Talk:Misogyny/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Weasel Words in Nietzsche Section

The section on Nietzsche is currently far too apologetic. Nietzsche was far more misogynist (not to mention racist) than most of his contemporaries, and certainly doesn't need weaseling about how is works aren't completely literal.

Also text like "some argue that..." is bad form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.136.144 (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Biased Accusations of Philosophers

Without much more than an open mind its obvious this section is based a prejudgments and not research. To declare that The Buddha or Kant is somehow a misogynist and then back it up with a line or two of unconvincing (and out of context) quotations should put a red flag up to the editors of this page.

Its also very clear by the quotations put forth in this section that perhaps the creators do not understand that misogyny, even in its most water-down form, still views women as innately bad (and I would venture evil) and is not equivalent to viewing men and women as different. As incredibly "sexist" it is to say something like: "the courage of a man was shown in commanding, while that of a woman was shown in obeying", it does not by any means assign a negative value to women.

What I really want to say here is that this is a very slippery slope of an article. A matter such as this should not be given to embellishment as it is a very lose and subjective idea, else the author will find themselves elaborating their own beliefs (even beliefs that are not subject to this article...). Anyways, please consider taking slander out of this article if there is nothing clear and convincing in the section itself as it diminishes the entire page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.181.229 (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is which?

For Aristotle it says "Aristotle says that the courage of a man lies in commanding, a woman's lies in obeying", and yet the section for Socrates says pretty much the same thing. Who really said it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.16.252 (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A mess

This article severely lacks focus. Following the lead, we have a list of quotations without context, followed by discussions on various points of view which do not follow any particular structure or even historical context. This needs some severe attention, and although I'm not an expert in history, social psychology or cultural issues, I will have a go at it unless someone more qualified to do so is so prepared. Rodhull andemu 03:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Buddha

This section on the Buddha and Misogyny was deleted because it is biased, not factual and misleading due to inappropriately assertive statements. Furthermore, it is not adequately supported by the reference quoted for the reasons outlined below:

1. The given reference is not supported by any historical scripts or scholarly document that states the Buddha predicted 500 years instead of 1000 if women are allowed into the Sangha. A statement made on About.com by a single author does not make it a fact unless supported by further evidence

2. The Gurudhammas that were formed when Bikkhunis were first ordained indicate respect for Bikkhus, but does not directly state that 'nuns are made to ALWAYS treat a monk as her superior' as stated in this section, which also implies that all Bikkhunis of the present day too have to always 'treat a monk as superior'. This is incorrect as the levels of mutual respect within the Sangha varies between different regions and sects.

This section will therefore be deleted until such time that it could be suitably edited to be unbiased and factual with the content directly supported by relevant scholarly / historical references.

Masako Kawasaki (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Psychology of misogynists

Have there been any studies of the psychological features of misogynists? Do they tend to introversion or extroversion for example? Do they tend to religious beliefs, or to atheism? There is much comment on Christianity and Islam, has any material on official views of women be reported for fascism and communism (though these could be regarded as secular religions)? Sex is certainly something about which humans are concerned. Might it be that deeply religious men are inclined towards misogynism because they regard sexual attraction and desire as diversions from their fixation on religion? 86.134.140.93 (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Alan Hawkes. talk 12/08/10

Wikipedia talk pages are places to discuss improving the article, not to have a forum discussion or Q&A session. I recommend that you try the Wikipedia: Reference desk; they may be able to help. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Islam -> follow-up

In contrast to this somewhat polar view there are instances within the Qu'ran that, for its time of revelation, put it far ahead of many other religions and societies of the same era. The Qu'ran explicitly institutes the protection of a woman's inheritance, allows them the right to divorce and fair provision of assets upon divorce in Surat At-Talaq. Also within the Qu'ran the figure of Eve is relieved of the blame for Man's downfall, unlike Christianity, as both Eve and Adam are stated as equally responsible for succumbing to the Devil's influence

The above has no citation- despite making some controversial assertions. I would certainly have no problem with adding well-cited material that portrays Islam in a positive light with regards to women's rights, but this section is not that. I removed it. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute

George has taken this content dispute to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sugar-Baby-Love (note to those involved). Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Warning #1: Original research disguised as facts by reliable sources (Islam)

User Sugar-Baby-Love added this paragraph:

"An-Nisa, 34 is often interpreted by Islamic scholars to allow men to hit their wives if they are in the end of a deadlocked personal dispute. Many other scholars have taken differing interpretations. In his book No god but God, University of Southern California professor Reza Aslan stated that misogynistic false interpretations of the text have occurred because Koranic commentary "has been the exclusive domain of Muslim men." The Prophet Mohammed himself, according to Islamic tradition, never once struck a woman in argument, and this fact is sometimes cited in debates about the text."

The source according to him is [1].

As it turns out the paragraph is mostly original research:

The article by Asra Q. Nomani is about the religious sanction of domestic violence in Islam and its implications for domestic violenve.
Nomani didn't state anything which could in any universe be construed as "Many other scholars have taken differing interpretations." This is 100% original research by the user.
The one sentence about Reza Aslan actually reads: "In his recent book "No god but God," Reza Aslan, an Islam scholar at the University of Southern California, dared to assert that "misogynistic interpretation" has dogged 4:34 because Koranic commentary "has been the exclusive domain of Muslim men." User Sugar-Baby-Love simply added the word false to misogynistic interpretation and made it look as if Asra is an example of the Sugar-Baby-Love's unsupported claim that "Many other scholars have taken differing interpretations." Again this is original research.
The source never once stated something like "deadlocked personal dispute" or that it is only perceived as misogynistic by "Islamic scholars." The author states what the 34th verse of the fourth chapter of the Koran says, that it has a strong following (even among many who say that women must be treated as equals under Islam), that it poses a challenge to integration and that other problems will not go away "as long as the beating of women is acceptable," and that "Domestic violence is prevalent today in non-Muslim communities as well, but the apparent religious sanction in Islam makes the challenge especially difficult."
The source says "Although Islamic historians agree that the prophet Muhammad never hit a woman, it is also clear that Muslim communities face a domestic violence problem" but for some reason Sugar-Baby-Love only writes the first part and gives the impression that the source says that this is another example of "Many other scholars have taken differing interpretations." The user then adds a bunch of original research like "according to Islamic tradition" or "in an argument" or "and this fact is sometimes cited in debates about the text." This is once again original research disguised as facts presented by a reliable source.

I tried to change the paragraph to this:

In a Washington Post article, Asra Q. Nomani discusses An-Nisa, 34 and states that "Domestic violence is prevalent today in non-Muslim communities as well, but the apparent religious sanction in Islam makes the challenge especially difficult." She further writes that although "Islamic historians agree that the prophet Muhammad never hit a woman, it is also clear that Muslim communities face a domestic violence problem."[32] Nomani notes that in his book No god but God, University of Southern California professor Reza Aslan dared to assert that "misogynistic interpretation" has dogged An-Nisa, 34 because Koranic commentary "has been the exclusive domain of Muslim men.

But user Sugar-Baby-Love reverted the edits and ironically wrote as an edit summary "Revert POV pushing." Ironically. Please be aware if this original research. Randygeorge (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I just went and read the Washington Post article, and I have to say that Randygeorge, my impression is that you are, for the most part, correct. The biggest thing that bothers me is what you have bolded--the insertion of the word "falsely" into an indirect quote, implying something that is definitely not in the original text. "Dead-locked personal dispute" is also very clearly not in the text--the several mentions include the word "disobedient wife," "as a last resort," and "persists in deliberate mistreatment and expresses contempt of her husband and disregard for her marital obligations." None of those equate to personal dispute, to me. I'd rather avoid the phrase altogether, as you have Randygeorge. There's two things I don't like about yours, Randygeorge. First, in the last sentence of your version, you're using Nomani's words without quoting her (especially in the phrase "dared to assert", a very particular and personal way of saying something). So, I'd prefer to change that last sentence somehow, without quoting more. This brings me to the second problem--in your desire to make the paragraph more NPOV (by reflecting exactly what An-Nisa says), I think you've over-quoted. In general, it's better to summarize RS, rather than quote directly at length.

