Talk:Misandry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misandry has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives
AfD | 1 | 2

Contents 1 Nathanson and Young: oracles of misandry 2 Types of misandry and Types of misandrists 3 Causes: fragments for consideration? 4 Types of Misandry: added content 4.1 Sources to help improve article 4.2 POV Check: Potential bias in using Nathanson and Young 5 'pioneering' 6 Source for Misandy and misogny section 7 Shrinkage 8 Wrong, wrong, WRONG! 9 Law section 10 'Politically Correct Bedtime Stories' 11 This article needs to be rewritten

[edit] Nathanson and Young: oracles of misandry

Essentially, this article has a single main source, laying out the views of Nathanson and Young on the subject. Sourcing the great bulk of an article to a single team of writers seems inherently POV to me, especially as the authors' POV is itself so strong. Are they really the only team of writers treating this subject? DanB†DanD 17:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

While this topoic has already been covered above: the overt citations of N&Y have been made in reaction to the constant burden of citation placed upon this particular article. These authors and their work certainly pass the test for scholarly and citable work for wikipedia, whwther your POV goes along with it or not. There is a bibliography for more source material if you would care to peruse it. Jgda 21:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes as far as I can tell they are the only team treating this subject in depth right now. Many female writers like Kipnis or Paglia make passing references to the topic but I know no one else who is researching it systemically. I'm sure others will in time. However, but for now Nathanson and Young do indeed seem to the sole 'oracles' as you call them on misandry. At least they make an exhaustive case with solid evidence from which to begin further research. (drop in editor)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.254.114 (talk • contribs).

I'm sure they're reputable as can be, I just think it's POV that they are essentially the only source for the article. What about the far more notable Christina Hoff Sommers, for example? DanB†DanD 21:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refer me to where in Hoff-Summer's works she deals as directly with misandry as Nathanson and Young do. She has made many criticisms of 'gender' or ideological feminism but I am not familiar with her focus on misandry itself. Thanks (drop in editor)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.254.114 (talk • contribs).

Her book The War Against Boys has misandry (as directed against children) as its central subject. DanB†DanD 23:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I will go check War Against Boys out. Has she written anything on the hatred of men that you know of? (drop in editor)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.254.114 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Types of misandry and Types of misandrists

I added these sections from a summary of Nathanson's and Young's first (of three) comprehensive books on misandry. These sections are an attempt to use concrete sourced content to eliminate the weasel words that other editors have complained about here. My intention is to fill in these sections with brief summaries of each point from N/Y and from other independent authors where applicable. I am no particular fan of N/Y. I do respect them for their systematic attempt to research the full scope of misandry as they see it. Since I know of no other authors who have done such systematic research on misandry, I am using N/Y as the 'seminal' source while we wait for other systemic studies. In the meantime I intend to pull in the POV's of ALL other 'anecodotal' authors, I find who have something to say on this topic. (I hope other editors to do likewise as well). Please refrain from reverts and unsourced edits for a few weeks until we have had time to pull in solid sourced content to flesh these sections out.

As for those editors who see a need to silence, soften or dissemble this controversial but well sourced content, I ask you to follow wiki NPOV policies and source your opposing points of views before you begin reverting, editing with no sources, or just adding your personal opinions. If you have constructive criteria to discuss about anything here, I will be glad to listen but please spare us all the usual totalitarian tactics some ideological feminists (and their flunkies) love to use to squelch opposing points of view. I call your attention to Chessler's brave new book (The Death of Feminism: What's Next in the Struggle for Women's Freedom, Phyllis Chesler, 2006, ISBN 1-4039-6898-5) where she (a committed feminist with forty years fighting in the trenches) calls today's 'good' feminists "cowardly herd animals and grim totalitarian thinkers". Ironically, this is quite similar to the claims that Nathanson and Young have made repeatedly in their research on misandry. Therefore, I hope we will set aside 'purge' politics here and just use the sources along with constructive discussions when we have honest disagreements. (drop in editor)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.111.95.39 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Causes: fragments for consideration?

