Talk:Masculism

Archives
Archive 3 Archive 2 Archive 1

Lead

@Apples grow on pines: Regarding this edit and edit summary, can you please give the page number and passage that supports the statement? Also, your source doesn't seem to provide sources for its definition of masculism, it will probably need to go through the RS noticeboard to establish reliability. Also, the reason that you believe that your source further reaffirms the paragraph of "Definitions and scope" is because people selectively removed most information that they didn't like: like the part of the Oxford English Dictionary definition that says: masculism: (more generally) anti-feminism, machismo. It would really be better if you worked with reliable sources rather than use Wikipedia articles and pages to make a point about other Wikipedia articles. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: The explanation of the term masculism begins at page 120. Regarding your accusation of the bad faith of other editors: I do not believe I should be answering this, since it does not belong to this talk page and does not concern my actions. The usage of the term is currently backed by several sources. Again, I fully understand that you may have encountered a different definition. The article as it stands, including the lede, does sufficient justice to both the old "male supremacy" and the modern "men's equality" definitions. If you feel that the missing part of the OED quote is relevant, feel free to include it about the blurb regarding the "extremist version" in the second paragraph of "Definition and scope".

Regarding your claim that masculism can also stand for anti-feminism: Yes, it can. Your use of the word "anti-feminism", however, is non-standard (or, rather, non-standard in this decade - again, it relies on the old meaning of the term, that being the opposition to women's suffrage, rather than the modern meaning, which is the opposition to the feminist movement, specifically. See: [1][2][3]). Overall, your objection seems to be rooted in the fact that the masculist terminology has changed over the past few centuries. You insist on applying a puritan approach to now-outdated meanings of terms and to give them undue weight in discussions of the modern masculist movements. Apples grow on pines (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I know where the author's unsourced definition of masculism (and feminism) begins. I asked you for the page and passage that supports the claims in the lead. I read all the passages where masculism and masculists was mentioned (including the author's self-identification: "I also identify myself as a masculist who feels...") but I couldn't find support for the claims in the lead which you sourced to this thesis. The article as it stands is a POV and OR fest, for example, thanks to these unreverted changes by IP 151.231.19.138. But let's get back to your source and if it supports the statement in the lead. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Further to sources already provided, here are some additional dictionary sources on what masculism is, so that we don't solely rely on OED (or, as you seem to insist, the "more general" half of the OED definition). These were obtained by a cursory Google search - please expand the list if you're so inclined:

• Dictionary.com - masculist - an advocate of the rights of men; of, characterized by, or relating to men's rights
• Collins - masculism - a doctrine or movement that advocates for the rights of men
• Merriam-Webster - No definition for masculism/masculist, but: masculinist - an advocate of male superiority or dominance
• Oxford Dictionaries - masculinist (also masculist) - Characterized by or denoting attitudes or values held to be typical of men; An advocate of the rights or needs of men
• The Free Dictionary - masculism - masculinity; an attempt to protect masculine traits and qualities against the assaults of militant feminism. masculinist (or masculist) - an advocate of the rights of men; of, characterized by, or relating to men's rights

To me, there appears to be a clear preponderance for masculism meaning the advocacy of men's rights, with some mentions of it possibly being anti-feminist in nature, some mentions of it pertaining to stereotypically masculine behaviours, and a trace of the historical meaning of "male dominance". Apples grow on pines (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Continuing, the following excerpt from The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (already referenced in the lede) states that Defining ‘masculism’ is made difficult by the fact that the term has been used by very few people, and by hardly any philosophers. In its most general meaning, the word ‘feminism’ refers to promotion of the interests or rights of women, and a reasonable definition of ‘masculism’ would have it refer to promoting the interests or rights of men. (This is very different, it must be noted, from promoting attributes of womanliness or manliness, as they might be construed, which could be labelled femininism and masculinism.) Thus defined, the two parallel terms are too vague to be very useful. A more precise definition of both would be something on this order: ‘the belief that women/men have been systematically discriminated against, and that discrimination should be eliminated’. Evidently, such a definition for ‘feminism’ is commonly understood, and among the few who apply the term ‘masculist’ to themselves, such is also their intent. Of course, under these meanings there is no necessary conflict between them, and in fact some are happy to call themselves both feminists and masculists. Much more often, the belief that one sex currently faces a much greater threat from discrimination would lead to accepting one label and rejecting the other.. It then continues to differentiate between progressive and reactionary masculists/MRAs (consistently with the claim attributed to Ferrell Christensen in the article's body). Apples grow on pines (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So that's a no then? The source you added doesn't support the statement? Is that the reason why you can't cite a page number or passage from the source and why I can't find any support for the lead in the source? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I already provided you with a page number, but there are more references to the claim throughout the paper. To quote the absolute minimum necessary, what you're looking for is this claim: Masculism may be defined as the interest group ideology of men, although the term itself is not very well established yet. [...] In a similar fashion, feminism is basically and originally an interest group ideology of women. Statements surrounding these two further elaborate that the two groups are mostly antisexist in nature, and elaborates on their potential conflicts due to membership biases, despite the similarity in goals. Why you can't find it is a question that would involve a lot of original research, which I'm not willing to undertake.

