Talk:Meninism

Removal of the term "semi-satirical"

Who keeps inputting words like "satirical" or "semi-satirical" on this page? Meninism is a very serious issue whether you agree or not. Implying that it is a joke is horrendously offensive and those words carry a massive bias that simply does not belong on Wikipedia. Objectivity should be maintained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.138.183 (talk) 03:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't care if you find it "offensive" or not. It is satire, it's literally parodying what feminists say about men. And no, I'm not a meninist, before you accuse. 80.42.171.123 (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Look at the semi-complete list of concerns on the page. How exactly does man's higher rate of suicide parallel anything that feminists make claim to? Just because you call something satire, doesn't make it true. They are real issues that deserve real attention. Definition alone is enough to disprove your claim and frankly label you as a touch sexist; as "real" issues and satire are mutually exclusive concepts. The only possible claim you could make to the contrary would be making the claim that none of the issues of meninism are genuine issues. However, that claim cannot be made without being willfully ignorant of the facts. Even if one chooses the path of willful ignorance, that perverted perception does not alter the reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.138.183 (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This is an article specifically about the term "meninism", which is used semi-satrically. Those issues you're talking about can be addressed other places, such as men's movement, gender inequality, and many others. This is not a WP:COATRACK or WP:POVFORK for advancing a specific cause. That is not what encyclopedias in general or Wikipedia specifically are for, per WP:NOT, WP:ADVOCACY, etc.. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

And you don't think calling the Meninism movement a joke advances a specific cause? That cause being the destruction of the legitimacy of the Meninism movement. However, I won't bother editing out that vile bias anymore, after all this would hardly be Wikipedia's first propaganda piece and the edit features would simply be locked like the others if I persisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.138.183 (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Satire is often used in serious political and social movements, but regardless, Wikipedia articles should reflect what reliable sources have to say on the matter. Sources say that the term is used, by both meninists and their critics, semi-satirically. Don't like it? Find new sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The sources the page already cites state matter-of-factly that it is a serious movement. Take this link for example, it opens with "The #MeninistTwitter hashtag was initially started by men sharing jokes - some of which were criticised as offensive by feminists. But supporters of the hashtag say it's become a channel for men to express the difficulties of being a man in the 21st Century." That was literally the first link I clicked and I'd be willing to bet that more of them involve equivalent lines that state that the movement is being taken seriously. Sure I guess a very loose interpretation of that first quoted line could be made that at one time it was satirical, but that is no longer the truth. What is more interesting, is that the claims of the modern Meninism movement being "satirical" or "semi-satirical" do not have reference links on the page. I'd be really interested to see if you can find a reliable source that would claim as such. So here we have it - at least one of the already established references cites that Meninism is no longer a satirical movement (If it ever was). Can you find any references to counter that point, or should we go ahead and edit the bias back out of the page in order to have it actually represent the sources it cites? 203.219.138.183 (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Did you also watch the video that the text of the the BBC article was intended to accompany?

How about this from the Telegraph source: Oddest of all, nobody can work out whether it could possibly the beginnings of serious men's movement or just another flash-in-the-pan parody of the perceived absurdities of online feminism.[1]

Or this from Time Magazine: The hashtags #Meninist and #Meninism have been around Twitter for more than a year, and the people who use them generally fall in two camps: people who use the term to call out ways they believe they've been victimized by feminism, and people who make fun of the first group for not understanding what feminism means in the first place.[2]

Or this from the Independent: But the 'meninist' campaign - a term for the so-called 'meninist' movement, an attempt by some men to mock and undermine feminism, and to express the "difficulties" of being a man in the 21st century - has been met with mixed responses.[3]

