Talk:Masculism

This article could be improved greatly by comparing it and improving it against these articles:

http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/scripts/lc.pl?entry=masculism&sites=all

--LMS

FROM: Terry Daly,

TO: American Men

RE; MASCULISM- THE MOVEMENT; A MESSAGE FROM THE MOVEMENT'S FOUNDER AND LEADER

I want to clear up the confusion which exists in America about the genesis of the men's movement terms 'masculist' and 'masculism', and about the precise nature of what constitues (and does not constitute) the masculist manifesto.

It is not at all surprising that there should be such confusion in America. The terms 'masculist' and 'masculism' are not American ones. These terms were formulated by myself here in London, England in 1990. Those who wish to verify this need only research any or all of the following media organs: the London 'Sunday Times' newspaper dated 23 December 1990, the London edition of 'Cosmopolitian' magazine dated July 1991, the London edition of 'I-D' magazine dated October 1991 and the BBC radio World Service 'Megamix' programme broadcast in August 1992. All of these feature myself as the sole founder of masculism and leader of the masculist movement. In addition, Robert Bly, Warren Farrell, David Thomas, Neil Lyndon, et al all recognise and credit me similarly. So, now you all know!

But what is it, this masculism? It has a history, my history. At its inception in 1990 I fully intended masculism as the natural inheritor of the gaping space vacated by radical feminism, as the latter metamorphosed into institutional feminism. Radical, revolutionary masculism had (and has) a mainfesto every bit as militant as its feminist predecessor.

It is proactive. It celebrates white, heterosexual men and their achievements throughout the ages, including this one, and it looks to the future with the intention of shaping it in its own image(s) by connecting with, building upon and extending such achievements. In regard to this latter, masculism seeks power for men in the home territory in exactly the same way that feminism seeks power for women in the work territory - and as unapologetically and ruthlessly.

Like feminism, it embraces its new territory without seeing the need to relinquish its old territory; men who play potent roles in decision making affecting their home and children should never have to allow this to prejudice their traditional pattern of competing with total commitment and success in the workplace. Above all, masculism and masculists are strong, confident, assertive, powerful - and good time! You'd better believe it!

A decade on and I am in the process, not of changing the original masculist manifesto (perish the thought), but of surrounding and supporting it with a whole new dimension, namely an over arching philosophy. The latter is the subject of a treatise which I am currently engaged in preparing, the title of which is 'Universalism: Pattern and Rhythm in Chaos and Complexity'. My agent forbids me to divulge any further details!

Finally, some notes in the margin. I constructed the terms masculism and masculist by performing the same syllable surgery required to form the terms feminism and feminist. Just as the word fem-in- ine became fem-in- ism and fem-in-ist, so likewise did the word mas-cul-ine become mas-cul-ism and mas-cul-ist. It sounded right, whereas mas-cul-in-ism and mas-cul-in-ist certainly did not and were both rejected out of hand.

The Latin word for male as a noun is 'masculus' ( leading to the singular version 'mas', a male). Just as 'feminist' can be used as a noun or an adjective, so too can 'masculist'. Other terms which I have created for the men's movement are heterophobia, masculophobia, heteroian and heteroianism. Work them out for yourself. I also subvert language, as in my changing of the term political correctness to political conformism. The effect is devastating. Try it out on your PC (politically CONFORMIST) friends (or enemies) and enjoy the stunned silence. After all, what white liberalist (another word created by me - it's a pejoration of the word 'liberal') wants to be labelled politically conformist!

When people say 'But why is masculism a white, heterosexual men's movement?', I say 'Because there already is a black men's movement and a homosexual men's movement - and there isn't a white, heterosexual men's movement'. There is now.

What is the big difference between masculism and every other men's movement currently operating? I will tell you. Every other men's movement is housed within the confines of the Anglo American liberal (what I term liberalist) philosophical tradition. Masculism is not. It is housed within universalism, the philosophy which I fully intend to be the successor to liberalism. Do watch this space . . .

---

My personal opinion of masculism and the "men's rights" movement (and I am male) is that it is a joke. One only has to look at countries like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia to see that in the world in general women are treated awfully, and men by comparison have it sweet. Even in Western countries, men still have it better off than women: at the top echelons of society (government, the corporate world), men still outnumber women. Even though its imporving, women still take primary responsibility for raising children, and hence their careers suffer. Certaintly, some feminists do fit the sterotype of a 'man-hater' but these are by far in the minority. Most feminists who get accused of "hating men" are actually making quite valid points. And again, most of the discrimination in our society against men is a result of traditional conceptions of sex roles, discrimination which is opposed by feminists. As to "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination", while it might not be nice to lose out as an individual through it, it is necessary for the good of society as a whole. -- SJK

I've been involved for many years in activism that I call "masculist", so I think I have an idea of what the word means. Tom Smith invited me here, and I'm interested in participating. Tom and I don't agree on everything, but he's got a good handle on what the title word means.

As for ideology...Most men think men's rights are a joke, because they are blissfully ignorant of how limited their legal rights are until they get their own "Dear John" letter and it is too late for them personally. Then the join the ranks of masculists who have come to recognize the one-sidedness of a system rigged against them, and make little progress trying to fix the system because the majority are either blissfully ignorant or so conditioned to please women that they are unable to recognize or advocate their own interests. It is no surprise to me that SJK, a man, finds men's rights laughable. Unfortunately, the 4/5 of suicides who are men took some of these problems more seriously.