Nonetheless, Sugar-Baby-Love's version is flat out wrong; it doesn't quite rise to the level of OR to me--it's more like he's misreferencing the source with a POV spin. No matter how we put it though, it's a pretty clear policy violation to me, and yours, while less well written (i.e., over-quoting), is at least accurate. I'm going to revert to your version now, and hopefully we can work out something here that is a better, summarized version. It would be great if S-B-L would be part of this discussion, but I do ask that s/he not replace with a clearly biased and policy-violating version. I don't have the stamina right now to look through all of the other changes being made, but, when I can, I'll try to look at the rest of the article, too.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't have the stamina to correct Sugar-Baby-Love's deliberate inaccuracies and then have him revert my edits and call the revert summary "remove POV pushing." Randygeorge (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What was reverted was=

An-Nisa, 34 is, traditionally, interpreted by Islamic scholars to allow men to hit their wives if they are in the end of a deadlocked personal dispute. Asra Q. Nomani has stated in the Washington Post that "Domestic violence is prevalent today in non-Muslim communities as well, but the apparent religious sanction in Islam makes the challenge especially difficult." Many other scholars have taken differing interpretations. In his book No god but God, University of Southern California professor Reza Aslan stated that misogynistic false interpretations of the text have occurred because Koranic commentary "has been the exclusive domain of Muslim men." The Prophet Mohammed himself, according to Islamic tradition, never once struck a woman in argument, and this fact is sometimes cited in debates about the text.

Note that all the facts are correct. If George or anyone else disagreed with the use of the words "deadlocked personal dispute" or "false interpretations", then they could have done so and they could have tweaked the wording as such. But George did not do that, instead- he or she gutted the paragraph in a drastic revert without explaining why. All he or she did was regurgitate personal insults. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What the article currently says is=

In a Washington Post article, Asra Q. Nomani discussed An-Nisa, 34 and stated that "Domestic violence is prevalent today in non-Muslim communities as well, but the apparent religious sanction in Islam makes the challenge especially difficult." She further wrote that although "Islamic historians agree that the prophet Muhammad never hit a woman, it is also clear that Muslim communities face a domestic violence problem." Nomani notes that in his book No god but God, University of Southern California professor Reza Aslan wrote that "misogynistic interpretation" has dogged An-Nisa, 34 because Koranic commentary "has been the exclusive domain of Muslim men.

Note that this is almost exactly the same as the past version by me, except for minor changes in wording. Those changes could have been done working with a responsible editor in good faith, but George is neither of those things. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, that is not at all what your old version said. Your older version quoted far less, used POV phrases, and fundamentally altered the meaning of the source. Now, obviously you and RandyGeorge have a problem with each other. And I haven't looked at the detailed history. But when I look at this discussion, and the one below, I see RG providing a very clear analysis of the content, while you seem to be focusing your comments at the editor. Even your edit summaries are hostile. If RG is correct, and the rest of your edits are as incorrectly representing your sources as this one, then he should be reverting you every time, because we have to be sure that our words properly match the ones in our sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What you are saying is completely wrong. My older version did not alter the meaning of the source. It referred to some things included in the source and other things were not referred to. This is typical editorial discretion. Now, you can disagree. But this is a content dispute.

I have focused my comments at the editor since George did that and did that first. Before I even started editing this page, he was threatening to ban editors who happen to revert his edits. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's focus on the minute details.

)An-Nisa, 34 is, traditionally, interpreted by Islamic scholars to allow men to hit their wives if they are in the end of a deadlocked personal dispute.

This is true. The source says= "The notion of using physical punishment as a "disciplinary action," as Sheha suggests, especially for "controlling or mastering women" or others who "enjoy being beaten," is common throughout the Muslim world." and "Verse 4:34 retains a strong following". So, clearly the traditional interpetation is that it allows men to hit their wives. That this happens after a personal dispute is clear from the source-- see "When dealing with a "disobedient wife," a Muslim man has a number of options."

If you or anyone else disagrees with the term "deadlocked", then you could have removed the term and discussed that here at the talk page instead of suddenly threatening to ban me.

)Many other scholars have taken differing interpretations.

This is true. The source mentions "Some people seem to understand this and are beginning to push back against the traditionalists. However, their efforts are concentrated in the West, and their impact remains small." The source goes on to mention Reza Aslan and "an Iranian American scholar" (unamed in the source) as some of those taking a different interpretation.

)In his book No god but God, University of Southern California professor Reza Aslan stated that misogynistic false interpretations of the text have occurred because Koranic commentary "has been the exclusive domain of Muslim men."

This is true. Read the source. If the word "false" is objected to (if you look at his book itself, he does view the interpretations as false), then that could have been disussed here instead of bringing in this talk of "banning users".

)The Prophet Mohammed himself, according to Islamic tradition, never once struck a woman in argument, and this fact is sometimes cited in debates about the text."

This is true. The source says= "Islamic historians agree that the prophet Muhammad never hit a woman". There it is, explicitly mentioned in the debate about the text from the source.

So, in conclusion, this is another example of George acting in bad faith to ensure his personal vendetta against me since I (along with several other editors) have opposed his distorting edits on Wikipedia. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote a detailed comment documenting user Sugar-Baby-Love's attempts to disguise his original research as opinions advanced by reliable sources. Instead of admitting that he made mistakes, this user continues to write things like these:

Many other scholars have taken differing interpretations. This is true. The source mentions "Some people seem to understand this and are beginning to push back against the traditionalists. However, their efforts are concentrated in the West, and their impact remains small."

What this user doesn't write is that the sentences Some people seem to understand this and are beginning to push back against the traditionalists. However, their efforts are concentrated in the West, and their impact remains small refers to the previous sentence which was Domestic violence is prevalent today in non-Muslim communities as well, but the apparent religious sanction in Islam makes the challenge especially difficult. This refers to the religious sanction of violence in Islam and not the user's original research that Many other scholars have taken differing interpretations which is never even implied in the source.

The failure to honestly address other editors' documentations of your inaccuracies and original research makes for a terrible and hostile environment. Your highly ironic accusations of 'POV pushing' are uncivil and disruptive. Randygeorge (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You are being deliberately misleading. You wrote a detailed account that was also misleading, and you should be admitting that instead of backtracking.

The sentence says: "Some people seem to understand this and are beginning to push back against the traditionalists. However, their efforts are concentrated in the West, and their impact remains small." The source goes on to mention Reza Aslan and "an Iranian American scholar" (unamed in the source) as some of those people taking a different interpretation. This is transparently a clear enough source for Many other scholars have taken differing interpretations.

You have created a terrible and hostile environment with your edits, George. You are a single purpose account with very few edits outside of a narrow space, and from the get go you have both viciously insulted other edits while also trying to get any editors who disagree with you sanctioned by administrators. And you've nakedly edit-warred across several pages to push your agenda. You consistently act against the spirit of Wikipedia. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

For the third time, This refers to the religious sanction of violence in Islam instead of your original research that Many other scholars have taken differing interpretations which is never even implied in the source. Some people refers to those who do not agree with the religious sanction of violence by the traditionalists. Their efforts refers to the efforts of those who try to push back against those who advocate the religious sanction of violence.

It is unfortunate that your contributions to Wikipedia articles are misleading and incorrect to such an extreme degree. What is even more unfortunate is that there are not many other editors who can spare the time to constantly clean up your deliberate efforts to disguise original research as positions advanced by reliable sources. Your dishonesty and unwillingness to admit and correct your mistakes makes your work here even more disruptive. Randygeorge (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

reading the content

What's wrong with this wiki-entry?.

First, its say a short but clear explanation about misogyny (misogyny = hate a/all woman/women). Just fine.

Next, there are a some historic context. Yes, it's fine.

