Talk:Sexism/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Misandry

It really seems like the sexism page needs a section on misandry. Discrimination against men is a form of sexism with subtexts racial, cultural, but especially modern and Western, and yet it only appears on the sexism page in the context of military conscription, while the word misandry doesn't appear once in a massive article on sexism that uses the term misogyny multiple times and right at the start to define. Is it maybe very possible that this is an example of the previously elusive 'societal system of institutional power' mentioned on the Reverse Sexism page, in that Wikipedia has itself become a societal system of institutional power with respect to general knowledge, that mostly fails to recognize the ways that men are now discriminated against in a definitional gatekeeping exercise that aims to keep the definition of sexual prejudice as a term that marginalizes nearly to erasure the fear and prejudice against men, while prioritizing and elevating the sexual prejudice experienced by non-males?

Maybe the new section could link over to the Misandry page and its unselfconscious dismissal of the issue outside of the 'manosphere', which is itself a derogatory-sounding term for spaces where people express concern about this issue online, to explain that it is a classic form of discrimination justification to categorically deny that significant discrimination is taking place. In this case, practice of supporting by denying is compounded by a hypocritical criticism about false equivalence. It is not necessary that the issues of misogyny and misandry be equivalent in terms of modern or historical prevalence, degree of institutional backing, acuity of lived experience or any other degree-vs-type comparison argument to be able to recognize that sexism is real and can target men in multiple ways that are more socially and culturally relevant than anything that they can be accountable to in terms of personal behavior, which is the definition of discrimination based on gender. To try to insist that all such talk in the manosphere is simply antifeminist backlash from marginalized men is at once marginalizing and sexist, and the fact that wiki has settled on that with respect to the topic, could be taken as proof of significant institutional backing for a not insignificant cultural problem, which is the tendency to support misandry by refusing to recognize its prevalence while denying a credible voice to those who have felt targeted by it. 75.174.37.93 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You'll find several things about misandry. One is that most scholars say that either it does not exist or it is very minor, and write very little of what an example is misandry may actually be, which is probably why it hasn't been added or considered to be added. This article could add a small section about it but attention would be needed on proportion. Also, I have seen a few scholars write that discrimination against men is not a form of sexism or misandry, and that is also the consensus on Reverse sexism. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I did a ctrl-F on the terms 'discrimination against men' and 'misandry' in the article. The first term appears only in the conscription topic and the See Also section. Misandry doesn't even appear in See Also, occurring zero times in the article. I tried to point out that this may be a misandry issue in the form of denial that there is a misandry issue. It would certainly improve balance and proportion to mention that sexism can now include misandry, including attempts to deny that misandry and androphobia are real and sexist. To argue, as some scholars have done, that discrimination doesn't rise to the level of sexism "without the backing of a societal system or institutional power" is probably a failure to implement NPOV. Dictionary.com has two definitions for sexism. Neither of them attempt to exclude men from the list of potential targets. This stands starkly at odds with the language here and in the wiki articles on misandry and reverse sexism. Maybe the difficulty identifying specific examples of it, and also the difficulty reconciling definitions, comes from a strong cultural bias toward turning a blind eye to the issue. 75.174.37.93 (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about what you're saying here, but I'll add it to the see also section. In the second sentence of the article it says Sexism can affect anyone, but primarily affects women and girls (emphasis added by me), which does not exlude men. As for the rest of your paragraph I don't quite understand it so it would help if you provide a source for the things you've said such as "It would certainly improve balance and proportion to mention that sexism can now include misandry, including attempts to deny that misandry and androphobia are real and sexist." —Panamitsu (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Source Panamitsu (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2024:

You'll find several things about misandry. One is that most scholars say that either it does not exist or it is very minor, and write very little of what an example is misandry may actually be, which is probably why it hasn't been added or considered to be added. Also, I have seen a few scholars write that discrimination against men is not a form of sexism or misandry, and that is also the consensus on Reverse sexism.