Every source I've checked has supported the idea that this is partially sincere and partially mocking or ironic. Sources don't seem to entirely agree on who is doing the mocking, and who is being mocked, but it's not Wikipedia's place to make that call until sources do. Grayfell (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell I'm sorry but I'd have to agree with the IP here that the term "semi-satirical" is a little deviant in this article. If such detail should be mentioned, then it should be in the body since it's not a defining feature of Meninism. this article is one of many that take Meninism as serious. And your sources along with arguments is that Meninism was a response to the follies of Feminism, yes it might point out to its ridiculous features, but the movement is a response to be conceived to counter Feminist views, which doesn't seem as a mere satirical action. Again, since it's a matter of opinion, it should be placed in the body, where it won't interfere with the possible meaning of Feminism. (N0n3up (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC))

I don't think the video in that articles takes it as serious, and the text is a single paragraph and a couple of summary paragraphs which aren't enough to work with. I'll ask you the same thing I asked the IP: Did you actually watch the video accompanying the BBC article? The very first tweet mentioned there uses the word "mock", and they have someone read aloud obviously joking tweets with no context while people mug for the camera. That supports that this is not unambiguously serious. The term has been widely used in jest or as mockery, and that's how it originated. This isn't opinion, this is what most sources say directly and indirectly. That makes it a defining characteristic which should be mentioned in the lead. The primary point being made by most of the few independent sources in the article is that the hashtag is mostly used in a factious way. The few that don't, like the The Economic Times piece, (or the BBC one for argument's sake) aren't making a clear case one way or the other. As I'm sure you know by now, Wikipedia generally goes by independent sources, so when most sources say something, and few or no reliable sources contradict it, then we go by the sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell It would sound reasonable if the "independent sources" would have specifically stated Meninism as a semi-satirical subject. And I don't think you saw the video entirely to say that the source didn't take the video seriously. Again, since it's a matter of opinion, I think it should be taken down to the body as a possibility. (N0n3up (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC))

The BBC limits content based on location, so it's possible we are looking at different content. The video I saw, which was only about a minute and a half, was tongue-in cheek, included jokes, and made no strong comments about how serious the hashtag is. The specific phrase used to describe this is certainly up for debate, but again, most sources I've seen agree that it's partially mocking and partially sincere. Many people with a variety of perspectives are using this hashtag, some deadly serious, but that doesn't invalidate those who use it sarcastically. Leaning on sources which treat the term as entirely seriously while ignoring the larger number which don't isn't going to work.

Calling it a 'movement' is also part of the problem. Sources like using that term, but its clear from the context they provide that its not monolithic, and there are diametrically opposed views on what the term means.

This article and its sources are mostly about a hashtag which has been frequently used in jest/satire/mockery. This is a defining feature according to most sources, so it belong in the lede. If 'semi-satirical' is the problem, can you think of a term that's consistent with sources which better explains the contradictory nature of the term? Grayfell (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell perhaps. Although there are some that might take the movement as non-satirical in any sense. Probably not enough sources to support this, but often people have opposed to this apparently. (N0n3up (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC))

I created this I article and I was the first person to use the term "semi-satirical" on this article. I did so for two reason. 1) Meninists use comedy as means/ method of highlighting issues, even though there is sometimes as serious underlying issue. 2) Mainstream media also uses the term to describe the movement. Here on Wikipedia, we go with that the sources say. Period! Regards IJA (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

IJA Yeah I know that now, I was just repeating what was going on with the situation about removing the word "semi-satirical". I didn't ask for its removal, at least in my last previous post. (N0n3up (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC))

