Talk:NotAllMen

I removed, or at least tried to remove, the redirect to YesALlWomen from this page. Please Discuss on the yes all Women talk page: Talk:YesAllWomen#NotAllMen_Redirect

Apologies for errors in protocol.... Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_13 A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I nominated the redirect from this article to YesAllWomen be deleted. The discussion can be found here. The reason for that suggestion was 10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself.

As a result of that discussion this article has now become an article. A Canadian Toker (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why list a parody comic strip someone did? You find those for just about anything. I don't see how its relevant to this article. Every politician and famous person has such things mocking them published somewhere, but we don't link to them. Dream Focus 10:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Considering article text specifically says NotAllMen has become an object of mockery, seems a comic mocking it in a newspaper as famous as New York Times is on topic. Sure, you can find such things for just about everything, but typically they don't make it into such major newspapers, but are rather just on personal pages. This wasn't on some personal page or minor newsletter, it was The New York Times. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The New York Times which has a circulation of 1,250,000. So do many other newspapers as well as magazines. Newspapers usually have political cartoons in them, every issue really. I don't really think there is a reason to mention all of them or any of them. Other opinions please. Dream Focus 14:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not clear what your objection to the comic is. So far, it sounds like you don't like it. FWIW, not sure I like the comic much, but the point that NotAllMen is being mocked so visibly in such mainstream publications seems on topic here. If your objection was regarding no need to mention in article, why did you also remove link from external links?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any reason to mention it at all, it not really anything notable. You could find plenty more things like that to mention as well for this article, as well as for thousands of other articles on Wikipedia. No reason to fill the article with them at all, and certainly no reason for it in an external link section. I also doubt its mocking NotAllMen since it has content that is unrelated to it, it mocking certain stereotypical negative male behavior. Dream Focus 14:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

That comic is directly related to NotAllMen. For example see this link where it is directly described: http://time.com/79357/not-all-men-a-brief-history-of-every-dudes-favorite-argument/ Also that comic was retweeted by several notable people which led to a minor controversy in itself - A Canadian Toker (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

That's a different comic that what we are talking about. I added in the reference link to the Times article myself when I created this article. We're referring to the one I took out. [1] Dream Focus 17:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Apologies. In that case I agree - A Canadian Toker (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not personally attached to NY Times comic, if others feel strongly it should be out of article. I actually only added it because it seemed on topic, and this article is currently a stub, with instructions to editors to expand it with additional content. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think the comic that BoboMeowCat sought to discuss is relevent and should be included. Can we still work it in? - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

This page is in need of expansion. One area that should be covered/expanded is the origin of the NotAllMen tag. It appears that there is a lot of information on this in the Talk:YesAllWomen#Origin_of_.23NotAllMen If anyone has a chance to begin integrating that it would be appreciated. I will be attempting the same in due course. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

EDIT It appears that someone has now archived that section of the talk page. Please see here for discussion: Talk:YesAllWomen/Archive_1#Origin_of_.23NotAllMen - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

EDIT i cleaned up some of the text, which appears to have been infiltrated by someone with a anti-feminist agenda. i strongly agree that this page is in need of expansion. --Tangentialine (talk) 02:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'll clean up a bit better tomorrow. --Tangentialine (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here is my first attempt at an origin section. I don't own it and welcome bolds and comments.:

-Origin-

Not All Men are like that, as a general defence of men in gendered criticisms of their behaviour, has been around for more than a decade.^[1] There is some evidence that such an argument has at least been described as early as 1985 in author Joanna Russ' book On Strike Against God in which she aptly explains that 'not all men are rapists, only some.'^[2] The #NotAllMen Twitter hashtag was tweeted as early as 2011. The first viral tweet with this hashtag was a satirical tweet stating "ME: Men and boys are socially instructed to not listen to us. They are taught to interrupt us when we- RANDOM MAN: Excuse me. Not ALL men." sent out in February, 2013.^[1] The comical 'Not all Man,' barging into a conversation criticizing male behaviour was charicatured in a comic by artist Matt Lubchansky on April 14, 2014.^[3][1][4] Lubchansky's comic was quickly retweeted, or otherwise discussed, by several notable celebrities including Wil Wheaton, Paul F. Tompkins, Matt Fraction and John Scalzi.^[5]

