Talk:Manosphere

This article seems to have a neutrality issue

The manosphere is in the lead described as "a collection of predominantly web-based misogynist ideologies associated with the far-right and alt-right." and later the these "has been associated with online harassment, as well as some mass killings and other real-world acts of violence, and has been implicated in radicalizing men into committing violence against women." It also mention a number of movements within this group. One is fathers' rights groups. From the wiki page on Fathers' rights movement the Fathers' rights movement political views are described as "...both liberal and conservative branches, with different viewpoints about how men and women compare.". It also states that The fathers' rights movement is indeed a part of manosphere. It is hardly possible to be both far-right / alt-right and part of liberal branches. And the Fathers' rights movement wiki page mentions nothing about online harassment, mass killings or being implicated in radicalizing men into committing violence against women.

I noticed that the article mentions alot of magazines as sources, but does not seem to reflect that the articles are heavily influenced by the writers own personal and political views.

This article seems to have a neutrality issue. MIS (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Please be specific, what are the exact neutrality issues you refer to? (ie: which claims not supported by a reliable source/which sources do you not consider reliable etc.) Bacondrum (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned above, it seems that the lead is quite hostile to this manosphere concept, describing it in a way that gives the impression that the manosphere is quite hateful, violent and belonging to the far right. The article points out Fathers' rights movement, as belonging to the manosphere. But according to Wikipedia article on Fathers' rights movement, the impression is, that the Fathers' rights movement the quite opposite. This seems to be a serious contradiction, not a small thing being labelled as a part of "a collection of predominantly web-based misogynist ideologies associated with the far-right and alt-right." that "has been associated with online harassment, as well as some mass killings and other real-world acts of violence, and has been implicated in radicalizing men into committing violence against women." I am not quite sure where the exact neutrality issues is, as it could be multiple things, a mix or something I missed. My first impression is that the sources are extremely biased. But also that it is not made clear that the concept primarily used by those who sees themselves as in opposition to the 'manosphere', in other words, a pejorative. MIS (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@M.I.S.: The sourcing overwhelmingly describes the manosphere (and the movements that comprise it) in this way, so the Wikipedia article reflects that. You write that my first impression is that the sources are extremely biased—you can view the sources yourself in the references section. There are around 50 of them. I doubt you are claiming every single source is biased/unreliable/otherwise unacceptable, so please do specify which you're dissatisfied with so we can actually have a discussion.

As for the father's rights point: that's an interesting one. I actually made an edit not too long ago to change the wording to some father's rights groups. But then I realized that I had worded it that way based on my own personal understanding of father's rights groups (which I do not claim to be particularly deep—I have not researched them much at all), and not based on the sourcing. The sources I've seen that mention father's rights and the manosphere say that the manosphere includes father's rights groups with no equivocation. I think it's quite possible/likely that there are people who do not include the more liberal branches of the father's rights movement in their definitions of the manosphere, but I haven't actually seen sources supporting this, and so I undid my change.

As for the word "manosphere" being used by those who are opposed to the manosphere and its groups, that hasn't been my impression. One of the sources, a GQ article that interviews Paul Elam, includes quite an in-depth conversation where Elam explains the term and diagrams the various groups in the manosphere. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I will point to the Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view (NPOV), particular the part about not stating opinions, seriously contested assertions as facts. And not using judgmental language and avoiding undue weight to a particular view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is my hope that you will take this to heart, and consider whether you truly think the article honor this principle. "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." MIS (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't see the issue. You're talking about unspecified things that "seem" hostile to the subject? Honoring principles? You give no specific examples of the issue. Please, show us the specific claims not backed by citation/misrepresenting the citation/based on original research etc. Otherwise it appears as though this is just complaining. Bacondrum (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I did give a specific example of the issue, twice in fact. I came by this article by chance, and I see a strong political bias, both in the article and those who guard its message. I was hoping to appeal to the fundamental principle of Wikipedia of neutrality. This is not a debate forum, and I do not desire to be a part of an ideological fight that should not be on Wikipedia in the first place. I see an issue, you do not, and we will not get any further with this. MIS (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@M.I.S.: Which seriously contested assertions are being stated as facts? I have already explained my thought process around the issue you identified pertaining to the father's rights movement; does that make sense to you? Bacondrum and I are both trying to get more information from you so that we can properly respond to your concerns, so I don't understand why you are throwing up your hands, accusing editors of ideological warring, and proclaiming we will not get any further with this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@MIS - Yawn. Next you'll be complaining that the Ku Klux Klan article is biased because it describes them as a white supremacist hate group. Jesus wept. Bacondrum (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Manosphere is movement around providing platform for discussion about men’s rights and other topics related to men.

The current description is like making the feminism page look like this:

Feminism is a collection of websites, blogs, and online forums[1] promoting some forms of feminity, hostility towards men, strong opposition to masculinity and exaggerated misandry. Feminism has been associated politically with the far-left and Communism.

