Misogyny

[Peter Damian]

Hope I've spelled that right. The talk page of Donkey Punch beautifully illustrates the misogynism that pervades Wikipedia. This blog post http://www.junkland.net/2011/11/donkey- ... fight.html expresses the nastiness of it better than I could. What other examples are there? I tried to find the discussion on the pearl necklace article where there some nasty examples, but failed. Anything else?

[EricBarbour]

FWIW, I put some of it on the "Men's Rights" article.

It seems to me that what you're asking about could make up a long career for a number of academic social scientists......

Any of the men's rights related articles is a good place to see Wikipedia misogyny at work. It's not a pervasive community
bias or attitude, but there are unquestionably longtime editors who engage in it. All of the talkpages for those articles are full of
extremely angry and incoherent squabbling--just like the equivalent feminism pages.

Two well-known Wikipedia admins keep appearing therein: Ed Poor and Cailil. Usually on opposite sides of arguments.

Reddit has a charming section called "beatingwomen", and most of the (male) WP insiders club have Reddit accounts.

[Alison]

Domestic violence (T-H-L)

Check out the edit history for plenty of examples. Also note the size of the sections relating to violence against women versus violence against men. The article is one of those perennial POV-pushing flashpoints. The main image in the article depicts woman-on-man violence, etc, etc.

[Peter Damian]

Domestic violence (T-H-L)

Check out the edit history for plenty of examples. Also note the size of the sections relating to violence against women versus violence against men. The article is one of those perennial POV-pushing flashpoints. The main image in the article depicts woman-on-man violence, etc, etc.

Thank you :o .

Numerous major studies have demonstrated concretely the trends of female violence against men, even given the general reluctance of men to report incidents to the police. The view that although mutual violent behavior is quite common in intimate relationships, but men are rarely seriously harmed is considered an example of the prevalence of anti-male Feminist thinking in society today." with comment "continuing to counteract the Feminist scourge that destroys the neutrality of Wikipedia entries." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =148057284

[oscarlechien]

this is a huge, huge problem. It's really quite central to what's wrong on Wikipedia. And it's the only way to really document this type of unfair treatment, since you simply can't argue with sexism. It's easy to detect and very dfiicult to hide. It's exactly the right tactic to take.

However, before you decide to address this, dear Peter, you've got to realize one thing :

Men consider that it's normal for a woman to point these things out. When a man points them out and says that this is not fair, he becomes a traitor.

The response is generally extremely violent.

Working in feminisit musiciology, I've seen this again and again. You would not believe the violence of the reactions against men who support women's rights. Working with William Osborne http://www.osborne-conant.org/ladies.htm on various projects, he warned me about this. I didn't believe him, but quickly found out what he was talking about.

...the other issue is that women sometimes wonder exactly what you're doing defending these types of situations. At times, you even get "you should leave your place to a woman!" from other female feminists.

However, this is exactly the thing to point out. There's no getting around the fact that this is the one issue that proves that WP is inherently pushing a WASP-male agenda, inspite of the "poor child in Africa" rhetoric. Just be prepared for an extremely violent response.

[iii]

Offered to the readers, another example of what we're discussing here: masculinism (T-H-L). It's a pretty alarming bit of writing. Looks like it has gone largely unnoticed, unlike men's rights (T-H-L). But even that article, in spite of its boilerplate notices, is obviously lacking the most basic critical analysis. (The word "misogyny" doesn't even appear on the page!)

Oh, and there is apparently an entire "series" on Violence against men (T-H-L). What an amazing little cottage industry they have going there!

(Not to thread hijack or anything, but this rabbit hole journey reminds me somewhat of incidents involving white pride (T-H-L) where the famous user the_undertow (T-C-L) objected to tagging the talk page with the banner for "Wikiproject Discrimination".)

[Mason]

Perhaps off-topic, as it's not an example from Wikipedia, but among the top contenders for sexist idiocy on the Internet has to be Conservapedia's "Sexism" article. It has three sections, the first two of which are about sexism against men. An example:

In some countries, if a rest room for women in department stores or movie houses etc. are full, a woman is allowed to use one for men. But not vice versa.

Oh, the humanity!

[ErrantX]

Domestic violence (T-H-L)

Check out the edit history for plenty of examples. Also note the size of the sections relating to violence against women versus violence against men. The article is one of those perennial POV-pushing flashpoints. The main image in the article depicts woman-on-man violence, etc, etc.

Put in a picture of a man-on-woman violence and you'd probably get a flamewar about it encouraging violence against women. That's a game not worth playing.

The gender sections are quite good (this is a topic, btw, with which I am at least reasonably well read) just ramble a lot... also much of the content is really shared analysis - I'd reorganise it into a general discussion of per-gender violence with two smaller sections containing gender specific detail. At least half of the male section deals with violence against women.

[Moonage Daydream]

Fathers 4 Justice Stage Naked Mumsnet Protest in Marks & Spencer Oxford Street

[EricBarbour]

Fathers 4 Justice Stage Naked Mumsnet Protest in Marks & Spencer Oxford Street

:D Nice find!

[iii]

Offered to the readers, another example of what we're discussing here: masculinism (T-H-L)....