Some feminists and masculists posit that the "war of the sexes" arising from traditional gender roles and their breakdown are the primary source of both misogyny and misandry.^{[citation needed]}

Some masculists maintain that misandry has been endemic since the 1980s. (Nathanson & Young, 2001, p. 234) stemming from the spread of anti-male feminist advocacy in popular culture, and thus assert that misandry has become a social pathology. Some feminists, however, controversially claim that misogyny is a verifiable social disease, but misandry may not exist at all (Nathanson & Young, 2001, p. 18].—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.111.95.210 (talk • contribs).

well, certainly the ((fact)) before the actual citation needs to be dropped... Jgda 02:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

done (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 21:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Types of Misandry: added content

I used Nathanson and Young to source content I added. This was a fairly quick and dirty stab at trying to summarize what are extremely complex topics in a few short sentences. N/Y's prose is torturous and I was in a hurry so I invite other authors to read their books and correct any mistakes I may have made here. Please do not water down, dissemble, or eliminate the pith in their assertions however. 71.102.254.114 22:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC) (drop in editor)

[edit] Sources to help improve article

Here is an article from PopMatters, which will be useful to cite in improving the page, instead of making unsourced generalizations. After my finals are over, I might be able to improve this page, because I did a research project on this subject a while ago. --SecondSight 04:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Check: Potential bias in using Nathanson and Young

I'm not well-qualified to debate this subject, but a web search of Nathanson and Young suggests they get published by appealing to social conservatives, religious especially. They've taken a stand against gay marriage, for instance.

It might be a good idea to find other, more mainstream researchers to either buttress their opinions or balance them out. Stiffed by Susan Faludi might make a case, for instance.

Personal bias: I really don't see Home Improvement, lad mags and Sex and the City doing much harm to men.

And I'm suspicious that all this whining is a cover for anti-feminism.

Prove me wrong. — edgarde 05:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you use distinct definitions for a start. Antifeminism is a term that refers to those with a disbelief in female equality or a belief in male superiority. It is not a blanket label to character-assassinate all critics of gynocentric-gender ginning, superiority-feminism or female chauvinism. A columnist in BitchFest mentions (UNNAMED) 'antifeminist' organizations but calls Paglia, Hoff-Summers and other prominent feminist critics of female-superiority feminism 'faux feminists' rather than 'antifeminists' which is at least somewhat responsible although she fails to define what a 'faux feminist' is. We cannot play fast and loose with the definitions here. A conservative is not necessarily 'antifeminist' and conservative POV belongs here in NPOV balance as well. What amazes and disgusts me is how many so-called progressives (no offense to any editor here) use the exact same totalitarian tactics to silence opposing POV's that they rightly accuse their conservative enemies of using. I thought progressives were supposed to be the good guys who were open-minded and tolerant of 'diverse' viewpoints. Am I wrong here!? (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that anyone who reads Nathanson & Young more extensively (especially their books on misandry, which is published McGill press, which is neither conservative nor religious) will conclude that they are not conservatives, except for those who think that everyone who criticizes feminism or leftist politics is automatically a conservative. The only problem with the use of Nathanson & Young right now is that the current article is so POV. There is nothing inherently wrong with using sources with strong views, as long as these views are summarized in a NPOV manner. As I mentioned above, when I have time, I will incorporate other views on misandry (including feminist ones). I would like to use Susan Faludi on this page; the problem is that I don't think she ever uses the term "misandry," so citing her would be original research (the only way we could work it in is to cite someone who uses the term misandry and discusses Faludi's views). --SecondSight 07:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that misandry is so vaguely defined in this article — "hatred of men" can be interpreted in various broad ways — so that statements using the term become non-falsifiable. If we were talking about "cultural stereotypes & prejudices against men" or "maladapted gender role expectations" or "those wacky damn feminists", then whatever clearly matched that description in (for instance) Faludi's book would be useful here, regardless of what terminology Stiffed used. Furthermore, opinions could be evaluated logically and subject to criticism.

No offense but I beg differ here. This article and the misogyny article use distinct dictionary definitions. I am not sure how much more clear we can be here. (I do have a concern with the POV definition creep statement about 'feminist theory' in misogyny but that is just the usual fascist (as opposed to other form of feminism) feminist stunt to expand definitions to absurd extremes beyond commonly accepted definitions for political 'activism').

