Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 02 created 24 November 2007 by Rorybowman (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC) If you would like to move a thread from here back to the main discussion page, please do so, being sure to copy the entire thread for continuity.

There seem to be an awful lot of unsourced/weasel statements in the "Differences in masculist ideology" section:

• Some feel the word describes a belief that...
• A more encompassing definition might be "a movement to empower males in society, and to redress discrimination against men."... (if this is a quote, it isn't attributed to anyone. If this is a consensus definition, there should be references somewhere.)
• Some masculists state that there is a covert matriarchy...
• some support a general leadership role for men, while others argue for relative equality between the genders...
• Conservative masculists tend to believe that...
• Critics of gender equality laws believe...
• conservative masculists tend to consider...
• They claim this has achieved...
• Liberals tend to view masculism...
• Some feminists believe that...

I'm new here and a bit reluctant to post the weasel words tag on a controversial article, but I think that this section really deserves it. It could really be tightened up a lot with a few references. Should I be bold and tag it? - Dawn bard 13:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

removed the part about circumcision as female circumcision can by no means by compared to the effects of male circumcision.

Szandor72 00:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're intending to say that female circumcision can be done with little interference to their sexual function, you're confusing "Female Circumcision" as performed in regions of the world and removal of the female clitoral hood. The later is done *only* in the case that a female's clitoral hood interfers directly and immediately with her ability to experience sexual sensations. Female Circumcision however is a barbaric practice that typically removes the ability of a female to have any meaningful sexual sensation. This isn't saying that male circumcision isn't barbaric, just that "female circumcision" is very drastic, and damaging, and while the male circumcision is also very damaging, it doesn't completely remove their ability to feel sexual sensations. --Puellanivis 00:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and yes, I was referring to the barbaric practice only. Nevertheless I re-edited the part on Circmucision as to make it clear, that we are talking about non-medical circumcision (out of religious motives for example) and not about the treatment of phimosis for instance. I think that needed clarification. In fact, I think it still needs some work. The implications of male circumcision are not nearly as drastic but the article tries to put them on the same level. Yet I cannot think of a fast way to fix that without disbalancing the article. Also edited the gov.uk link as it wasn't working Szandor72 11:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Our job on this site is not really to evaluate their stance and properly assess everything, and only include those things that are appropriate, but rather to distribute the information as a whole. There are men who feel that they have been fundamentally mutalated without their choice, while they were a child. While explaining the differences between male circumcision and female "circumcision" is more a contrary point rather than a proponent point. Perhaps a sentence afterwards explaining briefly the levels of impact from the typical male vs female genital surgeries would be appropriate. Something to give full context that "hey, female 'circumcision' is a poor choice of terms considering that the full mutilation and removal of sexual response in women receiving it is not comparable to the continued sexual response from males receiving a circumcision." In fact, the link for female circumcision actually directs to "Female genital cutting" not "Female circumcision", which redirects to "Female genital cutting". --Puellanivis 16:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It always amuses me that we men allow feminists to tar us, rightly, with violence/domestic violence claims but we make no counterclaims about female use of sex as a weapon. Is there a place for a piece on Vice/domestic vice here?

This is an encyclopedia article on an ideology, so unless there is a reference within or around the ideology about this, I don't see much that has not been covered more thoroughly in domestic violence. The Lysistrata question is a separate one, which is covered to a certain extent within rape culture, but other than tedious he-said/she-said or assertions that "she was asking for it," I don't really see how it is relevant. Perhaps one of the external links would be a better place to note and expand on these views. A useful guideline for such questions generally is the article Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You might also find a forum through Wikinfo at [1] Thanks for asking. Rorybowman 18:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right here, but let's go just a little further. Men are always accused of being more violent. However, it is my experience that women are just as likely to use physical violence. Men are far less likely to report it, however. Policemen usually laugh at a man who accuses a woman of violence. This of course is unconstitutional. Every person is guaranteed equal protection under the law in the constitution. Nevertheless, men are not only not given protection, they are disallowed to protect themselves. If a woman is struck, she has every right to protect herself. Boys learn at a very early age that they cannot hit back.

The societal abuse of men goes even deeper. If a woman is distrought, at the end of her rope, etc. she is comforted. Officials (police, emergency medical technicians, etc.) will comfort, console and show sympathy towards her. A man on the other hand will be likely to be met with contempt.

As a personal example, I was taking an antidepressant medication and then abruptley stopped. As a result, I went into withdrawal and had something that I can only discribe as a type of fit. I was hyperventilating and crying uncontrollably. I didn't know if I was going to passout or not so I called 911. The emergency medical technicians were visably embarrassed at finding a 6' tall adult man uncontrollably weeping. They were unable to offer any sympathy and were only interested in getting my medical insurance information. They did not take my bloodpressure or do any diagnostic proceedure.

It is bad enough to be ill, but to be made to feel embarassed for being ill, that is the cruelest, and society should never allow this to happen.

On a positive note. The "fit" only lasted 12 hours or so, and I have been fine without the antidepressant medication since.

24.206.125.213 09:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI

I subtly changed the wording under the criticisms section. It's important we be sensitive - directly linking suicide to "macho" trivializes the reasons people kill themselves. I understand what the writer is saying - that macho attitudes may prevent a person from seeking help - but it needed to be changed slightly.

I'd like to add that I think the section misunderstands suicide in general. First of all, the statistics that show women make far more attampts and men have far more success - consider that an unsuccessful woman will live to make possibly many more attempts, whereas a successful man dies the first time. One woman, then, may make 10 non-successful attempts during her lifetime, whereas a man may die the first time. This alone may account for the statistical difference in attempts.

Furthermore, suicide is often linked to mental illness, with men suffering more of the most serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. I think this is more significant than "machismo." If it were really a matter of not seeking help, wouldn't that also apply to women who attempt suicide rather than seeking help?

The whole section on criticisms seems to be more of one person's feminist-oriented opinion rather than a referenced list of criticisms (although the rest of the article is somewhat like that too). Some of the points are not criticisms of masculism at all. There are many legitimate criticisms outside of the writer's view. The whole article could use more objectivity; it's too much of a sounding board (I confess to have contributed to this). 24.64.223.203 10:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be masculinism and masculinists instead of masculists and masculism? Google thinks so [2]. They all sound dumb imho, but the first pair, less so. Are these even noted in a dictionary yet anyway?--Deglr6328 09:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think it's because there's a movement called "Masculinism" that someone trademarked and a lot a "masculits" disagree with some of the ideas it puts forth.12.17.189.77 04:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

well basically, it breaks down like this. There is feminism. There is stuff that's feminine. But ther is no femininism. There is masculism. There is stuff that's masculine. But masculinism doesn't really make much sense, grammatically, if it attempts to be a parrallel or counterpart to feminism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.93.211.192 (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

That's the way I see it too. "Masculism" is more compact and sensible than "Masculinism," and since the article is already Masculism, it's just another reason to keep it. I vote on keeping it Masculism.Robinson0120 06:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I challenge anyone to cite a single author, a self-described opponent of masculism, who argues that masculism is misogynistic. It is virtually impossible to derive the allegation from the article. --Thomi 16:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Was your last sentence meant to be sarcastic? Are you saying that masculinism is misogynistic? I read that in the article, and I'm really close to just scrapping the statement as more feminazi rant. On the other hand, if someone were to tell me that the feminist movement infringes on the rights of males, then I would wholeheartedly agree with them, so I guess I'll leave it. Salva 00:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It definitely was not meant to be humorous or insulting. At this point, the reference to misogyny is a little bit of a potential cheap shot in favour of feminism. Some may think this and some may think that, for now, the section is suspect. What I'm saying is that masculism, as far as this article description goes, is not misogynistic. --Thomi 20:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The latest installment deserves, IMHO, a comment, if only to keep track of the article's evolution. If it was suspect before, it is now downright absurd, saying: "Some critics of Masculism's, among them most sociologists, do claim that the ideology is not only antifeminist, but has a downright misogynist tendency." --Thomi 20:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? I have given one source, and all sociological sources except one I know say that. Maybe there are some I missed out? I am from Germany, so maybe the reception here is different, but I used American and Australian sources mainly, a masculism is not really noted in Gemany on a scientific level. Please give other sources where sociologists say something different. --BarbD 20:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

To this moment, I have not seen any such citations. And BTW, if you yourself have doubts about how masculism is treated at an international level, please be careful when talking about "most sociologists" or so. So link/cite right after the text if you can. --Thomi 21:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really doubt that it is true what I say but I know I don't know everything and so if you proof that there are sociologists who have different opinions please give us the sources! Thanks. --BarbD 21:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't know what sociologists think. The burden of proof is on those who claim to so do. That's your ilk, friend. --Thomi 21:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

So well, then it is your job to read the sources I gave maybe you'll learn something new :). --BarbD 21:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I notice a link has been attached. Now, I've read through the source of yours and nowehere could I see it saying that most sociologists believe masculism to be misogynistic. --Thomi 21:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are really quick - although you have no idea of sociology you read over 20 pages in a few minutes. Wow!!! Well then, of course it doesn't say this. But you will find the same thing with all other sociological sources I know, like Michael Kimmel, or Hugo Schwyzer. I am a sociologist myself and it sounds very plausible from my point of view. But that doesn't matter here - so if you know there are sociologists who see it in a different way - please let us all share the texts! --BarbD 22:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No idea of sociology, you say. You have now insulted me.