When we looks at countries like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, do we see a balanced view of what life is like for both men and women, or do we selectively look at the plight of women and ignore the plight of men? Women may have to wear a burka, but men get shot. Some freedom. Our vision is one-sided, and that is the problem. It served a purpose once, because once, the interests of women WERE the interests of civilization. But now that feminism is influencing women to abandon the care of their families, the interests of women are no longer the interests of civilization.

Men at the top eschelons of society is not a sign that men are oppressors seeking to hold onto their supposed power. It is a sign that women, who make up a majority of voters, have more confidence in (or prefer to be cared for by) men. Feminists don't get the male vote because men are conditioned to look after community interests (not their own), while feminism conditions women to look after women's interests. This comes across in the dialogue of candidates. Of course men vote more often for men, because there are few credible female candidates for top offices.

A few men at top eschelons does not translate into "men have it better". Maybe those few men do, but most of us are down here in the trenches.

Women who take primary responsibility for children have the best career they could ever hope for. As a full-time father, I know that being a primary care-giver is far more rewarding than the 9-5 routine. But it should be a choice. Let the couple decide what works for them. Let the one who wants to be a primary care-giver become such. Then there is no belly-aching about lost opportunities. If both want careers, then don't have kids. We must take the consequences of all the decisions we make. This is not oppression, it is life.

Most of the discrimination against men in western civilization is not based on "traditional conceptions of sex roles", but rather prejudice against men which has hardened into law. This is why 85% of the homeless are men, but outreach programs usually reach out to the 15% women, ignoring the men. This is why men get hauled off in DV cases even when they were the one getting beaten. This is why model fathers lose their children in divorce just because they're men, even though fathers make better single parents. (Kids in single-mother households are at a higher risk for drug abuse, dropout, and teenage pregnancy than single-father households.)

My beef with feminism is the fascist reprisals men get when they disagree. Why do men lose their jobs just for disagreeing with feminists in a country where we're supposed to have a free exchange of ideas? My beef involves the dishonesty of demanding feminine privilege while pretending to stand for equality. For the duplicity of accepting all sorts of entitlements men can't get while criticizing men for "holding themselves back" with old-fashioned ideas.

Most feminists aren't consciously man-haters, but they certainly don't promote harmony and interdependence in families and communities either. They promote total independence and ultimate freedom for one special interest group--women. But I got news for ya, if we can't count on each other, we don't survive. Nobody can afford the ultimate freedom feminists want for all women. Men certainly don't have it. And the more women unilaterally reach for the unreachable, the more civilization gets out of balance.

This isn't misogyny, its legitimate anger for the excesses of feminism. Feminism was on track in the early days when it was about empowerment. Now it's about nursing one's victimhood. It's about alienation in the name of equality, and that's a mistake. We need each other in order to survive, and we need harmony and mutual appreciation in order to thrive. Feminism undermines all that.--Terence

---

So what? You might be right, and I might (or might not) agree with you. But this is not a discussion forum. It is an encyclopaedia. clasqm

Yeah, I know. But where else am I to sprout my opinions? :)

What do women-raping and oppressing fanatics in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan have to do with the lack of men's rights on certain issues in the USA and Europe? There are many men involved in the men's right's movement who themselves are feminists, who are in fact liberal, and who fight for equality between the sexes...but who also decry the fact that men are treated very unequally in many ways. Have you ever compared funing for diseases that affect only men, versus diseases that affect women? It is downright embarassing. Are you aware that in the USA, men have virtually no rights on whether to have children or not, and only women do? Or that most men have virtually no say in what goes in our government (just like women)? Are you aware that women's average life-span's are increasing, while men's are not? Discussing this issue is most certainly not a joke. Your criticism is misplaced, for it is against anti-feminists, but that is a different group. Let us keep in mind that not all feminists hate men (Although some undeniably do), and not all people in men's rights groups are anti-feminist. RK

Sprout? :-)

It may be true that some masculinists are not anti-feminist, but this article as it is currently written does not give that impression. Instead, it contains several criticisms of feminism and cites those as representing the views of masculinism. It is also worth pointing out that many feminists, including Gloria Steinem, have stated that sexism negatively affects men in certain ways, and this article does not address this facet of the issue. --Egern.

If anybody feels qualified to address this, I assume we also want to throw Camille Paglia into this mix; Paglia is as far as I can tell sympathetic to Masculism.

---

The article is fairly decent, based on what I have read elsewhere it presents a fairly neutral overview of the concepts and principles of the relevant groups and authors. The second last sentence about how "feminists respond" is a little troubling and seems to be an assertion of fact rather than relating a claim by a masculism proponent. - MMGB

---

There is, in my view, some subtle but clear bias in favor of "masculinism" expressed in this article.

---

I agree with the latter (as of Nov. 9). --LMS

---

Is the Wikipedia positive or normative? If it is normative (that is, expressing a "correct" usage that is not necessarily the most widely used one) I would have to argue for a complete redefinition of "sexism", "masculism" and "feminism". Personally I consider myself a sexist (in my definition of the word) and believe that it is the more correct system, and think that the words "sexist", "masculist" and "feminist" are misleading. "feminist", for example, can mean a man-hater, but it often means someone who wants equal rights for women. Since such a person also wants equal rights for men (transitivity of "equal") then they are masculists as well, right? If the Wikipedia purpose is positive, however, this viewpoint is irrelevant. Thus, I return to my question: is WP positive or normative? --KamikazeArchon

Interesting but IMHO tough question. Are other encyclopedias (e.g. Britannica) positive or normative?

