User talk:SecondSight/Misandry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] POV Checks: rewrite

Content at issue:

Conceptualization of misandry
Nathanson and Young argue that misandry is the hatred of men. They view hatred as a worldview, not just as an emotion like anger.[1] They claim that a worldview based on hatred "is always expressed as 'our' contempt for 'them.'"[2] Nathanson and Young also consider misandry to be a form of sexism, analogous to how misogyny is sexism against women.[3] In Why Men Are The Way They Are, Warren Farrell devotes a chapter to what he calls the "new sexism:" sexism against men.[4] Farrell writes: "sexism is discounting the female experience of powerlessness; the new sexism is discounting the male experience of powerlessness."[5]


Many many independent authors have spoken to the misandric ideology of so called Second Wave feminists. As you no doubt already know "ideological" feminism is the main foundation that Nathanson and Young pose for modern misandry...and whether they be right or wrong this argument belongs here. If you are going to be NPOV, groups being accused of 'Spreading Misandry' need to be shown here in NPOV. I am beginning to suspect a possible POV whitewash here to pander to 'oppression'-feminist POV... that violates the clear sourced POV's from N/Y and other sources here. Am I right about a POV bias here or is this a mere oversight on your part? (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 20:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an oversight on your part. The article is barely started, and already you are making assumptions. Still, I think even in its current state, it is hardly a "whitewash." As you should know, the ideas I've already described in it are enough to drive ideological feminists crazy. Yes, I am going to mention Nathanson and Young's views on feminist ideology. I already said that the section on feminism isn't complete. I am also going to mention some of the views/groups/books/movies/plays that Nathanson and Young, and others, call misandric (like the Vagina Monologues, which is protested not just by N&Y). Really, all of your concerns could have been answered by reading what I have already written, or simply asking me politely, instead of jumping the gun and accusing me of white-washing the article with a feminist POV. We are both against misandry, so there is no reason for us to fight over the page. --SecondSight 22:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


Please don't take things so personally. I note in the content above that you did not mention "ideology" or ("fascist") forms of feminism at all yet these ideas form the very basis of Nathanson and Young assertions. I am concerned and I asked some questions that were open minded so that you would know where I stand with this. I could care less about what 'drives ideological feminists crazy'...the point of wikipedia is to bring in the sources whatever they happen to be. Many of the sources on this article are loaded with assertions that are highly controversial to SOME misandric kinds of feminists which is no big surprise. However those DISTINCT kinds of feminists who are misandric do not get to silence these sources to pander to a covertly misandric POV. Controversial POV's belong here with some respect to their orginal content...which is ALL I was concerned about. I meant no personal accusations but given how sure of yourself you seem I just wanted to make sure you know that there are others here who care about this content too. I see no need to fight with you AT ALL as long as you discuss issues in good faith and try your best to address legitimate concerns I have with changes here. I also ask that your refrain from playing god. This is a complex and controversial topic that needs many voices to build a great article. You are one good voice but please listen to us all. I will do whatever I can not to 'jump the gun' but I ask no less from you. Before you pop this rewrite in to replace the original article I insist that the original content be included in complete form somehow. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.163 22:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
In the article so far, I did not mention "ideology," yes. That is because, as I have told you twice now, the Misandry and feminism section is barely started. You did not ask questions that sounded open-minded. You asked "I am beginning to suspect a possible POV whitewash here to pander to 'oppression'-feminist POV." That is why I responded by saying that the current content in the article should be enough to show that I don't have an ideological feminist POV. If you say that you didn't mean to be accusatory, I believe you, but perhaps you can see why I heard it that way. As for "playing god," please realize that the current version of the article is so out of line with wikipedia policy that I am perfectly justified in being bold and rewriting it. That is why people are constantly ganging up on you and removing sections of it (though they may well be motivated by a bias against the page's content also). The only thing that surprises me is that you have managed to keep so much on the content up for so long, which must be because more people don't know about the page. I agree with you that this behavior removes valuable information, but as far as wikipedia policy goes, they are in the right. You think I'm "playing god" by taking this stance? Fine. Message any administrator and ask them; they will agree with me. My solution is, instead of trying to defend a broken page, to put that same information into a format that cannot be challenged on the grounds of wikipedia policy. I will over-write the original article when I have finished my rewrite, but you will be welcome to tell me things that you think should be included from the old version. Btw, would you consider making an account on wikipedia? That will make it easier to respond to you, and it will also protect your privacy more because your IP address won't be visible. --SecondSight 00:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Look, let's not fight about absurd things like who is or isn't more open-minded. I see you are trying to clean this article up which I respect. I expected that when I added the N/Y content. I was not ganged up on, several strong editors weighed in here to assist me...please see the discussion page on the article...all I ask is that you represent N/Y's work well and that you include the other authors/ such as Levine with distinct distinctions since she relates PRIVATE forms of misandry that are distinct in many ways from N/Y's PUBLIC or "POPULAR" forms of "ideological misandry"
I used the 'playing god' comment because you sometimes come off as if you know the whole topic better than anyone else which seems a bit arrogant...NOT because you want to work on rewrite the article. Of course you are welcome to try to improve this article. What I fight however is an attempt to replace the original article minus a reasonably potent representation of the N/Y and other sources potent and relevant POV's...be they pro or con 'oppression'-feminist POV. (drop in editor) 128.111.96.152 01:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I am considering an account on wikipedia for my own reasons. However, I would like to hear how that would assist you so I can include your concerns as well in my decision. Would you explain how my having an account would help you? (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 22:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A new (refreshing? I dunno) Point of view...

