Talk:Misandry/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 14 January 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Shitstorm

Lol you want this to not be a shitstorm? This is going to be attacked like, every five minutes.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A girl can dream, can't she? ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 20:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Only if she's kind of dumb. Just teasing of course, but I've preemptively protected the page.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't do that. We have an open editing policy. Stuff can be protected temporarily if/when it becomes a target for vandalism. No articles should be under permanent protection; only structural things like the main page & high-use templates. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

When it gets attacked by some losers from metapedia or wherever else every ten minutes, just remember: its all your fault.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Uh, OK buddy. Whatever. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Misandry

How can a dictionary defined term be of 'dubious legitimacy'? Its application may be dubious but the term is pretty cut and dry. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It's because the dictionary's definition isn't defined in the context of it's use. Another example: if you go up to a person of color and say you aren't racist because you aren't the dictionary definition of 'racist' they will probably hate you. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 05:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Misandry is a scare word like heterophobia; something that barely exists in reality but is a big deal in the minds of paranoiac chauvinists. The fact that it has a etymologically correct dictionary definition is neither here nor there. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Misandry is a real term which has been co-opted by MRA's to mean something which it isn't. Misandry is a very real thing, but it isn't what MRA's think it is. Therefore the article should state it means this but MRA's say it means this. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

this seems relevant--"Shut up, Brx." 12:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually that wasn't relevant Brx. This isn't an argument about what a word means but whether the actual meaning should be described first. Brx Fail. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Surely the first sentence of an article should describe what the thing is? There is plenty of room to explain the woo surrounding the subject in the rest of the article, but the first sentence should almost always be a straightforward definition. Damo^Hi 12:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Surely you could edit it instead of playing simon says. --81.175.239.201 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Ace McWicked. And what's with saying sexism refers exclusively to institutional oppression? Because it sure as shit doesn't. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism ShorinBJ (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The whole concept of misandry is total bullshit and makes MRAs look like manginas, which they seem to love to project. Vergeltung (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Misandry as a societal view vs examples of institutionalized discrimination

I think the article should clarify that individual examples of institutionalized discrimination (for example, narrower coverage under rape laws) does not equate to a societal bias against men. I imagine it would be written in a similar format to the way individual claims are debunked in our article on the Men's Rights Movement. Mr. Anon (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

What you say is very similar to "It is perfectly possible for women to discriminate against men, but that does not mean it is equal to the discrimination of men against women. There can be and is discrimination against men. But it is not systematic and inherent in western culture save in cases where it's a function or fallout of misogynistic social norms. For example, men are consistently discriminated against in custody proceedings in the U.S., but this stems from the misogynistic attitude that women are the ones whose "job" it is to care for the children. There is no institutional sexism against men until you come across a society where women are considered the dominant gender, i.e. a matriarchy. And there are no matriarchies in the world today. " which has several logical faults:

• How can misogynistic (that is meaning: "a hatred of women") tendencies contribute to institutional discrimination against men in custody proceedings? These women want to get the custody of the children, and they statistically (11 to 1 chances) get it, resulting in men's loss. Any real patriarchic system should by definition favor men in court disputes, but apparently it does not so, on the contrary.
• In all opressor regimes in history, the opressed had less rights in courts and more severe penalties for them than for the opressors. Occupied WWII Poland comes to mind, where for killing a German a disproportionate number of Polish civilians would be killed. But in modern Western (in Eastern it is reversed) societies have statistically less severe criminal penalties for women. Logic would dictate more severe penalties for women if they are dominated utterly by men. It is not so in practice (save Muslim countries where it is indeed the case).
• Therefore it is illogical (and in fact existing only in feminist doctrine) that institutional cases of discrimination of men are rooted in misogyny. This belief has no precedence in social dynamic, history and twists cause and effect. The reality is that women and men historically enjoyed a different set of privileges (men having more control, but deprived of protection from death, women granted protection from death and being provided for, but having less control). Denying the existance of misandry and attributing all forms of discrimination against men (which are admittedly less than against women, but they do exist) to misogyny makes no logical sense. - Azradun (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Self-Defeating Kind Of

"If you are a man, imagine being attracted only to half-bear and half-shark monsters that have physically, sexually, or emotionally hurt almost every other friend of yours but you end up loving and being attracted to them anyway even though it's increasingly hard to tell the man-eating variety from more benign individuals."

This is something I haven't see in a long while - explaining that misandry does not exist, while literally demonizing 3,500,000,000 people by comparing them to monsters. Well done. Again, why is it rational to write that I am a monster just because I have a particular set of genitalia? - Azradun (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If I have been hurt by women, may I describe them as "half-lizard and half-cat monsters that have physically, sexually, economically or emotionally hurt almost every other friend of yours but you end up loving and being attracted to them anyway even though it's increasingly hard to tell the deceiving and predatory variety from more benign individuals." - oh yes, but that would be misoginy, even when written about those radfems who cheerfully planned genocide? Is this equality that feminism fights for? - Azradun (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed that footnote, which was indeed awful. Not sure you're where you're going with the rest of these comments but OK. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I was merely showing the previously displayed double standard. - Azradun (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Department of Homeland (In)Security

I believe that there were certain events at the Department of Homeland Security. Something about an office desk in the Mens' Room, if I'm not mistaken? I think that men such as myself need Feminism to be a little more detailed concerning the justification of their rather exceptional claims -- or did God Herself just create womyn superior to men? TheLastWordSword (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"men, as such, are not actually oppressed in Western society"

How can this claim seriously be defended? Without dripping too far into MRA territory, I can think of plenty of counterexamples. Domestic abuse and rape laws being a common example, but also the fact that men can still be drafted into the military in many Western countries, while women cannot. Whether or not these examples can be considered related to anti-women stereotypes does not change the fact that they are real and present forms of discrimination against men. Why is it difficult to say that women are oppressed in some areas, while men are oppressed in others? Mr. Anon (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Men sometimes get the short end of the stick in certain select situations, this does not mean that they are an oppressed group. Even in societies which are intensely oppressive to women, Saudi Arabia for example, men still face certain social structures which could be considered discriminatory, but that doesn't change the fact that the society is oppressive to women. --Marlow (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Why can't a society be oppressive to men in certain areas and oppressive to women in others? Mr. Anon (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not what oppression is. The fact is, Western society is arranged for the benefit of white men, often at the expense of women. A few isolated instances where being a women or minority might be beneficial doesn't change that. --Marlow (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What definition of oppression are you subscribing to? Gender is a system of differences, and society places its own set of restrictions, assumptions, and expectations on each group. By definition, this creates systems of privilege and discrimination for anyone in one group that tries to assume a set of behaviors and actions that are not permitted by society (for this reason, the trans* community can certainly be considered among the most oppressed of any social group, as it centers around people with inconsistent traits according to society). What is oppression other than a system of privilege and discrimination? Even though we can both agree that women are probably more oppressed than women, this does not mean that men to not face oppression in many areas of society, and that discrimination against men is not important to address. Mr. Anon (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppression occurs in a social situation when one group asserts authority over another in a broad and socially acceptable manner. Like Christians, white people and heterosexuals, men are not oppressed in Western society. Despite the fact that all of these groups claim that they are being oppressed, they represent the in group, the group that does the oppressing. --Marlow (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Are 'oppressing' and 'being oppressed' mutually exclusive attributes? Nullahnung (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily, one might be a white Christian male who is also a homosexual. Obviously he faces oppression due to his sexuality, but not from the fact that he is white. Nevertheless the idea that men are oppressed is ridiculous. --Marlow (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is it ridiculous to consider, for example, biases in the criminal justice system oppression? The criminal justice system is (rightly) considered biased against African Americans because it penalizes them harsher than whites for the same crime. The same happens to be true in many cases for men vs women. Why is one case an example of oppression and the other not? Mr. Anon (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Why does oppression have to be perpetrated by a single group, and not by culture at large? Some people may have larger voices in society than others, but culture, especially in the consumeristic world we live in, is shaped by both men and women. Mr. Anon (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Bias against men in the criminal justice system may well be a valid concern, but it doesn't mean men are an oppressed group. Oppression isn't perpetrated by a single group it's created by a constellation of groups, but that doesn't mean men end up being one of the groups that is oppressed. It's a pretty boring argument about semantics at the end of the day, it really just boils down to the fact that men are a group that has real privilege in our society. --Marlow (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that it is impossible for men to contribute to a system that oppresses them, which I contest. As I noted, culture is influenced by everybody (you don't seem to be contesting this), and societal norms are heavily based on the culture of the day. Even when you look at centers of power, it's rather ridiculous to claim that men cannot be oppressed because many men hold power. There are plenty of female politicians who oppose abortion rights; does this mean that restriction on women's bodies are not oppressive? Does the fact that we have a black President, a black Secretary of Homeland Security, and a black Attorney General mean that African Americans are not and will not continue to be oppressed in many ways? Mr. Anon (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Semantics makes for boring arguments. Tielec01 (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If we can agree that men are discriminated in many ways by society, and that these issues are important to address, then why is it relevant to consider the precise meaning of "oppression" or "misandry"? Mr. Anon (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree that men experience discrimination in certain situations and it should be addressed within those particular contexts. What is at issue is the idea that there is some kind of systemic oppression of men in society. --Marlow (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There is for black men. You guys are in vicious agreement. Tielec01 (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Got me there :). --Marlow (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

