Talk:Misandry

'feminist research scientists'

Labeling the authors of a citation as 'feminist research scientists' is a not so subtle way of stating that their results are an opinion held only by feminists, that is not an accurate summary of the cited source and is not appropriate to do in Wikivoice. MrOllie (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The research scientists are feminist. I don't know why you're reading into that. Also, I think that the idea of the "misandry myth" is credited to feminists. I don't understand what's wrong with that. I don't think the concept is very popular outside feminist circles. I'm not saying that non-feminists necessarily oppose the phrase. Many people've probably never heard of misandry, let alone the misandry myth. You're reading into the simple fact that the researchers just are feminist about as badly as DeadJoe98 reads into the fact that misandry is rare in historical records. You're both reading in between the lines when I'm just saying what I'm saying, transparently, and without some sort of nefarious hidden agenda that has frequently been attributed to me (see the archives of my talk page, I get accusations like this often enough). 1101 (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

You should probably at least revert the article to a version which didn't say that that the authors were feminists, but which removed the misleading "topic experts" as per our discussion on the top page. That one should be completely uncontroversial and if MrOllie keeps reverting it, it will be used as evidence for his abuse of power. DeadJoe98 (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The researcher in particular which I randomly selected has nothing to suggest that they are a topic expert. Just getting published is not enough to be considered a topic expert, otherwise, all sorts of fringe "experts" will be considered topic experts. DeadJoe98 (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it's less precise. I think that it makes sense to credit the misandry myth to feminist researchers. I don't understand MrOllie's apparent belief that crediting feminist ideas to feminists is bad. I've never heard a non­feminist discuss the "misandry myth". That doesn't mean I oppose the notion. It just means I want to credit it to the source. To state that something has a feminist origin isn't some sly insult. At the same time, it's a bit pedantic to hone in on one psychology graduate. The three main co­authors, Hopkins-Doyle, Petterson, and Sutton all appear to be experts in social psychology. So you don't really contest that there are topic experts do you, just the statement of number? It seems a bit pedantic and contrived, and I can see why other editors may not appreciate your apparent focus on Victoria Cock's credentials (she's a psychology graduate, but not a lecturer or post­grad like the three main authors). 1101 (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that I am being particularly pedantic. There is a huge difference between saying that there are 40 topic experts and saying that there are 3 or 10 topic experts. If the number that is provided is incorrect and/or questionable, then why mention it at all? The sentence could be paraphrased to completely avoid any mentions of numbers. I am completely fine with that option as well. DeadJoe98 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I do not accept your premise that this is a 'feminist idea'. MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the view that the misandry myth is a feminist idea. It is a defense of feminism put forth by researchers who openly defend feminism and attack critics of feminism in their research article. It additionally is recent (Nov 2023) primary research (the researchers present their own experiment). This falls far short of established academic consensus, and matches criteria used to exclude other primary sources that have been suggested. Dekadoka (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

None of that makes it a Template:Tq, or the authors Template:Tq. As Template:Noping stated, the primary authors are researchers in the field of social psychology. Whether they are Template:Em or not is beside the point unless a reliable source specifically comments on it. Template:Pb That said, "The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" is indeed a primary research paper whose conclusions should not be cited in the lead section. It's misleading to call it a meta-analysis because the studies analyzed were all conducted by the same authors and published together as one. Template:Pb It's also misleading (not to mention original research) to assign the paper's conclusions to Template:Tq. The paper has three joint first authors: Aífe Hopkins-Doyle, Aino L. Petterson, and Robbie M. Sutton. Many of the co-authors appear to have been mainly limited to translating survey materials into other languages. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Tq

@Sangdeboeuf Based on the evidence that you yourself provided, it seems like a logical course of action would be to remove that statement from the lead section of the article. DeadJoe98 (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf, unfortunately, my account is not extended confirmed, so I cannot make this change. Could you do it for me, please? DeadJoe98 (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Since this material has been discussed before, I'd prefer to wait for others' input before removing it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The paper was co-written by 40 scholars. All of them participated in review and editing. The fact that three of them are listed as "joint first authors" does not erase the 37 others that hammered out a consensus text to bring the paper to publication. It represents the findings of 40 scholars. Don't try to diminish it. Binksternet (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are supporting the idea that these "40 topic experts" have expertise relating to the statement "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is widespread." If they have expertise on this topic, it stands to reason that they would, for example, publish papers on related subjects. This seemed easy enough to find out, so I tallied up the papers from each author and made a list:

Only one article published (20 authors): Hopkins-Doyle, Aife; Petterson, Aino L; Zibell, Hannah; Binti Abdul Rahim, Sharmaine; Blake, Jemima; Cherrie-Rees, Kimberley; Beadle, Ami; Cock, Victoria; Greer, Hazel; Jankowska, Antonina; Macdonald, Kaitlin; Scott English, Alexander; Wai Lan YEUNG, Victoria; Boonroungrut, Chinun; Iida, Junko; Jogdand, Yashpal; Lee, Hyejoo J; One, Kim; Sharma, Suryodaya; Tipandjan, Arun

Two articles published, only one mentions feminism/misandry: Leach, Stefan; Bosco, Cristina; Chien, Chin-Lung; Cui, Lixian; Fuji, Kei

Three articles published, only one mentions feminism/misandry: Asano, Ryosuke; Beattie, Peter; Chaudhuri, Anindita; Murayama, Aya

Four articles published, only one mentions feminism/misandry: Hitokoto, Hidefumi; Jiang, Ding-Yu; Moon, Chanki

Six articles published, only one mentions feminism/misandry: Mifune, Nobuhiro; Sato, Kosuke

Seven articles published, only one mentions feminism/misandry: Chobthamkit, Phatthanakit; Choi, Hoon-Seok

More than ten articles published, possibly some indirect connections but no direct mention of feminism/misandry in title other than "Misandry Myth": Bernardo, Allan B I; Du, Hongfei; Ishii, Keiko; Park, Joonha; Suh, Eunkook M

Published at least one other article relating to the topic (2 authors): Na, Jinkyung (16 articles total, 2 directly relating feminism/misandry); Sutton, Robbie M (21 articles total, around 5 relating to feminism but only one discussing the possible connection with misandry)

In summary, only 2 authors out of the 40 have published other work on feminism, and none of them have published any other papers relating to causes of misandry or links to feminism. Additionally, and more importantly, this is a recent primary source which cannot reflect the academic consensus due to being the only source that has empirically examined this question. It is bad practice to place a primary source front and center on a controversial article. Dekadoka (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

What universe are you examining here? The paper is a survey of other papers. It's not primary, and the authors are all scholars. Whatever you have planned to sink this source is not going to happen. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Please address the points that have been brought up. Demonstrate that all 40 authors are topic experts, and explain why you believe a group of researchers publishing the results of their own experiments is not a primary source. Multiple users have brought up concerns about this source, and restating your opinion without elaboration does not move the discussion forward. Dekadoka (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The "points" you brought up are not relevant. You're trying to pick apart a reliable source because you don't like it. "Multiple users" are not forming a consensus; instead they are complaining about an extremely strong source because it emphatically dashes their view. Binksternet (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll add assuming bad faith in addition to simply repeating opinions without justification. You are engaging in WP:STONEWALLING. Please stop. Dekadoka (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Assuming good faith doesn't mean that we need to ignore it when people tells us what their motivations are up front. Disagreeing with your attempts to discredit a perfectly reliable source is not stonewalling. MrOllie (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

going off what mrollie said, this sounds like weaponizing wiki policy to do battleground editting.

at the end of the day, citing research as a bunch of “feminist research scientists” probably is undue wording and doesn’t really belong on here Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Disagreeing without justification is stonewalling. If the source is perfectly credible, as you say, that should be something that is easy to justify. Instead, multiple points have been brought up suggesting that is not the case. It's a primary source, and all evidence suggests that most of the authors are not topic experts.