I stumbled across the original Misandry article while trying to explain to my wife that she was acting like an female misogynist (all tongue in cheek, rest assured), and read the discussion page in great detail, finally arriving here to see what the new version will look like.

I do realize it is a work in progress, but just to put in my own $.02, I found the original article to be a great deal more informative than this rewrite...by the end of what was written I had no idea what had been said, and was no closer to understanding misandry than when I set out, which would seem to me the purpose of an encyclopedic article. I'm not condemning this article as worse, or stating the original to be better, I am however pointing out that several very informative bits seem to be missing and I hope they will exist in relatively similar form on the rewrite. As an example, Types of misandry/Types of misandrists both were (to myself, at least) helpful in qualifying the definition beyond the general concepts expressed on this rewrite. I understand that the article needs to cite multiple sources and needs to cite sources, period, while retaining a NPOV; I simply hope that the rewrite in its final form will be more explanatory than it is now...let's try to keep the K.I.S.S. principle in mind here, and make sure any idiot can understand the definition, instead of only people who have read the source material.

Thanks, I have no idea what I'm talking about... 03:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Great feedback, I will keep it in mind. Unfortunately, I can't write this article like a snappy polemic, although part of me would like to. I am think of moving some of the sections of the article (like the one on ideological feminism) into a new article, so that this one will be shortened. --SecondSight 06:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
It APPEARS to be a cute totalitarian tactic to move the what Nathanson and Young call the main cause of Popular man-hating, (fascist-feminism) to another article. This smacks of what the fascist feminists did by moving all legitimate criticisms of fascist (eg gender or 'oppression') feminism to the antifeminism article...which was an absurd and pejorative POV stunt to pander to 'gender' feminist POV and to character assassinate credible critics. Before you move well-sourced and essential themes from the final article I insist on some NPOV criteria for doing so and proper PRIOR discussion. I hope you are no gender-feminist-flunkie masqerading as a NPOV editor here...yes I still have an open mind but I am watching you closely. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 22:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Listen up; if you continue to be rude and assume bad faith that I am a "gender-feminist-flunkie," I will have no reason to cooperate with you. You aren't in a position to "insist" anything. You should already know by now that I am not pandering to a feminist perspective. My reason for possibly moving parts of the misandry article to other pages is to accomodate another editor and make the article readable. Perhaps you missed that, in your zeal to find a nefarious feminist conspiracy to white-wash the article. Moving parts of long pages to separate pages is a standard practice on wikipedia. The way it works is that we would have 1 or 2 paragraphs on Ideological Feminism, and then link to the main article on it which contains a longer treatment of it. Eventually, we might need several pages to give the subject of misandry a full treatment. For example, we might need a whole page to list misandric movies. Wouldn't that be cool? --SecondSight 22:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't assume anything...I just asked the question. I will take you at your word here. However, spare me the 'zeal' stuff. I have watched many whitewashes go down on this page and others to pander to 'oppression'-feminist POV. I am also fairly sophisticated about detecting these cunning, covert and ugly tactics. My issue here is that we call a spade a spade in the main article and expand elsewhere based on some sort of reasonable criteria...that's all. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 23:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite 'Coopetation?'