---

Are you guys sure the article isn't a joke? It looks a lot like the (soon to be deleted?) rant that Mr. xxx kept putting on the Feminism page. I'd like to see a balanced examination of feminism, which I might decide to try someday if no one else does it. Ed Poor

This is not constructive criticism. If you have a specific flaw to point out, let's hear it. The previous criticisms of this entry were also vague allusions, and not specific nor supportable. I think that there are many people who think that all people in the men's right movement hate feminism, and fear them. This is no doubt the reason that this article was censored by cowards at Nupedia. But this is obviously a double standard. Most of us do not claim that most feminists hate men, or want more rights than men, right? So why act this way towards people in the men's rights movement? Why take the sins of a few and project them onto the majority? This is inappropriate.RK

Sorry, I was really asking whether the posting was intended as a joke. I guess you mean it's a serious article. I will treat it as such, no offense intended. Ed Poor

---

A long time ago I came across the term "masculist" in a feminist dictionary. It was defined as meaning "male chauvinist pig". Has anyone else come across this use? --Zundark, 2001 Dec 6

Um, this sort of thing isn't necessarily meaningful. I'm sure I can find examples of "capitalist" defined as "selfish, evil, agent of Satan" and examples of "communist" defined as "selfish, evil, agent of Satan". What are you getting at here?

Only that if the term has another meaning, perhaps this should be mentioned. --Zundark, 2001 Dec 7

Sounds fair! But only if it's a "real" meaning (In my example, neither capitalist nor communist really mean that, even though some people might consistently use them that way.)

---

One way of improving this article, I believe, is to state what masculinism is for rather than what it is against. Much of the article as it was written contained lots of attacks on feminism, not to mention that the article seemed to accept most of those attacks at face value. I attempted to alter the tone of the article to make it a little less negative, and hopefully this will help to improve the NPOV of the article.

This is like saying we should focus on what the invading American troops at Normandy in WWII were "for". Obviously they were "for" freedom, but in order to achieve it, they had to displace a tyrant and his army. To state what we are against is sometimes quite the point. Feminism's excesses have distorted civilization. I am against that, because I want my children to grow up in a more balanced world. Basic addition tells me that negating a negative results in a positive. What's wrong with that? We can clean up the excesses without betraying women's interests, so why should feminism not be opposed? Perhaps the problem here is equating feminism with women's interests. No, it's just one ideology.--Terence

---

Since I don't know much about masculism, I'm not going to edit this page. However, the view put forward of feminism, that it "asserts that women have been disadvantaged in society" is only half of the story. Mainstream feminism (not radical feminism, which is sometimes very anti-male), holds that both men and women are disadvantaged by being pigeonholed into strict gender roles. It would be wrong to mischaracterize mainstream feminism's position in this article. --Dmerrill

Mainstream feminism may talk about men deserving freedom from outdated gender roles, but it also promotes and accepts entitlement for women that men can't get, and one-sided rulings in family court. Is this not anti-male? Let's not be too quick to contrast mainstream from radical just yet.--Terence

---

Just bear in mind that it would also be wrong to mischaracterize masculism's mischaracterization of mainstream feminism...better to say, instead, "Feminists would (or do) counter that..."

---

I removed this:

From New Zealand, Peter Zohrab's book Sex, Lies & Feminism, proposes that society either abolish the so-called female privilege, or revert to a traditional division of labour between the sexes as a fall-back position. He also charges that the power and feminist bias of what he terms the "MUC" (Media University Complex) are a central issue in the Sex War.

I've talked to Peter Zohrab repeatedly about Nupedia and I still lack evidence that he's such an important member of the movement (outside of New Zealand and the Internet) that his opinions should be cited in this article. The aforementioned book has only recently been published--first electronically self-published online, and now in paper form, it seems by the New Zealand Equality Party (which seems to be Zohrab's organization).

Now, look, I know the following statement is going to sound ludicrous to him, but I really do not intend any disrespect to Zohrab. I just want to see evidence that his views really are important within the movement, and that he is not simply engaging in shameless self-promotion (as it seems Tom Smith has been recently as well). --LMS

---

I understand how Peter and my entries appear to be self promotion, but it's important to know that masculism has been totally suppressed in academia so that it's main advocates have had to be outside academia. It will be the Zohrab's and Smith's that break open academia to masculism at which time we will be happy to be a foot note. Until then, our masculist approaches deserve mentioning Tom Smith

---

I had to change the first two paragraphs to stop this beating around the bush and covering ones fanny stuff. Hear me loud and clear, masculism doesn't cater in any way to feminist nonsense, nor neither does it to traditionalist or fundementalist nonsense. Masculism directly confronts feminist bullshit and replaces it with common sense, or if you will, scientific fact. And it does in a purely secular fashion...with an eye to the political realities. Anyone with either traditionalist or feminist delusions of equality, need not apply Tom Smith

What you call "beating around the bush" and "covering ones fanny" is called NPOV in this project. The goal of the project is not not to turn articles such as this one into a forum for advocacy of your point of view. The first two paragraphs as they stood had become examples of advocacy, not objective writing. Whether you think something is "bullshit" is not relevant to the process of trying to write an objective article. If you have questions about this subject, perhaps the article on Neutral point of view would be a good place to start.

