Talk:Misogyny/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Weasel Words in the lead

I have attempted to change a word in the lead several times and it has been reverted. Many should be replaced by several as several provides a more balanced and neutral report of the sources. I do no understand why this is an issue. Many is a loaded word that should be directly quoted if it is in fact accurate. Because it is not directly quoted it is obvious that someone seeks to use 'Many' to push their pov as it is a numerically vague expression.

I would like others' input on this matter.

Misogyny can be found within many mythologies of the ancient world as well as various religions. In addition, manyseveral influential Western philosophers have been described as misogynistic

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to use of the word many; this tagging of yours is silly. "Many" is a perfectly fine word to use on Wikipedia when it is supported by the WP:Reliable sources. WP:WEASEL and Template:Who make that very clear. We should not state "several" when it is a "many" matter. Like Template:Who states, "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Wikipedia must remain vague." Your understanding of WP:Neutral is off base. You clearly need to read that policy and comprehend it. Just like you need to read WP:Edit warring and comprehend it. But then again, I know that you are not new to editing Wikipedia anyway. So do cut the pretenses. Flyer22 (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC) I struck this part for some semblance of peace. Flyer22 (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I'm not interested in debating any of the above with you. And I am not interested in interacting with you. I will only interact with you when needed. Flyer22 (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22: So.... are you okay with using several instead? If the RS say "MANY" then it should be directly attributed. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I am not because, going by the person who added the content, this is not a "several" issue, especially since "several" means "a few" to people. And, no, "many" does not need WP:Intext attribution in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. One of the sources, Misogyny in the Western Philosophical Tradition by Clack, identifies 19 different philosophers. (I can't speak to the other one, my library doesn't have it). 19, out of the literally centuries of the Western philosophical tradition and the nearly 200 notable thinkers Many most certainly does need to be attributed. Several may not be the best word but many is inappropriate. Would various be an appropriate compromise? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm okay with "various"; I often (not always) opt for that word over "some" or "many" on Wikipedia because of the common but misguided assumptions some people have about the words some and many due to the WP:WEASEL guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Updated 22:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Article is severely lacking NPOV - Should not stay protected

As a researcher in Islamic studies and humanities, I was interested to read the portion on Islam view, and I really got upset, as it only cites one viewpoint of the issue. I know "Many" references that are "totally opposite" to the viewpoint mentioned. How then can we contribute to the article, to make it more balanced and reflecting the diversed facts more, while the article is just: Semi-protected? Hope one of the athrs who made this decision come here and let me know how. Thanks. I will then come and sign in when page is open for edits.

I understand your frustration. You can make requests here for improvements to the page, or become a contributor to Wikiepdia. (The bar for editing semi-protected articles is very low, you just need an account that is at least 4 days old and has made 10 edits). Note that this in an article on misogyny, which clearly has been a significiant problem within the Islamic religion and is justified by certain verses in the Koran. This not the right article for explaining the debate about whether such interpretations are correct (hermeneutics), the proper place for that would be Women in Islam or the numerous sub articles that deal with specific women-related issues in Islam. Danski14^(talk) 19:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Forgetting about the in-depth meaning of the verse 34 in Islam

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34

In the Qur'an, verse 34 of Surah an-Nisa (abbreviated as 4:34) concerns the issue of marital relations in Islam. This verse is interpreted by some Muslims as giving women a degree of autonomy over their own income and property but obliging them to comply with the husband's wishes should they be congruent with Islamic principles and beneficial to the marriage. The verse is also interpreted to mean that men are also obliged to be responsible for maintenance of their female relatives.[1]

There are a number of translations of this verse from the Arabic original, and all vary to some extent. [2]Some Muslims, such as Islamic feminist groups, argue that Muslim men use the text as an excuse for domestic violence.[3] However, some have translated "beat" as "separate", as Arabic in its nature is a multi-meaning language, and as such no word has a fixed sole meaning.[4]

Ibn Abbas, a companion of Muhammad, wrote the earliest commentary on the Quran, and to this part he himself said this is only a light tap.[5] When asked about the light hitting, he said it refers to using a siwak (toothbrush). There are sources that say that Muhammad himself never hit a woman and forbade it.[6] Furthermore, Muhammad commented on this verse, where he said “a light tap that leaves no mark.”[7] (Ashthestrong (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC))

"Dominant tenor"

The new internet section says, "Misogynistic rhetoric has become the dominant tenor of internet discourse". This is extremely broad, vague, and unfalsifiable. It's unclear how someone would even begin to evaluate what the dominant tenor of internet discourse is. At a minimum this needs inline attribution, if it is even attributable to the nearest cited source at all (which is behind a paywall.) Rhoark (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

From the first peer-reviewed journal article (doi:10.1080/10304312.2014.924479): There is ample evidence to support the proposition that there is a pressing need for scholars to confront gendered e-bile ["e-bile" defined as: "hostile misogynist rhetoric on the Internet"] – in all its unexpurgated ugliness – because: (1) it has become such a dominant tenor of Internet discourse; (2) it has many self-generating properties and is therefore likely to become even more dominant; (3) its cruelty, hostility and misogyny would likely be considered entirely unacceptable if it was present to such an extent in other public domains; (4) it causes suffering and is likely reducing the inclusivity of the cybersphere; (5) it provides critical insight into the degree to which misogynist views are still held by many in the community and (6) for various reasons, thus far it has received insufficient attention in scholarship. The next peer-reviewed article says pretty much the exact same thing. If you believe that it's "dubious" that misogyny is prevalent in online interactions, I suggest reading research on the subject. Perhaps you could ask some female friends if and how often they encounter misogynistic language, threats and imagery online. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The switch from "a" to "the" changes the meaning entirely. Even as "a" it's a distinctive turn of phrase, so I think it could be "a dominant tenor" with in-text attribution or simply "prevalent" without in-text attribution. Rhoark (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "prevalent" is probably the best phrasing in this case. "Dominant tenor" is too close to the source anyway. Feel free to change the wording and remove the tag. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2015

Hi. I'm new to this so please forgive my inexperience with communicating in this medium.