I believe you are trying to help us all here with this rewrite but I have concerns about some of your presumptions. Therefore, I am going to write specific concerns I have on this page to assist you with the rewrite...and if you welcome me I will edit here a little as well. If these concerns are met reasonably well, I will back you to replace the original article with the rewrite. Otherwise, I will call foul and revert whatever is POV in the rewrite and combine content from the two articles when you make your move. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 23:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I see your concerns, and you posed them in a more reasonable tone, so I am going to respond to them soon. Instead of editing the article, I would suggest that you continue to make suggestions on this talk page or on Talk:Misandry. --SecondSight 22:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Be glad to but please spare me the 'reasonable tone' innuendo. I will NEVER edit here unless you ask me too first. I will also be sure to include all the points I like as well in your rewrite. For clarity, I will begin by being specific here so you have something constructive to work with. I am also going to add content from Levine and Legalizing Misandry to the original article just so that whatever happens people see all sources here.
I made no innuendo. I told you that your tone was not reasonable, because you insinuated that I was pandering to a feminist POV (when it should be clear that the current form of my rewrite is far from a feminist perspective). Yeah, you didn't actually say that I was doing so, but you asked the question in a loaded way, akin to "so are you going to beat your wife tonight?" That is hardly assuming good faith. You also made the knee-jerk assumption that I wanted to split part of the article off into a new article as a form of "cute totalitarian tactics." I am sorry you have had bad experiences with ideological feminist editors in the past, but the suspicious, cynical, and antagonistic attitude you display isn't going to win you any friends. Instead of complaining about me calling you on your violation of wikipedia policies of civility and assuming good faith, take my reaction to your conduct as feedback on how you are being perceived. As for adding content from Levine and Legalizing Misandry, that's a good idea, and I will try to incorporate it into my rewrite. --SecondSight 00:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This round and round is as much about your issues as about mine. Please just stick to the issues and spare me the fatherly? lectures so we can 'coopetitate'. I was just called a "troll" by your buddy edgarde...so I have sound cause to suspicious HERE as well. I will listen to your points and I expect you to listen to mine otherwise we will have war here. I have fought many much bigger battles than this one so this is often a bit boring to me. I am here to work with you but I will not be bullied by you or anyone else. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 01:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I'm hardly anyone's "buddy". If you have a problem with something I wrote, it might be more sensible to take it up with me — on my page — instead of hassling SecondSight over it. / edgarde 04:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to beat my wife tonight. Bitch has it coming.
Gene S. Poole 02:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


What childish crap from both edgarde and poole. I take back the 'buddy' which was intended to call attention to SecondSights assocations rather than 'hassling' him. As for taking up anything with edgarde about mere name-calling...that is absurd. Could you both just stick to the issues and refrain from the personal ugliness. (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance welcome?

I'd like to help out with this rewrite, but I don't know how open you are to others contributing to the page. Would you mind if I helped? --HarmonicFeather 03:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Me too? Or is this page going to be closed fait accompli created by a few favorite editors to trash the open edit page with the usual totalitarian tactics? I thought this was SecondSights work but I see he? is opening it up to other editors...on some personal and unspecified basis? (drop in editor) 71.102.254.114 21:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to help, then I suggest posting suggestions on this talk page. drop in editor, could you possibly assume worse faith? If you keep behaving like this, I am not going to want to work with you. --SecondSight 01:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnoting

The Charles Darwin article uses a footnoting format that better supports multiple references from same book. When I get a bit more coffee in me I'd like to convert the footnoting in the Misandry draft to that method. Hopefully this won't make the article harder to edit.

Please let me know (here or on my Talk page) if you think this is a bad idea. Otherwise I'll probably convert the footnotes later this week. / edgarde 03:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)