Masculism/Talk

< Masculism

HomePage | Recent changes | View source | Discuss this page | Page history | Log in |

Printable version | Disclaimers | Privacy policy

This article could be improved greatly by comparing it and improving it against these articles:


http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/scripts/lc.pl?entry=masculism&sites=all


--LMS


My personal opinion of masculism and the "men's rights" movement (and I am male) is that it is a joke. One only has to look at countries like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia to see that in the world in general women are treated awfully, and men by comparison have it sweet. Even in Western countries, men still have it better off than women: at the top echelons of society (government, the corporate world), men still outnumber women. Even though its imporving, women still take primary responsibility for raising children, and hence their careers suffer. Certaintly, some feminists do fit the sterotype of a 'man-hater' but these are by far in the minority. Most feminists who get accused of "hating men" are actually making quite valid points. And again, most of the discrimination in our society against men is a result of traditional conceptions of sex roles, discrimination which is opposed by feminists. As to "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination", while it might not be nice to lose out as an individual through it, it is necessary for the good of society as a whole. -- SJK

I've been involved for many years in activism that I call "masculist", so I think I have an idea of what the word means. Tom Smith invited me here, and I'm interested in participating. Tom and I don't agree on everything, but he's got a good handle on what the title word means.
As for ideology...Most men think men's rights are a joke, because they are blissfully ignorant of how limited their legal rights are until they get their own "Dear John" letter and it is too late for them personally. Then the join the ranks of masculists who have come to recognize the one-sidedness of a system rigged against them, and make little progress trying to fix the system because the majority are either blissfully ignorant or so conditioned to please women that they are unable to recognize or advocate their own interests. It is no surprise to me that SJK, a man, finds men's rights laughable. Unfortunately, the 4/5 of suicides who are men took some of these problems more seriously.
When we looks at countries like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, do we see a balanced view of what life is like for both men and women, or do we selectively look at the plight of women and ignore the plight of men? Women may have to wear a burka, but men get shot. Some freedom. Our vision is one-sided, and that is the problem. It served a purpose once, because once, the interests of women WERE the interests of civilization. But now that feminism is influencing women to abandon the care of their families, the interests of women are no longer the interests of civilization.
Men at the top eschelons of society is not a sign that men are oppressors seeking to hold onto their supposed power. It is a sign that women, who make up a majority of voters, have more confidence in (or prefer to be cared for by) men. Feminists don't get the male vote because men are conditioned to look after community interests (not their own), while feminism conditions women to look after women's interests. This comes across in the dialogue of candidates. Of course men vote more often for men, because there are few credible female candidates for top offices.
A few men at top eschelons does not translate into "men have it better". Maybe those few men do, but most of us are down here in the trenches.
Women who take primary responsibility for children have the best career they could ever hope for. As a full-time father, I know that being a primary care-giver is far more rewarding than the 9-5 routine. But it should be a choice. Let the couple decide what works for them. Let the one who wants to be a primary care-giver become such. Then there is no belly-aching about lost opportunities. If both want careers, then don't have kids. We must take the consequences of all the decisions we make. This is not oppression, it is life.
Most of the discrimination against men in western civilization is not based on "traditional conceptions of sex roles", but rather prejudice against men which has hardened into law. This is why 85% of the homeless are men, but outreach programs usually reach out to the 15% women, ignoring the men. This is why men get hauled off in DV cases even when they were the one getting beaten. This is why model fathers lose their children in divorce just because they're men, even though fathers make better single parents. (Kids in single-mother households are at a higher risk for drug abuse, dropout, and teenage pregnancy than single-father households.)
My beef with feminism is the fascist reprisals men get when they disagree. Why do men lose their jobs just for disagreeing with feminists in a country where we're supposed to have a free exchange of ideas? My beef involves the dishonesty of demanding feminine privilege while pretending to stand for equality. For the duplicity of accepting all sorts of entitlements men can't get while criticizing men for "holding themselves back" with old-fashioned ideas.
Most feminists aren't consciously man-haters, but they certainly don't promote harmony and interdependence in families and communities either. They promote total independence and ultimate freedom for one special interest group--women. But I got news for ya, if we can't count on each other, we don't survive. Nobody can afford the ultimate freedom feminists want for all women. Men certainly don't have it. And the more women unilaterally reach for the unreachable, the more civilization gets out of balance.
This isn't misogyny, its legitimate anger for the excesses of feminism. Feminism was on track in the early days when it was about empowerment. Now it's about nursing one's victimhood. It's about alienation in the name of equality, and that's a mistake. We need each other in order to survive, and we need harmony and mutual appreciation in order to thrive. Feminism undermines all that.--Terence

