Talk:Men in feminism/Archive 1

page created

This article is being created as part of a class at Washington University in St. Louis. More will be added over the next few months, but please feel free to edit it. --Sphmiel 02:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, belatedly, tell your professor that this is not the way to write WP articles. Among the many potential problems are POV issues and a too great dependency on a limited number of sources (both of which applies to this) article, and that articles without encyclopedic value can be added. Note further that, due to the normal WP processes, a proper evaluation of the students work can be highly complicated or give misleading results. 188.100.199.115 (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Article needs serious work

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles this page needs some serious attention. It's structure is way off and it lacks references. The tabulation of responses is good for an essay but bad for an encyclopedia article, views should be summarized and links to other articles should be made via summary style. Drop me a line if you have any questions--Cailil ^talk 00:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Antifeminist response

This section overflows with POV language. The very conflation of the men's rights position and "the claim that men are naturally superior to women" is an outright slander against the men's rights circles. "Unfortunately" in the last sentence is a value judgement. I will now try to clean it up a bit as a quick fix, but the section needs a thorough rewrite.

Rulatir (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it was an opinion piece really. I've replaced it with a very short summary - which although imperfect is a better start--Cailil ^talk 17:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This article exhibits a bug in Wikipedia software

To see the bug, open the article and search for text "This view actually reinforced", without quotes. In the rendered article, this text appears directly in the "Profeminist men’s response to ‘men’s rights’" section. Now if you try to edit the section, you can see that in the source the fragment between "This view actually reinforced" and "a backlash from women and men alike" appears in a different section, way below where it shows in the rendered page, with several sections in between. (Placed in the wrong context, the fragment appears so POV that I wanted to delete it, and that's how I discovered the bug).

Verified not to be a browser problem by checking in Opera, Firefox and Konqueror.

Rulatir (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

well spotted Rulatir, it wasn't a bug just somebody screwing up code. The template <ref name=Flood> needed a " / " before the last >. Omitting this last / prevents the template from closing and so it hid all the missing text. It's fixed now--Cailil ^talk 17:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I still consider it a bug unless references can be nested, which I doubt. If references cannot be nested, then Wiki software should emit a warning when encountering an opening <ref> tag while another is open, as this is certainly screwed-up code. Rulatir (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your right that would be helpful. Actually I think refs can be nested using a {{ABC : xyz}} system, there are a number of styles (which you can see at Wikipedia:Footnotes) but you're right the short coming of all of them is coding language - all of us even the most experienced code-slingers occasionally typo (or in my case quite often) and will cause serious problems. You could propose such a warning at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes - it certainly is an excellent suggestion. Merry Christmas--Cailil ^talk 20:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

changes

I've made a number of changes to the page. A lot of them are removals and reductions. There is a lot of OR here and it has to go. The other problem is structure. The way the 3 responses are listed is horrendous for readability as well as being confusing from a logical perspective. What needs to happen is the page needs to summarize the 3 pages in question: Profeminism, Antifeminism and Masculism. It then needs to show the interaction of these ideas with feminism, chronologically or thematically. What we have at the moment is a hodge podge of chronological strcuture and thematic structure--Cailil ^talk 17:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Started expanding intro, will try to incorporate summaries for the three pages in question. Phyesalis (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

feminism and abolitionism common ground (intro)

I have a problem with this sentence:

In the 19th century, first wave feminists and abolitionists found common ground as they worked together in order to promote the rights of women and slaves.

This strikes me as a "noble case" PR plug for feminism. Feminists and abolitionists did find common ground in that both fought for improving the position of a group they perceived as oppressed, but it is not true that the interaction taking place on this common ground was always friendly (however it did stimulate dialogue). Rulatir (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Its unsourced and it does look like OR. I'd say delete that paragraph. When a sourced one can be found summarizing pro-feminism it could go into that space--Cailil ^talk 20:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is an undeniable relationship between feminism and abolitionism, as suggested by the term "feminist abolitionist". I don't understand how this is dubious or harmful to the article, although I am open to arguments to the contrary. It may need to be reworded, but I think removing it is a bit excessive. Perhaps there is some understanding of the abolitionist movement as an exclusively male discourse? I have to say, I think not. And yes, many men disputed the relationship between feminism and abolitionism, I don't see how the previous unreliable source contradicts the idea that discourses between feminists and abolitionists influenced one another.