Political and ideological bias from editors of this wiki are quite obvious. Architectuality (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Architectuality: I don't mean to be rude, but have you even looked at the sourcing in this article? The vast majority of the sources used here are scholarly articles and books, not newspapers/press. Out of the three news articles that are used, two of them are only cited once each–the first with in-text attribution to present the a quote from the author as a part of the "Public perception" section, and the second also in the "public perception" section only to provide an expert quote from sociologist Michael Kimmel. If you are also counting the SPLC sources when you mention journalism, they are also only used in the "public perception" section.

So either you have not actually looked at the sourcing, or you are describing this article as based in "articles from yellow press that are known for making misleading content" writing for an audience of "angry women" based on one journal source written by an accomplished journalist with a background in writing about gender issues. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hm, I'm surprised my edit went through without an edit conflict, since you removed the portion of your comment I was responding to as I was writing it. I assume you looked at the sources, then? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Architectuality: the article contents are based on published, reliable sources. If there are equivalent sources that describe feminism as "a collection of websites, blogs, and online forums promoting some forms of feminity, hostility towards men, strong opposition to masculinity and exaggerated misandry", then feel free to edit that article accordingly. May I also add that several of the complaints in this section are interesting examples of the trope common to online forums that "political" means "anything I disagree with". Most of these forums also tend to be populated by conservative-leaning white males. Coincidence? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Very POV Article that reads like a hit-piece

This article is extremely biased and we all know it. I've made some changes, but I expect they will be reverted in short order due to that same bias. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

They were actually reverted because your whitewashing effort was not supported by reliable, secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TiggyTheTerrible: Your prediction was correct, though not because of bias: changes to Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sourcing, and if you are going to remove sourced content you need to first make a good argument for why either a) the sources are unusable, or b) they are contradicted by other more reliable sources. Your edits removed sourced content, and introduced no additional sourcing. I see you are new to Wikipedia; you might want to give WP:NTK a quick read, especially before editing controversial pages such as this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. This page is filled with POV opinion-based sources that do not actually attempt to prove their point but merely state it. It seems clear that: 1) the Manosphere is poorly defined. 2) groups are lumped into it willy-nilly. And 3) any source I give you would likely be struck down as POV. I did not actually delete any sources that I'm aware of, though this may have happened accidentally. I am reinstating the POV tag, and I suggest you do not remove it as this is against the rules of wikipedia. Now, considering this page is loaded with biased sources, I'm assuming that all contrary sources would be acceptable? How do you feel about The Red Pill Movie as a source on MRAs not being misogynistic or alt right? TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: Please read WP:RS for Wikipedia's policy on how to find acceptable third-party sources for citation in Wikipedia articles. -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edits are visible in the page history, so you can review where you removed sourcing. I would suggest you read the policy that Anome and I have both linked, as well as WP:NPOV—particularly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources. We evaluate sources based on their reliability—if you provide reliable sources that provide an alternate viewpoint on the manosphere that is fine. But if your sources are unreliable, you are correct that they can't be used in the article. I am not familiar with the movie that you mention, but a quick bit of research on it suggests that there have been concerns over its accuracy.

I would also recommend you try to elaborate on how this page does not meet NPOV, which on Wikipedia is defined as representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Otherwise the POV tag is misplaced. Is it missing significant views that have been published in reliable sources? If so, please provide the sources. Is it misstating views in the existing sources? If so, please be specific as to where. etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

TiggyTheTerrible Hi, you're gonna have a hell of a time arguing that a universally canned, crowd funded film is a reliable source, to call it amateur would be a compliment. As for your complaint about bias sources here, your edits so far have provided no reliable sources, in-fact you've provided no sources at all, just your own opinion. At a cursory glance I can see no unreliable sources (maybe Canoe.com, I've never heard of them, but the other sources are solid) Please read WP:RELIABILITY, WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and it can be useful to look at [1] Hope that helps. Also, men's Sheds are just community organisations for older men, they have absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with this articles subject and I think most men who attend men's sheds would be deeply offended to be grouped with these kinds of organisations - I highly doubt any reliable source will make the connection. Bacondrum (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

