Talk:Pro-feminism/Archive 1

message: __TOC__
This archive is the talk page of "Pro-feminist men" prior to it's merge with Pro-feminism. Phyesalis (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

message: This article comes close to acknoledging this problem but falls short. One can be very pro-feminist (I am) and still also tell the truth that some feminists are abusive towards men. It's not a perfect world and no political movement is perfect-- the fact is that a small but widespread minority (not a majority) of feminists feel that they have the right to treat men very abusively. 
It's also not anti-feminist to note that some of this anti-male abuse has become institutionalised in the last thirty or so years--
One can hold to a pro-feminist stance and still acknoledge that gender relations have become more complex and that there are cases now where men face more discrimination than women (for instance-- in divorce courts, especially regarding child custody issues, where men get custody of children less than 10% for the time). 
Also false accusations of abuse have become a convenient way for many women to 'win' in divorce settlements. 
I would say that pro-feminist does not mean we are blind to abusive women or institutional discrimination against men where it occurs. 
In all of this, college and university campuses are probably the worst of all environments, where men are often treated like suspects for the most trivial of matters-- and where women are freer to act their fears out on men without restraint or adult accountability. 
We've moved way beyond simplistic gender relations in this country-- and that shifts the burden of fairness back on to both genders. 
128.138.173.228 05:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It's OK to Acknowledge that Some Feminists Abuse Men

message: Quote from article: Pro-feminist men see themselves as wanting the same things that feminists want: a world in which relations between men and women are peaceful, egalitarian, trusting and joyous; in which neither men nor women are confined into rigid, unhealthy and soul-destroying models of living; in which the rigid division into masculine and feminine.
In which the rigid division into masculine and feminine DOES WHAT? Finish the sentence! Who wrote these definitions? This whole article might benefit from a cleanup. User:87.113.22.98 02:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote from article

message: sorry, but why there is this link to UK  Men's Movement - the men's rights organisation in the article about pro-feminists? --ALIM 15:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  link to men's rights ? 

message: I am having trouble understanding the John Stoltenberg quote. It reads to me as if it is missing bits -- the grammar seems a bit odd, and some bits seem a bit nonsensical. Is it quoted incorrectly? --SJK 11:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stoltenberg quote 

message: this article smacks of non NPOV. anyone else agree? comments welcome    Lue3378 15:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I corrected some of the worse POV parts, but it is still full of POV problems.  Many sections sound like they are written from the point of view of pro-feminist men.  Also, there is a blatant lack of sources, and too many vague references to "Some pro-feminist men," or "many pro-feminist men" instead of actually identifying the sources.  There is a long bibliography, none of which is explicitly cited.  Instead of the bibliography, all of the stuff which isn't cited so far should have footnotes, which will naturally create a references list. --SecondSight 21:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and Unreferenced tag 

message: As a pro-feminist man I'm just plain depressed about this page.  I have nothing good to say about it.  As all other editors have said it is non-NPOV and unverifiable in large sections.  And yes, it should be merged with pro-feminism.  I've deleted some really terrible pieces of non-NPOV and reorganized the first two sentences.  I'm going on to delte the section on Homosexuality because it hasn't got any WP:V references.  This really is an awful wikipedia article I'm suggesting a complete re-write.--Cailil 19:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cailil, do you think this article is worth a rewrite?  I like your idea of merging the valid portions of this article into the overall pro-feminism article.  This article should then be deleted. VisitorTalk 07:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with you VisitorTalk.  There are a number of sections about the history of men in feminism that were in History of feminism that should be merged into Profeminism with the sourced and verifiable sections here.  If we shortened the core beliefs and development sections, and dropped the lists we could probably move what remains of this article and then make it a redirect--Cailil  talk 12:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the worst articles I've come across 

message: I propose that we merge this article with Pro-feminism because they are the same thing. The PF article is a stub. This has lots of info. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Suggestion

message: See old talk-page here. Phyesalis (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article merged with "Pro-feminist men"

message: These two articles are discussing the same thing, with this target article (pro-feminism) being more fully developed and also more in keeping with the naming convention of the article anti-racism and similar articles such as anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapon which use the hyphenated prefix. Rorybowman 06:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger of [[profeminism]] into [[pro-feminism]] 

message: This is a typo, right? Jlandahl 06:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "activism against anti-pornography legislation" 

message: I've propsed that we merge PF with Pro-feminist men, as they're basically the same thing. This has nothing, the other page has some decent refs. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the merge is a good idea, since Pro-feminist men are a sub-set of profeminism it makes sense to me--Cailil  talk 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once we've given this enough time, I'd like to try my hand at the merger. I've never done one before, and this one seems rather straightforward. Any objections? Phyesalis (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None at all.  Have a look at WP:MERGE and WP:REDIRECT for advice.  There's no hard and fast way of doing it but I recommend copying and pasting everything into a text editor outside your web-browser if you're going to do a copy/paste merge--Cailil  talk 23:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, if there are no objections, I'm going to merge these tomorrow. Sound good? Phyesalis (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections from me--Cailil  talk 17:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Thank you. I've done a mock-up here. I've removed some of the repetitive and unref'd content. If you get a chance, look it over, let me know if you think this seems reasonable. Phyesalis (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The text looks okay to me but I'd drop the section on 'Heteronormativity' (can you source that claim, because I can't - I'm not saying the view doesn't exist - it's just that if you add info to page you must be able to source it).  Also I'd drop the 'Development' section which is quote-farm for John Stoltenberg - summarize his view and put it into the following section.  If you could I'd try to source some more of the page if you can.  But it is definitely an improvement on the current situation--Cailil  talk 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: I've just started finished the merge with Pro-feminist men. I was wondering how much (if any) of the old talk page we should import here? I left a note at the top of this page with a link to the old talk page. Did I miss anything (or mess anything up)? I haven't gotten to summarizing the Stoltenberg quote yet, but all that material is still on the talk page of the sandbox mock-up. Phyesalis (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just provide a wikilink to Talk:Pro-feminist men and its archives you could use the  template--Cailil  talk 13:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks for the suggestion. I've never done that before either. I added the box, working on the rest. Phyesalis (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think I did it. If anyone would check this out and let me know if I missed anything or might have done anything better, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! Phyesalis (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me - good job.  The other option would be to leave all that content of its original talk page andmove it to Talk:Pro-feminism/Archive 0 and then put these current comments from this page into "archive 1" - does that make any sense?--Cailil  talk 20:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Yes that does, I'll get on that later tonight. Thanks again for helping me with this. Phyesalis (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent merge