable to ask you to dig into a technical study, but there is an extensive section in Doyle 2023 about past work relating to this question. The researchers summed it up with the statement: "In sum, previous studies paint an unclear picture of feminists’ attitudes toward men." The previous studies cited had positive, negative, and mixed results. If you would like to discuss further, we could take a look at some of these other studies down below in the discussion section. Dekadoka (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Their conclusion is We term the focal stereotype the misandry myth in light of the evidence that it is false and widespread, and discuss its implications for the movement; substantial other studies cite them on this, so the conclusion is that it was an open question that they resolved. Your summary isn't really accurate in terms of saying that there are mixed results, either; "previous studies are unclear" isn't the same thing as being mixed, and in any case we would go for the best and most recent sources. If your objection was to the general idea of stating that misogyny is not common among feminists, you should have focused more on that in WP:RFCBEFORE and the RFC, but in general the sources we have are clear-cut. --Aquillion (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

No one is arguing that Doyle 2023 concluded that feminism is connected to misandry, and I am not commenting or making any argument about the veracity of their conclusion. The question is whether it is appropriate on Wikipedia to treat a single primary source the same as academic consensus or established empirical fact. As I mentioned in the discussion below, I'm fine with citing the study as long as it isn't treated as more than a study. I mentioned specific issues with the sources you cited. If you would like to continue the conversation, please address the specific points I brought up, but first please read through the section in Doyle 2023 prior to the line I quoted. They discuss two sources that found a possible link, one source that found no possible link, and one source, which you cited, that found "mixed results." (their words, not mine) Again, I am directly summarizing what this section of the paper states. This is not a personal opinion or interpretation. You can find the beginning of the section I am summarizing by hitting Ctrl-F and searching for "Relatively few studies have attempted to investigate this stereotype, and the studies that exist have mixed findings." Dekadoka (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, No. I think it should be simply presented as a fact, citing this and some other sources - feminism as a whole is no more misandrist than non-feminism. Reprarina (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you referencing the theoretical or empirical side of the question? There are plenty of sources cited in the lead section about antifeminist backlash, false equivalence, etc. No one is suggesting that we get rid of these sources or rewrite that section. However, it is a different question to ask if there is any empirical connection between feminism and misandry at all. Doyle 2023 summed it up as follows: "In sum, previous studies paint an unclear picture of feminists’ attitudes toward men." If Doyle 2023 is incorrect in your mind or you believe there are new sources that change this picture, we could discuss further down below in the discussion section. Briefly, Vonvisitsin 2025 appears to be about discrimination against transwomen, which doesn't relate to the premise here. Koszałkowska 2024 discusses traditional gender roles and sexist jokes, which might be loosely related but doesn't directly address the question (no mention of feminism or misandry). Sutton 2025 is a book chapter written by the authors of Doyle 2023, presumably summarizing their research paper (redundant with original source). Anderson 2009 is described as having "mixed results" by Doyle 2023. Dekadoka (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Noting here again (since you've repeated this false argument three times) that you are misusing Doyle as a source here. They unambiguously conclude that misandry is not common among feminists, and all other sources we have discussed back this up. You need to be more cautious when using sources; it is not appropriate to pull one line out of a source to argue for a summary that directly goes against their conclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Replied above. TL;DR, everyone agrees Doyle 2023 found no link between feminism and misandry. Doyle 2023 disagrees with your view that there are lots of other studies that empirically support this conclusion. I'm fine with including the source as long as it is used appropriately, given that it is WP:PRIMARY. Dekadoka (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, no - In addition to what's already been said, as an encyclopedia, our goal should be to address common misconceptions and misinformation. The source makes a good effort to be comprehensive and nuanced, but the gist is straightforward: this is a myth. That's the important part and that's what should be explained in this article. The exact wording needs work, clearly. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, no (remove unnecessary attribution) agree with the majority of editors above that there is no need for the confusing attribution - this was a meta-analysis (so certainly not primary on the research of this being a myth [in the context of feminism]) and the question whether the scholars involved are expert in their field is not really a question either, anyone with WP:CIR can see their credentials and history on the field, so simply removing the attribution from the lead is the way to go as already mentioned above by others. Raladic (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)The conclusion of Misandry being a myth [in the context of feminism] has also been picked up by other sources such as this article in Psychology Today - Debunking the Myth of the Man-Hating Feminist that re-stated that [in the context of feminism] ”Misandry is a myth. [Although it is true that there are some feminists who identify as misandrists, those women are the exception, not the norm. To those men who apply “not all men” arguments to every discussion about men’s harms toward women, this should be a relatively easy concept for them to grasp].” and countless other articles (, Psypost,Vice), so the statement of it being a myth has been accepted and used even outside of the study and we should pull in several of those sources if need be. Raladic (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

  The source Misandry myth does not state misandry is a myth. Reprarina (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, Psychology Today! Psychology Today does not have a single position in this matter. The Amber Wardell's article indeed says "misandry is a myth". However, Joe Kort's article clearly says otherwise. Edward Kruk's article also says otherwise. Antony Synott's article also says otherwise. And Andrew G. Thomas's article also says otherise. Reprarina (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

  Please see below - apologies about the confusion of implied context. Raladic (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