Figure 17 illustrates their relation as counterparts quite well if you'd like to save some time on reading the actual paper. Apples grow on pines (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You mentioned page 120, but there's no passage on page 120 that supports the claim in the lead that More generally, it may refer to any movement, theory or opinion which holds a belief in achieving males' equality with females as its core tenet. In this regard, it is the counterpart of feminism, which seeks to achieve the same goals but from a contradistinct viewpoint. The two statements are linked by "in this regard" and "the same goals". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the section you were meant to read starts on page 120 and continues further, as already explained. I have now also provided a very specific and targeted quote for your convenience. The actual statement being referenced here is all of More generally, it may refer to any movement, theory or opinion which holds a belief in achieving males' equality with females as its core tenet. In this regard, it is the counterpart of feminism, which seeks to achieve the same goals but from a contradistinct viewpoint and not just the second (purely explanatory) sentence thereof as you misleadingly implied.

I am picking up a very large amount of unwarranted hostility from you over this subject, which is not something I'm willing to subject myself to. As such, I will have to apologise and recuse myself from this conversation. An uninvolved editor should make a decision on whether they consider my contribution appropriate, but since you are unwilling to engage me in the discussion of the subject but are instead focusing on semantics games and soapboxing, I do not feel that the two of us should continue this debate. Apples grow on pines (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that the statement being referenced is More generally, it may refer to any movement, theory or opinion which holds a belief in achieving males' equality with females as its core tenet. In this regard, it is the counterpart of feminism, which seeks to achieve the same goals but from a contradistinct viewpoint. It's also quite obvious that the source doesn't support the statement. So much for "misleadingly implied" (did anyone mention hostility?). I pointed out that the WP:BURDEN is on you to specify a page and to make sure that the source must clearly support the claims in the article. But it doesn't. What it does is support the claim that masculism and feminism are interest group ideologies with sexist and anti-sexist branches. All the stuff about "any movement, theory of opinion" or "equality with female at its core tenet" or "in this regard [my emphasis], it is a counterpart of feminism" isn't supported by the source. FYI: I started a discussion about the source at the RS noticeboard. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I am glad that you've amended your statement regarding what's being referenced. I also appreciate the submission to the RS noticeboard. Nonetheless, I consider this conversation over as it has long departed the realm of productivity and is nothing but an exercise in soapboxing at this point. Apples grow on pines (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So now you know that the thesis which you added doesn't support the claim "More generally, it may refer to any movement, theory or opinion... a contradistinct viewpoint"? I would love to end this conversation but the OR issue remains. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So now you know that the thesis which you added doesn't support the claim [...]? - No. I'm leaving the conversation because of your approach, which I find toxic. It does not mean that I concede your points, merely that I'm not willing to discuss them further. I will not respond to further attacks from you on that matter. Apples grow on pines (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I will remove the source you added and the original research attributed to it per this discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_184#Finnish_doctoral_thesis. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Equivocation

This article as it stands is committing the fallacy of equivocation, treating at least three definitions of "masculism" or "masculinism" as aspects of the same topic. This is not Wiktionary. As an encyclopedia we should disambiguate alternative uses completely, so as not to need to qualify any particular claim as to which definition(s) of masculism it applies.

The only contemporary usage of the word is to denote a philosophy of concern for human rights and non-discrimination as applied to men, so as such should be the principal topic of the article. Other uses of the word, specifically Masculinity and Male chauvinism, are anachronistic. They should be noted and linked for disambiguation without elaboration.