And don't tag an article with a neutrality template unless you can demonstrate the issues relevant ie: Which sources are not reliable? claims not backed by citations? etc. Simply saying "Very POV Article that reads like a hit-piece" is not sufficient evidence of a neutrality issue, it's simply your opinion. I hope that helps. Bacondrum (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Bacondrum as much as there WERE positive reviews for the Red Pill - I can demonstrate that it was 'universally panned' before anyone knew what it was about, and before the first previews even existed. I can show you video footage of protesters trying to stop people even seeing it. I can also show you that the creator was a Feminist, and that the film was mainly funded by her and her family. Only some of it was crowd funded, and you can see the raw footage on youtube. You would have a VERY hard time trying to prove that she manipulated that film in any way, and that is a very serious accusation based on no evidence. If you think that members of men's sheds would be offended at being included, then you need to realise that so are father's rights groups, MRAs, and anti-feminists. Almost all are egalitarians who despise the right wing/PUA/incel groups on the list. I've yet to see any indication that any of these belong on the same list, and I think this term is actually something of a Media whitewash to lump father's rights in with the far right. The reason I question your sources so strongly is because none of them seem to have actually taken a look at the spaces they say are full of Nazis and Misogyny. No sources are given for the actual political stances of these movements that I can see. What evidence is there Father's Rights groups are 'far right' of misogynistic, for example? TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, the only study I'm aware of that even tries to do this is this one they conducted by themselves]. [[User:TiggyTheTerrible|TiggyTheTerrible] (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: Regardless of what critics thought of the film, it seems pretty clear it can't be used as a reliable source. As for your other comments, exaggerating the claims made in this article is not helpful. Nowhere in this article does it claim that these manosphere groups are "full of Nazis"—this article doesn't use the term "nazi" anywhere. The article also does not make any specific claims that the fathers' rights movement is far-right—the actual phrasing of the article is clear that the manosphere is generally associated with the far-right, and that the father's rights groups are a part of the manosphere. Both claims are adequately cited in the inline sourcing if you care to look into them. The current sources do indeed support that fathers' rights groups have displayed similar extremism to other groups in the manosphere, though that is not currently discussed in this article—in my opinion, nuanced discussion of that particular movement is best kept to Fathers' rights movement or the country-specific fathers' rights articles (whichever is more appropriate). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious GorillaWarfare? The very first line describes them as "a collection of predominantly web-based misogynist ideologies associated with the far-right and alt-right.". Honestly, if you were aiming to make them sound like far right, you succeeded. I also take issue with the citations here. And why isn't the Red Pill valid when it actually delves into the MRA movement? The sources on the page hardly seem to! For example: [1] states that MRAs "believe the world has been overrun by feminism and that the only way to fight back is to embrace a super-dominant, traditionally masculine gender role." The first part is true - they believe feminism is in power. The second part is not - MRAs actually hate gender stereotypes every bit as much as feminist do. Probably because their key theorists are mainly left-leaning ex feminists. "MRA differs subtly from other movements with similar principles, such as the “pickup artist” (or PUA) movement" is a weird way of saying that the two movement have precious little in common. Most MRAs are hyper concerned with father's rights, male suicide, and male rape victims. PUAs are about getting laid. The article also keeps claiming that MRAs like Trump, which is odd because their own subreddit seems fairly ambivalent. Phrases like "If they voted, they voted for Trump." stand without any real evidence, and are actually contradicted by a slightly earlier part of the article saying that MRAs don't care about politics. I can go into more depth if you like, and I can do this for literally all the sources on the page. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

No need to go into more depth -- your personal opinions and original research on the various manosphere groups is not usable in contradicting reliable sources, as has already been pointed out to you in the beginning of this section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare In that case, I will provide reputable contrary sources to even out the article. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that is what we've been asking since the getgo. I've got this page watchlisted so I will keep an eye out for your suggestions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare How about now? TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and can I directly quote Roosh from his own site calling MRAs 'sexual losers'? TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What makes something "reputably misogynist"? And "claimed" makes no sense, the ideologies claim to be far-right? The manosphere is a term used to describe a collection of predominantly web-based and reputably misogynist ideologies that claimed to be associated with the far-right and alt-right. This lead sentence makes no sense. As for the rest of the edit, I thought we were clear that the TRP documentary can't be used? I'll take a look at the rest of it in detail shortly, I'm in the middle of something at work. And no, you should not quote Roosh directly unless it's used in a secondary source -- otherwise there's no reason to believe his opinions are relevant here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare Okay. Fair enough about the clunky grammar. I'll take a look at it. The idea of quoting Roosh is to point out in that lower section that he does not identify as an MRA. Can you explain to me why this award-winning documentary is not reputable? I'm noticing that it won "Best Documentary Feature" a "Best in festival" and two "Excellence in Producing a Documentary"s. Surely it is at least as reputable as The Cut TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The onus is on you to prove that it is a reliable source. It has been criticized for lack of accuracy: From the outset, Jaye’s film is tilted in favor of the MRAs she interviews and lacks a coherent argument, not due to her own internal conflict but because the film is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevant terms, including “rights,” “patriarchy” and “feminism.” ([2]), and there is no indication it meets requirements at WP:RS that it be recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party. If you want to start a discussion at WP:RSN to try to achieve consensus on its use, be my guest, but until then it should not be used.

As for your comparison to The Cut, The Cut has an editorial board, and is published by a well known publishing house with a reputation for fact-checking. It's not as high quality as the academic sources in this article, but it certainly seems to stand up better than that film.

Regarding Roosh, frankly it doesn't matter that much how he self-identifies. See WP:MANDY. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The Red Pill is not a reliable source. Having discussed this before on Wikipedia, I know one of the festivals that gave an award to the Red Pill also gave awards to a Scientology anti-psych propaganda film. This is ironic, since "Psychology Today" was also cited. Regardless, this kind of thing is very common with indie films and documentaries, and proves nothing. If a reliable source mentions this film as it relates to the Manosphere, it could be used to add this as context, but only then, and probably not in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

