Talk:Manosphere/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

NPOV

Thread retitled from "This article seems to have a neutrality issue".

The manosphere is in the lead described as "a collection of predominantly web-based misogynist ideologies associated with the far-right and alt-right." and later the these "has been associated with online harassment, as well as some mass killings and other real-world acts of violence, and has been implicated in radicalizing men into committing violence against women." It also mention a number of movements within this group. One is fathers' rights groups. From the wiki page on Fathers' rights movement the Fathers' rights movement political views are described as "...both liberal and conservative branches, with different viewpoints about how men and women compare.". It also states that The fathers' rights movement is indeed a part of manosphere. It is hardly possible to be both far-right / alt-right and part of liberal branches. And the Fathers' rights movement wiki page mentions nothing about online harassment, mass killings or being implicated in radicalizing men into committing violence against women.

I noticed that the article mentions alot of magazines as sources, but does not seem to reflect that the articles are heavily influenced by the writers own personal and political views.

This article seems to have a neutrality issue. MIS (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Please be specific, what are the exact neutrality issues you refer to? (ie: which claims not supported by a reliable source/which sources do you not consider reliable etc.) Bacondrum (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned above, it seems that the lead is quite hostile to this manosphere concept, describing it in a way that gives the impression that the manosphere is quite hateful, violent and belonging to the far right. The article points out Fathers' rights movement, as belonging to the manosphere. But according to Wikipedia article on Fathers' rights movement, the impression is, that the Fathers' rights movement the quite opposite. This seems to be a serious contradiction, not a small thing being labelled as a part of "a collection of predominantly web-based misogynist ideologies associated with the far-right and alt-right." that "has been associated with online harassment, as well as some mass killings and other real-world acts of violence, and has been implicated in radicalizing men into committing violence against women." I am not quite sure where the exact neutrality issues is, as it could be multiple things, a mix or something I missed. My first impression is that the sources are extremely biased. But also that it is not made clear that the concept primarily used by those who sees themselves as in opposition to the 'manosphere', in other words, a pejorative. MIS (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@M.I.S.: The sourcing overwhelmingly describes the manosphere (and the movements that comprise it) in this way, so the Wikipedia article reflects that. You write that my first impression is that the sources are extremely biased—you can view the sources yourself in the references section. There are around 50 of them. I doubt you are claiming every single source is biased/unreliable/otherwise unacceptable, so please do specify which you're dissatisfied with so we can actually have a discussion.

As for the father's rights point: that's an interesting one. I actually made an edit not too long ago to change the wording to some father's rights groups. But then I realized that I had worded it that way based on my own personal understanding of father's rights groups (which I do not claim to be particularly deep—I have not researched them much at all), and not based on the sourcing. The sources I've seen that mention father's rights and the manosphere say that the manosphere includes father's rights groups with no equivocation. I think it's quite possible/likely that there are people who do not include the more liberal branches of the father's rights movement in their definitions of the manosphere, but I haven't actually seen sources supporting this, and so I undid my change.

As for the word "manosphere" being used by those who are opposed to the manosphere and its groups, that hasn't been my impression. One of the sources, a GQ article that interviews Paul Elam, includes quite an in-depth conversation where Elam explains the term and diagrams the various groups in the manosphere. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I will point to the Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view (NPOV), particular the part about not stating opinions, seriously contested assertions as facts. And not using judgmental language and avoiding undue weight to a particular view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is my hope that you will take this to heart, and consider whether you truly think the article honor this principle. "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." MIS (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't see the issue. You're talking about unspecified things that "seem" hostile to the subject? Honoring principles? You give no specific examples of the issue. Please, show us the specific claims not backed by citation/misrepresenting the citation/based on original research etc. Otherwise it appears as though this is just complaining. Bacondrum (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I did give a specific example of the issue, twice in fact. I came by this article by chance, and I see a strong political bias, both in the article and those who guard its message. I was hoping to appeal to the fundamental principle of Wikipedia of neutrality. This is not a debate forum, and I do not desire to be a part of an ideological fight that should not be on Wikipedia in the first place. I see an issue, you do not, and we will not get any further with this. MIS (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@M.I.S.: Which seriously contested assertions are being stated as facts? I have already explained my thought process around the issue you identified pertaining to the father's rights movement; does that make sense to you? Bacondrum and I are both trying to get more information from you so that we can properly respond to your concerns, so I don't understand why you are throwing up your hands, accusing editors of ideological warring, and proclaiming we will not get any further with this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@MIS - Yawn. Next you'll be complaining that the Ku Klux Klan article is biased because it describes them as a white supremacist hate group. Jesus wept. Bacondrum (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Manosphere is movement around providing platform for discussion about men’s rights and other topics related to men.

The current description is like making the feminism page look like this:

Feminism is a collection of websites, blogs, and online forums[1] promoting some forms of feminity, hostility towards men, strong opposition to masculinity and exaggerated misandry. Feminism has been associated politically with the far-left and Communism.

Political and ideological bias from editors of this wiki are quite obvious. Architectuality (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Architectuality: I don't mean to be rude, but have you even looked at the sourcing in this article? The vast majority of the sources used here are scholarly articles and books, not newspapers/press. Out of the three news articles that are used, two of them are only cited once each–the first with in-text attribution to present the a quote from the author as a part of the "Public perception" section, and the second also in the "public perception" section only to provide an expert quote from sociologist Michael Kimmel. If you are also counting the SPLC sources when you mention journalism, they are also only used in the "public perception" section.