My two cents. *Gets out soapbox* The trouble here seems to be a false and almost unattainable standard: that for a group to be considered oppressed, there must be no benefits to belonging to that group, and for a group to not be considered oppressed, there must be no drawbacks to belonging to that group. It gets ridiculous when you go back farther in history and see that this doesn't always hold true; how likely were women, in the 18th century, to be accused of rape? Yet suggesting men back then were oppressed is silly. I'm a white man, and I freely admit that I enjoy privileges because of it. That's reality. And I have to wonder, of the people arguing that men could be considered oppressed, how many are women? A man getting defensive and trying to assert his underprivileged status just looks clueless. *Puts away soapbox* --ShorinBJ (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Your argument seems rather circular; you assume a scenario (18th century Western countries) where men are given a disadvantage in certain is not a case where they are oppressed. In fact, during that period, men had to suffer the possibility of being drafted into the military. Given that power was held by relatively few at the time, I'm surprised you wouldn't consider men oppressed at the time, given that they could be selected and sent to their deathbeds at the whim. I'm certainly not claiming women weren't oppressed in their own ways at the time. Why must oppression work in a binary, where one group is grouped in blanket terms are "oppressed" and the other as "privledge". The fact is in society that both men and women enjoy privileges over one another. Since gender is a system of differences, any set of roles assumed for one gender implies a parallel set of roles for the other; ie it is the division itself that causes oppression, not any single group over another. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem with these arguments is that it ignores who set the system up in the first place: Men! The draft was not created by a bunch of feminists sitting around a table saying "How can we oppress men?" If anything, the draft is better described as classist. War is a game where rich men send the sons of poor men off to die. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you seriously think men in the 18th century were an oppressed class? As Nebuchadnezzar says, women had absolutely no say in the drafts selection of men. It was an institution put into place by men for men in a time when women had virtually zero say in public policy. It's the same with the family judicial system which gave, or perhaps still does give, preferential treatment to mothers; it is a system created from a position of patriarchal power which views women as the nurturers (thus the granting of child custody) and men as the providers (thus the enforcement of alimony). As I've said a half dozen times, just cuz the patriarchy doesn't give men an advantage in every conceivable situation doesn't mean it doesn't exist. --Marlow (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

As I've said, culture is not influenced by any single person or groups of people. Also, laws at the time were largely controlled by a very small minority of people. Saying that "men" set up the system is disingenuous when the vast majority of men had no say in the system either. This argument is akin to saying that abortion is not a women's rights issue because there are female politicians who are anti-choice. I did not and have never indicated that men are oppressed by "feminists" or "women". Rather, I hold that gender roles are created by culture, and culture is not influenced by any single individual or group (this is especially true today in our consumeristic society). Do you believe it is impossible for men to support a system that ultimately oppresses other men? Mr. Anon (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The argument that disadvantageous situations to men are simply an offshoot of misogynistic norms misses the point. Gender is a system of differences organized in a binary, and it is impossible to create a "misogynistic norm" without simultaneously creating a secondary norm that restricts men. Why is this so difficult to understand? Mr. Anon (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Who was this tiny majority of people who constructed the social system? All of them were men, women had no practically zero social or political power prior to the 20th century this is why they were (and still are an oppressed class). There is a "misogynistic norm," this is why women were and continue to be an oppressed class. While that norm might restrict men to a degree, it does not simultaneously make them oppressed. --Marlow (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Social systems are not constructed by any individual or group. You're not seriously arguing that political power = complete control over culture? Furthermore, are you arguing that it is impossible for men to contribute to a system that oppresses other men? These are key points that I have brought up that have not been addressed with substantial responses. Mr. Anon (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm hardly arguing that political power = complete control of culture. In fact, prior to the 20th century men had virtually complete control of all sectors of society: political, religious economic and otherwise. Who controlled the church? Who was the head of family units? Who controlled the judicial system? Business? Universities? Yes it is impossible for men to be in complete control of society and simultaneously be oppressed, that has been and continues to be my point. --Marlow (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

""Prior to 20th century men had virtually complete control of all sectors of society:" Nope. Mr. Anon (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

From your own source: "Yet however powerful some women were in the Middle Ages, it is important to remember that the overwhelming majority were not. Most women, even those in privileged circumstances, had little control over the direction their lives took." A few select exceptions (which I'm obviously aware of) do not change what I'm saying. This grows tedious, I don't think you understand what oppression is. Your argument that men are an oppressed group might as well extend to 19th century slave owners. Some slaves had positions of power on the plantation (an occasional black overseer), and owners had responsibilities and restrictions that slaves where not subject to (including conscription). Were they oppressed too? --Marlow (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

What none of you seem to have realized is that you've never actually escaped from the dreaded semantics debate about what oppression is. Therefore any arguments you throw at one another will sail straight past the other. Using Anon's definition, yes it is possible for a system where men are more in control to create mysoginistic standards that by their nature also restrict men and therefore necessarily spawn a "misandristic standard" of expectations that controls and oppresses men.