There appears to be agreement on keeping the source but changing the wording. After reading the comments, I agree that it's fine to include the source. Would anyone like to specifically comment on reasons to keep it in the intro versus only in the "On Feminism" section? I am inclined to agree with @Snow Rise that sources in the intro should be limited to central works or those that clearly represent academic consensus. @CaptainEek and @Ships&Space, do you specifically want to see the source in the intro? Dekadoka (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I think keeping it in the lead isn't a bad idea. On the one hand, there don't seem to be many sources on the "misandry myth," and aside from the one study, nothing that seems to necessarily be original (granted, I only did a very cursory search). That said, I do think that the general idea (that misandry in feminism is not nearly as common as assumed) does need to be treated in the lead. Perhaps generalize the last sentence of the lead and include more citations (so something along the lines of "Although commonly assumed to be misandrist, misandry in feminism is rare, and feminists have been found to have higher opinions of men than non-feminists (Hopkins-Dale et al., 2023; Kanner and Anderson, 2010; hooks 2000/2005; etc.)." Ships & Space_(Edits) 15:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I think I can understand your point of view. Since there are scholarly sources arguing that there is no connection between feminism and misandry, the single empirical study cited has more value than a primary source would normally? I do think we should be clear that the study found "feminists’ attitudes toward men were positive in absolute terms and did not differ significantly from nonfeminists," not "feminists have been found to have higher opinions of men than non-feminists," and that Kanner and Anderson, hooks, and the other sources cited are not empirical studies and therefore did not having findings, which makes the term "found" inaccurate here. They could possibly be cited after the previous sentence since it isn't discussing empirical findings on this question. How do you feel about the wording suggested by CaptainEek?: "A 2023 study concluded that, contrary to popular belief, feminists were not more likely to be misandrists." Dekadoka (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that the single empirical study has more value than it ordinarily would.

My wording was very rough. CaptainEek's version is far superior. The main reason I had the other sources is because I don't think that just having the Psychology of Women Quarterly study in the lead is strictly sufficient, as it still is a primary source. I don't really have the experience with Wikipedia's policy on primary sources to say if more sources are actually necessary, though. Ships & Space_(Edits) 18:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

You misread the consensus, which is that the attribution is unnecessary and should simply be removed. This meta analysis is not primary as you contended in the RfC and consensus is not questioning the reliability or credentials of the scholars.

Also please note that the RfC hasn’t been closed and you should leave it to an uninvolved editor to do so and not make premature changes yourself, especially as you just passed the ECP threshold a few days ago, so you want to be cautious to avoid the appearance of gaming the permissions system of editing. Raladic (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey Raladic, thank you for your contribution to the RfC. No one responded for 3 weeks or so and theLegoBot removed the tag so I assumed everyone had said their say. I am interested in your interpretation of the RfC that the "topic experts" attribution should remain, since it seems to be in disagreement with everyone else. Certainly there is no consensus that the "topic experts" claim should be included. For example, would you consider undergraduate interns, translators, or statisticians to be "topic experts" on misandry and feminism? As was pointed out by several others and myself, this source is a research article published by the same group of authors that conducted the research, hence agreement that the source is WP:PRIMARY and the "stick with facts" decision to follow the guidance in WP:RSPRIMARY. The fact in this case is that a primary source found no link between feminism and misandry, but the overall prior research picture is described as "mixed" by the same primary source. Since you said no to keeping current wording, what wording would you suggest? Dekadoka (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The RfC just passed the 30 day threshold, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Closing the discussion for guidance on RfC closure. Since this is certainly contentious in a contentious topic, a formal closure is warranted and should be done by an uninvolved editor. Raladic (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm certainly not trying to break any rules. Thank you for the link. Dekadoka (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

That's definitely not how I interpret the above discussion. In fact, I don't see one person who suggested keeping the "topic experts" claim, and the edit was taken from @CaptainEek and @Ships&Space who were not involved in the original discussion. But like I said above, if you have a different wording you would like to suggest I am open to ideas. I would prefer to have the discussion in this area of the topic to keep things clean and organized if possible. Dekadoka (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

No, not all of the studies were performed by the same people. Also as I pointed out in the (edit conflict) above there are countless other sources now to solidify the secondary nature since you keep trying to argue primary/secondary, so we can simply state something along the lines of “Misandry has been found the be a myth.” [in the context of feminism] Raladic (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Two lines from the authors of the Misandry myth source. 1. Since both criteria are met by the belief that feminists in general harbour prejudice toward men, we dubbed this belief the misandry myth (Hopkins-Doyle et al., 2024). In so doing, we did not intend to portray the concept of misandry itself as a myth. Defined specifically as prejudice toward men, it clearly exists. - a line from the supplementary report 2. There is little doubt, of course, that some feminists are misandrists. - a line from the article Misandry myth itself.--Reprarina (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see below - apologies about the confusion of implied context. Raladic (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

My bad, I missed this comment and assumed that you agreed that the source is primary. Would you mind elaborating further? For example, you say "not all of the studies were performed by the same people," and the opening line of the paper is "In six studies, we examined," followed by detailed descriptions of work carried out by the authors (scroll down, study 1: "we conducted an initial examination," study 2: "we extended our investigation," etc.) Or are you saying that using the term "meta-analysis" makes this a literature review, in spite of them presenting and analyzing new research that they conducted? Dekadoka (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