So either you have not actually looked at the sourcing, or you are describing this article as based in "articles from yellow press that are known for making misleading content" writing for an audience of "angry women" based on one journal source written by an accomplished journalist with a background in writing about gender issues. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hm, I'm surprised my edit went through without an edit conflict, since you removed the portion of your comment I was responding to as I was writing it. I assume you looked at the sources, then? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Architectuality: the article contents are based on published, reliable sources. If there are equivalent sources that describe feminism as "a collection of websites, blogs, and online forums promoting some forms of feminity, hostility towards men, strong opposition to masculinity and exaggerated misandry", then feel free to edit that article accordingly. May I also add that several of the complaints in this section are interesting examples of the trope common to online forums that "political" means "anything I disagree with". Most of these forums also tend to be populated by conservative-leaning white males. Coincidence? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is obviously biased and written by someone or someones who are hostile to the subject. A rewrite removing all signs of this bias is in order. I tried to make some sensible corrections here and there, but apparently someone is keeping a close watch on this. Alialiac (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alialiac: Your change removed father's rights groups from the list of groups in the manosphere, which is a sourced statement. It also changed "antifeminism" to "anti-female hostility", which is not what the source says. Happy to discuss any further changes you might think are in order, but if you're going to change sourced content you do need to at least provide your own sources to support the changes, or explain how the content doesn't reflect the current sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I have to add my criticism of the unencyclopedic tone of this article. The confabulation of fathers' rights groups with incels and MRAs alone is a flashing red light. Another is the assertion that the aforementioned misogynistic movements somehow grew out of the men's liberation movement of the 70s, which was an adjunct of the feminist movement. Frankly, having read the entry, I'm beginning to suspect that the manosphere isn't even a thing; as presented here, the term refers to any creative content, appearing online, produced by a man or men, addressed to other men. All of which the current tone condemns as anti-woman, apparently on that basis alone.

I'm not sure that wide a spectrum can properly be called a "sphere". If we decide it can, then we need to expand the definition to include all such media (grooming videos? medical advice? dad blogs?) and remove the chip from the entry's shoulder. If not, we need to eliminate this entry and leave the articles on PUAs, MRAs, and the like to accomplish that heavy lifting. Laodah 04:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

You say the article has an unencylopedic tone, but all your examples deal with the article's contents. All of which are directly supported by published, reliable sources as far as I can tell. Please note also that Talk pages are for discussing improvements to an article, not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedians are not, and should not be, the ones determining the meaning of "manosphere" or the groups it encompasses. That is up to the reliable sources, and they are quite clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Every counterpoint to point out the heavy lack on neutrality of this article keeps pointing back the the sources. If one looks at the sources, it is the the the *sources* are biased. Therefore this article cannot be unbiased, because it referenced biased articles. Unfortunately, this is symptomatic of the etireity of Wikipedia and even the co-founder, Larry Sanger, agrees. And, Wikipedia even blacklists site that disagree with its leftist agenda. 61.68.174.236 (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The quality of sourcing in this article is quite high, as it relies mostly on academic publications. If you would like to dispute the reliability of an entire publication, I would recommend WP:RSN. As for Larry Sanger, I'm afraid he's been saying all kinds of things lately—it appears he's fallen in with the QAnon crowd somewhat. I suspect most reliable publications would begin to look "biased" to someone consuming a heavy diet of that nonsense. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

Quote "The manosphere is a collection of websites, blogs, and online forums promoting some forms of masculinity, hostility towards women, strong opposition to feminism, and exaggerated misogyny.[1] The manosphere has been associated politically with the far-right and alt-right.[2] Movements within the manosphere include the men's rights movement,[3] incels (involuntary celibates),[4] Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW),[5] pick-up artists (PUA),[6] and fathers' rights groups.[7] The manosphere has been associated with online harassment as well as some mass shootings and other real-world acts of violence, and has been implicated in radicalizing men into committing violence against women." Unquote.

The manosphere is a collection of ideologies associated with the far-right and alt-right. and later they have been associated with a number of men's groups to have some forms of discussions about men's rights and masculinity. It is a set of ideas that attempts to eliminate unjustifiable misconceptions against men. From the wiki page on the Fathers' rights movement political views are described as both liberal and conservative branches, with different viewpoints about how men and women compare. It also states that the fathers' rights movement is indeed a part of manosphere. It is hardly possible to be both far-right / alt-right and part of liberal branches. TheFlamLegion (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

These are not contradictory statements. The father's rights movement is a part of the manosphere, and the manosphere has been associated with the far-right and alt-right. That does not mean that every branch of every subgroup is itself far-right/alt-right. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Terasail^[✉] 01:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

The sentence "Noted sites include /r/TheRedPill, Return of Kings, A Voice for Men, PUAHate, and SlutHate" is outdated. PUAHate and SlutHate are offline now. This list should include:

http://www.therationalmale.com http://www.rooshv.com http://www.woujo.com Elephants3x3 (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

