Talk:Manosphere

Why does it say "misogyny"?

These days, everything is "misogynistic," and when every criticism is answered with a slogan, that slogan ends up losing its meaning.

Misogyny is a very rare condition; it is real contempt for women. Most of us didn't even know the word before all this woke nonsense. Wikipedia needs to be impartial on issues, that confront people, based on points of view (ideology), rather than facts.

In the article on feminism, it mentions misandry under "criticisms of feminism," but not as a fact (when we see that in mass media everyday). Instead, here, it asserts right from the start that the manosphere is misogynistic.

I used to contribute annually to Wikipedia, but I stopped after noticing the strong wokeism on social issues. Try reading this article, or the one on Feminism, without laughing. For these reasons, "woke", "feminist" and other post-truth ideology have become derogatory terms today. You can write all the articles you want, but people know exactly what they're hearing when a clearly resentful woman openly expresses her misandry in main media without social or legal consequences.

If Wikipedia doesn't start being more impartial on social issues, it will be surpassed by Urban Dictionary on these matters. "You can fool some people some of the time, and some people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time". VoyagerNeptune (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

To answer the question in the header, this article describes the manosphere as misogynistic because that's how the reliable sources describe it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:06, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

The article remains impartial as it refers to both misogyny and misandry as stated here “While the specifics of each group's beliefs sometimes conflict, they are generally united in the belief that society is biased against men due to the influence of feminism, and that feminists promote misandry (hatred of men).” There is also clear research linking the Manosphere to the increase on online misogyny and research on the myth of a link between feminism and misandry. Orangemonkey271 (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

the more basic form of original research: picking the sources you want to make your point. I knew this article was hopeless when I saw Jordan Peterson listed. Sure there are articles denouncing him! ~2026-12147-71 (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: PSYC 4499.wo3 Spring 2026

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2026 and 4 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): QuietPistachio (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by DrColEctive (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2026

Change "Prominent figures within the manosphere include various social media influencers such as Andrew Tate, Myron Gaines, Adin Ross, and Jordan Peterson." to "Prominent figures within the manosphere include various social media influencers such as Andrew Tate, Myron Gaines, and Adin Ross."

Jordan Peterson, although often referenced by members of the manosphere, is not part of it. This is supported by numerous credible references: "The goal of this corpus analysis is to study manosphere ideology firsthand. The corpus should therefore be composed exclusively of primary manosphere sources. Yet, identifying primary sources is harder than it looks. Indeed, manospherians sometimes link to articles in traditional media outlets, or on Alt-Right news websites. They repost content from popular books or works from pundits like Jordan Peterson. While those pundits and authors gravitate towards the manosphere and are very well-known to its members, they were excluded from the corpus. (The Appropriation and Circulation of Evolutionary Science in the Contemporary US and English-Speaking Manosphere, By Louis BACHAUD) Jordan Peterson himself has been very clear that women are not to blame for men's problems, and that men themselves are to blame if women reject them. This contradicts the beliefs of the manosphere: "You are a young man and all the women are rejecting you. Who's got the problem? - It's not all the women, that's a bad road to go down. If all the women are rejecting you, it's you!" (Joe Rogan Experience #1139 - Jordan Peterson) Bdsawatsky (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Peterson being excluded from a corpus analysis does not mean that he isn't part of the manosphere. The Joe Rogan interview can't be used per WP:ABOUTSELF. See the existing sources in the article. InfernoHues (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Bias

There is serious bias, especially in #Jargon.

In the third paragraph, there are two major issues: it firstly makes the asinine statement that "there is little evidence to show that misandry is an issue affecting men's lives." Firstly, this is blatantly incorrect; secondly, this is an example of editorialization. The sentence following it adds on to the editorialized bias. The second issue is the statement that "there are no significant feminist groups dedicated to espousing hatred of men or encouraging female violence against men." Again, this is blatantly incorrect, as evident with two feminist organizations I added (before reverted) 4B movement and Womad. Secondly, this is again an example of editorialized bias.

