Talk:Masculism

What Has Gone Before

Archived Talk: /Archive01

vice/domestic vice

It always amuses me that we men allow feminists to tar us, rightly, with violence/domestic violence claims but we make no counterclaims about female use of sex as a weapon. Is there a place for a piece on Vice/domestic vice here?

This is an encyclopedia article on an ideology, so unless there is a reference within or around the ideology about this, I don't see much that has not been covered more thoroughly in domestic violence. The Lysistrata question is a separate one, which is covered to a certain extent within rape culture, but other than tedious he-said/she-said or assertions that "she was asking for it," I don't really see how it is relevant. Perhaps one of the external links would be a better place to note and expand on these views. A useful guideline for such questions generally is the article What Wikipedia is not. You might also find a forum through Wikinfo at [1] Thanks for asking. Rorybowman 18:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

suicide

I subtly changed the wording under the criticisms section. It's important we be sensitive - directly linking suicide to "macho" trivializes the reasons people kill themselves. I understand what the writer is saying - that macho attitudes may prevent a person from seeking help - but it needed to be changed slightly.

I'd like to add that I think the section misunderstands suicide in general. First of all, the statistics that show women make far more attampts and men have far more success - consider that an unsuccessful woman will live to make possibly many more attempts, whereas a successful man dies the first time. One woman, then, may make 10 non-successful attempts during her lifetime, whereas a man may die the first time. This alone may account for the statistical difference in attempts.

Furthermore, suicide is often linked to mental illness, with men suffering more of the most serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. I think this is more significant than "machismo." If it were really a matter of not seeking help, wouldn't that also apply to women who attempt suicide rather than seeking help?

The whole section on criticisms seems to be more of one person's feminist-oriented opinion rather than a referenced list of criticisms (although the rest of the article is somewhat like that too). Some of the points are not criticisms of masculism at all. There are many legitimate criticisms outside of the writer's view. The whole article could use more objectivity; it's too much of a sounding board (I confess to have contributed to this). 24.64.223.203 10:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds weird

Shouldn't this be masculinism and masculinists instead of masculists and masculism? Google thinks so [2]. They all sound dumb imho, but the first pair, less so. Are these even noted in a dictionary yet anyway?--Deglr6328 09:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think it's because there's a movement called "Masculinism" that someone trademarked and a lot a "masculits" disagree with some of the ideas it puts forth.12.17.189.77 04:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

--Thomi 22:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)== Misogyny? ==

I challenge anyone to cite a single author, a self-described opponent of masculism, who argues that masculism is misogynistic. It is virtually impossible to derive the allegation from the article. --Thomi 16:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Was your last sentence meant to be sarcastic? Are you saying that masculinism is misogynistic? I read that in the article, and I'm really close to just scrapping the statement as more feminazi rant. On the other hand, if someone were to tell me that the feminist movement infringes on the rights of males, then I would wholeheartedly agree with them, so I guess I'll leave it. Salva 00:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It definitely was not meant to be humorous or insulting. At this point, the reference to misogyny is a little bit of a potential cheap shot in favour of feminism. Some may think this and some may think that, for now, the section is suspect. What I'm saying is that masculism, as far as this article description goes, is not misogynistic. --Thomi 20:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The latest installment deserves, IMHO, a comment, if only to keep track of the article's evolution. If it was suspect before, it is now downright absurd, saying: "Some critics of Masculism's, among them most sociologists, do claim that the ideology is not only antifeminist, but has a downright misogynist tendency." --Thomi 20:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? I have given one source, and all sociological sources except one I know say that. Maybe there are some I missed out? I am from Germany, so maybe the reception here is different, but I used American and Australian sources mainly, a masculism is not really noted in Gemany on a scientific level. Please give other sources where sociologists say something different. --BarbD 20:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

To this moment, I have not seen any such citations. And BTW, if you yourself have doubts about how masculism is treated at an international level, please be careful when talking about "most sociologists" or so. So link/cite right after the text if you can. --Thomi 21:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really doubt that it is true what I say but I know I don't know everything and so if you proof that there are sociologists who have different opinions please give us the sources! Thanks. --BarbD 21:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't know what sociologists think. The burden of proof is on those who claim to so do. That's your ilk, friend. --Thomi 21:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

So well, then it is your job to read the sources I gave maybe you'll learn something new :). --BarbD 21:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I notice a link has been attached. Now, I've read through the source of yours and nowehere could I see it saying that most sociologists believe masculism to be misogynistic. --Thomi 21:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are really quick - although you have no idea of sociology you read over 20 pages in a few minutes. Wow!!! Well then, of course it doesn't say this. But you will find the same thing with all other sociological sources I know, like Michael Kimmel, or Hugo Schwyzer. I am a sociologist myself and it sounds very plausible from my point of view. But that doesn't matter here - so if you know there are sociologists who see it in a different way - please let us all share the texts! --BarbD 22:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No idea of sociology, you say. You have now insulted me.

