Talk:Mythopoetic men's movement

Separate article on the mythopoetic men's movement

Copied from User:Paul foord talk page I had started to do a separate article on the mythopoetic men's movement when it occurred to me it would be simpler for later linking and expansion if it simply included the women's portion as well, with different sections or paragraphs within the article. Given the current size of each article, what do you think? ... -- Rorybowman 20:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Reading both articles, pro-feminism and mythopoetic it struck me that each is broader than men. Having separate articles, esp the pro-feminist men one allows a better balance in pro-feminism because it is not about men, but is an important issue for men, but there are also women who call themselves pro-feminist.

Use of categories seemed to make better sense with the split.

With the mythopoetic article a split seems to make sense with reference to mythopoetic men or whatever and the feminist Feminist spirituality (as already noted). -- Paul foord 03:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Mythopoiesis and Mythopoesis

Would someone care to elaborate on the distinction (if any) between mythopoiesis and mythopoesis? --Ziusudra 19:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid we have a mess on our hands, and I'm afraid it's partly my fault. Here's how it looks to me: Mythopoiesis is an incorrect spelling of mythopoesis, one that is based on the word's etymology. There is unfortunately another article at mythopoesis, a redirect to mythopoeic literature, which has nothing to do with the subject of this article. There is a merge request on the article for mythopoetic literature, attempting to merge it with artificial mythology. For those just arriving here, this problem didn't used to exist, at least not in the same form, because this article used to be titled mythopoetic. I didn't like using an adjective as an article title, so I changed it to mythopoiesis, unfortunately spelling it wrong. Even if I had not moved the article, we would still be in the awkward situation of sharing the word with another concept at another article.

I am not sure how to unravel the problem, except that there should probably be a clearer title to this article and disambiguation notes in both places.

Apologies for the screwup. Rlitwin 22:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To me, this article is about a social phenomenon, not an intellectual pursuit. As such, I feel that this section be removed. Dan Bollinger (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Completely different meanings

I've just tagged this page 'disputed'; this is almost certainly the wrong tag, but i'm not sure which one to use. The problem here is that a cluster of terms are being used to refer to two completely different things: one psychological and one literary. We probably need a disambiguation page here. Unless someone feels like arguing that they're individual and collective manifestations of the same fundamental dynamic, in which case i have another tag over here marked 'original research'.

On spelling: bah, i give up. The problem is twofold: what's the historical usage, and what does the etymology suggest? The no-i form seems to have been the first, but the with-i form now seems dominant (see the aptly named paper 'Disorders of mythopoiesis'). The OED lists the no-i form first, with the with-i form as a variant. The etymology is stymied by the fact that both 'poiesis' and 'poesis' are legitimate Greek roots; 'poesis' is apparently an 'early variant' of 'poiesis', and where the latter has the general meaning of 'formation', the former seems to be more specifically about creativity.

Aha! Perhaps we can exploit the ambiguity by using both - mythopoesis for the psychology, and mythopoiesis for the literature. Confusion all round!

-- Tom Anderson 2006-12-20 17:11 +0000

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.81.166 (talk • contribs)

Regarding the spelling, the following is a passage from "The Cambridge Illustrated History of Ancient Greece" edited by Paul Cartledge (the 2004 softback reprint edition), top of page 36:

"Plato, writing at a time when the intellectual concept of mythology (and, indeed, the word) had been invented, commented slyly on this eternal Greek propensity to mythopoiesis, or myth-making: 'Since we don't know the truth about the ancients, may it not be useful to approximate falsity to truth as closely as possible?' (Republic)

This strongly suggests that mythopoiesis is the correct spelling, and that myth-making is the definition.

References and Notability 2jul2007

Just noticed the notability tag and refs pull this morning so wanted to explain my thoughts and rationale for placing them back. Although the term "mythopoetic men's movement" is largely an academic one, certainly the subject merits treatment. Whether this particular page remains a stand-alone article or becomes a sub-section of men's movement with a redirect is not, to my mind, particularly important, so long as the content is retained. I need to check but believe that at least some of the references were originally inserted by me back when the article was simply called "mythopoetic" and not been narrowed for men, so Estes is arguable. The work of Moore/Gillette (which was strongly embraced by MKP and Meade is less so. The mess around "mythopoesis" might perhaps be addresed with a disambiguation page? - Rorybowman 17:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree the topic is notable, a whole section of our book store concerns this, so I removed the Notablity flag. Goldenrowley 18:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tenses

This article switches tenses. A lot. Rmilligan 09:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like there were two writers. One thought the movement continued to this day, and the other thought that it was over and done with at some point. I suggest going with the former, unless evidence can be brought up showing at least a tentative history. If the thing's really over and done with, that shouldn't be too hard. 68.103.235.157 (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Men's Rights Movement

Is this the same as the Men's Right's Movement? Shouldn't there be a disambiguation link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.240.111 (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

As explained in the article, this is not about men's rights, but rather about a male-centered therapeutic process involving ritual and congregation. Dan Bollinger (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mythopoetic men's movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106112808/http://mkpchicago.org/ to http://www.mkpchicago.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Mythopoetic and mythopoeic mean "involved in myth creating"

I'm no expert on the movement, but AFAIK the "mythopoetic men's movement" is myth enjoying, myth interpreting, myth consuming, myth reading, myth studying, myth applying, and myth resurrecting; it's not myth inspiring or myth creating. Fine that it's what people call it, but if we're to discuss the etymology in the article, it ought to be pointed out, this subtle change in sense of the term. 98.13.244.125 (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no reason to dispute your etymological analysis. And, this is what the movement was named. Right or wrong, it has a name and that cannot be undone. Dan Bollinger (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)