Of course, I hope there will be opposing viewpoints to any research about misandry and misogyny but unless and until those credible sources appear we need to use what we have. Every statement is falsifiable with logical sourced criticism. However, I rarely see responsible logical criticisms in highly loaded topics related to male-female relations. Instead I see personal assassinations, doublespeak definitions and a host other totalitarian tactics used to silence, censor, and ridicule politically incorrect people and their points of view. We need to do better here. (drop in editor)209.129.49.65 04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am against interpreting other authors works unless they use words like man-hatred or scorn for men with could be logically defined as misandry as shown in the dictionary. There are plenty of authors who (anecdotally) speak about the hatred or scorn of men. We need to bring their perspectives in here where possible to add to N/Y's systematic study of misandry. However to imagine that we can (on our own) decide what is and what isn't misandry seems to be POV original research to me. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 21:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As this article stands, whoever uses the term misandry in a book, after providing maybe a few historical examples to show how intellectual they are, can then point to whatever irks them and call it "misandry", without ever risking criticism. Because they really aren't saying very much.

Practically everything bad that happens to men can be attributed to misandry, if one wants to make that their ideological starting point. — edgarde 08:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the many ideas surrounding misogyny as a more mature case study, if it helps. This is not something that can be nailed down like 2 + 2, and certainly Popper's ideas of unfalsifiability would not render it a science, although I'm not sure anyone is making that claim. Likewise, taking individual examples of cultural trappings that theorists maintain are examples of misogyny is very easy to do for the purpose of ridicule and quick dismissal without actually engaging with the topic. None of the individual examples particularly hurt men: the theory is that these are sympotmatic, not causal. Read N&Y if you're genuinely interested. The idea is we are trying to include all the elements of the concept that currently exist for the purpose of an article, whether you or I agree with it or not. Then we see a conservative/liberal dichotomy thrown up, as though people who identify themselves as the latter would not automatically place those with N&Ys views as being the former, and then synonymically 'anti-feminist', no matter how they went about their business. Jgda 02:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Can we leave out the Communist Dog/Capitalist Pig dichtomy here unless it is actually relevant? Let us focus on the arguments, relevance, and methods of research instead. Rintrah 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If N+Y say that "they believe that 'political correctness', academic deconstructionism and what they call 'fronts' are strategies used by feminist ideologues to "make the world safe" for promoting a misandric worldview," then they are clearly pretty biased.

Instead of N+Y, why don't we actually hear from the supposed misandrists? And I don't mean more quote mining. What we need is a discussion of the debates within feminism about misandry. Who is pro, who is con, what is their reasoning, what they have done about it. When you look at, say, the Klu Klux Klan article, you don't find a string of quotes from anti-KKK polemics. There is an actual description of the KKK, its adherents, its history and its ideology. If even an organization like the KKK can get that sort of treatment on wikipedia, why can't misandry? 07:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'pioneering'

On the one hand, the article is attacked for being too new and not having enough weight behind it; on the other, referring to the foremost researchers as 'pioneering' is sneered at... (not that I think the word is that important, and can certainly remain removed, it's just interesting to see how the criticisms bob around in the current...)Jgda 03:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction between saying that the article needs more than one source and deleting the word "pioneering." Pioneering implies (among other things) that their research is correct.

12:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not true. No denotation of "pioneer" implies a correct form of inquiry (see definition in the American Heritage dictionary). The word, however, does have positive connotations, as in "heroic". Interestingly, it comes from a Middle French word meaning "foot soldier". I agree with Jdga in that he knows more than one source would be better, but without anyone else researching the article, one source is better than none. Rintrah 15:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I said "implies" rather than "denotes." Am I a pioneer if I'm the first person to research something that doesn't exist? Could someone be the pioneer of invisible unicorn studies? Even if we're willing to give them the benefit of the doubt-- are they in fact pioneers? Is there a school of researchers citing them and following them in their footsteps? And, anyway, are they really among the first people to study alleged misandry? (I hope this doesn't sound like kettle logic.) 05:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)~