Vandalism alert: This entry is being swamped by extremists within the men's rights movement, and they are falsely portraying their own personal views as the views of most, if not all, men in the movement. That is utterly dishonest. As a person who also is sympathetic to, and supports, the men's rights movement, I want to go on record as saying that these people do not speak for me. They are rewriting this entry to make all advocates of men's rights enemies of feminism. This is not just false, it is a deliberate, flat-out lie. I am well aware that the phrase "men's rights" covers a wide political spectrum, and that this article should cover these viewpoints. But Tom Smith and his cohorts are falsely making all men's rights advocates out to be like him. Bullshit. How would we feel if someone vandalized the feminism entry, and made out all feminists out to be enemies of men? Just as that is bad, so is Tom Smith's deliberate and dishonest distortions.RK

---

RK--I won't claim to speak for you, but how can anyone be a masculist without being opposed to the excesses of feminism? If you feel the need to defend men's rights, what are you defending them from, if not erosion by mainstream feminism?--Terence

---

By the way, why is the title "masculism"? Most people involved in the men's rights movement do not use that phrase. Rather, that is the name used by (a) enemies of the men's rights movement, and also (ironically) by (b) the most right-wing or conservative members of the men's rights movements. I propose that we make a new entry entitled "Men's rights movement", or something like that. The majority of text from this entry could be copied and moved there, and this current entry could be maintained as a description of (a) and (b). RK

Well, I don't consider myself a "men's rights" advocate, but for what it's worth, every time I try to tone down the anti-feminist rhetoric in this article and make it more NPOV, new anti-feminist rhetoric just pops into the article.

---

I assume NPOV is "neutral point of view". Maybe the mistake is trying to be neutral. Are the people involved in men's rights involved so as to remain neutral, or to take a stand for men's rights, identifying and opposing the forces that erode such rights? Why is feminism such a sacred cow that it cannot be criticized? Masculism without anti-feminism is like Greenpeace without anti-whaling. Note that feminism is not the only representation of women's interests, and opposing feminism does not mean opposing women's interests.--Terence

---

The first two paragraphs of this article, as they now stand, are nothing but advocacy writing. They should be removed and replaced with something more objective, in my opinion.

I'm going to attempt to move those paragraphs towared NPOV, while avoiding drastic deletion. --KA

Good luck, and I hope after your efforts, more advocacy writing will not simply replace your work as has happened in the past with this article.

---

The article structure should be as follows:

• Uncontroversial facts

• Controversial facts

• Interpretation / Analysis

• • Interpretation by advocates

• • Interpretation by opponents

• • ...

Please try to abide by this structure in order to keep the article neutral.

---

Good idea. --KA

---

KA, your changes were an improvement. Thanks. I don't know who RK is, but watch out for him. Masculism is a different animal than men's rights and should never be equated. Even "Masculinism" is a veering off toward a more feminine "Masculism". There's an argument for using it in certain respects, but very carefully in terms of masculism.

Your ad homenim attacks do not help your cause. Further, you are falsely attributing statements to me that I have never said. Nothing in the above paragraph has anything to do with what I actually wrote. In fact, I haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about. These words are used in different ways by different people, and you don't even make your own definitions clear. In any case, stop dishonestly attacking positions that I don't have. For those who care about what I actually wrote, I explicitly stated that masulism is NOT the same thing as the men's rights movement, and I have stated that they should be made into different articles. In fact, that quote from me is in this very entry! This person's anonymnous attacks are false, disruptive and not appreciated. RK

I can clarify the issues and people can fall either toward a more kinder and gentler masculism or go my way to a more stern masculism, but that doesn't change the basic truth of those first two paragraphs no matter how you fall on specifics of agenda. There's one guy who is as good as me or better at the ideological game of Masculism. His name is "Terrence" and goes by the handle "Greenman" and I'll have him come over and take a look. Yes, I'll warn him about how touchy this all is.

OK, so it's touchy. I won't participate directly in the re-write for now, but I would like to hear any specific critique of the first two paragraphs. It looks accurate to me.

If we have to treat feminism as a sacred cow, such that the first two paragraphs as they now stand are adjudicated unduly negative, if y'all want to soft-pedal it, that may make it more palatable, but not a more accurate representation of the movement.

Tom and I aren't particularly extreme on the ideology. I don't see any dishonesty or vandalism here. But if you're afraid to tell it like it is, that's a bit dishonest.--

Terence

---

Great response Terence...thanks. Listen, do you know Steve Anderson (S.Anderson)? He's been writing some stuff on my groups that's blowing me away. I was thinking of him comming over here for a look see. He certainly could improve on my writing style. Tom Smith

---

Well I haven't heard any specific critique, so I finally took your invitation and worked on the article myself. I'm half hoping this committee will like what I've done, since I've basically just massaged what was already there, but I'm not naive enough to really expect that.

I told it like it is, and said what needed to be said. I'm sure you all approve of that, right?  ;) I consistently used NPOV as some of you insisted by saying "masculists say it is" not "it is..." (except in the response section). I'm told rewrites can easily be undone, so I trust nobody's going to get mad if they don't like it.--Terence

---

As far as I can tell, the following was completely made up by Wikipedians who are engaged a dispute over the merits of masculism. Please prove me wrong by supplying attributions for the following arguments. The fact that some Wikipedian thinks these things does not mean they belong in an encyclopedia article. My saying this is not to be taken as support or denial of any position stated here. It's to be taken as a wake-up call to those of you who are using Wikipedia as a platform to put your own personal spins on articles! Stop it, please.

Criticism and Response

Masculism has been characterized as the pinnacle of political correctness: Heterosexual white men complaining, "we're oppressed, too". Masculism is seen by some critics as combining misogyny with victimhood. Feminists argue that masculism or "men's rights" groups seek to perpetuate the repression of women in society.

Calling masculism "politically correct" is dishonest, because if any politician should express any masculist idea, he would be run out of town on a rail. Nothing could be more politically incorrect than masculism. Doesn't mean it's wrong, of course. "Political correctness" is another name for feminism, which we ain't. Calling masculism "misogynistic" is hollow because misandry is far more prevalent than misogyny. Masculists don't use victimhood as a political device because (1) it doesn't work because a male victim does not elicit sympathy as a female victim does, and (2) men are culturally conditioned to avoid complaint and keep a stiff upper lip to an extreme degree. When men finally stick up for themselves, it's a breakthrough, not a predilection.

