Talk:Masculism/Archive 6

South African masculist evangelical movements
Hello! I wanted to answer the question of "Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?" I feel that section of South African masculist evangelical movements seems to be a little out of place. I think this section could be in its own Wikipedia page or maybe moved to under to topic areas of interest. For it to have a whole section like that seems very random. I think this area distracted me because it was too specific. I think this would change if it was on its own wikipedia page and maybe just touched on it in this wikipedia page but had a link to its own page. Hannah.pittman95 (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Editnotice
The editnotice displayed on this article says "In addition, a 1 revert rule has been enacted until Sept 30, 2013." 2013 is long gone, so the text should be updated. I don't know where the editnotice is located or I'd put this there. ♫ ekips39 (talk) ❀ 05:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * the notice is located at Template:Editnotices/Page/Masculism. You can probably go to WP:VPT to request it be changed or removed.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually just found it. I left a message on its talk page too. Not sure if that was the best place either. ♫ ekips39 (talk) ❀ 05:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Unsettling end of article
The last two sentences in the article is a little troubling and seems to be a very violent end to the article ("tire-slashing", "the mailing of excrement-filled packages", "threats against politicians and their children.", etc.)

I have swapped the "criticisms and responses" paragraph with the "feminism" paragraph to end on a less violent note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.62.5 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn to discuss alternative solutions. -- Netoholic @ 03:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

– These two terms have somewhat different origins but have largely converged on meaning and there was a 2005 consensus to redirect. We should use the title that is more WP:COMMONNAME and expected as a search term indicated by: Google Ngrams, Google Scholar: Masculism has 469 results, Masculinism has 9450 results. Both of the target titles have non-trivial edit histories, so suggestions on how to handle that would be appreciated. -- Netoholic @ 03:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Masculism → Masculinism
 * Template:Masculism sidebar → Template:Masculinism sidebar
 * Weak Oppose I'm not convinced that this is the common name. "Masculism" yields more Google search results than does "masculinism". It also seems more logical to me that since it is basically the mirror image of feminism that it would be masculism, since nobody really uses femininism. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Rreagan007: You didn't give numbers of results, but mine shows 122k vs 109k - a pretty slim margin. Just by virtue of the Wikipedia article being named what it is may account for that discrepancy. Keep in mind that WP:COMMONNAME depends on what its called in reliable sources, which the Google Ngrams (Google Books) and Scholar links get us closer to estimating. I also checked the NOW Corpus which looks at recent newspapers and magazines, and masculism has 4 results, while masculinism has 24. I'd ask you to reconsider your vote, or, if you have any other evidence, please add it. -- Netoholic @  20:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an open mind and monitor this nomination to see what other people think. I get the feeling that neither one of these terms is really all that common, and as to which is more common I'm not yet convinced one way or the other. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: This template exists to create WP:FALSEBALANCE between the Men's Rights movement and feminism, and gives undue weight to fringe ideology (WP:FRINGE). it should either be deleted, or renamed to something not associated with the Men's Rights Movement and drastically reworked so that its focus is no longer on MRA-related topics. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * First, if it was WP:FRINGE, there wouldn't be Masculinism has 9450 results in Google Scholar discussing it. Second, ideologies like masculinism and feminism are not provable/disprovable scientifically in the way FRINGE is meant to address. Third, the men's rights movement is its own topic included in this one, but not the same.  Fourth, if you think male-focused ideologies are not mainstream, you're in a bubble and should expand your sources of information. -- Netoholic @  02:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, there are 1,020,000 results in Google Scholar discussing Feminism, about 100 times more. (Perhaps we should consider keeping the Masculism sidebar but making it 100 times smaller than the Feminism sidebar...) WanderingWanda (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please show some professionalism. -- Netoholic @ 02:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment:  has canvassed a specific partisan WikiProject and a specific article talk page in attempts to target editors that have known viewpoints. This continued disruption of what is a RM designed to handle a simple spelling issue needs to stop. -- Netoholic @  03:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've followed the rules of WP:Canvassing. I've left Neutral, Nonpartisan, and Open notices on WikiProjects ...which may have interest in the topic under discussion and directly related articles: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gender Studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism, Talk:Man, and Talk:Men's rights movement (If you check the history of this page you'll see that I also, uh, posted a notice here, before I realized that this is the page that the RM discussion is happening on!) (Incidentally, my proposal is not really a response to yours. I came here to make mine before I knew yours existed.) WanderingWanda (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, its generally rare for any specific RM to have notifications posted on talk pages. This RM in particular is about a simple spelling difference. Selective notification of WikiProjects can be WP:Votestacking when one can reasonably expect that WikiProject to hold certain views. Note that I did not complain about the post on WT:WikiProject Gender Studies, which this does fall under and is supposed to have balanced participants (even though I still think any talk page notifications for this low-level of an RM is indiscriminate, disruptive, and unnecessary). We don't have to invite the whole encyclopedia to every minor RM about spelling - but in particular we should not invite groups diametrically opposed to the topic area of that RM. -- Netoholic @ 04:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is no longer just a "minor RM about spelling". Do you have faith in these templates? Do you think they're neutral and worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia? If so then you shouldn't fear some scrutiny, and if not, well, you should welcome people coming in to improve them. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

So, stupidly, last night I missed that this nomination was proposing that the article itself should be moved, and I thought this was just about the names of the templates...
 * I Support the move of the article to Masculinism per WP:COMMONNAME, the Google Scholar results, etc. Furthermore:
 * If major changes aren't made to the templates then, fine, move the template to Masculinism too, HOWEVER, in my view, the templates need to be reworked and renamed. Either the templates' focus should shift away from masculinism/the men's rights movement and cover masculinity as a whole, in which case they should be named something like "Boys and men", "The human male", or "Masculinity"... OR the templates should be renamed "Men's rights movement" per WP:COMMONNAME. 1. Masculinism is closely associated with the men's rights movement 2. The articles linked in the Masculinism template mention "men's rights" much more often than "masculinism". 3. "Masculinism" is a much more obscure term than "men's rights movement". The only reason to have "Masculinism" templates instead of "Men's rights" templates is to create some sort of word-symmetry with the "feminism" templates. Such symmetry is not necessary. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

 * Masculism → Boys and men
 * Template:Masculinism → Template:Boys and men
 * Template:Masculism sidebar → Template:Boys and men sidebar
 * Important note: I realized I made a stupid mistake. I do not think the Masculism article itself should be moved to Boys and men. My idea is solely that the masculism/masculinism templates should be changed. (This is why one shouldn't try making complex proposals late at night!) (Netoholic, Rreagan007, MJL.) WanderingWanda (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The words "Masculism" and "Masculinism" are both so non-mainstream that my spellchecker doesn't even think they're real words. These templates create a false balance between masculism/men's rights and feminism, even though the latter is much more mainstream and has much more coverage in reliable sources than the former. (As noted above, Google Scholar returns literally one hundred times more results for "Feminism" than "Masculinism".) I don't have a problem with the articles on men, boys, etc. having male-focused templates but the title and focus of those templates should be mainstream. The title I've proposed is inspired in part by the recently-released APA Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men.
 * WP:LEAD: Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow.
 * WP:FRINGE: Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects.
 * WP:NPOV: neutral point of view...means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias
 * WP:FALSEBALANCE: Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance

WanderingWanda (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose counter proposal which broadens the topic range too far, to the point that categories (Category:Men) already handle such navigation. This is designed as an WP:Article series WP:SIDEBAR for topics related to Masculinism. As noted above, your claims about FRINGE/FALSEBALANCE are unfounded (this ideology exists and is prevalent), and makes no sense in the context of a navigation bar. Even Alternative medicine sidebar exists, and most of those topics really are scientifically FRINGE. Your spellchecker is not a reliable source. -- Netoholic @  03:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The alternative medicine sidebar is (hopefully) not placed on articles about actual medicine, but just alternative medicine. If the masculism sidebar was only placed on masculism-related articles I wouldn't be making this proposal. There's one of two options, here: either the masculism template morphs itself into something mainstream, or it stays out of mainstream articles. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Third option - your view of the "mainstream" is itself not mainstream. -- Netoholic @ 03:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, wouldn't Template:Masculinity sidebar be the best fit? I also don't see a reason to rename the article based off of your nomination statement. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we need to decide: is the focus of this template "maleness", or is the focus "the men's right's movement"? If the focus is the former, there are a variety of names one could think of. "Masculinity" could be good, sure. "Boys and men". "The human male". "Men in society". "Men's studies". If the focus is on MRM/MRA/anti-feminism stuff, the title should be changed to something like "The Men's Rights Movement" and then a) the template should be removed from any non-MRM page (like Man, etc.) and b) any links in the template that don't have to do with that movement directly should be removed. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * (I was being a bit dense last night, see my note above about how the nomination was malformed.) WanderingWanda (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree that "masculism" or "masculinism" as an ideology or movement is certainly much more obscure than is feminism. However, it does seem to be something that exists as a phenomenon, as evidenced by scholarship about it, so I certainly think it's a topic that Wikipedia should have an article on. And just because we have an article on the subject in no way implies that we are giving it equal weight to feminism. As far as the nav template, those exist for the sole purpose of aiding readers in easily navigating around a related set of articles. They have nothing whatsoever to do with creating any sort of false equivalence between different articles. This counter-proposal seems like a misapplication of WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE to me. Those policies are meant to regulate article content, not article existence or navigational templates. Whether or not an article should exist is based on WP:NOTABILITY, and this topic certainly seems to meet our policy threshold for notability. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Additional discussion
Let me clarify my position a bit: these templates are, essentially, MRA (Men's Rights Activist) templates. That is maybe less obvious now than it was a little while ago: they used to have big, prominent links to the Men's Rights portal (with a logo and everything.) That link disappeared when that portal was deleted. In addition, one of the templates used to have logo, that's gone now too. However, if you look at the links in the templates, they are dominated with articles about the MRA movement. If the templates confined themselves to MRA articles that would maybe be fine. But instead these templates present themselves as essentially about The Male Gender as a whole. Its four most prominent links are to: Men – Boys – Fatherhood – Masculinity. And very prominent Masculism sidebars were, up until recently, present on all of those articles.

The MRA movement is not mainstream and absolutely does not represent the male gender as a whole. The templates have been justified by comparing them to Wikipedia's feminism templates. But feminism is far, far more mainstream than the MRA movement. Every university has a Women's Studies program that draws from feminist thought. What university has a Men's Rights department? Just look at the Men's Rights Movement article to see how fringy this movement is: the Southern Poverty Law Center categorized some men's rights groups as being part of a hate ideology under the umbrella of patriarchy and male supremacy...The movement and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynistic and notably anti-feminist.

There are a variety of ways we could deal with these troublesome templates. One way is to keep the idea that the templates are essentially about The Male Gender as a whole. That would mean we'd have to toss out the templates' focus on MRA stuff. (That's what I'm proposing with this RM.) Alternatively, though, we could do the reverse: keep the MRA stuff, and toss out the idea that these templates represent men and boys on the whole. We need to do one or the other. (Or else just delete the things.) WanderingWanda (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Equating masculinism with "Men's Rights Activist" is your first intellectual error (or intentionally misleading?) and I don't think a deep evaluation of the rest of your post is necessary because it all hinges on that fundamental disconnect. This RM is not the appropriate space to for you to rant at length about your personal viewpoints about this topic area (WP:NOTFORUM). This article and sidebar have been in use for years. You've been on Wikipedia for a few months - deeply involved in gender-based disputes. Please stop disrupting/WP:BLUDGEONING Wikipedia processes. -- Netoholic @ 16:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The masculinism article itself strongly equates the movement with the men's rights movement. One subsection is called Men's rights groups. The subsection Topic areas of interest lists the "main article" as Men's rights movement. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the name changes associated with this subject. However, I think it would be a good idea to have a general discussion regarding what is meant to be in this template and what function it serves. A change was made to the man article that removed the masculism template and added the feminism template. The talk page discussion is here []. Sorting out what these templates are for will hopefully enable more constructive edits in this area. Springee (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Springee. This is not resolvable without a firm decision as to what these templates are for. If they're about the men's rights movement, then the title should be "Men's Rights Movement". If they're more broadly about masculinity, the title should be "Masculinity". As is, they appear to be trying to mix/conflate the two; any sidebar which tries to claim that Warren Farrell and Michael Kimmel are part of the same movement is just wrong: they are not only not part of the same movement, they are in fact directly opposed to each other, since Kimmel is a feminist ally and Farrell is an anti-feminist. LokiTheLiar (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, yeah, we need to have a broader conversation about the templates before we can have an RM discussion. Archiving my RM. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm agreeing as well. There is a confusion here between mascul[in]ism socio-political stuff (which overlaps but isn't always identical to men's rights material), on the one hand (or two hands one the same arm!), and general male-humans material on the other hand (on the other arm).  I think I get the Most Mangled Metaphor Award for the day.  Anyway, some more general scope discussion is clearly necessary.  Where do we want to have that?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I also agree (about the sidebar template; I am not expressing any opinion at this time on what the mainspace article should be titled). As someone said above, the template seems to exist in its current form / name as an effort to mirror the Feminism template. -sche (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scholars
Who are the current masculist scholars, i.e. academics who currently hold positions in universities, identify as masculists and write about it? SarahSV (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Which definition are you using for "masculist" - do you mean "advocate for men's rights" or "advocate for masculinity"? There are far more masculinities professors than there are masculist ones. -- Netoholic @ 04:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean current academics who identify as "masculist" and who write about "masculism", in books and articles that use that term. SarahSV (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Revert
Netoholic, what was the reason for this revert? SarahSV (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * have you been following this discussion page? There is a preponderance of evidence pointing out that there is a definitional difference between masculism and masculinism (just as there is between feminism and femininism). Your edits are further conflating these terms which have been incorrectly conflated on this article for at least 13 years, and that conflation has been repeated in some recent scholarship leading to WP:CIRCULAR and WP:CITOGENESIS. -- Netoholic @  00:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Most sources say the terms are used interchangeably. But my question was why you reverted the South Africa copy edit. SarahSV (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Some sources think they are used interchangeably exactly because Wikipedia and OED conflate the terms (WP:CIRCULAR). There is exactly one source, the OED, which claims they are direct synonyms, but even in the definition they give they cite "Advocacy of the rights of men;" and "adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, etc., regarded as typical of men" as separate clauses.  Citing dictionaries directly is often problematic.  Wikipedia's articles are meant to be about topics not words.  So even if the OED gives a single word definition that combines two distinct topics, that does not mean we combine them in one article.  There are masculist groups and people which are allies to feminism. There are masculist groups which are supportive of femininity. By continuing to conflate the terms, you are misrepresenting those movements, misrepresenting the sources above, and continuing the damage Wikipedia has done to these words for all this time. -- Netoholic @  01:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you please explain why you reverted the South Africa copy edit? SarahSV (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I really think the bigger issue is why you removed a cleanup/dispute tag without leaving a clear edit summary nor explaining on this talk page why you did so. -- Netoholic @ 01:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've restored 's content changes  pending a proper edit summary or talk page comment explaining the revert. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've explained why I removed the tag; see above: "Most sources say the terms are used interchangeably." Please explain why you reverted the South Africa copy edit. SarahSV (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't get to hand-wave removal of a dispute tag without using a clear edit summary when you did it, nor discussing its removal on the talk page (WP:WNTRMT). Pretty clearly there is disagreement, and "most sources say the terms are used interchangeably" is dismissive and lacks the subtlety of the problem. There are in fact almost no sources which individually use the terms "interchangeably". Most sources use one, or the other, and proper understanding of how they are used in a particular case is important. -- Netoholic @  02:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So it's fine for you to revert without an edit summary or talk page comment, but not OK for others to simply remove a tag that's disputed anyway, while leaving an explanation on the talk page? Interesting. Also, exactly because Wikipedia and OED conflate the terms? Since when is it problematic for sources to use the OED definition? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I left an edit summary, though. As far as I can tell, she's used the OED definition directly, not quoted or cited by another source, so I don't understand what you're getting at with that question. -- Netoholic @ 03:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary does not address the you made. If you don't grasp why that's a problem, then I really start to question your competence in this area. Since you also apparently don't recall what you wrote here at, I'll quote it more fully: Some sources think they are used interchangeably exactly because Wikipedia and OED conflate the terms (WP:CIRCULAR). To repeat, since when is it problematic for sources to abide by the OED definition? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought we had a source that quoted the OED, but I guess we don't. To me, that makes the full quotation from the OED currently in this article less WP:DUE.  If no one else cites their definition, we shouldn't either beyond a very brief mention. -- Netoholic @  04:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV: What was the reason for this revert? You removed the lead which was derived from sources from among a list of 8 above that explicitly define the WP:TOPIC of advocacy for men's rights by the term "masculism/masculist", and also describe this topic as the counterpart to feminism. Your failure while editing this page over the last few days to incorporate this preponderance of evidence, your lack of commentary in the sections devoted to these sources, and now your instantaneous removal of sourced material which clearly has WP:WEIGHT without discussing your reasons, seems to be indicating a WP:tendentious editing style. I would ask you, in good faith, to revert yourself until you can bring additional sources that show that "advocacy for men's rights" (defined in most sources as "masculism") is not the counterpart of feminism. -- Netoholic @ 21:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your "sources" don't say what you think they do. In short, they're garbage. See above. You've also got the burden of proof backwards. A quick look at the sources on Men's rights movement should make it clear that what you're proposing is an absurd false equivalence. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sangdeboeuf. The problem with the sources has been explained ad nauseam. Netoholic, if you disagree, please open a thread at WP:RSN. SarahSV (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Hooper (2001)
This seems like a potentially useful source; unfortunately, a bunch of pages are missing from the preview. It's based on a paper that won the British International Studies Association's best dissertation prize in 1998. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead
I think the previous lead, before Netoholic's recent edit, should be restored. It was in place from March 2016 until his edit on 19 May, which bases the lead on what may be a tiny-minority view. The previous lead said:

"Masculism or masculinism may variously refer to advocacy of the rights or needs of men and boys; and the adherence to or promotion of attributes (opinions, values, attitudes, habits) regarded as typical of men and boys."

It isn't ideal, but it's better than the current one. Any thoughts? SarahSV (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Having skimmed the above scope discussion, I agree; we shouldn't give Christensen's views undue weight by presenting them as definitive in the very first paragraph of the article. I've restored the previous lead section wording. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for doing that. I've restored and expanded the text about Charlotte Perkins Gilman, who apparently coined the term masculism in 1914. That was removed in 2017, I think inadvertently while reverting vandalism. Her use of it shows clearly that masculism and masculinism refer to the same set of ideas. SarahSV (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just a note that MOS:FIRST says: Keep the first sentence focused on the subject by avoiding constructions like "[Subject] refers to..." or "...is a word for..." – the article is about the subject, not a term the subject. For articles that are actually about terms, italicize the term to indicate the use–mention distinction. WanderingWanda (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point; however, given that the sources tend to approach masculism as a term requiring a definition, I think that's a sign that the topic is not very well defined to begin with. I don't know whether that indicates the need for better sources, changing the article to be about the term, or just deleting the whole thing as an exercise in improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that Netoholic's version gave too much emphasis to Christensen's definitions.  As I mentioned above, my experience when researching this topic a few years ago was that there was no coherent definition for Masculism or Masculinism.  Different people use the term in very different ways. I am rather sorry about this, as it might be helpful to have a consistent term for those, like Ferrel Christensen for example, who apparently don't subscribe to the anti-feminist agenda of the MRM, but support feminism as well as drawing specific attention to men's concerns and problems. But the fact is that this is not how the term is consistently defined, and WP is not in the business of redefining words.  I am really not sure what is the best thing to do about anarticle without a clear definition. Slp1 (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like the focus might need to be on the word itself, then. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , based on the source in this article and the other two sources I listed above, Christensen seems to be promoting a tiny-minority view ("progressive masculism"), and perhaps a very limited definition of feminism that he's willing to support. It's difficult to be sure, because it's not at all clear what he's saying. SarahSV (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , based on the source in this article and the other two sources I listed above, Christensen seems to be promoting a tiny-minority view ("progressive masculism"), and perhaps a very limited definition of feminism that he's willing to support. It's difficult to be sure, because it's not at all clear what he's saying. SarahSV (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm continuing to progress on adding the sources I've found to the lead. Just as feminism and femininism are separate topics, so too are masculism and masculinism. There are sources that make the distinction, although its naturally the case that not a lot of sources cover all four terms in a compact, concise way as Christensen does. His definitions are well-cited, and there are others (Young and Duerst-Lahti 1997 which I'm about to add). This case is a lot like trying to find a sources that clearly differentiate between a meter (a measuring instrument) vs. meter/metre (a metric distance unit). The topics are connected slightly, especially etymologically, and they can sometimes be unclear or conflates in certain contexts, but they are distinct subjects - and finding sources that contrast them to clear up confusion is harder than finding sources for one or the other. Wikipedia has made a big error for 13 years conflating these topics, and so a little patience and open-mindedness would go a long way to fixing that mistake so we stop perpetuating it. -- Netoholic @ 01:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I haven't done much reading into this, but here's my nutshell understanding of masculism/masculinism. You folks can tell me if I'm correct: 1. The terms were coined in response to feminism (feminism being a broad, hugely influential social movement which has brought us the woman's right to vote, etc), but 2. definitions for "masculism"/"masculinism" are kind of fuzzy and contradictory, and 3. there is no broad "masculist movement" that is comparable to the feminist movement. In fact there's no real male counterpart to feminism at all. Or if there is, it's called The Patriarchy. WanderingWanda (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I really don't like to talk of "movements" exactly because they are so vague. But there are certainly some people and organizations which fall under "masculist" as being pro-men's rights but not anti-feminist (or may even be pro-feminist) - mostly they are about resolving a different set of rights than feminists are, and see resolution of men's concerns as a necessary step toward gender equality. Feminists tend to see them as having the wrong priorities. Most masculinist people and organizations are pro-masculinity and pro-femininity (for example, traditional qualities or perhaps even the dreaded Patriarchy) but don't necessarily define themselves using that term. I'd say, most of the world is "masculinist/femininist" just as a traditionalist default that hasn't cared much about modern feminism since women's suffrage.  A lot of the reason for the fuzzy definitions is a good deal of literature using these terms is from the modern feminist perspective, which can be critical of masculists for focusing on rights issues that are not a priority for feminists, and critical of masculinists for encouraging gender roles that they think preserve the status quo. There is a subtle distinction, for sure, but a clear understanding of the terms makes it easier to understand feminist critiques. The "men's movement" is made of people/orgs which may be masculist, masculinist, neither, or both.  Some are masculist without being masculinist, and vice versa. This is why we've done a grave disservice for 13 years conflating the terms. -- Netoholic @  02:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Now who's doing original research? Could we have some citations for the above, or is this becoming a general discussion forum? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm the only one that's been adding sources to this discussion at all. -- Netoholic @ 05:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but I don't see the connection between what you just wrote above and any of the sources we've been discussing. Could you be more exact? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point your request seems like you just want to bog me down. In the sections above, I've quoted sources which define masculism against feminism and masculism against masculinism. For each of those, I've probably accessed at least 5 times as many sources, that use one term or the other. From the contexts given in those sources is what I based my summary above on. Its not original research - its my short summary of findings after looking at reliable sources. -- Netoholic @  06:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You've cited sources that define how they think the terms should be used, not how they are used in practice or relate to any groups, movements, or theories (apart from a couple very minor asides). And I don't see any sources here that say most of the world is "masculinist/femininist" or that a good deal of literature using these terms is from the modern feminist perspective. Everything I've seen about feminism suggests that there is no single "modern feminist" perspective. Why don't you post some of your other sources here, so others can help evaluate their reliability? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your reply right here made statements without sources - is Everything I've seen about feminism suggests that there is no single "modern feminist" perspective original research as you've claimed about me? lol. It doesn't matter if the authors are saying how something "should" be used... that's what many authors do. Certainly there are feminist authors that go to great lengths to tell people what feminism "should" be about. If its their opinion, we can attribute. Doesn't mean its unusable. The preponderance of reliable sources associate the term "masculist" with concern for men's rights, and "masculinist" with promotion of masculinity. Two distinct meanings that overlap in certain subject areas... but both deserving of separate treatments.  "Masculinism" is in fact the more expansive subject, and all this discussion is not moving us toward starting that separate article. -- Netoholic @  18:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, pardon me, but I assumed we were all aware of multiple Feminist movements and ideologies. Or you might want to have a look at any of the sources I already linked above, which discuss some of the various schools of feminism. There still isn't sufficient justification for an article split, in my opinion. The stuff about "feminist authors" being prescriptivist is just irrelevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

May 23 addition
you recently added the following to the lead:

As discussed above under, several of these sources fail to meet the standards of fact-checking and accuracy we look for to establish reliability. Moreover, none of these sources directly state that masculism is considered to be the equivalent of feminism, morphologically or otherwise. A source saying what an "appropriate" or "reasonable definition" would be, or suggesting it's "helpful to consider" a given meaning, are not describing what a term/topic are "considered to be". The former are opinions, while the latter is a factual statement. Stating the latter based on the former would be original research, i.e. analysis or synthesis of published material reaching a conclusion not clearly stated by any of the sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You have persistently been disputing the reliability of apparently good sources and rehashing. At this point, if you have concerns about the reliability of these sources, I suggest other venues like WP:RSN. When experts published in reliable sources say this is what the definitions are, should be, etc... then that is what we use. There is no reasonable basis to disbelieve them, and their claim is not on its face unreasonable, since basic English word construction (terms and suffixes) is at play, and the preponderance in sources is clear. -- Netoholic @  21:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently good sources – according to whom? In arguing basic English word construction, you appear to be falling into the etymological fallacy, not to mention original research. I've explained the problems with these sources already. If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN yourself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources say [masculism] is the precise morphological equivalent of feminism and Masculist, rather than masculinist, is the appropriate antonym of Feminist - therefore, it is those experts that are making the morphological and lexicological arguments, not me. I would strongly suggest you stop with the accusations of OR. -- Netoholic @  22:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the fifth time you've described someone as an "expert" with no proof whatsoever. Since you've so far refused to respond to good-faith requests for an explanation, I see no reason to respond further to that argument. Morphology and lexicology have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia., remember? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is primarily about the topic of advocacy for the rights of men, and the sources use the term "masculism", so that's the title and the bolded word in the lead. The sources also describe lexicological aspects of the term(s), and so per WP:WORDISSUBJECT we should not ignore inclusion of that information.  I am hardly proposing we create a "dictionary entry" here... but we often have etymology sections in articles, and this one in particular already has a "Definition and scope" section. So yes, morphology and lexicology do in fact come into play in an encyclopedia. But I think you know this. -- Netoholic @  23:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For "advocacy for the rights of men", a.k.a. men's rights, Menzies (2007), Wood (2014), and Schmitz & Kazyak (2016) use masculinism, as does the OED. So your statement is incorrect. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, sources that state what is "appropriate" or "reasonable" are not describing lexology, they are prescribing usage. That is, unless you think "Lady Gaga is an appropriate U.S. president" means "Lady Gaga is the U.S. president". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My wording of the lead uses " is considered to be" - that's not an accident. -- Netoholic @ 23:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Which published, reliable sources clearly and explicitly state that masculism is "considered to be" the counterpart to feminism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Years
Sangdeboeuf, do you mind if I restore publication years to "Nicholas Davidson, in The Failure of Feminism (1988)", and "According to Ferrel Christensen, a Canadian philosopher and president of the former Alberta-based Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender Equality, writing in 1995"? I think it's important to clarify when this was being argued. SarahSV (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't dispute it if you do, but I'm not sure it's needed. Why do the dates matter in particular? (Frankly, I think a lot of the quotations in that section are WP:UNDUE and could be drastically cut. Davidson in particular is not an objective source; too many opinionated sources tend to make an article unbalanced.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the book, it's standard practice to add year of publication in brackets. That apart, I think it's important to signal to the reader that these people were writing 31 and 24 years ago. These are not recent ideas.
 * As for Davidson, I agree. I expanded it only because it was misleading (writing from memory, it said "virism" was an extreme form of masculism, whereas Davidson did not say it was an extreme form). This is the problem with the article. In trying to improve it, we risk making it worse, because it isn't a real topic with a coherent body of literature we can summarize. We therefore can't judge DUE, etc. The article is arguably a SYN violation that should be redirected to Men's rights movement. Meanwhile, I won't mind if you remove the Davidson quote. SarahSV (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * " I think it's important" is WP:OR. Are there any sources that claim there is significance to the years these sources were published? WP:NOTTEMPORARY seems to apply, and the years are in the citations themselves.  Also, where are the sources that describe how Christensen's activities with the Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender Equality in 2000 have anything to do with his writing for The Oxford Companion to Philosophy five years earlier in 1995? You seem to be WP:SYNTHing two disconnected sources together to imply some sort of nefarious view of the author. -- Netoholic @  04:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * should we take that to mean that you have read and fully assimilated WP:SYNTH, and will refrain from interpreting the contents of any sources on this page yourself unless also explicitly supported by reliable sources? If so, I welcome this change of heart and anticipate a successful collaborative effort on this article. Kudos. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, the statement "I think it's important" is not original research here because it's a value judgement about which of a set of verifiable facts is worth including. WP:NPOV actually requires us to make such value judgements, since we can't and shouldn't include everything. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, its not. NPOV is representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. (emphasis mine) - this is why I asked what the significance to this topic that the years and Christensen's later activity have to do with anything. Is there any recent source that says works from the 1970s/80s/90s on these topics is out of date or no longer relevant?  I do find sources that mention the old/obsolete meanings of these words as used in the late 1800s/early 1900s, but not seen anything from the 2000s that is critical of 1970s/80s/90s work.  Look, the reason this article is so hard to write is exactly because of what I've been saying - the issue isn't the words themselves, its that we have two distinct topics that the same words have been applied too.  Wikipedia's articles are about distinct topics, though, not about words - once we split this into  and articles, the titles can be determined based on the more common name for each and the topic articles can make clear about how the terms have been used. A split is the only reasonable resolution to this. -- Netoholic @  18:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The key word there is significant. In-text attribution commonly involves dates and other biographical or publication information, depending on users' discretion. It's not just about "views", unless you think an encyclopedia article is just a collection of opinions with no indication where they come from. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, its not. NPOV is representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. (emphasis mine) - this is why I asked what the significance to this topic that the years and Christensen's later activity have to do with anything. Is there any recent source that says works from the 1970s/80s/90s on these topics is out of date or no longer relevant?  I do find sources that mention the old/obsolete meanings of these words as used in the late 1800s/early 1900s, but not seen anything from the 2000s that is critical of 1970s/80s/90s work.  Look, the reason this article is so hard to write is exactly because of what I've been saying - the issue isn't the words themselves, its that we have two distinct topics that the same words have been applied too.  Wikipedia's articles are about distinct topics, though, not about words - once we split this into  and articles, the titles can be determined based on the more common name for each and the topic articles can make clear about how the terms have been used. A split is the only reasonable resolution to this. -- Netoholic @  18:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The key word there is significant. In-text attribution commonly involves dates and other biographical or publication information, depending on users' discretion. It's not just about "views", unless you think an encyclopedia article is just a collection of opinions with no indication where they come from. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Scope changes
After a couple of days researching this topic more in-depth, I've found that there is a substantial difference between the terms masculism and masculinism, although some sources do conflate the two. I'm going to be performing some rewrites/splits and separate these topics into two articles as they really should be. Here is a short version key to the changes: The goal is to properly distinguish these two (really all four) terms. I think once that's done, the sidebars problem should be more resolvable. -- Netoholic @ 03:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * masculism is the advocacy of the rights and interests of men or boys, and is considered the counterpart to feminism. Both views hold that men/women have been subjected to systemic, historical and modern discrimination and wish to see that discrimination end. The two ideologies are not as separate as currently presented - they just approach gender equality from different vantage points.
 * masculinism is the promotion or appreciation of masculinity/manliness, and is the direct counterpart to femininism. Think Tim Taylor and Carol Brady. While I draft up this article, I'm probably going to temporarily redirect this one to masculinity rather than here after I look through the incoming links and ensure they are using the correct term.
 * Please don't create a fork without consensus. We need multiple, high-quality, up-to-date sources saying the terms are used differently. As things stand, they seem to refer to the same ideas. Masculism is not the counterpart to feminism, because the essence of feminism is to oppose a patriarchal system in which women are subordinate. There is no counterpart to that for men. These recent efforts of yours to insist that for every female thing there must be a corresponding male thing are wrong-headed. SarahSV (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Its not a fork, its a correction - these are distinct terms and the sources show it. The root of a lot of problems is that this article has conflated the terms for a long time. I'd say read the sources, which do overwhelmingly describe masculism and feminism as counterparts - and often not enemy ideologies. Masculists often also oppose patriarchal norms because of the long-time negative effect on men (like dying by the millions in wars). A great number of feminists welcome redress of masculist concerns as part of the same goal of equality. Masculinism, on the other hand, which is a promotion of masculinity, is often under fire from feminists and is not the direct counterpart. -- Netoholic @ 05:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The question arises to what extent you can show this distinction to go beyond an original research premise — as in representing consensus in mainstream academia. El_C 05:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This does have an OR ring to it and/or perhaps inadvertent cherry-picking. Netoholic, can you post here a few of your highest-quality sources published in the last 10 years that argue as you have done above? SarahSV (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the OR was done in the past, where masculism and masculinism citations were thrown together into this article as if they were direct synonyms - even I was fooled and made a move request above - before I did a deeper dive and realized the distinction. The main source for the definitions I used above is The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, which is massively-cited in its own right, and so is one of the most reliable sources available which specifically, clearly defines all four terms. Deeper reads of some of the sources I removed held WP:CIRCULAR references to this article and some didn't mention "masculism" at all. Those that used "masculinism", and not "masculism", were pretty clearly critical of masculinity itself, and didn't mention the areas of concern of masculists. So I think its clear in academia there is a distinction, but the terms are so close in spelling and rough meaning that less rigorous sources do conflate them - its even possible that the mishandling in this article for the last 13 years has exacerbated that effect. -- Netoholic @ 06:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but if you can't properly link, can you just quote directly? El_C 06:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That source is from 24 years ago: That entry isn't a good source, despite the publisher, and it mentions masculinism only once, as an aside.


 * Can you post your other sources? We need up-to-date sources making the distinction you want to make. SarahSV (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The source is the 2005 2nd edition, not 1995 - so 14 years and the book overall has 2500+ citations. The fact it mentions both masculism and masculinism is the point of the source... it gives a clear, distinct definition of both (or rather, all four if you include feminism/femininism). And remember WP:NOTTEMPORARY - so I don't know why you're artificially limiting this to 10 years. -- Netoholic @  07:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't see the relevance of 2,500 citations. It's an encyclopaedia, and your source is a 1,285-word entry, "masculism", which has four sources. The entry is by Ferrell or Ferrel Christensen, author of Pornography: The Other Side (as F. M. Christensen, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1990) and "'Sexual Harassment' Must be Eliminated", Public Affairs Quarterly (1994), . The title of the former probably speaks for itself. In the latter, he argues that sexual harassment is a "pseudo-concept", and it's downhill from there.


 * There is no difference between the 1995 and 2005 entries on masculism, so the source is 24 years old. It begins: "Defining 'masculism' is made difficult by the fact that the term has been used by very few people, and by hardly any philosophers."


 * Which other sources make the distinction you want to make? SarahSV (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that it is important to see what other sources support this distinction. I researched and edited this article many years ago, but at that time realized there was no clear, coherent definition of Masculism and no clear, consistent differentiation with regard to Masculinism or indeed to the Men's Rights Movement. Many of the definitions were contradictory, as shown in the current "definition and scope" section. Ferrel Christensen is an excellent academic source, but it is important to know that he is also the founder of "Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender Equality" and has been critiqued for his opinions in this area by reliable sources . His views need to be supported by other reliable sources before Wikipedia can suggest in an encyclopedic voice that his is the "official" definition and distinction.Slp1 (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources which differentiate masculism from masculinism

 * (book overall has 2500+ citations)

Keep in mind, this is just the sources that differentiate the sets of terms. A lot of sources use one or the other, may or many not explicitly define the terms, or may conflate the terms (possibly a result of Wikipedia conflating them for 13 years). Adding as I go. -- Netoholic @ 01:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Netoholic, as I wrote above, the Christensen entry in Honderich is not a book with 2,500 citations. It's an entry in an encyclopaedia from 1995, and it cites four sources. Do you have any recent sources? SarahSV (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Its ridiculous to think that if the book overall has 2500+ citations, that the entry within it doesn't benefit as part of that clearly reliable, and widely-referenced source.  The book has at least one new edition (2005) which means if there were perceived any error in the Christensen entry, it would have been corrected in that 10 year span.  The book even has its own Wikipedia entry for goodness sake - The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. It is impossible for you to downgrade its relevance. I'll also point out that you restored a 2009 source which references a term usage from 1914... so your concern over recentness seems inconsistent. -- Netoholic @  02:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at that author's other work, or the evaluation of it by other sources? For example, he allegedly maintains that, quoting Walter DeKeseredy, "violence in intimate relationships is sexually symmetrical". SarahSV (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you really engaging on WP:OR muck-raking to try to besmirch an entry in an obviously reliable source? You know its not just the entry's author whose reputation contributes to its reliability, right? Consider the editor Ted Honderich and the Oxford University Press as well. Consider also the authors which have cited this book 2500 times. -- Netoholic @  02:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Quoting the Anna Deane Carlson Endowed Chair of Social Sciences at West Virginia University isn't "muck-raking". The point is that you seem confused. The solution is to keep producing sources to support your distinction. SarahSV (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless she is writing a criticism of this source, its irrelevant and WP:OR. -- Netoholic @ 02:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliability depends on context. Critically evaluating sources (including the author) for reliability is neither muck-raking nor prohibited as original research. Quite the opposite, actually. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy has hundreds of contributors and who knows how many individual entries. To me it's ridiculous to assume that any proportion of the 2500+ citations necessarily reflect on the quality of a single entry without proof. I'm not saying the Christensen source is unusable, but there are apparent reasons to question its definitiveness. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For one thing, Christensen's only description of masculinism is in a brief parenthetical aside; he doesn't expound on the difference between masculism and masculinism nearly as much as he compares masculism with feminism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And seems to contradict himself by writing that Davidson's "virism" is "an extreme brand of masculism and masculinism". SarahSV (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Its not a contradiction - its possible for a particular view to be both masculism and masculinism - that doesn't mean masculism and masculinism are the same thing. Flipped around, something can be both feminist and femininist, if for example, it both promotes femininity -and- promotes women's rights issues. In fact, Christensen is confirming his prior definitions and showing they are separate, by not using just one of terms or the other. -- Netoholic @ 06:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources which precisely define masculism as counterpart to feminism

 * (book overall has 2500+ citations)
 * (note: cites Christensen as well)

Adding as I go. -- Netoholic @ 01:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Cathy Young is a polemicist, not a social scientist or academic philosopher. Her views should be cited cautiously if at all, and should be explicitly attributed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The other trouble I see is that the better-quality sources among these mostly take a prescriptive approach to the term/topic (my bolding): "Masculism and its adjectival form masculist are my coinages for the profeminist men's movement ... Masculism seems to me the obvious word ... and should, it seems to me, be used in a similar positive sense (as feminism)"; "Masculist, rather than masculinist, is the appropriate antonym of Feminist"; "The exact concomitants for ideology derived from females and males would be femininism and masculinism, or feminism and masculism. One can readily imagine distinctions that should be made between these rubrics"; "A reasonable definition of 'masculism' would have it refer to promoting the interests or rights of men ... a more precise definition of both (masculism and masculinism feminism ) would be something on this order..." Thus we have a collection of opinions on how to define the term/topic, but not much factual description beyond it being a word that some people use ("the few who apply the term 'masculist' to themselves"). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's not hold a different standard for one ideology than another. Certainly, feminist sources are often trying to prescribe the proper meaning of "feminism" as well. I would not expect any different. As these are ideologies, there is no objective definition. These are expert opinions, and specifically I have limited this selection to sources which themselves define these terms (for the purpose of building an encyclopedia entry). Other use these paired terms in common parlance without explicit definitions, though. Robinson points out in addition to the above quote that "[masculism] is the precise morphological equivalent of feminism" and certainly many authors use it as such, without prescribing their own definition or citing a dictionary. Its constructed the same, linguistically, and so is used as the counterpart. -- Netoholic @ 00:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Expert opinion" doesn't apply to what should be, which is really outside the scope of an encyclopedia. We can cite opinions as long as they're noteworthy, but defining a topic really requires a balanced overview of the facts. What "feminist sources" are you referring to, and how are they relevant to this discussion? There's plenty of information about feminism in scholarly sources, for instance:     While these descriptions are all somewhat subjective, they all attempt to describe something that exists in reality. If there are equivalent sources describing masculism as a counterpart to feminism, I haven't seen them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL your quotes use terribly inconclusive terms compared to the ones you bolded in the quotes above, like "A general definition might state that [feminism] is...", "I have suggested that the field of feminism attends to...". "Feminism provides the most direct challenge to the gendered world..." is a rallying cry, not a definition. I'd say spend your energy on this article, because as it stands I've brought several sources, as I was asked to, and so am preparing to largely restore my prior edit with these additional sources and findings. I've shown several dimensions of proof that these are distinct terms which should no longer be conflated on this page. The only satisfying counter-evidence is the OED definition SarahSV added, but the preponderance is with my sources because they are experts in gender issues.  I think you'll actually be very satisfied once these two terms are split and scoped... masculinism is going to be the more interesting article to design. -- Netoholic @  05:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. Your sources are "experts in gender issues" – what? The sources I quoted are describing an actual movement known as feminism, not saying how they think the word "feminism" should be defined based on its morphological qualities. (LOL.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can find plenty of sources which define either masculism or masculinism by themselves. But again, I have to point out that these sources are specifically ones which use two terms and distinguish them. This is in furtherance of showing that these two terms should no longer be conflated in one article. After that, I'd be happy to cite all the sources which define masculism on the masculism article page, and the masculinism on the masculinism page. -- Netoholic @ 06:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced the existing sources are sufficient to distinguish them. We need sources that describe how the terms are actually used, not how authors think they should be used. Things seem to be much as Duerst-Lahti put it in 1997: "The contours of masculist thought, in contrast to masculinist thought, have not yet solidified". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Most often, sources are just using masculist or masculinist as words that use English language rules and so have expected meanings. Take this source for example, Re-Thinking Men: Heroes, Villains and Victims. It doesn't state a particularly concise definition of "masculist", but the author clearly knows the term is the counterpart to "feminist" and trusts the reader to likewise know it. They also are covering "masculist" in the same meaning as Christensen - as a concern for men's rights - and not the masculinist sense. But it doesn't have a concise, clear, or conveniently quotable passage for the purposes of this section, so I haven't listed it above. -- Netoholic @  07:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * [T]he author clearly knows the term is the counterpart to "feminist" and trusts the reader to likewise know it – whether that's true or not, we can't build an encyclopedia article out of a bunch of assorted uses of the term any more than a bunch of sources saying how the term should be used: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term. And it's not our role to interpret the meaning of such usages either, per WP:NOR. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I already said it couldn't be used for that. You said "I'm not convinced", so this example was more for your benefit, so you can an example of usage. Also, the suggestion that a word that is at least as old as the late 1800s is a "neologism" is kind of funny. Every source In the list above is "what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept" - even if what they say when they mention the term is how it "should" be used. -- Netoholic @ 09:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And I'm fine with using those sources; I just don't think they sufficiently show that two well-defined topics exist, or that either is a parallel concept to feminism. One can probably find a dozen sources that use just about any obscure term; I think it's more important to find sources that describe views on the topic from a disinterested viewpoint, as I mentioned earlier. The part of WP:NEO I quoted is just common sense in my opinion, and should really apply to any article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I only see one source presented that seems to define the two topics as one (OED), and even that is debatable because their definition covers both meanings, separated by semicolons into clauses within the definition, but we still have two distinct topics - "Advocacy of the rights of men;" and "adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, etc., regarded as typical of men;" - and those meanings should be split into two articles because you can have one without the other being true. Each article is just titled using the term most often used for the topic - masculism in relation to men's rights and masculinism in the case of promotion of masculinity.  Both articles should certainly cover the fact that the terms have been used unclearly, interchangeably, and conflated. Both articles would quote the OED overlapping definition. But also both articles would use sources which define the respective terms unto themselves and, per the sources in the other section, distinct from each other. -- Netoholic @  19:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, you can have one without the other may be true or not, but that's evidently your own original research; we should just go by what published sources state. Sources that equate the two terms/concepts were not hard to find; see, below. If you have truly tabulated all or most available sources based on which term they use for which topic, I for one would be interested to see the results. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Its not an original idea out of my own head - its based on ALL these sources I've linked. I demand that you stop with that accusation. -- Netoholic @ 04:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but unless a published source directly states this view, it's original research. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this is a talk page, and I'll not be inline citations for every single thing I type. Per WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, if you take any two terms that are neither synonyms or antonyms, it goes without proof that either both, one, or neither of those terms could conceivably be used to describe a topic. For example, I don't need to cite a source which says its possible to describe something as "spotted" and "furry", or "furry", or neither. As shown in all the, they take steps to define the terms so as to inform the reader which of the terms are being used for the topic at hand (and clear up common misunderstandings between the similar-looking terms) and then use just one term - ie "you can have one without the other". This is why its not contradictory to see these two terms used together when discussing a topic like when Christensen says Davidson's "virism" is "an extreme brand of masculism and masculinism". So it is possible for something to be both masculist -and- masculinist, one or the other, or neither. -- Netoholic @  08:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There exist countless published sources for the sky being  blue. I don't see how this situation compares. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that Douglas Robinson is a recognized expert in gender studies, so his "coinages" shouldn't carry much weight. Nor is it clear when he claims to have coined the terms, but I doubt it was before Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Davidson's The Failure of Feminism is another polemic. It should not be considered reliable for either language or gender issues. It supports Davidson's own use of the terms, but usage alone doesn't help determine notability of the term/concept. Michael Kimmel is a reputable scholar, but his and Coston's 2013 paper says nothing about masculism vis-a-vis feminism that I can see. I don't know why it was added to this list. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading Douglas Robinson's article again - it says that he has published widely on various aspects of human communication and social interaction (American literature, literary theory, linguistic theory, gender theory (emphasis added). He is uniquely qualified to give his views on the linguistic aspects of gender theory. It certainly is true from several sources that "masculist" as a term has been independently derived as the counterpart to "feminism" on several occasions (mostly because that's just how the English language works when you consider root words and suffixes). Its not a very common term, and is left out of a lot of dictionaries, for sure, but that's changing. Gilman "coined" the term in 1914 around the same time that the term was already in use to describe female sex individuals that exhibited outward male secondary sex traits, a medical condition often studied in relation to sexual inversion (ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4). Her use was novel at the time, and very clearly directed towards male reaction to feminism. Davidson's "The Failure of Feminism" is well-cited and reviewed. It doesn't much matter how "polemic" you think it is (WP:OR? source?). Coston/Kimmel make very clear in the text and note (citing Cathy Young) the definitions they are using, show that masculist is the male equivalent of feminism, and then settle on using "masculinist" throughout the paper as they are talking about the importance of masculinism to the mythopoets, rather than politics ala feminism.  -- Netoholic @  10:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a reliable source now? [P]ublished widely on various aspects of human communication and social interaction doesn't imply that anyone is an expert. Lots of people are published widely. What actual published, reliable sources cite Robinson as an expert on gender? Davidson's The Failure of Feminism is well-cited and reviewed? By whom? What are his academic credentials? Your own source, Christensen, describes Davidson's view of masculism/masculinism as "extreme", so I can only assume you're arguing for the sake of argument here. To repeat, Coston and Kimmel do not use the term masculism in their paper. Not once. When they say, "We use the term differently here than the standard dictionary", they evidently mean masculinism, which is the term they use in the text, and whose definition they proceed to quote: "masculinist. noun: an advocate of male superiority or dominance". If anything, they are equating the terms, given that they say nothing about the spelling difference. You appear to be saying that because they quote Young in the footnote, that they are endorsing her definition and equating masculism with feminism as she does. I think you're reading way too much into a brief quotation that is given no explicit comment, and once again appears in parentheses, in a footnote. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * These questions indicate that you've not spent even a moment looking for the answers you seek. I am not your research assistant. If you can't find reviews for The Failure of Feminism, or can't do a search of Coston/Kimmel for the word "masculism", I can't help you. -- Netoholic @ 21:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Read what I wrote. Coston and Kimmel do not use the term masculism in their paper. They quote Young's use of it in a footnote. They do not use the term themselves for anything. I looked for reviews of Davidson's book, and didn't find anything suggesting it as a valuable or authoritative source on gender issues. Since you are the one proposing we use it, it's on you to demonstrate that the author is a reliable source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Blais / Dupuis-Déri source


Here is the full paper. This source should not be used to equate the terms masculism/masculist with masculinism/masculinist because, as you can see from the full quote, their usage is based on the French, and specifically say that the English usage has a different context. There is an additional problem, and to see it, you have to going down a bit of a rabbit hole. They cite their own work Dupuis-Deri (2009) titled Le « masculinisme » : une histoire politique du mot (en anglais et en français) which is a French-language paper that discusses various term usages in French and English (there is no direct English translation of that paper that I've been able to find). On page 102, in the section of that which distinguishes English "masculism" from "masculinism", they cite Duerst-Lahti (2008) Gender Ideology : Masculinism and Feminalism. In that, on p. 169, Duerst-Lahti gives a definition of "masculism". The only problem: it specifically cites this Wikipedia article as of 2007. In short, this entire chain is rooted on a WP:CIRCULAR reference. It can't be used to draw an equivalence between masculism and masculinism. -- Netoholic @ 04:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All that means is that the sources don't necessarily show an equivalence between masculinism and masculinism in English, but there's still the French usage that can be discussed. And looking at the above quote, I see a bunch of discussion that seems to equate the terms that isn't cited to Dupuis-Déri (2009), but to other works on English usage. Looking at the 2008 chapter "Gender ideology: masculinism and feminalism", Duerst-Lahti cites Wikipedia to say masculism is associated with Warren Farrell and initially "promoted gender egalitarianism and the promise of mutual benefit" (p. 169). But Duerst-Lahti also says the term was "common to the early days of second wave feminism", which I don't see in any late-2007 version of this article. It's not great that the author doesn't cite a source for this, but I don't think we can assume from this that the entire chain of sources is invalid. The fact that the 2009 paper is in French (and no one here appears to have read it) also suggests there may be additional sources for this info. If we were citing the 2008 chapter itself, I'd agree there might be a problem of circular sourcing. But I think we can assume that the later authors checked the material they were citing and found it valid. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Duerst-Lahti (2008) and by extension both Dupuis-Déri (2009, 2012) sources are too tainted by the WP:CIRCULAR problem to use in this article. They might be fine for masculinism as a separate topic. I was actually hoping to use Duerst-Lahti, as it both confirms that masculism and feminism are counterparts AND that masculism and masculinism are not direct synonyms. Table 8.1 on page 168 is nice for visualizing. -- Netoholic @ 01:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying (1) you haven't read the 2009 paper, and (2) you think it uses too much circular sourcing. Is that right? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. Duerst-Lahti (2008) has a CIRCULAR reference problem in the portion discussing masculism. Dupuis-Déri (2009) cites Duerst-Lahti (2008) alone to describe English use of "masculism" and becomes tainted by the CIRCULAR. Dupuis-Déri (2012) cites Dupuis-Déri (2009) for term definitions they use throughout the rest of the paper - tainting it with the same CIRCULAR when they equate masculinist (French and English meanings) with Warren Farrell's self-description as a "masculist". This makes it inappropriate to state in this article that "In 2012 sociologists Melissa Blais and Francis Dupuis-Déri equated masculist and masculinist, attributing the former to Warren Farrell. as its currently presented. -- Netoholic @  05:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think any "tainting" is exaggerated. Omitting the part about Farrell, the above quote still includes the statement In English, they generally designate either a way of thinking whose referent is the masculine or simply a patriarchal ideology (Watson, 1996) (emphasis added). Blais and Dupuis-Déri again seem to be describing both masculism and masculinism together, citing a source by Watson. Looking at that source would seem to be the best way to clear this up. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I checked that. Watson 1996 is here. She only uses masculinism throughout - not masculism/masculist. -- Netoholic @  07:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources equating masculism and masculinism
Here are a few sources from just the first page of a Google Scholar search:

See also Coston and Kimmel, cited above, who say,, citing Young (1994), who uses the terms masculism and masculist throughout, but not masculinist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Re: Hakala "Masculism" - if you have the full source not just the abstract please link it. I see in the citations for that work a reference to the, so its quite likely this is another WP:CIRCULAR problem. -- Netoholic @  04:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Re: Whitlow "Gender and Cultural Studies" - request full source as well. Or at least a list of citations used. In this discussion, I've been quite diligent to respond with sources and provide clear, easy links that anyone can have access to. If you are trying to make arguments based on abstracts, or brief snippets that show up in Google Scholar searches, but haven't seen the entire full source yourself, then I find that manipulative of the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 04:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Re: Filewood "Review of Men at Play by Jonathan Bollen, Adrian Kiernander and Bruce Parr" - that text is inconclusive. Its a great source to show there is lexicological confusion between the terms sometimes - but it doesn't give a definition or say they are synonyms. -- Netoholic @ 04:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Re: Coston/Kimmel - At no point do they equate the terms. In the note, they cite definitions of both terms to explain the choice of term they are using. This shows they are aware of the similar terminology, and are providing definitions to prevent confusing readers. "masculinists"—of men, by men, and for men is pretty clearly in line with Christensen's definition for masculinism - and since they are not talking about men's rights issues, clearly they are not talking of the masculist meaning. -- Netoholic @  04:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's possible to verify source contents via a full-source request at WikiProject Resource Exchange. Feel free to avail yourself if you have doubts. Coston and Kimmel cite Young's essay on "masculism" to discuss a "masculinist" movement – that suggests that the terms are not as distinct as one might think. "Masculism" only appears in the citation to Young, and Coston and Kimmel are quite vague as to which term they are referring to when they comment on usage. Per Filewood, both 'masculism' and 'masculinist' sometimes refer to the same topics – that means they are used interchangeably, i.e. synonymously. Several sources also refer to the men's rights sphere as specifically masculinist, for example:    So the distinction doesn't look so clear-cut there either. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Both "spotted" and "furry" are sometimes used to refer to the same topics - that does not mean they have the same meaning. Unless the source explicitly defines the terms as synonyms, you cannot assume that the author thinks they are. Some furry cats are spotted, that doesn't mean the terms are synonyms.  Some masculist (men's rights) points of view are masculinist, that doesn't mean the terms are synonyms. -- Netoholic @  18:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you've got the wrong end of the stick there. We're not discussing different qualities of a thing (like "spotted" and "furry"), but rather some given quality, whether anti-feminism, male separatism, or gender equity advocacy, that is associated with a person or group and can be called either masculist and masculinist depending on the source. Hence Whitlow says the terms are used interchangeably, and Menzies even combines the two into a single word, "mascul(in)ist". For your analogy to hold water, you'd first have to clearly show that two distinct topics called masculism and masculinism exist independently of one another. But that's exactly the question we've been trying to answer, and it's looking no clearer now than before. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Exist independently" is an impossible standard for any topic. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and even if there is overlap in some contexts, that doesn't mean they aren't separate topics.  "Furry" and "spotted" overlap in some contexts, and so do not "exist independently".  and Christensen in particular show that there are distinct topics here - advocacy for men's rights, and advocacy for masculinity. Christensen is the highest quality source among anything presented on this talk page, because it is the single most extensive treatise on the meanings of these terms, is directly on point, and comes from an eminently reliable and highly-cited source book.  His meanings are backed-up by other independent sources which make the same distinction.  Any counter-evidence is coming from sources which are more open to interpretation or have WP:CIRCULAR problems. Keep in mind, I thought like you prior to diving deep into this, I even made a page move request above based on it. But  we need to separate the topics first and foremost, because that's what Wikipedia does, and that means two articles which start from the perspective of the topics and describe how the words are used in relation to those topics. -- Netoholic @  01:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is just semantic quibbling. I think you know exactly what I meant by "exist independently", namely that significant RS coverage exists that examines the topics separately. Doubts on the Christensen source have been stated already. You're just repeating yourself on that point. I also don't see any grounds for so broadly dismissing the half-dozen sources that equate the terms as "open to interpretation". That looks like simple confirmation bias, i.e. rejecting any source that doesn't comport with the one you think is right for whatever reason. We assign due weight to terms/concepts according to the whole body of published sources; we don't just pick favorites. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not reject or dismiss any sources... and these findings go against a lot of what I thought I knew about these terms a couple weeks ago so I don't see how I can be exhibiting confirmation bias. In most cases, when both terms are actually used, they are describing movements/issues which are BOTH masculist (related to men's rights) AND masculinist (related to masculine qualities). This does NOT mean these words are synonyms, NOR are the topics always conflated. WEIGHT demands that if we have a highly-reliable and well-cited book with a section that specifically discusses these terms, that we must give that preference.  At this point, it seems like you may be the one that wishes to downplay this eminent source to satisfy your confirmation bias, and misapply WEIGHT as well. Tell me, what source of all the ones that have been brought, do you consider due the most WEIGHT in this article and why? -- Netoholic @  03:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what WP:WEIGHT means, and I specifically said we assign weight based on the whole body of published sources. Christensen is not actually discussing both terms as they are used by others. He is applying a specific term, masculism, to his discussion of men's rights activists, with a brief explanation why he thinks masculism is the better term to use. That has absolutely nothing to do with other sources that use a different term for the same concept. You say when both terms are actually used, they are describing movements/issues which are BOTH masculist (related to men's rights) AND masculinist (related to masculine qualities). This echoes other points you've made, likewise without providing any sources. So once again, where is your proof? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm coming to the conclusion that when you want to avoid answering a direct question, you just turn it around and make more demands - like that I cite every phrase I type. It almost seems like your opinion is unfalsifiable. In addition to answering my question above, could you also say, as precisely as possible, what evidence it would take to convince you that we need to split masculism/masculinism into separate topic pages?  After all, if no amount of evidence can possibly convince you, then there's no point in me continuing to try. -- Netoholic @  04:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ...when you want to avoid answering a direct question, you just turn it around and make more demands... In other words, you're either unable or unwilling to support your claim. I can only infer that you're simply giving your own interpretation of the sources I cited in this section, since they are the only ones I've seen that actually use both terms in reference to actual groups and/or movements. I don't see how you could have reached such a conclusion, given that you earlier complained about not having the full sources. So that takes care of your refusal to answer my question. As to my supposed evasiveness, please read what I wrote above. You are misconstruing WP:WEIGHT in that it determines the weight we give to content about a topic, not which sources we use. For that you want WP:V. So your question is unanswerable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK then. On the precise question of how many reliable sources clearly define the terms as separate, I have provided more sources overall, both in number of sources and in amount of total text dedicated to defining these terms. So I assume you will begrudgingly accept that WP:WEIGHT demonstrates that these topics need to be split? Likewise, I've provided eight sources sources clearly defining masculism as the men's counterpart to feminism, with no apparent clear contradictory sources, so according to WEIGHT, we shall ensure this article emphasizes that point. -- Netoholic @  08:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your sources (A) are not all reliable for reasons already discussed, and (B) don't clearly define the terms, again for reasons already discussed. Quality matters more than quantity, and your sources don't have sufficient quality to justify a split. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (2500+ citations) isn't sufficient quality.... ok.... I guess now I have to ask what your definition of "sufficient quality" is. Also, is there ANY standard of evidence which could -possibly- convince you that these topics need to be split? If you can't define the circumstances in which you could be convinced of something, then you are operating from the standpoint of dogma. -- Netoholic @ 09:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already stated my qualms with the Christensen source. But since some people apparently don't read, I'll repeat them: Christensen doesn't discuss how masculinism is used by anyone; he only mentions masculinism in a brief aside; and his style is largely prescriptive rather than descriptive. In addition, the kind of men's rights advocacy he describes as masculist are referred to by other reliable sources as masculinist. The meaning of "sufficient quality" should be obvious: significant, in-depth coverage of each topic on its own, in sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've requested the full text of the first two sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Anyone else is free to add their username to also receive a copy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles for creation
See Draft:Masculinism. SarahSV (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move discussion in progress
I've started a new RM for both Masculinism and Masculism sidebar. Interested editors may wish to participate at Template talk:Masculism sidebar. Thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Too few opinions
I'm not too sure about the addition of. If anything, we currently have too many opinions and not enough evaluation and synthesis of those opinions by higher-level sources, leading to an unbalanced article. What other "significant viewpoints" are missing? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. I was kind of looking at it in a narrow way where certain cultures and ideologies are underrepresented, but you seem to be right that we have too few secondary sources to make that call one-way or another. I'm going to self-revert. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Masculinisme definitions
Hi everyone,

I found those definitions of the word "masculinism":

Masculinism: Definition: Movement concerned with the male condition. Note: “Masculinism” designates both a movement for the defense of the rights of men and their socio-political roles and a protest movement which aims to free men from their traditional social roles http://www.granddictionnaire.com/ficheOqlf.aspx?Id_Fiche=8396389

Masculinism: Movement for the defense of the rights of men, their independence and their values. Synonym: emancipation https://www.linternaute.fr/dictionnaire/fr/definition/masculinisme/

Masculinism: Masculinism designates a set of ideas, claims which seek to promote the rights of men and their interests in civil society, by affirming in particular that they are victims of the "excesses" of feminism. Synonym: homism. http://www.toupie.org/Dictionnaire/Masculinisme.htm

Masculinism: Masculinism is about taking an interest in gender equality with a particular sensitivity for the male condition. It is the masculine counterpart of feminism, even if the forms of expressions, claims or theoretical approaches differ. http://www.hommes-en-mouvement.info/masculinisme-definition/

Masculinism: "the rise of masculinism, a movement for the defense of men's rights." http://collections.musee-mccord.qc.ca/scripts/explore.php?Lang=2&tableid=11&tablename=theme&elementid=104__true&contentlong

Masculinism: Masculinism is thus posed as the equivalent of feminism, in social movement, and it claims to speak on behalf of all men. https://glosbe.com/fr/en/masculinisme

Masculinism: Set of demands seeking to promote the rights of men and their interests in civil society. https://www.le-dictionnaire.com/definition/masculinisme

Do you know other definitions?

--Richard141 (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

What about changing "Violence and suicide" to "Masculinicides and violence"
Hi everyone,

I think the title "Violence and suicide" suggests that the only cause of prematured death among men is due to suicide. As suicide is one of the main cause of prematured death among men, there are also domestic violence, drugs, wars, ... I suggest to use the title "Masculinicides and violence" instead, and to use suicide as a subsection. What do you think about it? Regards,

--Richard141 (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about the causes of death in men, but about a particular political ideology. If you can find a published, reliable source describing the masculist attitude toward "masculinicide", feel free to add it to the article, while keeping due and undue weight in mind. I don't see any reason to change the section heading based on the current text and sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Men's rights associations
Hi everyone,

I thought this article was missing men's right associations, so I made a list:

Here is a list of men's rights associations:

International:
 * International Men's Day
 * Movember : Association for men's health / against suicide

French:
 * SOS PAPA : Association for the rights of fathers
 * Paternet : Association for the rights of fathers
 * Groupe d’études sur leS sexismeS: Men's studies
 * SOS Hommes Battus: Association against domestic violence
 * Fin du canCER et début de l'HOMme : Association for men's health
 * SVP PAPA : Association for the rights of fathers

Canadian:
 * Canadian Association for Equality : Men's studies

UK:
 * Fathers4Justice : Association for the rights of fathers

Edit: There is this huge list: https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/wiki/sidebar/resources_for_men 28 février 2020 à 20:14 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard141 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you agree with adding such a list to the wikipedia page? Do you know other associations?

Regards,

--Richard141 (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a separate article on the men's rights movement. That isn't to say an indiscriminate list of groups is appropriate there either. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Definition and scope - Straying on-topic?
The definition and scope has a notice that the section may stray into the topic of another article, Masculinism, which, turns out, redirects back to this article. Was there a merge, but the notice stayed? Should it be pointing somewhere else? 185.163.103.83 (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Masculism/Archive 6. The terms are not equivalent, yet this article has incorrectly conflated them. -- Netoholic @ 16:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ...doesn't look like the issue may be moving forward in either direction any time soon. As much as I'd rather your side wins (right advocacy and promotion of attributes do seem like fairly different things), as it is right now the notice is just kida confusing for a passerby, and unless discussion or efforts are underway it may be best removed. ...Then again, this is coming from a public IP skimming by, I'm not well versed enough in how wikipedia works for my opinion to hold any weight.185.163.103.83 (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: Huh, completely forgot I was OP. That or there's some weird coincidence going on. Funny anonymous posting moments I guess - I should consider actually making an account some day. 185.163.103.83 (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)