However, that is not the go-to definition on this talk page. Nullahnung (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of which, if oppression, misogyny, and misandry are defined exclusively in systemic terms for society overall, it makes a workable definition for discussion of gender in society, but it also makes it inapplicable to discussions of individuals, their actions, and motivations. As such, by the definitions here, things like harsher sentences for male criminals are not misandry because of broader systemic issues that favor men, but one person cannot oppress another, and there is no such thing as a misogynist (individuals may reflect or manifest a broader social pattern, but they are not the pattern itself, which applies deductively to the entire society). If one uses different definitions such that an individual's discrimination against a woman can be called "misogyny", it implies that it is just as legitimate to call an individual's discrimination against a man "misandry" (because the presence or absence of such a thing is determined inductively from specific cases, and this sort of misandry can coexist in the same society with misogyny of either type). It might be helpful to make a note of that in the article, since disagreement on this topic usually come down to this kind of disagreement on definitions, and both sorts of definitions are actually used. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

If a group that suffers any kind of disadvantage at all is oppressed, regardless of whether the advantages outweigh it, the word "oppression" ceases to have any sort of useful meaning. It's exactly like fundies contorting the definition of faith, just so they can claim atheism is a religion. They expand it until it can describe practically anything. That's what's going on with the semantic debate here. There might be room for a real discussion on the finer points of exactly what qualifies as oppression, but anyone who isn't a male trying to claim the mantle of victimhood for themselves knows roughly what we're working with here.--ShorinBJ (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of how the norms were created though, they are perpetuated today largely by both men and women, and these norms restrict the behaviors of both men and women. Why can't we consider culture to be an entity larger than any individual or social group? Mr. Anon (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Culture tends to enter into negative feedback loops like that and there's nothing significant that can be done about it. If we all think hard enough, though, attitudes will add up and things might change a little bit, who knows. Nullahnung (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Then what is wrong with thinking of culture as being the oppressor, and all constrained by the binary as being victims? I feel that telling men who may face legitimate discrimination because of the gender binary/patriarchy/societal expectations that, as a whole, they are a "privleged class" implies that discrimination they face is some how "less" than discrimination women face, when in fact it is all quite connected and rooted in the same system. Take, for example, the problem of rape in Western society. Both male and female victims have felt abused, marginalized, and humiliated by rape culture. Yet it seems many feminists view rape as entirely a "women's rights issue", while MRAs focus on male rape as entirely a kind of bias against men. I posit that in reality these both center around the same issue: societal expectations regarding sexuality. This is quite an oversimplification itself, but when you have a system that views men as the "natural" initiators of sex, and women as the "natural" receivers of sex, you have a culture that marginalizes consent for both parties. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's true that that's fucked up in both directions, but don't go thinking it's anything close to equal. When we live in a society where people look for signs that "she was asking for it" and excusing men's sexually over-aggressive behavior as "boys will be boys", I'm going to go ahead and say that applying the same "oppression" label to both situations is bullshit. --ShorinBJ (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Who are you to play oppression Olympics and claim that some issues here matter more than others? It isn't even illegal in most states for a woman to rape a man. Many people, including some feminists, hold that it is impossible. This is the same kind of argument used to marginalize the issues many GSMs face, such as Human Rights Campaign telling trans* people, "marriage equality isn't an issue for them." It relies on the same not as bad as logic. Mr. Anon (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

But, conversely, one could use your logic to say that rich people are just as poorly off as those below the poverty line. Look at all those taxes they pay, look at how much they have to pay their accountants. Don't you know the cost of keeping up several mansions and a summer home in Italy? Those poor, poor rich people and yet the poor have the temerity to moan about the one per cent.

Given that no one is 100% oppressed or 100% non oppressed then you have to end up making comparisons. Yes, men lose out in some circumstances but, on balance, the world is tilted in their favour. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Your unwillingness to play "oppression Olympics" is actually an unwillingness to identify oppression where it exists. The idea of looking at oppression is to identify where power lies in society, without this understanding it is impossible to attack these power structures and work towards equality. Your same argument could be used to claim that white people were oppressed by Jim Crow laws by being restricted from using "colored" facilities. Now, since we wont play "oppression Olympics" and discover who is actually in power we can't seek to empower black people, after all, according to you, they are equally responsible for their role in a society which is universally oppressive. --Marlow (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention there's a major straw man in there: acting like we don't acknowledge or want to do anything about men's problems. No one here said that men raping women matters more than women raping men, or that being a man brings no challenges. We're saying that overall, society is geared to favor men and oppress women. Overall. And men created this system. Men got together and created governments that excluded women even from the right to vote, let alone hold office. Men got together established religions preaching that women had to obey their husbands or burn in hell, they couldn't even talk in church, and that their sexuality was something to be ashamed of. And pretending that women had anything close to an equal hand in that is bullshit. --ShorinBJ (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I find it very interesting that you imply that society was built by the entirety of men as a social group. Historically, power was held by very few. Yes, these people were generally men, but they represented a tiny fraction of the total population. The vast majority of men had just as much power and influence as women in the system, and in fact the vast majority of men and women (peasants) were for all practical purposes equal (in the fields your body parts did not matter much). In fact, given that historically men were expected to fight in wars and sacrifice their lives, a service women were not expected to perform, it's pretty laughable to suggest that men as a social group were not discriminated against. To suggest that the majority of men consented to this system is also laughable as a result.

So if modern gender norms are rooted in centuries of discrimination and cultural misrepresentations, and has been perpetuated by both men and women since at least the beginning of the 20th century, why is it relevant to consider the genders of a group of powerful people in ancient times?

In terms of modern day power structure, women make up a majority of voters, a majority of consumers, and are set to hold a majority of graduate school positions. Clearly, if gender equality was a black-and-white matter of men vs women, why aren't women able to force change very easily? If it's simply a matter of who holds positions of power, how come we can find examples of female politicians, business leaders, and writers perpetuating many of the same gender binary norms? No, as I've maintained, culture is something above any individual of group. Culture is not something that can be pinned down on any single source of power, but is an imagined construct held by members of a society (along theories that Benedict Anderson has put forward).

As we've seen, binaries of privileged vs oppressed classes are not always so clear cut; women may feel in many circumstances less privledged than men, but trans women will often find that a great deal of their social rejections comes from "female" spaces - being rejected from women's bathrooms, being unable to interact with others who share their gender, etc.

Addressing issues of race, I'll even go as far to say that the social construct of race is not inherently a burden held by whites. Race manifests itself in culture by teaching us that the color of skin or the nation of heritage has relevance in deciding the quality of a person. Of course, racism in the West historically has certainly benefited the group identified as "white", but even then it was not quite simple (ask any descendent of an Irishman or Jew from the era). However, racism is still largely an element of culture, that has been perpetuated by society at large. This culture was able to be challenged in the Civil Rights movement, and certainly great improvements have been made in this front. However, to frame it as a simply a matter of who holds positions of power is still rather problematic (currently the President, the Attorney General, and soon to be the DHS head are all black, but this certainly doesn't mean internal biases are gone).

Wealth is one area that I will concede cannot be pinned largely on culture, but rather economic structure. I will point out that problems in race and gender can be separated from economic class: capitalism in theory, for all its flaws, cares mainly about profit and not so much about gender or race. For people of a social group to be negatively effected by capitalism, it must exist at a cultural level above the physical economy (and I'll even go as far as to say that the modern consumeristic society allows for more egalitarian control over culture). Mr. Anon (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Men needed to serve in the military mostly because they had had a manifest warrior role ever since forever. Men are seen as stronger (which they are in physical combat), therefore they had the pressure to conform to that and present themselves as warriors. Women did not have that pressure. This warrior role contributed to the mostly male power structure that has carried on in some form all the way till today. So yes, men have the advantage, but it's because of a historically evolved role. That's the way it seems to me anyways, please correct me if you think it's wrong. Nullahnung (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Real power is always held by just a few people. But you seem to be saying that a few people (who somehow happened to be almost all men) had enormous power, and everyone below had a small, equal amount of power. Wrong. That "obey your husband, pregnancy and menstruation is a curse" shit? People seriously believed that. Some people still believe that. My own mother grew up hearing that shit. Come to that, that's also a partial rebuttal to your assertion that women helped create the norms that restrict them. They certainly helped perpetuate and enforce them. But can you see where a woman, having had it drilled into her from birth that she is inferior and all women should know their place, would naturally turn around and teach the same to her daughters? Where she would sneer at another woman in a short skirt, just because she's internalized the prudish standards of dress forced on her and doesn't know any better? Oppressed people don't always dream of freedom; sometimes they don't even realize the shackles are there, because the shackles are in their minds. --ShorinBJ (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Mild misandry in the office

In the summer women can wear short sleeves and sandals.

Men have to wear suits and shoes regardless of the temperature outside. (And what use is a tie - apart from getting caught in the fax machine and strangling the chap?) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a problem with suit/tie/shoes being considered professional-looking for men. I say let's do away with such silly fashion notions. I was never very good with fashion anyways. Nullahnung (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I never wore a suit nor tie while working in the head-office of a household name multi-national and occasionally wore shorts in the summer. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it is an urban legend - but someone told me of a 'man strangled by tie in the fax machine.'

One can look professional without having to wear a suit (but a £2000 bell bottomed wig and the rest of the get up may be be outside most people's requirements). 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Excuse my non-existent sense for fashion, but how do £2000 bell bottomed wigs relate to this topic? Nullahnung (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I personally think that I look amazing in a suit. Putting that aside, this has hardly any relevance, and is not entirely true. I don't work an office job, but the people I know who do tell me that it's "all or nothing"- I.e. either everybody wears formal stuff, or nobody does. So this really has nothing to do with anything. Impurity is the secret ^{Unite with thy oracle} 02:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

multiple offices I've worked in have demanded full-length trousers for men, and explicitly banned sleeveless tops and sandals for men, while allowing shorts, sandals, and sleeveless tops for women. That said, that is SUPER mild compared to some things (maternity/paternity provision, availability of mental health care, bursaries/scholarships, &c).

I was referring to eg [1].

Women do tend to have slightly more flexibility in clothes (sleeve length, footwear etc) in the office. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What overlap is there

between misandry and the Freeman on the land and Urban caveman movements (ie not freepersons and cavepersons)? 171.33.197.73 (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good topic for a thesis when you get your PhD in women's studies. --Marlow (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Will pass on the Women's studies PhD - would require reading too much brainwarp inducing material (as distinct from historical overviews and analysis). Feel free to take up.

To what extent does Misandry-as-presented fall into the 'Elf and Safety' end of the Health and safety debate (ie the loopy deliberate misinterpretations etc) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Can misandry apply #between men#? 171.33.197.73 (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Can mysogyny apply #between women#? Nullahnung (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Are there examples of philogyny, philoandry and philo-anthropy? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You spelled them wrong. Here: philanthropy, philogyny, philandry

Philanthropy as a word is used a lot, but not the other two. Nullahnung (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I was distingushing 'one of the sequence of words in this group' from philanthropy (largess towards all). There are probably also philo-zoony and mis-zoony, and equivalents for plants (including triffids and ents), robots, sentient computers (who in some SF are anti-anthropic), 'microcyanoanthropism' (little green men), Daleks, 'and various other groups to taste. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I consider myself a philopokemonist. And a love expert. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Saying stupid things that are false doesn't make a compelling argument for feminism.

I have removed the false statement that "misandry" was "derived from misogyny." Both misandry and misogyny share the same prefix: "μισος" (misos) which means "hatred." The suffix for the words are "woman" (γυνη - gyne) and "man" (ανδρος - andros). In Star Trek there are "Androids" from "ανδρος" and "οιδος" (oidos - "form"). An "android" is then something that is "man-form" like something that is a spheroid is "similar to a sphere." So when you hear the term "androgynous" now you will understand that it comes from "ανδρος" and "γυνη" - (andros - gyne) - "man-woman." Bloomingdedalus (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That is how misandry is constructed, yes. But the word was created (in the English language and the various cognate forms in other modern languages) as a reaction to the term "misogyny", using of course the same "construction rules". In that way it is derived from the term misogyny.Octo8 (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, it stretches back to Greek literature: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%B4%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B1#Ancient_Greek You are correct, however, that there has been a persistent effort by the people in power to keep the severe brutalities and exploitation of men visited upon them under wraps and regarded as part and parcel of being male. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. If you cited the English word misandry at Wiktionary, you'd see "Formed in the late 19th century ... by analogy with misogyny". The fact that there was already a corresponding word in ancient Greek is neither here nor there. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that "the people in power" are themselves mostly male, and historically have been entirely male, this would seem an incredibly stupid, counterproductive goal. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing he was referring to the self-reinforcing patriarchy thing that hurts everybody including the men, with "the people in power" being anyone who happens to be propagating the thing, whether intentionally or not. Nullahnung (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... yeah, actually that does make sense. Okay, point taken, my comment withdrawn. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 09:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This article has some serious issues

Way too biased for rationalwiki - it reads more like a rant than an encyclopedia. This is not the kind of space that will be frequented by those who are likely to be swayed to one side of the fence or the other, so let's try and keep it *rational* shall we? ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.163.132.8 / talk / contribs}

Drink! Zero (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess that's Zero's way of saying that he'd rather be drunk than rational. - Hobby (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

If I was marking that comment as if it came from one of my undergraduates, I would ring it in red pen (well, highlight it in Google Docs these days) and scribble a comment along the lines of "this is a very vague claim, please provide details and specifics so that we can understand what you are talking about". ^postate 12:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

No Transphobia. Stop Re-Adding It.

I have removed the transphobic comment for the second time. Why does it get re-added?—72.174.134.233 (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Because nobody really associates "grow a pair" with transphobia? It applies to men, usually, who already have a pair in the biological sense, but lack it in the dignity/attitude sense. Nullahnung (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

And there we see both problems: Being a man has nothing to do with having testicles (transphobia), and having testicles has nothing to do with being able to cope with situations you dislike (sexism).—72.174.134.233 (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Associating men with testicles is not transphobia, seeing how statistically there is a strong correlation between the two. However, requiring testicles for someone to be called a man could be transphobia. See the difference? Nullahnung (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Meh, I don't think it's that funny, we could lose it. The bunch of numbers trying to add that tired old reinterpretation of the CDC study and argue that women are just as frequently the perpetrators of sexual assault on the other hand... --Marlow (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The source in the ref the BoN posted seems interesting, though. It's not that old and seemingly references academic material, in particular: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301946?journalCode=ajph&

These are all still from 2014, so quite new. I'm definitely not well-versed enough with the data or the literature surrounding it to say anything, though. What do you think? Nullahnung (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we should just cut out the "grow a pair" reference altogether, I saw its readdition as being down to blanket reverts. I hate the phrase personally, reinforces all sorts of patriarchal stereotypes --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Grow a pair" isn't transphobic as such, but it's obviously sexist. "Grow a spine" is better. Sophie^Wilder 09:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

We should maybe go for retorts that don't reinforce the idea that men should be stoic and ignore their feelings. The way I see it, the phrase preceding is about male entitlement, "feeling just sort of bad in general and that it might be a girl's fault somehow". The way I would criticise somebody who reacted to their personal feelings like this would be to confront their sense of entitlement. Why does it have to be a woman's fault? Because these forums encourage that you blame women for your problems, even ones that don't involve women whatsoever. I went for "get over yourself" as a retort as it doesn't reinforce the patriarchal idea that men should always present a strong face. Either way, there's something hugely wrong with a person who blames women in this context, particularly as the ruling class is historically male, but we should be careful not to reinforce patriarchal ideals when criticising a group for wanting to uphold them in a different way --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Nullahnung (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The study isn't the CDC study I believed it was, although the use is similar. It's highly suspect to say something along the lines of "the above study (on domestic violence) is suspect because this study (covering sexual assault) is a fact." They don't actually contradict one another and even if they did, the B.O.N. doesn't offer any reason to prefer one over the other. Overall the point is the same and is probably something that we should cover somewhere. There is emerging evidence that men are frequently the victims of sexual violence, at times at the hands of women, but the key here is that this is not a fact that is suppressed, denied, or minimized by feminists. Instead it is a direct result of feminist questioning of patriarchal gender norms that these men are able to come forward. --Marlow (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This type of thing/source probably fits better in the rape culture article than this one. Nullahnung (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Satirical Picture

Do we really need that picture? It just makes this article look biased. ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.135.26.160 / talk / contribs}

Well, it's gone, and I think you were probably right. Didn't make sense. Contributed to a sophomoric tone. Pretty reasonable to get rid of. Ikanreed (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Where's the article about misandry?