PUAHate and SlutHate were both noteworthy sites in the manosphere at one point, which is relevant to mention. However I will adjust the wording so that is clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

reading the first few paragraphs of this article seem to frame the entire "manosphere" in a negative light when i have seen for myself it is mostly a healthy self improvement and civil rights community Josephwhyman041104 (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means proportionally representing all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. That's what this article does. See also WP:VER: Wikipedia's contents are determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf: Hello there Sang! I would like to ask a quick question. Is it really necessary to add the "exaggerated misogyny" at the end. I'm aware there is a source, but when I look at all three of them, none say that. Can you explain this? (Same with the MGTOW article). Thanks! Mohammad (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the vague, POV term "exaggerated". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

No objection to the removal, as I don't know if it really added much, but I will note that Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion. is mistaken that it was unsupported by sources. Jane 2017 refers to its "hyperbolic misogynist discourse", and Marwick & Lewis 2017 comment on the extremity of the misogyny in the manosphere. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I've improved the opening sentence by removing the generalization that all are misogynist (in line with the later claim that the group is heterogenous), which should be an uncontroversial change - unless we're simply defining opposition to feminism as misogyny, which that article itself does not do. But there's still a definite POV problem:

1. Every commentating source bar one (Hodapp) is from the explicit opposition.
2. Some are unverifiable opinion, such as "Debbie Ging writes that several groups, such as MRAs and PUAs, exaggerate their differences in displays of infight posturing, in spite of the fact that their philosophies are almost identical" - on what basis does anyone decide what's posturing and what isn't? The groups themselves seem to take it seriously. Imagine an atheist saying the same about Catholics versus Protestants - of what relevance is their opinion?
3. Much of it is claims of association rather than of content: "is associated with" or "has been associated with" — associated by whom? This could be improved by moving from "Ideology and content" to "Public Perception".

··gracefool 💬 23:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I have undone some of your changes, where you either removed content without explanation, or in one case where you reordered a section in a way that makes no sense. As for your comments, I would welcome you to present any RS that are not from the "explicit opposition" that you have—I have used as many sources on the topic area that I've been able to find, but would welcome additional suggestions of usable sources. As for Debbie Ging, she is an expert researcher in the topic area. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I explained all my changes, either here or in the edit summaries. I've re-reverted the opening sentence according the explanation in my first sentence above (and my edit summary). I've also removed your added but entirely redundant "some forms of" masculinity (all masculinity is "some form of"). Please don't revert again without your own explanation addressing my points.

I haven't yet re-reverted the moving of the association with violence, though it's even less appropriate than a sentence about terrorism in the opening paragraph of Islam; a few violent extremists do not represent a movement. Thus it doesn't belong in the opening.

Re Ging's quote, my analogy of an atheist judging Christian sub-groups holds: just because two philosophies are externally similar doesn't mean the internal divisions aren't real. How does her argument have any validity? ··gracefool 💬 01:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You did not explain all of your changes; you did not explain your removal of the violence/harassment statement in the lead until just now, for example.

Where do the sources support that only some manosphere communities are centered around misogyny? Yes, this article states that the manosphere is heterogenous and sometimes groups' ideologies conflict, but misogyny is called out as one of the characteristics that is shared by these groups. Your change to say add "some promoting" before misogyny is not supported in sources.

This association is supported by four sources; I think it is quite sufficient to include in the source. Your comment about "a few violent extremists do not represent a movement" does not follow the sourcing, which regularly mention the violent acts committed by members of manosphere groups.

I am not going to get into a WP:OR discussion of the validity of Ging's arguments; she is an expert in the manosphere and we are Wikipedia editors. if you have contradictory sourcing from similarly reliable sources feel free to present it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

My edit summary "removed sentence in favour of its repeat further down" referred to that statement on violence.

It is supported in the Hodapp source. Beyond that, the manosphere is defined by promotion of masculinity and opposition to feminism, so if it is heterogenous then it cannot all be misogynistic unless, as I said, all promotion of masculinity and opposition to feminism is misogynistic. In which case, the label is redundant.

Your counters are simple appeals to authority that ignore my points. Just because someone writes on a subject doesn't mean everything they say warrants inclusion in an article on the subject. It's not original research to ask how an argument can possibly be relevant. And especially whether it belongs in the opening; by your logic we *should* add a note about terrorism to the Islam opening, because many experts have made that association. ··gracefool 💬 01:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I see; it was not clear to me that was the sentence you were referring to.

The labels at the beginning of the lead and at the top of the ideology section are describing the commonalities among manosphere communities. The heterogeny is elsewhere; for example, the pick-up artists are united in their interest in trying to have sex with women, whereas MGTOW tend to eschew it. Your application of the "heterogenous" descriptor to the descriptors at the lead of the article seem to be an attempt at synthesis from other statements in the article rather than an attempt to reflect the sourcing, which confuses me. If the sources describe the manosphere's ideology as centered on misogyny, we should as well, and not introduce our own evaluations.

It didn't sound to me like you were asking how her argument is relevant—"How does her argument have any validity?" read to me like you were questioning her argument itself. Re: relevance, I chose to include it because it seemed salient as a somewhat contrary view to the discussion of the heterogeny of the manosphere groups. Please do not put words in my mouth with respect to the Islam article; I have no interest in discussing that hypothetical as I know far too little about most religion to have a particularly informed discussion on it. My suspicion would be that discussion of violence in the overall corpus of sources that describe Islam is a considerably smaller proportion; there is relatively little RS coverage of the manosphere (particularly as a whole; subgroups have somewhat more dedicated research), and yet violence is mentioned fairly frequently. But again, this is just a suspicion; I don't research Islam, or most religions for that matter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Every commentating source bar one (Hodapp) is from the explicit opposition. That doesn't mean they aren't the best sources available; see WP:PARTISAN.

