Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Edgarde (talk | contribs) at 15:23, 7 June 2007 (→New image: Misandry in popular media). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Gender studies B‑class

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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 Misplaced Pages 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

Misandry received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

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

Archives
2006: 1|2|3 2007: 4

Quoting

What is this mania for putting every contention in quotes? This articles looks more like a newspaper article than an encyclopedic one. Not everything has to be quoted, and, in fact, there is something called "the footnote". Meep 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been viewing that charitably as the result of certain editors that auto-correct pairs of single quotes to doublequotes.  :) --7Kim 22:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

More on the criticism section

My recent contributions to revising the new content in the criticism were reverted. I am coming to talk to give the anonymous editor space to listen to my concerns and to justify the revert (and hopefully avoid any edit warring). The term "claims" can be POV, as the MoS points out. These recent edits inserted this controversial term, and I feel that saying "states, says, etc" is more neutral. Also, per MoS, you do not included titles when describing someone. You can say that they are a professor or have a PhD or whatever, but you don't call them "Professor" or "Dr". Next, most book reviews found in the back of scholarly journals are one page or less, there is no reason to state the obvious. Saying "one page book review" seems to imply that it's length is important, when it is a standard length book review. It is also original reserach to claim because there is a misspelling, Lewis-Horne doesn't know anything about the TV show. There is other little bits of commentary that is unsourced, speculative, original research that I had removed and it has slipped back in. I'm not even sure that this section needs expanding to mention specific examples, and I would propose removing completely the sentence about home improvements, and the sentence about the final recommendation as well. Please explain why the recent edits were made. (and in the future, please use the edit summary box to describe your edits to others). Thanks.-Andrew c 17:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted your edits because they reflect bias posing as neutrality. You want to know what is wrong with your biased edits? Here is what is wrong with your biased edits:

1. By placing the one-page book review in the "Criticism" section, it is propper up as actual scholarly analysis, which it is not. Mentioning that the one-page long book review appears in a scholarly journal is misleading, because one might think the one-page long book review is actually a substantive, peer-reviewed critique of considerable length that is featured in the journal. It is not. When I first looked at your original version I assumed it was a book-length treatment, a scholarly response, especially given that Amazon.com makes clear that Spreading Misandry is the first in a trilogy on the subject. I did not assume such because I am daft. In fact, your original version was misleading. It said that Lewis-Horne rejected the authors' "views" without mentioning that it was a book review of just the first book in the series. How can Lewis-Horne reject the authors' entire views on the subject if she has only read the first book in a trilogy on the subject? Obviously there is more to the authors' views, or they wouldn't have two more books to publish! So: not only is Lewis-Horne not evaluating the whole of the authors' views, but also she isn't evaluating the book in-depth in a manner that holds up to peer-review. She's just giving conclusory remarks in a one-page booke review.

2. The book review itself is hard to find, so one one would know it's a book review unless they went on a wild Internet search. The link you provide is dead. That is despicable. When one actually locates the one-page book review, it is clear that is shoddily done because there are mispellings and the book under review is cited only once. That, again, is not an in-depth analysis of the work that could withstand peer-review. Lewis-Horne does not make explicit in the book review why the authros' interpretation of "Home Improvement" is incorrect (it can't be incorrect, given thet everyone knows "Home Improvement" is about a dumb man who is always being corrected by his much more intelligent wife) and she doesn't even get the title of the show right, calling it "Home Improvements". If her claim is that anyone watching the show could have a valid, alternate interpretation, the question is how she would know that if she has never seen the show. Anyone who has seen the show would know it is called "Home Improvement," not "Home Improvements". That she gets this wrong multiple times and that the Canadian journal let this obvious error through -- obvious because of how popular the show is -- tends to show that neither she nor the copyeditor at the Canadian journal was all that familiar with the show. That is not credible research. Worse, her bare assertions that misandry isn't prevalent in the culture is suspect if she doesn't know American culture well enough to know that "Home Improvement" is not called "Home Improvements". That's like calling "Seinfeld," "The Seinfeld Show". Nobody who knows anything about the show would say that. It is not original research: it's common sense. And citing to an article so obviously flawed without making clear that it is flawed is no appropriate for an encyclopedia, because it reproduces the bias inherent in the book review itself.

3. Lewis-Horne "states" that "there is no negative outcome of misandric stereotypes of men in popular culture." Yet there is no evidence in the book review for this. She does not cite to the book. She is making an EMPIRICAL CLAIM. She is not "saying" something. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for the claim. That's not scholarly criticism, and yet you're citing it as if it is legitimate scholarly criticism of the work. That's like noting in every Misplaced Pages entry about a book that Michiko Kakutani did not like it.

4. Lewis-Horne does NOT conclude that "the book did not convince her that misandry was pervasive." You MADE THAT UP. She says she is not convinced. But anyone who has scholarly training -- do you have any? -- understands that what she means by questioning the theoretical foundations of Spreading Misandry is that she isn't convinced because SHE BELIEVES IN A DIFFERENT THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK. That is like a Jew reviewing the Bible and saying "I am not convinced that the Messiah has arrived yet." Well, of course not! One would only know the review is so obviously biased if one could easily access it, BUT THE LINK YOU PROVIDE IS BROKEN!

