Talk:Men in feminism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rashelrojas.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Added POV Tags to "Profeminist responses to XYZ"

These sections are clearly POV as they give the "profeminist" viewpoint the last word, a privilege which is not given to any other viewpoint in this article. This problem was identified in 2008, but it was not fixed. These sections should be deleted or collected together and merged into the profeminist section. Since this article has longstanding POV issues which have not been addressed, I'll deal with them soon if no one else does. Equaaldoors (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

On further thought, I might just nominate this article for deletion. Most if not all of the sections have their own independent articles, and it appears that this article either started out or has evolved into what amounts to a WP:CONTENTFORK. Since it's still in such a bad state after 4-5 years of being in Wikipedia, deletion might be the best option. Equaaldoors (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've proceeded with this since there seemed to be a consensus in the delete discussion that this cleanup was needed, and no one else has voiced an opinion. I've tried to address the WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:COATRACK issues, and tackle some of the POV objections regarding the "last word privilege." Also trimmed seemingly extraneous material to streamline the article into more of an overview with links to more in depth articles. Equaaldoors (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Men's liberation's engagement with XYZ

I feel that the Men's liberation's engagement with XYZ sections are digressions from the main topic of "Men and feminism" and probably should be removed or incorporated in the the men's liberation article. Similarly the "Men confronting XYZ" sections (where XYZ = a feminist issue/area of interest) probably should be removed or moved to their respective articles. Equaaldoors (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. They belong on their main articles, not here. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Article reworked into a general overview

Since the deletion discussion failed to reach a consensus on whether this article should be deleted, but seemed to reach a consensus that the article needed serious rework, I've tried to refashion the existing content into a general overview article. This mainly entailed moving digressions into their associated articles, and hacking away WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:COATRACK, and WP:POV content.

In order to avoid these issues in the future, I think the article needs to be focused on providing a neutral, accurate summaries of the topics it covers (from the perspective of the topic being covered, not some other POV), and avoid a he said/she said structure and "ABC group responses to XYZ group" sections. Prior to my edits, the article was structured as a single group describing itself and criticizing/casting judgement on other groups from its own perspective. If such material is re-added, even with citations, it should be removed. Equaaldoors (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You renamed sections and deleted sourced content without rhyme and reason. You renamed a section about the mythopoetic movement "Masculism" although masculism refers to another part of the men's movement. You deleted all mention that the men's movement is part of an antifeminist response. You added unsourced claims. You hacked away entire sections of sourced content, deleting all profeminist responses without relocating them to other articles... I could go on.
Most sources which examine aspects of men's responses to feminism were written by "pro-feminist" academics such as Connell, Flood, Messner, Kimmel et al. This is why the article relied heavily on their sources and their "judgement". If you preceive a POV problem, you are welcome to add masculinist responses to pro-feminism, instead you chose to delete referenced profeminist responses to masculinism. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Calm down. I certainly had a "rhyme and reason" to my edits: I was trying to edit the article into something that was a NPOV overview. I moved what I thought I could, deleted what I thought I couldn't (like the pornography section, which amounted to: there are feminist men, some feminists are against pornography), and incorporated a little descriptive content from other Wikipedia articles. I won't claim that my edits were all perfect, but I think I succeeded in moving article in a better direction. And yes, that entailed deleting sourced content, but having a source does not necessarily warrant inclusion on Wikipedia (and sourced content can certainly be used to inject POV). We can't include "all profeminist responses" without introducing a pro-feminist POV into the article or turning it into a back & forth, just like we can't include all antifeminist responses without doing the same. We can certainly use, say, neutral descriptions from pro-feminist academics in the non-pro-feminist sections, just not their POV. This is not an article about pro-feminist responses to male critics of feminism.

And I said "criticizing/casting judgement" not just "judgement." There's a difference.

Equaaldoors (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Split and merge

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

Merge Proposal and Redirect. Please do not modify it.
The result of the Proposed Merge (also affecting target articles: Male feminism, Pro-feminism, and Antifeminism was: Consensus Reached – Awaiting Split and Merge of Men and feminism.