As for the accusation of perpetuating the supposed repression of women, there is no such repression. Women are privileged in every way in today's society: Domestic violence enforcement, divorce court, military service, hazardous civilian jobs, prison sentencing, restraining orders, frivolous accusations of sexual harassment, the list is endless. Why are feminists so blind to the privilege of women and the suffering of men? There is a hidden motive. The accusations are unfounded.

All of the above screed needs to be attributed to some prominent masculist or masculist critic. Cf. [1], which I very much suspect some of you engaged in this dispute have not come to grips with. If you cannot agree to follow Wikipedia's nonbias policy, leave. --LMS, who is not happy

---

LMS--The Criticism section is mostly as I found it, although I corrected some punctuation. You can attribute the rewrite of the Response section above to me. I did not try to remain neutral in the Response section, since it is in the advocate's voice, although I did with the rest of it. Perhaps using the advocate's voice even there was excessive, in which case the opponent's voice in the Criticism section should also be toned down and merely described.

I assumed that the Criticism & Response sections were a necessary part of the article structure (as outlined above by KA), and, in fact, according to section 7 of the NPOV article which you yourself cited, the article is supposed to try to represent an opposing view in order to be balanced. I fear that you are endangering freedom of expression for all by removing the opposing view. Is it not better to present the opposing view than to have the article destroyed or pulled?--Terence

---

Terence, what I mean by "attribute" is "attribute to either some prominent masculist or masculist critic," not "attribute to a Wikipedian." We (on Wikipedia) don't care what some random person believes about the merits of masculism, or what his defense of it might be.

The whole point of the encyclopedia is to express what "human knowledge" we have amassed, in the sense of what scholars, scientists, experts, etc., of all sorts believe--not the idiosyncratic beliefs of someone who happens to be working on the encyclopedia.

By all means, we should have a section explaining criticisms of masculism and responses thereto. But they should be criticisms and responses of people whose opinions matter. If this constitutes "endangering freedom of expression," so be it. You are not free to add your idiosyncratic opinion to Wikipedia. What we're doing here is summing up the most influential opinion-making, research, and so forth.

Please, do read this. --LMS

Like Dmerrill I don't know enough about masculism (though I'm sure I know a lot more than LMS) to comment on specific details or edit the entry. However this idea that encylopedias never do anything but quote people is absurd. It actually cuts at the very root of the concept of a Wikipedia, which is that ordinary people can write encyclopedia entries. I suggest they get on with it and not worry too much about LMS while he is posturing, but only when he makes legitimate points about style or bias. David Byron

Incidentally Larry, does it really take a Ph'D in philosophy to come up with an insult like

"you can't even spell 'believe'"?

David, you evidently don't understand what we've been engaged in here. It is not up to you to define the project on this point; it has already been defined, at least in this particular. It has already long since been decided that Wikipedia is not a collection of opinions of the people who happen to work on Wikipedia; if you want to work on such a project, go to Everything2 or H2G2, or for that matter, Usenet. See what Wikipedia is not. On Wikipedia, we are summing up significant human knowledge. To do this, one need not be an expert--because it doesn't take an expert to know what knowledge we, collectively, have achieved. So you're entirely right that ordinary people can write an encyclopedia and that Wikipedia is devoted to that proposition. What you're wrong about is the limited proposition that each of our individual opinions on a subject are of interest to the readers of Wikipedia. Yours are not, unless you are one of the very few people who are an opinion-maker on some subject. Mine are not, I imagine, on any subject (not even the subjects on which I earned my Ph.D., probably)--except, perhaps, Wikipedia and Nupedia themselves. --LMS

Your knee-jerk desire to control every aspect of this project and to insult newcomers and hound honest contributors does not encourage optimism for the Wikipedia. I've read the articles on style and they do not say what you claim they say, but I imagine that where there's a discrepancy your will be done, eh Larry?

First of all, David, this is not about me, and it isn't about you. It's about a policy that you seem bent on flouting. If you want to be reasonable and if you want to help preserve everyone's sanity (not to mention the scanty holiday spirit on Wikipedia), you'll keep that in mind. But, to keep the record straight, anyone who knows me knows that I do not have a knee-jerk desire to constrol every aspect of the project. I typically welcome newcomers and try (as gently as possible) to teach them what's going on here. But, frankly, I have somewhat less patience than I should have with newcomers who attempt, unreasonably, to judge, criticize, and change the project without first understanding it. --LMS

---

I've edited the article so that it is a bit more neutral. It still needs to distinguish more clearly between liberal and conservative masculism from early on; the opening paragraphs give short shrift to the liberal point of view. Since I don't know what that view is, precisely, I can't fix the article. But it does seem pretty obvious that the article needs to be fixed. --LMS

---

Who wrote that "Criticism and response" section above? That doesn't sound like Terrence, and it wasn't me. Terrence is the only men's movement guy that I know of here, besides myself.

I'm sorry to see the difficulties you are having with Byron, Larry. Wikipedia is great and I told Terrence in a private email that if anything, we will learn encyclopedic thinking. When I first came here, the entry on masculism was better than the one on Nupedia, which also did pretty good. Even with the occasional bias and sloppy writing, or maybe because of it, the entries go deeper than in usual encyclopedic parlance.

