Talk:Misogyny/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Politeness and misguided editing of the lede

The following comment about the lead paragraph of Misogyny was left on my Talk page recently, and since it's about content in this article, I'd like to add it here where other editors can see it, and respond if they wish:

Copy of comment originally at User talk:Mathglot#Politeness and misguided editing of the lede.

You wrote that no editor should muck around with the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH on a gender-related topic portected by DS sanctions without first discussing it at the Talk page, apparently referring to me [[1]]. I don't know if you are familiar with WP:BOLD, but that applies to the article in question. Your edit reads "It is a form of sexism used to keep women at a lower social status". While this may well be a valid point of view, might I politely point out to you that the lede is supposed to reflect the body of the article, which currently mentions "status" exactly once, attributing the view to Kate Manne. If you think that this is wrong, you should first edit the body, rather than just inserting the claim in the second sentence of the lede. Best wishes ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 16:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@L'Origine du monde:, thanks for your comment. I've moved the discussion here per WP:TALK, so other interested editors may participate if they wish. Regarding your point about WP:BOLD:
  • You are exactly right: editing guidelines encourage BOLD attempts to improve articles. As you have seen already in this article and perhaps others, BOLD changes don't always meet universal agreement from other editors, especially in controversial topics. WP:CONSENSUS is how we collaboratively decide how best to improve an article, and finding consensus happens here on the article Talk page. (That's why I moved your comment here.)
  • Note that the WP:BOLD guideline says right in the introduction (bold in the original): Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted and goes on to link the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle; we're past the B and R, and now we are Discussing, so it's all proceeding as it should.
Regarding your point about "your [i.e., my] edit": the sentence "It is a form of sexism used to keep women at a lower social status" and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY:
  • Totally agree. This was not "my edit", in the sense that I didn't compose any of the words; I restored the brief, two-sentence paragraph from an older version of the article (rev 1043366131 of 18:54, 9 September by User:-sche) in which the lead taken as a whole was much better than the most recent version. That doesn't mean I agree with everything in that version, and you've identified the part that I also find most problematic. However, I didn't want to start out by imposing my own words, maybe leading to an edit war where everybody tries to stuff their own, preferred, wording into the article. What I mean is, the restored revision is not my choice of wording, it's just a version that is better (imho) and that had WP:CONSENSUS for a period of time, and so is a worthy jumping-off point from which we can try to make it better. It sounds like you and I both would start by altering that sentence, and even for the very reason you identified: it does not sufficiently follow content already in the body of the article. How would you alter it to improve it? Would you remove the sentence entirely?
As far as "inserting the claim", as previously noted, I haven't "inserted" anything; I've merely recovered a previous version that had CONSENSUS. If anyone is doing "inserting" lately, it's you; because since my one edit earlier today, you've added another 37 edits to the body, and I can barely keep up; I wonder if other watchers are, too. All I changed was a very brief portion of the lead, and meanwhile the article is going through wholesale changes. I hope some of the other regulars weigh in about that, too (maybe in a separate section).
On another LEAD issue: User:JayPlaysStuff added a definition of philogyny to the lead paragraph in this edit, but it looks like someone has removed it again. Jay, in my opinion, this doesn't belong in the lead, and certainly not in the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH. I question whether it belongs in the article at all, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I removed philogyny because the word has very little usage, so little relevance. I moved misandry to the final lead paragraph because otherwise too much significance is given to it.
Regarding the problem of not enough discussion of the status of women, of course the fix is to add more in the article body. We could certainly benefit from a "Background" section talking about the rise of patriarchy with its reduction in the status of women. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

A quick look at this page reveals repeated criticism by non-involved editors.