And finally there are a whole section of the "feminist theory" rebating all the misogyny. This can be right but where is it the objectivity?. In this section, feminist talk and re-define the whole misogyny many times and talking how bad it is. I wish i can heard the other side of the coin. And, im still don't get it all about what is misogyny ? or more specifically why is misogyny ? For example a "arachnophobia" wiki-entry with a whole section about the opinion of spider-lover but lacking a section talking about the people with afraid of spider. --190.47.241.187 (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)--190.47.241.187 (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, big question here about content... Why is there, as entries below Misogyny in Religion, Christianity (2000-2200M followers worldwide), Judaism (14-18M), Islam(1570-1650M)... And Scientology(>100k)? Scientology isn't even in the top 20 religions, and there is some dispute is you can even call it a religion rather than a cult. There's some serious POV pushing by putting that in with the big three in America. You'd be less biased adding in Wicca, Rastafarianism, or even Atheism than Scientology. --130.76.96.152 (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Scientology exists, is notable, and is covered by Wikipedia so it is legitimate to refer to it in this article. The real question is "Why aren't the other 17 or 18 religions in the top 20 listed?" and the answer for each one is either they don't have a history of misogyny or nobody has taken the time to research their status and add it here. This is Wikipedia and you can edit it, so you are welcome to do the research and add appropriate sections per WP:DIY. Kiore (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Warning #2: Original research disguised as facts by reliable sources (Christianity)

User Sugar-Baby-Love added this paragraph:

{{citation}}: Empty citation (help)

As sources he provided [2] and a book by Richard Hove entitled Equality in Christ? Galatians 3.28 and the Gender Dispute.

As it turns out this paragraph is mostly original research.

Neither the LA Times article nor Richard Hove state that David Scholar is a "self-described biblical egalitarians" or that he is representative of a group of "self-described biblical eglitarians" who "argued that Christina theology emphasised equality between the sexes." The LA Times article says that Scholar "advocated women in the ministry" and that "he showed how the New Testament could be read to support women as authority figures in the church. Scholar talks about the women in the ministry instead of women in general.
Richard Hove never said that David Scholar or other "self-described biblical eglitarians" have "argued that Christian theology emphasised equality between the sexes" or that Scholar "particularly cited the passage...". What Richard Hove said about 3:28 and equality of the sexes was that in keeping with the roles of the Creator in the beginning, the New Testament defined marital roles in terms of both respect and love as well as submission and authority. While there is neither "male nor female" as far as salvation of God is concerned (Gal 3:28), there remains a pattern in which the wife is to emulate the church's submission to Christ (Eph 5:21-33). [3]. So neither Richard Hove nor the LA Times article says something about David Scholar being one of many "self-described biblical eglitarians" who argue that "Christian theology emphasised equality between the sexes."

So this paragraph is again mostly original research or in the case of Richard Hove just lies. Sugar-Baby-Love even removed the question mark from the title Equality in Christ? Galatians 3.28 and the Gender Dispute.

I tried to correct this paragraph and remove the original research but Sugar-Baby-Love reverted my edits and again called the edit summary Revert POV pushing. It doesn't get more ironical than that. Randygeorge (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You were and are engaged in blantant POV pushing.

As for your points,

1)LAT says that he "delivered a message of tolerance and egalitarianism", which is why he is described as such.

2)Your link is not to Hove's book. It is to someone else making a reference to Hove's book. Stop misrepresenting sources! I'm very, very, very sick of seeing you do that.

3)Noone said anything about Hove. Hove's own personal beliefs are irrelevent to this discussion at hand. Hove's book makes a reference to Scholar's beliefs and his writings.

Take a look at here, for instance, where it says that=

The result of this unity in Christ is that in both the home and the church there are no longer gender-based ministry distinctions. Arguing for this view, David Scholer says that Gal 3:28 is "the fundamental Pauline theological basis for the inclusion of women and men as equal and mutual partners in all of the ministries of the church."11 Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And the claim without the question mark is missing the point. The proper title can be written as ''Equality in Christ? Galatians 3.28 and the Gender Dispute or Equality in Christ: Galatians 3.28 and the Gender Dispute, these are equivilient. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

At this point it should be patently obvious to everyone how ironic and uncivil the words "blatant POV pushing" are considering that you are the one using them.

Exactly. The Los Angeles Times wrote that "he delivered a message of tolerance and egalitarianism." Quite different from being a "self-described egalitarian," e.g., saying something about the importance of philanthropy doesn't make you a "self-described philanthropist."

The LA Times article says that Scholar "advocated women in the ministry" and that "he showed how the New Testament could be read to support women as authority figures in the church. Scholar talks about the women in the ministry instead of women in general. The source you provided claims the same thing. Scholar's "egalitarian" message only concerns "the inclusion of women and men as equal and mutual partners in all of the ministries of the church."[4]

Ken Campbell describes Hove's interpretation of Gal 3:28: While there is neither "male nor female" as far as salvation of God is concerned (Gal 3:28), there remains a pattern in which the wife is to emulate the church's submission to Christ (Eph 5:21-33). [5]. Both are reliable sources and as such are totally relevant.

Exactly! What have I been saying all along? Arguing for this view, David Scholer says that Gal 3:28 is "the fundamental Pauline theological basis for the inclusion of women and men as equal and mutual partners in all of the ministries of the church." It is about women in the ministry instead of women in general. Furthermore, it's not about "Christian theology" as you wrote in the article. It's about Gal 3:28 and Gal 3:28 isn't representative for "Christian theology" unless you can prove that it is. Randygeorge (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

New section added

In his book The Power of Denial: Buddhism, Purity, and Gender, professor Bernard Faureώ of Columbia University argued generally that "Buddhism is paradoxically neither as sexist nor as egalitarian as is usually thought." He remarked, "Many feminist scholars have emphasized the misogynistic (or at least androcentric) nature of Buddhism." He emphasised that Buddhism morally exalts its male monks while the mothers and wives of the monks also have important roles. He wrote as well: {{quote|"While some scholars see Buddhism as part of a movement of emancipation, others see it as a source of oppression. Perhaps this is only a distinction between optimists and pessimists, if not between idealists and realists... As we begin to realize, the term "Buddhism" does not designate a monolithic entity, but covers a number of doctrines, ideologies, and practices--some of which seem to invite, tolerate, and even cultivate "otherness" on their margins".http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7538.html

I'm waiting for George to post here below on the topic. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Bernard Faure is not even noteworthy for a wikipedia article, neither is the book. So what value is this report of a book review by a not notable person of a not notable book written by a not notable person? Zilch, nada and is open to all the POV pushing , cherry picking that such reporting allows for. Off2riorob (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no POV pushing or cherry picking, you can follow the link and see that. And it's important to mention misogyny in buddhism since feminists have commented on it often. The author has no article (as of now), but that's not relevant. Most of the sources were use won't have their own page. The important point is that it's a reliable scholarly source.

I'm still waiting for George... Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of 2 paragraphs from Islam section

An IP removed 2 paragraphs from the Islam section, which User: Dirkbb re-added, appropriately because the IP didn't cite any reason for the removal. After looking at the paragraphs, however, they definitely need to stay out, as they do not cite reliable secondary sources. That is, they try to refute claims about "Islamic historians" by citing sections of primary religious text (hadiths). However, in order to properly refute that claim, we would actually need commentary from an Islamic historian. As written, the paragraphs were original research. The basic info may be re-added as long as it is sourced to reliable secondary sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Misogyny in Sikhism

Although the information presented here is technically correct in terms of Guru Nanak's advocacy for women, and the link to "Women in Sikhism" provides additional quotes from the Guru Granth Sahib (Sikh holy book), there is a definite discrepany between what was written, and what is actually practised among Sikhs today, both in the Western world, as well as in India.

In fact, there are many male Sikhs who practise misogyny, but what is seen even more frequently is the bitter misogynistic attitudes and behaviors from some Sikh women toward other women, especially from mothers-in-law to daughters-in-law. There also tends to be an underlying, only slightly more subtle sense that women are inferior to men intellectually, as evidenced by the behaviours of Sikh women; specifically seeking out guidance and advise from men only, and flagrantly denying the validity or value of opinions expressed by other women (even women specifically trained in the field from which the request for advise or question arises).

