Talk:Manspreading/Archive 1

Archive 1

Katie O'Donnell

The reason for not naming her is that the fact that she takes pictures and posts them doesn't mean anything. If someone of note did that, then perhaps yes. But just because some journalist has named someone to add human interest to an article doesn't make her position on manspreading meaningful. (Or, to make it clearer, Wikipedia is not a news site, it is an encyclopedia. Only meaningful stuff should be included in it.) --regentspark (comment) 15:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

See also category

I would like to add the response of the other side of the table called "Women eating on the tubes", would this be acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starius (talk • contribs) 23:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you mean here. I assume that by "the tubes" you're referring to the UK subway system; a more culturally neutral term for public transportation might be preferable. Anyway, you would need to be able to find reliable sources and establish notability, as usual.

You should probably also consider that people may perceive that your intent is not to balance the discussion, but to make a point. I personally wouldn't agree with that, but I've seen enough gender-politics-related discussions on the Internet to be able to predict those sorts of responses.

At any rate, I'm pretty sure there are article proposal mechanisms that are a better place for this discussion. Unless perhaps your real proposal is to merge the "manspreading" topic into a more general page discussing gender politics as it relates to conduct on mass transportation systems (and I can't think of a title for such an article that isn't incredibly unwieldy). 76.69.75.41 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

A user already did it, is what they placed up there acceptable? They have referenced quite a lot on the topic. --Starius (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Testes

Maybe the impact squeezing has on testes needs to be clarified in this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.96.181 (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed 'Reasons for manspreading' section

The section was pure speculation with zero citations or sources to back up its claims. I have since removed it. Please post here before undoing the deletion or making any other edits to the section.

142.197.90.62 (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"Men's rights group"?

The lede of the article for the Canadian Association for Equality states, with multiple sources:

The Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE) is a non-profit organization focused on public education and outreach. While CAFE does not describe itself as such, the group is frequently characterized as a men's rights organization by the media.

The article currently flatly describes CAFE as a men's rights group, wording taken verbatim from the Toronto Star article used as a source. Is the Star qualified to make this assessment unilaterally? Does CAFE have the right not to be considered such if they do not identify themselves that way? 76.69.75.41 (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, in the lede of that article there are 9 citations from reliable, third-party sources (more in the article itself), all of which specifically refer to the organization as a men's rights group. What more/other evidence could you want? Fyddlestix (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have heard C.A.F.E. call themselves a "men's rights group" in the past, well that was on the Facebook and YouTube, but they do try to distance themselves from A Voice for Men and other men's groups.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

.23

I am not sure why but the NPOV tag links to a .23 anchor so that is what I will title this. What are the neutrality concerns on the page at present? 64.228.88.84 (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Center of mass and women

I have read in some places that relative to men, women's center of mass on average is a lower % of their height than with men. Like alluded to in this 2001 post: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-03/984940269.Ph.r.html

I am wondering if any references exist to support or dispute this stance, and how center of mass differences while standing would or would not relate to center of mass while sitting.

If men had a higher center of mass due to more arm muscle then this would seem still in effect while sitting, making men less stable sitters and more prone to falling sideways. There is only so much muscular effort can do to right balance during rapid starts or stops.

The vast majority if not all pictures of manspreading are of men facing towards the center of the vehicle due to sitting sideways. If facing forward, a seat would usually impede the view.

For someone on the left side of a bus or train and facing the middle, acceleration would throw them to their right while deceleration would throw them to their left.

Someone with a higher center of mass would be more vulnerable to this instability.

Another issue would be width of base. A wider base makes you less prone to toppling sideways, basic physics here. Don't women have wider pelvises relative to their height compared to men? Could we list that?

I realize there is resistance to stating too many facts lest they be dubbed independent research, but I see no harm, only help, in pointing out these basic principles to people. We do not need 100% hand-holding and for all thinking to be done by external sources. Those sources seem focused on defining the narrative as an abuse of male privilege.

Higher center of mass + narrower base of support = instability. Widening the feet widens the base and stabilizes a man, helping him to avoid falling into people sitting beside him while sitting sideways on a moving vehicle.

I'd dare say there are more men afraid of falling into a woman and either hurting her or being accused of molesting her, than there are women afraid of falling into men (and it is easier for them to avoid, due to wide base and lower center of mass) so this would explain why more men sit that way.

