Talk:Manosphere/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Blacklisted links

I've been trying to write some content from the perspective of these websites but many of the links are blacklisted as references. What do we do in the instances of articles that are on content that would not be considered neutral in articles unrelated to them? It seems that Stormfront (website) doesn't use the websites at all and it was the best known example I could find of an article that focuses on a hate site (even if, in this instance, not all websites included qualify as such) --31.205.21.96 (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

It's possible that the recent edits from new users are due to this thread [1] --31.205.21.96 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

More than possible. I think we should protect this article and have it fall under the current Men's Rights article probation. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I strongly support this notion. You can tell from the use of the word feminist to denigrate people who disagree with them. How should we notify an admin to put this forward? --31.205.21.96 (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The request for protection page is WP:Requests_for_page_protection but I've never gone that route and you might have to create a username before you can post there. Several admins monitor the Men's rights movement page so its a matter of time before one of them sees this one. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually after reading that thread on the Roosh board I've decided to the file the request which is now up on the page. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've declined the protection request, as there are many constructive IP edits, and the article has only just been created (and seems to be still in the process of expansion by 31.205). There's no need to "activate" article probation for this article - it is covered by the probation automatically as it is in the men's rights topic area. I've added the article probation header to the talk page above, and issued a couple of user talk notifications. Hopefully that should be enough for now, but if there is more disruption that can't be solved with notifications or blocks, then protection might be necessary. You can make another request at WP:RFPP for that. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I can imagine this getting a lot of vandalistic edits and section blanking, if our Men's rights movement article is anything to go by. Thank you though, I'd rather not have to put the effort in to dispute what the sources say on a person-to-person basis but the page creator doesn't seem to be watching the article --31.205.21.96 (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It will also be relatively obvious which users were canvased having kept an eye on the thread --31.205.21.96 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Tutelary (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it is against the rules to WP:CANVAS --31.205.21.96 (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Not enough evidence to claim there is an "anti-gay sentiment" in the manosphere

References are referring to posts made by members of these websites concerning aesthetic appeal of women or men, and what the articles are criticising are the members' viewpoints on the apparent masculinity or femininity of a man or women, which is not actually concerning the basis of their sexuality.

The references that were cited do not support that statement, so I removed it. Cla68 (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Know your meme

Know Your Meme has a good profile of this topic here. I propose using it as a source but clearly attribute that the information is coming from this site and not in WP's voice. Cla68 (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Knowyourmeme is obviously not a reliable source. Tutelary (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Tomasi book

I have the book The Rational Male by Rollo Tomasi which gives a more objective view on the manosphere than many of the sources currently used. I will try to add some info to the article using that book as a source over the next week or so. Cla68 (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I would hardly call that book objective when it's written by an author who is part of the manosphere and whose intent is to promote it. That would be like saying David Duke's autobiography is a more objective source for info on white nationalism than a New York Times article about the subject would be. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to say this. It will be good to have another perspective to the article but to call it more objective than a civil rights group and various press reports is dubious --31.205.21.96 (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the current sources for the article are very objective either. Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You think that The Washington Post, The Southern Poverty Law Center, ABC News, The American Conservative and Yahoo News are biased sources? --31.205.21.96 (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Everyone has bias. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, but I would recommend reading WP:RELIABLE. It says "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." These websites are used across Wikipedia and there is a general consensus for using WP:NEWSORG websites like ABC News and Yahoo News --31.205.21.96 (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the Tomasi book? Cla68 (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've read some of his blog posts but not the book itself. I would feel embarrassed ordering a book like that from the library --31.205.21.96 (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that Tomassi's book is self-published, so I don't think it should be used. Cla68 (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Another book

Is this book self-published? Cla68 (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Publisher: Red Pill Press; First Kindle Edition edition (June 4, 2013). PearlSt82 (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Helen Smith's Men on Strike is probably the only r/s book that comes up for this topic but it doesn't use the term Manosphere directly. It seems most publishers don't want to touch this topic --31.205.21.96 (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The PUA sector of the Manosphere has had a number of books published by reputable publishers, including the infamous The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists and Rules of the Game by Neil Strauss and a number of other PUA books. Since none of those, as far as I know, specifically mention the "Manosphere", they can be used as sources in the Seduction community article but probably not here. Cla68 (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Subsections

Would anyone support the idea of adding subsections on the different Manosphere websites? There could be one on the Men's rights movement, one on Pickup artists, with links to the main articles for each beneath the titles? --31.205.21.96 (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of reliably sourced material

[2] This material relates to the Manosphere and is reliably source. We're supposed to be building a complete article, not removing information. I think the material is relevant. Cla68 (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm just asking for a reliable source that supports the first part. If there is evidence that the movement focuses on and supports male survivors of sexual assault then it should definitely be included --31.205.21.96 (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course we are supposed to be "building a complete article" but you have to follow WP:DUE and not be disheartened if somebody makes an edit against you. I made those edits with valid edit summaries. Why don't you debate those? Do you really think we need two criticisms of the SPLC listing in article? Why don't you work in expanding the main body article content rather than trying to find counter arguments for the criticisms? --31.205.21.96 (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