[O]n what basis does anyone decide what's posturing and what isn't? ... How does [Ging's] argument have any validity? As GorillaWarfare says, it's a statement by an expert on the subject, properly attributed, and backed up by others such as Jane (2017). Whether any of us thinks it's valid is beside the point.

[A] few violent extremists do not represent a movement. That's not for us to determine. We simply summarize the most reliable sources.

[I]f it is heterogen[e]ous then it cannot all be misogynistic unless, as I said, all promotion of masculinity and opposition to feminism is misogynistic. This is a non-sequitur. What unites disparate manosphere groups is their misogyny and anti-feminism. Their heterogeneity is from other things like dating strategy (PUAs vs. MGTOWs), political focus (MRAs vs. incels), etc. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Then surely this page should be titled anti-feminism? Where is the data on father's rights groups and MRAs being misogynistic? I'll give you MGTOW because they are, but MRAS are very hot on keeping their spaces free of sexism/racism/homophobia. What's the data on this? TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Antifeminism is a much broader topic than a handful of online communities that are, among other things, antifeminist.

I'm not sure what your questions about MRAs/FRAs and misogyny have to do with anything—are you suggesting they are not part of the manosphere? Because the RS explicitly say they are, and trying to suggest that because groups in the manosphere are united by misogyny, and MRA/FRAs are (supposedly) not misogynistic, they can't be part of the manosphere is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH.

MRAS are very hot on keeping their spaces free of sexism/racism/homophobia Well, so long as we're just giving our own personal opinions on subjects here, I will say they absolutely are not. But neither your opinion nor mine matters; we go by the reliable sources. A discussion of whether MRA/FRAs are misogynist or not would probably be more suited to Talk:Men's rights movement or Talk:Fathers' rights movement, since editors here are not necessarily particularly familiar with those articles or their subjects (I for one have not edited either substantially). I will note that the lead of the MRM article currently contains the sentence "The movement, and sectors of the movement, have been described as misogynistic." The father's rights movement makes some comment of the movement "perpetuating negative stereotypes of women"—it arguably ought to include more discussion on the subject given the readily available sourcing (such as Flood, Michael (December 2012). "Separated fathers and the 'fathers' rights' movement". Journal of Family Studies. 18 (2–3): 235–345. doi:10.5172/jfs.2012.18.2-3.235.). But again, that is a discussion for those articles' talk pages. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Misogyny" is a misnomer as it means hatred of women. When in fact they just hate feminists and for good reason as feminists are eminently hate-able, but I digress. In short if you disagree with a woman then she starts name calling and you get labeled a misogynist - it is so overworked that it is now meaningless. Feel free to pile on and gang up on me.24.139.24.163 (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with IP address guy. That's generally how it goes. MRA spaces have rules against misogyny, but they are very happy to criticise the sexism of the Feminist movement. As of yet, no evidence whatsoever has been presented that these groups are united in anything. Showing me a source that just says it is not enough. I want to see stats. I want to see some kind of causal link. As it is, this page is an expression of ideology and should be marked as such instead of being treated as fact. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

No one is obligated to WP:SATISFY your desire for statistical proof. (Can you offer statistical proof of the sexism of the Feminist movement?) If you don't like the way the article is written, try dispute resolution. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, Farrell et al. (2019) offer an analysis of "6 million posts, from 300K conversations ... [which show] increasing patterns [of] misogynistic content and users as well as violent attitudes ... in the manosphere". Google Scholar has a list of 40 independent sources that cite Farrell. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Manosphere communities are anti-feminist and misogynist, as this article already states. Both statements are adequately cited, and your demand for "stats" or a "causal link" (whatever those would even entail) is arbitrary and not supported by policy. Reliable sources describe manosphere communities as antifeminist and misogynist, and that is the requirement that must be met for inclusion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The only citation so far mentioned that points to them being sexist is a raw word count with no context. You cannot prove sexism like that. All you can prove is word usage. If the word 'rape' is used a lot in one community it could be because they are fighting for or supporting rape victims. Or it could mean they talk about rapeseed a lot. Or it could mean anything. Blank statements that "Manosphere communities are anti-feminist and misogynist" mean very little and reflect only the opinion of the author. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If you have evidence that the members of r/Braincels (banned from Reddit for bullying and advocating rape), and r/MGTOW (deemed by Reddit to be "extremely offensive or upsetting"), among others, have been holding in-depth discussions of rapeseed, I will personally eat an entire bushel of it. However, the Farrell et al. source isn't being cited for its Reddit analysis, so this discussion is becoming pointless. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that. I was saying that if you applied the same exact method to a farming community and get a hell of a lot of references to words like 'rape' and 'bitch' without any sexism existing. In any case, I've raised the dispute if you want to join. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: Heads up that you've included the wrong Mohammad. The user who was signing their posts as Mohammad until it was pointed out that this might lead to confusion between them and the other user is actually User:Saint.Helena.Tristen.Da.Cunha.and.Asuncion., a sitebanned user who will not be able to participate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