Edit Request 1

I suggest that Sections 2-Classical Greece and 3-Ancient China be combined under one heading, perhaps named History or Historic Examples. This should be done is a similar organizational manner to the Religion Category and its subheadings.

Partly done: went with "Historical Usage" because that section seems to be mostly about how the word was used rather than examples of the broader concept (i.e. "X event was misogynistic"). Mww113 (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request 2

The section on Ancient China has no references. There are links within the items referenced, however those links do not proved a well sourced confirmation of the statements made in this section. As a matter of fact, the only reference in any of those links is in King Zhou of Shang in a section where they are obviously discussing legend. I

In it's current state, this section is presented as fact when there is nothing here to prop up that argument.

Done I removed the unsourced material. If someone wants to find sources and add it back, they're perfectly free to do so. But you're right to challenge information presented factually without any citation. Mww113 (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

If there is a way to improve the presentation of my edit requests, please send feedback.LDub421 (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

They looked fine to me! Thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia! Mww113 (talk) 03:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

LDub421 (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Change definition

In WP:OTRS, a reader quoted the Oxford English Dictionary saying that misogyny is "a dislike of, contempt for or ingrained prejudice against women." This reader asked that the current text, "Misogyny is a hatred or dislike of women or girls" be removed and replace with this other text. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Lede to Specific

This "In 2012 the Macquarie Dictionary (which documents Australian English and New Zealand English) expanded the definition to include not only hatred of women but also "entrenched prejudices against women" should not be in the lede. Too much emphasis on one locale, unless this is just about Australia and New Zealand. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

See thread immediately above. It was an interim edit to address an issue brought up in an OTRS ticket. The material was pre-existing so I figured it would be a minimally controversial edit to address the issue. The OED has a similar definition and it might be better to just change it outright. Jbh^Talk 20:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa.

Misogyny is NOT the hatred of women. That's a common misconception. It's the hatred of things that are stereotypically a woman "thing", or the ingrained feeling that women are lesser. A great example is "you throw like a girl," this gives the impression that women do not throw a ball as well as a man- that's misogyny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amschuett (talk • contribs) 19:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

"You throw like a girl" illustrates the fact that women are biologically weaker than men, on average. This is a fact. If this is misogyny, the notion that there are certain things in which women are better than men on average, due to their biology, is also misandry. Nobody takes seriously anyone who uses the word "misandry" in this context, and rightfully so, because stating biological facts is not hatred. It's only misogyny/misandry when one actively misrepresents studies and distorts information to portray one gender as inferior, though, and that happens routinely in studies that try to portray women as "smarter than men" or that claim that women do nearly everything better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraus (talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Give me a break. "You throw like a girl" is never used to illustrate the biological point that men are physically stronger than women. It is meant and used as a pejorative in every respect and to state otherwise is completely disingenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is actually a great point: what definitions are we operating under? Should be include a section devoted to the usage history, types and definitions of the subject?

According to Merriam-Webster: Definition of MISOGYNY:  a hatred of women. 

According to Oxford: Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. If we're operating under that definition, then things get evermore muddled. What of religious and cultural communities wherein treatment of women is judged and appears from the outside as meeting the definition, but according to those inside those communities it is nothing of the sort. This is a little more important than mere semantics: if a person or group states that the intent of their actions is not misogynistic, by what authority does this article claim to call them misogynistic. (That question is not rhetorical! It needs to be answered for proper discourse and dissemination. After all we can simply cite that according to X anthropology study, Y sociological study, Z rubric for treatment of women and girls established by Widget Human Rights Organization, it qualifies for the definition.)

Hopefully we can be sober about this and make this article less opinionated and politicized than similar ones to be unmentioned. 108.41.249.172 (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Misogyny have relate with sex crime?

would Misogyny have relate with sex crime?

like one man have Misogyny would him behavior violent to girl? --36.225.96.169 (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2015

add psychology temple into article? 36.225.96.169 (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Misogyny is not part of the template. I think the reader is well covered with the two navigational boxes we already have in the article, {{Discrimination}} and {{Domestic violence}}. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 22:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Editables

Hi,
a) At one place, Schopenhauer's name is given as SchopenhauRer; should be corrected.
b) Under feminist theory, I found it slightly confusing that there is a "on the one hand, on the other hand" exposition of feminist theory where both variants refer to the whore/madonna complex. Not that I know that these are not different, but the difference isn't really made clear in the way this exposition is worded now. Perhaps someone who is read up on this could clarify to make those two more distinct?
c) There should be "Judaism" in the Religions section too?
T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2016

New account and I'm definitely not going to remember to do this in 4 days, so can someone change sexual discrimination to sex discrimination in the introduction? The latter makes much more sense based on context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IgnominiousIbex (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed:  Done—Odysseus1479 04:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

We need to expand this articles summary paragraphs and history page

Sexism and misogyny against women is far greater than the sum total of the religious texts and philosophers that espoused those views. Dvalentine (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

I feel like the grammar, and writing in this section is just very poor, for example the statement "Darwin's beliefs about women were also reflective of his attitudes towards women in general", feels unnecessarily repetitive. Lion348 (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Misogyny is not a hatred of women

According to Oxford and pretty much every other dictionary it is "Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women:". "Hatred" is an over emotive term. --130.195.253.76 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

→From the Oxford dictionary: Origin Mid 17th century: from Greek misos hatred + gunē woman. 2605:A601:56E:AB00:CD48:E8E1:C4A4:5443 (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

References

What's the antonym of "misogyny"?