While you are here, you shouldn't use blacklisted links as references. If a link is blacklisted, it definitely isn't a WP:RELIABLE source --31.205.21.96 (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Also I'm reminding you after your recent edit warring that should debate re-adding reverted comment on an article such as this that is under the Men's rights article probation as it has stricter revert rules --31.205.21.96 (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

IP, it took me 20 minutes to find and add that particular paragraph you removed. So, I'm feeling very othered right now that you simply reverted it without trying to seek out a compromise first on this page. WP is supposed to be a collaborative effort. Also, that source was used in the Huffington Post article. If it's ok for them, why not for us? Furthermore, I notice that most of the references currently used in the article were written by women. So, when the only RS removed from the article is one written by a man, it gives the appearance that WP is not adequately supporting diversity and is discriminating based on gender, which is a possible accusation when we don't allow male authors on the subject to participate. Cla68 (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Refs are about 50/50 male/female. The section you edited was primarily about men. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel othered, I guess my edits are WP:BOLD. I've spent hours on this particular article and much longer on others and had content removed. It's part of working on a collaborative project such as this in controversial areas. I'm not saying that it's a bad reference, my point is that I don't think it's WP:DUE weight to include two lenghty criticisms as a counterpoint to the one by the Southern Poverty Law Center. It would mean that the largest portion of the article is discussing the SPLC listing. There is definitely room to include one but it should be succinct. I did not check the name or gender of the article writer. I'm male and I care a lot about gender diversity on Wikipedia (which is heavily stacked towards men). If it really is 50/50, then it stands as one of the more gender diverse articles on the website --31.205.21.96 (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, if you feel that is should be shorter, why didn't you say so first on the talk page instead of just removing it? Wow, just wow. Wikipedia, with its collaborative and egalitarian model, should be a refuge from the soul-crushing abuse of our society's patriarchy. I feel that removing reliably sourced paragraphs from the article without discussion is creating a hostile editing environment and making me the target of unwanted attention. I don't appreciate it at all. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I've done both now. I agree, Wikipedia should be a less patriarchal place, but it isn't. As it stood in 2011, 87% of editors were men. I'm sorry that you feel the target of unwarranted attention, but I'm just going to say now that my focus is on the article, not on as you as a person. If we're talking at a personal level, how exactly do you feel about women who go onto these 'Manosphere' websites and see themselves described as non-rational creatures or dogs? Isn't that a "hostile environment"? --31.205.21.96 (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You were trying to recreate the atmosphere of a Manosphere site here on WP in order to teach me/us a lesson? Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I am just trying to edit the article. I made the analogy because I thought it might help you emphasise with my standing on this subject. Why would I try to recreate the atmosphere of a Manosphere site? --31.205.21.96 (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, this is all offtopic. IP, if you're going to revert, especially if it's controversial, it's courteous that you should leave a note on the talk page explaining why. I also don't believe that citing demographics for Wikipedia is useful nor necessary; indeed, it's somewhat unwelcome, too. We're discussing content, not individual editors nor their gender. Though I saw you took note of this. Being of one sex or gender is not important; it's the contributions. I'm willing to spearhead any fervent discussion in order to make this stick. I am a firm believer in this aspect. @Cla68:, why don't you elaborate on why your edit was the right choice? If it's made on cogent points and in policy, I will support it full heartedly. Tutelary (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I did earlier, both in the edit summary and the talk page, but the conversation keeps being directed back to me and Cla68 as editors. I removed the second criticism because I felt it did not have due weight to include both in article. The "Commentary on the Manosphere and its critics" section is already by far the lengthiest of the article. I'm all for including counter-arguments to the Criticisms, but we have to be careful that we aren't giving too much article space for a discussion of sources (i.e. Where do we go from there? Include a counter-counter-argument for sources that suggest that the articles reviewing the SPLC listing themselves had problems?) That is excessive and distracting from the main focus of the article which should be the Manosphere blogs themselves, not the SPLC. Rather than posting counter-criticisms for all posts that review the 'Manosphere' negatively, we should either find positive commentary sources or improve the main body of the article. Otherwise, the focus of the article will be too distracted --31.205.21.96 (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary is right that this is way off topic. Discuss the article, not each other. But the demographics WP do reveal something about WP in general... EvergreenFir (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Current state of article POV/NPOV

The article currently contains an extremely pejorative presentation of the topic. Just a reminder, according to WP's policies, articles are supposed to be written in a neutral voice, which means a reader should not be able to tell which side Wikipedia is taking on the topic. Cla68 (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As it stands, the article needs to be deleted or heavily revised to reach neutrality.