Would you say that Marx definitely did not pioneer his form of socialist theory? His predictions of the proletariat burning down factories everywhere have not been borne out. "Could someone be the pioneer of invisible unicorn studies?" Possibly. I suppose a researcher collecting folktales of invisible unicorns and delineating a theory of them could be "pioneering" such a study. (If such exists, I should greatly like to read it). "Pioneer", however, would sound lofty in both the Marxist and invisible unicorn context. I would not use it because its connotations are incongruous with the subject-matter. By denotation, I meant form of the word. It is difficult to draw a connection from each definition to the implication that such a study the word describes must be correct. I do not know much about research into misandry. I know it exists, and Nathason and Young are not the only researches, but I have no idea of its breadth. Anyway, whether the word "pioneer" is in the article or not is unimportant. By the way, what is kettle logic? Rintrah 08:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Kettle logic is a Freudian term where every argument possible is used against the target question, even if they contradict each other. All that matters is that the target is destroyed by any means. As in: they're not pioneers since that makes them seem grand, and how can you be a pioneer of something that doesn't exist, and anyway, nobody is really taking any notice of them, since they're so political and that, and are they really the first to do it anyway? Think Vicki Pollard from 'Little Britain'... Yean but no but yeah but no... Jgda 02:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the entertaining description. I see how kettle logic is useful for describing certain arguments. Now if you don't mind, I'm going to put on the kettle and pour hot water over someone's argument. Rintrah 06:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the editor to used 'pioneering' here to describe Nathanson and Young's work because they seem to be the only (so-called) post-modern misandry researchers who are doing a wide and systematic study of the topic. Therefore I consider their work 'pioneering' because it describes new forms of post-modern misandry that did not exist before post-modern misandric forms of feminism became a foundation for popular (to N/Y) misandry. I would consider Marx a failed 'pioneer' whose work has been widely discredited. I thought about 'seminal' but I doubt that N/Y are the first people to write about misandry (like Adam Smith in economics or Rawls in justice) so I tried 'pioneering' instead. The discussions above are interesting and educational. However, I, for one, am not to attached to the usage of 'pioneering'. Maybe we could use 'recent' or 'modern' to characterize N/Y. 209.129.49.65 03:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)(drop in editor)

[edit] Source for Misandy and misogny section

I added a section sourced from Hoff Sommmer's Who Stole Feminism (Chapter 12: The Gender Wardens) to show how misandry becomes misogyny. I refer other editors to the opening pages of this chapter for a fuller treatment illustrated with a vivid example of jeering at men. I welcome suggestions on how to better show this complex paradox. (drop in editor) 209.129.49.65 04:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks drop in editor. You have been very helpful (have you thought about getting an account?). It is useful to increase the number of sources of the article. I should warn you, though, since this article is seemingly constantly under criticism, your section will probably be the target of criticism later. Thank you for consulting another source. Rintrah 13:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I will think about getting an account but I am afraid of the usual totalitarian tactics that Chessler shows well in The Death of Feminism and that I see many brave but niave earlier editors have faced in the feminism discussion pages. As for criticisms of this content, I have no problem as long as they are well-sourced, reasonably constructive and well-balanced. I insist on a single standard that applies to ALL related articles on these politically loaded topics. For example, misogyny also needs some serious work to tighten the definition expansions, correct absurd analogies and make distinct distinctions between women-hate and other things. I hope all editors who weigh in here will be balanced with their concerns, use reasonable (sourced) discussions to decide issues and be honest enough to use the same standards everywhere. I wish I could bring in many other sources but as you probably know misogyny is covered exhaustively and taken seriously while misandry is rarely mentioned and usually trivialized in PC academia and the PC media. However, I have and I will try as much as possible to pull in diverse (anecodotal) sources where possible to supplement or oppose Nathanson and Young's research. I personally disagree with some of N/Y POV's (such as being soft on male (or by extension female) pedophiles) but I believe they deserve to be represented here (as they assert THEIR case) because they have done some solid systemic research on the topic. To those who are tempted to try to criticize this content because I drew heavily from N/Y I ask them to notice that I pulled in at least three independent anecdotal sources already and there are many other anecdotal sources available. I also ask that they review the discussions above about N/Y and welcome them to bring other wide scoped studies of misandry to the party here. Thanks for your warning. I will watch this page and be prepared respond to constructive concerns. Thanks for your thanks too. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 04:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's great, but could you cite the source in the text of the article? Jgda 20:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am a neophyte here so would you be willing to show me how you would like me to cite this source in the text? This content was sourced from page 256 of the paperback version of Who Stole Feminism. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 18:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shrinkage

