Talk:Masculism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)

Fair enough. Thank you! Best, --Spivorg (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

lack of neutrality

The Criticism section sounds like a brochure. 67.204.238.12 (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This makes run-of-the-mill activists appear to be extremists, and I suspect 0.01% of any organization are susceptible to becoming radicalized and committing acts of violence. One person in ten thousand: this is a margin of error akin to Lysol's product efficacy claims. Comparing it to the general population, it appears that a masculinist terrorist is born about as frequently as pairs of identical twins with Down Syndrome. It doesn't seem notable enough to be mentioned, and continues further to skew the perspective of the entire preceding article to make masculinists (or is it supposed to be masculists? The two terms appear to be used interchangeably, although the text infers they are two separate groups) appear to be delusional, sometimes violent persons at odds with themselves, the very thing critics of feminism claim against feminists. This section reads like a covert ad-hoc attack, and harms the neutrality of the overall article. I'll make a couple of small changes, but it needs an expert in the subject. 2601:1:8600:52B:C4E3:75EE:C0EC:E337 (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Blais and Dupuis-Deri source is inaccurate and not notable re evolutionary psychology

I have reverted the removal of the Buss and Schmitt study that counters the statement by Blais and Dupuis-Deri that "evolutionist psychology" (sic -- there is no such field, they are probably referring to "evolutionary psychology") ...suggests that adaptations during prehistory resulted in complementary but different roles for the different genders, and that this balance has been destabilized by feminism since the 1960s." Those with passing familiarity with evolutionary psychology are aware that reproductive strategies of males and females are not "complementary" but are in conflict. This inaccurate assertion by Blais and Dupuis-Deri is itself not notable, and it is directly countered by Buss and Schmitt's Strategic Interference Theory ( ...just one of many sources that could be used here). Further, the Blais and Dupuis-Deri suggestion that evolutionary psychologists believe that this complementary "balance (between the sexes) has been destabilized by feminism since the 1960s" is both inaccurate and not notable. Blais and Dupuis-Deri, in their article, offer no sources to backup their two statements re evolutionary psychology. Further, it is irrelevant -- this article is about masculinism, not evolutionary psychology. This material should be removed from the article as not notable and irrelevant. Memills (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. No, the Buss and Schmitt study does not counter the statement by Blais. Buss and Schmitt do not even mention Blais, let alone counter anything they say. Do you understand that a study from 1989 (Buss & Schmit) cannot possibly say anything about a study published in 2012? Even if we assume that men's rights activists and evolutionary psychologists have immense and unnatural powers of foresight, I reckon that even mighty Buss cannot predict and respond to scholarly publications from the future. Your edits re this paragraph (which started back in May 2013) are a perfect example of WP:Editorializing and WP:Synth and were reverted in the course of over a year by at least three editors. Please refrain from making more unconstructive edits to men's rights related pages. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggested copyedit

This is such a sensitive article that I wanted to test-drive a gingerly copyedited head paragraph here:

Masculism (or masculinism) refers to political, cultural, and economic movements which aim to establish and defend political, economic, and social rights and participation in society for men and boys. More generally, it may refer to any movement, theory or opinion which holds a belief in achieving males' equality with females as its core tenet. In this regard it is the counterpart of feminism, which seeks to achieve the same goals but from a contradistinct viewpoint. Issues of concern to masculists include legal equalities, such as those relating to conscription, child custody, alimony, and equal pay for equal work. Its concepts sometimes coincide with those of the men's rights, fathers' rights, and men's liberation movements. Masculinism strives to achieve these aims by advocating for the rights or needs of men; by the adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, and attitudes, regarded as typical of men; or, alternatively, through an androcentric approach including the exclusion of women.

The non-trivial changes are from "equal and opposite of feminism" to "counterpart of feminism," and from "Rights of concern..." to "Issues of concern...". Both feel to me like nice encyclopedic wordings of potentially tendentiously-framed assertions.

If I don't hear back in a few days, I'll go ahead with it.