Should it be "misoandry"? Since "misogyny" means miso- (hater, hatred) + gyne (woman), should the antonym be miso- (hater, hatred) + andry (man)? --Yejianfei (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, the article gives the antonym as "philogyny" (philo-, love + gyne, woman). Misandry (with the "o" dropped) is described as a "counterpart" (so the antonym of misandry would be philandry). Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017

Please remove the reference to Donald Trump (or any named person for that matter) from the "see also" material. Placing it in this section, especially first, is inflammatory and does not further the academic aspects of this article. Nigeltx (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: I was ready to put done but realized the link is Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording, not Donald Trump. That link seems to barely pass WP:SEEALSO to me, but I'll let someone else make a final decision as my POV might be an issue here. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2017

Replace Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording with Misandry, not important information. Rogers, Katharine M. The Troublesome Helpmate: A History of Misogyny in Literature, 1966. - content isn't verifiable and lacks pointers to specific verses to support that claim.

should be added at the bottom. 117.213.22.184 (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Unclear why you ask that the Trump/Bush recording be replaced with something unrelated. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-noteworthy in a global sense, its derogatory but it isn't the first and it wouldn't be the last. The replacement was suggested because of the general lack of understanding of terms from the above question raised. Adding Violence against women, felt required and close to the topic. Removal of Rogers, Katharine M. (cite_note-28) content based on policy requirement.

Misogyny in transsexualism and transgender activism, and Transmisogyny

Hi User:EvergreenFir, thanks for the improvements. I undid the change to the title though, as the intent of the section was to outline the feminist view that transsexualism is tied with misogyny. (I added opposing viewpoints with the intention of more balance...) It's very interesting that the section exactly as I wrote it was interpreted as outlining transmisogyny instead! Perhaps a title that doesn't take either side with regard to the interpretations of the two paragraphs in question would be best. Otherwise, I would think that a separate section that is in turn concerned with transmisogyny would be the right way to balance things. The sections would point at each other, pointing out that the same sentences by e.g. Raymonds and Jeffreys could be interpreted either as an analysis of misogyny in the practice of transsexualism, or as an instance of transmisogyny committed against transsexuals, depending on one's viewpoint. It might be best for someone other than me to create such a section, as I'm most educated in the radical perspective towards the issue and don't want to misrepresent the other side. But if nobody comes around to doing that, then I guess a quick fix would be to make the section about both things at once and choose a fitting title. Do you have suggestions? The most straightforward option may be "Misogyny in transsexualism and transgender activism, and transmisogyny" but maybe that's too long? TaylanUB (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the entire section should be deleted per WP:UNDUE. None of the quotes in the section mention misogyny and they seem to be focused more on transsexualism being unfeminist (or un-some-brand-of-feminism) rather than misogynist. Regardless, these are certainly not mainstream opinions (even within feminism), so I don't think they deserve an entire section, especially within such a broad topic as misogyny. Kaldari (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The second two paragraphs can go, imho. But the first one could just use some rewording. The sources used do say "misogyny" in them often enough. You raising DUE is a good question though; is this opinion (a rather minority opinion) worth mentioning? Perhaps we could combine this with a paragraph on transmisogyny as they are related. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we are to decide what does and doesn't exactly construe a claim of misogyny when a woman doesn't use the word "misogyny" but still mentions negative attitudes towards women. Going by the listed manifestations in the intro: Raymond's opinion has it that transsexuals "rape women's bodies by reducing the real female form to an artifact, appropriating this body for themselves," which would be a manifestation of misogyny through hostility, androcentrism, and sexual objectification. Jeffreys says transsexualism "[invents] an essence of womanhood which is deeply insulting and restrictive," which would be a manifestation of misogyny through hostility, androcentrism, and belittling of women. To be honest I think it's common sense that these formulations are claims of misogyny.

As for whether it's undue, I think that Raymond and Jeffreys' views are not insignificant, as both were/are fairly prominent second-wave/radical feminist figures who published a lot of feminist literature. Some comparisons: there's a whole section about evolutionary theory based on one study by two men; the Charles Darwin section is based on citations from one book; the Arthur Schopenhauer section is based mostly on two sources. Honestly, I don't think it's undue to include Raymond and Jeffreys' views by giving them one or two sentences each as part of a larger section, mostly just directly quoting them, and also including their criticism. (Feel free to add criticism of Jeffreys too if you find any; currently only Raymond's critique is mentioned.) Furthermore, regardless of how many people ascribe to these opinions, I'd think they're noteworthy opinions due to the large controversies they've caused, or am I thinking wrong?

