Talk:Masculism

Archives
Archive 2 Archive 1

External Links Section and WP:EL

I would appreciate it if folks who have added external links could please review WP:EL and compare their additions to EL with the policy. Before I get all WP:BOLD on this section, I would like everyone to have a chance to remove things themselves which may not meet WP:EL. Rorybowman (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nineteenth & Early 20th-Century History

So when exactly did the father of modern masculism, Ernest Belfort Bax, get excised from this article? Was there any rationale for this removal? Bax quite clearly began his work in direct opposition to the feminism of his day and this intellectual heritage seems important to understanding not only the term but how the tenor of the masculist movement has been largely consistent over time. -Rorybowman (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Politics of Aristotle asserts excellence varies with social role, including gender.
• A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft, 1792.
• On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, 1859.
• The Subjection of Women by John Stuart Mill, 1869.
• The Legal Subjection of Men by Ernest Belfort Bax, 1908.
• The Fraud of Feminism by Ernest Belfort Bax, 1914.

Older and newer senses

This term has a couple fairly different sense; in fact, the two are nearly contradictory of each other (or at least pull in different directions). And older—and I believe still more widely used—sense is used in much feminist writing. It means something like "male-oriented", in a critical or negative sense. A more recent usage is the one discussed in the body of the existing article, associated with the "men's rights" movement(s).

I tried today to add an explanation of both senses, but another editor immediately reverted my addition with the rather confrontational edit summary "rvv", and with no explanation on this talk page. Ideally this article should discuss both uses of the term, but as a start the lead should let readers know of both senses. Most definitely, the older sense is not merely "historical" since it is still the dominant usage (outside this article). LotLE×talk 01:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the historical definition is more widely used in feminist academic literature, but the results in the first several pages of a Google search for masculism seem to meet the current definition.

The historical definition should either be in a disambiguation page, or in a section in the article on historical usage. Very negative definitions for feminism abound in conservative and misogynist literature, to a much greater extent than for masculism. Should they be included in the lead for feminism?

You would do well to look up reclaiming (in the linguistic sense). JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the top page of Google has about 3/4 use of the newer "men's movement" sense, and about 1/4 the more traditional meaning from sociology, feminism, and anthropology. However, almost all of the use of the recent coinage is "popular advocacy", blogs and so on; almost all the use of the traditional meaning is academic or scholarly. As far as an encyclopedia goes, we definitely lean toward more coverage of longstanding and scholarly work than towards (possibly fleeting) popular usage. For example, see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/masculinist as well as the other dictionary I initially used in the edited lead.

Certainly, I'm not advocating against coverage of the "men's movement" sense of the word. Clearly that is sufficiently widespread to merit discussion on WP. However, the longstanding scholarly meaning is a common use (I believe more common, but the exact distribution is not key here). It is certainly not something like an "historical curiosity" as JCDenton2052 seems to be trying to cast it in the article and on this talk page.

While the body definitely needs to be fleshed out with the traditional meaning of the word, I will restore the lead to again indicate the several distinct senses of the word. There is a partial distinction between "masculism" and "masculinism", with the former used more often in the newer sense, and the latter almost exclusively in the traditional academic meaning. It's possible that some future refactoring could make that separate pages for the word variants, with appropriate dab's in each direction. LotLE×talk 03:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look, also, at Google Scholar on this:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=masculinist&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

As far as I can see all of the 23k hits there are about the more traditional academic sense (OK, I admit I've only looked through the first few hundred).

Google Scholar shows a far smaller number of hits for "masculism" than "masculinism", but again these seem to be solely about the more traditional meaning:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=masculism&btnG=Search

LotLE×talk 04:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

DAB

Okay, I'll work on a disambiguation page for masculism. Should the lead for feminism also be rewritten so that it presents how feminist academics use the term and how conservative academics use it? JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are being dissimulative in the analogy with the word "feminism" or simply making an inaccurate analogy. The structure of the two cases is very different, however, and I can't see how any particular lesson from one applies to the other.

The term "feminism" arose originally as meaning something like "women's movement". Technically, "feminism" is the older word, but even in the 19th C sense of the word, and definitely in the "first wave" movement of the early 20th C, the word always referred to politics and theory that advocated for women's interests/rights. Subsequent to the use of that word by its advocates, various people (conservative or otherwise) criticized the movement/philosophy on various grounds. However, their criticism is always a criticism of the ideas (or actions) of feminism; i.e. "proponents" and "opponents" are still using more-or-less the same sense of the term. No one has ever really used "feminism" to mean "female-oriented" (not as a primary sense, some feminists have claimed that the way to be feminist is by being female-oriented, but they are presenting that as an argument, not describing it as the meaning of the term).

In contrast, "masculinism" or "masculism" (more often the adjectival version, "masculinist") was used for a long time (at least 100 years) as a semi-technical term in sociology, anthropology, psychology, etc., and picked up by some feminist thinkers familiar with those fields. Those writers meant the word as meaning, roughly "male-oriented", usually in a negative sense (i.e. "too much male-oriented"). In the 1990s (but mostly not until at least the 2000s), a few folks in the "men's movement" started using the term as one of advocacy for policies or theories that center on male experience. I do not know whether those creating the new use were deliberately "reclaiming" the word, or if they simply used the obvious Latin stems to construct a word for what they wanted to advocate. In either case, however, no one using the traditional (critical) sense was critiquing the newer movement/philosophy. At most, what they criticized, or simply commented on, was attitudes that may be indirectly similar to what users of the new sense mean. It is conceivable that at some point in the future someone might criticize "masculism" in the new sense of "men's movement", but that's not present in the traditional usage.

Better analogies of words that had one meaning that was later reused might be Pronatalism or Queer. The first is widely used, generally neutrally rather than critically or as advocacy, in anthropology and other human sciences. If in the future some group were to take the name, e.g. "The Pro-Natalism Society", we might have a DAB issue in explaining the differing academic and popular senses. "Queer" has been deliberately reappropriated, though roughly the same sense of "non-normative sexuality" is meant by both the earlier insult and the more recent term of pride/self-identification. Of course, for "queer" both the older and newer usage are still in effect, and should hence both be discussed in the article. Looking at the Queer article, I think it does exactly the right job of discussing the senses and chronology (I hadn't read it until just now). LotLE×talk 19:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That does not make current usage of "feminism" by conservative academics or authors any less relevant. They use "feminism" to mean misandry, female supremacism, political lesbianism, etc. This is not how feminists describe themselves. Similarly, some feminist academics may use (or may have used) "masculism" or "masculinism" to refer to misogyny, male supremacism, etc. This is not how masculists describe themselves. I don't understand your insistence that feminists are allowed to define themselves and masculists are not.

Either both feminism and masculism should include definitions in their leads from those within the movements and without, or they should have disambiguation pages. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Although you seem to want a formal symmetry to the philologically similar words, their actual usage and history is starkly different. We cannot impose a neatness we might like to have among terms that simply are not used that way. The reason "masculists" cannot simply "define themselves" is because the term has a widespread and ongoing meaning that predates the self-identification one by at least a hundred years (a usage that is by no means restricted to feminists). Similarly, "Queer rights" advocates cannot autonomously declare that the word "queer" is no longer an insult in anyone's mouth (it "might be nice" if they could, but word usage doesn't evaporate as soon as a few people want a differnet meaning).

Criticism of feminism might well be significant in its article (there are still issues of WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and others, but those are general, I haven't even read the Feminism article, so am not claiming anything specific). However, it's not similar to this case of distinct (albeit indirectly related) senses of the term. Critics of feminist, as you yourself describe, are claiming various faults in the movement or thinkers who (generally) describe themselves as feminist.

So, for example, William Buckley might have written "Feminist Gloria Steinem is misandrist". OK fine: true, false, what are the arguments, etc. In contrast (i.e. prior to the 2000s), Gloria Steinem might have written "William Buckly is masculinist" I.e. "...and he doesn't realize it"; not "...meaning he belongs to a men's rights movement". LotLE×talk 20:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not know that the term "masculist" existed until I read the Wikipedia article, and now that I have read the article, I have learned that the term has two different spellings, and two different meanings. In contrast, I have noticed that the Wikipedia article on feminism begins with the four modest words "Feminism is a discourse...". Well, drop kick me, Jesus! Now, Is there some reason why I should not consider masculism to be a discourse also? -Mike M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike X Zike (talk • contribs) 03:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

higher premiums for health insurance?

When I looked up high deductible premiums for a class I teach, they were higher for women than for men (eg. approx $105 vs $95 for a 30-year-old). I'm going to remove that concern. Please only put it back if you can supply a good reference for it. Thanks, 24.58.239.241 (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The whole bullet has this dubious WP:OR feel to it, and I've tagged it as such. Insurance rates, by the premise of insurance, are risk-adjusted. So, for example, people who are likely to die sooner pay more for life insurance. Gender is a factor there (men don't live as long as an actuarial matter), but so are weight, diet, prior diseases, region, occupation, etc. It is conceivable (but unlikely) that men as a class pay more than their risk-adjustment would suggest, but we'd need a good WP:RS citation for that (and no, not some men's rights blog speculating about the fact). LotLE×talk 16:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source [1] for men paying more than women for life insurance. Does it meet WP:RS? Masculists claim that discriminating based on something that an individual can't change is unfair. For example, whites have a longer life expectancy in the United States than blacks. Would it be fair for blacks to pay more for life insurance? JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The seems like a good source for the fact that rates vary (obviously, they do by race as well, fair or not). I think the dubious part is that this is discrimination. What we really need (and really this is true of all the bullets in the section) is some specific citable claim by a third party who claims the thing is discrimination... currently it all reads as a WP:OR essay. So best would be: According to John Smith, in his article "Inequities in Insurance Policy", differential premiums based on gender are a form of anti-male discrimination[99]. Readers are welcome to agree or disagree with Smith, but then we're citing 3rd party claims rather than just writing our own essay of political opinion. LotLE×talk 20:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for (life) insurance companies charging different rates for different races? I've read the masculist claim before, but I don't have a source at the moment. That's why I posted it on the talk page rather than in the article. I'll look for a source. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There's both the de jure race-basis that many insurance companies have used (but not legally), e.g. http://www.insure.com/articles/lawsuitlibrary/philadelphia.html and the de facto' race-basis that exists via strong correlations with other health factors. For example, Type II diabetes is more prevalent among African-Americans than among European-Americans, and is a health measure used for life-insurance (similarly, Type II diabetes is also more prevalent among men than women). Using that health factor, but not per se race, is legal under USA insurance law in setting life and health insurance rates. Geographic factors that also differentiate rates also create race bias (not gender in this case though); that is, geography by zipcode, not by broad regions. LotLE×talk 20:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

However, there are many instances of discrimination in car insurance. companies (Diamond, Sheila's Wheels, etc.) who market and sell exclusively to women as, according to their advertisements "woman make safer drivers" . This form of blatant discrimination is perfectly legal at present. --Brideshead (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} LotLE×talk 19:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Grocery list of original research

It appears that the large majority of this article simply enumerations of complaints that WP editors may have about (alleged) sexism against men. None of the claims are particularly absurd, or even unreasonable, but almost none of them are given any source other than "some WP editors is struck by this societal pattern". We're not here to write a blog about personal complaints. There was a recent addition by an anon editor along these lines, but it follows the pattern of the rest of the article.

Even the few items that are given any citation at all are given citations that do not really support inclusion in this article. This article is about a school of though or political movement called "Masculism". There seems to be adequate evidence that such a school exists, at least to a minimal extent. Following that are a list of claims about ways in which discrimination against men exists, a few of them with external citations for the existence of that discrimination. What is entirely missing is any evidence that these particular forms of discrimination have been agenda/issues/essay-topics/whatever of masulism (i.e. some notable author or speaker in the movement has specifically raised the issue). It is absolutely not sufficient to point out that a discrimination exists and therefore "might plausibly" be a concern for the described movement (and still worse, of course, to allege it exists solely based on personal opinion).

I am very close to taking some very serious scissors to this article, and excise everything that lacks any purport of actual article relevance. If we can't write that "Masculinist author Foo Bar complains of discrimination Blaz in his book Stuff I Don't Like" than a particular claim has no actual relevance to this article. LotLE×talk 19:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand the policy against original research, but you are pretty much implying that paper media sanctioning defines valid societal commentary. Bloggers shouldn't be discounted as sources in a new topic that's nevertheless extremely important lile htis. Dnavarro (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll add some citations from a book I'm reading by Warren Farrell. Wrad (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This interwiki link is proper?

Now ar:ذكورية of arabic version is linked with this page. However, perhaps the article is not the explanation on masculism but such on male chauvinism. Could you investigate it in detail, if you can understand arabic? --Shirobunchō (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you're right. Wrad (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

positive role models in the media

I deleted: "Lack of positive reinforcement and role-models for young boys in the media, while presentation of positive female figures is a large aspect of much of the media.[dubious – discuss]" Dubious is right. I suppose the entire claim is subjective, but I'd label this one was just plain false. Female figures in the media are a huge problem for women and girls- just look to Paris Hilton, etc. Lack of positive role models in the media is a problem for both sexes. Can anyone back this up at all?

There is a title: "Masculist concerns". That means a list of "Examples of questions raised by masculists" (quote from the article). So it's neither your opinion nor the real situation what we are talking about, but "Masculist concerns". 190.138.223.52 (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above: while i can see it can be argued both ways ("paris hilton as a role model?" vs "did you see that show with the fat, lazy, stupid male character and smart, level-headed, fit female character?") i think the REAL issue is that MASCULISTS view this as an issue, so that's what should be addressed. As such, is there a way we can get the tag dropped? I'd do it myself, but i don't know the "correct" procedure (is a rewrite required, better wording, etc?). Lingering tags in articles have a horrible tendency of making what's tagged appear as "incorrect". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.117.53 (talk) 05:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. Yes I did see that TV show and was annoyed once again at the portrayal of the fat, lazy, stupid male character "getting the girl" who would in real life not give him the time of day - all for the sake of satisfying the average (fat and lazy) male viewer who would like to believe that he can "get the girl." Knocked Up, anyone? Sex Drive? My point is, your example illustrates one of the many annoying ways the media still caters to men. (Don't get me started on beer commercials and commercials in general.) This in my opinion is bad for both genders, because rigid gender roles and inequality are not good for anyone, even those who are perceived to be "on top." -Julia G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.46.6 (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy

This article does a fairly good job of painstakingly documenting the notable examples of discrimination experienced by males. Fine. What concerns me is that for an article devoted to masculinism there is no attempt to explain some of the underlying ideas in the philosophy. Towards the end it demonstrates two somewhat conflicting schools of thought between “liberal” and “conservative” masculinists, but this is only brief. Furthermore, the history of the idea is sketchy in itself, jumping from the mid nineteenth century to the late twentieth century. I propose that someone with a broad base of knowledge on masculinism explain the a) philosophy—common ideas to all masculinists b) schools of thought c) important issues/incidences of discrimination 152.15.161.242 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

this article is broken, to the point of being close to useless -- which is why it is also littered with cleanup tags. It appears that there simple aren't any editors willing to invest the time needed to fix things. Wikipedia is written by unpaid enthusiasts after all, and the article will just continue to sit there until somebody takes pity. --dab (𒁳) 11:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Violence Circumcision Heading

I see someone felt the need to add "characterized by some as male genital mutilation."

The fact of the matter is that circumcision of one sex is condemned, while circumcision in the other sex is pardoned, and even advocated. How the circumcision of either sex is "characterized," whether it be as "genital mutilation," or "harmless tradition" is irrelevant. Condemn them BOTH, or do not condemn them at all. To condemn circumcision as "violence" in one sex and not the other is, by definition, SEXISM. I think the above snippet is irrelevant, and should be removed from the main article.Kogejoe (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I recognize the point you're trying to make; however, it needs to be kept in mind that the negative health effects associated with female circumcision are far greater than the negative health effects associated with male circumcision. So this area isn't really a black or white topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.179.254.177 (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The MAIN and ONLY goal of "feminist theories" is "equality of gender", so you cannot opposite "feminist theories" and "equality of gender". Unisexe (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Feminism" is not gender-neutral it is "the equality of sex, within the context of women's rights", and "masculinism" juxtaposes it nicely. Perhaps it "equality of sex, overall" should be called a gender-neutral term like "genderism" then.--130.126.175.50 (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• What's people's view on these sentences: "(However, technically, for male genital mutilation to be the same as female genital mutilation, the penis would have to be cut off. Female genital mutilation entails the cutting off of the clitoris, thus ending sexual pleasure and leaving behind a lifetime of possible health problems.)"

Cutting the penis off is obviously not the same as severing the clitoris. Also, I believe that it doesn't prevent women from sexual pleasure (correct me if I'm wrong though). Are we in favour of changing around these sentences? Depor23 (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to get technical, neither does chopping the penis prevent sexual pleasure for men (see prostate). Besides, the penis and clitoris are biologically homologous. I'm a guy, but when people talk about female circumcision I cringe, because... dude, that's like chopping a guys dick off.

Biologically, removal of foreskin is analogous to removal of the clitoral hood. Removal of the entire clitoris would be akin to removing the glans of the penis. The equivalent of the removal of the entire penis would entail the entire vagina as well as all outer genitalia to be removed. Most people don't realize that the foreskin is actually quite sensitive with many nerve endings. Studies are still in conflict over whether circumcision has an effect on sexual satisfaction. In all likelihood, circumcision (as well as FGM by analogy), like most personally destructive things, started as a religious movement to reduce sexual desires in men by making sex less enjoyable and thus preventing pregnancy out of marriage.

Wow, we're really getting technical. All very good points, but I would like add that 1. Cutting off the foreskin is a simple procedure that does not require much time to heal, while cutting off the clitoris is a major operation done without anesthesia and takes weeks or months to heal, not to mention the crude conditions and possibility of infection. 2. A clitoris is by far more sensitive than any part of the penis and many women cannot achieve orgasm without it. In fact that is precisely why they cut it off - to reduce pleasure and thus control/tame the woman. The reverse cannot be true because, as the foreskin might have a few nerve endings, it doesn't make a huge difference. That said, I don't actually support circumcision, but comparing the two is a bit of a stretch. For this reason I object to calling clitoral mutilation "female circumcision" because the term is misleading and dismissive.

Proposed Merge

I saw a proposed merge into "Men's Movement". I would strongly vote against this; it makes no sense to pretend a term (especially a term that is easily identifiable with Feminism) doesn't exist or deserves to be sidelined into an article. Should "Feminism" be merged into and become a subsection of "Women's Movement"? I propose the box at the top of the article be deleted if no one objects; no comments have yet been made of the proposed merge. 18.202.1.20 (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be merged. This article needs a lot of work (and I plan on getting around to it someday). It wouldn't be fair to merge masculism into men's movement without also merging feminism into women's movement. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The merge suggestion should be removed. Because there is no explanation at all from the proposer (at least on this page) why it should be merged with Men's movement when ideology and social movement are two different subjects. If the proposer wanted it to be merged with Men's movement, then he/she should have suggested it on Men's movement page as well. -- 09:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beige.pygmalion (talk • contribs)

Masculism, Men's movement, Father's movement and Family movements are definitely different things. Men's movement concerning issues on gender equality regards to where men's position in society is lower than that of women. Father's movements are focusing on father's and their rights to spend time with their children, and somewhat a child's right to spend time with their father. Family movements focus on the Right of the Child Convention, and a child's right to spend equal time with both parents. Whereas Masculism is a common description where the three other is a part of the definition. All according to how feminism and different women movements are defined. No merge possible in my opinion. Please give critics to this comment if the differences of the concepts are not totally clear. --Anders K 21:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyPanda65 (talk • contribs)

Maybe it should be merged to men's rights, as some of the information is already on both pages and keeping the separate pages results in unnecessary duplication and possible inconsistency. snigbrook (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Although maybe there should be separate articles, one for historical information and another for current issues. snigbrook (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that it should be merged with men's rights. I don't think that the argument made above "It wouldn't be fair to merge masculism into men's movement without also merging feminism into women's movement." holds much weight. Feminism is a very well known and well used term, whereas masculism is not - there is not even a well formed understanding - as demonstrated by discussion on this talk page - that people writing about it here even understand what it is. I'd love to see some more debate about this proposed merge. Jenafalt (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not see much connection between the fact that masculism being less known and less used than feminism and the merge proposition for masculism and men's movement. First, not only masculism but also men's movement is less used and less known than feminism or women's movement. Second, if you think this page does not explain what masculism is well, then what you should propose is a revision not merge. The very same principle why feminism and women's movement should be separetly maintained applies to masculism and men's movement. Because they are two different entities although some of the contents might overlap. -- 10:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beige.pygmalion (talk • contribs)

Masculism is a separate entity from the men's rights movement. This article even contradicts itself, at one point considering masculism adherence to historical male roles in society and at another point considering the definition of masculism ambiguous. But as I understand it masculism is the belief in traditional gender roles for males. This is not really the same as the men's rights movement which has a goal to eliminate gender roles and allow men to take on non-traditional roles. I'm not even sure why Warren Farrell is referred to as a masculist here.Stargnoc (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Masculism vs Feminism - unequal presentation

Why does it say neutrally that "Masculism is the advocacy of men's rights," while under Feminism it states that it is "the belief that women should have equal... rights..."? 'Belief' is a weak word suggesting dissent and multiple theories regarding the basic premise of equal rights for women. How things are stated is important. An encyclopedic site should strive for equal sociolinguistic treatment in this fundamental area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.240.119 (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's to counter-balance the presumptuous wording of "women should have equal... rights" creates when compared to "advocacy of men's rights," (the latter of which seems to definitively imply that masculists are already afforded more rights than women). But I could be wrong.

The simple fact of the matter is that Feminism has NOTHING to do with equal rights or equality. All it really focusses on is the advancement of women at the expense of men and boys.Trumpy (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Not_a_forum#FORUM - No one cares. 76.105.5.83 (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I got kicked out of TV Tropes for believing in gender equality and not in gender supremacy, I certainly care about what you said and that certainly douse not make me a troll for believing in it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.179.173 (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also to the commenter saying that "no one cares" about gender equallity, proves that all feminist are misandric subjugators, that is why feminism must be destroyed!

I see there is a lot of very mature discussion here... The advocacy of equal rights for men and the advocacy of equal rights for women are not opposites! They complement each other and are two sides of the same coin. We're talking about EQUALITY here. Swinging the pendulum too far in any direction is detrimental to both genders. In the "Boys are stupid..." example both boys and girls are affected negatively. The girls may enjoy the T-shirts but it preconditions them at an early age to resent the opposite sex. Also, for those who condemn feminism - do your research. There are multiple schools of thought ranging from conservative to radical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.46.6 (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Weakness of this Article

This article could be informative, yet it seems as though there are politics being played. Far too many of the examples given are vague, although they could be completely valid if only more details were given. -- Just a thought from a true impartial! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.142.137 (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Physical Exams & Criticism

The article states:

"Harder physical entrance criteria for men in many occupations, such as the army, police and fire service. Requiring men to be physically stronger than women in these occupations leaves men responsible for a greater share of the physical work, for no more pay."

I find this claim dubious. Some physical entrance tests have been modified for women, but to use an example of firefighters, once women get the job they end up having to work just as hard as the men doing the same physical level of work. Unless there is a quote from a masculinist source that makes this complaint, this should be deleted.

There should also be a section here of criticism of some masculist movements, which is an important component in understanding the general social milieu in which this concept exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.87.177 (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

While I find the claim dubious as well (men tend to be physically stronger than women, meaning a flat standard would be unfair to women), I don't think the section should be deleted, provided a suitable reference is found. There is no reason it should not be reported that dubious claims are made by some masculinists. I agree that a criticisms section should be included, however I notice there is no criticism section in the Feminism page, which should also have one. Bigdumbweirdo (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It is violating male candidate's equal opportunity and male firefighter's equal treatment rights. First, if the female firefighters who have taken and passed the less harder physical entrance test do the same duty as male firefighters who have taken and passed the harder one, then there is no reason why male candidates should take the harder one. Second, if the female firefighters who have taken and passed the less harder physical entrance test take less workload and/or put to less dangerous duty than male firefighters who have taken and passed the harder one, then they should pay male firefighters more than female firefighters. -- 22:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beige.pygmalion (talk • contribs)

Let's get one thing straight here ladies, as an Operational Fire-fighter of 20 years service, these tests are made hard for a reason. Fires aren't nice to people based on gender, you might have to work very hard in a fire possibly breaking a door or a wall down with a sledge-hammer. You could be doing this under 50C temperatures wearing full fire-fighting kit and breathing apparatus. If you can't do the work, you'll be a risk to your work colleagues who may end up pulling you out of a fire. Trumpy (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a helpful comment. We can't lose rationality and reason when arguing our side of the matter, and also expect civility and rationality in return. Lore Spinner (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

About the terms "masculism" and "masculinism"

I think the correct term should be "masculinism" just because it is so in Spanish and Portuguese and other languages, also the word "masculism" was originally conceived in feminist works that described as a movement or sexist woman-hater, and create ambiguity with the sense of mannish women. The term should be used as it was enshrined as something that legítimo.Surgido course, so the correct term is masculinism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.82.48.209 (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

- I agree with this, we are meant to be talking about men and women having equal rights, biased terms like masculism could only contribute negatively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.251.159 (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

- I am sympathetic both to the impulse to link usage across languages, and to the impulse to distinguish masculism from woman-hating. However, the 'ordinary' sense of "masculine" as having to do with characteristic styles of behaviour, appearance, and so on creates an even stronger source of mis-interpretation than those of-concern above; further, this same sense of "masculinism" invites the parallel construction, "femininism", which goes completely off-the-rails as concerns traditions of feminist discourse. In other words: yes, particular people might advocate for-or-against "masculinism" and/or "femininism" as concerns deportment, fashion, speaking-styles, etc., but such interests seem parochial as compared to the scope of interests at stake in the notion of "masculism." 206.248.138.250 (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

- In French, there is a disctinction between "Masculinism" and "Masculism". The latter is more appropriate since the first has a pejorative meaning. Please read: http://www.philo5.com/Feminisme-Masculisme/050504DistinguonsMasculismeEtMasculiNIsme.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.152.136.110 (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Draft

Compulsory military service laws currently single out men75.118.170.35 (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Cancer Death Rates

I have checked the WHO death tolls, which were satisfactory sources for the articles on prostate cancer and breast cancer. It seems that the death rate (per million) is 3.97 for breast cancer and 1.75 for prostate cancer, unless there is a mistake in my calculations. A quick glance at the visual representations given in both articles supports an obvious prevalence of one over the other, though this is hardly a thorough method of analysis.

Irrelevant to the point, but a cause of uncertainty on my part: Though the page[2] referenced in both articles claims these numbers are for 2004, the .xls file itself is marked February 2009. NotARusski (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Are breast cancer and prostate cancer necessarily equivalent? Breast cancer gets disproportionately more funding than most other cancers which affect both genders, and also those other cancers (ovarian, cervical, endometrial) which also only affect women. (Harryirene (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC))

Male Genital Mutilation

The part that it says about male's experiencing less joy after circumcision isn't true, I've heard many doctors who say thats false and even the opposite. Heck even on the Doctors (Tv Show) and Doctor Oz say its the opposite. And at least Doctor Oz is reliable. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement about the health benefits of circumcision is disputed. On circumcision it is states that some studies show no effect. I don't think this statement: "However, unlike female circumcision, male circumcision also has health benefits, such as the reduction of AIDS infection and transmission." is appropriate here. --WikiDonn (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent studies show that the foreskin is there for a reason, it collects bacteria which would, if foreskin wouldn't be present, accumulate on the glans of the penis and meatus, thus exposing men to UTIs, foreskin protects the galns from abbrasion, foreskin helps lubrication and increases sexual pleasure because of friction.source

Removing the foreskin at child birth should, and is in most countries, be considered a form of genital mutilation. This should be stated in the article to help represent the global view.

Patriarchal masculism

I removed this section (content below) from the article, because it was dubious, uncited, tagged for cleanup, contains weasel words, and lacks neutral point of view. If the information is actually correct, please re-add it to the article, being sure to add appropriate citations to Reliable Sources. Thanks, Vectro (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to self-styled "progressive" masculism, which is essentially grounded in, and a complement to, the feminist worldview, Patriarchal masculism emphasises and defends "traditional manliness" and traditional male (and, by extension, female) gender roles. It is argued by this branch of masculism that these roles are essentially positive for men. This branch perceives that traditional male behavior and norms are on the decline, and that it is necessary to resurrect them through articulation of their virtue. This branch of masculism can be said to be androcentric in some instances, as opposed to the allegedly gynocentric nature of "progressive" masculism. This branch views the (loose) replacement gender roles for men in the feminist and post-feminist landscape as unsatisfactory. Also, the practical shortcomings of the gender egalitarian philosophy are critiqued.

Neutrality

The article begins "Masculism is the belief in the superiority of men or the masculine." But the rest of the articles is about critisism of unfair treatment of men, which can hardly be classified as "belief in the superiority". The first sentence is taken from a dictionary and I really doubt that any of the masculists themselves would agree on that definition. Aaker (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Masculinists can't just define themselves just as feminists can't just define themselves. The Merriam Webster dictionary and Allwords define "masculism" and "masculinism" as the belief in the superiority of men. The vast majority of other sources state the same thing. Randygeorge (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong to claim that "The vast majority of other sources state the same thing." All you have are two internet sources.

It's completely wrong for you to take what is a clear dispute between two sides and then arbitrary declare the side you happen to agree with as right, and then censor information you don't like from the article in order to declare your views as gospel. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the OED, generally the authority on the use of English words, defines malculism as a synonym of masculinism, which in turn it defines as "Advocacy of the rights of men; adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, etc., regarded as typical of men; (more generally) anti-feminism, machismo." This is supported by citations going back to 1911, that quote being "Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism." Cheers, Vectro (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I should have said "the majority of reliable sources" Masculinists can't define themselves. We have to represent what reliable sourcessay. Randygeorge (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the OED is not a reliable source? Vectro (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence that needs to be sources is this:

"The first definition is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law."

Sugar-Baby-Love gives an Oxford English Dictionary definition (which I can't verify because one has to subscribe but let's assume that Sugar-Baby-Love is correct). The definition is this: "Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism." The sentence "Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism" doesn't confirm and can't be used as a source for the sentence "The first definition is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law." This is original research and must be removed.

A second source provided by Sugar-Baby-Love is a Cathy Young article. At no point in the article does she say something that even resembles the sentence "The first definition is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law." What she says is this

"Mas*cu*lism, n. 1. the belief that equality between the sexes requires the recognition and redress of prejudice and discrimination against men as well as women. 2. the movement organized around this belief. Not to worry: This word is not in the dictionary. But it would be if the decision were up to Warren Farrell, Jack Kammer, and others activists in the men's movement."

Thus, the article can't be used as a source for the sentence.

Therefore, the "first definition" according to Sugar-Babys-Love's original research remains unsourced because the OED "definition" and Cathy Young's article don't state anything which resembles this "first definition." All unsourced material must be removed aggressively because Wikipedia is not a soapbox and not a place for masculists to define themselves and their "movement." Sugar-Baby-Love is has been violating Wiipedia policy by edit-warring and writing original research. Randygeorge (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Randygeorge, not sure why you don't think the OED definition fails to support SBL's definition. The very first definition is literally "advocacy of the rights of men". Can you elaborate on your perspective? Vectro (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Section now says,

"Masculism can be defined in two mutually contradictory ways. The first definition is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law.[1] Alternately, it is defined as the belief in the superiority of men or of masculine things and ideas.[2][3] In this context, which is the general opinion of modern feminists, masculism is inherently opposed to the equality cause and is labeled as a form of anti-feminism.[4]"

This is not perfect by any means but seems way better then what it was previously. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "In this context, which is the general opinion of modern feminists, masculism is inherently opposed to the equality cause and is labeled as a form of anti-feminism" violates WP:OR. The "first definition" is the definition provided by dictionaries, not by Cathy Young's understanding of the word which was published in a unreliable source. Randygeorge (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you engage in editwarring. You will be reported as soon as I can. Randygeorge (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You are engaged in a distortion of sources. You also continue to push a tendentious habit of putting your own personal opinion into articles in which several people have reverted your edits for good reason.

I would clearly welcome some extra attention on this page. Then, more people will be alerted to your habits. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Other dictionaries give different definitions.

We all know what you are doing. It's the same thing as noting the word "lead" can be (a)"Lead, the chemical element", (b)"Lead as in slang for bullets", (c)"Lead as in to be a 'leader' of things, etc. and then having you scrub out other meanings of the word in favor of just one of them. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Randygeorge, can you elaborate on your concern with respect to original research? I'm not quite following you. Vectro (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have explained above that Sugar-Baby-Love's use of the two sources for his claim that "The first definition is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law" is original research because none of the sources confirm this claim.

Another example of original research is Sugar-Baby-Love's sentence "In this context, which is the general opinion of modern feminists, masculism is inherently opposed to the equality cause and is labeled as a form of anti-feminism." Sugar-Baby-Love gives the source: Susan B. Boyd; Dorothy E. Chunn; Hester Lessard (2007). Reaction and resistance: feminism, law, and social change. UBC Press. pp. 65-97. ISBN 9780774814119. Here is the book [3]. As it turns out the books doesn't state anything which could even remotely be construed as support for the sentence "In this context, which is the general opinion of modern feminists, masculism is inherently opposed to the equality cause and is labeled as a form of anti-feminism." Again, this is original research and yet another violation of Wikipedia policy by Sugar-Baby-Love.

What Sugar-Baby-Love does (beside edit-warring and failing to assume good faith) is write whatever he wants and then pick a random article or book which deals with feminism or the men's rights movement and use this as a source for his claims. He obviously hopes that nobody will make the effort to check the sources and expose his attempts to disguise his original research as viewpoints advanced by reliable sources.

If this can't be resolved in the next few days, I will request a dispute resolution and Sugar-Baby-Love's original research will be removed. Randygeorge (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Two cents from an uninvolved third party. It looks to me as though the phrase "the general opinion of modern feminists" is not adequately sourced, in this way: there's no doubt that the opinion is held, but there's no source to confirm that it is a dominant viewpoint. The "general" aspect of the opinion should require a source beyond that cited. Steveozone (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What the OED actually says, from someone who does have a subscription: Masculism: Advocacy of the rights of men; adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, etc., regarded as typical of men; (more generally) anti-feminism, machismo. 1911 Freewoman 30 Nov. 24 Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism. 1916 H. Ellis Ess. in War-time viii. 88 The advocates of Woman's Rights have seldom been met by the charge that they were unjustly encroaching on the Rights of Man. Feminism has never encountered an aggressive and self-conscious Masculinism. 1985 E. Showalter Feminine Malady (1987) vii. 173 That most masculine of enterprises, the Great War, the apocalypse of masculinism. 1988 G. Northam Shooting in Dark (1989) vii. 118 Another section gives a sketch of official masculinism in the form of notes on the perils of Women and children in public protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richaraj (talk • contribs) 06:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Umm, there's this thing called common sense, and I think Randygeorge regards this as original research. the thing is, this information is so obvious, no one bothers to write it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaappel (talk • contribs) 19:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Prostate cancer vs breast cancer

It looks like the Reason claim of a 6X discrepancy may be questionable. A few different sources seem to show a discrepancy of around 2X, still disproportionate but significantly less so. Could it be that Reason accidentally included private funds? This doesn't look to be a recent change. The business week article also notes that breast cancer, which is more fatal, kills roughly 2X as many as does prostate cancer. That article also notes that in 1996 there was a much wider discrepancy, close to 4X. Vectro (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.zerocancer.org/library/federal_funding_charts.pdf

http://www.kureit.org/

http://www.roswellpark.org/media/news/women-engaged-fight-against-prostate-cancer-take-advocacy-effort-capitol-hill

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2007/tc20070612_953676.htm

It seems that the most likely explanation is that funding rates have bobbed around through the 90s and the 00s.

The proper solution, then, would be to just add a little bit more information comparing from one time to from another time. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The current version seems fine. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is under discussion at a 'dispute resolution process' page.

Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:_Sugar-Baby-Love for futher information. Hopefully, we can come to some kind of consensus. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute note

• George has taken this content dispute to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sugar-Baby-Love (note to those involved). Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad OED citation

I removed the following citation from the article:

"Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism." - Oxford English Dictionary

I have online access to the OED and saw no such definition. Perhaps the OED included a quote by someone else which contained this text? If so, you should quote the original source and not the OED. Also, when citing the OED, use {{OED}}. Feel free to restore the citation, including these considerations. Vectro (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What definition did you see with your access?--Cybermud (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

See my remarks above under "Neutrality". It looks like someone took the OED's quotation, which is cited to "Freewoman 30 Nov. 24," as the OED definition. Vectro (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

See Also edition

added hypermasculinity, machismo, chauvinism and sexism as they refer to antifeminism and "advocacy of male superiority and dominance" which masculism also refers to according to the quality cited sources of OED, Webster's and Allwords. 86.178.210.73 (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

original research

This article contains a lot of original research and [[WP:SYNTH|synthesis as it stands currently, especially in the 'masculist concerns' section. This section shouldn't be a list of ways in which men and women are treated differently or things that we as Wikipedia editors find discriminatory, it should only be, at most, listing concerns that have been mentioned in reliable sources as being masculist concerns. I have the feeling that a lot of the stuff currently in the article is citable so I'm not removing anything currently, but at some point in the indeterminate future I'm going to try to clean up some of it. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)