MGTOW and incel subreddits aren't farming communities, now are they? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gorrilla oh, oops. I suppose that problem mostly solved itself, but I'll got apologise. @Sangdeboeuf You seem to be deliberately missing the point that the study totally ignored context and it's method could be used to show a farming sub was sexist. It could also be used on a BDSM or dog breeding sub with the same effect. It's not a good measure of sexism. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The fact that you keep bringing up irrelevant topics like farming and dog breeding suggests to me that you don't actually know what "context" means. The context of the forums studied is men's issues specifically. The idea that such forums are likely to host many discussions on animal husbandry is rather far-fetched. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so you're pretending that the bot somehow knows the context in other subs? So what do you think would happen if you pointed it at a forum for rape and domestic abuse survivers? Do you think all these words might come up a lot? TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

They didn't, though. That's my point. There weren't any such subs besides the ones specifically chosen for the study. And no, I don't think a forum for sexual assault survivors is going to contain many instances of "betabuxx", "blackpill", or "cock carousel". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: you asked for examples of fathers' rights groups using sexist rhetoric. I advise you to read the Fathers' rights movement page. To wit: "Collier, along with researchers Martha Fineman and Michael Flood, have said the movement perpetuates negative stereotypes of women as hostile, deceptive, vindictive, and irresponsible as well as the stereotype that women are out to take advantage of men financially." I expect you'll pivot now to requesting stats that somehow proves such rhetoric is misogynistic as well. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've spoken to Michael Flood personally and he fits literally all of those descriptions. However, I don't deny that father's rights groups talk about emotionally abusive women became those women exist in equal numbers to abusive men. Abusers are the entire reason that abuse charities exist to begin with, and female centred charities do the same thing. They point out that abusers exist. What is his exact problem with this? I have no idea. I will grant you betabuxx being very unlikely, but only because I don't know what it means and can't contextualise it. Blackpill is nihilism, and r/BlackpillFeminism was a sub for a while. Cock carousel? You'll find that on a lot of relationship subs, including gay ones. "Yeah my wife/husband has gone off riding the cock carouse. I need a divorce." or remorseful subs "I rode the cock carousel for years, and I'm disgusted with myself" You really don't want to just assume mandatory context for a word based on how YOU think it's used. That's circular logic. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"Emotionally abusive women exist" does not refute the idea that fathers' groups promote sexist stereotypes. In any case, talk pages are not a forum for general discussion, and your personal beliefs and experiences are not useful to improving the article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Manosphere as a slang term

I think we should really make it clear that the entire article is about an ideological slang term. I've been looking through the sources, and I can't find any proof that these groups have anything to so with each other. It's stated, but it's never actually shown to be the case. Where's the link? what research shows this is the case? If it is none, I suggest that the article be reformatted around the idea that the term is a concept in the media/academia but that it doesn't have a whole lot of scholarship supporting it. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The similarities and differences between the groups are discussed in the article. If you have problems with any of the sources, the place to address them is WP:RS/N. They all look like reliable scholarly sources to me. Which sources explicitly say that "manosphere" is merely a slang term, let alone ideological? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

My point was rather that the sources themselves seem to be ideological, and the media articles seem to be trying to smear various movements by lumping them together. I've read the article, and I'm not seeing data on how these groups interlink in any way. MGTOW, father's rights, and MRAs are fairly linked - but PUAs and incels don't have anything to do with any of them. Then, on top of that, there's an even bigger disconnect between all of those groups and far right groups. What I'm seeing here is an ideological attempt to group all of these things together. If linking incels with father's rights wasn't a tell, I think the phrase "Some of these groups have adversarial relationships with one another" should at least be a major red flag here. It seems clear that they aren't ideologically similar. There does not seem to be any attempt in any of the sources I could access to link these groups. They just say it is so. So it's basically just like a kid calling somebody a Nazi, but with extra steps. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

We reflect what WP:RS say, even if those sources have bias (see WP:BIASED). <insert Rick and Morty reference here for humorous effect> EvergreenFir (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes TTT, you've made it clear ad nauseam that you think the sources are ideologically biased. What you haven't done is explain how these academically vetted sources are unreliable in this context. As I said, the next step is to open a discussion at WP:RS/N. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Fundamentalist Christians and conservative Muslims also have adversarial relationships with one another despite their general social philosophies being nearly identical. So what? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Let's click a random source here. Marwick, Alice; Lewis, Rebecca (May 15, 2017). Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online. The summary features a lot of talk about the far right - but there's no real mention of how it links up to PUAS, MRAS, father's rights, etc it in the PDF. Or much of any on how they link to each other, and what is there is wrong. The PDF says: "While trolls, white nationalists, Men’s Rights Activists, gamergaters, the “alt-right,” and conspiracy theorists may diverge deeply in their beliefs, they share tactics and converge on common issues." Apart from the tactics part, which I don't care to argue about, that sounds pretty contradictory to me. And, according to their PDF, they do not merge on common issues. Meanwhile, Antifa is noted as using the same tactics - but they don't get lumped into the Manosphere. Where's the logic here? It seems like "diverge deeply in their beliefs, but converge on common issues" is incorrect. Most of these groups seem wildly different, and I'm only able to draw links between some of them. Alt right goes with far right, but not father's rights. The PDF also muddles up MRAs and PUAs a bit and doesn't seem too familiar with MRAs issues - no mention suicide, circumcision, or a number of other issues large enough to have formed sub-groups within it. Phrases like "MRAs eschew feminists in favor of women who adhere to traditional gender roles" are downright incorrect. @Sangdeboeuf Islam and radical Christianity at least share a common root we can trace in Judaism. MGTOW and PUAs are literal opposites in every way, as far as I can see. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The manosphere is a term to describe the various groups that have formed with ideologies that are based on masculinity, antifeminism, and misogyny. The article, and its citations, say as much. Antifa certainly does not fit this bill, nor have I seen sources suggesting they do. As for the links between the manosphere and the far right, what do you feel is missing? Multiple sources describe, some in great detail, the overlap and shared beliefs between manosphere groups and alt-right groups. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

