Talk:hybristophile

(usually a woman)

@Equinox: You reverted my edit and thereby removed (usually a woman) from the definition.

Women are evolutionarily predisposed to be attracted to very powerful men. I believe you are doing Wiktionary users a disservice by leaving out the fact that in the vast majority of use-cases whereby the term hybristophile is used, the subject is a woman. This context helps readers to better understand what hybristophilia in the real world means. No man is attracted to criminal women. Or actually, men probably are, but they are attracted to her despite her criminal behavior, not because of it.

I therefore think we should leave it in. But I am open to your counter-arguments.

You sound like you have some personal axe to grind. The counterarguments are (i) Wiktionary isn't a place for your pseudoscientific theories of gender; (ii) we don't mention gender unless it's truly germane to the definition: we don't define accountant as "usually male" even though that is probably a fact about accountants. Equinox ◑ 21:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

1) @Equinox: I still believe this is important context that is helpful to readers, mainly that the sex of people who are hybristophiles is generally female. I say generally for the sake of the argument, because hybristophilia in men, if that exists at all, is extremely rare.

2) This isn't pseudoscience, you can go to Google Scholar and find lots of peer reviewed studies on hybristophiles. But I failed to find a single study in which a man 'sufferred' from the condition. I am open to be enlightened if I'm wrong.

3) Also, your accountant comparison is a false equivalence, as accountancy has nothing to do with sex, and could be done by either sex. I'm sure there are tons of female accountants for which we can find evidence of their existence. This is not the case for male hybristophiles.

4) I've seen tons of examples in which Wiktionary includes gender in the definition:

string vest ("usually worn by men")

donkey jacket ("often worn by men")

philanderer ("usually applies only to men")

schmierig ("usually of men"),

garbage man ("Someone, usually male")

ditzy ("usually of a woman")

5) I'm not sure what I said that makes it sound as if I have some "personal axe to grind". And even if I did, it is the argument that counts. I just side with the truth, wherever that lies, and strive for good definitions.

I await your response, and hope we can put (usually a woman) back in with your agreeance. Amin (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I said "we don't define accountant as "usually male" even though that is probably a fact about accountants"; if you don't like that example than use "firefighters" or "SWAT team members" or something. The issue isn't whether it's a true fact or not but whether it matters to the definition. Many Scots are ginger-haired but we don't say "a person, often ginger-haired, from Scotland". Equinox ◑ 10:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

A more apposite example: why don't we say that serial killers are usually male (which no doubt has a bearing on why their fans are often female, since straight is culturally the default sexuality)? Because it doesn't matter in pure dictionary terms: when a woman does serial-kill (like Rose West) she is still a serial killer. Equinox ◑ 11:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Equinox: You're using a false equivalence. Accountants and SWAT team could be male or female. There are some female serial killers (see a list here), but I agree most of them are male.

Hypbristophiles are exclusively female. I would be surprised if you could proof a single case of clinically diagnosed male hybristophile.

The reason why these men have female fans is not because most women are 'straight'. You are making it out to be totally random, when in reality, many women are attracted to powerful men. Even to the point where it could be considered pathological. If those men lived normal lifes without the crimes, those hybristophile women would not have found them attractive. Amin (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The difference between philanderer and hybristophile is that the former’s application on women is awkward, like a man being called slut is contradiction, you know why, @Amin. The cloth names aren’t even comparisons, schmierig relates to body features, garbage man is self-explaining. Applying hybristophile though on a male, if such a case is present – and with all the genders and sexualities today I just refer to rule 34 –, wouldn’t be awkward, as the word is designed to be ungendered (whereas I do not know what a male slut or female philanderer could look like). Also do you really want to blackpill people here that much? I do not think the readers understand that topic, they can only take note of it as trivia; and they don’t need to know everything from Wiktionary. If you want to spread the fruits of neoreactionary thought you are doing it wrong. Fay Freak (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Fay Freak:

I just want one standard to be applied everywhere. And since I could not find any evidence for a single clinically diagnosed male hybristophile, I don't think they exist.

Amin (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amin: Ok, but their existence does not matter here. What matters is if the word is marked as being for women, which it is not, even if it is unlikely or impossible to truthfully use it on men. Fay Freak (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Amin: the 2006 citation talks about men... 83.216.95.101 23:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The men in the 2006 citation are the men that the hybristophile lusts after, not the hybristophile him/herself. Equinox ◑ 11:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Fay Freak: There are tons of words that are not marked for men or women, yet the definitions often contains "usually a man". What is the rule here? It seems you and I at least agree that one standard should be applied everywhere, should we now remove it everywhere else, or add it here? Amin (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

If you are genuinely concerned with creating a standard, why do you fixate on this one word and women? Why not argue to remove the stuff from every other entry? Why really? Equinox ◑ 01:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Equinox: Why shouldn't I? My hobby is exposing and abolishing double-standards where I spot them.

Since I had often seen it on other entries, it made sense to add it here as well.

Now will you revert me if I add it back in? If so, we could invite other Wiktionarians to take a look at this issue and see what the consensus is.

Amin (talk) 06:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)