My point on your misread of the consensus is that several editors pointed out that the reputable conclusion is that it is indeed a myth in the context of feminism being special and can be stated as a fact - I count 3 editors above (Aquillion, Reprarina, Grayfell and myself including makes 4) that said as much. So the likely conclusion is that we can just remove the attribution and re-state it more fact-like as a conclusion. Especially with the additional secondary sources and that was just me opening a search engine for 2 minutes. Raladic (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I discussed this above with Aquillion if you would like a more detailed response. As the researchers who conducted the 2023 study pointed out: "Relatively few studies have attempted to investigate this stereotype, and the studies that exist have mixed findings." and "In sum, previous studies paint an unclear picture of feminists’ attitudes toward men." Feel free to read this section of the study, which discusses two studies that did find a statistical link between feminism and misandry as well a "mixed" study and a study that found no link. News articles reporting on a primary source don't add additional credibility to empirical claims. That requires additional studies, or, ideally, reliable WP:SECONDARY sources like review articles or other indicators of academic consensus.

I'm not sure how you are going from a study that found no statistical association between feminism and misandry to "Mysandry is a myth," but that sounds like WP:OR. The authors of the study clearly meant something like "the belief in a statistical association between misandry and feminism is a myth," which is also how I interpret the user's comments that you mentioned. Strong claims require strong evidence, and claims from a single primary source should just stick to the facts, per WP:RSPRIMARY. In any case, there is not consensus that the strong claim should be included or that the source should be removed from the intro, but almost everyone agrees that the conclusions of this study should be mentioned. Hence why I believe the best wording is the one suggested by CaptainEek. Dekadoka (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I literally referenced additional sources above.

I also literally pointed out that there’s 4 editors who have stated that we can simply state the myth as a fact, when you claimed that no-one has.

I recommend you take a step back as it appears that you have responded to pretty much everyone who doesn’t share your interpretation, which we consider WP:BLUDGEONING of discussions and particularly when you re-state the same argument over and over without actually reading others responses, it gets into WP:IDHT territory, which we consider disruptive. Raladic (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I also literally pointed out that there’s 4 editors who have stated that we can simply state the myth as a fact You literally listed me among these "4 editors", although I did not say this and this is not my position at all. Reprarina (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see the confusion, sorry I was being curt in my response as I feel like this discussion has been dragging on for a year, so I actually just went back to check - it was actually over a year now since we've added this study and as my actual vote itself said, I think we can simply remove the attribution, I think the rest of the sentence is fine as it is. To remove the confusion in this discussion here, I added "[in the context of feminism]" to my comments above that caused some confusion, somehow I though we're all obviously on the same page that that is what we're discussing and omitted it from my comments above, but didn't mean to imply that to mean that misandry doesn't exist at-large, just that it's a myth in the false belief that it's any special in the context of feminism - aka in the context of feminism it's a myth - it's no more widespread that in non-feminist circles. But I can see how without the implied context of the discussion that detail was lost/misunderstood - apologies for that confusion, which is on me.

On a separate note prompted by the question of how long this has been going on, I actually just went digging since I didn't even recall the full history - for those of you interested in a refresher:

• May 2024 - We've had an entire NOR Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 51#Misandry original research discussion, resulting in that user eventually getting blocked after they didn't hear what they wanted to hear
• May 2024 - Talk:Misandry/Archive 6#Opening paragraphs
• Countless disruptive editing happening on the article to the point that we had to Special:Diff/163664403 raise the protection to ECP under the WP:CT/GG Arbitration enforcement
• September 2024 - Talk:Misandry/Archive 6#If misandry is a myth the article should be removed because the existence of the article means misandry is real
• October 2024 - Talk:Misandry/Archive 7#A better approach? IDHT by IP user
• October 2024 -Talk:Misandry/Archive 7#Nonjudgmental language, opinion vs. fact POTDL gets CT/GG blocked for a month
• October 2024 - Talk:Misandry/Archive 8#Feminism and misandry OP appears and picks up where POTDL left off
• November 2024 -Talk:Misandry/Archive 7#7 November 2024
• January 2025 - Talk:Misandry/Archive 8#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2025 by OP
• February 2025 - Talk:Misandry/Archive 8#Additional psychological research studies trying to synth things into the article by OP with multiple editors trying to get OP to hear
• March 2025 Talk:Misandry/Archive 8#Downplay of misandry by NOTHERE blocked SPA
• April 2025 - Talk:Misandry/Archive 8#7 April 2025 by SPA
• April 2025 - Talk:Misandry/Archive 9#'feminist research scientists' - OP arguing again with many editors who have corrected them on the nature of the paper and WP:IDHT behavior with MrOllie having to explain WP:SATISFY

I was taking a WP:WIKIBREAK for the past half year, so I wasn't here since sometime in December and only got here today when I saw this content removal pop up on my watch list. But honestly after seeing just how much time was collectively wasted spent on this, I'm surprised this RfC even came up still for a question that I felt was already reasonably settled last year. Raladic (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

You missed the origin discussion of the RfC, May 2025:

Talk:Misandry/Archive 9#Women who hate men: a comparative analysis across extremist Reddit communities - Sangdeboeuf arguing that primary sources should not be used for significant claims (question 1)

I'll just point out there has been a consistent progression the in contributions I made to the discussions. In the first discussion (my first post on the site), I was told I needed to find quality academic sources. I then apologized and admitted I was wrong. I returned with 10 or so academic sources. I was then told that the sources needed to be specifically on topic, mentioning misandry directly and that even sources mentioning stereotyping, prejudice, or discrimination against men are not acceptable. I returned with additional sources directly mentioning misandry. Among other reasons, these sources were rejected on the basis of being primary, and I again admitted that I was wrong. The discussion then led to Doyle 2023 being primary, which ultimately led to this RfC. I have additionally changed my viewpoint twice in this RfC on being persuaded by other users as part of good faith discussion. Obviously these are lengthy discussions and I am simplifying in order to summarize, but the gist is accurate.