If someone bolder than me dares to recast the whole paragraph more crisply (e.g., change "political, cultural, and economic movements which aim to establish and defend political, economic, and social rights and participation in society for" to "movements which promote the rights of"), they can count on my support. FourViolas (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, here goes.FourViolas (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Template:Who

I partially reverted Fuebar with this edit, stating, "Fuebar, see Template:Who: Not every or even most uses of 'many' need to be tagged. This line is clearly talking about average people; they are not WP:Notable, and we can't list all of them." I'm not fond of that template, especially because it is misused by people who have not even read it. Like it states, "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Wikipedia must remain vague." Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You say that by 'many people' the article is referring to "average people". I can only assume you mean the average Masculinist, but even within that small subgroup I have personally never heard anyone talk about the abolition of co-ed schools. That's why I added the Who template. It seems like something that ought to be reinforced by someone notable within the movement before it is taken to be the "average" person's opinion. If the source given does indeed say "many Masculists" instead of referencing anyone in particular however, I will concede the point. I don't have access to its full text.

I do admit it's not an issue of high importance, but when it comes to ongoing cultural/political movements, it can't hurt to be extra cautious. — Fuebar (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

By "average people," I meant "many masculinists, the vast majority of which are not WP:Notable." Since the line states "many masculinists," that implies that it's relaying that particular viewpoint as a common belief in the masculism community. That's why tagging that part with the "who" template is inappropriate to me. Maybe there is no one notable, at least not by WP:Notable standards, within that community who has stated that. I don't know if the source states "many." Rather than it being slapped with the "who" tag, I'd prefer that the line be reworded to relay that it's a viewpoint that has been expressed with the masculism community. Flyer22 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point now. A rewording ought to suffice then. — Fuebar (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:Intext attribution for the source when altering the text is also an option. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead February 2015

@Apples grow on pines: Regarding this edit and edit summary, can you please give the page number and passage that supports the statement? Also, your source doesn't seem to provide sources for its definition of masculism, it will probably need to go through the RS noticeboard to establish reliability. Also, the reason that you believe that your source further reaffirms the paragraph of "Definitions and scope" is because people selectively removed most information that they didn't like: like the part of the Oxford English Dictionary definition that says: masculism: (more generally) anti-feminism, machismo. It would really be better if you worked with reliable sources rather than use Wikipedia articles and pages to make a point about other Wikipedia articles. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: The explanation of the term masculism begins at page 120. Regarding your accusation of the bad faith of other editors: I do not believe I should be answering this, since it does not belong to this talk page and does not concern my actions. The usage of the term is currently backed by several sources. Again, I fully understand that you may have encountered a different definition. The article as it stands, including the lede, does sufficient justice to both the old "male supremacy" and the modern "men's equality" definitions. If you feel that the missing part of the OED quote is relevant, feel free to include it about the blurb regarding the "extremist version" in the second paragraph of "Definition and scope".

Regarding your claim that masculism can also stand for anti-feminism: Yes, it can. Your use of the word "anti-feminism", however, is non-standard (or, rather, non-standard in this decade - again, it relies on the old meaning of the term, that being the opposition to women's suffrage, rather than the modern meaning, which is the opposition to the feminist movement, specifically. See: [7][8][9]). Overall, your objection seems to be rooted in the fact that the masculist terminology has changed over the past few centuries. You insist on applying a puritan approach to now-outdated meanings of terms and to give them undue weight in discussions of the modern masculist movements. Apples grow on pines (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I know where the author's unsourced definition of masculism (and feminism) begins. I asked you for the page and passage that supports the claims in the lead. I read all the passages where masculism and masculists was mentioned (including the author's self-identification: "I also identify myself as a masculist who feels...") but I couldn't find support for the claims in the lead which you sourced to this thesis. The article as it stands is a POV and OR fest, for example, thanks to these unreverted changes by IP 151.231.19.138. But let's get back to your source and if it supports the statement in the lead. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Further to sources already provided, here are some additional dictionary sources on what masculism is, so that we don't solely rely on OED (or, as you seem to insist, the "more general" half of the OED definition). These were obtained by a cursory Google search - please expand the list if you're so inclined:

• Dictionary.com - masculist - an advocate of the rights of men; of, characterized by, or relating to men's rights
• Collins - masculism - a doctrine or movement that advocates for the rights of men
• Merriam-Webster - No definition for masculism/masculist, but: masculinist - an advocate of male superiority or dominance
• Oxford Dictionaries - masculinist (also masculist) - Characterized by or denoting attitudes or values held to be typical of men; An advocate of the rights or needs of men
• The Free Dictionary - masculism - masculinity; an attempt to protect masculine traits and qualities against the assaults of militant feminism. masculinist (or masculist) - an advocate of the rights of men; of, characterized by, or relating to men's rights

