Talk:Master suppression techniques

Opening wording

To the anon 190 editor, I am the anon 76 editor. I did not revert your edit, I changed them. I agree that the original wording was perhaps not NPOV, but I think your edit over compensated, so in good faith I made changes in the interest of further neutrality. The language I used is neutral "can be" instead of "is" and "said to be" instead of "is" I do not believe it is also necessary to toss in superfluous "according to her" and "supposedly" every other word, which I believe crosses the line from neutral to borderline discrediting an academically respected idea. I will refrain from editing the intro for a time to give you a chance to possibly restore my edits, or compromise with a new edit you feel works better. But eventually I do believe the wording can be changed. 76.103.47.66 (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The original reason why I changed the lead was to make it clear that not everyone believes that absolutely all women are subjugated to the means explained in the article and that not everyone believes that Western societies are patriarchical. It is not my intention to question or discredit Ås's ideas, but rather to clarify that those are solely her own. I am open to suggestions on how to improve the lead. Meanwhile, how do these examples sound to you?

Example 1: The master suppression techniques were a framework articulated in the late 1970s by the Norwegian social psychologist Berit Ås[1] to describe five means by which, according to her, women can be subjugated to in arguably patriarchical Western societies. I included "according to her" to avoid presenting her point of view as a fact beyond all doubt. "Arguably" is necessary since as I said not all scholars are of the opinion that Western societies are patriarchical.

Example 2: The master suppression techniques were a framework articulated in the late 1970s by the Norwegian social psychologist Berit Ås to describe five means by which, according to her, women can be subjugated in a Western patriarchical society. The same sentence as in this edit of yours, but with "according to her" added.

Let me know what you think. --190.19.100.143 (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Your edits use master suppression techniques to subvert Ås's ideas regardless of your stated intentions. 108.199.240.191 (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Mind explaining how? I am not ignoring persons in opposition (first technique); I am not portraying the arguments of, or opponents themselves, in a ridiculing fashion (second technique); I am neither excluding anyone from the decision-making process nor knowingly not forwarding information (third technique); I am neither punishing nor belittling the actions of a person (fourth technique); I am neither embarrassing anyone nor insinuating that they are themselves to blame for their position (fifth technique); I am not discussing the appearance of one or several persons (sixth technique); and I am not threatening with or using my physical strength towards one or several persons (seventh and last technique). It seems to me that your accusation lacks any basis in reality. --190.19.104.234 (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, your phrasing does marginalize this topic. "According to her", "supposedly" -- these are hedge words you inserted to attempt to erode Ås' arguments without actually addressing them. You are inserting your own opinions here, claiming to defense some objective position. If you want to argue that western society is not patriarchal or that men do not use these techniques to silence women, this article is not the place to do so :). This article describes Ås' work; it is not a forum for your own opinions. 108.199.240.191 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I must say that I felt quite offended by your claim that my position is "bs" and I believe an apology is in order. I hope you realize that being disrespectful is not only detrimental to the well-being of this community but also goes explicitly against policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

As I have previously clarified, my intention is far from marginalizing or eroding Ås's ideas. Such allegations are your point of view and yours alone. If you are of the opinion that my wording discredits Ås, by all means feel free to suggest an introduction that does not make the claim that Western societies are patriarchical or that women are subjugated in such societies.

That being said, I completely agree with you on the point that Wikipedia is not the place to argue that Western society is not patriarchical or that men do not use these techniques to silence women; precisely in the same way, may I add, that it is not the place to argue that Western society is patriarchical or that men do use these techniques to silence women, either.

I have stated before that I am open to ideas on how to improve the lead section. I cannot help but find it unfortunate that you do not seem to share the same willingness to compromise. --190.19.96.181 (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the summary, these techniques are by definition used to suppress women. One example is A man is critiqued for not helping out with domestic work, but is called unmanly when doing so. How does this example fall under the definition? What do you call a Master Suppression Technique when it's being used against the Master? --88.73.46.227 (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits

As is the way with lesser-known articles that fall under potentially controversial topics, there's been a small edit war here over the past month. I feel it would be conducive to overall progress of the page if, before further editing, we sit down and chat about what should/should not be included in Wikipedia articles as per Wikipedia guidelines, rather than what may or may not be subjective opinion. I personally feel the main issue here is the lack of sources for the edits in question, with the subheading 'Example' being somewhat vague as to what content is deemed appropriate.

I'd like to admit I'm no Wikipedia veteran and so am not au fait with all the policies which may be relevant here, but Wikipedia does strive to be neutral and objective in its content. I appreciate that may be difficult since any page under the categories 'Abuse, Rhetoric and Feminist Theory' is bound to inspire strong viewpoints and relevant examples may be inflammatory. However, I would posit that when it comes to a theory which is rooted in feminist ideas (specifically with regards the patriarchy, back in 1945 and 1970 I might add), it is appropriate to use examples to which the theory pertained, e.g. perceived suppression of females by males/the patriarchy.

I hope that it can be reasonably agreed that the recent additions referring to 'privilege', being 'unmanly' and (my favourite) 'cis scum' are not, in fact, objective nor relevant to the time period of the published theory (interesting fact: the term 'cisgender' seems first to have been coined around 2007, as per the Wikipedia article on it.)

I'd humbly suggest, therefore, that we attempt to find either examples used within the seminal work (even if biased towards the viewpoints the theory espouses) or we try to settle on neutral examples of each of the suppression techniques in question. The article overall does need more sources and citations though.

Thanks in advance!

Irandill (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay! After all that, the lovely Tutelary has weighed in and referenced the appropriate Wikipedia guidelines for this topic and acted accordingly :)

Irandill (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I just removed original research and the POV language that remained. Seriously, complaining about 'male tears' on Wikipedia articles is not appropriate, do that on your blog. Tutelary (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The majority of the article beyond the introduction lacks citations and the only possible reference (the external link not listed as a reference) does not contain the same information as the ultra-condensed lists that make up most of the article. Should it be removed? 97.82.138.203 (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Theoretically, yes but WP:SOFIXIT and WP:DUE and we are also obligated to fix it, not just remove it. If it's gonna be apart of the final article at the end, it should be included. I bet you all of this was nearly fixed on one of the sources and/or was just added as an IP tirade but it sounds legitimate so no one will remove it. Gonna investigate this further. Tutelary (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of the content that is unsourced came within these two edits but they're citing another source and gonna check that out. Adding onto this, it seems that the wording and the phrasing is original (did a plagiarism search) so no copyvios...I just wonder if all of this is based on the book sources which I can't exactly verify. Tutelary (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Countermeasures against master suppression techniques

It would be helpful if someone would expand on this section of the article so that it more closely resembled the section "The five master suppression techniques according to Ås". As it is now, the countermeasures are simply listed, with no explanation as to what they mean or examples of their use. I imagine the reference used for that section would be helpful, but it appears to be written in Swedish, which I cannot read. Would someone fluent in Swedish be willing to use the article to help expand this section? sudo_science (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I found the "forms-of-domination.pdf" reference to cover it well, but there was so much gender victimization in it that I had to just laugh over it to get to useful information. It stands as a reference though. Countermeasures can only be done when one ceases to internalize or blame their own gender and realize that if one is submissive to other submissive people, nothing happens and feeling are only hurt on accident, but competition can work things out by overcoming pedantic nature.