I said once and I will say again; all sources you know does not amount to most sources, necessarily. The one you first handed out talked about male "privileges" with very little discussion on what that means. So it was quite feminist, rather than a neutral article. It barely mentions, or fails to mention "sociology" or "misogyny".

Surely you are not suggesting that Wikipedia users spend hours reading 'between the lines' of your slogans, going through whole shelves of books to locate the actual survey (which is the kind of evidence that the claim calls for, ultimately) which established that "most sociologists believe masculism misogynistic". --Thomi 22:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Insulted you? Well you wrote: I don't know what sociologists think. I have no idea about car repair or chemistry and I don't comment on car repair or chemistry and say this and that is wong. And I don't feel insulted if people say I have no idea if I admit this myself. What slogans are you talking about? If you don't bother reading the article if it takes you more than two minutes and you have to strain your brain a little bit it's not my fault. So your revert was vandalism. --BarbD 15:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you came to show that you counted your article as sociology, and as far as such goes, I do have some good knowledge; for example I know that your last article did in no way support the misogyny claim, while it was somewhat misandrist at worst. It's not vandalism to eradicate deception IMHO. As it reads "many sociologists" now, I have to say that may be a more honest thing to say, while even that may very well be quite misleading, if not equally unsupported.

Certainly it is interesting that in the "Feminism" article, reference to potential misandry is under the criticism section, and it does not refer to "sociologists" or "researchers" (while it appears proven that outright misandry has made its way to universities, to certain extent) to lend the claim a cloud of increased plausibility. The balance could very well be quite off. --Thomi 17:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about any feminism article her. And you gave no proper reason why you reverted my changes again. This is vandalism, you know that. I only wrote "many sociologists this time to compromise, as defenitely alll sociologists I know do that. But maybe I missed out on something. So you don't seem to be bothered to find sources for your claims - is it becaus you can't or why? --BarbD 21:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We ought to talk about the feminism article for comparison. You're giving male-hating a free ride. How can it be relevant in the introduction anyway? --Thomi 16:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This has *nothing* to do with the feminism artikel. We write about *masculism*. --BarbD 16:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Page 271 (or page 11 of the linked Adobe file)
  part of chapter twenty-one as allegedly written by Michael Flood, Ph.D.

  What’s wrong with men’s rights?
  
  In general, “men’s rights” is an anti-feminist and sometimes
  misogynist (woman-hating) backlash. Its analysis is wrong, its
  strategies are misdirected and sometimes harmful, and ultimately
  it does not serve men well. There are legitimate aspects to the
  issues it raises, but they will not be addressed when surrounded
  by its hostile and sexist agendas.

Well, there is one person out there who believes that Masculism is to be aligned with pro-sexist/anti-feminist goals. However, the use of "many sociologists" to describe the critics is rather vague... a so-called weasel word at best. Perhaps we could provide additional examples of persons who align "Men's Rights" with anti-feminist values, or change the wording of that sentence to say...

Some critics of Masculism's, among them Dr. Michael Flood, claim that the ideology is not only antifeminist, but has a downright misogynist tendency

Signed --Ted 03:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Kimmel, sociologist, holds the same view. I say this as I have read some of his work (however I admit I can't pull any exact quote up at the moment. I didn't know I'd have to be explaining it to Wiki one day.). That is just from my personal experience, for what it's worth. Haven't, that I remember, read anything of one Hugo Schwyzer where he states his views as much. But I can look. NeoApsara 17:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said, Hugo Schwyzer does, Robert Connell does. I don't know any academic author involved with men's studies who doesn't - that's why I was asking for sources with other views. That would be better than single out Michael Flood as someone who is exceptionally critical of masculism. He shares a certain sociological position. --BarbD 17:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. Why allegedly written by Michael Flood??? Sorry, but isn't that a bit paranoid?

I agree with you, I was just attempting to calm the flames. I would add Carol Tavris to it, as well, except she never flat-out states it ... which is the source of some of this back and forth for some reason. NeoApsara 20:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In general, the preponderance of gender-balanced scientific and empirical evidence consistently finds no significant differences (i.e. > 4%) between the sexes in any of human nature's most fundamental attributes. In other words, males and females are equally intelligent, achievement-oriented, emotional/empathic, compassionate/loving, phsically/psychologically violent, dominant/aggressive, and so forth overall. The sexes certainly tend to express these most basic underlying characteristics very differently on the surface, but these equalize themselves as well. Thus, every positive or negative quality exhibited in one of the sexes is inevitably offset by a similar trait in the other sex.

Sounds like feminazi rant to me. Do we have a citation for this? I just read in TIME not long ago that men scored higher than women on standardized tests, etc. If the femo-communists that run TIME admit it themselves, then it must be true... Salva 00:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur. I suggest looking into "Feminism and Freedom" by Michael Levin. He makes some very good points on this very topic. 72.39.119.199 01:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read that the average score was the same, however males are more likely to be on the extreme (geniuses or idiots).:: And I assume you're being sarcastic about TIME being communist....

Yes, Salva, you're right- it is poorly masked feminazi garbage. (How could you possibly prove something like that? I mean, how could somebody possibly measure the average skills and abilities of an entire population?) The "Genius Idiot" statement is also right, statistically speaking. Robinson0120

Robinson, I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not but we have the entire field of descriptive statistics precisely so that we can accurately "measure the average skills and abilities of an entire population". In fact, none of the natural or social sciences could hope to get very far at all without the use of such techniques. Vectro 05:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This topic is controversial and has received many edits. I see some left-over cruft from vandalism reverts, misspellings, copy-edit issues, uncited and potentially NPOV statements. I have quoted some parts of the article below for further criticism.

Feminist critics of masculism often claim that the ideology is not only antifeminist (where many masculists would agree), but misogynist.

• I would like to see some supporting evidence for this statement. For all I know, the editor who assumed this got the idea when s/he was eavesdropping on a conversation at Starbucks (original research). Perhaps a citation to a feminist-related organization/essay/press release/document comparing Masculism to anti-feminism/misogyany would suffice?

In general, the preponderance of gender-balanced scientific and empirical evidence consistently finds no significant differences (i.e. > 4%) between the sexes in any of human nature's most fundamental attributes. In other words, males and females are equally intelligent, achievement-oriented, emotional/empathic, compassionate/loving, phsically/psychologically violent, dominant/aggressive, and so forth overall. The sexes certainly tend to express these most basic underlying characteristics very differently on the surface, but these equalize themselves as well.

• Where did you read or hear that? What "empirical evidence" shows this?

Signed and tagged --Ted 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the mysogynist comment needs to go. This article needs a lot of work. I'll pitch in what I can, but I'm not an expert on masculinism, (or feminism, for that matter,) so assuring that the article remains NPOV is pretty much the best I can do. Salva 01:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem admitting that some masulists are mysogynists and that some feminists are man haters. When one believes that a different human group has been or is being unfair to his or her group, a certain amount of hatred is bound to exist. It does not seem to me, however, that hatred is a necessary component in a masculist or feminist philosophy. As an ideal, we should be trying to foster equality for the sexes. When men treat women unfairly, it should be pointed out and the same for when women treat men unfairly. Of course the wikipedia article on feminism should also have a similar statement for fairness. The NPOV tutorial suggests that the best way to make an article NPOV is to include all POVs as long as they can be substantiated.

24.206.125.213 09:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI

Whatever you say, pal. Salva 01:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see how the new changes are relevant to masculist concerns. They seem to discuss gender differences more than anything. Could this perhaps be tightened up? The points that were previously in a list should probably be made into full sentences now, also. Dysprosia 01:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

“Thus we find males commonly performing the more strenuous or unpleasant jobs, attending to longer-term resource and shelter needs, and physically defending their intimates - up to and including risking their lives in war. And we similarly find women tending to provide for the more immediate needs intimates, like nourishment, attention, and provisioning, as well as seek to avoid danger or treat injuries.”

What does this have to do with anything? It kind of just sits there and goes nowhere as far as an argument for/against masculism. Also, it failed to mention that females are restricted from combat in war by law. I’ll delete this, but if anybody sees it relevant then I apologize; just put it back.