TiggyTheTerrible: I don't see any contradiction. Different factions of the manosphere (or any group or movement) may gereally agree while differing on particulars. While your personal observations are no doubt fascinating, on Wikipedia we go by what published, independent sources say. See e.g.:

• Ging (2017): "Despite multiple internal conflicts and contradictions, these diverse assemblages are generally united in their adherence to Red Pill 'philosophy,' which purports to liberate men from a life of feminist delusion. This loose confederacy of interest groups [is] broadly known as the manosphere";
• Jane (2017): "Despite some conflicting agendas and tribalism, [manosphere] groups are united by an antagonism towards women, a vehement opposition to feminism, and the production of hyperbolic misogynist discourse";
• Lumsden (2019): "The politics of the manosphere centres on the idea of the Red Pill ... Participants of the manosphere have adopted a common language and believe that 'feminist values dominate society [and] that this fact is suppressed by feminists and "political correctness"'".

If you have reliable sources that contradict these, feel free to present them. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I have multiple sources that debunk this. For example, racism is not based on "masculinity, antifeminism, and misogyny". I can actually cite wikipedia itself to debunk that claim. I hope you see that as a valid source! I can also cite a couple of books. "Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920s" by Kathleen M. Blee and Women of the Ku Klux Klan by Ronald Cohn Jesse Russel. As you can see from those, misogyny is not a requirement of the far right. Women often had major roles and led racist rallies. When women were not leaders, they were supporters who were held up as pure and chaste - in contrast to black women. As you can see, the divide is race - not gender. I can also cite research about powerful female Nazis if you like, but I think you get the point. The Far Right really do not belong in the same category as all those others because racists are not divided along gender lines. I will stop here to see what you think before adding more info. However, delving into your sources I am having a lot of trouble working out why they think father's rights and MRAS are linked to misogyny. You can make a stronger case for incels, PUAs, MGTOW, and so on - but the other two don't fit because they have a large female leadership. Where are the stats? Incidentally, feminist campaigns have often been tarred with racism so it's possible that they could be linked to the manosphere via the far right. TiggyThe FairyFox (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly not seeing what any of these speculations have to do with the so-called manosphere. The fact that some women are active in the far right does not mean the far right isn't misogynist. Once again, users' personal observations don't determine the content of articles. And Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a straw man argument. No one has argued that the far right is exclusively male, that there are no female Nazis, that no women align themselves with the men's rights movement, etc. If you have reliable sources that specifically contradict that there is considerable overlap between manosphere communities and far-right communities, feel free to present them, but if you're just going to do your own synthesis on unrelated topics perhaps a blog would be a better place for it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a citation that demonstrates how they are linked with evidence. These ones just state is as if it were fact. No data. No citations. It's just junk. My point is that if the Far Right is half made up of women, how are they part of the manosphere? This is some of the worst scholarship I've ever seen. A straw man? How? My point was that women are a major part of racist movements, but they are commonly overlooked. How about this? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/24/women-far-right-gender-roles-radical-right-migrant-muslim TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The article and sources say that the manosphere overlaps with the far right, not that it contains the far right. The citations given in the article are reliable. If you disagree, take it to WP:RS/N. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I just gave you a link showing that women are a major thing in the Far Right. That should be enough to at least start a criticism section on this little theory. Or make it clear in the text that there's no actual connection here and that the connection is really just the opinion of a few people. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources, not your own original research. Incidentally, your own link describes "the overlap online between far-right groups and the misogynistic 'incel' movement, in which 'involuntarily celibate' men's sense of entitlement to women's bodies has occasionally erupted in mass violence against women". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: I really don't know how we can better explain to you that you are trying to refute an argument that no one here has made (otherwise known as a straw man, as I mentioned above). Perhaps you are a visual person and this diagram will help. The statement that is currently in the article, which is that there is overlap between the far-right/alt-right, is represented in diagram A. The argument that you appear to be refuting is represented by diagram B, and you seem to be claiming that 1) there are women in the far/alt-right, 2) there are no women in the manosphere, and so therefore 3) diagram B is invalid. When Sangdeboeuf and I have replied to you, you have doubled down on your point 1), that there are women in the far/alt-right. There are multiple problems here: no one has stated (either in the article or on this talk page) that diagram B is an accurate representation of reality. In fact, both Sangdeboeuf and I have stated that it is not. Additionally, no one has argued that there are no women in the far/alt-right, which is the point you appear to be trying to convey—I fully agree that there are women in the far/alt-right (in fact I've written articles about some of them). And finally, your argument 2, which supposedly invalidates this whole thing, is not accurate. Nowhere does this article make the claim that women are not present in manosphere communities. It is true that some manosphere communities, such as MGTOW, do not accept women as part of their communities, but some do. There are female incels, for example, and there are female MRAs (see Men's rights movement#Karen DeCrow as one example).