Claiming that someone feeling that an article is biased is the same thing as wanting to disrupt or vandalize Wikipedia is questionable at best. That was my first edit on the site, and I have since admitted I was wrong on several points and significantly shifted my point of view. Additionally, four separate users have raised concerns here. Dekadoka (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

That you personally disagree does not mean you may dismiss others as not providing justification. No one is required to WP:SATISFY your demands to Template:Tq, and refusing to waste time on such is not stonewalling either. MrOllie (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

That's not an accurate representation of what I and others have said in this discussion. Are you suggesting there is a consensus currently? Dekadoka (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It's a direct quote. MrOllie (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Just checking before starting an RFC, are you disagreeing with the main contention here that this is a primary source and should therefore be excluded? Dekadoka (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. MrOllie (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your points here. Dekadoka (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Tq Used as evidence where exactly? This isn't a court proceeding. MrOllie (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, if this discussion goes nowhere and you keep reverting edits without adequately engaging with my criticisms on the talk section, I am planning on contacting Wikipedia staff (or whatever mechanism there is for preventing abuse of power) and see how we can proceed. DeadJoe98 (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

You should go ahead and do that right now, because I am certainly not going to try to debate anything with you on this talk page while you're making empty threats. MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

If you don't wish to engage with the talk page, then that's absolutely your right. DeadJoe98 (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

These people have PhDs in relevant fields. They are topic experts. Labeling them "feminists" is accusing them of bias, reducing their careful analysis and reasoned conclusions to mere opinion. The peer review process is exacting—these researchers hold each other to very high standards of neutrality and verifiability. Opinion has nothing to do with it. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Template:Tq. This is not a fact. Reprarina (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Academic peer review is not a perfect system. Academics are human beings, after all. (This is also true in the "hard" sciences, which the grievance peddlers behind the grievance studies affair curiously failed to investigate.) But replacing scholarly consensus with editorializing by random Wikipedia users is not the answer. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This line is shouldn't be in introduction itself

"The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the "misandry myth" by 40 topic experts"

Isn't this line biased and proving the point of the MRAs — that they don't have a voice and aren't given equal treatment? And who is to decide those 40 "experts are experts indeed? Just getting published is not enough to be considered a topic expert, especially when you work for an organization designated for women's betterment, aka the opposite gender's.103.185.242.203 (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

No one has been able to justify the claim that all 40 authors are topic experts. Perhaps the main and secondary author could be considered experts since they have published other papers that are roughly in this area (relating to feminism, not possible empirical links between feminism and misandry). Even the paper itself states that previous studies had mixed results and low sample sizes, which hardly seems like universal agreement among "topic experts" on the question of empirically proving that there is no link. Dekadoka (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll also point out that you are now the 5th user who has recently pointed out problems with that sentence in the article. Dekadoka (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing how many people are behind the various IP comments on this page, and consensus is not a head count anyways. Instead of repeating the same arguments, maybe formal dispute resolution is the way to go. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

This seems like the best solution though I recommend the few edits that continue to revert all changes on this page be excluded; Template:RPA. 2001:1998:3600:432:0:0:0:523 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Oops...editors, not edits. 2001:1998:3600:432:0:0:0:523 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed; the few editors that constantly undo what anyone else does shouldn’t be allowed to continue having such undue influence over this article. 2600:100A:B10F:F2E0:EC1C:6AFC:63B4:A741 (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Request for comment: "The Misandry Myth" in Psychology of Women Quarterly

User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil Should the source be included? (question 1) If so, should it be included in the current manner, including the statement that the authors are "40 topic experts"? (question 2)

"The Misandry Myth: An Inaccurate Stereotype About Feminists’ Attitudes Toward Men" is currently included in the final sentence of the article's intro and the final paragraph of the article itself. Some users have argued that the source is WP:PRIMARY, and that it is therefore against Wikipedia's guidelines to use it to claim empirical proof of controversial claims, such as "The false idea that misandry is commonplace among feminists is so widespread that it has been called the 'misandry myth' by 40 topic experts" and "feminist views of men were no different than that of non-feminists or men towards men." Other users have argued that the source is WP:SECONDARY, and that it is therefore fine to include. Additionally, some users have argued that calling the authors "40 topic experts" is not adequately supported, while other users feel that being author of an academic article is enough reason to be called a "topic expert." Dekadoka (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

My point of view: No, No

1. No other sources cited, secondary or otherwise, support the claim that there is empirically no link between feminism and viewing men differently. The source itself states: "In sum, previous studies paint an unclear picture of feminists’ attitudes toward men."
2. The journal classified the source as a "Research Article," not a "Review," and the source contains a first hand description of work carried out by the authors which has not been previously published. In other words, the authors were directly involved, which matches the definition of WP:PRIMARY.
3. Using a single primary source to imply academic consensus and/or final, empirical proof of a controversial claim goes against WP:RSPRIMARY.
4. This therefore suggests that the source should be excluded, especially given the higher standards for sources used in controversial articles.
5. Wikipedia should not assume authors have credentials which they may not possess. For example, it seems likely that undergraduate assistants, translators, and experts on topics other than misandry may have been included in the 40 authors. Referring to the authors as "40 topic experts" is therefore WP:OR.