- Sorry, IJA - didn't realize that there was an ongoing discussion, and was simply lazy. Now to the point, I understand that the media categorizes this movement as semi-satirical, but not always. In using the term in the lead, in Wikipedia's voice, we are stating this as a categorical fact, which, imho, it is not. It is an opinion. Regarding the use of comedy, that does not make the movement itself a joke. Personally, I don't really have a strong view on this, one way or the other, so I'm looking at it from a pretty objective viewpoint. Regardless, that's my view. Will, of course, bow to consensus. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It is not "semi-satirical" it is completely satirical. Someone thinking it is not and taking it seriously won't make it so. It was a joke to mock the absurdity of the behavior of certain people who call themselves 'feminist'. Something being presented as a satire doesn't make it more or less serious. What 'meninism' signifies is serious, but it doesn't stop being a joke. Jokes have been used in this way since the dawn of civilization. 88.25.54.142 (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Putting the word feminist in scare-quotes is editorializing, as it's implying that they are not "true" feminists. Even if true, it's not Wikipedia's place to make a broad judgement like that without reliable sources. Those sources say that some people have used this term to make fun of feminists, some to make fun of antifeminists, while other people are taking it seriously. While I agree that coverage isn't particularly savvy to how hashtags work, we can't ignore sources without a better reason. Grayfell (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The fact that this movement has a significant number of recognition and numbers, the "semi-satirical" part in the lead would be gratuitous and biased to say the least. (N0n3up (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC))

Reflecting sources is not inherently biased. If this has significant coverage, then how is meninism different from masculism? Are its numbers more significant than the men's movement at large? How about the Men's liberation movement? Those are significant movements with a clearly defined set of ideas and goals. "Meninism" is, according to sources, a play on words which may or may not be associated with a legitimate movement. Likewise, having significant numbers and recognition doesn't make this non-satirical. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is semi-satirical, and is has significantly more coverage than the term "meninism". We do not treat it as serious, even if it's satire in service of a serious point. If sources do not treat this term seriously, than neither should Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell In case you haven't checked the The Flying Spaghetti Monster page, you would see that it doesn't contain the "semi-satirical" part in the lead but is simply referred as a movement, as the case with any movement, including feminism. Meninism did start as a counter movement against feminism and yes it did use satire but "a play on words which may or may not be associated with a legitimate movement" is vague to determine whether it's wholly worthy of deeming something as semi-satirical. For the sake of compromise (and we very well know I ain't the only one) I suggest as simply deleting the "semi-satirical" part from the top as it results in divisive disagreement and mention its semi-satirical nature in the body as in the FSM page. Also, the version without semi-satirical has been here for a long time uninterrupted thus considered long-standing version, so please discuss before reverting and refrain from making threats like this on my talk page. (N0n3up (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC))

Where are your sources for this? I have already explained, at length above over the course of multiple years, why I believe sources support "semi-satirical", and that has been the stable version for multiple years. If you think this has changed, you should be able to find new sources documenting this change. Grayfell (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell The sources mention the movement's satirical origins and take-on nature towards feminism. Nowhere in the sources describe the movement as wholly semi-satirical. (N0n3up (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC))

"Wholly semi-satirical"? As opposed to partially semi-satirical? Would that make it quasi-semi-satirical? Again, we've already been over this. Some sources treat it as satire and some do not. It would be misleading to readers to imply that it's entirely sincere, while calling it simply "satire" would be inaccurate (and disrespectful) to the few sources discussing adherents who treat it as fully sincere. This was the compromise that was reached in the above discussion. If you have a better suggestion, or a new source, propose it. Grayfell (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell It would be misleading to readers to imply that it's entirely sincere, while calling it simply "satire" would be inaccurate (and disrespectful) to the few sources discussing adherents who treat it as fully sincere is precisely why putting "semi-satirical" on the top lead is misleading and shouldn't be in the lead as it was. How about after "Meninism is a men's rights movement. Its followers are known as meninists", we proceed with a following statement by stating: "The movement started as a take-on towards Feminism, indicating its semi-satirical nature..." or something of the likes of this. (N0n3up (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC))

Please stop pinging me unless you are finished with your comments. These edit conflicts suggest you're not ready for me to actually respond, so stop trying to gain my attention until then.