Including the topic of transmisogyny in the section may be a good idea though. TaylanUB (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The sources need to be explicit. We need others to use the term "misogyny"; we cannot make that leap outselves even if it seems clear to us (see WP:SYNTH). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE isn't about how many sources are quoted, it's about how prominent the viewpoint is in relation to the subject. If I look at sources about misogyny, it is quite likely they will mention Arthur Schopenhauer as he is a very famous misogynist. The sources we quote about him are sources about misogyny: "The Limits of Misogyny: Schopenhauer, 'On Women'", "Misogyny in the Western Philosophical Tradition: A Reader". We don't quote any sources about misogyny in the Transsexualism and transgender activism section. Instead, we quote primary sources, many of which don't even mention misogyny. Also, I disagree that Jeffreys' views have anything to do with misogyny. Perpetuating conservative stereotypes of what it means to be a woman isn't misogyny. Otherwise our list of misogynists would include virtually every person that isn't a radical feminist. As the cited New Yorker article says, Jeffreys' accuses trans women of "capitulation to misogyny", not misogyny itself. Raymond's views also don't mention anything about actual misogyny, i.e. they don't discuss hatred, contempt for, or discrimination against women. Raymond's book exposes "antifeminist stereotyping" (to quote a review), which isn't the same thing as misogyny. Even metaphorical raping of "women's bodies" is not misogyny, at least by any common definition of the word. Anyway, I'm sure we could argue these points in detail, but my main point is that these viewpoints are about antifeminism, not misogyny, and characterizing them as being about misogyny is synthesis (as EvergreenFir points out above). I would be open to the idea of moving the section to antifeminism, but I don't think it belongs here. Kaldari (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Kaldari that the entire section should be removed or totally changed to conform to WP:UNDUE. The view that transgender activism is misogynist is not commonly held in feminism, yet other viewpoints are not present. Even if they were, the quantity of text already raises issues of undue weight as the section is about as long as the one on Islam. The section also seems to focus on pet, fringe issues like whether or not TERF is a slur regardless of how infrequently the issue appears in reliable sources concerning misogyny and transgender people. Rab V (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually haven't been able to find any sources that explicitly state that feminists have accused the transgender rights movement of misogyny (or anything widely understood to constitute misogyny). In fact, I can't even find any primary sources by radical feminists accusing the transgender rights movement of misogyny. I searched through some of Sheila Jeffreys' books that discuss transsexualism, and although she accuses trans women of a litany of offenses (promoting S&M, propping up traditional gender roles, grooming children, not being feminist), I couldn't find any example of her accusing them of misogyny. I also looked through all of the currently cited sources, but none of them directly support the premise of the section. Most of them either accuse the transgender rights movement of being unfeminist or of attacking and alienating radical feminists (neither of which constitute misogyny). Unless some sources can be found that support the basic premise of the section, I would favor deleting it over trimming it (EvergreenFir's suggestion). Kaldari (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Aristotle is not a 17th to 20th century philosopher

Aristotle is currently listed under both the sections "Classical Greece" and "Philosophers and thinkers (17th to 20th century)", with significant repetition between them, although I didn't read them throughly. I suggest merging them both into the "Classical Greece" section. Conversely, because the heading of "Philosophers and thinkers (17th to 20th century)" mentions Aristotle as an "influential Western philosopher", which is true, the section about Aristotle under "Classical Greece" could be merged into "Philosophers and thinkers" with the century part removed. Either way, it should fix the problem of fragmentation and repetition about Aristotle. Personally I would recommend merging them into "Classical Greece". 2001:56A:F32D:CD00:C646:19FF:FEA9:D3BF (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

page please

"Rogers, Katharine M. The Troublesome Helpmate: A History of Misogyny in Literature, 1966." The page is missing. If you could mention it, I 'd be pleased. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Misogyny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005011657/http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7538.html to http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7538.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206045217/http://cbmw.org/staff/ to http://cbmw.org/staff/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100625003539/http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/06/the_church_of_s.php to http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2010/06/the_church_of_s.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sexism in the article

I haven't gone over the whole article with a fine tooth comb, so there may be more.

The term "male privilege" is sexist, and should be removed, or reworded, to a more neutral description of the problem. brill (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Article is judgmental based on personal views, not objective

Who says that there is misoginy in religions, philosphies etc.? Based on which generally respected work or proof? This article is written based on feelings of hatred. It is practically saying that all that is not a woman has by definition misoginy. Instead of giving a definition and history, like other wikipedia articles, this article is manipulating wikipedia to accuse general public. It should be immediately removed. Kilinc Alkan 17:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilinc alkan (talk • contribs)

misogyny -new definition

it is time to re-brand the word as we know it to remove the hatred and stubbornness that the word has meant till now .first i do not think women inferior or unequal in anyway and wish to take back that contexts of the word rather have it mean to do what is manly in the modern sense of the idea. to mean a man who can fix the car fix dinner and play any sport to do all things that a man should do to up lift the experience of being a man to be a term to say i am all that is good in men and not what it is to day used to explain a narrow vision of mankind in general but to bring its definition from a cave man who thinks with his *** and chains his woman to the stove in no way should this be allowed to continue to be the definition whether a man is straight gay or in between there is a pride in being a man and should have a definition a single word that is less arrogant than that of macho and more than we have now that can some up what it is to be an arc type of the modern man to have chivalry and manners to all people and still excel at what society thinks a man should be...so hens forth i am proud to be a misogynist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:C102:B730:7922:7422:609A:C61D (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This article absolutely needs to be updated along these lines. A good place to start would be the inclusion of Kate Manne, whose 2017 book Down Girl redefines misogyny as the policing of the feminine gender norm of submission. Celtislav (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2019

I want to note the fact that female privilege exists, and the fact that there is a ton of bias against men in modern society. Redundanteditor (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Þjarkur (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Womanpower logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2019

Under section 4.3 (Charles Darwin) please REMOVE ALL CONTENT and QUOTES pulled from Gerald "Jerry" Bergman's journal article "The history of the human female inferiority ideas in evolutionary biology" (note 47) until such time they can be independently verified from a reputable source. This ENTIRE SECTION appears to rely exclusively on the aforementioned Bergman journal article which sits behind a paywall.

Jerry Bergman is a notorious young-earth creationist affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research and he is not an accurate source for any information regarding Charles Darwin, especially accusations this inflammatory. I can find no reference anywhere else to these specific quotes that are attributed to Darwin here by Bergman -- and even if they are based on the writings of Darwin, I highly doubt they are fully accurate. Everything I have found links back to this Wikipedia entry or Bergman's journal article.

Bergman's "PhD" in "human biology" is from Columbia Pacific University, which was a known diploma mill that was shut down some time ago. The man is a fraud and his work, no matter where it has appeared, should not be used as a reliable source. Darwin's views on women were certainly retrograde relative to modern sensibilities, but this is the absolute worst way possible to address them!

