Talk:Pro-feminism/Archive 1

Archive 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

It's OK to Acknowledge that Some Feminists Abuse Men

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)

Quote from article

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)

Suggestion that this page be deleted/re-directed

I would like to suggest that this page be deleted, and that "profeminism" redirects the reader to pro-feminism, which covers the exact same subject and in much more detail. Thewatchmaker 18:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Note separate articles created as discussed below. Paul foord

"Male feminism" to "pro-feminist men"

Okay. I am concerned that this page was moved from "male feminism" to "pro-feminist men." Care to explain why? You didn't even give a reason.

I understand that there is a controversy over the two terms, so perhaps the less confusing "male feminism" term should be used? I am a "male feminist" and take exception to not being included in the feminist movement in your (I'm talking to Paul foord, here) point of view.

This exclusion of men from feminism (through not counting men as "feminists") is not very congruent with the very broad definition of Feminism given in the main wikipedia article on Feminism. Simply redirecting male feminism to "pro-feminist men" goes completely against the egalitarian position (which I consider myself, and which most people who fit the description of "feminist" would probably also consider themselves). I believe the best solution is to use "Male feminism" since it fits with the other categories of feminism listed on the main article. (Of course, a more neutral term would probably also work. Perhaps combining the terms?)

It is very important for feminism as a movement to not exclude men. Doing so merely forces a competition between the sexes and only encourages patriarchy and inequality. Feminism is a pretty big umbrella, and I don't see why men should be excluded. Wikipedia has generally a more "inclusive" than "exclusive" policy. The main article doesn't say that feminists cannot be men. In fact, the List of notable feminists includes many early feminist men, such as Frederick Douglas. So. Are they "pre-feminist men" or, like the main feminism article implies, are they male feminists? If you don't explain why you moved the article, I will have to revert. Robotbeat 19:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Rationale for redirect was that "male feminism" was a short stub. It already had a proposal to merge into Feminism article. (That would loose the male focus) and the substantial Pro-feminist men article already existed and would largely duplicate material at male feminism. I you want to revert the redirect OK. Paul foord 20:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

But the content of the article was unintelligible - I wonder now if it was anti-feminist or [[referring to men's liberation. Paul foord 03:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I won't revert unless someone else thinks that it's necessary. Robotbeat 23:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I never saw the merge edit happen, so I'll trust the word of fellow wikipedians that it was correctly made, however robotbeat had a point initially: men can be feminists, not just pro-feminists. I don't think it should be reverted, but maybe the article title should be changed?

Split of pro-feminism & pro-feminist men

from User:Paul foord talk page

I was wondering if it wouldn't be more logical to include "pro-feminist men" as a sub-category of pro-feminism? I had started to do a separate article on the mythopoetic men's movement when it occurred to me it would be simpler for later linking and expansion if it simply included the women's portion as well, with different sections or paragraphs within the article. Given the current size of each article, what do you think? ... -- Rorybowman 20:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Reading both articles, pro-feminism and mythopoetic it struck me that each is broader than men. Having separate articles, esp the pro-feminist men one allows a better balance in pro-feminism because it is not about men, but is an important issue for men, but there are also women who call themselves pro-feminist.

Use of categories seemed to make better sense with the split.

With the mythopoetic article a split seems to make sense with reference to mythopoetic men or whatever and the feminist Feminist spirituality (as already noted). Paul foord 03:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what a feminist perspective on this might be? Paul foord 09:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I asked a few serious feminist women whom I know. None of them particularly cares. 8^) I think that the term (like "mythopoetic") is almost always used with reference to men, and that combining the two into a single article decreases confusion and increases readership. By way of analogy I ask myself what I would think of an article on "anti-racist whites" or "anti-poverty yuppies." It just seems a little silly to me, but that could be a personal thing. Certainly two articles is much better than none! Rorybowman 03:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

link to men's rights ?

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)

reverted to prior version. while respecting feminist pov, some acknolgenement of non-feminist pov should be expressed. the persitant deletions and criticisms of non-feminist pov should be monitored for pov/vandalism violations. -Loneranger4justice 4-27-07—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loneranger4justice (talk • contribs) 03:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Stoltenberg quote

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)

NPOV?

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

NPOV and Unreferenced tag

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)

One of the worst articles I've come across

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)

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)

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)

RFC - does this edit constitute original research and POV?

I'm calling this RFC to ask for community input on this material[1] which has been re-added 7 times since February 2007.[2][3][4][5][6][7] The editor adding this material is Loneranger4justice. They have few other contributions to wikipedia outside of adding these criticisms and making these reverts. Similar additions have also been made to Violence Against Women Act and feminazi. They have twice been warned at level 4 (final warning) for NPOV about this.
Wikipedia policy outlines that it is up to the editor adding material to source it using reliable, verifiable references. To give the material they're adding due weight and to make it comply with WP:FRINGE and WP:N. This edit, added and re-added since February 2007 is unsourced and unverified. It may present a synthesis or it may be original research - either way, as I see it, it violates policy.--Cailil ^talk 20:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm responding to the RFC. According to the article, "As there is no centralized "movement" the motivation and goals ... are various..." If this is so, then any identification of disparate individuals into a social trend would be sociological research. The article does not cite any notable source of such research linking the individual men into a common cause or phenomenon. The claimed commonality is original research by the Wikipedia editor of this article, a violation of Wikipedia's policy against original research. Therefore, the article should be deleted.