Why is that precisely why it shouldn't be in the lede? Some take it as satire, and some do not. Neither interpretation has an inherent right to the term, and neither gets priority until reliable sources can support a decisive shift. The proposal would be non-neutral and would be too much like original research, because this would imply that it isn't still a "take-on". We do not know that, and absolutely should not imply that without reliable sources. "Indicating its semi-satirical nature" is filler, also. If it has a semi-satirical nature to be indicated, we could just say it is semi-satirical. Grayfell (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell Fixing my statement before a response is not "edit conflict", and your first sentence shows your unwillingness to collaborate to find a solution, but nevermind, lets concentrate on the solution from now.

As I have mentioned, the FSM is a semi-satirical brand but it's not mentioned in the top lead but on the body or the article. This proposition is not non-neutral nor original research if they're both saying the same thing. Again, If Meninism is as semi-satirical as the FSM, then why doesn't the FSM article begin with is a semi-satirical movement... but instead as is a movement.... (N0n3up (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC))

You said that "movement has a significant number of recognition and numbers" which was a reason why the semi-satirical label would be "gratuitous and biased". I don't entirely understand what this is supposed to mean, but I don't agree that explaining something accurately is gratuitous and biased. Popularity has nothing to do with it. Many things can be accurately described as satirical. Forget what that other article currently says, because that article isn't this article. My point was that you could, if sources support it, describe it that way without any real problems. It wouldn't be biased or gratuitous to describe it that way, if that was what was best for the article. I don't think anybody is going to think a flying spaghetti monster is a serious concept, so I don't think this would be needed for that article. Here, clearly many people do not realize that the term isn't always used seriously, so it's helpful to indicate this. There is no reason I have heard not to explain this in the very first sentence. It is, as I've already said, a defining trait according to multiple sources, so it belongs in the lede. Something with recognition and numbers can be described as semi-satirical without that being biased, because accuracy can be biased and gratuitous in some situations, but it isn't automatically so. In this case, I do not see, even after all these years of complaining, a compelling reason why it is a problem here. Grayfell (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and see Help:Edit conflict, if you seriously don't know what I'm talking about. Grayfell (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

You really are getting worked up over a minor issue. You vigorously point to sources as your basis yet they mention the movement's satirical take on feminism and not describing the movement as strictly semi-satirical. And the fact that many people do not realize that the term isn't always used seriously as you mentioned calls into question whether we should even consider Meninism with any level of satire. And some people might consider the FSM movement as an actual movement for either they believe the FSM is real or the movement's commitment against religion that its followers are dedicated to its cause thus again questioning its satiric nature. And your statement regarding that it is a defining trait according to multiple sources is incorrect since I took the liberty of checking every source, and they mention it as a trait for the movement, not a defining one for the movement. And you constantly said that your version was a longstanding one yet you had many people disagreeing with you eventually giving up on the subject since you vigorously defend your POW with an unmatched passion for whatever reason. I just think that the fact that it's considered a serious movement by some and others less so that this part should go more into detail rather than generally defined into a single set of two words, like the FSM article. Oh, and besides this edit summary, you just brought Help:Edit conflict right after you falsely acused me of edit warring, nice. Although I admire you haven't reverted the article throughout our conversation till consesus. (N0n3up (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC))

Yes, you kept making minor edits after you pinged me, preventing me from being able to respond, so I asked you to stop doing that. What, exactly, is your point about edit conflicts? Edit conflicts have nothing to do with edit warring. Also, it is possible to edit war without technically violating 3RR. If you were serious about the "stable version", you would've reverted to this version which has been stable for a couple of months. This version called the term satire. You didn't, though, you chose a version that aligned with your prior preferences. This is edit warring, and it is gaming the system for a specific POV. If you don't understand the problem, why are you bringing that up?

As for sources, we've already been over this. The person who wrote this line in the first place has agreed that many sources define it as satirical. Your assessment of sources doesn't trump our assessment.