#NotAllMen "seemingly began as a sincere way to counter feminist arguments."^[6] Before 2013, "the place of prominence currently afforded to the phrase “not all men” was instead held by “what about the men?” and “patriarchy hurts men too” — pleas for inclusion, not for exemption."^[7] #NotAllMen, however, has often been lampooned and satirized by feminists and others seeking to criticize the men's rights movement. "The phrase has been reappropriated by feminists and turned into a meme meant to parody its pervasiveness and [seemingly] bad faith."^[1] NotAllMen meme's include references to Aquaman, Adventure Time, Magic: The Gathering, even the Kool Aid Man crashing through a wall to exclaim 'not all men.'^[8]

- A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I readded the following categories: -Category:Men's rights- -Category:Sexual and gender prejudices-

an IP editor removed them. I think they are relevent to this page. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

How is the hashtag related to those categories? I'm aware there is a stereotype that those involved in men's rights movement use "Not All Men" a lot (that was what was being mocked by the NY Times comic which was deleted) but has the movement actually claimed the phrase in some way? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Check out the origin section I just made. Men's Rights is relevent becuase of its use in past (i.e. "patriarchy hurts men too") and Sexual and gender prejudices is relevent because the hashtag promotes discussion on sexual and gender issues. As for the movement claiming it I do not know. I'm basing it on the what I found out while writing up the origin section. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

What groups exactly used the phrase? I've seen it used more by Feminists than MRAs. I'm not sure that is what the Sexual and gender prejudices category is used for. It mostly contains examples of Sexual and gender prejudices but this is not one of those. Could you present some references please and not revert it back in? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

• I agree both of those categories belong in the article. Dream Focus 16:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

• The second one, does this necessarily induce a sexual or gender prejudice? Do we have any sources for this? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Read thee explanation at the top of Category:Sexual and gender prejudices. Also read the lede at prejudice. That is clearly what we have here. They stereotype all men with a prejudice, so the response was NotAllMen. It is now used by some as a way to mock male stereotypes. Dream Focus 07:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've never actually seen it used as a response to male stereotyping, more as a way of shutting down criticisms of things done largely by men in society. It's also not used to mock male stereotypes, but people who deflect criticism of things that, statistically, are mostly done by men, even when particular men, or the man in question, aren't being criticised. It's certainly not the same as misogyny or homophobia --80.193.191.143 (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

"A Time magazine article on the subject states that "Not all men" was previously stated as an object of frustration, but in early 2014 it became mostly used as an object of mockery. Intended to counter generalizations about men's behavior, the phrase has been criticized for deflecting conversations from uncomfortable topics, such as sexual assault."

"Hillary Di Menna of This magazine has said "Saying 'not all men' is not helpful. We need to listen and we need to reflect."

We don't even treat it in the lede as a gender or sexual prejudice --80.193.191.143 (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore, I went through the sources, and most are largely critical of the term as used to defend criticism. I'm strongly leaning towards users here performing WP:ORIGINAL research, or making 1+1=3 --80.193.191.143 (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Intended to counter generalizations about men's behavior". Generalizations/stereotypes/prejudices. Dream Focus 08:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

But they aren't generalisations and it was rarely used for that. It is generally used when people criticise things done at large by the gender. It isn't useful in a debate to say "not all men" do that because they clearly don't. It does not fit with the other articles within that category --80.193.191.143 (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think IP is pointing out valid criticisms of this article. That being said I readded the category Sexual and gender prejudices. From that category page "Any and all articles, without exception, centred on prejudice based in sex, sexuality, gender roles, identity or expression, and the beliefs, attitudes, and stereotypes derived from it, may be included here." I think it is clear that this article falls under that category, and its inclusion would help readers. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I completely disagree. How does this article compare to other uses of the category, such as Androcentrism, Homophobia, Misogyny or Transphobia? It isn't being used for topics remotely like this, rather, I feel it has been added to try to state that this is a sexual and gender prejudice --80.193.191.143 (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

