Talk:Misogyny

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2023

Delete this line: Misandry is a minor issue, not equivalent to the widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny

Reason: Misandry is a widely practiced prejudice today, easily as prevalent as Misogyny. White men have become the bane, the object of scorn all across today's socialized world. It's happened in a few short years, but now is widely practiced and advertised. This article reinforces all the old stereotypes, and hasn't been updated to include the new hate-white-men phenomenon, blaming them for all the wrongs of society. This article is inherently racist and misandristic, and is further proof of the hate-white-men syndrome which plagues today's media and this wikipedia article. Gloria77g (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• The suggested change goes against every scholarly source we have. Scholars who research this issue agree that women are greatly harmed by misogyny while misandry is a minor complaint associated with antifeminists. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Thus you support misogyny. You see this is simple. EITHER one treats people on merit - respecting any issues of both sexes - OR one sees sexes as inherently warring parties which should NOT be treated on merit. You post, as the cited line, is a prime case of belittling someone else's issues, aka a prime case of misandry. You see, Misogyny and Misandry are two sides of the same *War of Sexes* approach to the topic. Your argument that "Ah, it is published that *only one party is waging the WAR* (false, but lets presume for a sec), THUS using a WP article as a weapon of that war courtesy of POV-pushing is justified.". Sorry. It is not.

One either considers the "War of Sexes" a fundamentally wrong concept or one supports it. You are clearly the one who wants to WIN that war, not stop it. Thus you are firstly unqualified to comment courtesy of being a party of the conflict. Secondly, you are deconstructing your own message by presenting that "The War is good as long as I get to be the one shooting". Well. News. That entitles the ones on the other site to shoot as well. And they had bigger guns historically. But well, your posistion is a nice representation why WP is becoming the swamp slowely but surely. We, the civilised people, just need to move on and let you enjoy your dark ages reborn. Enjoy! 145.224.105.244 (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You are pushing a false balance, that complaints by men and complaints by women have the same value. In this case, they don't; the women have been mashed down into a subservient role for several thousand years at least. Their problems are much more pervasive. Men have been the dominant sex for just as long; their problems are comparatively trivial. Binksternet (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey Binksternet. First of all, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I can see you are a very experienced Wikipedia editor, so I will respect your conclusions.

Instead of removing the sentence, how about we keep it, but add clarity to it. So instead of "Misandry is a minor issue, not equivalent to the widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny" it becomes "Misandry is a minor issue compared to the widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny". I think the second sentence provides a clearer and more direct comparison between misandry and misogyny, making it more clear for conveying the intended message. What do you think? Empathy Heart (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Part of the problem of misandry is that MRMs try to position it as equivalent to misogyny. The wording of "not equivalent" was chosen to counter that false balance explicitly. Your wording suggestion is more concise, but I would rather include the "not equivalent" bit. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that in this section every other sentence is descriptive and objective, while this is subjective and relative. The paragraph for other terms denotes usage and meaning, while this arbitrary line does nothing of the sort. Calling it a minor issue has absolutely nothing to do with the definition and use case and is nothing but a viewpoint insert. It's also not presented in an objective way like the rest of the section which provides direct quotes on scholarly opinions, citing the sources. You even say it yourself - this phrasing was chosen to counter another's narrative with your own.

Furthermore, if you're concerned about citing scholarly sources, then you should want this removed as the reference is to "A Medieval Compendium of Women's Medicine" which has nothing to do with the topic. It's absurd that this line remains. I can't for the life of me understand why you would run to its defense when asked to remove an out of place, poorly sourced, useless sentence. 2001:569:BF10:E000:6064:FC69:39FC:C0F2 (talk) 06:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, a significant portion of feminist writers argue that patriarchy oppresses men as well, and that feminism has to work to liberate them. It would be quite strange of them to hold this view while simultaneously minimising the severity of misandry. As such, I don't believe it's appropriate to minimise the severity of misandry in wikivoice. The article should instead reflect that this topic is controversial. Dieknon (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This aptly links to the idea of diwalisexual, the sexual attraction solely towards people of the hindu religion, most popular amongst men. There have been attacks on people expressing their diwalisexual selves.

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hannahsooter (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Katewun.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Citations

Great and very important entry, thanks to all those who have worked so hard.