Is there any way we could shrink this article some? As it is, it's about twice as long as the sexism article which includes prejudice against men as well as women, transexuals, etc. Given that misandry is described as a relatively new phenomenon with few researchers working on it, this is a pretty big article and most of it seems to be lists of examples or proofs of misandry. I say for starters the literature section should be slashed entirely unless someone can come up with sources and context. 06:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I found both the "Misandry in literature" and the "Misandry in popular culture" sections relevant and useful and add much in providing examples of misandry. I would recommend they remain. Manumit 16:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The useful analytical sections should remain. If anything, this article should be expanded even more to go beyond mainly examples of misandry and include even more analysis of the phenomenon itself. --HarmonicFeather 01:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the editors about keeping these sections. From my scans of the misandry research, misandry is an extremely complex topic that has many confusing paradoxes. I would expect this article to be longer than the sexism article. For instance, Nathanson and Youngs research is exhaustive and very difficult to condense into clear sentences. Maybe we can establish the core content which IMO is far from complete and then condense but not delete sections after discussion. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.110 06:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The literature section would be fine if it actually discussed misandry in literature. All it seems to do is try to make a case that these authors (or, at least, these statements) are misandrous. If you do a little googling on the authors, it becomes clear that most of them are radical feminists but they also include a porn star (who, to my knowledge, hasn't written anything) and a Romance novelist. Are Andrea Dworkin, a Romance novelist, and a porn star all on the same page? This section doesn't tell us but I can give you a hint: no. I say we delete it until someone can write up an actual description of how misandry functions in literature. 02:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I spoke too soon. Altporn actress Joanna Angel started writing a column for Spin Magazine in June. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.164.77.105 (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

There used to be more discussion (not enough - required expansion), but it got chipped back when the kettle was leaning in a different direction. On the one hand expositionary material gets deleted since so many warriors disagree with it (while perversly demanding NPOV) and then, once it's been watered down, whole sections are called for being deleted since there's not enough exposition to go along with the directly quoted material. Bizarre but not unexpected: and perhaps the fundamental weakness of Wikipedia generally and why I and every other academic I know refuse to allow it any academic credentials whatsoever. And while we could argue the literary merits of various people and their worth to the world of letters, it gotta tell you: welcome to postmodernity and the notion of the social text... The answer is no longer 'no' my friend. The answer is always: 'maybe'. Jgda 04:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong, wrong, WRONG!