Dekadoka (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, No A meta-analysis of six studies is a decent source and fine for inclusion. I do think it's being presented wrong though. Calling them 40 topic area experts seems like something we can't prove, and in fact the correct number of authors is 43. But that is unnecessary vouching for the source that we shouldn't be doing. I think the body presents it fine. For the lead, how about "A 2023 study concluded that contrary to popular belief, feminists were not more likely to be misandrists." I don't think we need to mention the neologism unless it gains traction. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Include in article, exclude from lead, attribute appropriately. Template:Sbb Meaning no offense to the good faith editors who appropriately pursued this DR solution after a firm consensus was previously evasive, but this is a very obvious call. The source is plainly WP:PRIMARY; it's a bit atypical in that it is six separate studies presented under a single publication entry and generalized assumptions are drawn which are separate from the empirical results of the particular studies, but the authors of the piece are the same individuals who developed and conducted the studies (and thus are not WP:INDEPENDENT). The fact that the presentation of the overall context outside of the results of the individual studies is a little empirically wonky does not somehow transform this work into literature review, which would be a high level analysis of a longterm corpus on a given subject, typically conducted by experts not involved with the underlying research and with certain controls to avoid conflicts of interest and other biasing factors. That is clearly not what this source is. Template:PbSo any use of this source must include appropriate attribution and a contextual description of the work--ideally including a very minimalist context about the scope and methodology. The description of the authors as "40 top experts" in relevant fields is clearly unsourced and WP:UNDUE and needs to be avoided altogether. And I see no reason in particular to include the statement in the lead, as it is, at best, one extremely niche piece of the understanding of this topic, not a central salient work, nor is there evidence that the researchers' conclusions are uniformly accepted principles of relevant consensus in a relevant field as yet. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, No. Template:Sbb While the study does have a lot of references, they aren't analyzing any of them. Its current use in the lead seems to pass WP:PRIMARY, but "40 topic experts" needs a secondary source; "expert" isn't quite MOS:PUFFERY or MOS:LABEL inherently, but it needs to be supported (though I'd argue that there are better ways to phrase it). (Also, 40 is simply the number of authors: In the social sciences, the list of authors can include people who simply came up with the idea or only did statistical analysis. To claim "40 experts," you need sources for every single author.) Ships & Space_(Edits) 14:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, no. It's a good source, as a highly-cited meta-analysis by subject-matter experts, and the topic itself has enough coverage to go into more detail in the body and to be summarized in the lead; however, there's no reason to rely on just one source. We should expand on the body with additional sources, then summarize all of those in the lead rather than highlighting just one. It'd especially be worth looking at the papers that cite this one and seeing how they summarize it, then relying on that - this avoids the concerns about relying excessively on a single source in the lead. The fact that the myth that feminists are misandrist is pushed by antifeminist movements (and the fact that this myth has been clearly and repeatedly debunked by academic research) is well-cited and belongs in the lead, but it should be a broader summary rather than attributed as the opinion of just one paper. See eg. --Aquillion (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