If we go back to diagram A, which is what actually reflects what sources say (and what Sangdeboeuf and I have said) about the relationship between the manosphere and the far-right, we can incorporate your argument about women in the far/alt-right in one of two ways (C and D). D is the accurate representation of reality, but neither C nor D would invalidate the fact that that sliver in the middle, representing the overlap between the manosphere and the far-right, exists. I hope this helps you understand. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I accept your reasoning, but I have yet to see any solid connection between these groups. It seems like they are being bundled together artificially in order to discredit each other. Please let me know what kind of refutation you would need to see in order to add a cravat to this article - which is just full of stuff that seems very POV. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: We would need reliable sources that contradict the existing reliable sources that group these communities together as "the manosphere". Or I suppose you could try to achieve consensus at RSN that none of the sources that group these communities in such a way are reliable, that seems less achievable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to argue that the article should treat this more as opinion rather than fact as none of them really seem to demonstrate their case? TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: If you want to try that tack at either RSN or NPOVN, be my guest, but it seems like you are setting a strangely arbitrary bar for "evidence" that these communities ought to be grouped in the way researchers are doing. When multiple high-quality sources group a set of communities in the same way, and no RS apparently exist to contradict the grouping, it seems like a pretty obvious outcome. Either way, I'll keep an eye out for your discussions (or preferably you will drop a link to them here). GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I will certainly drop a link, but I dispute that the sources are high quality. And that it's arbitrary to ask for more than a statistical word count that is stripped of all context as proof of the claim these communities share anything in common. I would like it stressed on the article that these groups are at odds and have little by way of shared objectives or values because the sources often admit that and the PDF I linked to layed it out. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: Well, RSN would be the place to discuss the reliability of the sources if you're not convinced, though I will note that some discussions have already happened there pertaining to some of these sources. A recent discussion about MGTOW was cut a bit short because the person who began the discussion turned out to be in violation of an editing restriction, but not before an uninvolved editor commented "That's a lot of high-quality sources, covering a wide range of journals, sources, and perspectives". They were referring to a list of seven sources, four of which are used here.

What exactly would you consider to be "proof" that these communities ought to be grouped in the way that researchers have grouped them?

I would like it stressed on the article that these groups are at odds and have little by way of shared objectives or values Well, you're in luck: this article already does that. Emphasis mine:

The manosphere is a heterogeneous group of online communities that includes men's-rights activists (MRAs),[2] incels (involuntary celibates),[3] Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW),[4] pick-up artists (PUAs),[5] and fathers' rights groups.[6] Some of these groups have adversarial relationships with one another.[14] Debbie Ging writes that several groups, such as MRAs and PUAs, "exaggerate their differences in displays of infight posturing, in spite of the fact that their philosophies are almost identical".[15]

While the specifics of each group's ideology sometimes conflict, the general ideology of manosphere groups centers on the promotion of masculinity, strong opposition to feminism, and misogyny.[16] Journalist Caitlin Dewey argues that the main tenets of the manosphere can be reduced to (1) the corruption of modern society by feminism, in violation of inherent sex differences between men and women; and (2) the ability of men to save society and/or achieve sexual prowess by adopting a hyper-masculine role and forcing women to submit to them.[17]

GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't square with the mission of father's rights groups to see their kids and have a fairer family court system. There is nothing in father's rights that particularly fits either of those points. MRAs are radically different to PUAs. In fact, a lot of MRAs swear off women because they have been abused or see marriage as a raw deal for men. In this way they cross over with MGTOW, but not PUA. PUA is all about getting laid by following a certain set of rules. They don't care about any of the subjects MRAs campaign on. That your sources are confused about that is something of a problem, but even here several of them get it mostly right. Being anti Feminist is not a requirement for being into father's rights, an MRA, or MGTOW. I'm pretty sure several major MRAs identify as Feminist, though most are anti. Sexual prowess has nothing to do with those three groups. It's not something they care about, and one of them has a tendency to activily swear off it! It's like if you tried to group an incredibly chaste order of monks with a group of students by saying they both study books and/or have massive amounts of sex. There's a breakdown here. And how can it be "infight posturing" when the two groups have totally different outlooks and objectives? TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Being anti Feminist is not a requirement for being into father's rights, an MRA, or MGTOW. Another straw man; no one is saying it's a requirement. It just so happens that misogyny and antifeminism are the things they have in common. When multiple published academic sources state something as fact, we go with what they say, not users' personal beliefs or experiences. Either provide a comparable source backing up your claims or take it up at RS/N. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I dispute ... that it's arbitrary to ask for more than a statistical word count that is stripped of all context – you specifically asked for "stats", so I gave you a link. If there is some broader context in which celebrating rape alongside words like "dyke", "bitch", "cunt", "whore" is not misogynist, I'm not aware of it.

According to Marwick & Lewis, "While different things motivate members of the manosphere, they share a fairly dismal view of women as fickle, opportunistic creatures ... These groups share a strong dislike for feminists, who they see as emasculating, and 'political correctness,' which they view as censorship." That sure sounds like a shared set of values to me.