To me, there appears to be a clear preponderance for masculism meaning the advocacy of men's rights, with some mentions of it possibly being anti-feminist in nature, some mentions of it pertaining to stereotypically masculine behaviours, and a trace of the historical meaning of "male dominance". Apples grow on pines (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Continuing, the following excerpt from The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (already referenced in the lede) states that 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, the word ‘feminism’ refers to promotion of the interests or rights of women, and 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.) Thus defined, the two parallel terms are too vague to be very useful. A more precise definition of both would be something on this order: ‘the belief that women/men have been systematically discriminated against, and that discrimination should be eliminated’. Evidently, such a definition for ‘feminism’ is commonly understood, and among the few who apply the term ‘masculist’ to themselves, such is also their intent. Of course, under these meanings there is no necessary conflict between them, and in fact some are happy to call themselves both feminists and masculists. Much more often, the belief that one sex currently faces a much greater threat from discrimination would lead to accepting one label and rejecting the other.. It then continues to differentiate between progressive and reactionary masculists/MRAs (consistently with the claim attributed to Ferrell Christensen in the article's body). Apples grow on pines (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So that's a no then? The source you added doesn't support the statement? Is that the reason why you can't cite a page number or passage from the source and why I can't find any support for the lead in the source? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I already provided you with a page number, but there are more references to the claim throughout the paper. To quote the absolute minimum necessary, what you're looking for is this claim: Masculism may be defined as the interest group ideology of men, although the term itself is not very well established yet. [...] In a similar fashion, feminism is basically and originally an interest group ideology of women. Statements surrounding these two further elaborate that the two groups are mostly antisexist in nature, and elaborates on their potential conflicts due to membership biases, despite the similarity in goals. Why you can't find it is a question that would involve a lot of original research, which I'm not willing to undertake.

Figure 17 illustrates their relation as counterparts quite well if you'd like to save some time on reading the actual paper. Apples grow on pines (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You mentioned page 120, but there's no passage on page 120 that supports the claim in the lead that More generally, it may refer to any movement, theory or opinion which holds a belief in achieving males' equality with females as its core tenet. In this regard, it is the counterpart of feminism, which seeks to achieve the same goals but from a contradistinct viewpoint. The two statements are linked by "in this regard" and "the same goals". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the section you were meant to read starts on page 120 and continues further, as already explained. I have now also provided a very specific and targeted quote for your convenience. The actual statement being referenced here is all of More generally, it may refer to any movement, theory or opinion which holds a belief in achieving males' equality with females as its core tenet. In this regard, it is the counterpart of feminism, which seeks to achieve the same goals but from a contradistinct viewpoint and not just the second (purely explanatory) sentence thereof as you misleadingly implied.

I am picking up a very large amount of unwarranted hostility from you over this subject, which is not something I'm willing to subject myself to. As such, I will have to apologise and recuse myself from this conversation. An uninvolved editor should make a decision on whether they consider my contribution appropriate, but since you are unwilling to engage me in the discussion of the subject but are instead focusing on semantics games and soapboxing, I do not feel that the two of us should continue this debate. Apples grow on pines (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that the statement being referenced is More generally, it may refer to any movement, theory or opinion which holds a belief in achieving males' equality with females as its core tenet. In this regard, it is the counterpart of feminism, which seeks to achieve the same goals but from a contradistinct viewpoint. It's also quite obvious that the source doesn't support the statement. So much for "misleadingly implied" (did anyone mention hostility?). I pointed out that the WP:BURDEN is on you to specify a page and to make sure that the source must clearly support the claims in the article. But it doesn't. What it does is support the claim that masculism and feminism are interest group ideologies with sexist and anti-sexist branches. All the stuff about "any movement, theory of opinion" or "equality with female at its core tenet" or "in this regard [my emphasis], it is a counterpart of feminism" isn't supported by the source. FYI: I started a discussion about the source at the RS noticeboard. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I am glad that you've amended your statement regarding what's being referenced. I also appreciate the submission to the RS noticeboard. Nonetheless, I consider this conversation over as it has long departed the realm of productivity and is nothing but an exercise in soapboxing at this point. Apples grow on pines (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So now you know that the thesis which you added doesn't support the claim "More generally, it may refer to any movement, theory or opinion... a contradistinct viewpoint"? I would love to end this conversation but the OR issue remains. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So now you know that the thesis which you added doesn't support the claim [...]? - No. I'm leaving the conversation because of your approach, which I find toxic. It does not mean that I concede your points, merely that I'm not willing to discuss them further. I will not respond to further attacks from you on that matter. Apples grow on pines (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I will remove the source you added and the original research attributed to it per this discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_184#Finnish_doctoral_thesis. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Equivocation

This article as it stands is committing the fallacy of equivocation, treating at least three definitions of "masculism" or "masculinism" as aspects of the same topic. This is not Wiktionary. As an encyclopedia we should disambiguate alternative uses completely, so as not to need to qualify any particular claim as to which definition(s) of masculism it applies.

