Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Edgarde (talk | contribs) at 08:05, 4 December 2006 (fake reversion to create Archive2 -- will undo immediately). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

"Misandry in popular culture" issues

"Depression affects more than 6 million men in America alone, but the figures may be even higher due to the social stigmas attached to reporting it."

… How is that misandry? Indeed it is a man’s issue, but how is it active misandry?

A" much higher percentage of male teenagers commit suicide than female teenagers.

Men constitute approximately 80% of suicides.

The majority of alcoholics, drug addicts, and homeless persons are men.

Men have lower levels of university attendance, do increasingly worse in high schools and middle schools than women, and are far more frequently diagnosed as supposedly being afflicted with learning disorders such as ADHD. Men, on average, have a lower life expectancy than women."

… Why? How is this misandry? Are there studies showing that it is linked to so much?

This just looks like statistical men's issues being chalked up to misandry without anything to support it on the page.NeoApsara 19:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

These issues are listed only as examples of facts that are neglected in public discourse generally Jgda 22:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Without getting into irrelevent debate, what is there to show it is an example of, or a symptom of, misandry?NeoApsara 05:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The two texts cited in the opening sentence, plus at least four of the other books cited in the bibliography. Jgda 12:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The section says they are examples of misandry, but does not rationally demonstrate they stem from a hatred of men. They could, of course, be construed that way. The other examples are more consistent with misandry, but there is no argument to compel one to accept they are. I agree with Jdga, they are matters of neglect, but there needs to be something stronger to tie them with the rest of the article. Prejudice against men and misandry are not necessarily the same thing.

The texts that make these connections are cited, however. I have in the past removed material myself (check history and above discussions) that I believed did not fall within the current reseach exhibited by the work I have perused. Jgda 12:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Do the texts sufficiently prove these are examples of misandry, or are they signs of it? It is somewhat confusing, and perhaps not stated clearly enough; for instance, neglect of male depression is given as an example of misandry, but whose neglect? General neglect, as suggested in the article? But if general neglect of depression were an example of misandry, it would follow that those who generally neglect it harbour misandry in some form. And this is not valid unless the connection is presupposed. Do the cited texts prove the presupposition? For it is difficult to believe that the general populace who neglect male depression are some kind of misandrists or feel some kind misandry. Rintrah 14:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The cited text, which is quite vauge, comes from people (conservatives Kathy Young and Paul Nathason) who wrote a book about misandry in culture. It does not prove the presupposition that those who follow, or the issues themselves, are misandrysists. It argues that they present evidence "ideological feminism" is what lead to these issues. It being misandry by virtue of it being caused by, as they argue evidence suggests, feminism (odd, as most of those issues pre-date the recent waves of feminism). There is nothing that proves this is due to misandry; it is more politically driven ... which nothing wrong with that in of itself, but again it doesn't show it is due to misandry. If anything, maybe there should just be a link to the men's movement because the issues cited are redundant anyway.NeoApsara 16:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. But what you mean by redundant? Extraneous to the article or irrelevant? If I understand your argument, you are saying, according to the paper, the issues indicate "ideological feminism", and it is presupposed this stems from misandry. Prima facie, these issues have no connection to misandry, so an argument must validate it for it to be encyclopedic. I should also suppose the issues pre-dated feminism.

Do you have evidence the research is politically driven, or assumes the axioms of the men's movement? Rintrah 10:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