One query: the first two named quotations that define the term 'misogyny' are by male academics eg Allan G Johnson and Michael Flood. In the following section there are two women cited on the subject and one man. This means the dominant citations by name in the first paras are three men and two women.

Perhaps the first two citations could be women not men? eg I would suggest Catharine MacKinnon whose book Are Women Human is replete with definitions. And any other number of key feminist scholars. there's a very good article from 2017 by Kalpana Srivastava, Suprakash Chaudury, P.S. Bhat and Samiksha Sahu which also expands the discussion to a less western-centric view as well.

Nothing - whatsoever - against Allan G Johnson and Michael Flood who are clearly part of the solution not the problem and doing great academic work.

Many thanks.

MiloQuest (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Should the lead include the word "used to"?

The lead says It is a form of sexism that is used to keep women at a lower social status than men. This looks all good, but I'm unsure about the "used to" part. It is to my understanding that a lot of misogyny is subconscious (eg internalised sexism), rather than done on purpose ("used to"). With this in mind, should we remove the "used to" part? So that sentence would look something like It is a form of sexism that keeps women at a lower social status than men —Panamitsu (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The word "keeps" is broader, more concise, and clearer than "used to keep" or, in my opinion, than "can keep."Jno.skinner (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jno.skinner I think there may have been a misunderstanding as you've referenced this talk page when changing "can keep" to "keeps", but I was discussing whether we should change "is used to keep" to "keeps" (i ended up changing it to "can keep".

I've reverted youl change but am happy to keep it with your wording if you re-add it. The reason I prefer the "can keep" wording is that it is context dependent. For example, misogyny can happen toward female healthcare professionals but they still end up having a higher social status compared to male healthcare workers. —Panamitsu (talk) 06:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2024

I've expanded on sentences and terms I feel are important to consider in the discussion to the opening paragraph to try and present an initial full bilateral picture of the concept and hopefully resolve some of the discussion to try and streamline the article.

That is to say, what do folks think about changing:

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. It is a form of sexism that can keep women at a lower social status than men, thus maintaining the social roles of patriarchy. Misogyny has been widely practised for thousands of years. It is reflected in art, literature, human societal structure, historical events, mythology, philosophy, and religion worldwide.

To:

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. It is a form of Ignorance where people in positions of power whether physical or institutional demean or deny personhood to women, failing to understand healthy cross-gender dynamics, and evolving social and gender roles. Whether deliberate or learned, It is a lack of respect by way of erroneous assumptions and mischaracterizations of role, agency (sociology) and ability in women and people with a feminine demeanor. It is a failure to understand an aspect of systemic sexism that can keep women and feminine individuals at a lower social status than men, and men in toxic mental models that prevent them from developing healthy interpersonal relationships with prospective romantic partners and genuine friendships with people of different gender dispositions, limiting everyone's understanding of equitable leadership, their individual impact to society and their ability to contribute towards equitable progress.

The term developed culturally as an understanding of actions that men who considered themselves to be leading humanity towards healthy reproduction with their limited knowledge at the time, albeit by emotional force, took to retain power by using toxic language emerging from complex emotions they were not able to verbalize in a constructive way, in an effort to maintain the social roles developed throughout history from a fear of losing existing norms by way of cultural exclusion. Misogyny is a primitive form of forced serfdom and cognitive slavery as a way to organize society. See: patriarchy. Misogyny has been widely practised for thousands of years as a consequence of individual human flaw and cultural lack of understanding of interpersonal emotions. It is reflected in art, literature, human societal structure, historical events, mythology, philosophy, and religion worldwide. Misogyny has been an emerging phenomena for millenia in which the fear of losing self-determination of a leading individual in power has caused them to fail to see personhood in other beings, harming those they aim to help and blinding their perspective and ability to connect to effective leadership known as Emotional intelligence. Lighterletter (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done. You did not provide a reliable source describing misogyny as "ignorance". Binksternet (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Adding to the above response, there are no sources without. It is also not really written in an encyclopaedic style, see for example WP:NOTESSAY. Irltoad (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

What makes you think that misogyny is limited to those already wielding power, as opposed to those who crave it? And I find it strange that your text implies that the main effect of misogyny is limited to negative consequences for romantic relationships and friendships, as opposed to physical and verbal abuse. Dimadick (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)