5. Worst of all, you pretend that the second prong of Lewis-Horne's argument is: "Lewis-Horne challenges the theoretical foundation of the book: "Contrary to the authors’ comment that work on gender means work about women, there is an excellent literature examining the social construction of masculinity." It is not. The foregoing quote is taken from THE END of the article! It isn't her second claim; it is her CONCLUSION. She never proves -- or offers any proof to substantiate her empirical claim -- anything in that quote. That is not scholarly criticism. THERE IS NO REASON FOR THIS BOOK REVIEW TO BE QUOTED OR DESCRIBED IN THE ENTRY.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.117.238.71 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Assume good faith

WOAH THERE. I urge you to sit back, relax, take a breather, and have a nice cup of tea. You should assume good faith, refrain from personal attacks, and try to be as civil as possible. There is never any need for shouting or accusations on talk pages. Talk pages are for discussing article content. Also, please sign all talk page entries by typing four tildes after your posts. Thanks for your consideration. I'm going to let things cool down before diving into the heat of your reply. -Andrew c 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"It said that Lewis-Horne rejected the authors' "views" without mentioning that it was a book review of just the first book in the series. How can Lewis-Horne reject the authors' entire views on the subject if she has only read the first book in a trilogy on the subject? Obviously there is more to the authors' views, or they wouldn't have two more books to publish! So: not only is Lewis-Horne not evaluating the whole of the authors' views, but also she isn't evaluating the book in-depth in a manner that holds up to peer-review."

I totally disagree with this statement. I'll describe why over the course of the next three comments, written in three month intervals. Wait until the last comment to decide whether or not what I'm saying is valid.

Anyway, this objection doesn't make sense. What, did Nathanson and Young's book end on a cliffhanger? I imagine that, even though it is part of a larger project, the N&Y book presents a thesis and attempts to prove it and therefore can be read as a single work. Jordansc 02:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

But I'll rush in. User:38.117.238.71 do these changes address some of your concerns? Check the Edit history for explanations of each change I made.

There aren't many academic book reviews online for Spreading Misandry; and while this review seems a bit minor, it is in a scholarly publication (can we find any others that consider this book?), and we now have a functioning archive link so readers can judge for themselves.

Also, if Nathanson and Young's entire thesis rests on details from Home Improvement, really they got nothing. I think the reviewers point was that N&Y's interpretation is (as she sees it) biased and doesn't demonstrate institutionalized Misandry ("structure") via the feminist analysis that N&Y intermittently claim. / edgarde

No, egarde, that is not sufficient. Perhaps the problem is that you have not read the book. Nathanson and Young's entire thesis does not rest on Home Improvement -- but that is what one might think reading Lewis-Horne's review. That is because Lewis-Horne cherry-picks that one example as proof that the entire work is faulty. There is no substantiation on Lewis-Horne's part that that example is representative of what is in the book, and we have no way of knowing whether it is because Lewis-Horne fails to cite to the work more than once, or provide any other examples. Nor can it be representative of N&Y's thesis, because Spreading Misandry is the first book in a trilogy. The problem isn't that the review is minor; it's THAT IT ISN'T SCHOLARLY CRITICISM. It's a one-page long book review with conclusory statements that are obviously biased. You seem to acknowledge this with the "(as she sees it)" language, but such a qualifier should be present in the entry. You also seem to miss that Lewis-Horne doesn't see any links because she has adopted a theroretical framework of masculinities that precludes her from finding otherwise. An example of misandry cannot connect to negative effects arising from misandry if you do not think misandry exists -- "misandry" is just N&Y's way of looking at things, in Lewis-Horne's view. It is misleading to a reader to think that actual scholarly criticism based on a thorugh review of N&Y's work has been performed by Lewis-Horne, when it hasn't been. She just wrote in a one-page book review that she disagrees with the purpose of their work. It's essentially a hit job book review, and it has no place being cited in an encyclopedia. Is there some official way I can complain about the bias of you people? It is utterly unethical to do what you're doing here, and linking to this archive does not help. Most people still will not be able to find the article and will not read the archive. And every single one of your edits casts Lewis-Horne in the light of an authoritative speaker and implicitly analyzes the substance of N&Y's scholarly work. That is just despeciable. You clearly have not read N&Y's book and there is no reason to trust what Lewis-Horne says, given that all she wrote was a one-page book review. I deeply question your neutrality on this matter. A perfect example is your edit suggesting that we ought not mention the book review hasn't been peer-reviewed because book reviews normally aren't. Great. But noting that it's in a scholarly journal is misleading because it suggests the book review is of the same credibility as the scholarly journals printed therein, which are peer-reviewed. You can't trick people into believing this is scholarly criticism that has been peer-reviewed when it isn't. You also can't claim that a flaw was "identified" when it is unclear that there is actually a flaw. Lewis-Horne is claiming there are flaws because she rejects their theoretical framework; that is proof of Lewis-Horne's bias as a reviewer, not bias inherent in N&Y's project. To prove the latter you'd need more than a one-page book review, which is the entire point.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.58.133 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Misplaced Pages does have a dispute resolution process. You might want to get familiar with the Misplaced Pages list of policies first. That said:

• The criticisms listed are clearly attributed to the reviewer, and the article link is corrected and not terribly hard to click on.
• If it is important that (as you point out) most readers will not read the review, it might be similarly important that most readers won't read Spreading Misandry either. The issue of whether any editor thinks misandry "exists" is beside the point. Clearly N&Y have a novel understanding of "misandry", and their "way of looking at things" should be subject to consideration beyond unquestioning acceptance. If one objects to the reviewer not believing "misandry exists" (your phrase — the reviewer basicly says misandry is not a problem for men and not institutionalized in the way N&Y insist), does that mean a review that does not accept this on faith can be automaticly discounted?
• Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned Home Improvement. One pro-N&Y comment on this section harps on how the reviewer doesn't understand the show and probably hasn't seen it; another pro-N&Y comment says Home Improvement doesn't matter that much in N&Y's arguments. Can we agree this is a tangential issue not worth dwelling on?
• Reviewing the review of one book of one view of Misandry becomes increasingly tangential to the subject of this article. It might be time to start at Nathanson & Young article.

