Talk:Pro-feminist men

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pro-feminist men article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
???	This article has not yet received a rating.

Contents 1 It's OK to Acknowledge that Some Feminists Abuse Men 2 Quote from article 3 Suggestion that this page be deleted/re-directed 4 "Male feminism" to "pro-feminist men" 5 Split of pro-feminism & pro-feminist men 6 link to men's rights ? 7 Stoltenberg quote 8 NPOV? 9 NPOV and Unreferenced tag 10 One of the worst articles I've come across

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] "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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] NPOV?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 NPOV and unverifiable in large sections. And yes, it should be merged with pro-feminism. I've deleted some really terrible pieces of 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)