I agree that the article does need a lot of work to appear more WP:NPOV. That said, much of the content is reflective of how the Manosphere is perceived by the general media, specifically concerning the misogyny and masculinity. Here is an example of some websites containing hate speech that are presented in a similar manner: Stormfront, Alternative Right, Metapedia. Really, all it takes is to rewrite what is already there in a more neutral tone --31.205.21.96 (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards deletion - so far the only WP:RS I see on this page (and through a brief search on Google) is the Washington Post article which frames the discussion of the manosphere in terms of the recent Rodger shootings. I'm not sure if this is enough to satisfy the WP:Notability_(web) guidelines. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

What about the SPLC source? [3] I just realised it hadn't been added to the page but it should be included also. I've been thinking that this should have an article for a while --31.205.21.96 (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Its certainly a better source for this article than the others currently here. The other potentially relevant piece I found is the ABC 20/20 piece, but that focuses mostly on AVFM and the Anita Sarkeesian harassment campaign. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it worth noting that many websites perceived as being part of the Manosphere use it too - such as Return of Kings? [4] There is definitely an article missing of this phenomenon of sexist websites and the violence it encourages, be it one under this name or another --31.205.21.96 (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

ROK is not WP:RS for the sake of this article and should not be used - the only place where it might be acceptable is on Roosh's page.PearlSt82 (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, although it does show that the term is used both by the groups in question and to describe them --31.205.21.96 (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it just needs to be sourced from somewhere else. That SLPC source might be a good place for that. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, these sorts of forums have existed for a while, and they have been frequently referred to as misogynistic by both news outlets and blogs as well. That said, it would be incorrect to structure this article around the shooting, as PUAhate is just one small blog of many like this --31.205.21.96 (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it counts as a reliable source due to its nature as a blog but anti-sexism writer David Futrelle has written lots of articles on the subject [5] --31.205.21.96 (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Those would not be reliable sources either - blogs (typically) can't be used. PearlSt82 (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought as much, I'm fairly certain I've read the blog being debated elsewhere on website and it pretty much depends on the context it is being used and whether or not the article in question is an opinion piece. It's still one example of many where the term is used to describe these online communities though, just one we can't use -- 31.205.21.96 (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center quote should be removed as an unreliable, non-neutral organization. The Catholic League has said of the SPLW: "“Morris Dees is a man in search of people and institutions to hate." [6] and in March 2014 the FBI severed its partnership with the SPLC because of bias. [7] [8] Ceese (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The FBI has not severed it's partnership with the SPLC, you are misrepresenting the action of them removing a link from their website [9] [10] --31.205.21.96 (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

2007 was the last time the SPLC had a partnership with the FBI, when it was (among multiple organizations) to look over a cold case file. Since then, their only relationship was a weblink on the FBI site, and now even that has been removed because of the controversy revolving around recent SPLC bias and prejudice. Likewise in 2010 22 Republican lawmakers, among them Speaker Boehner and Representative Bachmann, three governors, and a number of conservative organizations took out full-page ads in two Washington papers castigating the SPLC for 'character assassination'. [11]The SPLC is no longer a neutral organization, has swerved into a controversial, biased political agenda, and should not be used as a source for wikipedia. [12] Ceese (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We use it as a source on a number of articles, particularly those concerning racist or antisemitic groups. If you go through our List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups, you'll see that almost every article on the list uses the SPLC as a source. It may not be perfect, but it is one of the few organisations that is reliable for a source on something like this. If we stopped using it as a source, we'd have to remove content everything from the American Nazi Party and National Socialist Movement (United States) to the Ku Klux Klan, White Revolution (hate group) and New Black Panther Party --31.205.21.96 (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

In regards to the Manosphere, the SPLC didn't even review the sites themselves, all they did is regurgitate sites listed by manboobz, a satirical site, not a serious source, which they appear to not have realized at the time. [13] Further when questioned why the SPLC doesn't assign Feminism a similar group warning considering on-line groups like "Society for Cutting Up Men" or the twitter hashtag #killallmen they agreed "radical feminists do say hurtful things about men." [14] The SPLC website on May 15, 2012 clarified their position, "It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit." [15] Ceese (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You realise that the "Society for Cutting Up Men" consisted of just Valerie Solanas - who was imprisoned in 1968 and has been dead for decades? If she and the non-existent S.C.U.M. members did continue to act violently after the shooting of poor Warhol then they probably would have done so. And that the hashtag, that I do not endorse, was intended as being ironic. Good blog post on genderratic though. Also, we've included that SPLC quote in article, please do keep up --31.205.21.96 (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You must be joking if you think the current material just needs a rewrite for "tone". In its current state the article might very well be libellous.

I am working on a complete re-write of this article. Give me time to work on it Okyoureabeast (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The mention of Rodger is possibly libellous but I don't think Wikipedia should WP:Censor to appease extremist groups. It's not unusual for white supremacist websites to be depicted as such on website correct? --31.205.21.96 (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

How is misogyny related to racism? It is libelous when you liken it to racist groups because they only share the common feature of 'hate' (and even that is disputable, it would be like if you related feminist websites to communism and Stalin.) for this to be a legitimate comparison they must share more similarities.