From a biomech standpoint, the wider-set femurs women have also means less tissue compression in between the thighs and grester comfort with less hip abduction. This is why the thigh gap phenom is predominantly female and few men exhibit this trait. This plus the underestimation of compression on the testes. I have seen claims that a man would need "balls like grapefruits" to justify a certain sitting width. I speaks of a misunderstanding of how a great distance between knees accounts for very little change in distance the closer to the pelvis one goes. 64.228.88.84 (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@64.228.88.84: I don't think anyone is opposed to "stating too many facts" as long as they are relevant and reliably sourced. Without sources though, speculation like this would violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. gobonobo ^{+ c} 22:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Relevance of the gender in a photo example?

There was an image added as an example to the page it was removed and subsequently re-added. It was then removed again, the reason stated was the individual in the photograph was a female. Should the photo be added back or replaced with one of a male? The article itself states it's not exclusively done by men, so would it matter if the individual is male or female? Rye Weiss (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you gender policing the subject of the photo? How could you possibly know how xhe defines xhirself? That could be a man, or it could be a woman, or any of the other genders. Changing the photo would be a form of erasure. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Great Corrector (talk • contribs) 06:21, 16 April 2015‎

I'm pretty uncomfortable about using identifiable images of people in an article like this. Making any one person "the face of manspreading" is completely meaningless. What's relevant here is posture, not faces. Any attempt to build up galleries with captions like "possible manspreading" should also be avoided at all cost.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Peter and have yet to see a Commons image that clearly depicts manspreading. The repeated attempts by reddit-canvassed meatpuppets to add images that are pretty obviously not manspreading raise BLP concerns (WP:MUG) for the people in the images. gobonobo ^{+ c} 00:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Why on Earth this article exists?

Are we just making articles for random Tumblr blogs now? Should we just make articles for everything that's ever existed? I didn't realise mentally ill people blogging this stuff on their ridiculous hate-pages were such high priority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.125.75 (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi IP. This article is not about a tumblr blog, and the topic has been covered extensively in serious reliable sources. If you find this article offensive, please see WP:CENSOR, Wikipedia is not censored. As long as something is encyclopedic, it is proper to have an article on it here. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is censored... The page for Cultural Marxism has mysteriously disappeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.125.75 (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This page is only for discussing improvements to this article. If you have some other issue, please try WP:Helpdesk.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Offensiveness has no bearing on what Wikipedia should include, but trivia does. News sites have covered "manspreading" because they know that it makes for good clickbait but they haven't given any more credence to the original rant. Some people believe in objective criteria for notability, beyond just "how many sites mention something" so I would not be surprised to see this article nominated for deletion. Some topics, no matter how widely reported, are simply not that important. Connor Behan (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would be deleted. There are articles on terribly unimportant things that aren't even mentioned in the news. Why have a page about manspreading, but then why have articles like chickenhead, camel toe, cock tease, Whale tail, fuck-me shoes, Turkey slap, Donkey punch, MILF, Facial (sex act), and other such, um, ‘’notable’’ happenings? Also, I am pretty sure that dress article exists because one of the South Park guys wore it on the red carpet, which made it "important" to Wikipedia's editor base. Ongepotchket (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be deleted because it's a neologism. WP:NAD, which that's part of, is official policy. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to debate the notability of "Green Versace dress of Jennifer Lopez" because it has no bearing on the notability of this topic. This topic is being covered by a multitude of serious high quality, on-topic sources and is easily notable and encyclopedic per our policies. Best.,OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

One of the "serious high quality, on-topic sources" acknowledges manspreading as "a silly little slow-news story". I'm not saying that I would request deletion of this article, or that such a request has a chance of passing. Merely that the OP's deletionist view is understandable. This article is part of the same grey area as many of the examples Ongepotchket listed. Connor Behan (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't Urban Dictionary. It's not encyclopaedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.162.250.99 (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2015

this should definitely be deleted. it implies women don't take up seats. :::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.43.25.46 (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2015

I think this notable and more than neologism because of various transit responses and that it is in at least four countries as the article states. There is really a huge debate on the issue and there is more than a little backlash. I believe that it could probably be added to examples of public shaming and fourth-wave feminism. Although for the latter I can't find any sources so that might just be my original thought. (see definition of fourth-wavers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism#Fourth_wave) Frederika Eilers (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the thrust of this article?