Here is some further information on Gerald "Jerry" Bergman:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jerry_Bergman

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bergman-and-racism.html NoJustLions (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. jps (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Semantic change

The alteration of meaning occurs because words are constantly used and what is intended by speakers is not exactly the same each time. If a different intention for a word is shared by the speech community and becomes established in usage then a semantic change has occurred. This happened to mysogyny. It used to be directed at women, but now, its about having a bar and appreciating some kind of quality. If you value consistent logic, interesting characters, plots and dialogue in entertainment fe, youre a misogynist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.83.121 (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Bias against Buddhism based on limited knowledge

The Section on Buddhism is clearly biased

No mention is made of the fact that Buddha could be classed as a modern "bi-sexual", in fact most temples , text & artworks promote the god as being Effeminate,

and of transcending sexuality, as if it does not have any overall impact on the teachings.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.92.40.136 (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC) 

Misogyny vs misandry

{{rangeblock}}: 176.60.64.0/18 has been blocked from editing for one year. This block has been placed to bring an end to over six months of sexuality-related original research, tendentious rejection of community input and persistent edit warring. If you had an account, you would long have been topic banned from the area of conflict, and blocked from editing indefinitely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Please, delete from the article statement "misandry is inverse of misogyny" These words are related only by etymology. 176.60.64.150 (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC) You have been using several IP addresses to disrupt Wikipedia, especially by blanking scholarly analysis. When seen in conjuction with your feminism/sexism disruption, your request here is indistinguishable from trolling. Binksternet (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC) Misandry#Asymmetry with misogyny. It's nothing to add. P. S. These edits were not my. 176.60.75.111 (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting some help

Hi,

Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Areas to improve upon

This article could use some updating with references and recent studies. I plan to make contributions focusing especially on 1) the introduction section needing to have a more well-rounded summary of article contents, 2) more information in the Online Misogyny section as this more modern form of misogyny needs as much dedication as the lengthy history sections, and 3) studies to be added to the Psychological Impact section of the article. To begin, I will draw on two studies (referenced below) that can both contribute to the Online Misogyny section. The first study discusses how online misogyny formulates obstacles for women when trying to engage in the internet both publicly and politically. The authors also call for actions/rules to be put in place to remove misogyny, etc. from the internet. The second study outlines how Urban Dictionary contributes to misogyny online and the misogynistic definitions, sentences, etc. that get so many thumbs up on the site. Both of these can be utilized to outline different factors that enable and progress misogyny on the internet, emphasizing its broad scope.

Barker, K.; Jurasz, Olga (2019). "Online Misogyny: A Challenge for Digital Feminism?". Retrieved 2020-10-15.

Ging, Debbie; Lynn, Theodore; Rosati, Pierangelo (2019-08-30). "Neologising misogyny: Urban Dictionary's folksonomies of sexual abuse". New Media & Society. 22 (5): 838–856. doi:10.1177/1461444819870306. ISSN 1461-4448.

Please let me know of any feedback you could provide. Thanks! -- Wiki811pedia (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Great, glad to hear it! I wrote most of the Online Misogyny section, because previously there was almost nothing in the article about this important topic. I totally agree that the section ought to be larger still, and I look forward to the contributions you've mentioned. Something else that would be welcome, if you can, is expanding the international perspective of the section. It was difficult for me to find info about online misogyny outside of the US or the English-speaking world. Jno.skinner (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I plan on finding more recent articles to contribute to this page.I do spot some outdated articles in the religion part of this section. More information on the religion subpage of this article by updating that section with more recent articles. For my research I will be focused on putting more update information into the religion subpage. My first priority will be including up to date journal articles for this new age of religion and how it relates to misogyny. My 2nd priority will be to update the information on the religion "Christianity" on updated information on bible misogynistic ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvmarsha (talk • contribs) 18:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Online misogyny

There is a distinct omission concerning Andrew Anglin (of The Daily Stormer) in this section concerning his so-called "Troll Army," whose victims have been overwhelming women and the attacks against him of the most vicious kind. I've already added some bits to the white supremacy section, but the Troll Army actions should be included under online misogyny as well, because they are the most notable example of this kind of harassment beyond Gamergate. Laval (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"Misogyny" page removal from feminism portal or renaming "Feminist Perspective on Misogyny"

The Feminism sidebar page was added in November of 2018. Misogyny is not a topic exclusive to feminism and to put the sidebar on the page is to tell the reader that and editors that this page is run from that specific ideology. It encourages editions from that perspective - which makes sense when you put something like "Fajr" in the Muslim portal/series but doesn't make sense here. Misogyny is an English language word that has its first know usage in 1656 according to Webster's dictionary.

When you look into Feminist History as many members of the feminist movement would purport, you see examples dating back further than that. However, this is a historical view, not a history of feminism itself as an organized movement. So the history I mentioned is feminism's take on history, decided long after the fact - not the normal way of analyzing history as would be done by historians living at the time and then handed off to the next historians. Unless I'm missing something, this feminist historical take didn't really start happening even by the time of Seneca Hall. Its a new perspective on history developing after first wave feminism at the very least and this is not arguing that having that perspective isn't allowed. But to say that the word misogyny is part of that history and under that umbrella is 1. a stretch and 2. a huge disservice to those who wish to discuss the topic and don't see it from that perspective. Further, the perspective from only a feminist angle is causing serious issues in society today by controlling the word and thus controlling the debate. When you control the definitions of the debate, you shield yourself from any criticism. But that isn't the worst part because this is about what other's read when they research, look into, and discuss a topic that aren't feminists and when someone else controls the definitions of words, they control what others say and write about the topic. If you control that, you control what listeners to those researchers and common people having the discussion think based on controlling what they see and here and say.

