Talk:Misandry

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 18, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Misandry article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them.

The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:

This page is protected. You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days).

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

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

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Feminism Mid‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gender studies Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
Cleanup : edit to see
Collaborate : see /Collaboration
Copyedit : edit to see
Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender
Expand : edit to see
Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes
Merge : edit to see
Notability : edit to see
NPOV : edit to see
Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia
Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies
Split : History of feminism
Stubs : see Gender studies stubs
Translate : see /translation
Update : edit to see
Verify : Riot grrrl
Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Men's Issues (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues

The following reference(s) may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Anderson, Kristin J.; Kanner, Melinda; Elsayegh, Nisreen (2009). "Are Feminists man Haters? Feminists' and Nonfeminists' Attitudes Toward Men". Psychology of Women Quarterly. 33 (2): 216–224. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01491.x. ISSN 0361-6843.
Hedges, Tris (2024). "reclaiming misandry from misogynistic rhetoric". Feminist Review. 136 (1): 84–99. doi:10.1177/01417789231223202. ISSN 0141-7789.
Marwick, Alice E.; Caplan, Robyn (26 March 2018). "Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment". Feminist Media Studies. 18 (4): 543–559. doi:10.1080/14680777.2018.1450568. ISSN 1468-0777. S2CID 149246142. Wikipedia Library link (registration required).
Ringrose, Jessica; Lawrence, Emilie (2018). "Remixing misandry, manspreading, and dick pics: networked feminist humour on Tumblr" (PDF). Feminist Media Studies. 18 (4): 686–704. doi:10.1080/14680777.2018.1450351. ISSN 1471-5902 – via ResearchGate.
Newton, Chad (2026). "Signposts to Men's Wellness in a Feminist and DEI World". In Marques, Joan (ed.). Encyclopedia of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Spirituality. Cham: Springer. pp. 1244–1248. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-76750-0_110. ISBN 978-3-031-76749-4. Wikipedia Library link (registration required)

26 April 2026

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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

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

Thread retitled from When an article stops explaining a concept and starts deciding the conclusion.

The core issue with the Misandry article is structural, not merely editorial. Rather than explaining the concept of misandry, the article is organized around a prior conclusion—that misandry is negligible, exaggerated, or primarily rhetorical.

After providing a minimal definition, the article does not proceed to develop the topic in line with standard encyclopedic practice (e.g., definitions, scope, forms, historical usage, empirical research, and major interpretations). Instead, it quickly shifts to discussing who uses the term, why it is used, and how those uses are criticized. At that point, the subject of the article has effectively been displaced: from the concept itself to a meta-discussion that frames the concept as contested or invalid.

This constitutes a structural deviation from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV). Per policy, articles should describe topics fairly and proportionately, presenting significant viewpoints without endorsing one. Here, however, a particular interpretive framework—largely skeptical of misandry as a meaningful phenomenon—is embedded into the article’s structure. The result is not the neutral presentation of a dispute, but the implicit resolution of that dispute through narrative design.

The article also raises concerns under Wikipedia:Due weight. Perspectives that deny or minimize misandry are presented with assertive language and explanatory depth, often framed as research-backed conclusions. In contrast, opposing perspectives are frequently reduced to formulations such as “some have claimed,” accompanied by source-labeling or motive attribution. This is not proportionate representation; it is asymmetrical framing. One set of views is treated as established knowledge, while others are preemptively marginalized.

Additionally, the article employs forms of framing that verge on pre-emptive delegitimization. By foregrounding the identity or presumed motivations of those who use the term—rather than first presenting their arguments—the text shifts evaluation from claims to claimants. This risks violating the spirit of NPOV by introducing bias through context rather than explicit assertion.

There are also issues related to Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). The use of evaluative labels such as “misandry myth” or “false equivalence” reflects strong scholarly positions, but the article often does not sufficiently contextualize these claims in terms of methodology, scope, or academic disagreement. While sources may be cited, the lack of explanatory framing limits the reader’s ability to independently assess the validity and boundaries of those conclusions.

Taken together, these issues indicate that the problem is not isolated bias in phrasing, but a deeper structural substitution: the article does not primarily explain misandry as a concept, but instead organizes content around a pre-existing stance toward it. Through definition, structure, and source presentation, it transforms a descriptive entry into a framework-driven narrative.