Wikiincali (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)wikiincali

That all sounds like interesting information. Do you know of any reliable sources that could verify those claims? In order to add info to an article, Wikipedia requires that that info be verifiable. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

New addition to Muslim section

In this diff, User:Fancy.kira added a section to the Muslim section based on "reference" to the website of the Council for Secular Humanism. I'm fairly certain that said site doesn't meet WP:RS--there's no evidence of neutral reporting or editorial oversight. I removed the info on that basis, but Fancy.kira reinserted it. On my talk page, Fancy.kira wrongly asserted that since they have their own wikipage they're a reliable source, but, of course, that has nothing to do with the reliable source guidelines. Does anyone else have an opinion on that source? I can always raise it at the reliable sources noticeboard if we want. Personally, I think it's obviously a non-reliable source, so it's not worth the effort. Fancy.kira, can you please explain what makes you think an obviously partisan, non-news/academic source is reliable? Qwyrxian (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I frankly don't understand what you're talking about. I see two links here. The first is to an article by Ibn Warraq in Free Inquiry, a bi-monthly semi-scholarly journal that is roughly comparable to- say- Scientific American. The Second is to an arcticle in the Secular Humanist Bulletin, a quarterly newsletter that is roughly comparable to- say- Counterpunch.

Both are clearly biased. But there's no reason to see anything that makes them any different from any other thing cited in this article. Michael Flood's long, grating tirade against males is mentioned here, along with many similar things. Something being in a paper magazine rather than a paper book-- suddenly becoming then not a reliable source seems like a pointless distinction. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at CounterPunch, that would not appear to be a reliable source, either. The fact that the Secular Humanist Bulletin begins from an explicitly stated perspective, and does not appear to have any sort of peer reviewing process (it's not an academic journal, and I don't think it's indexed like one) means it almost certainly isn't an RS. The first one seems better (I didn't notice it was a reprint from Free Inquiry). I guess I'll need to ask at WP:RSN for input from other editors. Also, if you think some of the other sources are unreliable, then we should pull them, too. But we shouldn't compound the problem of one possibly bad source with the addition of more bad sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, another editor just deleted the whole thing per WP:Weight, which I, not sure is correct, but seems somewhat reasonable. In any event, if it is re-added, 3 different editors at WP:RSN concurred with my thinking that the first source (the one in the Secular Humanist Bulletin) does not meet WP:RS; the second could be kept, but only if it is directly attributed as the conclusion of one particular person, not a statement of fact. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ibn Warraq and Robert Spencer, both critics of Islam, are not reliable (please see this and other threads on RS noticeboard) and there has been a clean up effort to remove their statements from all articles on Islam (their views can only be expressed in criticism of Islam or similar articles, provided they are cited by reliable secondary sources).

The article should include only content by persons with expertise in the article's field as cited in reliable sources, both conditions are not met by the recent additions. If a reliable source is found, then it still needs to expressed or restated in a neutral manner. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine by me; I wasn't aware of previous discussions on these authors. Hopefully this settles the matter. Sugar-Baby-Love, if you think that some of the rest of the article has similar problems with unsuitable sources, please open a new section here and we can figure out if the info should be stripped as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Celtic mythology?

To the mythology section, apart from the Bible and Pandora's box, I would also add the premise of the Arthurian legend in particular as articulated by the movie Camelot whose roots are in Celtic mythology. Here Camelot is eventually destroyed because of Guinevere's extra-marital affair with Lancelot. This story is more subtle because Lancelot is a brave knight but the affair is successfully exploited by Arthur's enemies to destroy Camelot. To have Guinevere played by Vanessa Redgrave was an example of perfect casting :-) 208.65.181.179 (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You would need a reliable source that asserts that this is an example of misogyny. That is, we can't draw the conclusion ourselves that this tale is a form of misogyny, because that would be original research. Do you know of any such source? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right. How about: "Medieval misogyny and Gawain's outburst against women in 'Sir Gawain and the green Knight'", Modern Language Review, April, 2002 by Gerald Morgan on

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7026/is_2_97/ai_n28130467/

Sir Gawain makes an outburst about how badly knights (like Lancelot) are treated by Ladies and they are ruined by them. How's that? 24.6.53.19 (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Usage section

The usage section in this article seems rather inane and useless (ironically). It presents one completely unclear use from 1882: "He ... walked the banks apart, a thing of misogyny, in a suit of flannel." One use of an unrelated word, "misogamic", from 1889. And finally, a single legitimately useful example of "misogynist" from 1878. Seeing as that the words "misogyny" and "misogynist" have been in common use in the English language since at least the 18th century (both words appear in an English dictionary from 1717), I don't see what significance any of the usage examples have to an encyclopedia article. They should be moved to English Wiktionary and deleted from here. Kaldari (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I transferred the one useful usage example to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/misogynist#Noun. Kaldari (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, I've removed the section from the article. Kaldari (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Misogyny in Pop culture?

I think we need to add a section concerning misogyny in pop culture. The character of Ffolkes portrayed by Roger Moore would be a wonderful and fun example. An unpleasant example would be gangsta rap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.29.21 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What's with the philosophy-oriented misogyny bent?

Seriously... Ancient greece and Rome were a long time ago. Why are we obsessing over it and all the philosophers since? Do they have some sort of monopoly on misogyny?

A lot of this needs to be in a separate article titled "Notable misogynists" — Preceding unsigned comment added by HypatiaX (talk • contribs) 04:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Much of this article seems bent on showing example after example of misogyny. I think a few would be enough.

HypatiaX (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Mythology-- original research

The section's final paragraph is not cited and contains original research:

  These examples of misogyny in Greek myths contradict the claims made by
  many that Greek literature looked down upon misogyny. It could mean 
  that the notion of misogyny that was ridiculed by Greek literature is 
  not the same as the modern concept of misogyny.

Suggest:

Provide better explanation of "the claims made by many that Greek literature looked down upon misogyny." Provide sources.
First sentence should, more accurately, say something along the lines of "provide counter-evidence to the claims" rather than "contradict"
Final sentence appears to be original research.

HypatiaX (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I added the unbalanced tag for Mythology section due to the above reason. The section is unbalanced because it only focuses on the counterclaims to the "claims made by many." The claim that Greek literature ridiculed misogyny deserves equal footing. HypatiaX (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting removal of Object relations theory

Object relations theory is not strongly related to misogyny, it should not be linked from this article. HypatiaX (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

According to feminists, in its most overt expression, a misogynist will openly hate all women simply because they are female.

Surely that is not the case because it defies logic. Why would somebody hate woman because they are woman? Surely they hate woman because of the perceived characteristics of woman? That's like saying a racist hates black people because of their skin colour, rather than the perceived characteristics that pertain to somebody of that race.90.220.86.155 (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing the above sentence entirely. This statement is uncited. 90.220.86.155 makes the good point that it is illogical. This statement appears to be original research (overtly incorrect original research). HypatiaX (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Redundant and unnotable lead

The sentence "A person who hates women is called a misogynist" is redundant. The Greek roots of this word are not notable. The second and third sentence should be removed. HypatiaX (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten most of the lead to be a summary of the article. Kaldari (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Alleged misogynists original research

I propose removing the lead paragraph of the Philosophy subsection:

  Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Arthur Schopenhauer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Otto
  Weininger, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Socrates,
  Gautama Buddha, Plato, Aristotle and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel are
  alleged to be misogynists.

The remainder of the section gives examples of what may be misogynistic statements by some of these philosophers. However, to conclude, from those examples, that these 12 notable philosophers have been alleged to have been misogynists constitutes original research. Sources have not been provided that call all 12 of these philosophers misogynists.

The sections on Kant, Aristotle, Hegel, at cursory examination, provide adequate citation of allegations of misogyny. The section on Socrates appears to contain original research to produce an allegation that he was a misogynist.

I suggest removal of the sections on Socrates, Weininger, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Wittgenstein. The conclusion that these philosophers were misogynists is original research.