So what? You might be right, and I might (or might not) agree with you. But this is not a discussion forum. It is an encyclopaedia. clasqm

Yeah, I know. But where else am I to sprout my opinions? :)


What do women-raping and oppressing fanatics in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan have to do with the lack of men's rights on certain issues in the USA and Europe? There are many men involved in the men's right's movement who themselves are feminists, who are in fact liberal, and who fight for equality between the sexes...but who also decry the fact that men are treated very unequally in many ways. Have you ever compared funing for diseases that affect only men, versus diseases that affect women? It is downright embarassing. Are you aware that in the USA, men have virtually no rights on whether to have children or not, and only women do? Or that most men have virtually no say in what goes in our government (just like women)? Are you aware that women's average life-span's are increasing, while men's are not? Discussing this issue is most certainly not a joke. Your criticism is misplaced, for it is against anti-feminists, but that is a different group. Let us keep in mind that not all feminists hate men (Although some undeniably do), and not all people in men's rights groups are anti-feminist. RK



Sprout? :-)


It may be true that some masculinists are not anti-feminist, but this article as it is currently written does not give that impression. Instead, it contains several criticisms of feminism and cites those as representing the views of masculinism. It is also worth pointing out that many feminists, including Gloria Steinem, have stated that sexism negatively affects men in certain ways, and this article does not address this facet of the issue. --Egern.


If anybody feels qualified to address this, I assume we also want to throw Camille Paglia into this mix; Paglia is as far as I can tell sympathetic to Masculism.



The article is fairly decent, based on what I have read elsewhere it presents a fairly neutral overview of the concepts and principles of the relevant groups and authors. The second last sentence about how "feminists respond" is a little troubling and seems to be an assertion of fact rather than relating a claim by a masculism proponent. - MMGB


There is, in my view, some subtle but clear bias in favor of "masculinism" expressed in this article.


I agree with the latter (as of Nov. 9). --LMS


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?

Are you guys sure the article isn't a joke? It looks a lot like the (soon to be deleted?) rant that Mr. xxx kept putting on the Feminism page. I'd like to see a balanced examination of feminism, which I might decide to try someday if no one else does it. Ed Poor


This is not constructive criticism. If you have a specific flaw to point out, let's hear it. The previous criticisms of this entry were also vague allusions, and not specific nor supportable. I think that there are many people who think that all people in the men's right movement hate feminism, and fear them. This is no doubt the reason that this article was censored by cowards at Nupedia. But this is obviously a double standard. Most of us do not claim that most feminists hate men, or want more rights than men, right? So why act this way towards people in the men's rights movement? Why take the sins of a few and project them onto the majority? This is inappropriate.RK


Sorry, I was really asking whether the posting was intended as a joke. I guess you mean it's a serious article. I will treat it as such, no offense intended. Ed Poor



A long time ago I came across the term "masculist" in a feminist dictionary. It was defined as meaning "male chauvinist pig". Has anyone else come across this use? --Zundark, 2001 Dec 6


Um, this sort of thing isn't necessarily meaningful. I'm sure I can find examples of "capitalist" defined as "selfish, evil, agent of Satan" and examples of "communist" defined as "selfish, evil, agent of Satan". What are you getting at here?


Only that if the term has another meaning, perhaps this should be mentioned. --Zundark, 2001 Dec 7


Sounds fair! But only if it's a "real" meaning (In my example, neither capitalist nor communist really mean that, even though some people might consistently use them that way.)