I do not understand the repeated insertion of claims about the meaning of misogyny that are not supported by the body of the article, and indeed are contradicted by elements within it. If claims which are only attributed in the body to particular people are to appear in the lede, why do you object to attributing them to those people, unless and until the body reflects the POV you wish to see in the lede? Neither do I understand criticism of my edits to the article based solely on their quantity.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 18:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

For those that did not see my recent version of the lede, I attributed the views attributed to Manne and Dworkin and followers in the lede to Mann and Dworkin and followers. I do not understand why this is problematic. It is clear that the lede is currently far from the accurate reflection of the contents of the article it should be. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 18:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that should read I attributed the views attributed to Manne and Dworkin and followers in the body to them in the lede. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 18:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If you feel that the lead does not adequately reflect the body of the article, that is indeed a problem that should be addressed. I wouldn't object to someone adding an {{Improve lead}} banner to the lead with an appropriate |reason= parameter. As far as attribution is concerned, views attributed to individuals in the body don't always need to have the attribution repeated in the lead, because the lead is a summary of the most important points of the body; it's a judgment call in each case. In the end, CONSENSUS determines what is most important and what belongs in the LEAD. Mathglot (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The main problem is that we are not giving the topic enough background and foundational material to establish the strength of the consensus view. Such a view exists despite the article's patchwork composition. I think it is a misguided effort to remove the impression of scholarly consensus in the lead section by dividing the mainstream view into views held by this scholar or that one, making it seem that only those people hold those positions. It belittles the views; it's not appropriate for the topic.
At some point, the idea that the lead section must summarize the article body has to bow to the inadequacy of the article body. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Actually, you raise an excellent point. That only emphasizes WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY all the more, and I agree that we should perhaps suspend, or at least de-emphasize, discussion of the lead until the body is improved. Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Are the scholars you refer to all feminists? If so what is the problem with attributing the views to feminists, or to the individual feminists cited? Dworkin, especially, seems almost universally credited with creating a new concept of misogyny. If you want a different article, write a different article. The lede should summarise the article body, not contradict it or make wild claims that are not supported by the body of the article. If people are too lazy to edit the body of the article they should, in my opinion, refrain from imposing their POV in the lede alone. There seems to be an argument here that the consensus among people who can only be bothered to edit the lede should somehow triumph by brute force over reason and Wikipedia policy.

♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 19:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Annother example - "Women who reject subordination are punished by misogyny. " The body firmly attributes this use to Dworkin and her contemporaries. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 20:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That sentence should be removed immediately. It is absolutely *not okay* to have that sentence in the lead in Wikipedia's voice unquoted and unattributed, as if it were the majority opinion of all reliable sources, which it clearly is not. At the very least, it would need to be enclosed in double-quotes and attributed specifically to Dworkin with in-text attribution, but that's only if it's deemed sufficiently important to repeat in the lead, which would come from demonstrating it's importance in the body of the article first. User:Tgm1024 already complained about this in the section above; I agree with their essential point of view with respect to that sentence, even if not with its tone. Mathglot (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Please do that ASAP! That is why I attributed everything in the lede, after the first sentence which is supported by a multitude of reliable sources, to Feminists, as a first step towards a sensible lede. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 20:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I still don't understand the second sentence "Misogyny is a form of sexism used to keep women at a lower social status than men." If this is so important to the article that it needs to be the second sentence in the lede, why is it only mentioned once briefly in the body of the article? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 20:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If you don't agree with it either, why not just delete it? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 20:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You revealed your hand when you said "Are the scholars you refer to all feminists?" Topic scholars are topic scholars, no matter their personal beliefs. Scholars are always the highest possible sources. We are not going to reduce their status to that of partisan critics of patriarchy. We are not going to gut this article to suit reactionary viewpoints from the manosphere. It must and will continue to represent the foremost scholarship in the literature. Binksternet (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Binksternet I don't understand your reference to card playing. My interest is in improving the encyclopedia. If a particular concept is used in a technical way that differs from the general understanding by a group of people, surely it is just and reasonable for Wikipedia to identify that use as such. Your last comment strongly suggests that you are unable to approach this subject with a WP:NPOV. As far as I can understand, you have no intention of improving the article itself, but I hope you prove me wrong. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 23:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If misogyny is a form of sexism, as currently claimed in the second sentence of the lede, why is it also only mentioned a couple of times in passing in sexism ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 23:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

False equivalence. Sexism takes many forms, and misogyny is only one of them.
It's clear that you are picking apart the article based not on a broad base of understanding but by the method of wikilawyering—trying to find cracks where you can work it apart and reduce it, using policies and guidelines as the excuse. If you were well-read on the topic you would be suggesting methods by which the topic coverage could be strengthened, expanded, brought more in line with mainstream thinking and scholarship. But that's not your aim, is it? Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why you repeatedly verbosely attack me rather than improving the article yourself. I am not trying to pick the article apart, but to improve it generally - do you like the illustrations I added? - and make the lede something less of a joke. 

♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 00:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why the third paragraph starts "In feminist thought, misogyny also includes the rejection of feminine qualities". Unless I am mistaken, "In feminist thought" applies to almost everything in the lede after the first sentence. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 00:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how many times we have to explain to you that the basics of misogyny are a mainstream consensus, not a niche feminist view. Jno.skinner (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
L'Origine du monde, please list the books you are using as sources. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I am using the article as a source for the lede, and the sources I cited as references for my edits to the article. If there are books you would like to use as sources for additions to the article, please do so. If these basics are so evident to you, please add them to the body of the article before adding them to the lede. Are you asserting that misogyny has no meaning outside of feminism? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 02:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

To return to the article, at the moment status is mentioned twice in the lede, but only once in the body, attributed to Kate Manne in the Definitions section. If status is important to you, and especially if you have relevant books, please edit the article accordingly. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 02:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

rev 1049665167

User:Binksternet I reverted your recent edit because, rather than adding new material to the body first and summarising it in the lede you just added it to the lede. I would like to add that your edit to the lede claimed that misogyny was practiced by men, which ignored the material in the body showing that it is also practiced by women. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 10:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, no. I added material to the body and the lead section, to bring the article closer to a description matching the mainstream consensus views of scholars.
The number of women who practice misogyny is far outstripped by the number of men. This fact isn't even challenged by the people who focus on women's misogyny. Binksternet (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I find this version to be an improvement, though I haven't done full due-weight checking based on section content of the article, but hopefully I'll get to that. Here's a convenience copy of the lead as it stands now:
Lead of the article as of rev. 1049665167 of 03:46, 13 October 2021

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is hatred or contempt for women. Misogyny has been widely practiced by men throughout the world for thousands of years, as reflected in art, literature, human societal structure and historical events. Misogyny is rooted in men's conflicting feelings: men's existential dependence on women for procreation, and men's fear of women's power over them in their times of male weakness, contrasted against the deep-seated needs of men for the love, care and comfort of women—a need that makes the men feel vulnerable.[1]

Misogyny is a form of sexism used to keep women at a lower social status than men, to maintain the societal roles of patriarchy.[2] Examples of misogyny include sexual harassment and violence against women which includes domestic violence, and in its most extreme forms, femicide and misogynist terrorism. Misogyny also operates through coercion and psychological techniques aimed at controlling women, and by legally or socially excluding women from full citizenship. In some cases, misogyny rewards women for accepting an inferior status.

In feminist thought, misogyny also includes the rejection of feminine qualities. It holds in contempt institutions, work, hobbies, or habits associated with women. It rejects any aspects of men that are seen as feminine or unmanly. When directed against LGBT people, it may take the forms of homophobia and transmisogyny. Racism and other prejudices may reinforce and overlap with misogyny. Misogyny can be understood both as an attitude held by individuals and as a widespread cultural custom or system.