Do you know what satire is? Honestly, do you understand the concept we are discussing? No source is sincerely claiming that anybody truly believes in the flying spaghetti monster. The point is that it's as 'real' of a religion as any other, specifically because this implies that all religions are absurd. By saying something extremely absurd but non-falsifiable, such as "an invisible flying spaghetti monster causes everything to move around in a way that happens to be indistinguishable from the laws of physics" the statement satirizes religious beliefs about evolution, which are less obviously absurd, but equally non-falsifiable. This is a very clear form of satire, as it attempts to ridicule intelligent design. A US court agreed that it is satire, and therefor not a 'real' religion. The FSM creator wrote a book about it with a jacket blurb comparing him to Jonathan Swift who is a satirist. Do you need me to find other sources explaining this?

The term "meninism" is, as supported by current sources, used to ridicule various groups. Sometimes it ridicules feminists, sometimes antifeminists, but it's only occasionally used without any mockery or ridicule at all. Right now the article doesn't explain anything at all about this, even though it is prominently mentioned by several sources. This is a problem. Your proposed solution was incomplete and was not acceptable, for reasons I have already explained. Grayfell (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This really shouldn't be that complicated. Other movements considered to be satirical don't have the arrangement in the lead as you propose for this article. The Flying Spaghetti monster uses satire along with many other movements whose nature may be satirical but as we've mentioned the doctrines still play a role in such movements with legitimacy. Not to mention many churches here in the US are set up for tax exemption rather than religious purposes yet still consider real churches despite their real motives. And the fact that you said that my sources don't match with your kinda shows that your claims are not based on the sources but merely on how you interpret them. And according to you, the problem with my solution to this problem is that it lacks in explaining anything about how Meninism uses satire, in which case I say, again, that we can extend this in the following paragraphs in the lead because if it's really mentioned in the sources, then we can surely elaborate more on sources of this satirical nature better than the word "semi-satirical" can, (which is the case for the FSM). Also, many people in the past had argued against even mentioning the movement as satirical, thus I think a solution should be reached. And in case you haven't noticed, your so-called "stable version" was edited by a random IP whose version didn't last long and other had already modified his/her version. Again, this shouldn't be a complicated problem. (N0n3up (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC))

I was hoping other editors might chime in to break this deadlock, but no such luck. Perhaps it's time for an RFC or similar.

As I have said, sources have said that this is used to ridicule feminists, and other sources have said it ridicules antifeminists. As far as I know, you are the only one arguing that these sources do not support this. These are defining traits according to these sources, and further, this must be made clear to readers. Nobody who reads this should be mislead into thinking this term is widely used for serious discourse, because it is not, and that would be foolish. Nor should they be mislead into thinking it is the "male equivalent" to feminism. It isn't academic, and it isn't an equivalent. It is a punny term used facetiously. A lede which doesn't explain this is far too misleading to be appropriate for an encyclopedia. This is, I stress, according to source, which do not generally take the term "meninism" seriously. We have several article which would be much, much more informative if readers are looking for information on men's movements or similar. Many of those IPs who've removed the "semi-satirical" phrasing have been from non-English speaking countries. This highlights why this distinction is important, and if you're going to use that activity as an excuse to whitewash the article, you need to look at the bigger picture. The article reflects reliable sources according to consensus, not the total number of drive-by edit warriors.

Pedantically fixating on my passing comment about FSM is a waste of time. Either you completely failed to understand what I was saying, or you are intentionally misrepresenting my point in service of your own agenda. If you actually had sources that provided one-tenth as much information as the sources at the FSM article, you would've provided them already. You don't, and Wikipedia treats articles according to how reliable sources treat them, not according to your personal preference for which articles should be used for comparison.