— — — — —

Following the AfD, I'd like to refocus our efforts slightly. While some work has been put into improving this article, I think that it's still rather unfocused. Basically, I would like to propose the following split-and-merge:

Old article	New article	Pro-feminism	Male feminism	Men and feminism (pro-parts)	Men and feminism (anti-parts)	Antifeminism	Antifeminism Part of this is to do with duplication: I feel that this article would be redundant to the other two if properly fleshed out, as was a concern in the AfD. My argument for merging pro-feminism and this article into a new article called male feminism is that even our article admits that major feminist organisations (thus representing the majority view) just call male advocates of feminism "feminists". In that context, it should be standardised with the other variants as a subcultural variant rather than a concept. Sceptre (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Seems reasonable to me. Double Happiness (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Makes sense, but Pro-feminism seems to say that the term can include women who support the cause but for whatever reason don't self-identify as feminists "per se". This, however, doesn't seem to be supported by a reference. I suppose if's thought that it should be kept, though, it could just be added as a subsection of Feminism rather than merged to Male feminism? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC) I take it you mean the passage beginning with "The term "pro-feminist" is also sometimes used by people who hold feminist beliefs or who advocate on behalf of feminist causes, but who do not consider themselves to be feminists, per se". That entire paragraph is unreferenced actually. Also please note that there is no such page as Male feminism, that link just redirects to Pro-feminism. Double Happiness (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Right, well, I meant to say that if, as is proposed by Sceptre, Pro-feminism is merged into the new page Male feminism, it shouldn't include a merge of said content, which is not about male feminists. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC) I think that the divide proposed in problematic because the article's title is "men and feminism" - not men against feminism, not men for feminism, but men coexisting in a world where there is feminism. There is no corresponding "Women and feminism" to point more explicitly to the problem. If we were to divide the page, then we should legitimately divide the articles - one for the antifeminist men's rights movement, and one for feminist men. The former already exists, the latter does not. Thebrycepeake (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Surely the redirect from Male feminism to Pro-feminism makes sense because Pro-feminism is already effectively about feminist men - check the introductory paragraph and section 1: Pro-feminist men. I therefore don't really agree that we need another page for feminist men as this topic is already covered in Pro-feminism. Double Happiness (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC) "Pro-feminist men are considered by some to be a stream of the modern men's movement sympathetic towards feminism." This is very much not what feminist men are - feminist men consider themselves part of the feminist movement, not part of the men's rights movement or any other movement. By your argument, we also don't need 'men against feminism' because "men's rights" is covered in 1,000,000 other places across wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebrycepeake (talk • contribs) 23:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC) That's not what I'm arguing at all, please don't misrepresent my views. You said "If we were to divide the page, then we should legitimately divide the articles - one for the antifeminist men's rights movement, and one for feminist men. The former already exists, the latter does not" and I pointed out that there is indeed a page for feminist men - Male feminism. If you want to remove the redirect to Pro-feminism and start a new page, that's up to you, but that's not what this discussion is about - it's about Sceptre's suggestion to split this page up and divide the contents between Pro-feminism AKA Male feminism, and Antifeminism. As regards the statement "Pro-feminist men are considered by some to be a stream of the modern men's movement sympathetic towards feminism" - if you don't think that's correct, feel free to amend it as you see fit. That article is already flagged as needing to be rewritten entirely. The whole point is to use material from this page to 'flesh it out'. Double Happiness (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Sorry for misunderstanding you- you're totally right, and I'm wrong. My bad, and thanks for being patient. Thebrycepeake (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC) No problem. It doesn't help that the pages in question are in need of work, and it's therefore a bit hard to see the appropriate headings. I do agree with Sceptre's suggestion to split this page up and divide the contents between Pro-feminism, and Antifeminism though, as I think this page is redundant, because men's pro- anti-feminist responses can be detailed on the aforementioned pages. cheers Double Happiness (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC) I understood Sceptre's proposal as a split of this page between Antifeminism and Male feminism. Then, Pro-feminism would be merged/redirected to Male feminism. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Exactly. But Male feminism *already* redirects to Pro-feminism - follow the link to Male feminism and you will see "(Redirected from Male feminism)" under the title. I don't see any reason to do it the other way round. Does it make any difference? In any case, the idea is to reduce three articles down to one. Double Happiness (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC) My view was that the idea of "pro-feminism" isn't as known as the idea of "male feminism" (in that: feminism espoused by men). Most mainstream feminists just call their male supporters "feminists" too. It's a WP:COMMONNAME thing. Sceptre (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Update: User:GenQuest has left a comment at Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers#Awaiting_consensus - 'Consensus seems to be "Merge". Someone familiar with the subject should do so.' Double Happiness (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Three articles down to two, correct? I don't mean to be a stickler here on the details, I just want to make sure everyone's on the same page. I understand that Male feminism is just a redirect at the moment, but Sceptre's initial proposal makes the point that it does matter which redirects to which. I don't have any strong opinion on that, however. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC) I believe they should NOT be merged as there exist female anti-feminists. Q.E.D.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.13.238 (talk) Three articles down to two, yes. It's unsigned so I'm not sure who commented "I believe they should NOT be merged as there exist female anti-feminists. Q.E.D." but anyway I don't see that as being an issue to do with the merge, as female anti-feminists can be discussed at Antifeminism. I'm not an expert on the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia but this page reads more like an essay and an example of 'synthesis of published material that advances a position' (see WP:SYN) than an enyclopaedic article to me. Are there comparable articles on say, 'whites and anti-racism' or 'able-bodied people and disabled rights'? As I say I'm not an expert on the criteria but it seems common sense that to allow 'X and Y' type Wikipedia pages would open the gate to a host of 'Americans and hamburgers' and 'Russians and Vodka'-type essays that would seem to have no place in an Encylopaedia. In any case, it's just a question of brevity. There's really nothing here that can't be included in Pro-feminism and Antifeminism, so why not condense the material and avoid future duplication by doing so? Double Happiness (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC) I've signed that mystery comment to help clear up further confusion :) I agree, DH, that there must be reliable sources which cover the given topics in those specific situations/permutations for there to be a WP article about them, and anything else is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I.e., I think it would be difficult to find significant coverage in RS for those given examples, but I don't believe the proposed pages (Male feminism and Antifeminism) would have that same problem. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC) I'm actually not sure about any merge/split. It seems that there is a story to tell here which covers the full range of responses (some of which don't neatly fall into male feminism or anti-feminism. For example, Kimmel's term "masculinism" which seems to be more about reacting by needing to get together as men than being active for or against feminism. Slp1 (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Well, I'm not familiar with the usage of that particular term, but do you think it could fit in somewhere else, like the Men's movement article? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC) — — — — — The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 10:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC) A copy of this template can be found here. Anti-feminism section misleading (neutrality) The section Antifeminist responses is misleading. It claims that, The men's rights movement and, to a lesser extent, the mythopoetic men's movement are considered part of an antifeminist response. The section goes on to cite the mythopoetic men's movement and the men's rights movement as examples of anti-feminism based on the four sources that supposedly support the text quoted above. There are at least two problems here: The section gives undue weight to the four sources in question, and does not provide any counter-balancing viewpoint that claims that the movements are not inherently anti-feminist. Even according to the article on the mythopoetic men's movement, the criticism by feminists is that it is an "anti-intellectual" and "apolitical" movement, due to its lack of stances on issues like feminism, LGBT rights and family law. At least one of the sources are misrepresented. Dragiewicz's Equality with a Vengeance says that "although a variety of men's issues organizations with a variety of orientations exists, this book focuses on antifeminist men's and father's rights groups", explicitly drawing a distinction between men's rights organisations that are anti-feminist, and those that are not. These problems mean that the section violates Wikipedia's policy on neutrality, which mandates that "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" must be represented. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC) I'd agree that that there are big problems with this article with regard to the the mythopoetic movement and Robert Bly - most especially in the lead, and most especially as a major proponent of anti-feminism. I don't think that they are widely considered anti-feminist in reliable sources. In contrast the men's rights movement are widely seen as anti-feminist, and in fact that is one of their central tenets. BTW. I think you misunderstand Dragiewicz: she is talking about men's issues organizations - which would include the mythopoetics, men's liberation movement, profeminist men's movement and Promise Keepers -and saying that she is only focussing on the antifeminist ones - the men's and fathers' rights group. That's how I read it anyway. I'm going to make some quick changes to redress this. Thanks for bringing it up. Slp1 (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for clearing up the issues and updating the article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Can men be Feminists? This isn't even up for debate. Yes they can be. Every, and I literally mean every, English dictionary establishes that anyone of any race or gender can be a Feminist (as long as they are activists for, support or promote Feminism and equality for women). There is not a single dictionary that declares only women can be Feminists. Men, by definition, can (and are) Feminists. To even question this, let alone ignore it, in the article defies every single source that defines the word. 106.69.58.102 (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Sutter Cane Is there a specific section or line in this article that you take issue with that you could point to so it can be discussed specifically? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Feminism is a social movement, not a dictionary definition. Men have been excluded explicitly from participation in the feminist social movement. Information needs to be provided on male exclusion and feminist opinion on the subject. Many leading feminist thought leaders believe that only lesbians can be true feminists. Seperatists feminists do not believe that men can be feminists. Feminism as a social movement is different from humanism and belief in equality. 2605:E000:1310:81D7:28EE:3C0B:CD88:FDCA (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC) On Men's Right and Anti-Feminism While I do think many Men's Rights groups are anti-feminist I don't believe this is always true and therefore should be moved out of the Anti-Feminist response section. For example a lawyer attempting to make it easier for a father to get there children in a divorce court case is not necessarily an anti-feminist. A person advocating for the ability for men to be able to show emotion in public should not be labeled anti-feminist. I'm not saying that Men's Rights groups aren't ever anti-feminist. Heaven's no. But it isn't necessarily that way.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Totally agree with you about the idea that Men's Rights groups are not really anti-feminist. People tend to determine the issues one way or another. In other words, getting to the point of Men's Rights, it has to come with anti-feminist, and no other way around. Like people said, life is either black and white, but we still have something called gray in the between. -Kuno1126 (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Feminism, men and celebrity culture Hi there! I'm thinking about adding a section on some of the recent celebrity culture around feminism, specifically the men. Men who participated in the women's march, Justin Trudeau, the "This is what a feminist looks like" campaign and maybe some of the gender pay gap solutions happening in Hollywood. I don't want to throw the balance of the page off by adding too much to the the pro-feminist sub-section, but I'm not familiar enough with anti-feminism in celebrity culture to balance this out in its own section. Just wanted to give a heads up! I won't be undoing anyone's work, but it might look a little wonky for a day or two while I edit it down into a proper synopsis. Also I noticed there's not a lot of talk on this page so I thought I would say hi and let you know to poke me for anything! HelloStarling (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC) On History of men and feminism hello, so I have added some information to the history of men and feminism ( not a lot), but I thought it would be helpful and colourful. I will be around if there any questions.Joshydkz (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Bias of the Men's Movement versus Feminist Men & LGBTQ Feminism The way that this article is framed, it's very misleading and even incredibly biased. For the most part, the Men's movementalready has a separate page, and it already points out that "Major movements within the men's movement include the men's liberation movement, profeminist men's movement, mythopoetic men's movement, men's rights movement, and the Christian men's movement, most notably represented by the Promise Keepers." Meanwhile, this page makes no mention of namely the gay and bisexual men who identify as feminists, aside and transgender people, or queers. It emphasizes the men's movement in these other contexts while excluding the LGBTQ, as well as even straight men who support women's issues. For the most part, the "Men's movement" has been a different thing, and I think that most "feminist men" — as opposed to "men n feminism" — would expect something else from this article. Just the title of this article itself seems rather awkward. Most men who identify as feminists don't say "Men in feminism". They just say "I'm a feminsist". Also, a gay man identifying as a "feminist" is different than a gay man saying he's part of the "men's movement"... probably because there aren't many of the later. Most LGBTQ feminists are not going to join a men's rights movement that's associated with the Christian men's movement, and the Promise Keepers. That's although, LGBTQ people can certainly be faithful and practicing Christians. It's just that many people know that there are many sects that are anti-liberation for LGBTQ people, as much as many other aspects of women's liberation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.202.143.106 (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies-17 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 February 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gweidner (article contribs). — Assignment last updated by Sqygkiwi (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC) Repetition The initial body of "Male feminism and pro-feminism" is repetitive. The idea "there is debate over whether men can be considered feminists" is expressed twice in near identical wording at the start of both of the first two paragraphs and later into the next one. I'm not an expert on this topic, so I can't contribute much, but I think it would be worth cleaning it up. Delukiel (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC) The repetition at the beginning of paragraph two has been removed. Which line were you thinking of in paragraph 3? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Thank you! It wasn't actually in paragraph three, but four, the much longer one. The section kind of jumps around instead of neatly putting the differing views in respective places. I was thinking of this line: "Other female feminists argue that men cannot be feminists simply because they are not women, cannot understand women's issues, and are collectively members of the class of oppressors against women." This is very similar to this line: "Male-exclusionary feminists believe that men can not be true feminists because they do not have the experience of living as a woman, such as facing the discrimination and stereotyping that women do." Both of those are similar to this: "Some writers hold that men do not suffer the same oppression as women, and as such cannot comprehend women's experience, and as such cannot constructively contribute to feminist movements or concepts." Delukiel (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)