Misogyny has been found in mythology, philosophy, and religion worldwide. According to the Oxford English Dictionary the English word "misogyny" was coined in the middle of the 17th century from the Greek misos ‘hatred’ + gunē ‘woman’.[3] The word was rarely used until it was popularized by second wave feminism in the 1970s. The hatred associated with misogyny is one-sided; there is no equivalent counterpart in women hating men simply for their gender, no widespread practice of misandry (the hatred of men) observed in all societies and all eras.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Gilmore, David D. (2001). Misogyny: The Male Malady. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 1–16. ISBN 0-8122-3589-4.
  2. ^ Manne, Kate (2019). Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny. Ithaca, New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190604981.
  3. ^ https://www.lexico.com/definition/misogyny
One thing I would change, though: in the first paragraph, I would move the last sentence ("Misogyny is rooted in...") to the last paragraph, based on the 5 Ws hierarchy. Questions of "what", "when" and so on are more easily established by sources as matters of fact, than a "why" analysis, which, imho, should be presented in last place; vaguely in line with Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section#Content and structure. In the end, it should be based on to what extent that "why" description is given in reliable sources; i.e., if it's nearly universal, then I don't have a problem in moving it up higher. Mathglot (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Good point! There's also an opportunity to mention the fact that some women participate in misogyny, in league with men. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I think this edit by PBZE was a definite improvement, for exactly the reason we're talking about here, and also for what they wrote in the edit summary. PBZE, congrats on a good job on your first edit at this article; please feel free to look over this discussion, as well as other discussions on this page regarding improvement of the lead (or anything else); your thoughts would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree. The removed text is not central to a definition of misogyny so not appropriate for the first paragraph. And though it is a somewhat-common assertion about the origin of misogyny, I don't think it is a clear enough consensus that it should be in Wikipedia's voice. Jno.skinner (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to everybody for your careful consideration. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I think the second sentence "Misogyny has been widely practiced.." should be moved down a few paragraphs with the other when/where parts of the lead, leaving a what description as the second sentence. Agree/disagree? Jno.skinner (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Would you consider swapping the second and third sentences? I am partial to telling the reader as soon as possible that misogyny is active, widespread, with ancient roots. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, I can see why. I made "Misogyny has been widely practiced.." the third sentence and moved up some info that fits with it. Generally tried to organize so that similar topics are together in the lead. Jno.skinner (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of 'Woman Hater' into Misogyny

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus to merge. Looks like this has already done, but closing this as a formality. —AFreshStart (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a POV fork. It already intersects with the target article FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Support: Some of the content duplicates that in Misogyny and may even have been copied in part. Eagleash (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support The terms and concepts are synonymous. Jno.skinner (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above. ––FormalDude talk 02:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RouBa1998.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wiki811pedia, Mvmarsha. Peer reviewers: SumayyahGhori, Lshane23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2022

90.241.176.204 (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Please can you take out this lie " Islam promoted patriarchal societal structures, and used misogyny to keep women at a lower status"

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Wording of "form of sexism" sentence

"It is a form of sexism used to keep women at a lower social status than men, thus maintaining the societal roles of patriarchy."

Firefangledfeathers - I disagree with your comment that "that misogyny adversely affects women's social status in patriarchies is pretty basic stuff, almost tautologically true", not because I disagree with the sentiment, but because I don't think what you wrote is what this says. The word that raises my eyebrow the most is "used", because unlike what you wrote, it implies that there exists a patriarchy that uses misogyny in order to achieve an objective, intent and actors implied. I imagine this is the thesis of many texts, but I don't think it is basic to a layperson or tautological, it sounds drenched in the language of feminist theory. "It is a form of sexism that adversely affects women's social status in patriarchies." I would have trouble finding issue with, except maybe that I personally think it probably adversely affects their social status outside of patriarches, but nobody's probably had much reason to write that. Kuralesache (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Your construction—"adversely affects women's social status"—is a whitewash. The intro should say that misogyny has certainly been used to reduce and maintain women at a lower status in the great majority of the world's societies. The reader must know within a very few sentences that misogyny is extremely pervasive, extremely widespread, basically the elephant in the room. I can see that everything you are doing here and at the misandry article is designed to undermine the scholarly definitions. I can only conclude that you are here for ideological purposes, not interested in neutrality. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Vague use of "widely" in the lede