One way of improving this article, I believe, is to state what masculinism is for rather than what it is against. Much of the article as it was written contained lots of attacks on feminism, not to mention that the article seemed to accept most of those attacks at face value. I attempted to alter the tone of the article to make it a little less negative, and hopefully this will help to improve the NPOV of the article.

This is like saying we should focus on what the invading American troops at Normandy in WWII were "for". Obviously they were "for" freedom, but in order to achieve it, they had to displace a tyrant and his army. To state what we are against is sometimes quite the point. Feminism's excesses have distorted civilization. I am against that, because I want my children to grow up in a more balanced world. Basic addition tells me that negating a negative results in a positive. What's wrong with that? We can clean up the excesses without betraying women's interests, so why should feminism not be opposed? Perhaps the problem here is equating feminism with women's interests. No, it's just one ideology.--Terence

Since I don't know much about masculism, I'm not going to edit this page. However, the view put forward of feminism, that it "asserts that women have been disadvantaged in society" is only half of the story. Mainstream feminism (not radical feminism, which is sometimes very anti-male), holds that both men and women are disadvantaged by being pigeonholed into strict gender roles. It would be wrong to mischaracterize mainstream feminism's position in this article. --Dmerrill

Mainstream feminism may talk about men deserving freedom from outdated gender roles, but it also promotes and accepts entitlement for women that men can't get, and one-sided rulings in family court. Is this not anti-male? Let's not be too quick to contrast mainstream from radical just yet.--Terence

Just bear in mind that it would also be wrong to mischaracterize masculism's mischaracterization of mainstream feminism...better to say, instead, "Feminists would (or do) counter that..."

I removed this:

From New Zealand, Peter Zohrab's book Sex, Lies & Feminism, proposes that society either abolish the so-called female privilege, or revert to a traditional division of labour between the sexes as a fall-back position. He also charges that the power and feminist bias of what he terms the "MUC" (Media University Complex) are a central issue in the Sex War.

I've talked to Peter Zohrab repeatedly about Nupedia and I still lack evidence that he's such an important member of the movement (outside of New Zealand and the Internet) that his opinions should be cited in this article. The aforementioned book has only recently been published--first electronically self-published online, and now in paper form, it seems by the New Zealand Equality Party (which seems to be Zohrab's organization).


Now, look, I know the following statement is going to sound ludicrous to him, but I really do not intend any disrespect to Zohrab. I just want to see evidence that his views really are important within the movement, and that he is not simply engaging in shameless self-promotion (as it seems Tom Smith has been recently as well). --LMS




I understand how Peter and my entries appear to be self promotion, but it's important to know that masculism has been totally suppressed in academia so that it's main advocates have had to be outside academia. It will be the Zohrab's and Smith's that break open academia to masculism at which time we will be happy to be a foot note. Until then, our masculist approaches deserve mentioning Tom Smith




I had to change the first two paragraphs to stop this beating around the bush and covering ones fanny stuff. Hear me loud and clear, masculism doesn't cater in any way to feminist nonsense, nor neither does it to traditionalist or fundementalist nonsense. Masculism directly confronts feminist bullshit and replaces it with common sense, or if you will, scientific fact. And it does in a purely secular fashion...with an eye to the political realities. Anyone with either traditionalist or feminist delusions of equality, need not apply Tom Smith


What you call "beating around the bush" and "covering ones fanny" is called NPOV in this project. The goal of the project is not not to turn articles such as this one into a forum for advocacy of your point of view. The first two paragraphs as they stood had become examples of advocacy, not objective writing. Whether you think something is "bullshit" is not relevant to the process of trying to write an objective article. If you have questions about this subject, perhaps the article on Neutral point of view would be a good place to start.