Instead of trying to intimidate me, you could easily persuade me as well by addressing the issues myself and Reprarina have brought up with the sources you suggested. Dekadoka (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see that discussion mentioning a RfC anywhere. The only mention of an RfC is this comment in this discussion where you asked another user about what the contention was and hinted at "before I start a RfC" - however you didn't actually follow WP:RFCBEFORE, which would have led you down to WP:DRN first, but given that the discussion around this article's inclusion has also already been had on WP:NORN, which is a very visible noticeboard and consensus for inclusion of the article was established around that time and we're here now over a year later, with many people having come here (as illustrated above) trying to get it removed, so at some point, there's just an endpoint where we don't re-hash the same question over and over with different variants of arguments. In such cases we more likely than not actually put a Template:Notice or WP:TALKFAQ on the top of the talk page, which on reflection is probably warranted for some of the repeated questions on this topic at this point.

Also, I'm not trying to intimidate you, I just simply illustrated just how many different variant of discussions were brought by various editors around this over the past year.

And I already clarified above now that I caused a confusion with my assumption of implied context, for which I apologized to Reprarina, but I believe they have finished editing for the day and haven't had a chance to read my reply yet.

I linked several RS that discuss the study and we can use those, so the primary/secondary question is now moot, and we don't need to continue discussing it. As for the wording, I've stated my vote above of simply removing the attribution and keeping the rest of the sentence as-is and we can add the additional sources.

I don't think there's much else to say, so I'll probably step back out of this discussion now and leave it to an uninvolved editor to close it in a few days. Raladic (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think we are just going to disagree about how to summarize the current discussion and lead up. I especially disagree with your statement that the primary/secondary discussion is moot because of the news articles you suggested, for the reasons I and others outlined and emphasized previously. Dekadoka (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Where did I say that misandry is a myth? Please remove my username from your message. I didn't say that. Reprarina (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it should say mixed as other studies have a 81.104.13.47 (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

References

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutrality

Shliebert here. Not debating what the article itself says, but I would like to point out that the article is worded a bit bluntly. Anyone else agree, and think that the wording sounds kind of biased? Perhaps a slower introduction, following a longer explanation about the topic that does not bring up activist groups, to why Misandry is less common could help the article feel less biased? Shliebert (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

No. As has been explained many times in many sections of this talk page, neutrality does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. Or in other words, yes, we are 'biased' towards the view of the mainstream academic sources. MrOllie (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Since this comes up anytime a new source is added, is there a list of approved sources?

It seems like “mainstream academic sources” end up being any that minimize misandry’s harm. 172.221.179.200 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no predefined list, no. Guidelines are at WP:RS. In some fields the mainstream academic sources do all tilt in one direction - lots of believers in minority theories (flat earth, etc) are also aggrieved by this, but it is the best system anyone has come up with this project. MrOllie (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I merely meant the tone of the article. Shliebert (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Secondary source requests

If we want a high-quality article without templates, we should stop overusing the practice of first adding a text with a primary source and then adding a template to it that we need a non-primary source. I see that the article has become too many requests of secondary sources, although in reality there are very few of them.--Reprarina (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

How is requesting sourcing in line with Wikipedia's no original research policy an "abuse"? And how many requests are "too many"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that having to use some kind of template is a clear indication that something is wrong. Maybe we should simply remove primary sources from the article if secondary sources don't exist? Reprarina (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Works for me. I seem to recall adding several of the {{primary source inline}} tags in order to give users a chance to add relevant secondary sources. If that's not going to happen, please go ahead and remove any unduly weighted opinions cited to primary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Some of this stuff is either not unduly weighted or has already been discussed on the talk page, so kindly do not remove all of these indiscriminately. MrOllie (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, primary sources are allowed as long as they are used in accordance with the WP:PRIMARY guidelines. Although secondary and tertiary sources are preferred, primary sources are allowed, and I don't see any incorrect use. Dekadoka (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

