Talk:Masculism

Archives
Archive 2 Archive 1

Untitled

This should be removed as it is purely pejorative: " or, alternatively, an approach that is focused on male superiority[4][5] to the exclusion of women.[1]"

Either that, or have a commensurate pejorative 'alternative' definition for 'feminism' as well.

I agree. The disparities in the definition of feminism and masculism are quite striking for two words that are clearly antonyms. both the sentence mentioned above as well as the opening sentemce "Masculism or masculinism is the modern movement which aims to promote and restore classical masculine virtues among men (ego, reason and other virtues of the rugged individualist) in Western societies after the sexual revolutions of the latter half of the 20th century" have no commensurate language on the Feminism page. The resulting product are pages that imply an inherent progressive nature to feminism, and an inherent regressive nature to masculism, when neither are implied in the definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.94.147 (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2014 (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)

This should be removed as it is purely pejorative: " or, alternatively, an approach that is focused on male superiority[4][5] to the exclusion of women.[1]"

Either that, or have a commensurate pejorative 'alternative' definition for 'feminism' as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.212.3.4 (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2013 (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)

I just removed some of the points that have no RS describing them as masculist concerns, though I left a lot of it in. I also removed some inappropriate cherrypicking of primary sources. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"Masculinist concerns" section

I've removed the entries in this list that were not accompanied by a source. It's not meant to be a list of any concern that one can think of; it's supposed to be an enumeration of the issues that have been brought up in the literature. (Please note that the sources should be reliable and not just someone's personal blog or something.) ... discospinster _talk 14:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. I removed a few additional entries that, although sourced, just discussed the potential issues - and didn't mention masculism (wp:synth). I haven't looked over the whole list, there are probably more problems yet. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman, i oppose your edits. Masculism is a male rights organization. The main concern of this organization is discrimination against men. For this reason every example of discrimination against men is a male rights concern/masculist concern. Some of your edits even mention "men's rights advocates" http://reason.com/archives/2002/06/04/double-standard. Men's rights advocate is a synonym of Masculist. How many more examples of bad faith do you want to give us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.57.11.197 (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"Men's rights advocate is a synonym of masculist". Read the terms of the probation that this article is under, as I linked on one of your previous IP's, and as can be found at Talk:Men's rights/Article probation. Stop making personal attacks, or you will be blocked. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The mythopoetic men's movement is masculist, but is apolitical and distances itself from the men's rights movement. Thus masculist does not equal men's rights advocate. Kaldari (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

masculinist (also masculist) = an advocate of the rights or needs of men *citation: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/masculinist Oxford University Press There is your citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.245.239.207 (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism

It looks like the first 2 paragraphs of the "Differences in masculist ideology" section are basically copied from http://gendereconomy.com/main/def.html#feminism-masculism (unless they copied it from us, which seems unlikely given the high quality of the writing). Kaldari (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

... this is really really old stuff. Diffs incoming, in an attempt to figure it out:

[1] had a sentence about government interference that appears almost verbatim at the gendereconomy page

[2] has the same sentence (and my god, is a larry sanger diff!)

[3] seems to be the first introduction of much of the questionable material - and it's definitely pretty much verbatim the same as the gendereconomy page

Looking at that, I think there are two possibilities: the first is that the gendereconomy page was plagiarised at at least two distinct times (november of 2003, and some time before january of 2002) and the second possibility is that the gendereconomy page was based on the Wikipedia page, but uncredited. As weird as it is given the high quality of writing compared to the rest of the page - unless I'm misreading something - the second possibility seems more likely. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

In fact, comparing the diff when the 'questionable material' was introduced to previous diffs, I'm almost positive that that the gendereconomy page just took the Wikipedia article at the time as the base for their page - and a lot of the stuff was obviously written on the Wikipedia page first (since you can see it's piecemeal construction.) Although I'm tired so I could be missing something :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OED definition

OED definition of "masculism":

masculism, n.

Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈmaskjᵿlɪz(ə)m/ , U.S. /ˈmæskjəˌlɪzəm/ Etymology: < mascul- (in masculine adj.) + -ism suffix, after feminism n. With sense 2 compare earlier masculinism n. Compare French masculisme (1902).

†1. The possession of masculine physical traits by a woman. Obs. rare.App. an isolated use, completely superseded by masculinization (see masculinization n. 2).
1895 W. D. Morrison in C. Lombroso & W. Ferrero Female Offender Introd. p. xvi, Sexual peculiarities, such as feminism in men, masculism in women, and infantilism in both.

2. = masculinism n.
1914 Waterloo (Iowa) Evening Courier 11 Apr. 11/3 Why have women always been fonder of going to church than men have? Because they are more religious? No, answered Mrs. Chalotte Perkins Gilman yesterday in the second lecture on ‘Studies in Masculism’ at the Hotel Astor.
1982 Bulletin (Sydney) 30 Mar. 58/3 Masculism aims to change all that by bringing men together in male consciousness-raising groups.
1990 Link-up (Nexis) May 13, I see masculism as a progressive movement... We are not interested in putting women back into the kitchen.
1995 Atlanta Jrnl. & Constit. (Nexis) 5 Feb. b1 At its worst, masculism can sound like ultra-political correctness, enlarging the pantheon of the oppressed to include straight white guys.

OED definition of "masculinism":

masculinism, n.

Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈmaskjᵿlᵻnɪz(ə)m/ , U.S. /ˈmæskjələnɪzəm/ Etymology: < masculine adj. + -ism suffix, after feminism n. Compare masculism n.

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.

The article currently makes three claims based on the OED that aren't supported by the source:

1. "The shortened form masculism appeared shortly after, and became more common in the 1980s."
2. "The term masculinism was coined as the counterpart of feminism in the early 20th century."
3. "Masculism, (also known as masculinism), is the advocacy of the rights or needs of men." is not quite supported by the source because according to the OED, it is "masculinism", not "masculism", that means "advocacy of the rights of men".

I'll remove the first to sentences until someone can provide sources and rewrite the third sentence. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at fixing the problems here, with the following structure: (1) a lead that says simply that masculism is a campaign for men's rights, without taking issue with the positive and negative senses and the overlaps/tensions with masculinism (it seems to me that the lead now covers the WHOLE field as neutrally as possible); (2) a Controversial semantics first main section that deals with the tensions that I've left out of the lead, but again as neutrally and noncommittally as possible (though I confess I lean a little toward the view that "masculism" should distinguished (positively) from the negativity of "masculinism"; (3) the rest of the article more or less intact, with only slight edits to (a) eliminate angry polemical jabs at masculists as antifeminist male supremacists and (b) keep the masculist/masculinist terminology clear. I doubt I've made everyone happy, but it feels more like an encyclopedia entry to me now and less like a rant. Hong12kong (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Pruning needed

This article is in need of some major reduction. The criticism against the subject overwhelms the subject itself. This is not how we do things on Wikipedia, is it? — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 06:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Boys and girls in schools

I think maybe we need some discussion here. The article when I found it had this paragraph:

• A study of children in preschools found that boys are punished by teachers for speaking, playing, and moving in general, while similar behavior is ignored when enacted by girls (REF: Karin Martin, “Becoming a Gendered Body: Practices of Preschools.” American Sociological Review 63 (1998): 494-511.)

That paragraph has now twice been revised to read:

• A study of children in preschools found that girls are punished by teachers for speaking, playing, and moving in general, while similar behavior is ignored when enacted by boys (REF: Karin Martin, “Becoming a Gendered Body: Practices of Preschools.” American Sociological Review 63 (1998): 494-511.)

The first edit, by Carptrash, was summarized as "your basic guy vandalism"--but I couldn't tell whether that referred to the passage he was editing or his edit. I reverted that edit, because the original version fit the article better: feminists say girls and women are discriminated against, but here's a case where masculists say that boys are discriminated against. Kevin Gorman reverted my edit, because Carptrash's edit fit Karin Martin's article better. I agree that the original version (identifying greater punishments for boys than for girls in schools) is a bit of a stretch as a reading of Karin Martin's article (a possible reading, but not exactly mainstream); but if we all agree that Karin Martin is saying that girls are punished more than boys in schools, either (a) the whole paragraph should be cut as not appropriate to the article or (b) we need a new source for this claim. Hong12kong (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No; it's not a possible reading of the article. See page 503 - it very explicitly says the exact opposite.

You are right that the sentence probably doesn't belong in the article. The article as it stands right now has a lot of problems with original research, especially synthesis. This is one of them. (And it would still be a problem even if the statement was correct as you have revised it, because it would still be synthesis.) At some point in the near future (hopefully this week or next) I am going to go through the article and try to address a lot of the synthesis issues. If you'd like to get rid of some of them before I have time to do so, please do so. But in the interim, please don't change statements to say the opposite of what the source supporting them says. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad! I was editing for consistency with the rest of the (WP) article, and hadn't gone to the trouble of reading the source! (And I didn't originally make the paragraph say what it said; I simply accepted the existing version as consistent with the entry as a whole, w/o checking it against the source. And Claptrash's "basic guy vandalism" edit summary wasn't enough to alert me to the problem.) Hong12kong (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Original research?

‎SMcCandlish suggests that the section I wrote about mascul-ism and mascul-in-ism "appears to be original research, in particular a mixture of personal opinion and novel synthesis." I cited Robinson, No Less a Man--my source for the three paragraphs in question--in the first and third paragraphs of the passage, but not in the middle one, which SMcCandlish suspects is original research. It seems pretty clear to me that the three paragraphs form a single coherent argument, which is sourced at the beginning and end of the sequence; but to ward off future misunderstandings, I've now added a reference to the second paragraph as well. Hong12kong (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

86.52.13.60's revision

CarpTrash rightly reverted 86.52.13.60's massive rewrite of this article, on the grounds that it was too extensive an edit to undertake without lengthy Talk page negotiations; I'd like to initiate such negotiations by suggesting that it was a pretty good edit. There were a few minor points that could be touched up, but on the whole it was a balanced take on the subject, and far more encyclopedic than previous versions. (And I say this despite the fact that 86.52.13.60 removed all traces of my previous edits!) Hong12kong (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Controversial definition" section

there are many problems with the previous write-up.

an entire exposition of Doug Robinson's alleged claims is unnecessary. WP articles don't feature explanations for the views of every theorist or activist that's cited. for obvious length and weight reasons. there's no reason why an exception should be made here.

you can't present Doug Robinson's opinion as a fact, and without highlighting that they're his views. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says..."./Avoid stating opinions as facts.

the passage must declare that Doug Robinson is a masculist. Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact.

also, the sources used don't reference the pages where the claims are made. making it difficult to check whether the claims are directly supported.

Paintedxbird (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of that. I could provide page numbers for those claims. And I didn't claim DR's opinions as facts; I simply summarized the debate over the meaning of the term masculism as presented in his book, and presented it AS an ongoing debate. But the main thing is that what needs to be highlighted early in the article is the meaning of the term, not what DR believes! This reductive edit is not only badly written; it completely shifts the tenor of the conversation from the meaning of the term to the beliefs of one person. Also, as I noted in the previous section, 86.52.13.60's revision handled this issue with much more sensitivity, intelligence, and elegance. Hong12kong (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

that's the point. there's no "one true definition", only the beliefs of various sources. my sources are more reliable than your masculist. they're authoritative third-parties.

by not presenting where the views come from, you're depicting certain opinions as fact. which is directly against the rules i've already highlighted.

you also remove quality sources, in favour of unsourced, tendentious, original research. All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed / Wikipedia articles must not contain original research.

<"Masculism or masculinism may refer to advocacy of the rights or needs of men and the adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, etc., ::regarded as typical of men. Two of the most prominent men's rights advocates, Warren Farrell and Jack Kammer, have been said to define ::"masculism" as "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."[1] Adherents to such a philosophy may call themselves masculists or ::masculinists.

Masculism may refer to a profeminist commitment to gender liberation for both men and women; it also refers to antifeminism and advocacy of ::male superiority and dominance (though usually this antifeminist approach is called masculinism).[2][3][4]">

i don't know why you keep removing my edits and replacing them with another edit that gives one view, undue weight. as i've indicated before, your lead passage already details your point. making your repetition unnecessary. it's longer and is already given primacy. When reliable sources disagree, their conflict should be presented from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight.

secondly, your editions are not directly supported by the sources used: Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. you also synthesised a claim saying that antifeminist masculism is referred to as masculinism which isn't presented in any source.

also, can you not unanimously remove templates from your passages without first addressing the issues they highlight on the talkpage.

please actually read the guidelines on proper editorial process that i'm citing. repeatedly disregarding them is Tendentious editing Paintedxbird (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I DID address the issue in that template on the talk page. Months ago. It's not my fault if you didn't bother to read it. The template was directed specifically at the controversial semantics passage I wrote, saying that it might reflect MY original research and needed sources. I kept beefing up the sources (and reporting what I was doing on the talk page, and describing how I thought my edits were addressing the issue in the template), but you insisted on reducing those sources to opinion and highlighting DR's point of view. So given your insistence that my edits were not addressing the issue in the template, I simply removed the entire passage I'd written, and thus the occasion for the template.

But I don't need this grief. I started editing the Masculism page because I felt it was too strongly biased against masculism, and wanted to introduce some encyclopedic neutrality and balance to it; your edits have had the unfortunate effect of restoring the bias. I've been trying to fight it, but I don't have the stomach for battle, so I give up. I'm removing this page from my watchlist. Hong12kong (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This entire section is not even using current/relevant data, 1996 and 1982 reports,Unifem were treating them as a legit source now? Seriously Here's some data that supports this just casue and is not from a feminist agency that provides next to 0 sources. Child Molestation http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf . Here's some shocking data on domestic violence and sure it comes from battered men http://www.batteredmen.com/NISVS.htm but it also has a ton of refferences to non masculinist websites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkproxy (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Education, employment, and family.

These parts seem a bit out of place in a section devoted entirely to describing Masculinist's claims of discrimination. The first half of the "Discrimination" section lists ways in which some men have argued they're discriminated against, and then the education/employment/family parts suddenly derail into comments on how men are privileged in these areas. Whether or not that is true, isn't that missing the point entirely? Why not include what masculinist organizations have actually said regarding such discrimination rather than random and seemingly irrelevant arguments against statements not even listed in the article? It's no different from going to an article about Judaism and instead of seeing a description of Adam and Eve, for example, all you find is "Science has proven that it is impossible for all humans to have descended from two individuals." Whether or not it's true is irrelevant to the topic. The only point of the Discrimination section is to outline the discrimination many masculinists have claimed, no more and no less. 65.103.240.110 (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Took a quick glance through the history. Looks like as of November 30, 2012, the education, employment, and family parts were actually under the Criticisms and Responses section, which was a much more appropriate place for them. Changes were made by 78.145.139.28, differences can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masculism&diff=cur&oldid=525768190 I've moved them back to where they were before, though I welcome discussion for why they should be listed anywhere else. 65.103.240.110 (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively

masculism may refer to antifeminism and advocacy of male superiority and dominance

The introduction concludes with this statement. If we spun this about and said "feminism may refer to antimasculism and advocacy of female superiority and dominance", would that stand? I'm guessing that would be taken down, as people maintain an image of feminism being exclusively pro-equality and not having anti-equality aims.

Why do we mandate that feminism be taken at its word and exclude such criticism, yet masculism is not taken at its word and persecuted with 'superiority and dominance' vitriol? If masculism can be said to represent such concepts merely because people label such concepts as 'masculism', then surely we should similarly include such a disclaimer about feminism for merit of people using 'feminist' to represent female superiority/dominance concepts too. Ranze (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Ranze, I agree with you 1000%. I can explain to you why the man's rights pages get constantly vandalized while the femminist pages are tightly protected: the man's rights pages are managed by the team that manages femminism wiki pages and by their femministic man-haters. It is not a secret. Look up the talk and history pages. Google about the femministic vandalisation of our pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.216.154 (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"yet masculism is not taken at its word" Ask any women and she'll tell you, men lie to get what they want. Always have, probably always will. What I find interesting about the guy stuff is that it just can't be left to stand by its own. It is always "Feminism this" or "feminists that." You want something in an article, find a good source and add it. It is not that complicated. Carptrash (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"All men are liars." ----- signed by Carptrash ----- Now you can better understand the edits of Carptrash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.217.120 (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

At least I sign my posts. And I notice that you have in quotes something I did not write and as close as I'd come to saying that, I had attributed to others. Or perhaps you don't know what it means to put something in quotation marks? Don't worry, you'll get to it in 11th grade English. Still, pretty typical. Carptrash (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Ask any man, and he will tell you that you are a men-hater and your edits are feminist bad faith vandalism of the men's rights pages. Do not blame me for what all men think about your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.217.108 (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

'violence' subsection question

Question about sentence in the 'Violence' subsection:

People magazine ran a story on the T-shirt, opening with a quote from a then 10 year-old girl, "I want to make boys feel bad because it's fun"

Is the idea here that the opening quote of this article encourages violence against men? Otherwise, it's unclear why it's being quoted. If the article really is quoting the words of a 10 year-old girl as if that's an encouragement of violence, that does seem a tad paranoid. But perhaps there's some other reason I'm not seeing.

--TyrS 13:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your delete, because:

The sentence of the 10 year old is proof of the modern culture. It shows that verbal, physical violence against boys/men are considered acceptable in modern culture.

It also is a exact quotation from the source. Do not delete quotations from the source just because you do not like what she said!

I am not clear as to who is posting what here. Which is often a problem with edits from semi-literate editors. I am about to assume that TyrS was the editor who did an original removal of text and that some other editor who does not want to sign his (I'm further assuming gender here) edit for the same reason that many of the pro-male editors don't sign up - which is . . . . . .......... wait, I probably can't say they don't. It might get me banned. In any case, I suspect that the direct quote (from a 10 year old, wikipedia is going to some odd places seeking sources) was not removed by someone who didn't "like what she said." I might have removed it even though I like what she said because I don't think that wikipedia needs to be filled with People Magazine quotes from 10 year olds. Anyway, how about these editors learn at least how to format their postings so that we can get on with the dialog? Carptrash (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carptrash, the person who reverted my edit added his/her unsigned, unformatted, and somehow undated post directly after my signature. I have added spaces to try to clarify things. And you are right, my reasons were as stated in my post, i.e. that under a section seriously entitled "Violence" there is little substantiation besides the story about the t-shirts, in which the words of the 10 year-old (as quoted in an entertainment magazine) are presented as 'proof' of what's "considered acceptable in modern culture". But maybe it is, after all, a more honest reflection of the nature/mood of the topic and its supporters to leave it as it was.--TyrS 21:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I sort of am enjoying the fact that the best these types can do to support their point of view is from a 10 year old in People Magazine. This, to me, clearly shows the depth of their thinking. Carptrash (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Conscription

Here we find this:

"Historically the practice of conscription has for the most part been just applicable to males but not females, leading to males being forced to engage in high danger and traumatic war experiences."

It seems to me that there are three possible changes that can be made here and I am wondering which the masculinists propose or prefer. (1) Conscript women. (2) Don't conscript men. (3) something else. Anyone have a clue? With a reference would be nice, but is not really needed to post on the talk page. Carptrash (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Reaction by Martin

In the Reaction/Education section, it says:

Karin Martin observed the treatment of children in five preschools and found that girls are punished more often than boys by teachers for speaking, playing, and moving in general.[4]

It would be very helpful if someone would provide a quotation from the source to support this claim, because I haven't been able to find it. The source even says:

These numbers suggest that boys' bodies are being disciplined more than girls.

So I have doubts about whether the source supports the claim in the article.--Joshua Issac (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see from a quick look the material is from p 500-505 Formal and Relaxed Behaviors, Controlling Voice. Just to point out that the quote about "These numbers suggest that boys' bodies are being disciplined more than girls" is about boys being told by teachers to "discipline" their own bodies- e.g. "stop running, Johnny" - and is not referring to spanking. One of the reasons, according to the study, is that instructions to boys tend to ignored more than those to girls!! But I don't actually think this material should be be in the article. As with much of the content, it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH since the source, evn though a reliable source, has nothing to do with Masculism and is being used to make a novel point here. I'd be happy with it being removed, along with all the other sources that don't mention anything about masculism. Slp1 (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have a question about one of the statements, which I can't verify myself because I do not have access to the reference at this time.

Christensen differentiates between "progressive masculism" and an "extremist version". The former welcomes many of the societal changes promoted by feminists, while stating that many aimed at reducing sexism against women have had the effect of increasing it against women.

Is that supposed to read "the effect of increasing it against men" rather than "the effect of increasing it against women"? Otherwise, it seems to suggest that masculists say feminism has increased sexism against women. Of course, that could be what they're saying, but I can't check because I do not have access to the source. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You are quite right. I made a men/women mistake. I am really good at copyediting other people's stuff, but my own, not so much!!Slp1 (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject suggestion

Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Men's rights#Support Cycloane proposed that the idea for this be "WikiProject Masculism" rather than "WikiProject Men's rights". I am wondering if editors could clarify, would this article be an appropriate center for a WikiProject? Despite reading I have some difficulty discerning between Masculism/Men's rights and their differences. They don't seem as obvious as Feminism/Women's rights and their differences. It's a catchier single-world title that conforms to what we have at the XX cognate tho, so that's appealing. Ranze (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I prefer Maculism (or "masculinism" even more) over Men's Rights. Masculinism is broader -- and includes "men's issues" (which may not be directly related to legal rights per se) -- such as unfair cultural expectations and biases against men. Memills (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this become a PORTAL? And collapse it all down into that? Forgive me if that's too wide a scope for the things discussed above, I'm really just focused on the missing portal at present. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Masculinism&action=edit Canhazanonymous (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Please help me out

I seem to be unable to discover where in the reference this phase, (from the Homeless section) “This inequality is partially caused by feminist activists who support programs helping women only shelters,” is supported. I find it hard to believe that this is a case of the proponents of one point of view simply adding their perspective to a source that does not mention it. I mean, who would be low enough to do something like that? So please point out where this is in the reference and I'll feel like such a doofous. Carptrash (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh. I see. It seems to have been added by a red linker. That pretty much tells me (you make up your own mind) what I need to know. Carptrash (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have an even more pressing question. Where in the source from the "Homelessness" section is masculism or masculinism mentioned? And if the source says absolutely nothing about masculinism or masculism then what is the reference and statement doing in the masculinism article? I could ask the question for most other sections, e.g. "Incarceration". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

What is the scope of this page be?

A few weeks ago I did a fair bit of research on the meaning of this term. The results are now in the lead and the definition and scope sections. The problem is there are very different definitions of this word:

• some see it as another word for men's rights activism (according to the sources, this is preferred by MRAs themselves, who like the parallel with feminism)
• feminist perspectives use it to talk about philosophies that promote male dominance and superiority... including specifically in the field of philosophy.
• gender theorists use it as a term for approaches which looks at male oppression and perspectives in the context of a masculinist society (cf MRAs who see feminist domination)

In addition, some differentiate between masculism and masculinism, while others don't. Those that do differentiate don't agree on the difference between the two terms.

So what are we going to do?.... If the word is another term for men's rights activist then we don't need two articles about the same subject, with the list of topics of interest etc etc. Maybe just redirect it.... but that seems wrong, because the term is also used in scholarly sources to refer to other conceptions. It probably would be too bad not to include that information. Maybe the answer is to have separate sections about the different meanings with, for example, a "main article" link to the men's rights movement, for all the details about the topics of interest. What do others think? --Slp1 (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"In a feminist framework"?

I don't understand why the qualifier "in a feminist framework" is included in the description of masculism. It suggests feminism is an approach focused on female superiority, which it isn't. 98.161.60.232 (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I would assume it's there because only feminists define masculism "as an approach that is focused on male superiority to the exclusion of women." An actual person who identifies as a men's rights activist wouldn't use that definition. Thus the qualifier "in a feminist framework" is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.13.55.31 (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If it is a misrepresentation of what masculinism is about then it shouldn't be included in the definition. And since the core values of feminism aren't about defining the core values of other movements, describing a bias held by some feminists as "feminist framework" misrepresents that movement as well. 98.161.60.232 (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Masculinism

I brought up some issues there on that word and its redirect and if it's still appropriate. While there is every indication that the terms have had interchangeable use, I think there are also indications that they have had distinctive uses as well. Often I have seen Femininism been used to refer to Feminism concepts, yet there are uses of the Inism form describing meanings related to femininity which I have never seen Feminism be used to represent.

Based on that, I would like to entertain and invite discussion about the idea that perhaps the usage of Masculinism to refer to Masculism concepts is only a segment of the words' usage and meaning, and that there may be a possibility for expanding that redirect into a distinct article about a different concept. We should not ignore the relevance of the presence or absence of the -ine suffix simply because both have the -ism suffix at the end. Ranze (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any description here or on the other talk page of how exactly you feel the terms are different. What are the differences?

Also, all the source examples you listed place masculinism opposite feminism, rather than femininism. That seems like further evidence that we're dealing with synonyms here. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Revert after protection

Bbb23 reverted the addition of an IP after protecting this article, however they failed to provide a rationale for this reversion. Consider this the section where you should provide that rationale. Arkon (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary sets forth the basis. It's an administrative action, not an editor's action.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The edit summary is "Undid revision 572549733 by 217.28.10.134 (talk) - MRM sanctions". Please explain how the addition of the ref's in that edit violate the probation. Arkon (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A person using different IP addresses has been disruptively editing the article for a few days now. He is not just adding refs; he is adding material. He is adding material that is controversial and doing so to the lead, even though none of it appears to be covered in the body. He added three refs in "support" of the material. The first, to the extent the book is a neutral source, doesn't support the assertion. The second is an unreliable encyclopedia that supposedly is at least partly a mirror of Wikipedia. The third ref smushes in multiple links, none of which seems to say anything relevant. My only error here was not stopping this earlier.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

That hardly sounds like an administrative action. Please self revert, or cease performing actual administrative actions in this area. Arkon (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

See m:The Wrong Version Arkon. Furthermore the page is semi-protected only unregistered users are prevented from commenting. And FYI making thinly veiled threats and assumptions of bad faith, because one doesn't like it are prohibited by the probation--Cailil ^talk 16:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in Wrong Version applies here. There was no edit war, thus a revert to a stable version never occured. I am well aware that the page is only semi-protected. And FYI, the only bad faith assumption is your last sentence. Admins must be able to account for their actions. I'm giving Bbb23 time to respond before taking this further. At this point he is quite clearly making editorial decisions and shouldn't be making adminstrative ones. Arkon (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

> At this point he is quite clearly making editorial decisions and shouldn't be making adminstrative ones

That may be clear to you, but it is not clear to me. My review of the situation indicates Bbbb23's actions were perfectly reasonable and not WP:INVOLVED. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

hello. just to clarify about the edits which are being discussed in reference to "A person using different IP addresses". i note that there is an assumption being made that the user is a 'he' - why is this presumed? - it seems rather sexist to do so. nevertheless firstly i'd like to say that the reason different IP addresses are coming up is for some technical reason that is unclear to me - where I work there are three computers and the IP changes between them (maybe something to do with the broadband connection in my area(?)), so i can assure you that i am not trying to maliciously disrupt or vandalise anything. secondly i'd like to apologise if some of the sources i used were not of good enough quality; the point i was trying to make was that the opening paragraph (see below) does not seem to encapsulate the breadth of the meanings of 'masculism'. thirdly i forgot to sign the talk article below (on the liberal or contested meanings of masculism or masculinism), and tried to re-sign it to illustrate the good faith of my attempts to help improve the article. fourthly, i sense that the edits i made to the lead are suggested in the main of the article via the definition and scope section (see the references to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy) and was simply trying to reflect this in the lead (opening paragraph). fifthly the material i have read that is to do with masculism or masculinism (and related definitions such as 'men's liberation' or 'men's movement') deals with the issues of men and boys, not just men. again, i apologise if any of this was somehow erroneous or offensive: i am relatively new to the subject of masculism and men's rights. 87.254.88.166 (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The opening paragraph does not reflect the liberal nor the contested meanings of Masculism and Masculinism.

As far as I gather the OED regards only Masculinism as being about "the adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, attitudes, etc. regarded as typical of men; (more generally) anti-feminism, machismo" not Masculism, so why is this difference not discussed in the opening paragraph of the wiki article? None of the male-focused literature (I have come across) of Warren Farrell, Jack Kammer, Robert Anton Wilson, David Benatar, Jack Nichols, R. W. Connell, Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young is about promoting attitudes 'typical' of men, but rather it seems to be about embracing, in both men and boys, positive values and attitudes 'traditionally' seen as the preserve of females, while acknowledging the hardships males face and the positive achievements of Feminism. Nichols (http://www.gvny.com/columns/nichols/nichols07-27-01.html) and Hoogenson and Golheim (http://books.google.com/books?id=ZPThCTMVsZQC&pg=PA21&dq=masculism#v=onepage&q=masculism&f=false), for example, suggest that the Men's Liberation Movement or Masculism is also in conflict with Masculinism - this ought to be talked about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.16.12.185 (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought I'd add these quotes from the 'masculism' entry in The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Edited by Ted Honderich; Oxford University Press: UK: 1995) to help those wishing to make the lead paragraph clearer and fairer - page 528: "Defining 'masculism' is made difficult by the fact that the term has been used by very few people, and by hardly any philosophers. In its most general meaning...a reasonable definition of 'masculism' would have it refer to promoting the interests or rights of men. (This is very different, it must be noted, from promoting attributes of womanliness or manliness, as they might be construed, which could be labelled femininism and masculinism.)" page 528: "However one understands these particular terms, there is today a small movement of 'men's rights' activists. Their fundamental claim is that very serious discrimination is currently being committed against individual males on account of their sex. These activists fall roughly into two categories, traditionalist and liberal-progressive. The traditionalists hold that inherited gender roles, though 'discriminatory' in the neutral sense of treating the sexes differently, have been more or less fair and just to both, because, they believe, the disadvantages faced by males and females have been comparable...In sharp contrast — and in spite of attempts by many to label all talk of men's rights as reactionary, a 'backlash' — progressive men's rights activists regard the traditional differential treatment as seriously unfair to members of both sexes. Inherited gender roles and stereotypes are not just burdensome to both men and women, they say, but unjust to both, and must be eliminated...Progressive masculists have thus welcomed many feminist efforts toward societal change, adding, however, that feminism addresses only half the problem."

46.226.191.241 (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

I restored an old version of the article and undid the changes by Memills. For example, this explanation does not hold up under scrutiny; the statement was sourced to a peer-reviewed article, not a primary source, and there is no evidence that the statement is inaccurate. In May, Memills made a similar edit [5] that had to be corrected [6]. The other edits (e.g., the inclusion of sources that do not discuss masculism / masculinism or identify certain activists as masculists / masculinists) were equally unhelpful. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

"Discrimination against men"

The sub-section "Suicide" doesn't explain how higher rates of suicide in men is discrimination. If no one adds content explaining why it's discriminating that men are more likely to commit suicide, I'll be removing the sub-section. Best, --Spivorg (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I just renamed the section instead, as not all of those topic areas are specifically about discrimination, but moreso topic areas that have been advanced by Masculists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)