Is Manspreading about bad manners on taking space on public transport, or only Feminist complaints about men doing things that inconvenience women? Several articles have discussed this as a broader issue than includes behaviors by women as well. However one editor wants to make it exclusively about men being bad, and excise the broader context including linkages made by reliable sources to other behaviors.

It would seem to me that we cover this in an NPOV way that includes the broader context (per sources which do exactly that).Mattnad (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The sources pretty clearly treat it as a distinct issue (and definitely don't just treat it as "feminist complaints.") Maybe if you rely on tabloid coverage that's the impression you get - but fortunately there are much higher quality and more balanced sources out there. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

See applied content discussion below. That aside, this is an article about the phenomenon called "manspreading" and nothing else. If you want to argue public transport behavior in general, you're in the wrong article.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Editorializing

I have removed the following addition:

One quoted authority on manspreading, Lyndsay Kirkham of Humber College in Toronto, stated that "for many people, this is incredibly triggering". However according to the Toronto Transit Commission, they have received no complaints about manspreading, but do get many complaints about bags on seats. The conduct of men has been singled out, but others have noted that women exhibit similarly selfish behavior called "shebagging" where women fill adjacent space with their purses or larger bags. The hashtag #shebagging has been used when pointing out this behavior.

The simple reason is that the text is quite editorial in nature and takes statements in the articles out of context or exaggerates them.

• Regarding the "no complaints", in the Toronto Sun article, this is mentioned in passing and is contrasted with all other types of complaints. It's taken out of context and blown out proportion. It's looks like a very obvious buildup to a "but she-bagging is also bad"-argument. The only actual criticism in the Toronto Sun article comes from the men's rights group Canadian Association for Equality. The protest seems mostly based on arguments that spread legs is just merely a necessity brought caused by the size and shape of men's genitals.
• The text referenced by the Daily Mail says nothing about men being "singled out". It covers both manspreading and taking up seats with bags, but simply describes them as a nuisance. It does not make any comments that manspreading is sexist or unfair.

I'm not against including comparisons to other forms of seat-hogging, but absolutely not in this manner. Content should be strictly informative or represent debate neutrally. This addition does neither.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, I agree with you here and support the revert. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If this article is meant to be gender neutral, then why is Peter insisting on including Mansplaining as a See Also? That is not neutral in my opinion. As for the debate and controversy that has been sanitized and minimized. Cathy Young's article is minimized, and the article provides none of the counterpoint. The Daily Mail-Australia article explicitly draws the comparison between man-spreading and she-bagging. I didn't bring in any of the MRA arguments, but Peter brings them in himself.

To me, the crux of this debate is that people exhibit bad behavior and a catchy phrase for some of this was coined by Tumber feminists (per the article). They have their reasons for focusing on men only (per the name of the behavior), but as several articles have noted, there have been counter-reactions and illustrations of other bad behavior by men and women which Peter wants eliminated, not just presented more neutrally.Mattnad (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Isn't See also for related information not included in the article? If so, mansplain is relevant because they're in the same vein of being a linguistic trend, and should maybe be added to 2010s slang category or similar. Other examples include manbun and mancave if those pages were to exist. It's also relevant to mansplaining as it's also a gendered phenomenon perpetrated mostly by men (according to sources). I know how that feels to hear, trust me. When I first started editing I wondered why on earth articles for welfare queen or cock tease are needed here, for example. In the end, though, I learned WP is not about feelings or equal weight or even fairness, for which I am thankful. Ongepotchket (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This article isn't "[f]undamentally, [...] about manners on public transport]".[1] This is about a specific type of public behavior that is attributed primarily to men. There's no gender-neutral angle involved. If you want to write about "she-bagging", maybe you ought to start an article on it. Per WP:NOTAFORUM, this article is not the place to bring up general complaints about rude behavior by women in public (unless it is explicitly compared with manspreading in the source).

And you're right that you didn't hock MRA arguments in the article (nor did I), but just about all "counter-reactions" on this issue are from MRA groups.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

As it happens, you included an article below, titled, ""Are you a man-spreader or a she-bagger? As the U.S. makes selfish behaviour on public transport a criminal offence - Australian commuters think it might be time to follow suit" in which they explicitly compare the two, and bring them up in the same context.

