Talk:Misandry

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Mention of male rape?

I noticed that this article has no mention of male rape, nor the iffy laws around it. Would that fall under this article or is it unrelated?

Background information

@Ikanreed Providing some background information, especially on etymology, is an excellent way of introducing the reader to the topic. And again, the academic tone is perfectly suitable for Rational Wiki. Please don't be obsessed with certain extremist groups. Don't let them hijack our language. I heard of the term misandry before I even knew about the MRA. Nerd (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable or obsessive to talk about the people who dominate search results(after dictionaries) if you search this term. I'd say by a similar token, don't let your desire to be fair let you ignore the purposeful dishonesty of a large subset of internet authoritarians. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Also please look at the edit history of the user you're running to the rescue of. Their edits to misogyny, which I haven't reverted yet because, well, you'd see it as a holy war against an innocent user doing their best, include blaming misogyny on fundamental physiological and psychological differences of men and women. No really look:

Another issue one encounters when considering what is misogynistic is the fact that males and females differ in terms of their physiology and arguably in their psychology. Consider, for example, this statement made by Charles Darwin -- "(Man's) brain is absolutely larger (than those of women), but whether or not proportionally to his larger body, has not, I believe, been fully ascertained." Well males do, on average, have larger brains than females. Male brains are 10-15% larger and heavier than female brains though it is proportional to men's larger bodies. So was Darwin misogynistic for saying male brains were larger or was he simply stating a fact? While how facts are interpreted can be construed as misogynistic, the presentation of facts themselves is simply being scholarly. The earlier portion of his statement that "Man is more courageous, pugnacious, and energetic than woman, and has a more inventive genius," is less defensible.

Just watch what you pretend is "good scholarly work" because the tone happens to be distant. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

(Shrugs) Facts are facts. How people feel about them is irrelevant. We should do our best to present them as accurately as possible. Keep in mind that our understanding of the facts changes over time. What was once thought to be true may be shown to be false today. Besides, I'm not deleting the section on the MRA. I'm taking issue with you removing perfectly valid and relevant information.

The first known use of the word 'misandry' was in 1898, long before the invention of the first electronic computer let alone the Internet and the people who abuse it. Nerd (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna level with you, this argument feels kinda asinine. Ignoring the reality of how things are done to purposefully focus on disconnected facts informs no one. It antiinforms. Disinforms. Uninforms. Decontextualizing information is bad. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed I would appreciate it if you refrained from using such loaded language. Providing relevant background information does not misinform; it enriches the article. Of course, it is perfectly understandable if people, such as yourself, are not interested in the history and etymology of a term. They can skip right to the section or sections they are interested in. That's why we have outlines. You wrote, "Decontextualizing information is bad." You are indeed correct. This is why we need to understand the history of things. (To paraphrase Aristotle, those who understands the origins of things best understands them. The present is not disconnected from the past.) Nerd (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm just popping in to ask you both to let me know when you come to a conclusion, as the article requires a formatting update that I am unable to perform due to this disagreement. TL;DR: Let me know when your done so I can update the article's formatting. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about me, I've come to accept that the article will enter a state where it's of no use or informational value and can simply be deleted. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed Why so edgy? If my memory is correct, it was you who asked about the GRE in the Saloon Bar some years ago. My sample might be biased — I'm in STEM — but most people I know in academia are the less likely to be so hung-up about things. Nerd (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Just give it a few days to see what other editors have to say. Nerd (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a nonsense reply. What the fuck are you actually trying to say. If I had ended up pursuing academia instead of sticking in industry, I'd somehow not be entitled to see academically disaffected bullshit as, nonetheless, bullshit? What? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. Researchers, in academia or industry, tend not to be opinionated. They can be excited or enthusiastic about things they are interested in; the stereotype of a cold rational mind does not stand up. But when we see someone so salty, it raises eyebrows. Nerd (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Without going into detail: you're (presently) full of shit, nerd. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe that counts as harassment, @Ikanreed. We don't tolerate that here. I have never attacked you personally. I only question your tone and your arguments. You were the first person I interacted with at RW. Sad to see how the admired has fallen. Nerd (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to say you're full of shit vis-a-vis academics. You made up a bizarre and frankly not at all accurate generalization, and now strictly because I don't treat that as valid or worth following up on, you're, to use your preferred slang, salty as fuck. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I never made up a stereotype, @Ikanreed. I said it applies only to the people I have observed; I even admitted that my sample might be biased. Am I salty? I'm not the one swearing here. Nerd (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I have long sworn in the context of bullshit. The edits you're defending. They're pretty fucky. Trivially so. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You call that an argument?! It consists of nothing more than insults and poor choice of words, @Ikanreed. Nerd (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