"Misogyny has been widely practiced for thousands of years." I understand that the use of "widely" alone doesn't make it a weasel word, but this seems like an obvious case where there ought to be a list of cultures or people that practiced patriarchy, or a more concrete statement such as "in every culture". The tag I placed to indicate this was reverted. Kuralesache (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The guideline WP:LEAD says that the lead section should be a summary of the article body. In the case of this article, the term "widely" in the lead section summarizes the article body text. The article body text describes all the parts of the world that one could call civilized as practicing misogyny. The top three religions, just about every place. Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the word "widely" is nearly an adequate summary. Looking at other articles of things that have been practiced throughout history, such as Slavery, Genocide, Genocide of Indigenous Peoples there are concrete examples and statistics in the lede. "Widely" is not a summary, it's just vague. Kuralesache (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
An interesting critique, but, I'm not sure how to make it more concrete. The article about slavery cites a specific number of people currently subject to slavery, but, I don't see that there's a specific number of people involved in misogyny. Further, I don't see how generalizations like "in every culture" could ever be established, because there aren't a definite number of cultures and many historical cultures are little understood. The best I can think of would be something like "misogyny is attested in writing from cultures around the world for thousands of years" but I'm not sure if that's better.Jno.skinner (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Widespread, extensive, global, ubiquitous, nearly universal... Misogyny is huge, found almost everywhere in almost every culture. The word "widely" is appropriate, even though it is not specific or exact. The lead section is not for concrete examples; it's supposed to be a general summary. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
If there are no sources for it being widely practiced, then it's not an appropriate sentence for the article at all. It would be drawing our own conclusions to judge what it means to be "widely" practiced. If it's difficult to back that statement up, that's not a reason to include it, but I don't think it would be hard to find sources for it. I will make an attempt. Kuralesache (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Are you purposely being dense? I said it doesn't need to be cited. It's a summary of the article body text. You don't need to look for sources for "widely". Of course you are free to search through and perhaps read the literature about the topic. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Hold on, there is no need for that. Widely is certainly a vague term. What difference does the sentence make without the word. i.e Misogyny has been practiced for thousands of years. Aircorn (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Although I think "widely" is a simple and accurate summary, I will grant that not very much is lost if the word is removed because the surrounding text also pretty well establishes that it is widely practiced.Jno.skinner (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I've re-added the "by whom" tag. The point that the word "widely" is expanded in the body of the article does not appear to be relevant to any precedent or guidelines. The guideline is rather simple: "Use this tag when no specific examples of identifiable individuals or groups are named who could be used to verify the statements or beliefs that appear in the tagged passage of the article." Refrain from removing the tag until a source or specific examples are added to the tagged passage, or you have cited a guideline in this thread that leads you to believe vagueness is to be preferred. Kuralesache (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Per other users above, the word "widely" is entirely appropriate. The extent of misogyny in the world at various times is near impossible to quantify (how would one even start?) but sources agree that it is common over a range of times and places. A "by whom" tag is not appropriate here as nothing included in WP:WEASEL is relevant to the discussion at hand, please do not reinstate. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
"Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." This is as perfect a fit for this definition as you can find. Regarding the idea that it's expanded in the article body, to imply that "Abrahamic religions and some tribes" is synonymous with "widely" is not serious. Either the body of the article or the passage in question needs to be expanded. That this kind of ideological stonewalling of providing detail on topics deemed sensitive is encouraged by so many on this site is disgusting. You're afraid that someone will come along and improve the article, and why? What do you tell yourselves the reason is? Kuralesache (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I foresee that these will be some of the last edits I get to make on Wikipedia, so I'll just say for whatever wants to butt heads with these editors next time this is noticed: If someone pegs you as belonging to a group they don't think belongs on Wikipedia, you will be dogpiled, your edits will be watched, and people will mass revert you to discourage your participation. The articles in this area seem unsalvageable in the face of these groups, as I'm not sure any editor can match the rabidity of this moral righteousness. I care about wikipedia but I don't think my belief will ever sit deeply enough to match the need of people to avoid nuance on subjects they've attached their identity to, and frankly though I understand the goal is to discourage me from editing, I cannot help but be discouraged anyway. If obvious and basic improvements are stonewalled like this, imagine if we actually got to something contentious. It would take me decades to push anything through. My will to participate in a community so unable to further their own stated goals has been successfully crushed, congratulations to the trolls. Kuralesache (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The only one coming close to trolling here is you, Kuralesache. Please stop restoring the tag that is unnecessary. ––FormalDude talk 23:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The tag obviously belongs there, as has been explained many times over. Special treatment towards this page is insane, unjustifiable, and I am asking you to ban me so that the process can come to its natural conclusion. It's in the hands of someone with infinitely more patience than me now. Kuralesache (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The body text states "nearly every human society contains evidence of misogyny", then gives evidence of its existence in many places over thousands of years. This more than justifies the use of "widely practiced for thousands of years". Something specific is clearly being said here, and it follows the body. As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure what you feel you are being persecuted for here, but I have no interest in whatever your political views are. I just go through wikipedia resolving or removing incorrectly applied "by whom" tags, like the one you are edit-warring into this page. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2022

