Jump to content

Talk:Manosphere: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Gotell & Dutton, 2016: doi-access=free
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Tony999 (talk | contribs)
Line 39: Line 39:


From the online abstract: "This book presents the first in-depth study of online misogyny and the manosphere from a [[psychoanalytic]] perspective." Could be useful for building the article. --[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 01:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
From the online abstract: "This book presents the first in-depth study of online misogyny and the manosphere from a [[psychoanalytic]] perspective." Could be useful for building the article. --[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]] ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 01:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

== The Manosphere has been associated with mass shootings etc. Really? ==

I've just made an edit & had it reverted for reasons I don't understand so thought I'd raise it here.

The article makes this rather extravagant claim (twice):
It has also been associated with online harassment as well as some mass shootings and other real-world acts of violence, and has been implicated in radicalizing men into committing violence against women.

As it stands (after reversion & editing) that claim is supported by a fruit salad of references. I've checked the ones available to me & read the abstracts of the others. My comclusion is:
- None of the research cited supports the claim about mass shootings.
- None of the research cited supports the claim about real-world violence.
- The phrase "has been associated with" makes the claim essentially meaningless. One could make a similar claim about Santa Claus.
- Likewise "has been implicated in"
- The article as a whole has a political flavour rather than factual. Not what I'd like to see on Wikipedia.

Let me know if I'm wrong otherwise I will put my change back.
[[User:Tony999|Tony999]] ([[User talk:Tony999|talk]]) 07:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:27, 11 November 2021

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Agarcia584 (article contribs).

Gotell & Dutton, 2016

  • Gotell, Lise; Dutton, Emily (2016). "Sexual Violence in the 'Manosphere': Antifeminist Men's Rights Discourses on Rape". International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. 5 (2): 65–80. doi:10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i2.310.

This (free to read) source could be useful for the article, as it has a good amount of material on the topic and can be freely used under a Creative Commons license. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remember coming across it in my research but for some reason I had doubts about its reliability. Can't for the life of me remember why now, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johanssen, 2021

From the online abstract: "This book presents the first in-depth study of online misogyny and the manosphere from a psychoanalytic perspective." Could be useful for building the article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Manosphere has been associated with mass shootings etc. Really?

I've just made an edit & had it reverted for reasons I don't understand so thought I'd raise it here.

The article makes this rather extravagant claim (twice): It has also been associated with online harassment as well as some mass shootings and other real-world acts of violence, and has been implicated in radicalizing men into committing violence against women.

As it stands (after reversion & editing) that claim is supported by a fruit salad of references. I've checked the ones available to me & read the abstracts of the others. My comclusion is: - None of the research cited supports the claim about mass shootings. - None of the research cited supports the claim about real-world violence. - The phrase "has been associated with" makes the claim essentially meaningless. One could make a similar claim about Santa Claus. - Likewise "has been implicated in" - The article as a whole has a political flavour rather than factual. Not what I'd like to see on Wikipedia.

Let me know if I'm wrong otherwise I will put my change back. Tony999 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]