Either make one, or change the name of this one. This article is in dire need of a revision. Basically, as it stands, this article is saying this:

Misandry. Misandry is the belief that--

FUCKING MRAS! FEMINISM FEMINISM! MRA! MRA! FEMINSM! FEMINISM!

I fail to see what misandry has to do with Men's Rights Activists and Feminists. If we are going to include them simply because the former accuses the latter of being a practitioner of it, then we should expand this article to include every single instance of any group throughout history either being misandric, or falsely accusing another group of having been so. As it stands, this article does not read like a sarcastic or satirical take on any particular subject matter, which I strongly suspect will be the defense used against my argument (assuming my points are even addressed to begin with).

This article reads more like a propaganda piece that one would expect to find in North Korea. Parogar (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

We get it, you hate feminism. Thanks for the monthly reminder about your complete and utter lack of other beliefs, opinions, or insights. Ikanreed (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not say I hate feminism. And my feelings on feminism are irrelevant. My emotions are not tied to my reasoning in either case. Now, is there any chance, however small, you might respond to my arguments and not simply whinge that someone disagrees with you? If so, that would be grand, as the Irish say. Parogar (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Or, if you prefer, you can continue to counter my points with, "You're not respecting my belief!" This is something I have heard more times than I can ever hope to recall, but usually it comes from conservatives, the religious, and people who actually believe in astrology. This is the first I've heard it on Rationalwiki. If you want the truth, then no, I do not respect yours or anyone's beliefs until they can be held up to public scrutiny without fear of groupthink causing ideological backlash. If your ideas can not hold up to scrutiny, then I do not respect them, nor do they deserve respect. Same goes for creationists or any other sincerely held beliefs. Parogar (talk) 23:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Fan of guilt by association, aren't we? King Skeleton (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@King Skeleton. Not quite. It was in direct response to what Ikanreed's response was to my point. Rather than say why I am wrong, he/she/they said, "WAHH! You don't like feminism so I dun wanna talk to you no more!" < - That is the basis of what I am writing. That because it's his/her/their "belief", it is "special" and needs to be "protected." Parogar (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

B-b-b-but it's my belief!!!

The mentality I'm encountering here runs contrary to the nature of skepticism. I can't believe I have to point this out on Rationalwiki of all places, but the following needs to be said: something is not "special" just because you happen to believe in it.

"But that's not fair, Parogar!" you argue. "I'm a feminist and you're a meanie MRA and you're not respecting my belief!"

I'm not an MRA. I'm not a feminist. I'm a skeptic And I am hugely skeptical of anything even vaugely dogmatic in its approach to make claims without a solitary scrap of evidence to back it up.

This article is supposed to be about misandry. Even accounting the "snarky tone" that is supposed to be taken, one could justify making an article that uses satire and snark to downplay the negative effects misandry has had on this world as opposed to misogyny, which has incontestably had a far more severe impact on this world; one that has caused untold amounts of pain and suffering to innocent women who were simply in want of a peaceful life.

^^ And all this, I insist, could be easily accomplished within the context of an article about misandry.

What we have instead is something that is childish in nature and stupidly filled with propaganda to the extent that the use of the word "retarded" is warranted here. I'm not defending MRAs, though that may appear how it looks. I'm defending the nature of what it means to be a skeptic.

If Rationalwiki feels this strongly about one particular ideology, it may as well run in an election. Because you know what? I rescind my previous claim. This isn't even propaganda. This is a downright election you guys are running, only it's not against anyone or any thing. The sheer amount of emotion, whinging, and overall stupidity in this article is baffling.

It's almost as though this was written to be awful on purpose. Like, whoever sat down to write this thought, "What can I do today that will cause me to appear just a tad less rational than the things I wrote yesterday?"

Just to further cement my point. Suppose I want to write an article on, I don't know, molecular biology. If I were to follow the current trends, it would appear like this.

Title: Molecular Biology

Molecular Biology is a field of study that seeks to ... hey, you know who fucking sucks? MRAs, that's who. And you know who's awesome? Feminists. Yeah, that's who!

In fact, know what? Fuck molecular biology. Fuck it right in its hydrocarbon isotope. Let me tell you a few things about why MRAs suck and why Feminists are awesome, okay? Did you know MRAs hate Jews? Yeah, it's true! Stacy told me in fifth period after gym class.

^^ That's what you sound like.

So fucking fix it already goddammit. Parogar (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That will certainly be an excellent rebuttal to that position if anyone ever actually occupies it. King Skeleton (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec) almost exactly what I was going to post. Infantile straw-man decomposition of feminism, coupled with an infantile straw-man decomposition of why we're intransigent on that argument. There's no sincerely meaningful argument being made here. If there was, I'd take it seriously. Ikanreed (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a meaningful argument. You're simply saying that as a means to "get out of" having to form a rebuttal, which in my opinion is a sign of weakness, insecurity, and a lack of faith in your own position. Ironically, this is the only area where you, a self-described skeptic, appear to lack faith. Because you certainly aren't going off evidence and fact so far as I can see. I ask kindly that you give me a rebuttal. If not, then by virtue of you having nothing with which to contradict my points, I ask that you restore my edits. Parogar (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The snarky tone is there because misandry is something that barely exists but is talked up to be a big deal, as is with heterophobia, the homosexual agenda, white extinction, liberal fascism, cultural Marxism & various other dogwhistle reactionary panics. If you are arguing that actual misandry is a significant & influential phenomenon, please provide examples - something I haven't seen you do yet. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Terminology used by media, in blogs, etc.

It seems like if someone makes a lot of generalizations about how bad men are, advocates taking away their rights, etc. she's referred to as a "radical feminist" rather than a "misandrist", by mainstream media and blogs. I don't see the word "misandrist" used at all, except by MRAs. However, the word "misogynist" gets thrown around much more readily toward those who make disparaging remarks about women. Landmartian (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Misandry doesn't exist as a system of oppression, which is why. Men aren't oppressed for being men. It's why the word reverse racism doesn't make sense.BlackProg (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Theoretically, misogyny doesn't exist as a system of oppression either, at least in western countries. The laws are worded in gender neutral ways, with each gender theoretically having the same rights. Landmartian (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You should just stop you're post right there before this turns into another discussion like here.--Miekal 21:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That was an awesome discussion, but ended the same way, with people urging its premature termination. Landmartian (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm weary of the prospects of discussing the realities of institutional sexism with somebody who thinks that some rape can be Legitimate, or that coercing somebody into saying Yes makes it not rape. If that's the general direction you plan to try and take this in, i would reccomend you stop now while you're ahead--Miekal 21:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a pretty lame way to argue: point out some unrelated position of your opponent you disagree with, and say you don't want to debate him because he's the same guy who put forth that other viewpoint. But, if you're going to do that, you could just go on your way rather than telling the other side to basically be quiet. Landmartian (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, you can go ahead all you want. I'm just trying to ward you off doing something that won't give you anything good if the same kind of attitude you had concerning rape and women is going to pop up here for misogyny and institutional sexism. --Miekal 21:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Institutionalized misandry (and female privilege) does exist