Also, hardly anyone here is "despicable", in my experience. / edgarde 00:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"non-peer reviewed" language removed

I have removed the commentary of the "non-peer reviewed" book review. Do you state that N&Y's book isn't peer reviewed? Do we mention this about any other sources? More importantly, does any wikipedia policy support such commentary when citing sources? I strongly feel that this wording acts to bias the reader into thinking the criticism is somehow less valid. We shouldn't interpret sources, just report on them, thus avoiding original research and introducing bias.-Andrew c 03:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious. Does good faith require a leap of good faith I wonder? We have such a marvelous Crticisms section now - sub-headings and everything! In fact, you could almost see it taking over the article itself which, contextually, would be highly appropriate. One problem is that the book review content is so obscure that there is no published critique of the intellectually bankrupt approach it uses. I know that the N&Y material has already anticipated this kind of response, but hell, who cares about that. It's really only a problem insofar as most other 'gender' studies entries on wikipedia that include a Criticisms section almost always include a brief criticism of the Criticisms (usually unsourced, but we all know this article would require sources for such a thing...). Jgda 05:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Jgda could you highlight which specific criticism sections are unsourced, I for one would like to sort that out. I will also ask you not to use sarcasm in conversations on talk pages - it doesn't help you make your point. On a more general note Jgda is correct the book review is obscure, however the difference between obscure and non-notable is very clear. I would concur that it should be shortened. Another response to this article is that there is too much taken from one source. Nathanson & Young's book is the subject of half the article; the question is whether that's due. I'll quote WP:UNDUE:

Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.

Nathanson and Young have a unique area of work within misandry and should be given weight appropriate to their significance. However I put it to you that Nathanson and Young are not misandry and the dedication of nearly 50% of the article to their work is too much. Edgarde's suggestion that a Nathanson & Young article be created is a good idea, info that is undue here could be placed there.--Cailil 13:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant that the POV apologism of having crictisms of the Criticisms are usually unsourced: see the last two paragraphs of radical feminism for an off the cuff example. If sarcasm is okay to use in the title of the sarcasm entry, even in amusing irony, then I can't see how it's all that harmful...Jgda 04:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree the subheadings a ridiculous, and I proposed days ago to revert to the previous longstanding version. I still support that position. -Andrew c 15:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed subheadings to a bullet list. This doesn't address the real problem of not having enough reviews. I made those subheadings, but I agree that detailed criticism of Spreading Misandry belongs in another article. My issue is the length to which some editors are going to discredit what seems like a pretty reasonable review. / edgarde 19:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dorothy E Chunn review added

Since part of the problem here seems to be that editors are not too keen on this review, I could offer a few others, since I have access to ProQuest and other electronic libraries. For example, there is a Legalizing Misandry review by Dorothy E Chunn, published in the Canadian Journal of Family Law. Vancouver: 2006.Vol.23, Iss. 1; pg. 93, 11 pgs. I could email copies of this and others to people if you are interested. It seems to cover some of the same ground as the other review, though I haven't looked to closely. And if you want, I could also look for other scholarly reviews if people will make use of them. --Slp1 17:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This might be really helpful. Currently this section stretches one review much too thin. / edgarde 19:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's that the review itself is thin. Which is why it shouldn't be cited at all. Whoever decided to cite it should be reported. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.58.133 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Egarde said: "the reviewer basicly says misandry is not a problem for men and not institutionalized in the way N&Y insist), does that mean a review that does not accept this on faith can be automaticly discounted?" Way to leap to an irrelevant conclusion. The reviewer has no substantiation for her claim that misandry is not a problem for men; it's just her opinion. A bare assertion without any proof is not scholarly criticism. Which is the point!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.58.133 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

To anon IP user:66.65.58.133 - first, please sign your comments. Second, your attacks on a) the review of Legalizing misandry and b) those who cited it, are throughly misplaced and could be seen to breach Misplaced Pages policy on assuming good faith. Lewis Horne's review was published in the canadian review of sociology and anthropology which is published by the canadian association of sociology and anthropology - it is a long established and notable academic journal. I'll ask you to avoid uncivil behavior. The editors here are working in good faith to develop this article if you have an issue with it request comment.