There were zero actual insults, and the strong language is fucking warranted. But here's one insult: you're being pig-headed and your obsession with tone is actively unhealthy. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there were insults directed at the edits. There is a difference between an insult and a thoughtful criticism. Once more, please remain civil. Civility is underrated. Nerd (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake. You're being totally unreasonable. I cannot engage with you when you're treating a trivial amount of honest discussion as uncivilized. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Two edits

@Nerd, @Ikanreed, @Dysklyver: I'm restarting this talk page discussion about the latest new introduction to this page:

https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Misandry&diff=prev&oldid=1978321

Let's discuss this.—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 01:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay to reiterate,

1. The content was produced by someone who has only edited MRA-interest articles to add MRA talking points often completely at odds with, well, anything resembling accuracy. Including things like suggesting misogyny is because of innate biological differences. Not a great start (and one page that I ended up moving to the essay space for being weird personal pet theory territory)
2. Then this page, they edit the etymology section to reference an absolutely nutso insane MRA misunderstanding of feminism. The only counterpoint I've heard for including it was Nerd nitpicking about how they don't explicitly say all feminists want to kill all men.
3. They drop a snarky point of view for dry and analytical tone, but simultaneously decrease the factual accuracy of the material on the level.

There is no reason on this page to keep the stupid edits. In conclusion, that this got reverted by an established editor even once is asinine. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 01:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The "history" part is stupid. Misandry existed in history because men were the ones who fought on the battlefield and worked in coal mines? What evidence is there that any of this was motivated by hate of men rather than tradition, culture, or a lack of faith in women to do the same tasks? Men might have gotten the short end of the stick there, but I don't think it makes sense to call it historical misandry when I'm very certain none of it was motivated by actual misandry. [EDIT: What I'm saying is that unless that viewpoint is being presented for the purpose of being mocked, it shouldn't be in the article.] Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@CheeseburgerFace Just from a few glimpses I made during the early episodes of edit warring I would agree with @Ikanreed's sentiment regarding the nature of the edits in question. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I do too. It's very clear that this article was whitewashed. Thank you, Ikanreed. For the sake of fairness, I'd like to hear from @Nerd (although I may have already made up my mind).—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 01:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You forgot @AndyChrist, @CheeseburgerFace.

Looking at the edit in question, on the left-hand side, the first paragraph discusses the etymology and history of the word 'misandry' and how it comes into the vernacular. The second paragraph mentions actual differences between men and women and warns against the historian's fallacy when analyzing historical examples. (If men and women were identical, why would we even bother distinguishing between the sexes?) The third paragraph concerns an MRA argument. Nerd (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The history section is seems pointless without stating it's refuting MRA views. Without that, it's just a history section that can go (RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia). As for your comment, you're summarizing the new edit. Why do you think the new version is better than the original?—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 01:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nerd @CheeseburgerFace The history section states a moronic MRA talking point, then attempts to back it up. As I said above, there's no evidence that any of those things happened because society hated men or thought they were inferior. You can't call a historical phenomenon misandry when it probably wasn't motivated by misandry. RW doesn't support idiotic talking points; we refute them. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 01:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @CheeseburgerFace I summarized the edit as a counterpoint to @Ikanreed's argument that it is unreasonable. I'm not convinced. Since we are talking about misandry in general, some general background information is perfectly relevant and, in my personal opinion, should be included for completeness. Again, the MRA have their own page. A concise discussion is sufficient. Did you mean the old version? I was talking about the left-hand side, which was modified. Nerd (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini That third highlighted paragraph on the left-hand side concerns some historical examples used by a MRA, which are then refuted, if weakly, by the follow-up unhighlighted paragraph. Nerd (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Important clarification: I'm talking about the edit summary on top in the link @CheeseburgerFace posted. Nerd (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nerd I still have a problem there. The un-highlighted paragraph you're talking about seems to be referring to a completely different phenomenon than the highlighted paragraph I have an issue with. The MRA argument there isn't trying to identify themselves with a historically victimized group. They're trying to identify themselves as a historically victimized group. And the supposed refutation to that doesn't explain how or that trying to make men out to be victims of specific historical oppression is stupid. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nerd Hang on, I see what you mean. However, I still have an issue with the fact that the following paragraph doesn't specifically mention the third paragraph's argument. If I'm going to support keeping that part, there needs to be a specific and thorough refutation there, otherwise it'll just be us reporting a bad talking point and then letting it go. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini Excellent! I acknowledged above that the refutation is rather weak. And yes, I agree that we should add something to refute that argument more effectively. That is a major argument and I don't think we should cut it out. Nerd (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Alrighty, then. So my other problem with the edit is that there needs to be a citation proving the fact that Valerie Whats-her-face is the one who popularized the term "misandry." Otherwise I'm gonna lean towards everyone else's uncharitable interpretation of the motivations behind that edit. As it stands, that whole part is based on weak speculation, and that speculation does seem to serve the purpose of tying the entire use of the word "misandry" to a psycho. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@DuceMoosolini No direct sources for that one. I think we can safety remove it. This is the closest that I can find.Nerd (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the article to how is was on the left. Please submit a revised version of the following:

Unlike misogyny, there are few if any examples of misandry within the Abrahamic religions though certain beliefs such as the Islamic idea of the rich being allowed four wives which could be viewed as misandranistic towards males not in power. This does not necessarily mean that misandry did not exist historically. The men's rights activist Warren Farrell argues that the view of men as being disposable is a historical example of it. Men have traditionally occupied the most dangerous occupations such as being in the military or working in a coal mine whereas women were largely protected from such dangers. Moreover there are overt historical examples of men being seen as disposable such as male-only conscription, the battlefield tactic of cannon fodder, and the Roman gladiatorial contests.

References

—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 02:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not Misandry. Rather it's a by-product of institutionalized Patriarchal values, since women weren't valued because ancient cultures viewed them as better people, but because of their wombs, and their wombs alone. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 02:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

My suggested addition is, "This is not misandry, but rather the enforcement of gender roles." Nerd (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@CheeseburgerFace Does this work?

Unlike misogyny, there are few if any examples of misandry within the Abrahamic religions. However, certain beliefs such as the Islamic idea of the rich being allowed four wives could and likely have been viewed as misandranistic towards males not in power, for this standard makes it more difficult for them to find mates. That particular standard almost certainly isn't actual misandry, as the cultural standards of Islam were (and are) generally decided by men, and the practice of allowing multiple wives seems to prioritize the husband's power and pleasure. Also, when has polygamy ever led to the rich monopolizing all women? The men's rights activist Warren Farrell argues that the view of men as being disposable is an example of misandry in history. He supports his argument with the fact that men have traditionally occupied more dangerous occupations such as serving in militaries or working in coal mines whereas women were largely protected from such dangers. Once again, this argument falls apart when you consider who actually held power historically. It is far more likely that men did the hard jobs simply because nobody expected women to be capable of them. In other words, it was an enforcement of gender roles. Women weren't valued because they were seen as being less disposable; they were valued for their wombs and their domestic services. (And if you think patriarchal cultures throughout history were averse to slaughtering women during war or for any other reason, then you really need to read a book.)

Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nerd A better way of phrasing that would be to say that "Women were historically viewed as commodities, similar to how modern culture views expensive suits, Rolex watches, or Ferrari cars. Thus the argument fails to understand that this phenomena isn't a result of misandry, rather it's a byproduct of the very cultural system that most Feminists oppose." Or we could go with @DuceMoosolini's suggestion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘That works. I reopened the article. Thanks everybody!@DuceMoosolini @Nerd @Ikanreed @Dysklyver @GrammarCommie—チーズバーガー • めん  (talk • stalk) 02:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I added just a little bit to make the new paragraph fit in a little better. If it's bad, feel free to alter/undo it. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! All is correct! @DuceMoosolini @Ikanreed @Dysklyver @GrammarCommie @DuceMoosolini Nerd (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I seem to have missed the debate, this is cool and everything looks fine to me. :) — Dysk (contribs) 10:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Gotta admit, it doesn't look like a hell-edit anymore. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Warren Farrell

According to Wikipedia, he got his M.A. and Ph.D. in political science. How on Earth did he get to lecture on other topics, such as psychology, sociology and gender studies?! Nerd (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

That seems to be rather common. A (kinda alarmingly, in my opinion) large amount of people being given platforms for their views on issues of gender, sexuality, etc have not studied the topic academically. Nara (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

How do you know he didn't study the issue in depth? Does he need a degree in order to do good research? Take a look at his books and follow the citations. The stats are real. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96i3LGQDd1c ^{— Unsigned, by: 156.99.55.125 / talk}

Ahoy, matey! Beware, for there be a great sea of Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

Although in some legal cases, such as custody, men do have a disadvantage.

Last I checked, this isn't actually true. Apparently in cases where custody is contested, there's actually a slight bias in favour of men. It's just that so many are uncontested by the fathers that overall custody is awarded to mothers more frequently. I'll hunt down some refs if I find time. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 22:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)