"::::Whenever a woman post something that generalizes men, the response was NotAllMen are like that. This deals with gender prejudices. Dream Focus 15:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

• We need more input on this. Two believe it should be there, one is against it, and another questioned it once so might be against it but didn't say anything after someone explained it. Dream Focus 13:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I guess my main issue is part of a wider problem of categories being used to designate certain things about an article. If we can't say for sure that this is a gender and sexuality prejudice, something that I don't think it is, then how can we categorise it as such? Isn't this no different to when books or individuals were categorised with "homophobia" or "antisemitism"? It's a specific social phenomena rather than a type of sexism --80.193.191.143 (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

IP, do you have any specific issues with why THIS article doesn't fit in the category sexual and gender prejudices? Again I copy

• "Criteria for inclusion: Any and all articles, without exception, centred on prejudice based in sex, sexuality, gender roles, identity or expression, and the beliefs, attitudes, and stereotypes derived from it, may be included here." - A Canadian Toker (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Almost the entire article contains criticism of it and very little support. Is this not bias? 86.45.226.161 (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

It reflects the tone that the feminist centred articles have used. Most of the sources of this page are clearly feminists and view the idea that 'not all men are like that' with great skepticism. - A Canadian Toker (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I propose a rehaul of this article to make it more centrist rather than feminist. For example, "the term has been used to deflect difficult conversations such as sexual assault" should be corrected, since that's not the point of the hashtag. The hashtag was created and is used to deflect generalizations of male behavior by both civilian and celebrity feminists^[1], and the article should be rewritten to correct this error/bias. Bitsdotlies (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't like the article, it's not about hashtags, it's simply deconstructing gender stereotypes of both sexes and there needs to be the additional "Not All Feminist" to even things out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.96.172 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Saying Not All Men doesn't mean you're a misogynist, you can still sympathise with woman and even work with women but just because you don't fell like you're responsible, doesn't mean that you're the enemy.--180.216.96.172 (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

@180.216.96.172: Text in the article body is proportional to its coverage in reliable, independent sources. See WP:UNDUE - if you can provide reliable sources in an edit to the article justifying why this viewpoint is significant for inclusion, you're welcome to edit the article.   -NottNott|talk Reply with {{re}} 13:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm a little dubious about the origin section. The statement "The hashtag #NotAllMen began as a catchphrase among men's rights activists (MRAs) used in response to discussions which they saw as portraying all men as misogynists or sexual abusers" doesn't see to be very well established. The link given is reference 3, which is a single paragraph that cites reference 4 to substantiate this statement. Reference 4 is a little more fuzzy about that origin, however; it concludes "The first use of "Not all men" in a popular medium is what Shafiqah Hudson calls her "tweet heard round the world," which she published in February of 2013". The links she gives, oddly, don't substantiate the use among MRA (one links to a by a woman on a dating advice discussion site; one links to a (very nice) set of of the phrase going back to 1863)

I think some deep search through the internet might clarify the origins prior to Shafiqah Hudson's 2013 tweet, but may take some digging.

I think that the section might be more usefully re-ordered to put the origin of the hashtag first (since the article is nominally about the hashtag), and then discuss prior usages later. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have re-ordered the "origin" section to give a separate subheadings to the origin of the hashtag and the origin of the phrase. (Note that I didn't remove any material, just put the origin of the hashtag first and added subheadings. I did, however, add a little text more clearly attributing to McKinney for the material sourced to her.)Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

People keep deleting.there should not be biased 2601:204:F101:B990:F4BC:2C3B:165C:E079 (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The only person deleting material is you. The material was restored because it cites published, reliable sources, which are the basis of Wikipedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

And it isn't specified anywhere in the article. It has to. 2A01:CB04:A0:4300:7CAF:7680:8F91:64AB (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Reply