The only contemporary usage of the word is to denote a philosophy of concern for human rights and non-discrimination as applied to men, so as such should be the principal topic of the article. Other uses of the word, specifically Masculinity and Male chauvinism, are anachronistic. They should be noted and linked for disambiguation without elaboration.

There are criticisms that those who are concerned with masculism are also misogynist. Those criticisms should be duly noted in a section of this article, but should not be allowed to redefine the scope of the article. If an article is needed for a contrarian definition of masculism meaning something other than concern for human rights of men, that can be created and disambiguated properly. It's probably all been said at Patriarchy.

Rhoark (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The only contemporary usage of the word is to denote a philosophy of concern for human rights and non-discrimination as applied to men. You expressed your opinion that this is "the only contemporary usage of the word." RS clearly disagree with you. We summarize RS, not editors' opinions. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

My assessment is based on the reliable sources already cited in the article. We have secondaries that use it as I have described, some of which accuse adherents of also being chauvinist. The sources that say masculism is equivalent to chauvinism by definition (rather than incidentally) are all tertiary and cite only examples prior to 1940. We should follow common usage and make WP:NECESSARY assumptions. Rhoark (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Diapers

@Rhoark: You have restored a section about diapers [10]. The sources say nothing about the topic of this article. Editors cannot just add stuff that they feel is relevant for this article. You believe that access to diaper changing facilities is a masculi(ni)st issue. Another editor believes that ladies' night is a masculi(ni)st issue and yet another editor thinks that middle aged men living with their parents is a masculi(ni)st issue. But all of that is clearly original research because the sources do not regard those things as related to masculi(ni)sm. Please explain why you restored the paragraph anyway. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 09:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Anything pertaining to rights of men, discrimination against men, and equality/inequality between men and women is in the topic of the article. It is not necessary that a source reference the specific word "masculism" or "masculinism" in order to be related. This is not a dictionary, describing words. The topic of an article is an idea or concept. Relatedness to a topic is absolutely something editors are meant to decide. This extends even to including sources that elaborate on or contextualize a detail of the topic without describing the main topic itself. A chain of relatedness can be established transitively. The limits of relatedness are defined by consensus, not policy. Rhoark (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not. The subject of this article is masculi(ni)sm and masculi(ni)sts. You can't add random stuff about equality/inequality, discrimination against men and other stuff that you believe is related to masculi(ni)sm. But you're the editor who said: "Anything reliably sourced is never original research." By that logic, one could add pretty much any disparity between women and men (stores tend to have more women's clothing than men's, waaaah, it's a masculi(ni)st issue!) to this page as long as it's "reliably sourced". I won't waste my time on trying to explain why your view of our OR policy of monumentally misguided. I started a discussion on the RS noticeboard. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You absolutely can do everything you have said one cannot, under the terms of OR. You've simply neglected to consider due weight. Establishing that one policy doesn't prohibit an edit, does not mean the edit is inevitable to include in a final article. Rhoark (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Restored sourced lead

I have restored a sourced version of the lead paragraph which was introduced with this series of edits and was stable for over a year until IPs started adding unsourced and dubious material to the lead and removing sourced content.

I've replaced this

Masculism (or masculinism) is political, cultural, and economic movements which aim to establish and defend political, economic, and social rights and participation in society for men and boys. Issues of concern to masculists include legal equalities, such as those relating to conscription, child custody, alimony, and equal pay for equal work. Its concepts sometimes coincide with those of the men's rights, fathers' rights, and men's liberation movements. Masculinism strives to achieve these aims by advocating for the rights or needs of men; by the adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, and attitudes, regarded as typical of men; However, Ferrell Christensen states that if masculism and feminism refer to the belief that men/women are systematically discriminated against, and that this discrimination should be eliminated, there is not necessarily a conflict between feminism and masculism, and some assert that they are both. However, many feminists believe that women are more discriminated against, and thus use label feminism as "gender equality" and dismiss the other. A broader conception of the women's movement, however, recognizes that patriarchy is harmful to both men and women, and therefore that prejudice and discrimination against both genders will need to be recognized and redressed.</ref> or, alternatively, through an androcentric approach, including the exclusion of women.

with this

Masculism or masculinism may variously refer to advocacy of the rights or needs of men; the adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, attitudes, etc. regarded as typical of men; or, alternatively, an approach that is focused on male superiority to the exclusion of women.