There are criticisms that those who are concerned with masculism are also misogynist. Those criticisms should be duly noted in a section of this article, but should not be allowed to redefine the scope of the article. If an article is needed for a contrarian definition of masculism meaning something other than concern for human rights of men, that can be created and disambiguated properly. It's probably all been said at Patriarchy.

Rhoark (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The only contemporary usage of the word is to denote a philosophy of concern for human rights and non-discrimination as applied to men. You expressed your opinion that this is "the only contemporary usage of the word." RS clearly disagree with you. We summarize RS, not editors' opinions. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

My assessment is based on the reliable sources already cited in the article. We have secondaries that use it as I have described, some of which accuse adherents of also being chauvinist. The sources that say masculism is equivalent to chauvinism by definition (rather than incidentally) are all tertiary and cite only examples prior to 1940. We should follow common usage and make WP:NECESSARY assumptions. Rhoark (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Diapers

@Rhoark: You have restored a section about diapers [4]. The sources say nothing about the topic of this article. Editors cannot just add stuff that they feel is relevant for this article. You believe that access to diaper changing facilities is a masculi(ni)st issue. Another editor believes that ladies' night is a masculi(ni)st issue and yet another editor thinks that middle aged men living with their parents is a masculi(ni)st issue. But all of that is clearly original research because the sources do not regard those things as related to masculi(ni)sm. Please explain why you restored the paragraph anyway. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 09:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Anything pertaining to rights of men, discrimination against men, and equality/inequality between men and women is in the topic of the article. It is not necessary that a source reference the specific word "masculism" or "masculinism" in order to be related. This is not a dictionary, describing words. The topic of an article is an idea or concept. Relatedness to a topic is absolutely something editors are meant to decide. This extends even to including sources that elaborate on or contextualize a detail of the topic without describing the main topic itself. A chain of relatedness can be established transitively. The limits of relatedness are defined by consensus, not policy. Rhoark (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not. The subject of this article is masculi(ni)sm and masculi(ni)sts. You can't add random stuff about equality/inequality, discrimination against men and other stuff that you believe is related to masculi(ni)sm. But you're the editor who said: "Anything reliably sourced is never original research." By that logic, one could add pretty much any disparity between women and men (stores tend to have more women's clothing than men's, waaaah, it's a masculi(ni)st issue!) to this page as long as it's "reliably sourced". I won't waste my time on trying to explain why your view of our OR policy of monumentally misguided. I started a discussion on the RS noticeboard. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You absolutely can do everything you have said one cannot, under the terms of OR. You've simply neglected to consider due weight. Establishing that one policy doesn't prohibit an edit, does not mean the edit is inevitable to include in a final article. Rhoark (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2015 (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.

Restored sourced lead

I have restored a sourced version of the lead paragraph which was introduced with this series of edits and was stable for over a year until IPs started adding unsourced and dubious material to the lead and removing sourced content.

I've replaced this

Masculism (or masculinism) is political, cultural, and economic movements which aim to establish and defend political, economic, and social rights and participation in society for men and boys. Issues of concern to masculists include legal equalities, such as those relating to conscription, child custody, alimony, and equal pay for equal work. Its concepts sometimes coincide with those of the men's rights, fathers' rights, and men's liberation movements. Masculinism strives to achieve these aims by advocating for the rights or needs of men; by the adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, and attitudes, regarded as typical of men; However, Ferrell Christensen states that if masculism and feminism refer to the belief that men/women are systematically discriminated against, and that this discrimination should be eliminated, there is not necessarily a conflict between feminism and masculism, and some assert that they are both. However, many feminists believe that women are more discriminated against, and thus use label feminism as "gender equality" and dismiss the other. A broader conception of the women's movement, however, recognizes that patriarchy is harmful to both men and women, and therefore that prejudice and discrimination against both genders will need to be recognized and redressed.</ref> or, alternatively, through an androcentric approach, including the exclusion of women.

with this

Masculism or masculinism may variously refer to advocacy of the rights or needs of men; the adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, attitudes, etc. regarded as typical of men; or, alternatively, an approach that is focused on male superiority to the exclusion of women.

I encourage other experienced editors to keep a eye on the page and help keep the OR out. Apparently, a Merriam Webster definition is now considered "the general opinion of modern feminists". --SonicY (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

I propose that this article should be merged into Gender Equality. This is because gender equality seems to equate with Masculism. Having Gender Equality as a separate page from Masculism seems to imply that Masculism is inherently misogynist.