Both share a rhetoric that derogates a huge subsection of people, both ideologies have caused parallel violence in society, both are combated by civil rights groups. Of course they are not the same thing but unrelated? What about the whole aspect of theoretical writing that equates the two directly (Black feminism and Intersectionality)? That's a poor analogy, at least in the way that you use it. Of course there are parallels between feminism and communism (Marxist feminism), gender equality should be as important as class equality in an equal country. I don't understand what point you are trying to make with this? --31.205.21.96 (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Feminism could arguably be classified as 'a rhetoric that derogates a huge subsection of people', yet you have provided no evidence that "misogyny" does this nor have you proven that the "Manosphere" is misogynist. If by what you're referring to as violence is Elliot Rodger then how is that a form of misogyny? Is misogyny hate for women despite the reasons behind it? Racism and anti-feminism aren't related because of those theoretical works... because they are specified views of feminism and not an exclusive part of feminist theories

Wait, are you trying to argue that misogyny doesn't derogate a subsection of people based on their gender? Isn't that designated in any basic definition of it, like ours (Misogyny that it is "the hatred or dislike of women or girls"). The sources in the article are evidence that the "Manosphere" is misogynist and the sources should be enough, anything more is WP:ORIGINAL --31.205.21.96 (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A rewrite should refer to the previous entry, deleted on October 2012. Some of the websites are stale, but at least it's more neutral in tone. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Manosphere Ceese (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"When you are confused about what you read vs. what you have been taught, ask questions. Not leading question, but straightforward and direct questions. Defensiveness will result in an unproductive clash, though you're always going to get men who will be angry and rude, man of whom have good reason to feel that way so I suggest letting it go. There is rarely any reason to respond. But there are a lot of highly intelligent men in the Manosphere who know what they're talking about and have done great amounts of research .

You are, in fact, a feminist: You may not consider yourself a feminist. A lot of us didn’t. That does not mean that we didn’t whole heartedly swallow a good deal of what they were selling without even realizing it."

"Please this article should be recommended for deletion" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.100.213 (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that it's that neutral in tone. If anything that draft is even more WP:POV and doesn't really focus on the Manospheres criticism as being vehemently sexist --31.205.21.96 (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

By the deleted article, the web sites listed are in the majority about learning social skills, lifting weights, controlling bodyweight to a healthy level, dressing better, making investment and career choices for financial independence, and travelling and learning new languages to become a more seasoned person. Largely there isn't any mention of women at all. It's just men talking to men about self-improvement and becoming better men. Ceese (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well yeah, by the POV deleted article they are, but that's a misrepresentation of many of the websites on that list. Of the ones I am familiar with, Return of Kings, The Spearhead, A Voice for Men and Red Pill Room all focus heavily on women and their posts are frequently sexist --31.205.21.96 (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

just went to these sites and not seeing this. You appear strongly pre-biased and are misusing wikipedia to forward your personal crusade to label and judge websites you haven't even taken the time to read, but are sure you wouldn't like if you did. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a website rating service. Ceese (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, I've spent a lot of time reading them. If you're going to lecture me on what Wikipedia is and how it works you should at least read some of its rules and guidelines. Say, for example, this one WP:PERSONAL--31.205.21.96 (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I had some examples of the more overtly misogynistic content, seeing as you missed it first time around, but it appears that one or more of the websites are blacklisted, which says something in itself. Try searching the articles As Feminism’s Poison Does its Work, Anti-Female Brutality Explodes onto the Scene on The Spreadhead, Free Cock Is Not Oppression on A Voice for Men and Men Should Assert Their Dominance Over Women Through Anal Sex on Return of Kings. Keep in mind that these are editorials too, the forum content tends to be more extreme --31.205.21.96 (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ceese - actually, we decide what weight to put on a particular viewpoint based on what the balance of reliable sources say about the topic, not on what the websites say about themselves. So if the third-party coverage of the Manosphere says that it is frequently sexist, then the article should reflect that. (However, we should avoid making sweeping statements like that in Wikipedia's voice, so it would be best to attribute any possibly biased statements to their sources.) Basically, we follow what the third-party sources say, not what the websites themselves say. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Pejoratives like "misogynistic" need to be removed from the introduction and the main article body, but only appear in the Criticism section. Currently the Criticism section is far longer than the rest of the article, which is very wrong. For comparison of other content hosting sites, neither the youtube nor vine wiki entries even have a criticism section, nor do their entries contain pejorative sections detailing possibly offensive content that readers may find on their sites. This should be used as the model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceese (talk • contribs)