It seems to me like there are mainly two sides in this debate -- the feminists who claim that institutionalized misandry does not exist, and the MRAs who claim that it does exist, and is a result of feminism. I think there is a very reasonable position that hasn't been taken by anyone yet -- the view that institutionalized misandry does exist, but rather than being caused by feminism, it is caused by the same societal gender norms that oppress women. A good example is conscription. For centuries, militaries have forcibly drafted men (but not women) into their armies, and many innocent men have been killed. This is very similar to the oppression that Black people have faced under slavery. In fact, there are actually some eerie parallels between slavery and conscription. They're both institutionalized and systemic systems of oppression, and just like how racists have attempted to use science to justify slavery (the Black race has darker skin, and is therefore best suited to laboring outside in the sun), misandrists have attempted to use science to justify conscription (men, on average, have more upper body strength than women, and are therefore best suited to military service). Another good example is emotional expression. It is socially acceptable for women to express their emotions, but when a man does it, it is considered a sign of weakness, and he is ridiculed. Feminists often talk about male privilege. I do not deny that male privilege exists. However, female privilege also exists. Both sexes are privileged in some areas and oppressed in others. It is incredibly myopic to claim that one sex is more privileged than the other in all areas. For example, men are privileged in government (since most politicians are male), while women are privileged in expressing their emotions (since it is more socially acceptable for them to do so than men). So this article is wrong, the feminists are wrong, and the MRAs are wrong. Everyone is wrong on this issue. Institutionalized misandry does exist, but rather than being caused by feminism, it is caused by the very same source as institutionalized misogyny -- our fucked-up society. Perhaps if feminists and MRAs started cooperating rather than fighting, we could actually make some progress towards ending both institutionalized misogyny and institutionalized misandry. But nope. Both sides are dominated by immature idiots who believe that their sex is the only one that has problems, and refuse to see things from the other perspective. And by the way, I think I should make it pretty clear that I am neither an MRA nor a feminist. I just support equality. CookiePizza (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, boy. Conscription wasn't invented to keep men down; they just didn't think women had anything to contribute 'cause, you know, bitches be weak and useless in a fight. And when a man cries? Other men call him a girl. Like being female is the worst thing you can be. Even when gender norms don't work in a man's favor, they're based in the idea that women are inferior. You can't ignore that.--ShorinBJ (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I would love to see regular, documented instances of MRAs actually being active in any sort of community beyond bitching about issues that may or may not even exist in the first place. Feminists have rallies, fund raisers, support groups, an actual community. MRAs have...what...ReturnOfKings? Reddit threads? 8chan? I have yet to see anything actually productive. They just try to push the status quo. So no, feminism isn't dominated by immature idiots, and it's not about the female perspective. It's defined as equality, and you might not like to hear it but if you support equality you support (true) feminism, as a definition. Trick (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

They do have national on-site meetings. A very paltry few actually politically agitate on excuse-class issues like divorce law(FYI, almost all states don't have a mom-first law on the books anymore(since before MRAs were a thing)). My need for intellectual honesty demands that I disagree with your assertion here trick. Ikanreed (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, I suppose. I suppose it comes down to who is considered the "lead" of the movements, as well as the comparative prevalence of these meetings. It does go to show something about it if these things are nearly unknowns in comparison, though. However, institutionalized misandry is still a funny joke in most iterations of the thought. (That's not to say I haven't heard legitimate arguments, or legitimate men's issues.) Trick (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC) (noticed I accidentally minor'd my edit)

Oh yeah, I don't disagree on that point. I just believe in acknowledging the world as it is, even when it makes straightforward things(that the MRA movement predominantly exists to promote stronger enforced gender roles) murky(but there are legitimate actions that could be taken in that name and sometimes, occasionally, are). Ikanreed (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Women are on average physically weaker than men. It is not 'anti-feminism' or 'sexist' to say that, it is sexist to say that point out this fact is basically 'bitches be weak'. ShorinBJ, you are the sexist. Please do some research before spreading misandry yourself (saying other men will use that tone while you are the defender of women against it). For example, pick a sport that requires physical strength - football, swimming, running, sprinting, skydiving etc. and plot all the world records on olympic for each year, both for men and for women. Not only women are on average physically weaker, the strongest women are consistently weaker than stronger men. The fight between feminism and MRA is not about accepting that fact, it is about who is the driving factor behind it. Is it the women who like strong men, promoting misandry in society so men to 'prove' themselves, or is it men who are just 'born bad' and oppress women and other men equally. Former is MRA, latter is feminist, but both cannot deny misandry.--117.199.190.234 (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

And since war has been, since time immemorial, decided by one-on-one wrestling matches, we can easily see that women are therefore useless in the military. --Ymir (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"Is it the women who like strong men, promoting misandry in society so men to 'prove' themselves," because, of course, when men fail to meet standards of stereotypical masculinity, it's never other men who deride them for it. And don't think that idiotic straw feminism gets a pass, either. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Article by someone who hates the term misandry

This article has obvious bias against Misandry. Not only it skillfully skirts around the issues related to the term misandry (it is not used as a weapon against feminism, but a lot of feminists enjoy misandry), it also skirts around the fact that misandry as a term was first used in 1870. There is no need to start a debate here, since the article seems to be owned by people who haven't actually read any literature on misandry, but apparently like to get attention - thus the need to have this bait under 'rational' wiki. I am leaving this comment so people can actually move forward.--117.199.190.234 (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that the "literature on misandry" consists of /r/theredpill and Return of Kings. We all know them feminist wimmins are just man-hating lesbos! --Ymir (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, "First used in 1870" right about the time women started collectively agitating for basic equal protection of legal rights in the US and UK? Oh my! here's literally all the discussion of the concept(3 citations to far-right books that include the word) in the world's premier masculinities journal. To people who actually study the effect of society on men, it's not that big a deal. Ikanreed (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The existence of gender roles proves that systemic, institutionalized societal misandry (as well as misogyny) DOES exist

After I made my last post on this topic, a user named ShorinBJ commented and claimed that, because men who display stereotypically feminine characteristics such as expressing their emotions are often made fun of by being referred to as "girls", this shows that, even if gender roles do not always benefit men, the ultimate issue is still feminity and femaleness being deemed intrinsically inferior to masculinity and maleness by society. However, I have detected a flaw in this argument. If this were, indeed, true, and masculinity was seen as superior to femininity, then women who display stereotypically masculine characteristics would be lauded. However, as any feminist could tell you, this is the exact opposite of what happens. In reality, women who display stereotypically masculine characteristics are shunned and ostracized by society (much like men who display stereotypically feminine characteristics). This leads me to think that the problem isn't really femininity being considered inherently inferior to masculinity, but rather, deviation from gender roles.

Society has formulated two caricatures -- the feminine gender role and the masculine gender role -- that people of either sex are expected to embody. Both of these gender roles contain a set of stifling, draconian expectations and parameters that each sex is expected to conform to (for example, women are forbidden from displaying confidence or audacity, men are forbidden from displaying emotions besides anger and lust, women must stay at home and be housewives, men must have a job and earn an income for their family, women are barred from military service, men are forced into military service via conscription, women must wear dresses and skirts, men must wear pants, women must have long hair, men must have short hair, etc.) If anyone fails to conform to their particular gender role, they are oppressed and discriminated against by society.

Therefore, it's clear to me that, rather than femininity being deemed inferior to masculinity, the real problem is deviation from gender roles. People who deviate from gender roles are oppressed and persecuted by society. We don't need a men's rights movement nor feminism. The problem with both feminists and men's rights activists is that they are both biased, myopic ideologues who only focus on one sex and are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. What we really need is a cohesive, unified gender equality movement that actively works to undermine the repressive gender roles that society has set up and achieve true equality for both sexes.