I encourage other experienced editors to keep a eye on the page and help keep the OR out. Apparently, a Merriam Webster definition is now considered "the general opinion of modern feminists". --SonicY (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BenBugajski.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 15 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TylerCresser50.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

I propose that this article should be merged into Gender Equality. This is because gender equality seems to equate with Masculism. Having Gender Equality as a separate page from Masculism seems to imply that Masculism is inherently misogynist.

Discuss, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.62.5 (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Sources do not describe masculism in this fashion. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Support: I agree to merge. Having feminism and masculism separate from the gender equality page seems to imply that feminism and masculism movements are different from gender equality movements. HenryMP02 (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: After reading other editors opinions on the topic I have formed a different opinion and now oppose the merge. HenryMP02 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Masculism is, of course, a topic related to gender equality, but there is more than enough here to justify a separate article. I don't at all agree that merely having an article about masculism somehow implies that masculism is misogynist, just like I wouldn't agree that having an article about feminism implies that feminism is inherently misandrist. As long as we keep the article accurate and well-sourced, which I believe it is right now, this kind of thing isn't going to be a problem. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - these topics obviously have enough coverage in reliable sources, and are distinct enough, to merit their own separate articles. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Do not merge

While Masculism and the men's rights movement do fall under general human rights and gender equality, merging and entire segment under the broad umbrella of Gender Equality would limit and undervalue the term and its history. If we were to merge Masculism under Gender Equality, then the same should be done for Feminism. Simply because the article is currently ill defined does not mean it should be abandoned. I am currently working with one of the movement's leading experts, Warren Farrell (author of the Myth of Male Power) to clean up the definition, and provide better history and background to the term. Belnap.research (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Belnap.research: I'm not sure what you think "working with .... Warren Farrell" is going to add or accomplish - per wikipedia's policies on original research and reliable sources, this article must reflect and be referenced to reliable, published sources. What either you or Warren Farrell think about the subject matters very little compared to what reliable sources say. You might also want to review wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest - someone who is directly involved in the debates and controversies that this article deals with shouldn't be directly involved in editing it or determining its content. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Warren is a published author of "The Myth of Male Power" which is a long standing and respected published work so citations will be added from this resource. Expert published opinion and works are valid, I thought perhaps you might find this information useful, but apparently not. :) Belnap.research (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, citations to Farrell's book(s) are fine, although we also need to be careful to give due weight to an activist scholar like him. Your comment above made it sound like you're in actual conversation with Farrell, sorry if I misunderstood. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Citations to Farrell's books are only acceptable as sources where they directly discuss masculinism/masculism per WP:Synth. If for example Farrell discusses how straight white men are oppressed today, it only becomes relevant for the article if he says that masculinists/masculists believe that or if links his statements to masculinism/masculism some other way. --SonicY (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

While this is true, the link need not use the word itself. Anything conforming to the definition(s) is on-topic. Rhoark (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You are very much mistaken. This isn't a coatrack where editors can hang anything they consider typical of men, related to androcentrism or the "rights and needs of men". We saw how that turned out the last time you tried to include "access to diaper changing facilities". --SonicY (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

How that turned out is you got your way while I took a necessary wikibreak - not instructive as a precedent. This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. The article should be about a concept, not only a word. Rhoark (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

I propose that Men's movement, Men's liberation movement, Mythopoetic men's movement, Men's rights movement, and Masculism be merged together. I think that the content in the articles overlap a lot and can easily be explained in a larger page, and the articles are of a reasonable size that the merging of them will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.