A smaller issue is the consistent conflation of masculism with misogyny and alt-rightism. Not all groups within the manosphere have significant claims of promoting either, such as ManKind Project. It should instead be stated that some overlap occurs, but not necessarily the entire manosphere being affiliated with these terms. Thus, reliable sources claiming that the entire manosphere can be described by these two terms are incorrect.

Maybe by using a little critical thinking skills, it's clear that these sources are biased and do not reflect the reality of certain movements and individuals.

(Note: I acknowledge that my edits may have counter-intuitively introduced bias. That's why I added this topic to discussion.) DanyMations (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

reliable sources claiming that the entire manosphere can be described by these two terms are incorrect--this is not how Wikipedia works. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:47, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

That quote is not editorialization, it is directly supported by the cited source. That you personaly think this is 'blatantly incorrect' is not a reason to remove the cited source or override its judgment. As to the sources being 'biased', see WP:RSBIAS, and also WP:YESBIAS. MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the two articles.

With those mentioned, there should at least be sources leaning positive toward the manosphere, assuming they exist. And still, the claim that "there is little evidence to show that misandry is an issue affecting men's lives seems" should be revised to state that "according to Lisa Sugiura..."

The aforementioned claim is still just wholly wrong. There's no way I seriously have to explain that discrimination and overall contentment in life are inversely correlated. That's common sense. DanyMations (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

This amounts to a request to 'balance' the article, which we do not do per WP:FALSEBALANCE. We also do not attribute the mainstream academic view to make it seem like one of two competing opinions. You should also consider re-reading the link you just posted, particularly the section titled 'There is no common sense'. And maybe have a look at Wikipedia:No original research while you're at it. MrOllie (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

You would actually have to explain how the statement discrimination and overall contentment in life are inversely correlated is relevant to the topic. Are you implying that, because many men experience discontentment in their lives, they must be experiencing discrimination? Because that would be an extremely basic logical error on several levels, including but not limited to the incorrect assumption that discrimination is the only possible cause of discontentment, or the correlation, not causation fallacy involved in assigning a causal relationship between them.

Not to mention that none of this would be relevant for Wikipedia anyway; as MrOllie noted, this would all be original research on your part without a cited reliable source to support it. Your assuming they exist is doing a lot of heavy lifting with regard to sources leaning positive toward the manosphere, but if they do exist, then the burden is on you, as the person who wants to add to the article, to find those sources and present them here to support your arguments. Otherwise, there's really nothing to discuss. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't that's quite as conclusive as you and MrOllie seem to think it is. I feel that wikipedia folks place too much emphasis on trying to find the specific counter in printed form when the counter may not be strong enough to be commonly present. This does not mean that the counter is wrong.

For instance, the statement:

1. "there is little evidence to show that misandry is an issue affecting men's lives."

...could well be countered with (if it existed):

2. "there is some evidence to show that misandry is an issue affecting men's lives."

...and does not need to be countered with the extreme:

3. "there is strong evidence to show that misandry is an issue affecting men's lives."

But hardly anyone is going to write something like #2, even if #2 were valid. It's simply not strong enough to appear commonly.

If we were to find in print "Person X is a blithering idiot", we should NOT have to find "Person X is NOT a blithering idiot" as a citeable source to remove it. No one is going to write that.

𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Reverted edits on Neil Strauss and Rollo Tomassi

I am here to discuss an edit that Sangdeboeuf reverted. I am improving this article by including the following information to the Websites and influencers section of the article:

Mainstay figures within the manosphere include author Neil Strauss of book The Game, and author Rollo Tomassi of book The Rational Male. These books are considered keystone works in the manosphere space laying ideological groundwork. Rollo Tomassi is considered to be the Godfather of the Manosphere.

This is a well-cited edit. I have removed the news outlet citations that there previously there. They have been replace with scholarly references in accordance with Sangdeboeuf's complaint. The neutrality of Wikipedia is maintained in this edit, no weasel phraseology is used, and nothing is being promoted. This edit conveys important fundamental information about the leadership in the manosphere. It should be added. Cerebrality (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)