• Quoting the article, "But it isn't just #manspreading that has commuters enraged. The hashtag #shebagging is also circulating online in response to men being publicly shamed for taking up too much room. #shebagging now publicly shames women who take up more than one seat with their bags." The Daily Mail makes the connection between the two behaviors.
• And then there's the Toronto Sun Article you mostly excized that wrote, "The TTC, for its part, appears to be hands-off on getting a leg up on the issue. “We’re not commenting on the manspreading campaign,” spokesman Milly Bernal said. “We’d just like to remind riders to be courteous to each other. Allowing someone else to take an empty seat beside you — they’ve paid the fare.” Bernal said she’s unaware of any complaints to the transit commission regarding manspreading, but the TTC does get complaints about other rider etiquette problems, such as backpacks on seats."

In summary, according to reliable sources a) It's not just a gendered issue, and b) She-bagging is explicitly connected to the topic. Keeping it as you'd likely violates NPOV and what's in the sources (which you summarily deleted them from the article). You're inserting your own editorial views here by keeping this material out. Mattnad (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, though, the article is still about the term "manspreading", not space-hogging on public transport. There are some critical reactions against it, but there's no lack of support of the criticism. You are presenting the relatively minor criticism in a very tendentious and argumentative way. This is especially true of that single Daily Mail article that mentions both terms, but mostly focuses on manspreading. Describing it with phrases like "asking the provocative question, 'Are you a man-spreader or a she-bagger?'"[2] is just not neutral.

I also don't see the point of piling on individual sources, like the Tom Hanks-story.[3] That article isn't even any kind of general criticism of manspreading, just Hanks pointing out that he was not guilty of it in that particular setting. I can easily find ten articles that are either neutral or clearly critical of manspreading for everyone one of those, and that includes one in the Daily Mail.[4]

And as for this edit, it seems to approaching outright point-making. Could you please not use article space to vent your personal frustrations with this term? Or feminism for that manner?

Peter ^Isotalo 22:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The quote of the title form the daily mail article was done deliberately to point out your editorial approach and wholesale reverts, despite the support in reliable sources. You could have edited the material which was topical, but instead reverted it. I have no issue with Feminism, but I do have issues with editors who skew articles based on what they think they should be despite what reliable sources say about it. In reality, Mansrepading is a less interesting than the social context and discussion. That written, I think the article is better now, and I thank you for not reverting the information I've added. Mattnad (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Admitting that you've been editing to make a point does not strengthen your case.

Please explain how radical feminism is relevant as a see also-link. There is nothing indicating that this article is even remotely related to a "radical reordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts" (in the first sentence of that article). This issue has widespread support from all kind of feminists and some transit authorities. There's no indication that criticism of manspreading is particular radical.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a see also, not in the article body. However, Cathy Young's piece was quite clear on her view on the term which see views as excessive. It's certainly not mainstream feminism, coming from Tumbler. And you'll have to explain to me how "Mainsplaining" is connected since all you've offered is that it's gendered. Mattnad (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"Mansplaining" has already been explained to you above.

Radical feminism isn't shorthand for "gender-specific criticism someone doesn't agree with". If there are no obvious associations to this article it's just a reflection of personal views, even as a see also-link.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I see that the "triggering" quote was re-added without consensus - please don't reinstate it again unless there is support for it on the talk page. And unless you're willing to give the full context of the quote. The Sun actually quotes Kirkham as follows: “If you ride the TTC, most women experience the encroachment of men’s bodies in the space they’re sitting in, and it’s unnecessary,” she said. “I think it’s incredibly valid because this is about physical comfort and safety. For many people, this is incredibly triggering." “If you want to sit in a seat and you have someone pressing their leg against you because they think they have the entitlement to do so, that can be pretty problematic.” There is a lot more to her statement than just the suggestion that manspreading is "triggering," it's deceptive and not a valid use of the source to take that one statement out of context.

More to the point, why the heck are we even using the Sun and the Daily Mail? These are tabloids - there has been plenty of coverage on this subject in much more reliable newspapers that would be much better to use for this article. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The triggering quote was removed in a wholesale revert. I didn't realize it was so terrible. I would think that a feminist opinion on the matter is relevant (even from a major "tabloid"). If you can add to it for context without making it undue, go for it.Mattnad (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No mention of Swedish history?

Hi, afaik this came up in Sweden around 2011, before it hit e.g. the USA. T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Womanspreading?