Please have alittle sympathy for us masculists. I've been a public anti-feminist for twenty years and it's been an eye opener in persecution I'll tell you. I'm doing Wikipedia for fun and maybe to contribute. Encyclopedia's have little effect on social movements, and as such, masculism will eventually dominate this century. Our little parlays here may have some value when that happens. QIM

---

Hi Tom,

Merry Christmas, I hope!  :-)

I'm not sure who wrote the section, and really, that doesn't matter. I think disputes on Wikipedia shouldn't be so much about personalities but about what sort of text we do and don't want to include. Because Wikipedia is open and unmoderated, it can only work if we work toward and respect consensus--to say nothing of wikipetiquette.

I'm very sorry if you think that masculists are being persecuted on Wikipedia. I certainly am not trying to persecute any masculists for their masculism. Please believe me that I officially have nothing against masculists per se, and I'm glad to have a few on board--simply because I'm glad to have people of all persuasions on board. (By the same token, I wish we had a few gender feminists here, to tell the truth; we don't have any, as far as I can tell, or if they are, they're keeping their views well hidden.) Again, though, disputes on Wikipedia shouldn't be about personalities or their beliefs, but about what sort of text we want to include here. That's what my dispute with David has been about, viz., his apparent insistence (which I'm not sure he's holding to anymore) that Wikipedia articles, or some of them, be biased. I have always held that Wikipedia can and should be unbiased, and I get far more hot and bothered about that than about issues surrounding feminism and masculism. (That, because Wikipedia's is a major part of my life's work, and our adherence to the neutrality policy is one of the things that makes Wikipedia function!)

Anyway, by all means, we want a very long, meaty article about masculinism (and feminism) and many related topics. I do not want to discourage you or other masculists from improving these articles, if you can be sure that they describe the masculist view without asserting or implying that it is true (that is one formulation of the nonbias policy). I'm glad we have someone on board who is familiar with the movement; that will improve the article, of course. --LMS

---

LMS and Terence--

LMS: We (on Wikipedia) don't care what some random person believes about the merits of masculism, or what his defense of it might be....idiosyncratic beliefs of someone who happens to be working on the encyclopedia.

T: On what basis do you suppose I am merely a random person? On what basis do you suppose my beliefs are idiosyncratic? Those who would spend their time on the project and put forth a cogent argument generally undeniable by both opponents and proponents are mediums of "amassed human knowledge" by virtue of their resulting work. Someone who knows so little about the subject as you claim to should not be so arrogant and insulting toward those of us who do know about the subject. Back off.

LMS: Please see most common Wikipedia faux pas, because you're making a few of them. In removing the section that you apparently wrote, I was editing text, not criticizing people, and I was trying to make sure that the text was appropriate for Wikipedia. Now, I did not see that those views were attributed to anyone. They were simple statements of opinion, sitting out there like a sore thumb. Even if the author of those sentiments were an important opinion-maker with regard to masculism (an important masculist or anti-masculist), they should be attributed to him, because Wikipedia has a neutrality policy. As you can see, this has absolutely nothing to do with "who knows how much" about the subject!

LMS: But they should be criticisms and responses of people whose opinions matter.

T: This is an elitist view that belongs more in middle-ages European aristocracy than in the modern world. Get a clue: Nobody's opinion matters. The facts matter. Whoever has the facts has the authority to disclose them. I have the facts of what constitutes the subject of this article, so my expressions are as valid as any--and more than most.

LMS: I'm not sure how to reply to this. On the one hand, of course the facts matter. On the other hand, human beings disagree about what the facts are. On an open project such as Wikipedia, the only way we can avoid constant open warfare about what the facts are is to commit ourselves to the ideal of stating the major competing opinions about what the facts are: the neutral point of view. Moreover, the public basically doesn't have the patience for, or put enough value in, collecting everybody's opinion about everything. So we narrow the field by relating the opinions (research, scholarship, culturally influential tracts, etc.) of the most influential people. Sally, for instance, isn't interested in my opinion of the merits of consequentialism; she wants to know what leading philosophers of all stripes have had to say about it. Since I'm not a leading philosopher, she wouldn't be interested in my opinion (she, frankly, wouldn't have time for it, and I wouldn't blame her). This, by the way, is all old news about Wikipedia policy.

T: You're entitled to this opinion, but you are not free to live by it here on Wikipedia; what you said, as I understand it, is totally inconsistent with Wikipedia's neutrality policy.

LMS: If this constitutes "endangering freedom of expression," so be it. You are not free to add your idiosyncratic opinion to Wikipedia. What we're doing here is summing up the most influential opinion-making, research, and so forth.

As a matter of interest do any other people on this project except Larry think that facts are irrelevent and instead only arguments that can be attributed to someone are suitable content? I've seen no one support Larry on this and many people disagree with him.

T: My opinions on masculism are not idiosyncratic. They are consistent with the core of masculist ideology, as represented by in published books and a variety of coordinated political activism groups. Your opinion, if you are the one who added the phrase "tooth decay" is the idiosyncratic one, not to mention uninformed, a phrase which I am about to remove.

LMS: Maybe they are consistent! Fine! But we couldn't tell that from the text itself. Instead of saying, "The core masculist ideology is such-and-such," you just went right ahead and said, "Such-and-such," as if you wanted Wikipedia itself to make that assertion; and even if it was clear enough, to some people, that you weren't making Wikipedia speak for you, there was still a problem in that it was still not clear who was being said to be the author of the claims. If, indeed, it's all masculists, that's grand. Doubtful, but grand if true. Now the trick is to actually attribute the claims in question to masculists. (I have no idea what the "tooth decay" deal is about.)

LMS: What you're wrong about is the limited proposition that each of our individual opinions on a subject are of interest to the readers of Wikipedia. Yours are not, unless you are one of the very few people who are an opinion-maker on some subject.