Vandalism alert: This entry is being swamped by extremists within the men's rights movement, and they are falsely portraying their own personal views as the views of most, if not all, men in the movement. That is utterly dishonest. As a person who also is sympathetic to, and supports, the men's rights movement, I want to go on record as saying that these people do not speak for me. They are rewriting this entry to make all advocates of men's rights enemies of feminism. This is not just false, it is a deliberate, flat-out lie. I am well aware that the phrase "men's rights" covers a wide political spectrum, and that this article should cover these viewpoints. But Tom Smith and his cohorts are falsely making all men's rights advocates out to be like him. Bullshit. How would we feel if someone vandalized the feminism entry, and made out all feminists out to be enemies of men? Just as that is bad, so is Tom Smith's deliberate and dishonest distortions.RK


RK--I won't claim to speak for you, but how can anyone be a masculist without being opposed to the excesses of feminism? If you feel the need to defend men's rights, what are you defending them from, if not erosion by mainstream feminism?--Terence


By the way, why is the title "masculism"? Most people involved in the men's rights movement do not use that phrase. Rather, that is the name used by (a) enemies of the men's rights movement, and also (ironically) by (b) the most right-wing or conservative members of the men's rights movements. I propose that we make a new entry entitled "Men's rights movement", or something like that. The majority of text from this entry could be copied and moved there, and this current entry could be maintained as a description of (a) and (b). RK


Well, I don't consider myself a "men's rights" advocate, but for what it's worth, every time I try to tone down the anti-feminist rhetoric in this article and make it more NPOV, new anti-feminist rhetoric just pops into the article.

I assume NPOV is "neutral point of view". Maybe the mistake is trying to be neutral. Are the people involved in men's rights involved so as to remain neutral, or to take a stand for men's rights, identifying and opposing the forces that erode such rights? Why is feminism such a sacred cow that it cannot be criticized? Masculism without anti-feminism is like Greenpeace without anti-whaling. Note that feminism is not the only representation of women's interests, and opposing feminism does not mean opposing women's interests.--Terence


The first two paragraphs of this article, as they now stand, are nothing but advocacy writing. They should be removed and replaced with something more objective, in my opinion.


I'm going to attempt to move those paragraphs towared NPOV, while avoiding drastic deletion. --KA


Good luck, and I hope after your efforts, more advocacy writing will not simply replace your work as has happened in the past with this article.



The article structure should be as follows:

  • Uncontroversial facts
  • Controversial facts
  • Interpretation / Analysis
    • Interpretation by advocates
    • Interpretation by opponents
    • ...

Please try to abide by this structure in order to keep the article neutral.


Good idea. --KA


KA, your changes were an improvement. Thanks. I don't know who RK is, but watch out for him. Masculism is a different animal than men's rights and should never be equated. Even "Masculinism" is a veering off toward a more feminine "Masculism". There's an argument for using it in certain respects, but very carefully in terms of masculism.

Your ad homenim attacks do not help your cause. Further, you are falsely attributing statements to me that I have never said. Nothing in the above paragraph has anything to do with what I actually wrote. In fact, I haven't the slightest idea of what you are talking about. These words are used in different ways by different people, and you don't even make your own definitions clear. In any case, stop dishonestly attacking positions that I don't have. For those who care about what I actually wrote, I explicitly stated that masulism is NOT the same thing as the men's rights movement, and I have stated that they should be made into different articles. In fact, that quote from me is in this very entry! This person's anonymnous attacks are false, disruptive and not appreciated. RK

I can clarify the issues and people can fall either toward a more kinder and gentler masculism or go my way to a more stern masculism, but that doesn't change the basic truth of those first two paragraphs no matter how you fall on specifics of agenda. There's one guy who is as good as me or better at the ideological game of Masculism. His name is "Terrence" and goes by the handle "Greenman" and I'll have him come over and take a look. Yes, I'll warn him about how touchy this all is.

OK, so it's touchy. I won't participate directly in the re-write for now, but I would like to hear any specific critique of the first two paragraphs. It looks accurate to me.
If we have to treat feminism as a sacred cow, such that the first two paragraphs as they now stand are adjudicated unduly negative, if y'all want to soft-pedal it, that may make it more palatable, but not a more accurate representation of the movement.
Tom and I aren't particularly extreme on the ideology. I don't see any dishonesty or vandalism here. But if you're afraid to tell it like it is, that's a bit dishonest.--

Terence


Great response Terence...thanks. Listen, do you know Steve Anderson (S.Anderson)? He's been writing some stuff on my groups that's blowing me away. I was thinking of him comming over here for a look see. He certainly could improve on my writing style. Tom Smith