I said once and I will say again; all sources you know does not amount to most sources, necessarily. The one you first handed out talked about male "privileges" with very little discussion on what that means. So it was quite feminist, rather than a neutral article. It barely mentions, or fails to mention "sociology" or "misogyny".

Surely you are not suggesting that Wikipedia users spend hours reading 'between the lines' of your slogans, going through whole shelves of books to locate the actual survey (which is the kind of evidence that the claim calls for, ultimately) which established that "most sociologists believe masculism misogynistic". --Thomi 22:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikibullshit

In general, the preponderance of gender-balanced scientific and empirical evidence consistently finds no significant differences (i.e. > 4%) between the sexes in any of human nature's most fundamental attributes. In other words, males and females are equally intelligent, achievement-oriented, emotional/empathic, compassionate/loving, phsically/psychologically violent, dominant/aggressive, and so forth overall. The sexes certainly tend to express these most basic underlying characteristics very differently on the surface, but these equalize themselves as well. Thus, every positive or negative quality exhibited in one of the sexes is inevitably offset by a similar trait in the other sex.

Sounds like feminazi rant to me. Do we have a citation for this? I just read in TIME not long ago that men scored higher than women on standardized tests, etc. If the femo-communists that run TIME admit it themselves, then it must be true... Salva 00:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

+NPOV cleanup

This topic is controversial and has received many edits. I see some left-over cruft from vandalism reverts, misspellings, copy-edit issues, uncited and potentially NPOV statements. I have quoted some parts of the article below for further criticism.

Feminist critics of masculism often claim that the ideology is not only antifeminist (where many masculists would agree), but misogynist.

• I would like to see some supporting evidence for this statement. For all I know, the editor who assumed this got the idea when s/he was eavesdropping on a conversation at Starbucks (original research). Perhaps a citation to a feminist-related organization/essay/press release/document comparing Masculism to anti-feminism/misogyany would suffice?

In general, the preponderance of gender-balanced scientific and empirical evidence consistently finds no significant differences (i.e. > 4%) between the sexes in any of human nature's most fundamental attributes. In other words, males and females are equally intelligent, achievement-oriented, emotional/empathic, compassionate/loving, phsically/psychologically violent, dominant/aggressive, and so forth overall. The sexes certainly tend to express these most basic underlying characteristics very differently on the surface, but these equalize themselves as well.

• Where did you read or hear that? What "empirical evidence" shows this?

Signed and tagged --Ted 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the mysogynist comment needs to go. This article needs a lot of work. I'll pitch in what I can, but I'm not an expert on masculinism, (or feminism, for that matter,) so assuring that the article remains NPOV is pretty much the best I can do. Salva 01:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Guestbook

Thanks for this article, I didn't know this movement existed. the existence of this article demonstrates the validity and fairness of feminsim. -- Neil Price (http://neil-price.livejournal.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.15.226.132 (talk • contribs)

Whatever you say, pal. Salva 01:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

New changes

I don't really see how the new changes are relevant to masculist concerns. They seem to discuss gender differences more than anything. Could this perhaps be tightened up? The points that were previously in a list should probably be made into full sentences now, also. Dysprosia 01:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Incoherence, contradictions, inaccuracies, neglections

“Thus we find males commonly performing the more strenuous or unpleasant jobs, attending to longer-term resource and shelter needs, and physically defending their intimates - up to and including risking their lives in war. And we similarly find women tending to provide for the more immediate needs intimates, like nourishment, attention, and provisioning, as well as seek to avoid danger or treat injuries.”

What does this have to do with anything? It kind of just sits there and goes nowhere as far as an argument for/against masculism. Also, it failed to mention that females are restricted from combat in war by law. I’ll delete this, but if anybody sees it relevant then I apologize; just put it back.