To Slp1 well done on finding another source I'd love to read it--Cailil 20:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not think you are acting in good faith when you say that the journal is of high quality, overlooking the fact that the book review is one-page and not peer-reviewed. It is one thing to note that a peer-reviewed substantive article was published in a notable journal, but that makes no sense with regard to a book note in the back of the journal. How could you overlook that fact in good faith when it is repeatedly discussed upward in the thread? I have repeatedly complained that such a bait-and-switch tactic is misleading, and I wouldn't be arguing that it is misleading if I had not personally been misled. If anyone is being uncivil, it is you, for constantly accusing me of being uncivil for making a basic ethical point about the apparent bias of some of the editors. Your attempts to talk down to me and pull rank on me are totally misplaced and are a breach of Misplaced Pages policy and if you keep it up, I will take you to the dispute resolution process.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.58.133 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

In my experience, most book reviews in academic journals are about a page. I'm not sure why the page length is important to you. Based on the dearth of responses out there, Spreading Misandry isn't considered a terribly important book. N&Y aren't even writing in their fields. Therefore, a page is ample space to say "don't bother reading this book." Jordansc 23:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Jordansc, I may not be a regular participant in these discussion pages--but I can call foul when I see it. By making such a statement as,"'don't bother reading this book'" (obviously implying that you, along with the reviewer, don't think that anyone should bother reading it), you are only communicating to me (and perhaps to many others) that you either have some kind of almost irrational dislike towards the content/argument of Spreading Misandry,or you simply don't like the fact that such a work exists at all. Also, your conclusion that the book isn't important based, merely, on the premise that it doesn't have many responses is spurious. The study of misandry is a nascnet development: it should not be expected to get many responses at first (for example, when misogyny was first being studied, the problem was often ignored or dismissed in a similar fashion). However, I do agree that the page length is not important, but peer-reviewed articles/reviews were strongly favoured by almost every professor I had (of course, that doesn't mean all articles that aren't should be ignored). So why should one not bother reading this book Jordansc?--Perhaps because it challenges a certain precious worldview? 24.137.100.126 16:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Two things. First, when I said "'don't bother reading this book'," I obviously put it in quotation marks for a reason. Go back and read the full sentence; I was summarizing a generally negative review. Secondly, my conclusion that it isn't a terribly important book is in line with both Misplaced Pages's standards for notability (independent sources) and what I've observed to be the academic standard for notability (frequent references). Claiming that it is representative of a "nascent" field of study doesn't somehow boost its importance; if anything, the statement supports the argument that it represents a fringe theory. Any further claims about the book's veracity or value would be original research. Jordansc 21:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so thinking it was your belief that this book is unworthy was an instance of miscommunication, and so I retract what I said about you being rigidly incredulous and irrational. And I was not intending to elevate the work's importance when I wrote, "The study of misandry is a nascnet development," but only making a point that a relatively new field of study is not expected to get a great number of responses (as I said exactly above). If it can be proven that it is a fringe theory in accordance with the criteria given on that page, then I suppose that’s fine, but I do have some criticism of that label being applied to N and Y's work. The fringe theorypage states, "this should be understood in a commonsense sociological way and not as an attempt to create a rigorous philosophical demarcation between "mainstream" and "non-mainstream". Well...does it not defy common sense to think that there are no instances where men are targets of hatred (as Nathanson and Young delineate)? Then, if is just common sense, academic authors studying it in some detail (btw, they aren't the first)is surely not out of bounds. Even though there is that problem of ambiguity relating to what exactly is sociological common sense, I still think Nathanson and Young’s works are not mainstream. But I’m not quite prepared to accept their work as fringe theory, which brings me to my second problem with it being labeled as such, that is that it puts this work in the realms of conspiracy, (social)science-fiction, urban legend, hoaxes and other such "lore". If you read the book, you can literally go about and view for yourself (of course, with an open mind) the many popular cultural texts (or productions, if you prefer) which it analyses in detail and understand for yourself if they are misandric or not (again, this requires the virtue of an open mind). The book’s approach to the topic is, for the most part, a positivistic one; whether it is ultimately flawed or successful is another thing. So this work is certainly not mainstream, but neither is it really fringe--at least as it is defined on this website. Perhaps now I might be attempting to elevate its importance.

Beyond this narrow discussion, I’d like to put in that (and I know this is slightly off topic, but if you would just bear with me) the possible demagoguery in the current gender (women’s)studies arena (note I said possible demagoguery) that often excludes, ignores, or dismisses new research and even empirical data that is contrary to the established order of the discipline (and I know this from personal experience--but I know that doesn't mean much to you). Remember that conventional wisdom and dominant worldviews often block the acceptance or even tolerance of new and challenging ideas, giving them an often uncalled for stigma, and so limiting their chances of being more recognized. I hope I don't sound fanatical here; I'm only trying to express how troubling this is to me and many others. I apologize for this somewhat of a tangent. 24.137.100.126 13:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

A double standard toward reviews?

Ok, instead of insulting other editors, why not spend your energy looking for a longer than one-page, peer reviewed book review that is critical of any of the misandry researcher's publications. I'd be happy to remove this controversial content, if we can replace it with something even better. However, the other editors are correct in saying the source meets our reliability requirements, that most academic book reviews are less than a page and not peer reviewed per se, and that it is a double standard to make the critics jump through hopes that the original publication didn't have to jump through. What I'm saying is, instead of complaining, why not improve the criticism section up to your standards by finding even better sources.-Andrew c 00:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have not articulated a double-standard, but I do think someone claiming a moral philosopher is "writing outside his field" by commenting on a social phenomenon is a bit odd. Either the phenomenological claims are accurate or they are not.

• Worse, you're still using the same underhanded tactics. The Chunn article is being used to bolster the Lewis-Horne article, but the Chunn article is not accessible. Legalizing Misandry is cited to, but it is not clear out of what context the quotations are taken (not even whole sentences are provided), so it looks like one of you editors cherry-picked a statement simply to make N&Y look bad.

