Talk:Masculism/Archive 1

message: Archive01 transferred and content moved here by Rorybowman 17:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

message: If you really must engage in conversations that pertain to the topic but not the article, make sure that they are not so ostensibly off-topic, biased, and self-promotional that they draw the attention of people who are actually trying to maintain the encyclopedia. --mwazzap 01:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up talk page 

message: Is the Wikipedia positive or normative? If it is normative (that is, expressing a "correct" usage that is not necessarily the most widely used one) I would have to argue for a complete redefinition of "sexism", "masculism" and "feminism". Personally I consider myself a sexist (in my definition of the word) and believe that it is the more correct system, and think that the words "sexist", "masculist" and "feminist" are misleading. "feminist", for example, can mean a man-hater, but it often means someone who wants equal rights for women. Since such a person also wants equal rights for men (transitivity of "equal") then they are masculists as well, right? If the Wikipedia purpose is positive, however, this viewpoint is irrelevant. Thus, I return to my question: is WP positive or normative? --KamikazeArchon
:Interesting but IMHO tough question. Are other encyclopedias (e.g. Britannica) positive or normative?
Though not exactly the most helpful answer, I'd say that Wikipedia is both. Wikipedia seems to contain every possible term that stands up to (or avoids) scrutiny. The very fact that the encyclopedia is a collaboration of various persons seems to indicate that the duality of positivity and normativity can even be found in the same article. --mwazzap 01:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions on Addressing Terms

message: Forgive me for not being familiar with the posting method of this debate, I've simply clicked "edit this page" and put a line above my text to seperate it. My name is Alan Carr, I'm the Chairman of arguably the largest masculist, men's rights and father's rights orgamisation in the world, the International Men's Network, encompassing about 20 different national groups in 12 countries.
I support what Terry Daly says at the beginning, in essence masculism is anti-feminism in terms of the more damaging aspects and primarily exists to counter radical feminism and bring genuine equality of treatment and choice (but not necessarily outcomes) regardless of sex. Anti-abortion is anti-abortion, not masculism per se, some feminists for example are anti-abortion. to be a member organisation of the IMN a group has to agree to a manifesto, the text used is the Everyman Manifesto which can be found here
www.mens-network.org/manifesto.html
itself the result of the coming together of various groups. I've edited the entry to remove the negative "current state of masculism" entry (a link to an anti-masculist document that urged any opposing view to feminism should be censored and prosecuted as "hate speech") and simply put what is happening, ie it's growing and getting media attention. I also removed the notion that it's a new word, as Terry said it's been around a long time but is only now becoming mainstream.
Regards
AC
: Hi Alan. You can't remove links that are contrary to your point of view, we need to represent all points of views in all articles, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for policy info. Dysprosia 11:39, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other masculist points of view 

message: Pre-npoving by myself, this paragraph was added
:Masculist defenders would note that most self-described Feminists are white, middle class women who claim that being women makes it difficult for them to cope in a "man's world," and object to being stereotyped as haters simply due to their belief that males are often given the short end of the stick in Western society.
The tail of this paragraph fails for me to make much sense. Could someone perhaps clarify this? Dysprosia 03:40, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph added 

message: Can someone explain the logic behind this to me?  How does this help the reader understand masculism?  --TrevorPerry 20:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also: Beard? 

message: "Masculism is considered by some to describe the belief that the male and female genders should be considered complementary and interdependent by necessity. However, such a definition is both excludes many who consider themselves masculists and includes many who consider themselves not."
Ok - I think that's clearly a mess.  We want something that comes off a lot more clear and confident,  not like "oh, well some say this, some say that, who really knows..."  We need to start with a good basic definition that everyone feels is accurate before getting into the details about what people disagree with.
So in the spirit of Wikipedia's "be bold" policy, I'm gonna go ahead and change the intro to be a (somewhat less postmodernist) equivalent of the intro to the feminism article.  Hopefully people will be happy with that.  But if not, then of course we can bring it back for discussion here.  --Blackcats 19:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the intro paragraph 

message: Wouldn't Fathers 4 Justice be an excellent example of a Masculist group? They've made several headlines in the UK? (I'm a little hesitant about editing this page myself because things seem to be rather contentious here) --LukeSurl 21:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fathers 4 justice 

message: Should this article be merged with men's rights? 24.64.223.203 09:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: I have made some substantial changes to the structure of the article, without changing or adding much.  It had, like many controversial topics, become a bit of a mishmash of opinions, with one person adding their counterargument, then another countering that, etc. - so that there was a lot of repetitition, as well as discussion under the wrong headings.  Several parts weren't very clear.  It took quite a while, so please don't revert it; if you feel some of my changes are not right, please edit them.  If you are worried that I took something out, it's probably there in a different section.  Here is what I did:
The list of points was getting long, so I organized it into categories. I then put some related paragraphs from other sections under some of the points.
The sections Ambiguity and Contention over Defining Masculism and An Alternate View of Masculism were closely related to some points in the History of Masculism section (most of which which had nothing to do with history), so I combined all of these under a new heading:  Differences in Masculist Ideology.  I also expanded the history section a bit.
I tried to imporove clarity, while removing repetition.
Roger 06:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the edits appear to have some minor neutrality issues. I may address these at a later date, however, I'm not in the mood to closely analyse the article right now. Dysprosia 11:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:  changes by me (rogpyvbc)