Note that indicating that the article fails Wikipedia's guidelines is not any judgement either for or against the positions of the individual men referenced by the article. This is not about the validity of male contributions to feminism, only about the nonvalidity of original research in Wikipedia. VisitorTalk 01:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment--it should not be added sans references. Any references found should conform to WP policies regarding controversial claims. This would mean that it is published in standard secondary sources that do not have any direct relationship or ideological bias involved in the issue. Besides, as written in the previous disputes, the ideas to be conveyed weren't completely clear. If sourced, it should be rewritten somewhat, with care not to avoid WP:WEASEL. Professor marginalia 20:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The statement that the disputed material is "unsourced and unverified" seems to be an exaggeration at best, since part of it alleges to be a quote from a book -- or is it disputed whether the book exists? the quote part at least seems to me to be relevant to the article and not to be original research. However, there is no closing quotation mark, so I can't tell where the quotation ends. For the first part of the disputed material: perhaps the person who wrote this can find a source to specifically support that. If it's merely a conclusion drawn from the quote, perhaps it doesn't need to be said. Re the article as a whole: it does not need to be deleted simply because views are "various". If "pro-feminist men" are talked about in various sources, then there can be an article on them, even if the sources say these men are not all identical to each other. --Coppertwig 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Coppertwig, the book referenced is about the Klu Klux Klan. The unsourced element of the addition is that the KKK has anything to do with Profeminism, there is no exageration here. I went to the trouble of finding this book by Blee and there is nothing in it about Profeminist men - it is a detailed history of the Women's KKK, and it is a well written scholarly study. It is either being used in a synthesis of published material to prove by argument how "Many men's rights and father's rights advocates view various derivatives of radical feminism or feminazi agendas as fundamentally misandrous" and "In this aspect, men's rights advocates may view contemporary pro-feminist men as similar to the colored man's KKK auxiliaries"; or it is being misrepresented. This book is easily found on amazon or in a good library (even in my college library in Ireland).

apologies that my summary above did not spell this out.--Cailil ^talk 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about keeping the part of the disputed material which is sourced, and deleting the part that is unsourced? (This is a suggestion in an attempt to achieve consensus, not an invitation to revert again before consensus is reached.) --Coppertwig 00:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The question I have for Loneranger4justice is - what has that source got to do with Pro-feminist men. If we kept what was sourced and verifiable it would be reduced to: "In her book "Women of the Klan" Kathleen M. Blee notes that "gender and sexuality were compelling symbols in the two largest waves of the KKK, those of the 1860s and the 1920s. which has nothing to do with the subject of this article, Pro-feminist men - this is the whole problem here. The book is being used to 'back-up' an original argument which is in violation of WP:SYN, on top of that the argument is unsourced and unverified--Cailil ^talk 00:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the removal of this material - it's original research or at lease unsourced, and may fit WP:FRINGE. It's also presented in a non-neutral fashion, as I read it, and has weasel words too. Some of the information is also (seemingly) irrelevant to the article (except through a bizarre analogy constructed by the Wikipedian). I'm mostly repeating other concerns, but you know, it's because I totally agree. --Cheeser1 04:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I was wondering if we could focus on the aspects of the article that people feel are NPOV. Obviously the article has issues, but outside of references and weasel words, how much of it is actually POV? (I'm asking for opinions, not making any argument either way.) Phyesalis 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. After that there may be a broader issue though - should the sourcable elements of this page be merged into Men and feminism and Profeminism?--Cailil ^talk 17:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that perhaps we could work on the article first, see if there is more expansion, and then see where it best fits, if anywhere. Maybe we could get it to a decent length and just add a linked intro section to one of the suggested pages.

Some areas of expansion to be the history of men in first wave feminism:

• Frederick Douglas [8]
• William Lloyd Garrison

And adding links to:

• External link to NOMAS [9]
• External link to Dadsanddaughters [10]
• EL to The White Ribbon Campaign (Canadian) [11]

Some possible resources:

• This page of primary sources written by men about women's rights and suffrage [12]
• This Australian journal article [13]
• This article on what recent specific events of PF activism [14]
• Australian Humanities Review [15]

I didn't include stable links to restricted database articles, but if anyone is interested, I'd be happy to post some. So what do we think - is this a good start toward expanding and improving the article? Phyesalis 20:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to be bold and remove the NPOV tag. If anyone wants to put it back, please cite some specific reasons and examples. Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article merged with "Pro-feminist men"

See old talk-page here. Phyesalis (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm the webmaster of the site, [16], from where this page was sourced. This can be confirmed with an e-mail to editor [at] xyonline.net, which will reach the author of the article. I created the page but forgot to include a statement about its source.

Merger of profeminism into pro-feminism

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)

"activism against anti-pornography legislation"

This is a typo, right? Jlandahl 06:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to "activism against pornography including anti-pornography legislation". Jlandahl 15:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

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)

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)

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)

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)

OK, if there are no objections, I'm going to merge these tomorrow. Sound good? Phyesalis (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No objections from me--Cailil ^talk 17:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

(undent)I agree with the heteronormativity argument. I think when we find sourced material, we should try to incorporate it into the body of the article based on the source (instead of trying to find a source to fit the statement). No problem with the Stoltenberg, there's no ref. I'll be looking up new sources post-merge. Phyesalis (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent merge

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)

Just provide a wikilink to Talk:Pro-feminist men and its archives you could use the {{archivebox}} template--Cailil ^talk 13:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Archive 1