They are well sourced and appropriate per WP:LEAD. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not what he/she asked, Evergreen. They suggested, per the structure of similar WP articles, that the word "misogyny" be restricted to the "Criticism" section. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is WP:OTHERSTUFF. They said it should be removed. I said that it shouldn't be and cited a policy. What's the "logical fallacy" there? EvergreenFir (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That fact that most articles on wikipedia are poorly written does not invalidate using better written ones as models for clarity and readability. The end of the lead is clunky and poorly written, largely because the SPLC has already backtracked in 2012 stating they never said the manosphere is actually misogynist. So instead we have the weasel words of "Promoting a misogynistic worldview" to still attempt to fit in the pejorative in a weasel way. This is using a quote from an older and now obsolete position, misstating the current position of the SPLC that has since been clarified in later writing since, and overstating the authority of the SPLC, which has declined greatly in the last 40 years to the point they're just reposting lists of websites from manboobz.com to fill space. Ceese (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect and absurd. The SPLC stated they didn't identify the so-called "Manosphere" as a "hate group". The SPLC did not backtrack associating these sites with misogyny. In fact, they provided more examples and reinforced their stance. Because they also state that some grievances are not without merit doesn't mean they don't believe the tactics or rantings are not misogynist. As a matter of fact, Salon just ran a piece a couple weeks ago about the disturbing tactics and thought processes going on with some of the same people. There is no doubt that most reliable sourcing describe these sites as misogynist and fringe. I would go further and suggest the NSA should keep an eye out. There seems to be a lot of instability related to this type of behavior. Dave Dial (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It also true that the SPLC has been criticized by others in the media for trying to link the Mansphere to hate groups. So, to NPOV the intro, I just added mention of that. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The salon article quoted is not about the manophere, but about incel culture. Incel culture and its related websites are not part of the manosphere. It's easy to find articles in the manosphere ridiculing and denouncing incel culture[16], and likewise incel sites ridiculing and making fun of the manosphere, some even labelling themselves as offering "black pill" truths in opposition to the manosphere's "red pill" knowledge[17]. They're two different groups, each of whom believes the other is an idiot, and should not be conflated together (as poorly informed media journalists have attempted). The incel site popular with Elliot Rodgers, PUAhate.com, frequently mocked the manosphere. Likewise manboobz is also part of incel culture orientated towards hating the manosphere, which is why the SPLC sourcing manboobz was ill considered. Ceese (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Roosh and Heartiste don't own the copyright to the term manosphere; it's not a formal organization. While they may not like the term being applied to incel sites, the fact of the matter is that all reliable sources and media reports to date do consider incel culture to be part of the manosphere. The definition of manosphere that mainstream sources use seems to roughly correspond to "antifeminist blogosphere", a definition that would encompass both PUA's/Redpillers and incels. Because Wikipedia follows what the sources say, that's the definition we use too. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There have been a lot of sources attempting to draw links between Elliott Rodger and PUAHate ideology and manosphere ideology... to date I've seen no article explicitly refer to PUAHate as part of the manosphere, since it would obviously be absurd to call an explicitly, vehemently anti-manosphere and anti-PUA site part of the manosphere. It's also not a link that anyone ever made prior to the politicized discussion of the Rodger murders in which "sources" that were anti-manosphere to begin with (based on previous writings) used the incident as a club to bash the manosphere with. It tells you something that even these sources did not refer to PUAHate as a manosphere site (or a PUA site, obviously). You're making an arbitrary statement, well beyond anything in the sources, that the manosphere is defined solely by anti-feminism and all sites featuring anti-feminist content are necessarily part of the manosphere-- if you feel like that's more accurate than the definition currently in the article, and have requisite sources, go for it, and other editors can decide if the end result of that is up to Wikipedia's standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.74.63 (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Real Criticisms of the Manosphere

The initial criticisms of the manosphere were weak pejoratives coming from people all in a tizzy about some weirdo shooter with a Xanath addition [18] that everyone's already forgotten. Real, on point, actually useful criticisms of the manosphere should replace this:

• Manosphere celebrities are internet heros, real life zeros. They write a good game, but their real life results are not up to the internet fantasy personas they project. [19]
• There are many overpriced, overhyped books, videos, coaching, seminars, and boot camps available in the manosphere. You should avoid buying their snakeoil.[20]
• Likewise the manosphere is filled with questionable products and supplements. They sell a fantasy of men obtaining the same results if they just buy the product... but customers don't.
• "Bro-science" dominates the manosphere. Myths are repeated and handed down as sage advice that are actually nonsense, or even harmful. The largest bro-science advocates don't even realize the self-damage they're inflicting upon themselves following their own bro-science advice. [21]
• Men's body building is drug and steroid use. What wins competitions is not the Greek classical ideal, but a freakish roid body that resembles an insect. [22]

None of these are reliable sources and it would be OR to tie the last two to the manosphere. PearlSt82 (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Rogers

The source 'The Guardian' does not state that Rodgers posted to Manosphere websites. Again, it's original research to imply or heavily imply connections to the article's topic when no reliable source backs it up. Here's what The Guardian states One of the most successful communities in the "manosphere" is Reddit's Red Pill. It has almost 53,000 subscribers who believe that women are designed solely for sex and sandwich-making. (I'm paraphrasing, but barely – one email I got this week suggested that "the women's movement is breaking the circle of life, and our humanity"). The part about Rogers is where a 22-year-old man with direct links to men's rights activism posted videos in misogynist forums promising to "slaughter" the "sluts" who rejected him) was the first confirmation that we are right not to laugh off the approaches of these anonymous and raging men. The 'related website' portion is trying to have its cake and eat it too, by having a connection by some chance of Rodgers posting to these 'manosphere' websites, but the source does not say that, so therefore we can't imply it either. Also, I left a note on the IP editor's talk page about 1 revert rule. This article is under probation and one editor can only make one revert per 24 hours. Any gaming of the system can also result in a block, even if it's out of 24 hours, given interpretation. Tutelary (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Correct, the source says he posted to misogynist forums. PUAHate was not part of the manosphere.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Tutelary, this is exactly right and why I deleted that line in the first place, the phrase was an attempt to create a connection between Rodger and the manosphere without backing it up with a source. As a side note this entire page appears to have been set up on May 30 as an attempt to link the manosphere to Rodger, rather than an attempt to accurately describe the topic of the article. I believe by the same editor who wrote the "related websites" phrase. 70.208.84.138 (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Rod Dreher misquote?