The above, for me, constitutes a source in the form of a sexist (consensus) view about sexism. Namely, that discrimination against men isn't misandry, isn't sexism, or doesn't really exist, or is so minor and hypothetical as to not need credible mention. That is, its existence is likely solely a cultural phenomenon based on a misconception of what sexism, or discrimination based on traditional gender roles, really is. You actually nicely captured the gamut of popular misandrist notions about sexism that I was describing in my first talk post here. But my sources, so far, are you and the wiki article pages on sexism, misandry, and reverse sexism, for the claim that there is a strong non-NPOV in the current status of these pages with respect to this issue. Your initial concern about a proportion issue related to adding a small section on misandry actually highlights this issue in a way that makes supporting sources nicely near to hand. Cheers! 75.174.37.93 (talk) 03:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I am asking for a scholarly source. As you accuse me of misandry I guess you'd be surprised to hear that I wrote half of the discrimination against men article. —Panamitsu (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I was confused about your confusion. You asked for a source to support things I've said, including a direct quote in which I claimed balance in Sexism would be improved by including misandry and androphobia as forms of sexism, which it now does not. My point in the quote was that going from no mentions/section to a mention and a short section, would not harm balance/proportion but would instead improve it. Are you asking for a scholarly source to support that claim, as in a paper or study that has looked into the balance problem in wiki articles about sexism and misandry? Because my analysis of the issue is based on what is not now present plus your words in support of the status quo here, which we both view as representative of a prevalent consensus view that the topic is NPOV and well-covered without a section on misandry.

Also, being representative of a sexist consensus view is not the same as being deliberately misandrist. I'm not surprised you wrote much of an article about discrimination against men. The missing link, as I see it, is that you don't see discrimination against men as rising to the level of sexism. Or perhaps you don't see sexism affecting men as misandry. Or perhaps it is that you don't reckon misandry to be a real phenomenon. I'm not certain where precisely you land here because you have stated things that contradict other of your statements:

"In the second sentence of the article it says Sexism can affect anyone, but primarily affects women and girls (emphasis added by me), which does not exlude men."

"Also, I have seen a few scholars write that discrimination against men is not a form of sexism or misandry, and that is also the consensus on Reverse sexism."

I view the inability to reconcile these statements as a cultural bias that you represent, rather than deliberate discrimination putting you deeper into misandrist territory personally. Which is far short of accusing you of conscious discrimination or bias. 75.174.37.93 (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I am bringing forward the writing of reliable sources rather than my opinion. In my reading about the topic I have seen several scholars argue that discrimination is not sexism, which is not something I understand, but that's what the reliable sources say (See Discrimination against men#Extent and cause). The reason I suggest that misandry may not currently be in this article is that most of the literature about misandry is about the manosphere rather than what misandry may actually be, and the manosphere is a bit off topic, but maybe I'm wrong. That does not mean that it can't be added to this article. In fact, I agree with you and think that it should address misandry in some shape or form. By proportion, I mean that maybe it should be about two or three paragraphs max, as most studies about sexism refers to misogyny. As you ask for my opinion, although that is not relevant, then it is this: I happen to be homosexual and believe that I am more affected by misandry than homophobia. —Panamitsu (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I might be able to help with what you are not understanding. Dictionary.com defines sexism as discrimination based on gender or sex. The discrimination is not sexism argument relies on sexism being defined as a phenomenon with the backing of a societal system and institutional power. Problem is, that additional condition isn't really necessary to capture what sexism is, which is discrimination. Adding that constraint only makes it harder to recognize that any sub-group or individual can be affected by making it harder to establish what should be an easy link between sex/gender discrimination and sexism. You don't understand it because it's a sexist argument about the definition of sexism. The aim of breaking the link between discrimination and sexism is to deny some sub-groups a credible voice when they experience it. This can be seen partly by considering that the added constraint not part of the dictionary definition is, by the sexist scholars, vaguely defined. If not, what would clearly constitute the backing of a societal system and institutional power? The opinion of some sexist scholars that it has become so? Where does feminism end and sexism begin? Without a clear boundary, discrimination against men becomes not sexist, which is itself a societal system protecting sexist discrimination against men.

But I agree with you that a short section of two or three paragraphs would be proportionate, at least for now. And though I didn't ask for your personal opinion, I respect it as I agree with you about what likely affects you more personally. With a short section on misandry, plus a link in See Also, I have no further recommendations at this time. 65.129.135.212 (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this is the only view by scholars, but if scholars make this criticism, then we might need to include it depending on how prominent they are. Here on Wikipedia, we stick to the sources and include them (if due), even if we do not understand or agree with them. That is how an article becomes neutral. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I was only ever claiming that Sexism needs a Misandry section plus a See Also pointer to the Misandry article. The question of where to put the weight of scholarly opinion on that subtopic I defer to others. As to sources, when due, I agree they are important. My understanding is we couldn't identify any point that I came here to make which needed additional sources to make it.