There should be some mention as to whether or not there is any credible evidence to suggest that "spreading" is something that only men do. The article does a good job of balancing the obvious political connotations of the word, but seems to imply by it's very existence that men DO "spread" disproportionately to women, lending the "weight" of Wikipedia to validate the legitimacy of the term. Given the term's volatile, controversial, etc... nature, I think Wikipedia is obligated to give some hint as to whether the word has some basis in fact, or is merely a perception that men behave in ways that women do not. A parallel to this might be a Wikipedia article that allows the idea that black people are loud, which is also a common perception that is either racist or true. In this case, "manspreading" is either sexist, or is some truth to it. Would Wikipedia allow the existence of a new term "Blacktalking" or "Loudblackness", or some other neutral and factual-sounding term that purports to merely describe an objectively definable pattern of behavior, while possibly conveying a false and sexist notion of reality in order to further a political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.171.16 (talk) 06:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a picture of a slouching woman to illustrate the argument that women do it too. I've edited the lead, which previously read that this is THE word for when someone slouches, to show that it is unarguably a neologism started by political campaigners. I previously wrote on another new word similarly coined by political outcasts of a different hue, "Cuckservative", where the first paragraph calls it a "neologistic epithet" and a "pejorative". It does not have a photograph of a Republican endorsing liberal policy, with a caption "A photograph of a cuckservative", nor does the article focus on the idea of conservatives endorsing such positions - it's about a word. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I've edited your first sentence. Neologism is not the right description, term is better. Also, the 'by some' doesn't state who the some are. --regentspark (comment) 14:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Caricature vs Irrelevant

I changed the line "The term has been criticized as irrelevant to feminism" to "The term has been criticized as a caricature of feminism."

The quote this is meant to summarize is: As we enter 2015, the latest feminist crusade seems to come straight from the life-imitates-satire department. It has everything one could want in a caricature of feminism: petty grievances, gleeful male-bashing, egregious double standards.

Multiple phrases there and subsequent imply relevancy: caricature of, feminist crusade, part of a recent surge in a noxious form of feminism, this brand of feminism is not about equality... "Irrelevant" as a summary of those phrases is a misrepresentation. D.Creish (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is that we're talking about the lead. It's not the place to quote non-authoritative sources, remove the quotation marks and pass it off as a generalized summary. The jist of the criticism against this term is that it's branded as irrelevant to the notion of promoting gender equality. Cathy Young's article expounds on this and she specifically points out how she believes that it's "not about equality" and that "it's a human issue", etc. By choosing a specific passage and pulling a single word from it, you're actually not even summarizing Young's article appropriately.

Peter ^Isotalo 03:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with you on this. The lede summarizes the content of the article. And Yonge is no less "authoritative" than any other source. D. Creish has it right. Mattnad (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, though, the lead focuses on a rhetorical aspect of Young's article, not a summary of her critical points. Writing "caricature of feminism" without quotes is simply a misnomer since it literally means someone making an actual caricature. You're confusing literal and figurative descriptions.

As for Young not being more authoritative than other sources, that is exactly the point I was making. Focusing on one specific passage from one specific source used in the article is clearly not a summary. Otherwise we could argue that we should include quotes from all sources used in the article.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It's in the context of criticism so the words matter. It's not a full or lengthy quote at all. The change you want neither captures what's in the article or is accurate. It's your opinion and WP:OR. Mattnad (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Simply voicing your opposition is not useful a d accusing me of having an opinion is just meaningless. We all have opinions about this, including you, so please try to point put what part of my argument that you believe is wrong.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Peter: Is this perhaps a language issue? There are two definitions of "caricature" - the first is artistic (which the wiki article covers) the second is a ludicrous or grotesque version of someone or something: he looked like a caricature of his normal self which is Young's usage. Under that definition it does "summariz[e] Young's article appropriately" which is representative of the general criticism: that the branch of feminism that campaigns against manspreading is a ludicrous branch. That said, I don't have strong feelings on whether we use quotes so I'm comfortable with your recent change.

Re: Mattnad's comment on opinion and WP:OR, I believe he's responding to your earlier comment where you equate feminism with equality and infer that because her criticism is not a criticism of equality it's irrelevant to feminism. That does seem to be WP:OR. D.Creish (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Quotes in the lead should be avoided at all costs unless they're taken from extremely notable sources that have been quoted over and over in other sources, ie "famous quotes". This one clearly isn't famous.

As for feminism being about equality, it's not exactly an oddball opinion. It's the general definition of the term (see our own article) and in this case, Young is the one who stresses the importance of equality to the degree that she believes men are being shamed by manspreading campaigns. It's very clearly expressed in quotes like this:

This brand of feminism is not about equality; it's about shaming directed at males, as the subway seating issue makes abundantly clear.