I suggest renaming the section to something like Notable Misogynists and including a more balanced discussion on Kant, Aristotle, and Hegel HypatiaX (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

link to feminist criticism of marriage

A link was recently deleted. It was a link to a feminist critique of marriage, which is in the marriage article. The feminist critique is about the misogyny of marriage. Whether marriage has become nonmisogynist in some parts of the world, that is not the case around the world. The link was not to the whole marriage article, or even to the marriage article at all; it was to the feminist critique within the article on criticism of marriage. If there's no objection, I propose to restore the link. Is there a better way to link to the criticism? Nick Levinson (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Because "misogyny" does not mean "discrimination against women" or even "oppression of women". Misogyny is a much more limited term that means "hatred or dislike of women". I checked the target section, and while it says that many feminists feel that marriage is discriminatory against women, I didn't see any assertions that it is linked to a hatred of women. In other words, that link would be appropriate in Sexism, but not here. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

definition per dictionaries

I added definitions from three dictionaries.

In response to a recent Edit Summary:

While an etymology of a word is part of the history of the definition, it is not a limitation on the modern definition or definitions. Definitions are determined in leading dictionaries by current usage, reflecting what people have tended to mean by a word.
When a definition is 'A or B', one does not modify the other, including not softening. Rather, the definition is either A or B. English grows that way, words with wider usage acquiring additional shades of meaning closely related and acquiring very different meanings with only minor relation to the original sense. That can and often does result in a word acquiring a softer meaning. Trying to enforce the original meaning as the only still-valid one is usually futile.

Nick Levinson (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Certain events in the Australian Parliaments in October, 2012

An addition to the Wikipedia entry as content on Misogyny

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misogyny&diff=518278032&oldid=518277822#Australian_Parliament_.2C_October_2012 ..............................................................................................................................................................................................

Australian Parliament , October 2012

Certain events in the Australian Parliaments in October,2012 have resulted in the Dictionary of Australian English, the Macquarie Dictionary to give further definition to its entry misogyny. "Macquarie Dictionary has last word on misogyny" Australian Financial Review, 17 october 2012 http://www.afr.com/p/national/macquarie_dictionary_has_last_word_NzrQFdWcPJG6G8qLRRiZtK

Macquarie Dictionary broadens definition of misogyny Media Release A STATEMENT FROM THE EDITOR OF THE MACQUARIE DICTIONARY, SUSAN BUTLER http://www.scribd.com/doc/110254598/Macquarie-Dictionary-Release

This addition has been undone on the main entry by someone without name or an anonymous editor. I am placing it here on the Wikipedia 'talk' page such that it would remain on Wikipedia to be read as I contributed it to the main Wikipedia entry - a brief summation of reported public event. [The use of capital letters is the typography of the media release]

--Laurencebeck (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that that dictionary has changed the definition--however, they didn't change it to "dislike", they changed it to "entrenched prejudice against women". Now, we could add that, but if it's only one dictionary changing, I don't think that's enough to justify a change to the lead. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

[Response to Qwyrxian (talk)]

This matter has torn the nation apart insofar as social exchanges go. People have got tired of being torn apart so the subject is as much dropped as possible. The Macquarie Dictionary sought to explore the possibilities of being able to add a second definition. The concepts of primary definition which is referred to by you was not within the Macquarie Dictionary's effort.

Furthermore this term "Misogyny" has been within the Australian Parliaments to such an extent that part of the debates "went viral" (as it can be termed) on the internet.

Jane Fonda, http://janefonda.com/ - perhaps a champion behind the second definition that the Macquarie, with gross pretensions towards prestige, hopes to be able to articulate - would never consider that in its coding it should enter debate in the Congress or Senate of the USA.

--Laurencebeck (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That may all be true, but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not just of a single variety of English. If only one dictionary is noting this change in usage, we can't note it in the lead. Perhaps we could put it somewhere else in the text, but I'm not sure. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If the dictionary is a major primary dictionary for the Australian variety, the definition should be reported insofar as it differs from definitions in other varieties; the Australian population is significantly large, so its standard of English is significant. However, the deletion was justifiable because the article is not about how dictionaries are edited; instead, the definition itself should have been reported (insofar as significantly different). Then, the lead should summarize what’s most important about sourced definitions reported in the article's body, if it doesn't already. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC) (Re-added after unexplained deletion by another editor: 16:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC))

[response to Qwyrxian (talk)]

Thank you very much for ur recognition of my 'input.'

But please let me draw down on one point that you have now made repetition.

The Wikipedia page and entry on misogyny is for the phenomenon of the word and the experienced reality or aberration - not just its definition. The contents of the page are:

1 Definitions

2 Classical Greece

3 In legislation

4 Religion

4.1 Ancient Greek

4.2 Buddhism

4.3 Judaism

4.4 Christianity

4.5 Islam

4.6 Sikhism

4.7 Scientology

5 18th and 19th century philosophers

5.1 Weininger

5.2 Schopenhauer

5.3 Nietzsche

5.4 Kant

5.5 Hegel

6 Feminist theory

7 See also

8 Notes and references

9 Bibliography

10 External links 10.1 German 10.2 Greek

My contribution, entering at level 7 on October 17, 2012, was quite distanced from your 'lead' as you call it. And it was to do with events in a country where the word and the human experience attached to the word had caused amazement through a country, to include bizarre behaviour in the Parliament from the leading politician of the day.

US - NYT , WP , WSJ ; UK - Times , Guardian ; FR - Le Monde , Liberation ; ONLINE - Yahoo , msnbc .

Please understand that there was nothing in my short yet impacting contribution to misogyny's history to give any idea that under the heading Australian Parliament , October 2012 was the thought of a possibility that it affect your 'lead.'

--Laurencebeck (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The lead (in case there's a misunderstanding) is simply the opening paragraph/s that come before the titled sections. A lead summarizes what's most important in all the sections of the article. We like to have impactful content in or after the lead but it does need to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And, when adding to the Talk page, it is helpful not to delete posts; we don't usually delete or edit them, but instead either reply or not, which is why I restored the post that was deleted. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

My apologies Laurencebeck, I got confused between multiple edits to the article that happened in a short period of time. Someone else had added the word "dislike" to the lead, and I thought that's what we were discussing here. Your edit was removed by an IP editor, and I think that removal was wrong; we should probably incorporate your addition somewhere into the article. Adding it to its own section is still WP:UNDUE, because one dictionary changing it's terminology...even the discussion currently going on in the Australian parliament and media are not of enough import (given that this article stretches through thousands of years of human history) to get the prominence of a section. Instead, I'm going to add the info to "definitions". Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

[response to [User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] (talk)]

ty, whatever is most best for the epistemological understanding of the planet . . :)

--Laurencebeck (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

[Comment to Qwyrxian (talk)]

regards . . --Laurencebeck (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

In the word misogyny, the first compound is the Greek verb misaw-w which means "to hate". Please do correct all entries that instead of -i- in misogyny have -y-. Thanks!

--Laurencebeck (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC) >> to IP user 192.76.7.197:

Thank you for noticing the spelling errors. I was aware of this [typical] error made a few times but imagined I had cleaned up the whole batch of them. Next I won't be able to spell Marilyn Monroe!

The overdramatised personal committment the Prime Minister of Australia displayed, this which held Australia in thrall for many hours and which found world-wide reportage, has a close dramatic meme to what is historically embedded in all our consciousnesses, Lillian Hellman's "I cannot and will not . . . "etc.

Miss Hellman , though, wrote it, perhaps anticipating her personal appearance before the HUAC committee in a splash new Balmain dress (-and a new smart hat, as can be found written-). There to utter her cut precise phrase would have been "over-theatre" even for the little self-dramatiser herself.

Politics, however, doesn't run for a week. It is over in another day.