T: By opinion-maker, you are apparently referring again to the elite intelligentsia who are supposedly the unique custodians of knowledge. How arrogant. The opinion of the average Joe about what a french fry is does matter if only he knows what a french fry is. My opinion matters because I know what masculism is. I don't have to belong to the elite intelligentsia in order to hold and record knowledge. Whether my definition of masculism is accurate will be borne out by how many informed masculists read my definition and say, "Well said". Maybe I do have to learn some ropes about how Wikipedia works--and I am willing to learn them--but core knowledge on the topic at hand makes me better qualified to write about it than an expert on other topics who knows the ropes. An arrogant critique from a person not informed on the subject is irrelevant.

LMS: I'm sorry, I didn't intend to come across as arrogant. Anyway, why would you think I mean only "elite intelligentsia"? In many cases, granted, of course I would mean something like that. But in any case, it's not arrogant to say that there are custodians of knowledge. When it comes to reading encyclopedia articles, people have limited time and patience. Suppose they honestly want to know what masculism, and suppose, just suppose, that you aren't a prominent masculist. (I don't know if you are, and for these precise purposes, I don't care.) Then suppose that, in the middle of the masculism article, our reader comes across a sentence that says, "Terence believes that such-and-such." Our reader will likely be puzzled: "Who's this Terence guy? Why should I care what he believes? Oh, maybe he's an important masculist, you know, one whose opinion has really defined what masculism is all about. Then maybe I should care." The people whose opinions our readers should care about, when they read articles on a subject, can rightly be called "custodians of knowledge" about that subject. Now, you might, for all I know, be a prominent masculist, such that your opinion should be cited on this page. But in that case, the opinion should be attributed to you, and moreover, I'd like to see some evidence of that.

LMS: There's one other sense in which your opinion "matters," and that is that it is representative of a broad consensus in your group (of masculists, or of conservative masculists), and such that it shouldn't be attributed to any one masculist in particular, but, for the sake of accuracy, should be attributed to masculists as a whole. In that case, we should prefix statements of such opinions with "masculists believe" or something to that effect. For all I know, you're reasonably competent at determining what "all masculists" (or "all conservative masculists") believe. Then I'd have relatively little problem with the text you added, except that it wasn't attributed to anyone. --LMS

--Terence

---

EXCESS NEUTRALIZING

"To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them." Someone has been a little too generous with the prefix "masculists claim that...". It is not necessary to use such a prefix to conform to NPOV when the statement is uncontroversial. For example, this statement is uncontroversial: "Feminists consider the sexes as having the same capacities in virtually every respect and denounce differentiated sex roles as an oppressive artificial construct". It is uncontroversial because feminists would tell you the same thing about themselves. Therefore it does not need to be neutralized by adding the prefix "masculists claim that...". If references are called for as evidence of such uncontroversiality, I would be happy to provide them.--Terence

But not all feminists would claim that. Plenty of feminists believe that there are important, deep differences between the sexes (most of them differences that are in favor of women). So, yes, it is controversial to say feminists believe that. --LMS

---

I don't know who's talking to who on this page. We should set up a yahoo discussion (I have a "Masculism" group at yahoogroups) for this or have some discussion format for the talk section. Until then, could we all do the Name thing so as to identify ourselves after each entry.

And who the heck is Terry Daly? I saw only his page at New Age webworks when I first started the masculism thing on the net a few years ago. His approach is from the Right while my form of masculism is from the Left. We pretty much agree on what masculism is, but our approach or emphaisis is different. QIM

---

From: Peter Zohrab

As the person who originally wrote the "Masculism/Men's Rights" page on Wikipedia, I have restored the original page, because the latest version only portrayed one part of the Movement -- the religious, Fathers' Rights part. It is also a bit "ranty", and I don't see why that should be acceptable on this page, seeing that I managed to get the Feminists to stop ranting on the Feminism page (but for how long ?), by replacing their rant with an anti-Feminist rant on that page -- forcing them to start being rational and non-ranty.

A couple of replies to previous comments on this page:

1) I agree that citing my own book may seem self-promotional, but it is not true to say that my book was self-published. The first, electronic version was published by Rod Van Mechelen of Backlash.com and Seattle, USA, the second by MERA, Inc., and the third by the NZEP. These days, the internet is much more important for Men's Rights than paper books are, and I have been very well-known on the internet Men's Rights scene for many years. There are lots of links to my five mirror-sites from websites around the world, Men's Rights articles written by me appear on other websites, and I there are interviews of me on the Web in Italian and Korean. I used to be the New Zealand correspondent of the Liberator newsletter, the Men's Rights expert on Allexperts.com, I created the Men's Rights sections on the Open Directory (dmoz.org) and Zeal.com and I founded the Usenet newsgroup "alt.mens-rights".

2) It's tough that someone or other in England decided that they had "founded" the Masculist movement in 1990, but I was using that term before then. I also thought I had invented the term "Feminazi" and later found that Rush Limbaugh was using it. The fact is that terms like "Virism", "Masculism", "Masculinism" and "Feminazi" are easy to coin, and they are likely to have been thought of by many people at many times and in many countries.

---

The article was completely replaced by the following:

Masculism is the ideology according to which men have intrinsic rights that are often denied them in contemporary Western culture -- indeed, according to this view, society does not usually recognize that men, as men, even have rights. Feminists in western countries have, over about 200 years (since Wollstonecraft), established as a given the thesis that society is male-dominated and oppresses women. This is the meta-issue that Men's Rights activists raise, as a logical (but not necessarily practical) precondition to the raising of various specific issues.