This clearly is the jist of the criticism from not just Young, but also many others who believe that manspreading campaigns are a waste of time and that women are as good as taking up space in public. "Caricature of" here is nothing but a rhetorical device with the meaning "this is so bad/wrong/misguided that it's ridiculous". It doesn't say anything about why it's bad/wrong/misguided, though, and that's exactly what the lead is supposed to summarize.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion of topical and well sourced content.

An editor has repeatedly [5] removed with no explanation this content, "In New York, actor Tom Hanks was photographed on the subway, taking up two seats and criticized for it. He responded on a talk show, "Hey Internet, you idiot! The train was half empty! It was scattered - there was plenty of room!"

There are two mainstream sources, and it's topical. Since he has failed to provide an explaination for his repeated reverts, I'd like him to justify it and stop reverting.Mattnad (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Lede image not really manspreading

Manspreading as defined in the article as a man's legs taking "more space than the speaker sees as necessary or polite". The photograph in the lede show men facing each other where the space between them necessitates angling their legs so they wont touch. The photographer is none other than User:Peter_Isotalo who is also spreading his legs widely apart to avoid contact with his neighbor. As such, this is not a photo of Manspreading and should be removed.Mattnad (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Easiest thing to do is to move the MTA poster image up and the man and woman image down so I'll do that.--regentspark (comment) 21:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with the MTA picture in the lede, but the males in the second photo are not really manspreading. If they were to have their legs closed together they'd be bumping knees. Anyone who's traveled using those facing seats knows what I mean.Mattnad (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree heartily here, especially since I was the one who took the photo and know the context. My right knee kinda-sorta looks like its spread over my neighbors seat, but I can assure you that this was not the case. It's the angle of the camera that is producing that effect. If its distracting, I suggesting simply editing out my knees. But I'm not going to engage in discussions about what I did or didn't do in this photo. I was there, I took the photo, I know what I was doing. Anyone who wishes to claim something else is either questioning my sincerity or has an agenda.

By the way, I am myself 190 cms, but I have no experience of "bumping knees" with men who aren't sitting with a clear manspread like this. At least not on the Stockholm Metro, and not in this type of car. Not much else to add to that.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I cropped the pic somewhat and uploaded it in place of the other one. I disagree with the idea of moving up the MTR poster as the lead, btw. An actual, real-life example is far more relevant as a lead illustration compared to NYC campaign material.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying you weren't manspreading but the other guy was, and we should ignore how it looks when you do it as an optical illusion, but it's not when the other guy does it. And yet I see the person to the right of you avoiding your leg as well. So when you do it it's necessary and polite, but not the other guy. Got it. Now you're editing out the evidence. At any rate, two editors here are in agreement, and you're on your own objecting to the change.Mattnad (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm simply saying that you're obliged not to call me a hypocritical liar in the face of a rational explanation. If you want to go down Paranoia Lane with accusations of my "editing out the evidence", it's all on you.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• I prefer the MTA poster to the Isolato image. First, manspreading was popularized by the MTA campaign so that image is the more appropriate. Second, I'd rather not use a staged image as the lead when an alternative is available. I'm reverting Peter Isolato but, of course, they are welcome to add their image back in the main body of the article and/or open an RfC for wider input. --regentspark (comment) 15:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

RegentsPark, which image do you consider to be "staged"? The poster or the photo I took?

I'm personally in favor of an actual illustration, but I'm not going to start a huge row about it. But I don't appreciate being accused of lying and hypocrisy by Mattnad just because his views on this topic are different from mine (and that of most reliable sources).

Peter ^Isotalo 15:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You're the one who has tried to crop our your own "spread" from the photograph. How should we interpret that? Looks like when you do it, it's not "manspreading". So why the other guy?Mattnad (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the photo is fine because it does illustrate manspreading so nothing wrong with including it. Actually, because it shows one person manspreading while another is not, it is better than, say, the woman lolling on the seat image. Still, I'd rather go with the MTA poster on top because it is directly connected to the term as opposed to something included mainly to illustrate the act. --regentspark (comment) 16:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it's settled anyway. The MTA poster is nonfree. Since there are free images present, no nonfree may be used, since that would fail NFCC #1 (replaceable and, indeed, replaced). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

ok. I would have thought this comes under fair use but if not ... In that case I'm ok with moving the other image up. --regentspark (comment) 18:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this article really neutral?