• I'm not really sure why making N&Y look bad is the purpose of an encyclopedia entry or why you editors are so dedicated to accomplishing that goal. But it looks like bias to me. The "in fairness" comment is clearly editorializing, as if to suggest that N&Y have no idea what they are talking about simply because their arguments are of a normative bent. One who is familiar with feminist social science would recognize how ridiculous that is. Feminist social science is normative and intends to be that way. Indeed, most social scientists who propound theories these days explicitly delineate which parts of their theory are normative, which parts are empirical, and why their method fits with their project. That Chunn and Lewis-Horne have other theoretical pre-commitments is not proof that N&Y have failed to meet their burden. It simply shows that a conventional feminist approach and N&Y's approach are in conflict. Since N&Y state that is the case in their work (and it is the novelty of their work that justifies it), that isn't much of a criticism, let alone a serious flaw.

• What is most ironic in the new changes is that they clearly contradict each other. Chunn is cited to take N&Y to task for making "blanket, unreferenced assertions, such as the following: 'Some people are aware of misandry but fervently believe that hatred toward men should be regarded as a legitimate exception to the general rule against hatred toward other groups'." Yet this is followed by Lewis-Horne's "ad the authors made this important connection between culture and structure they would see that there is no negative outcome of misandric stereotypes of men in popular culture. In fact, stereotypes that link men to power, technology and dirt (as Tim Allen) continue to ensure gendered hierarchies in the work force that reward men." Lewis-Horne is quite plainly arguing -- without any evidence whatsoever -- that men are not harmed by misandric stereotypes because they reinforce power structures that in general benefit men and harm women. In other words, she recognizes that misandric stereotypes exist but thinks that they are exceptions to the general rule of hatred toward women. Let me rephrase: Lewis-Horne is a feminist associate professor of sociology who wrote an attack against N&Y that she didn't even bother spell-checking, and her main complaint with N&Y's work on hatred of men is that it doesn't come to the conclusion that harm to women is more important than harm to men. And yet we're supposed to find credible the encyclopedia entry suggesting that ideological feminism does not exist? What if Lewis-Horne obtains tenure? Is it still an incredible claim? Yes, it maybe true that N&Y teach in the Divinity School and not in the Sociology department, but if you have any understanding of academia you understand that titles are not everything; sometimes philosophers are in the Divinity School, sometimes political scientists teach in the Law School, sometimes sociologists teach in the Comparative English department. But N&Y are certainly aware of academic trends. They are academics and their claims about what the operative feminist interpretive norms are within academia are correct. And those operative norms are generally accepted across the power-holding social institutions of the elite. Chunn and Lewis-Horne do nothing more but reflect those conventional modes of analysis, which, as someone already mentioned here, are anticipated by N&Y in their work. In other words, that Chunn and Lewis-Horne can publish their articles and point to books that N&Y have "failed to consider" is proof of the institutionalization. I doubt N&Y intended to be making a controversial point in claiming widespread institutionalization -- it's self-evident; Chunn and Lewis-Horne are playing the game of the radical feminist skeptic here. Not offering scholarly criticism.

• As for the peer-review process point, N&Y went through an extensive publication process that was normal for books published by their chosen publisher, which includes academic peer-review. http://mqup.mcgill.ca/content.php?id=4 ("MQUP publishes original peer-reviewed, high-quality books in all areas of the social sciences and humanities. ... Our acquisition editors advise authors on the development and preparation of their manuscripts, see them through rigorous and constructive peer evaluation, and guide them through revisions. Coming from a variety of scholarly backgrounds, our acquisition editors provide informed help in our complete range of publishing areas.")

Indeed, here is the description of the peer review process of the publisher that published N&Y's books:

The Peer Review Process

We are committed to rigorous scholarly standards and final acceptance of manuscripts for publication is subject to approval by our Publication Review Committee on the basis of peer evaluations and the author's written reply. Since assessment is costly and time-consuming, authors should be prepared to grant MQUP right of first refusal in writing before the manuscript goes to readers.

In peer review the acquiring editor obtains two written reports on the completed manuscript from scholars in the appropriate field(s). In cases where the evaluations conflict, a third report is usually obtained. These reports are forwarded to the author with the comments of the acquiring editor and authors are asked to reply formally in writing. The reports, together with the author's written reply, are then considered by our Publications Review Committee (made up of academics from McGill and Queen's universities) and a decision is made on the scholarly (or trade) merit of the work. Following Committee approval, the final decision on publication is made by the press after evaluation of the marketing and financial feasibility of the project.

By contrast, the book reviews in the back of a scholarly journal do not go through the normal peer review process for that journal, as the substantive articles do. So while it is perfectly appropriate for N&Y to claim they were published by their publisher, it would be rather misleading for Lewis-Horne to claim she published an article in The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology. The misleading impression given by associating the book review with the journal's prestige is improper.