By redunadant I mean they are already issues listed in the branches of the men's movement. If anything there should be a mention of them and their book and a link to Men Rights with a sentence saying these people (Cathy Young is one of the writers; she has an entry here in Wiki albeit a poorly written one) believe this stuff is due to misandry, etc., etc. I also mean instead of showing the people responsible or who perpetuate the issues stated are misandrysists, it is more due to their general beliefs. "Political" is just a word I used for lack of a better one. But the bottom line is that, no, they do not show it is due to misandry. Just much arguing against a term they coined "ideological feminism" and saying that is responsible for it, plus more arguments about family courts, sexual harassment laws, etc.. Of course I am just trying to help and much is much characterization of it all and somebody else may disagree; but, again, the bottom line is that it does not prove any of this is due to misandry.NeoApsara 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'll check the response in a few days (I am pretty sure there will be one). I want to know which is the correct interpretation of the text, and whether the argument is valid (if there is an argument in it for misandry). Rintrah 17:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My characterization is due to my disagreeing with their opinions because we differ politically. Like I said, however, whether one agrees with them or not, they do not demonstrate these issue stem from misandry. If you believe feminism = misandry and all these issues are due to feminism then you may agree with their opinion. But they demonstrate neither that feminism = misandry nor that feminism/misandry caused these issues. Ergo, it doesn't deserve such notability in the article.NeoApsara 17:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read both books, and own one of them (it was on special at the uni bookshop - must not have been selling for some reason...) and, as far as I'm concerned, they 'prove' misandry as a base cause for the social maladies that they identify as well as any other work of modern sociology on any other topic (those on misogyny for eg.). All such 'proofs' will always be arguable - this is not 2 + 2 = 4 (or maybe an Owellian 5?). The studies they perform are scholarly and practical: their referencing of theoretical and 'pop' sources is extensive. They certainly identify a link between what they call ideological feminism and the modern erection (pun intended), maintainance and acceptability of misandry. And there is some crossover material between something like this and mens movement material - just as there is between misogyny and womens movement material, since the existence of misogyny is a root cause for the existence of a womens movement. It's probably bizarre statements like this, along with attacks on the politics of the authorship of source material, that lead to comments like those below. I say bizarre since it's unlikely such problems have occurred in the mind of the contributer in question in wikipedia entries that he/she differs less with politically. Jgda 22:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want an example of misandry, read the article on womyn, then read the etymology of woman. Rintrah 06:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost everything I've ever read that has had the word womyn seriously included has shown signs of misandry. Jgda 12:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

True. Fortunately few women brandish it. In my experience, most women are sane. So I won't judge others by the few who regard men most vitriolically. Rintrah 14:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, most women and men are reasonable and sane; it is fortunate, and it is an important point to make. It would be easy, after reading some particularly hateful material, to tend toward misogyny, for example. But when you recall the vast majority of fantastic women you know in your life, it melts away easily. Jgda 22:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal

Wasn't this also a very strong case of Misandry? I was thinking about it when I read this: Advertising and other media frequently depict men in painful or humiliating circumstances (e.g., being hit in the testicles, threatened with castration, sexually harassed, deliberately denied sexual interactions for control or amusement, raped, verbally assaulted, etc.) as being acceptable or even humorous. It also strikes me as a phenomenom that is mainly Anglo-American and if this French film is also going into this direction, then basically because of (pop)cultural "Americanisation" (yes, even in France). Fulcher 22:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible your comment about this being an Anglo American phenomena is more than a little racist as well as misogynist or should readers infer that you think the Abu Ghrabi Scandal is a matter of global political perspective? Have you watched CNN and seen the rampant genocide as well as mental and physical abuse currently going on in parts of the world that aren't WHITE? Narratives about race war is the last thing that needs to be on a page about relations between the sexes! Thrown any moltav cocktails in the streets of France lately? (I dont think that the violence inherent in the acts of Lynndie England or her MALE compatriots are excusable, nor do I think that they should promote guilt by association with the 'Anglo' woman involved - what about a linguistic twist inyour supposition that results in misogyny when she was accompanied by men, not all of whom were white or Anglo.) This is offensive and trashy IMO -Twining 202

But the media were certainly not depicting these events 'as being acceptable or even humorous' even if the individuals photographed with the men in question apparantly considered it both. They were certainly being attacked in a way particularly targetting their conception of manhood, but hatred of them specifically as men doesn't appear to be motivation for the acts. An argument could be made for why men in particular are targetted for such treatment at AG - would the acts have been possible or the outcry have been much worse if the vicitms were women - but published research would need to be the basis for such an addition to the entry. The humour associated with a good old testicle thumping (something I'm not immune to myself) or even full-on mutliation - particularly with its obvious masculine symbolism - is certainly an area that would benefit from misandry-related research. A woman seems at least equally sensitive in the groin region - I've seen several accidental strikes to the region on both sexes (both become quite incapacitated) and there has never been any laughs for female victims. Is it a function of Achilles complex? Is it sexism and we should try to laugh at women in groin-related agony so as to not treat them as the softer, protected sex? Jgda 00:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I just thought the whole idea to create such a humilating scenario in this prison was like a echo of all this you have mentioned before. That it's fun to treat men like that. I really think it's mainly an American problem. Fulcher 12:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Abu Graib incidents occurred because the soldiers wanted to humiliate the prisoners, not out of a hatred of men, that is, misandry, but because they were considered enemies by those who perpetrated the acts. Those who encouraged and condoned their behaviour also held similar sentiments. There is not even a weak connection to misandry. The humiliation often targetted their sense of manhood as individuals, but did not stem from a hatred of men.