Neutrality

The section on Judaism doesn't seem neutral to me. First of all, there are hardly any sources, and there are blatant untruths. 1. Lilith has nothing to do with the Torah. She was made up later as a part of folklore. She has about as much to do with Judaism as the Divine Comedy does with Christianity, or Percy Jackson does with Greek mythology. In other words, she's purely an invention of fanfiction. It is also worth noting that Lilith is held to be a definitively Hasidic creation; as Hasidism represents a very small and isolated form of Judaism, it is relevant to make the readers aware o the fact that she is not widely held to be a canon figure in Jewish ideology. 2. Nowhere does it say that Eve tempted the animals. 3. Yahweh merely stated that a husband would rule over his wife, not in the form of a commandment, but it could be interpreted as merely an observation. The only punishment where Yahweh says "I will" is with pain in childbirth increasing. 4. The claim that women could not divorce their husbands is flat out fraudulent. A woman could divorce her husband if he were abusive, was sexually repulsive, among other things. 5. I hardly think that Eve is comparable to Pandora. In Greek mythology, Pandora was created for the specific purpose of being a punishment for man, whereas in the Torah, it says that man was incomplete without a "helper." In the Torah, the Adam was also punished by Yahweh, and if one takes into account that a husband ruling over his wife is a prophecy rather than a commandment, then his punishment is arguably even worse. 6. The other religions have explanations as to how it's not as bad as it seems on the surface, except for Judaism. 7. Finally, the mention of "feminine divine" makes the entire thing read like Neopagan propaganda. 8. Also I think it's worth mentioning that the Quran's treatment of women was progressive for the time period and gave Arabian women rights they never had before. SorcererCallandira2 (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)SorcererCallandira2

Quran

There verse from Quran is not exactly correct and is significantly different from accepted translation of Quran. Please unprotect the page so that it can be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waqashsn (talk • contribs) 04:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to a standard translation? I know there's a way to do that on WP, but I don't recall how. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Article edit protection, December 2012

Couldn't find any indication on this Talk page of the dispute(s) leading to page protection; a look at the edit history only shed a bit of light on it. But I think a solution can be found. The lead does create an equivalence (albeit oppositional) between misandry and misogyny; but as it has been pointed out by the deletionist editor, this is just one interpretation of the terms. I propose taking that bit out of the lead, and putting it into an etymology section (it would become section 1). The differences in interpretation of the terms should be discussed there, I think it's entirely appropriate to include it in this article, and to include as many perspectives as possible. The false dichotomy of misandry|misogyny should be explored a bit for the readers' benefit, because it's popularly accepted in mainstream use. There are some sources out there that discuss misandry versus misogyny. I'd also like to see the subsections on 18th and 19th C philosophers merged into one section that actually discusses them with a little more analysis, right now they're practically in list form. I'd like the article to be more than a collection of random misogynists. It leads me to ask: What influence did these particular misogynists have -- and why include them in particular? OttawaAC (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this, OttawaAC. After the protection, I forgot about this; you are correct that we need discussion. The problem with your suggestion is that I doubt that you can find sources to verify your suggestion. In my experience, dictionaries explicitly link the two terms; for instance, note how the dictionary.com entry for misogyny says "Compare misandry", and following that link, note how they are defined identically. And while I can't pull any others off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure this is a standard comparison. Furthermore, I don't believe the IP editors claim that misogyny's definition is necessarily embedded in the longterm systems of structural bias against women. Well, let me rephrase: I do believe that misogyny and misandry are different, and that misgoyny is very often naturalized and misrecognized, such that behavior that is misogynistic is explained as being "natural" or "traditional" or "biologically based" or whatever. I do agree that the way that the two terms are played with (I mean that in a Deriddean sense) are radically different. But that doesn't change the fact that the two terms are, on a very basic level, paired. As a comparison, being an anglophile is radically different than being a sinophile, because of the historical differences in the way the two underlying groups have been politically (again, I mean this in a post-modern sense) related. But they're still clearly the same type of term, parallel in meaning if not in impact.

However, having said all of that, I would be willing to move the statement out of the lead and into the Definition section. And, if there are sourced claims corresponding to what you say, then we can create an etymology or similar section. As for the rest of the issues you raise, perhaps it would help if we hold off on them until we solve the problem that got this locked.

Finally, I have to say that, as of the moment, there is a consensus (as seen by the multiple editors reverting the IP) to keep the information, and thus the burden falls on the IP to discuss the matter here and justify removal. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I found that the article on "misandry" itself does a pretty good job of debunking misuses, misconceptions with the word and the problems therein. If anything it draws attention to how misplaced the mention of misandry is in the lead of the misogyny article. And at the bottom here, "In comparing misogyny with misandry, sociologist Michael Flood, at the University of Wollongong, has argued that "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny." It doesn't really matter what you dispute about the IP's "claim", Qwyrxian, I find that dismissive, and the language comparisons being of a completely different historical context and meaning were pretty irrelevant, and unhelpful, IMHO. Also, just because some of the 87% or so male-majority contributorship might have decided to revert the change, that does not mean inclusion is legit. The burden i believe would fall on you to find a bigger justification for having something that is widely accepted as a neologism included than it being linked in dictionaries. I think it should be removed from the lead. I think we would have to be careful if deciding to create an etymology section to make sure it doesn't become a derailment or something that misrepresents misandry as something of equivalence or other than just the derivative idea it is, if that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.210.71 (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Was just wandering by when I noticed the dispute on this page. If I'm understanding the debate correctly, the dispute is really over whether or not we should include a mention of misandry in the lead. I think that considering that we're editing the article on misogyny, our only responsibility is to report on misogyny, so we are not obligated to immediately make the comparison with misandry. I think such information could be included in an etymology section, and also in the see also links. Hopefully that would satisfy everyone involved. I don't feel strongly about this so I could change my mind if a convincing argument were put forward. I'm going to leave a message on the IP's talk page and hopefully we can get them involved in the discussion. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm comfortable with the same sort of movement. Does anyone objection? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for Faith is not obligated to mention "reason" the way it does, either. Are you willing to follow the same logic there? Be absolutely sure you are not being too selective. (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC-0500) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.56.172 (talk)

I'm certain, how about you? Dictionaries, as well as other reference works, connect the two terms. We should follow references, not engage in original research to argue the difference between the two. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

We have to be careful about "What about article X? arguments. Not all articles are comparable, and even if they were, not all articles are shining bastions of unbiased precedence. We could probably dig up dozens of articles that do or do not mention antonyms in the article or lead, but who knows what battles or drama exists on those pages. It would be best to focus on reaching a consensus on this page based on the sources. 98.219.56.172, is removing the mention from the lead not enough in your opinion? If not, why not? PraetorianFury (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not all dictionnaries connect the two terms in the same way. Please compare Oxford dictionnaries misogyny with "Origin: mid 17th century: from Greek misos 'hatred' + gunē 'woman'" (that is : without reference to misandry) and misandry "Origin: late 19th century: from Greek miso- 'hating' + anēr, andr- 'man', on the pattern of misogyny". So the two terms are not so much paired. An explanation could be done in an etymology section, saying that the first one inspired the second one, but not much more.

As OttawaAC mentionned it, the lead does create an equivalence. (Equivalence which does not exist in the Misandry's lead, wathever Qwyrxian is "comfortable with the same sort of movement". That is all but neutral to deny specifities of misogyny, and to enslave this page to the presence of his recent male counterpart. A reference (Allan G. Johnson, The gender knot: unraveling our patriarchal legacy) was given, stating that " "misandry lacks the systemic, transhistoric, institutionalized, and legislated antipathy of misogyny." It makes it very artificial to force the presence of the term on the page. A kind of subservience. Tibauty (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Remove deprecated {{IPAc-en}} flag

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In order to remove the deprecated {{IPAc-en}} flag causing the error in the first sentence, it should now read:

'''Misogyny''' {{IPAc-en|m|ɪ|ˈ|s|ɒ|dʒ|ɪ|n|i}} is the hatred or dislike of [[women]] or [[girls]].

-- deflective (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

OK,

Done, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Judaism

1. 'End of quote' mark missing.
The text...
♦God then curses Eve, saying ‘I will multiply your labour and sorrow; you will bear children in pain; you will yearn for your husband, and be ruled by him! Eve’s action introduced death into the world of humanity, but she also convinced the other animals to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and initiated death into their world as well. Eve is the Hebrew version of the Greek Pandora. Unlike all the other religions of the area Judaism lacked female angels and priestesses thereby disavowing any notion of divine femininity or power derived therefrom.♦
...does not show where the quote "I will multiply..." ends. Doubtless the quote ends at '...ruled by him', therefore and a full stop + an apostrophe would show this (before the exclamation mark!)

2. The exclamation mark should be removed, as it indicates the editor's opinion, rather than presenting the text in accordance with NPOV.

3. Not convinced: The Torah makes no mention of Eve convincing the other animals to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. This sentence should be removed from the text.

4. Attention to love, honor and respect for women as recorded in the Torah and the Prophets has been omitted from this 'Judaism' section. The editor's omission of mention of philogyny in the sacred texts of Judaism, makes this section one-sided --Observer6 (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

5. Misogyny is not a prominent feature of Judaism, neither in Judaism's sacred scriptures nor in contemporary global Judaic practice or culture. If there is consensus agreement with this observation, I propose that the Judaism section be removed from this article about misogyny, as Judaism is far from being a clear example of hatred or dislike of women or girls.--Observer6 (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Imo, the whole thing sounds like Neopagan propaganda. I mean, you're actually talking about LILITH?! A piece of FANFICTION that didn't exist until the Middle Ages?! Come on! Just look at how short the section on Greek mythology is, even though Greek mythology was far more misogynist than anything in the Bible. I also love how the section on Greek mythology leaves out a few key facts. She was told never to open the jar, but the gods always planned on her doing so. She, along with all other women, were designed by the gods from the ground up to be incapable of not opening the jar. Women were created specifically in order to punish mankind in for receiving science and knowledge. I even remember the myth saying something like "it would be the most beautiful thing on the planet but its head would be as empty as a jar". Yeah, those Greek pagans were regular proto-feminists, they were! Bluekevlar16 (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Bluekevlar16

Section 4.6 Sikhism

I am requesting an edit for the 4.6 Sikhism section.

The following: "However, domestic violence and honour killings are also part of Sikh culture because of misogynistic cultural interpretations." -is not applicable as it is in reference to Punjabi or possibly North Indian culture and not Sikhism itself. There are no sources used from Sikh scriptures, it's simply a statement added at the end to create balance.

If you do need an example of Misogyny for this article, in reference to Sikhism you could use the following:

However, if you walk into certain Sikh Temples today, there are examples of Misogyny within. Women are not permitted to lead the service at many Sikh Temples and are often asked to avoid doing Sewa or "service" during certain ceremonial days or at revered locations.

If a source link is needed, the following page follows the progression of Sikh women's issues: http://fateh.sikhnet.com/s/SevaUpdates

Thank You. Youthriderighteously (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Fateh.sikhnet.com is not a reliable source, and we don't want sources from "Sikhism scripture"--that's a primary religious document, and thus not a reliable source for what people actually do. Qwyrxian (talk)

I can understand your stance on the unreliable source and I'm glad you don't want sources from Sikh scripture. I was just providing the source in case you felt it was important to have an example of misogyny.

This still doesn't resolve the issue of the baseless, careless, and sourceless example of "domestic violence and honour killings.." that is used. I'm a proud American and I wouldn't ever want someone using that example for Americans as a whole just because there are regions in America where that occurs more than others.

Either add a reliable source for that example or remove it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youthriderighteously (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you are absolutely correct; we'll need a source for that claim, so I've removed it from the article. It's possible that at Women in Sikhism ther is something we can use (if, in fact, the claim is actually true). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Girls (TV Show)

When you click on 'Girls' it takes you to the page for the TV show. This is misleading for reasons I shouldn't have to clarify.

Sphotof (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. It was indeed quite a silly slip up, and I've fixed it accordingly. It was the result of the fact that most Wikipedia articles on categories of things are named in the singular, so the article about young females is entitled "Girl", rather than "Girls", leaving the latter open to be the name of the article on the TV show.

In future, though, feel free to be bold. There are some times when one has reason to believe that an edit might be controversial or when one is genuinely unsure whether an edit would be beneficial, and in those cases it can be a good idea to try to discuss the issue to reach a consensus. However, in some other cases (such as the one you pointed out), an article has a simple, basic error/problem that no one could reasonably object to the fixing of, and in those cases feel absolutely free to fix it yourself, if you know how :)

I genuinely don't mean this to sound insulting or as a sort or reprimand at all. I just wanted to spread the idea that it's better to fix a problem than point it out, when it's something simple.

Again, thank you for bringing the problem to my attention, and I hope you continue to participate in making Wikipedia awesome :D BreakfastJr (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Christianity typo

Under Christianity, it says "Differences in tradition and interpretations of scripture have caused sects of Christianity to differ in their beliefs with regard misogyny." Can someone add "to" so that it reads "Differences in tradition and interpretations of scripture have caused sects of Christianity to differ in their beliefs with regard to misogyny." 173.162.252.241 (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for pointing that out. BreakfastJr (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Nietzsche

Nietzsche says several stupid things about women, but he doesn't say, "Are you going to women? Do not forget the whip!" in his own voice. instead, he has one of his characters, an old woman, say it in his Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which is itself a kind of parody of the Bible.

It is quite ignorant and simple minded to present it as Nietzsche's own view.

10:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Michael Christian

Similarly, Dan Brown writes in The_Da_Vinci_Code that the Catholic Church denigrated the feminine mystic, but that can't be ascribed to Dan Brown. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. It was disingenuous to claim that those were Nietzsche's words rather than his character's. I've made the necessary change; I've clarified that it was his character who said it, not Nietzsche himself.

I've also made other changes to this section.

I tried very hard to find the quote "Women are less than shallow", doing a lot of Googling and taking into account that translations can vary. The closest quote I could find was "Women are considered profound. Why? Because we never fathom their depths. But women aren't even shallow." As such, I replaced the former quote with the latter one. Maybe the former quote was always just a different translation of the last part of the latter; I don't know, but the quote that is now in the article appears to be a much more widely accepted translation, at least.

I also altered the "higher form of civilization" statement such that (in my view, after reading the relevant passage) the statement more accurately represents the relevant quote, and I sourced it more clearly with a link to a web-accessible translation.

I think that this section of the article is now a lot more representative of the actual facts. BreakfastJr (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Christianity Typo?

Is the word not missing from the bolded portion?

"Other scholars, however, have argued that Christianity does or should not include misogynistic principles."

I am uncertain as to the intended meaning and did not make an edit.
bendodge (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that it's very likely that "not" was indeed meant to be included after "does" in that sentence. I've rephrased the sentence to "However, some other scholars have argued that Christianity does not include misogynistic principles, or at least that a proper interpretation of Christianity would not include misogynistic principles." If I am correctly interpreting what the sentence was meant to be, I think that this is a clearer statement of that.

However, I might be wrong about what the meaning was meant to be, or it might simply be that my phrasing could be improved (it is kind-of clunky), so if someone else has a better idea they should feel free to change it. Also, it seems to me that that sentence might not be necessary anyway. The examples that follow portray the message of the sentence quite clearly, so it might be a good idea to just remove the sentence and let the examples/scholars speak for themselves.

I'll leave these decisions to others. BreakfastJr (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Political vs literal definition

The article defines mysogyny as "hatred or dislike of women or girls". This is the literal meaning. It then effectively assumes that sexual discrimination is a form of mysogyny, since much of the article is about sexual discrimination. This is the political use of the word by feminists. However no attempt is made to relate the two, i.e. show that sexual discrimination results from "hatred or dislike".

It would be better to say something like: "mysogyny literally means hatred or dislike of women or girls, and is applied by feminists to a range of behaviors and attitudes including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women". CSMR (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that one of those is the "literal" meaning (keeping in mind that there's no such thing as a "literal meaning"--all meanings are fluid, contextual, power-related, etc.) and some other meaning is only what is used by "feminists"? Dictionaries I've seen list both uses of the term. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, would you like to provide some evidence of that broad definition of misogyny? Every dictionary that I have seen states that misogyny is hatred or dislike of women. Saying something like "sexual objectification is a manifestation of misogyny" is not a fact but an expression of ideological belief. This article needs to be seriously de-POVed. 03:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)Entelechy9

It is correct that most dictionaries do not give prejudice as part of their definition, but some do, including OxfordDictionaries.com (their definition includes the term "ingrained prejudice"; http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/misogyny) and—as this very article mentions—the Macquarie Dictionary.