Perhaps we could start with a source like this:

"As an organized force, feminism dates from abolitionism in the early 1830s.(5) Abolitionism was the radical anti-slavery movement which demanded the immediate cessation of slavery on the grounds that every man was a self-owner; that is, every human being has moral jurisdiction over his or her own body. It was the first organized, radical movement in which women played prominent roles and from which a woman's movement sprang. Abbie Kelley (1810-1887), an abolitionist-feminist, observed: "We have good cause to be grateful to the slave, for the benefit we have received to ourselves, in working for him. In striving to strike his irons off, we found most surely that we were manacled ourselves."(6) The modern historian, Aileen S. Kraditor, wrote:

"A few women in the abolitionist movement in the 1830s ... found their religiously inspired work for the slave impeded by prejudices against public activity by women. They and many others began to ponder the parallels between women's status and the Negro's status, and to notice that white men usually applied the principles of natural rights and the ideology of individualism only to themselves."(7)

In the early 19th century, married women could not enter into contracts without their husband's consent, women lost all title to property or future earnings upon marriage, children were legally controlled by the father, and women were often without recourse against kidnapping or imprisonment by husbands and other male relatives.

Within abolitionism, women's rights stirred hot debate. The strongest advocate of women's rights was the libertarian William Lloyd Garrison (1805-1879), editor of the Liberator, who insisted that anti-slavery was a battle for human rights, not male rights.(8) Many of the abolitionists who opposed Garrison on this agreed that women were self-owners but resisted mixing woman's rights with anti-slavery for fear it would hurt the latter cause; Theodore Weld (1803-1895) exemplified this position. Through his encouragement, Angelina Grimke (1805-1879), Sarah Grimke (1792-1873), and Abbie Kelley became the first women in America to do lecture tours before audiences that included men.' Nevertheless, he admonished them to stop introducing woman's rights into their speeches."

There might be undeniable relationship between feminism and abolitionism, but discussion of such relationship belongs to an article that is directly about feminism. This article here is about men's responses to feminism, and I don't see how feminism's ties with abolitionism are specifically relevant to this. There were a couple of preocuppying political issues at that time, and feminism's involvement in any of these issues would result in increased dialogue between feminists and men, simply because politicians were men back then. Rulatir (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So when we consider the known discourse that took place between abolitionists like Garrison and Douglass (if this too is in doubt, I'd be happy to provide more info on this) and feminists like Anthony, the Grimkes, and others, how can we deny that the two influenced one another? I'd be happy to find some more sources for the article if anyone would like it.Phyesalis (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't deny it, I just think it is undue detail that doesn't belong here. Plus, your examples of the "known discourse" above mention feminist support for abolitionism, abolitionist support for feminism, and abolitionist objections to feminism, but fail to mention feminist objections to abolitionism, and the racist leanings of some feminists after the Civil War, mentioned later in the same source. Telling all about feminism-abolitionism interaction would by encyclopaedic, though still undue weight in this article. Telling only the part that puts feminism in good light is a PR plug. Rulatir (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if all you wanted to do was change "together" to "respectively", it's not that big of a deal, but why don't we just take out "respectively" or reword it for more accuracy and detail? Phyesalis (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Because removing "respectively" would leave the implication that the political interaction between feminists and abolitionists has always been friendly and cooperative, which is counter-factual. Rulatir (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is going off-topic. First this article is about "men and feminism" that is male interactions with, not just responses to feminism. However the relationship of the abolitionist movement to feminism is not all that relevant. Male feminists/Profeminism and Antifeminism should be the broad political focus of this article. The work of people like Raymond Williams and Elaine Showalter's response to it could be at least one academic focus of the article.

The problem with doing anything else is unless the sources explicitly deals with the issue as the interaction of men and feminism using it here creates OR. Linking histories of movements will turn this into an essay not an article. The piece Rulatir is mentioning needs to be replaced.