So, to recapitulate: Yes, systemic, institutionalized societal misandry does, indeed, exist, despite what some misinformed people claim. And so does systemic, institutionalized societal misogyny. And both are serious problems that need to be dealt with. But the proper way to do that is through neither a feminist movement nor a men's movement, but rather, a true gender equality movement. CookiePizza (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Very well. If systemic, institutionalized societal misandry does indeed exist, then where does this take place?

I ask due to being a white male in the American South who has spent a lot of time in various institutional structures...and never once have I encountered misandry. So, I'd like to confirm this one for myself. Just a personal curiosity. --Castaigne (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone ever made fun of you for crying or expressing emotions besides anger and lust? That's misandry. Did you have to sign up for the Selective Service when you were between the ages of 18 and 26? That's institutionalized misandry. If you tried to indulge in stereotypically "girly" activities when you were a child (such as playing with dolls), were you ever criticized or prevented from doing so by your parents, siblings, teachers, peers, etc.? That's misandry. Have you ever been the victim of domestic violence in a relationship with a woman, and, after failing to find any shelters for abused men, contacted the police, only to have them disbelieve you, scoff at you, make fun of you, or even arrest you (despite you being the victim, and your wife being the aggressor)? That's misandry. Have you ever been raped by a woman, and after reporting the incident, were told that "You're lucky" or "You should have enjoyed it" or "It's because you were too weak, a man should be able to fight off a woman" or "You had an erection, so you must have wanted it", or even "That's impossible; a man cannot be raped by a woman"? That's misandry. There are numerous other examples. I could go on like this for ages if I wanted to. And even if you have never personally been affected by misandry, that does not invalidate the experiences of the myriad other men around the world who have. As an analogy, not every woman has been raped, experienced domestic violence, been forced into prostitution, etc., but since many other women have, they are still considered important problems for women. Not every individual will experience oppression to the same extent. The overall pattern is what matters. And the pattern overwhelmingly shows that misandry is, indeed, a major societal problem, maybe not quite on par with misogyny, but still very pervasive, deeply-entrenched, systemic, and, in some cases, institutionalized. CookiePizza (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Granted that it's not considered attractive for a woman to look like a man, but do you often hear girls and women get called boys as an insult? I've heard the reverse countless times ("You're such a girl,"), but I honestly can't recall ever hearing a girl called a boy as an insult. I have heard them called lesbians, which isn't the same thing even if it is offensive.--ShorinBJ (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Saying that a woman looks "manish" is an insult. It's generally tied to appearance though.--TiaC (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused.

Is this article saying that it doesn't exist, or that it does? I'm lost. Oh, and by the by: it does. WittyUsername (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't because it's not a wide spread issue no matter how many feminists say they hate men. Stop JAQing off all over the website. At least do it in a sock.—Ryulong (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

men are not actually oppressed - What I mean by that.

Black men are oppressed. Working men are oppressed. Muslim men are oppressed. Gay men are oppressed. Trans men are oppressed. To say that "men are not oppressed" is wrong. To say "men are not oppressed as such" is to point out that while many men face oppression, tehy do not face oppression because of their gender. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 20:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This is an intersectional thing. The quality of being male does not oppress them, but the intersection of their masculinity and their other qualities is indeed oppression. For example, trans men are indeed oppressed, but not because they are men, but because their trans status invalidates their masculinity to normative culture. Black men's masculinity is modified into a threatening presence rather than a powerful one because of the intersection of race, etc. Men, as a group, are not oppressed. Men, as individuals, can be oppressed because of how their masculinity can be marginalized or subordinated by a dominant hegemonic ideal. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{more at 11} 20:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what I said, except with a bunch more grad-school jargon. Glad we agree. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 20:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

happy?--Token Conservative (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I've gotten roasted elsewhere for not using specific terms before. I too am glad we are clear on this. I am happy my return to RW actually has been so far so good. Also I really want to go to grad school. >:S And yes, that is nice. Thank you! ±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 20:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There are groups of men who are oppressed, however, men as a group in general are not oppressed. To say that they are oppressed because some groups are is to give the impression that MRAs are correct. It's like saying "Germans weren't victims during the war" is incorrect because some of the Jews were German. Vergeltung (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to clear up some misconceptions I might have about this line of argument, frequently applied to discredit considerations on issues relating to "men in general", "men as a group" or "men as such". It's a lucid argument, taken in isolation, but it's frequently employed in connection with a rhetorical trope to associate criticism of 'misandry' with that of 'reverse racism' — and that's where the argument might get befuddled, at least I my mind. A set of individuals that belong to an ethnic group is not on the same level of abstraction as a set of individuals to which a certain sex/gender can be attributed. When we speak of "men as such" or "women in general" we are speaking about individuals who belong to everyother group as well. "Women as a group" and "men as a group" are structurally related in ways that ethnic groups are not.

Case in point: In the arguments above, framed in the language of intersectionality, put forward to invalidate considerations that "men as such" are oppressed, wouldn't they just as well, conversely, invalidate the argument that "women as such" are oppressed as group? I'm not as much concerned with the merits of 'misandry' as a concept, as the consequences of the argument of intersectionality taken to it's logical conclusion if applied to opposite terms, such as "women under patriarchy", etc.

Dersio (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Much better.

The improvement in this article since I first read it several months ago is astounding.

Origionally, pretty much the only sections there were the "This word does not exist" claim near the top and a bunch of the crap 'MRAs' have pulled, trying to make it seem like an issue on the same level as misogyny.

I like how it is now much better. The word's aplicability is strained, it's vastly overused, and the MRAs are abusing the heck out of it, but the definition and analysis of its meaning and various manifestations are there and well put together.

Personally, I find the argument that hatred + power are required to enable sexism/racism somewhat flawed, since that's what the modifier 'institutional' is for, but it's only shown as a viewpoint, so there's no point quibbling with the article over it. Basically, "People will hate people. Sex is one of the differences you can be hated over, and women are not exempt from it."

I do have to question the replacement with Misanthropy. Granted, hatred of all people makes much more sense for the general situation, but unless you can swap over the use of misogyny at the same time, it sort of sends an odd message that "Hatred of women is just hatred against women, but hatred of men, well, that's hatred against mankind!" though I admit that I might be missing something.

End point - When I first read this, it seemed like a big, emotionally motivated pothole on my archive binge of the site. Now it seems to fit right in to me, for whatever that's worth.