The attributed quote does not appear to be in the linked source. Ceese (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It is taken from this part of the article: "That series wouldn’t have been so successful if it didn’t tap into something primal in human nature. Most every guy has wondered at some time in his dating life why so many women were attracted to men who treated them badly. The recognition of this reality is what drives the Manosphere, which, as far as I’ve read its stuff, dehumanizes both men and women. Still, there it is." --31.205.21.96 (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The Dreher quote used on the page is misleading and out of context. The phrase "as far as I've read its stuff," in the full context of the article indicates that Rod Dreher has not read a whole lot of its stuff, in which case why is he being quoted here. Furthermore his larger point is that he's agreeing with what he perceives to be a manosphere principal (that women are attracted to men who treated them badly). It appears whoever used this is bending over backwards to show that a conservative has criticized the manosphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upgrade upgrayedd (talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The difference between Dreher and the manosphere is that he thinks it's a bad thing when women are attracted to men who treat them badly, and he wishes they would stop finding that kind of man attractive. The manosphere/PUA guys, on the other hand, love this behavior because it gives them an opportunity to take advantage of women. So their attitude is the exact opposite of Dreher's. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

PUA is only a small subset of the much larger manosphere issues. The manosphere is concerned with the higher male rates of homelessness [23], higher male rates of suicide [24], higher rates of incarceration suffered by males and the institutionalized prison rape system targeted against men[25], higher occupational injury and death rates for males [26], and shorter male life expectancy overall. PUA (which already has its own wiki entry) should not be equivocated with or treated as the only thing in the much larger manosphere. Ceese (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that more content should be added for other 'Manosphere' blogs. Maybe you could write some content in the main article about the Good Men Project? There shouldn't be any content removed about the PUA though, it is how most sources describe it and reflects the most frequent use of the phrase --31.205.21.96 (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Why would anyone write about the Good Men Project on the Manosphere page? Not all websites with "man" "men" or "PUA" in the URL are manosphere. 70.208.84.138 (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Last sentence in the lead

Can anyone mind telling me where in the linked sources this statement is justified "particularly concerning issues relating to sexual abuse and domestic violence."? I've looked through the sources linked and I can't find the justification for this statement. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't add that text, but by reviewing the SLPC source, I would imagine the "sexual abuse" part comes from descriptions of Alcuin, The False Rape Society and Roosh's sites and the "domestic violence" comes from Boycott American Women and SAVE Services websites. Antifeminism actually seems to be the more common thread through all of them. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the SPLC source is that the only description from the SPLC about these groups is in the first paragraph. All the subsequent paragraphs are cherry picked quotes from their sites, and the SPLC does not highlight sexual abuse nor domestic violence in it's description. We appear to be doing some WP: Synth, and filling in blanks where the statement is not made. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not true at all. The last sentence describes in the most neutral manner possible what the SPLC and ABC state in their sources. The sentence states:

Some of these forums have been described in the media and by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as promoting a misogynistic worldview, particularly concerning issues relating to sexual abuse and domestic violence.

Whether you, as an editor, believe the quotes are "cherry picked" by the SPLC and ABC is irrelevant. I believe there are worse quotes from these sites and harsher wording is in order. But we go by what reliable sources state. To argue that the sources don't give examples of sexual abuse(Rape) and domestic violence is not possible. It's right there in the sources. Dave Dial (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What I'm challenging is the assertion That The SPLC describes them as promoting a misogynistic worldview, particularly concerning issues relating to sexual abuse and domestic violence. Where does the SPLC describe anything other than in the first paragraph. We are claiming the SPLC has a stance that the SPLC has not stated in the source provided for the SPLC. This is WP: OR. I will ask again, where in the source does the SPLC state it's position. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, that's not the case. If one reads the entire article. The descriptions of the forums are part of the article by SPLC, not just the first paragraph. If you think that the rest of the descriptions are not part of the SPLC report on Misogyny and the "Manosphere", that's incorrect. In fact, the SPLC refers to it's report a month later, and the description reads:

The last issue of the SPLC’s Intelligence Report presented a scathing portrait of “a hard-line fringe” of the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM): “women haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations,” whose rage is “directed at all women, not only perceived feminists.”