“In general, the preponderance of gender-balanced scientific and empirical evidence - as reported in most developmental psychology texts - consistently finds no significant differences (i.e. > 4%) between the sexes in any of human nature's most fundamental attributes.[2] In other words, literally hundreds, if not thousands of studies spanning many decades find males and females to be equally intelligent, achievement-oriented, emotional and empathic, compassionate and loving, physically and psychologically violent, dominant and aggressive, and so forth. In a meta-analysis of 1500 studies in 1974, Eleanor Maccoby and Carol Jacklin found only four areas of differences between the sexes: verbal ability (+F); spatial relations (+M); math ability (+M); and physical aggression (+M). Since than, differences in verbal and math abilities have disappeared; and physical aggression was found to have been equal. (Note: This meta-study did not incorporate non-physical forms of aggression.) On the other hand, the sexes certainly tend to express the same basic underlying characteristics very differently on the surface. But these manifest differences also ultimately equalize and counter-balance one-another. Thus, every positive or negative surface quality or trait exhibited in one of the sexes is inevitably offset by a similar trait in the other sex.

In other words, the major dual-gender and generalizable studies offer little, if any, support for the feminist hypotheses that men: (1) inflict greater or more severe spousal abuse; (2) sexually assault members of either sex or children more often; or (3) are more dominate, competitive, or socially, economically, and politically powerful.”

What? What does this have to do with masculism, what is the argument from the masculist point of view or otherwise then? That we are equal? That feminists are wrong? Both? First of all, this person fails to factor in what is environmental and what is innate which is the thrust of the argument among and within masculists and it's critics. Secondly, there are statistics and documentations that show men inflict greater or more spousal abuse (see men's rights); they aren’t “feminist” this, that, or anything, they aren’t hypothesizes (although feminist hypothese without backing may exist). This person is inaccurately not taking aggression into context also. I’ll delete this one, too, at least until somebody comes up with more citations and NPOV.

“For example, while males are 100% more physically violent with non-intimates, several dozens of major dual-gender studies (in addition to Strauss and Gelles) - and even most today's "gender" psychology texts ^[1] - report that women perpetrate the same degree and level of domestic violence as men.”

This is already spoken about in the Men's rights [3] [4] section.

“Other smaller studies typically show women typically inflict 50% more elder abuse, 100% more child abuse, and are 50-100% more psychologically or indirectly aggressive. Dual-gender sexual assault studies commonly find that for every three females who report being raped by a male, one male reports being so assaulted by a female.”

Didn’t this person just say that women are more likely to be care-givers? There is a disproportionate amount of women caring for people than there are men and this person didn’t show things on a proportionate basis. The problem this creates, among misrepresentation, is that even if it shows women inflict "more abuse" it will also show they inflict less abuse. Until somebody shows some citations, I’ll delete this. I especially hope they’ll come up with a coherent argument.

“but the studies also consistently find that males fail to report such attacks by women three times as often as females.”

Where? There should be some reference here because some studies actually find, albeit in the United States and Canada, that men are more likely to report an intimate partner assault than a woman.

"Beginning in the 1980’s, women cast ~15% more votes than men in our national elections. Government officials obviously gain and retain their offices by satisfying the majority of their constituents, which clearly include more women then men. And when we think about all of the concrete examples from our legal history over the last 50-75 years, has the long-term trend actually reflected a male or a female legislative orientation?"

This looks a bit more like commentary POV than objectivity. There are more women than there are men; for all we know, since the women‘s movement in the 1970s, more women have been voting. With politics it does not necessarily amount to women being “satisfied” being that choices are limited to the officials nominated.

That last part if more of an insinuation than anything, as if the commentator is implying a POV on the policies that are “obviously” geared towards women. Some groups would say over the last 50-75 years, women have merely gained rights equal to that of men.

“Marketers also commonly report that women control approximately 75% the decision-making that directs our nation’s domestic economy (and thus much of our culture). Hence would it be safe to say that feminine perspectives would have the greatest influence on factors like product design; advertising and sales campaigns; media, publications, or programming content; and even financing, saving, and investment matters? Factors such as these seem to render the feminist proposition that a Patriarchy existed at any time during the last 50-75 years doubtful.”

There is no citation and the claims are suspect when worded as “control approximately 75% the decision-making that directs our nation’s domestic economy”, which appears to be deliberately vague (what exactly are the decisions they make? Does it really effect our economy? Who decides?) and hugely lacking in distribution (is it because women make up most domestic work and therefore purchase products for their families? If that is true, it is not necessarily going to show a gear towards women). I’ll delete this part unless somebody here can make it clear, objective, and inclusive of all possible factors because I don’t even know what this person is trying to use to convey their message. NeoApsara 21:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A lot of those numbers also seemed strangely round. 50%? 100%? Exactly? Really? --Zagsa 00:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Some masculists (due to it being highly disputed) cite a lower incidence for all child development risk factors in single-father households than in single-mother ones. Furthermore, if women's expectation of full custody contributes to family breakups (the majority of which are initiated by women), then the expectation of custody by the father might reduce the divorce rate"

I edited in the part about the lower incidence risk factor being disputed as it appears the person is trying to get around including the variables (and contradicatory statistics based on men's rights free-flowing advocacy research and child advocacy research) that contribute to the "risk factors" instead substituting it with saying "some masculists cite...".

Also, I call a verbal dispute with saying, "family breakups (the majority of which are initiated by women)" as, again, it appears to be a slick way of using words to be vauge enough not to represent actual facts (lest they be called on it) yet insinuative enough to get a message across. Women initiate the majority of divorces, not the actual reason to get the divorce. Further equating divorce with the break-up of the family is POV. Also, they failed to cite statistics on why the women initiate divorce (if I recall correctly, the majority of divorces - men or women initiating them - are due to an affair, but don't quote me on that; I'll have to read up again) and also should have instead said that some masculists believe women initiate divorce because they believe they'll get custody, instead of "if women's expectation of full custody" without any background. Further the subsequent comment about fathers and divorce is fallacious. I'll delete it but leave it up here in case somebody can word it better.NeoApsara 23:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The intro should be a straightforward synopsis of what masculism is. In order to avoid emotionally-charged opinions, I suggest references to feminism be included in other sections. People on both sides have been incorporating too much opinion into the article. Please keep in mind the goal of keeping it encyclopedic, so that people who look up the article are informed rather than subject to the needs of writers.

Changes I think should be made in the intro:

1. "that are either antifeminist or very critical of feminism"

-- this attempts to define masculism in feminist terms, rather than providing a more generic definition. Masculism is not just a response to feminism. It includes issues that are specific to men, such as conscription, socialization of men, and men's health. The writer has attempted to limit the definition of masculism to their own ideology, which makes it a personal opinion. Should be under the "criticisms of masculism" section.

I also think it's unfortunate to insist that masculists are necessarily anti-feminist. Many are supporters of feminism.

2. "They typically admit to some claims of feminism, usually on the field of legal equality such as right to vote etc. Many challenge the amount to which women have been limited and disadvantaged historically, and seek to add the male experience of gender role limitation and disadvantage to the equation. Most consider the claims of the Second wave of feminism as going too far and being gynocentric."

-- this is a criticism of feminism, not an overview of masculism. It should be included in a separate "criticisms of feminism" section. Such a section would help the article to come across as less anti-feminist, allowing the rest of the article to describe men's issues that are important in their own right, separate from feminism. Furthermore, "most" in the last sentence has not been substantiated.

3. "Some critics of masculism, among them many sociologists, claim that the ideology is not only antifeminist, but has a downright misogynist tendency."

-- this is an opinion (using what Wikipedia calls weasel words: 'some critics...claim'). Certain people's opinions of a movement normally don't go in the intro. It would work better in the "criticisms of masculism" section.

The intro would then read like this:

Masculism (also referred to as "masculinism") is a term relating to a number of ideologies found in the streams of the men's movement. It consists of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies primarily based on the experiences of men. Although masculism provides a general critique of social relations, many of its proponents also seek to analyze gender inequality and promote men's rights, interests, and issues. Masculism is viewed by its proponents as being an egalitarian view of gender issues, but with the focus on men's experience.