TiggyTiggyTheTerrible I took a look at the Red Pill and no one is going to let that thing stand as a RS, you are welcome to take it to the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN and get feedback from other editors, but to me it's very poor documentary film making, more akin to propaganda than serious inquiry. The Psychology Today citation is a WP:NEWSBLOG. If you want to change the article you need to base changes on reliable, mainstream sources. As it stands you seem to want to make changes based on your opinion and when those edits are challenged, come back with poor sourcing. I'd recommend doing some deeper research on the subject, let the sources inform your contributions. At this point in the discussion you should probably bring your suggested changes and sources to this talk page and discuss them first, lest this become a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'd probably tone down the accusations of POV bias too, I started out being combative and it got me nowhere - you'll find a less combative attitude makes it better for all involved, it can be fun even. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and civil discussion really makes a difference. Bacondrum (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay Grayfell. How about this source. Or maybe this source? I would be interested to see how many of your critics of the film have actually seen it because I have seen examples of the film being attacked by people who admit they haven't watched it. The film isn't actually about Feminism so much as Men's Rights. The feminist attack on it is a secondary framing devise. I'd like to know what you define as a reputable party, since it is Archived by both Amazon and Youtube.

GorillaWarfare Regarding Roosh, can you or someone else please link me to an example of him engaging in men's rights activism of any kind? Otherwise he is only claimed to be one.

Bacondrum I'm not trying to be combative, so sorry if that's how it came across. What about the film strikes you as propaganda? Looking at the key citations on this page, I see mainly opinion pieces and I can't find any studies linking Men's Rights or Father's Rights to misogyny or the alt right. The same is true of links to Roosh. The Red Pill features prominent interviews with famous feminists - including the editor of Ms Magazine, and a number of others, who openly criticise the Men's Rights Movement. It shows them in a positive light, and you can see their full interviews online so there's no hint of foul play. It's just a series of interviews of both sides, and her commentary. My previous links also call it an even-handed look at MRAs. Your view that it is propaganda seems to be an opinion, I'm sorry to say. TiggyTheTerrible (talk)

@TiggyTheTerrible: If you want to continue arguing whether or not the documentary is a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN. Consensus here is already pretty clear that it can't be used. Regarding Roosh: your evaluation or my evaluation of whether Roosh is an MRA is absolutely irrelevant here. Your comment that Otherwise he is only claimed to be one makes me wonder if you've read our policies and guidelines on reliable sourcing and original research, because reliable sources "claiming" that Roosh is an MRA are sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare Fine. I'll just use reviews of the film from reputable sources. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: In this article..? Or in a discussion at RSN? If the latter, that makes sense. If the former, I'm not sure how commentary on that documentary is going to be relevant here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare To be honest, I'm seriously struggling to find anyone who has done real research into what these movements believe. Mostly the articles on this page and elsewhere say things like 'this white nationalist site criticised feminism an unspecified number of times, therefore the men's rights movement is alt right'. They also make very basic factual errors. As far as I can see the documentary is the only source that tries to investigate what men's rights activists believe in even a semi-neutral manor. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I tend to find that if I am having trouble finding solid sourcing that matches my view of a subject, it's time for me to revisit my view of a subject. And if it is that hard to find sourcing that represents your view, then that certainly suggests your view should not be added to this article, per WP:WEIGHT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Tiggy, I agree with everything GorillaWarfare said. I don't want to get into it too much, but that film is a text book example of poor documentary film making. It's been so universally canned for good reason: she is Begging the question and makes nonsense claims about being the only "feminist" to actual speak to anyone in the movement - that's obviously false, I've read a number of interviews with MRA's. Her claims to be a feminist are hard to take seriously as her views are antithetical to mainstream feminism, I found her disingenuous throughout (I'll admit, I couldn't sit through this film, it's tedious in the extreme). Then we get to the core issue: deliberate misreading/misinterpretation of facts and figures...She claims that 99.9% of all military deaths are men, and completely ignores the fact that only 14 percent of military personnel in the USA are women and of them a minute percentage are involved in active duty, women have only been allowed to serve in combat roles since 2013 and as of the films release date only one woman had ever been enlisted in the infantry (she still hadn't been sent into combat at the time), so it's no surprise that very few women had been killed in active military service seeing as none had ever been sent into a combat role on the front line. She claims 94% of workplace deaths are men and never mentions that many dangerous professions like mining, construction etc. are still male dominated with between 5% and 9% female employees in these high risk workforce's. In fact, the statistics her claims are based on are glaring evidence of systemic discrimination against women, if anything. These are just some of many dishonest and uncritical claims made and they are why no one took this wacky piece of propaganda seriously. It's dishonest, and it's easy to pull apart the lies and misrepresentations, it's not a reliable source, it's crappy film making that doesn't bother to analyse or criticise claims made by interviewees. Bacondrum (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion about this source at RSN as I'm sure this is not the first time the source has been discussed and probably wont be the last: [3] Bacondrum (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare I don't think you understand what I mean. I'm saying that actual numerical research into the political beliefs of these communities basically does not exist. Not positive. Not negative. Not anything. The closest I can find are polls on the communities themselves, and a study that counted word usage. Looking at the articles cited on this page, the logic is very dodgy. Looking at these communities, I find policies banning alt right and misogynistic speech. It seems very disingenuous to misrepresent opinions as facts without some cravat that points out the citations are opinions. It's even worse to do that and then pretend that someone with negative views of these communities, who actually spent several years researching and talking to them in person, is wrong just because she became convinced they weren't Hitler.