So, if you wish a harsher description, I could see that. To pretend that the descriptions don't mention sexual abuse and domestic violence is just plain wrong. Dave Dial (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I swear this is frustrating. I've read the article, all of it, repeatedly. I'm not pretending anything, you've made an assertion and that assertion isn't that they mention sexual abuse and domestic violence. The assertion is: The SPLC describes them as promoting a misogynistic worldview, particularly concerning issues relating to sexual abuse and domestic violence. Note the use of the word particularly, it highlights those issues, does the SPLC highlight those issues? --Kyohyi (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed there is nothing in the source supporting that claim. The editor who keeps putting that line back seems to think the mere fact that the SPLC provided quotes from blogs discussing the issues of sexual abuse and domestic violence justifies the wording of the line. It doesn't. The wording is very specific-- it states that the SPLC believes these sites are misogynistic particularly with regard to these issues. For that to be a line that makes it to Wikipedia the SPLC has to have actually expressed such a sentiment. For example... does the SPLC believe that advocating for men who have been falsely accused of rape is "misogynistic with regard to sexual abuse?" Maybe it does! But it doesn't say so, therefore Wikipedia can't say so.

Repeatedly saying "the blog examples discuss sexual abuse and domestic violence" is a waste of everyone's time frankly because nobody denied that. We're looking for where the SPLC says what Wikipedia is saying it says, and after 24 hours of parsing a 700 or so word article, nobody's been able to come up with anything.

Perhaps re-phrasing the sentence to accurately reflect the source (instead of removing the whole phrase) would be a compromise. It also really doesn't belong in an opening paragraph. I'm not touching it anymore personally — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.85.56 (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, if whoever originally wrote that line is still reading the page, could he/she indicate what it even means to think a blog is misogynistic (ie woman-hating) particularly with regard to sexual abuse and/or domestic violence? The accusation (which again, the SPLC did not make) sounds like weasel-words insinuating that the manosphere encourages people to rape and encourages people to beat up women. Do you now see why it's important whether the source actually said what's in the article or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.85.56 (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Remember also, that after issuing this report the SPLC later gave a partial retraction. Therefore, the point that putting that sentence in WP's voice is problematic is valid. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I read the reports and they didnt give a partial retraction. They expanded on the original post and made it clear that it wasnt intended to be a hate group listing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.191.143 (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This can't be construed as a retraction of any kind. PearlSt82 (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It also seems to say that it has been described "in the media and by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)" as being misogynistic regarding those things. So it would be in any of the sources saying that it is "particularly concerning issues relating to sexual abuse and domestic violence", not just the SPLC

The only other source used in that spot is the ABC News article, which also does not make the "misogynistic particularly concerning issues related to sexual abuse and domestic violence" claim. 70.208.65.38 (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I presume it means all of the media coverage rather than that one article. Should more references be added to that line?

Also I have a question about the Taki's Magazine source. It's run by Taki Theodoracopulos who has ties with Greek fascist party Golden Dawn and has published fascist apologetic articles. Does wikipedia have a specific policy on using fascist websites as sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.191.143 (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

LGBT

This is a poorly-written article, but the part of it I want addressed is "Caitlin Dewey of The Washington Post accuses them of excluding gay, lesbian, and transgender people." Well so what? I'm gay, and I regularly participate in some parts of the so-called "manosphere", and other gay people are also participating, as are transmen and transwomen. I have never felt excluded in any way, nor have I seen any exclusion. I find it very, very hard to believe that I would have missed this, as I am very attuned to anti-LGBT discrimination. That sentence about Caitlin appears to be included solely to defame and mislead. 24.57.210.141 (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. From what I understand, many, if not most, Manosphere participants are libertarian, so they are not anti-gay or anti-LGBT. However, we have to go by the available sources and Ms Caitlan states in her article that "LGBT are out" in the Manosphere. Hopefully, we will have more sources to work with in the future. Cla68 (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

They are pretty much 50/50 libertarian and conservative, so most of the homophobic sentiments come from the more conservative websites. From my experience they are much more anti-trans than anti-gay and more ignorant than hateful concerning gay people like myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.191.143 (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"Commentary on the Manosphere and its critics"

This is an extremely clunky phrase, especially for a heading. Would something like "Media reaction" be cleaner and more appropriate? PearlSt82 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Media reaction is not entirely accurate as the SPLC are a civil rights organisation, not a media outlet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.191.143 (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Anti Pick-up Artists