As such, incremental edits are unlikely to resolve the issue. A substantive restructuring would be required to align the article with NPOV, due weight, and verifiability standards—beginning with restoring the concept itself as the central subject of the entry. GabriBees (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Given the concerns above, the article’s editing history itself appears somewhat concerning and may warrant closer review. It may be appropriate to consider whether issues related to Wikipedia:Ownership of content are affecting its development.

If the page is currently protected, reconsidering that protection could help attract more neutral, uninvolved editors and improve balance. Experienced editors may also wish to review what further steps or processes would be appropriate in this case. GabriBees (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

"man-hater feminist" represents the popular antifeminist myth which has no any scientific evidences"

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What does such scientific evidence entail? The sentence is confusing Trade (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Concern about discussion suppression

Latest comment: 3 months ago14 comments3 people in discussion

WP:NOTAFORUM is in force on this talk page the same as everywhere else. See also Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

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

Please review the history/archives. There have been instances where posts raising concerns—including my recent one—were removed or downplayed without substantive replies. This makes it difficult to maintain a transparent discussion or to build genuine consensus.

When concerns are not addressed but instead fade from view without response, it raises a troubling question: are we actually addressing the issues, or simply making those who raise them disappear from the discussion?

Could experienced editors advise which processes to follow if there are concerns about article ownership or recurring issues in discussion conduct? GabriBees (talk) 08:44, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that too much discussion here falls foul of WP:NOTFORUM. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your last message was rolled up because you posted a bunch of AI generated text, and you have apparently done so again in this section. Stop doing that, please. MrOllie (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

That is not the case. The views I’ve expressed are my own, not AI.

I would also suggest that focusing on whether text is AI-generated may not be the most productive direction here. The more important issue is how we can improve the article and this discussion process. I hope we can keep the focus on addressing the content and concerns raised, rather than speculating about contributors’ motives.

Thank you. GabriBees (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

We've seen a lot of AI here, and your comments are full of the classic AI-signs, including characters that humans don't type because they aren't present on keyboards. Being dishonest about this will not help. MrOllie (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your so-called "AI-generated characters" may come from translation tools or browser. My native language is Turkish, so I need to use translation tools; otherwise, I can't communicate with you.

In the meantime, please don't abuse warning templates to suppress discussion; if you really want to use them, please attach the original guidelines or policies.

Please answer my questions, not make pointless speculations about motives. GabriBees (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Translation tools these days are AI, and they will insert stuff into your comments that you didn't really say. If you cannot read and communicate in English yourself, you have no basis to criticize this particular article. I suggest you have a look at the Turkish language Wikipedia instead. MrOllie (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's not the case. I review everything very carefully to ensure that all the text conveys my meaning.

My English level is IELTS 7.5.

Is it worth getting hung up on this? No. Let's focus on making Wikipedia better. GabriBees (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you are capable of reviewing carefully you are capable of writing in your own words. Yes, it is worth getting hung up on this. As you have just found out, no one is going to bother to read or respond to the kind of stuff your automated system has been churning out so far. MrOllie (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

You should point out which of my points are right, which are wrong, which are reasonable, and which are untenable.

If you can use this as an excuse to suppress my reasonable viewpoints, what reason will you use to suppress the viewpoints of other editors? Let's stop this pointless discussion. GabriBees (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Since I am unable to dig out which are your points and which are incomprehensible AI-waffle, I decline. Also see WP:TLDR. PS: It is interesting that you complain about others suppressing your viewpoint while simultaneously telling me what I should and should discuss. MrOllie (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

See? My goal is to keep the discussion going; your goal is to make it disappear or cease to exist. Putting everything else aside, the amount of text you've written about irrelevant issues is so enormous that you could easily find time to look at the archives and historical records of people's meaningful perspectives.

Anyway, thanks for your suggestion. GabriBees (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

the amount of text you've written about irrelevant issues is so enormous Ditto, my friend. MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is only appropriate to "keep the discussion going" if the discussion is leading to improvements in the article. It is not appropriate to use these pages for general discussion of the topic. WP:NOTFORUM applies. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Talk:Misandry

26 April 2026

"man-hater feminist" represents the popular antifeminist myth which has no any scientific evidences"

Concern about discussion suppression

Content Disclaimer