Men's Rights proponents consider that Feminists have argued for "equality" in respect of self-selected issues only, -- using ad hoc (and seldom explicit) definitions of "equality" that they developed themselves, rather than (for example) calling a conference of all interested parties for the purpose of clarifying the issues. It is argued that Feminists have not sought gender equality on issues such as child custody, the decision to abort one's unborn child, compulsory military service, unsegregated professional sports, law enforcement relating to domestic violence, funding for men's and women's groups, Men's Studies vs Women's Studies, ministries of Men's Affairs to complement ministries of Women's Affairs, and health research funding.

Many Men's Rights activists also criticise Feminism for relying on a restricted view of political power, whereby a count of the relative numbers of men and women in important decision-making positions suffices to determine whether men or women are the more powerful. Men's Rights proponents point out that there are many other sorts of political power - e.g. control over the information and stereotypes that decision-makers rely on as the basis of their decisions. This information and these stereotypes, in the West, are largely under the control of Hollywood, the mass media, the education sector, and the bureaucracies - which are all strongly influenced by Feminist ideology, if not actually female-dominated.

The term "Masculism" (aka "Masculinism" or "Virism") may be used interchangeably with "Men's Rights", but conservatives in the Men's Rights scene often reserve the term "Masculism" for the liberal branch of the Men's Rights movement (as epitomised by ex-Feminist author Warren Farrell). Liberal Masculists (such as Farrell or Rod van Mechelen) take the position that Feminist aspirations to gender equality should be taken at face value, and men made equal to women in those areas where women are over-privileged. Conservatives (such as Richard Doyle, and religious individuals and organisations such as the Promise Keepers) would prefer to return to a traditional division of labour between the sexes. A third way is espoused in Peter Zohrab's book "Sex, Lies & Feminism", which demands that Society either abolish female privilege or revert to a traditional division of labour between the sexes, as a fall-back position.

The response of Feminists to the Men's Rights movement has not generally been to respond to Men's Rights at the ideological level. Rather, they have either ignored this movement, publicised new issues (e.g. eating disorders) where women might plausibly be shown to be disadvantaged, and/or tried to deny Men's Rights activists access to the media and publishers and influence in education systems and bureaucracies.

Some Men's and Fathers' Rights proponents consider that the sexes are complementary and interdependent by necessity, but this is not a central thesis of Masculism per se. While Feminists denounce differentiated sex roles as an oppressive artificial construct, many Men's and Fathers' Rights proponents believe that profound sex differences are inherent in human nature, and that Feminist social engineering has resulted in high divorce rates, alienation of the sexes, disintegrating communities, fatherless children, high school dropout, drug addiction, communism, teenage pregnancy, suicide, violent crime, and overfilled prisons.

---

That article was completely replaced by the previous version, which seems to have been written by some Warren Farrell groupie.

Warren Farrell is a popular writer who writes very readably. You get a lot of good information by reading his books, but putting "PhD" after his name does not make him an intellectual, and he shows no sign of any ability to analyse arguments, concepts or movements, which is what my book, "Sex Lies & Feminism" does.

You have to start by understanding what Feminism is, and Feminism is not just what the Radical Feminists are now agitating for (gender theory, for example). Feminism is an important part of the last two hundred years of western civilisation -- it has helped get us to where we are now -- so Masculism is not just about reacting against the current Feminist agenda, but about re-evaluating the whole past, present and future agenda from square one.

I hate to say it, but you have to buy my book to understand the issues.

---

I have two points to make:

(1) Peter, we have a neutral point of view policy as well as a commitment to representing the leading views on the given issues. As far as I can ascertain, your idiosyncratic views are not among the leading views--at least, I haven't been given any evidence of this. So I think it is inappropriate that your book be represented as containing one of the prominent views of the subject, as the present mention does. Moreover, this is not your article. If you didn't realize that, then now hopefully you do. If you want to work on this article, you must collaborate with the others here. If you don't want to, then go elsewhere.

(2) Please, everyone who is working on this article, please understand this clearly: edit wars are unnecessary and pointless. Wikipedia is explicitly committed to a neutrality policy that obligates each of you to see to it that the (statistically) leading views on this subject are each fairly represented. This would include both liberal and conservative varieties of masculism.

Can we have some well-meaning, intelligent soul come in and try to make sense of the dispute, and make sure the Wikipedia article (which is not Zohrab's article, or anyone else's for that matter) on this subject does justice to the views of all concerned? --LMS

---

LMS seems to confuse two issues: my views on Men's Rights, and my description of the Men's Rights field of theory and action. I have no objection to my views not being mentioned, as long as the whole field is described intelligently, and not as some Warren Farrell publicity campaign.

I assume that LMS is well-meaning, but it is very hard for an outsider like him/her to know "the leading views on the given issues" . If someone else can come in and sort the issue out, no one will be more pleased than myself. My suggestion is that we have an article on Father's Rights, as well as on Men's Rights, because the type of views expressed by the one-eyed article seem to be those of some frustrated Fathers' Rights advocate.

My original article mentioned all the views in the Men's Rights spectrum. Various changes were made to the article, which I did not, on the whole, object to. However, the version which I deleted treats the USA in general and Warren Farrell in particular as the centre of the Men's Rights universe, which is chauvinistic and inaccurate. The bibliography of my book covers 13 x A4 pages ! Why not mention some other authors ?

---

Peter Zohrab, you must work with others here, rather than simply asserting that you are right, if you want to work on the project. It is offensive in the extreme that you simply delete the old article and replace it with your own. That's not how Wikipedia works. So please leave the project, if that's how you feel this community should be used.

I've included both articles. I don't know what the truth is as to whether either of them is any good, or which is better. I do see a lot of content in each that could be combined with content in the other. --LMS