And it is perfectly possible to fail at balance/proportion/NPOV while sticking to sources. No, when Wikipedia succeeds at neutrality, it does so by balancing source viewpoints with proportionality. Perhaps making a sustained effort to understand a scholarly viewpoint should be a prerequisite to insisting on its inclusion in the name of neutrality. Then you might explain it to my humble self so I don't persist in thinking that particular scholarly criticism is a sexist argument. The implied alternative, where editors insist on the validity of scholarly criticism they admittedly don't understand, seems vulnerable to bias. 65.129.135.212 (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Well then you are welcome to submit an edit request or write in this talk page a misandry section. I am not that interested in writing it myself, and am too busy, and given that (until this point) no other editor has participated in this discussion, I would be surprised if anyone else is interested in adding it. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Just popping in to add that I've been following the conversation and haven't chimed in because I haven't found that I have anything much to add. But I will say I'd be surprised to find that the addition of substantial content on misandry was WP:DUE for this page. It will, of course, all come down to the quality and quantity of sources which the IP can marshal that explicitly draw the connection. But given that we've been over this before, I'm dubious that there is much out there that hasn't yet been considered. Generalrelative (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Question: is this opinion rooted in the assertion that the majority view on the topic of sexism is that misandry, or hatred of men, is not sexism because discrimination against men lacks sufficient societal system or institutional power backing to rise to the level of sexism as it is experienced by non-male genders?

Related: Does the policy there about due and undue weight require that the majority view be a non-contradictory, internally coherent construct that can be reasonably summarized without resorting to arguments about prevalence of supporting sources? I ask because it seems a reasonable complementary expectation, especially on a topic about discrimination, which has an unusual ethical pressure to recognize minority voices and perspectives, for the purposes of inclusion and sensitivity, that do not exist with respect to minority opinions on other topics. 75.174.52.28 (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Take a look at Discrimination against men#Extent and cause which explains this view point. I wish that section was longer, but I've lost interest in the topic for the time being.

2. The policy is that the most prominent views are represented, including ones that oppose each other. And yes, these topics have largely become unscientific due to ideological pressure (on both sides of the "spectrum") but Wikipedia only represents sources, it does not right great wrongs. I hope I've understood your question correctly.

3. I really hope that you can create an account so that you can play around with writing in a user sandbox or something so that your work does not go missing. —Panamitsu (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

1. I only see one line there about discrimination against men not being sexism. It doesn't explain it, but rather states it exactly as I formulated the claim in my question. The source links to a textbook about the special context of Education, with the actual quote supporting the single-line claim being hard for me to find. I certainly don't see how that represents a majority view on the larger topic of whether misandry is sexism, and it fails to make the explicit link between discrimination and misandry. Weakly supported, not explained, and not an answer to my question about WP:DUE and Sexism. This may actually be a problem in the Discrimination Against Men article.

2. The existence of misandry as sexism is not a viewpoint now represented in Sexism. This is one of the points I came here to make, when combined with the view that this is an issue with NPOV, balance, and WP:DUE by wiki's own standards in this article about Sexism. It is not seeking to right a great wrong to point this out. I do not believe you have understood my questions or my point, which has nothing to do with applying ideological pressure or seeking to take the topic to a more unscientific place than it was as I found it.

3. Encouragement noted, but I make a point of not continuing to engage someone who repeatedly mentions not having time or interest to contribute constructively, as I make a point to avoid prolonged engagement with anyone who refuses to meaningfully engage with excellent questions. I'm afraid I don't have more time for you until you make it clear your attitude has meaningfully changed.

Meanwhile, I am curious about how far the malaise on this issue has spread in the wiki editor community, which is also a curiosity about the prevalence of sexism in the societal structure that is Wikipedia. My unanswered questions were and are addressed to Generalrelative, but they are also open to serious engagement by anyone. But if Wikipedia doesn't now take its own standards seriously, if entrenched sexism is now sealed behind a jaded editorial sense that 'we've been over this before', I have better things to do with my work than invest large amounts of it in a corrupted Project. 75.174.5.28 (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/understanding-the-erotic-code/201608/misandry-the-invisible-hatred-men

Section on Misandry and the following line:

"Even the absence of online discussions of microaggressions against men is itself a microaggression because the absence renders the problem invisible."

Next Question: again given the topic is discrimination, is this a sufficiently reliable source to now be included as a significant minority viewpoint and, if not, what would you reckon is a ballpark threshold number of reliable sources to merit a short section in Sexism? 75.174.52.28 (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)