Sorry if you're not supposed to do this stuff on the talk pages. feel free to delete if so.

```` Anon User Weebee. <sup>— Unsigned, by: 99.250.22.71 / talk / contribs</sup>

No, your post is perfectly fine. We're much more laid back when it comes to talk pages than that other wiki. But say, since you seem to be growing on the site, why not contribute? Zero (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"hatred + power are required to enable sexism/racism somewhat flawed, since that's what the modifier 'institutional' is for" That was once true, but now the need for historical power is part of a wider move to only classify acts of prejudiced discrimination by a member of a dominant/majority party as a bad thing. More prevalent amongst race-based thought than gendered, but nevertheless widespread in modern rights movements. A nifty little bit of semantic footwork that allows particular things to be the 'protected' domain of minority/oppressed groups without saying 'discrimination is ok' 81.145.153.190 (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"a wider move to only classify acts of prejudiced discrimination by a member of a dominant/majority party as a bad thing." Nah, that's a gross misrepresentation. Prejudice is bad, whatever direction. It's about terminology, and how prejudice can be much more harmful in one direction than in another. No semantic footwork, just a recognition of the real-world phenomenon that prejudice will, ceteris paribus, harm the disadvantaged more than the advantaged. Queex<sub>chthonic murmurings</sub> 14:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Divorce and custody

"However, MRAs fail to perceive that the current practice is grounded in the idea that it is a woman's job to take care of children — an idea much opposed by feminists." Traditionalists would say that it's the woman's job to take care of children in partnership with the husband, rather than as a divorcée mother. A standard practice of giving women the kids after a divorce creates more of an incentive for women to divorce their husbands, perhaps in breach of a marital agreement that they were going to raise the kids together. The raises the question, what is the point of a man's getting married and having kids if his wife can divorce him for any reason or no reason, take the kids, and make him pay for their support?

Of course, the husband could also be such an ass toward her that he's the one in breach of the marital agreement. The problem is, it's often hard to tell who is at fault for a divorce, and often it's just a matter of opinion anyway. Otherwise, one could simply punish the person who breached the agreement, as with other contracts. Landmartian (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It's almost as if they should have a system of no fault divorce or something ;)-BlackProg (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It's administratively simpler, and probably cuts down on lawyer expenses, but might create moral hazards. Landmartian (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the few cases where there is institutional bias against men, but as with most forms of institutional bias, it is (very) slowly progressing in most liberal social democracies. Oddly, one of the things that MRAs spend the most time talking about, and the least time campaigning for. (unless you count 'fathers for justice' as MRAs) 81.145.153.190 (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

One thing I didn't know is that the imbalance in custody awards is largely driven by fathers not requesting custody. When you only look at cases where both partners want custody, it's pretty close to a 50/50 split, or evens favours men. Of course, the feeling that childcare is primarily the mother's job is an aspect of stereotypical gender roles that works to men's disadvantage here. The institution in question appears to be the patriarchy, rather than any legal entity. Queex<sub>chthonic murmurings</sub> 14:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

MRA use of the term

The entire subsection "MRA use of the term" is a picture book example of arguing against a straw man. I see absolutely no evidence that any of these points are key concepts of the men's rights movement or that they represent majority opinion inside the movement. The author made these up for the purpose of arguing against a straw man. I removed the entire thing. <sup>— Unsigned, by: 141.39.226.239 / talk / contribs</sup>

Eh. Maybe could do with citations that show that each item is not coming from nowhere, but come on. What other use have you ever seen an MRA use the term for besides those listed? ikanreed <sup>You probably didn't deserve that</sup> 20:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Niiiice, where but on a site called "Rational Wiki" would SOMEONE not understand that putting words into other people's mouths is a fucking fallacy? This is something that needs VERY convincing evidence. "Come on, I heard a guy, who I BELIEVE is an MRA, say something SIMILAR and that is totally proof enough that these are their core tenets!" What the actual fuck? It's a slap in the face of skepticism and rational thought. You claim these are common points raised MRAs and not some random things said by a few outliers much like the freakish things said by radical feminist fringe groups (the "kill all men" faction, for instance)? Well, then prove it.<sup>— Unsigned, by: 141.39.226.239 / talk / contribs</sup>

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I read the article. Now you read it. Notice how my criticism is accompanied by a very valid point of asking for sources for something the author claims other people say (commonly no less, so sources should be especially easy to find). --141.39.226.239 (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

"Only joking"

Re: the male tears bit, don't we usually look dimly on bigotry which is post-fact excused as "just a joke"?KrytenKoro (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Anathas Comments

This is an extremely disappointing experience of a site who's mission is supposed to be about debunking crackpot ideas and pseudo science.

All you have to do is to look at the page for misogyny on this same site to see how this article is so far off base as to be laughable. Of course, if one accepts the bold assertion that one must be imagined (misandry) and the other is just an obvious reality of life (misogyny), then this would make sense but that assertion has no basis whatsoever in fact or evidence. It is simply the assertion of a particular (if popular) social commentary. It is, in effect, the very antithesis of this site's purpose.

There is a catalog of errors in the article itself. Whilst I appreciate you want a high degree of "snark" in the writing one would at least hope that such snark was based on the uncovering of factual inconsistencies in others assertions rather than just taking the piss out of something the author clearly has no understanding of nor has taken the time to learn about. I would hope for at least some level of objectivity before the snark flies.

Please can I ask how one goes about actually challenging the removal or complete re-write of such an article on the basis that it is ideologically based, with little if any factual evidence to support the claims made and is therefore a discredit to the purpose of this site as a whole? <sup>— Unsigned, by: Anathas / talk / contribs</sup>

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. "There's a catalog of errors in the article itself", mind pointing out any specific errors? Saying "it's all wrong" isn't particularly helpful. Christopher (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anathas Hello! The best route for you to take is to first provide us with a list (on this talkpage) of central claims you would like to see included in the article (post those here along with credible sources).

Additionally, you could provide us with some examples of statements in the current article you would like to see removed (and why).

Note that we have bias, and are not even gunning for any "neutral" take (so don't even go there).

Note, also, that we allow for original research, aside from the snark you mention.

Oh, and keep it short and sweet. Try to stick to your best, few sources. Pasting a gigant wall of text is considered highly suspect, especially as part of a rant.

Thanks in advance! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Christopher. Agreed. Wasn't sure how to go about doing that so thought I would find out before making specific points. Anathas (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@RBP Many thanks that's very helpful. I will take the article away and think about how best to respond. Will probably post a few points first to see if I am on the right track in terms of the way you like to see things. Thanks again. Anathas (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@RBP Oh, one other thing. When you say "original research" do you mean actual scientific studies not yet published or do you mean something else? Thanks Anathas (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Original research in this context refers to any idea that one of our editors have come up with themselves, we allow it, Wikipedia don't. Christopher (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Another way of putting it is something like;

Wikipedia (being both neutral and an encyclopedia, while RW is neither of those) relies on sources for its claims. RW also relies on sources for it's claims. So far, so good.

Wikipedia, however, doesn't allow its articles to reason from the sources (e.g. like some well-written blog post would) — all Wikipedia allows for is presentation of the sources.

RW, on the other hand (having an actively skeptical mission) both allows for and encourages its writers to insert reasoned arguments based on any mainstream, scientific, non-fringe sources they happen to provide.

We also endorse a general liberal bias in our articles (though we're ultimately quite centrist on most issues).

Many of our critics perceive us to be politically diehard, but we're really not (IMO). We are diehard naturalist pro-science Atheist skeptics, however. As such, we have plenty reason to snark. Heh.

Hope this helps! And remember, start with suggesting something simple (with solid sources) and go from there. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

A BoN's comments

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/ <sup>— Unsigned, by: 71.228.6.247 / talk / contribs</sup>

-- 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. <sup>— Unsigned, by: 86.2.174.148 / talk / contribs</sup>

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

Sincerely go fuck yourself random retard mod. Eat shit and die :) How's that for better criticism. Feel free to ban dipshit. BTW several of the links for references don't work. Nice biased article.

Only one link didn't work, not "several". I added a broken inline template to indicate that a source has existed and to aid relocating it, but I added another source supporting the claim of domestic violence disproportionately affecting women. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 10:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced claims vigorously defended by sysops with a political agenda

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.<sup>— Unsigned, by: 141.39.226.239 / talk / contribs</sup>

Very intelligent conversation. Thumbs up!<sup>— Unsigned, by: 141.39.226.239 / talk / contribs</sup>

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: 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 <sup>[citation needed]</sup> 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 <sup>You probably didn't deserve that</sup> 00:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Well I found you what you wanted more or less. In the place where you put <sup>[citation needed]</sup> 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 <sup>[citation needed]</sup> 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)