23:54, 18 November 2018‎ Proscribe talk contribs‎ 52,129 bytes +106‎ tweaks to refs thank

10:34, 22 November 2018‎ Naturista2018 talk contribs‎ 52,150 bytes +21‎ thank

GhostsOfGironde (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kathrine Switzer, una delle prime donne partecipanti a una maratona (Boston 1967).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I looked into this and the caption is almost certainly being used to slander Jock Semple posthumously. The problem also popped up in April 2020 on his Wikipedia page. If you read the sources such as Sports Illustrated Source 2 on Jock Semple's page and Switzer's excerpt from her book, and then looking at the history of Jock Semple, it wasn't misogyny at all. He was a stickler for enforcing the rules. He never assaulted anyone and the previous captions weren't that much better. He was apparently threatened with a charge of assault but they never brought it. Bringing a criminal charge is often considered evidence that it is more likely than not the crime occurred. It doesn't quite work in reverse but what it does mean is that if the charges aren't brought, its not beyond a reasonable doubt. I didn't see anything about charges threatened in the incident with this photo, so the attempt to stop her from finishing the race by grabbing her bib was probably not even near the standard in between 50/50 and reasonable doubt. Further, in the excerpt it is Switzer herself that 1. Knows Semple is in charge and 2. Knows that she is breaking the rules (rules that she likely consented to when she started to run the race). Semple likely had the right to enforce the rules which is why Assault charges over the previous 10 years don't seem to have ever been brought against him with concern to a man or a woman (even when he became aggressive toward a man in scuba-diving like gear trying to run the race as a joke - that's the kind of stuff people were doing as jokes and he was trying to stop).

"Assault" is a crime. He was known for being aggressive about enforcing the rules...which isn't a crime and being aggressive over enforcing rules in general is not misogyny - even if the rules say women can't run in a men's race. I don't think it many would call it misogyny if the NFL said the cheerleaders or other women can't play in the game with men - in fact, if they did, the NFL would probably get sued when she got hurt. Men and women's separate sports is not misogyny and I think that most would agree.

The organization making the rules, not Semple, had to change them - That took three years for an event that is very large and only happens once a year in an age without cell phones and internet speeds of communication. Additionally, to make a new race they had to do averages I think for qualifying times and that took 2 years. You can argue that it should have taken 1 year but that doesn't really mean its misogynist cause it didn't happen fast enough for people's liking and it doesn't mean that Jock Semple was the culprit. It looks like the opposite - he introduced the new race and his quotes showed support for it. I think its just a revision of history and potentially a self-serving political statement on behalf of some editors. Look at Jno.skinner who made most of the edits and how vociferous the language became when the account began editing. Look who made the last caption edit - Sylosin, they had voting rights on the Arb Committee at some point. These accounts should be reported/reprimanded. It looks like they chose a picture of a dead man to publish slander in order to get around the law cause only a few states let you sue as an estate for the deceased. He probably has a bunch of family members out there right now, male and female, that are pretty upset with this whole thing.

I think all the edits on this page by Jno.skinner should be looked over for violations/maligned intentions. This type of material warps minds- especially that of young women- by creating revisionist history that never really happened. It tends to inflame them. Inflamed people are very easy to organize. Please remove the picture from the Misogyny page and if violating copyright also Wikimedia Commons. It would also be good to clean up the misogyny page and Semple's page. I also don't think his life should be defined by this on his page. Mentioning the event, yes. But giving Switzer a color photo like there is now on the Jock Semple page and making it a substantial part of his page I think is inappropriate - Especially when Switzer already has her own page with the same picture. He tried to grab the bib. He was aggressive in general about the rules. This is different from Misogyny: hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women - per Webster's Dictionary. I think the picture caught a moment that isn't representative of what it is saying happened and its being used to push a message. And the proponents of the message don't seem to care whose memory they ruin or the effect (emotional or financial) it will have on his descendants.

00:16, 24 July 2020‎ Jno.skinner talk contribs‎ 67,515 bytes +263‎ Illustration

The above is where the photo was added

04:19, 7 August 2020‎ Jno.skinner talk contribs‎ 69,168 bytes +55‎ Photo caption addition 

The above shows how the caption changes to used more vociferous language over time and its final Caption was made by Sylosin here:

00:13, 27 August 2020‎ Sylosin talk contribs‎ m 68,409 bytes +11‎ Made the lead photo's description more succinct and factual

The above shows the last caption edit for the photo as it is currently seen when this post was written — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostsOfGironde (talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The page is viewed often. Since the latest of Jno.Skinner's last editing spree began on July 9 2020 (the account has edits prior but they aren't as constant) the page has "Pageviews: 507,638" and since the photo was put up "Pageviews: 455,814". the daily average views on both periods of time is over 3,000.

Female chauvinism is just as uncool as male chauvinism.

@GorillaWarfare: please help

GhostsOfGironde (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@GhostsOfGironde: As you've noticed, I have been updating this article to include newer scholarship (by Kate Mann and others) that defines misogyny not simply as individual hatred of women, but as the enforcement of sexist rules. The photo of Jock Semple is an image of someone in the act of enforcing a sexist rule. It was the clearest illustration I could find. Jno.skinner (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jno.skinner: For now, the main problem I had with that photo on the site wasn't the possible de minimis violation of copyright law when it was posted but the caption underneath it and the message it sends - and that includes if it wasn't Jock Semple too but with him, it just looked like it wasn't even accurate as to what happened. The worst caption was made by Sylosin, not Jno.skninner. But the information on the page also looked a little vitriolic to be honest - terms/language used and based on a definition -which I'm thinking you are saying is a reworked definition by Kate Mann), sounds like a broadening of a topic that has existed since at least 1656. Thanks for your reply. I'm glad the photo is down.