Bacondrum "that film is a text book example of poor documentary film making. It's been so universally canned for good reason" The audience score is very high, and a lot of the negative press was from people who didn't even watch it despite being given the opportunity to. So, you can see that a lot of the people who are against the film are angry because it attacks their own biases. One reviewer I looked at scorned the very idea that men have problems related to their gender, which is patently untrue. Does Cassie need to mention that only 14 percent of military personnel in the USA are women? It seems obvious that they aren't. The point is that men alone are sent to die. That's the issue being talked about. I can't find any claims about being the only "feminist" to actual speak to anyone in the movement. Only that she claimed to have made the first documentary on them, which is 100% correct. Saying "I've read a number of interviews with MRA's" kinda backs me up on that - you read them rather than watching them. And do they predate the film? The stat that 94% of workplace deaths are men is a valid one. That they die in dangerous professions is, I think, mentioned in the film as part of the discussion. Seeing as how we have been flooded with articles about how women are suffering on the front lines during Covid 19, I don't think it's really valid to rebut that by saying 'they chose to be in a profession where infection is a risk'. Calling this all systemic discrimination against women is, I am pretty sure, something the MRAs mention in the film. It certainly gets mentioned in the Raw Files. However, a better way of framing it is that society seeks to protect women but not men. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: I don't understand why you are discounting scholarship on the manosphere because it is not "numerical". Qualitative research is still held to high standards, and there are multiple peer-reviewed publications used in this article that should not be disregarded simply because they do not do polls or whatever it is you are looking for. This is now the second time you've made references to Nazis and Hitler in this discussion, despite the article mentioning neither, and it is completely unnecessary and ABF. Anyway, now that there is a discussion open at WP:RSN, I think we can consider this conversation finished, since it seems this conversation is now focusing solely on whether the documentary can included in the article as a source, and that discussion ought not be split. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: My apologies for any misunderstanding with the term 'Nazi'. It's a shorthand for far right I am using to point out that that is how people view the implication. Indeed, at least one of those sources on the page mentions white supremacy. Please do link me to some thorough academic research on the Manosphere. As far as I can tell, it's just a blanket media term of vague origin that is often used to conflate various groups who rarely (if ever) cross paths. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Link it to you? They're already used in the references section, but sure:

• Cite #16: Jones, Callum; Trott, Verity; Wright, Scott (November 8, 2019). "Sluts and soyboys: MGTOW and the production of misogynistic online harassment". New Media & Society: 146144481988714. doi:10.1177/1461444819887141. ISSN 1461-4448.
• Cite #17: Ging, Debbie (2019). "Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Manosphere". Men and Masculinities. 22 (4): 638–657. doi:10.1177/1097184X17706401. ISSN 1097-184X.
• Cite #18: Van Valkenburgh, Shawn P. (December 4, 2018). "Digesting the Red Pill: Masculinity and Neoliberalism in the Manosphere". Men and Masculinities: 1097184X1881611. doi:10.1177/1097184X18816118. ISSN 1097-184X.
• Cite #22: Messner, Michael A. (1998). "The Limits of "The Male Sex Role": An Analysis of the Men's Liberation and Men's Rights Movements' Discourse". Gender and Society. 12 (3): 255–276. doi:10.1177/0891243298012003002. ISSN 0891-2432. JSTOR 190285.
• Cite #23: Jane, Emma A. (2018). "Systemic misogyny exposed: Translating Rapeglish from the Manosphere with a Random Rape Threat Generator". International Journal of Cultural Studies. 21 (6): 661–680. doi:10.1177/1367877917734042. ISSN 1367-8779.
• Cite #24: Van Valkenburgh, Shawn P. (December 4, 2018). "Digesting the Red Pill: Masculinity and Neoliberalism in the Manosphere". Men and Masculinities: 1097184X1881611. doi:10.1177/1097184X18816118. ISSN 1097-184X.
• Cite #35: Sculos, Bryant W. (November 30, 2017). "Who's Afraid of 'Toxic Masculinity'?". Class, Race and Corporate Power. 5 (3). doi:10.25148/CRCP.5.3.006517. ISSN 2330-6297.
• Cite #52: Schmitz, Rachel M.; Kazyak, Emily (May 12, 2016). "Masculinities in Cyberspace: An Analysis of Portrayals of Manhood in Men's Rights Activist Websites" (PDF). Social Sciences. 5 (2): 18. doi:10.3390/socsci5020018.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