I have the impression that the article is overwhelmingly critical of the term manspreading when this term is becoming increasingly popular among the young generation of feminists and not at all criticized as trivial by feminists. Pulling one example out of context (Tom Hanks) does not prove anything. --Nattes à chat (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The entire topic is contentious. The Tom Hanks example illustrates the sometimes pettiness of complaints and was notable enough that it received multiple national media outlet stories and coverage. Your personal opinions about it perhaps differ, but wikipedia is built on verifiable sources.Mattnad (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2019

I suggest replacing all direct mentions of the word 'men' or 'man'(except the words itself) and replacing them to people since it is an accusation to men, no matter how the reader interpret the meanings. Add an extra line at the end of the first paragraph explaining this style is commonly practiced by a portion of men. I choose to submit this request is because of a lot of people around me doing this aren't exactly men and not all men practice such action. By inscribing the word, 'men' or 'man' is direct discrimination against men. IMPORTANT: I did not submit this request to change the word "Manspreading" since that was the term used widely and recognized. This request was for the explanation and the meanings. Thank you very much and I hope you have a great day! Runkai Zhang (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Thank you for your request. If the word "men" is to be changed in every instance to a person, then your request should indicate which persons this should be, along with references for the changes. Otherwise, we cannot know which persons you wish to have these changed to.  Spintendo  22:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Age

Hi. I think old men manspread more than young men. The article does not explain about the effect age of on manspreading. Is it effective or not? --Doostdar (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Is there any sources about age effect in manspreading? Because I haven't found any in search engines. --EnchanterLee (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is in severe need of a thorough, outside, POV check. As it seems to be very short on anything but one particular ideological view on the subject. And completely devoid of any medical or biological discussion. James xeno (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur. There's an unusually high emphasis on criticism of the term. Why is a "men's rights group" cited in the criticism section for instance? It makes no sense. Also, what does this "shebagging" and "womanspreading" nonsense doing here? As far as i can tell, it's nothing but a big whataboutism. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Do not agree. Much (most?) of the coverage of manspreading has been criticism of the term and how it marginalizes actual women's issues. Shebagging and womanspreading were direct responses to manspreading and they were not considered notable enough for their own pages, and were therefore included here. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the majority of coverage of Manspreading HAS been criticism of the term... IN RIGHT WING CIRCLES. Also, a bunch of windbags deliberately taking up as much place as possible with no regard for anybody else, out of a sense of entitlement isn't a woman's issue. It's EVERYBODY's issue. I detect concern-trolling. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Do not agree. The reason the controversy section is big is because this term has received substantial criticism from feminists and men's rights activists alike. LΞVIXIUS💬 21:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I have not found reliable sources about medical or biological effects in manspreading. There are some behaviours that receives much more critics than supports, it does not violate NPOV to reflect those responses proportionally. Also, "man" is not very sex-related here, it's similar to "man" in "mankind".--EnchanterLee (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

'Man' in manspreading almost certainly sex-related, it says so in the definition. 'Mankind' is just another word with etymological roots in an extinct anglo-saxon word mann, is generally meant humanity as a collective. LΞVIXIUS💬 21:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Itis most certainly referring to men specifically because it's described as a male behavior. The "criticism" section doesn't refer to criticism of the behavior but rather criticism of the notion that the behavior exists at all. Which it does. Would you kindly read an article before making hasty comments on it's subject? 46.97.170.78 (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2020

There is a typo: "The term came into controversy after laws against manspreading were used to unduly targe latino population, two latino men were arrested for 'manspreading' under the MTA rules, and a teenager was alleged charged after keeping a backpack next to him." -- "targe" should be "target". Crazycolorz5 (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV and Organization

Both the main body and the criticism section of this article are filled with only criticism of the term 'mansplaining'. In order to make it objective, we should add some stuff from people who created and used the term. There is no objectivity or balance currently. Additionally we should move the criticism in the main body (that the word is racist, sexist, and a slur?) to criticism. The part about manspreading being anatomically required needs work and should also be moved under "criticism". --Lefu la ego (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Mens health - Fertility

The article doesn't mention the requirement for mens testicles to retain a lower temperature than the rest of the body ( https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/why-do-human-testicles-hang-like-that/ ) Sitting with a legs closed position prevents proper cooling, and thus affects mens fertility. As such, this must be considered a mens health issue. 2001:871:25A:525C:EC24:8F2:DE67:4F4 (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)