-- HenryMP02 (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The above listed "movement" pages should be merged into Men's rights movement. The others have fairly limited and duplicative content. Masculism (this page) and Men's rights (presently a redirect to Men's rights movement) should be constructed as counterparts to Feminism and Women's rights, that is to say pages about values and rights themselves rather than about advocacy organizations. Rhoark (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comment right there is a perfect illustration of how much you know about the subject. Men's movement is the umbrella term, it consists of many strands only one of which is the men's rights movement. Other men's movements such as the pro-feminist men's movement or the mythopoetic men's movement are either opposed to the men's rights movement or have nothing to do with it, so merging all older, unrelated, and ideologically opposed movements into men's rights movement is nonsensical. Also, men's liberation movement is the strand of the men's movement from which the men's rights movement emerged. If anything, then it makes sense to merge men's rights movement into the men's movement page but certainly not the other way around. Also, Masculism (this page) and Men's rights should be constructed to reflect the reliable sources, and not as a reflection of some editors' mistaken opinion that they reflect feminism and women's rights. By the way, there's no coherent topic "men's rights" in the Western post 1970s sense of the word independent of the men's rights movement. Historically "men's rights" was used in the context of men's rights over women ("men's rights to beat their wives and to polygamy" [11], "Analyses of the paternalistic family system prevalent in many societies, indicates a conception of men's rights over women and their reproductive ability" [12], "Throughout the continent women are demanding to be heard, organising, questioning men's rights over them" [13]) or in the sense of "human rights" ("Hence, men's rights were human or universal rights and women's rights were an add-on" [14]). So that article would be very different from what you imagine. --SonicY (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

A complete article would of course delineate the distinctions and pedigrees among these various movements. It could do this better in a unified article than through a collection of articles barely above the status of stubs. Men's rights movement provides a blueprint of what to cover in a philosophical men's rights page, being the same issues only with the greater depth - afforded by being free of the WP:POVFUNNEL of having to link every claim with a specific advocacy organization. Rhoark (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"Criticisms and Responses"

This paragraph lists some attributes of masculism, it does not contain any criticism or responses to the movement. (Responses are cited but their arguments don't appear in the article.) This paragraph should be fleshed out to include some responses to the negative aspects of Masculism, and explain why they are negative.

This paragraph focuses on certain aspects of masculism such as the social influences of the division of labour, without addressing others such as sexual dimorphism. This cherrypicking does not create a convincing argument against masculism, and at the moment, does not create any argument at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.169.255 (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Major, un-discussed changes

Can we talk about this major revision of the page by Ga.lopez80? I am tempted to revert simply because this is an awful lot to change in one revision, and without discussion, however I don't want to rush to judgment. My concern is that the expanded "issues" list turns the article into a bit of a WP:COATRACK, and that the new revision gives undue weight to some MRA opinions/sources (see the false rape section, for example) without including opposing opinions/sources for proper weight.

Clearly a lot of work went into this, and I am happy to see a large number of useful sources being added, but it would have been much better to see these changes made and discussed individually rather than in one sweeping re-write of the article. What do people think of these changes? Fyddlestix (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It definitely reads as agenda driven. I agree with your thinking, it does appear to be WP:COATRACK so be WP:BOLD revert and then discuss the changes involved. Or still a biased POV tag on it. MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Added to this discussion. I was looking for verification of this statement, "Divorce courts are frequently like slaughter-houses..." which I didn't find because I didn't get access to p. 45, but what I did get access to, makes me question the context of that quote. Also, most of Ga.lopez80 changes are coming directly from here. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Men's_rights_and_issues MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 21:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. Seeing that has convinced me of the need to revert, and I have rolled back the article to the state it was in prior to Ga.lopez80's revisions. If anyone feels strongly that this was the wrong thing to do, I'm happy to discuss. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that Citizendium is published under a license concomitant to Wikipedia's and there is even a project to port material from there. Of course attribution should be given. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC).

Source given much weight

Melissa Blais and Francis Dupuis-Déri is cited no less than 12 times. Some of the things attributed to the source raise eyebrows, and constitute undue weight. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC).

Walking in circles about the beliefs of masculinists shows the lack of specificity in this article. The page does not clearly address any consistency to a belief system other than the gender of the supporters. The addition of what feminists think about masculinism is unnecessary and also confuses the reader about the points trying to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.206.151 (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Complete re-edit?

Hi,
this article appears a little chaotic; perhaps due to a lot of editing (?).
The paragraph setting out that some masculists believe gender roles are natural shouldn't be under Respones / Criticisms, for example, and the description of masculist anti-feminism shouldn't be headed "Feminism", but "Anti-feminism"; "Feminism", including the sections now appearing under "Definition" should be reserved for actual feminist/m responses, under the heading "Feminist/m responses" under Responses / Criticism; etc.
I could make a re-draft proposal, with no elimination or addition of material or references, if nobody objects.
T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the article is in rough shape. I'm down to review any redraft you would like to attempt, and I wouldn't be terribly concerned with whether it eliminated or added material, but whether it improved the article, which in it's current shape, shouldn't be terribly hard. Keep in mind that WP:NPOV is particularly important on...controversial articles like this one. It should be written about the topic, and not from the point of view of an adherent or proponent. TimothyJosephWood 12:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thank you; give me some time - I'll ping you, if I may, when I get to it. I propose to not change material because, truth be told, I have a soul that delights in Righting Great Soapboxes, except a) I see the rationale of WP rules and know that WP is NMBY, and b) I know a little about structuring writing; so, as in 'from each according to ability', I'd settle for just shuffling. T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