And on it goes, with extremely well-founded "extra info" added, thank goodness!

[Moonage Daydream]

I can't resist posting this section of Violence against men (T-H-L) in full:

History of violence against men
Julius Caesar and the geographer Strabo mention the wicker man as one of many ways the Druids of Gaul performed sacrifices.[1] Caesar reports that some of the Gauls built the effigies out of sticks and placed living men inside, then set them on fire to pay tribute to the gods. Caesar writes that though the Druids generally used thieves and criminals, as they pleased the gods more, they sometimes used innocent men when no delinquents could be found.[2]

When violent events occurs, like disasters, the "Women and children first" practice is common. For example, in the RMS Titanic shipwreck[3] a disproportionate number of men died due to this protocol that was enforced by the ship's crew: 74% of the women on board were saved and 52% of the children, but only 20% of the men.[4] Some analysts such as Dr Carey Roberts and Dr David Benatar have viewed the policy of "women and children first" (and conscription) as evidence of what Warren Farrell refers to as "male disposability," where preservation of a woman's life is given priority over preservation of a man's life.[5][6]

A 2004 pilot study by the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth titled "Violence against men: Men's experiences of interpersonal violence in Germany" stated: "it became clear that there is a lack of appropriate support services for men and boys, or that men are not making use of those resources that could potentially offer help because either the men themselves and/or their environment do not perceive the violence they experience as such".[7]

So, men were used as human sacrifices. Skip ahead several centuries and men were, uh, not supposed to be first into the lifeboats (which could probably have been addressed by yelling "smaller and weaker persons of either gender first"). Then the final point in this history appears to be that men in Germany are reluctant to make use of support services for men who are victims of violence, which is good, because there is a lack of them. Wow.

[EricBarbour]

Classic essay:

Confessions Of A Former Misogynist

This part speaks volumes.

This was before the age of social media, but I know what I’d be doing if it was available at the time. I’d be following feminists and strong women on Twitter, combing their tweets for any kind of slip-up that I could use to ‘expose’ them. If I saw a blog or comment by a feminist that challenged my world view, my anger button would be pressed and, rather than responding rationally, I’d lash out with gendered insults, all while completely failing to empathise with them.

I’d be angrily commenting on blogs and YouTube videos about feminism, sticking up for the men who just want to get girlfriends and sex, but can’t because of this repellent radical feminism. And I would probably never change, because the large scale of social media has effectively provided a veritable support group of people who feel the same way, with the same irrational anger that prevents them from assessing their views.

[EricBarbour]

Worth posting here:

A Reddit thread that made the frontpage today.

Amusingly, many of them failed to understand the purpose or conclusions of the study cited. Quite a few (males, obviously) tried to twist it into saying that women are more likely to commit violence on male partners than vice versa. And/or that society tends to automatically regard violence by women against men to be impossible, or absurd. Typical quote:

It's not ok for women to hit men any more than it is for men to hit women, but in our society - in many societies - we have a culture which disregards women's physical violence as amusing or non-threatening, because even a healthy adult woman is often not physically strong enough to be an actual threat to a healthy adult man. The best comparison I can make is that of big dogs to little dogs. Smaller dogs get away with aggressive behaviors and are not trained as stringently as bigger dogs, because we see them as cute and don't perceive their agressive behaviors as a threat. Then people get angry when smaller dogs behave aggressively, when if they'd just taught the smaller dogs the same way they taught the bigger dogs it would enver have been a problem. The same is true of people.

PS: Reddit not only has a beatingwomen section, it also has a section called eatingwomen. (Warning: extremely disturbing)

[The Joy]

Worth posting here:

A Reddit thread that made the frontpage today.

Amusingly, many of them failed to understand the purpose or conclusions of the study cited. Quite a few (males, obviously) tried to twist it into saying that women are more likely to commit violence on male partners than vice versa. And/or that society tends to automatically regard violence by women against men to be impossible, or absurd. Typical quote:

It's not ok for women to hit men any more than it is for men to hit women, but in our society - in many societies - we have a culture which disregards women's physical violence as amusing or non-threatening, because even a healthy adult woman is often not physically strong enough to be an actual threat to a healthy adult man. The best comparison I can make is that of big dogs to little dogs. Smaller dogs get away with aggressive behaviors and are not trained as stringently as bigger dogs, because we see them as cute and don't perceive their agressive behaviors as a threat. Then people get angry when smaller dogs behave aggressively, when if they'd just taught the smaller dogs the same way they taught the bigger dogs it would enver have been a problem. The same is true of people.

PS: Reddit not only has a beatingwomen section, it also has a section called eatingwomen. (Warning: extremely disturbing)

My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

[EricBarbour]

Know what? The more I look into Reddit's internal operations, the more they look like Wikipedia.
Feudalistic, misogynistic, paranoid, secretive, hypocritical.

[Anroth]

Know what? The more I look into Reddit's internal operations, the more they look like Wikipedia.
Feudalistic, misogynistic, paranoid, secretive, hypocritical.

What did you expect? Geeks are inherantly feudal and paranoid. That sort of setup is the result.