I'm going to recommend a few books: Men in Feminism Alice A. Jardine and Paul Smith and Men Doing Feminism ed. by Sandra Bartky & Tom Digby and also Warren Farrell's books and Hoff Sommers' The war against boys. This where some of teh research is we need to record it--Cailil ^talk 23:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point about the focus of the article. I wasn't keeping that specific lens in mind. Phyesalis (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

pro-feminist response section intro

Even those men who have identified as profeminists (in support of the feminist movement) have occasionally fallen short of the goals of the feminist movement. Others have sometimes been prematurely self-congratulatory. Frequently, men who were profeminists were already well-positioned to support feminism because of strong feminist influences in their lives. That being said, male profeminists have contributed in many significant ways to the feminist movement.

This paragraph contains blatantly POV language. Phrases like "fallen short of" and "prematurely self-congratulatory" position pro-feminism as the ultimate enlightenment male thinkers are expected to strive for, and do with varying success. I now boldly remove all of it but the last sentence which is factual and to the point. Rulatir (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

pro-feminism's last word privilege

• 2.2.1.1 Profeminist response to the mythopoetic men's movement
• 2.3.1.1 Profeminist men’s response to ‘men’s rights’

These sections unduly privilege the pro-feminist POV with the last word opportunity. Of all the three discourses identified by Kimmel (who is btw. an adherent of one, not a neutral researcher), only pro-feminism's responses to the other factions are mentioned. Rulatir (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, those sections are highly POV and should be removed. Why haven't they? It's been four years since the issue was raised. Equaaldoors (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Men and radical feminism

This article should be moved to Men and radical feminism or it should be written to include liberal and radical feminist viewpoints. For example, including men's rights as a part of the antifeminist movement is NPOV. Yes, some men's rights advocates are also antifeminists, but some (radical) feminists also oppose men's rights/masculism. The entire article seems to be structured around the work of Michael Kimmel, who seems to be very hostile towards men's rights and masculism. The Men confronting pornography section needs to be balanced. For every study that shows that access to pornography increases sexual crime, there's a study that shows that access to pornography decreases sexual crime. To present only one side is a violation of WP:NPOV JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly "presenting only one side" if a majority of people in the group in question (feminists) support one view. This is analogous to claiming it's "one-sided" to only include evolution (not creation) in discussing the scientific origins of life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.93.72.196 (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a very loaded statement, and not accurate. Some feminists do not believe that pornography is inherently exploitative, including all sex-positive feminists. Also, some feminists also support men's rights.

Article highly POV

I started out to make some POV reductions, but, frankly, the article needs a major re-write (much more than I time for). For example, many sections are written under the pre-supposition that feminism is good and anti-feminism is bad (while many men, myself included, feel that at least gender feminism is incompatible with equality). Other sections give a misleading image of, e.g., the Men's Rights movement. A particular issue is the question about whether men can be feminists: While the article does go to lengths to ensure that opinions on the matter are actually presented as opinions, the writing remains sufficiently angled as to be POV, for instance by the message being "are men worthy of being feminists". 188.100.199.115 (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree strongly with all of the above. It's staggeringly poor in places, with absolutely no balance. Some of the worst sections are completely unsourced too. I'm not sure if the whole thing needs deleting, but that would certainly be a better option that what's there at present. Anyway thanks for your efforts in at least reducing the POV slightly, but your quite right to suggest that a major re-write is what's needed (at the very least).--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've had another read. It's just so unencyclopedic, unspecific and seems more like an essay than an article. I say we delete it and merge any of the useful content with other articles. At the very least a decent and less ambiguous title will be needed.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Article should be deleted