• Finally, I do not have an obligation to find resources that attack N&Y's work. My criticism is of the apparent ideological feminist bias of the editors here and I criticized you only because I was misled by the original entry. That you have substantially altered the entry by adding sources, quoting more accurately, consulting the books being challenged, and providing working links only shows how insufficiently drafted and poorly sourced the original entry was. You should be praising me for exposing your profound incompetence. But, to be fair, I will provide additional sources:

a. "Academic libraries may want to add this title to balance their collections in the interest of rigorous academic fairness." Jeff Ingram, Library Journal

b. "In one illuminating passage, the authors write, 'Resistance to men's studies, for instance, is often based on the belief that only victims are worthy of study. The response among female academics is often as follows: "Oh, please. Something like 90 per cent of the world's resources are owned and operated by 3 per cent of the population. All of whom are white males." Never mind that 3 per cent is a tiny fraction of the male population, even of the white male population.' (243)" Chris Gage, Free Williamsburg

c. "Genuinely intelligent and insightful. Spreading Misandry is provocative in the very best sense and will help point the way toward social harmony and away from bickering and fingerpointing." Donna Laframboise, columnist for The National Post and author of The Princess at the Window: A New Gender Morality

d. "An important book. Nathanson and Young do a good job on introducing the average reader to the positions of various intellectuals as they relate to this moral issue and to moral issues in general." Charles H. Long, emeritus, religious studies, University of California at Santa Barbara

e. "Spreading Misandry turns the tables on the gender wars. It's not men ganging up on women. It is just the reverse--a long and gradual cultural attack on men. This book is a brilliant and perceptive overstatement, but one that is needed to discover the truth that will heal the rift between the sexes." Don Browning, University of Chicago and co-author of From Culture Wars to Common Ground

In other words, many academics, including those who participated in the peer review process for the work, think that its merits outweigh its flaws. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.58.133 (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Do these representations result in real damage?

"Lewis-Horne is quite plainly arguing -- without any evidence whatsoever -- that men are not harmed by misandric stereotypes because they reinforce power structures that in general benefit men and harm women. In other words, she recognizes that misandric stereotypes exist but thinks that they are exceptions to the general rule of hatred toward women."

I think what she's arguing is not that misandric stereotypes exist but that stereotypes of men exist. It's overly simplistic to think of all stereotypes as equally bad. Think about it this way: we all have a stereotyped image of what a doctor is. If you look at a cartoon and see someone with a stethoscope and white coat and you think "doctor." This is completely different from, say, a racial stereotype. That is to say, not all stereotypes work in the same way. Some of them are vile & dangerous and others are completely innocuous. Lewis-Horne is arguing that it's not enough to simply prove that male stereotypes exist but that N&Y also have to prove that these representations result in some sort of real, material damage for men -- especially when the people who are purveying these stereotypes aren't feminist women but apolitical men.

Some of the academics you've cited are just making dust jacket comments. And one is just a recommendation for librarians to include it in their collection. Can you provide any academics who have actually used N&Y in their own work? Jordansc 17:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jordansc, you say: "Lewis-Horne is arguing that it's not enough to simply prove that male stereotypes exist but that N&Y also have to prove that these representations result in some sort of real, material damage for men". You also say: "I think what she's arguing is not that misandric stereotypes exist but that stereotypes of men exist." It seems you are saying, then, that stereotypes of men are not misandric unless they harm men enough. The problem with that analysis is that Lewis-Horne's judgment of what is "enough" depends on an implicit comparison with her perception of the status of women in society. Thus, while trying to rehabilitate Lewis-Horne from her obvious admission that misandric stereotypes exist, you only prove that "her main complaint with N&Y's work on hatred of men is that it doesn't come to the conclusion that harm to women is more important than harm to men." You also note that we should be concerened about the "lack of damage to men from misandry (as a radical feminist sees it)" because "the people who are purveying these stereotypes aren't feminist women but apolitical men." This ignores that the primary consumers of television and popular culture are women and that profit-driven males are responding to their demand. It also ignores that most persons working in mass media or in creative jobs -- TV production, for example -- are liberal and pro-feminist. So the structure you're claiming is dominated by "apolitical men" is really dominated by pro-feminist men serving the interests of women. This can all be corroborated rather easily with statistics that are reported in mainstream newspapers. That you ignore this information only casts doubt on your objectivity. You're probably the most biased editor on this thread; indeed, you are the liar who claimed -- FALSELY -- that N&Y's work had not been peer-reviewed!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.117.238.71 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 26 April 2007.

Nathanson and Young spinoff

Removed much of the N&Y detail from Misandry to new page Nathanson and Young. N&Y-specific stuff should be removed or summarized in this article, and expanded in that article. / edgarde 03:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a good idea to move the bulk of that material (especially the quoted stuff) to another article. However, now we are left with no criticism section. The idea that misandry is a significant social trend, or institutionalized form of oppression is controversial, especially to mainstream Gender academic types. While the section wasn't much before, just a reference to critical book reviews of N&Y, perhaps a summarized version could be restored, and we could work to have a more balanced section for the future. Anyway, besides that, good work with the other article.-Andrew c 03:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I really just performed a crude cut & paste of other people's work tho.

I moved Criticism because it contained only N&Y reviews, and (if I recall correctly) was made just for that purpose. Creating a similar section in Misandry would be trivially easy, but the discussion you're referring to might fit better under a different heading title — Controversy over institutionalized misandry, or Extent of misandry, something like that. Or under the (perhaps renamed) section Political definition of misandry.

The idea that the section title Criticism would be equivalent to Criticism of Nathanson and Young's view of misandry seems to me like assuming N&Y own the trademark on that word. / edgarde 04:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Inflammatory or Self-Therapy?