I've also read that the Anti-Pick Up Artists are somehow a part of the Manosphere, at-least since the Isla Vista shootings, by this logic should we also put fascists and anti-fascists into the same category. Also having spent a large amount of time in the Men's Rights Movement I have yet to see any pick-up artists, ¿where does this relation(ship) stem from? ¿shouldn't the term be used as an umbrella-term rather than an organisation? --86.81.201.94 (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand. The APU are those who feel wronged by the PU "lifestyle". They were once part of it but it didn't work for them, so now they are against it. But they're still part of this "Manosphere". You analogy to fascists is faulty because anti-fascists were never fascists to begin with. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir is correct, they share a very similar user base (for example, one moderator on PUAhate writes for A Voice for Men) --80.193.191.143 (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That may be how PUAHate started out, but E.R. himself is a prime example of someone who joined that site purely for the incel bitterness; there's been no evidence in the extensive documentation of his life story that Rodger ever went through a pickup phase (signing up for coaching, doing cold approaches, buying materials etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.83.174 (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Several journalist and feminist bloggers since the shooting have said that "PUAHate" is a Manosphere website, although most other Manosphere sites, from what I understand, disavow having anything to do with that site. Until a reliable source comes out and says that, we have to use the sources we have. Cla68 (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Really? It has a considerable overlap in users (although that's hard to verify, it pretty much is ex-PUAs who are pissed at the movement for not accommodating them). I saw a list of admins and they are some user names that come up on PUA and MRA websites (including the A Voice for Men writer Jalon Cain) so the overlap is actually quite considerable --80.193.191.143 (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed above. PUAHate could not have been less a part of the manosphere-- it was an explicitly anti-manosphere site and frequently attacked and harassed prominent manosphere and PUA figures. Manosphere sites mocked PUAHate as a bunch of bitter, deranged virgins long before the Elliot Rodger thing. None of you will be able to find any source pre-Rodger calling PUAHate a manosphere site for this reason. What happened is a few feminist writers who had a pre-existing bone to pick with the manosphere decided to opportunistically use the murders to smear the sites they don't like and through echoing each other were able to steer the conversation this way very briefly. No link between Rodger and the actual manosphere has been established, and unless he rises from the dead and starts posting articles on Return of Kings there never will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.208.83.174 (talk • contribs)

Gonna need some RS for that claim. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The term

Where did it originate? It seems to be a terms largely used to criticise and the men's rights movement by feminist writers, according to the sources used in the article... Zambelo; talk 04:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the term is certainly used by the community itself. See

[27] and [28] Tonicthebrown (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, almost every manosphere site and forum uses the term. PearlSt82 (talk) 07:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

F. Roger Devlin and Sexual Utopia in Power

F. Roger Devlin's essay Sexual Utopia in Power, originally published within The Occidental Quarterly, had a huge influence within the Manosphere, particularly on Roissy of Chateau Heartiste and the Red Pill subreddit. Would it be possible to note this in article? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to note the connection? Else it would be original research to include. Tutelary (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, I'm quite aware of the manifesto because I read the forums and have seen the article discussed on them. It is linked on men's rights subreddit The Red Pill. I have links of Chateau Heartiste, A Voice for Men and the Spearhead discussing it but I understand that this doesn't cut it. In some instances Futrelle is a good reference, he writes on it here: [29]. Maybe this inclusion will have to wait until other journalists pick up on the link between white nationalism and the Manosphere --80.193.191.143 (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, personal accounts of it and blogs simply do not cut it. Wait for it to become evident in reliable sources and we can include it without violating the original research policy. Tutelary (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point, Futrelle probably understands the Manosphere better than most but his personal blog isn't a good reference unless it is as news. Unless the whole Manosphere thing turns out to be an internet fad, better coverage will come --80.193.191.143 (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I went to a technical college in the USA and in composition class we once had to read an essay by F. Roger Devlin (not that one, a different one, whose title escapes me at the moment). We had to write an essay on whether we agreed or disagreed. It was only much later that I learned he had ties to the white nationalist/supremacist movement. So apparently this author's influence extends into the mainstream despite his extremist ties. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting, I'm surprised that your college distributed an essay written by him. That said, I highly doubt "white on white war" Roissy of Chateau Heartiste, the MRA who promoted the article, is unaware of the ties to the white nationalist movement --80.193.191.143 (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line is we need reliable sources to add to the article or mention it the connection. Forums and anecdotal accounts are not reliable and cannot be used. Tutelary (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, I was replying to the comment by FiredanceThroughTheNights here, I heard what you said earlier in the thread --80.193.191.143 (talk) 08:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Bias

This is easily the shittiest, most biased entry I've seen in a while. And why the hell is it part of Wiki Project Feminism?

I imagine it was added automatically because it is in the category 'Misogyny'. You are welcome to remove the template if you feel it isn't relevant. It would probably be more appropriate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Men's Issues --31.205.21.96 (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added a few other WikiProjects as well. WikiProject Men's Issues is definitely the most appropriate, although it's fine for it to be tagged with WikiProject Feminism too if they think it's within their project scope. And there's nothing to say that an article should be tagged by just one or two projects. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm excited about this lemma! I just wanted to link someone to a broad overview of the "Manosphere" (biased or not) and found this weird entry. Well, "let's look at the pre-Elliot-Rodger version of the article, it might be vandalized", I thought, just to find out, that the whole lemma was created a week ago in reaction to the events, as if such a thing didn't exist before. Perfect! I always searched for a "Wikipedia's failure as an encyclopedia in a nutshell" and how it's used as a campaign tool to fake reality instead describing it. Now I found this absolutely perfect example. Thank you very much for this, I will use it in my research work. --89.204.135.53 (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is INCREDIBLY unbalanced and biased towards the Men's movement. It paints only a blanket negative light on everything with extreme feminist agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.141.128.10 (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)