These are just the academic publications, there are some additional quality book sources being used as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Only two of those even mention the men's rights movement. One seems to be locked off, and I'm reading the other. I am noticing some weird things in it though "MRAs seek to establish resources for men to utilize in maintaining their elevated position in society in relation to women and other social minorities" is a very weird way of saying "MRAs campaign for male victims of rape, domestic violence, and homelessness; regardless of race." I do not get the impression this writer is approaching this subject from an unbiased perspective. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, this article is about the manosphere, not just the men's rights movement. Some of these sources focus on the MRM, some on other manosphere groups, and some on the manosphere as a whole. I'm not sure where your claim that only two of these sources mention the MRM is coming from, unless you're only reading the titles—I'm pretty sure that every single one of these papers discusses the MRM in some capacity. As for your evaluation of the source, frankly I'm pretty tired of you trying to discount sources you disagree with here as "biased" or otherwise unusable. A peer reviewed paper, written someone who not only has a Ph.D. in sociology but whose entire profession is the research and teaching of sociology (with a focus on gender & sexuality), published in an international journal is absolutely a useable source. Schmitz and Kazyak have their definition of the MRM, you have your definition, and I have mine. But until you or I get our definitions published in similarly reputable journals, Schmitz's and Kazyak's is the only one that can be incorporated in this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Tiggy, you are asking for WP:FALSEBALANCE. It's your opinion alone that "society seeks to protect women but not men" and that's a view that is wildly out of step with reality...but that's just my opinion. This is why you need to back any claims you make with quality sources. A dodgy doco that went straight to Youtube is not even close to a reliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into this any further. If you want to add claims to the article you need to find WP:RELIABLE sources to back those claims. That doggy doco isn't even close to being a reliable source, it's begging the question, WP:SELFPUB and WP:FRINGE among other obvious problems. Bacondrum (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

One last thing about basing edits on opinion. If the lede of this article was written based on my personal opinion, it would read like this: "The Manosphere is a collection of utterly vile and contempt worthy misogynists who campaign to protect their dominant position in society by making galling claims about being victims of sexism despite the fact that on average, women are paid 13.9% less than men, one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner [4], 1 in 4 women have experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner [5], 1 in 5 women have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15 [6], 85% of women have been sexually harassed [7], Almost 40% of women continued to experience violence from their partner while temporarily separated [8], 1 in 6 women have experienced stalking since the age of 15 [9] etc. These disgusting men should be ashamed of themselves." I'm sure you can see the problem with publishing my opinion? Even with reliable sources this would be WP:POV and WP:OR. The article is based on reliable sources so far, it rightfully doesn't present my negative view of the subject, nor your positive one...it reflects what has been published in reliable secondary sources, many of them academic. All those figures I quoted there are fact based government stats, by the way - there's a reason you can't find reliable sources that back your opinion. All the best. Bacondrum (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I am aware that MRAs are only a small part of this - but I find it's best to just talk through one thing at a time when forced to use this really confusing manual chat system. That's why I dropped Fathers Rights - it's already under the umbrella of MRAs, and it complicates things. I admit I only read through the abstracts of most the articles you linked, focusing on the two that mention MRAs explicitly. Of those, I focused on the one I was able to access. This article is ideological in nature and has many glaring errors. For example: it seems to think MRAs are Trad-Cons. In actual fact, they are slightly centre-left. My point here is that that this isn't a study. It's basically the direct feminist equivalent of an AVFM article.