It seems this article was created to be inflammatory, or, at the very least, as a kind of self-therapy by someone who can afford Internet access, but not professional psychiatric help. 67.167.254.157 (talk)

Acceptance of N&Y's work

While it's fine to include the references to the negative reviews, the set-up statement is not backed up by the two references, since it is making a comparsion between the mens movement as a whole and academia as a whole.Jgda 09:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The line in question is "Nathanson and Young's ideas have little support in academic circles" which is citing Dorothy Chunn and Lewis Horne's reviews. I don't see where "it is making a comparsion between the mens movement as a whole and academia as a whole" - the line is generalizing about the book & academia but not the men's movement. A reword would solve this problem by saying something along the lines of

"Nathanson and Young's ideas have been criticized in academic journals"

This is specific, accurate and borne out by the refs--Cailil 18:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the line was 'While popular in the Men's rights movement, Nathanson and Young's ideas have little support in academic circles', so the comparison was obvious. The change, however, is fine, since it doesn't reflect a consensus in academia compared to the mens movement, but states that academics have been critical, and identifies the two of them and the publications. If anyone wants to list academic supporters and their reviews in the article, along the lines of the ones somebody listed above, that would be fine too. Jgda 05:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies I was going by the 09:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC) revision by Edgarde.--Cailil 12:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Should I be surprized?

I visited this article in December and January and it was full of names and links I encorporated into some postgrad research I'm doing. I was very grateful to Wiki and the editors who provided the article as it then stood. Movements that can honestly evaluate their own excesses are movements that show maturity. This page was a great credit to feminism and to Wiki. It amazes me to return to the article and find almost nothing here. The number of current feminists who denounce previous extremes is too extensive to cover in a single article. Pick any recently published feminist or gender studies text at random and you will almost certainly find references. I deplore censorship. Wiki has enough space for everyone. Disappointed. Alastair Haines 13:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The content of this page, compared with misogyny, is intensly disappointing. Instead of simply describing it, some editors have seen fit to use articles that contain only a single sentence of criticism as legitimate sources. It would be one thing if the entire article, or maybe a paragraph at least, were about criticism of N&Y, but one sentence?? This article is junk compared to misogyny, and the reason seems pretty clear. Fuzzform 01:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at a much older version of the article. What on earth happened to the section about the Amazons? Or the section about misandry in feminist literature? Removed by feminists, no doubt. And the information related under "Misandry in popular culture"? There was a great deal of useful, interesting information in the older version. I agree completely with Alastair, but I would go one step further in speculating that this article was butchered by someone with an agenda. Fuzzform 01:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. It needs more of us to write reputable sources into the text, and to respect one another as we do so. Scholars have written on both sides of debates like these. We should let the scholars argue and report them here, without arguing with one another. Criticisms of N&Y should be well represented, as should others who make the same points they do. My apologies to any of the hard working editors here who have been trying to make text "stick" despite storms of protest from supporters of one camp or the other.

Personally, I'd prefer to see this article completely dominated by sourced critisms of N&Y. Although it would not come across as neutral, the way to correct that would be for others to provide more sourced material from N&Y and similar writers. Removing sourced material from the other side is not usually the way forward in POV issues. If we feel something is not neutral, and we will often be right, we need to do the hard work to put sources in for the under-represented side.

OK, I'm an idealist. Cheers, all. Alastair Haines 02:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The archives contain much heated discussion of that material which I doubt anyone here with a registered account is eager to rehash for Johnnies-come-lately. I'd recommend one review those pages before making accusations like "removed by feminists".

As for issues with the Misogyny article, this isn't the right talk page. And Nathanson and Young goop should really go in the Nathanson and Young article — per WP:UNDUE, Misandry shouldn't be treated like a trademarked concept invented by N&Y, even tho they brandish the term as it were. / edgarde 02:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you see this is the way concensus works here... And surely goop shouldn't be in any article? Unless goop has become the official currency of this website, as opposed to the clandestine... And fancy feminist authors brandishing a term like misogyny around as if they owned it too, huh? You can't do an in depth study of a social term without coming to own it, something N&Y appear to not shy away from. I too would be happy for this entire article to become just a criticism of N&Y's work, since it would be the most honest course: I always prefer an openness about POV than the appearance of NPOV. Jgda 08:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I did read the archives. I wholehearted agree that "misandry" is not exclusive to Nathanson and Young. I really appreciate your efforts Edgarde. I'm continuing to read in this area, so I'll keep a watch on the page. If I can contribute anything I think helpful, I shall try. I'll only contribute sourced material from either side, whichever I find first, and hasn't been included already.

It's so hard to put text into an article like this without people feeling personally acused, and we can't fill the article with editorial comment explaining it is not intended to acuse readers, because then it doesn't feel encyclopedic in tone. It's really hard work. Thanks for your patience, your time, and the solid content that is on this page. Alastair Haines 10:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'd just like to step out of role as a Wikipedian and thank you very, very much for saying this: Movements that can honestly evaluate their own excesses are movements that show maturity. It's an important thing that I wish all of the movements I love and cherish and sometimes despair over could remember. --7Kim 23:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

epigraph

Does the source given for the traditional verse link the verse theoretically to misandry? Jgda 00:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. If you want to remove the epigraph, be sure to include that reason in your edit summary. / edgarde 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to remove it: I'd prefer to put it up as an epigraph for misogyny as well... Maybe the generic practice of 'epigraph' makes it admissable? Jgda 06:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You're inferring rules that I'm not actually implying.