jan 21, 2016, Violation Of Men's Rights In Wikipedia Pages

jan 21, 2016, In the Men's Rights page we see that after complaints created by the men's activists as stated by the page there is another sentence that often states that the men's rights activists claims are wrong, but there is no such opposing claims after the feminist claim in the page in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism , where we can see feminists claims about women's rights being violated but without any opposing views, this is sheer discrimination against men in Wikipedia, on top of that the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism states in the Talk section that there may be punishment who would change the contents as more punishable than the Men's Rights page implying that the contents in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism page remain uncontested whereas Men's rights page may be changed including with feminist perceptive, We need to create a Sexism Against Men Wikipedia page, Thank you, Nayan Mipun, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayanmipun (talk • contribs) 18:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Pages and talk pages have various styles of protection put on them when they routinely get out of hand. As long as you are respectful, honest, and keep your edits to a protected talk page (such as this one) completely calm, you're not going to run into trouble. Jasphetamine (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Masculist vs. masculinist

I came here for a reference regarding the use of the Mars symbol in this context (no success). Now I wonder about the relation of masculist vs. masculinist. It would seem that technically, masculist is correct, if you derive it directly from Latin masculus (as opposed to English/French masculine). But in actual usage, it turns out that masculinist is much, much more widespread.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

It's not even close, google books gives me around a 1:20 to 1:30 ratio. It's even enough for google to give me a "did you mean" if I search for the more marginal variant.

So I would suggest that in keeping with WP:UCS the article should be edited to reflect this, and possibly moved (unless there are overbearing reasons neither I nor the current revision of the page is aware of). --dab (𒁳) 16:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Redraft

Hi,
Here is one attempt at a very simple redraft. Nothing has been removed, additions are marked (/this way/).