@Bacondrum: I don't recall saying that. However, it reminds me of this study showing that men and women are both inclined to sacrifice the lives of men for the benefit of women and society. I actually have a few of these, if you are interested. Gamma Bias is a fairly well established phenomenon. The documentary isn't 'self pub'. I've already explained that it was released by a large media company. It's hardly Fringe, either - it's actually pretty famous. Your claims on 'false balance' are interesting because you make it sound like these gender studies feminists should have a monopoly on defining their ideological opponents. The Manosphere is a collection of utterly vile and contempt worthy misogynists No, it's a random collection of entirely different movements - some of which are misogynist, and some of which are egalitarian but unpopular. who campaign to protect their dominant position in society PUAs, Incels, and MGTOW engage in no activism that I'm aware of - but I'll agree they can be misogynistic. MRAs certainly aren't misogynistic, or campaigning for their so-called dominance, or even right wing - they have a great number of female leaders and no stance on right or left wing issues. MRAs are often male rape victims who campaign for other male rape and domestic violence victims. Anti-feminists don't think feminism supports true equality, and they also include women - who feminists like to harass and stalk, by the way. Father's rights just want to see their kids (and the MRAs are trying to help them). The rest are far right groups, about which I agree with you. by making galling claims about being victims of sexism You are implying that one gender can't be the victim of sexism, which is itself a sexist statement. It's also wildly incorrect. women are paid 13.9% less than men You should probably read the Harvard study explaining that that is due to the life choices of the women themselves.  one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner And men are killed at a similar rate by their partners. It's just less well known about due to Gamma Bias. Women are actually far more likely to abuse men. You are going to sit here and call MRAs misogynists when you are denying the lived experiences of abused men and saying they don't have any problems?  "1 in 5 women have experienced sexual violence since the age of 15" And the CDC 12 month stats show that males are victimised at an equal rate to females. "85% of women have been sexually harassed" And your stats indicate that men also suffer a lot of sexual harassment. And that the male bar is fairly close to the female one. Why didn't you mention that? Did you know that female bosses also harass men? I run a support group, and you'd probably be amazed. Going to skip the rest of these for brevity, but I have plenty of other citations. Including ones that show that men are overlooked in studies like yours. "These disgusting men should be ashamed of themselves" I'll assume you mean the far right men - not the male rape victims who can't get the police to take them seriously. Right? "I'm sure you can see the problem with publishing my opinion?" Of course. Your views are extremely one-sided and only tell part of the story. That's why I would be swooping in to add the citations I just gave you. "it rightfully doesn't present my negative view of the subject, nor your positive one" It doesn't present an even-handed neutral view either. Nor does it tell the truth. Nor does it cite anything providing a hard link between the alt right and the other groups. "there's a reason you can't find reliable sources that back your opinion" Because you are citing nothing but feminist opinion to talk about anti-feminists? TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend actually reading the sources before dismissing them next time, then. There is a huge difference between a peer-reviewed study and an AVFM post. I believe you're still referring to the Schmitz & Kazyak article, which is currently only being used to support the sentence Return of Kings is distinct from men's rights forums such as PUAHate in that it promotes seduction techniques, known as "game", that those sites criticize.—do you have some objection to this sentence? As for the rest of your argument with Bacondrum, can y'all bring this back around to actual changes to this article and stop debating feminism here? It's off-topic, and unless your argument is actually relevant to a change you want made in this article, it should be saved for MRA forums or a blog or... anywhere else but Wikipedia. I certainly have no interest in reading about how me and my female colleagues systemically make less money than our male counterparts in the same field because we just... choose to earn less money. As for the continued discussion of TRP documentary, save it for RSN, which has now become an RfC. And please don't canvas anymore, if that was you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Ah. I think there's been some miscommunication. I didn't dismiss all of the sources - I simply focused on the one that seemed most relevant. My objection is in a general sense to that ideological Gender Studies paper as a source - though I'm pretty sure PUAHate is not a men's rights sub, as much as that is a moot point right now. Place is dead. Personally, I think that including Gender Studies papers is a bigger issue. You won't include the Daily Mail on here, but Gender Studies is okay? As I previously mentioned, those journals are prone to publishing Mein Kamph extracts. But apologies for my long-winded debate with @Bacondrum:. He's welcome to join me somewhere else for a debate if he likes. You should read the Harvard study, though. You may not like it, but those are the facts as they lay them out - men and women simply have different roles and priorities in life. Men are still stuck in the provider role, and women are still stuck producing the next generation. That's why you can pay men and women the same flat hourly rate automatically, and women will still earn less. I will continue to talk about this article and point out that it is not WP:NPOV. TiggyTheTerrible (talk)

They are not "prone" to publishing Mein Kampf, and it should also be pointed out that Social Sciences (which published the paper you're objecting to) is not a "gender studies journal". Either way, I've already said you can take it up at RSN if you want to discount gender studies journals as a whole. Discounting an entire field of academia, and one that is used widely across the project, is not a discussion to have on the talk page of a single Wikipedia article. There was an RfC about the usage of The Daily Mail; there would need to be one about gender studies journals also.

I have read the Harvard study, and I have also been clear that this is not the place to discuss the wage gap. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

They are a little bit prone, but fair enough about the Journal. That's less of an echo chamber. Fair enough. I'll write up a case for RSN. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

TiggyTheTerrible Oh god no, I have zero interest in debating gender inequality with you. Gorilla warfare is 100% correct. Lets stick to article content. Bacondrum (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

These talking points are stirring the pot and baiting controversy. All this about Gender Studies journals publishing "Mein Kamph" and being less reliable than the Daily Mail is contrary to how Wikipedia evaluates sources. This suggests that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia, and is instead here to right great wrongs. There is nothing productive that can come from this behavior. Grayfell (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: If you didn't want to talk gender, why on Earth did you bring it up?

@Grayfell: I'm literally just here to try and balance out this article because it's a subject I'm interested in, and the article seems to be ideological in nature. If nothing else, Bacondrum's rant about gender inequality would tend to suggest that they are here to right great perceived wrongs. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 13 June 2020‎

Nonsense. Do not conflate being open about having an opinion with being biased. This page is not a forum for discussing topics, this is a talk page for discussing how to improve an article, and this article is partly about gender. Grayfell (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you Grayfell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 22:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Where did the term come from

I am somewhat familiar with the various components that this article says make up the “manosphere”... but I have never heard the term “manosphere” before. I am curious as to where it came from. This article could use some history of the term AS a term ... Who originally coined it? How, when and where did the term gain traction? Is it widely used? Who uses it today, and are there people who dislike its usage... Stuff like that. Blueboar (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be a media label. TiggyTheTerrible (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Have you seen the discussion of the term under Manosphere#History? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly sources

(Moved from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Red Pill Movie)