Sexual prowess has nothing to do with those three groups. The use of "and/or" implies that not all groups are necessarily concerned with sexual prowess.

[H]ow can it be "infight posturing" when the two groups have totally different outlooks and objectives? They don't. According to Ging, "these diverse assemblages are generally united in their adherence to Red Pill 'philosophy'". See additional quotes above. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm not going to continue humoring this WP:OR that so far appears entirely based on your own opinions about what manosphere groups are or are not. If you think the sources are unreliable, bring it to RSN. If you have contradictory RS, present them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf I counted six words in your post that I have arbitrarily decided indicate you are a rape apologist. Ergo, you are a sexist who hates women. I think you know which ones. Do you see how this works now? MRAs and father's rights groups talk about rape because they, personally, have been raped. They care about male rape victims because they want equal status to them. if I wanted to prove the Feminist community was sexist I would actually read through all of their posts and count the number of sexist ones VS non sexist VS anti sexist based on clear criteria. Upvotes and deleted posts would factor in. A word search can only tell you the word was used, not why. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

MRAs and father's rights groups talk about rape because they, personally, have been raped. Independent sources say otherwise: "MRA rhetoric on rape is likewise preoccupied with refuting statistics that demonstrate how sexual violence is gendered ... MRA websites amplify stories of individual women perpetrators, while dismissing allegations against men ... MRA rape culture critics typically begin by challenging statistical evidence of the pervasiveness of sexual violence". Meanwhile, Paul Elam is quoted in the same source literally saying that women are "begging" to be raped. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

This is that arbitrary bar I was referring to. Take it to WP:NPOVN if you genuinely think this is a valid argument, but in the meantime we are not required to satisfy arbitrary demands for an extremely specific (not to mention unachievable—"I would actually read through all [feminists'] posts") type of analysis. If you are looking for studies that broadly study posts in manosphere communities, they are easy to come by (for example, the Farrell study that Sangdeboeuf mentioned and you dismissed; there is also Ribeiro, Manoel Horta; Blackburn, Jeremy; Bradlyn, Barry; et al. (April 8, 2021). "The Evolution of the Manosphere Across the Web". arXiv:2001.07600v5 [cs.CY].).

In the meantime, do not try to shift this article to reflect your personal POV which has been rejected here (assuming this is even you). GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Struck my parenthetical now that that concern has been addressed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the statement by Marwick & Lewis I quoted earlier directly contradicts the wording of that edit. The part about beliefs "diverg[ing] deeply" isn't specifically about the manosphere, but includes trolls, white nationalists, ... the 'alt-right,' and conspiracy theorists. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hold up. This agrees with my point: "MRA rhetoric on rape is likewise preoccupied with refuting statistics that demonstrate how sexual violence is gendered" Is another way of saying MRAs think rape happens to both genders. "MRA websites amplify stories of individual women perpetrators," plays into that, since Feminist groups do the same with male ones. The only exception is "while dismissing allegations against men" which is a bit of a hot take on their real position - which is that "false accusations are a real but ignored problem". TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Your point is, once again, something that no one is refuting. Now that we have established that we all agree that MRAs talk about rape, and believe people of all genders can be and are victims of rape (as do most reasonable people), can we get back to focusing on changes to this article, preferably at a broader forum since the three of us are going in circles? Sangdeboeuf has been kind enough to humor you by pointing out to you that there are studies of the kind that would satisfy your demands for broad analysis of posts in manosphere forums, assuming you do not just move the goalposts again; however, whether or not you agree with the studies' methodology, conclusions, etc. is ultimately unimportant, because the core premise that manosphere communities comprise the listed groups, and have common threads of misogyny, antifeminism, etc., has been well established by the existing RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

TiggyTheTerrible, I think you're misreading the quote. And you can check Gotell's sources, too, if you doubt their claims. But I'll take qualified researchers' "hot takes" over those of pseudonymous Wiki editors any day, no offense. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm very confused then because "we all agree that MRAs talk about rape, and believe people of all genders can be and are victims of rape (as do most reasonable people)" is really, really, at odds with "manosphere communities comprise the listed groups, and have common threads of misogyny" I've raised the dispute if you want to join. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I have commented there. But I fail to see how that is at odds at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It's playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon with groups assumed to be mostly comprised of men? It's an apex fallacy in motion. The far right and incels are used to smear father's rights by association. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take that up with the authors of the sources. Wikipedia articles reflect what RS say, even if you don't like it, and RS describe father's rights groups as a part of the manosphere. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I actually have tried to. Very few replied. As I mentioned in the other thread, Michael Flood is one of them and..... well, let's just say he's not a very honest person. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Please recall WP:BLP applies on talk pages, which should not be used to insult people you dislike. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: I see that the discussion at DRN was just procedurally closed due to a notification issue. I would strongly encourage you to continue in seeking outside input, but I wanted to ping you before you reopen a discussion to recommend you use WP:NPOVN rather than the dispute resolution noticeboard. NPOVN is more highly trafficked and is better for this kind of dispute, in my opinion. You are of course free to use whichever noticeboard you like, but I think there will be more input from NPOVN and fewer procedural hoops to jump through. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Yeah, I was trying very hard not to break that rule. But it was my impression. in any case, thank you for the advice. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)