I think that's a succinct overview. Everything else should be in later sections. Comments, please. Roger 00:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that it should be defined in the first few sentences on its own terms, I think its relation to feminism belongs in the intro too. Many strands of masculism are not anti-feminist, but masculism is historically a reaction to feminism. (Even the name is an inversion of 'feminism'). Ashmoo 06:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree very strongly with that. Masculism is an ideology found in the Men's Movement. The Men's Movement I would say, not masculism, is a reaction to feminism. --Berserk798 19:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but the Warren Farrell article says that he started masculism and came directly from the feminist movement, starting his masculist writings after becoming disillusioned with (certain aspects of) feminism. Ashmoo 23:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Warren Farrell was the first to use the term 'masculist', but if you read the history section you will see that masculism did not begin with him. I suppose that masculism did start in response to feminism, but by reverting the intro to what it was we would be saying that masculism is specifically and limited to being against feminism. I think that we should try to avoid saying that in the article, because there is quite a bit more to it than that. --Berserk798 19:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that the start of the history of masculism begins with the first protest to feminism? Masculism is not merely anti-feminist. I'm sure celebration of manhood and masculinity and development of the masculist philosophy (precisely what masculism is) has occured long before the first protest to feminism. --Berserk798 01:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you watch this program enough, you will quickly see how older men are often told that they are lucky to get off so easily when a younger girlfriend does not repay money, etc. But if an older woman is in a similar position with a younger man. Judge judy will yell at the boy and try to emasculate him on camera. She is one of the worst examples of female chauvenism on television. I believe that her view on these social issues is universal within the justice system. Is there a good way to work this in to the article?

24.206.125.213 09:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI

Robinson0120 Ahh... that's everywhere in the media, though. I think I added something in an article about how men were negatively portrayed in commercials, so perhaps you could add it as a combination of the two. (Men being negatively portrayed/attacked in mainstream media.)

- Social science textbooks generally report boys tend to participate in rough-and-trouble, and more group-oriented activities. The masculinist's view would emphasize that these qualities are not necessarily the same as or the precursor of violence, domination, or competitiveness. Girls, on the other hand, tend to be involved in more one-on-one, verbal, and emotion-oriented activities. While some boys become physical bullies, just as many girls bully psychologically. ^[2] Such texts also describe males as being 20-25% larger and stronger, having abundant reproductive potential, and tending to be socialized to fulfill the adult roles of "provider-protectors" with respect to their communities or homes, and women or children. Females, on the other hand, have bodies designed for gestation, more limited generative potential, and are acculturated for the adult role as "nurturer-caregivers" with respect to their children, men, parents, and household. Factors like these establish the propensity for developing distinctive ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving for each of the sexes.

This has been up for a while, but it is a bit obscure and has sat uncited for a while now. I'll delete it but will leave it here if somebody can re-word it or think of a way to incorporate it somehow.:NeoApsara

This article seems to favour feminism... The Criticisms section for example is SUBSTANTIALLY larger then the corresponding section in the feminist article… - Wikipedian 07-06-06

Which is pretty sad, considering that the feminists have their own article and a few people justify the slight bias in THAT article by writing "the article reads FEMINISM, so it's okay!" I wonder what happened to that yarn about "equality." Robinson0120

Under the criticims section, shouldn't there be some mention of the vast number of programs and scholarships that are women only, and the lack thereof of the compliment? It seems that when men are doing better in a certain area (Math/Science, test scores) a whole slew of programs develop trying to promote the advancement of women in these areas, but when men are worse in an area there are no programs, and even is often seen as a victory not only for women, but the human race. I don't know if there's any history, but I also higly suspect that if men-only scholarships were to come out, we would see the same backlash that we see with white only scholarships--Howeman 14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't belong in the criticism section because it isn't a criticism, rather an issue. You'd have to find citations, links, etc. (if you can), show that it is a masculist issue and not one of your own and certainly omit your opinion about something being seen as a "human race victory", but otherwise put it under education. NeoApsara 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now this section reads like a direct response to the rest of the article, answering almost point for point the issues noted earlier in the article. While I certainly agree that the criticism section is worthwhile and of-note, it should be reorganized into a more coherant, less point-counterpoint fashion.

I'm thinking that perhaps instead of keeping many of the individual points, the majority of this could probably be summed up with a small paragraph.Lankybugger 19:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I've trimmed down the criticisms section, mainly by removing the "For example" which ran on to list pretty much every issue raised within the article. It's not an example if it's everything, and if it's critisizing everything in essentially the same manner it doesn't need to be listed. I'd like some thoughts on this, please. Lankybugger 20:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted a few argumentative points or parts of points. That whole section needs to be sourced, cited, or agreed upon. If not, it should have a tag in front of it. NeoApsara 02:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

“(as Cathy Young articulates, "the dogma that "women never lie" means that there is, for all intents and purposes, no presumption of innocence for the defendant")”

By that same token, you can say, “the presumption of innocence until proven guilty can amount to the alleged victim lying until proved to be telling the truth”. Could this be just a general complaint that can’t be proved either way, or is it a real tangible issues?

“men being charged in rape and sexual harassment cases when there is no evidence beyond the plaintiff's complaint”

See above. Can’t you say that is true in the case of just about anything? If somebody is accused of murder and a jury indicts, the evidence may not be significant enough for Jane and Joe on the street, but perhaps the word from somebody is good enough for the jury. Can that really be considered a “masculist” concern when it isn’t sex-specific?

“media depiction of violence against men as either acceptable (e.g., Thelma and Louise, extras killed in movies are almost always men) or humourous (e.g., castration, striking of testicles); or societal acceptance of violence against men (e.g., acquittal of Lorena Bobbitt)”

This is POV; you can’t really say that is a societal acceptance of violence against men. In this case, it was decided the woman was under duress from a guy whom we now know is a multiple spouse-beater. Whether that counts as “societal acceptance” or not is POV. And Thelma and Louise, the people who shot the guy after he tried to rape one of them?! Are you kidding me? Isn’t there a better example? That is POV.

“; belief that children's growth is fostered more by mothers than fathers “

Is there a citation? That is appears to be a straw-man.

“men are at the mercy of women who are not honest about their use of birth control or their intentions should they become pregnant. Victims may have to sacrifice life goals due to years of support payments and/or parenting obligations. Conversely, men may not be informed that they are fathers, or be left out of adoption decisions.”

Blatantly POV and deceptive. The problem with much of this is the fact that men have birth control options too. Being at the “mercy” of women requires a man to either not use a condom or get a vasectomy or say he has no control over whom he sleeps with. “Victims” is POV.

“culture that conditions males to feel bad about being male (eg. reading about prolific rape)”

This needs a citation. Are there seriously men who feel bad about themselves whent heyr ead about other men raping women? It is worded funny, too. Then, what, there should be no discussion about rape ebcause it makes men feel bad?

“men reluctant to marry are labeled with ‘fear of commitment’ while women making a similar decision are ‘maintaining their independence’”

Is there a citation or survey or anything on this? By the same token you can say, “women who don’t want to marry are seen as sluts; men who don’t as studs”.

“Women hired, promoted, or given raises over more deserving men, because employers fear lawsuits.”

Is there an actual study, or is it a fear of a hypothetical?

“Sexual Harassment laws which create double-standards, and create a hostile-working environment for men by keeping them on-edge, and limiting their freedom of speech (and even freedom of sight)”

What laws and what are the examples of limiting men’s “freedom of sight” (which is POV)?

I've deleted those parts for now as they've been sitting there for months. If there are citations or better ways to word them, they'll be sitting here waiting. NeoApsara 16:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Actually not all of them have been there for months. Just yesterday I spent a fair bit of time removing unsubstantiated statements from three of the sections. I also added some points that you have removed.

I agree with some of the changes you've made. At the same time, I think you have removed some statements because you personally don't like or agree with them. Some of the comments are meant to be POV, that is, a masculist POV, because that's what the article is about. The article has to inform people what masculist believe, even if you disagree. Here are some examples:

as Cathy Young articulates, "the dogma that "women never lie" means that there is, for all intents and purposes, no presumption of innocence for the defendant"

men being charged in rape and sexual harassment cases when there is no evidence beyond the plaintiff's complaint

These concerns relate to whether men accused of rape have fair trials. They are very significant to masculists, so belong in the article. You have given some reasons why you disagree with masculists, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be in the article. Many men would disagree with you that sexual assault cases are treated the same as other crimes, or that it isn't sex-specific. They would agrue that sexual assault cases require less evidence than other cases specifically because the perpetrators are men and the victims women; and that the desire to protect women combined with a lack of concern for due process for men results in sexual assault being the only crime for which there is no presumption of innocence. You might disagree, and I'm not sure I entirely agree, but the concern is listed because it is part of masculism.

Re: Bobbitt/Thelma and Louise: This is POV; you can’t really say that is a societal acceptance of violence against men. In this case, it was decided the woman was under duress from a guy whom we now know is a multiple spouse-beater. Whether that counts as “societal acceptance” or not is POV. And Thelma and Louise, the people who shot the guy after he tried to rape one of them?! Are you kidding me? Isn’t there a better example? That is POV.