Much of the content on this page is not NPoV (most of it is against misandry) while most of the page has comments from a single source that point out things that they say are wrong, when most of the criticisms of men shown on this page really do apply to most, if not all males. --Pichu0102 19:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say certainly an overreaction — this comment in one direction and much of the article in the opposite. Agree with comment in so far as not all criticisms of men should be considered misandry, otherwise the term has almost no meaning. — edgarde 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Man-hate and man-scorn seem to fit the definition here. For example, Nathanson and Young make a distinction between balanced sex-nuetral humor and blatantly biased reverse-sexist humor in Spreading Misandry. There are also degrees of severity within both misandry and misogyny. However, I agree with you that we need to delete content that has no sourced or stated connection to the stated definitions. (drop in editor)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.102.254.114 (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Oh good, a dramatist. I don't know how it could be any less against misandry without advocating it (which appears to be your goal, so well said...). There is no longer a single source directly quoted, and the bibliography it draws from is extensive. Thanks for at least honestly revealing your opinion of 'most, if not all males'. It gives your comments a certain context. Jgda 04:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. I'm male and even I see that most of the criticisms of men in this article are true. What does that say? --Pichu0102 13:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You hate yourself and your male peers? You are significantly alienated?... Rintrah 13:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the subject at hand? --Pichu0102 20:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It might say that Nathanson and Youngs assertions about the power of mass media and popular culture to Spread Misandry are valid. However, I also believe that as a man it might be possible to hate some of the steoreotypical aspects of modern day manhood especially where so-called 'real' men become robotized killing, money-making, or performance-sex machines as in Maxim magazine or whatever. I welcome other sourced POV's on this topic where misandry comes from men who are not superiority-feminist flunkies...NO PERSONAL OFFENSE TO ANY EDITOR HERE. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 18:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. You might as well post: "Hitler's criticisms of the Jews are valid." You have to presuppose men really are abominable per se to take such an opinion seriously. Rintrah 06:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Except Hitler had a bunch of Jewish people killed, while all I'm tring to do is point out that some of the criticisms are valid while the articel says their not. There's a big difference between genocide of a religion and points out flaws that men have. Oh, and nice job invoking Godwin's Law there. --Pichu0102 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that they are invalid: it holds them up as examples of misandry at varying levels. Hatred is sometimes valid. How we validate hatred is an interesting sociological study which goes beyond the scope of this article. Certainly I've met people who believe they are perfectly valid in their misandry. KKK members believe in the validity of their hatreds. Perceived validity could be considered a pre-requisite for hatred. How it is ever possible to criticise such a large collective as men or women in such a way I'll leave up to other articles. Regarding your opinion of males/men (whether you are male or a man: there is a long-standing tradition of women being accused of misogyny...) and how much you agree with some of the evaluations, to echo your comment above: what does that have to do with the subject at hand? The subject is misandry and examples of gross sex-based generalization that have a degree of social acceptablity are valid examples of this in action according to the theorists quoted. It's how misogyny is also often explored by sociologists. Jgda 01:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Law section

I broke out a section within which to study misandry in law. Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men; Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal, 2006; ISBN 0-7735-2862-8 is quite a large and exhaustively researched book on this topic. I hope to be able to show the basic themes in this section rather than list all the specific laws that are believed to be misandric. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.110 06:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great. Your work so far has been much appreciated. Jgda 20:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Your discussions here are also much appreciated as they keep POV issues within some sort of reasonable bounds. Since I am a neophyte I welcome any additional suggestions you might have about citing or whatever that could help me keep things clean. Thanks for popping in the Hoff Sommers citation. (drop in editor) 128.111.95.217 05:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Politically Correct Bedtime Stories'

From my impression of the blurbs on this book, the material appears to be lampooning political correctness by taking it to an absurd extreme. While the points being raised here are examples of misandric content, reference to this particular book's ironic response to misandry within the confines of modern political correctness reference, should be made to this in the article text. Jgda 20:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs to be rewritten

I would like to improve the article, but I think it would be better if I simply rewrote most of it. It's on a very important subject, but currently the article is simply a mess of NPOV violations and original research. Since I have already done a research project on the concept for school, I have the resources to rewrite the article. I have read both Spreading Misandry and Legalizing Misandry extensively, and I think I can summarize the views of Nathanson and Young more accurately than the page currently does. Also, I think I will be able to satisfy those who ask for a critique of the concept of "misandry," because I have found a couple scholarly articles that do so. Does anyone either approve or object to me rewriting most of the article, say, within the next month or so? Speak now. --SecondSight 07:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Write the article on a separate page, say User:SecondSight/Misandry, and others will review it. I think everyone here would welcome more sources than we have now. As for the critique, it is fine if it satisfies the relevant criteria; so it should not be the length of the rest of the article, for instance. Perhaps if you write the article on a separate page, and have others collaborate with you when you are ready, this revision could be done; though it is probably best you do not erase the page and replace it with your own. Let us see what the others say. Rintrah 08:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a separate page is really needed as long as any new information is well-cited. If anyone restores something that looks OR, I think the fair approach to take would be to drop a {{fact}} tag on the offending assertion and give them a week to find a notable reference before deleting.

My only warning is this is a contentious group that may challenge a lot of the rewrite. Good luck if you choose to take this on. I for one would appreciate the effort. — edgarde 09:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)