RFC result and maintenance templates

The RFC finding was to use the source - keeping the source 'had nearly unanimous support'. That does not translate into some kind of mandate to put a maintenance tag on the source suggesting that it should be replaced, as was suggested in this edit summary. MrOllie (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the source should be replaced, but I do think it would be good to find additional sources of higher quality if possible. This seems to be the correct use of the tag, since it just links to the page defining source types and explaining why secondary and tertiary sources are preferred (but primary sources are not forbidden). The current wording is a statement of fact without interpretation, which is exactly how the WP:PRIMARY guideline suggests that a primary source should be used. Maybe I'm not understanding how to use the tag correctly - is there an alternative way to indicate this? Dekadoka (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not the correct use of the tag. Look, we had a whole RFC because you were against this source. The RFC didn't go your way. Your views were heard and did not reach consensus. That doesn't mean that you then put a maintenance template on the article to 'indicate' your rejected view. It is time to accept that consensus went against you this time. MrOllie (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm quite satisfied with the RFC's conclusions, and the article generally at this point. I understand it was a complex discussion, but I did change my views significantly on several points. In any case, regardless of my personal views, I would like the RFC's conclusions to be accurately reflected in the article. Again, I don't want to exclude or replace the source, so let's definitely not include the tag if that's what the tag means. There was a lot of discussion about finding additional and better sources for the claim, and the conclusion noted both that the source is primary and that a literature review would be superior if it one could be found. To me, this indicates that a lot of editors think some additional and better sources on this point would significantly improve the article, which suggests to me that some sort of tag or marker would be appropriate to guide folks who want to make future improvements. Dekadoka (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

One alternative could be to add Template:To do here at the talk page with a suggestion about searching for additional sources. We generally don't tag for material that is unproblematic and supported by consensus, even if there are avenues for future improvement. All our content has such avenues, and we want to tag sparingly for the sake of readers, local editors, and patrollers of the maintenance categories that the tags populate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Misandry Myth, lower benevolence for men

The study's findings are partially represented in the article. We should include their findings that both feminists and non-feminists felt lower innate positive feelings towards men than they do for women, which would be appropriate to include. 2001:1998:3600:432:0:0:0:123 (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. If we quote one section of the study we should quote both.

Lower benevolence for men being noted in the same study, it would seem manipulative to readers to try to ignore it. 172.221.179.200 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Manosphere label

4chan is named a manosphere site in the opening, which is incorrect and not supported by any reference. This should be removed until verified. 172.221.179.200 (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the body, this can be found with supporting citation lower down in the article. MrOllie (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I added that bit three years ago. I cited the Ouellette and Riggio books. 4chan and reddit are named explicitly. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Just searched it; 4chan not found. 172.221.179.200 (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Marwick and Caplan say it explicitly in Drinking Male Tears. They write, "This paper focuses on the term misandry… Networked misogyny is often organized in subcultural online spaces such as Reddit, 4Chan, and chat rooms, where participants collectively frame feminists like Sarkeesian as 'villains'"

The 2021 book Fantasy, Online Misogyny and the Manosphere talks about 4chan, misandry and the manosphere. I was reading the book at the time; perhaps I should have cited it as well. There's also the scholarly paper from 2021, "The Pleasure of Misogyny – Incels, Castration, and Sexual Difference" which talks about 4chan, reddit, the manosphere and misandry.

Defending 4chan is a fool's errand. That platform has been correctly branded an echo chamber of hate. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The point is that 4chan isn’t a manosphere site. It is a toxic site that covers all type of topics.

Using a weak association with such a toxic site could be done as a way to delegitimize MRAs and the manosphere. 172.221.179.200 (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

You claimed earlier that it wasn't in the sources - but now you are aware that it is. That you personally disagree with those sources isn't a basis to remove the sources or change the article. MrOllie (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Actually... while I hate to say it, they do have a point. The sources say that the manosphere organized on 4chan, that its lax moderation policies created a place where it could grow; this isn't the same thing as saying that 4chan itself is a manosphere site. More importantly, though, it sort of both understates and misses the point of exactly how 4chan was central to the formation of the manosphere. This could be addressed just by moving the word manosphere slightly (eg. In the Internet Age, the manosphere formed on forums such as 4chan and subreddits addressing men's rights activism; its members have have claimed that... Or something of that nature. We could go into more detail on how 4chan became a breeding ground for the manosphere in the body, but that should probably be covered in-depth on manosphere (which currently doesn't talk enough about it given its centrality.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. 4chan isn’t a manosphere site, it is a site with some manosphere representation.

We could use the same logic to inaccurately name any site a manosphere site. 172.221.179.200 (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

It didn’t show up when I searched the references so I replied to the comment.

I still don’t see “misandry” when I search for it, so I still dispute the sources. 172.221.179.200 (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Binksternet: waiting on you to finish this conversation so we can have a consensus.

Do you have a source that speaks to this before we update this wording? 2001:1998:3600:432:0:0:0:123 (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I already pointed you to the 2021 book Fantasy, Online Misogyny and the Manosphere, the 2021 scholarly paper "The Pleasure of Misogyny – Incels, Castration, and Sexual Difference", and Marwick and Caplan's Drinking Male Tears which says, "This paper focuses on the term misandry… Networked misogyny is often organized in subcultural online spaces such as Reddit, 4Chan, and chat rooms, where participants collectively frame feminists like Sarkeesian as 'villains'". The point here is that 4chan, whatever else you can say about it, allows for manosphere woman haters to organize. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I looked for misandry within the works, they don't exist. It looks like someone made you aware of this on 9/16/25 but you never replied to them, that I can see. Do you have a source or excerpt you can provide to settle this?

On the 4chan reasoning: if any site that allows hate is a site centered around the hate, we would need to add Wiki and all other social sites as racist, sexist, and all other bigotries to each hate article.

