Feminists say misandry is not real. I searched on Google to see if there are any articles about misandry. According to scholars, misandry is definitely real.

I read an article today about misandry. It’s on scholar.google.com for free. Here is the abstract:

No published science paper demonstrates misogyny exists. Data on both implicit and explicit gender attitudes shows males substantially favouring females – philogyny – or, at worst, gender neutrality. This is hidden by elision with the wider notion of sexism; but there’s no evidence for hostile
sexism, and hypothesised benevolent sexism is fatally flawed in operational definition. The mode whereby sexism supposedly causes harm – stereotyping (stereotype threat) – has been debunked; likewise inter-
sexual dominance, removing any theoretical basis. Possible male harm by control is belied in women being found the controlling party. Misogyny / sexism in being defined circularly is unfalsifiable, therefore non-scientific conceptualisation: ideology itself actually hostile sexism (misandry, which is shown to be real but unseen).

Moxon, S. P. “Misogyny has no scientific basis of any kind: the evidence is of philogyny–and misandry.” New Male Studies 7.2 (2018): 26-42.

I don’t totally agree with this article. I think there might be a few individuals who are misogynists. However, I don’t think there is any systemic misogyny like feminists claim. The misogynists are probably very few and lack any real power to influence society.

A few weeks ago, I took this test. I was accused of misogyny, so I wanted to see if I am a misogynist. I scored a 0 on hostile sexism and very low on benevolent sexism. The items from this test are mentioned in the article too. It is a flawed test.

    • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t see any analysis of available literature in the paper you provided. Rather a hand picked selection of specific research. And just looking at conservative religious societies and not seeing any misogyny - is wild.

      Also the credentials of the Author are rather questionable (cross-disciplinary science review researcher what the hell is this?) and the journal seems wildly biased. Which would explain how a paper in such a poor form got published and leaves a lot of questions open about their review process.