Discuss, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.62.5 (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Sources do not describe masculism in this fashion. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Support: I agree to merge. Having feminism and masculism separate from the gender equality page seems to imply that feminism and masculism movements are different from gender equality movements. HenryMP02 (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Update: After reading other editors opinions on the topic I have formed a different opinion and now oppose the merge. HenryMP02 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Masculism is, of course, a topic related to gender equality, but there is more than enough here to justify a separate article. I don't at all agree that merely having an article about masculism somehow implies that masculism is misogynist, just like I wouldn't agree that having an article about feminism implies that feminism is inherently misandrist. As long as we keep the article accurate and well-sourced, which I believe it is right now, this kind of thing isn't going to be a problem. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - these topics obviously have enough coverage in reliable sources, and are distinct enough, to merit their own separate articles. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Do not merge

While Masculism and the men's rights movement do fall under general human rights and gender equality, merging and entire segment under the broad umbrella of Gender Equality would limit and undervalue the term and its history. If we were to merge Masculism under Gender Equality, then the same should be done for Feminism. Simply because the article is currently ill defined does not mean it should be abandoned. I am currently working with one of the movement's leading experts, Warren Farrell (author of the Myth of Male Power) to clean up the definition, and provide better history and background to the term. Belnap.research (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@Belnap.research: I'm not sure what you think "working with .... Warren Farrell" is going to add or accomplish - per wikipedia's policies on original research and reliable sources, this article must reflect and be referenced to reliable, published sources. What either you or Warren Farrell think about the subject matters very little compared to what reliable sources say. You might also want to review wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest - someone who is directly involved in the debates and controversies that this article deals with shouldn't be directly involved in editing it or determining its content. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Warren is a published author of "The Myth of Male Power" which is a long standing and respected published work so citations will be added from this resource. Expert published opinion and works are valid, I thought perhaps you might find this information useful, but apparently not. :) Belnap.research (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, citations to Farrell's book(s) are fine, although we also need to be careful to give due weight to an activist scholar like him. Your comment above made it sound like you're in actual conversation with Farrell, sorry if I misunderstood. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Citations to Farrell's books are only acceptable as sources where they directly discuss masculinism/masculism per WP:Synth. If for example Farrell discusses how straight white men are oppressed today, it only becomes relevant for the article if he says that masculinists/masculists believe that or if links his statements to masculinism/masculism some other way. --SonicY (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

While this is true, the link need not use the word itself. Anything conforming to the definition(s) is on-topic. Rhoark (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You are very much mistaken. This isn't a coatrack where editors can hang anything they consider typical of men, related to androcentrism or the "rights and needs of men". We saw how that turned out the last time you tried to include "access to diaper changing facilities". --SonicY (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

How that turned out is you got your way while I took a necessary wikibreak - not instructive as a precedent. This is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. The article should be about a concept, not only a word. Rhoark (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

I propose that Men's movement, Men's liberation movement, Mythopoetic men's movement, Men's rights movement, and Masculism be merged together. I think that the content in the articles overlap a lot and can easily be explained in a larger page, and the articles are of a reasonable size that the merging of them will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.

-- HenryMP02 (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The above listed "movement" pages should be merged into Men's rights movement. The others have fairly limited and duplicative content. Masculism (this page) and Men's rights (presently a redirect to Men's rights movement) should be constructed as counterparts to Feminism and Women's rights, that is to say pages about values and rights themselves rather than about advocacy organizations. Rhoark (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comment right there is a perfect illustration of how much you know about the subject. Men's movement is the umbrella term, it consists of many strands only one of which is the men's rights movement. Other men's movements such as the pro-feminist men's movement or the mythopoetic men's movement are either opposed to the men's rights movement or have nothing to do with it, so merging all older, unrelated, and ideologically opposed movements into men's rights movement is nonsensical. Also, men's liberation movement is the strand of the men's movement from which the men's rights movement emerged. If anything, then it makes sense to merge men's rights movement into the men's movement page but certainly not the other way around. Also, Masculism (this page) and Men's rights should be constructed to reflect the reliable sources, and not as a reflection of some editors' mistaken opinion that they reflect feminism and women's rights. By the way, there's no coherent topic "men's rights" in the Western post 1970s sense of the word independent of the men's rights movement. Historically "men's rights" was used in the context of men's rights over women ("men's rights to beat their wives and to polygamy" [5], "Analyses of the paternalistic family system prevalent in many societies, indicates a conception of men's rights over women and their reproductive ability" [6], "Throughout the continent women are demanding to be heard, organising, questioning men's rights over them" [7]) or in the sense of "human rights" ("Hence, men's rights were human or universal rights and women's rights were an add-on" [8]). So that article would be very different from what you imagine. --SonicY (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