This isn't a valid argument so the line should be updated or removed. 2001:1998:3600:432:0:0:0:123 (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Marwick and Caplan in Drinking Male Tears thought that it was relevant to mention 4chan; you've seen the quote. Jacob Johanssen in Fantasy, Online Misogyny and the Manosphere thought that it was relevant to mention 4chan. The word 4chan appears on 13 pages plus the glossary, with Johanssen describing 4chan as a foundational space for misandry. Megan Kolano writes in "The pleasure of misogyny–incels, castration, and sexual difference" that "message boards like Reddit and 4chan proliferated" and became the meeting place for talk about misandry and other manosphere issues. Since these scholars are certain 4chan is connected, our summary of the topic must retain the mention of 4chan. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, the extra text helped.

"Since these scholars are certain 4chan is connected" this is a misread and seems to be intentional. Marwick and Caplan also call out YouTube, Reddit, and other social sites. None of which implies the sites themselves are of the manosphere.

You've either left off context, or added it, to make your case in both examples. The wording should be updated. 2001:1998:3600:432:0:0:0:123 (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Your “within” update gets us closer to this being accurate.

The discussions weren’t within 4chan, they were within specific threads of 4chan. 2600:100A:B120:F81D:9872:CED6:1FC7:F2AF (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

"Within specific threads of 4chan" is the same as "within 4chan". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

You're adding content that isn't in the article. 2001:1998:3600:432:0:0:0:523 (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Misandry Myth, feminism section

Feminism isn’t the focus of the article.

Since the Misandry Myth study only considered misandry within the context of feminism, any mention of it should fall within the feminism section. 2600:100A:B120:F81D:9872:CED6:1FC7:F2AF (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The article says the term misandry was used as a synonym for feminism from the beginning, and the idea of feminism as threatening towards men, encapsulated in the term misandry, forms a core part of the vocabulary of the manosphere. So the issue of misandry within the context of feminism is important to the article as a whole, not just one section. Whether the "Misandry Myth" study is a good source for this material is a different question. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

By including feminism as a core point within the concept of misandry, we are regarding feminism as a requirement for misandry to exist.

There are aspects of misandry that pertain to feminism and vice versa but misandry is a concept all its own. 174.210.11.221 (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

That's great, but Wikipedia merely summarizes published, reliable sources, which do regard feminism as essential to the concept. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with Sangdeboeuf’s reasoning but feminism isn’t unduly mentioned in the main section of the article, so I don’t see any change is needed. 172.221.179.200 (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Melinda Kanner and Kristin J. Anderson actually write that perhaps antifeminists hate men. So it would be nice if anti-feminist misandry featured prominently in the article... Reprarina (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the key point is to highlight what the study says, so I agree.

Groups hate, or have a lower view of, men and the study shows this. 172.221.179.200 (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we can say groups necessarily hate men based on this but I agree, the lower benevolence should be noted because that is an example of misandry, 2001:1998:3600:432:0:0:0:323 (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• We just had an RFC about this. The paragraph in question is about how myths about misandry have been promoted as part of an antifeminist backlash; this is extensively sourced in the article and the body and is clearly relevant to the subject, so it should be summarized in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  The same Misandry Myth study also exposed people’s innate lower benevolence towards men, which is an aspect of misandry, so should be added.

  Another user pointed that out elsewhere but it seems appropriate to add it here too. 172.221.179.200 (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  The study doesn't discuss "myths about misandry"; it discusses myths about feminist's misandry.

  The pertinent points of the study regarding misandry are: 1. Feminists are not more likely than non-feminists to express misandry AND 2. Feminists and non-feminists all had a lower benevolence rate towards men than towards women, which is a symptom of misandry. 2001:1998:3600:432:0:0:0:523 (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  I am in favor of broadly including statements from the article Misandry Myth, and not just the key one, since this article focuses on misandry more than other sources. Reprarina (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Links in citation templates

The differences between BEFORE and AFTER are so minimal. In my opinion, this doesn't merit more valuable editor time to debate. Encyclopædia Britannica should be italicized and linked. Merriam-Webster online too. And likewise London Review of Books. They are all book or magazine titles. This is a continuation of a kerfuffle on my talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

As I stated in April 2025 on this talk page, Wikilinks within citation templates don't help readers verify the cited material, which is the main reason for citing sources along with helping readers find additional information on the subject.

Per MOS:OVERLINK, we should ask ourselves whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless particularly relevant to the context in the article, words and terms understood by most readers in context are usually not linked. Linking to the names of publishers, newspapers, etc. merely clutters up citations without helping readers understand this article.

MOS:OVERLINK also says that placing several separate inline links close together within a section of text can make navigation more difficult. Common sense would suggest that this guidance also applies to citations, which usually have other links in close proximity (an external link to the source itself and/or links to various identifiers such as DOI, ISBN, ISSN, etc.).

No explanation has been offered why these specific publications among the dozens of others cited in the article should be Wikilinked. I would venture that the name Encyclopædia Britannica at least is already familiar to most readers, and therefore should explicitly not be linked. The others such as London Review of Books are easy enough to plug into the search bar if readers really want to know more about them. They're not especially relevant to this article and should be omitted. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The basic reason to wikilink in citations is that it allows the reader to find more information about the source they would be reading from if they were to click on the link to the source. Having a direct link to that is eminently more useful than having to navigate via the search bar (more of Wikipedia's traffic is derived from internal links than the search bar and I bet much much more who are already on a Wikipedia page use hyperlinks rather than the search bar).