I picked an epigraph I figured either everyone could agree was representative — how much theory do we need to spot such an obvious, broad generalization about men rooted in pain or hostility from which a worldview had been rationalized? — or else someone would remove it, and that would be no big deal. Be prepared to be edited mercilessly and stay detached from stupid nonsense.

If you can come up with a similarly pithy quote for Misogyny, it's cool with me. I like epigraphs. I'm corny that way.

Besides I don't edit Misogyny. / edgarde 07:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my inference was more related to your quite valid question: 'how much theory do we need to spot such an obvious, broad generalization about men rooted in pain or hostility from which a worldview had been rationalized?' and the past edit wars on this article. Though there was some related irony in that misogyny could maybe use it as an example of the pain and suffering caused by the hatred of women by men... Jgda 07:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• interesting - i will collect my thoughts about it

Shoopshoop 02:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

"Several authors draw analogies between misandry and other forms of prejudice such as misogyny, racism, anti-semitism, and homophobia."

Only one author (Warren Farrell) is quoted. Can we name at least a few of these "several authors"? Jordansc 14:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

They used to be mentioned (as you can see in my old proposed rewrite), but the mentions were either deleted or moved to the Nathanson and Young article. --SecondSight 00:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

New image

Does a novelty shirt from Cafe Press (a company that lets anyone sell their own designs) really constitute an example of the commercialization of misandry? Is the shirt actually an example of misandry? I do not believe that image has a place in this article, but I wanted to see what others felt.-Andrew c 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The image is a WP:COPYVIO so the matter is academic now.

However, I wonder about masculinity so brittle that the "Men make good pets" T-shirt (or Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!, that matter) is a political matter of importance. This really seems like shrill, humorless overreaction. I've been insulted much worse and more intentionally at least a dozen times on Misplaced Pages talk pages alone. I don't see how one can reasonably expect all society to always communicate with deference to one's ego, or self-esteem, or dignity, or whatever is being protected here.

This probably comes off condescending and I apologize in advance to Glenn Sacks if he's reading this, but when I see reactions like this in any other context, I tend to suspect one of the personality disorders that makes one oversensitive to perceived personal attacks. / edgarde 21:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. The reason I added the image was not because I found it insulting. I thought the reader would find it to be an interesting introductory example of misandry (not to mention that it aligns well with Levine's stereotypical men classification 'The Pet'). I think most people have never heard of the term misandry and would benefit from an easy to understand concrete visual example. To the best of my knowledge I diligently followed Misplaced Pages's Fair use guidelines for using this image without the permission of the source web site. Could Edgarde or someone else please enlighten me as to where I went wrong? How would it be possible to show a commercialized example of misandry other than by fair use (since presumably all commercial examples would be non free)? Regards! / Mensactivism

Another thought I had would be to add a 'Misandry in Mass/Popular Media' section mentioning and/or providing links to all the common forms (Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!, Video of Woman headbutting her Fiance, Woman beats up Coworkers, etc...) / Mensactivism

Now that you mention it, I guess that would have been a good illustration for Levine's The Pet, moved to that place in the article and so captioned. I don't think it's a good general example of misandry, but it does fit it with Levin's ideas.

My rant above notwithstanding, the only place you went 100% wrong is using a copyrighted image — Misplaced Pages is really cracking down on those, thus the careers of BetacommandBot and Android_Mouse_Bot_2. That image cannot be used on Misplaced Pages unless we get explicit permission from the author to release it image under the GNU Free Documentation License (full text) — not just permission to use on Misplaced Pages, but permission to copy and modify in all deriviative works — which is a tall order for someone seeking to make money from the image, but might appeal to an artist seeking publicity or immortality.

WP:IMAGE#Obtaining_images has the basic rules. WP:NONFREE has more detail. Basicly the only Fair Use for that image would be an article specificly about that image (presuming it were sufficiently notable) containing critical commentary on it. Related articles about (for instance) the artist, or subjects relevant to its interpretation would not be Fair Use.

And yes, finding free examples is difficult, but this article isn't specificly about "commercial" instances of misandry. Anyway, images may not be all that necessary in discussion this subject.

As for the other links you mention, see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL. / edgarde 12:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation Edgarde. I can see why a section on 'Misandry in Mass/Popular Media' containing merely external links would be inappropriate. However, I do think a section or maybe even a separate article that details the various forms of misandry in mass media along with various interest group's attempts to boycott offending companies, etc... would be worthwhile. I'm glad to see that at least there is a link to Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! article already so I think I'll try to build off of what is already there. Regards! / Mensactivism

Actions

The actions of groups may be worth a section here, perhaps under Political definitions. Secondary sources (i.e. sources not originating from the groups) would be needed to establish notability.

Actions against "misandry" are probably motiviated by a particular understanding of the subject, and should be organized accordingly in this article, so a long list of actions should be summarized in a way that describes a movement (or something) (as much as possible) (additional generic hedge here). Not every protest by ginned-up angry guys offended by something (and I'm not sure how to draw the line) may be notable. / edgarde 15:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Misandry in popular media

"Misandry" in popular media is in the eye of the beholder. Rather than listing these (and then squabbling over what qualifies, as we might have over the T-shirt), better to include these as examples of who sees these thing as representative. Nathanson and Young (for example) see a lot of misandry where their detractors pose other explanations for the phenomena observed. / edgarde 15:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• Old requests for peer review