GhostsOfGironde (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

"It became a common term in the English language in 2012"

Not in the source used, and another part of the article says it became common in the mid-seventies. I have a hard time assuming good faith here, but since it's semi-protected I can't change it.. 96.19.2.200 (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This assertion is not supported by the evidence provided in the footnote. Moreover, on the face of it, it is unsupportable. The word has long been in use and has certainly been commonly used since the rise of second wave feminism in the 1970s. A simple online search turns up Kate Millet's work Sexual Politics, where misogyny is a central idea presented. 108.21.91.188 (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing attention to this incorrect date. I have removed the statement. Looking at the logs, the date was added by a student in a college class assigned to edit Wikipedia. So I assume it was a good faith but inexperienced edit. Jno.skinner (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Misogyny among gay males

...needs to be mentioned.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324074978_Acceptable_femininity_Gay_male_misogyny_and_the_policing_of_queer_femininities

More sources can easily be found by just googling the key words. Please add a section re:misogyny among gay males. 46.221.87.49 (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

correlation between white supremacy and mosgyny

I didn't find that such a heavy claim was properly substantiated and I have removed it. Graywalls (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Julia Gillard official photo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead NPOV: Misogyny in Ancient Greece

Misogyny in Ancient Greece was not understood as it is in this article. According to the "Ancient Greece" subsection of this article Aristotle and Socrates considered women as clearly inferior to men, which is considered as misogyny today. In the same section, when presenting the anti-misogynistic views in Ancient Greece it is clear that Ancient Greeks with misogyny meant the dislike of women. Putting the statement that misogyny "was noted as a disease in Classical Greece" without qualification, is just forcing Ancient Greece to have ideas it did not have. Nxavar (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021

Please re-insert the sub-section shown below into section "Feminist theory". It has been deleted from there (twice: 29 March and 5 April) without any explanation. It seems like a perfectly legitimate and informative section which is sourced. If there's a reason for its removal, so that it should not be reinstated, then could that be stated clearly, please?:

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please establish a consensus one way or the other before opening a request. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Contempt for the feminine

Julia Serano defines misogyny as not only hatred of women per se, but the "tendency to dismiss and deride femaleness and femininity." In this view, misogyny also causes homophobia against gay men because gay men are stereotyped as feminine and weak; misogyny likewise causes anxiety among straight men that they will be seen as unmanly. Serano's book Whipping Girl argues that most anti-trans sentiment directed at trans women should be understood as misogyny. By embracing femininity, the book argues, trans women cast doubt on the superiority of masculinity.

References

49.177.64.138 (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Request withdrawn Nevermind; An editor has reinstated. Sorry to bother. Thank you 49.177.64.138 (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

No need to apologize! I re-added the paragraph because of your suggestion. Thank you for being observant! The user who twice removed that paragraph appears to systematically remove content about transgender people (as they did in the article Clitoral enlargement methods for example) without explanation. Jno.skinner (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• This content has been removed again a couple more times after I restored it per this request. I support the request and I am reopening it. I'd like to get consensus rather than fight an edit war. Jno.skinner (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Leparsdon, please engage in discussion here and reach a consensus. I'd like to gently remind both of you to not edit war, even if slowly. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Seeing no engagement here, I'm planning to re-add the content per the request in the next week unless discussion occurs. The claim is sourced and on-topic. Jno.skinner (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Was the intro written by a 12 year old?

I would offer a re-write that sounds more like a real encyclopedia, but can't imagine where to even start. For instance, things like this drivel: "Women who reject subordination are punished by misogyny" is just thinly veiled flame-throwing. 𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 please join the discussion above.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 13:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Social status? Excuse me?

The opening lines about how misogyny is used to keep women at a lower social status than men is complete ludicrous! To what degree does social status play a role in men having prejudice views? This is from a "Feminist" viewpoint something that is entirely SUBJECTIVE and there have been anti-feminist books written about this - such as "The Manipulated Man" by Esther Vilar which breaks down that women for the most part are gold diggers another subjective argument. So can somebody please change the opening lines about misogyny or is wikepedia too afraid and politically correct to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:F83F:4F5A:41EC:F8A2:B5F4:6036 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources. A neutral summary of all the published sources does indeed conclude that misogyny is aimed at those who challenge the lower social status of women. Esther Vilar is in disagreement with this consensus; she is a reactionary. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet how much weight do dictionaries have in this neutral summary? I notice that a single definition that apparently differs from all other dictionary entries seems to be given undue weight at the moment. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 02:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:WINAD articles should begin with a good definition, possibly from a dictionary, as this article does. (Namely "hatred or contempt for women or girls.") From there it should move on to encyclopedic content integrating other reliable sources. I moved etymology out from the first few sentences, as the policy states Wikipedia is not primarily a linguistic work. Jno.skinner (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Jno.skinner you did more than move etymology from the first few sentences, you reverted all my edits to the lede under a deceptive edit summary [1] I am not sure if etymology should be in the first paragraph of the lede, and can see nothing on that at WP:WINAD but I thought adding it would be less controversial than deleting the disputed claims that the word is ancient. You have ignored the subject of this discussion - the social status argument. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 13:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps my previous comments were unclear. WP:WINAD doesn't seem to give guidance on when a word is used by some people in a way that contradicts the dictionary meaning, I thought that qualifying this as being specific use by feminists was the correct approach. What is your opinion? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 13:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The word is ancient. There is a lengthy, sourced section about its use in ancient Greece. The word's age is not a "disputed claim" in any source. Similarly, as Binksternet has already pointed out, the idea that misogyny results in lower social status isn't really a disputed claim. This is not just feminist theory; there is a broad scholarly consensus. Even misogynists themselves (such as Joseph Swetnam) argue for the inferiority of women. The idea that widespread hatred or contempt causes lower social status is not controversial. L'Origine du monde, please clean up your edits to reflect consensus. Jno.skinner (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