You need to look elsewhere for examples and symptoms of misandry. Rintrah 13:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel like Abu Graib was more an example of mysogyny, or heterosexism. I mean, weren't the prisoners humiliated by being emasculated--by being forced into gay sex act positions? Were the soldiers not forcing a kind of femininity onto these men in order to reduce them?--Erin1983 03:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Not femininity. Forcing people into gay-sex positions is not forcing femininity; it is forcing them into gay sex positions. Yes, it is a form of emasculation because they are coerced into sex positions over which they have no control. The lack of masculine identity is not necessarily a feminine identity, however, and homosexuals do not necessarily lack a masculine identity — at least, that is what I assume. They might have tried to force them to feel feminine in other ways — though I don't know because I wasn't there. But I very much doubt the torture was a form of heterosexism, even though it might have felt so to the confused prisoners. If it were, the torturers would have done it out of sexism to heterosexuals, but this is quite unlikely. They were abusing the prisoners and not heterosexuals in general, and nor were they intending to do so.

People, please, move on! The Abu Graib incidents were a form of torture and sexual torture, not misandry. Rintrah 09:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. The manhating Zeitgeist of the US was the basis of this scandal! People without misandric ideas flying around in their heads would never have called a woman to pose next to these humilated men. Just because most of the guards were men and not some radical feminists doesn't mean they aren't manipulated by misandry. Fulcher 14:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. This is simple paranoia. You need extroadinary evidence to support such a far-fetched claim. Rintrah 15:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

interesting topic, very mediocre, muddled article

"Some feminists and masculists posit that the 'war of the sexes' arising from traditional gender roles and their breakdown are the primary source of both misogyny and misandry"--this statement could use clarification? Also, is "masculinist" or "masculist" correct?

I understand the sentence, but agree it needs elaboration. Without a citation, however, it is weaselish.

My guess is "masculist". Neither the American Heritage Dictionary nor the Macquarie Dictionary lists either word. "Masculist", however, is more euphenous. It is clearly a neologism that is not universal. Rintrah 10:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This article, furthermore, lacks neutrality in perspective. Misandry is an interesting subject, but this article incorrectly reduces the topic to a rant against (a particular perception of) feminist philosophy. The collection of out-of-context quotes by feminists is odd. For instance, how is the first quote, the critique of marriage, anti-male? How do any of those quotes exhibit misandry, for that matter. It isn't explained and it isn't clear. The whole article also needs much more citation and evidence of the existence of misandry in society.--Erin1983 03:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not clearly defined who are misandrists, so the reader will most likely assume radical feminists and their philosphy are identified misandrous. I agree, they are out of context. If the first quote is isolated, however, it does appear extremely anti-male; for it implies married men practice some form of symbolic rape, and men impose marriage on women. This is not a specific complaint, but a general, vitriolic admonishment of men, unless it be mitigated by context. And as such, it is not just a critique of marriage, but an emotive critique of men as well — actually, more of a denouncement. Rintrah 10:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to compile a rough take on who misandrists are from Nathanson and Young. I hope other editors have other sources because we need to know who we are talking about here. (drop in editor)

I've seen some rants: this article is not one. The 'who' is about as clearly defined as it can be. Do we need names and addresses? I have removed quotes and material that I have discovered to be out of context or inappropriate - after discussing here - and would be happy to have contextual issues for any of the quotes brought up in this forum to be analysed. If perhaps Andrea was just telling a joke after a few drinks or something, no problem: post it.Jgda 22:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Can the quotes and their context be brought up in this forum for the benefit of other readers? I don't think Andrea's quotes were instances of bar talk, but it would still be useful if we saw the context. Rintrah 05:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

POV/weasel issues

This article has some serious problems; most everything past the "causes..." section is little more than harangue. The problem is that this term is rarely used without a particular idealogical slant, like 'proletariat' or 'pro-choice.' That needs to be noted in the article.... If any of the opinions expressed or implied by the content of these sections is going to remain, they need to be sourced and balanced. (Though honestly, I think deletion is more appropriate.) Clenchyfist 06:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree but I would have to add that the cause section is far from balanced as well. To me the endless repetition of 'masculist' and 'feminist' misses the point. Might there be a few 'humanist' editors out there who can break these boring back and forths between two ideological camps and bring us balance without falling into the false idea that all people are either feminists or masculists. To me misandry is evil but so is mysogyny and we need to state things from a humane perspective as well as political perspectives. (drop in editor)

• Old requests for peer review