Talk:Misandry

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

A BoN's comments[edit]

Notice: This is a bias one-sided article that is anything but rational. It must be remade to include both sides of the discussion. Ideally this page would look like the book Warren Farrell and Steven Svoboda wrote together, "Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate," which presents points and counterpoints. This article cites no research to support its claims. Where the author claims that sexism against men is not "not systematic," there is much to counter this baseless statement. One reality that should be realizes in the consideration of such a topic as this is that while men are at the top still in some areas, they are not at the top in all areas. While men still over-represent concern high status positions such job earnings and executive positions they also overrepresent the bottom with suicide rates, health, high risk jobs, and education. While there are many programs to address the needs of women, there are few programs to address the needs of males such as in education. As Warren Farrell, author of The Myth of Male Power, has say it, sexism against either gender ultimately hurts both. Link to statistics about suicide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicide. Statistics about graduation rates for men and women: http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/ — Unsigned, by: 71.228.6.247 / talk / contribs

-- I agree, this article is an atrocious piece of garbage that seems written entirely from the perspective of a rabid, misandric SJW. It needs to be pulled immediately. There is no way an article ripping the shit out of feminism or misogyny instead of explaining what they mean, what are its points and counterpoints etc, would be allowed. So essentially the article simply proves misandry exists and is a serious, embedded problem. — Unsigned, by: 86.2.174.148 / talk / contribs

Lazy criticism is lazy. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Mention of male rape?[edit]

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?

Unsourced claims vigorously defended by sysops with a political agenda[edit]

The article on Misandry contains a section of somebody responding to his own made up points. There is absolutely no evidence that these are, in fact, common points among MRAs or that anybody but the author ever raised those points. No sources whatsoever. Removal of this straw man results in prompt restoration by sysops without them engaging in any discussion whatsoever.— Unsigned, by: 141.39.226.239 / talk / contribs

Very intelligent conversation. Thumbs up!— Unsigned, by: 141.39.226.239 / talk / contribs
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.--JorisEnter (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Alright BoN.239 I will engage with you. Which things specifically are you saying are straw men? SolPyre (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
All of them. None of these things have ever been said by any member of the MRA movement. Much less are these common points within the MRA movement. Provide proof for every single one, if you claim otherwise.--141.39.226.239 (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, well I suppose we can start adding references. Feel free to add some [citation needed] templates in there but don't go blanking the section, people tend to see that sort of thing as vandalism. I find it kind of hard to believe that NO mra EVER said anything like any of these, that's kind of a strong position. Would you care to soften your stance a little? If the conversation is about wether or not these feelings are common among the mra that would be more reasonable. In the mean time I'll being checking the articles references as best i can. SolPyre (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
If the author cannot provide quotes, then it should be deleted. I specifically take such a harsh stance to show that the burden on proof ain't on me. The author claims that MRAs say such things and he/she has to prove that. Without a source, it's a straw man. Even with a source it's anecdotal evidence at best. For the article to claim that those are common points, the source needs to be a major leader of the movement or an official mission statement of some kind.--141.39.226.239 (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Nah. I think you ought to tell me what you think is a more fair representation of MRA statements. I've seen various incarnations of these on /r/mensrights and various whiny placees on the internet with a reasonable frequency. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 00:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Well I found you what you wanted more or less. In the place where you put [citation needed] I have placed a reference leading to the mission statement page of AVoiceForMen where the words misandry and misandric are used in an applicable context. Reading that mission statement page pretty much put my doubts to rest. SolPyre (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
On a side note JorisEnter if you read this I would like to voice my disapproval of your premature revert of the [citation needed] template. SolPyre (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I have been trying to edit this page and each time I do so someone removes my edits... and its not like I don't have credibility, that I don't cite things, or that I am trying to make the article unbalanced. I am trying to add balance to an article written by someone with a political agenda who clearly doesn't want balance. This is not exactly a good representation of "rationality" and the above commentator is right. The counterpoint section is a strawman. AndyChrist (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Background information[edit]

@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."[1] Well males do, on average, have larger brains than females.Wikipedia's W.svg Male brains are 10-15% larger and heavier than female brains though it is proportional to men's larger bodies.[2] 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[edit]

@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.β€”127.0.0.1 Spinning-Burger.gif (talk β€’ 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 ItalianoMake 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).β€”127.0.0.1 Spinning-Burger.gif (talk β€’ 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?β€”127.0.0.1 Spinning-Burger.gif (talk β€’ 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 ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ @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 ItalianoMake 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 ItalianoMake 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 ItalianoMake 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.[note 1] This does not necessarily mean that misandry did not exist historically. The men's rights activist Warren Farrell arguesWikipedia's W.svg 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
  1. ↑ If the rich men have all the women, them how are poor men supposed to find mates?
β€”127.0.0.1 Spinning-Burger.gif (talk β€’ 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)
Goodpost.gifβ€”127.0.0.1 Spinning-Burger.gif (talk β€’ 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 arguesWikipedia's W.svg 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 ItalianoMake 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)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜That works. I reopened the article. Thanks everybody!@DuceMoosolini @Nerd @Ikanreed @Dysklyver @GrammarCommieβ€”127.0.0.1 Spinning-Burger.gif (talk β€’ 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 ItalianoMake 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. :) β€” 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[edit]

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