The IP's version didn't last "long"? Why do you get to decide which version is worth preserving? Your version was two edits that slipped through the cracks for a few weeks. Why is your preferred "length" okay, but mine is only "so called stable"? That's ridiculous wikilawyering. If it shouldn't be that complicated, ask yourself if you're not the one making it complicated. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources also mention that Meninism is a concept commonly used to critique feminism and express the difficulties of being a man in the 21st century, and you're wrong that it's not used in serious discourses because it has since there are people who do take this movement seriously. Again, I'm not denying the fact that meninism ridicules or uses satire to criticize women, I'm just saying that putting "semi-satirical" up front is misleading. Meninism started as a take on feminism yet that's the point, started as, as in it was used as a form of poking at feminism with satire yet this doesn't mean their objective was a satire as well, or do you think anyone would start such a movement because they agreed with it or for the heck of it?. If I were to follow your logic, I might as well go to the Flying Spaghetti Monster article and put "semi-satirical" on the top lead but, again, it is misleading since it doesn't give the larger image since you can't cram the historical background and origin of the movement and its current form into a single set of two words, which is why I think that the FSM article is a good example to follow. We should instead of placing "semi-satirical", we elaborate in the lead of its satirical origin and its current form, its much less misleading and everybody is happy.

Also, that source you told me about Meninism criticizing antifeminist comes from only one source and it's more of a forum which related to a relatively small movement who call themselves maninists instead of the larger mainstream movement this article refers to.

You criticized me for criticizing you for pushing an "agenda" when right now you did just that to me right now, only that I said what I said was because you left a threatening post on my talk page whereas I had never done such thing yet you did what you incorrectly criticized me of doing. Also, this should be very simply solved yet apparently everyone has their own POW to regarding "semi-satirical" since some people did or didn't agree with the term "semi-satirical" being put in the lead. I think, again, instead of arguing whether to put the "semi-satirical" on the lead, we should find a practical compromise that is less misleading and satisfies both parties. (N0n3up (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC))

Perhaps an idea

Why couldn't there be two articles? One about the ACTUAL men's rights movement and then one about the original Meninism of mocking feminism? Feminism itself has a crap-load of subpages, so why can't Meninism? Leggomygreggo8 (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

If the article were to greatly expand in size, I wouldn't see that as an issue. Regards IJA (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

If there were more sources using this term, then it might make sense to expand the article. However, it would be good to first evaluate if "real" meninism overlaps with other articles. There already is an article about the men's rights movement. There's also articles for men's movement and masculism and many others listed on the article's sidebar. The name "meninism" is similar to feminism because of wordplay. It's not a direct parallel, or the main parallel, and caution should be used to make sure this isn't turned into a POV fork. Grayfell (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell, Leggomygreggo8, IJA How abut a compromise. Instead of branding Meninism as semi-satirical as a whole, how about saying that it contains satire at the end of the sentence in the lead instead. Example:

From:Meninism is a semi-satirical Gender equality and Men's rights movement. Its followers are known as Meninists.

To:Meninism is a Gender equality and Men's rights movement. Its followers are known as Meninists. The movement makes use on satire in certain aspects. (or something along the lines)

just saying. (N0n3up (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC))

Interesting idea. I think the underlying problem is that meninism isn't a a monolithic movement. It's a term that's sparsely used sincerely by men's rights types, but also by people who are specifically mocking feminism, and third by people mocking men's rights arguments against feminism. That's the difference between a satirical movement and a movement which sometimes uses satire. This comparison is sort of like Pastafarianism. It's a satirical religion, not a genuine religion that uses satire. It fundamental is satire. For meninism sources don't seem to agree on this, but some do say that it's satire (the punny name underscores this, also) so 'semi-satirical' seems more accurate. I get why it's a source of frustration, but I haven't seen any alternative wording which is consistent with reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell Sounds legit. Although men's rights movements might be a little misleading since mens rights movements might have different principles to that of Meninism, and although the ones in here describe it as "satirical", there are sources that describe the movement as a serious movement while others might say satirical. Than again I might be missing something, so who knows :) (N0n3up (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC))

@N0n3up: Your suggestion is differently of good faith and very diplomatic; I can respect that however Meninism is a semi-satirical movement. It has some serious issues but it also uses a lot of comedy and it takes the piss and mocks people too (probably because it's largely an online social media movement which likes to use memes and silly stories etc). Also the sources say it is semi-satirical too. I think "semi-satirical Gender equality and Men's rights movement" is the most NPOV and truthful way of describing the movement.