MOS:OVERLINK is about links in the article text, not the citation text.

Did any of the links added "make navigation more difficult"? When I checked, I don't think any of them did. Katzrockso (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Then why not Wikilink every single publisher, publication, news agency, etc.? And yes, the links do make navigation more difficult for mobile users; see MOS:OVERLINK: because inline links present relatively small tap targets on touchscreen devices, placing several separate inline links close together within a section of text can make navigation more difficult for readers, especially if they have limited dexterity or coordination. Informativeness has to be balanced with accessibility.

More basically, this article is meant to inform people about the topic of misandry, not about the Encyclopædia Britannica. How does knowing that Britannica was the longest-running in-print encyclopaedia in the English language ... first published between 1768 and 1771, for instance, enhance readers' understanding of this article? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

These were neither redundant nor indiscriminate. They do no harm. On the contrary, User:Sangdeboeuf's relexive blanket removal was disruptive. He/she even misspelled Encyclopædia Britannica. Ironic given the aboe comments. I agreed with User R who wrote on my talk page:

Given that MOS:OVERLINK focuses on the text itself, and states nothing about the citations, and MOS:DUPLINK is clear in stating there is no problem with such linking in citations, the onus on achieving consensus for their edits would appear to be on User:Sangdeboeuf, and not me.

They simply provide a convenient way for our readers to assess the quality of the sources. They do not disrupt, detract or distract readers from the body of the text.

The related issue is formatting, namely italicizing the proper names of books and magazines. The edits got rid of those, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

MOS:DUPLINK says such links may be used if helpful. I'm arguing that these were not helpful. It's our job as Wikipedia editors to assess the quality of sources. There's no need for readers to do that; we shouldn't be adding sources to articles if their reliability is in question. And that still doesn't answer the question of why only these few publications were linked and not all of them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the links are useful as a reader. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

OK then, why not Wikilink every single website and publisher in every footnote? Wouldn't that be even more useful? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I'd also like to link authors when possible. I wouldn't necessarily link the publisher if it's obvious from the website, but we probably shouldn't be including the publisher in those cases either. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Disagree. It would make navigating footnotes unnecessarily cumbersome for mobile users like me. Only links that serve the purposes of WP:WHYCITE – verifying cited information and locating other information relevant to the topic – should be used. In some cases that includes authors' names, but rarely websites or publishers. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The visual editor explicitly shows "Example: Fandom, Inc. (which owns "Metacritic.com")" when you're editing a {{cite}} template and says it may be wikilinked.

I have been editing on my phone lately - didn't have any issues when I was looking at the revision by 7&6 and didn't have any issues clicking on the links. WP:OVERLINK doesn't really apply when the links are separated by punctuation and other non-linked text. Katzrockso (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK refers to links close together within a section of text, regardless of punctuation. All the information in a footnote is close together because of the condensed nature of bibliographic citations. I haven't used VisualEditor, but just because something can be linked in a footnote doesn't mean it should be linked. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree and find them useful, as a reader. It is preferable to be able to easily click on the name of work or author and see the wiki page, than have to laboriously copy and paste into a search bar on the offchance there is an article. For example this edit removed wikilinks that would help the reader understand the sources, including from several I personally am completely unfamiliar with. Usage of such links is also consistent the MOS, and I do not see why this has become such an issue. ResonantDis_tortion 18:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Just because MOS:OVERLINK doesn't explicitly refer to citations, that doesn't mean that cramming a bunch of links in there is consistent with MoS. The same considerations apply to citations as to the rest of the article, namely, accessibility for mobile users and relevance to the subject of the article. I do not see why, for instance, a link to University of California Press is so essential to this article that the need for it outweighs the problems I mentioned. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf appears to be WP:Bludgeoning the discussion. I note that he is alone. Wallpapering the discussion does not change the fact that the consensus outweighs his opinion. The amount of ink sacrificed is not an appropriate measure. This is why I gave up on the archived discussion before. Reasoning will only take you so far.

The fallacious slippery slope argument is inconsequential. Having lots of useful links in citations is a service to readers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not determined by majority vote. I've already given my reasons why I think the links are excessive. Feel free to respond to the specific points I have made. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

This is becoming a WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY situation. Do we really need to have a RfC? Katzrockso (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Not necessarily. A thoughtful response to my specific objections (i.e. more than simple personal preference) would go a long way. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC) Indeed, but Consensus there is, even if you choose to disregard it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Consensus based on faulty reasoning and vague hand-waving at guidelines is no consensus at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

More wallpaper. The Defense rests. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Misandry Myth

So, if I undersand, the hundreds of more or less openly man-hating documented statements that feminists have made in the last decades, including calls to kill male unborn babies or laments that the coronavirus hasn't killed enough men, statements that they make practically every time they speak in the media or on social media, are myths, because ONE study (probably conducted by feminists) says it? Just asking. ~2025-31415-63 (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It is not ONE study. Don't forget about the research by Melinda Kanner and Kristin J. Anderson. However, in recent years, certain studies have begun to appear about misandrist phenomenon of the femosphere. The central study on this topic is the article by Kay J. B. “The reactionary turn in popular feminism” // Feminist Media Studies. So, there is a certain shift, and I think it will be reflected in this article. Reprarina (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

So TWO, ok. I was starting to think that in addition to those statements, also neologisms starting with "man-" that feminists are fond of inventing (and which C. Young refers to as the "currect cycle of misandry", which was "strangely" left out of the article), are male-friendly... Sorry for the sarcasm. (As you say, we will see.) ~2025-31407-17 (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

To be completely clear, my point is: Does that erase what I'm talking about, which is completely obvious? ~2025-31407-17 (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

What you or I think is obvious is beside the point. Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources, not the beliefs or experiences of individual users. Cathy Young is not a reliable source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

What Sangdeboeuf is pointing out here is that a lot of the journals you're talking about, where misandry is treated as something to fix, are not acceptable sources here on wiki, while sources that regard misandry as a fake issue are.