Not in Wikivoice, no. Many of the papers you cite on the talk page are WP:PRIMARY sources that should be used with exteme caution, and some don't have any sort of objective statistical analysis, and so therefore their claims should be attributed and not in wikivoice. One paper you cite Who’s Afraid of ‘Toxic Masculinity’? describes itself as:"Part autoethnography, part critique, this essay details the author's personal experience with the far-right media world" which clearly makes it primary, and absolutely should not be used in wikivoice. Masculinities in Cyberspace: An Analysis of Portrayals of Manhood in Men’s Rights Activist Websites claims to have analysed the posts using software, but provides no objective statistics or quotes as evidence of their claims, and therefore must be attributed. "Sluts and soyboys: MGTOW and the production of misogynistic online harassment" Does include objective data. "Digesting the Red Pill: Masculinity and Neoliberalism in the Manosphere" and "Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Manosphere" at least provide quotes. "Systemic misogyny exposed: Translating Rapeglish from the Manosphere with a Random Rape Threat Generator" appears to be a superficial analysis of a Markov Chain generator based on rape threats given by mysogynists on twitter, when a statistical analysis of the dataset the Markov chain was based on would have been more objective. Is there not much secondary literature about the Manosphere that can be cited? Much of the article borders on WP:SYNTH. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the policy that academic sources must release their datasets, or be quantitative, in order to be usable. Can you point me to it? As for secondary sourcing, I haven't found much in the way of it at least in the journals; there is plenty in mainstream media (which is also cited in the article). However, like I said on the article talk page, I have very limited access to the databases and so I suspect someone with more access would be able to find quite a bit more. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about the release of datasets, only that analysing the dataset the generator was based on (the author worked on the generator) would have been more fruitful. My point about analysis of primary research papers is that they should be attributed, not that they should not be used at all. Masculinities in Cyberspace: An Analysis of Portrayals of Manhood in Men’s Rights Activist Websites states

One Return of Kings author harshly critiques the profeminist men’s movement, “The Good Men Project”, in that it “wants men to be blubbering manginas or outright homosexuals” From this hegemonic perspective, any connection with behaviors or attitudes related to “the pussification of American men” will lead to feminized, weak men who are passive and content to remain on the lowest rungs of the social hierarchy

This is used to back up the claim in the Manosphere article that

Return of Kings is distinct from men's rights forums such as PUAHate in that it promotes seduction techniques, known as "game", that those sites criticize. RoK writers also criticize the profeminism men's movement and The Good Men Project, arguing that they lead to feminized, passive, weak men who are content to remain on the lowest rungs of the social hierarchy

The opinion of a single author being attributed to the entire site is clearly an improper synthesis. The latter half of the sentence is also clearly an inappropriate WP:Close paraphrasing of the sentence from the article without quotation marks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, should have been clearer with my question. Your comment that some don't have any sort of objective statistical analysis, and so therefore their claims should be attributed and not in wikivoice led me to believe you were saying it was the lack of statistical analysis that meant the claims need to be attributed in-text. Was that not what you meant? As for the RoK mention, I agree, and will adjust that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Should we relocate this portion of the conversation to Talk:Manosphere? I don't want to derail the conversation on the usability of this movie as a source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I think we've gotten a bit off topic here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hemiauchenia you've raised some valid points. The article definitely needs a lot of work re prose and sources. Bacondrum (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It's been a while since I worked on this page and so I don't fully remember where I left it, but I do remember thinking the subsections under "Sites" was somewhat arbitrary. If I were to pick two of the most well-known sites in the manosphere, I'm not sure those two would be them. I think I mostly left those sections untouched because I was considering removing them; not sure if anyone else has thoughts one way or the other on that. IMO they're probably not notable enough for their own articles, and if they are going to have subsections in an article I'm not sure they belong in this one (vs., say, the PUA article). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Hemiauchenia here—there's widely varying quality of "academic" sources, and opinions and autoethnography must be clearly distinguished from sources that follow accepted research methods to arrive at their conclusions. Primary sources should also be clearly attributed and we should apply some skepticism to claims. buidhe 02:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia and Buidhe: I am planning to take a stab at overhauling this article today, and wanted to check in about some of the scholarly sources. Some of them, for example the Jones et. al. study, perform analyses that would make them primary sources, but have quite robust summaries of the general topic of the manosphere that are based on quite a lot of other academic work. The Jones study has almost five pages of it before moving on to discuss their methodology. Can we rely on that portion of the article as we would a secondary source, while of course treating any conclusions drawn from their particular research as primary? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You'll see I've just finished (at least the majority of) my work on this page. I have gone through and checked all the claims made in the article, and ensured they are well-sourced. For the claims sourced the academic sources we've been discussing, I tried to ensure they were only sourcing the overview portions of the sources, rather than any primary research work. I also reduced the article's reliance on MSM articles and substituted where I could with book or academic sources, though I did leave some of the media sources (largely in the "public perception" section, where media coverage is relevant). Hope this is an improvement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice work, big improvement. Bacondrum (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The addition of specific page numbers is a significant improvement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur :) Boy, has this talkpage been busy since I last contributed here. I knew there was a genuine topic under all the fluff, I just couldn't deal with the inevitable drama. Thanks to GorillaWarfare and others for putting some serious work in. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing, and thanks for all your cleanup work just now! GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

SYSBM

There is a wing of the manosphere specifically targeted toward black men, some of whom refer to themselves by the label SYSBM (somewhat analogous to MGTOW): [10]. “Negro Manosphere”, “Slaying Evil” and “Free Speech Avenger” are several websites affiliated with this movement. 97.116.88.75 (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)