This thread has changed course since it started. I am however opposed to splitting this article into two articles as it would violate Wikipedia:Content forking. Regards IJA (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Something being a satire does not mean that it lacks "serious issues". The genre's entire purpose is the exposure and ridicule of real and perceived "vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings". The satirist uses his/her work to attack things that he finds disturbing and he/she serves as a social critic. The classic example of a satirist is Aristophanes. He used his satire to attack oracle-mongers, exponents of new religious practices, war-profiteers, political fanatics, and crazed militarists. His works were far more political in nature than any of the tragical writers. Dimadick (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge to Men's rights movement

The list of concerns that this page mentions seems to overlap completely with the men's rights movement, which suggests that "meninism" isn't a separate thing from men's rights, but just a different word used for the same movement. If that's the case, I suggest we move noteworthy uses of the term "meninism", if there are any, to Men's rights movement and make this page a redirect. VoluntarySlave (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yet Meninism originated as a parody of feminism. Where would that info go? Leggomygreggo8 (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Hmmmmmm but Meninism is kind of different to the men's rights movement even if they do arguably have similar beliefs. They have very different histories too. Meninism is a subject in its own right and is a lot more controversial, which would indicate its individual notability. IJA (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Since the term, as discussed above, has been used to describe multiple, totally incompatible phenomena, this merger would cause unnecessary confusion. I don't know that meninism is more controversial than the MRM, but it is controversial for very different reasons. Some (early) uses overlap with feminism, some overlap with anti-feminism, and some overlap with the men's rights movement. Lacking clarity on that, I think we should leave it as its own article for now. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

If the term has been used to describe multiple unrelated phenomena, I think that is better served by a disambiguation page, rather than one article about multiple different things. We could mention "meninism" being used for male support of feminism on the Pro-feminism page (the references here don't suggest the term was widely used, so probably don't support more than a single sentence, if that). Discussion of meninism as a satirical response to feminism could go in the "Relation to feminism" section of the Men's rights movement page, or perhaps the "Female privilege" section. VoluntarySlave (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Or why not just have an article on Meninism like we do at present? Instead of splitting it up across several articles, which doesn't make sense. Meninism is a movement, albeit a largely online movement. Why can't it have its own article? It doesn't have multiple unrelated phenomena, it has its origins and it has developed/ changed; the article reflects this. Unfortunately I don't see any benefits in your proposition. IJA (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with IJA and Grayfell. Saying that this should be merged with Men's rights movement is like saying that Hot Shots! should be merged with Top Gun. The term Meninism, although dealing with an issue very real to many people, represents a different side of it. It's in satire to feminism, and often done in a way to show the ridiculousness of feminism. Sort of like an Argumentum ad absurdum. Another example would be the way The Daily Show tells the news in a humorous, satirical manner, but still gets the point across. Furthermore, the two ideologies have different adherents and followers. And while one is a movement, the other is essentially a meme.

Should we combine the two, much information would be lost. I searched up meninism wanting to know the specific roots and beginnings of the word, not because I want to read about a movement that has been around since the 70s.73.51.83.101 (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I think Meminism, even if it's a response to feminism, was made for it's purpose to support the rights of men, thus I believe it should be merged. It doesn't matter if it was made to satire feminism, it's doing its job by pointing out the flaws of feminism in favor for men's rights. Scholars have even described the men's rights movement to be a backlash to feminism. (N0n3up (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC))

Notes on Lead

In the Lead the description about how meninism is used sincerely to promote men's rights, equal rights and antifeminism is somewhat confusing. I think the wording can be perceived as biased, and I would propose changing it to used in a variety of ways, including in the promotion of men's rights, equal rights, and antifeminism. Also, the Lead doesn't include a brief description of the article's main concepts, and could be elaborated on more. Overall, I would just try to stay more neutral because the content does seem somewhat biased in favor of meninism.AHall08 (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)