To echo Jno.skinner's comments above, I am concerned that edits like this by L'Origine du monde violate NPOV by using unnecessary attribution to imply that only "feminists" believe misogyny has existed throughout history.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Restored -sche's version of 18:54, 9 September 2021 while this gets hashed out. Personally, I find Sdkb's version of 23 June 2020 even better:

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny manifests in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women, disenfranchisement of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification. Misogyny can be found within sacred texts of religions, mythologies, and Western philosophy and Eastern philosophy.

and my preference would be to roll back to this version, discuss, and then move forward from there. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems very clear to me that Feminists use the word in a different sense to the dictionary definition. The word is not ancient, according to dictionaries, and the article, but derives from a C17 play. A few researchers may have found a similar word being used in Ancient Greece, but that does not, as far as I can see, represent the consensus view. Are you really disputing that Feminists give a different meaning to the word that other people? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 12:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging who has identified "misogyny" throughout history if not feminists? Given the existence of Matriarchal societies it is silly to claim that misogyny has existed throughout history.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 12:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So now the first sentence says "Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is hatred or contempt for women or girls. It is a form of sexism used to keep women at a lower social status than men." I understand that this is a feminist understanding of the word/concept, but it is not part of the normal meaning of the word. Why do you object to qualifying as feminist feminist usage? For example New York Times "His blunder — misogyny is defined as a hatred or ingrained prejudice against women specifically — drew swift backlash" [[2]]. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 12:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't remember what weight this carries in wikipedia, but misogyny produces 53,500,000 results on google[[3]], while misogyny and "social status" gets 2,700,000 ["social+status"]. Surely there is a way to distinguish between the normal meaning of the word/concept and a minority meaning?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 13:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What is more, I do not believe it is true to say, as the lede now does, that philogyny is the opposite of a form of sexism used to keep women at a lower social status than men.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 13:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Could it be more explicit than "Misogyny may be distinguished from the closely related word sexism, which signifies discrimination based on sex (although it most frequently refers to discrimination against women) and also carries the meaning “behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. Misogyny refers specifically to a hatred of women. The word is formed from the Greek roots misein (“to hate”) and gynē (“woman”). Each of these roots can be found in other English words, both common and obscure. Gynē helped to form gynecologist and androgynous, and misein can be found in such words as misoneism (“a hatred, fear, or intolerance of innovation or change”) and misandry (“a hatred of men”)." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny#note-1 ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 13:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The only mention of "status" in the body of the article is attributed to Kate Manne, so I have reproduced this attribution in the lede. I can personally see no reason to mention something in the second sentence of the lede that is only mentioned once in the article. I would politely request anyone seeking to remove this qualification from the lede to first edit the body of the article which the lede should reflect.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 15:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging please can you give a source for your belief that misogyny has existed throughout history. At the moment the article lacks such a source, and I have tagged the claim as requiring one. If you can find a reliable source that is not feminist please remove the qualification. If you can't find a reliable source please remove the claim. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 15:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'm finding it hard to respond to the discussion above; with all the indentation changes it's hard to see who is responding to what. Hence, this new subsection, which isn't about anything new, it's just a plea for everyone to please observe the comment-and-reply conventions as specified at WP:THREAD. Repeated comments by the same editor responding to the same thing can all be at the same indent level; and if they occur rapidly with no intervening replies, you can just join them all together above a single signature if you wish. Whatever seems most clear, and most inviting and easy for other editors to get involved and respond.

Just to try to get this back on terra firma: I agree with Jno.skinner and Binksternet about starting with a definition, possibly a dictionary definition as long as it has majoritarian support from reliable sources. Further, I agree with TheTimesAreAChanging in that I think that the apparent move towards couching everything in terms of feminism is misguided per undue weight; misogyny predates feminism by millennia, as the article makes clear. Feminism obviously has plenty to say about misogyny and should be covered in due proportion to its coverage in reliable sources.

As far as etymology, anything more than a *very* brief parenthetical in the lead is too much. The #Definitions section covers related subtopic, and imho any detailed discussion of the etymology of the word should be moved to this section, possibly with a title change to #Definition_and_etymology, or perhaps better, #Etymology_and_definitions, or maybe just #Terminology, if a one-word section title is preferred. If we go that route, keep in mind that the current #Historical usage section has considerable discussion of the term, and that section—currently too long imho—should probably be refactored, and probably cut back. Mathglot (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Misogyny is a C17 word. It was repurposed by Dworkin and feminists who followed her, but retains its original meaning for non-feminists. Surely this is a simple concept to grasp, and one which the lede snd article should explain. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 19:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree, but an important thing to keep in mind, is distinguishing when we are talking about misogyny the concept, which predates the word by millenia, and when we are talking about the word, and the evolution in usage of the word. The article is for readers to read, after all, and we should try to be clear about what we are saying. If we want to say that Dworkin understood the word misogyny differently from others, or popularized it in a way that it took a different tack than before and that that evolution of the word is sufficiently important to attribute to Dworkin in the lead, then we need to get more secondary sources that say that. Currently we have the article by N. Aron from the NY Times, but it's just one analysis. Ngrams shows an increase in usage in the 1960s and 70s, getting steeper in the 1980s, but it's hard to pin it to a single year. A google books search restricted to 1960 to 1980 shows varied usage of the term, but nothing particularly related to Dworkin at that point, at least in the first 50 results. So I think it would be good to have additional reliable sourcing about the change in usage following Dworkin if we are going to repeat her name in the lead. Mathglot (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Please can you provide some reliable sources that support your claim that the feminist concept of misogyny was not invented in the 1970s, but millennia earlier. My understanding from reading the article, and a limited amount of research is that the expansion of the concept from "hatred of women" occurred precisely then. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 20:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)