It is masculist POV, and again, masculist beliefs are supposed to be in the article. Probably the best-known masculist, Warren Farrell (whatever you might think of him), specifically used the example of Thelma and Louise. The violence he referred to was throughout the movie, such as the women blowing up the truck. I can see that a lot of people would sympathize with the women murdering the rapist, or with Lorena Bobbitt; but regardless, neither instance can really be considered self-defence; both were acts of revenge. Perhaps, though it has more to do with people's acceptance of revenge in extreme cases than it has to do with men, so maybe there is a better example than Bobbitt.

belief that children's growth is fostered more by mothers than fathers

I had thought this was self-evident. The emphasis on motherhood is both a feminist and masculist concern. To paraphrase Kramer vs. Kramer, "the judge went with motherhood the whole way."

Being at the “mercy” of women requires a man to either not use a condom or get a vasectomy or say he has no control over whom he sleeps

It's true that men can use condoms, and so do have birth control options (though I would not expect anyone to have a vasectomy until he was ready), but I still think a man is a victim if his partner and him agree to not use a condom under the understanding she is using birth control, and she doesn't (possibly because she wants to become pregnant); and besides, birth control is not always effective. I have control over who I sleep with, and I might choose to do so only with women who say they're on the pill, or who say they definitely would have an abortion if pregnant, and if deceived, I would be a victim. Again, you don't have to agree, but it is a men's concern.

I agree with the rest of your deletions; I was going to get to them myself. It takes credibility away from both the article and masculism if unsubstantiated claims are made. At the same time, I think your own bias as a feminist and as a woman might make it hard for you to understand where men are coming from (just as men may not see women's views). It takes a long time for many people of either gender to see the other side.

Unfortunately, as the top of this page says, these are emotionally-charged issues, and few of us can deal with them without having reactions. The article has become a lightning-rod for men with beefs, and that detracts from it. At the same time, having looked at some of your comments on this page, I hope you don't mind if I say I think you too need to take a step back. Political perspectives can be highly emotionally addictive, and that is true for both feminists and masculists.

Hopefully we can get some comments from other people and some consensus on changes. I hope anyone making suggestions also thinks about two things: having a credible article (not just beefs), and dealing with our own baggage before we edit. 24.68.180.163 09:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In general the bullet-pointed issues have been sitting there for months, in any of their forms, with no citations or links or anything. The same thing happened in the feminism section and they were completely taken down. There needs to be more than an assertion that masculists, even from their point of view, believe this and not just somebody coming and saying, “here is what they believe”. There can’t just be arbitrary bullet-points to embody a whole movement.

“These concerns relate to whether men accused of rape have fair trials. They are very significant to masculists, so belong in the article. You have given some reasons why you disagree with masculists, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be in the article.”

What I believe or what you believe is besides the point; it should just be stated that there is a fear men don’t have the option for a fair trial. With a link to it being explained by a masculist. With Cathy Young, she is just talking about a dogma she believes exists and disagrees with, which is fine in of itself. However, for this section, it doesn’t make much sense to merely assert this gives men an unfair trial because Cathy Young believes it exists, you see what I’m saying? It doesn’t mean it has any effect on the trial. In a different part or point or whatever regarding accusations of rape or societal views on alleged rape-victims, that does fit. But here it should really have more to do with a trial or it is really taking some liberties.

"It is masculist POV, and again, masculist beliefs are supposed to be in the article. Probably the best-known masculist, Warren Farrell (whatever you might think of him), specifically used the example of Thelma and Louise. The violence he referred to was throughout the movie, such as the women blowing up the truck."

Then it should say, “Thelma and Louise is an example of societal acceptance of male violence, says Warren Farrell, masculist” or “for example, Warren Farrell says…”. As it stood, however, it was stated definitively as written by a Wiki editor. There is a policy against that.

“I had thought this was self-evident. The emphasis on motherhood is both a feminist and masculist concern. To paraphrase Kramer vs. Kramer, "the judge went with motherhood the whole way."“

What is self-evident to one isn’t going to be self-evident for probably more than a million others, no matter what one believes. Movie line or not, there should be a citation to somebody criticizing it.

“It's true that men can use condoms, and so do have birth control options (though I would not expect anyone to have a vasectomy until he was ready), but I still think a man is a victim if his partner and him agree to not use a condom under the understanding she is using birth control, and she doesn't (possibly because she wants to become pregnant); and besides, birth control is not always effective.”

That is a hypothetical and a two-way street. Most importantly, though, not what was originally there and both are emotive, argumentative, and POV with no citations. It just won’t cut it for the article. If there is a way that complies with Wiki policy, then it shoudl go there. But as you elaborated, it isn't a mouth-piece for anybody. NeoApsara 01:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the bullet, "Pregnancies carried to term despite agreements ahead of time that they would not be, subjecting men to unwanted parental responsibilities and/or child support expectations." (It was probably under my old IP address as I don't think I had established an account at that time.)

What primarily motivated me to add it was the parenting concern already listed there about parental consent, which I think is a conservative and anti-sexual-freedom sort of position that, if left by itself, gives a biased impression about masculists being of that ideology. I thought balancing it with a more liberal, pro-sexual-freedom concern would provide a more accurate depiction of the range of masculist views.

The most direct thing I am referencing is the case of Matt Dubay, which has been labeled "Roe v. Wade for men". (He is going through exactly what the bullet describes; type his name into any search engine if you want to read about it.) I think the concern has definitely been around longer than his case, but that is probably the best reference for it, particularly with the groups that are supporting him.

In a list of general concerns, I am not exactly sure how to provide citations. What do you think is needed, NeoApsara?

Cheers, HalfDome 02:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I know who he is, the guy who put the entire burden on his girlfriend when she was told that she couldn’t get pregnant and wants to get out of it now that she got pregnant anyway. It happened in my home state and I think it is just as silly as not putting on your seatbelt because somebody else says they’ll drive as safely as they can and then crying entrapment after you get into an accident. It would be one thing if she had lied, but this guy doesn't even say so, so I don't know why they are bothering to waste the court's time. You could use that case if you wan to, but it would likely do better in one of the paragraphs rather than in bullet-points.

As for citations, just find a study or a masculist or a group of masculists who share the concern. Your final result will have to comply with Wiki policy, though, so just try going over that and perhaps looking at other articles for examples and you’ll be fine. However, I don’t really see the bullet-points lasting. NeoApsara 03:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

She told him more than that, including other lies, and I had to laugh out loud at you trying to make your analogy to seatbelts, but honestly I'm not sure why you want to waste time arguing that here when the point is really whether this is a concern that some masculists have.

As best as I can tell from reading your comments and edits, you have a tendency to misapply and/or misunderstand Wikipedia's policies, so it is difficult for me to place too much credibility in things you say. Still, I highly value the consensus-based nature of Wikipedia, and I would be happy to work with you at improving that bullet. But to do so, you are going to need to be specific about what exact wording you think is needed for the bullet. As I said, the groups supporting Dubay are probably the best reference. How do you think they should be integrated?

Cheers, HalfDome 04:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The incident happened in my home state; I'm aware of what she said to him and I'm also aware he didn't accuse her of lying rather that he should be able to get out of it. When he didn't think about that ahead of time. Back to the point if you want to represent a claim made by masculists you need a citation. Whether or not you agree with my past edits or think I have credibility or not doesn't matter; there is not only a dispute here on the talk-page, but Wiki has a policy and it has precedent. The "feminists believe *point by point*" section from the feminism article was removed because there were no citations or consensus. If you have a problem with my edits or the R-V-Wade For Men case, then take it to my talk page.NeoApsara 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it matters whether the incident occurred in your home state, and I of course have to question your "awareness" of what was said if you were, in fact, not there at the time she said it (unless maybe you are her...:) ). But, again, the real concern here is about the bullet. I did provide the wikilink to the article about the case, and it seems that you didn't add a "citation needed" note to the bullet because of that. So, I hope that means that you find the bullet to be acceptable now. But if not, let's still see if we can find something that seems good to both of us. Cheers, HalfDome 01:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It happened in my home state, so I always heard this, that, the other, and more on the side. Kind of a pitfall of USAmerican media. ;) Anyway, it just needs to be taken care of that the language reflects something that holds what masculists think - and a good consensus at that - rather than what one masculist thinks on Wiki or the words written as if it is reflected by Wiki. But that particular one, to me at least, looks okay. Other ones need some clean-up though.NeoApsara

I just wanted to address Thelma and Louise. One thing not often noted in discussions of this movie is that Louise performs an execution, not just a murder. She has already rescued Thelma and is content to lecture the thug until he mouths off to her. It is only at that point that she "roars" with the gun. The same applies to the trucker, who is punished for crudeness and not crime at all. (I don't think the movie is as anti-male as generally supposed though). I have noticed this as a general rule in gun-totin' you-go-girl characters; they seem willing to tolerate and evaluate most heinous crimes (usually excluding rape) but when the insults fly, so fly the bullets.24.165.210.213 01:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted a clause in one sentence which asserted, without sources or citation, that women can surrender children for adoption without consent or notification of the father. This is illegal in every state of the United States. I also deleted an unsourced interpretation of an uncited Australian child custody case (although I left the case itself intact, with only a note that a citation is needed). Aside from its other problems, the case interpretation appeared to be the personal opinion of the Wiki contributor, a policy violation.

The article's legal references also bounce around erratically from the UK to the US to Australia; it is never clear whether there are masculist movements in all three areas, or precisely where the masculist movement is based, and why such wide-ranging anecdotes are presented here as a single collage.

This article appears to have severe citation issues. Several anecdotes are missing citations entirely. Other factual assertions appear to be sourced back to advocacy sites when they should instead be supported by neutral research citations from authoritative sources (e.g., from a government study or peer-reviewed medical study; or government crime and census statistics; or enumerations of laws by a neutral group such as the National Conference of State Legislatures; or mainstream research journals.) In general, if data are stated, they should be sourced back to the epidemiological or sociological source which compiled them. Sites which outline the masculist philosophical position are reasonable sources for what the masculist position is on any given issue. However, they should not be accepted as second- or third-hand references for factual assertions, if those assertions are repeated in the article as if they were uncontroverted documented fact without giving the reader a heads-up, such as "Masculinists believe... and therefore they take the position that..."

Repeatedly, the article cites legal cases without providing case cites -- that is, the identifying information which specifies where these cases can be found in official court reporters. If a case citation is not available, the reference to a case is unverifiable and should be dropped.

The article has serious NPOV issues which this Discussion page indicates are long-standing and hotly disputed. Perhaps a compromise position would be to more frequently introduce the constested sections with, "Masculists assert..." or "Masculists believe..." or similar attributions, so that the masculist positions outlined are not stripped of their origins to the point that they appear to be statements of fact by Wikipedia, rather than contentions of philosophy by masculists. -- Lisasmall 04:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're overstating the issue. The point is not whether you or I agree with this movement, but whether its viewpoints are fairly explained, even including fallacies. Hope this helps. Yakuman 07:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue wasn't whether they agreed. It is whether the viewpoints are fairly explained or represented as views of masculists with origins and citations and nor just some masculists of Wikipidians who come on here and post them. NeoApsara 21:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

An explanation of changes I made to this section:

"Citation needed" removed from intro to Violence section, because as an intro it's just a summary of what follows.

Media depiction: reference added. I changed the example from testicles and castration to a movie, to match the reference I added.

disproportionate penalties: reference added.

filicide: reference taken from filicide article - really wasn't needed, since it links to the article anyway. I don't really like this example, though, since the gender difference is not large.

prison rape: "Societal failure to address" added. Something like this was removed, but it's relevant, since the issue is not merely a prison problem, but indicative of a larger societal negligence, as indicated on the referenced web site.

Someone has been getting "citation needed" happy. In some cases this is valid, but I don't think people should get into citation wars just because they need to discredit whatever they don't like.

I also removed a couple of points that were unreferenced, and appeared in some form elsewhere in the article anyway.

24.68.180.163 08:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I really think this article needs a section on fathers rights in regards to abortion. I know nothing about them, so if someone else does, feel free to add it.

You would have to show that published masculists have raised such an issue, and cite sources. There is already one unsourced statement about the issue in the article. It should be removed unless a reference is given.

The concern I would have about such a section is that the issue of abortion itself would be confused with the question of the role of fathers. I fear it would be too heavily biased by a pro-life stance, rather than the issue of whether natural fathers have rights to involvement in abortion decision-making. What would a natural father's rights look like? Only one person, after all, can make the final decision. 24.68.180.163 07:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we need a balancing article that captures that following sentiments!? ((Dead Man Walking: Masculinity’s Troubling Persistence, Brendan O'Sullivan, BITCHfest 2006) (drop in editor)

Here is the intro to Antifeminism and I also suggest a glance at Female chauvinism.

Antifeminism refers to disbelief regarding the economic, political, and or social equality of females as a sex [5]. Sometimes antifemimism is also used to refer to a belief in male superiority and as such is synomymous with male chauvinism. The opposite of antifeminism is antimasculinism (as shown in Dead Man Walking: Masculinity’s Troubling Persistence, Brendan O'Sullivan, Bitchfest 2006) or female chauvinism.

It the reverse of antifeminism also the basis for a stub or an article?

An explanation of changes I have just made:

1. Tery Daly the first to use the term masculism in print: This has been listed as unreferenced for some time, and I could not find any substantiating evidence on the web, so I removed it.

2. "even though males are three times more likely to be the victims of violent crime than females are" - unreferenced, and likely biased, so removed. If anyone can find some substantiating studies they could put this back in, but I understand that either levels of violence are either equal or less than 3 times.

3. Age of autonomy - this has been unreferenced for some time, and I couldn't find any supporting info on the web, so I removed it.

4. "High-risk employment, but receiving no special honor for doing so" - again, this has been listed as unreferenced for a long time, without any evidence presented.

The reason for these changes is to clean up some of the unsubstantiated stuff that has been sitting around a while; by all means, if anyone can reference them, put them back in.

Someone recently put in a reference to "In Defence of Women" as a possible early masculist text. I checked the Wikipedia article, and it seems to have nothing to do with masculism. However, I haven't read the book. Maybe we can discuss whether it should be included.

The main thing the article needs is a section on criticisms that isn't original research. It should be a list of commonplace, preferably referenced criticisms of masculism in general. Currently it reads like a personal opinion.

I also question whether "antifeminism" is a legitimate link from this article. Though some masculists may be anti-feminist, it's not the purpose of masculist ideology. Comments? Roger 01:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As one of my recent edits has been reverted quite unfairly, I believe we should discuss the legitimacy of the term "masculinism" in reference to the Men's movement. I argue that the term "masculinism" is INCORRECTLY applied by feminists, and is in fact distinct from masculism in that masculism is to feminism (masculine and feminine) as masculinism is to femininism (masculinity and femininity). Further, that most masculists believe the term "masculinism" to be incorrect, just as feminism is incorrectly referred to as femininism. Phanatical 11:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Phanatical. I don't think that my revert of you adding the word "incorrectly" was unfair. Let me first state that I think I am absolutely in agreement with you that "masculism" is the better word to use than "masculinism" (for exactly the reasons that you mention here). However, "masculinism" is the common term to use for many people. It is the term used by my friend who is a philospophy professor, and when I was in college, "Masculinism" was the name of the course that was offered, rather than "Masculism". There are more hits in Google for "masculinism" than "masculism" (46,600 vs. 30,100) and lots of the sites brought up in the search for "masculinism" (including from Fox News, CUNY, U Michigan, Urban Dictionary, masculinism.net, etc.) confirm its common usage.

I do think it would be better if "masculism" was the word that was always used, but we should not use Wikipedia to try to impose that change. Particularly by just declaring that other uses are "incorrect". Similar to the debates between using British English and American English (like with the Press up article for example), both common uses should be acknowledged and none stated as being authoritatively incorrect. Note also that this article is not supposed to be written as masculists would want it to be written, but instead it is supposed to be NPOV, which would mean potentially including things that masculists would object to.

Along those lines, though, you could add a section to the article discussing how some masculists view the term "masculinism" as being incorrect (making sure that you have a good reference for that). Honestly, that would probably be the best way within Wikipedia's standards to let people know there are objections to the term "masculinism" (and perhaps encourage some people to use "masculism" instead). Cheers, HalfDome 19:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with many of these notions, that there are double standards, and not all of them are benefiting men (unlike some feminists, I can recognize reality.) I did however notice in this article the section: "Harder physical entrance criteria for men in many occupations - such as the army, police and fire service. Masculinists claim that requiring men to be physically stronger than women in these occupations leaves men responsible for a greater share of the physical work, for no more pay."

It should be clear that the androgenic hormones are available in larger amounts in men, giving men an advantage for physical strength. The use of steroids for the benefit of developing muscles and for better physical performance is clearly apparent in media coverage, and campaigns seeking to control its use during competitive sport competitions. The reference ranges of testosterone in males vs. females[6] is a clearly disproportionate advantage to males, giving males a natural steroid edge over females in regards to development of physical performance. So much so, that at ages 20-29, a woman with an abnormally high level of testosteronein her system (say, 2.5 pg/ml) may have around a sixth, or less of the testosterone that a male with abnormally low levels of testosterone (say, 7.5 pg/ml) could have.

Also notable is that patients undergoing hormone replacement note that physical strength is either significantly reduced (switching from androgens to estrogrens) or significantly increased (switching from estrogens to androgens).

In effect, the fitness levels of both sides are skued because the hormone levels and the essential potential available for any particular individual is dependent upon their testosterone levels, where men easily have significantly more than females. Is there any appropriate place to address these issues in the article? Easily it would fall under criticism, but the criticism is directly asserted to really only this statement. It may be a masculism point of contention, but as long as hormone levels are as drastically different between the two genders (and records kept showing even the best women do not perform as well as the best men. Granted the best women perform better than some, or even many men, but the best male records are typically not achievable by females without hormonal intervention.) --Puellanivis 01:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So, in other words, since men typicaly have more strength for a given amount of effort, they should have tougher standards for the same work? That makes sense how? If a man needs to have x amount of strength, doesnt it stand to reason that a woman should also have x amount of strength? If a woman can get by with less strength, then why shouldent the man? And if you're going to say that disatvantaged people should have lower standards for the same thing, then would you accept that stupid people should have to have less intellegence to do the same job? Or if someones clumsy and has low physical dexterity, they should get easier tests when trying to become a surgeon? Eds01 17:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

These entry requirements are for physical fitness, which varies significantly from males to females. If a job absolutely requires x amount of strength, then the job should require that amount of strength regardless of any factors such as gender. Although if the requirment is simply physical fitness, then physically fit for a female is different than physically fit for a male.

This entire "lower entry requirements for females" crap is based on the false presumption that the entry requirement is the required level of strength for the job required. This is simply not true. It's the physical health of the person that is required, which will naturally and appropriately vary between the genders. If a female is physically fit at being able to do 19 pushups, and a man is physically fit at being able to do 42 pushups, what sense does it make to require the female to do 42 pushups in order to meet the entry requirements, when such a feat qualifies them as equivalently fit as a male who can do 71 pushups. About.com entry regarding the AFPT

These entry requirements are not a hardline, "if you can't lift 50 pounds, then you can't do this job", they are rather a hardline of "if you're not physically fit at a score of 60 in our charts, then you're not fit enough to do this job." God, get your facts, and presumptions straight, and then come up with valid reasoned objections to feminine preferences in things like child development, and presumption of a victim in violence. Don't just attack things indescriminately because they're different for males and females... I mean, is this page going to start saying that men should be able to get a OB/GYN, too? --Puellanivis 19:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what happend to the citations and articles I had in the criticism section; they must have been deleted or vandilized at some point. I suppose I'm going to go retrieve them and fix the section up a bit.NeoApsara 21:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like several sections of the article are US-centric; I see references to "several states", etc. Does masculism as an ideology mostly exist in the united states? If so, we should say that. If not, the article should try to take a more global POV. Cheers, Vectro 03:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

there are currently, according to the UN, 193 soveirgn (sp?) states of the world. florida and such are states, but not soveirgn, though a collectivs soveirgnity has ben agreed upon.

Has this issue been addressed? If not then tag article for worldview and add some suggestions to talk pages for improvements. Benjiboi 22:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Does Masculism as an ideology actually exist? If so, is it notable? This seems very much like 'something made up at school one day' by a couple of men's righters. Decr32 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it exists. Please consult any of the Bibliography links avaiable on the page for any of a number of publish books that are expressing a view-point that masculism is correct. Or for that matter go up and read some of the responses, for instance my one regarding the differences in entrance requirements. Someone responded back saying it's still not fair. --Puellanivis 00:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean gender difference, I mean "masculism". The definition presented in the article is unsourced and the word is not in the dictionary. The Plato bibliography reference does not contain the word. It appears "masculism" is something some men's righters 'made up one day'. Decr32 01:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are trolling. Do you acutally have a source for your quote, 'made up in one day'? There are college-level courses taught on masculinism, but I'm not going to waste time getting links for you since I think you are just here to cause trouble. 24.161.124.180 18:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only agree with you. The word "trinity" doesn't appear in the Bible, but the Bible is the basis for the belief in a Holy Trinity. There is good reason to down Decr32's assertion here, and we really only need one counter-example to prove her wrong. I know they exist, and I don't feel any need to justify the existence of this article. Even when I can hardly agree with anything that is of the content of the proponent assertion! --Puellanivis 05:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Trinity is in the dictionary. Decr32 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Following 24.161.124.180's lead I googled the edu domain for a college level course and found [Key Terms for Women] which defines masculism as:

masculism: see androcentrism.

and androcentrism as

androcentrism: male-centered; the idea that men are the norm against which women are compared, as well as the concept that men are naturally the central actors, the most important people; mistaking of male perspectives, beliefs, attitudes, standards, values, and perceptions for all human perceptions. Also masculism.

Thus masculism does not exist as a word in its own right. Furthermore the 'masculism' taught about at college level courses is not the same 'masculism' this article purports to be about. Decr32 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

But one could argue that gender studies units attempt to discredit or deny the existance of a men's rights movement - including denying the existance of a masculist movement. This is certainly true at my own university, where any source promoting a viewpoint against the prevailing political ideology is unacceptable. Phanatical 02:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A quick web search tells me that "masculinism" (with added "in") is a more common term. I suggest to move. However, I have no idea how to call for a vote properly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.187.41.146 (talk) 05:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

I believe that 'masculism' is the better term, to parallel 'feminism'. Anyway, this content needs to be somewhere, whatever it's called. The way, the truth, and the light 18:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The OED defines "Masculism" as "= MASCULINISM", and "Masculinism" as "Advocacy of the rights of men; adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, etc., regarded as typical of men; (more generally) anti-feminism, machismo." Given that and 84.187.41.146's search results, I agree that a move is the way to go. If there are no objects, I'll make the move in a week or so. Vectro 21:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Both terms are common, and I think when that is the case in here, the deference is to whatever was used first. (Similar to using the name "Press up" for that article instead of "Push up", even though "push up" is in fact more commonly used.) So I do object to the change, and I think it fits with Wikipedia's guidelines to keep it as it is.

Just my thought on the matter... HalfDome 20:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's no such policy. Have a look at the Manual of Style or move instructions. Also, Press up vs Push up is not a question of commonality but rather of nationality; Press up is common in the UK, and Push up in the US. Cheers, Vectro 14:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was policy; it might just be guideline. Please read what I write more carefully. Cheers, HalfDome 05:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I find the section describing the "modern form" of masculism a bit strange. It says that fatherhood issues "evolved as a response to changing women's roles" as described in TV shows in the 1970s. Modern fathers' rights issues, and fathers' rights groups emerged (to a large extent) in the 1990s - not in response to changing women's roles (or as a direct response to feminism) - but in response to dramatically altered family laws stemming from federal welfare reform (but applied to everyone). I think I'll make a slight editorial change. Perhaps if someone has a good reason to include fatherhood issues, it would be better to clarify. I don't see the connection however. Rogerfgay 04:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I see that my small change was reverted. What is there now does not fit the facts. I get that this article is not being constructed for accuracy, and I don't have the time for a battle. Whatever you say, girls! Rogerfgay 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

All, I've dropped the criticisms section entirely. Although it's better than it once was, it's still a vague hand wavy bastion of original research. This article should definitely have a criticisms section (mostly because there are a lot of valid criticisms out there), but this one isn't it. If someone disagrees, please discuss here rather than reverting. For the sake of organisation, please add your comments between this one and the removed text below. Cheers, Vectro 20:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

While agreeing they are legitimate concerns, and are in some ways underrepresented in society, some critics^{[attribution needed]} of masculism disagree with the approach being taken. They argue that too much criticism is being directed at other philosophies, namely feminism^{[attribution needed]}. What masculists often contend is censorship of points-of-view that don't fall in line with what they perceive as "feminist" and/or "pro-feminist,” critics assert is merely widespread disagreement with masculist views and that nothing protects anybody from criticism no matter what their beliefs. Some critics^{[attribution needed]} question the validity of masculist claims and the use of individual anecdotes to assert prevalence of anti-male discrimination. To masculists who bemoan a tendency to treat alleged rapists as "guilty until proven innocent,” critics contend that such views are not specific to alleged rapists and suggest a failure to differentiate between the legal view ("innocent until proven guilty") and what is true among citizens.

Critics suggest that the ability to eradicate many disadvantages lies within men. These critics believe only men can take the reins in their own masculinity, as for example women unhappy with their own situation have taken with femininity over the years, or ethnic-minority groups have. For these critics, men themselves should be the focus of change: they should fundamentally reevaluate how male gender roles are defined and conserved in society and pursue meaningful change through means over which they only, being males, have control. The idea is that in essence, the problems identified by masculists often originate in a lack of accountability and initiative on the part of men themselves and/or a desire of males who identify the problems to want it what is perceived as "both ways.”

Could an editor familiar with the subject please archive old threads that are no longer active to the development of the article? Thank you! Benjiboi 22:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Article has been tagged for wikifying for various reasons which might seem obvious. The lede needs to be clear concise and NPOV. The information should flow supporting the concepts presented in the lede and demonstrate with the subject of the article is providing sources to back up any assertions that would easily be seen as controversial. Although a lot of good work has taken place every article can be improved. I also suggest peer review be requested to get new eyes on the article looking for common and subtle errors that will make the article better. Benjiboi 22:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

tag was removed but article still steeds attention, editing the refernces for formattin gwill help. Benjiboi 23:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected a misleading inuendo injected into this section of the article by user Bremskraft [[7]] which insinuated that the higher funding for breast cancer in the UK is explained by the higher breast cancer figure. Another suggestion made by Bremskraft is that mens-rights/fathers-rights/masculist movements should be characterized primarily as "counter-feminist". For more on this user's proposals about men's groups see here: Template talk [[8]] and here: Counter movements/Men's rights [[9]] Soulgany101 23:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This section is original research, so I don't understand why we are even talking about it, but...

• 1. In the UK: significantly more women get breast cancer than men get prostate cancer (by a factor of nearly 5:3); more women die from breast cancer than men die from prostate cancer.
• 2. What "masculinist" organization, scholar or health official is advancing the view that men are systematically not being given adequate healthcare?

Don't get me wrong - I think it's horrible that men aren't screened for prostate cancer in the same rates as women are being screened for breast cancer, but you can't make a leap into original research.

--Bremskraft 23:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, Soulgany, I would just like to point out that I don't believe that "masculinism" is counter-feminist necessarily. I think that the way it is portrayed on these pages portrays it as counter-counterfeminist.--Bremskraft 00:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Bremskraft. The UK figures used are: 40,000 cases of breast cancer detected in the UK in 2000 and 27,200 cases of [prostate cancer]] detected in 2000. Correct me if I'm wrong but this suggests a ratio of 4:3, not 5:3. Based on this 4:3 ratio I agree that the higher rate of breast cancer is "significant" but that it is also "slight". Moreover, the funding for the two cancer groups is disproportionate based on these figures.

Put simply, if you remove the qualifier of 'slight' then the reader who does not have time to tally the figures may believe that a massive disparity in breast and prostate cancer rates may be the case which of course is incorrect. You wouldn't want that, would you? If you plan to drop any qualifiers it may be better if you talk about it here first. Soulgany101 23:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly I did some rounding. That's why I said "nearly 5:3."--Bremskraft 23:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For goodness sake, its not even "nearly" 5:3. Its nearly 4:3. I think I'll leave you to it and hope that others have the time to correct such distortions. Soulgany101 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically it's 10:7, but it's beside the point. Please see Cailil's assertion. --Bremskraft 00:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That section is all synthesis - the only notable piece of info is that prostate cancer is less well founded [10] - but I don't see where the article says it has anything to do with masculism. So, yeah the section should be removed as original research--Cailil ^talk 23:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Cailil. I trust your evaluations on Wikipedia protocol and your aiming for NPOV as you have shown yourself to be the voice of reason and fairness in all of your exchanges (here and elsewhere). As I'm a novice in Wikipedia ways, I'll step out and let you get on with it (before I unintentionally break the rules). Soulgany101 00:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Soulgany101, it was the author who originally add it who bears responsibility for any broken rules (but these rules were probably broken unintentionally). You are acting appropriately and helped bring other editors' attention to a problematic section - that's all good work! A rule of thumb about OR by synthesis is: if a section is not directly related to the article's subject and if its sources are mostly (or all) primary - then you should look at it hard in the light of WP:NOR and WP:SYNT =) --Cailil ^talk 00:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Cailil, With the help of the links you provided I'm beginning to appreciate the problems associated with NOR and SYNT. I hadn't understood this subtle discrimination before, and will brush up some more. Cheers Soulgany101 00:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW I've just removed the health section as OR. I'd make this note of caution, while the whole masculist concerns section looks like OR and can probably go the other sections with sourcing problems should be replaced with properly verified versions in a piece-meal fashion--Cailil ^talk 00:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Cailil. Whilst I understand the OR SYNT issue, I'm a little suspicious about the complete vacation of the subject from the page. Surely some of that subject can be left intact (in a page section you feel is suited) with tags for improvement/correction? Cancer funding is an extremely real and important issue for men, and it would be good to see some constructive effort in recognizing that. Or maybe you can put my concern to rest that you are doing something constructive to raise this issue, somehow. Soulgany101 03:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. I notice on the Men's rights page where the same topic is placed it has not been deleted. I note too that that version is the same as the original version here that I corrected, where it was implied that the disparity in funding is explained by an equivalent disparity in cancer rates between breast and prostate (which is untrue). Do you intend to keep a misleading wording on that page and delete one which does not mislead? Just trying to understand your angle. Soulgany101 03:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that there was a duplicate over there. I gave up checking that page about 2 months ago after a very protracted debate with POVpushers. I would say that you should correct that information, it is much more pertinent to that article - my problem with it here is that it is not directly linked to masculinism nor is it indicated in the refs that it is a masculinist issue. There is still need for a link verifying the connection between this and men's rights but that should be easily found. On the contrary a link showing that this is part of the masculist movement may prove difficult to find - however, if I'm wrong about that the passage should be reinserted here--Cailil ^talk 14:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gleaned off many of the voluminous tags and replaced with section tags. The entire article needs help with writing the article and then tying references to statements to avoid WP:OR and keep to a NPOV. There are a bunch of bulleted points which don't seem encyclopedic. They should be converted into actual sentences and paragraphs. Benjiboi 12:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

We have change! There are 3 articles now: maschilismo = male chauvinism, mascolinismo = masulinism, movimenti maschili = men's movement. Please look at yours links!!! Rhockher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.224.128.81 (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone else knows what you're looking for but I don't. Do you want one of the it links added on each of those articles? Benjiboi 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, just correct your it:link at this article: it:Mascolinismo is the right one. it:utente:Rhockher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.225.26.191 (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

First, let me say that I'm a total "newb" to discussions on Wikipedia. I'm not familiar with editing and I certainly don't have much knowledge about writing articles (for any purpose), so I may be in err with this. That being said, the second paragraph in the introduction caught my eye:

Dr. Michael Flood, a sociologist at La Trobe University's Australian Research Centre in Sex writes, "The men in men's rights groups are typically in their forties and fifties, often divorced or separated, and nearly always heterosexual. In both general men's rights groups and fathers' rights groups, participants often are very angry, bitter and hurting (with good reason, they would say), and they often have gone through deeply painful marriage breakups and custody battles... 'Anti-feminist' is... a useful description for nearly all these groups. When I interviewed the American activist Victor Lewis, he called them 'status-quo' or 'pro-sexist men's movements'. Another term is 'masculinist', popular among American men's rights men but not in much use [in Australia]."[1] Flood also writes, "Some fathers' rights groups send misogynist messages, use strategies such as harassment, stalking and intimidation, and strive to chip away at programs and services for women and children. They deny the extent of domestic violence and offer sympathy to the perpetrators."

The above sounds a lot more like it should be in the criticisms section, rather than in an introduction; the introduction appears (to me at least) to be presented in such a way as to lead one to dismiss the article entirely as simple Anti-Feminism. MillionT 17:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MillionT (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here. First is the above quote is a scholarly opinion of Men's rights activism/activists - but just because it is critical of Men's rights activists doesn't mean its critical of masculism. The terms masculism and men's rights are distinct and not synonymous. Secondly NPOV, wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view to contain the significant (that is reliably sourced and notable points of view) on a subject and the fact is there are far more books and journal articles - reliable sources - published from the perspective of academics like Michael Kimmel and Michael Flood than there by Glenn Sacks. Third is 'criticism sections' are generally bad for articles, content that is critical should be worked into the main body of the article. All that said the intro is probably not the best place for this whole quote--Cailil ^talk 17:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

How much resentement for this article! I ask me why the article of feminism has not suffered a similar violent attack... --Giubizza 09:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What is this "violent attack" you are talking about? Neitherday 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If the article on the KKK were written by a Black Panther, it would be more NPOV than this. It makes masculism look less like a movement for mens rights and more like a terrorist movement. And one also that appears under-researched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.68.140 (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be more helpful here is editors assumed good faith and provided sources for their arguments. It would also be good if you identified what you're talking about Giubizza/82.148.68.140 (apologies if you are different users). also take note that wikipedia is not a soapbox and not a forum - so please refer to WP:TALK to see how to use a talk page appropriately--Cailil ^talk 21:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

parents conditioning boys into violent roles and girls into nurturing ones (e.g., boys receive toy soldiers as gifts, when girls receive dolls)

I think we should removed this part since it isn't part of the masculist movement —Preceding unsigned comment added by P90 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LotLE×talk 04:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a source [11] for men paying more than women for life insurance. Does it meet WP:RS? Masculists claim that discriminating based on something that an individual can't change is unfair. For example, whites have a longer life expectancy in the United States than blacks. Would it be fair for blacks to pay more for life insurance? JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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