This article topic is crap. That is not to say that it does not include some interesting and sourced content but the premise of the article is, itself, a nonsense fork of a number of articles. It's so open-ended that it borders on the absurd and any limiting of it is a case of misandry. Why not Men and Marxism or Men and pedophilia or even Men and homosexuality? Men represent half the world's population. It's insulting idiocracy to think we can define the reaction of all men to anything. The pieces of this article that have value should be canabalized and moved elsewhere and the article itself should be deleted for the misandric presumption that men can be grouped and cataloged according to some universal or general rules.--Cybermud (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as how so much information has accrued, would you care to rethink your position? - Lazer Stein (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article has some problems, but does it really need to be deleted? That's a questionable assertion at best, especially when the argument uses the reasons you have, Cybermud. In places where the article presumes to define all men's reaction to feminism, it should obviously be rewritten to be more specific, and I look forward to contributions from you to do that, which I'm sure will be awesome as you're clearly passionate about it. However, it is a clear overreaction to suggest that this article is misandrystic on its face for the mere subject matter of men and their relationship to feminism. By that logic, the mere existence of articles such as Freemasonry and women would be misogynstic, which is a patently absurd claim. --Meitar (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the Freemasonry and women article, but I'd be willing to bet your analogy between it and this one breaks down pretty quickly (if not it should be deleted too.) My understanding is that Freemasonry excludes women and I'm willing to be that the article hasn't a single thing to do with Women's reaction to Freemasonry so much as freemasonry's stance on women. That is to say it's the exact inverse of this article. If this article were Feminism and men and it limited itself to feminisms views on men you might have a half-way valid point, but since it presumes to discuss the views of men on feminism your example is completely false and exhibits a sexist tunnel vision that presumes that a single article can summarize all men's views, as a group, on anything. Likewise, we could have a Catholicism and women article that discussed Catholic's views and doctrine in relation to women but it's sexist stupidity to have an article called Women and Catholicism that discusses women's views, as a group, on Catholicism. Even if such articles are 1000 pages long they will remain insulting and biased and exclude a limitless number of viewpoints. It's identity politics at its absolute worst. All the content in this article is more appropriately placed in other articles about feminism or about the groups of men for whom reactions have been delineated. To be clear though, I won't waste a minute editing this article beyond arguing for its deletion which, to clarify further, is my way of contributing to it and building a better encyclopedia.--Cybermud (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is not completeness, but noteworthiness, and men's participation in and reaction to feminism is certainly noteworthy. Furthermore, for the same reasons, minority viewpoints may very well be omitted. (See WP:WEIGHT.) Calling that fact "sexist tunnel vision" betrays more about your own opinions than the article's contents, and certainly has nothing to do with its merits. Moreover, even if its contents feel sexist to you, since Wikipedia is comprehensive, that is also not valid grounds for deletion. Sorry. --Meitar (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Your need to resort to ad hominem attacks is WP:Uncivil and uncalled for, and your aspersion casting in edit summaries about "personal motivations" is likewise inappropriate (and contrary to policy.) As far as unsound reasoning, your analogy to Freemasonry fits that bill pretty well, as does your misdirection and mischaracterization of my argument for deletion. I'm not saying the article should be deleted for being incomplete I'm saying it's sexist stupidty to presume that completeness is even half-way possible. The article is doomed to forever be a POV fork that, inevitably pigeonholes men's beliefs and presumes that the fact that someone has a penis plays a significant role in those beliefs. Why not a similiar article on all the other *isms? How about Men and racism? It's noteworthy is it not? Men and Communism or Men and Fascism? While we're at it, where's the Women and feminism article? To clarify for you, since you clearly misunderstood it the first time, I don't care about the article's actual content. I'm not, and will not, make a determination as to whether or not the content is sexist on its own. It doesn't matter what the content is, pro or anti male, it is sexist, and ignorant, for such an article to exist and if you'd like to see a policy that supports that claim I suggest you start with the one on common sense.--Cybermud (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

:) Thanks for showcasing all my points for me. I think I'm done here. Cheers. --Meitar (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, thank you. Smug and snark are often the last refuge of those unwilling to confront cognitive dissonance. I believe you may find the article Projection interesting.--Cybermud (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Edited out anti-masculism slander

Hey, I made some sloppy revisions to the conflation of masculism with the mythopoetic men's movement. The article's previous tone was misrepresenting masculism as being anti-feminist, when the movement is much broader and covers more diverse stances on feminism than that alone. Anyone more versed on the material may wish to make further revisions to ensure accuracy and neutrality. It would be a shame for the mythopoetic men's movement to also be the victim of misrepresentation. 202.171.164.59 (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)