A complete article would of course delineate the distinctions and pedigrees among these various movements. It could do this better in a unified article than through a collection of articles barely above the status of stubs. Men's rights movement provides a blueprint of what to cover in a philosophical men's rights page, being the same issues only with the greater depth - afforded by being free of the WP:POVFUNNEL of having to link every claim with a specific advocacy organization. Rhoark (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"Criticisms and Responses"

This paragraph lists some attributes of masculism, it does not contain any criticism or responses to the movement. (Responses are cited but their arguments don't appear in the article.) This paragraph should be fleshed out to include some responses to the negative aspects of Masculism, and explain why they are negative.

This paragraph focuses on certain aspects of masculism such as the social influences of the division of labour, without addressing others such as sexual dimorphism. This cherrypicking does not create a convincing argument against masculism, and at the moment, does not create any argument at all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.169.255 (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Major, un-discussed changes

Can we talk about this major revision of the page by Ga.lopez80? I am tempted to revert simply because this is an awful lot to change in one revision, and without discussion, however I don't want to rush to judgment. My concern is that the expanded "issues" list turns the article into a bit of a WP:COATRACK, and that the new revision gives undue weight to some MRA opinions/sources (see the false rape section, for example) without including opposing opinions/sources for proper weight.

Clearly a lot of work went into this, and I am happy to see a large number of useful sources being added, but it would have been much better to see these changes made and discussed individually rather than in one sweeping re-write of the article. What do people think of these changes? Fyddlestix (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It definitely reads as agenda driven. I agree with your thinking, it does appear to be WP:COATRACK so be WP:BOLD revert and then discuss the changes involved. Or still a biased POV tag on it. MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Added to this discussion. I was looking for verification of this statement, "Divorce courts are frequently like slaughter-houses..." which I didn't find because I didn't get access to p. 45, but what I did get access to, makes me question the context of that quote. Also, most of Ga.lopez80 changes are coming directly from here. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Men's_rights_and_issues MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 21:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. Seeing that has convinced me of the need to revert, and I have rolled back the article to the state it was in prior to Ga.lopez80's revisions. If anyone feels strongly that this was the wrong thing to do, I'm happy to discuss. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that Citizendium is published under a license concomitant to Wikipedia's and there is even a project to port material from there. Of course attribution should be given. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC).

Source given much weight

Melissa Blais and Francis Dupuis-Déri is cited no less than 12 times. Some of the things attributed to the source raise eyebrows, and constitute undue weight. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC).

Walking in circles about the beliefs of masculinists shows the lack of specificity in this article. The page does not clearly address any consistency to a belief system other than the gender of the supporters. The addition of what feminists think about masculinism is unnecessary and also confuses the reader about the points trying to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.206.151 (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

jan 21, 2016, Violation Of Men's Rights In Wikipedia Pages

jan 21, 2016, In the Men's Rights page we see that after complaints created by the men's activists as stated by the page there is another sentence that often states that the men's rights activists claims are wrong, but there is no such opposing claims after the feminist claim in the page in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism , where we can see feminists claims about women's rights being violated but without any opposing views, this is sheer discrimination against men in Wikipedia, on top of that the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism states in the Talk section that there may be punishment who would change the contents as more punishable than the Men's Rights page implying that the contents in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism page remain uncontested whereas Men's rights page may be changed including with feminist perceptive, We need to create a Sexism Against Men Wikipedia page, Thank you, Nayan Mipun, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayanmipun (talk • contribs) 18:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Complete re-edit?

Hi,
this article appears a little chaotic; perhaps due to a lot of editing (?).
The paragraph setting out that some masculists believe gender roles are natural shouldn't be under Respones / Criticisms, for example, and the description of masculist anti-feminism shouldn't be headed "Feminism", but "Anti-feminism"; "Feminism", including the sections now appearing under "Definition" should be reserved for actual feminist/m responses, under the heading "Feminist/m responses" under Responses / Criticism; etc.
I could make a re-draft proposal, with no elimination or addition of material or references, if nobody objects.
T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)