“In general, the preponderance of gender-balanced scientific and empirical evidence - as reported in most developmental psychology texts - consistently finds no significant differences (i.e. > 4%) between the sexes in any of human nature's most fundamental attributes.[2] In other words, literally hundreds, if not thousands of studies spanning many decades find males and females to be equally intelligent, achievement-oriented, emotional and empathic, compassionate and loving, physically and psychologically violent, dominant and aggressive, and so forth. In a meta-analysis of 1500 studies in 1974, Eleanor Maccoby and Carol Jacklin found only four areas of differences between the sexes: verbal ability (+F); spatial relations (+M); math ability (+M); and physical aggression (+M). Since than, differences in verbal and math abilities have disappeared; and physical aggression was found to have been equal. (Note: This meta-study did not incorporate non-physical forms of aggression.) On the other hand, the sexes certainly tend to express the same basic underlying characteristics very differently on the surface. But these manifest differences also ultimately equalize and counter-balance one-another. Thus, every positive or negative surface quality or trait exhibited in one of the sexes is inevitably offset by a similar trait in the other sex.

In other words, the major dual-gender and generalizable studies offer little, if any, support for the feminist hypotheses that men: (1) inflict greater or more severe spousal abuse; (2) sexually assault members of either sex or children more often; or (3) are more dominate, competitive, or socially, economically, and politically powerful.”

What? What does this have to do with masculism, what is the argument from the masculist point of view or otherwise then? That we are equal? That feminists are wrong? Both? First of all, this person fails to factor in what is environmental and what is innate which is the thrust of the argument among and within masculists and it's critics. Secondly, there are statistics and documentations that show men inflict greater or more spousal abuse (see men's rights); they aren’t “feminist” this, that, or anything, they aren’t hypothesizes (although feminist hypothese without backing may exist). This person is inaccurately not taking aggression into context also. I’ll delete this one, too, at least until somebody comes up with more citations and NPOV.

“For example, while males are 100% more physically violent with non-intimates, several dozens of major dual-gender studies (in addition to Strauss and Gelles) - and even most today's "gender" psychology texts - report that women perpetrate the same degree and level of domestic violence as men.”

This is already spoken about in the Men's rights [3] [4] section.

“Other smaller studies typically show women typically inflict 50% more elder abuse, 100% more child abuse, and are 50-100% more psychologically or indirectly aggressive. Dual-gender sexual assault studies commonly find that for every three females who report being raped by a male, one male reports being so assaulted by a female.”

Didn’t this person just say that women are more likely to be care-givers? There is a disproportionate amount of women caring for people than there are men and this person didn’t show things on a proportionate basis. The problem this creates, among misrepresentation, is that even if it shows women inflict "more abuse" it will also show they inflict less abuse. Until somebody shows some citations, I’ll delete this. I especially hope they’ll come up with a coherent argument.

“but the studies also consistently find that males fail to report such attacks by women three times as often as females.”

Where? There should be some reference here because some studies actually find, albeit in the United States and Canada, that men are more likely to report an intimate partner assault than a woman.

"Beginning in the 1980’s, women cast ~15% more votes than men in our national elections. Government officials obviously gain and retain their offices by satisfying the majority of their constituents, which clearly include more women then men. And when we think about all of the concrete examples from our legal history over the last 50-75 years, has the long-term trend actually reflected a male or a female legislative orientation?"

This looks a bit more like commentary POV than objectivity. There are more women than there are men; for all we know, since the women‘s movement in the 1970s, more women have been voting. With politics it does not necessarily amount to women being “satisfied” being that choices are limited to the officials nominated.

That last part if more of an insinuation than anything, as if the commentator is implying a POV on the policies that are “obviously” geared towards women. Some groups would say over the last 50-75 years, women have merely gained rights equal to that of men.

“Marketers also commonly report that women control approximately 75% the decision-making that directs our nation’s domestic economy (and thus much of our culture). Hence would it be safe to say that feminine perspectives would have the greatest influence on factors like product design; advertising and sales campaigns; media, publications, or programming content; and even financing, saving, and investment matters? Factors such as these seem to render the feminist proposition that a Patriarchy existed at any time during the last 50-75 years doubtful.”

There is no citation and the claims are suspect when worded as “control approximately 75% the decision-making that directs our nation’s domestic economy”, which appears to be deliberately vague (what exactly are the decisions they make? Does it really effect our economy? Who decides?) and hugely lacking in distribution (is it because women make up most domestic work and therefore purchase products for their families? If that is true, it is not necessarily going to show a gear towards women). I’ll delete this part unless somebody here can make it clear, objective, and inclusive of all possible factors because I don’t even know what this person is trying to use to convey their message. NeoApsara 21:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)