Talk:Masculinism

Vote[edit]

This page was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Masculinism. dbenbenn | talk 04:23, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment Given the number of google entries for masculinism 10,100 vs masculism's 4180 I feel that the wrong page was voted for deletion. The world is evolving at a faster rate than ever before, and the benefit of a Wiki is surely it's ability to move quickly with these changes, (mind you, apologies if I'm out of line - I'm a brand new Wikipedian so I'm still learning wiki protocol :)) With that said, I propose that the entry remains based on it's usage being more than twice that of the alternative spelling. PaulZigZag 00:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that Google search results fluctuate from day to day (indeed, results are now doubled as I post this), it seems that your assertion is correct, and that the term "masculinism" is more often used than "masculism" two to one. --24.126.30.46 07:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, it would appear that Steve Dixon's Masculinism® has superceded Masculism in terms of popular usage, this suggests that it is more readily adoptable in language and more aggressive memetically than masculism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.159.47 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 30 October 2005

Trademark[edit]

Comment: It is ludicrous to claim trade mark protection, either in the United States or in the UK, for philosophical concepts not remotely connected with industry or products or, as the name states simply, trade. As an attorney well-versed in intellectual property rights both in the US and abroad, I submit that despite Mr. Dixon's assertions to the contrary, one cannot expect legal protection against the free use of the terms "masculinsm" or "masculist" any more than one could trade mark the terms "feminism," "feminist," or "sophist." See e.g. the OED's entry on "masculist" (one cannot trade mark words in the dictionary under any treaty). PWH, 18 Nov. 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.203.124 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 18 November 2005

Redirect article[edit]

The vote for deletion mentioned above resulted in "redirect to Masculism." So why is the article still here?

It's true that there are more web sites using masculinism than masculism. However, if you look up masculinism or masculinist you'll see that the term has often been used to mean something like "relating to male-ness," "male dominant," or "favouring the masculine" (e.g., [1]). On the other hand, I checked numerous sites on masculism, and all used it to refer to the men's movement or men's rights.

Besides, we don't say femininist.

As for the trademark, this site [2] says "The title Masculinist Evolution in New Zealand" was first used by Men's Centre North Shore co-ordinator Martin Lewis in 1995 when he founded the MENZ Issues newsletter." And this site [3] refers to an article "Science, Masculinism, and the Gender System, paper at University of Delaware 1994." And this site [4] lists the article "Berg, L.D. 1994. Masculinism, Power, and Discourses of Exclusion in Brian Berry's "Scientific" Geography. Urban Geography. 15(3): 279-287. Also footnote 1 above was from 2001. My own Oxford Canadian Dictionary, 2001 has a listing for masculism. Finally, in case there's any doubt from the country in which it was "trademarked," this site [5] lists an article published in Britain: Healy, Murray (1996) Gay Skins: Class, Masculinism, and Queer Appropriation. London: Cassell. So let's can the 2002 trademark.

The article reads like an advertisment for Steven Dixon. It was voted to be redirected, and then someone put it back again. I suggest redirecting again. 24.64.223.203 09:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-- okay, I redirected it. I hope it stays that way. 24.64.223.203 03:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possibilities[edit]

I notice this redirect is protected. I would like it if an admin might possibly add Template:R with possibilities here. I recently created femininism which, based on the sources I located, appears to have a distinct meaning from feminism.

The distinction here, with these terms compared to masculine / femininine is whether or not the -ism suffix supplements the -ine (minus the silent E) or whether or not it replaces it.

In contrast to masculism and feminism which both have articles, I would like to refer to the longer supplementary suffixed terms (masculinism and femininism) as the "Inisms" in contrast to the "Lisms" perhaps. Just to be a bit easier on the eyes.

Since there is every indication that the Inism of feminism has a distinct meaning more associated with femininity rather than egalitarian lobbying, it opens my mind to the possibility that the Inism form of masculism may not be as interchangeable as we assume.

Yes, for certain they have had interchangeable usage history, but so do the Inism and Lism in the femin area too. Yet beyond being confused with feminism, the Inism has also been used in very different ways, so the Inism of masculism may have also. Have we looked into this? Ranze (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

We could compare usage here:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The December 2005 comments by 24.64 enforce my suspicion that we may have redirected too hastily here, assuming interchangeability from similarity. Ranze (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting ones:

Review by: Alex. F. Chamberlain from The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Oct., 1895), p. 133

Following M. Fere, the author classifies the sex-anomalies thus: masculinism (where the secondary sexual characters of the male predominate); feminism (where the secondary sexual characters of the female prdominate); androgynism (mingling of the secondary sexual characters of male and female); infantlism (preservation of the corporeal forms of infancy).

Are Contradictions of Ideas and Beliefs Likely to Play an Important Group-Making Rôle in the Future? by Franklin H. Giddings from American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 13, No. 6 (May, 1908), pp. 784-810 (page 795):

Much will depend, accordingly, upon the mental composition of the various regional populations. By this I mean that much will depend upon the predominance, in any given region, of one or another mental type. The inductive, critical, intellectual mind, intuitive of objective relations, turns naturally to scientific secularism. The mystical, emotional, subjectively intuitive, instinctive mind as naturally, indeed inevitably, embraces some highly respectable dogmatism with an impressive pedigree, or rushes upon some new-fangled miracle-ism like Christian Science.

It is to be regretted that we seem to have no quite appropriate descriptive name for these two types of mind. In the writings of European sociologists they are commonly designated as masculine and feminine, and the social dominance of one type or the other is called masculinism or feminism. This usage is sometimes carried to the point of labeling entire nations by sex-connotating terms. Germany, for example, was by Bismarck called a masculine nation, and Russia a feminine nation.

Shorter Notices by F.W. Stella Browne (of London England) from International Journal of Ethics, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Apr., 1917), pp. 402-407 (Page 406):

The three concluding articles on Birth-Control and the close-packed little Essay on "Marriage nad Divorce" are particularly fine, in their characteristically unflinching and beautiful treatment of sexual subjects. "Masculinism versus Feminism" stresses a point which many feminists are apt to forget, that a real civilization should give scope for the mental and physical strength, initiative and invention of men, as well as for the special qualities of women. "Eugenics and Genius" and "The Production of Ability" are penetrating exposures of current generalizations and dogmatism, and show the need for careful and individualized biological research.

The Principle of Balance by Edward Alsworth Ross from American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 23, No. 6 (May, 1918), pp. 801-820 (Page 803):

MASCULINISM - While women, owing to their being largely occupied with bearing and rearing children, have developed fewer specialists than men, they ought to be conceded a large social influence in order to counteract certain bad masculine tendencies. The fighting instinct of the male sex seriously unfits it to take sole charge of society.

Past that JSTOR doesn't give me results til 2003. There are some very odd gaps. Ranze (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Masculism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]