Cannabis Ruderalis

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q1: Why is MGTOW called anti-feminist and misogynist?
A1: Many published, reliable sources such as scholarly journals and books describe MGTOW as anti-feminist and/or misogynist,[1][2][3][4] and no reliable sources contradicting these descriptors have been found.
Q2: Why is MGTOW linked to white supremacy and the alt-right?
A2: Again, the short answer is that reliable sources have described the overlap between members of MGTOW and white supremacist and/or alt-right movements.[5][6][7]
Q3: But what if the sources are biased?
A3: Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. If you have reliable sources that express contrary points of view or refute any statements in this article, please feel free to discuss them here. If you are unsure if a source is reliable, you can check to see if it is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources or search the archives of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see if its reliability has been discussed in the past.
Q4: How do I get something changed on this page?
A4: First, review the talk page and its archives to see if your concerns have been raised before. Collect at least one, but preferably several, independent, reliable sources that directly support the changes you want to make. (Personal experience with the MGTOW community doesn't count.) Then start a discussion on the talk page to obtain consensus for your changes. Finally, make a specific edit request, clearly indicating your proposed changes and the sources that support it.
References
  1. ^ Hodapp, Christa (2017). Men's Rights, Gender, and Social Media. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books. pp. xvii–xviii. ISBN 978-1-49-852617-3.
  2. ^ Lin, Jie Liang (2017). "Antifeminism Online: MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way)". In Frömming, Urte Undine; Köhn, Steffen; Fox, Samantha; Terry, Mike (eds.). Digital Environments: Ethnographic Perspectives Across Global Online and Offline Spaces. Edition Medienwissenschaft. Transcript Verlag. p. 77. ISBN 978-3-8376-3497-6. JSTOR j.ctv1xxrxw.9.
  3. ^ Wright, Scott; Trott, Verity; Jones, Callum (2020). "'The pussy ain't worth it, bro': assessing the discourse and structure of MGTOW". Information, Communication & Society. 23 (6): 3–4. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2020.1751867. ISSN 1369-118X. S2CID 219023052. MGTOWs also contribute to the propagation of online harassment. Their contribution to a 'digital culture of misogyny' [...] combined with their rapid growth as other Manosphere groups face sanctions, positions them as an influential group within the Manosphere
  4. ^ Zuckerberg, Donna (2018). Not All Dead White Men: Classics and Misogyny in the Digital Age. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-674-97555-2. OCLC 1020311558.
  5. ^ Ging, Debbie; Siapera, Eugenia, eds. (2019). Gender Hate Online: Understanding the New Anti-Feminism. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. p. x. ISBN 978-3-319-96226-9. OCLC 1108619233.
  6. ^ Zuckerberg, Donna (2018). Not All Dead White Men: Classics and Misogyny in the Digital Age. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-674-97555-2. OCLC 1020311558.
  7. ^ Nagle, Angela (2017). Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars From 4Chan And Tumblr To Trump And The Alt-Right. Alresford, UK: Zero Books. p. 94. ISBN 978-1-78535-543-1.

Misogyny?[edit]

Clearly you have an issue to use such inflammatory language. I would invite you to write with referenced fact rather than jaded opinion. 90.255.28.104 (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fairly well-referenced as it is. If you would like to change the language, then please provide sources of your own to support your proposed changes. Writ Keeper ♔ 15:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)`[reply]
What changes do you want to make? What statements would you group under 'jaded opinions', and what are the facts? Cheers, Pyrite Pro (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the FAQ. Acroterion (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2022[edit]

Hi Add See also category with following links

==See also==

85.135.198.249 (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are really applicable. MGTOW is primarily defined by their hostility to women, and the strong overlap with the incel movement. These are a general disinterest in women, and a male-only monastery, respectively. Zaathras (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Thread retitled from "Violates NPOV".

This article reads like a hit-piece which seeks to criticize and invalidate views and perspectives the author does not agree with.

Example: "The Southern Poverty Law Center categorizes MGTOW as a part of the male supremacist ideology"

The SPLC is a left wing organization that promotes left-wing ideology that cannot be considered a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squiggly666 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn to sign your posts, like this ~~~~ with four tildes at the end of your comment. Thanks.
As to your comment, so what? SPLC is a reliable source for this sort of thing. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to people who agree with the SLPC perhaps. Many people (i.e. conservatives) do not. Squiggly666 (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but this project has debated this source (SPLC) many times, and the community has decided that it is reliable. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am now disputing that. Sometime communities get things wrong. Squiggly666 (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then this isn't the place to change the consensus on that. This page is for improving this article. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am disputing it in the context of improving this article. Do you have any reliable sources the the SLPC has been deemed a reliable source? Squiggly666 (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether many people (i.e. conservatives) agree or disagree with the SPLC is irrelevant. In determining due weight, "we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". Editors of this page are not required to provide proof that the SPLC is a reliable source on extremist ideology. The place to dispute that is at WP:RS/N. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply