Talk:Masculism/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Masculism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

Dear contributors: I am editing Masculism because I am a masculist and I have noticed that the wiki entry about masculism is contaminated by foreign ideologies, in particular feminist and gay propaganda/issues/concerns. Some seem to be very confused about what masculism is. The best definition of Masculism is: MASCULISM IS THE MALE COUNTERPART OF FEMINISM. Is the feminist movement for equal rights? Sure, in theory. In reality feminism is mainly a female rights movement. The masculist movement exists because of the abuses caused by the excesses of the feministic movement. The masculist movement criticizes female privileges in modern society. The masculist movement is for equal rights and to achieve those equal rights they fight against discrimination and against the privileges of women. Is the feminist movement the lesbian rights movement? No. Also the masculist movement is not the male gay rights movement. The main concern of masculism and feminism is the fight against GENDER DISCRIMINATION. Please do not use feminist sources and feminist propaganda to describe masculism. It is like citing nazistic sources to describe the Jews.--unsigned

Please read WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I am reverting your changes, because they do not follow Wikipedia's sourcing policies. I'd be happy to help you address some of the concerns that you have, but we must abide by the general policies of the encyclopedia as we do so. Also, because feminist sources are among those we recognize as reliable, and because they do discuss masculism, they are appropriate to and should be used in this article. They shouldn't be the only sources used, but our neutrality requires that we do use them. Also, please start new talk page sections at the bottom of the page, not in the middle. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OF COURSE feminism has been typically concerned with the advancement of womens' rights, do none of you people even know anything about history? You know, suffrage and body autonomy and all that stuff that men didn't need to fight for. It's absurd that you really believe that it is entirely about "female supremacy" (yet again, please learn history). Just because some dumb radicals on some sheltered website don't think men have any problems doesn't mean every feminist is trying to oppress you (where as, oddly enough, nearly every mens' rights activist I've heard thinks feminism "must be destroyed"). EVERYBODY is hurt by the patriarchy/kyriarchy. 71.135.47.31 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

It seems to me that Masculinism is essentially being defined by feminists from the outset of the article. Using Warren Farrell and Cathy Young who are both feminists to define Masculinism is not neutral but biased. If Wikipedia wants a photograph, use John Wayne who is a lightning rod for feminists.Dale Matson (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"do none of you people even know anything about history?" I'm not sure how helpful this comment is. I also think it is appealing but inaccurate to argue that men profit when feminists advance their cause. How many male babies have been aborted because feminists claim sovereignty over their reproductive rights. Reproductive rights also trumps the human rights of an unborn child.Dale Matson (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The article states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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