---

Sorry if just pasting it in here is not proper, seemed the only alternative.
Summary:
Moved up history, made own heading, before definition.
Gathered all "definition" under this heading; proposed rename "definition and description", to reflect material.
Structured "Response ..." section.
Moved "Anti-feminism" to "Criticism".
Feel free to be bold.
//History The term masculism was coined by Charlotte Perkins Gilman who used it a 1914 public lecture series titled "Studies in Masculism".[10][11] She used the term to refer to androcentrism and opposition to women's rights and, more broadly, to describe men's collective actions on behalf of their own sex.[10] The Oxford English Dictionary cites the first recorded use of the synonym masculinism in a The Freewoman article in November 1911.[12]
Definitions (/and descriptions/)
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines masculism as a synonym of masculinism which the OED regards as the "advocacy of the rights of men; adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, etc., regarded as typical of men; (more generally) anti-feminism, machismo."[4][5]
Masculism (sometimes called androcentrism) may refer to an approach that is focused on male superiority or dominance[18][19][20][21] to the exclusion of women.[1]
To the extent that masculism is associated with antifeminist masculinism, its primary focus is on "masculinity and the place of white heterosexual men in North America and European societies."[13]
Some masculinists believe that differentiated gender roles are natural. There is considerable evidence for social influences (e.g. gender division of labor, socialization) as the sole or primary origin of gender differentiation.[22][23] Furthermore, belief in inherent gender differences allows for inequality and for the dominant group to assert power by means of perceived difference.[22] Some parts of the masculinist movement have to some extent borrowed concepts of evolutionary psychology: this theory argues that adaptation during prehistory resulted in complementary but different roles for the different genders, and that this balance has been destabilized by feminism since the 1960s.[13]
Political scientist Georgia Duerst-Lahti distinguishes between the two words "masculism" and "masculinism", with masculism being more associated with the early gender egalitarian days of men's movement, while masculinism refers to patriarchy and its ideology.[6][7]
Philosopher Ferrell Christensen also differentiates the words "masculism" and "masculinism"; he defines the latter as promoting the attributes of manliness.[2] Christensen further differentiates "masculism" between a "progressive" 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 men.[2] The latter promotes male supremacy to some degree and is generally based on a belief in women's inferiority.
Nicholas Davidson, in his book The Failure of Feminism, describes an extremist version of masculism which he termed "virism". According to Davidson, in this view "What ails society is 'effeminacy'. The improvement of society requires that the influence of female values be decreased and the influence of male values increased…."[2][8]
Gender theories, which have frequently focused on woman-based or feminist approaches, have come to include a "masculism" approach which seeks to examine oppression in a masculinist society from the perspectives of men, most of whom do not benefit from that society.[9]
Topic areas of interest to masculism
Education
Many masculists suggest the abolition of co-educational schooling, believing that single-sex schools are preferred for the well-being of boys.[13]Other masculists and equity feminists indicate that boys are on the weaker side of an education gap. [14]
Employment
Data from 1994 in the U.S. reported that men make up 94% of workplace fatalities. Masculist Warren Farrell has argued that men are often clustered in dirty, physically demanding and hazardous jobs in an unjustifiably disproportionate manner.[3]
Violence against men
Masculists express concern about violence against men being depicted as humorous, in the media and elsewhere.[15] Masculists also express concern about violence against men being ignored, minimized, or taken less seriously than violence against women.[13][16] Some assert that there is gender symmetry in domestic violence.[13] Another concern expressed is that assumptions of female innocence or sympathy for women may result in disproportionate penalties for women and men for similar crimes,[15] lack of sympathy for male victims in domestic violence cases, and dismissal of female-on-male sexual assault and sexual harassment cases.
Custody
According to David Benatar, head of philosophy at the University of Cape Town, "Custody law is perhaps the best-known area of men's rights activism", as it is more likely in most parts of the world for the mother to obtain custody of children in case of divorce. He argues: "When the man is the primary care-giver his chances of winning custody are lower than when the woman is the primary care-giver. Even when the case is not contested by the mother, he's still not as likely to get custody as when the woman's claim is uncontested".[17]
Suicide
Masculists cite higher rates of suicide in men than women.[13]
Reactions and responses
Feminism
Feminists[who?] respond to the different ideologies of masculism in different ways. Masculists who promote gender equality are often considered male feminists.[24] It is the general opinion of modern feminists that masculism, when defined as "male superiority or dominance",[18] is inherently opposed to the equality cause and is a form of misogyny.[25]
From a feminist perspective to philosophy, masculinism seeks to value and include only male views, and claim "that anything that cannot be reduced or translated in men's experience should be excluded from the subject-matter of philosophy.[1]
Philosopher Ferrell Christensen states that if masculism and feminism refer to the belief that men/women are systematically discriminated against, and that this discrimination should be eliminated, there is not necessarily a conflict between feminism and masculism, and some assert that they are both.[2] However, many believe that one sex is more discriminated against, and thus use one label and reject the other.[2]
Criticism
Anti-Feminism
Some masculinist movements are explicitly antifeminist.[13] According to Blais and Dupuis-Déri, "the contents of [masculinist] websites and the testimony of feminists that we questioned confirm that masculinists are generally critical of even moderate feminists and feminists at the head of official feminist organizations."[13] Some masculinist activism has involved disruption of events organized by feminists and lawsuits against feminist academics, journalists, or activists.[13] Furthermore, masculinist actions are sometimes extreme; father's rights activists have bombed family courts in Australia and have issued bomb threats in the UK, although it is ambiguous whether there was public and organized militant group involvement.[13] They have also engaged in "tire-slashing, the mailing of excrement-filled packages, threats against politicians and their children."[13] Spokesmen for these groups have also spoken out against public awareness campaigns to prevent sexual assault, arguing that they portray a negative image of men, and one masculinist group harassed administrators of dozens of battered women's shelters and women's centers.[13]
//

---

T88.89.219.147 (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Where is the original wiki markup? I can show you how to paste it here and make it look right. It's a bit hard to follow in this format. TimothyJosephWood 15:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

if you can't do it on the live page via WP:BRD, I suggest you use a workpage. --dab (𒁳) 17:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of Mars symbol

Reviewing commons:Category:Masculism symbols, it appears that the Mars symbol is used extremely sparingly. There is no comparison with the feminist "Venus symbol with fist" symbol, which has been in use since the 1960s, and which has positively been spammed on Wikimedia commons. The only "gender" related use of the Mars symbol which seems widespread is the use of a double Mars symbol for male homosexuality.

Use of the Mars symbol for men's rights or masculinism appears to be rare and rather marginal. I found it as a symbol for "Men's day", apparently in use since 2011[15] (possibly 2009). That's it. The predilection for gender symbols seems to be rather limited to LGBT activism. --dab (𒁳) 17:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)