More importantly, though, this article never claims that sexual discrimination is a form of misogyny. It claims "Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination...", and it provides several sources for claims like this. It immediately provides the "literal" definition, and then goes on to give information on concepts related to the term.

I've read through the article several times, and personally I feel that it does not need to be de-POVed. What would it mean to de-POV this article? It seems to me that to call it POVed it to claim that this is biased against misogyny, but obviously that is a justified bias. Wikipedia does not have a responsibility to equally represent both sides of an argument when one side has far less validity.

For example, the fact that many people claim that climate change is a myth does not mean that Wikipedia shouldn't present it as a truth, because it actually is a truth and Wikipedia is meant to inform people on the reality—as best it can—rather than just to accurately portray public opinion on objective matters.

Sometimes the actual reality is unclear, and on these occasions it is extremely important to qualify, clarify, and source all statements, and give time to all reasonable positions on the topic. However, on other occasions there is disagreement despite one side being far more reasonable and valid (this can occur because people are not perfectly rational and the average person does not have time to become fully informed on every topic), and on these occasions Wikipedia should document the prevalence of the incorrect position but also clarify that it is a misconception or that it is against scientific consensus or whatever is applicable in the case at hand, and spend more time explaining what the actual truth is. BreakfastJr (talk) 03:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"The counterpart of misogyny is misandry" doesn't belong anywhere on this page. There is no counterpart to misogyny otherwise there would be no sex-based oppression of females. The statement makes no sense - it's a false equivalence and is misleading. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.123.224 (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I think that you're not looking at it quite right.

The fact that something has a counterpart does not necessarily mean (or even imply) that the counterpart has an equal prevalence/power to that something. You are correct that misandry (hatred/dislike of males) is way less of a significant force in the world than misogyny, but that doesn't mean that misandry doesn't exist at all.

Also, if misandry didn't exist (this is a hypothetical; it definitely does exist to some extent), we could still imagine it and it could still exist as a theoretical concept, and in that form it would still be the counterpart to misogyny.

Furthermore, there isn't really a reason why sex-based oppression of females implies that there is no counterpart to misogyny. This is analogous to how white people discriminating against black people based on their race doesn't at all mean that black people are unable to be racist against white people.

Additionally, I personally think that the fact that that "counterpart" statement is followed by one about the antonym of misogyny helps it be clear that the statement about the counterpart was just information on a related concept, rather than an implication that misogyny had an equal and opposite balancing force.

With these things in mind, I think that statement should remain, because I think it adds relevant information. I hope I've explained myself properly. If you still have a problem with a statement, I would welcome further discussion so that we can come to an agreement beneficial to the article. BreakfastJr (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please more infos about Kant

It would be very interesting to read more about Kant and his statements about women. Anybody able to provide it? --178.197.227.134 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

"In addition, many influential Western philosophers have been described as misogynistic."

Strange comment. Something like that cannot stand on its own, especially in an opening paragraph. Western civilization is the only civilization to transcend its pre-enlightened past. The juxtaposition of its past and its present is what shows this statement to have some truth to it. However, nearly every other civilization is STILL misogynistic by these same standards. What I'm getting at is that this statement gives the impression that the West was the only misogynistic civilization (by way of its great thinkers) rather than it being the ONLY major civilization to transcend it (or at least try to transcend it as a stated objective). If you are going to make a statement like that one then you should also state that virtually all other major philosophers of every other civilization can be described as misogynistic and furthermore still are. Example: "In addition, many influential Western philosophers have been described as misogynistic while nearly all non-Western philosophers also have been described as misogynistic." However, the best move would be simply to delete that sentence. Even the example would only cause more problems. Nonetheless, it is a true or fairly true statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.50.156 (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well said. But please note that Western women have the same rights as men (voting, aso.) for not that long. Also note that in Switzerland almost every week a man kills his wife because she was abandoning him for another man, often despite having childs aso. If this is the price the society needs to pay for "benefit-optiming" females, many woman might have been better off 100 years ago. So the question if it's for the good of men and women to limit the womans rights probably will have to be discussed in the next years by Western philosophers. I personally think that not all people can handle their own freedom, some just aren't able to limit themselves toward principles with the goal to live a better life. Actually, it's very easy to make errors in life...and sadely it's often impossible to correct them. That's why marriage isn't a bad thing, only if the value of the marriage is low (or: not the same between two partners), it leads into personal catastrophies. That said, I think it should be allowed that a women goes for another men...but in that case she should never ever have the right to get any money from her former husband. Only this would solve the current sociological problems. --178.197.227.134 (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What about criticism?

Misogyny is defined as "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women" and "entrenched prejudices against women". But how are these definitions distinctable from critislcism of women, their behaviours or their way of thinking?

Furthermore, when Schopenhauer (wrongly) says: "Men are by nature merely indifferent to one another; but women are by nature enemies.", why is this called misogyny and not critisism of female behaviour?

I think this article does not differentiate between "hatred/dislike" and criticism. Also must be said that no Western philosophers told things like beating women or treating them badly. Only the quran does this. --178.197.226.27 (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Since this article is blocked to be edited, I suggest these few sentences to be included into the Criticism of the concept section:

Furthermore, the use of the word "misogyny" lacks the differentiation between hating/disliking or only criticising women. From the latter point of view, all statements of Western philosophers could be regarded not as hatred but as criticism of the behaviour and way of thinking of women. There is no known Western philosopher that suggested to beat or treat women physically badly. In opposite of e.g. the writings in the quran where the physical punishment of women is positively valued and firmly suggested. Therefore assuming the motives of Western philosophers as mysogynic, i.e. as hate or dislike of women, can be regarded as misunderstanding and misrepresentation by modern philosophers of the 20th and 21th century.

Thanks for your help. --178.197.226.27 (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as stated, this comes off as a violation of WP:NOR. Odds are the only way anyone will add that to the article is if you include cited sources to back up the statement. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the above, there must also be criticism over perceived misconceptions of what misogyny is. "Hatred of women" is often applied to films, TV shows, porn, etc where women are depicted in a sexual light, when the makers of the productions and those who view it clearly are not expressing "hatred" of any kind, but rather admiration. Now, the term "sexist" may certainly apply, but if someone produces a video meant to arouse that focuses on certain parts of the anatomy, let's say, or produces a piece of erotica or straight porn, that does not fall into misogyny. It certainly doesn't belong in the same category with statements and actions of clear hatred towards women. Obvious a source needs to be found, but certainly Paglia or someone like that must have come out and made comments to these effect. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote the section on Schopenhauer, per the comment above. Schopenhauer wasn't simply a critic of female behaviour; he straight-up hated women. If you read his essay "On Women" this is abundantly clear. He was also known for physically abusing women, but I didn't mention that in the article. Kaldari (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2014

This edit request to Misogyny has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This paragraph needs a citation: "Subscribers to one model claim that some misogyny results from the Madonna–whore complex, which is the inability to see women as anything other than "mothers" or "whores"; people with this complex place each encountered woman into one of these categories. Another variant model is the one alleging that one cause of misogyny is some men thinking in terms of a virgin/whore dichotomy, which results in them considering as "whores" any women who do not adhere to an Abrahamic standard of moral purity.[citation needed]"

Link: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07491409.2000.10162569#.U8QlTmdOXcs

Rapidedit72 (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for finding the source! —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitions Section

Definitions section provides two sociologist opinions before the Dictionaries. I'd suggest a touch-up on the dictionaries definitions and then promote it above the leading sociologists.

58.106.160.16 (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Judaism section

This section is undue. It relies on the beliefs of one relatively unknown author and points to a women in judaism page that makes no specific mention of misogyny. I've deleted it. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

"

In Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice, Jack Holland writes also of evidence of misogyny in the Old Testament story of the fall of man in the Book of Genesis. Holland characterizes the Fall of Man as "a myth that blames woman for the ills and sufferings of mankind".(See also: original sin.) "