The statement "...and misandry is a minor issue, not equivalent to the widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny." is an erroneous opinion that both exaggerates the prevalence of misogyny and denies & denigrates the lived experience of those who have suffered under misandry. As well, misandry is a growing problem, as can be seen by the steadily increasing numbers of women (..and even some men!) publicly calling not for equality, but for their abuse of men to be excused and men to be punished or even *killed* merely for being men. Please either remove this statement entirely or rephrase it to say something more accurate like "Some believe that misandry is a minor issue and is not equivalent to the believed widespread practice and extensive history of misogyny."

Thank you. KeithFromCanada (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Keith, the statement is an accurate summary of the best literature on the topic. You have quite an uphill task ahead of you to get rid of this statement, and replace it with something about how men are suffering significantly. The scope of misandry is so much smaller than misogyny.
Misandry may perceived as "growing" because an increasing number of men find themselves unable to dominate women as women gain social power because of the advances of feminism. But feminism's advances are mainly about establishing equality—reducing or replacing the old male-dominant mode with a situation where the sexes are valued equally. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
" men to be punished or even *killed* merely for being men" Interesting. Any murder statistics about the frequency of such incidents? Dimadick (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2022

The text currently reads, "It is a form of sexism that keeps women at a lower social status than men, thus maintaining the societal roles of patriarchy." This is a blanket statement which isn't entirely accurate, as it is influenced by one particular sexist worldview.

This particular statement should be changed to read, "According to feminists, (or feminism), it is a form of sexism that keeps women at a lower social status than men, thus maintaining the societal roles of patriarchy." By specifying which worldview sees misogyny in this light, the reader is informed more accurately. Another sexist view could be added, such as "Another perspective could see misogyny as a reasonable reaction to women who practice androgyny, or hatred of men. In this case, it is not meant to keep women at a disadvantage, or maintain the patriarchy, but to demonstrate disapproval of the practice of androgyny." A link to androgyny could be included as well. OldKnowItAll (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not done if trolling on Wikipedia gets boring, you're always welcome to create a blog or do something better with your time. —MelbourneStar☆talk 10:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Schopenhauer's Louis

This is about a factual detail in the article, and a tangential one at that, but it vexes me a bit. The subsection on Schopenhauer says that he "blamed women for the fall of King Louis XIII and triggering the French Revolution...". I can't help but think that this is supposed to be Louis XVI who was beheaded during the most famous revolution in France. Louis XIII, on the other hand, was not overthrown and died a natural (though painful) death. Firefangledfeathers assures me that the source for this nugget (I only could access the abstract [2]) indeed says Louis XIII, and I don't doubt that. However, I'm wondering if it could either be a mistake or a typo. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not buff enough on French history to make a call either way, but it appears like an accurate reading. Here's the source itself and here's Schopenhauer's essay. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Firefangledfeathers. I read Schopehauer's essay. The part about Louis comes a few lines from the end and reads: "May it not be the case in France that the influence of women, which went on increasing steadily from the time of Louis XIII., was to blame for that gradual corruption of the Court and the Government, which brought about the Revolution of 1789, of which all subsequent disturbances have been the fruit?"

