Talk:Misandry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Repetition, and Mislabeled "Criticism of Term"[edit]

"Criticism of the use of the term" is a poor header because the term is not at issue and neither is it's use, it's the use of the CONCEPT denoted by the term and a very specific use case: as a distraction or (arguably) false relative to misogyny. The term itself is endorsed and utilized by the authors in the darn section... whose arguments can be summarized in sum and substance:

That the topic of misandry has been raised as a distraction from and critique of feminism and that is harmful because it serves as a distraction from the more important discussion of women's issues. Also, misandry has been presented as a false symmetry to misogyny, but it isn't because misogyny is more extensive, historically oppressive, etc.. Finally misandry may be a misnomer for what is either A) a justifiable response to male oppression or B) a critique not of men, but of masculinity.

The section would benefit greatly from clarification like the above, but I feel that would seem like vandalism because it would delete so MANY excess useless words and lack of objectivity, because it would pigeonhole the use case into a very exact specificity, else broaden the criticism beyond the scope of any supporting argument that's offered.

Yeah not quite sure. But certain I'd stumble upon some PC shibboleth and sound like a jerk if I tried to clean it up further than just removing unnecessary repetition of the same citation and un-tangling of contorted grammar.

I leave further improvvement to my betters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.113.6 (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Plain "criticism" implies criticism of misandry (whose existence, including in some feminists, I don't think anyone denies, just not in a form truly analogous to misogyny, so indeed it is used as a red herring by falsely implying a symmetry), not of the use of the (application of the) term. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I would rename the section to something not starting with "criticism." Maybe "asymmetry with misogyny" or something like that. In general criticism sections should be avoided anyway. "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias." see WP:NOCRIT. - Scarpy (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Use of the term "asymmetry with misogyny" as a header however seems to imply an endorsement of such a viewpoint, contrary to WP:NPOV, particularly considering the lack of opposing viewpoints (by those who view it as equal to or worse than misogyny) within the section itself.-Czar Choi (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. It would be best to add opposing view-points, if they can be found (I'd be surprised if they couldn't be found), and to rename the section to "Comparison with Misogyny"; and to do the same on Misogyny as they're clearly interrelated terms/usages (even if not equal in depth and effect, depending on debate as documented). JSharp 21:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Misandry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I saw a conflicting, or part that just didn't seem right, in that the article begins by stating that misandry is parallel to misogyny, but then goes on to state the arguments for this being both true and untrue. I would recommend changing the beginning of the article to clarify that the idea of the two being parallel is contested. Starting off by stating the two as parallel could cause confusion for the reader when reading on. -Bmwoodwo (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)