Talk:Misandry

message: This article published in respected feminist journal poits that:
In some instances, local organizers of Flower Demos have identified these participants as intruders. For example, Hotta, a transgender man who experienced sexual abuse, was told by a local Flower Demo organizer that he posed a threat to other female participants (Miyuki Fujisawa 2021). Similarly, transgender women were referred to as “terrorists” by an organizer in Flower Demo Ibaraki (Flowerdibaraki 2021). These instances reveal the potential for transphobia and misandry to be harnessed within the collective trauma formation, which can be used to exclude those perceived to have a “perpetrator identity.”
Perhaps a perspective from Japan should be added, since the article is supposed to be about misandry in the global, not about American men's rights activists. Reprarina (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article in Feminist Media Studies journal 

message: User:Raladic You have reversed my edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misandry&diff=1223899083&oldid=1223898826 Tell me, where does the source state what is stated in the sentence? More precisely: where does the source say that misandry is not often found among men and among antifeminists? Reprarina (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead summarizes many and multiple findings. But yes, to make it more precise, I just expanded the sentence in the lead, since it is a summary of the entire article and the discussion of feminism and the (false) link to misandry was discussed in the article, but not mentioned in the lead. Now with the expanded sentence it is and so now the ref makes definite sense. Raladic (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Now your sentence is not grammatically correct and sounds like "feminism" (not misandry) "...is established in preferential treatment of women, and shown by discrimination against men" Reprarina (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. And just like that, it's fixed with the help of a comma and another three words. Raladic (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the source Misandry myth say 

message: In the racialization section, link to transmisandry in the sentence "E. C. Krell, a gender researcher, uses the term racialized transmisandry describing the experience of Black transmasculine people" Skemous (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Jamedeus (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2024 

message: Inspired by what's just been posted at WP:NORN, if not in agreement with it, I do think there are spots where the prose in this article has a neutrality problem, and I've tagged them inline accordingly. Remsense诉 13:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Remsense I agree Diyi75 (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

text: @Remsense It certainly needs to take the problem seriously, and ensure it speaks about it without prejudice. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piecemeal POV issues. 

message: Claiming misogyny exists, but misandry doesn't is interesting. Diyi75 (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does the article say misandry doesn't exist? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an entire paragraph on the criticism of misandry being a false equivalency 2601:581:4500:A680:3D53:2DF9:DC5C:5691 (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Correctly so. MRAs try to validate their complaints by presenting misandry as an important phenomenon, which it isn't. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop ignore WP:NOTAFORUM by constantly repeating "scholars are right, MRAs are wrong" already. Reprarina (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Binksternet If you don't view it as equally important to misogyny, you are commiting it. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's hilarious. Binksternet (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Binksternet In what way? Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Because your statement was so misguided and so wrong yet it revealed much. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will continue this on your talk page Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  18 May 2024 

message: Is this part even warranted? It doesn't contribute to the understanding of the topic at hand, and even if it did, it's phrased improperly as it's clearly an opinion. Stunfire1209 (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Stunfire1209 It's certainly an ideological take. Especially considering the fact that TV shows and games openly attack men, but wouldn't dare to go after women. I've never seen much acknowledgement for misandry, but it's certainly real. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This language is warranted because it's an accurate summary of the scholarship detailed in the article. Generalrelative (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Generalrelative I'm not personally sure what level of consensus that has, but the statement itself is certainly incorrect and is contested by a large number of studies and papers. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is  by the best quality studies and papers. Nothing of quality disproves the statement. Binksternet (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

text: @Generalrelative Does that not run the risk of being circular? It might better serve us to ask the question as to why the scholarship was referenced in the first place. Stunfire1209 (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not circular as the scholarly sources are not referencing this Wikipedia page. The answer to why the scholarship was referenced here is because scholars are the most authoritative sources on Wikipedia. If you were a cook, you wouldn't use rotten ingredients; you would want the best ingredients. Binksternet (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Those "TV shows and games" supposedly attacking men and not women are gross misrepresentations published by Nathanson and Young. Nathanson and Young are religious activists who want to roll back the advances of feminism. They are not a reliable source, despite the fact that they sell a bunch of books. Binksternet (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "which is both far more deeply rooted in society and more severe in its consequences."