So Schopenhauer is not saying that the influence of women brought about the downfall of Louis XIII, but rather that the increasing influence of women, beginning with Louis XIII [in the 1600s], was to blame for the Revolution of 1789 [during which Louis XVI was executed]. I'll take a look at what the source used in our article says, but our present wording doesn't accord with Schopenhauer. Goodtablemanners (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I'd support removing the Louis XIII bit. A toe-dip into the sources also makes it weird that we have a whole paragraph about Schopenhauer's misogyny before starting a second with Schopenhauer has also been accused of misogyny for his essay "On Women", despite much of the first paragraph responding to and quoting the essay. Overall, we're likely over-weighting Grimwood's paper. That said, I'm an overt non-expert on all this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I just scanned Grimwood's article and found the factual mistake on Louis XIII. So we should probably eliminate that sentence in our article and the stuff that goes with it. Also, as you said, it doesn't make sense to introduce Schopenhauer's essay to the reader after, rather than before, responding to it and quoting from it. Goodtablemanners (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-02

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Just12inn (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Chumbina.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

the term misogyny

i suggest whoever wrote the definition for misogyny should be evaluated for a biased answer as there should not be "might dislike" "could dislike" in an accurate representation of the meaning and not only that but even with trans people existing misogyny has existed for millennium before any of those mental illness's existed, so i ask for a proper and accurate representation of the meaning misogyny and not something these feminist can piggy back ride with their mental illnesses 2001:8003:E916:DA00:310B:4726:2E24:6181 (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2023

Please add the following on top of the page:

Not to be confused with Misology.

NutronStar45 -- T / C 07:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. It does not seem likely that these two would be confused. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking for citation

hi,sorry for disturbing. I'm not sure if it is approriate to ask the question here, but I did not find the citation for

"In feminist thought, misogyny also includes the rejection of feminine qualities. It holds in contempt institutions, work, hobbies, or habits associated with women. It rejects any aspects of men that are seen as feminine or unmanly. Misogyny may or may not include hate towards LGBT people, in the forms of homophobia and transmisogyny. ", which appeared on the top of the pages.

I'm highly interesed in these argument. Can you share the citation with me? 213.255.247.87 (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The citations for the "trans" part are found lower down. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Nadal, Kevin L., ed. (2017). "Transmisogyny". The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender.
  • Reger, Jo, ed. (2018). Nevertheless, They Persisted: Feminisms and Continued Resistance in the U.S. Women's Movement. Taylor & Francis. Julia Serano [...] coined the term 'trans misogyny' to refer to specific discrimination against trans women and trans people who express femininity. [...] 'transmisogynoir' [can] focus on the violence and discrimination experienced by black and potentially other trans women and trans feminine people of color. This concept builds on Moya Bailey's term 'misogynoir,' which specifically names the intersection of 'racism, antiblackness, and misogyny that black women experience'[.]

Changing Terms

It is shameful that misogyny has been doctored to fit into the current agenda based environment that seeks to change the meaning of all things to serve the liberal ideological scamp. How did LGTB get added to the definition when in essence it has nothing to do with the term and is only inclusive as a means to serving an agenda. Sad people. Sad. 174.232.152.3 (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, circa 2023.2002:620D:3AF:0:E5E8:B957:E689:5485 (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
This would be funny if it wasn't so sad. "Liberal agenda"??? Go back to conservapedia 😂 Ocemccool (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
to see you is coming today is good luck. Hi I m no a woman 2600:1012:B108:5137:AC45:C431:8071:4387 (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I would have used different wording, but he's absolutely right. This entire article has an extremely feminist slant. That's for good reason, but we should have other ethical ideas about misogyny beyond the feminist one, don't you think? Ncfishy (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2023

Remove the feminist thought section about rejecting qualities in men that are unmanly and 'womanly hobbies'. This is not correct for this theory as it is about equality and will cause damage to the concept of feminism from men's opinions. Unnece (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Unnece I have never heard a scholar say that men can be victim misogyny. The source is backing up the claim is an opinion piece, and I think that it is WP:UNDUE for this article to apply the opinion to all feminism. Panamitsu (talk) Please ping on reply 21:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@Unnece Not done as there are multiple sources that back up the claim, although I feel as if the lead paragraph gives these thoughts too much weight. Panamitsu (talk) Please ping on reply 21:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Additionally, please provide reliable sources to support this proposed change, should consensus be reached. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Misogyny/Archive_5&oldid=1222696806"