This doesn't mean the article can't be improved. For example, there is a lot of people in agreement that the article is missing context from the Misandry Myth study, which showed that misandry also manifests ad lower benevolence for men, by all people. ~2025-31680-79 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

https://zawn.substack.com/p/does-zawn-hate-men-the-myth-of-misandry

I recommand the comments too.

There are thousands of such websites. In complete undisturbedness. Imagine switching the gender. ~2025-38727-57 (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Self published WP:BLOGS are not reliable for use on Wikipedia. Katzrockso (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2026

Please, move that second paragraph into a new “use for misogyny” subsection, it is such undue weight in its current position. Curiousperson2 (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. I'm not sure what you mean by the proposed subsection title "use for misogyny". Assuming you are referring to the second paragraph of the lead section, I don't see any issues with undue weight there. Day Creature (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Topic: hate speech

Thread retitled from Lacking topic: hate speech.

The only purpose of this article is apparently to prove that misandry does not exist. That does not seem like a good approach.

If you believe you lack evidence of female hate speech against men, please read: Pauline Harmange, "Moi les hommes, je les déteste", or review the commentary section of any broadsheet newspaper.

Several aspects are ignored. Topics that should be further explored in particular are:

1. Use of language and hate speech: a) while hatespeech against many groups, including women, is justly discouraged and prohibited in some countries, it is accepted practice if directed against men. Discouraged: "(all) women are ...", "(all) foreigners are..." Normal practice, including in broad-sheet newspapers "(all) men are...". b) While hate speech laws, where they exist, e.g. Germany, criminalise such general attributions if made, e.g. against ethnic groups, feminist interest groups have protested and prevented the extension to gender, because hate speech is considered and normal and necessary practice for (some) feminists. c) language analysis based e.g. on Viktor Klemperers LTI show remarkable similarities in the use of language between the third reich and feminist publications, e.g. intentional use of overgeneralisation (all men are...), misuse of natural meaning (e.g. "financial violence"), use of pathos and emotional language ("violence", "oppression", etc.), dehumanisation and deindividualisation ("without men there would be no wars, financial crises, etc.", "it is / must be mens' own fault" e.g. in the case of higher mortality, collective attribution of responsibility to "men", e.g. for individual occurences), sloganisation instead of argumentation ("patriarchy", "mental load", "passive aggressive", "mansplaining"), reduction (framing of all aspects of life through one lens, e.g. "mental load"), repetition ("patriarchy", "patriarchal" ...).

2. Discrimination E.g. the systemic discrimination of men by the law, e.g. in family law (custody, etc.), in criminal law (criminalisation of male instead of female behaviour, higher likelihood of receiving a sentence, higher sentence, etc.), the objectification of men with regard to their sexual self-determination (no legal protection against unwanted fatherhood). The pervasive male aggressor and female victim bias.

3. Utalitarian concept of men and upbringing Only few men are brought up to be board members, the traditional concept, viewing men as worker bees who may die, be injured or otherwise destroyed in the process. ~2026-99575-2 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

The article reflects what scholars have said about misandry. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

"use of pathos and emotional language" That is the typical appeal to emotion, not hate speech. Dimadick (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

coincidentally ignoring the fact that those "scholars" are all feminists and say that misandry doesn't exist? talk about being biased. ~2026-15678-85 (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:YESBIAS. If Academia is biased on a topic, Wikipedia will be as well. That's how this site is designed and we don't consider that to be a problem. MrOllie (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• The problem with that argument is that it could be used to argue that we should ignore the sources on basically everything. People could as easily say "evolution is only real according to evolutionists" or "the Shakespeare authorship question is only dismissed by historians who believe it was all written by Shakespeare, making them biased" or even "the world is round according to roundworldians! We need to cite some flat-earthers for balance!" We reflect views according to how prominent and accepted those views are among the best available sources on the subject; we don't just arbitrarily decide how we're going to weigh them ourselves. And the best available sources on sociology and gender broadly take positions, and support understandings, that you'd describe as feminist. Denying that and, what, digging up a bunch of blog-posts from the manosphere to weigh against them would be textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  He doesn't deny it, since he says so, I guess. And by "bunch handful of articles from the manosphere" you mean the 90 % of publications outside of authorized feminists scolars pubvlications, i. e. sources only accepted (following its strange biased criteria) by Wikipedia? ~2026-15430-40 (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  So more like 40 %, the remaining 50 % is misandrist stuff from the feminosphere (and 10 % is then "acceptable" material from the feminosphere that has the hallmark of "scientificity"). ~2026-15686-39 (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  Feminosphere? Scientificity? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)