  I know it may be a bit unreasonable to ask you to dig into a technical study, but there is an extensive section in Doyle 2023 about past work relating to this question. The researchers summed it up with the statement: "In sum, previous studies paint an unclear picture of feminists’ attitudes toward men." The previous studies cited had positive, negative, and mixed results. If you would like to discuss further, we could take a look at some of these other studies down below in the discussion section. Dekadoka (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, No. I think it should be simply presented as a fact, citing this and some other sources - feminism as a whole is no more misandrist than non-feminism. Reprarina (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you referencing the theoretical or empirical side of the question? There are plenty of sources cited in the lead section about antifeminist backlash, false equivalence, etc. No one is suggesting that we get rid of these sources or rewrite that section. However, it is a different question to ask if there is any empirical connection between feminism and misandry at all. Doyle 2023 summed it up as follows: "In sum, previous studies paint an unclear picture of feminists’ attitudes toward men." If Doyle 2023 is incorrect in your mind or you believe there are new sources that change this picture, we could discuss further down below in the discussion section. Briefly, Vonvisitsin 2025 appears to be about discrimination against transwomen, which doesn't relate to the premise here. Koszałkowska 2024 discusses traditional gender roles and sexist jokes, which might be loosely related but doesn't directly address the question (no mention of feminism or misandry). Sutton 2025 is a book chapter written by the authors of Doyle 2023, presumably summarizing their research paper (redundant with original source). Anderson 2009 is described as having "mixed results" by Doyle 2023. Dekadoka (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

There appears to be agreement on keeping the source but changing the wording. After reading the comments, I agree that it's fine to include the source. Would anyone like to specifically comment on reasons to keep it in the intro versus only in the "On Feminism" section? I am inclined to agree with @Snow Rise that sources in the intro should be limited to central works or those that clearly represent academic consensus. @CaptainEek and @Ships&Space, do you specifically want to see the source in the intro? Dekadoka (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I think keeping it in the lead isn't a bad idea. On the one hand, there don't seem to be many sources on the "misandry myth," and aside from the one study, nothing that seems to necessarily be original (granted, I only did a very cursory search). That said, I do think that the general idea (that misandry in feminism is not nearly as common as assumed) does need to be treated in the lead. Perhaps generalize the last sentence of the lead and include more citations (so something along the lines of "Although commonly assumed to be misandrist, misandry in feminism is rare, and feminists have been found to have higher opinions of men than non-feminists (Hopkins-Dale et al., 2023; Kanner and Anderson, 2010; hooks 2000/2005; etc.)." Ships & Space_(Edits) 15:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I think I can understand your point of view. Since there are scholarly sources arguing that there is no connection between feminism and misandry, the single empirical study cited has more value than a primary source would normally? I do think we should be clear that the study found "feminists’ attitudes toward men were positive in absolute terms and did not differ significantly from nonfeminists," not "feminists have been found to have higher opinions of men than non-feminists," and that Kanner and Anderson, hooks, and the other sources cited are not empirical studies and therefore did not having findings, which makes the term "found" inaccurate here. They could possibly be cited after the previous sentence since it isn't discussing empirical findings on this question. How do you feel about the wording suggested by CaptainEek?: "A 2023 study concluded that, contrary to popular belief, feminists were not more likely to be misandrists." Dekadoka (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that the single empirical study has more value than it ordinarily would.

My wording was very rough. CaptainEek's version is far superior. The main reason I had the other sources is because I don't think that just having the Psychology of Women Quarterly study in the lead is strictly sufficient, as it still is a primary source. I don't really have the experience with Wikipedia's policy on primary sources to say if more sources are actually necessary, though. Ships & Space_(Edits) 18:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

References

References

Shouldn't reverse sexism and misandry be merged?

They're the same 81.77.89.214 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

No. Reverse sexism is a controversial term related primarily to affirmative actions, not about real hatred of men. Reprarina (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

SCOTUS has decided there is no such this as "reverse sexist"; there is only sexism.

Since this article is about misandry and the sexism discussed is anti-male, it should be regarded as misandry.

I believe that's what the initial post was implying. 2001:1998:3600:432:0:0:0:523 (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I don’t know which SCOTUS decision you are talking about. Second, SCOTUS decisions do not determine Wikipedia policy. Third, reverse sexism is an article about term reverse sexism.--Reprarina (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Wiki cannot inform wiki, so the fact that there is a reverse sexism article is immaterial.

I would guess the person you’re replying to meant Ames V Ohio since Justice Jackson stated there is no “reverse” sexism or racism in her brief. 2600:100A:B10F:F2E0:9139:F47A:3FA:1789 (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

SCOTUS are not scientists EvergreenFir (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Which “scientists” define if the there is a legal concept of racism?

There is not a legal concept of reverse racism in the US. 174.210.2.122 (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I think we've gone off topic. This is a discussion page about working on an article about misandry, not about the term reverse racism or whether there is reverse racism in the US. Reprarina (talk) 02:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)